The Genomic History Of Southeastern Europe

[XenophobicPrussian]

Here is a Bronze Age Dalmatian sample JAZ1. Check the number of SNPs used (less than 10 000). I have read that two ancient Montenegrin samples also had low snp count. Is 10 000 SNP enough for confident analysis?

No, it isn't, but that JAZ1 sample actually seems to be in the right place and doesn't look noisey, and goes along with the new high SNP count BA Balkan samples from the new study(although seems to be a bit more Balkan shifted). The BA Montenegro sample had even less than those. Low SNP coverage samples will also look less noisey in PCA plots than ADMIXTURE. It really depends, some low SNP samples will be accurate and not noisey, some will(like the Thracian samples with like a few hundred SNPs showing 20% SSA).

This PCA plot, like the other one, has shrinkage. It happens when you run the ancient and modern samples seperately and then just overlap the ancients onto a modern PCA or something. All the ancient populations are centered and shifted North-East on the PCA(or SE in terms of population genetics), all those LMBA samples like Unetice, Bell Beakers, etc should be where modern North and Central European populations are, not east of them, clustering around no modern populations, LBK and the European farmers should also be right around Sardinians, and modern Balts are far too close to the HGs(no population in Europe has more than 60-70% overall HG admixture).

That JAZ1 sample, like all the other BA Balkanites, clusters around N. Italians or Iberians. Even with shrinkage, the samples in this new study still cluster around N. Italians(without shrinkage it'd be more likely Iberians or inbetween Iberians/N. Italians) I'm sorry if you wanted Bronze Age continuity or something but it's just the truth, I'm not here trying to troll you or anything.

You probably think why is this random fucker right and not professional geneticists? Well, look at the PCA plots from the other new Bell Beaker paper, those have no shrinkage and are completely different from the ones in this paper and this JAZ1 PCA. People like Davidski from Eurogenes have been e-mailing them about shrinkage but some of them don't seem to listen. Wait until Eurogenes releases a PCA of these for a clearer picture.

Here's how proper PCA plots with both modern samples and ancients are supposed to look(note where all the LMBA samples, neolithic farmer samples are, and how much farther the HGs are:

[Jana]

...

How does JAZ1 clusters among N.Italians/Iberians when on PCA it's clearly in the modern Bulgarian cluster (and close to Greeks and Albanians) ?

[XenophobicPrussian]

How does JAZ1 clusters among N.Italians/Iberians when on PCA it's clearly in the modern Bulgarian cluster ?

Read the rest of the post.

[nightrider+]

Do I really have to point this out to you?

Here's a PCA with the same modern populations clearly labeled:



The PCA from this paper:



They clearly cluster with N. Italians(you could argue inbetween N. Italians and Tuscans I guess, and like I pointed out, 2/8 have a shift towards modern Bulgarians, but still are much closer to N. Italians).

The Malak_Preslavets samples are also early Bronze Age, they are very clearly with Iberians.

If you also combine that with this PCA has shrinkage(basically, when the ancient samples are pulled to the center when you do a PCA incorrectly with modern populations, this isn't something I just made up, look it up), all ancient samples are shifted to the center, in this case south-east, when Polako releases his PCA plot you will see this(although I'm sure you'll accuse him of fake propaganda or whatever), meaning the Bronze Age Balkanites are even more SW and cluster inbetween N. Italians and Iberians, and the early BA Malak_Preslavets would be among the most northern shifted modern Iberians. For example, the Bell Beakers aren't in the correct spot, and the HGs are much too close to modern populations(you'd think modern Balts are 90% Ukrainian_HG when looking at this), the European farmers are also way too far from Sardinians. For a PCA without shrinkage and the Bell Beakers in their proper spots, look at the PCA from the new Bell Beaker paper.

Fyi, we also already have a BA Montenegrin, clustered between Iberia/N Italy.



I'm sure you think that's all bullshit, but even without that, they still cluster with N. Italians, not modern Balkanites/Bulgarians.


Believe it or not, I wasn't even trying to get at that, but no, you're wrong. Only true for Croatians/Slovenians/Bosnians. If you take any Balto-Slav or any LMBA steppe person and mix him with any of these BA Balkanites you don't arrive anywhere near Bulgarians, they aren't anywhere near that cline. You'd need the Slavs to be Yamnaya for a N. Italian/Tuscan to Bulgaria cline, and obviously they weren't, which means there is extra admixture there in modern Bulgarians.

The good news(well, it wouldn't be good news for me personally, unless I stopped denigrating Turks and other MENA populations and became a Caucasoid supremacist rather than a "white" supremacist) for you and Faklon is there's now evidence of post-neolithic Middle-Eastern migrations into Europe that seems to have the extra Natufian/CHG not present in neolithic farmers, which means your extra MENA doesn't necessarily have to come from Turks or Byzantine immigration, which in turn means you still coulda wuz ancien Greeks n shit.

Let me point out where exactly modern Bulgarians plot since once again you don't even understand what you're looking at, either due to stupidity or bias or both.



I'm hoping you won't need help to see the Blakan Neolithic samples too. Clearly all the labeled Balkan Bronze samples are on a cline between those two groups.
Malak Preslavets is not Bronze Age, it's Neolithic (and not even late Neolithic). Another thing this paper does is throwing the typical Yamnaya-Kurgan migration to the Balkans and to Anatolia through the Balkans theory out of the window. It's ok if you admit you are wrong once in a while.

[Jana]

Read the rest of the post.

I have. It isn't close to modern Spanish on the PCA. If anything it looks like eastern shifted Tuscan (=Bulgarian/Albanian/Greek), no suprise there.

[XenophobicPrussian]

I have. It isn't close to modern Spaihash on the PCA. If anything it looks like eastern shifted Tuscan (=Bulgarian/Albanian/Greek), no suprise there.

The PCA is inaccurate. It has shrinkage. If you disagree on whether it's accurate or not that's another story, but don't misrepresent the point I was trying to make.

On a proper PCA, JAZ1 clusters around N. Italians. According to that PCA with shrinkage, North/Central Europeans are all half WHG and half LMBA(Late Middle Bronze Age) steppe populations, when in actuality North/Central Europeans have negligible extra WHG admixture past LMBA steppe populations like Bell Beaker/Unetice/Corded Ware, etc.

I'm not saying population geneticists are wrong, I'm saying the ones that did these PCAs are, most manage to do PCAs without shrinkage, like the new Bell Beaker paper.

[Jana]

The PCA is inaccurate. It has shrinkage. If you disagree on whether it's accurate or not that's another story, but don't misrepresent the point I was trying to make.

On a proper PCA, JAZ1 clusters around N. Italians. According to that PCA with shrinkage, North/Central Europeans are all half WHG and half LMBA(Late Middle Bronze Age) steppe populations, when in actuality North/Central Europeans have negligible extra WHG admixture past LMBA steppe populations like Bell Beaker/Unetice/Corded Ware, etc.

I'm not saying population geneticists are wrong, I'm saying the ones that did these PCAs are, most manage to do PCAs without shrinkage, like the new Bell Beaker paper.

And can you show that proper PCA ? I understand what you're saying, but I wonder if the ''better'' PCA exist or it just your hypotesis.

[XenophobicPrussian]

Let me point out where exactly modern Bulgarians plot since once again you don't even understand what you're looking at, either due to stupidity or bias or both.



I'm hoping you won't need help to see the Blakan Neolithic samples too. Clearly all the labeled Balkan Bronze samples are on a cline between those two groups.
Malak Preslavets is not Bronze Age, it's Neolithic (and not even late Neolithic). Another thing this paper does is throwing the typical Yamnaya-Kurgan migration to the Balkans and to Anatolia through the Balkans theory out of the window. It's ok if you admit you are wrong once in a while.

You're right about Malak_Preslavets(I was looking at the icons in the PCA with the modern populations and using the age guide on the other image, as the diamonds in the modern PCA are located near Copper/Bronze age in the age guide). However, look at the Copper Age(which is pretty much BA) Balkanites.



The location of the Bulgarians on the PCA plot however, I really don't know what to tell you other than check your vision at an eye doctor. Do you see the red squares(Bronze Age Balkans) anywhere near your circled Bulgarians? Maybe you ought to circle the N. Italians.

I suppose you have two Yamnaya samples from Bulgaria there, but the majority of BA Balkanites cluster near N. Italy(and Iberia once accounted for shrinkage in a proper PCA), whilist the two Yamnaya Bulgaria samples actually cluster around modern Hungarians once accounted for shrinkage. You will soon see once Eurogenes releases a PCA plot(well, you'll probably just disregard it anyway and call him an amateur blogger or something, even though shrinkage is a known thing and most population geneticists get PCAs right).

[XenophobicPrussian]

And can you show that proper PCA ? I understand what you're saying, but I wonder if the ''better'' PCA exist or it just your hypotesis.

I did. If you mean a proper PCA with BA Balkanites, you'll have to wait a bit for Eurogenes to make one. If an internet blogger isn't good enough for you, you can go look at the new Bell Beaker paper and see how different that proper PCA plot is compared to the one in this paper.

[nightrider+]

You're right about Malak_Preslavets(I was looking at the icons in the PCA with the modern populations and using the age guide on the other image, as the diamonds in the modern PCA are located near Copper/Bronze age in the age guide). However, look at the Copper Age(which is pretty much BA) Balkanites.



The location of the Bulgarians on the PCA plot however, I really don't know what to tell you other than check your vision at an eye doctor. Do you see the red squares(Bronze Age Balkans) anywhere near your circled Bulgarians? Maybe you ought to circle the N. Italians.

I suppose you have two Yamnaya samples from Bulgaria there, but the majority of BA Balkanites cluster near N. Italy(and Iberia once accounted for shrinkage in a proper PCA), whilist the two Yamnaya Bulgaria samples actually cluster around modern Hungarians once accounted for shrinkage. You will soon see once Eurogenes releases a PCA plot(well, you'll probably just disregard it anyway and call him an amateur blogger or something, even though shrinkage is a known thing and most population geneticists get PCAs right).

I never said they plot with Bulgarians. I said they plot with Tuscans or like Balkan farmer shifted Bulgarians. Btw keep in mind that all those Bulgarians samples are from far southern Bulgaria, northerners would probably plot closer to Romanians and to European core. The fact that you're focusing on N. Italians (or even Iberians, lol) is bordering on propaganda, it's what you want to see.
The Balkan Chalcolithic samples are also more or less on the same cline.
As for the fact that Bulgarians are more "eastern" and not so much modern Slavs shifted compared to the Bronze Age and Neolithic Balkans (if we assume that Slavic migrations are responsible for their "northern" shift), it might have something to do with influence from Peloponnese Neolithic (E-V13 could be there) or Anatolian related populations, which would be supported by their modern y-dna distribution. Another possibility is influence from the North after Bronze Age collapse.