Target: Sorb_Niederlausitz
Distance: 1.9298% / 0.01929826 | ADC: 0.25x
67.0 Slavic
18.2 Baltic
14.8 Balkan
0 Germanic?
It seems to be wrongly calibrated.
Printable View
Target: Sorb_Niederlausitz
Distance: 1.9298% / 0.01929826 | ADC: 0.25x
67.0 Slavic
18.2 Baltic
14.8 Balkan
0 Germanic?
It seems to be wrongly calibrated.
They score no similarity with medieval Germanic samples, sorry. Not weird considering they plot east of Czechs.Quote:
Originally Posted by cass
However Balkan samples have some western european drift, especially those from Croatia.
My guess is David handpicked purest Sorbs for his average he could find. His Polish average is also very Slavic and eastern shifted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feiichy
How do Slovaks and Sorbs have Balkan but Poles don't? Sorbs are further west than Poles
Best model based on historical data.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stearsolina
Before the Slavic migration the people in Western Poland were Swedish-like, clearly there was a large scale replacement.
I've been playing with this Hungarian academic average with qpAdm. Apparently they don't need anything besides Germanic and Slavic, the Balkan stuff is just Global25 overfitting the data. This is one of the models that i ran (obs: qpAdm does not distinguish North Europeans, so Germany_EMedieval is a stand in for both Slavic and Germanic. The exact proportions of both should be analysed using G25):Quote:
Originally Posted by Stearsolina
Hungarian
Germany_EMedieval 0.873 +- 0.100
Lech_MBA 0.127 +- 0.100
chisq 10.154
tail prob 0 516617
So Lech_MBA isn't required (and neither are Hungary_Scythian and Croatia_EIA) since the std.error is basically equal to the admixture coefficient, so the nested model with only Germany_EMedieval (p-value: 0.14) is closer to optimal.
Full output:
Code:left pops:
Hungarian
Germany_EMedieval.SG
Germany_Lech_MBA
right pops:
Czech_Vestonice16
Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG
Russia_MA1_HG.SG
Italy_North_Villabruna_HG
Jordan_PPNB
Romania_Mesolithic_IronGates
Georgia_Satsurblia.SG
Morocco_Iberomaurusian
Iran_GanjDareh_N
Cameroon_SMA.DG
Anatolia_N
Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
Russia_HG_Karelia
0 Hungarian 20
1 Germany_EMedieval.SG 35
2 Germany_Lech_MBA 7
3 Czech_Vestonice16 1
4 Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG 1
5 Russia_MA1_HG.SG 1
6 Italy_North_Villabruna_HG 1
7 Jordan_PPNB 4
8 Romania_Mesolithic_IronGates 4
9 Georgia_Satsurblia.SG 1
10 Morocco_Iberomaurusian 6
11 Iran_GanjDareh_N 8
12 Cameroon_SMA.DG 1
13 Anatolia_N 22
14 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic 3
15 Russia_HG_Karelia 2
jackknife block size: 0.050
snps: 593124 indivs: 117
number of blocks for block jackknife: 711
dof (jackknife): 602.170
numsnps used: 46474
codimension 1
f4info:
f4rank: 1 dof: 11 chisq: 10.154 tail: 0.51661742 dofdiff: 13 chisqdiff: -10.154 taildiff: 1
B:
scale 1.000
Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG 1.491
Russia_MA1_HG.SG 1.268
Italy_North_Villabruna_HG 0.060
Jordan_PPNB -0.175
Romania_Mesolithic_IronGates 1.095
Georgia_Satsurblia.SG 0.757
Morocco_Iberomaurusian 0.364
Iran_GanjDareh_N 0.759
Cameroon_SMA.DG 1.266
Anatolia_N 0.177
Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic 1.180
Russia_HG_Karelia 1.621
A:
scale 941.312
Germany_EMedieval.SG 0.204
Germany_Lech_MBA -1.399
full rank 1
f4info:
f4rank: 2 dof: 0 chisq: 0.000 tail: 1 dofdiff: 11 chisqdiff: 10.154 taildiff: 0.51661742
B:
scale 1.000 1.000
Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG 1.520 -0.475
Russia_MA1_HG.SG 1.145 0.221
Italy_North_Villabruna_HG 0.102 0.032
Jordan_PPNB -0.226 1.608
Romania_Mesolithic_IronGates 1.080 0.028
Georgia_Satsurblia.SG 0.674 1.886
Morocco_Iberomaurusian 0.357 1.491
Iran_GanjDareh_N 0.776 0.505
Cameroon_SMA.DG 1.309 -0.603
Anatolia_N 0.145 1.543
Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic 1.170 0.137
Russia_HG_Karelia 1.692 -0.584
A:
scale 991.102 3066.804
Germany_EMedieval.SG 0.674 1.243
Germany_Lech_MBA -1.243 0.674
best coefficients: 0.873 0.127
ssres:
0.000479023 0.000581661 0.000056186 0.000515624 0.000479649 0.001012712 0.000723984 0.000529943 0.000338111 0.000651928 0.000560565 0.000512255
0.828304055 1.005779384 0.097153245 0.891591578 0.829385221 1.751132727 1.251877553 0.916352117 0.584644749 1.127281671 0.969301143 0.885767176
Jackknife mean: 0.864886518 0.135113482
std. errors: 0.100 0.100
error covariance (* 1000000)
10007 -10007
-10007 10007
fixed pat wt dof chisq tail prob
00 0 11 10.154 0.516617 0.873 0.127
01 1 12 12.339 0.418882 1.000 -0.000
10 1 12 41.981 3.35445e-05 0.000 1.000
best pat: 00 0.516617 - -
best pat: 01 0.418882 chi(nested): 2.185 p-value for nested model: 0.139368
Your right pops are too old and basic for such a recent run(migration era samples).Quote:
Originally Posted by Token
There’s absolutely no way Hungarians don’t have any more Southern ancestry than the Belarussian-like early Slavs and the Scandinavian-like early Germanics, Hungarians score significantly more Barcin than both these populations. There’s some East Eurasian there too albeit noise level.
Target: Knez_scaled
Distance: 2.2982% / 0.02298201
33.2 Slavic
31.8 Greco-Roman
23.0 Baltic
12.0 Balkan
Target: Knez_scaled
Distance: 2.4368% / 0.02436807 | ADC: 0.25x
66.4 Slavic
23.0 Greco-Roman
10.6 Balkan
Hungarians are a Nordo-Slavic mix like northeast Germans? this doesn't make sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Token
could you try it with these outgroups?
set 1: Anatolia_N (25), CHG (2), EHG (4), ElMiron (1), Iran_Ganj_Dareh_N (3),
Jordan_PPNB (1), MA1 (1), Mbuti (10), Natufian (6), Ust_Ishim (1), Vestonice16 (1), WHG (6),
Russia_Yamnaya_Samara (9)
set 2: Anatolia_N (25), CHG (2), EHG (4), ElMiron (1), GoyetQ116-1 (1), Iran_Ganj_Dareh_N (3),
Jordan_PPNB (1), Kostenki14 (1), MA1 (1), Morocco_Iberomaurusian (6), Mota (1), Natufian (6),
Ust_Ishim (1), Vestonice16 (1), Italy_Villabruna (1), WHG (6), Russia_Yamnaya_Samara (9).
that's what was used in the Rome study
Target: Chris_scaled
Distance: 1.9340% / 0.01933960 | ADC: 0.25x
45.8 Slavic
41.0 Balkan
9.2 Celtic
4.0 Greco-Roman
Target: ChrisFather
Distance: 4.3609% / 0.04360857 | ADC: 0.25x
50.6 Balkan
33.6 Slavic
15.8 Greco-Roman
No, my right pops are very solid for my purpose, have you bothered reading Patterson's notes or looking at the supp. files of genetic papers? Actually i am being quite restrictive here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aren
Your observations are all based on Global25 so they are meaningless for formal stats, run your qpAdm model and prove me wrong (spoiler: they will show the same). There is no East Eurasian in this Hungarian sample, albeit i am pretty sure Hungarians from the Great Plain will show some.
I will when i get home, but i can tell you in advance that they will show the same thing ('ve tried similar setups).Quote:
Originally Posted by vbnetkhio
My observation is sollely based on what someone else who is very much an expert of qpAdm who I've talked to regarding these things. I personally don't use it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Token
qpAdm is easily manipulated and gives different results if one isn't careful with the right pops from what I've heard. You right pops seem indeed very restrictive for the run you're making. Probably needs more recent samples.
Like I said I don't use qpAdm but every study I've viewed which used qpAdm to modell modern populations clearly shows higher Barcin related admixture for Hungarians than either Scandinavians or Northern Slavs(such as Haak et al just on top of my mind).
I'm not willing to discuss this though, to me it's very much a no brainer that Hungarians and other central Europeans have non-Germanic and non-Slavic input which shifts them south, whether is Celtic, Paleo-Balkan or Greco-Roman.
Sure you don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aren
Target: VangosH_scaled
Distance: 2.0434% / 0.02043351
55.0 Greco-Roman
21.8 Balkan
12.2 Slavic
11.0 Baltic
Balto-Slavic is equally distributed
Calculator is designed to run at 0.25X, not 0 pen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeroostah
Target: Greatuncle_scaled
Distance: 3.1536% / 0.03153571 | ADC: 0.25x
60.8 Slavic
34.0 Balkan
3.4 Greco-Roman
1.8 Baltic
Target: Father_scaled
Distance: 2.7417% / 0.02741686 | ADC: 0.25x
60.2 Slavic
21.8 Balkan
14.4 Greco-Roman
3.6 Baltic
Target: Ljubic_scaled
Distance: 1.9318% / 0.01931850 | ADC: 0.25x
67.2 Slavic
26.4 Balkan
6.4 Greco-Roman
Edit: Should have read the post above
Update: after rotating outgroups many times i was able to flesh out some Balkan admixture in present-day Hungarians. I obtained 0.77 North European + 0.23 Lech_MBA, std error 0.1. That is almost identical to the results obtained with G25, which certainly strenghtens the hypothesis, even though you could call the analysis 'biased'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Token
Target: Oszkar Hungarian/British
Distance: 1.9092% / 0.01909200 | ADC: 0.5x RC
42.8 Germanic
27.2 Slavic
17.8 Balkan
12.2 Celtic
Almost identical, so close hehe
Target: Serbian
Distance: 1.1471% / 0.01147061 | ADC: 0.25x
51.0 Slavic
37.6 Balkan
11.4 Greco-Roman
Target: Milenko_scaled
Distance: 1.8421% / 0.01842136 | ADC: 0.25x RC
50.4 Slavic
38.6 Balkan
11.0 Greco-Roman
I am surprised Sorbs score zero germanic. I guess the ones who did mix with the germans assimilated into the ethnic german population.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stearsolina
I don't know how realisitic that reference is, G25 has some fishy references. Sorbs on K13 are bit different:Quote:
Originally Posted by Universe
Distance: 1.1167% / 1.11670865
Target: Sorb_Lusatia | ADC: 0.25x RC
58.6 Czech
35.3 Belorussian
6.1 Swedish
Poles scored more Germanic than Slovaks and Slovenians in your model.
No any Celtic in Slovaks?
we, the Balts aren't Slavic!!!!
https://www.eupedia.com/images/conte...vic_Europe.png
I don't care for this thread aymore, it's pretty obsolete. G25 is poor for modern populations (bad references) and ancients got lot of updates since than. Lock.