Thanks for the information, Pax. I never took this test, so everything is second hand hearsay for me.
So, on the old Geno test Tuscans had the same amount of SW Asian as Germans and less than Russians? If that's the case, if Germans get 17% SW Asian on the old test, perhaps NE Italians would get around the same.
On the newer, and presumably improved test, the Tuscans are quite different from the mainland Greeks in having less Asia Minor, the same North African, and much more northern European ancestry, i.e. 31% to 7%, and more of the latter than Iberians as well: again, 31% to 7%. The North African is 9% not 2%.
These tests are all over the place, which is why I don't pay them too much mind.
I don't know if you've heard, but Sikelliot and Azzurro are still pushing their "significant", relatively "recent" Syrian, Lebanese, Carthaginian genetic input into Italians. Apparently, having that ancestry is like having cooties or something.
I guess they're not using this test as support!
As I've often said, people like this will promote the tests that support their agenda, and ignore the others.
The funniest thing I heard is that part of their "proof" is based on the so called "Syrian" and Carthaginian emperors. Obviously none of these geniuses knows the first thing about how you got to be emperor. It was all about enlisting in the army, rising to the ranks, gaining the trust and loyalty of your multi-ethnic troops and then, at a moment of crisis, maneuvering that into the purple. It had no connection whatsoever to any folk migration to Italy. These emperors from later centuries sometimes barely set foot in mainland Italy. A few never went there at all.
What a bunch of ignoramuses.
@Davef,
Southern European is not the same as Anatolian farmer or even Chl. European.