Post anthropological opinions, stances that you do not agree with or unpopular opinions

[Roy]

I am not sure whether it's really unpopular but I've seen people claiming it many times and I disagree with


1. Ashkenazi Jews & Southern Italians being very similar to each other. I generally find a large chunk of Ashekanzis to have a very, very distinctive look, moreover Ashkenazi Jews are lighter than southern Italians.

[Immanenz]

Steppe EHG looking like Mongolids (only claimed by a few)
Steppe Herders being exclusively dolicho (claimed by some early authors- could not explain Bell Beaker/ or were not aware how much Steppe DNA they had)

[rothaer]

I am not sure whether it's really unpopular but I've seen people claiming it many times and I disagree with


1. Ashkenazi Jews & Southern Italians being very similar to each other. I generally find a large chunk of Ashekanzis to have a very, very distinctive look, moreover Ashkenazi Jews are lighter than southern Italians.

The main similarity will be the general ancestry (expressed also by genetic plotting in PCAs). As for AJ having a distinctive look and being more depigmented this imo can be well explained by having a just small gene pool due to the known bottleneck and having been exposed to other selective processes for abt. 1000 years in more northern latitudes.

[rothaer]

I disagree with the assumed or implied importance of the look (typological classification) in the context of determining the individual heritage and origin.

DNA tests demonstrate that the genetic heritage is in line with the actual ancestry regardless of the individual look.

[rothaer]

I disagree with the often heard statement that the Yamnayas hail from the Eurasian steppe(s).

They hail from the Eastern European steppe(s).

[Kess]

I disagree with the often heard statement that the Yamnayas hail from the Eurasian steppe(s).

They hail from the Eastern European steppe(s).

Not much of a change.

[Oliver109]

That Ancient North Eurasians were dark skinned, i think in all likelihood they had a brunet white complexion but still light compared to say Indians or American Indians.

[rothaer]

I disagree with taking Y-DNA haplogroups important for the identity of an individual.

Most haplogroup defining SNPs are in non coding regions and thus biologically without any effect. Only very few SNPs are considered to have a biological effect.

[Laredo]

That Ancient North Eurasians were dark skinned, i think in all likelihood they had a brunet white complexion but still light compared to say Indians or American Indians.

ANE looked more like CM with around 30% mongoloid admixtures, mean while when they were heading to the American continent they were mixing with Asians and so on and that's how the Amerindian race was born.

But real ANE were not half but more like castizo type.

[rothaer]

Not much of a change.

Well, this is said to insinuate that it's normal that non-Eurpeans in big migrations come to Europe if we consider the past 5000 years. The mentioned wrong is often supported by the also wrong formulation that the Yamnayas came "to Europe".

A resembling but milder thing is the statement about the Anatolian farmers. We do have the reference individuals from Barcin near Troy in Anatolia but this is directly bordering Thrakia and Greece and it's pretty likely that you had the same folks there at that time. Also, these "Anatolian" farmers were shaped by a huge earlier immigration from the Balkans to Anatolia. ENF (Early Neolithic Farmers) is a more neutral formulation i line with the current gaps in our knowledge.