The genetic history of the Southern Arc-Lazaridis et al

i was taught the origin of the swastika was in Central Asia and western China ..............when I was doing my chinese studies in school ( many moons ago)
the swastika was not on an angle IIRC

How old are they? Lakh Mazar Swastikas in Iran date back to at least 7,000 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakh_Mazar

800px-Lakhmazar.jpg
 
In the national museum of Albania there is a stone with a swastica and if I remember correctly, chronologically was dated before the late bronze age.
 
Well, I guess you should come around more often.

Plus, of course ancient Cypriots, before getting a big dose of CHG, would be EEF like. What else would they be?
 
Well, I guess you should come around more often.

Plus, of course ancient Cypriots, before getting a big dose of CHG, would be EEF like. What else would they be?

Can you talk to me via PM again last time i tried your message box was full again and Maciamo
doesn't seem to be active currently.

Sorry for interrupting
 
Well, I guess you should come around more often.

Plus, of course ancient Cypriots, before getting a big dose of CHG, would be EEF like. What else would they be?

I thoght that they woud've been more Levantine like, considering the short distance between Cyprus and Syria. And in the Chalcolithic I would've expected them to have some noticeable CHG/Iran N admixture.
 
(Genei) AI-generated definition examining multiple studies:

Anatolian Bronze Age


The Anatolian Bronze Age spans from the end of the Neolithic period to the beginning of the Bronze Age, and during this time, populations in Anatolia had gradually decreased in genetic diversity. However, certain regions of Anatolia (the East, Southeast, and Black Sea) continued to have more Caucasus-related ancestry than previous Neolithic populations. This suggests that a spread of Indo-European languages across Anatolia may have occurred after the Neolithic.

References

Lazaridis et al. 2022
Section 6, paragraphs [2], [3]
Section 8, paragraphs [1], [3]
Mathieson et al. 2018
Section 10, paragraph [1]
Agranat-Tamir et al. 2020
Section 1, paragraph [3]
Section 7, paragraph [3]
Lazaridis et al. 2022
Section 3, paragraph [15]
Guarino-Vignon et al. 2023
Section 2, paragraph [2]
Mathieson et al. 2015
Section 1, paragraph [4]
 
Where did you get these results from?
 
Where did you get these results from?

That was an AI software called genei, that had examine multiple papers for that summary. ChatGPT plus can do the same thing now, but it constantly gets bogged down and doesn't work right. The Genei software also made some dumb mistakes due to "hallucinations", and I stopped using it because it's over $300 annually.
 
I don’t think that Greek and Albanians arrived in the Balkans at the same time. The one that branched later from Armenian is the late arrival. In this case would be Greeks. As for who get more new recent immigrant or invaders become “younger” and who has less remains “older” is something that makes no sense to me. The arrival of a certain people in a certain place that speak a certain language doesn’t depends from who them absorb subsequently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What kind of nonsical reasoning is that? If one language had branched off from Armenian, it wouldn't imply that the other language was not part of a wider family of now extinct idioms that could have branched off and morphed to an independent entity centuries later.

As for what language did in fact branch off of this family, that'd most probably be Albanian which according to Matzinger was part of the half-satemised (central) paleo-Balkan group together with Proto-Armenian and Proto-Messapic. This branch was the last to settle in the Balkans, before Armenians migrated to Anatolia and Messapians to Italy. The most probable linguistic family Greek was part of is Graeco-Phrygian.

As for being "younger" or "older", the focus should be placed on ethnogenesis. Ethnic groups are ethnolinguistic entities and not genetic. Even the source pops used to compute ancient ancestries in modern people is that of ethnic groups bound and formed not by genetics but ethnolinguistics.

And the Albanian ethnogenesis dates to around the 6th century AD...
 
What kind of nonsical reasoning is that? If one language had branched off from Armenian, it wouldn't imply that the other language was not part of a wider family of now extinct idioms that could have branched off and morphed to an independent entity centuries later.

As for what language did in fact branch off of this family, that'd most probably be Albanian which according to Matzinger was part of the half-satemised (central) paleo-Balkan group together with Proto-Armenian and Proto-Messapic. This branch was the last to settle in the Balkans, before Armenians migrated to Anatolia and Messapians to Italy. The most probable linguistic family Greek was part of is Graeco-Phrygian.

As for being "younger" or "older", the focus should be placed on ethnogenesis. Ethnic groups are ethnolinguistic entities and not genetic. Even the source pops used to compute ancient ancestries in modern people is that of ethnic groups bound and formed not by genetics but ethnolinguistics.

And the Albanian ethnogenesis dates to around the 6th century AD...
Obviously, you need to read a lot more starting from the Arch paper. Or at least try to understand the figures.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_6315.jpeg
    IMG_6315.jpeg
    1.3 MB · Views: 90

This thread has been viewed 78238 times.

Back
Top