Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 23 of 23 FirstFirst ... 13212223
Results 551 to 558 of 558

Thread: The origin and legacy of the Etruscans through a 2000-year archeogenomic time transec

  1. #551
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    884


    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Etruscan,0.123751,0.1585354,0.0362664,-0.015818,0.0495476,-0.0101486,-0.0010771,-0.0037307,0.0235146,0.0446782,0.0005098,0.0109236,-0.0207298,-0.0060898,-0.0027332,-0.0033368,0.0030024,0.0005173,0.001222,-0.0043528,0.0011542,0.0045854,-0.0025266,-0.0042675,0.0010212
    The error in G25 regarding Germanic admixture is that Etruscan_IA includes outliers which inflated the Germanic admixture. Modern Tuscans get only 9% Germanic and they more northern shifted than Medieval Tuscans.

    I don't have Medieval Tuscans but it should be closer to 5% than to 10% with this model which fits with Germanic Y-dna being more male-biased and pushing nearly 10%.

    Target: Italian_Tuscany
    Distance: 1.1331% / 0.01133056
    61.4 Etruscan
    17.8 ARM_LBA
    12.2 Levant_Ashkelon_IA2
    8.6 Swedish


    Also the percentages given for East Med admixture in the study for Imperial Tuscans (using ARM_LBA and other samples) are fine around 35-39% but one outlier pushed nearly 60% which screwed the whole result. Same with Germanic admixture, one outlier was more northern shifted, so scientists probably got their "20% Germanic" wrong from it.

    If you check the PCA 3 out of 5 Imperial samples are very close probably those are around 39% East Med admixture.

    [/COLOR]
    NOTE: I am just showing a more proper way how could the Germanic admixture be estimated in the official studies model. This model is not necessarily meant to be taken literally.









  2. #552
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    30-04-18
    Posts
    212


    Country: United Kingdom



    3 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by ihype02 View Post
    The error in G25 regarding Germanic admixture is that Etruscan_IA includes outliers which inflated the Germanic admixture. Modern Tuscans get only 9% Germanic and they more northern shifted than Medieval Tuscans.
    I don't have Medieval Tuscans but it should be closer to 5% than to 10% with this model which
    Are you aware that these models are actually very misleading? You can model other populations in this way as well.







  3. #553
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    30-04-18
    Posts
    212


    Country: United Kingdom



    2 members found this post helpful.









  4. #554
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    884


    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by brick View Post
    Are you aware that these models are actually very misleading? You can model other populations in this way as well.
    I am aware why did you delete the last part of comment in the quote which makes it clear? I did not propose those components, the scientists did. I just fixed the 20% Germanic error when modeling with those components.

    Also Albanians had different genetical ancestors from Tuscans so that comparison is not really fair.
    The main problem is that we need to uncover the entire Iron Age Italy before estimating the Eastern Mediterranean admixture. The Italy is cline so Tuscans might have even some ancestry from Native Southern Italians (Lucanians, Messapian, Samnites etc.)

    As for Eastern Mediterranean admixture in modern Tuscans that came during Imperial Rome I think it's around 10% minimum to maximum 20% not 50% as this study suggest. That is too high beyond eyes.

  5. #555
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    30-04-18
    Posts
    212


    Country: United Kingdom



    3 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by ihype02 View Post
    I am aware why did you delete the last part of comment in the quote which makes it clear? I did not propose those components, the scientists did. I just fixed the 20% Germanic error when modeling with those components.

    Also Albanians had different genetical ancestors from Tuscans so that comparison is not really fair.
    The main problem is that we need to uncover the entire Iron Age Italy before estimating the Eastern Mediterranean admixture. The Italy is cline so Tuscans might have even some ancestry from Native Southern Italians (Lucanians, Messapian, Samnites etc.)

    As for Eastern Mediterranean admixture in modern Tuscans that came during Imperial Rome I think it's around 10% minimum to maximum 20% not 50% as this study suggest. That is too high beyond eyes.

    Calculators do not know what ancestry the populations considered in the models have.

    According to these models, there is Eastern Mediterranean admixture in all Italians and in all Balkan populations, including Albanians.

    If you take these results literally, then you have to explain why Albanians and even all Balkan populations, both northern and southern, get percentages of Levant_Ashkelon and Armenian_LMBA or MBA.

    My point is that these results prove nothing, and I agree with you the results in the paper can be wrong too.

  6. #556
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    884


    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by brick View Post
    Calculators do not know what ancestry the populations considered in the models have.

    According to these models, there is Eastern Mediterranean admixture in all Italians and in all Balkan populations, including Albanians.

    If you take these results literally, then you have to explain why Albanians and even all Balkan populations, both northern and southern, get percentages of Levant_Ashkelon and Armenian_LMBA or MBA.

    My point is that these results prove nothing.

  7. #557
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    26-01-09
    Posts
    718

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z36

    Country: UK - Scotland



    Quote Originally Posted by ihype02 View Post
    The error in G25 regarding Germanic admixture is that Etruscan_IA includes outliers which inflated the Germanic admixture. Modern Tuscans get only 9% Germanic and they more northern shifted than Medieval Tuscans.
    I don't have Medieval Tuscans but it should be closer to 5% than to 10% with this model which fits with Germanic Y-dna being more male-biased and pushing nearly 10%.
    Target: Italian_Tuscany
    Distance: 1.1331% / 0.01133056
    61.4 Etruscan
    17.8 ARM_LBA
    12.2 Levant_Ashkelon_IA2
    8.6 Swedish
    Also the percentages given for East Med admixture in the study for Imperial Tuscans (using ARM_LBA and other samples) are fine around 35-39% but one outlier pushed nearly 60% which screwed the whole result. Same with Germanic admixture, one outlier was more northern shifted, so scientists probably got their "20% Germanic" wrong from it.
    If you check the PCA 3 out of 5 Imperial samples are very close probably those are around 39% East Med admixture.
    [/COLOR]
    NOTE: I am just showing a more proper way how could the Germanic admixture be estimated in the official studies model. This model is not necessarily meant to be taken literally.

    Why are modern Tuscans more northern-shifted than medieval Tuscans?

    It makes no historical sense.

    However 9pc Germanic in Tuscany sounds OK but a little high, perhaps.

  8. #558
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    884


    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Vallicanus View Post
    Why are modern Tuscans more northern-shifted than medieval Tuscans?

    It makes no historical sense.

    However 9pc Germanic in Tuscany sounds OK but a little high, perhaps.
    But they are more northern shifted than Medieval Tuscans, it would make sense historically with more Northern Italian and more Northern European related ancestry.

    Also 30% Middle Eastern is not really accurate (at least with Y-Dna) I was just correcting the ~20% Germanic based on the official studies model. And 30% as high as it is, it is still lower than official paper's result.

    I am not sure if I can blame the scientists for the East Med admixture results, because I think they were tricked a lot by the lack of samples that were needed to take conclusions. But the "20% Germanic" seems to be most likely a fault of their own.

Page 23 of 23 FirstFirst ... 13212223

Posting Permissions

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