Why do native Iron Age Balkanites plot over modern Italians?

[ihype02]

I suggested using Northern Italians from 2018 to estimate the native admixture of Croats, before the genetic data:

Croats and Slovenes are autosomally closer to Ukrainians than to Italians despite of being gheographicaly right next to Italians.
There were also a lot of interaction between Slovenia, Croatia and Italy in the ancient times so that adds more weight to the evidence.
South Slavs are Slavs.

1/3 of Slovenia was Italian in antiquity. As we can see, according to genetics it easy to see that Slavs did push the natives out, as Slovenes are genetically different from Italians, despite of being neighbors geographically, and they are much more close to central Slavs and Ukrainians.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...e.0105090.g003

But yes, Slovenes are not quite South Slavs.

[Angela]

Blablabla is the Romanian tr0ll I'm sure. I'm not going to go through the exhaustive motions of refuting his claims of Myceneans being semtic. Honestly, I wonder if this person ate lead-paint chips as a child.

That or he stopped taking his meds. There's a limit to how much insanity and/or inability to absorb scientific material can be tolerated on a site before the threads become unreadable.

[Angela]

I was using Tuscans as a source for native Balkanites. Some late antiquity Roman samples overlap with Tuscans.

I still don't get what you're doing.

Tuscans are not a SOURCE for anyone in the Balkans. They're a modern population descended, yes, from people similar to Iron Age Balkanites. That's a very different thing.

[ihype02]

I still don't get what you're doing.

Tuscans are not a SOURCE for anyone in the Balkans. They're a modern population descended, yes, from people similar to Iron Age Balkanites. That's a very different thing.

In the OP half of samples seem Tuscan-like (probably from the northern Serbia) and half of the samples seem BLG_IA like considering I don't have the coordinates of those samples I thought using modern Tuscans and BLG_IA as a source for Late Antiquity Balkanic ancestry in modern Albanians. Like using Northern Italians for Croats instead of HRV_IA, if you get what I am saying. (because I don't have ancient samples).

Albanians expanded from the north into Epirus in late Middle Ages so I don't think BLG_IA is exactly what Albanians ancestors were like before the Slavs. For Greeks and Bulgarians yes for Albanians no. Because the Slavic Y-DNA is lower in Albanians. But it's not a model that should be taken literally without proof (which I lack).

[torzio]

In the OP half of samples seem Tuscan-like (probably from the northern Serbia) and half of the samples seem BLG_IA like considering I don't have the coordinates of those samples I thought using modern Tuscans and BLG_IA as a source for Late Antiquity Balkanic ancestry in modern Albanians. Like using Northern Italians for Croats instead of HRV_IA, if you get what I am saying. (because I don't have ancient samples).
Albanians expanded from the north into Epirus in late Middle Ages so I don't think BLG_IA is exactly what Albanians ancestors were like before the Slavs. For Greeks and Bulgarians yes for Albanians no. Because the Slavic Y-DNA is lower in Albanians. But it's not a model that should be taken literally without proof (which I lack).

So what sample do you want to use for North Italians as your noted not to use HRV_IA ..........this sample is
HRV_IA sample is Dalmatian I3313
Dalmatians are now Croats even though they have seeked Autonomy in the last 5 or so years

[Angela]

My results from Maciamo's Ethnicity Calculator may support Jovialis' point:

2.53019522

26.80% Mycenaean_Greeks_(n=4) + 73.20% Villanovans_(n=2)

Also,

1.92071940

63.60% Latins_(n=4) + 36.40% Iron_Age_Italian_Greeks_(n=2)

If half the ancestry of the latter was local, then I'm up to 82%. I'll take it. :)

So much for convoluted genetic history; quite simple, actually.

[Riverman]

My preferences mean nothing.

The point is, Balkanites in the Iron Age were similar to Italians, and now they are not today, because of Northeastern European Ancestry. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Also, R1 and Aegean_IA are a good fit, as I have demonstrated. Both of those ancestries are in Italy, and are consistent with history.

Do you not read, not understand English? Or perhaps you are misrepresenting what I am saying on purpose?

Exactly. Even the reasons for the similarity were pretty much the same, because its about a heavily Neolithic population, with different layers of Northern, more steppe-derived populations on top. The source of a lot of this more Northern Ancestry is Bell Beaker and Epi-Corded related, with Urnfield migrants on top.
No people with significant Balto-Slavic drift were involved, and while Cimmerians and Scythians were very influential in the catastrophies and cultural transformations, their genetic impact on the general population, autosomally, seems to have been rather limited.

But its also possible, that a certain "Italo-Greek" influx took place, which influenced even some of the individuals from the Iron Age cluster which were not directly Near Eastern shifted. But that could only be determined with unmixed, earlier locals, and those are, unfortunately, hard to get, because most did cremate. Not all though, so there is a chance we might see earlier Late Bronze and Early Iron Age samples from the same region, related to Channelled Ware (Belegis II-Gava) and Basarabi.