Magna Graecia

[Jovialis]

Albanians are modeled very similar as Tuscans here,

Francis Drake,

do you outright deny that your ancestors were similar to Tuscans/Southern Italians, until they were augmented by the Slavs? It is okay to disagree.

 

[Jovialis]

Honestly I don't think they were south Italian like, here are my G25, Imperial roman only shows up in 5-population admixture, not changing much. View attachment 12967View attachment 12968

Albanians would naturally have less imperial admix than italians, I myself am eastern-plotting compared to Excine, Dibran, Kelmendasi, and Hawk. They score no imperial roman on my admixture runs.View attachment 12969

Also, a huge issue with this modeling is that you are taking samples from different eras, some of which overlap. It is not the way I would have done it.

Nevertheless,

Occam's Razor... How do you apply it to samples we do not even have for the South? Sorry to say it, but your argument to use Occam's razor with no evidence is somewhat odd to me. Especially when I have already confirmed to you there is more nuance to the scenario. Furthermore, the fact that you are using non-scientific terminology isn't making me feel confident about your assessment. No matter, we are all here to learn.

 

[Jovialis]

Being Mediterranean is a genetic reality:

Together with Minoans and Roman Republicans, this component can be broadly modelled as a Pan-Mediterranean population (constituted by AN and IN/CHG components) with the addition of WHG and Steppe-related ancestry in Roman Republicans

The genetic origin of Daunians and the Pan-Mediterranean southern Italian Iron Age context | bioRxiv

These are no phantoms, not in the opera, and not in what I am discussing here. As supported by yet another paper, on the Daunians.

Just like being Slavic, or Nordic is a genetic reality.

Modern Albanians, and other Balkanites are on the cline between Mediterranean and Slavic (and some Germanic I am told by people here).

 

[Salento]

Edit … deleted

 

[Jovialis]

@Francis Drake, let me reiterate,

R1 is eastern shifted already, so there were Northern Italian-like people similar to Vento already in the early Iron Age.

Also, why do we need imperial to shift southern Italians east, when we already have a two-way modeling with Slovenian_IA + Aegean_IA that plots them right on top of modern Southern Italians? Again, you would have found Slovenian_IA like people in Italy, if you consider the existence of R1.

 

[Blablabla]

Being Mediterranean is a genetic reality:



These are no phantoms, not in the opera, and not in what I am discussing here. As supported by yet another paper, on the Daunians.

Just like being Slavic, or Nordic is a genetic reality.

Modern Albanians, and other Balkanites are on the cline between Mediterranean and Slavic (and some Germanic I am told by people here).

Who is the "Slavic" profile here?
And when you say Slavic, you must to be 100 % sure that he is the source of the language, and not some Turk, Finno-Ugric, Baltic...who is Slavicized, because today the term refers only to a language family.

 

[Jovialis]

Who is the "Slavic" profile here?
And when you say Slavic, you must to be 100 % sure that he is the source of the language, and not some Turk, Finno-Ugric, Baltic...who is Slavicized, because today the term refers only to a language family.

Whatever you want to call it, there was a significant shift represented by the Kuline cluster in the Balkans, during the middle ages; using that model.

I know some people disapprove this model, because they feel it should be more nuanced. Who knows how this analysis will change overtime.

I'm not going to go as far and claim people are "offend".

However, I don't care if people are offended, if they are, they shouldn't be involved in the study of ethnic analysis using aDNA.

 

[Jovialis]

What is your argumentation for why its from these phantom populations rather than the heavily documented and sampled imperial roman migrants? Where are these Iron-Age southern italians who plot like this then (prenistini outlier plots west of south italians)? This isn't even accounting for the (albeit mild) Germanic/Norman input (shown by haplogroups). One also has the content with the fact that certain E and J subclades in South-Italy are certaintly not from the neolithic/chalcolithic, but appear from Imperial migrations. Occams Razor applies here IMO.

I am sure there was some Imperial immigrants that are in my ancestry. In fact, I am sure they are in the ancestry of most people that are from former-Roman dominions. However, what I question is the degree of the impact. Especially considering, the EBA CHG pulse.

 

[Blablabla]

Whatever you want to call it, there was a significant shift represented by the Kuline cluster in the Balkans, during the middle ages; using that model.

I know some people disapprove this model, because they feel it should be more nuanced. Who knows how this analysis will change overtime.

I'm not going to go as far and claim people are "offend".

However, I don't care if people are offended, if they are, they shouldn't be involved in the study of ethnic analysis using aDNA.

This “shift” can not be connected to any even minimal language change at the Balkans. In this case, your profile for the Slavs is unproven, as well as according to the scientific community, especially the linguistic one.
I can only feel offended by a lie, the truth doesn't bother me.

 

[Jovialis]

This “shift” can not be connected to any even minimal language change at the Balkans. In this case, your profile for the Slavs is unproven, as well as according to the scientific community, especially the linguistic one.
I can only feel offended by a lie, the truth doesn't bother me.

This is not my profile, or analysis; I didn't think of it.

You should write the authors of Olalde et al. 2021, if you have points you want to make about their analysis. They are usually good at getting back to people.

 

[Jovialis]

This is pure speculation on my part, but I think these may represent R1, R437, and R850:

 

[Jovialis]

R1 people imo could represent steppe like people that went to Italy, and didn't mix with copper age central Italians who had a WHG resurgence, like the ancestors of Etruscans and Latins.

 

[Blablabla]

This is not my profile, or analysis; I didn't think of it.

You should write the authors of Olalde et al. 2021, if you have points you want to make about their analysis. They are usually good at getting back to people.

And you should write to the authors of that paper below, and don’t get me wrong but I am very confident in what I know and write including that science is used for politics very often. So here at that paper
a combinatorial approach is used where information from history, linguistics and genetics complement each other.

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/11/12/1491/htm

You can't change reality with ridiculous papers that come out wrong in advance and set inadequate conclusions without the support of linguistics and history. Genetics in itself proves nothing, because Slavic is spoken by Asians and Turks today ... unless we want to make the Finns the first Slavs where it went according to some "scientists" then I think the direction is just absurd as the toilet paper / papers with which
they think they will distort the truth.

 

[Blablabla]

…even if all the history books are burned, the language remains, and it is sufficient proof, and it does not support your theories, but the reality which corresponds with my knowledge.

 

[Archetype0ne]

Some things just don't change huh Jovialis... Wonder if you wrote to the Max Plank institute?

Selectively picking angles and claiming your point is uncontested yet again. Olade, I wonder if they had a graphic where Albanians and Greeks legit overlaped Balkan IA? Why not pick that one to make a point? Ah no Slovenia IA... as if that has anything to do with any of these points anyways.
I wonder if you know the difference on a PCA between an Albanian and a Romanian cluster...
If as you claim Kuline was the proxy, why was Kuline not used but Mordovian and Russian?

There is more to this than one can say about it. At least at this very moment. But lets not act so hypocritical depending on the point we are arguing and on the thread.

I stand by our Bulgarian user, despite not understanding all the nuance he is using, it is not as simple as people would hope it is.

 

[Angela]

Who is the "Slavic" profile here?
And when you say Slavic, you must to be 100 % sure that he is the source of the language, and not some Turk, Finno-Ugric, Baltic...who is Slavicized, because today the term refers only to a language family.

Language is not an appropriate barometer for genetic signature. That is a principle of modern genetics which it would behoove all newcomers to learn.

Look at the Etruscans and the Latins. They are very similar genetically and yet they speak wildly different languages. Or look at the Basques. Once again, you have people who are a mix of Anatolian farmer and steppe who don't speak an Indo-European language. Then there are Hungarians, who speak a language from Central Asia, the language of their conquerors, and yet there's virtually no Central Asian in them.

They too had built up a mythology based on their language, seeing themselves as descendants of the Magyars, and yet it was all disproven by dna. I don't see them crying about it, at least not here.

As for Francis Drake's implication that there were no Slavic speaking people in the far north, he's completely wrong. You don't need to do any heavy duty research in Journals to learn that. Heck, even a rudimentary knowledge of the tree of Indo-European languages would tell you that. The predecessor of the Slavic languages isn't called Balto-Slavic for nothing. Even a Wiki free of the usual tinkering would have told you that.

"The Novgorod Slavs, Slovenes or Ilmen Slavs (Russian: Ильменские слове́не, Il'menskiye slovene) were the northernmost tribe of the Early East Slavs, which inhabited the shores of Lake Ilmen and the basin of the rivers of Volkhov, Lovat, Msta, and the upper stream of the Mologa River in the 8th to 10th centuries. The Slovenes were native to the region around Novgorod.^[1] There is a belief among researchers that Novgorod is one of the regions that are the original home / Urheimat of Russians and Slavic tribes.^[2]Like all Eastern Slavs in Russian lands or in today's Russia the Ilmen Slavs had own characteristics. Ancestors of the Ilmen Slavs who settled in Finnic areas were coming from the Severians and the Polabian Slavs as evident by language and traditions (see old Novgorod dialect and Gostomysl for examples). They settled mostly Finnic areas in Northern Russia, moving along the major waterways, until they met the southward expansion of the Krivich in the modern-day Yaroslavl Oblast.^{[3] "}

So, to reiterate, the authors of the paper on the Danubian Limes were NOT, repeat NOT saying that the urheimat of the Slavic peoples was on the shores of the Gulf of Finland. Slavic tribes did, however, move to those far northern areas. Nor did they say it was precisely those Slavic tribes which migrated south to settle in the Balkans. In the absence of a more proximate source which provided a reasonable fit, they chose people from those areas because they would be the most free of non-Slavic ancestry picked up en route to the Balkans. These papers have to be read carefully, including the Supplement. Of course one can disagree with their methodology or conclusions; I do it all the time. FIRST, however, you have to understand precisely what they're SAYING.

Now, people may well want to wait for a more proximate source in both space and time for the modeling of the impact of the "Slavs" or, more precisely perhaps, Slavic speakers, on the Balkans. That's fine. However, don't go making claims that the people they used to measure Slavic input are Finns. That's just blatantly false.

I really don't understand if the problem here is lack of understanding of the English language, or just lack of reading comprehension in general. Either way, if this material is too difficult for some people to understand, you'd think they'd have the self awareness to refrain from posting and demonstrating that to the whole world. Well, that was hyperbolic. Let's say they should have the self awareness to refrain from showing their inability to understand scientific papers to the entire internet pop gen community.

 

[D.L.M]

This is pure speculation on my part, but I think these may represent R1, R437, and R850:

One colony in Apulia was formed by Spartans (Taras), if we only had 2 or 3 samples. It would end so many discussions.

 

[Jovialis]

Some things just don't change huh Jovialis...

Yeah, facts!

 

[Jovialis]

One colony in Apulia was formed by Spartans (Taras), if we only had 2 or 3 samples. It would end so many discussions.

I wish a study on this colony could be made. But also the people who lived there before them.

 

[Jovialis]

Some things just don't change huh Jovialis... Wonder if you wrote to the Max Plank institute?

Selectively picking angles and claiming your point is uncontested yet again. Olade, I wonder if they had a graphic where Albanians and Greeks legit overlaped Balkan IA? Why not pick that one to make a point? Ah no Slovenia IA... as if that has anything to do with any of these points anyways.
I wonder if you know the difference on a PCA between an Albanian and a Romanian cluster...
If as you claim Kuline was the proxy, why was Kuline not used but Mordovian and Russian?

There is more to this than one can say about it. At least at this very moment. But lets not act so hypocritical depending on the point we are arguing and on the thread.

I stand by our Bulgarian user, despite not understanding all the nuance he is using, it is not as simple as people would hope it is.

I am not being a polemic in my views, I am citing studies that support my arguments. Naturally, people will disagree with other studies, as you do with Olalde et al. 2021. That's your opinion.