Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 64

Thread: Role of recent admixture in last 1500 years

  1. #1
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,117
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    2 members found this post helpful.

    Role of recent admixture in last 1500 years

    2015 paper

    http://www.cell.com/current-biology/...2815%2900949-5

    Here, using recently described haplotype-based techniques [ 11 ], we present the results of a systematic survey of recent admixture history across Western Eurasia and show that admixture is a universal property across almost all groups. Admixture in all regions except North Western Europe involved the influx of genetic material from outside of West Eurasia, which we date to specific time periods. Within Northern, Western, and Central Europe, admixture tended to occur between local groups during the period 300 to 1200 CE. Comparisons of the genetic profiles of West Eurasians before and after admixture show that population movements within the last 1,500 years are likely to have maintained differentiation among groups. Our analysis provides a timeline of the gene flow events that have generated the contemporary genetic landscape of West Eurasia.

    http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822%2815%2900949-5


    http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2...77515/mmc3.pdf


    có che un pòpoło no 'l defende pi ła só łéngua el xe prónto par èser s'ciavo

    when a people no longer dares to defend its language it is ripe for slavery.

  2. #2
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    arvistro's Avatar
    Join Date
    06-08-14
    Posts
    1,004
    Points
    13,128
    Level
    34
    Points: 13,128, Level: 34
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 222
    Overall activity: 7.0%


    Country: Latvia



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Not an easy to interpret text, another interesting quote regarding Baltic - Slavic relationship:
    "As previously reported [11], the formation of the Slavic people at around 1000 CE had a significant impact on the populations of Northern and Eastern Europe, a result that is supported by an analysis of identity by descent segments in European populations [10]. Here, despite characterizing populations by genetic similarity rather than geographic labels, we infer the same events involving a “Slavic” source (represented here by a cluster of Lithuanians; lithu11 and colored light blue) across all Balkan groups in the analysis (Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, and Hungary) as well as in a large cluster of Germanic origin (germa36) and a composite cluster of eastern European individuals (ukrai48; Figures 4A and 4B )."

    A Slavic source...represented here by a cluster of Lithuanians...:)

  3. #3
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    17,547
    Points
    380,286
    Level
    100
    Points: 380,286, 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.
    ^^I'll say! :)
    " We additionally infer events during this period in the Spanish(spani9: 668 (286-876CE)), involving Basque- and northern Italian-like sources, in the British (ceu71:858 (467-1224CE) involving German, Central and Southern Italian, and Norwegian-like sources , in the Orcadians (orcad5: 1241 (889-1412CE); orcad6: 708 (94BCE-1399)) involving Norwegian, Southern Italian, and Armenian-like sources, in the Norwegians (norwe17: 351 (262BCE-893CE)) involving Mordovian- and British- like sources, in the northern Italians (itali13: 677 (362-989CE)) involvingCypriot- and French-like sources, and in a large cluster of Tuscans (tsi70: 241 (16BCE-417CE)) involving ing Cypriot- and British-like sources. Interestingly, these groups contain individuals that are largely fromnorth-western and central European regions with historically attested influences from different groupsduring theVolkerwanderung[S?], suggesting that this period had a further visible effect on the contem-porary populations across Northern and Central Europe.”

    I don’t see anything new here from their prior paper, although it’s spelled out more clearly. If they’ve gotten it right, there was indeed a genetic impact on Spain from the Romans (of the Northern Italian variety) (286 to 876 AD). The British were not only impacted by the Germans and the Norwegians, but by Central and Southern Italians, presumably in their Roman incarnation. (467-1224 AD) Oh, and Southern Italians and Armenians also got to Orkney.(889-1412 AD). (I knew I recognized some of those looks!) In Northern Italians, as they said in the prior paper, there was an admixture between Cypriots and the French, (362-989 AD) and in Tuscans (16 BCE-417CE) between Cypriots and British like sources.



    Some of these look right, so I’m trying to see if I can make the conclusions about Italy make sense. Some of you have heard this before, so please feel free to press the ignore button. :) There was a Celtic migration in the north and down to Tuscany around 400 BC, but that’s too early for their time table, yes? Unless the actual admixture took place a couple of hundred years after the migration? However, if that’s true, why did the admixture take place earlier in Tuscany? Who were the Cypriot like ones? These authors seem to opt for the Middle Eastern slaves option. However, what happened to all the Gallic and German and British slaves? Plus, wasn’t Remedello pretty Cypriot like? Also, they use Ralph and Coop to corroborate their findings about the Slavs, but they don’t mention that Ralph and Coop didn’t see any admixture after 400 BC. Could it be that they got the admixtures right, but the dates wrong?


    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

  4. #4
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    17,547
    Points
    380,286
    Level
    100
    Points: 380,286, 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.
    Specific West African admixture dating to the conquest of the Mediterranean [S?] is seen in Spanish (spani27: 1042 (740-1201CE)), Southern Italian and Sicilian (sicil30: 1105 (882-1250CE)), and Basque (basqu24: 886 (283-1162CE)) clusters. Earlier African admixture at low admixture proportion is inferred in the Cypriots (cypri12: 427(107-734CE)), and a Sardinian cluster (sardi13: 36 (458BCE-430CE);=0.02). This latter event is consistent with the occurrence of A3b2-M13 (0.6%) and E1a-M44 (0.4%) African Y chromosome Lineages in Sardinia [S?]. and the dating is more compatible with documented exchanges between the island and Mauretania Cesariensisin Roman times (2 nd century BCE to 2ndcentury CE) than later displacements of northern-African males to Sardinia at the time of the Vandals rule (5thcentury CE) [S].

    Two Iranic clusters show evidence of African admixture, from West Africa in a Kurdish cluster (kurd5:872CE (312-1069CE)), and from East Africa in an Iranian cluster (irani5: 1412CE (1054CE-1526CE)).The low admixture proportion (=0.01) in the Kurdish cluster suggests a very subtle event, the dates of which roughly align with the Arabic conquest of the Mediterranean and the increased movement of sub-Saharan African slaves in the region [S?]. Admixture is more recent in the Iranian cluster, andsimilarly at a low admixture proportion (=0.03), but the distinct eastern origin of the African ancestry in this group suggests a different route of African admixture into the region, across the Indian Ocean and Arabia. We observe subtly different signatures of admixture in each of the three Sardinian clusters,as already discussed from West Africa, but also from North Africa, specifically Tunisian and Moroccansources (sardi9: 356 (507BCE-756CE);=0.09), and also from the Levant source at a proportion of =0.07 (sardi6: 449 (11BCE-755CE)). The dates for these events overlap, consistent with African ancestry originating from a number of different sources. Previous admixture analysis of these individuals found evidence for a small amount of sub-Saharan admixture [S?,S?] around 40 generations ago, which we corroborate here, with the additional suggestion of multiple complex African ancestral histories within individuals from the island.”



    Somebody get the smelling salts ready for Drac after he reads this! :)

    That's it, I don't have time to look at any more today.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,117
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post

    Somebody get the smelling salts ready for Drac after he reads this! :)


    ROFL

  6. #6
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,117
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    ^^I'll say! :)


    Some of these look right, so I’m trying to see if I can make the conclusions about Italy make sense. Some of you have heard this before, so please feel free to press the ignore button. :) There was a Celtic migration in the north and down to Tuscany around 400 BC, but that’s too early for their time table, yes? Unless the actual admixture took place a couple of hundred years after the migration? However, if that’s true, why did the admixture take place earlier in Tuscany? Who were the Cypriot like ones? These authors seem to opt for the Middle Eastern slaves option. However, what happened to all the Gallic and German and British slaves? Plus, wasn’t Remedello pretty Cypriot like? Also, they use Ralph and Coop to corroborate their findings about the Slavs, but they don’t mention that Ralph and Coop didn’t see any admixture after 400 BC. Could it be that they got the admixtures right, but the dates wrong?
    The gallic invasion that entered north-italy 400-500BC where the
    Cenomani from Maine ( near breton lands )
    Senones from south of Paris
    Boii from Alsace
    Lingones from south of the Senones

    All are replaced later by the Romans, left over sabines and umbrians except the Senones which still hold some genetic foothold in southern Romagna and Marche today

  7. #7
    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 Angela View Post
    Specific West African admixture dating to the conquest of the Mediterranean [S?] is seen in Spanish (spani27: 1042 (740-1201CE)), Southern Italian and Sicilian (sicil30: 1105 (882-1250CE)), and Basque (basqu24: 886 (283-1162CE)) clusters. Earlier African admixture at low admixture proportion is inferred in the Cypriots (cypri12: 427(107-734CE)), and a Sardinian cluster (sardi13: 36 (458BCE-430CE);=0.02). This latter event is consistent with the occurrence of A3b2-M13 (0.6%) and E1a-M44 (0.4%) African Y chromosome Lineages in Sardinia [S?]. and the dating is more compatible with documented exchanges between the island and Mauretania Cesariensisin Roman times (2 nd century BCE to 2ndcentury CE) than later displacements of northern-African males to Sardinia at the time of the Vandals rule (5thcentury CE) [S].

    Two Iranic clusters show evidence of African admixture, from West Africa in a Kurdish cluster (kurd5:872CE (312-1069CE)), and from East Africa in an Iranian cluster (irani5: 1412CE (1054CE-1526CE)).The low admixture proportion (=0.01) in the Kurdish cluster suggests a very subtle event, the dates of which roughly align with the Arabic conquest of the Mediterranean and the increased movement of sub-Saharan African slaves in the region [S?]. Admixture is more recent in the Iranian cluster, andsimilarly at a low admixture proportion (=0.03), but the distinct eastern origin of the African ancestry in this group suggests a different route of African admixture into the region, across the Indian Ocean and Arabia. We observe subtly different signatures of admixture in each of the three Sardinian clusters,as already discussed from West Africa, but also from North Africa, specifically Tunisian and Moroccansources (sardi9: 356 (507BCE-756CE);=0.09), and also from the Levant source at a proportion of =0.07 (sardi6: 449 (11BCE-755CE)). The dates for these events overlap, consistent with African ancestry originating from a number of different sources. Previous admixture analysis of these individuals found evidence for a small amount of sub-Saharan admixture [S?,S?] around 40 generations ago, which we corroborate here, with the additional suggestion of multiple complex African ancestral histories within individuals from the island.”



    Somebody get the smelling salts ready for Drac after he reads this! :)

    That's it, I don't have time to look at any more today.
    This study is obviously related to Hellenthal et al. 2014, and I was thinking that after you read this it would be you who would need the "smelling salts" :)

    "Early admixture involving source groups most similar to contemporary populations from in and around the Levant (which we define as the World Region containing individuals from Syria, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi, Yemen and Egypt) is seen at high proportions in several clusters from Italy dating to the first half of the first millennium CE, from Southern Italy (itali8: 295CE (72BCE-604CE); α = 0.34),Tuscany (tsi23: 400CE(30BCE-686); α = 0.29), and Sardinia, as well as in a large cluster from Armenia at an early date (armen27: 363BCE(1085BCE-383CE)). Traces of Phoenician ancestry (1200-300BCE) have been observed using uni-parental markers from populations around the Mediterranean [S?] which, based on the dates, is unlikely to be the source of ancestry we observe here. Instead these events loosely coincide with the formation of the pan-Mediterranean Roman Empire [S?], which may also have allowed increased gene flow from east to west Mediterranean."

    And also:

    "Interestingly, North (nafII) and West (waf) African ancestry is also seen entering Southern Europe, suggesting a key role for the Mediterranean in supporting gene flow back into Europe. Dates for the influx of this admixture are broad and generally fall within the first millennium CE (Figure 3B) although are more recent in BA and SWE, including French (frenc24: 728 CE [424–1011 CE]) and Spanish (spani27: 1042 CE [740–1201 CE]; spani9: 668 CE[286–876 CE]) clusters, consistent with migrations associated with the Arabic Conquest of the Iberian peninsula and earlier movements in and around Italy."

    Also, notice that they also found African DNA in the 286-876 CE (which could easily be pre-Islamic, as their own estimate shows) admixture event. So obviously not all the African DNA they found in Spain is from Islamic times.

    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.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Arame's Avatar
    Join Date
    21-03-15
    Posts
    182
    Points
    6,444
    Level
    23
    Points: 6,444, Level: 23
    Level completed: 79%, Points required for next Level: 106
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Armenia



    Nice to see that they continue to improve their method.
    For the Armenians confirmation of earlier studies and historically attested events.

    When we consider the composition of sources from within West Eurasia (minor sources in Figure 2C and major sources in Figure 2D), while the majority of a group’s ancestry tends to come from its own regional area, there is a substantial contribution of both Northern European (light and dark blue) and Armenian groups (light green) to most WA, EC, WC, and TK clusters, as well as some clusters from both SEE and SCE.
    After the collapse of Armenian kingdoms there was a population flow to East Caucasus, West Caucasus and Turkey ( islamisation of Armenians ). Also some clusters find themselves into South East Europe ( this could be linked to the Byzantine relocations of Paulicians in to Bulgaria ) . Armenians on the other side recieve gene clusters from Levantine groups ( who themselves are a major donor ). (armen27: 363BCE(1085BCE-383CE))
    Also the Levantine gene flow can partly explain the Southern shift of modern Armenians compared to BA/IA Armenians.
    Last edited by Arame; 20-09-15 at 15:18.

  9. #9
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    17,547
    Points
    380,286
    Level
    100
    Points: 380,286, 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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Drac II View Post
    This study is obviously related to Hellenthal et al. 2014, and I was thinking that after you read this it would be you who would need the "smelling salts" :)

    "Early admixture involving source groups most similar to contemporary populations from in and around the Levant (which we define as the World Region containing individuals from Syria, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi, Yemen and Egypt) is seen at high proportions in several clusters from Italy dating to the first half of the first millennium CE, from Southern Italy (itali8: 295CE (72BCE-604CE); α = 0.34),Tuscany (tsi23: 400CE(30BCE-686); α = 0.29), and Sardinia, as well as in a large cluster from Armenia at an early date (armen27: 363BCE(1085BCE-383CE)). Traces of Phoenician ancestry (1200-300BCE) have been observed using uni-parental markers from populations around the Mediterranean [S?] which, based on the dates, is unlikely to be the source of ancestry we observe here. Instead these events loosely coincide with the formation of the pan-Mediterranean Roman Empire [S?], which may also have allowed increased gene flow from east to west Mediterranean."

    And also:

    "Interestingly, North (nafII) and West (waf) African ancestry is also seen entering Southern Europe, suggesting a key role for the Mediterranean in supporting gene flow back into Europe. Dates for the influx of this admixture are broad and generally fall within the first millennium CE (Figure 3B) although are more recent in BA and SWE, including French (frenc24: 728 CE [424–1011 CE]) and Spanish (spani27: 1042 CE [740–1201 CE]; spani9: 668 CE[286–876 CE]) clusters, consistent with migrations associated with the Arabic Conquest of the Iberian peninsula and earlier movements in and around Italy."

    Also, notice that they also found African DNA in the 286-876 CE (which could easily be pre-Islamic, as their own estimate shows) admixture event. So obviously not all the African DNA they found in Spain is from Islamic times.

    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.
    My Dear Drac, you obviously have absolutely no idea who I am, or what I believe, or what I stand for, despite the fact that I've spelled it out for you numerous times.

    Please refrain from imputing your repugnant, racist ideas to me. I don't give a good god**** if it's true that southern Italians have 1% of SSA. I mean, really? Plus, you may have missed it, but that's been showing up in calculators since Dodecad was established. Old news.

    I didn't ask for a Certificate of Limpieza de Sangre from the man I married. I leave the renewal of that sort of test and that sort of thinking to denizens of Stormfront (even the now reformed ones), theapricity, and forum biodiversity. That's your stomping ground, not mine.

    I've thought in the past that perhaps some of the SSA might partly have come in the Neolithic. I can also see that perhaps, as some prior studies have shown, the flow actually began in the Roman Era and then continued during the Moorish period. However, if you're going to rely on the findings of this paper, please don't misrepresent them. What they say is that "the date for African DNA in Spain Cluster 9 is 286-876 CE. African DNA in Spain Cluster 27 is 740-1201." The Moors arrived in 711 CE. Of course, in the long run, what does it matter? Whether some of it in some areas came in the Roman era and then some came with the Moors, it's the same darn alleles. I feel embarrassed that I'm even having such an innane conversation.

    As to amounts of such admixture, I am constantly amazed that your entire life seems invested in proving that Spaniards have less of whatever ancestry you don't like, i.e. SSA and Near Eastern than, not Italians as a whole, but southern Italians. It's as if you're desperate to prove that some group, any group, has more of it than Spaniards. I don't suffer from this syndrome, nor do any Italians or Italian Americans with whom I associate. I think I've relayed before that my husband's only complaint when he saw his 23andme results was that there was too much French and Irish in it. He meant no insult to them, but all he wanted to see there was Italian. I feel basically the same way. I wouldn't change my ethnicity for any other one in the world. I even have a sneaking affection for our faults. :) Whatever "admixture" created me, created all our "clusters" is obviously the best such admixture in the world. I really wish you felt the same about your own heritage.

    Well, enough personal reflection. Getting back to the amounts, they are immaterial to me, and any such comparisons are immaterial to me, but I take attempts to misrepresent facts very seriously, as I do the necessity to keep people honest.

    You say that the prior Hellenthal et al paper shows that Spaniards have .2% SSA compared to 1.2 for southern Italians. I want chapter and verse, and that means page numbers and quotes. If you can't provide it I'm half of a mind to give you another infraction for misrepresentation of facts. With other posters it could be an error, but there is a pattern of behavior in your posts (to use a lawyerly phrase) that would warrant a negative interpretation of your behavior.

    Oh, and I've looked at all the analyses of the Spanish, Southern Italian, West Sicilian and East Sicilian data on the companion site to the Hellenthal et al paper: the Mediterranean first and second event analysis, and the full analysis, first and second event. There is nothing at all similar to what you state.
    http://admixturemap.paintmychromosomes.com/

  10. #10
    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



    3 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    My Dear Drac, you obviously have absolutely no idea who I am, or what I believe, or what I stand for, despite the fact that I've spelled it out for you numerous times.

    Please refrain from imputing your repugnant, racist ideas to me. I don't give a good god**** if it's true that southern Italians have 1% of SSA. I mean, really? Plus, you may have missed it, but that's been showing up in calculators since Dodecad was established. Old news.

    I didn't ask for a Certificate of Limpieza de Sangre from the man I married. I leave the renewal of that sort of test and that sort of thinking to denizens of Stormfront (even the now reformed ones), theapricity, and forum biodiversity. That's your stomping ground, not mine.

    I've thought in the past that perhaps some of the SSA might partly have come in the Neolithic. I can also see that perhaps, as some prior studies have shown, the flow actually began in the Roman Era and then continued during the Moorish period. However, if you're going to rely on the findings of this paper, please don't misrepresent them. What they say is that "the date for African DNA in Spain Cluster 9 is 286-876 CE. African DNA in Spain Cluster 27 is 740-1201." The Moors arrived in 711 CE. Of course, in the long run, what does it matter? Whether some of it in some areas came in the Roman era and then some came with the Moors, it's the same darn alleles. I feel embarrassed that I'm even having such an innane conversation.

    As to amounts of such admixture, I am constantly amazed that your entire life seems invested in proving that Spaniards have less of whatever ancestry you don't like, i.e. SSA and Near Eastern than, not Italians as a whole, but southern Italians. It's as if you're desperate to prove that some group, any group, has more of it than Spaniards. I don't suffer from this syndrome, nor do any Italians or Italian Americans with whom I associate. I think I've relayed before that my husband's only complaint when he saw his 23andme results was that there was too much French and Irish in it. He meant no insult to them, but all he wanted to see there was Italian. I feel basically the same way. I wouldn't change my ethnicity for any other one in the world. I even have a sneaking affection for our faults. :) Whatever "admixture" created me, created all our "clusters" is obviously the best such admixture in the world. I really wish you felt the same about your own heritage.

    Well, enough personal reflection. Getting back to the amounts, they are immaterial to me, and any such comparisons are immaterial to me, but I take attempts to misrepresent facts very seriously, as I do the necessity to keep people honest.

    You say that the prior Hellenthal et al paper shows that Spaniards have .2% SSA compared to 1.2 for southern Italians. I want chapter and verse, and that means page numbers and quotes. If you can't provide it I'm half of a mind to give you another infraction for misrepresentation of facts. With other posters it could be an error, but there is a pattern of behavior in your posts (to use a lawyerly phrase) that would warrant a negative interpretation of your behavior.

    Oh, and I've looked at all the analyses of the Spanish, Southern Italian, West Sicilian and East Sicilian data on the companion site to the Hellenthal et al paper: the Mediterranean first and second event analysis, and the full analysis, first and second event. There is nothing at all similar to what you state.
    http://admixturemap.paintmychromosomes.com/
    Your actions in these forums for a long time have suggested quite different than you say in your above post, my dear Angela. The very fact that I simply responded to your taunts in post #4 in this thread and was not the one who started this type of arguments once again shows very well who really has the fixation with such topics.

    Your accusations that I "misrepresent" what they say are also uncalled for. As you can see, they give a range of 286-876 CE with an averaged date of 668 CE. In 668 AD Islam had not even arrived to what today is Morocco yet, so let alone to the Iberian Peninsula. So even according to their very own calculations the African DNA in that Spanish sample is very likely not from Islamic times but earlier. We have here a somewhat similar case as with Moorjani et al. who also contradicted their very own estimates for Spain (it seems some of these geneticists have an obsession for trying to attribute any "African" DNA in Iberia to "Moors" from Islamic times and will even contradict their very own results in an effort to try to "confirm" this.)

    I was talking about what these two studies say, and since they divided Italy into several parts while they left Spain almost as a single unit (minus the Basque region), the comparison here is with southern Italians, who out of all the Italian populations are the ones that seem to have a higher African component. The studies do not seem to give figures for Italy as a whole.

    Regarding the 0.2% and 1.2% WEST AFRICAN SSA, look at your very own link at the end of your post, which is a companion website to Hellenthal et al. 2014, where their results are shown for each of the countries/regions sampled. If you click on "Spanish", you will see that the only West African sub-Saharan DNA they list in the Spanish samples was Mandenka at 0.2%. All the other sub-Saharan African they list for Spain is East African (BantuKenya & Hadza). If you click on "SouthItalian" you will see 1.2% Mandenka (West African) and the rest is East African (BantuKenya & Sandawe). If you click on "NorthItalian" they only list a very small West African percentage (0.1% MbutiPygmy) and no East African.

    All the sub-Saharan African results they found seem minimal (no country/region sampled appear to reach even 3%.) These studies appear to suggest that the Middle Eastern contribution is quite greater than the African (including than the North African one), particularly in Greece and some areas of Italy.

  11. #11
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    17,547
    Points
    380,286
    Level
    100
    Points: 380,286, 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 Drac II View Post
    Your actions in these forums for a long time have suggested quite different than you say in your above post, my dear Angela. The very fact that I simply responded to your taunts in post #4 in this thread and was not the one who started this type of arguments once again shows very well who really has the fixation with such topics.

    Your accusations that I "misrepresent" what they say are also uncalled for. As you can see, they give a range of 286-876 CE with an averaged date of 668 CE. In 668 AD Islam had not even arrived to what today is Morocco yet, so let alone to the Iberian Peninsula. So even according to their very own calculations the African DNA in that Spanish sample is very likely not from Islamic times but earlier. We have here a somewhat similar case as with Moorjani et al. who also contradicted their very own estimates for Spain (it seems some of these geneticists have an obsession for trying to attribute any "African" DNA in Iberia to "Moors" from Islamic times and will even contradict their very own results in an effort to try to "confirm" this.)

    I was talking about what these two studies say, and since they divided Italy into several parts while they left Spain almost as a single unit (minus the Basque region), the comparison here is with southern Italians, who out of all the Italian populations are the ones that seem to have a higher African component. The studies do not seem to give figures for Italy as a whole.

    Regarding the 0.2% and 1.2% WEST AFRICAN SSA, look at your very own link at the end of your post, which is a companion website to Hellenthal et al. 2014, where their results are shown for each of the countries/regions sampled. If you click on "Spanish", you will see that the only West African sub-Saharan DNA they list in the Spanish samples was Mandenka at 0.2%. All the other sub-Saharan African they list for Spain is East African (BantuKenya & Hadza). If you click on "SouthItalian" you will see 1.2% Mandenka (West African) and the rest is East African (BantuKenya & Sandawe). If you click on "NorthItalian" they only list a very small West African percentage (0.1% MbutiPygmy) and no East African.

    All the sub-Saharan African results they found seem minimal (no country/region sampled appear to reach even 3%.) These studies appear to suggest that the Middle Eastern contribution is quite greater than the African (including than the North African one), particularly in Greece and some areas of Italy.
    Misrepresentation Number 1: You don't average the dates. It's a range, and it overlaps the arrival date of the Moors. Regardless, those dates only apply to Spanish Cluster Number Number 9. The number for Spanish Cluster Number 27 is 740 to 1201.

    Misrepresentation Number 2: Below is the data from Hellenthal et al. (Oh, in the supplement they explain that the Bantu speakers spread from Nigeria and Cameroon, which they didn't really need to do as everyone should be presumed to know that who is dealing with this material. In addition, when they find actual Ethiopian, etc., they list it. Plus, they cover lots of events, which you apparently thought no one would find.)

    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

    If you were in my courtroom, you'd be in jail for contempt of court. As it is....Don't say I didn't warn you.

    Oh, and by the way, there are thousands of posts by you comparing all of Spain to Sicily. It has nothing to do with Hellenthal et al. Did you really think I warned you not to misrepresent the facts without first having familiarized myself with the facts? You must really be used to dealing with stupid people. No one has ever accused me of being stupid.

  12. #12
    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


  13. #13
    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 Angela View Post
    Misrepresentation Number 1: You don't average the dates. It's a range, and it overlaps the arrival date of the Moors. Regardless, those dates only apply to Spanish Cluster Number Number 9. The number for Spanish Cluster Number 27 is 740 to 1201.

    Misrepresentation Number 2: Below is the data from Hellenthal et al. (Oh, in the supplement they explain that the Bantu speakers spread from Nigeria and Cameroon, which they didn't really need to do as everyone should be presumed to know that who is dealing with this material. In addition, when they find actual Ethiopian, etc., they list it. Plus, they cover lots of events, which you apparently thought no one would find.)

    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

    If you were in my courtroom, you'd be in jail for contempt of court. As it is....Don't say I didn't warn you.

    Oh, and by the way, there are thousands of posts by you comparing all of Spain to Sicily. It has nothing to do with Hellenthal et al. Did you really think I warned you not to misrepresent the facts without first having familiarized myself with the facts? You must really be used to dealing with stupid people. No one has ever accused me of being stupid.
    First of all, stop bullying me and giving me bogus infractions and warnings, specially for answering taunts that YOU started, like the one on this thread, which you clearly started in post #4. You force me to have to go public on this issue because I see that sending you private messages does nothing, and the other administrators and even the web site owner seem to also do absolutely nothing about this. I have already seen a couple of other forum users complain about your behavior. You seem to think that because for whatever reason they gave you administrative privileges you can go around sanctioning users you do not like at your whim and fancy. Hopefully more forum members will start noticing this abusive behavior and start complaining more (when you see Angela abusing her administrative privileges, as shown in this thread, please do report her by clicking on the "Report Post" little triangle at the bottom of her offending posts; hopefully one day some of the other administrators will actually do something about it.)

    Your misrepresentation #1: They do provide an averaged date, and in this case it is 668 AD/CE. You were already informed about this "averaging" of dates in their admixture calculations in a previous thread where Hellenthal et al. 2014 was already discussed, and even you yourself cited and referred to these averaged dates. Example:

    http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...l=1#post463026

    So you can start taking off the bogus infraction you gave me for this false "misrepresentation", which is in fact your very own misrepresentation.

    And I did not say anything about the other Spanish sample, I was clearly talking only about the one where their averaged date does not coincide with anything having to do with the expansion of Islam.

    About the misrepresentation #2: The figures I quoted are what the authors themselves show in the companion website to their very own paper, which is how they have chosen to present the full results of their paper to the wider public:

    https://capelligroup.wordpress.com/d...man-admixture/

    the very one you provided the link to. The percentages I quoted, namely 0.2% Mandenka for Spain, 1.2% Mandenka for southern Italy and 0.1% MbutiPygmy for northern Italy, are listed there. However, I do now notice the ones you also mention, like the Yoruba, which was under the "Second event" tab. So this was indeed an oversight on my part, I had not noticed that tab. Some countries/areas have it, others don't. Call it "unintentional misrepresentation".

    By the way, the dates they give for this "event 2" are 2530BCE-382CE with an averaged date of 234BCE. This is quite old, certainly pre-Islamic, and in fact very likely even from pre-Roman times. It does not seem to quite fall under the "historical" or relatively recent admixture that is the subject of the thread.

    In view of all this, I should rephrase my previous post to:

    "Regarding the 0.2% and 1.2% RECENT/HISTORICAL WEST AFRICAN SSA, etc."

    Contrary to your claims, there is in fact hardly any posts by me "comparing all Spain to Sicily". In fact, when the subject comes up I actually usually compare Spain to continental Italy. This whole "Sicily" thing is actually your thing, not mine, as you obviously only want African and other non-European influx in Italy to be confined mostly to the islands.
    Last edited by Drac II; 22-09-15 at 13:47.

  14. #14
    Elite member Achievements:
    OverdriveThree Friends5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Hauteville's Avatar
    Join Date
    28-11-14
    Posts
    824
    Points
    9,640
    Level
    29
    Points: 9,640, Level: 29
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 310
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I-S185
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2b

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    On the study of Moorjani Spaniards have the same level of west African of S. Italians who have much less than Portuguese, not 0.2 vs 1.2.
    And again Moorjani used samples from all Spain, if we compare S. Iberians vs S. Italians, the first group have much more admixture.
    Look at Eurogenes K8 spreadsheet 3% Murcia and East Andalucia vs 1.5% of Sicily and 0.8% of Mainland S. Italy.
    Sicilians and mainlander Southern Italian phenotype galleries.

    http://italicroots.lefora.com/topic/1111/Re-Groups-of-Sicilians
    http://italicroots.lefora.com/topic/375/Southern-italians-how-we-really-look

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


    Country: Italy



    Hellenthal et al and Busby et al are using a new experimental sofware to date historical admixture called GLOBETROTTER.


    Their results are questionable; for example, in Hellenthal et al the authors assert that Sardinians are an admixed population with one side being "Egyptian-like" and the other "French-like" whereas the ancient DNA evidence as it stands would rather indicate that Sardinians are the best approximation of Neolithic Europeans currently in existence and so are more likely to (mostly) possess a gene pool that traces back to ~8-9 thousand years in Europe.


    Busby et al is even funnier claiming that modern French have about 20% of recent Levantine admixture, while Greeks have none.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hauteville View Post
    On the study of Moorjani Spaniards have the same level of west African of S. Italians who have much less than Portuguese, not 0.2 vs 1.2.
    And again Moorjani used samples from all Spain, if we compare S. Iberians vs S. Italians, the first group have much more admixture.
    Look at Eurogenes K8 spreadsheet 3% Murcia and East Andalucia vs 1.5% of Sicily and 0.8% of Mainland S. Italy.
    Moorjani's Spanish samples were from Barcellona in the North East, hence why they had so litte SSA admixture.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,117
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Hauteville View Post
    On the study of Moorjani Spaniards have the same level of west African of S. Italians who have much less than Portuguese, not 0.2 vs 1.2.
    And again Moorjani used samples from all Spain, if we compare S. Iberians vs S. Italians, the first group have much more admixture.
    Look at Eurogenes K8 spreadsheet 3% Murcia and East Andalucia vs 1.5% of Sicily and 0.8% of Mainland S. Italy.
    http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...l=1#post467407

    map above shows the NW-african mix into europe

  17. #17
    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



    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfrido View Post
    Moorjani's Spanish samples were from Barcellona in the North East, hence why they had so litte SSA admixture.
    Where did you find this information? I have seen people trying to find out where exactly did the Spanish samples in that database they used come from but it seems vague about the origins of the samples:

    http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape...7151&t=4249278

  18. #18
    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 Hauteville View Post
    On the study of Moorjani Spaniards have the same level of west African of S. Italians who have much less than Portuguese, not 0.2 vs 1.2.
    And again Moorjani used samples from all Spain, if we compare S. Iberians vs S. Italians, the first group have much more admixture.
    Look at Eurogenes K8 spreadsheet 3% Murcia and East Andalucia vs 1.5% of Sicily and 0.8% of Mainland S. Italy.
    Moorjani et al. actually gives a bit more (2.7%) for southern Italy and Sardinia (2.9%) than Spain (2.4%) They did not divide Spain into several areas like they did with Italy, so we do not know what areas had more or less.

    Using another Italian sample (also taken from the same database they got the Spanish and Portuguese samples from), which they did not divide into separate areas, they arrived at 2.2%, but did no further work on it for their study and went for the geographically separated Italian samples.

    One problem with Moorjani et al. is that it seems they confused some North African DNA as "sub-Saharan". At least that seems to be implied in a comment that the authors of Botigue et al. made about that study, and which Moorjani did not defend his paper against (so I am assuming he accepted their criticism.)

    As interesting as it might be, Eurogenes is not an official/professional genetic study, though.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Achievements:
    100 Experience Points31 days registered
    Sigfrido's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-09-15
    Posts
    53


    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Drac II View Post
    Where did you find this information? I have seen people trying to find out where exactly did the Spanish samples in that database they used come from but it seems vague about the origins of the samples:
    It was reported in the Supplementary Informations from the original paper "The population reference sample, POPRES: a resource for population, disease, and pharmacological genetics research", but for some reason they are anymore free.
    Quote Originally Posted by Drac II View Post
    Moorjani et al. actually gives a bit more (2.7%) for southern Italy and Sardinia (2.9%) than Spain (2.4%) They did not divide Spain into several areas like they did with Italy, so we do not know what areas had more or less.Using another Italian sample (also taken from the same database they got the Spanish and Portuguese samples from), which they did not divide into separate areas, they arrived at 2.2%, but did no further work on it for their study and went for the geographically separated Italian samples.One problem with Moorjani et al. is that it seems they confused some North African DNA as "sub-Saharan". At least that seems to be implied in a comment that the authors of Botigue et al. made about that study, and which Moorjani did not defend his paper against (so I am assuming he accepted their criticism.)As interesting as it might be, Eurogenes is not an official/professional genetic study, though.
    All these studies are using experimental methods (GLOBETROTTER, ROLL OFF, 4 Population Test) which received many critics by professional genetists. Beside the STRUCTURE analysis with 13k snps which found 0.2% SSA admixture in Sardinia and North Italy, 1.1% in Barcelona Spain, 1.7% in Southern Italy and 2.1% in Portugal.In the ADMIXTURE analysis from Lazaridis et al {supp. p.88} Spaniards get 12.6% Mozabite and 1.5% Yoruba; Assuming that Mozabites have about 25% of SSA admixture, that would give Spaniards 4.65% of SSA admixture, which is closer to the truth....

  20. #20
    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 Sigfrido View Post
    It was reported in the Supplementary Informations from the original paper "The population reference sample, POPRES: a resource for population, disease, and pharmacological genetics research", but for some reason they are anymore free.
    That paper is still online, but I did not see anything specific about the provenance of the Spanish or any other samples there. Where in the "Supplementary Informations" is it supposed to be?

    All these studies are using experimental methods (GLOBETROTTER, ROLL OFF, 4 Population Test) which received many critics by professional genetists. Beside the STRUCTURE analysis with 13k snps which found 0.2% SSA admixture in Sardinia and North Italy, 1.1% in Barcelona Spain, 1.7% in Southern Italy and 2.1% in Portugal. In the ADMIXTURE analysis from Lazaridis et al {supp. p.88} Spaniards get 12.6% Mozabite and 1.5% Yoruba; Assuming that Mozabites have about 25% of SSA admixture, that would give Spaniards 4.65% of SSA admixture, which is closer to the truth....
    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.

  21. #21
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    17,547
    Points
    380,286
    Level
    100
    Points: 380,286, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    What an edifying conversation.

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


    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Drac II View Post
    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.

  23. #23
    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 Sigfrido View Post
    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.
    Lazaridis et al. did find some African DNA in Italy too. They in fact imply it is found throughout Europe but at smaller amounts. Regarding the larger amount found in Spain they in fact considered the larger sample size as a possible explanation.

    We already saw the ADMIXTURE analysis of Botigue et al., "Joey" (yes, it is obvious that it is you again, back to your old games of trying to stir up trouble), and it is not difficult to see that African (both North and sub-Saharan) DNA was also found in the Italian samples (even the French had some), in fact at the higher Ks all the sub-Saharan DNA in Spain (except Canary Islands and Basque region) was "gone" while Italy (except Tuscany) still showed a bit. Plus then there's the quite larger Middle Eastern one. You also conveniently forget Bauchet et al., Li et al., López Herráez et al., Atzmon et al., Brisighelli et al., Shriner et al., etc. Things are not as clear-cut as you would like them to be.

  24. #24
    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



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    What an edifying conversation.
    And the total devotion and interest they pay to every percentile of SSA, and only SSA.
    Be wary of people who tend to glorify the past, underestimate the present, and demonize the future.

  25. #25
    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 LeBrok
    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/...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 ???

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •