Recent content by arxaiogenetiki.blogspot

probably not, Illyrians had around 40% yamnaya-like and little to no chg/iran

Both Logkas samples actually seem to have a bit of Minoan/Cycladic-like ancestry. Both have CHG/Iran iirc. From Clemente's paper

Not that big of a revelation imo, Lazaridis 2017 showed Albanians (as well as Bulgarians to a lesser extent) pretty close to Mycenaean samples, on par with some Italians basically, only second to Italians and Greeks. Same for Minoan samples (but with larger distances for all).

Yeah Iron Age sees a 30-50% Mycenaean-like influx iirc, at least on some parts. Not sure if it's older or happened during IA.

Such a close (relatively) genetic distance for Bulgarians is unexpected and could indicate that our assumptions about them having significant Slavic ancestry (I refer to "pure", proto-Slavic and not the later Slavic speakers heavily admixed with Balkan-like & other populations) are incorrect...

There won't be anything new on Greece (besides preprints at most) as long as there's still a lot of things that remain unmapped in terms of population sources during the BA. Because otherwise if a paper is published and runs a few models with proxies, and then it turns out different proxies were...

EDIT: I see your point, but this is what I wrote: "In fact it's Balkanic with Greek, Armenian, Albanian, Phrygian, Thracian etc". A.k.a. "in fact Greco-Armenian doesn't exist". A connection between Greek and Armenian is confirmed, but on a broader language family level (Balkanic). I didn't mean...

EDIT: Yes, I completely agree. The proto-Greek language is unrelated to the BB-related/CWC-related geneflow found in the Balkans and Greece. You didn't understand what I said. There are two or three papers on this (actually could be be four, Ringbauer's IBD paper also includes it) but this...

That's not even oversimplification but outright incorrect. There's a Mycenaean-like "foundation" so to speak, then IA Anatolian-like influence in some areas, then Balkan influence (proto-slav ancestry % in them is unknown, but from what we see it's lower than expected), then there are various...

Ha I remember the Southern Arc papers, they did include different models in the supplementals and with better qpAdm fits. 100% chance they have run several rotating models but don't want to alienate Anthony yet, gotta have him on board for the citations and promotion. Anthony is the cash cow...

Greco-Armenian is confirmed by linguistics now, in fact it's Balkanic with Greek, Armenian, Albanian, Phrygian, Thracian etc (Olander ed. 2022). You can't rebuke linguistics with genetics. Proto-Greek language differentiates from Greco-Phrygian at 2200-2000 BCE at the earliest. We do not know...

They're probably trying to argue based on CWC-related admixture that seems mostly mediated by BB-related groups. There are samples in geographical Greek areas (including Logkas) that have it.

Anatolian splits first from Indo-Anatolian, there's no definite answer on Tocharian (it's only conventionally dated as an early split to match Afanasievo), Indo-Iranian could be an early split as well, then there's the CWC-related languages (Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic and other...

Upon first glance, their qpAdms seem to confirm that earlier Scythian paper (Gnecchi-Ruscone et al 2021): as early Scythians (high in Siberian/EA ancestry) moved westward, BMAC-like ancestry increased (likely CHG/Iran from the Caucasus) and Siberian/EA ancestry decreased. I wish papers stopped...

Technically, it's like this: - The Balkanic language family (Greek, Armenian, Albanian, Phrygian etc) is linked to Yamnaya-related ancestry instead of CWC-related ancestry - Italo-Celtic is linked to CWC-related ancestry (through BB or not) instead of Yamnaya-related ancestry see Olander ed...