Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 64

Thread: Role of recent admixture in last 1500 years

  1. #26
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    17,509
    Points
    379,820
    Level
    100
    Points: 379,820, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    I'm more bothered by this "Iran+Armenia" and "Turkey" admixtures. It looks like Slavic migrations were spreading a lot of "Iran+Armenia" admixture, which kind of makes no sense unless we don't know something about genetics of Proto-Slavs:

    http://www.cell.com/current-biology/...822(15)00949-5

    Also authors of this study used Lithuanians as a proxy for Proto-Slavs ("a Slavic source represented here by a cluster of Lithuanians"). It confirms data from the previous paper that Balto-Slavic populations are similar genetically, but shouldn't Ukrainians be used instead?

    And if you look at Figure 2. then there is also some kind of "SCEurope" admixture in North-Eastern Europe in times when the German "Ostsiedlung" was supposedly talking place. But "South-Central Europe" is actually associated with Italians in this study - so how on Earth did German-speaking immigrants from the HRE manage to spread Italian-like admixture instead of "NWEurope" admixture ???

    My general feeling about this paper is that the authors may be picking up signals of ancient admixture, or, long term continuing admixture, and attributing all of it to the most recent and not necessarily strongest migrations.

    In terms of signals of admixture from "Iran" or "Turkey" in Balto-Slavs I doubt that what they're picking up is any migration of Persians or eastern Anatolians directly into northeastern and eastern Europe. However, if Balto-Slavs are even partly descended from Yamnaya like people (described as half modern "Armenian" like), then I don't see why it should be so surprising that there is some trail back to populations south and southeast of the Caucasus. A trail to south central Europe might actually point to late Neolithic mostly EEF people, and an admixture that took place earlier than their algorithm would indicate. Likewise, in terms of Italians I have no doubt they're seeing a connection to "Cypriot" like populations. The question for me, is, are their dates right, and are their findings correct as to direction of gene flow.

    It would be great if someone with the necessary mathematical and software skills, and the time, could go into the programs and the methodology used by both Busby et al and Ralph and Coop et al and see which method(s) seems most robust given the very different conclusions reached for certain populations by the two teams.


    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

  2. #27
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation Second ClassVeteran50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Posts
    4,646
    Points
    71,250
    Level
    82
    Points: 71,250, Level: 82
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 200
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela
    In terms of signals of admixture from "Iran" or "Turkey" in Balto-Slavs I doubt that what they're picking up is any migration of Persians or eastern Anatolians directly into northeastern and eastern Europe. However, if Balto-Slavs are even partly descended from Yamnaya like people (described as half modern "Armenian" like), then I don't see why it should be so surprising that there is some trail back to populations south and southeast of the Caucasus. A trail to south central Europe might actually point to late Neolithic mostly EEF people, and an admixture that took place earlier than their algorithm would indicate. Likewise, in terms of Italians I have no doubt they're seeing a connection to "Cypriot" like populations.
    But we aren't talking about prehistoric gene flow such as from Yamna or ENF. We are talking about admixtures during the Middle Ages.

    Check Figure 2 B - e.g. "Iran+Armenia" admixture in North-Eastern Europe and in South-Eastern Europe was in period 500 - 1500 AD:

    Their Figures (charts / graphs) contradict what they write in actual text, because they don't even explain this "Iran+Armenia" thing:

    http://s16.postimg.org/n21kalef9/Figure_2_B.png


  3. #28
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation Second ClassVeteran50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Posts
    4,646
    Points
    71,250
    Level
    82
    Points: 71,250, Level: 82
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 200
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    If their dates are correct "Iran+Armenia" admixture occured in both South-Eastern and North-Eastern Europe during the Slavic expansion.

    And "SCEurope" admixture occured in North-Eastern Europe during the German High-Late Medieval expansion (so-called "Ostsiedlung").

    So something is strange here, why were Slavs spreading "Iran+Armenia" and Germans "South-Central Europe" admixtures ???

    When you take a look at their Supplementary materials, you can see that South-Central Europeans = Italians, not Germans.

    ============================

    On the other hand, this constant stream of "NWEurope" (dark blue) admixture in North-Eastern Europe, which - as can be seen - starts already some time Before Christ, and which continues until roughly 500 AD, is consistent with expansions of Proto-Germanic-speakers from Scandinavia:

    http://s28.postimg.org/b5t5czg25/Expansions.png



    "NWEurope" admixture makes sense for Celts and East Germanic tribes.

    But do "Iran+Armenia" and "Turkey" make sense for Slavic expansion?

    And does "SCEurope" make sense for German Medieval "Ostsiedlung"?

  4. #29
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    781
    Points
    11,252
    Level
    32
    Points: 11,252, Level: 32
    Level completed: 1%, Points required for next Level: 698
    Overall activity: 8.0%


    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post

    In terms of signals of admixture from "Iran" or "Turkey" in Balto-Slavs I doubt that what they're picking up is any migration of Persians or eastern Anatolians directly into northeastern and eastern Europe.
    Those could be proxy for a number of Steppe tribes that came in the slipstream of Mongolian invasions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    And if you look at Figure 2. then there is also some kind of "SCEurope" admixture in North-Eastern Europe in times when the German "Ostsiedlung" was supposedly talking place. But "South-Central Europe" is actually associated with Italians in this study - so how on Earth did German-speaking immigrants from the HRE manage to spread Italian-like admixture instead of "NWEurope" admixture ???
    Perhaps the Lombardian admixture in Northern Italians is large enough to make them look like Schwaben? Just speculating here, mind you.

  5. #30
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation Second ClassVeteran50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Posts
    4,646
    Points
    71,250
    Level
    82
    Points: 71,250, Level: 82
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 200
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    Mongolian invasions were later, after year 1200 AD.

    Also if you read the text, then authors write that they found a lot of admixture which correlates with expansion of Slavic-speakers.

    But charts and graphs show mostly "Iran+Armenia" instead. So - as I wrote above - their text contradicts their figures.

    Were Proto-Slavic-speakers a tribe of steppe nomads? Mainstream scholars believe that Proto-Slavic-speakers were agriculturalists.

    =====================================

    Even Figure 4. contradicts with Figure 2., as it shows that speakers of Proto-Slavic were genetically like Lithuanians and Ukrainians:

    Is "Lithuanian-like" admixture consistent with a sum of "Iran+Armenia" plus "Turkey" plus "NEEurope" admixtures ???:

    It shows that genetically "Lithuanian-like" speakers of Proto-Slavic language were expanding from 469 CE to 1150 CE:

    http://s24.postimg.org/5g0g9xwqd/Lithu11.png


  6. #31
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran50000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,682
    Points
    55,251
    Level
    72
    Points: 55,251, Level: 72
    Level completed: 81%, Points required for next Level: 299
    Overall activity: 17.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    If their dates are correct "Iran+Armenia" admixture occured in both South-Eastern and North-Eastern Europe during the Slavic expansion.

    And "SCEurope" admixture occured in North-Eastern Europe during the German High-Late Medieval expansion (so-called "Ostsiedlung").

    So something is strange here, why were Slavs spreading "Iran+Armenia" and Germans "South-Central Europe" admixtures ???

    When you take a look at their Supplementary materials, you can see that South-Central Europeans = Italians, not Germans.

    ============================

    On the other hand, this constant stream of "NWEurope" (dark blue) admixture in North-Eastern Europe, which - as can be seen - starts already some time Before Christ, and which continues until roughly 500 AD, is consistent with expansions of Proto-Germanic-speakers from Scandinavia:

    http://s28.postimg.org/b5t5czg25/Expansions.png



    "NWEurope" admixture makes sense for Celts and East Germanic tribes.

    But do "Iran+Armenia" and "Turkey" make sense for Slavic expansion?

    And does "SCEurope" make sense for German Medieval "Ostsiedlung"?
    maybe they got the directions of admixture wrong
    they switched head with tail ?

  7. #32
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation Second ClassVeteran50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Posts
    4,646
    Points
    71,250
    Level
    82
    Points: 71,250, Level: 82
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 200
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    In the text they say that Proto-Slavs were genetically like modern Lithuanians and - to a lesser extent - like modern Ukrainians. And this is what Figure 4. (map showing directions of gene flow in period 469 - 1150 CE and 708 - 1463 CE) shows. But when you look at Figure 2., they show - in that period when "Lithuanian-like and Ukrainian-like Proto-Slavs" expanded - mostly "Iran+Armenia" admixture, with some "Turkey" and some "NEEEurope".

    Can modern Lithuanians and Ukrainians be modelled as a mixture of "Iran-Armenia", "NEEEurope" and "Turkey" ???

    Maybe it's just the same thing.

    ================================================== ====

    If gene flow from Iran/Armenia-like source was larger than from Lithuania/Ukraine-like source, why do they speak Slavic?:

    http://s23.postimg.org/45k60rs4b/Slavicisation.png


  8. #33
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation Second ClassVeteran50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Posts
    4,646
    Points
    71,250
    Level
    82
    Points: 71,250, Level: 82
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 200
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur
    maybe they got the directions of admixture wrong,
    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur
    they switched head with tail ?
    So you say that it could be admixture from North-Eastern and South-Eastern Europe TO Iran-Armenia, Turkey and South-Central Europe?

    That would make some sense (due to barbarian migrations from the north to the south, and later due to Muslim trade of White slaves).

    But I don't think that they could make such a huge mistake. :)

    ===============================

    Videos about Muslim trade of White slaves (both from Western Europe via the Mediterranean and Atlantic, and from Slavic countries):



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtrJOdoVnrg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZKM6rMN25w

  9. #34
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation Second ClassVeteran50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Posts
    4,646
    Points
    71,250
    Level
    82
    Points: 71,250, Level: 82
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 200
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    "Exotic" fair-haired blonde, light brown or redhead women were definitely in demand in Muslim slave markets.

    And I don't think that they didn't leave any surviving offspring, so they surely left admixture signatures as well.

  10. #35
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,330
    Points
    113,888
    Level
    100
    Points: 113,888, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    I'm more bothered by this "Iran+Armenia" and "Turkey" admixtures. It looks like Slavic migrations were spreading a lot of "Iran+Armenia" admixture, which kind of makes no sense unless we don't know something about genetics of Proto-Slavs:

    http://www.cell.com/current-biology/...822(15)00949-5

    Also authors of this study used Lithuanians as a proxy for Proto-Slavs ("a Slavic source represented here by a cluster of Lithuanians"). It confirms data from the previous paper that Balto-Slavic populations are similar genetically, but shouldn't Ukrainians be used instead?
    Right, I would have chosen Belorussians for slavic proxy.

    And if you look at Figure 2. then there is also some kind of "SCEurope" admixture in North-Eastern Europe in times when the German "Ostsiedlung" was supposedly talking place. But "South-Central Europe" is actually associated with Italians in this study - so how on Earth did German-speaking immigrants from the HRE manage to spread Italian-like admixture instead of "NWEurope" admixture ???[/QUOTE]I can't comment on this one, I haven't had time to dive into the paper.
    Be wary of people who tend to glorify the past, underestimate the present, and demonize the future.

  11. #36
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,330
    Points
    113,888
    Level
    100
    Points: 113,888, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    If their dates are correct "Iran+Armenia" admixture occured in both South-Eastern and North-Eastern Europe during the Slavic expansion.

    And "SCEurope" admixture occured in North-Eastern Europe during the German High-Late Medieval expansion (so-called "Ostsiedlung").

    So something is strange here, why were Slavs spreading "Iran+Armenia" and Germans "South-Central Europe" admixtures ???

    When you take a look at their Supplementary materials, you can see that South-Central Europeans = Italians, not Germans.

    ============================

    On the other hand, this constant stream of "NWEurope" (dark blue) admixture in North-Eastern Europe, which - as can be seen - starts already some time Before Christ, and which continues until roughly 500 AD, is consistent with expansions of Proto-Germanic-speakers from Scandinavia:

    http://s28.postimg.org/b5t5czg25/Expansions.png



    "NWEurope" admixture makes sense for Celts and East Germanic tribes.

    But do "Iran+Armenia" and "Turkey" make sense for Slavic expansion?

    And does "SCEurope" make sense for German Medieval "Ostsiedlung"?
    Turkey and Iranian connection might have come with Steppe migration prior and during Slavic expansion, as Epoch mentioned, the Huns, Kazars, Scatians, Sarmatians, Turks, Bulgars, etc. It doesn't necessarily mean Slavs spread them, just that it happened at that time. This study, however interesting, has too small resolution and only points to big scale events.

  12. #37
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    17,509
    Points
    379,820
    Level
    100
    Points: 379,820, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post


    But we aren't talking about prehistoric gene flow such as from Yamna or ENF. We are talking about admixtures during the Middle Ages.

    Check Figure 2 B - e.g. "Iran+Armenia" admixture in North-Eastern Europe and in South-Eastern Europe was in period 500 - 1500 AD:

    Their Figures (charts / graphs) contradict what they write in actual text, because they don't even explain this "Iran+Armenia" thing:

    http://s16.postimg.org/n21kalef9/Figure_2_B.png


    I know. That's why I said this:
    My general feeling about this paper is that the authors may be picking up signals of ancient admixture, or long term continuing admixture, and attributing all of it to the most recent and not necessarily the strongest migrations.
    What migration into these areas around this time would bring Caucasus like/Iranian like/Armenian like admixture? Some of the Hunnic tribes, perhaps? Scythian like tribes? I find it hard to credit the effect was this large, and that prior admixtures weren't more important.

    I feel the same way about the proposed signal of Greek admixture into Sicily during the Byzantine era. I'm sure there was some, but there's no sign of the undoubtedly much larger one created as the result of the establishment of so many Greek city states in southern Italy in the first millennium BC, so large that it was known as Greater Greece (Magna Graecia)? I find that hard to credit as well.

    Ed. This conflating of the last signal of admixture with prior similar gene flows is a well known problem with Roll Off. They may not have solved this problem.

    I also think, as others have mentioned, there may be problems getting the direction of gene flow right, although I doubt some female slaves from Slav areas, who would, after all, have gone to the rich, would account for this. They may, however, be picking up EHG flow into areas south of the Caucasus that was part of the Indo-European migrations.

  13. #38
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    17,509
    Points
    379,820
    Level
    100
    Points: 379,820, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Can someone point me to a table or area of the paper and/or supplements where the precise amount of admixture is given for some of these events? I can't find it anywhere.

    I'm going blind trying to use a ruler, and it would all be rough estimation at best. Plus, there seem to be differences between what I would estimate about Levant admixture, for example, from Figure 2b versus Figure 4. In figure 2b it looks as if Italy North is at about 2%?, TSI maybe 5%?, and Italy South 10% -12%, while Sicily extraordinarily, by contrast, seems to have none. On Figure 4 a circle at about 18%? value seems to cover all of southern Italy/Sicily, and for TSI it seems to be about 10%. Can somebody explain that to me? Am I just estimating incorrectly from Figure 2b?

    Also, can someone tell me the area where precise percentages are given for this "Cypriot" flow into Italy in the first millennium AD? Using my manual method and looking at Figure 2, it looks like 10% for Sicily?, 5% or less for Northern Italy, 5% for TSI 23, and none for TSI 70 or southern Italy.

    If I look just at my estimates from Figure 2b instead of at Figure 4, there's a see saw for Sicily and S. Italy.
    Cyprus/Levant:

    Sicily: 10/0
    S.Italy: 0/10-12

    TSI 23: 5/5
    TSI 70: 0/5
    N.Italy: 2/2

    That sort of makes sense to me. They are "related" groups. Depending on the "host" population, the "donor" population may look slightly different?

    Still, I don't know how they get from this to the values in Figure 4.

    Some things in the paper give me pause. On Figure 4 there's no recent "Levantine" flow into northern Italy, or maybe 2% if we go by Figure 2b, but maybe 15% in France? How did France get all that recent Levantine flow. It apparently didn't come by way of northern Italy. Was it by way of Spain? I don't know of any first millennium AD movements from Iberia into France other than through the Moorish forces. Maybe Charles Martel didn't arrive in time? :)

    The results for Sardinians in Figure 2 are a little strange as well. The Sardinians nestle right around the ancient EEF samples, yet more than 50% of the ancestry in some of their clusters comes from recent migrations from northern Italy, and they also have recent ancestry from the Levant and North Africa? In terms of yDna, I don't think 50% can be traced to northern Italy.

    In the same graphic it also looks like they're proposing that 20% to maybe one third of the dna in some of the Spanish clusters is from northern Italians? Am I getting that right? Northern Italians are heavily U-152, but the numbers are certainly not high in Spain.

    Likewise, I find it odd that there's a little chunk of Armenia/Iran in TSI 70, then smaller in Sicily and Northern Italy, but TSI 23 and southern Italy barely get a sliver? Is that conne

    I'm also having trouble understanding the TSI numbers in general. Goodness knows, I 'm aware that there's phenotypical variety in Tuscany if nothing else, but SIX clusters in that province alone? Then there are significant differences in admixture and admixture events between the two groups they closely examine, TSI 23 and TSI 70. Just for one example that I didn't yet raise, TSI 70 seems to have a huge chunk of SWE (France or Spain), almost 60%?, but TSI 23 has none? Also, as I mentioned above, Cyprus gene flow is found in TSI 70 (at 5%?), but none is found in TSI 23 (0)? The Caucasus goes into TSI 70, but barely a sliver into TSI 23?

    Other than in the far northwest, there are no geographical barriers to gene flow in Toscana. Plus, it was my understanding that the HapMap samples all came from one town around Florence. (I know a few Li et al samples from other places were also included, but there were only 8 of them.) How could there be such a difference?

    I'm also confused by the fact that while in the text the authors seem to be proposing the invasions by the Moors as the vector for SSA, the figures show that the North African into some of the areas with the higher SSA is quite low. On Figure 2b, it shows North African only going into Sardinia, yet the West African goes not only into Sardinia but into Italy, Spain and France. How is that possible? The SSA is there, at about 5% if I'm estimating correctly from Figure 4? Wouldn't the SSA have been transmitted by means of people who were largely North African? Don't the proportions seem off? Perhaps the non SSA portion of the Moors is so EEF like that it doesn't register in their algorithm, but doesn't that call into question the ability of their method to "see" not only the date of the admixture but the admixture itself?

    I really had hopes that this paper might clarify some of the outstanding questions about the population history of Italy, but I have to say I'm more confused now than I was before. Just in terms of this "Levantine" flow that they're proposing into Italy, I could see it as a result of the Moorish invasions, but they're proposing that the "Levantine" admixture came during the Roman era if I'm reading it correctly, so probably tied somehow to Roman slavery I would think. Fine if that's the case, but weren't the Gauls and the Germans and the British manumitted and allowed to "admix"? Why only the eastern Mediterraneans? Also, as far as the "Cypriot" ancestry is concerned, they're dating it to after the Roman period, at least for the northern Italians, so it's even harder to understand. I do see that they've changed the wording since Hellenthal et al, as well as drastically lowering the percentages. Now they're saying that: "in the northern Italians (itali 13: 677 (362-989CE) involving Cypriot and French like sources". Of course, it's too late for the Gallic invasions, but it would just about cover any Byzantine input during the Gothic Wars. So, maybe 2% or so "Cypriot" into northern Italy by way of them might make some sense? (5% into TSI and 10% into Sicily?)


    One last anomaly of sorts. I don't see any recent gene flow from the Balkans into Italy at all, yet that's a gene flow that we know happened, both from history (the migration of the Arbereshe) and from the IBD analysis of Ralph and Coop.

    By the way, that Ralph and Coop analysis based on IBD segments didn't see any signficiant gene flow into Italy even from Turkey, much less from the Levant after at least 400 BC. I guess 2%, 5% and 10% "Cypriot" might not qualify as "significant", but those "Levant" numbers in Figure 4 certainly would...

  14. #39
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,330
    Points
    113,888
    Level
    100
    Points: 113,888, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    To be honest, I got lost analyzing their graphs. Things were more confusing than helpful. But firstly, I would like to know how on earth they can tell the time of admixture from just looking at the genes?

  15. #40
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    17,509
    Points
    379,820
    Level
    100
    Points: 379,820, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    To be honest, I got lost analyzing their graphs. Things were more confusing than helpful. But firstly, I would like to know how on earth they can tell the time of admixture from just looking at the genes?
    This is what the paper says:
    " We can infer the date of admixture by modeling the decay of LD between ancestral chunks, which decreases more rapidly the longer ago admixture occurred." I didn't find anything more specific.
    http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2...77514/mmc1.pdf

    From page 23 of the supplement, this is what they see as the "challenges" (among others) for their program:
    3.even in theory our approach finds it challenging to distinguish distinct continuous “pulses” of admixture and continuous migration over some time frame, because of the difficulty of separating exponential mixtures [S? If the time frame were narrow, we expect to infer a single admixture time within the range of migration dates. Where we infer two admixture dates, in particular with the same source groups, the exponential decay signal could also be consistent with more continuous migration, and so we conservatively refer to this as admixture at multiple dates".

    Oh, I forgot to mention this doozy of a comment, after all these graphs and percentages etc:
    "When we compare the relative differences between pre- and post-admixture groups, we observe no appreciable difference between them, suggesting that admixture has not had a significant impact on genetic variation in West Eurasia (Figure 4G)."

    HUH? Then what was this all about, and how valid were their "admixture" numbers?

  16. #41
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,330
    Points
    113,888
    Level
    100
    Points: 113,888, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    This is what the paper says:
    " We can infer the date of admixture by modeling the decay of LD between ancestral chunks, which decreases more rapidly the longer ago admixture occurred." I didn't find anything more specific.
    http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2...77514/mmc1.pdf

    From page 23 of the supplement, this is what they see as the "challenges" (among others) for their program:
    3.even in theory our approach finds it challenging to distinguish distinct continuous “pulses” of admixture and continuous migration over some time frame, because of the difficulty of separating exponential mixtures [S? If the time frame were narrow, we expect to infer a single admixture time within the range of migration dates. Where we infer two admixture dates, in particular with the same source groups, the exponential decay signal could also be consistent with more continuous migration, and so we conservatively refer to this as admixture at multiple dates".

    Oh, I forgot to mention this doozy of a comment, after all these graphs and percentages etc:
    "When we compare the relative differences between pre- and post-admixture groups, we observe no appreciable difference between them, suggesting that admixture has not had a significant impact on genetic variation in West Eurasia (Figure 4G)."

    HUH? Then what was this all about, and how valid were their "admixture" numbers?
    Thanks for finding it, cause I didn't have time to look for. I was suspecting something in line of mutation of segments and comparing them between populations. It is a valid idea and might serve as a supplementary tool in population genetics, when of course, improved greatly eliminating many uncertainties. However, at the moment, we should view it as an interesting experiment with good potential.

  17. #42
    Banned Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    12-10-11
    Posts
    713
    Points
    4,883
    Level
    20
    Points: 4,883, Level: 20
    Level completed: 59%, Points required for next Level: 167
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Can someone point me to a table or area of the paper and/or supplements where the precise amount of admixture is given for some of these events? I can't find it anywhere.

    I'm going blind trying to use a ruler, and it would all be rough estimation at best. Plus, there seem to be differences between what I would estimate about Levant admixture, for example, from Figure 2b versus Figure 4. In figure 2b it looks as if Italy North is at about 2%?, TSI maybe 5%?, and Italy South 10% -12%, while Sicily extraordinarily, by contrast, seems to have none. On Figure 4 a circle at about 18%? value seems to cover all of southern Italy/Sicily, and for TSI it seems to be about 10%. Can somebody explain that to me? Am I just estimating incorrectly from Figure 2b?
    As you did, one can just take a ruler and measure the size of the circles for each country/area and then compare them with the percentages they assigned to 3 different-sized circles on the legend on the right. Zooming at 200% into the PDF document the diameters of the three circles are roughly:

    7 mm = 5%

    1.5 cm = 20%

    2.2 cm = 50%

    Keeping in mind these measurements and comparing them to the circles on the map, the estimates they seem to give for France are somewhere between 5% and 20% "Levant" (the circle is about 1 cm in diameter, so more than 5%, but since it is smaller than the 20% circle then it also follows that it is less than 20%)

    The estimates they give for Romania are less than 5% India (circle is about 6 mm in diameter)

    The estimates they give for Italy are roughly more than 5% (circle is about 8 mm) "Levant" in Tuscany, less than 20% (circle is about 1.2 cm) "Levant" and less than 5% (circle is about 4 mm) "West Africa" for southern Italy, while Sicily is given two "West Africa" circles of less than 5% (both circles are about 6 mm), and Sardinia is given 3 circles of less than 5% "Levant", North Africa and "West Africa".

    The estimates they give for Spain are less than 5% "West Africa" for the Basque region (circle is about 3 mm), and for the rest about 5% "West Africa" (circle is about 7 mm) and less than 5% Levant (circle is about 5 mm)

    Notice that I put "West Africa" and "Levant" in quotation marks because unlike the category labelled "North Africa", these other categories include samples from regions that one would not normally consider as such. The "West Africa" category includes North African samples, and the "Levant" category not only includes Egypt but it should probably more appropriately be called "Middle East", as it includes samples which fall outside what is normally thought of as the "Levant".

    Some things in the paper give me pause. On Figure 4 there's no recent "Levantine" flow into northern Italy, or maybe 2% if we go by Figure 2b, but maybe 15% in France? How did France get all that recent Levantine flow. It apparently didn't come by way of northern Italy. Was it by way of Spain? I don't know of any first millennium AD movements from Iberia into France other than through the Moorish forces. Maybe Charles Martel didn't arrive in time? :)
    Not likely, considering that Spain also has much less "Levantine" than France.

    I'm also confused by the fact that while in the text the authors seem to be proposing the invasions by the Moors as the vector for SSA, the figures show that the North African into some of the areas with the higher SSA is quite low. On Figure 2b, it shows North African only going into Sardinia, yet the West African goes not only into Sardinia but into Italy, Spain and France. How is that possible? The SSA is there, at about 5% if I'm estimating correctly from Figure 4? Wouldn't the SSA have been transmitted by means of people who were largely North African? Don't the proportions seem off? Perhaps the non SSA portion of the Moors is so EEF like that it doesn't register in their algorithm, but doesn't that call into question the ability of their method to "see" not only the date of the admixture but the admixture itself?
    They included North African samples in the "West Africa" category. The "Levant" category also has Egyptian samples and from many other places that are not technically the "Levant" either. Not sure why they did this.

    I really had hopes that this paper might clarify some of the outstanding questions about the population history of Italy, but I have to say I'm more confused now than I was before. Just in terms of this "Levantine" flow that they're proposing into Italy, I could see it as a result of the Moorish invasions, but they're proposing that the "Levantine" admixture came during the Roman era if I'm reading it correctly, so probably tied somehow to Roman slavery I would think. Fine if that's the case, but weren't the Gauls and the Germans and the British manumitted and allowed to "admix"? Why only the eastern Mediterraneans?
    Very likely because they were more numerous than those coming from other areas of the empire. Also, the authors do not specifically mention slaves as the sole cause, so they could also be taking into account the role of all the free foreigners who migrated to Rome from the eastern provinces.

  18. #43
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    Nobody1's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-03-13
    Posts
    1,036
    Points
    5,756
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,756, Level: 22
    Level completed: 42%, Points required for next Level: 294
    Overall activity: 34.0%


    Country: Germany - Baden-Wurttemberg



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Drac II View Post
    As to the amount of West African sub-Saharan DNA, their previous paper shows 0.2% in Spain and 1.2% in southern Italy. Very small, and in Spain's case practically negligible. In fact, I was surprised to see that most of the small amount of sub-Saharan DNA they found in Spain was actually East African. So this can't possibly have much to do with the transatlantic slave trade, as some people have suggested, which was almost exclusively West African.
    Well, let us take a look at Spain's Sub-Saharan (Black) ancestry concerning Hellenthal et al 2014;
    It equals to 3.0% which is the highest amount in all of Europe; Most prolific is Spain's BANTU-Kenya heritage: 2.5% !

    Now, who are these Bantu-Kenyans you might ask; well acc. to Shriner et al 2014 they are 55.3% West-Africa (Niger-Congo) and 24.4% Anuak (Nilo-Saharan) - the rest is Pygmy and undefined;

    The Anuaks (from east Africa - same as the Dinka)


    And you are correct, this substantial Bantu admixture has little to do with the Atlantic-slave trade, it is proper Moorish legacy/heritage (to look up Zanj); As also this K=4 analyses (Sanchez-Quinto et al 2012) reveals using Luhya as the sub-saharan proxy;
    0% in Tuscans (Italian group) and French but quite noticeable in Spain and Portugal; Including separated Spanish groups like Catalan etc.;
    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0047765

    In Hellenthal et al 2014 South Italians and Sicilians equal to 1.8% - 1.9% sub-Saharan - while Spaniards top with a solid 3.0% sub-saharan (Greece 0%, Tuscany 0%, North Italy 0.1%pygmy); As also this recent study - further illustrates the Moorish legacy in Spain: K=6 Admix. Analysis - Kushniarevich et al 2015 (Sept.)
    http://postimg.org/image/u4ekdbc11/

    What was also revealed in Shriner et al 2014 was that Mozabites and Saharawi (close relatives of the Spaniards [Botigue et al 2013]) have no European admixture; So how is it possible for Spaniards, to be than so closely related [Botigue et al 2013] to these African groups? The study gives the answer, by correctly suggesting - it was due to massive Gene-flow from Africa into Spain; Almoravid Dynasty?

    This new study (Busby et al - incl. Hellenthal et al) seems to be based on the Hellenthal et al 2014 results - in detail available here;
    http://admixturemap.paintmychromosomes.com/

  19. #44
    Banned Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    12-10-11
    Posts
    713
    Points
    4,883
    Level
    20
    Points: 4,883, Level: 20
    Level completed: 59%, Points required for next Level: 167
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nobody1 View Post
    Well, let us take a look at Spain's Sub-Saharan (Black) ancestry concerning Hellenthal et al 2014;
    It equals to 3.0% which is the highest amount in all of Europe; Most prolific is Spain's BANTU-Kenya heritage: 2.5% !

    Now, who are these Bantu-Kenyans you might ask; well acc. to Shriner et al 2014 they are 55.3% West-Africa (Niger-Congo) and 24.4% Anuak (Nilo-Saharan) - the rest is Pygmy and undefined;

    The Anuaks (from east Africa - same as the Dinka)
    The quoted analysis shows that Bantu-Kenyans are obviously not purely West African. Also, that very same study found no sub-Saharan African DNA in Spain.

    And you are correct, this substantial Bantu admixture has little to do with the Atlantic-slave trade, it is proper Moorish legacy/heritage (to look up Zanj); As also this K=4 analyses (Sanchez-Quinto et al 2012) reveals using Luhya as the sub-saharan proxy;
    0% in Tuscans (Italian group) and French but quite noticeable in Spain and Portugal; Including separated Spanish groups like Catalan etc.;
    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0047765
    Hardly had much of it, specially the Galician, Andalusian and "Spain" samples, and they also found a small amount of it among Basques, Greeks and Yugoslavians. Plus the only Italians sampled were Tuscans.

    Also, according to Hellenthal et al. 2014 the majority of the sub-Saharan DNA found in places like Morocco is West African, properly. That the "Moors" should leave 2.5% of DNA hailing from East Africa in Spain and yet should only leave a measly 0.2% West African DNA is quite the paradox. By the same token, the 1.2% West African found among southern Italians must be the legacy/heritage of Roman slavery and immigration... never mind the paradox that the Roman empire never reached into sub-Saharan West Africa, yet it did have indirect connections with sub-Saharan East Africa (mostly via Egypt.)

    In Hellenthal et al 2014 South Italians and Sicilians equal to 1.8% - 1.9% sub-Saharan -
    Most of which is West African.

    while Spaniards top with a solid 3.0% sub-saharan (Greece 0%, Tuscany 0%, North Italy 0.1%pygmy);
    The historical sub-Saharan admixture figures according to that study are 2.9% (most of which is East African) for Spain, 1.9% (the majority of which is West African) for South Italy, 1.7% (the majority of which is West African) for East Sicily, and 1.8% (all of which is West African) for West Sicily.


    As also this recent study - further illustrates the Moorish legacy in Spain: K=6 Admix. Analysis - Kushniarevich et al 2015 (Sept.)
    http://postimg.org/image/u4ekdbc11/
    That study does not seem to say anything about any "Moorish legacy", so that's likely just your wishful thinking, plus they also found some "African" among the Greeks and French.

    What was also revealed in Shriner et al 2014 was that Mozabites and Saharawi (close relatives of the Spaniards [Botigue et al 2013]) have no European admixture; So how is it possible for Spaniards, to be than so closely related [Botigue et al 2013] to these African groups? The study gives the answer, by correctly suggesting - it was due to massive Gene-flow from Africa into Spain; Almoravid Dynasty?
    No, what Shriner et al. really showed is that it is not entirely reliable to base conclusions on something like IBDs, since the authors clearly imply that their autosomal analysis does contradict Botigue et al.'s claims when it comes to North Africans and Southern Europeans. They did not find any significant North African DNA among Spaniards, and they in fact labelled it zero in the admixture table. The only European population sampled in that study that had a noticeable North African component were the Sardinians (6.1%). However, they did find plenty of Middle Eastern DNA in Italy, so in this case they did not contradict Botigue et al.'s claims of increasing Middle Eastern DNA the more east you go into Southern Europe: Romanians had more Middle Eastern DNA than Italians, who in their turn had more than Spaniards. This does not contradict Botigue et al.'s claims regarding Middle Eastern DNA in Southern Europe but supports it. Very different from the North African results.

  20. #45
    Regular Member Achievements:
    100 Experience Points31 days registered
    Sigfrido's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-09-15
    Posts
    53


    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Spaniards from all the regions have about 14.8% of African blood (12.6% Mozabite and 2.2% Mbuti/Yoruba). Other Southern Euros have none. See the Supp Info of Lazaridis et al p. 85. Considering that Mozabites are about 25% SSA, that would make Spaniards as whole about 5.35% SSA. Southern and Western Spaniards have surely way more than that.
    Last edited by Sigfrido; 11-10-15 at 11:41.

  21. #46
    Banned Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    12-10-11
    Posts
    713
    Points
    4,883
    Level
    20
    Points: 4,883, Level: 20
    Level completed: 59%, Points required for next Level: 167
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: United States



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfrido View Post
    Spaniards from all the regions have about 14.8% of African blood (12.6% Mozabite and 2.2% Mbuti/Yoruba). Other Southern Euros have none. See the Supp Info of Lazaridis et al p. 85. Considering that Mozabites are about 25% SSA, that would make Spaniards as whole about 5.35% SSA. Southern and Western Spaniards have surely way more than that.
    You already tried these dishonest manipulations and tactics before, "Joey". They did not work then, they won't work now either. Here is what Lazaridis et al. actually says about African DNA in other parts of Europe:

    http://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorx...2/001552-3.pdf

    "It is possibly that this is due to the presence of low levels of Sub-Saharan ancestry in the Mediterranean or of North African admixture as has been reported previously. Such ancestry has also been suggested to occur at low levels in other European populations, and perhaps the Spanish stand out in our analysis because of their large sample size."

    So no, Spain is hardly the only place in Europe where this DNA has been found, as you would wish it was the case. And since you like so much to use Mozabites to try to inflate sub-Saharan DNA in Spain, you should employ your same tactic to your fellow Italians, who also have been shown to have this DNA, as shown here (Atzmon et al., working with Sardinian and northern Italian samples):

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT...cture-jews.jpg

    or here (Lopez-Herraez et al., working with Sardinian, northern Italian and Tuscan samples):

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6Hzs-1W_Qw...erraez2009.png

    And then again we should also employ your same tactic with all the much larger Middle Eastern DNA in Italy as well, seeing as Middle Easterners too have substantial amounts of sub-Saharan DNA.

  22. #47
    Regular Member Achievements:
    100 Experience Points31 days registered
    Sigfrido's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-09-15
    Posts
    53


    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Drac II View Post
    You already tried these dishonest manipulations and tactics before, "Joey". They did not work then, they won't work now either. Here is what Lazaridis et al. actually says about African DNA in other parts of Europe:

    http://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorx...2/001552-3.pdf

    "It is possibly that this is due to the presence of low levels of Sub-Saharan ancestry in the Mediterranean or of North African admixture as has been reported previously. Such ancestry has also been suggested to occur at low levels in other European populations, and perhaps the Spanish stand out in our analysis because of their large sample size."
    Perhaps...suggested...It is a possibly... yeah you have convinced me. LOL

    Quote Originally Posted by Drac II View Post
    So no, Spain is hardly the only place in Europe where this DNA has been found, as you would wish it was the case. And since you like so much to use Mozabites to try to inflate sub-Saharan DNA in Spain, you should employ your same tactic to your fellow Italians, who also have been shown to have this DNA, as shown here (Atzmon et al., working with Sardinian and northern Italian samples):

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT...cture-jews.jpg

    or here (Lopez-Herraez et al., working with Sardinian, northern Italian and Tuscan samples):

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6Hzs-1W_Qw...erraez2009.png

    And then again we should also employ your same tactic with all the much larger Middle Eastern DNA in Italy as well, seeing as Middle Easterners too have substantial amounts of sub-Saharan DNA.
    LOL There are no Iberians over there to compare with. By the way in the k=2 ADMIXTURE analysis of Atzmon, Italians are the Europeans with the least non caucasoid admixture.

  23. #48
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    17,509
    Points
    379,820
    Level
    100
    Points: 379,820, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    2 members found this post helpful.
    What a disheartening beginning to a Sunday. It makes me sorry I had a relatively heavy brunch.

    I'm going to warn you both. Any name calling and particularly any distortion of data will result in infractions.

    Drac, you were already issued an infraction for misrepresenting the findings of the Hellenthal et al data. If you're doing it again, you'll get another one for resisting moderation.

    To wit, from post #44..
    "Also, that very same study found no sub-Saharan African DNA in Spain."

    WHICH study found no SSA in Spain?

    I already proved that Hellenthal et al did indeed find SSA in Spain and you were already issued an infraction for misrepresenting that fact.

    "Spain: Mediterranean Analysis:
    First Event-
    Yoruba: 1.6
    Mandenka: .6
    Bantu South Africa: .5
    Pygmy: .2

    Spain: Mediterranean Analysis:
    2nd Event-
    Yoruba: .7
    Mandenka: .6
    Bantu speakers South Africa: .4
    Bantu Speakers Kenya: .4
    Pygmy: .5
    San: .2

    Full Analysis-First Event:
    Bantu speakers Kenya-2.5
    Mandenka .2

    Full Analysis-Second Event:
    Yoruba .9
    Mandenka .7
    Bantu Speakers Kenya 1.8
    Bantu speakers South Africa .9
    Biaka Pygmies .5
    Mbuti Pygmies .4"

    So, if Shriner et al shows SSA in Spaniards, and obviously Hellenthal et al shows the same thing, then you are once again misrepresenting the facts.

    I suggest you edit your post.

  24. #49
    Regular Member Achievements:
    100 Experience Points31 days registered
    Sigfrido's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-09-15
    Posts
    53


    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    OMG Yoruba, Mandenka, Mbuti, Bantu, Biaka,... ROFL. And those are all Spaniards. Guess for Southerners/Westerners only.

  25. #50
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    17,509
    Points
    379,820
    Level
    100
    Points: 379,820, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Shall we list the Hellenthal et al percentages for Italians?

    Have you guys no other interests?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •