New Dating for Ancient European admixture

Angela

Angela

Elite member
Messages
21,823
Reaction score
12,329
Points
113
Ethnic group
Italian
Very, very interesting new pre-print from Patterson, where he presents a new algorithm for dating admixture in ancient samples, something we've badly needed for a long time.

"Reconstructing the spatiotemporal patterns of admixture during the2 European Holocene using a novel genomic dating method"
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.18.476710v1.full.pdf

"Recent studies have shown that gene flow or admixture has been pervasive throughout15 human history. While several methods exist for dating admixture in contemporary16 populations, they are not suitable for sparse, low coverage data available from ancient17 specimens. To overcome this limitation, we developed DATES that leverages ancestry18 covariance patterns across the genome of a single individual to infer the timing of admixture.19 By performing simulations, we show that DATES provides reliable results under a range of20 demographic scenarios and outperforms available methods for ancient DNA applications.21 We apply DATES to ~1,100 ancient genomes to reconstruct gene flow events during the22 European Holocene. Present-day Europeans derive ancestry from three distinct groups, local23 Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, Anatolian farmers, and Yamnaya Steppe pastoralists. These24 ancestral groups were themselves admixed. By studying the formation of Anatolian farmers,25 we infer that the gene flow related to Iranian Neolithic farmers occurred no later than 9,60026 BCE, predating agriculture in Anatolia. We estimate the early Steppe pastoralist groups27 genetically formed more than a millennium before the start of steppe pastoralism, providing28 new insights about the history of proto-Yamnaya cultures and the origin of Indo-European29 languages. Using ancient genomes across sixteen regions in Europe, we provide a detailed30 chronology of the Neolithization across Europe that occurred from ~6,400–4,300 BCE. This31 movement was followed by a rapid spread of steppe ancestry from ~3,200–2,500 BCE. Our32 analyses highlight the power of genomic dating methods to elucidate the legacy of human33 migrations, providing insights complementary to archaeological and linguistic evidence."

Great, great stuff.
 
As one would expect from Patterson and this lab, the caveats are clearly spelled out.

"By varying of European ancestry proportion between ~1–50% 155 (the rest derived from west Africans), we observed DATES accurately estimated the timing in all 156 cases (Figure S2.2A). However, the inferred admixture proportion was overestimated was lower 157 admixture proportions. Thus, we caution against using DATES for 158 estimating ancestry proportions and recommend other methods based on f-statistics (10).

DATES assumes a model of instantaneous gene flow with a single pulse of mixture between 177 two source populations. However, many human populations have a history of multiple pulses of 178 gene flow. To test the performance of DATES for multi-way admixture events, we generated 179 admixed individuals with ancestry from three sources (East Asians, Africans, and Europeans) 180 where the gene flow occurred at two distinct time points (Note S2, Figure S2.10). By applying 181 DATES with pairs of reference populations at a time and fitting a single exponential to the ancestry 182 covariance patterns, we observed that DATES recovered both admixture times in case of equal 183 ancestry proportion from the three ancestral groups when the associated reference groups were 184 used for dating (Figure S2.11). In the case of unequal admixture proportions from three ancestral 185 groups, DATES inferred the timing of the recent admixture event in most cases, though some 186 confounding was observed, especially when the ancestry proportion of the recent event was low 187 (Figure S2.12). However, if the reference populations were set up to match the model of gene flow, 188 we observed that we could reliably recover the time of the recent gene flow event. For example, 189 there is limited confounding if the two references used in DATES include (i) the source population 190 for the recent event and (ii) either the pooled ancestral populations contributing to the first (or 191 earlier) event or the intermediate admixed group formed after the first event (Table S2.1). This 192 highlights how the choice of reference populations can help to tune the method to infer the timing 193 of specific admixture events reliably.

Finally, we explored the impact of more complex demographic events, including 195 continuous admixture and founder events using coalescent simulations (Note S2). In the case of 196 continuous admixture, DATES inferred an intermediate timing between the start and the end of the 197 gene flow period, similar to other methods like ALDER and Globetrotter (2, 5) (Table S2.2). In 198 the case of populations with founder events, we inferred unbiased dates of admixture in most cases 199 except when the founder event was extreme (Ne ~ 10) or the population had maintained a low 200 population size (Ne < 100) until present (i.e., no recovery bottleneck) (Figure S2.13, Table S2.3). 201 In humans, few populations have such extreme founder events, and thus, in most other cases, our 202 inferred admixture dates should be robust to founder events (11). We note that while DATES is not 203 a formal test of admixture, in simulations, we find that in the absence of gene flow, the method 204 does not infer significant dates of admixture even when the target has a complex demographic 205 history (Figure S2.15, S2.16)"

Given some of these caveats I'm unsure about the accuracy when it comes to Italian genetics, but we shall see.
 

    1. in South Asia, this ancestry arrived with
    2. 582 Steppe MLBA cultures in 1,800-1,500 BCE (8). The Steppe MLBA groups were genetically
    3. 583 formed as an admixture of Steppe pastoralist-derived groups and European Neolithic farmers
    4. 584 following the eastward expansion of CWC groups between ~3,200–2,700 BCE.







Is this a surprising finding? I don't recall reading before that Indians had significant European ancestry (as opposed to Steppe ancestry). This makes it sound like the conquerors of India originated in the area of modern-day Poland or Belarus.
 
We've known that. The Sintashta type groups represent steppe pastoralists who went to Europe, picked up some Neolithic farmer ancestry, then headed back to the eastern steppe before going to South Asia.
 
What I find strange is this:

"We inferred the oldest date of Steppe pastoralist-related admixture was 449 ~3,200 BCE (3600–2800 BCE) in EBA Mallorca samples from Iberia. We note the EBA Mallorca 450 sample is not directly associated with Beaker culture, but qpAdm modeling suggests that this 451 individual is clade with the small subset of Iberian Beaker-complex-associated individuals who 452 carried Steppe pastoralist-related (40). Most individuals from Iberia, however, had negligible 453 Steppe pastoralist-related ancestry suggesting the Beaker culture was not accompanied by major 454 gene flow in Iberia despite the earliest dates (Table SH)."

We've previously conjectured about this finding. One, where did these steppe admixed people come from? What steppe group had mastered sea-faring at this early date? Did they go to Mallorca first? Or, did it come by boat following the Northern Mediterranean Coast and first land in coastal Eastern Spain and then go to Mallorca? Did the steppe arrive with more Aegean like ancestry along with metallurgy. Does that explain the eastern Mediterranean type architecture which slightly predates the metallurgy finds in southeastern Spain?

Second of all, I'm intrigued that the authors found so little steppe in Spain. We know that Iberians as a whole have a lot of Anatolian/European farmer ancestry, admixed with about 20% hunter-gatherer. However, all the modeling I've seen shows relatively significant amounts of steppe admixed groups. Do they mean it arrived later, i.e. after about 300 B.C.?
 
Hi Angela,
What you make of the paragraph, <B>lines 448- 452?</B>

Update: See you already addressed it above.
 
If I've said it once I've said it a dozen times: these nice neat models don't work for Southern Europe.

"In southern Europe, early BA samples had limited Steppe pastoralist-related470 ancestry, though present-day individuals have between ~5–30% steppe ancestry (16). Using471 pooled samples of middle to late BA from Spain, we inferred major mixture occurred ~2,500 BCE472 in Iberia. We inferred a similar timing in Italy using individuals associated with the Bell Beaker473 culture and early BA samples from Sicily (Table SC). In Sardinia, a majority of the BA samples474 do not have Steppe pastoralist-related ancestry. In a few individuals, we found evidence for steppe475 ancestry, though in most cases, the Steppe pastoralist-related ancestry proportion overlapped 0,476 and the dates were very noisy (Table SH). Using Iron Age samples from Sardinia, we inferred the477 gene flow occurred ~2,600 BCE, though there is large uncertainty associated with this estimate478 (2,614 +/- 560 BCE). In other parts of continental Europe and the British Isles, the Steppe479 pastoralist-related gene flow got diluted over time, as evidenced by more recent dates in LBA than480 EBA or MBA samples in Germany, England, and Scotland, and increase in Neolithic farmer481 ancestry during this period (42) (Table SC)."

Obviously, I have to check all these first impressions with the tables and other data.
 
Angela said:
What I find strange is this:

"We inferred the oldest date of Steppe pastoralist-related admixture was 449 ~3,200 BCE (3600–2800 BCE) in EBA Mallorca samples from Iberia. We note the EBA Mallorca 450 sample is not directly associated with Beaker culture, but qpAdm modeling suggests that this 451 individual is clade with the small subset of Iberian Beaker-complex-associated individuals who 452 carried Steppe pastoralist-related (40). Most individuals from Iberia, however, had negligible 453 Steppe pastoralist-related ancestry suggesting the Beaker culture was not accompanied by major 454 gene flow in Iberia despite the earliest dates (Table SH)."

We've previously conjectured about this finding. One, where did these steppe admixed people come from? What steppe group had mastered sea-faring at this early date? Did they go to Mallorca first? Or, did it come by boat following the Northern Mediterranean Coast and first land in coastal Eastern Spain and then go to Mallorca? Did the steppe arrive with more Aegean like ancestry along with metallurgy. Does that explain the eastern Mediterranean type architecture which slightly predates the metallurgy finds in southeastern Spain?

Second of all, I'm intrigued that the authors found so little steppe in Spain. We know that Iberians as a whole have a lot of Anatolian/European farmer ancestry, admixed with about 20% hunter-gatherer. However, all the modeling I've seen shows relatively significant amounts of steppe admixed groups. Do they mean it arrived later, i.e. after about 300 B.C.?
Click to expand...

They're not usually sloppy with language but they were in this instance.

This is what they meant:

"We find the earliest evidence of Steppe pastoralist-related ancestry569 in Iberia around 3200 BCE, though this ancestry only becomes widespread after 2,500 BCE."
 
Bummer...

"We observed that in all four cases using PopC (admixing source in the most recent pulse) as oneof the sources allows us to recover the recent pulse of admixture. When the other referencepopulation is either the pooled set of samples of PopA and PopB (admixing sources in the olderpulse) or admixed individuals with ancestry from PopA and PopB, we reliably infer the youngerpulse of admixture in all cases (Supplementary Table S2.1). In other cases, we observe someconfounding in the inferred dates with the estimated dates falling intermediate of two dates."

It's like the problem with admixture in a way; if you have all four grandparents from one area and you know the area, it works fine. In other situations not so much.

I had this problem with the Hellenthal paper when they presumed to date admixture in Italy and which groups were involved. I thought the dates were off. Whether they were or not there was no way of telling. It doesn't seem as if this program will clear it up much more given that you had continuous pulses of migration from both the Aegean, Caucasus, Near East, and Central Europe.
 
Well, speaking of Hellenthal...

"We compared the performance of DATES with other published methods such as Rolloff (4),ALDER (2), and Globetrotter (13). For this purpose instead of re-running all the tools, weleveraged published results from Hellenthal et al. 2014 (Table S12) where the authors comparedthe performance of Globetrotter and Rolloff (13). Following (13), we generated a merged datasetincluding samples from the Human Genome Diversity Panel (HGDP) (6), Behar et al. 2010 (16),and Henn et al. (17). Our dataset consists of 1,642 individuals and 465,543 SNPs."


"We applied DATES and ALDER to 29 target groups using the reference populations reported in Hellenthal et al. 2014 (Table S12). We obtained significant dates of admixtures in 20/ 29 groups using DATES. Out of these, the estimated dates between Globetrotter and DATES were consistent for 14 populations (within two standard errors). In the case of the six populations that disagreed across the two methods, most of the populations appear to have a history of multiple pulses of gene flow either involving more than two populations or multiple instances of contact between the same two reference groups


Another population, present-day Bulgarians, haveancestry from western hunter-gatherers, Near Eastern farmers, and Steppe pastoralists fromEurasia (see main text). Globetrotter instead models this group as a two-way admixture betweenPolish and Cypriots (Table S4.1). The results, in this case, are hard to interpret as depending onthe composition of the ancestral populations either of the two ancient events or other more recentevents could be captured.

It's as useless as the two way analysis in Dodecad, imo, for meaningful information about the population analysis of Bulgarians or any other group. All it tells you is that population X is midway between those two points. It doesn't tell you which admixture events throughout history led to that placement. It's like looking at a PCA and thinking, ok, great, but how did that happen; one admixture, two, more, and when?

In the supplement, page 48, Table S4.1, the dates for all four dating systems are compared for 30 populations. For Italian groups they have Northern Italians, Tuscans and Sicilians; completely uninformative for all of them.

Maybe someone will care enough to post the whole chart.
 
Target Region WHG EHG AHG SE_WHG SE_EHG SE_AHG p-value

IronGates Central Europe 0.638 0.224 0.138 0.109 0.043 0.072 0.926236

Maybe if it's repeated often enough, this will get through, along with an understanding of how this might confound results.

"Previous analysis has suggested that early Anatolian farmers can be modeled as a mixture ofAnatolian hunter-gatherers (AHG) and Iran Neolithic. The AHG were in turn were a mixture ofWHG and Levant Neolithic groups (23). We confirmed this model using previously suggestedsources and outgroups using Model-B (Supplementary Table S5.3). The early Anatolian farmersmixed with Levant Neolithic groups to form the genetic ancestry of Anatolian farmers, thatmigrated to the west to Europe and in the east to form the Chalcolithic groups of Seh Gabi andHajji Firuz. Using Model-D and Anatolian farmers and Iran Neolithic groups as sources, weobtained a good fit for Iran Seh Gabi individuals. We find that Hajji Firuz individuals were bettermodeled as a mix of Iran Seh Gabi and Anatolian farmer-related ancestry using Model-C (24). Wereport details of all models and estimated admixture proportions in Supplementary Table S5.3."

"we applied the two-way mixture of WHG and Anatolian farmersmixture to data from 94 Neolithic European groups, sampled from diverse regions and time periods".

"For 70/94groups, this model was found to be a good fit (p-value > 0.05) (Supplementary Table SD)

"For theremaining 24 groups...removed outliers that had a different ancestry source compared to the majority of theindividuals in the target population. Using this approach, we found that the model of two-waymixture between WHG and Anatolian farmers was a good fit for 14 groups (Supplementary TableSE). Next, we explored if the source of the HG ancestry was not WHG alone, as many MesolithicHG groups were admixed and had some proportion of EHG or GoyetQ2 ancestry in addition toWHG. To this end, we added either EHG or GoyetQ2 HGs as additional sources with WHG andAnatolian farmers. In six cases, adding EHG and GoyetQ2 provided a good fit, highlighting thediversity in HG ancestry across Neolithic groups. The model of European HGs and Anatolianfarmers failed in six groups (p-value < 0.05) (Supplementary Table SD).

"p, if the target shares excess alleles with Steppe pastoralists, thenwe excluded the target from the DATES analysis as in that case the inferred dates would likelyreflect the timing of the recent event involving Steppe pastoralists groups (vs. gene flow of HGand Anatolian farmers). Based on this analysis, we excluded 4 groups that showed significantlyhigher sharing with Steppe pastoralists than Near Eastern farmers (Supplementary Table SF)."



X8DX58iMFelwAAAAABJRU5ErkJggg==
 
Angela: Thanks for linking the paper. I printed it out and took a look at it yesterday and checked it again. The section "Comparison to other Methods" is the one your cites relates to. I have put that text below along with Table S4.1 pp.47-48. My reading of this section is that they were testing the reliability of their model by seeing if it got the same results from other methods from other papers as documented in Hellenthal et al 2014. I think the key text is interestingly, the majority of these groups (25 of 29) failed the formal test of admixture either because the results of a single reference or both caused the model to fail or one population used as a reference and the Target and one reference population shared long term admixture histories. So in the case of Northern Italians, I would think French would share a long term association, whereas Cypriots would not, same thing for the Tuscan Model and same thing for the West Sicilian Model. So I take the results in Table S4.1 and the 25 models that failed, thus rejected the null that the models fit the data in favor of the alternative hypothesis (the model does not correctly model the target population). There are 4 models that succeed as fits for the target population and 3 that are possible 2-way admixture models. I don't have the Hellenthal et al 2014 paper "A Genetic Atlas of Human Admixture History, Science, 343, 747-751 but do they get the same model fits for the 4 Target populations that Chintalapati et al 2022 did in Table S4.1? Maybe that could clear up some things.


Comparison to other methods


" We assessed the reliability of DATES in real data by comparing our results with published methods: Globetrotter, ALDER, and ROLLOFF. These methods are designed for the analysis of
present-day samples that typically have high-quality data with limited missing variants. In addition, Globetrotter uses phased data which is challenging for ancient DNA samples. Thus,
instead of rerunning other methods, we took advantage of the published results for contemporary samples presented in Hellenthal et al., (2014) (2). Following (2), we created a merged dataset
including individuals from Human Genome Diversity Panel (9), Behar et al. (2010) (12), and Henn et al. (2012) (13) (Methods). We applied DATES and ALDER to 29 target groups using the
reference populations reported in Hellenthal et al. 2014 (Table S12), excluding one group where the population label was unclear. Interestingly, the majority of these groups (25/29) failed
ALDER’s formal test of admixture; either because the results of the single reference and two reference analyses yielded inconsistent estimates or because the target had long-range shared LD
with one of the reference populations (Table S4.1). Using DATES, we inferred significant dates of admixture in 20 groups, and 14 of those were consistent with estimates based on Globetrotter. In
most remaining cases, recent studies suggest the target populations may have ancestry from multiple gene flow events, either involving the same source populations or additional ancestral
groups . The estimated admixture timing based on DATES, ROLLOFF, and ALDER (assuming two-way admixture regardless of the formal test results) were found to be highly concordant (Table
S4.1). "

3HBSH9q.jpg


qyn8iwI.jpg
 
Palermo Trapani said:
Angela: Thanks for linking the paper. I printed it out and took a look at it yesterday and checked it again. The section "Comparison to other Methods" is the one your cites relates to. I have put that text below along with Table S4.1 pp.47-48. My reading of this section is that they were testing the reliability of their model by seeing if it got the same results from other methods from other papers as documented in Hellenthal et al 2014. I think the key text is interestingly, the majority of these groups (25 of 29) failed the formal test of admixture either because the results of a single reference or both caused the model to fail or one population used as a reference and the Target and one reference population shared long term admixture histories. So in the case of Northern Italians, I would think French would share a long term association, whereas Cypriots would not, same thing for the Tuscan Model and same thing for the West Sicilian Model. So I take the results in Table S4.1 and the 25 models that failed, thus rejected the null that the models fit the data in favor of the alternative hypothesis (the model does not correctly model the target population). There are 4 models that succeed as fits for the target population and 3 that are possible 2-way admixture models. I don't have the Hellenthal et al 2014 paper "A Genetic Atlas of Human Admixture History, Science, 343, 747-751 but do they get the same model fits for the 4 Target populations that Chintalapati et al 2022 did in Table S4.1? Maybe that could clear up some things.


Comparison to other methods


" We assessed the reliability of DATES in real data by comparing our results with published methods: Globetrotter, ALDER, and ROLLOFF. These methods are designed for the analysis of
present-day samples that typically have high-quality data with limited missing variants. In addition, Globetrotter uses phased data which is challenging for ancient DNA samples. Thus,
instead of rerunning other methods, we took advantage of the published results for contemporary samples presented in Hellenthal et al., (2014) (2). Following (2), we created a merged dataset
including individuals from Human Genome Diversity Panel (9), Behar et al. (2010) (12), and Henn et al. (2012) (13) (Methods). We applied DATES and ALDER to 29 target groups using the
reference populations reported in Hellenthal et al. 2014 (Table S12), excluding one group where the population label was unclear. Interestingly, the majority of these groups (25/29) failed
ALDER’s formal test of admixture; either because the results of the single reference and two reference analyses yielded inconsistent estimates or because the target had long-range shared LD
with one of the reference populations (Table S4.1). Using DATES, we inferred significant dates of admixture in 20 groups, and 14 of those were consistent with estimates based on Globetrotter. In
most remaining cases, recent studies suggest the target populations may have ancestry from multiple gene flow events, either involving the same source populations or additional ancestral
groups . The estimated admixture timing based on DATES, ROLLOFF, and ALDER (assuming two-way admixture regardless of the formal test results) were found to be highly concordant (Table
S4.1). "

3HBSH9q.jpg


qyn8iwI.jpg
Click to expand...


I thought Eupedia members crapped on this paper in 2015 ............
 
Torzio: The paper Angela linked and the one I referenced in my post, that you quoted, is a brand new paper just linked on bioRxiv yesterday. I wasn't here in 2014/2015 so Not sure how the Hellenthal et al 2014 paper was received.
 
Following the Corded Ware culture, from around 2,800 to 2,300 BCE, Bell Beaker pottery became widespread across Europe (39). Using 19 Chalcolithic and Bronze Age samples, including ten associated with Beaker-complex artifacts, we inferred the dynamics of the spread of the Beaker complex across Europe. We inferred the oldest date of Steppe pastoralist-related admixture was ~3,200 BCE (3600–2800 BCE) in EBA Mallorca samples from Iberia. We note the EBA Mallorca sample is not directly associated with Beaker culture, but qpAdm modeling suggests that this individual is clade with the small subset of Iberian Beaker-complex-associated individuals who carried Steppe pastoralist-related (40). Most individuals from Iberia, however, had negligible Steppe pastoralist-related ancestry suggesting the Beaker culture was not accompanied by major gene flow in Iberia despite the earliest dates (Table SH). In central and western Europe, where steppe gene flow was more pervasive, we inferred the median date of the mixture was ~2,700 BCE with the oldest dates in the Netherlands, followed by Germany and France (Figure 3). There was, however, large heterogeneity in the dates across Europe and even within the same region. For example, comparing two BA groups from the Netherlands suggests a wide range of dates ~3,000 BCE and 2,500 BCE, and four groups from Germany indicate a range of ~2,900–2,700 BCE. From central Europe, the Steppe pastoralist-related ancestry spread quickly to the British Isles, where people with steppe ancestry replaced 90% of the genetic ancestry of individuals from Britain. Our estimates for the time of gene flow in Bell Beakers samples from England suggest that the gene flow occurred ~2,700 BCE (2770-2550 BCE). Our estimated dates of admixture are older than the dates of arrival of this ancestry in Britain (41) and, interestingly, overlap the dates in central Europe. Given that a significant fraction of the Beaker individuals were recent migrants from central Europe, we interpret our dates reflect the admixture into ancestors of the British Beaker people, occurring in mainland Europe (41).

The middle to late Bronze age led to the final integration of Steppe pastoralist-related ancestry in Europe. In southern Europe, early BA samples had limited Steppe pastoralist-related ancestry, though present-day individuals have between ~5–30% steppe ancestry (16). Using pooled samples of middle to late BA from Spain, we inferred major mixture occurred ~2,500 BCE in Iberia. We inferred a similar timing in Italy using individuals associated with the Bell Beaker culture and early BA samples from Sicily (Table SC). In Sardinia, a majority of the BA samples do not have Steppe pastoralist-related ancestry. In a few individuals, we found evidence for steppe ancestry, though in most cases, the Steppe pastoralist-related ancestry proportion overlapped 0, and the dates were very noisy (Table SH). Using Iron Age samples from Sardinia, we inferred the gene flow occurred ~2,600 BCE, though there is large uncertainty associated with this estimate (2,614 +/− 560 BCE). In other parts of continental Europe and the British Isles, the Steppe pastoralist-related gene flow got diluted over time, as evidenced by more recent dates in LBA than EBA or MBA samples in Germany, England, and Scotland, and increase in Neolithic farmer ancestry during this period (42) (Table SC).

PS: These are the same transcriptions made and commented by Angela in posts #s 5, 7 and 8. I just copied from the Html text (from post # 14) in order to suppress the line numbering present in the PDF text, originally posted by Angela.
 
Last edited:
Rather inelegantly put, but indeed I, at least, went on record that it and subsequent papers by Henn and Hellenthal made no sense, although some people on other sites liked them, especially the Stormfront and the apricity and forumbiodiversity crowd liked them, including Davidski .

These threads recall bad times here, with 2 Nordicist racists on my hands, one a Spaniard and one an Italian. Ultimately I banned them both, and good riddance. I should have done it earlier.

Anyway, good to know we were right that the Hellenthal papers were terrible.

http://admixturemap.paintmychromosomes.com/

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...xture-in-last-1500-years?highlight=Hellenthal

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...ddle-age-admixture-event?highlight=Hellenthal
 
The amount of Iran Neo in the steppe groups was less than I've seen in some other analyses.
c1OGFBf.png

kz3GvI5.png
 
Angela said:
Rather inelegantly put, but indeed I, at least, went on record that it and subsequent papers by Henn and Hellenthal made no sense, although some people on other sites liked them, especially the Stormfront and the apricity and forumbiodiversity crowd liked them, including Davidski .

These threads recall bad times here, with 2 Nordicist racists on my hands, one a Spaniard and one an Italian. Ultimately I banned them both, and good riddance. I should have done it earlier.

Anyway, good to know we were right that the Hellenthal papers were terrible.

http://admixturemap.paintmychromosomes.com/

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...xture-in-last-1500-years?highlight=Hellenthal

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...ddle-age-admixture-event?highlight=Hellenthal
Click to expand...

Angela: No I recognized what you were hinting at. The Models for the 3 Italian populations in Table S4.1 are "uninformative" as you stated because they were rejected as specifications to model the Target populations (North Italian, Tuscan, and West Sicilian) in Adler, which I think is what Reich uses a lot at the Harvard Lab?. Thanks for posting that link " admixturemap". As I noted, I don't have this paper, thus never read it. Posting the admixture llink allows a very easy comparison of all the models Chintalapti et al 2022 estimated in Table S4.1 to the ones Hellenthal et al 2014 ran. It is clear the Hellenthal et al 2014 models for admixture were not replicated by the Chintalapati, Patterson and Moorjani 2022 paper (See Table S4.1, pp 47-48). On the other hand, the Results from Table S5.4 do show the models fit quite well for these ancient populations, even though there may be some differences as in admixture proportions in this study compared to others, as you noted.
 
Will take a look at this more closely, because this sounds like a pretty big deal. One reason why Y-DNA analysis has been so popular is because of dates. If you can date autosomal mixtures, then it'll change the entire ballgame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 7383 times.

Back
Top