0
I don't think Maju has an intentional agenda but I do think he has a big bias. Dienekes on the other hand is pretty laughable to me. Maju doesn't seem to cross the line to dishonesty and I agree with him more anyway - there's a very strong continuity in DNA and language in basque territory that's very hard to argue with. Lichtenstein is only place in europe that comes close, where people might really be 80-90%+ indigenous.
Personally I don't think I'd care if r1b came in neolithic but I just don't find it remotely plausible. As for H, that seems more likely something that developed in central europe than anything else but there's some possibility of iberian origin.
I have mtdna v which seems spread pretty evenly along the "atlantic facade". Iberia seems like a likely origin and it split off from H. However I don't think I could care less if that's not the case, I have no real attachment to iberia.
As for r1b it seems impossible that's the case. At the least I'd want way more evidence before calling it case closed. I don't know if that's my clade or not though. If I had to guess I'd say it's r1a.
Unfortunately with these tests they are grinding bones but applying weak tests. Ruining them without getting good conclusion. Depending on who's doing it I would not be surprised if they are intentionally keeping results vague so their pet theories won't get ruined.
Bookmarks