Y Chromosome I-M26 Found Again in Continental Bronze Age Italy

 A new paper is out by Hannah Moots et al that analyzed DNA samples from several sites in the ancient Mediterranean.

The authors have been soundly panned for their lack of interdisciplinary historical knowledge.  Specifically: (1) Their maps of Greek "colonization" spreading too landward (shading versus dots); (2) their lack of knowledge about the nature of Carthaginian ports; and (3) their lack of historical knowledge of the Roman colonies in Etruscan cities.  We need not repeat the critiques here.

The paper is significant because it sampled ancient Italian sites outside Sardinia.  

It found (again) that Etruscans were western Europeans / indigenous Italians, and did not come from Anatolia.  (Although because of the problematic context cited about, we acknowledge the skeletons they tested could possibly have been Roman colonists, assuming those colonists did not practice cremation, a big IF).

And most significantly, it found I-M26 (I2a1a) in a continental Italian sample in an Etruscan or pre-Etruscan necropolois (Pian Sultano) just north of Rome, in the heart of what would become Etruria!  The sample was dated to about 1800 B.C.  

While it is theoretically possible that this was a trader from the powerful Nuraghe culture of Sardinia (the site featured obsidian that could have come from Sardinia) -- this is yet another example of M26 being present on the Italian mainland, 4000 years ago.  It is very clear that the "Out of Sardinia" hypothesis needs some tweaks.  Note this was the only male tested from the Pian Sultano acropolis!

Taking this study together, three themes become very clear:

(1) The Etruscan male lineages were fairly similar to male lineages in modern Western Europe, say Castile Spain.

(2) The Etruscans migrated and traded everywhere, which confirms what ancient sources say.  They were a source of out-migration and outward gene flow, not the other way around.

(3) M26 in modern continental Italy is likely continuity with very ancient populations, present before historical migration from Sardinia.

Eran Elhaik Writes About the Flawed Nature of Principal Component Analyses (PCA) in Genetics, and We're Blown Away!

We're just stumbling upon a study by brilliant geneticist Eran Elhaik, that calls into doubt a major tool used by many to achieve the outcomes they wish.  

Simply put, we read Elhaik's paper, and it absolutely rocked our worlds.  I mean, it rocked our worlds in two ways: 

First, we feel vindicated when we have previously pointed out that other papers seem to defy logic; or seem to be conclusions in search of evidence.

But second, it rocks our world, because a paper like this has upended, or should upend, the entire field of population genomics!

The paper is entitled "Principal Component Analyses (PCA)-based findings in population genetic studies are highly biased and must be reevaluated" and you can access a free copy by clicking this link.

The study can be summed up as follows:

-PCA data is subject to manipulation that leads to false claims that various genetic ties (racial, ancient, etc.) are what any given researcher wants the data to show.

-Major studies using PCA do not follow scientific rigor of testing a hypothesis and then trying to refute it.  Instead, they appear to conceive a hypothesis and manipulate the PCA data to confirm it.

Elhaik found that PCA statistics could be made to lie close to virtually any reference population just by changing the numbers and types of the reference samples, generating practically endless historical versions, all mathematically “correct,” but with only one truly biologically correct.

His paper calls into question major paradigms of the world of population genetics, racial genetics, ancient DNA, and popular science -- the type you see on all the online message boards.

Applying rigorous socratic logic to Elhaik's paper, we believe his points have merit.  ~216,000 studies have thus been called into question.  

Bottom line: if reading a study using PCA, watch for common biases, and you are well within sound scientific practice to question the result.

The Continued Silliness of R1b & R1a Chauvinists: Lineages were NOT Conquerors or Kings

 We've discussed this before.  A certain chauvinism (we won't call it ethno-nationalism or racism) of online idiots who believe that the "male-mediated" prevalence of R1b and R1a in certain lands make those people the "descendants of conquerors."  You see such drivel all the time on blogs like Eurogenes, but it infects the thinking event of Razib Khan.  

We've pointed out that many things could have caused such migrations.  We've shown how in modern times, the haplogroup percentages of places like Lebanon have changed dramatically from the large numbers of Syrian males migrating there -- and how such males are far from conquerors, but are refugees.  

We've cited historical examples: the Goths who had to leave Eastern Europe because the Huns conquered them, and then they, in turn, due to mass migrations and chaos, upended parts of the Roman Empire.

But this "R1b males are the descendants of conquering studs" simply won't die.  So today we raise two examples.  The first is more direct.  The second is a bit of a historical parable.

1.  We often read posts on how the ethnic groups who have less prevalence of R1b and R1a are somehow inferior, because they have less of the genes of the "conquerors."  But doesn't this just mean that those people were stronger?  More advanced?  More capable of holding off the hordes?  I mean, people, think about it...

2. Now we'll give yet another example from history.  But this time, we'll do so like Socrates did, in a parable, asking your brains, dear readers, to make the logical leaps.

Three tribes exist, and each is more or less 100% homogenous.  

At Year 500:

In nation state / tribe #1, the dominant haplogroup is S

In nation state / tribe #2, the dominant haplogroup is G

In nation state / tribe #3, the dominant haplogroup is E.

Now it's year 900:

In nation state / tribe #1, the dominant haplogroup is still S.

In nation state / tribe #2, the dominant haplogroup is ALSO now S

In nation state / tribe #3, the dominant haplogroup is still E.

Some people online assert that Nation #2 are the descendants of mighty conquerors. Awesome studly men who were sexually selected.

Some people online assert that Nation #3 are weaker, because they have far less of Haplogroup S.  "No conquerors there."  "Must have been weak."

However, these nations are:

1. Spain

2. Guatemala

and

3. England

In other words, contrary to the exceedingly weak and illogical "models" these people circulate on the internet:

The people in #2 are descendants of the conquered.  Spain was able to inflict horrible things on them.

The people in #3 are descendants of a people who, although Spain tried many times, were strong and organized enough to beat back any invasion.

Perspective?