- Reaction score
- Ethnic group
- Y-DNA haplogroup
Not correct on that claim either way.Serbian or Serbian-like(Doclea) according to the latest study https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.06.05.543790v1
and I give you that, I was wrong ..48% is the maximum (range it says 25%-48%)
That's what some of your compatriots imply about J2b and it makes sense because relative to other lines it's like it was almost inexistent in medieval Albania judging by impact on Italy and Greece.I didn't say R1b AND E-V13 ,but one of them ,if the origin of the language is in eastern Balkans then the original line was E-V13 and R1bs Albanized,if it's in west then the opposite.
+I just lurk here to get "updated" ,the amount of times I have responded to such posts is nothing compared to how many these are.
First of all the authors used standard errors above .05 IIRC, if you look at the models that passed with <.05 in this paper you will get what I mean, and they should serve as reference, as its the benchmark anyone with any salt in the field uses including Lazaridis and Reich.
I suppose this was to leave room for the earlier claims in the Danubian Limes paper, which models I replicated to the dot, and that 3 years later has not made it post pre-print, guess why? Cause the model of 50% Slavic was proven gibberish once we got local proxies, especially in the Southern Arc paper. I even had professionals in the field in the formal methods discord laughing at me when I brought it up as I was trying to replicate and peer review it, asking why I am wasting my time replicating such an obviously wrong model. That bit struck me.
I would like to add that people can use plink files perfectly fine with admixtools2 on R-studio, one of the perks of the 2nd ed. .bed would be the equivalent to .geno, .bim to .snp and .fam to .ind. The process is exactly the same. The only you thing you need is a code viewer like...
I have run many runs on the topic using academic sources for the models. From what I can tell 5-15% Slavic admixture for Albanians, even using the Danubian Limes tail, on qpADM. Nowadays the only reason I hope the Danubian Limes gets eventually published, is because I want to see what the Kuline samples look like, and if they can act as a better proxy for the Slavic migration pops in the Balkans, than the current Czech, Byzantine, and Avar samples most people fall back to.Finally got a scientifically viable model for myself:
Had to read some academic paper on right tails to get to it though.
Model stands up for other populations, but the slavic proxy or the tail might need optimizing for some of them.
^Middle Ages Doclea(Montenegro) samples, substantially Slavic per G25.
^Two of the most admixed 1800s Albanian samples from the Southern Arc. Middle Age samples and the other non-admixed moderns completely fail with any of the proxies. More or less in line with G25 models for these samples I would say, albeit on the lower side.
I really am looking forward to the Kuline samples from the Danubian Limes being published, hoping they are high quality samples, that can be used to model early Slavic component in the whole Balkans.
Either way, outside of a few lapses like this one, the paper you reference is quite good. And knowing the authors, I am sure they will revert to a more strict scientific standard (<.05) once the peer review process is done and they publish.