J2b2-L283 (proto-illyrian)

[Ghurier]

Had 10 minutes to kill and read that :

https://phylogeographer.com/sandzak...99-and-by-implication-j2b-z631-and-j2b-z1043/

Four men who are positive for a branch of J2b-Z1043 known as J2b-FT117099 exhibit this modern ethnic diversity yet their male line ancestors' geography is consistently SW Balkans, north of predominantly ethnic Greek areas.

Their common ancestor is estimated by YFull (v9.05) to have lived around 600 BCE.

[...]

Celtic groups migrated into the Balkans. Though they may have eventually mixed with the indigenous tribes, there is a chance that some indigenous J2b-Z631 may have been killed, displaced or had lower reproductive fitness if some Celtic lines had higher status in the Scordisci polities.

Some will conclude that it is an argument for Z1043 origin near south-western Balkan ... that's an interpretation of these data.
Or ... what it shows is that by ~600 BCE (or a little bit later) some external peoples (not naming them, not naming them ... ) arrived here and injected J-FT117099, right at the time when a big expansion is known to have occured for some J-Z631 subclades ???

This is a very good exemple of how data can be interpreted with multiple solutions.

J-Z1043 diversity radiated from central Europe in many directions ... obviously, some went south ! When there will be 5+ basals clades of J-Z631/J-Z1043 in southern Balkan, that will start to be a compelling argument.
In fact, what is found here is southern Balkan's low-diversity 600 BC for J-Z1043 that was largely diversified by 800bc.
It looks like an arrival, not like a place of origin.
Funnily, this clade is under Y98609, a clade for which diversity points also toward central Europe, and probably went south from here around 600 BC.

Thus, we have ~600 BCE diversity for Z631 subclades in many places all over Europe ... but for some peoples, the Balkanic one is the only one relevant ??? Look like a bias.
To make a Z631 origin there, and work with the diversification of the clade, you need to claim that Illyrian conquered almost all Europe during Iron-age !!!
Maybe some alternative diffusion model exists, I didn't know a single which work (but I'm ready to admit that there is a working one ... but I want the explanation, that work with the shape of the phylogenic tree)


Drawing conclusions on a single sample ... In an area where cousins clade expanded few centuries before ?
Honestly, this is a very week conclusion.

The reasoning of this article is at the following level :
--> YP26 (under Z638) is found in Sardinia
--> L283* is found in Sardinia
Conclusion : there has been continuity in Sardinia since L283 to YP26 !
Perfect exemple that reasoning with small number of samples can lead to very bad conclusions.

Or better :
--> IJ is found in Europe
--> J-L283 is found in Europe
Conclusion : there has been continuity since IJ to J-L283 in Europe

Yep, it is not a matter of knowledge ...

 

[Fustan]

I haven't looked at wikipedia but shouldn't J2-L283 be mentioned on the Illyrians article at this point, considering we have so many samples now?

 

[Ghurier]

I haven't looked at wikipedia but shouldn't J2-L283 be mentioned on the Illyrians article at this point, considering we have so many samples now?

I mentionned it in the talk section few days ago :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Illyrians
I guess when someone will have the motivation to add it to the article it will be.

 

[Fustan]

I mentionned it in the talk section few days ago :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Illyrians
I guess when someone will have the motivation to add it to the article it will be.

I'm not sure why you bring up I2a as it was an obviously contaminated sample, and I think it would be clearer to write "J2b2" or "J2-L283" instead of just "J2b" as I'm sure you know, J2b1 and J2b2 are extremely different haplogroups.

 

[Polska]

I haven't looked at wikipedia but shouldn't J2-L283 be mentioned on the Illyrians article at this point, considering we have so many samples now?

There had previously been a subsection under “Genetics” within the Illyrian Wikipedia entry… it was there for a long time…and it referenced the R1b Z2103 from 2500BC discovered near Vukovar, Croatia (Vucedol) and the J2b L283 Z38240 tumulus sample from Veliki Vanik, Croatia, from around 1600BC. These were from the Mathieson Paper on the Balkans. It was there for a long time, but I recently noticed it was deleted. Evidently someone out there is having a difficult time coming to grips with recent ancient dna discoveries in the western Balkans. Quite childish, but not surprising.

If the article is updated with accurate information, how easily can it be deleted again?

 

[Ghurier]

I'm not sure why you bring up I2a as it was an obviously contaminated sample, and I think it would be clearer to write "J2b2" or "J2-L283" instead of just "J2b" as I'm sure you know, J2b1 and J2b2 are extremely different haplogroups.

I just made a list of what's inside the paper.
I didn't wanted to write it in the wikipedia article in details myself. That's why I went for the "talk" section.
But feel free to edit it and add a "Genetic" section.
It's published results, context is appropriated : "Late Bronze Age/Iron Age DNA in Illyria".

There had previously been a subsection under “Genetics” within the Illyrian Wikipedia entry… it was there for a long time…and it referenced the R1b Z2103 from 2500BC discovered near Vukovar, Croatia (Vucedol) and the J2b L283 Z38240 tumulus sample from Veliki Vanik, Croatia, from around 1600BC. These were from the Mathieson Paper on the Balkans. It was there for a long time, but I recently noticed it was deleted. Evidently someone out there is having a difficult time coming to grips with recent ancient dna discoveries in the western Balkans. Quite childish, but not surprising.

I think these samples were "borderline", mainly because Illyrian Ethnogenesis is usually seen as occuring around ~1200 BC, therefore sample older than that were not clearly realted to the later Illyrian culture.
For instance, it would be like quoting Neolithic European DNA in a Bell Beaker article.

If the article is updated with accurate information, how easily can it be deleted again?

I would have expected such article to be under "restricted edition" considering how some peoples are "high" about the Illyrian question.
But as always with wikipedia, it can be a pain when nasty persons remove edits that are placed in context and cite scientific peer-reviewed papers.

 

[torzio]

The Romans knew who they where fighting in the Great Illyrian revolt ...........there was no Montenegrian "illyrian" involved




Salona Dalmatians are northern Dalmatians


Narona Dalmatians are southern Dalmatians

and then there are the Pannonians

 

[Archetype0ne]

Had 10 minutes to kill and read that :





Some will conclude that it is an argument for Z1043 origin near south-western Balkan ... that's an interpretation of these data.
Or ... what it shows is that by ~600 BCE (or a little bit later) some external peoples (not naming them, not naming them ... ) arrived here and injected J-FT117099, right at the time when a big expansion is known to have occured for some J-Z631 subclades ???

This is a very good exemple of how data can be interpreted with multiple solutions.

J-Z1043 diversity radiated from central Europe in many directions ... obviously, some went south ! When there will be 5+ basals clades of J-Z631/J-Z1043 in southern Balkan, that will start to be a compelling argument.
In fact, what is found here is southern Balkan's low-diversity 600 BC for J-Z1043 that was largely diversified by 800bc.
It looks like an arrival, not like a place of origin.
Funnily, this clade is under Y98609, a clade for which diversity points also toward central Europe, and probably went south from here around 600 BC.

Thus, we have ~600 BCE diversity for Z631 subclades in many places all over Europe ... but for some peoples, the Balkanic one is the only one relevant ??? Look like a bias.
To make a Z631 origin there, and work with the diversification of the clade, you need to claim that Illyrian conquered almost all Europe during Iron-age !!!
Maybe some alternative diffusion model exists, I didn't know a single which work (but I'm ready to admit that there is a working one ... but I want the explanation, that work with the shape of the phylogenic tree)


Drawing conclusions on a single sample ... In an area where cousins clade expanded few centuries before ?
Honestly, this is a very week conclusion.

The reasoning of this article is at the following level :
--> YP26 (under Z638) is found in Sardinia
--> L283* is found in Sardinia
Conclusion : there has been continuity in Sardinia since L283 to YP26 !
Perfect exemple that reasoning with small number of samples can lead to very bad conclusions.

Or better :
--> IJ is found in Europe
--> J-L283 is found in Europe
Conclusion : there has been continuity since IJ to J-L283 in Europe

Yep, it is not a matter of knowledge ...

Mate the guy running Phylogeographer is a Data Scientist with couple decades of experience. Meanwhile Trojet is an admin for L283 at FTDNA. It is ok to disagree, but with such wild passion, it sounds more like this is an existential crisis to you rather than anyone else. Least of all Albanians, since for all we care whether Croatia or Austria or South Germany its the same little changes in the scheme of things.

Now, we have what? 18-20 ancient L283s? Out of all these show me one North-West of Croatia/Slovenia?
Even our common clade, mine and yours shows in Southern Croatia, in an ancient sample, from an academic paper, meanwhile what your basing your whole argument on is modern distribution.

It looks to me that your way of thinking is "young", not Hunter Provyns. He is looking at the relevant ancient samples, which do not show in a much more sampled Central Europe, meanwhile you are playing with modern distributions with no regard of the drawbacks.

Edit:Would not have said anything, but you really were insisting on methodology. Can't go any further in methodology, without fixing your data set.

 

[enter_tain]

I haven't looked at wikipedia but shouldn't J2-L283 be mentioned on the Illyrians article at this point, considering we have so many samples now?

Let me guess, someone wrote that Illyrians had J2B2-L283 and today its highest concentration/diversity is in Albanians, and then someone cried about it and got deleted?

It's hilarious that the only mention of "Illyrian-Albanian continuity" is under Albanian nationalism. Agenda much? That theory has been posited by Scandinavian/German authors for over 200 years, but yeah, it's Albanian nationalism.

 

[Ghurier]

Mate the guy running Phylogeographer is a Data Scientist with couple decades of experience. Meanwhile Trojet is an admin for L283 at FTDNA.

Ouch ... too much authority arguments for me !
Dangerous argument by the way.

Honestly, recent work by Phylogeographer, if I had to do the refereing of such work, I would go for a direct refusal ... and I used to be considered as a "nice" referee by the editors in my field.
In terms of methodology, I would expect more from a L3 student. But on that, I've always been exigent.
In terms of reasoning, his last article only rely on one single ancient sample and propose a totally biased modern sample selection without discussion about what other ancient samples are implying about the L283 diffusion in the sector of the ancient he is considering. Not a single second spent on the "diffusion context" of the key sample of his discussion.

Edit:Would not have said anything, but you really were insisting on methodology. Can't go any further in methodology, without fixing your data set.

Fixing the "data" seems to the solution when people here didn't like the conclusions:
-->Nuragic samples shows no indo-european R1b and no steppe ancestry, let forget that because it is not what have to be demonstrated.
-->Croatian L283 shows steppe ancestry ? Let emphasis that to claim obvious recent steppe origin.
-->Z631 shows Hallstatt-like admixture ? Let not discuss that because we want to put Z631 in southern Illyria
-->Z2507- in northern Balkan ? Let not consider that, we have a Z1297+ in the south, let speak only about that.
-->Z631 modern diversity around 600 BC is found in multiple place across europe ? Let just talk about the one subclade that shows a 600 BC diversification in Balkans, because we want to push for this location.
-->A published study favors a northern origin for J-L283 ? Let ignore and dismiss that because it is not the theory we want to defend.

As I noticed, depending of the theory to be pushed, admixture might or not be relevant, location might or not be relevant, diversity might or not be relevant. What seems to matter the most, is to not disturb to much the conclusion to be obtained.
Such results-dependent methodological choice are a bit disturbing.

As I said, if Z1297 + FT117099 --> enough to conclude a Balkan continuity from Z1297 to FT117099,
then YP26 + L283* --> enough to conclude a Sardinian continuity from L283 to YP26,
or IJ + L283 --> enough to conclude a European continuity from IJ to J-L283.
If a reasoning is known to produce bad conclusions from observed data ... it is likely that this reasoning is not robust.
The silence on this fundamental element of logic is very disturbing.

Also, the refusal of discussing the limitations of ancient sample data :
--> biases in surviving samples,
--> biases in typed samples,
--> inhomogeneous coverage,
is a bit surprising, you elevate one single sample 800 years after the war as the ultimate truth about the whole clade location.
Such low-statistic based conclusion are very unsafe ... not nessessarly wrong, but very unsafe.

you are playing with modern distributions with no regard of the drawbacks.

In fact, I discussed drawbacks and limitations and proposed three potential solutions to explains the lack of ancient samples:
1- Potential location in mountainous area, to explain large diversity without a large spatial distribution : Austria remains poorly sampled during Iron-Age.
2- Possibility that J-L283 tribes where somehow very high on cremations.
3- Southern Poland is an also poorly sampled region (even if I won't consider this one likely, I'm not completely excluding it).

And what you called "modern distributions" would be more reasonnably called:
--> A statistical analysis of phylogeny dynamics correlated with modern spatial diversity and archeological/historical records.

Sorry to not obtained the conclusions you like with this methodology.
We could have discussed the hypothesis behind my methodology.
We could have discussed your potential ideas to explains the elements of tensions I see with your current version of the J-L283 diffusion.
We could have discussed alternatives.
Sadly, you just went wild on authority arguments. I tried to be open for discussion, then the horde fell on me with ad-hominem (trojet) et authority (you) arguments as single response. Not really a good sign in terms of intellectual integrity and scientificity for this discussion.

G.

 

[Archetype0ne]

Ouch ... too much authority arguments for me !
Dangerous argument by the way.

Honestly, recent work by Phylogeographer, if I had to do the refereing of such work, I would go for a direct refusal ... and I used to be considered as a "nice" referee by the editors in my field.
In terms of methodology, I would expect more from a L3 student. But on that, I've always been exigent.
In terms of reasoning, his last article only rely on one single ancient sample and propose a totally biased modern sample selection without discussion about what other ancient samples are implying about the L283 diffusion in the sector of the ancient he is considering. Not a single second spent on the "diffusion context" of the key sample of his discussion.



Fixing the "data" seems to the solution when people here didn't like the conclusions:
-->Nuragic samples shows no indo-european R1b and no steppe ancestry, let forget that because it is not what have to be demonstrated.
-->Croatian L283 shows steppe ancestry ? Let emphasis that to claim obvious recent steppe origin.
-->Z631 shows Hallstatt-like admixture ? Let not discuss that because we want to put Z631 in southern Illyria
-->Z2507- in northern Balkan ? Let not consider that, we have a Z1297+ in the south, let speak only about that.
-->Z631 modern diversity around 600 BC is found in multiple place across europe ? Let just talk about the one subclade that shows a 600 BC diversification in Balkans, because we want to push for this location.
-->A published study favors a northern origin for J-L283 ? Let ignore and dismiss that because it is not the theory we want to defend.

As I noticed, depending of the theory to be pushed, admixture might or not be relevant, location might or not be relevant, diversity might or not be relevant. What seems to matter the most, is to not disturb to much the conclusion to be obtained.
Such results-dependent methodological choice are a bit disturbing.

As I said, if Z1297 + FT117099 --> enough to conclude a Balkan continuity from Z1297 to FT117099,
then YP26 + L283* --> enough to conclude a Sardinian continuity from L283 to YP26,
or IJ + L283 --> enough to conclude a European continuity from IJ to J-L283.
If a reasoning is known to produce bad conclusions from observed data ... it is likely that this reasoning is not robust.
The silence on this fundamental element of logic is very disturbing.

Also, the refusal of discussing the limitations of ancient sample data :
--> biases in surviving samples,
--> biases in typed samples,
--> inhomogeneous coverage,
is a bit surprising, you elevate one single sample 800 years after the war as the ultimate truth about the whole clade location.
Such low-statistic based conclusion are very unsafe ... not nessessarly wrong, but very unsafe.



In fact, I discussed drawbacks and limitations and proposed three potential solutions to explains the lack of ancient samples:
1- Potential location in mountainous area, to explain large diversity without a large spatial distribution : Austria remains poorly sampled during Iron-Age.
2- Possibility that J-L283 tribes where somehow very high on cremations.
3- Southern Poland is an also poorly sampled region (even if I won't consider this one likely, I'm not completely excluding it).

And what you called "modern distributions" would be more reasonnably called:
--> A statistical analysis of phylogeny dynamics correlated with modern spatial diversity and archeological/historical records.

Sorry to not obtained the conclusions you like with this methodology.
We could have discussed the hypothesis behind my methodology.
We could have discussed your potential ideas to explains the elements of tensions I see with your current version of the J-L283 diffusion.
We could have discussed alternatives.
Sadly, you just went wild on authority arguments. I tried to be open for discussion, then the horde fell on me with ad-hominem (trojet) et authority (you) arguments as single response. Not really a good sign in terms of intellectual integrity and scientificity for this discussion.

G.

This however

"In fact, I discussed drawbacks and limitations and proposed three potential solutions to explains the lack of ancient samples:
1- Potential location in mountainous area, to explain large diversity without a large spatial distribution : Austria remains poorly sampled during Iron-Age.
2- Possibility that J-L283 tribes where somehow very high on cremations.
3- Southern Poland is an also poorly sampled region (even if I won't consider this one likely, I'm not completely excluding it)."

is no argument for this:

"Can't go any further in methodology, without fixing your data set."

You can use sophistry as much as you please. But there is facts and there is hypotheses. Usually science starts with facts... Why I said the above quote. Right now the facts is our common clade is found in ancient DNA from southern Croatia.

Once you account for the fact then you can go on with your hypothesis.
Usually when I hit such impasses with people on fora I leave it to time... The good news is that the consensus that I perceive right now, which you deny, is easily falsifiable, provided ancient samples.

Time will tell who is right.

Edit: Just for the record, I would personally love to see L283 auDNA of any clade found in Central Europe or even further West. In fact when the British Isles papers L283 were rumored I had hopes to see one from the BA in England... just saying.

 

[torzio]

Ouch ... too much authority arguments for me !
Dangerous argument by the way.

Honestly, recent work by Phylogeographer, if I had to do the refereing of such work, I would go for a direct refusal ... and I used to be considered as a "nice" referee by the editors in my field.
In terms of methodology, I would expect more from a L3 student. But on that, I've always been exigent.
In terms of reasoning, his last article only rely on one single ancient sample and propose a totally biased modern sample selection without discussion about what other ancient samples are implying about the L283 diffusion in the sector of the ancient he is considering. Not a single second spent on the "diffusion context" of the key sample of his discussion.



Fixing the "data" seems to the solution when people here didn't like the conclusions:
-->Nuragic samples shows no indo-european R1b and no steppe ancestry, let forget that because it is not what have to be demonstrated.
-->Croatian L283 shows steppe ancestry ? Let emphasis that to claim obvious recent steppe origin.
-->Z631 shows Hallstatt-like admixture ? Let not discuss that because we want to put Z631 in southern Illyria
-->Z2507- in northern Balkan ? Let not consider that, we have a Z1297+ in the south, let speak only about that.
-->Z631 modern diversity around 600 BC is found in multiple place across europe ? Let just talk about the one subclade that shows a 600 BC diversification in Balkans, because we want to push for this location.
-->A published study favors a northern origin for J-L283 ? Let ignore and dismiss that because it is not the theory we want to defend.

As I noticed, depending of the theory to be pushed, admixture might or not be relevant, location might or not be relevant, diversity might or not be relevant. What seems to matter the most, is to not disturb to much the conclusion to be obtained.
Such results-dependent methodological choice are a bit disturbing.

As I said, if Z1297 + FT117099 --> enough to conclude a Balkan continuity from Z1297 to FT117099,
then YP26 + L283* --> enough to conclude a Sardinian continuity from L283 to YP26,
or IJ + L283 --> enough to conclude a European continuity from IJ to J-L283.
If a reasoning is known to produce bad conclusions from observed data ... it is likely that this reasoning is not robust.
The silence on this fundamental element of logic is very disturbing.

Also, the refusal of discussing the limitations of ancient sample data :
--> biases in surviving samples,
--> biases in typed samples,
--> inhomogeneous coverage,
is a bit surprising, you elevate one single sample 800 years after the war as the ultimate truth about the whole clade location.
Such low-statistic based conclusion are very unsafe ... not nessessarly wrong, but very unsafe.



In fact, I discussed drawbacks and limitations and proposed three potential solutions to explains the lack of ancient samples:
1- Potential location in mountainous area, to explain large diversity without a large spatial distribution : Austria remains poorly sampled during Iron-Age.
2- Possibility that J-L283 tribes where somehow very high on cremations.
3- Southern Poland is an also poorly sampled region (even if I won't consider this one likely, I'm not completely excluding it).

And what you called "modern distributions" would be more reasonnably called:
--> A statistical analysis of phylogeny dynamics correlated with modern spatial diversity and archeological/historical records.

Sorry to not obtained the conclusions you like with this methodology.
We could have discussed the hypothesis behind my methodology.
We could have discussed your potential ideas to explains the elements of tensions I see with your current version of the J-L283 diffusion.
We could have discussed alternatives.
Sadly, you just went wild on authority arguments. I tried to be open for discussion, then the horde fell on me with ad-hominem (trojet) et authority (you) arguments as single response. Not really a good sign in terms of intellectual integrity and scientificity for this discussion.

G.

agree with most of what you state

In regards to East Austria in the early iron-age ..............we have Phase 1 Halstatt culture which is celts coming from modern Bavaria and mixing with the Local Illyrian tribes....eventually aiding them in creating Noric steel

Nobody wants to talk about phase 1 Halstatt ...........forbidden as it clashes with so many people

All want to talk about Phase 2 Halstatt culture circa 800BC

Halstatt culture in Noricum Austria ....a mix of Celts, Illyrians and Venetic ( fringe ) tribes .......some even have Pannonia in there

 

[Ghurier]

This however

"In fact, I discussed drawbacks and limitations and proposed three potential solutions to explains the lack of ancient samples:
1- Potential location in mountainous area, to explain large diversity without a large spatial distribution : Austria remains poorly sampled during Iron-Age.
2- Possibility that J-L283 tribes where somehow very high on cremations.
3- Southern Poland is an also poorly sampled region (even if I won't consider this one likely, I'm not completely excluding it)."

is no argument for this:

"Can't go any further in methodology, without fixing your data set."

You extracted a part of my message, to put it in front of a section of yours it was not replying too ... to claim that it is not replying to it ?
Ok, we are now going very deeply in discussion manipulation.
Not very encouraging, especially after "authority arguments". I don't know if you ever participated to a real scientific work, but here you are accumulating "argumenting technics" that are not very welcomed in the scientific community.

You can use sophistry as much as you please. But there is facts and there is hypotheses.

Usually science starts with facts... Why I said the above quote. Right now the facts is our common clade is found in ancient DNA from southern Croatia.

Indeed, and as I said, this was a discussion about potential solutions in the context of my results (based on the phylogeny and modern diversity) and ancient DNA data.
Did someone said it was facts ? Nope.

Ancient DNA are facts. Philogeny and modern diversity are other facts.
My whole reasoning include both a them.

Looking at the "technics" you are using for argumentation, clearly we are out of a sicentific discution.
Sadly, you didn't saw the relevance of discussing the tensions I was pointing between a roman-diffusion of Z631 and Z631-diversification and pre-roman-time Z631 sibling clades clustering.
That's bad, it could have been interesting discussions ...

 

[Archetype0ne]

This might be my last reply to you, as you might have noticed I consider this discussion a waste of time.

1. You did not acknowledge the current data and arguments disagreeing with your hypothesis.
2. That excerpt quotes the only part of your argument that addressed my previous reply, and I explained why it was an inadequate address. The rest was passionate mumbo jumbo.
2. For someone aware of fallacies you certainly use ad hominem liberally, from comments about Trojet, to Hunter to now me.
3. You are applying intent to my arguments for many posts now, when I have already made it quite clear that I am impartial to this, just want to set the discussion straight, that all you have is unsubstantiated hypotheses lacking any kind of data. The hypotheses could always be right, but not cause of your scientific prowess, seeing how your ignoring the writings on the wall.
4. If I ever did science? Is that an ad hominem or an appeal to authority? I don't have a small man complex to even defend myself here. Let's just say I am no stranger to science or the scientific method.
5. About discussion and potential, if I had time to spare on such mental masturbation with aggravated people that have a chip on their shoulder I would have. But seeing that as soon as Trojet diagnosed your ailment you really proved your need for medication, think its best for me to just go on about my day.


Bonne journee!

 

[Ghurier]

This might be my last reply to you, as you might have noticed I consider this discussion a waste of time.

Let try to focuss on the methodological questions

1. You did not acknowledge the current data and arguments disagreeing with your hypothesis.

I did, multiple times in fact :
--> Diversity of Z638 is in central europe. In fact this clade present two center of diversity, a major one around the Alps and a minor one around Albania. I think I posted the map here at some point (few days ? weeks ? ago).
--> Z638+ in southern Illyria is expected by 1700 BC, but it didn't says anything relevant about all subclades already defined by 1800 BC.
--> Apparent diversity in southern Balkan is biased high by over-sampling for Y-FULL data, we have the same issue with England.

Beyond the Z1297+ south Croatian sample, I didn't remember any real opposing argument. Maybe I forgot something ?
If any, can you bring back these arguments clearly, and why they would need to be adressed for a Z638 location in eastern Alps ?

Are we agreing on the following elements ?
1- J-Z597 diversity is currently pointing toward eastern Alps ?
2- J-Y15058 expansion occured no earlier than 1800 BP ?
3- It indicates a likely center for Z597 between 2400 and 1800 BC in eastern Alps ?
4- Any clade under Z597 found in the Y15058 expansion area can be (or not) linked to the same diffusion event ?
If we agree on these elements, we can conclude that a Z1297+ sample (defined in 2200 BC) can be found anywhere on the Y15058 expansion area, without indicating strong informations about diffusion center for Z638 ?

Indeed, this sample could be near its diffusion center or could have travelled among Y15058s.
Yet, ancient data are not helping to know which solution is the good one.

Please, give a clear opinion about the preceeding elements.
Yet, the lack of sample in eastern Alps let this location completely free for being a J-L283 center of diffusion under Z597/Z638.

Important thing to note, if we accept Z597 as potentially in eastern Alps, then if Z638 is not starting from there, it means that a migration on the adriatic coast need to occur between 2400 and 2200 BC.

2. That excerpt quotes the only part of your argument that addressed my previous reply, and I explained why it was an inadequate address. The rest was passionate mumbo jumbo.

No. You mixed two parts of a message, one claim you made about "data", with a response I was making to you about the "discussion" part of my position.
This two elements were not aimed at being put in front of each other, and were not in my message.

For instance, a standard work separate the following elements:
--> The data : diversification and modern diversity + ancient samples
--> The methodology : mainly a correlation between diversification, modern diversity location, and known cultural influences in archeological reccords.
To be more precive, I also evaluate clustering of subclades to evaluate the impact of potential massive later rediffusion events. If any question, I'm still open to discuss the methodology.
--> The results : I showed you intermediate results with my diversity map few weeks ago, then i summarized my main conclusions on a diffusion map.
--> The discussion : How does this analysis compare to other data (ancient DNA) and elaborate on tension points and potential resolutions of these tensions (that was clearly made since the beginning about the southern Z2197 ancient sample).

Once you have that, you have basically the outline of a scientitic work.
Now, it is normal that elements in the discussion section are not "facts", they are a discussion around the fact, and may contains conclusions, hypothesis, or even simply acknowledge the existence of tensions between different datasets.

Maybe I misunderstood what you mean by "fixing" data.
And yet, I still don't know what such processus would be.
Are you considering that the data I'm using are incorrect ?
--> I think I have all ancient known J-L283 : btw ... I think the J-L283 ancient sample map from this topic is missing a Polish J-M241 (likely J-L283) from 100-300 AD found among Germanic peoples.
--> FTDNA data I'm using have been downloaded in december, I don't think many thing changes in ~1 month.

2. For someone aware of fallacies you certainly use ad hominem liberally, from comments about Trojet, to Hunter to now me.

To my knowledge, I only commented reasoning/methodologies/argumentation technics. None of that is ad-hominem, even if I did it in a colloquial way.
When I say that a methodology is "naïve" or that a work is "young", I'm not insulting the person, I'm evaluating the work.

3. You are applying intent to my arguments for many posts now, when I have already made it quite clear that I am impartial to this

Impartial to what ?
Yet, you are pushing for a given conclusion (if not, your recent post are a total mistery to me).

Then, let speak about data.
We have two set of probes:
--> Diversification and modern diversity of clades.
--> Ancient DNA.
It seems that people here give more weight to ancient DNA (independantly of the context).
I do disagree with this on a methodological point of view.

Explanation of my position:
--> Diversification and modern diversity : large statistic but complex transfert function.
--> Ancient DNA : very low statistic, biased coverage and variable tranfert function (depending on the age of the sample).

Having your view on that would be helpfull.

just want to set the discussion straight, that all you have is unsubstantiated hypotheses lacking any kind of data.

It appear that you reject diversification and modern diversity as "data".
In fact, this position rise an interesting question :
--> After how much time a sample location becomes not relevant ?
Indeed, modern samples will become ancient with time, and a 2000 BP sample is fairly "modern" for a 5000 BP clade (at least as modern as modern samples compared to a 3000 BP clades).
Then what is the threshold in time (or any other criteria) that you apply to make distinction between a relevant sample and a "too late" sample ?

4. If I ever did science? Is that an ad hominem or an appeal to authority? I don't have a small man complex to even defend myself here. Let's just say I am no stranger to science or the scientific method.

No, it is just to evaluate your skills and know how far I can go into details about methodology and statistical considerations.
It was in no means an attack, my explanations are varying depending of the background of the person I'm speaking with.

5. About discussion and potential, if I had time to spare on such mental masturbation with aggravated people that have a chip on their shoulder I would have. But seeing that as soon as Trojet diagnosed your ailment you really proved your need for medication, think its best for me to just go on about my day.

This, for instance, is an ad-hominem attack.
You are not discussing/dismissing a methodology, a reasoning, or challenging a given work. Instead, you are directly insulting someone (apparently my mental health ... I can insure you that WE are going very well !).

Since the beginning of this discussion, I'm trying to make methodological points:
--> Tension between pre-roman structure in Z631 diversity and a roman diffusion model (still waiting for response)
--> Diffusion consideration showing that post-1700 BC samples inside the Y15058 diffusion area are not very helfull for localising a diffusion center.
--> ...

Can we try to focuss on this elements ?
If your answear is simply :
"Ancient samples are placed above all other sources of information, independently of the context, even in a low-statistic (very noisy) situations."
It is perfectly fine and will close most of the discussion, but then we won't agree on such methodological considerations as I do think that this approach produce very unsafe results (Like going for a caucasian origin of L283 based on one or two samples). And if so, I would have an extra question : "What about the Z631 with Hallstatt-like admixture ?".

G.

 

[Fustan]

This might be my last reply to you, as you might have noticed I consider this discussion a waste of time.

Yeah now he's talking about how the obviously slavic I2a is Illyrian on other fora as well. So he just dismisses ancient data and statisticians like Provyn.

J2b2 celtic and I2a Illyrian, bonne journee indeed.

 

[Ghurier]

Yeah now he's talking about how the obviously slavic I2a is Illyrian on other fora as well. So he just dismisses ancient data and statisticians like Provyn.

J2b2 celtic and I2a Illyrian, bonne journee indeed.

Please focuss on arguments, not on "a-priori" considerations.
If you have arguments to go against my positions, I'll gladly respond to these arguments.
If you have arguments solving the issues I see in your current "theories", I'll gladly gives my opinion on them.

Regarding ancient DNA :
-Z631 is found with Hallstatt-like admixture
-Y15058 is clearly Illyrian
-I2a-CTS10228 is indeed found in western balkan by MBA-LBA

Regarding statisticians ... you lack context, but it made me lough a lot .

As a said, Z631 case is straightforward: We have central European admixture from the oldest known sample, we have Eastern-Alps diversity, we have pre-roman surviving clustering, we have diversification matching in time with a location around the Alps for its cultural background.
Arguments for an Illyrian Origin ? Outdated matching between Z631 distribution and Roman empire borders (same mistake made for J-Z435 ...).

In fact, as we see here, none of you are discussing arguments, you are just going wild on anyone with arguments not going in the direction you want.
This is a big hint that your goal is not to unveil real migration paterns.

As I said, what a pity that this haplogroup is involved in your identity crisis !

G.

 

[Fustan]

As I said, what a pity that this haplogroup is involved in your identity crisis !

The projection is quite unreal. I see the haplogroup at immense levels among Albanians and in ancient Illyrian samples. No Celtic ones. Really no reason for me to have any identity crisis, it's your Celtic theory that's falling apart.

 

[Ghurier]

The projection is quite unreal. I see the haplogroup at immense levels among Albanians and in ancient Illyrian samples. No Celtic ones. Really no reason for me to have any identity crisis, it's your Celtic theory that's falling apart.[/COLOR]

For Z631 ?
Please give me the reference of this "immense level".
Remove PH4679, and Albania have roughly the same L283s fraction than other European countries.
Z631 in South Germany : 5+%
Z631 in Albania : 3%
Z631 in a spot in Russia : up to 20%
To me it seems to be "marginal" among Albanian ... as it is in almost all population across Europe once corrected for recent expansions (including south Germany and Russia).

Z631 de-coupled from other clade since 2000 BCE, way before Illyrian was a thing.
Once two Haplogroup separated, you have to acknowledge their history independantly.
And yet, Z631 has never be found in ancient Illyrian samples (to my knowledge).

As I demonstrated on this other forum, we see that all Illyrian clades share similar diversification histories, we see the same events for all clades.
Whereas, Z631 have a completely different one.
This Illustrates that this clade likely have a very different migration patern than other Z597+.
If you have an explanation, please share it.
I am just making an argument, people here feel "attacked" and are going wild because they don't like the argument, but you fail to adress it in the scientific way.

For some reasons, people here want to stick on the Roman-based diffusion which as no supporting arguments:
--> Oldest sample found in Italy as a Hallstatt-Like admixture, not a southern Balkanic one.
--> Diversity clump pre-dating roman still exists.
--> Diversity points toward eastern Alps.
--> Diversification times align weel with cultural events in central Europe.

Again, I am open to discuss these arguments. Yet, you are dodging them in an intriguing way (maybe because you don't understand them ?).
You are all trying hard to displace the discussion in non-scientific grounds :
-Ad-hominem arguments
-Authority arguments
Despite my very very nice attempts to get back on the arguments.

If you think that these arguments are easy to take down ... please do it with arguments, not with childish attacks..
Yet, you have not aligned a single arguments.

If you don't understand the arguments, it is not a shame, but you can also say it, and I will try to re-explain the argument to adapt it to your knowledge about statistics (I know that concept like clustering is far from being an easy notion for people not used to data analysis).

It is very fun to see peoples not capable of aligning or discussing a single arguments accusing others to have "ideological biases".

 

[Trojet]

^ J-Z631 has been found in Roman Timacum Minus, in modern day southern Serbia, and autosomally labeled Balkans Iron Age Cluster by the authors (source).

Furthermore, J-Z631 has so far been absent in Celtic related cultures, or anywhere in Central Europe before the common era, for that matter. Until it shows up in that context, it remains an unsubstantiated hypothesis, no matter how long your walls are.