He had said it somewhere else, yes (on anthrogenica). Though I don't remember the exact words. Maybe the wording wasn't as bad as I remember it.
These were his positions after the
Mathieson et al. 2017 study, we knew then what the Balkans BA profile was at least then.
Actually I don't want to talk about him, I don't dislike him. He is a human. This "Basil' / "Moriopoulos" is 100 times worse.
See this post though and the comments, it is clearly the result of a bias / complex
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2016/01/ancient-greeks-and-romans-may-have.html?m=1
Ah, scrolling through that comment section has reminded me of how despicable and chronically mendacious both most Eurogenes commentators and a good chunk of Anthrogenica users:
1) as for Basil/Moriopoulos and people like him, they are so sure they "live in reality" that they speak of their laughworthy and incredibly moronic theories as well-known truisms beyond any doubt when in reality those are just sheer delusions born out of sheer ethnic narcissism, since the "east med" race they keep mentioning, as a tripartite mixture of Greek, Anatolian and Levantine ancestry, is something that
DOES NOT EXIST and hasn't shown up in any single genetic paper up to date, and the reason why it has been concocted is because it stroked the ethnic narcissism of Erikl86 who believed contrary to every piece and bit of available evidence that the ethnogenesis of western/european Jews took place by far and large in situ in the Levant. That is why the label "levanticism" is spot on.
2) as for Davidsky/Polako and people like him, I'll never understand the fiery animus he has towards south Italians amd Greeks, which brings him to hold the most contrived and ridicolous claims about the ethnogenesis of modern Italians and Greeks (especially southern Italians, as if they were a separate ethny from northern ones, whereas according to science in Italy the genetic difference is clinal, not disjunctive), as when he claimed that modern Greeks had almost no continuity with ancient Greeks (a view he has recently changed but we can add it to the list of obvious things that he still got wrong), or when he claimed/seems to claim still that south Italians have around 25-50% Levantine ancestry; as I've said in other occasions, it isn't enough to believe that southern Italians have semitic ancestry in order to be said to hold anti-italian sentiments, since it can be just a cold matter-of-fact assertion, but it's clear that Davidsky doesn't just believe in it because he thinks it's true but because he has the desire to find it because he believes south Italy isn't European enough (that is a fair inference to draw from his statement that south Italians ought to be kicked out of Europe). Frankly, I hope he has been bying Maloox since it has been proven that actually southern Italians are among the closest genetic relatives of ancient Greeks, the very creators of the notions of Europe and western civilization.
What both groups had in common is their reconstruction of the ethnogenesis of Greeks and (south) Italians, and it is why they ended up working together, but they differ in how they interpret the contribution of their relative ancestral component to the historical events of ancient Greece and Italy, with the former believing that the Levant acted as a civilizational force which built the hellenistic and imperial world, and the barbarians as a force that tore it down, whereas the latter believing that the Levant acted as a decaying factor that led to the "decadency" of the hellenistic and imperial periods respectively compared to the "European" splendour of the previous eras (of course brought into being by the influx of steppe ancestry they'll say).
Another thing they have in common is the
ONLY reliance on G25 results to support their theory, dismissing the existing genetic literature in what is an incredibly anti-intellectualistic stance (which explains, imo, why their historical reconstructions are so ridicolous: you can't have books stand in the way of how to interpret G25 and the sacred Eurogenes blog!)
That isn't what he said right before the paper came out. No doubt that statement is no longer there. So easy to scrub posts on your site if they make you look like a fool.