I have not evaluated new studies regarding weird results since this. However, now I have to break the silence because people never stop writing new history without first reading already the known one. Yesterday I got in my hands this one:
They obviously claim that Northern Russians and Finns have Mongolian admixture. The known European history doesn’t support this idea. They also got a result showing that the East Asian admixture in Nortern Russia is around 1300 years old and in Finland around 1800-1900 years old. This sounds reasonable. I am not sure about the North Russian history, but in Finland migrating Finns met earlier migrated Saamis around 1500-2000 years ago. Today Saamis show up to 20-30 % North Eurasian admixture depending on the used method, of similar kind what is found among North Siberian people. Mongolians doesn’t live and didn’t live in Northern Scandinavia or Northern Siberia. They never migrated to Northern Norway where most Saamis live today (it is likely that elevated North Asian in Orkney Islands is also due to the polar migrations through Norway). Also the PCA they have included to the study suffers from under- and oversampling, but it is another story.
I see that authors of this study simplify things everywhere it is necessary to support the inevitable outcome they have. I am not going to walk through the whole text, only noticed obvious things regarding the Finnish history. It is pity that even methodically right and fine results are destroyed by messing with primary school level knowledge of history. So conclusions they made are wrong even when analyses are right. I wouldn’t care much, but it is really sad that the known history is faked by peer reviewed studies. So what is the value of research if peer reviewing doesn’t work properly and our history gets new interpretations again and again.