The genetic origin of Daunians

Dienekes and Davidski both have their own biases. But Davidski's biases are still more down to earth compared to Dienekes.

Please explain.

All biases are wrong from the scientific standpoint.

We want to KNOW the truth not FEEL it.:unsure:
 
Please explain.

All biases are wrong from the scientific standpoint.

We want to KNOW the truth not FEEL it.:unsure:

I am saying that some of Davidski's theories that turned to be wrong or that will be proven to be wrong are still less deranged than those of Dienekes.
 
Dienekes and Davidski both have their own biases. But Davidski's biases are still more down to earth compared to Dienekes.

If you look at his most recent blog entry, he goes against academic consensus.

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/11/when-it-seems-like-whole-world-has-gone.html

To me, academic consensus is paramount.

One guy with a tool he made, vs dozens of geneticists with multiple professional tools. It is not hard to see who is correct here.

People have a right to believe what they want. Nevertheless, I personally don't about care what some guy on the internet says.
 
The good thing with this much larger corpus of samples is that they can be evaluated against each other. Like obvious outliers, either because they are admixed, from ethnic minorities, or some fringe regions, stick out, the more data you have. So everybody is free to "purify" the data and check which difference it makes. Most of the time, the difference is not that big or significant at all.
For Italians in particular its easy to form various smooth gradients which make perfect sense, so whatever people don't like about it, its a minor issue. Instead, you should consider yourself lucky because Italians being one of the best sampled people of all!
Just for comparison, for German speaking people there are only a few non-definitive regional groupings, a lot of outliers and lack of sampling for many regions and ethnolinguistic units. I would be very happy having as much good data, sort by ethnic groups and provinces, like the Italians got it. But I guess the more one gets, the more nitpicking.
I do understand that the samples and method might be not perfect, but its excellent nevertheless and everybody can prove that to him- or herself by using it against known groups and variation. There is nothing which sticks out as being deliberately manipulated with bad intention.
And if there are no official samples, we should be lucky having at least those gathered by amateurs. If they would be completely off, this would show up. And if there are new scientific samples, they won't be held back because of some sort of conspiracy.

I don't think that is true about being the best sampled, certainly not true for aDNA. Maybe Italian-Americans are very well sampled, but they mostly come from Sicily and Naples, or a random combo of different southern regions. From what I've seen British people are the best sampled.
 
The Dodecad updated Italian samples come from the Apricity members, I believe.

The "original" Updated Dodecad comes from the Nordicist guy. All of the subsequent updates, including other ethnicities come from samples collected by Apricity members. I believe they may have even contributed a few aDNA samples at this point.
 
If you look at his most recent blog entry, he goes against academic consensus.

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/11/when-it-seems-like-whole-world-has-gone.html

To me, academic consensus is paramount.

One guy with a tool he made, vs dozens of geneticists with multiple professional tools. It is not hard to see who is correct here.

People have a right to believe what they want. Nevertheless, I personally don't about care what some guy on the internet says.

Who knows, he could even be right about somethings, perhaps. I could be wrong in my speculation, and disagreements with his analysis. When I am wrong, I will graciously admit that I am wrong. Not blame the world for not accepting my point of view. But until I see the academic community accept it, it is all speculation.
 
On the other hand 009 looks like a "pure Northern Illyrian", he is fully in the J2b cluster from the British paper also and his distance to 0.02874863 HRV_MBA speaks for itself. That's a good match. HRV CA and EBA is a much worse match, because they received additional Bell Beaker ancestry through the Middle Danubian Tumulus Culture expansion. The superficial similarity to some French and Italians is primarily due to this Bell Beaker : Mediterranean Neolithic mixture.

Well, i don't know if you are aware but Middle Danubian Tumulus Culture didn't exist on pure form how you propose, the Tumulus/HugelgraberKultur major expansion was in Middle Bronze Age, MBA from Bavaria to Carpathian Mountains initially. From there they expanded on mixed forms, with some Gava elements, with some Encrusted Pottery Culture elements on the west of Carpathians/Middle Danube Valley, and sometimes the three cultures could be found merged into and living among each other in the Danube valley.

Tumulus/Hugelgraberkultur totally post-dates HRVA CA(Assuming it's Chalcolithic) and EBA. So, the chronology you propose is not possible at all. pre MBA Western Balkanites were Yamnaya derived and probably spoke some kind of Yamnaya language, if Illyrian was Yamnaya derived or CWC that's different matter which i have no idea so far.
 
If you look at his most recent blog entry, he goes against academic consensus.

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/11/when-it-seems-like-whole-world-has-gone.html

To me, academic consensus is paramount.

One guy with a tool he made, vs dozens of geneticists with multiple professional tools. It is not hard to see who is correct here.

People have a right to believe what they want. Nevertheless, I personally don't about care what some guy on the internet says.

My point was that Dienekes is no better or at most even worse than him.

About the link:

I wanted to ask him why doesn't he criticise and "correct" the paper in detailed sense so we can see his point. But I don't think it is my place to do that.
I am not a pre-history population genetics follower either way.
 
Well, i don't know if you are aware but Middle Danubian Tumulus Culture didn't exist on pure form how you propose, the Tumulus/HugelgraberKultur major expansion was in Middle Bronze Age, MBA from Bavaria to Carpathian Mountains initially. From there they expanded on mixed forms, with some Gava elements, with some Encrusted Pottery Culture elements on the west of Carpathians/Middle Danube Valley, and sometimes the three cultures could be found merged into and living among each other in the Danube valley.

Tumulus/Hugelgraberkultur totally post-dates HRVA CA(Assuming it's Chalcolithic) and EBA. So, the chronology you propose is not possible at all. pre MBA Western Balkanites were Yamnaya derived and probably spoke some kind of Yamnaya language, if Illyrian was Yamnaya derived or CWC that's different matter which i have no idea so far.


I think that's just a misunderstanding, because I don't know what you think I said? I just said that the earlier population was different and indeed more Neolithic and Yamnaya respectively. On top of those came the Tumulus Culture people, which fused with some locals, and replaced most others. The pre-Kyjatice and pre-G?va people were pushed Eastward, like F?zesabony. They were a Epi-Corded local Neolithic mix, with increased WHG and became concentrated along the Tisza, but especially in the triangle of Romania-Slovakia-Hungary. From there the Channelled Ware and important impulses emerged, when they became half-way integrated into the Tumulus culture horizon. However, they remained people apart!
That's very important: The Illyrian side was completely overwhelmed and largely replaced by TC, but the presumably Daco-Thracian side remained independent with Kyjatice-G?va. They only adopted some cultural elements from the TC with little admixture if any. That's a major difference and the main reason why they had very different paternal make up most likely.
 
Daunian_IA:ORD009_517BC_Quality=70.05%,0.121791,0.156392,0.028284,-0.017765,0.034776,-0.003904,0.00799,-0.014076,0.011862,0.028976,0.000812,0.005845,-0.011893,-0.004542,-0.005293,0.006364,0.024512,-0.003801,-0.000126,-0.003877,0.002995,0.007048,0.002588,0.00482,-0.005029
Daunian_IA:ORD006_633BC_Quality=13.78%,0.125205,0.155376,0.035449,-0.008075,0.047701,-0.025937,0,-0.001154,0.01084,0.05704,0.00682,0.01079,-0.014271,-0.006744,-0.002443,0.022673,0.023991,-0.00266,-0.003771,0.006253,0.003244,-0.016322,-0.005793,0.012893,-0.011496
Daunian_IA:SAL003_374BC_Quality=12.56%,0.119514,0.170609,0.002263,-0.047158,0.035083,-0.012271,-0.008695,0.020999,0.027202,0.040456,-0.017863,0.013638,-0.040436,-0.007019,-0.0076,-0.015248,-0.002217,-0.013556,0.005782,-0.014132,0.005989,0.015951,0.008874,0.000602,0.008502
Daunian_IA:ORD014_525BC_Quality=12.32%,0.134311,0.151314,0.031301,-0.020672,0.029236,0.019801,0.00282,-0.003692,0.036201,0.041368,0.00747,-0.002847,-0.00996,-0.003028,-0.022122,-0.009679,-0.019427,0.011782,-0.003017,0.014132,-0.006489,0.016569,0.015529,-0.00494,-0.004431
Daunian_IA:SGR002_571BC_Quality=11.42%,0.133173,0.165531,0.042238,-0.015504,0.034776,-0.008925,0.00987,-0.007384,-0.000409,0.04319,-0.015265,0.014537,-0.013082,-0.012248,-0.002986,0.020817,0.018123,-0.00228,-0.018226,-0.002126,0.008859,0.016446,-0.016762,0.010483,0.006227
Daunian_IA:ORD011_637BC_Quality=10.15%,0.136588,0.170609,0.017725,-0.026809,0.053856,-0.021196,0.022326,0.005769,0.02168,0.060867,-0.016726,0.027426,-0.017245,-0.01156,-0.029858,0.001458,-0.004824,-0.003801,0.017346,0.015758,-0.007487,-0.007666,0.022554,-0.010363,-0.018441
Daunian_MA:ORD010_1088AD_Quality=66.86%,0.099026,0.157407,-0.013199,-0.062339,0.016618,-0.026774,-0.0047,-0.015461,0.006954,0.020775,0.004709,-0.007643,-0.004757,-0.004129,-0.015336,-0.002387,0.012126,-0.004941,0.006159,0.002876,0.004742,0.001731,-0.005053,0.011447,-0.003592




Daunian ORD009
EEF.....61.6
CHG....15.2
ANE....12.8
WHG....9
IRAN ....0
Middle east ....1.4
 
Eurogenes was being discussed. Dodecad K12 is a completely different thing.



Some academic samples from Northeastern Italy, from Raveane 2019, end up among the Croatians and Hungarians. But of course, academic samples are always very accurate. Are we sure that it is the amateurs who turn some Italians into Nordics? You should avoid to drag the discussion onto a personal level. For me it's not a research about my ancestry or myself, let alone my identity, I'm not blinded by a research about myself unlike many others. Accuracy is all that ever matters to me. Those who really know me know this.

You are free to believe what you want but time has shown that Cavalli Sforza was wrong about many things, and you seem to forget that Alberto Piazza was Cavalli Sforza's main collaborator.

Yes, well, some Northeastern Italians have a lot of Croatian admixture, just like some Italians from the far northern parts of the Veneto and Lombardia have some Germanic in them.

That's what happens when you take some random samples from an area and don't pre-screen them to show the results you THINK they should show.

Alberto Piazza is Alberto Piazza and Cavalli Sforza is Cavalli Sforza. Let's let each man answer for his own individual work and not conflate it with work they did together decades ago.
 
I think that's just a misunderstanding, because I don't know what you think I said? I just said that the earlier population was different and indeed more Neolithic and Yamnaya respectively. On top of those came the Tumulus Culture people, which fused with some locals, and replaced most others. The pre-Kyjatice and pre-G�va people were pushed Eastward, like F�zesabony. They were a Epi-Corded local Neolithic mix, with increased WHG and became concentrated along the Tisza, but especially in the triangle of Romania-Slovakia-Hungary. From there the Channelled Ware and important impulses emerged, when they became half-way integrated into the Tumulus culture horizon. However, they remained people apart!
That's very important: The Illyrian side was completely overwhelmed and largely replaced by TC, but the presumably Daco-Thracian side remained independent with Kyjatice-G�va. They only adopted some cultural elements from the TC with little admixture if any. That's a major difference and the main reason why they had very different paternal make up most likely.

HRV CA and EBA is a much worse match, because they received additional Bell Beaker ancestry through the Middle Danubian Tumulus Culture expansion.

Well, i tend to disagree here, because Tumulus expansion happened in MBA and strictly initially in Carpathian mountains and surroundings while the HRC CA and EBA predate Tumulus.
 
Yes, well, some Northeastern Italians have a lot of Croatian admixture, just like some Italians from the far northern parts of the Veneto and Lombardia have some Germanic in them.

Only recent Slavic or Germanic admixture can move them to that position. If they have recent Croatian or Slovenian admixture they can't be more considered fully Northern Italian.

Completely different thing is Germanic or Slavic medieval admixture.

Just a couple of examples

H1o4hkH.png


4xalORo.png
 
Please explain.

All biases are wrong from the scientific standpoint.

We want to KNOW the truth not FEEL it.:unsure:

I've never yet heard from an Albanian who didn't think Dienekes was biased, and the reason is that they hate his analyses of Balkan genetics, particularly Greek and Albanian genetics.

Meanwhile, I, who have no stake in the matter and doesn't give a damn about Balkan genetics, can't think of one major thing about which he was wrong, and I followed him from his first posts, and was part of his sample set.

Eurogenes, on the other hand, has been wrong so many times that as I've often said I could fill the phone book of a small city with his incorrect predictions. The only times he's right is when his buddy tells him about the contents of upcoming papers. Anyone interested can find his exchanges with me on this site and see for yourselves how he can't even read a paper properly and relate what it shows or doesn't show; he just jumps to his pre-determined conclusions.

As for "calculators", for people who haven't been around long enough, Dienekes "invented" them. Eurogenes is like a line engineer using someone else's algorithms and programs without, of course, acknowledging his debt.

That's not to mention that Eurogenes is an out and out racist propagandist convicted out of his own mouth and someone captured on discussions with his Russian buddy trying to figure out how to manipulate the sample selection to get the desired result. For crying out loud, on PCAs he used to routinely include close relatives of "his" samples.

OK, I remember something Dienekes was wrong about: some y dna predictions, like for Oetzi. I was wrong too.
 
I've never yet heard from an Albanian who didn't think Dienekes was biased, and the reason is that they hate his analyses of Balkan genetics, particularly Greek and Albanian genetics.

Meanwhile, I, for have no stake in the matter, can't think of one major thing about which he was wrong, and I followed him from his first posts, and was part of his sample set.

Eurogenes, on the other hand, has been wrong so many times that as I've often said I could fill the phone book of a small city with his incorrect predictions. The only times he's right is when his buddy tells him about the contents of upcoming papers. Anyone interested can find his exchanges with me on this site and see for yourselves how he can't even read a paper properly and relate what it shows or doesn't show; he just jumps to his pre-determined conclusions.

As for "calculators", for people who haven't been around long enough, Dienekes "invented" them. Eurogenes is like a line engineer using someone else's algorithms and programs without, of course, acknowledging his debt.

That's not to mention that Eurogenes is an out and out racist propagandist convicted out of his own mouth and someone captured on discussions with his Russian buddy trying to figure out how to manipulate the sample selection to get the desired result. For crying out loud, on PCAs he used to routinely include close relatives of "his" samples.

OK, I remember something he was wrong about: some y dna predictions, like for Oetzi.

Dienekes claimed that E-V13 in Mediterranean is essentially of Greek origin. And that E-V13 and J2 (not just J2a) in Albanians are also of Ancient Greek origin. That Turks are to a large part Ancient Greeks. That is very ironic coming from a Pontic Greek who barely has Ancient Greek ancestry himself. He should know better as a Pontic Greek. This for starters completely knocks him out for me. It's done for me.

Davidski does not have this type of "bias".

Can name something similar about Davidski?

I am not really a follower of pre-history genetics or where Davidski disagreed but I do know that Davidski has a very long lists what Dienekes has been wrong about.

Many eminent writers (including highly respected not just Davidski) in genetics don't take him seriously and he has a very bad reputation in internet. Davidski has only a bad reputation here.


Do you have any proof about Davidski and his Russian buddy? Some may like Dienekes because he stroke their ego.
 
Only recent Slavic or Germanic admixture can move them to that position. If they have recent Croatian or Slovenian admixture they can't be more considered fully Northern Italian.

Completely different thing is Germanic or Slavic medieval admixture.

Northern Italians have been living cheek by jowl with Croatians since the days of the Venetian Republic. How the heck do you know when the admixture happened?

My first cousin in law has a Slavic last name and his family has been in the Veneto since the Middle Ages. They were Venetian traders with long standing contacts with Dalmatia and Byzantium. Their "family" first names, one of which he gave to his unfortunate son, include names like Archimedi.

The point is that when you do a random "pick", as you HAVE to do for a scientific analysis, you're going to pick up people who might be a minority. When you have a LOT of samples from a certain area you can perhaps weed out the "outliers".

It is NOT something which one can do based on one's own results or a "hunch" as to what the people should look like, or one's preference.

For example, what is one to make of the comment above that posters at anthrogenica think the Peloponnesian samples are too "southern". Leaving aside the fact that so many of the amateur enthusiasts in this discipline are Nordicists even if they come from the southernmost parts of Europe, and are keen to make their "people" more "Northern", what is to be made of an observation like that? What SCIENTIFIC analysis is it based on?

Only when there are a LOT of randomly chosen samples from all parts of a designated area am I going to be persuaded by comments like that.
 
Dienekes claimed that E-V13 in Mediterranean is essentially of Greek origin. And that E-V13 and J2 (not just J2a) in Albanians are also of Ancient Greek origin. That Turks are to a large part Ancient Greeks. That is very ironic coming from a Pontic Greek who barely has Ancient Greek ancestry himself. He should know better as a Pontic Greek. This for starters completely knocks him out for me. It's done for me.

Davidski does not have this type of "bias".

Can name something similar about Davidski?

I am not really a follower of pre-history genetics or where Davidski disagreed but I do know that Davidski has a very long lists what Dienekes has been wrong about.

Many eminent writers (including highly respected not just Davidski) in genetics don't take him seriously and he has a very bad reputation in internet. Davidski has only a bad reputation here.


Do you have any proof about Davidski and his Russian buddy? Some may like Dienekes because he stroke their ego.

Who gives a damn what people ignorant "of pre-history genetics" think of the issue? I certainly don't.

There ARE no eminent academicians, who are the only writers with whom you should be concerned, who have expressed an opinion on the matter.

I have proof Davidski is a racist, I have proof he deliberately discussed changing samples to get certain results, and I have listed elsewhere a dozen or more MAJOR mistakes he has made, the one closest to the only genetics issues that matter to you that Mycenaeans would turn out to be blonde, blue eyed people almost identical to Corded Ware. See, they teleported over all the area in between.

Go find them.

Also, do not expect any responses from me in the future; you are on permanent ignore.
 
If Davidski said Mycenaeans will turn out to be blonde and almost identical to Corded Ware, than I guess he did not say it in his blog or maybe he deleted it. Because it's not there.
 
Last edited:
Northern Italians have been living cheek by jowl with Croatians since the days of the Venetian Republic. How the heck do you know when the admixture happened?

My first cousin in law has a Slavic last name and his family has been in the Veneto since the Middle Ages. They were Venetian traders with long standing contacts with Dalmatia and Byzantium. Their "family" first names, one of which he gave to his unfortunate son, include names like Archimedi.


They are very far from average Venetians, and they look very much like the Germanic or Slavic-speaking linguistic minorities of the Alps (Timau, Sappada, Cimbrians...).

If it's not recent admxiture, then they are most likely samples from the Germanic (or Slavic language) minorities of the northeastern Alps but labelled as generic northeastern Italians.

8HsTgMf.png


1hRhL0C.png
 

This thread has been viewed 154178 times.

Back
Top