Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 24 of 48 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast
Results 576 to 600 of 1180

Thread: David Reich Southern Arc Paper Abstract

  1. #576
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    209


    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by peloponnesian View Post
    It's very easy to go on Yfull and see the J2a phylogeny. Some Italian samples do plausibly have a neolithic, chalcolithic, or Aegean BA/IA origin, but others clearly don't:

    https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z8078/
    https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-FGC32147/
    https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-S10543/
    https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z32111/
    https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-S18910/

    As for the "urban extinction hypothesis", prepare to be disappointed in the coming years. After Krause seems like Reich's also made up his mind, based on the recent Erfurt Jews paper. The rest will soon follow.

    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...05.13.491805v1
    Supplemental information (section "2.1. Interpretation of the inferred genetic ancestry"):

    "All the evidence currently available indicates that during the Roman and early Medieval periods Jews
    were highly integrated in Southern Italy. There is historical evidence that there was at least some gene
    flow between Jews and non-Jews in Southern Italy, because, in the late Roman and early Medieval
    periods, imperial and ecclesiastical authorities tried to prevent the practice of intermarriage between
    Jews and Christians, as well as the phenomenon of conversion of non-Jews to Judaism. When, in due
    course, highly accomplished and connected Jews from Southern Italy started moving north, they were
    joined by others from central and northern Italy. For example, the Kalonymus family—a Jewish family
    from Rome, but with roots in Southern Italy—is known to have had major impact on AJ intellectual
    life in 10th-century Mainz and Speyer [87, 108]. This was the multilayered migratory legacy that may
    be reflected in the Southern European genetic ancestry we observed in our models for the genomes
    of Erfurt Jews.


    Our qpAdm models with a South-Italian source suggested that only a small proportion of EAJ ancestry
    derived from Middle Eastern populations. This may be interpreted to imply that present-day AJ derive
    only a small proportion of their ancestry from ancient Judaeans; and if so, most AJ ancestry would
    owe its origin to European converts. While this is one possible explanation, modern Italians
    themselves have had much higher proportions of ME admixture since at least European Imperial
    Roman times [47] and this is especially the case in modern Southern Italy [109]."

    P.S: the Samnites will not be close to the Mycenaean cluster

    I am starting to believe that some people want to believe that south Italians have middle eastern ancestry just for the sake of it: as far as I recall Yfull is self-reported(and I've seen also plenty of SSA lineages purportedly from north Europe on Yfull), and anyway the site lacks relative percentuals, that is nobody argued for the total absence of exotic Y haplos in Italy, whose presence can have various explanations, but one guy every 1 million having an exotic haplogroup doesn't say anything about the general history of the population, because you need the overall picture of haplogroups present consistently in the collective population, in other words 10% of an X pop having a certain haplogroup means something on the demographic level but a guy does not; it is simple statistical reasoning.

    Furthermore if we want to comment on the results of the Erfurt Jews paper it is Jews that have south Italian ancestry and no other conclusion can be drawn from the data, since to speculate that south Italians have middle eastern DNA and thus ashkenazi Jews have higher middle eastern ancestry than detected is just that, speculation. South Italians are really too similar to ancient SE european samples to happen to have both a south/middle eastern input and some northern EU input that somehow cancel each other out, and furthermore we have two republican age samples that are reasonably similar to southern Italians, and Sicily_BA/IA and Daunians had already CHG/Iran_N.

    Anyway I keep reading the same mental gymnastics from the proponents of the "east med influx" theory, and the same very lousy arguments

  2. #577
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    7,503

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.




    If you think of the West Asian & North African ancestry as being attributed to Anatolia_BA, my 23andme looks a lot like my K8 aITA results. I would bet it is indeed Anatolia_BA related, since it is mostly Iranian-related.

  3. #578
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    7,503

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    0.3% Finnish, probably something from Normans or Lombards. But so much for the genetic ping-pong of radically different groups from more recent times. My DNA corroborated with recent papers on the region does not suggest I'm half-Northern European/ Half-Levantine, or what ever. To me is shows Apulians and other southerners are indeed autochthonous since the BA, Steppe/(some kind of Italic)-enriched Minoan-like people with a small contribution from later Aegean/Anatolian_BA-like people from Imperial Roman times. 23andme shows it, my own research shows it, and academics show it.


  4. #579
    Regular Member Er Monnezza's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-01-18
    Posts
    163


    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Leopoldo Leone View Post
    South Italians are really too similar to ancient SE european samples to happen to have both a south/middle eastern input and some northern EU input that somehow cancel each other out
    These are distances from Dodecad K12b, a trusted calculator on this forum.

    Distance to: Mycenaean
    12.70876936 Italian_Campania

    The phrase "we are really too similar to Mycenaeans" you can safely replace with "we are really too similar to Moroccan Jews".

    Distance to: Italian_Campania
    12.24124177 Italian_Romagna
    12.30004065 Greek_Thrace
    12.74278619 Morocco_Jew
    12.82461305 Greek_Thessaloniki
    12.92707624 Greek_Thessaly

    Also Dodecad K12b:

    Distance to: Alalakh_MLBA
    27.70845617 Italian_Campania
    32.24738439 Mycenaean

  5. #580
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    21,250


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silesian View Post
    Yamnaya pottery>Elshanka>Amur Basin style. Anybody know how old the pottery samples are from Iran and or Anatolia and is there any evidence of wheeled wagons like the sample with ydna Q ?

    Incredible. Yamnaya-Turganik settlement is proto Dom2 horse, proto-metallurgy and Elshanka pottery is much like Amur river basin pottery, similar in style Hunter Gatherer, but older(14,000 BC+/-).

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...615?via%3Dihub
    AMS 14C age of the earliest pottery from the Russian Far East: 1996–2002 results


    https://experts.arizona.edu/en/publi...russian-far-ea
    https://app.dimensions.ai/details/pu...pub.1021075186
    Yet Corded Ware men had to have their pottery made by their farmer wives. :)

    I'm perfectly willing to look at relevant data. That relevant data For example, have you found a lot of Corded Ware graves from when they entered Central Europe which contained lots of bronze or even copper weapons?

    Wasn't that the narrative? Indo-Europeans riding in from the steppe on horses brandishing their bronze weapons? From the supplements on Corded Ware and the burial contexts I read about, they had absolutely no bronze, and just a bit of copper, and there were few horse remains. There are, instead, cart remains, and deducing from the fact that there were so few horses, those carts must have been pulled by oxen.

    That's the reality so far as I know,


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  6. #581
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    7,503

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Er Monnezza View Post
    These are distances from Dodecad K12b, a trusted calculator on this forum.

    Distance to: Mycenaean
    12.70876936 Italian_Campania

    The phrase "we are really too similar to Mycenaeans" you can safely replace with "we are really too similar to Moroccan Jews".

    Distance to: Italian_Campania
    12.24124177 Italian_Romagna
    12.30004065 Greek_Thrace
    12.74278619 Morocco_Jew
    12.82461305 Greek_Thessaloniki
    12.92707624 Greek_Thessaly

    Also Dodecad K12b:

    Distance to: Alalakh_MLBA
    27.70845617 Italian_Campania
    32.24738439 Mycenaean
    That's because Moroccan Jews and other Western Jews have a lot of common ancestry with Ancient Greeks/Southern Europeans. Nice try, but no dice.

  7. #582
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    1,214


    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    That's because Moroccan Jews and other Western Jews have a lot of common ancestry with Ancient Greeks/Southern Europeans. Nice try, but no dice.
    I believe ancestry from Western Mediterranean(Iberia and Italy) outweighs the Ancient Greek input in Western Jews.

  8. #583
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    24-07-22
    Location
    São Paulo
    Posts
    54

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-DF27
    MtDNA haplogroup
    L2a

    Country: Brazil



    The article is not out yet, I know we can only speculate. Speculating: if PIE entered the steppe from the south: how to explain the dominance of YDNA R1b/R1a in the steppe? Could language have entered through female ancestry? I think that the Basque language remained because it was perhaps the language that mothers kept speaking to their children. I'm sorry if the question is stupid.

  9. #584
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    7,503

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by ihype02 View Post
    I believe ancestry from Western Mediterranean(Iberia and Italy) outweighs the Ancient Greek input in Western Jews.
    \

    It could be modeled that way too, but I tend to think Western Jews are basically like heavily ancient Greek-like enriched Levantines

  10. #585
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    7,503

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    0.3% Finnish, probably something from Normans or Lombards. But so much for the genetic ping-pong of radically different groups from more recent times. My DNA corroborated with recent papers on the region does not suggest I'm half-Northern European/ Half-Levantine, or what ever. To me is shows Apulians and other southerners are indeed autochthonous since the BA, Steppe/(some kind of Italic)-enriched Minoan-like people with a small contribution from later Aegean/Anatolian_BA-like people from Imperial Roman times. 23andme shows it, my own research shows it, and academics show it.

    I also believe these are the people who mostly shifted Italics/Etruscans south, since MA Rome can be modeled as mostly C6 (not C5 or C4) in antonio et al. 2019.

  11. #586
    Regular Member Er Monnezza's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-01-18
    Posts
    163


    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    That's because Moroccan Jews and other Western Jews have a lot of common ancestry with Ancient Greeks/Southern Europeans. Nice try, but no dice.
    Fine, but it doesn't change what I said.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    I also believe these are the people who mostly shifted Italics/Etruscans south, since MA Rome can be modeled as mostly C6 (not C5 or C4) in antonio et al. 2019.
    Clusters should also be divided by period, C6 instead includes imperial, late antiquity, and medieval samples all together.

    Code:
    C6-Cancelleria_MA:R1283:Antonio_2019,4.57,0,0.77,0,34.15,17.77,0.34,0.48,11.38,0,29.82,0.72
    C6-Cancelleria_MA:R1285:Antonio_2019,3.81,0,0.85,0,37.37,17.26,1.47,0.56,9.42,0.11,28.92,0.22
    C6-Cancelleria_MA:R1287:Antonio_2019,4,0,2.67,0.46,36.7,17.21,0.18,0.25,8.94,0,28.81,0.78
    C6-Casale_del_Dolce_Imperial_Rome:R125:Antonio_2019,8.89,0,2.51,0.08,27.83,9.8,0.09,0,10.91,0,39.46,0.43
    C6-Celio_Late_Antiquity:R35:Antonio_2019,5.28,0,3.7,0,28.77,13.36,1.53,0.55,12.62,0,33.61,0.59
    C6-Celio_Late_Antiquity:R36:Antonio_2019,7.33,0,2.61,0,33.21,19.32,0,0,9.6,0,27.31,0.63
    C6-Centocelle_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R47:Antonio_2019,9.26,0.79,5.46,0,30.38,11.55,0,0.1,9.43,0,32.54,0.5
    C6-Centocelle_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R49:Antonio_2019,7.88,0,1.68,0.17,29.59,14.37,0,1.09,10.73,0,34.2,0.29
    C6-Centocelle_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R51:Antonio_2019,7.5,0,2.26,0,25.82,10.46,0,0,13.7,1.23,39.03,0
    C6-Civitanova_Marche_Imperial_Rome:R835:Antonio_2019,8.06,0.47,2.84,1.58,30.3,16.15,0,0,10.89,0,29.71,0
    C6-Civitanova_Marche_Imperial_Rome:R836:Antonio_2019,7.99,0,1.59,0,30.78,15.05,0,0,10.14,0,34.45,0
    C6-Crypta_Balbi_Late_Antiquity:R107:Antonio_2019,2.97,0.04,2.38,0,29.81,17.06,1.91,0,13.19,0,32.65,0
    C6-Marcellino_&_Pietro_Imperial_Rome:R136:Antonio_2019,8.45,0.16,4.03,0.38,25.87,13,0,0,12.45,0,35.36,0.28
    C6-Marcellino_&_Pietro_Imperial_Rome:R137:Antonio_2019,9.38,0,2.53,0.51,28.21,9.34,0,0.62,11.96,0,37.44,0
    C6-Monterotondo_Imperial_Rome:R1549:Antonio_2019,9.21,0.08,3.15,0,27.32,20.37,0.6,0.6,11.39,0.18,26.54,0.57
    C6-Necropolis_of_Monte_Agnese_Imperial_Rome:R1544:Antonio_2019,9.52,0.56,2.18,0,26.06,13.98,0,0,12.91,0,34.79,0
    C6-Palestrina_Imperial_Rome:R436:Antonio_2019,9.14,0,1.72,0.34,26.42,13.43,0.32,0,12.19,0.11,35.95,0.38
    C6-S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia_Late_Antiquity:R117:Antonio_2019,10.46,0,2.59,0,30.04,12.2,0,1.12,11.07,0,32.5,0.03
    C6-S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia_Late_Antiquity:R118:Antonio_2019,7.36,0.49,2.14,0,33.89,15.39,0,0,12.08,0,28.35,0.3
    C6-S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia_Late_Antiquity:R120:Antonio_2019,5.11,0.47,2.1,0,33.79,17.98,0,1.11,11.27,0,27.96,0.21
    C6-S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia_Late_Antiquity:R121:Antonio_2019,7.62,0,2.45,0,30.21,17.77,0.27,0.91,11.55,0,29.22,0
    C6-Tivoli_Palazzo_Cianti_MA:R969:Antonio_2019,6.06,0,0.84,0,30.84,17.8,1.11,0.91,11.8,0,30.16,0.47
    C6-Tivoli_Palazzo_Cianti_MA:R970:Antonio_2019,8.36,0,5.27,0.49,28.88,18.74,0,0,7.62,0,30.53,0.1
    C6-Tivoli_Palazzo_Cianti_MA:R973:Antonio_2019,8.3,0.03,2.56,0,28.9,15.09,0,0,10.19,0,33.89,1.04
    C6-Via_Paisiello_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R113:Antonio_2019,8.54,0,3.42,0,34.32,12.61,0.56,0,8.26,0,32.14,0.16
    C6-Via_Paisiello_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R131:Antonio_2019,7.3,0.24,0.94,0.57,31.63,13.18,0.27,0,11.79,0,33.23,0.84
    C6-Villa_Magna_MA:R52:Antonio_2019,6.14,0.01,2.22,0.29,32.65,13.67,0,0,11.58,0.46,32.36,0.63
    C6-Villa_Magna_MA:R53:Antonio_2019,7.87,0,1.86,0,27.31,12.92,0.27,0.88,12.02,0.67,36.04,0.17
    C6-Villa_Magna_MA:R54:Antonio_2019,8.69,0,2.1,0.6,27.47,15.83,0.33,0.49,11.57,0.23,32.47,0.23
    C6-Villa_Magna_MA:R56:Antonio_2019,7.11,0.35,3.14,0,30.08,13.27,0,1.09,11.58,0,33.32,0.08
    C6-Villa_Magna_MA:R57:Antonio_2019,7,0,2.97,0.6,27.58,15.78,0.02,0,11.65,0,34.09,0.31
    C6-Villa_Magna_MA:R58:Antonio_2019,5.05,0,1.43,0,28.36,15.5,0,1.14,12.79,0.14,35.19,0.4
    C6-Villa_Magna_MA:R59:Antonio_2019,3.99,0,2.13,0.46,28.77,16.18,0.34,0,12.2,0.31,34.49,1.14
    C6-Villa_Magna_MA:R60:Antonio_2019,6.02,0.97,3.05,0,27.27,19.08,0,1.07,11.67,0,30.57,0.3
    C6-Villa_Magna_MA:R64:Antonio_2019,9.93,1.36,1.96,0,27.12,14.16,0,0.7,11.69,0,32.77,0.3
    C6-Villa_Magna_MA:R65:Antonio_2019,7.26,0,2.72,0.4,28.56,13.42,0,0,12.61,0,34.84,0.2
    C6-Villa_Magna_MA:R1290:Antonio_2019,6.08,0,0.93,0.42,30.89,16.12,0,0,11.65,0,32.87,1.05

  12. #587
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    7,503

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Er Monnezza View Post
    Fine, but it doesn't change what I said.



    Clusters should also be divided by period, C6 instead includes imperial, late antiquity, and medieval samples all together.

    Code:
    C6-Cancelleria_MA:R1283:Antonio_2019,4.57,0,0.77,0,34.15,17.77,0.34,0.48,11.38,0,29.82,0.72
    C6-Cancelleria_MA:R1285:Antonio_2019,3.81,0,0.85,0,37.37,17.26,1.47,0.56,9.42,0.11,28.92,0.22
    C6-Cancelleria_MA:R1287:Antonio_2019,4,0,2.67,0.46,36.7,17.21,0.18,0.25,8.94,0,28.81,0.78
    C6-Casale_del_Dolce_Imperial_Rome:R125:Antonio_2019,8.89,0,2.51,0.08,27.83,9.8,0.09,0,10.91,0,39.46,0.43
    C6-Celio_Late_Antiquity:R35:Antonio_2019,5.28,0,3.7,0,28.77,13.36,1.53,0.55,12.62,0,33.61,0.59
    C6-Celio_Late_Antiquity:R36:Antonio_2019,7.33,0,2.61,0,33.21,19.32,0,0,9.6,0,27.31,0.63
    C6-Centocelle_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R47:Antonio_2019,9.26,0.79,5.46,0,30.38,11.55,0,0.1,9.43,0,32.54,0.5
    C6-Centocelle_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R49:Antonio_2019,7.88,0,1.68,0.17,29.59,14.37,0,1.09,10.73,0,34.2,0.29
    C6-Centocelle_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R51:Antonio_2019,7.5,0,2.26,0,25.82,10.46,0,0,13.7,1.23,39.03,0
    C6-Civitanova_Marche_Imperial_Rome:R835:Antonio_2019,8.06,0.47,2.84,1.58,30.3,16.15,0,0,10.89,0,29.71,0
    C6-Civitanova_Marche_Imperial_Rome:R836:Antonio_2019,7.99,0,1.59,0,30.78,15.05,0,0,10.14,0,34.45,0
    C6-Crypta_Balbi_Late_Antiquity:R107:Antonio_2019,2.97,0.04,2.38,0,29.81,17.06,1.91,0,13.19,0,32.65,0
    C6-Marcellino_&_Pietro_Imperial_Rome:R136:Antonio_2019,8.45,0.16,4.03,0.38,25.87,13,0,0,12.45,0,35.36,0.28
    C6-Marcellino_&_Pietro_Imperial_Rome:R137:Antonio_2019,9.38,0,2.53,0.51,28.21,9.34,0,0.62,11.96,0,37.44,0
    C6-Monterotondo_Imperial_Rome:R1549:Antonio_2019,9.21,0.08,3.15,0,27.32,20.37,0.6,0.6,11.39,0.18,26.54,0.57
    C6-Necropolis_of_Monte_Agnese_Imperial_Rome:R1544:Antonio_2019,9.52,0.56,2.18,0,26.06,13.98,0,0,12.91,0,34.79,0
    C6-Palestrina_Imperial_Rome:R436:Antonio_2019,9.14,0,1.72,0.34,26.42,13.43,0.32,0,12.19,0.11,35.95,0.38
    C6-S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia_Late_Antiquity:R117:Antonio_2019,10.46,0,2.59,0,30.04,12.2,0,1.12,11.07,0,32.5,0.03
    C6-S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia_Late_Antiquity:R118:Antonio_2019,7.36,0.49,2.14,0,33.89,15.39,0,0,12.08,0,28.35,0.3
    C6-S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia_Late_Antiquity:R120:Antonio_2019,5.11,0.47,2.1,0,33.79,17.98,0,1.11,11.27,0,27.96,0.21
    C6-S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia_Late_Antiquity:R121:Antonio_2019,7.62,0,2.45,0,30.21,17.77,0.27,0.91,11.55,0,29.22,0
    C6-Tivoli_Palazzo_Cianti_MA:R969:Antonio_2019,6.06,0,0.84,0,30.84,17.8,1.11,0.91,11.8,0,30.16,0.47
    C6-Tivoli_Palazzo_Cianti_MA:R970:Antonio_2019,8.36,0,5.27,0.49,28.88,18.74,0,0,7.62,0,30.53,0.1
    C6-Tivoli_Palazzo_Cianti_MA:R973:Antonio_2019,8.3,0.03,2.56,0,28.9,15.09,0,0,10.19,0,33.89,1.04
    C6-Via_Paisiello_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R113:Antonio_2019,8.54,0,3.42,0,34.32,12.61,0.56,0,8.26,0,32.14,0.16
    C6-Via_Paisiello_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R131:Antonio_2019,7.3,0.24,0.94,0.57,31.63,13.18,0.27,0,11.79,0,33.23,0.84
    C6-Villa_Magna_MA:R52:Antonio_2019,6.14,0.01,2.22,0.29,32.65,13.67,0,0,11.58,0.46,32.36,0.63
    C6-Villa_Magna_MA:R53:Antonio_2019,7.87,0,1.86,0,27.31,12.92,0.27,0.88,12.02,0.67,36.04,0.17
    C6-Villa_Magna_MA:R54:Antonio_2019,8.69,0,2.1,0.6,27.47,15.83,0.33,0.49,11.57,0.23,32.47,0.23
    C6-Villa_Magna_MA:R56:Antonio_2019,7.11,0.35,3.14,0,30.08,13.27,0,1.09,11.58,0,33.32,0.08
    C6-Villa_Magna_MA:R57:Antonio_2019,7,0,2.97,0.6,27.58,15.78,0.02,0,11.65,0,34.09,0.31
    C6-Villa_Magna_MA:R58:Antonio_2019,5.05,0,1.43,0,28.36,15.5,0,1.14,12.79,0.14,35.19,0.4
    C6-Villa_Magna_MA:R59:Antonio_2019,3.99,0,2.13,0.46,28.77,16.18,0.34,0,12.2,0.31,34.49,1.14
    C6-Villa_Magna_MA:R60:Antonio_2019,6.02,0.97,3.05,0,27.27,19.08,0,1.07,11.67,0,30.57,0.3
    C6-Villa_Magna_MA:R64:Antonio_2019,9.93,1.36,1.96,0,27.12,14.16,0,0.7,11.69,0,32.77,0.3
    C6-Villa_Magna_MA:R65:Antonio_2019,7.26,0,2.72,0.4,28.56,13.42,0,0,12.61,0,34.84,0.2
    C6-Villa_Magna_MA:R1290:Antonio_2019,6.08,0,0.93,0.42,30.89,16.12,0,0,11.65,0,32.87,1.05
    But that would be like taking a sample of everyone in NYC living today, and using the aggregate to determine that average ancestry of NY or the North East. It also doesn't take into account that people naturally tribalize, which is a dynamic you see even today. Even in NYC, you have ethnic enclaves that do not really mix with one another beyond "racial" lines. Today, in the USA you have the meta-ethnicity of White, which you see amalgamations of WASPs and White Ethnics. Which didn't even happen a few generations back, people stuck to their ethnic group in the USA. Back in ancient times, the white meta-ethnicity didn't exist, so it was probably even more unlikely that ethnicities with little in common would mix together.

    At any rate, imho C6 represents the southern Italian-like people, who I with supporting data, posit have been around since at least the EBA. R437 is another example of this kind of ancestry, who has been around since the IA.


  13. #588
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    209


    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Er Monnezza View Post
    These are distances from Dodecad K12b, a trusted calculator on this forum.

    Distance to: Mycenaean
    12.70876936 Italian_Campania

    The phrase "we are really too similar to Mycenaeans" you can safely replace with "we are really too similar to Moroccan Jews".

    Distance to: Italian_Campania
    12.24124177 Italian_Romagna
    12.30004065 Greek_Thrace
    12.74278619 Morocco_Jew
    12.82461305 Greek_Thessaloniki
    12.92707624 Greek_Thessaly

    Also Dodecad K12b:

    Distance to: Alalakh_MLBA
    27.70845617 Italian_Campania
    32.24738439 Mycenaean
    I do not take online calculators as nothing else but a machine that gives you approximate results, and I didn't mean "Myceneans" in particular, since there are 4 very heterogeneous samples (steppe raging from 4 to 17%), though the sample with the most steppe is the closest to modern southern Italians, but I meant the bulgarian_IA sample, and the one Philistine sample that had a genetic profile coming from SE europe, and Daunian samples, and also late antiquity balkanites who however are thought to be local-hence labelled "IA balkan"-, and from the leak PCA from the Biomuse paper also similar to Greeks.

    I recall perfectly well that on Anthrogenica the usual pataphysical explanation is both a southern and a northern gene flow that had south Italian "bounce back and forth" (if you imagine their position in a PCA) and Greeks, and there is neither historical nor genetical evidence whatsoever of such a happening, and let's address the elephant in the room: no genetist has up to now defended such a model for southern Italians, and I am tired to hear that "it doesn't matter because they haven't looked for it/they are all biased", and the haplogroup data can't even support such a model.

    Western Jews have southern European admixture that brings them closer to us, which is easy to see why given their history, but there's nothing to postulate the reverse (MENA admixture in southern Europe or particularly in south Italy that brings both close to each other), always speaking about double digit percentuals; I can concede there is some low single digit admixture so far gone undetected, but then it isn't what explains the main picture of south Italians' ethnogenesis.

    The topic of the thread may be another, but I shan't avoid answering; at most we shall go on on a dedicated thread.

  14. #589
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    209


    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    But that would be like taking a sample of everyone in NYC living today, and using the aggregate to determine that average ancestry of NY or the North East. It also doesn't take into account that people naturally tribalize, which is a dynamic you see even today. Even in NYC, you have ethnic enclaves that do not really mix with one another beyond "racial" lines. Today, in the USA you have the meta-ethnicity of White, which you see amalgamations of WASPs and White Ethnics. Which didn't even happen a few generations back, people stuck to their ethnic group in the USA. Back in ancient times, the white meta-ethnicity didn't exist, so it was probably even more unlikely that ethnicities with little in common would mix together.

    At any rate, imho C6 represents the southern Italian-like people, who I with supporting data, posit have been around since at least the EBA. R437 is another example of this kind of ancestry, who has been around since the IA.

    There's no need to speculate that people "tribalised" in Rome: we have the recordings of common feelings towards foreigners held by "locals" in the writing of Juvenal and other satirists.
    Anyway, even on Anthrogenica they have realised (which is saying a lot) that imperial period migrations had not much of an impact in Italy, since it appears that the "east med" foreigners appeard in the early empire when only inhabitants of Italy had Roman citizenship by default, so it is extremely implausible that there could have been any mass migration from the east and that anyway it could have had so swift a result. Anthrogenica folks say it happened during the hellenistic times, I am confident they are wrong.
    For now let's agree that it's better to wait for IA samples from all over Italy, especially the south, and also the Balkans and Anatolia to draw the relevant conclusions.

  15. #590
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    26-01-09
    Posts
    957

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z36

    Country: UK - Scotland



    Some on Anthrogenica think that EHG folk are at the root of IE languages rather than CHG people.

  16. #591
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,723


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Vallicanus View Post
    Some on Anthrogenica think that EHG folk are at the root of IE languages rather than CHG people.
    And the reason is the currently available data, both genetics and archaeological.

    - Genetically, the patrilineages are clearly EHG derived, and the IE were an patrilinear and agnatic people. Highly unlikely the language of the female part prevailed. Possible, but highly unlikely.
    - Archaeologically, we see the influence from both first CHG related hunter-fishers with Neolithic elements, especially in R. yar, at the Lower Danube. I think that's where most of the CHG-Iranian ancestry was coming from. But while they were highly influential, the traditions of the local hunters seem to have prevailed, rather. So again, we see how both sides contributed, but the local EHG element seems to have been more dominant.

    Then we have the Western cultural influences (BugDniester, Hamangia, Tripolye-Cucuteni etc.), but these are unlikely to have had a strong genetic impact on the already formed Lower-Middle Don EHG-CHG fusion.

  17. #592
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    7,503

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Leopoldo Leone View Post
    There's no need to speculate that people "tribalised" in Rome: we have the recordings of common feelings towards foreigners held by "locals" in the writing of Juvenal and other satirists.
    Anyway, even on Anthrogenica they have realised (which is saying a lot) that imperial period migrations had not much of an impact in Italy, since it appears that the "east med" foreigners appeard in the early empire when only inhabitants of Italy had Roman citizenship by default, so it is extremely implausible that there could have been any mass migration from the east and that anyway it could have had so swift a result. Anthrogenica folks say it happened during the hellenistic times, I am confident they are wrong.
    For now let's agree that it's better to wait for IA samples from all over Italy, especially the south, and also the Balkans and Anatolia to draw the relevant conclusions.
    I think waiting for these samples is absolutely essential, yes. Right now, a lot of this stuff is just speculation.

  18. #593
    Regular Member real expert's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-09-16
    Posts
    623


    Country: Germany



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Another relevant article from GeoCurrent.



    Ideological Agendas and Indo-European Origins: Master Race, Bloodthirsty Kurgans, or Proto-Hippies?


    This final contribution to the Indo-European series turns once again to the potential ideological agendas lurking behind theories of IE origin and expansion. As was noted previously, no other issue inhuman prehistory has been so ideologically fraught; the original IE speakers have been recruited to serve a variety of fantasies, ranging in temper from naively benign to unimaginably vile. For Nazis and their ilk, the original Indo-Europeans constituted the Aryan super-race whose descendants were destined to rule the world. Followers of a certain feminist school of prehistory, in turn, have turned the “Aryan thesis” on its head, portraying the same people as the bloodthirsty “Kurgans” overrunning the peaceful, matriarchal civilization of “Old Europe” and ushering in a global age of violence and male domination. As was argued in the earlier post, it is understandable that some scholars would want to discredit all such overreaching interpretations based on the crushing might of the horse-empowered original Indo-Europeans. If it could be demonstrated that the IE languages were actually spread by Neolithic farmers slowly pushing into new areas as their numbers increased, all such troublesome theories would be effectively undermined.

    Yet it is one thing to hope for such a paradigm switch and another to push it along by a purposeful manipulation of data and analysis. Doing so would be a blatantly ideological act, and hence a betrayal of science and reason. Assessing scholarly motivations, however, is a hopeless task, and we have no way of knowing whether Bouckaert
    etal. have intentionally selected their data and skewed their model in order to support the Anatolian thesis of IE origins. We do think that it is possible, however, that they have unconsciously let their own ideological commitments guide their research program. Our evidence here comes from two sources. First, as we have demonstrated over the past two months, both the data selection and the model construction are warped to consistently favor the Anatolian hypothesis, most egregiously by ignoring all ancient IE language spoken in the steppe zone and by ruling out ad vection as a mechanism of language spread.Second, it seems likely from the comments posted on this website that distaste for the idea of violent incursions, often viewed as an ecessary feature of the “steppe hypothesis,” colors the authors’perspective. Quentin Atkinson, the article’s corresponding author,quotes Larry Trask to maket his point:

    Nevertheless,the vision of fierce IE warriors, riding horses and driving chariots,sweeping down on their neighbours brandishing bloody swords, has proven to be an enduring one, and scholars have found it difficult to dislodge from the popular consciousness the idea of the PIE-speakers as warlike conquerors in chariots.

    Although the desire to wish away the “bloody swords” of the human past is understandable, it is also naïve, as violence unfortunately pervades our history. One does not have to embrace the vision of Thomas Hobbes, recently updated and re-theorized by Steven Pinker in his tome,
    The Better Angels of Our Nature:Why Violence Has Declined, to accept that this is indeed the case. I suspect that Pinker exaggerates the bloodiness of hunting-gathering societies, a charge made most forcefully byChristopher Ryan, co-author of the intriguing and controversial Sex at Dawn,yet I also suspect that Ryan descends into hyperbole of his own in emphasizing the peacefulness and sexual license of our Paleolithic ancestors. But when it comes to pre-modern agricultural societies,the evidence is overwhelming: enveloping violence was the norm almost everywhere. If one wants to rule out the possibility of bloody swords and other weapons, one would be advised to examine something otherthan human history.............


    Anthropological blogger Al West, for example, surmises that the early Indo-European speakers gained power by selling horses and other goods (see below) to other peoples. Certainly the massive non-IE linguistic substrates found in such IE branches as Greek, Germanic, and Indo-Aryan indicate deep levels of cultural exchange with the indigenous inhabitants of the regions into which the early Indo-European speakers moved.
    Portraying the early Indo-Europeans as a uniquely fierce or malevolent people, as some of Marija Gimbitas’s followers were inclined to do, involves more ideological projection as sound appraisal. One can certainly stress the violent nature of their social interactions, but one can just as easily place the emphasis elsewhere. In fact, one can even turn the Gimbutas thesis on its head and portray the steppe-dwelling early Indo-Europeans as gender-egalitarian precursors to the hippies of the late 20th century. Although such a portrayal strays again into the realm of fantasy, it is no less reasonable than either the Herrenvolk (“master race”) or the “demonic Kurgan” theses. As such an inversion of the conventional framing of the original Indo-Europeans makes an interesting thought experiment, and I would ask my readers to indulge me here for a few paragraphs.....


    The prime evidence for “gender egalitarianism” among early Indo-Europeans derives, ironically, from the realm of war. As was mentioned in an earlier post, the Scythians, an Iranian-speaking group who maintained a largely pastoral way of life in the hypothesized IE steppe homeland, were noted for their female warriors. Herodotus famously wrote of the Amazon fighting women of the region, an observation partially conformed by recent archeological finds; as David Anthony reports, twenty percent of the Scythian/Sarmatian “warrior graves” of the lower Don and Volga river valleys include female remains that had been dressed for battle in identical fashion to the males whose skeletons were found in the same graves. The mere presence of women warriors does not, of course, imply actual gender egalitarianism, nor does it say anything about the social relations of the actual proto-Indo-European speakers, who lived in earlier times. It does, however, indicate a significant extent of female empowerment in an important IE group that maintained an equestrian mode of life on the Pontic Steppes.

    Imagining the early Indo-Europeans as proto-hippies is made possible by the group’s close association with marijuana and perhaps other psychoactive plants. Building on the works of archeologists Andrew Sherratt and David Anthony, Al West argues that, “it’s possible that proto-Indo-European speakers became rich and powerful through selling … intoxicants,” further claiming that “Indo-European-speaking people traded THC-laden hemp from the steppes all the way down into the Near Eastern cities, which were naturally a major centre for trade from all over Eurasia. … If this scenario is right, then to the people of Babylon the arrival of Indo-European speakers must have seemed like one crazy dream.”
    Although West is probably off-track in suggesting that proto-Indo-European speakers were responsible for the spread of cannabis as a recreational or spiritual drug, such an association is reasonably made for the progenitors of one the main branches of the IE family, the proto-Indo-Iranians. Evidence again comes from both Herodotus, who famously wrote of cannabis ingestion among the Scythians, and from archeological digs; Sherratt discovered charred cannabis residue in a Kurgan site dating back some 3,500 years BCE. Linguistic evidence also plays a role. The hemp plant, which produces valuable fibers and seeds in addition to its mind-altering resin, had been known across much of Eurasia for millennia, and thus had undoubtedly been referred to by many different local names. Cognates linked to the word “cannabis,” however, spread across and beyond the Indo-European-speaking realm in the third millennium BCE, which is believe by some experts to indicate that a new pharmaceutical use for the plant had been discovered and was itself expanding.Although the lines of linguistic descent are not clear, the new term for the plant, which eventually gave rise to the Latin word Cannabis, seems to have been associated with proto-Indo-Iranian steppe dwellers (see the discussions here, here, and here).



    https://www.geocurrents.info/cultura...-proto-hippies

  19. #594
    Regular Member Francesco's Avatar
    Join Date
    09-10-21
    Posts
    89


    Ethnic group
    Italian (tuscan)
    Country: Italy



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quite frankly, I fail to see how an eventual CHG related origin of the IE language would damage a supposed European suprematistic or nordicist agenda: either way, CHG were an important part of the early Yamnaya culture and demography and constitute an ancestral population for all of Europe, both via an EHG mediated source (Yamnaya) or a AN one (Minoan and Myceneans).

  20. #595
    Regular Member real expert's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-09-16
    Posts
    623


    Country: Germany



    Here's another relevant piece of information from the GeoCurrents- site that shed lights on the evidence that supports the Anatolian hypothesis.


    Why the Indo-European Debate Matters—And Matters Deeply


    As expected, we have received a few complaints from friends, acquaintances, and Facebook-followers in regard to the current Indo-European series. “Why get so exercised over a single article,” some ask, reminding us that science is a self-correcting endeavor that will eventually winnow away the chaff. Others question the entire enterprise, wondering why we would care so much about such an obscure topic.

    We agree that science is, in the long run, a self-correcting undertaking, which gives it vast power. But self-correction does not come automatically; it takes work, which we are happy to provide. And in the short-term, counterfeit research can do great harm, as the Lysenko Affair in the Soviet Union so well demonstrated. We also find it deeply troubling that a nonsensical article would not only be accepted for publication in one of the world’s premier scientific journals, but would immediately be trumpeted in the mass media for “solving” one of the key mysteries of human pre-history. The episode uncovers a whiff of corruption in the scientific-journalist establishment that needs a blast of fresh air.

    In regard to the second set of complaints, we must reject them outright. The Indo-European issue is not obscure, trivial, or unrelated to pressing issues of our day. In fact, it is difficult to locate a single topic of historical debate that has been more ideologically fraught and politically laden over the past 150 years than that of Indo-European origin and expansion.

    Indo-European studies took on a heavy ideological burden in the late 1800s, a development that would indirectly lead to the most hideous examples of genocide and mass-murder that the world has ever witnessed. The supposedly superior “Aryans” of Nazi mythology were none other than the speakers of Proto-Indo-European (PIE). Nazi propagandists conjured their own wildly off-base theories about I-E origins, but their fantasies had roots in the scholarly endeavors of German philologists. And while Nazism was militarily crushed and its ideological foundations pulverized, the movement refuses to die. Indeed, it seems to be experiencing something of a revival in eastern Germany, Hungary, and—of all places—Russia. On numerous occasions, I have found myself directed by Google to the odious “Stormfront” website while searching for images and ethnographic descriptions of various Eurasian ethnic groups. The Aryan myth also continues to feed racially troubling ideologies outside of Europe, particularly in Iran and northern India.


    Even scholars who have sought to undermine the noxious notion of the Aryan
    Herrenvolk have occasionally generated their own benign but still fantasy-laden counter-narratives. The key figure here is the late Lithuanian-American archeologist Marija Gimbutas, noted for placing the I-E homeland in the Pontic Steppes. Gimbutas’s scientific research was solid, and we suspect that she was largely correct in locating the PIE homeland. But in seeking to turn the Nazi view on its head, she went too far—and some of her lay followers went much too far. In the feminist retelling of the tale that she inspired, the Aryans become the Kurgans, a uniquely violent, male-dominated people who destroyed the peaceful, gender-equitable if not matriarchal civilization of “Old Europe.” In Riane Eisler’s 1988 treatise, The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future, the Kurgan conquests are seen as ushering in a global age of male domination and mass violence. The work was a bestseller, blurbed by noted anthropologist Ashley Montagu as the “most important book since Darwin’s Origin of Species.”.............

    Considering the misuses to which the issue of I-E origins has been put, it is understandable that some people would want to reject the idea that the original speakers were war-like horse-riders from some remote, northern homeland. All such troublesome interpretations would vanish if I-E expansion could instead be linked to the gradual movement of simple farmers from the Near Eastern agricultural heartland into the sparsely settled lands of Mesolithic Europe. But if the evidence indicates otherwise, as it most assuredly does, the result is merely another myth. Scientific responsibility demands the search for truth, even if the truth leads into uncomfortable areas.


    Regardless of the complications introduced by ideological distortions, investigations of I-E origins and expansion have a huge bearing of the study of human prehistory. Indo-European, after all, is by far the world’s largest language family when counted by the number of speakers. Linguistic evidence about the family’s spread tells us much of significance about the historical development of a vast section of the Earth’s surface over many centuries, even millennia. Studies of human prehistory depend crucially on three lines of evidence: those derived from archeological digs; from genetic studies; and from linguistics. Over the past decade, much progress has been made in bridging linguistic and archeological evidence, as demonstrated by David Anthony’s The Horse, the Wheel, and Language. To the extent that the burgeoning genetic investigations of Y- and mitochondrial DNA lineages can be incorporated into this linguistic-archeological nexus, a much richer understanding of the prehistoric human past awaits. For a path-breaking interdisciplinary foray into this territory, see Andrew Shryock and Daniel Lord Smail, Deep History: The Architecture of Past and Present.

    Such developments, however, risk being cut short if the field of historical linguistics continues to languish. Further progress will depend not only on linguists carrying out their own research, but also on their passing down of their knowledge and techniques to future generations of students. Such lines of intellectual transmission, however, are threatened by cutbacks in linguistic departments, as well as by the assaults on the field mounted by interlopers who have somehow managed to convince many scientists that linguistic evidence is of little account when it comes to studying the history of languages. To the extent that the Anatolian hypothesis gains ground among archeologists and geneticists on the basis of the recent Science article, our collective knowledge of the past will take a sharp step backwards.

    The most troubling aspect of the affair, however, is not the threats that it poses but rather the revelations that it makes about the integrity of the scientific and journalistic establishments. A scholarly journal such as Science is duty-bound to vet any potential contribution through established experts. Yet I have a difficult time imagining that the article in question was subjected to proper peer-review through any qualified specialist in the field in which it sits: Indo-European historical linguistics. Either the article was never sent to a competent linguistics reviewer, or the resulting review was irresponsibly ignored. And yet this is not the first time that a preposterous article on historical linguistics has appeared in Science (and also in Nature), as we shall see in future posts. Have the editors of this august journal decided that the discipline of linguists has somehow failed, and that its field of historical inquiry should therefore be handed over to epidemiologists and computational modelers? If so, on what possible grounds was this decision reached? Unless such questions can be answered, I have a difficult time avoiding the conclusion that the editors of Science have betrayed the basic canons of academic responsibility.


    While contemplating these issues, I am continually reminded of the Sokal Hoax, an episode that revealed the vacuity of postmodernist literary theory and “science studies” in the mid-1990s. This affair came to my attention when I was participating in the conference on “The Flight from Science and Reason” organized by the New York Academy of Sciences. A rumor began to circulate among the attendees that a noted physicist and mathematician with solid leftist political credentials was perpetrating a prank that would debunk Social Text, perhaps the leading journal of poststructuralist theory, and in so doing deflate the pretension of those who sought to undermine science in the name of human liberation. Sokal’s article, entitled “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity,” argues that since science is merely a social construct, quantum gravity, especially as interpreted through the new-age lens of “morphogenetic fields,” can have progressive implications for political action. The paper was accepted and duly published, despite the fact that it was, as its author soon admitted, “a pastiche of Left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense . . . structured around the silliest quotations [by postmodernist academics] he could find about mathematics and physics.” Sokal designed the hoax as a kind of test of the allegations made by Paul Gross and Norman Levitt in their book Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels With Science. As he discovered, even the most palpable nonsense imaginable could be published in Social Text so long as it sounded good and flattered the editors’ ideological preconceptions.”


    While the Sokal Affair was a purposive hoax, the members of the Boukaert team evidently believe that their article constitutes a contribution to knowledge. But what the authors think about their own work is of no significance, as the arguments they make must stand on their own. Had Alan Sokal actually believed that the “construction” of quantum gravity could be a politically progressive act, would his article have been any less nonsensical? The current authors have thus perpetrated an unwitting hoax, but the end results should be no less embarrassing for the editors of Science than the Sokal Affair was for those of Social Text. Boukaert et al. begin by improperly framing the problem, and then go on to err at every turn. It is not so much that the article’s conclusions are incorrect, but rather that every assumption it makes, every technique it employs, and virtually every “fact” that it marshals is either incorrect, inappropriate, or misleading. Yet this work was published in one of the world’s most prestigious scientific journals. Something here smells rather fishy.


    But if the mere publication of the article in Science raises questions about intellectual integrity, its immediate celebration in the pages of the New York Times points to a deeper mire. Science publishes hundreds of articles each year, a tiny fraction of which are ever mentioned in the New York Times, let alone showcased in the newspaper’s main section. Yet the Times has gone out of its way on more than one occasion to trumpet “contributions” to linguistic history from members of the Bouckaert team, specifically Quentin Atkinson. Evidently, the editors of the supposed newspaper-of-record in the United States have concluded that the work of these scholars constitutes one of the most important scientific stories of the past decade. On what possible basis could such an assessment have been rationally made?


    Journalists, like academics, are expected to adhere to certain standards of professional behavior.
    Unless they are writing for the editorial pages or are explicitly employed in “advocacy journalism,” reporters are expected to remain as objective as possible, not letting their own interests, political predilections, or friendship and kin networks direct their work. Such guidelines are impossible to follow to the letter, and as a result complete objectivity is a mere ideal. But such an ideal is still supposed to influence behavior in self-respecting media outlets, eliminating the excesses of partisanship. In the present case, however, all such ethical fetters seem to have been removed. Nicholas Wade’s reporting on this issue has been non-objective in the extreme. One can only speculate as to why Wade has been determined to act as Quentin Atkinson’s pocket journalist, ever ready to proclaim his latest clumsy foray into linguistics as a scientific breakthrough on par with plate tectonics.


    To appreciate the level of corruption revealed by the Bouckaert Affair, imagine that a parallel series of events occurred in a different walk of life, such as business. Imagine, for example, that an established financial firm with a reasonably good reputation decided to apply its mathematical models to an unrelated business, one in which both the leaders and employees of the company had no experience. Being ignorant of their new field, they made a number of naïve and ultimately untenable assumptions about how it operates, and thus when they applied their favored methods, unexpected breakdowns occurred. Soon the firm began to hemorrhage money. But rather than admit to their failure, the managers instead crowed about their success, hiding their mounting losses in misleading accounting sheets and obscurely written reports. But even as the company began to collapse, its reputation strengthened and its stock-market valuation rose. Such gains, it turns out, stemmed from glowing reports on its new venture in the business media, most notably the New York Times. The most substantive Times’ piece on the venture appeared not in the paper’s business pages, but in its main news section, gaining it a particularly wide readership. The fact that it was written by the former editor of its business section, a person widely regarded as one of the country’s leading economic journalists, helped propel the story. For a while, it appeared as if the firm could do no wrong. And then
    ….....
    https://www.geocurrents.info/cultura...matters-deeply

  21. #596
    Viscount
    Join Date
    10-06-12
    Posts
    694

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-BY593
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2a2

    Country: Canada-Ontario



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Yet Corded Ware men had to have their pottery made by their farmer wives. :)

    I'm perfectly willing to look at relevant data. That relevant data For example, have you found a lot of Corded Ware graves from when they entered Central Europe which contained lots of bronze or even copper weapons?

    Wasn't that the narrative? Indo-Europeans riding in from the steppe on horses brandishing their bronze weapons? From the supplements on Corded Ware and the burial contexts I read about, they had absolutely no bronze, and just a bit of copper, and there were few horse remains. There are, instead, cart remains, and deducing from the fact that there were so few horses, those carts must have been pulled by oxen.

    That's the reality so far as I know,
    I'm only interested in R1b in Corded Ware. So far there are L51+ , Z2109+, V1636+(single grave).

    No Dom2 horses have been found in Corded Ware.

    However we can list the ancient R1b cultural samples.

    Yamnaya- Z2109+ and L23+https://amtdb.org/sample/I0443
    Wagons, Copper smelting, copper metallurgy(https://www.researchgate.net/publica...nze_Metallurgy'), tanged copper daggers Dom2 horses-Turganik, Elshanka pottery, Kurgans and Kurgan-Stele
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernosovskiy_idol



    Afanasievo-Z21o9+L51+Copper-Gold-Silver-Iron(earings) Wagons, horse remains- not tested(Dom2?).

    Poltavka-Z2109+

    Catacombe-Z2109+ Copper, Bronze,Iron advanced wagons, Dom2(40) horses single burial?.

    Corded Ware-Z2103(9?)L51+ No Dom2, no iron

    Bell Beakers-Z2109+L51 Tanged copper daggers, possible connection to horses. Possible red hair- Blogger-Genetiker I7044-Beaker, 2500-2200 BCE R1b-Z2109+ Blond/ D-blond- Blue eyes I2787-Bell Beaker-Hungary,2457-2201-Light skin, Red hair.
    Szigetszentmiklós Cemetery (Santa's Six Foot Elves)
    https://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.c...antas-six.html

    Vucedol I3499 / M R1b-Z2103?
    Potopovka-Z2109+
    Sintashta-Z2109+
    Latins-L51+Z2103+
    Steppe-Sarmatians-Z2109+
    Roman Sarmatian mercenary-(Alan?) Z2109+
    Armenian-Z2106+
    Iranian-Hajji Firuzz-Z2103+
    Suum cuique---Rubiconem suum


  22. #597
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-03-17
    Posts
    857


    Ethnic group
    swiss,italian
    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Francesco View Post
    Quite frankly, I fail to see how an eventual CHG related origin of the IE language would damage a supposed European suprematistic or nordicist agenda: either way, CHG were an important part of the early Yamnaya culture and demography and constitute an ancestral population for all of Europe, both via an EHG mediated source (Yamnaya) or a AN one (Minoan and Myceneans).
    because CHG is ultimately a near eastern related group with it's closest contemporary populations living in that region. if IE did indeed originate in a related population it would mean that not only civilization was born in near east but also the language we use everyday. and it would also mean that the ancestral populations EHG/WHG, which are probably the biggest reason for the cline that exists between modern europeans and modern near eastern people, contributed absolutely nothing. it is not hard to see why this would damage a european supremacist agenda.

  23. #598
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    7,503

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Ailchu View Post
    because CHG is ultimately a near eastern related group with it's closest contemporary populations living in that region. if IE did indeed originate in a related population it would mean that not only civilization was born in near east but also the language we use everyday. and it would also mean that the ancestral populations EHG/WHG, which are probably the biggest reason for the cline that exists between modern europeans and modern near eastern people, contributed absolutely nothing. it is not hard to see why this would damage a european supremacist agenda.
    There's a large amount of Natufian and non-trivial SSA that also make near easterners different however.

  24. #599
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    21,250


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by ihype02 View Post
    I believe ancestry from Western Mediterranean(Iberia and Italy) outweighs the Ancient Greek input in Western Jews.
    Yes, well, problem is that IBD analyses doesn't show Italian or Iberian ancestry in Ashkenazim. What shows up is a nice dose of Slavic.

    Don't think it's ever been done with Sephardic Jews or Moroccan Jews. I would think perhaps some Iberian would show up, at least. Would be interesting to see someone attempt it.

  25. #600
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-03-17
    Posts
    857


    Ethnic group
    swiss,italian
    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    There's a large amount of Natufian and non-trivial SSA that also make near easterners different however.
    depends on the region. can you specify what non-trivial means? iranians do not have non-trivial amounts of SSA for example imo. and i guess it is similar with turks, armenians, kurds, iraqis. the Natufian component also differs depending on region. i mean, some people will certainly try to clutch at every straw they can get doesn't change that EHG/WHG were always on the receiving end.
    and WHG/EHG certainly are the main factors for variation between europe and populations of the near east. if we look at most pca's for westeurasian populations a WHG/EHG-like admixture describes very often one of the principal components.

Page 24 of 48 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •