The Genomic History Of Southeastern Europe

[Peterski]

So Zborowski and Zbrojewicz and every other Z...ski/icz are Goth peasants?:

Spoiler!

[Rethel]

e hunter-gatherers tested by Skoglund et al. belonged to the Pitted Ware culture, which arrived in Scandinavia from the Eastern Baltic.

And this makes clear, why they did have IE admix.

[Peterski]

So no, there weren't proto-Slavs.

Of course not. They were Non-Indo-Europeans obviously.

[cosmoo]

And who is the most genetically similar to Motala hunter-gatherers today?:

http://polishgenes.blogspot.com/2012...netically.html

Here he goes again... Poles this, Poles that. Poles R1a nobility ruling over I/J peasants, now Poles are at the same time "conquering IE nobility" and "oldest European hunter-gatherers"? Better tell me what you guys aren't...
No, by the time of this article Motala genomes were not yet known (some other HGs were though), and I already explained fallacy behind those "admixutre charts". Face it, you are not functionally close to native Europeans, you do not look like them at all, you do not have any direct line towards them, and you do not descend from them, period.

Also there is I2a1b from Mesolithic Lithuania, Kreutonas, close to Poland:

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/mesolithicdna.shtml

And? There is I2a1b in northern France, on Gotland, in Sweden, in Loschbour, in Neolithic Germany and it evidently dominated pre-Bronze Age Britain.
But it's not about that. It's about being I2a1b "Dinaric" (L147.2). And none of those are Dinaric, except Motala12 sample.
And you can clearly see that this sample is most probably I2a1b1, which is "Isles", and it split away from "Disles" (and Dinaric, which is its child-clade) a very long time ago.

[Rethel]

Face it, you are not functionally close to native Europeans, you do not look like them at all, you do not have any direct line towards them, and you do not descend from them, period.

Uff...

[Peterski]

now Poles are at the same time "conquering IE nobility" and "oldest European hunter-gatherers"?

Not at the same time. In Mesolithic times we were hunter-gatherers, in the Bronze Age we were IE nobility.

Those were two DIFFERENT TIMES. Remember, that IE nobility was descended mostly from hunter-gatherers.

[cosmoo]

Not at the same time. In Mesolithic times we were hunter-gatherers, in the Bronze Age we were IE nobility.

Those were two DIFFERENT TIMES. Remember, that IE nobility was descended mostly from hunter-gatherers.

You know very well what I meant. Of course everyone on Earth was hunter-gatherer back in then, but see, you were in easternmost Europe back in then, and for most of Upper Palaeolithic you weren't even in any part of Europe. What I meant is that you are definitely not related to main European hunter-gatherers (Cro-Magnons) like Motala, to which you have no connection because of aforementioned reasons.

IE "nobility" (lmao) was an intrusive element, not native one.

[Dick]

Here he goes again... Poles this, Poles that. Poles R1a nobility ruling over I/J peasants, now Poles are at the same time "conquering IE nobility" and "oldest European hunter-gatherers"? Better tell me what you guys aren't...
No, by the time of this article Motala genomes were not yet known (some other HGs were though), and I already explained fallacy behind those "admixutre charts". Face it, you are not functionally close to native Europeans, you do not look like them at all, you do not have any direct line towards them, and you do not descend from them, period.



And? There is I2a1b in northern France, on Gotland, in Sweden, in Loschbour, in Neolithic Germany and it evidently dominated pre-Bronze Age Britain.
But it's not about that. It's about being I2a1b "Dinaric" (L147.2). And none of those are Dinaric, except Motala12 sample.
And you can clearly see that this sample is most probably I2a1b1, which is "Isles", and it split away from "Disles" (and Dinaric, which is its child-clade) a very long time ago.

Ancient Greeks were polacks too.

[Peterski]

Ancient Greeks were polacks too.

I have more matching segments with Neolithic Greeks, than do modern Greeks:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...-Greek-genomes

^^^ That explains a lot:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...=1#post4213680

[Rethel]

and for most of Upper Palaeolithic you weren't even in any part of Europe.

If you are talking about this ficional long as hell period of
time, then you also were not here according to the same
thesis for almost a half of that period. So... But of course
it is not a real thing, so, it is meaningless.

What I meant is that you are definitely not related to main European hunter-gatherers (Cro-Magnons)

According to the same thesis on which you are making this claim, everybody was Cro.

like Motala,

Ubfortuinatly for you, Motala has IE autosomal admix.

IE "nobility" (lmao) was an intrusive element,

And this is the point of his!

not native one.

You are not native too, becasue C1 were before you,
and before them - neanderthals. So what's your point?

I don't get it, what is so amazing in being in Europe, when europe did not existed yet, becasue Europe was created by IEs.

It is generally meaningless, but native IE land it is half
of Europe, whole Eastern European Plain, plus some
border lands like Ciscaucasia, Österland, Romania...