You can take the time as long as you prefer.
Middle Ages, Iron Age, Bronze Age, Neolithic and etc
You can take the time as long as you prefer.
Middle Ages, Iron Age, Bronze Age, Neolithic and etc. And who historically lived in Malta? EEF people?
Historically, the island of Malta was considered European?
I wrote the same thing twice, I beg your pardon.
They're Christian in a historically christian dominated country so yes
it was inhabited mainly by migrants from Sicel tribes. In fact, Malta has less non-Euro ancestry than southern Italy. Whether it was Carthage or the Arabs, the island was nothing more than a simple station for boats. and their women are matriarchs, for some strange reason
T: Sicilian guy
Malta has been inhabited since 6,900 (yes, before that the island was practically uninhabited) BC. The first inhabitants were the EEF, as can be seen from the archeology found in the region, which directly contrasts with the EEF or ANF maritime trade.
Unfortunately, agricultural methods reportedly degraded the soil until the islands became uninhabitable. but I didn't find much source about it other than some quotes alone in books and articles.
The islands were repopulated around 3850 BC by another EEF people who made the civilization that at its peak built the Megalithic Temples, which today are among the oldest surviving buildings in the world. Where the second EEF wave came from is still not certain, but I guess they were migrants from southern Italy.
Nice informations man
Their civilization collapsed around 2350 BC; the islands were repopulated by Bronze Age warriors, possibly Indo-Europeans
sources? There is no evidence of Indo-Europeans in Malta or even significantly among the southern Italian Mediterranean region
It is assumed that the population came from Sicily due to the similarity with the buildings found on the largest island in the Mediterranean Sea.
source: Piccolo, Salvatore; Darvill, Timothy (2013). Ancient Stones, The Prehistoric Dolmens of Sicily. Abingdon, GB: Brazen Head Publishing.
What did you want to prove with this? I read a summary of your source, and I didn't find anything explicit about IE.
in fact, it was probably not IE people who made this "conquest" of the area, as seen by archeology
From this "IE" period there are remains of several settlements and villages, as well as dolmen altar-like structures made of large stone slabs. This is not common among IE people, in fact, it is common in agricultural people.
they were IE.
A surviving menhir, which was used to build temples, still exists in Kirkop lol
It is one of the few that is still in good condition.
Similar to the menhir in ireland
it is no longer guaranteed that this is evidence of bell beakers,
Recent research into the age of megaliths in Britain strongly suggests a much older origin, perhaps six to seven thousand years ago before any IE.
The 90s called, they want cell phones back
Hello Sardinian girl 3:
Sicily has *some individuals* displaced across the steppes. Probably Bell Beakers.
Distance to: ITA_Sicily_EBA:UZZ057
0.04471577 French_Corsica
0.05188380 Italian_Lazio
0.05301804 Italian_Umbria
0.05567949 Italian_Tuscany
0.05628058 Italian_Lombardy
0.05688753 Italian_Marche
0.05831555 Italian_Molise
Distance to: ITA_Sicily_EBA:I8561
0.03943829 Spanish_La_Rioja
0.03955449 French_Bigorre
0.03979069 Spanish_Pyrenees
0.04193514 Spanish_Castello
0.04273913 Spanish_Burgos
0.04293071 Spanish_Terres_de_l'Ebre
0.04320875 French_South
Distance to: ITA_Sicily_EBA:I11443
0.03068608 Italian_Aosta_Valley
0.03119286 French_Swiss
0.03144366 French Provence
0.03524089 French_Auvergne
0.03553271 French_Paris
0.03676185 Spanish_Penedes
0.03716160 French_Occitania
Why are you talking about bell beakers when all of your samples are modern?
Furthermore, their language is also unknown. It is known, however, that they buried their dead and had the ability to cultivate, and cultivation is not associated with bell beakers.
Between 1400 BC and 1200 BC there was a Mycenaean influence on Malta, which is evidenced by the presence of Mycenaean artefacts
There is more Borg in Nadur influence on Sicily than Mycenaean influence on Borg in Nadur Malta, going by that criterium.
I know of one frament of a Mycenan kylix dating to the Late Helladic IIIA2 or IIIB1 (1350-1250 BC),and another Mycenaean sher from another Maltese site. During this time some ivory objects also reached the island; anyway the most numerous foreign imports during this period are the handmade pottery fragments imported from Sicily, belonging to the so called Thapsos culture.
At least one rim fragment of a Cretan kalathos dating to 820-800 BC and some local pottery possibly influenced by Geometric Greek productions of the same period.
Then around 750 BC the Phoenician presence starts to be clear.
I did not say any quantitative criteria, having less Mycenaean influence does not imply a lack of it. you copying and pasting things from Wikipedia didn't make you smart
Literally nothing in the post you quoted can be found in Wikipedia. The fact that you get a hysterical meltdown when someone politely corrects you and tries to contribute to the topic says lot about what kind of insecure moron you are.
>Literally nothing in the post you cited can be found on Wikipedia.
in fact most of your posts are based on Wikipedia, maybe I expressed myself badly, but I don't remember specifying which exact post was yours.
>The fact that you have a hysterical breakdown
Your personal interpretation of the way I wrote is actually not my problem. "Y you are soo hysterical"!
>when someone politely corrects you
Is your arrogance the same as the one you use to base yourself on Wikipedia? Show me where I said something wrong. I challenge you. the Mycenaeans had influence and that was my point, which is a lie and doesn't need to be corrected, I didn't say who had more influence or not, so your correction came from something I didn't say.
>and trying to contribute to the topic says a lot about what kind of insecure moron you are.
Haven't you already contributed to Wikipedia on the topic? so be happy about that you moron, no one said otherwise
which is not a lie*
>in fact most of your posts are based on Wikipedia, maybe I expressed myself badly, but I don't remember specifying which exact post was yours.
You were clearly replying to the post that I corrected you about. If you wanted to adress some other post you could've done it. Stop grasping at straws, it's really pathetic. I had aleady got you were an insecure tard, you don't have to make it even more obvious. You clearly took a minor correction as a personal attack because you're insecure and petty.
>Your personal interpretation of the way I wrote is actually not my problem. "Y you are soo hysterical"!
The only personal thing about this was you taking a polite reply as a personal attack because you're some bullied frustrated loser IRL. This is now a personal attack and it's most likely accurate. Anyway even a post straight out of Wikipedia, which isn't the case of any of my posts and certainly not of the one you replied to, would be infinitely more insightful than anything you contributed to the thread.
>Is your arrogance the same as the one you use to base yourself on Wikipedia?
The post you replied to was based on the reading of: "Site, artefacts and landscape Prehistoric Borġ in-Nadur, Malta" edited by Davide Tanasi and Nicholas C. Vella
And on :
'Mobility of men versus mobility of goods: archaeometric characterization
of Middle Bronze Age pottery in Malta and Sicily (15th-13th century BC) by Simona Raneri et al.
>Haven't you already contributed to Wikipedia on the topic?
Try writing that in English. By the poor grasp of English I'm starting to think that you're the Sicilian guy whose only "contribution" to the thread was saying that it's an island so it was a stopping point for boats, really an incredibly in depth dive in the history of Malta I must say.
do you really want to discuss a simple comment you idiot? I have more to do than fight over delayed interpretations. I won't read a single line of your post, but my point still stands. You argued about something I didn't say, you're the moron. thanks
You're the angry bozo who had a meltdown for no justifiable reason, you could have shut up instead of wasting everyone's time.
who is the idiot? Who gets it wrong and who makes corrections that were based on something no one said? or maybe who writes gigantic texts on IQfy out of pure pride? calm down, damn
>Who gets it wrong and who makes corrections that were based on something no one said?
Nothing I said wasn't correct. The first thing you said was incorrect - even if by a small degree - and I politely replied by clarifying in better detail what the relations of Malta with the outside world were in that period, making a small correction to your post in the process. Because of that you got pissy and took it personally, so you then followed up by saying something completely false (that I had copied my post from Wikipedia) and by throwing several childish insults at me.
>calm down, damn
I'm perfectly calm, but I'm not going to accept insults and false accusations.
Don't you understand that I don't want to read or talk about this? Dude, stop being annoying. It's over. you made a small mistake and you are using it to create a storm in a teapot. Calm down man, look, I'm going out to dinner, okay?
> you made a small mistake and you are using it to create a storm in a teapot.
Wrong, you clearly did. Two sherds are not proof of any significant influence. You can see some Mycenaean influence on peninsular South Italy in sites like Roca Vecchia, Coppa Nevigata or Scoglio del Tonno where you have hundreds or thousands of Aegean and Aegean-influences pottery fragments. Or, to a lesser degree on Sicily where there's some Aegean influence on the architecture of the native village of Thapsos during this period, or during the later North Pantaltica phase where you have some Mycenaean shapes being imitated by the native handmade vessels.
But saying there's Mycenaean influence on Malta is more than a stretch, either very sporadic contacts or possibly the arrival of very few (at least for now) Mycenaean objects through the much more well attested trade with Sicily. No significant evidence of any possible influence from any other aspects of the Maltese material culture at the time. There might have been more of a Greek influence during the Geometric period with finds like those geometric greek-like vases I mentioned, but even that is debatable for now, and it's clearly not related to Mycenaeans given the period.
Malta's history ends around 700 BC, when the islands were colonized by the Phoenicians.
not European
Phoenicians CE from Europe.
> And who historically lived in Malta? EEF people?
At least until the third millennium BC the people living there were EEF who had reached the island coming from Sicily through the sea, we know this because the only ancient samples available are from the third millennium BC and are EEF. The first inhabitants who reached it were Stentinello EEF around 5000 BC.
In the second millennium BC the Borg in Nadur culture flourished, which traded with Sicily as known from many Borg in Nadur ceramics in Sicily. We don't know what they were like genetics, but we know that BA Sicilians were basically mostly EEF with some minor Yamnaya and CHG shift.
In the 8th century BC the Phoenicians came there and might have mixed with the locals, I remember reading that there was some hybrid pottery in the island, not just Phoenician
Then it fell under Carthaginian control
Then Roman of course, I remember some Roman commander sacking it.
Then the Arabs failed to capture it in 868 but managed to to take it in 870 from the Byzantines.
The the Normans reconquered in the late 11th century
In the 13th century AD there were still several Muslim families living there, not just Christians.
Then it mostly stayed under the control of Christian Lords who had fiefdoms in Southern Italy.
Then the knights of Rhodes fled there in the 16th century and ruled it as a pirate Christian enclave.
Also, when the Arabs captured it in 870, they acted with extreme violence:
"The events of 868 can perhaps help us to explain why the Arabs moved with
such ferocity against Malta in 870, destroying everything they came across, thus
rendering the Island barren for a number of years. One cannot fail to consider that
such ruthless destruction was in fact a form of punishment. First of all, the Arabs
wanted to avenge the death of Khalaf. Secondly, they wanted to ensure that the
Island could not be used as a base for Byzantine incursions against Ifriqiyya. This
explains why AI-Himyari described Malta as being a wasteland for many years.
It is known that marble pieces were taken from Malta to Sousse and utilised to
decorate its buildings.39 Sousse too was a city that had endured maritime attacks
from the Byzantines. It was also the city that had been re-supplied by Khalaf
who, in an attempt to conquer Malta, had lost his life. Therefore, taking marble
from Malta to Sousse carried a covert political message. The marble was taken as
a kind of war trophy and a symbol for the Sousse inhabitants that the Byzantine
island of Malta, which had been the cause of their past troubles, no longer existed.
It had been destroyed and laid to waste. Sousse had nothing to fear now from the
land where Khalaf, their benefactor, had fallen. "
They are europeans
God, how I hate PCA 2d...
well, it shows that they are grouped between europe and the middle east.
their long-time cultural friends are not genetically different from them
>Our distal modeling of modern Sicilians requires not only the two eastern ancestry sources that we have shown were present by the Bronze Age—10.0 ± 2.6% Yamnaya_Samara and 19.9 ± 1.4% Iran_Ganj_Dareh_Neolithic— but also a predominant component of North African ancestry (46.9 ± 5.6% Morocco_LN) (Fig. 4, Supplementary Table 14).
bad model morocco_ln doesn't represent any population
You may not like it, but you are descended from recent Iron Age Somali and are 5-50% African,
when you use taforalt/morocco_en Sicilians have almost zero admixture of taforalt, while North Africans like you have plenty
yellow in the related photo is taforalt/morocco_en
You lost
Accorodgn to this thing Russians are mostly Anatolia N, WTF?
no him but that's sardinians, the names aren't perfectly aligned to the admixture
you need to count them
Arbitrarily though isn't it? You're titling things based on adaptions and emotional needs.
>Arbitrarily though isn't it?
it's not arbitrary obviously, but the admixture chart is bigger, so some names are left behind
example: start from the sardinian, go populations above and you find russians
> You're titling things based on adaptions and emotional needs.
what?
*go 4 populations above and you find russians
You're just assigning random names without context. It's completely arbitrary.
ehm, it's not
the names perfectly correspond to the admixture charts (it would not make sense otherwise) but since the admixture chart has uneven sizes they aren't perfectly aligned, sometimes it happens in some studies
whatever dude, think whatever you want, i didn't even post it, i don't really care much about all this
they are overlapping with the middle east in that pca tho
If you don't read PCA, they are grouped between European and Middle Eastern. It's not like they're a pure Middle Eastern population
>Iran_Ganj_Dareh_Neolithic
Go to sleep Luigi...
Isn't there a giant catacomb underneath one of the islands with giants in them and satanic stuff linked to the knights of Malta... or something?
no
proof?
modern maltese are some sort of south italians, so they're whatever you consider south italians to be i guess
ancient maltese were eef
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982222007059
at least in the neolithic
and their modern ydna haplogroups are also kinda similar to south italians
>According to Capelli et al. (2005), Y-DNA haplogroups are found at the following frequencies in Malta: R1 (35.55% including 32.2% R1b), J (28.90% including 21.10% J2 and 7.8% J1), I (12.20%), E (11.10% including 8.9% E1b1b), F (6.70%), K (4.40%), P (1.10%).
but I doubt brown-skinned Southern Europeans are brown just because of the tiny percentage of Iberomaurus in them, Northern Iberians and Southern Italians have very little or no Iberomaurus, but they look no different from Sicilians and Andalusians, just as Afrikaners are Northerners, despite their 1% black mix,
is its huge amount of farmerbug mix, southern European farmers were weak of brown grains, unfortunately, southern Europe was not cleared of such populations as much as the north
use scarecrows? Frisian.
most Italians do not have North African ancestry, although
0 - 2% maximum in Sicilians
he wants to date you
Target: Sicilian_West
Distance: 1.4608% / 0.01460767
37.4 ITA_Daunian
22.6 Levant_Beirut_Hellenistic
19.0 DEU_MA_ACD_Ostrogothic
14.6 TUR_Aegean_Mugla_Camandras_Dalagöz_Rom
6.4 Canary_Islands_Guanche
Target: Sicilian_East
Distance: 1.3213% / 0.01321349
26.6 Levant_Beirut_Hellenistic
24.0 ITA_Daunian
17.8 DEU_MA_ACD_Ostrogothic
15.6 TUR_Aegean_Mugla_Camandras_Dalagöz_Rom
13.4 GRC_Mycenaean_Kastrouli_BA
2.6 Canary_Islands_Guanche
Target: Italian_Basilicata
Distance: 0.7462% / 0.00746213
35.2 TUR_Aegean_Mugla_Camandras_Dalagöz_Rom
21.2 ITA_Daunian
19.2 DEU_MA_ACD_Ostrogothic
11.4 GRC_Mycenaean_Kastrouli_BA
11.2 Levant_Beirut_Hellenistic
1.8 Canary_Islands_Guanche
They definitely have non-European ancestry, although the Frisian is wrong in claiming to be North African.
they have brown levantine and brown bronze age anatolian admixture
Mr. Joseph can't miss one, can he?
first that this ancestry was not the victim of some nafri chad conquest, in fact the proper Levantine ancestry is about 20% in the Sicilians, but they are a special case because they married tons of Levantine women and some Phoenician colonies, so yes Joseph, their women love Italians.
36% of Sicilian female lineages are from the Levant, compared to 11% of male lineages. their samples conclude that Other Italians have 10% or less royal Levantine ancestry.
would be better to use bronze age anatolians, instead of mutts from the roman era, so we can isolate the brown middle eastern ancestry
try it yourself.
Using Roman-era Anatolians and not some rich Bronze Age Eastern Anatolians from Iran/CHG, it is clear that they constitute the majority of Eastern Med ancestry
Who's Joseph dude?
Target: Italian_Campania
Distance: 0.9452% / 0.00945224
38.8 Greece_BA_Mycenaean
27.4 Turkey_MBA_(BROWN)
24.8 Germany_EarlyMedieval.SG
5.2 Lebanon_IA3.SG_(BROWN)
3.8 CanaryIslands_Guanche.SG_(BROWN)
total= 36% brown
>Using Roman-era Anatolians and not some rich Bronze Age Eastern Anatolians
hides the proper bronze age anatolian that makes up most of the ancestry of roman era anatolians
okay?
Modern Greeks being darker due to their Anatolian ancestry makes sense considering that the Imperial Romans (Anatolians) were slightly lighter than the Iron Age Italics, both being much darker than the Iberians.
And secondly, the Iberomaurus were not "african" (or black)
>Imperial Romans (Anatolians) were slightly lighter than the Iron Age Italics
wrong, anatolians were far browner than italics
>both being much darker than the Iberians
not true, iberians were darker than italics
>the Iberomaurus were not "african" (or black)
mulattos with black skin
the italics were as dark as Lebanese and Sicilian, literally.
Figure of Antonio 2019.
I think the reason is that only above 50% of Slavs do you start to become white, Greeks are only 35%
The same as mulattoes in America look white at 50-60%, but 25% of white African Americans do not
moronic subhuman, so many things going on i don't even know where to start
1) only modern iberians are included there, not ancient iberians
2) no greek modern or ancient and no levantine is included in that chart, only ancient italian samples and 3 modern populations (finns, british and modern spanish)
ancient italic samples are far lighter than ancient levantines and ancient anatolians
>The same as mulattoes in America look white at 50-60%
"white" in some brazilian favela in rio de janeiro
these are the results for imperial romans
central italians only became lighter again due to central european admixture in late antiquity (half of the samples in late antiquity were central-european like) and later in the middle ages it stabilized at 20% blue eyed in lazio
and you also don't know how to read that study, for example there are more iron age and republic romans that are GG to rs12913832 than there are imperial romans
>afrikaaners have 1% Black person blood
Adding coloureds that have majority euro blood into the data set does not mean automatically that we all have Black folk blood.
Fricking hell you are poor at understanding basic representations of what that 1 percent means.
Out of the couple million of us here and abroad, it doesn't mean ALL of us do, just the individuals they used in the sample which can easily be screwed with.
IDF Shills and mutts keep pushing this shit and it's blatant.
Jy edomite fokkers moet begin toe gaan vir jy liewe vir jeshua kom met die swaard.
Even Turks are closer to Swedes than over half of those ancient Sicilians.
Distanceto: Swedish
0.15118327 ITA_Sicily_EBA
0.17389198 Turkish_Central
0.17462025 Sardinian
0.17784494 ITA_Sicily_LBA
0.18969567 ITA_Sicily_MBA
0.20233761 ITA_Sicily_EN
okay but don't you use the updated sheet?
Sample sizes? Sample dates? Sample locations? Your confidence interval is set to zero btw.
I forgot to say that the ancient Sicilians were transferred to the Sardinians/Anatolia_N and the Sardinians barely resemble other modern Europeans.
Distance to: Sardinia
0.03308328 ITA_Sicily_EBA
0.04089012 ITA_Sicily_MBA
0.04371084 ITA_Sicily_LBA
0.04414503 ITA_Sicily_EN
0.09749960 Sicilian_West
0.10137753 Sicilian_East
modern sardinians and sicilians are the same basically
no
Distance to: Sicilian_West
0.07813685 Swiss_French
0.08128631 French_Auvergne
0.08611838 French_Occitanie
0.08857460 Swiss_German
0.08993701 French_Alsace
0.09328188 BelgianC
0.09347618 French_Nord
0.09377843 French_Paris
0.09623270 BelgianB
0.09749960 Sardinian
Distance to: Sicilian_East
0.08643387 Swiss_French
0.09028302 French_Auvergne
0.09520395 French_Occitanie
0.09644129 Swiss_German
0.09842887 French_Alsace
0.10137753 Sardinian
true