Angela
Elite member
- Messages
- 21,823
- Reaction score
- 12,329
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
Ah, I was talking about the usual suspect who has his own blog. He was adamant that modern Tuscans are nothing like Chalcolithic Iberians. It was a terrible study and PCA and should be forgotten Wrong again; what else is new when it comes to him and Southern Europe?
As for the mini-usual suspect, is he quoting (without attribution) and twisting my ideas as he's been doing since 23andme days?
@Ros,
I'm afraid you've gotten confused. I don't disagree, in general terms, with the computational population genetics analysis in the paper or the explanation of it, for that matter, which I would bet was done and written by Lazaridis. No one with any standing in academia has found any fault with its general parameters, although newer data has refined certain things around the edges, and more data might do the same. Even in 2015, though, the data analysis and the essays clearly show that the steppe input is much smaller in southern Europe than in Central and Northern Europe.
What I objected to then and now is the title, which implies there was "massive migration" from the steppe to all parts of Europe. It was an overstatement and it doesn't fit with the body of the paper itself, as others upthread have also pointed out, and I would bet it wasn't Lazaridis' idea.
Of course, anyone whose posts are worthy of being read knows that the body of the paper itself makes no such claim. As you immerse yourself in the data and the comments on it, you'll discover whom it is best to ignore.
It is certain internet bloggers and posters who have promoted a sort of "Indo-Europeans for dummies" version of the data since the beginning and continue to do so. You have to be careful whom you read. Even in the very early days of 2013 and before some of us were aware that certain archaeological papers were being ignored, and that certain dna data was being massaged.
Sarcasm and misplaced analogies are not going to change hard genetic data, I'm afraid.
The Spanish have WHG, as other analyses by Lazaridis have shown. On this particular graphic it is all hidden in the EN, which is based on Central European Neolithic farmers like Stuttgart, who are about 94% Anatolian farmer and 6% WHG. People like Spanish Basque have more. This was all discussed on the original thread for the HaaK 2015 paper.
Here are the actual percentages. Tuscans have zero on this too in this particular model. This isn't engraved in tablets of stone like the one Moses brought down from the mount. The percentages will change a little bit based on the particular ancient samples available. However, the parameters are as you see them. No new samples have changed the general picture.
Haak graphic EN WHG Yamnaya
Norway - 30, 16, 54
Lithuania - 18, 30, 52
Estonia - 12, 37, 51
Iceland - 32, 19, 49
Scotland - 28, 23, 49
Czech - 35, 16, 49
Belarus - 25, 28, 47
Hungary - 39, 16, 45
Ukraine - 28, 27, 44
England - 44, 14, 42
Orkney - 34, 25, 41
South French - 57, 4, 39
Croatia - 44, 17, 37
French - 51, 12, 37
North Spanish - 59, 10, 31
Bulgaria - 55, 14, 31
Tuscany - 72, 0, 28
Basque - 54, 19, 27
Bergamo - 63, 13, 24
Spain - 78, 0, 22
Greece - 66, 14, 20
Albania - 65, 18, 17
Sardinia - 88, 7, 5
Remember, at least 40% of most of those steppe numbers are Caucasus or "southern" or heavily "Basal Eurasian" in origin.
In the supplement there's extensive modeling which tries to get a better fit. You really should read it for yourself.
Here is the link to where we originally discussed the Haak 2015 paper. I went on record saying the rest of Europe might be very different. There are a lot of other threads where we discussed it. Just use the search engine.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...opean-languages-in-Europe?highlight=Haak+2015
I want to qualify one thing about the analysis in Haak. You'll see that the Finns are not included. That's because they couldn't be modeled with only those three populations. They needed Siberian. There's something else about the very North Eastern European samples like Finland, Estonia, and maybe even beyond that I've speculated about, and that is that the "steppe" component in them may be more heavily EHG/SHG like than is the case for other populations. I've always held out the possibility that as the far northeastern areas were refugia for hunter-gatherers similar to the hunter-gatherer element in steppe peoples, that might be skewing the analysis a bit, and that therefore the number of invading IE might be smaller to some degree than the percentages might indicate.
As time goes on, we'll see if that's correct or not.