The whole World was in change of autosomal DNA. Certanly there was some unfortune change in Southern Anatolia and Northern Syria but still 70% of ENF DNA is still quite large majority. There are other regions in Eurasia which were more "unfortune" in this issue. For example there is no modern population which reaches above 50% WHG or ANE. So we could still say that Early Neolithic farmer DNA was very sucessfull.
Yes, looking at it that way, it has indeed been the most successful of these three groups. That makes perfect sense, of course, because they had the large expansion brought about by the shift to agriculture much earlier than the other groups.
The same what happened with the SSA figures, happened also with the East Eurasian. I don't know if you remember me writing some time ago. That I am in some calculators only 1% East Asian admixed but in calculators where there is an "Amerindian" component, I suddenly turn out as almost zero East Asian but 3% Amerindian. In other calculators Kurds turn usually out as 1 to 2% East Eurasian but here as close to zero. This is because the East Eurasian in Kurds is ANE derived. So I pretty convinced that the East Asian figures are lower for all because the Amerindian related "East Asian" gets eaten up by ANE, because at the end of the day it is ANE. This is why Turks who on average turn out as 7 to 8% are suddenly around 5% EEA.
Makes sense. That's how I have been explaining my .1 East Asian and .1 Amerindian on 23andme to myself. That's my only "exotic" ancestry. If it's real and not just noise, I think it's from my ANE ancestors. I certainly don't have family myths about Pocahontas making a detour to Emilia, Liguria, or Toscana.
(For what it's worth, I've seen it in Tuscans and Ligurians but nowhere else, at least not among my shares.) Yes, I certainly was expecting about 8% East Eurasian for the Turks, and I still think that's closer to the actual number. It almost seems as if all the European figures are "white-washed" generally, compared to other analyses, i.e. less East Asian and SSA all around.
I only used the "Greek" samples for the Greek figures because I didn't wanted to include regional samples exactly for this reason and I hadn't much time. But when I compared the "Greek" samples to the other regional samples they were quite similar. So I don't think it play a big role there.
I took a look at the figures for the specific areas. Greece Thessaly, the most northern area, is just about equivalent to Toscana. (except for a slight difference in ANE) The Central Greece and "Greece" data (which seem to be almost identical) shows that they fall southeast of Toscana, which is what I thought all along, and which was pretty clear from the Paschou et al plots. (pretty near the Abruzzi figures) Once you get to the Abruzzi you're into southern Italy culturally, and pretty much genetically as well, in my opinion. Pity that there's no data from most of the Peloponnese or Crete, given how much of Magna Graecia was settled from the Peloponnese (and Ionia, of course.)
There's virtually no difference between the different areas of Sicily, which I always believed would be the case. What I didn't expect and what looks strange to me is that southern Italy should be more ENF than Sicily, although I suppose that could be down to all the "Lombards" from Lombardia, Piemonte, Liguria, etc. who were brougt in to 'pacify" Sicily after the expulsion of the Muslims and to turn the "Eastern" Catholics "Latin". (I have actually met a Sicilian on line whose male line ancestors came from my area in the early Middle Ages.) Still, it doesn't look quite right. I realize that 23andme doesn't have a representative sample, and my shares are not necessarily representative even of the people on 23andme, but for what it's worth, I share with quite a few Calabresi, and their "Middle East" scores (and SSA scores) are quite a bit lower than those of the the Sicilians with whom I share. (Or maybe we just shouldn't take those 23andme breakdowns all that seriously.)
Unless, of course, that hint we got from the as yet unpublished mtDna from mesolithic Greece turns out to be meaningful, and the genetic cluster that Eurogenes is calling ENF was already in the Greek Islands, perhaps the southern Peleponnese and southern Italy before Neolithic technology actually arrived...cousins meeting long lost cousins, as it were, following ancient migration routes.
See:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/12/talk-by-christina-papageorgopoulou-on.html
On balance, I still wouldn't bet the farm on these figures being totally accurate. We don't have an actual ancient dna genome of an early neolithic farmer from the Near East. Nor do we have any from the southern Gravettian in southern Greece and Italy, not to mention the fact that in every single analysis this blogger's results have higher WHG and higher ANE in certain areas than were found by academicians. Especially in terms of ANE, I don't see why that would be the case as we have the actual ANE genome and there wasn't any ANE in either La Brana or Loschbour or in the Near East if the EEF are any indication. I'm not saying there isn't an explanation, I'm just saying that I haven't heard it.
There was definitely more variation with some Yamnaya samples but I think 50/30/20 is a good quess. North Caucasian specifically Dagestani Lezgians are the closest to these figures but we still need to double the WHG and go down some ~10% of ENF: So we could say Yamnaya would have been genetically a slightly more Northern Extension of North Caucasians, Which quite frequently fits their position.
We'll soon see how close that is to the actual figures. If it
is close, and if those low 7 or 8% figures for ANE from this algorithm are correct, it doesn't seem that there was any major impact from the Indo Europeans in the southwest, for example, no matter what language they speak. Even in the northeast, how much of the ANE is from SHG's? Is there any way to disentangle it, even from the Corded Ware genomes?