1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
Now you're going to tell me what I intended to say? Do we have another mind reader here? There's a big lottery coming up. Can we go halves? :)
Originally Posted by Boreas
This is the discussion:
What are you seiing when you look at the chart?
Spartan Owl made the following comment:
" i also noticed that in paschou research that oreo cookie mentioned s.e lakonia matches better with tuscans and sicilians with cretans in the admixture analysis."
My response was to post the Admixture analysis from Paschou et al.
This version is easier to read:
Paschou et al Admixture analysis 2.jpg
The differences between the populations we're discussing are, in many instances, very minor, imo, and basically show a cline from those two islands to Crete and then continuing all the way to the North Italians. However, it also seems from this Admixture analysis Sicilians are not Cretans, and Peloponnesians are not Tuscans. In fact, the closest population to Tuscans, other than Northern Italians, are Macedonians, and translated to a PCA they would still be a bit "south" of them. Serbia is informative because it's also on that cline, which means using it or populations like it as proxies for "Slavic" gene flow would be very difficult. Do you disagree?
It also has to be kept in mind that Spartan Owl is referring to the Admixture analysis in Paschou et al, where the S.E. Laconia sample is not from Mani or Taygetos or any of those areas. They might not be that different, but we can't be sure.
As for the rest, no one is ignoring the Slav migration, and that includes the authors of this paper.
As I've said repeatedly, we really need ancient dna.
Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci