Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Could it be that R80 and R132 are part
carthegenian ?
I didn't want to comment anymore but was adressed directly.
Yes, CTS6190 has been found in a turkish guy who says he has Albanian origins. We also have clades other than z638, which has tmrca of 4200 ybp, so its not some young founder effect.
Sardinia is known for sampling bias and overrepresentation on YFull since it had some study done, but i still think its normal some clades will show up there that wont among albs, but are nonetheless related to same origins.
Cardium culture and 6000BC is not serious.
Dalmatian sample is 17th -16th Century BC
Nuragic Civilization begins 18th Century BC, and the Sardinian L283 samples come from around 13th Century BC and were not found in sardinian samples dated prior to Nuragic civillization.
The evidence points to seafaring introduction of l283 that is IE. The language those l283 spoke is possibly hinted at by work of non-albanian linguists that have poinyed out certain non-latin words in sardinian language that point to an albanoid linguistic substratum.
On Yfull, under CTS6190 there are four Portuguese, one Italian, one Dutch, one British, one Russian. There's not a single Albanian.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-CTS6190/
Nuragic Civilization begins 18th Century BC, and the Sardinian L283 samples come from around 13th Century BC and were not found in sardinian samples dated prior to Nuragic civillization.
Significant genetic outliers for each time period identified by f4 statistics
Judging by the title, I'm assuming that this is the Official Outliers list.
Guess who's NOT on the list
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2019/11/06/366.6466.708.DC1/aay6826_Antonio_SM.pdf
What about it being downstrwam of the mathieson sample do you not understand? Etruscans were not IE, so if it was "common equally" to both an IE and etruscan group, ot cannot always have been. What type of argumentation is that.
The nuragic j2b2 is also further evidence of illyrian origin, not continental. Im not spamming this thread. Its the most obvious origin for the and the push to ignore it is wholly recationary and ideological.
Am I getting this right?
435-Prenestini Tribe plots with the Southern French
One in Spain, four near it but veering toward Sardinia, so even more Anatolian Neolithic?
851-Ardea Latini plots in the Spanish cluster. Which region is that?
1021 Boville Latini
1016 Rome Latini
473 Etruscan
1015 Villanovan
Etruscan 474-Italy, but which province is it actually in? Lombardia?
R1 Proto-Villanovan-Italy. It looks like it's near Liguria, but which province is it actually in?
So, anyone want to tell me again that Etruscans are from Lydia in the first millennium BC?
Both are, as I said, Southern Europeans.
Good-bye to so many myths.
Not Basque like so why model with them?
Did they model with only the steppe admixed Parma Beakers? Where would they plot here?
What happened to the other samples, especially 850?
These WHG results are seriously weird!
Assuming that nMonte with G25 is accurate, the Latins all have a high WHG (12-13% WHG), which is why they move a lot in the direction of Iberia and southern France.
ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA:RMPR435b plots with the southern French because he might have 14.4% of WHG.
Two Etruscans also have high WHG (8%) but it is more in line with northern Italy than with Iberia/southern France; Villanovan R1015 has around 13% of WHG but her steppe related ancestry is lower than that calculated in the paper. So here it could be lack of accuracy on my side.
ITA_Proto-Villanovan:RMPR1 has the lowest WHG (3%) and higher steppe-related ancestry (37%) and that's why she ends up with the Italians in the PCA and not with Iberians and Southern French. This sample plots with Italian Piedmont and not distantly from other Italian clusters. Liguria has only one sample, so it doesn't form a cluster.
ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b in the PCA plots in the Bergamo and Veneto clusters (in the area of intersection between these two clusters).
In the PCA I highlighted the clusters of the regions of Tuscany, Piedmont, Lombardy, Bergamo (Lombardy), Veneto.
ITA_Etruscan_o:RMPR475b seems to be only a 1/4 North African, definitely not half North African. Also nMonte suggests this.
In the PCA there are also the two Latin outliers.
ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o:RMPR437b and ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA_o:RMPR850
I think there must some kind of odd projection bias in the Global25 PCAs. They look nothing like the academic ones from the study.
Likely. There's nothing weird about it. They're different tools. Rarely what you see in the papers is exactly identical to what is seen with these amateur tools.
Thanks. It's difficult for me to make out the separate clusters sometimes.
Also, it just seemed to me that in the PCA in the paper the samples seemed more to be in an almost no man's land between Spain and northern Italy.
If you don't mind, where would Parma Beakers place in relation to this?
As the result of that huge gap for the Bronze Age in their analysis it makes it difficult to figure out the direction of flow for the steppe admixed people. Certainly a Balkan route makes sense. Connections with Apennine Culture always hinted at that, but what about a route through the Alps, or even from the direction of France? Was it predominantly one route, a combination? Might Latial be a different route from Villanovan?
This thread has been viewed 362478 times.