[OfSanguineFire]

The article didn’t say “race” at all. Its wording tries to simplify, for a mass audience, the research that found at this Balkan site DNA that is mainly associated with sites in the east of Europe. Across archaeology and linguistics, there has been an archaeogenetics revolution in the last 15 years or so that enables tracing historical migrations like never before.

I don’t know why you think “attracted to the wealth Rome invested in its frontier zone” is a wording that implies jobseekers. It can obviously mean opportunities for pillaging, which peoples of the Eurasian steppe did for centuries. It can mean making use of convenient infrastructure left behind when the Roman military retreated from certain holdings.

[gumballindie]

> archaeogenetics revolution in the last 15 years

Unfortunately none of that is passed on to said audience, as can been in comments that claim ancient europe followed burial or genetic patterns aligned with a cold war era political classification of the region.

It would be comical if not tragic that we actually fund people producing such “research”. I am less and less surprised that some think we can replace them with chat bots given how low quality the output is.

[OfSanguineFire]

Your posts here are so incoherent, it’s not clear what you are complaining about. Is it the term "Eastern European"? That isn’t a “Cold War-era classification” at all. The use of “Eastern European” in the archaeology and linguistics of the region goes back to the term Osteuropa in the foundational 19th-century literature.

If you lack any familiarity with this field enough to know that, then it would be wise to refrain from making pronouncements on the worthiness of this research. Also, the HN submission is a pop-sci article created by that university’s PR, it is not the actual research. The actual research can be found in the mentioned journal.

[ZunarJ5]

This is an incredibly ignorant take. Tracing these lineages has implications on everything from climate, geography, history, politics etc.

[qwytw]

> Unfortunately none of that is passed on to said audience

I'm sure most people reading it understood that.

> It would be comical if not tragic that we actually fund people producing such “research”.

Could you actually explain what's wrong with it? Maybe we're reading a different article?

[jWhick]

100% agree with this.