Search results

The map seems wrong to me. According to the study of García et. al 2011, the north of Spain (the Vasco-Cantabrian area) should have one of the highest levels in Europe (besides Finns and Lapps) : Cantabria : 17.3% Pasiegos : 19.5% Gipuzkoa Basque : 17.7%

For Spain, some observations : Aragon is 0.7% and you have it mostly on the 1-2.5% range. Andalusia is 1.8% and you have it mostly on the 2.5-5.0% range

They are 73% Atlanto-Baltic on K7b whereas Sardinians are around 50%, that's a huge difference. The atlanto-med also includes a good deal of mesolithic alelles on it. As for the mtDNA, the U5 samples are not just neolithic, but also been found in Paleolithic Iberia, even haplogrup H.

Basques are far from being pure Neolithic, in fact they would be one of the least neolithic of Southern Europe and many other parts of Europe. First of all, they are not like Sardinians, they have much more Northern-Euro influences. Second, they have one of the highest concentrations of...

WTF ? :useless:

I agree that Gibraltar belonged to Spain in 1713, so it is a stolen territory.

You are just twisting things up just because you want to call Hitler an African. Well E-V13 is a European haplogorup, not african since it's rare in Africa , and reaches it's peak in the Balkans, especially in Kosovars with near 40%. Now, if you want to go back in time and say this haplogroup...

It's not jewish nor african, nor recent origin. It's from the Neolithic. This haplogorup E-V13 has been found in early neolithic remains actually.

No...haplogroups E and G were already in neolithic Europe. Also, the J2 subclades are not the same accross Europe.

I don't think Phoenicians had that much of a genetic impact. The phoenicians were first and foremost commercial people, traders ... they didn't made big settlements, just port-towns along coast-lines, for their comnmercial purposes, but rarely penetrating inside the lands where they went, or...

I prefer borders, so you can see cleary for each country which levels they have. etc

Overrated yes defintaley, but that started by 19th century nordic romanticists.

These invaders were a small minority. And the repopulations were made by people genetically similar (ie. surrounding regions of Rome).

You don't get it...globalization is something planned by a few big corporations, the so called Oligarchy. There is no such "natural trends" that you are talking about.

There is no such thing as a "trend", it's something planned and deliberate.

I hope not. If there are different races/ethnicities in the world is for a reason, nature is wise as they say...

ancient Romans was not a population restricted to Rome, but the whole of the Italic peninsula, also in times of ancient Romans the city of Rome attracted people from all over "Italy". You are too simplistic minded I think.

When did I say that ?? I said ancient germanics were chaotic and barbarian (not mentioned their wealth) and that modern Italians are rich AND still a organised country (not relating the two, it's a conjuction...). A disorganised country would be Zimbabwe (to say somthing) but not ITALY..

Otzi was not a neolithic farmer.

Same can be said of germanics, but the other way around, how did they turn out from being chaotic barbarians to organized and civilized ? Nations can change with time. Anways, I think you are exaggerating and going by stereotypes. Italians are still an organized and rich country.