@Fire-Haired,
Am I saying that I think there was no genetic input at all into Italy from 2,000 BC to 0AD? That was a rhetorical question. No, I'm not. I know there was such input from the archaeology and history that you so cavalierly dismiss, both from the north with the Gauls and from the southeast with Greeks, if nothing else, both of which movements took place in the first millennium BC. In both of those cases though how do you know the magnitude of the change, or even if there was much of a change in the genetic signature at all
You're being too scientific. The sources of differnt types of ancestry in modern Italians doesn't have to trace back to historically known migrations to Italy. I'm not referring to Gauls or Greeks of history, I'm referring to unknown Pre-Historic people who arrived before there was any writing in Italy, and are hard to track in archaeology. If people like modern Greeks are the source of a Near Eastern shift in Italy, then most Italians would have to be like 80% Greek. If people in former Gaulish territory are the source of the Steppe ancestry, Central/North Italians would have to be 40-50% Gaulish. The Steppe ancestry especially isn't just a minor topping, it's very significant.
,
particularly in the south, when we don't have a single ancient Italian genome from south of the most northern region of Italy. How do you know that the people who were in southern Italy in 2000 BC weren't almost identical to the Greeks who later colonized it? How do you know how much "Cypriot like" genetic material they already carried before 2000 BC ?The answer is that you don't, so your claim that whatever percentage of "Cypriot like" genes the Sicilians possess is definitely from after 2000 BC is baseless.
You're right. That's why in the last test results I posted, I only tested Bergamo and Tuscan.
You also fail to grasp that not everyone is obsessed with parsing out how much "additional West Asian" x or y population have or don't have. It's the migrations of various actual pre-historical and historical groups that interests me. Yes, I want to know the impact on our genome of the Anatolian farmers, and the Yamnaya people, but I also want the questions about the Etruccans answered, and maybe the impact of the Greeks and what were they like, anyway, and maybe the people of Crete before them, and the Sea Peoples, and Gauls, and the Lombards, and the Moors in the south etc.
Those are the finer details. With the methods I'm using, all you can do is know the large genetic groupings new people who arrived after 3000 BC were apart of. It's impossible to figure out ethnic or regional origins.
I also want to know whether some of the Indo-European speakers who came into Italy from the south might have had a different signature from the ones who went through central Europe, perhaps because they traveled south through the Caucasus and then west. You may not have heard of Drews, but some of us have, and we'd like to know if he was right.
Who's that?
Your "analysis" doesn't answer any of those questions.
Take Spain as an example if you're more familiar with their history. I think the original figure you gave for Andalusia using the PCA based method is 22% Cypriot (I don't think you published the dstat figure for them). You think that Cypriots came to Spain in such numbers that the people of southern Spain owe 22% of their ancestry to them? That was a rhetorical question. They didn't. One big change that did happen is that southern Spain was part of a Muslim Empire for 800 years in some places.
Do we know anything about the history of people in Spain before 0 AD Some, but probably not a lot. Why is it easier to believe Spanish are 25-30% from Yamnaya-like, than they are 10-25% Cypriot-like? Both could have arrived in large numbers but were left unrecorded in history.
The North Africans are basically still considered an EEF/WHG population with a big dose of SSA aren't they?
Yes. According to D-stats, they're probably about 20% SSA.
Plus, this is a discussion about whether we should be accepting the latest round of percentages about this overall genome similarity at face value. Just a little while ago, didn't someone want us to believe that the Pathans were 2/3 Eastern European? Even if we use Cypriots as one of the included populations for Europeans, you think it's a trivial matter that the percentage for them goes from 29% to 42% in certain populations depending on which MN group you use? I'm also not sure about using Mozabites as a population, for what it's worth.
I dis agreed with those numbers. Using D-stats, I've sucked out the non-Dravidian like part of Pathans, and it looks like a mixture of Andronovo and CHG. SC Asians have lots of EHG and CHG. There's no doubt about it. It isn't MA1, it clearly has WHG inside of it, and EHG is our best representative. I'm not confident about anything, because it assumes they're part Dravidian-like. Results I've seen, does suggest there's lots of Andronovo(Not like any modern Europeans. Andronovo is 80% Yamnaya, no one is close to that today). Either that, or they're largely of EHG/ANE origin. Which is equally possible in my mind considering Y DNA R2 and most mtDNA U2 clades are exclusive to SC Asia. I doubt Andronovo ever went to SC Asia, because their form of Z93 is mostly found in Central/North Asia.
I'm sorry, but people should never lose their critical faculties when dealing with abstract theories, not even their own. In fact, if someone is being honest, the best way to figure out the most probable scenarios is to do an exercise where you take an attacking position to find out all the weaknesses present in your theory. Internet people in general, in addition to whatever agenda they may or may not have don't seem to do that enough.
I am too confident sometimes. I do take the attacking position too. The stats I post here, are the what I do after going on attack mode. I test every possibility. I just posted a stat, modelling Italians as Otzi+Yamnaya+all modern non-Europeans. It's an unbias test to see what differnt about modern Italians and Otzi.
