Where did Mathieson go wrong?

I have recently posted the model by Mathieson regarding rhesus negative frequencies among groups of ancient Europe and done so simply because there is not much data available elsewhere. As with everything on this blog, all data is data, but all conclusions are subject to adjustments. This blog is a diary of search for rhesus negative ancestry and it will continue to be. That means, science will win in the end. No need for anyone to defend an assumption.

Mathieson has made a name for himself collecting data, but then filling in the holes with assumptions and “conclusions”. Assuming rhesus negative frequencies among ancestral groups based on today’s descendants. It’s a good thought process when searching for evidence, but not something that should be done in terms of declaring to have the information necessary to determine ancestral rhesus negative frequencies as factual.

Declaring that the Yamnaya as a whole were 40% rhesus negative (could be, but could be far from it) is wrong on two major levels:

1) There were 3 main groups among the Yamnaya and to assume that all 3 of them had the same rhesus negative frequencies simply because they managed to come together as one unity is plain silly.

2) Assuming that the rhesus negative frequencies among those leaving a region for a better life and those who stay behind is the same, is simply wrong. It is possible that the “restless rhesus negatives” were more likely to make the move while the general population tended to stay behind. It could explain why today the rhesus negative frequencies in the Ukraine is lower than in most Celtic nations for example.

I have always stressed regional data over national, so minimizing the amount of “nations” even further will only limit our information level further.

To this day, Iain Mathieson refuses to provide data to justify what he has claimed. If any of you are students of his, ask him to provide it. If there is something worth looking at, show me. If he doesn’t provide anything, disregard it. He will probably try to intimidate you to keep you from asking further questions which may lead to him admitting that some of his work is based on fabrications and assumptions. So don’t try to be a hero risking to get a bad grade… I am not asking that of you. Simply ask a couple of questions based on some of the things I have highlighted or what other inconsistencies you may see on your own. And unlike him, I am not afraid of evidence. If he is right, show me as well. Which I know he isn’t in this case.