Printable View
That could be genetic drift. Maybe they belonged to several distinct, isolated tribes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Feiichy
Later those tribes mixed with each other, creating a more homogeneous population.
Why do you think so, why exactly should (or must) Early Slavs have any East Med?Quote:
Originally Posted by XenophobicPrussian
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick
It isn't strange if early Slavs completely lacked east med, but the fact that modern Poles score some of it, where does it comes from ?
In case of south slavs it's easy- we mixed with indigenious Illyrian-Thracian tribes, but in case of ''northern'' Slavs it seems to be a mystery.
As well as west asian scores reducing significantly in modern Polish population.
According to Maciamo the original slavs must have had traces of J2 and E1b as it's present in small amounts in all modern Slavic populations. I would also expect them to have traces of east med.Quote:
Originally Posted by Litvin;4500017.
because every single population in Europe except Finnish Sami have it(even Finns/Estonians). It was in Bell Beakers, the highest coverage Anglo-Saxons/Britons, in all neolithic farmers(although if you don't have atleast a 2:1 West Med to East Med ratio you likely have post-neolithic MENA ancestry). You can't be admixed with neolithic farmers if you don't have East Med(of course, there are samples known to have neolithic farmer admixture without East Med, but again this is due to low SNP coverage).Quote:
Originally Posted by Litvin
Also no, I'm not accepting K36 to be superiour. :icon_lol: The PCA has too many errors(S. Dutch too far northern, SW Finnish too far eastern, Volga-Uralic groups and Tatars way close too Slavs, only thing the K36 PCA seems to get right over K15 is the position of Austria, but K13 also gets Austria correct) and the admixture results don't even show how much Middle-Eastern someone has because it's hidden in the "Italian" or w/e component. The component maps you made also seem to be all over the place.
They are not errors, just imperfections of a two-dimensional PCA.Quote:
Originally Posted by XenophobicPrussian
Only three-dimensional PCAs can accurately show all of variation.
In Eurogenes K36, East_Med admixture is much less widespread.Quote:
Originally Posted by XenophobicPrussian
These samples are dated to 600 AD - 1200 AD, maybe at that time mixing between Slavs and Pre-Slavic inhabitants was still not completed, and therefore people with very different genetic backgrounds will be found (some with much more Slavic ancestry, others with much more Pre-Slavic ancestry).Quote:
Originally Posted by Feiichy
Another issue is that these are "screening results", which is why they are low coverage.
The actual paper will be published soon, and it will include better quality genomes. So maybe when we upload to GEDmatch these higher coverage genomes (of the same people), their results will be slightly different. We will see. But low coverage does not mean that the results must be wrong.
Crimean Goths were I1-M253 as well (just like Wielbark):
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...=1#post1304256
Quote:
(...) Our project tested two people who are descendants of the Crimean Goths, this kit № 228539 Afenko and kit № 228541 Aslanov. Their haplogroup (I1-M253) was determined in the course of scientific research laboratory Balanovsky. (...)
Jews. In Xth century they were not here. In XXthQuote:
Originally Posted by Feiichy
century they were 11% in population Poles+Jews.
...many his claims were debunked, and he had to rewtite hisQuote:
Originally Posted by karol.klacansky
stories and repainted maps... sometimes trice or four times.
Yes I don't always agree with Maciamo on everything , but still the fact that east med type haplogroups are present in all Slavic populations, I would expect them to also have some East med admixtureQuote:
Originally Posted by Sir Rethel of Retheley