"Ancient DNA reveals the origins of the Albanians" paper

torzio said:
he seems to be saying that the albanians where also further south than where they are now , but these became Greek speakers over time, in other words, NW Greeks are proto-albanians originally ...................reminds of of old Epirote lands, from the bay of Corinth to Durres western balkans
Click to expand...
Davidski author
really?
Oh god
 
Illogical reasoning. If the North-west BA Greeks were some Balkanic tribe, then what's to say about BA South Greeks being Minoan? Moreover the IE Greek language came from the North. These speakers may have absorbed Balkanic tribes, Minoans and what have you. It's all part of the ethnogenesis of the Greek people.
 
Something that interests me on the graphic is the heat map with the Balkans, and Italy (South-Center).

Look at my top ancient samples from Dodecad K12b. My first is from Trogir, Croatia in the Byzantine era.

[TABLE="class: distances"]
[TR]
[TH="align: right"]Distance to:[/TH]
[TH="align: left"]Jovialis[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #5EFF00, align: right"]2.77221933[/TD]
[TD]HRV_Trogir_Byz:I15744[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #6FFF00, align: right"]3.25777531[/TD]
[TD]C6-Villa_Magna_MA:R54:Antonio_2019[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #70FF00, align: right"]3.28435686[/TD]
[TD]C6-Civitanova_Marche_Imperial_Rome:R835:Antonio_2019[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #71FF00, align: right"]3.31691121[/TD]
[TD]HRV_Trogir_Byz:I15462[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #71FF00, align: right"]3.32683032[/TD]
[TD]C6-Tivoli_Palazzo_Cianti_MA:R973:Antonio_2019[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #73FF00, align: right"]3.39439243[/TD]
[TD]Crusader_Pit:SI53:Haber_2019[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #77FF00, align: right"]3.51115366[/TD]
[TD]C6-S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia_Late_Antiquity:R121:Antonio_2019[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #7CFF00, align: right"]3.64458502[/TD]
[TD]C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_729-942CE:TAQ003[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #7DFF00, align: right"]3.67854591[/TD]
[TD]C6-Tivoli_Palazzo_Cianti_MA:R970:Antonio_2019[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #82FF00, align: right"]3.82032721[/TD]
[TD]HRV_Trogir_Byz:I15463[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #84FF00, align: right"]3.89204317[/TD]
[TD]C6-Villa_Magna_MA:R57:Antonio_2019[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #8AFF00, align: right"]4.07025798[/TD]
[TD]Collegno121:Amorim_2018[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #8BFF00, align: right"]4.09070899[/TD]
[TD]S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN006[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #8DFF00, align: right"]4.15604379[/TD]
[TD]S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN013[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #8FFF00, align: right"]4.19606959[/TD]
[TD]C6-Civitanova_Marche_Imperial_Rome:R836:Antonio_2019[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #92FF00, align: right"]4.29329710[/TD]
[TD]C6-Villa_Magna_MA:R60:Antonio_2019[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #95FF00, align: right"]4.37202470[/TD]
[TD]C6-Centocelle_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R49:Antonio_2019[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #97FF00, align: right"]4.44950559[/TD]
[TD]C6-Villa_Magna_MA:R1290:Antonio_2019[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #A0FF00, align: right"]4.69323982[/TD]
[TD]C6-Tivoli_Palazzo_Cianti_MA:R969:Antonio_2019[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #A9FF00, align: right"]4.95721696[/TD]
[TD]C6-Villa_Magna_MA:R56:Antonio_2019[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #ABFF00, align: right"]5.01646290[/TD]
[TD]C6-Villa_Magna_MA:R64:Antonio_2019[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #ADFF00, align: right"]5.08145648[/TD]
[TD]HRV_Trogir_Byz:I15741[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #ADFF00, align: right"]5.08536134[/TD]
[TD]S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-800CE:VEN001[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #B0FF00, align: right"]5.18197839[/TD]
[TD]Foggia_Apulia_MA:VK537[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #B7FF00, align: right"]5.39290274[/TD]
[TD]S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN015

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
 
For E-V13 the situation might change drastically in various regions like Eastern Hungary, Eastern Slovakia, Romania, Moldova, Northern Serbia, Bulgaria etc. primarily because of cremation being the main practise of the E-V13 cultural formations from the Eastern Urnfield/Daco-Thracian/Eastern Hallstatt sphere.
E.g. the Slovakian E-V13 is merely the byproduct of Eastern Vekerzug from the Sanislau group, which cremated their dead, mixing into the Western Vekerzug groups which primarily used inhumation. Therefore there might have been many more E-V13 carriers around Chotin in the Vekerzug phase and even earlier, but those did cremate the remains. Only those from mixed relationships in which it was decided to NOT cremate the dead body could get tested.
 
Jovialis said:
I see Davidski is an author, if I'm not mistaken. Based on his attitude towards academic papers, why do this? What happed to all that bullshit he says about appealing to authority and other garbage?

Also one of the authors (Davidski) believes modern Greeks are Cypriots mixed with Slavs with little to no connections to the Ancient Greeks.
Click to expand...


Look for information on the main author of this paper, Leonidas-Romanos Davranoglou. You will find that he is not a geneticist, he is a zoologist working with a museum and not a genetics department.

Literally anyone can write a pre-print.

https://oumnh.ox.ac.uk/people/leonidas-romanos-davranoglou
 
Pax Augusta said:
Look for information on the main author of this paper, Leonidas-Romanos Davranoglou. You will find that he is not a geneticist, he is a zoologist working with a museum and not a genetics department.

Literally anyone can write a pre-print.

https://oumnh.ox.ac.uk/people/leonidas-romanos-davranoglou
Click to expand...

Many people working on ancient DNA come from different backgrounds, like mathematicians etc. Basically its more important whether you can handle the most up to date methods and know the context, than having a standardised education, in which you don't learn a lot about the subject anyway...
 
Riverman said:
Many people working on ancient DNA come from different backgrounds, like mathematicians etc. Basically its more important whether you can handle the most up to date methods and know the context, than having a standardised education, in which you don't learn a lot about the subject anyway...
Click to expand...

Actually, this is a huge problem. Many of you follow genetics studies thinking that genetics has a magic wand. But it does not. There is also an almost religious fanaticism towards genetics in the comments here. Because maybe one likes or dislikes the conclusions of a paper.

Believing that it is enough to handle the latest methods and know the context, rather than having a standardised education, is a sign of great naivety. Because it cuts through the disscussion, the conclusions must also be discussed and accepted by scholars of other disciplines. At the heart of pseudoscience is precisely that kind of approach you describe.

The problem is that these subjects are interdisciplinary and involve, willy-nilly, disciplines such as history, anthropology, archaeology, linguistics. If even geneticists who only daily deal with genetics show little knowledge of history, anthropology, archaeology, linguistics, let alone the rest of company who only sometimes deal with genetics.
 
I feel a bit split on the topic. I agree that expertise in the matter is important, especially for subject matter nuances. Not to mention current research papers in anthropology-genetics need diverse teams, covering history, archeology, bio-informatics for them to be well rounded.

So far (still finishing the slow read), I myself found many issues in the paper. The questionable SE threshold being one (accepting some runs that really should fail), but also the maps and sample locations have multiple mistakes, not to speak about many missing samples making some of the maps/infographics wrong. But overall these issues are all fixable. The main thesis is quite in line with what many members have construed following major publications. The paper seems viable, and I suspect after some revisions/versions, it will pass peer-review and be published.

I am curious Pax, what are your main concerns with the paper itself?
 
PaleoRevenge said:
Edit: Never-mind, they are using Himera samples to represent IA Greece.
Click to expand...

yes but out of the 17 who represent IA greece in the chart not all are from himera :
2 are from actual mainland greece ( I17959 , I17962) both from kastrouli ,phokis
and 2 more from empuries 2 (spain) I8208 ,I8205
 
Pax Augusta said:
Actually, this is a huge problem. Many of you follow genetics studies thinking that genetics has a magic wand. But it does not. There is also an almost religious fanaticism towards genetics in the comments here. Because maybe one likes or dislikes the conclusions of a paper.

Believing that it is enough to handle the latest methods and know the context, rather than having a standardised education, is a sign of great naivety. Because it cuts through the disscussion, the conclusions must also be discussed and accepted by scholars of other disciplines. At the heart of pseudoscience is precisely that kind of approach you describe.

The problem is that these subjects are interdisciplinary and involve, willy-nilly, disciplines such as history, anthropology, archaeology, linguistics. If even geneticists who only daily deal with genetics show little knowledge of history, anthropology, archaeology, linguistics, let alone the rest of company who only sometimes deal with genetics.
Click to expand...


The only people who dislike conclusions of many genetic papers are the Nationalistic people and their will to prevent anything that can "hurt" their current nation
 
Pax Augusta said:
Actually, this is a huge problem. Many of you follow genetics studies thinking that genetics has a magic wand. But it does not. There is also an almost religious fanaticism towards genetics in the comments here. Because maybe one likes or dislikes the conclusions of a paper.

Believing that it is enough to handle the latest methods and know the context, rather than having a standardised education, is a sign of great naivety. Because it cuts through the disscussion, the conclusions must also be discussed and accepted by scholars of other disciplines. At the heart of pseudoscience is precisely that kind of approach you describe.

The problem is that these subjects are interdisciplinary and involve, willy-nilly, disciplines such as history, anthropology, archaeology, linguistics. If even geneticists who only daily deal with genetics show little knowledge of history, anthropology, archaeology, linguistics, let alone the rest of company who only sometimes deal with genetics.
Click to expand...

The problem with the other fields is that they are much more prone to ideological distortion. Think about what political Christians, Communists, National Socialists, Liberals and now the Woke-Marxist movements do, they completely distort and re-interpret the factual evidence. Therefore its good to have, especially for some very basic conclusions, fairly straightforward, pretty much unequivocal factual evidence to prove or disprove a given hypothesis.

Like the whole "pots not people" and "migrating ideas" nonsense was so entrenched in post-1960's archaeological circles, that only strong new evidence could prove the correct interpretation, still hold up by the more reasonable and courageous scholars, right.

The latest fashion of in some archaeological institutes doesn't serve us a lot. And it doesn't matter how prestigious a scholar or institution is, if what they tell the people is just utter nonsense. And the great think about the genetic data is, that unless they fake and falsify it, we can just read it. Like if they say there was no migration, but the paternal lineages of a given people got just annihilated and completely replaced by another, of which we new it wasn't there before, they can tell whatever they want, they are just wrong and being proven wrong by the data.

Especially uniparentals are the strongest and clearest evidence available if its about migrations and replacement events. It really doesn't matter what any discipline or ideologist has to say, if he can't accept and properly explain the observable pattern, produced by genetic data, his conclusions are false and worthless.
 
Riverman said:
The problem with the other fields is that they are much more prone to ideological distortion. Think about what political Christians, Communists, National Socialists, Liberals and now the Woke-Marxist movements do, they completely distort and re-interpret the factual evidence. Therefore its good to have, especially for some very basic conclusions, fairly straightforward, pretty much unequivocal factual evidence to prove or disprove a given hypothesis.

Like the whole "pots not people" and "migrating ideas" nonsense was so entrenched in post-1960's archaeological circles, that only strong new evidence could prove the correct interpretation, still hold up by the more reasonable and courageous scholars, right.

The latest fashion of in some archaeological institutes doesn't serve us a lot. And it doesn't matter how prestigious a scholar or institution is, if what they tell the people is just utter nonsense. And the great think about the genetic data is, that unless they fake and falsify it, we can just read it. Like if they say there was no migration, but the paternal lineages of a given people got just annihilated and completely replaced by another, of which we new it wasn't there before, they can tell whatever they want, they are just wrong and being proven wrong by the data.

Especially uniparentals are the strongest and clearest evidence available if its about migrations and replacement events. It really doesn't matter what any discipline or ideologist has to say, if he can't accept and properly explain the observable pattern, produced by genetic data, his conclusions are false and worthless.
Click to expand...


If you think that genetics is the only field free from ideological, nationalistic and political, including the Woke-Marxist movement, conditioning and distortions, you are very naive indeed, and not very knowledgeable on these issues. You show a blind faith in genetics that borders on fanaticism.
 
Pax Augusta said:
If you think that genetics is the only field free from ideological, nationalistic and political, including the Woke-Marxist movement, conditioning and distortions, you are very naive indeed, and not very knowledgeable on these issues. You show a blind faith in genetics that borders on fanaticism.
Click to expand...

Of course not. However, I know how distorted the interpretations and conclusions can be, that's a very obvious thing. I'm talking about actual unambiguous results, like e.g. uniparentals from ancient DNA. Unless they don't manipulate the selection of samples or the results themselves, these stand for themselves.

I have argued with scholars in the past about theories and even though all the data was on my side, I couldn't deliver them the final blow, since they could argue even if all the data is against them: There was still no migration, no replacement, no genocide etc., but just a transfer fo ideas and ethnicity didn't matter to those people of the past. Now their view being completely refuted, whether they aknowledge it or not. And I myself can be sure I was right as well, because even if all the archaeological data is pretty straightforward, you never know it 100 % what's being hidden behind a specific burial and pot before you have tested the remains. That's the beauty of ancient DNA, you might be actually PROVEN right or wrong.

See my theory on E-V13 survival and expansion. I think I have a lot of good arguments for Channelled Ware into Stamped Pottery/Basarabi being the at the core of the movement of people with haplogroup E-V13, but before those groups and others aren't tested, we can't be sure about anything and some alternative theories, as bad as they might look, going by the currently available data, can still be proven right by ancient DNA and I would accept it.

If you let biased scholars INTERPRET data as they wish, and then a biased journalist messes up the interpretation of this biased scholar in a much worse way, of course you can get ideological crap out all the time. But again, especially if its about the origin and migration of people, the actual data, if there is sufficient of it, is pretty much unambiguous, at least if the two people in question (like steppe vs. farmers) are clearly distinct from each other genetically, or if there is high resolution uniparental data available. I'm obviously talking about the data, not what scientists, and even worse journalists, ideologists and politicians, will make out of it.
 
PaleoRevenge said:
Edit: Never-mind, they are using Himera samples to represent IA Greece.
Click to expand...

In that case, one should consider it IA Sicily. Based on that, you could say you can model modern Southern Italians and Sicilians with IA Sicily.
 
PaleoRevenge said:
Edit: Never-mind, they are using Himera samples to represent IA Greece.
Click to expand...

It seems they are using just some samples from the Himera study, the Himera civilians aren't included in the cluster, if I'm not mistaken. I don't know which criteria they used to select the samples.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top