Stable population structure in Europe since the Iron Age

[Archetype0ne]

The issue is that that is not the case. But whatever. Small difference in the bigger picture so no use arguing.

 

[enter_tain]

The issue is that that is not the case. But whatever. Small difference in the bigger picture so no use arguing.

Based on what, homemade crappy models? Is this like Riverman's model who said Belgians had more "Western Balkan" than Albanians?

We know for a fact Slavic/Northeastern ancestry exists in all of the Balkans (R1a, I2 related). You remove that from Albanians, and get a southern Italian like population. That's basic logic a lot of us here have argued for ages. Now we get a southern Italian-like guy in Montenegro who is exactly that and they're complaining about an "East Med shift" that's everywhere in the Balkans. Even though you look at those Y-DNAs and they're all locals.

 

[Archetype0ne]

Based on what, homemade crappy models? Is this like Riverman's model who said Belgians had more "Western Balkan" than Albanians?

We know for a fact Slavic/Northeastern ancestry exists in all of the Balkans (R1a, I2 related). You remove that from Albanians, and get a southern Italian like population. That's basic logic a lot of us here have argued for ages. Now we get a southern Italian-like guy in Montenegro who is exactly that and they're complaining about an "East Med shift" that's everywhere in the Balkans. Even though you look at those Y-DNAs and they're all locals.

Based on having seen hundreds of runs and keeping up with papers.
You'd have to brush off on a couple of Italian and Greek papers for us to have this nuanced discussion.

But lets pretend you and Jov are right for a second.
"Albanians are south Italian-like (Greek-like) + Northeastern European (Slavic)"

That would mean Albanians to plot North of Central Macedonian Greeks would need higher Slavic autosomal admixture... Which even you might know is not the case.
The discussion is thus so nuanced you would have to have kept up with like 4-5 papers at least, and be familiar with Italian, Greek and Albanian autosomals.

In fact the far more likely scenario is that proto-Albanians, Illyrians, and proto-Italians of all ilks had one certain cluster in common among many. And this cluster got shifted North and South in North Italians by East Med and Germanic ancestry. Got shifted South East in Albanians by ancient Greek/Eastern Balkan admixture event with only a slight push North post medieval making them plot closer to North Italians than to South Italians... While South Italy having lacked the extent of Northern Influx as can be seen from the Imperial Paper and samples got shifted further south during the Imperial time period, allowing for distance wise modern Albanians to be closer to Central/North Italians. And finally the negligible net move first South-East with the med shift, then North with the Germanic admix left North Italians in a net position similar to whatever the common autosomal cluster from BA-IA was like.

Then again, I am curious if you can make sense of this.

 

[enter_tain]

That would mean Albanians to plot North of Central Macedonian Greeks would need higher Slavic autosomal admixture... Which even you might know is not the case.

Dude no offence, but double check your writing, because it hurts to read. I have no idea what you're writing.

But lets pretend you and Jov are right for a second.
"Albanians are south Italian-like (Greek-like) + Northeastern European (Slavic)"

This is not an opinion. This is a fact.

(1) We know Albanians have Slavic ancestry (R1a + I2).

(2) You remove that, and you end up over Southern Italians.

You don't remove Slavic ancestry and end up in the Appalachian Mountains. There is only 1 answer.

 

[enter_tain]

In fact the far more likely scenario is that proto-Albanians, Illyrians, and proto-Italians of all ilks had one certain cluster in common among many. And this cluster got shifted North and South in North Italians by East Med and Germanic ancestry. Got shifted South East in Albanians by ancient Greek/Eastern Balkan admixture event with only a slight push North post medieval making them plot closer to North Italians than to South Italians... While South Italy having lacked the extent of Northern Influx as can be seen from the Imperial Paper and samples got shifted further south during the Imperial time period, allowing for distance wise modern Albanians to be closer to Central/North Italians. And finally the negligible net move first South-East with the med shift, then North with the Germanic admix left North Italians in a net position similar to whatever the common autosomal cluster from BA-IA was like.

Then again, I am curious if you can make sense of this.

This is all nonsense speculation. The issue with your "models" is that

(1) You don't take into account the 5-15% Gothic ancestry (I1 related), which is inflating your Slavic percentage.

(2) You don't have a good proxy for Slavs. Slavs themselves differ, so you need an actual Slav that gave rise to these pops.

(3) Proto-Albanians are a Roman Empire population, not some random Bronze Age population in the Balkans. They will look like other Roman Imperial samples.

 

[Archetype0ne]

Dude no offence, but double check your writing, because it hurts to read. I have no idea what you're writing.

You'd have to brush off on a couple of Italian and Greek papers for us to have this nuanced discussion.


The discussion is thus so nuanced you would have to have kept up with like 4-5 papers at least, and be familiar with Italian, Greek and Albanian autosomals.

Maybe you are a visual learner.

Now you might hold a grudge with me from far back, but me personally, have nothing against you. Just will kindly ask you, if you want to have this debate with me start reading Antonio et al and Lazaridis papers(Rome/Etruscan/Imperial + Minoan/Mycenean). That will make my coordinate based writing far easier to understand... I hope.

 

[enter_tain]

Maybe you are a visual learner.

Now you might hold a grudge with me from far back, but me personally, have nothing against you. Just will kindly ask you, if you want to have this debate with me start reading Antonio et al and Lazaridis papers(Rome/Etruscan/Imperial + Minoan/Mycenean). That will make my coordinate based writing far easier to understand... I hope.

What does this show? That Illyrians (even the ones in Croatia) are related to Albanians? The thing I've been arguing for, forever?

 

[Archetype0ne]

What does this show? That Illyrians (even the ones in Croatia) are related to Albanians? The thing I've been arguing for, forever?

C'mon cuz, you're smarter than that. Think in terms of coordinates in relation to N/S Italians, Albanians and Greeks when you look at those maps. As well as the ancient sample being the common denominator among these pops as far as this comparative exercise goes.

 

[enter_tain]

C'mon cuz, you're smarter than that. Think in terms of coordinates in relation to N/S Italians, Albanians and Greeks when you look at those maps.

I just gave you a map about it....

Answer my question: You remove the ~20% Slavic percentage in Albanians, what type of population do you end up with? There is only 1 answer here. It's basic logic.

 

[Archetype0ne]

I just gave you a map about it....

Answer my question: You remove the ~20% Slavic percentage in Albanians, what type of population do you end up with? There is only 1 answer here. It's basic logic.

Why don't you try? Go AC-BC calc on vahaduo, your own coordinates and remove Avar2 sample, or Czech Medieval, or Krakauer Berg. I have no idea, so please show me.

 

[enter_tain]

Why don't you try? Go AC-BC calc on vahaduo, your own coordinates and remove Avar2 sample, or Czech Medieval, or Krakauer Berg. I have no idea, so please show me.

And again, the problem is not the logic, it's your shitty references. How do you know "Czech Medieval" is an ancestor to Albanians? Slavs have a north-east shift, but they plot all over the place.

Most Slavs came to Albania through Bulgaria if you didn't know. (Most Slavic toponyms are in south Albania from Bulgarian Empire times). Goths came from east and south. They picked up some Balkan ancestry along the way.

Slavs didn't teleport from Prague to Tirana.

 

[Archetype0ne]

And again, the problem is not the logic, it's your shitty references. How do you know "Czech Medieval" is an ancestor to Albanians? Slavs have a north-east shift, but they plot all over the place.

Most Slavs came to Albania through Bulgaria if you didn't know. (Most Slavic toponyms are in south Albania from Bulgarian Empire times). Goths came from east and south. They picked up some Balkan ancestry along the way.

Slavs didn't teleport from Prague to Tirana.

You got issues mate. My "shitty references" are pretty much the state of the art consensus among people that actually study Slavic ethnogenesis, as I have no opinion one way or the other. Go read something, and stop tooting your own horn.

 

[Dushman]

Mate it's simple Y-DNA analysis. What introduction of Y-DNAs do we see in the Balkans during or right before the Middle Ages?

R1a, I2, and I1. First two are Slavic, second are Gothic. R1a and I2 specifically go 20-30% in southern Albania. Goths were also eastern Germanic, that made their way through eastern Europe and eastern Balkans, so they wouldn't have been too far off Slavs.

Are you saying with certainty that there’s 0 Gothic and East Med contributions in the Balkans?

 

[Archetype0ne]

The problem with this guy is he talks to much and checks to little. If he checked the model I suggested and the samples I suggested he would not have called them "shitty references", since they support his hypothesis... lmao

And had he stopped there he would feel vindicated.
But then again he called perfectly fine references shitty so what do you expect.

At this point had he followed through with my suggestion he would feel right. I say feel right, cause the 2nd image IMO holds the key to why the model is missing something and what it is missing. But as I said:

Based on having seen hundreds of runs and keeping up with papers.
You'd have to brush off on a couple of Italian and Greek papers for us to have this nuanced discussion.

But lets pretend you and Jov are right for a second.
"Albanians are south Italian-like (Greek-like) + Northeastern European (Slavic)"

That would mean Albanians to plot North of Central Macedonian Greeks would need higher Slavic autosomal admixture... Which even you might know is not the case.
The discussion is thus so nuanced you would have to have kept up with like 4-5 papers at least, and be familiar with Italian, Greek and Albanian autosomals.

In fact the far more likely scenario is that proto-Albanians, Illyrians, and proto-Italians of all ilks had one certain cluster in common among many. And this cluster got shifted North and South in North Italians by East Med and Germanic ancestry. Got shifted South East in Albanians by ancient Greek/Eastern Balkan admixture event with only a slight push North post medieval making them plot closer to North Italians than to South Italians... While South Italy having lacked the extent of Northern Influx as can be seen from the Imperial Paper and samples got shifted further south during the Imperial time period, allowing for distance wise modern Albanians to be closer to Central/North Italians. And finally the negligible net move first South-East with the med shift, then North with the Germanic admix left North Italians in a net position similar to whatever the common autosomal cluster from BA-IA was like.

Then again, I am curious if you can make sense of this.

 

[enter_tain]

The problem with this guy is he talks to much and checks to little. If he checked the model I suggested and the samples I suggested he would not have called them "shitty references", since they support his hypothesis... lmao

The problem with you is you just plug in a bunch of random shit and expect near perfect results. "Oh I put in a Greek and Czech guy, and I didn't get Albanian". No shit Sherlock.

The logic I showed you is something a 6th grader would spot.

"If a migrating population pushes you North-East, the original population would plot more South-West"

I'm sorry you lack the basic IQ to understand something so elementary.

 

[enter_tain]

If he checked the model I suggested

Those models are a waste of time, because we don't know how accurate each reference is. All we know is that Slavs are somewhere North-East. The only thing we can do is work backwards and try to find the original population.

 

[Archetype0ne]

Learn to swim if you're going to jump out of your depth. The sad part is I tried getting through to you, but I really think you have no idea what you're looking at. If anything the bottom line is your initial theory might be right, thanks in part to these "waste of time models", but its more nuanced than you think, and not a point A to point B thing, this has intermediate phases.

Anyways take it easy, and maybe pop a xanax, seems you need it.

I just wish I trusted my prejudices more.

The issue is that that is not the case. But whatever. Small difference in the bigger picture so no use arguing.

Would save myself the mental attrition of dealing with idiots.

 

[enter_tain]

Learn to swim if you're going to jump out of your depth. The sad part is I tried getting through to you, but I really think you have no idea what you're looking at. If anything the bottom line is your initial theory might be right, thanks in part to these "waste of time models", but its more nuanced than you think, and not a point A to point B thing, this has intermediate phases.

You still don't get it. I don't care if they prove me right or wrong. The way some of you use them is completely unscientific. You start with a conclusion/premise and tweak the references until you get something you like.

That's not science.

Would save myself the mental attrition of dealing with idiots.

You don't have that luxury since you're doing that 24 hours a day.

 

[Archetype0ne]

Answer my question: You remove the ~20% Slavic percentage in Albanians, what type of population do you end up with? There is only 1 answer here. It's basic logic.

You still don't get it. I don't care if they prove me right or wrong. The way some of you use them is completely unscientific. You start with a conclusion/premise and tweak the references until you get something you like.

That's not science.



You don't have that luxury since you're doing that 24 hours a day.

 

[enter_tain]

Yes, I know you're salty that all those southern samples came out Sicilian-like, when you were crying they wouldn't the day before. You came out looking like a complete fool and now you come here and cry about it. That's what science does. It predicts.

You and your friends have predicted jack shit. All you do is plug in a bunch of rando samples, and get Belgians being more Balkanite than Albanians.

@Archetype0ne

To me it looks like Albanians are south Italian-like (Greek-like) + Northeastern European (Slavic). Rather than associated with Northern Italy.