Angela
Elite member
- Messages
- 21,823
- Reaction score
- 12,329
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
Your taking EEF percentages from Laz to literally. First of all Stuttgart had some WHG ancestry, my guess is ~20% because when computed into EEF, WHG, ANE results from Laz it is in line with Davidski's estimates of hunter ancestry in modern Europeans using Bedouin as a middle eastern source. Second of all, Laz found that Stuttgart's non WHG aka near eastern ancestors were closely related to modern middle easterns. This is why Askenazi Jews who have a high amount of recent middle eastern ancestry score 90% EEF.
The admixtures show that P192.1 is most similar to Tuscans, in line with Iron age Thracians being the ancestors of modern Bulgarians who score very similar results as Tuscans in admixtures. Therefore Iron age Thracians were probably not more EEF than modern Bulgarians.
Why do you keep ignoring Italians and Balkaners post Neolithic southwest Asian ancestry? It is obvious even when looking at Y DNA and mtDNA, they always have a high amount of typical southwest Asian haplogroups rarely found in the rest of Europe. Just because Otzi score 5% in a southwest Asian component, doesn't mean modern Italians 20-25% was all there in the Neolithic.
No matter what method you use post Neolithic southwest Asian ancestry in Italians and Balkaners is obvious, and can be mistakened for European farmer ancestry when not looked at thoroughly. Their overall admixture is very similar to European Jews.
Old calculators? How can you determine if they are now useless? They are not, and are constant with results of differnt tests. Components in admixtures don't represent real populations. They take a bunch of populations SNPs and force them into a certain number of components. Gedorsia and Caucasus are simply an admixture of middle eastern, ANE, and for Gedorsia south Asian(mixture of it's own)-specific alleles. Gedorsia scores in Europe may not be because of recent ancestry from west Asia, just similar mixtures.
Otzi is not evidence of genetic continuum in northern Italy, your twisting his results to fit your arguments.
P192.1 is already prove that southwest Asian-like ancestry was in the Balkans during the early Iron age. He scored around around as high as Tuscans do, which is much higher than early European farmers do. I don't care if there is no archaeological evidence of a mass migration from the Levant, DNA as shown there is common southwest Asian admixture in the Balkans and Italy(highest in the south), and it has been in the Balkans since the early Iron age. It happened, and eventually all the dots will connect.
North Italian are more similar to Sicilians, than they are to Austrians. There is a high amount of common ancestry throughout Italy. The difference between north and south are differences in southwest Asian ancestry which is higher the more south you go. Like i said before similar southwest Asians migrated to Italy and the Balkans, and probably went through the Mediterranean sea because it's highest in the south, eventually archaeological and historical evidence will pop up, because it did happen.
You are totally mixing up terms from different analyses, which is why you get confused and may confuse others.
We are not talking about what may have gone into the composition of the EEF (early European farmers) in this analysis. We are comparing the EEF levels in different populations. Please try to stay on point and relevant if you expect a response.
Where on earth do you get that I am ignoring the SW Asian component in Italians and in the Balkans? You brought up the SW Asian component from the calculators and stated that Oetzi had much, much, much less of it than the modern Italians and people of the Balkans, which is manifestly incorrect, as I showed you by posting the SWAsian numbers from K-12b for Oetzi, Gok 4, and the modern Italian and Bulgarian populations. Oetzi, and even more so, Gok4, had more of it than modern northern Italians and Tuscans, and the Bulgarians. Southern Italians and Sicilians received an additional dose via the migrations from the Aegean and the Balkans, but even then, we're talking about an increase from 7.6% to 11.9%.
What don't you understand about this? How can you expect to be taken seriously if, after all that, you make a statement like the following:
P192.1 is already prove that southwest Asian-like ancestry was in the Balkans during the early Iron age. He scored around around as high as Tuscans do, which is much higher than early European farmers do.
In addition, you are making claims about movements of peoples from the Near East to the Balkans and Italy post Neolithic of which there is no proof in genetics or in the historical or archaeological record. It is therefore bogus.
That yDNA "J" and "E" in Italy mostly came from Greece and the Balkans in the Bronze and Iron Ages, with a very minor component of some non-E-V13 yDNA E arriving in the far south and Sicily perhaps during the Muslim occupation. No scientist is weighing in about the Etruscans anymore, because we just don't have the data. Their mtDNA looks very old in Europe. Should they turn out to be yDNA "J2a" it could represent a movement from the Aegean/coastal Anatolia, but even then it would be male dominated elite movement. We just don't know yet. Please get your facts straight. See Boattini et al 2014
The analysis of this kind of material requires focus, information and the ability to remember data, and most importantly, logic. Without it, conclusions are meaningless.