Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More like closer to pure speculation, as on top of that one would also have to be assuming that Mozabites had the same levels of SSA admixture 2200+ years ago as they do today. By the same token we can also go around speculating how much SSA admixture Italians should really have by assuming the same levels of SSA admixture in modern Middle Easterners and North Africans as those of past times.
In the same paper, tested Italians had 0% Mozabite and Yoruba. We are talking about the ADMIXTURE analysis here.
The same results are also confirmed by the ADMIXTURE analysis found in the Supplementary Info from Laura R. Botigué et al. and Lopez et al. with Spaniards being the only ones with significan african admixture, while Italians have zero.
LeBrok said:And the total devotion and interest they pay to every percentile of SSA, and only SSA.
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/pdfExtended/S0960-9822(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 ???
Angela said: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.
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.
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 ???
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"?
bicicleur said:maybe they got the directions of admixture wrong,
So you say that it could be admixture from North-Eastern and South-Eastern Europe TO Iran-Armenia, Turkey and South-Central Europe?bicicleur said:they switched head with tail ?
Right, I would have chosen Belorussians for slavic proxy.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/pdfExtended/S0960-9822(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?
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.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"?
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
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.
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 thread has been viewed 33983 times.