Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 38 of 40 FirstFirst ... 283637383940 LastLast
Results 926 to 950 of 985

Thread: Moots: Ancient Rome Paper

  1. #926
    Banned
    Join Date
    31-08-16
    Posts
    452

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J-Y15222
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5a2b5

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    Often I have seen results suggesting Moorish ancestry being within a fraction of a percent in the mainland South. Perhaps, a tad higher in Sicily. Specifically, North African ancestry. However most of the time I see the so-called Near Eastern excess in the south being related to Iran_N. Usually as North Caucasus ancestry. I believe this kind of ancestry was flowing in since the early bronze age and probably earlier, through intermediary populations. Often Southern Italians can be modeled with populations like Minoans, according to our results in Maciamo's sample sets. This makes sense, because I think Anatolian_N with a small but significant amount of CHG, are what pre-italics in the south looked like. Who then mixed with Italics flowing in, as well as Greek colonists, and Iapygians.
    The bold part I fundamentally agree with you here, and right now the LBA Sicilians look to be Sardinian like, so we'll see for mainland South, but I doubt it vary much, I think Minoan like structure is possible in some of native groups like Oenotrians but we'll have to see. If the results are like Sicily (which I think will be the case), we'll see that Greek colonization was the most important demographic shift in Southern Italy's history. I am not talking about a fraction of a percent but non trivial foundational Levantine admix. North African ancestry is highly different than Levantine btw, I don't know why you equate Moorish ancestry as bringing this in, majority of the people who settled Sicily in this period were Berbers from Algeria and Tunisia. Nothing you are saying is wrong, btw Helladic EBA works even better try it out. Also the Near Eastern 'excess' is much higher than Ancient Greeks or any supposed Neolithic-Bronze Age movements, you need Levantine. Even the chart I showed with all gradients, it is specifically picking Bronze Age and Iron Age Levantines and not Neolithic. Like I've said in the past the uniparental data also supports this, this shouldn't be controversial, this doesn't mean anything crazy either, like I said Native and Greek are 1 and 2 for the most important autosomal structure of Southern Italians.

  2. #927
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    78


    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Azzurro View Post
    The bold part I fundamentally agree with you here, and right now the LBA Sicilians look to be Sardinian like, so we'll see for mainland South, but I doubt it vary much, I think Minoan like structure is possible in some of native groups like Oenotrians but we'll have to see. If the results are like Sicily (which I think will be the case), we'll see that Greek colonization was the most important demographic shift in Southern Italy's history. I am not talking about a fraction of a percent but non trivial foundational Levantine admix. North African ancestry is highly different than Levantine btw, I don't know why you equate Moorish ancestry as bringing this in, majority of the people who settled Sicily in this period were Berbers from Algeria and Tunisia. Nothing you are saying is wrong, btw Helladic EBA works even better try it out. Also the Near Eastern 'excess' is much higher than Ancient Greeks or any supposed Neolithic-Bronze Age movements, you need Levantine. Even the chart I showed with all gradients, it is specifically picking Bronze Age and Iron Age Levantines and not Neolithic. Like I've said in the past the uniparental data also supports this, this shouldn't be controversial, this doesn't mean anything crazy either, like I said Native and Greek are 1 and 2 for the most important autosomal structure of Southern Italians.
    Here we go again with this nonsense: there's no academic studies that show any Levantine_N ancestry in deep south Italy, let alone south Italy as a whole; there is a big problem with user provided samples regarding southern Italians given that they show always, invariably, a lot of discrepancy with the results from professional studies, and the history of Sikeliot's samples and a tour on purported "south Italian" samples from the 23andMe subreddit show that there is enough reason to be weary of what you see passed as "southern Italian" online; it seems really odd to say that "you need a non trivial foundational Levantine admix" in ALL south Italians, and to a minor extent also central Italians, yet no paper up to this date ever showed this, and giving the nature of Italian "penchant" in genetic researches it is really unlikely that if there were no one has yet found it aside from hobbyist in an anthroforum.

    As for uniparental, I am curious to see: the J1 and J2 clades present in Italy are largely different from those in the Levant, though I've read on anthrogenica that "almost all J1 clades in Italy are of babylonian-mesopotamian and Levantine origins", and I have seen the same for the J2a clades, but without any source so you see why I am highly skeptical of those claims.

    Also, we have no way to gauge the reliability of Helladic EBA because the paper it is supposedly from isn't even out.

  3. #928
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    78


    Country: Italy



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Azzurro View Post
    @Jovialis

    Riddle me this, that you say there is zero Levantine admixture in Southern and Central Italians

    Here is looking at Vahaduo gradients, when comparing two pops, the first showing what pop 1 has more of and the second showing what pop 2 has. I'm half Lucanian and half Sicilian so just to see

    Chart 1 me vs Lombardy

    Distance difference: ( AC - BC ) ↑
    A: Azzurro_scaled
    B: Italian_Lombardy
    C: ↴
    -0.04697202 Palestinian_Beit_Sahour
    -0.04560101 Tunisian_Jew
    -0.04506793 Lebanese_Christian
    -0.04502367 Libyan_Jew
    -0.04380057 Samaritan
    -0.04369960 Palestinian
    -0.04349487 Karaite_Egypt
    -0.04342150 Jordanian
    -0.04335536 Lebanese_Druze
    -0.04331608 Romaniote_Jew
    -0.04330282 Druze
    -0.04323730 Cypriot
    -0.04323594 BedouinA
    -0.04281699 Lebanese_Muslim
    -0.04240975 Syrian_Jew
    -0.04202865 Sephardic_Jew
    -0.04193884 Moroccan_Jew
    -0.04185732 Italian_Jew
    -0.04182144 Iraqi_Jew
    -0.04178363 Yemenite_Amran
    -0.04146349 Yemenite_Dhamar
    -0.04145701 Ashkenazi_Germany
    -0.04117618 Yemenite_Ma'rib
    -0.04081285 BedouinB
    -0.04078270 Egyptian

    Distance difference: ( AC - BC ) ↓
    A: Azzurro_scaled
    B: Italian_Lombardy
    C: ↴
    0.04616570 French_Occitanie
    0.04596957 Spanish_Pais_Vasco
    0.04593070 Basque_French
    0.04573025 Spanish_Terres_de_l'Ebre
    0.04537104 French_Auvergne
    0.04481222 French_South
    0.04440522 Basque_Spanish
    0.04418347 Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige
    0.04409500 Spanish_Barcelones
    0.04403272 Swiss_German
    0.04372056 Spanish_Lleida
    0.04345644 English_Cornwall
    0.04336925 Spanish_Cantabria
    0.04328407 French_Brittany
    0.04310045 French_Nord
    0.04308457 English
    0.04285668 French_Paris
    0.04282876 Spanish_Aragon
    0.04274457 Orcadian
    0.04262683 Welsh
    0.04258209 Scottish
    0.04254835 Belgian
    0.04244068 Italian_Bergamo
    0.04241583 Spanish_Pirineu
    0.04237266 Spanish_Catalunya_Central

    Next 2 for you since your Pugliese, Puglia vs Lombardy

    Distance difference: ( AC - BC ) ↑
    A: Italian_Apulia
    B: Italian_Lombardy
    C: ↴
    -0.05039380 Greek_Kos
    -0.05002065 Cypriot
    -0.04991024 Greek_Dodecanese
    -0.04987424 Greek_Crete
    -0.04958243 Druze
    -0.04932296 Lebanese_Druze
    -0.04926000 Italian_Campania
    -0.04919607 Lebanese_Christian
    -0.04896156 Iraqi_Jew
    -0.04877783 Palestinian_Beit_Sahour
    -0.04816992 Karaite_Egypt
    -0.04802114 Romaniote_Jew
    -0.04795111 Syrian_Jew
    -0.04793188 Lebanese_Muslim
    -0.04771010 Italian_Calabria
    -0.04770576 Italian_Basilicata
    -0.04770328 Greek_Central_Anatolia
    -0.04724583 Samaritan
    -0.04702269 Greek_Cappadocia
    -0.04623210 Assyrian
    -0.04622167 Iranian_Jew
    -0.04596442 Georgian_Jew
    -0.04570986 Armenian
    -0.04559199 Italian_Jew
    -0.04541148 Sephardic_Jew

    Distance difference: ( AC - BC ) ↓
    A: Italian_Apulia
    B: Italian_Lombardy
    C: ↴
    0.04811817 Spanish_Pais_Vasco
    0.04762656 Basque_French
    0.04659519 Basque_Spanish
    0.04645296 French_South
    0.04607401 Spanish_Terres_de_l'Ebre
    0.04591461 Spanish_Barcelones
    0.04579097 French_Occitanie
    0.04507768 French_Auvergne
    0.04501614 Spanish_Lleida
    0.04498966 Spanish_Aragon
    0.04486812 Spanish_Cantabria
    0.04426657 Spanish_Navarra
    0.04422151 Spanish_Pirineu
    0.04417128 Spanish_Peri-Barcelona
    0.04410601 Spanish_Catalunya_Central
    0.04347178 Spanish_Girona
    0.04344095 Spanish_Valencia
    0.04328784 Spanish_Penedes
    0.04276611 Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha
    0.04275293 Spanish_Cataluna
    0.04267207 French_Paris
    0.04262469 Spanish_Camp_de_Tarragona
    0.04256021 Spanish_Castello
    0.04254226 Spanish_Asturias
    0.04220933 Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige

    Now me vs Puglia average from G25

    Distance difference: ( AC - BC ) ↑
    A: Azzurro_scaled
    B: Italian_Apulia
    C: ↴
    -0.01095705 Berber_MAR_TIZ
    -0.01078279 Moroccan_North
    -0.01061598 Berber_Tunisia_Chen
    -0.01046510 Saharawi
    -0.01045269 Mozabite
    -0.01038683 Berber_MAR_ERR
    -0.01035996 Tunisian_Berber_Tamezret
    -0.00993874 Tunisian_Berber_Matmata
    -0.00991996 Tunisian_Berber_Zraoua
    -0.00979948 Algerian
    -0.00960243 Moroccan
    -0.00955279 Moroccan_South
    -0.00929198 Berber_Tunisia_Sen
    -0.00917140 Tunisian
    -0.00807193 Berber_Algeria
    -0.00799620 Tunisian_Douz
    -0.00794973 Libyan
    -0.00794479 Fulani
    -0.00748450 Spanish_Canarias
    -0.00743965 Tunisian_Rbaya
    -0.00686667 Mandenka
    -0.00677981 Gambian
    -0.00677316 Igbo
    -0.00674689 Esan_Nigeria
    -0.00671087 Mende_Sierra_Leone

    Distance difference: ( AC - BC ) ↓
    A: Azzurro_scaled
    B: Italian_Apulia
    C: ↴
    0.01675761 Italian_Basilicata
    0.01573005 Circassian
    0.01572491 Ossetian
    0.01571614 Kabardin
    0.01545934 Karachay
    0.01540089 Adygei
    0.01529509 Abazin
    0.01523285 Balkar
    0.01520394 Ingushian
    0.01520252 Italian_Molise
    0.01517609 Cherkes
    0.01497347 Abkhasian
    0.01489201 North_Ossetian
    0.01475707 Turkish_North
    0.01469924 Kumyk
    0.01468853 Greek_Crete
    0.01447690 Turkish_Central
    0.01432282 Italian_Campania
    0.01421947 Greek_Izmir
    0.01416759 Turkish_Kayseri
    0.01412351 Georgian_Imer
    0.01410833 Chechen
    0.01410582 Italian_Abruzzo
    0.01385643 Azeri_Turkey
    0.01364512 Greek_Trabzon

    Please do not lie: you are also partially jewish, so you can't claim to be just "half Sicilian half Lucanian" and use your results to show something that is supposed to generalise to all southern and central Italians as a whole. I remember that you said that your Gedrosia K3 results modelled you as 25% yemeni jew: as I have said I do not take the results from online calculator as gospel but yemeni jew is really exotic and if you need 25% in a model, it is safe to say you can't be taken as a good proxy for the average south Italian.

  4. #929
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    5,292

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1a2b1 (R-F1794)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    @Azzurro

    You do not need Levantine to model southern Italians:





    Also,

    Minoan and other Greek populations are best for modeling almost all Italian populations, especially the south. Based on what we are seeing with Maciamo's sample sets.



    Furthermore, they do not have Levantine in them either. Only Anatolian BA had 5%, and that is an average of three. The one of the three used for Raveane et al 2018 did not have the Levantine farmer element in it.



    Thus, after looking at academic studies, as well as Dodecad k12b, it shows that Southern Italians have a excess of Iran_N, that has been there for a very long time. The so called Levantine admixture, like I said, is in trace amounts.

  5. #930
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    5,292

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1a2b1 (R-F1794)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    @Azzurro

    You do not need Levantine to model southern Italians:





    Also,

    Minoan and other Greek populations are best for modeling almost all Italian populations, especially the south. Based on what we are seeing with Maciamo's sample sets.



    Furthermore, they do not have Levantine in them either. Only Anatolian BA had 5%, and that is an average of three. The one of the three used for Raveane et al 2018 did not have the Levantine farmer element in it.



    Thus, after looking at academic studies, as well as Dodecad k12b, it shows that Southern Italians have a excess of Iran_N, that has been there for a very long time. The so called Levantine admixture, like I said, is in trace amounts.
    To answer your other question



    Levantine populations are distinguished by the affinity to Natufian, which is in the direction of North African populations. This is why Moorish samples from medieval Andalusia pull in the direction of Natufians, and medieval Canaries. This is partly because the pre-print from Lazaridis shows that Natufians emerged as a combination of Ancestral North Africans, and Paleo-Caucasians. Later Levantine populations became pulled closer to Anatolian_N CHG, and even some steppe, due to migrations flowing into the levant from outside sources in later periods. Nevertheless, Natufian (Levantine farmers) are the original and most distinguishing component of what it means to be Levantine. Which is why populations in the near east today are about 1/3 Natufian. (i.e. the brown component)



    Here is a PCA using samples from the Antonio et al 2019 paper, along with ultimate source populations. You can see the surviving cohorts, C6 and C7 are far removed from Natufian.


  6. #931
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    5,292

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1a2b1 (R-F1794)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    The Ancient Egyptians were about 50% and more Natufian.

  7. #932
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,190


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Good job, Jovialis.

    I confess the last page or so of posts is confusing me. Why are the results of someone of mixed Southern Italian and Jewish ancestry being used to conclude anything at all about Southern Italian ancestry?

    Also, why is the picture New Englander uses of himself the same picture that was sent to me by Azurro claiming that it was him?

    Honestly, I can't keep up with all these sock accounts.

    Just to clarify the record, I have always believed, and stated, that the Greek colonization of Southern Italy was large enough that it probably had a significant impact on Southern Italians at least. The Sikiliot/Azurro/anthrogrenica crowd vociferously disagreed, as they disagreed with the statements I made on record here that the pattern of yDna in Southern Italy, especially in terms of the J2 clades, resembled that of Crete, and that perhaps that could be attributed to very early contact between Crete and Southern Italy.

    Now, all of a sudden they're on board (although they still refuse to consider any impact from Crete), and don't have the honesty and grace to admit they held a contrary opinion and attacked mercilessly those who believed it probably had an impact.

    There's also a deafening silence about the Etruscans, whom they were ABSOLUTELY sure, based on their genetic analyses using Eurogenes calculators, and their awesome linguistic analyses, were mid-first millennium BC migrants straight from Anatolia. They also ignored the caveat I added that any such movement from Anatolia reaching southern Italy might, AFTER the time of the Etruscans, have impacted modern Tuscans.

    How many times do people have to be abysmally wrong before you start to doubt their analyses?

    Now, once we get all the relevant samples from the Iron Age and the Empire from all the relevant areas, and all the newest mathematical methods are used, and those samples are compared to verified modern Southern Italian samples, it may turn out that there is some percentage of "Natufian" in some areas of Southern Italy and Sicily. The challenge will then be to sort out whether it came with the Moors who ruled Sicily for two hundred years, and some parts of the mainland for some decades (there is some Moorish y dna in Sicily, as there is in Spain and Portugal, for example), or it came with actual Jews or people from, say, Syria, or if it was part of the flow of, say, Anatolian Bronze Age, or from flow from Crete.

    I doubt the percentage is very high if it appears at all on the mainland, most probably in the single digits. So, all these fanatics who had been claiming huge percentages of "Levantine" in Southern Italians are going to be just one more instance where these people have been abysmally wrong.


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  8. #933
    Banned
    Join Date
    31-08-16
    Posts
    452

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J-Y15222
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5a2b5

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Good job, Jovialis.

    I confess the last page or so of posts is confusing me. Why are the results of someone of mixed Southern Italian and Jewish ancestry being used to conclude anything at all about Southern Italian ancestry?

    Also, why is the picture New Englander uses of himself the same picture that was sent to me by Azurro claiming that it was him?

    Honestly, I can't keep up with all these sock accounts.

    Just to clarify the record, I have always believed, and stated, that the Greek colonization of Southern Italy was large enough that it probably had a significant impact on Southern Italians at least. The Sikiliot/Azurro/anthrogrenica crowd vociferously disagreed, as they disagreed with the statements I made on record here that the pattern of yDna in Southern Italy, especially in terms of the J2 clades, resembled that of Crete, and that perhaps that could be attributed to very early contact between Crete and Southern Italy.

    Now, all of a sudden they're on board (although they still refuse to consider any impact from Crete), and don't have the honesty and grace to admit they held a contrary opinion and attacked mercilessly those who believed it probably had an impact.

    There's also a deafening silence about the Etruscans, whom they were ABSOLUTELY sure, based on their genetic analyses using Eurogenes calculators, and their awesome linguistic analyses, were mid-first millennium BC migrants straight from Anatolia. They also ignored the caveat I added that any such movement from Anatolia reaching southern Italy might, AFTER the time of the Etruscans, have impacted modern Tuscans.

    How many times do people have to be abysmally wrong before you start to doubt their analyses?

    Now, once we get all the relevant samples from the Iron Age and the Empire from all the relevant areas, and all the newest mathematical methods are used, and those samples are compared to verified modern Southern Italian samples, it may turn out that there is some percentage of "Natufian" in some areas of Southern Italy and Sicily. The challenge will then be to sort out whether it came with the Moors who ruled Sicily for two hundred years, and some parts of the mainland for some decades (there is some Moorish y dna in Sicily, as there is in Spain and Portugal, for example), or it came with actual Jews or people from, say, Syria, or if it was part of the flow of, say, Anatolian Bronze Age, or from flow from Crete.

    I doubt the percentage is very high if it appears at all on the mainland, most probably in the single digits. So, all these fanatics who had been claiming huge percentages of "Levantine" in Southern Italians are going to be just one more instance where these people have been abysmally wrong.
    Lol I never sent you a picture of myself, I can’t believe you pulled of a lie like this to try and prove i’m sock, its pitiful.

  9. #934
    Banned
    Join Date
    31-08-16
    Posts
    452

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J-Y15222
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5a2b5

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Leopoldo Leone View Post
    Here we go again with this nonsense: there's no academic studies that show any Levantine_N ancestry in deep south Italy, let alone south Italy as a whole; there is a big problem with user provided samples regarding southern Italians given that they show always, invariably, a lot of discrepancy with the results from professional studies, and the history of Sikeliot's samples and a tour on purported "south Italian" samples from the 23andMe subreddit show that there is enough reason to be weary of what you see passed as "southern Italian" online; it seems really odd to say that "you need a non trivial foundational Levantine admix" in ALL south Italians, and to a minor extent also central Italians, yet no paper up to this date ever showed this, and giving the nature of Italian "penchant" in genetic researches it is really unlikely that if there were no one has yet found it aside from hobbyist in an anthroforum.

    As for uniparental, I am curious to see: the J1 and J2 clades present in Italy are largely different from those in the Levant, though I've read on anthrogenica that "almost all J1 clades in Italy are of babylonian-mesopotamian and Levantine origins", and I have seen the same for the J2a clades, but without any source so you see why I am highly skeptical of those claims.

    Also, we have no way to gauge the reliability of Helladic EBA because the paper it is supposedly from isn't even out.
    Leopoldo, they are not, and mostly the same. The only J1 clade in Italians not shared with Levantines so far is this branch J1-BY94, https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-BY94/. Which represents anywhere from 20-30% of J1 in Southern Italy. Then J1-CTS1460 and J1-PF7263, CTS1460 is likely to be a Kura Araxian marker being heavily found in the Caucausus, then PF7263 origin is still not determined but is equally found in Europe and the Middle East, the remaining half of J1 is found under J1-Z1853 which is the marker of Semitic speakers. Of Z1853 the two most common clades found in Southern Italians and Italians in general are J1-YSC76 and J1-L829. Both are Levantine markers YSC76 has been found in several Levantine sites including Beirut, Hazor, Meggido, etc.

    J2 is pretty much the same as J1, except the shift of focus is Anatolia and the Caucasus. But all clades are shared, the main reasons are the movements of all Mediterranean Empires, Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman (in the case of moving to Middle East, I know Italy was never under the Ottomans, this is for shared clades in Aegean moving East). So far from Levant in terms of J2 we have J2b-M205 which is found in Italians mostly in Sicily though, and for now there is J2a-M92 unfortunately the samples weren’t strong enough to get further snp analysis, so we’ll have to see when more samples come out, letting you know M92 is the third most common J2 branch for all Italians. But again we’ll see if it’s all M92 or just a portion like CTS2906 or the PF7412.

    It also doesn’t end at J1 and J2, there are other markers like E-M123 branches, E-V22, E-V12, etc... which are not trivial in numbers E-V12, E-V22 and E-M84 usually are over 1% throughout.

  10. #935
    Banned
    Join Date
    31-08-16
    Posts
    452

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J-Y15222
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5a2b5

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Leopoldo Leone View Post
    Please do not lie: you are also partially jewish, so you can't claim to be just "half Sicilian half Lucanian" and use your results to show something that is supposed to generalise to all southern and central Italians as a whole. I remember that you said that your Gedrosia K3 results modelled you as 25% yemeni jew: as I have said I do not take the results from online calculator as gospel but yemeni jew is really exotic and if you need 25% in a model, it is safe to say you can't be taken as a good proxy for the average south Italian.
    I am not lying, the Jewish is Crypto Jewish, not recent practicing Jewish, on my great grandmother’s side and my paternal line is related to the 8th largest Ashkenazi lineage. Its funny because compared to the average from the G25 dataset I actually plot more West than the average Southern Italian because my dna usually needs a little extra Barcin N like ancestry.

  11. #936
    Banned
    Join Date
    31-08-16
    Posts
    452

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J-Y15222
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5a2b5

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    @Azzurro

    You do not need Levantine to model southern Italians:





    Also,

    Minoan and other Greek populations are best for modeling almost all Italian populations, especially the south. Based on what we are seeing with Maciamo's sample sets.



    Furthermore, they do not have Levantine in them either. Only Anatolian BA had 5%, and that is an average of three. The one of the three used for Raveane et al 2018 did not have the Levantine farmer element in it.



    Thus, after looking at academic studies, as well as Dodecad k12b, it shows that Southern Italians have a excess of Iran_N, that has been there for a very long time. The so called Levantine admixture, like I said, is in trace amounts.
    Here let's see if we model with those 4 pops what we get

    Target Distance IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N TUR_Barcin_N WHG Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
    Italian_Abruzzo 0.02262340 9.4 62.4 0.8 27.4
    Italian_Aosta_Valley 0.02873368 0.0 53.8 9.0 37.2
    Italian_Apulia 0.02505043 10.4 63.8 0.2 25.6
    Italian_Basilicata 0.02289782 11.4 63.4 0.2 25.0
    Italian_Bergamo 0.02661484 0.0 60.2 6.6 33.2
    Italian_Calabria 0.02658451 14.0 64.2 0.0 21.8
    Italian_Campania 0.02496018 12.6 64.2 0.0 23.2
    Italian_Lazio 0.02427440 7.8 63.2 2.8 26.2
    Italian_Liguria 0.03570536 0.4 59.0 5.6 35.0
    Italian_Lombardy 0.03122243 0.0 60.8 5.4 33.8
    Italian_Marche 0.02471964 5.6 61.8 2.0 30.6
    Italian_Molise 0.02145589 8.8 62.2 0.4 28.6
    Italian_Northeast 0.02464286 0.0 54.4 7.4 38.2
    Italian_Piedmont 0.02240809 1.0 59.8 4.2 35.0
    Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige 0.02424364 0.0 57.2 8.2 34.6
    Italian_Tuscany 0.01948327 3.4 61.0 3.4 32.2
    Italian_Umbria 0.01903239 6.0 61.8 2.0 30.2
    Italian_Veneto 0.02230888 0.0 57.8 7.0 35.2
    Sicilian_East 0.03216339 12.4 63.8 1.4 22.4
    Sicilian_West 0.03355985 13.2 61.4 4.8 20.6
    Maltese 0.03674313 13.8 63.4 1.8 21.0
    Average 0.02616324 6.2 60.9 3.5 29.4


    Now adding a Levantine, Caucasian source and North African, look at how the fits improve drastically

    Target Distance Canary_Islands_Guanche IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps Levant_Sidon_MBA TUR_Barcin_N WHG Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
    Italian_Abruzzo 0.01544054 1.0 0.0 6.4 19.4 45.2 2.4 25.6
    Italian_Aosta_Valley 0.02873368 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 53.8 9.0 37.2
    Italian_Apulia 0.01661615 1.8 0.0 9.6 19.0 44.8 2.0 22.8
    Italian_Basilicata 0.01385949 1.6 0.8 6.8 21.4 44.2 1.6 23.6
    Italian_Bergamo 0.02661484 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.2 6.6 33.2
    Italian_Calabria 0.01607839 4.8 2.2 9.0 19.4 43.4 0.8 20.4
    Italian_Campania 0.01401499 2.2 1.0 7.0 23.8 42.8 1.6 21.6
    Italian_Lazio 0.01944671 0.0 0.0 2.4 19.4 48.6 3.8 25.8
    Italian_Liguria 0.03363834 5.4 0.0 3.2 0.0 53.2 6.0 32.2
    Italian_Lombardy 0.03116513 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.2 5.4 33.4
    Italian_Marche 0.01994673 0.0 0.0 2.4 16.0 49.2 3.2 29.2
    Italian_Molise 0.01591755 0.2 0.0 7.0 17.4 46.6 2.0 26.8
    Italian_Northeast 0.02464286 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 54.4 7.4 38.2
    Italian_Piedmont 0.02166374 0.8 0.0 0.0 4.6 55.8 4.6 34.2
    Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige 0.02424364 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.2 8.2 34.6
    Italian_Tuscany 0.01748036 0.8 0.0 1.6 8.8 53.4 4.0 31.4
    Italian_Umbria 0.01626847 1.8 0.0 5.2 9.8 51.4 2.8 29.0
    Italian_Veneto 0.02230888 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.8 7.0 35.2
    Sicilian_East 0.02031225 4.6 0.0 9.6 22.8 40.2 3.0 19.8
    Sicilian_West 0.02116545 7.4 0.4 8.2 21.6 37.6 5.8 19.0
    Maltese 0.01421510 12.0 1.0 3.2 22.6 38.0 1.4 21.8
    Average 0.02065587 2.2 0.3 3.9 11.7 49.4 4.2 28.3

  12. #937
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    5,292

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1a2b1 (R-F1794)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    I have already demonstrated that Middle Bronze age levant has significant amounts of CHG, and Anatolian_N. As well as south eastern European, and Greek influences.


    Also, even Davidski said the modern populations are not reliable for his calculator, because they are user submitted.


    Furthermore, the examples I have provided coincide with academic sources, like Sarno et al. 2021. Thus, I think 19%-22% Levant is preposterous, not to mention it takes all of the CHG/IN from an ultimate source population, from Iran_N in that modeling. I don't think using those sample sets are sound.

  13. #938
    Regular Member ihype02's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    584


    Country: Albania



    I wonder what is the old Greek component of Sicilians. Earlier on I gave 40% to 50% as an assumption.

  14. #939
    Banned
    Join Date
    31-08-16
    Posts
    452

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J-Y15222
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5a2b5

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    I have already demonstrated that Middle Bronze age levant has significant amounts of CHG, and Anatolian_N. As well as south eastern European, and Greek influences.


    Also, even Davidski said the modern populations are not reliable for his calculator, because they are user submitted.


    Furthermore, the examples I have provided coincide with academic sources, like Sarno et al. 2021. Thus, I think 19%-22% Levant is preposterous, not to mention it takes all of the CHG/IN from an ultimate source population, from Iran_N in that modeling. I don't think using those sample sets are sound.
    Here this likely more in line with the truth

    Target Distance Canary_Islands_Guanche Corded_Ware_DEU IRN_Seh_Gabi_LN ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N Levant_Natufian WHG
    Italian_Abruzzo 0.01680414 0.0 31.0 13.2 50.4 5.4 0.0
    Italian_Aosta_Valley 0.01900145 0.4 49.2 0.0 46.0 0.4 4.0
    Italian_Apulia 0.02084633 0.0 28.2 14.6 51.8 5.4 0.0
    Italian_Basilicata 0.01934074 0.0 27.6 15.6 51.2 5.6 0.0
    Italian_Bergamo 0.01498310 0.6 42.6 1.6 53.0 0.0 2.2
    Italian_Calabria 0.02307626 2.0 23.6 17.6 51.2 5.6 0.0
    Italian_Campania 0.01868658 0.0 25.6 16.2 51.2 7.0 0.0
    Italian_Lazio 0.01716958 0.0 32.2 10.4 52.2 5.2 0.0
    Italian_Liguria 0.02613282 6.2 43.4 2.2 47.0 0.0 1.2
    Italian_Lombardy 0.01875623 0.8 43.6 1.2 52.6 1.0 0.8
    Italian_Marche 0.01678414 0.0 36.0 9.0 50.0 5.0 0.0
    Italian_Molise 0.01789744 0.0 31.4 13.6 51.0 4.0 0.0
    Italian_Northeast 0.01619406 0.0 49.8 0.8 45.6 1.2 2.6
    Italian_Piedmont 0.01311654 0.0 42.2 4.4 50.0 2.6 0.8
    Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige 0.01395139 0.0 45.0 1.0 49.6 0.8 3.6
    Italian_Tuscany 0.01170206 0.0 38.8 6.8 51.0 3.2 0.2
    Italian_Umbria 0.01373964 0.0 35.0 10.0 51.8 3.2 0.0
    Italian_Veneto 0.01301464 0.0 43.6 2.8 50.0 0.4 3.2
    Sicilian_East 0.02314748 0.8 27.4 14.0 49.2 8.6 0.0
    Sicilian_West 0.01973300 4.6 28.8 12.2 45.8 7.8 0.8
    Maltese 0.01707106 8.4 25.8 13.2 44.0 8.6 0.0
    Average 0.01767375 1.1 35.8 8.6 49.7 3.9 0.9

  15. #940
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    78


    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Azzurro View Post
    Leopoldo, they are not, and mostly the same. The only J1 clade in Italians not shared with Levantines so far is this branch J1-BY94, https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-BY94/. Which represents anywhere from 20-30% of J1 in Southern Italy. Then J1-CTS1460 and J1-PF7263, CTS1460 is likely to be a Kura Araxian marker being heavily found in the Caucausus, then PF7263 origin is still not determined but is equally found in Europe and the Middle East, the remaining half of J1 is found under J1-Z1853 which is the marker of Semitic speakers. Of Z1853 the two most common clades found in Southern Italians and Italians in general are J1-YSC76 and J1-L829. Both are Levantine markers YSC76 has been found in several Levantine sites including Beirut, Hazor, Meggido, etc.

    J2 is pretty much the same as J1, except the shift of focus is Anatolia and the Caucasus. But all clades are shared, the main reasons are the movements of all Mediterranean Empires, Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman (in the case of moving to Middle East, I know Italy was never under the Ottomans, this is for shared clades in Aegean moving East). So far from Levant in terms of J2 we have J2b-M205 which is found in Italians mostly in Sicily though, and for now there is J2a-M92 unfortunately the samples weren’t strong enough to get further snp analysis, so we’ll have to see when more samples come out, letting you know M92 is the third most common J2 branch for all Italians. But again we’ll see if it’s all M92 or just a portion like CTS2906 or the PF7412.

    It also doesn’t end at J1 and J2, there are other markers like E-M123 branches, E-V22, E-V12, etc... which are not trivial in numbers E-V12, E-V22 and E-M84 usually are over 1% throughout.
    An entire "citation needed" disclaimer is needed, but let's work with what you say:
    As for J1, you yourself say that only half could be "unambigously" connected to Semitic speakers, which would mean that only half of the already few J1-carriers in Italy would descend paternally from men that spoke semitic tongues; furthermore, the Eupedia page about J1 states that it is only the L858 subclade of the J1-P58 subclade, and it also states that P58 itself likely originated from eastern Anatolia, so could be linked to the expansion of CHG in Europe, and lastly it says that MOST of the J1 in Europe, Anatolia and the Caucasus is NOT of the P58 variety.
    We are not bound to take it as gospel but often it is reliable enough, and given we are home we could ask Maciano to provide the sources.

    As for Jb, you have already said that "the shift is on Anatolia and the Caucasus", so again it could be linked to the Iran_N/CHG geneflow into Europe, and furthermore the Eupedia page on J2 states that the in subclades in Italy are likely of Greek origins, because they belike the varieties that peak on Crete, and the Z435 variety is linked with Romans, so I don't see how Jb can be taken as a Levantine uniparental marker; also, https://yhrd.org/tools/branch/J2b-M205, M205 seems to have nothing to do with the Levant, as does M92, https://yhrd.org/tools/branch/%20J2a-M92

    As for E, V12 is found also in french Basque, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E-V12, and the other two are canonically linked to the Balkans and north Africa respectively.

    First, provide a reliable source that shows that what you are saying isn't made up, and secondly argue why those are "unambigously semitic markers"; to be thorough, some such markers have been found, not only limited to Italy (and to be precise, the J1 distribution doesn't seem to have any north-south gradient in distribution), but to Europe as a whole, and, and this is what is cogent to the discussion, not in the amount required to back up your claim that uniparental data "shows a not trivial levantine gene flow in Italy".

    P.S.
    I think we have already said that G25 samples are really" funny" to say the least, as their results are totally at odds with the results of academic papers. The only one, as far as I know, that could give it some support is the Sarno paper about the "east med continuum" but its results have never been replicated, and in his latest paper he used no Levant_N to model Calabrian Greeks, and that paper had the flaw of lumping the Levant with Anatolia, so much of that "near east, not sardinian-like" admixture is likely Anatolian-like rather than Levant-like, and I say so because of the known ancient cline made up of a mix of EEF and CHG/Iran_N that span SE europe and Anatolia. Also, and I am going to repeat myself, is it so reasonable to trust user reported samples when the results are so at odds with the scientific literature and when there is a known history of presenting untrustworthy genetic samples as "south Italians"?
    Last edited by Leopoldo Leone; 22-03-21 at 17:09. Reason: adding a post scriptum

  16. #941
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    5,292

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1a2b1 (R-F1794)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    @Azzurro, Sarno et al. 2021, found this modeling to be most appropriate:

    FYI, for Iran_N, they really mean non-steppe related CHG-related. But both are very similar and I believe used in the same cohort of samples for analysis often, such as in Raveane et. al. This ancestry is highly differentiated from Natufian.



    Canary Island also doesn't make sense to use, because it already has Natufian admixture in it. Also, another issue is that the eurogenes modeling is not picking up WHG, which is probably being subsumed by corded ware. This is why I never have too much faith is trying to achieve such precise analysis with these calculators. Rather is it better to use them for broader analysis, such as the 2-ways modeling. Not to mention, analyzing very old and distant samples like WHG has a lot of room for error.

  17. #942
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    30-04-18
    Posts
    203


    Country: United Kingdom



    2 members found this post helpful.
    It is enough to add the Neolithic sample Tepecik_Ciftlik_N and both Iran_N and Natufian descend significantly in the Italian samples.



  18. #943
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    78


    Country: Italy





    Also, the often quoted Fernandes 2019 (a little trivia: it was published exactly 2 years and a day ago) shows the exact opposite of what many people who cite claim: in the PCA Sicilians pre-IE samples are closer to both Anatolia and Greece samples (to be precise between Iberia and Greece, as you'd expect), while Sardinia samples are closer (touching) the samples from Iberia, so the samples do not show that the pre-IE folks in Sicily were Sardinian-like, but already shifted towards the north east mediterranean.

  19. #944
    Banned
    Join Date
    31-08-16
    Posts
    452

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J-Y15222
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5a2b5

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Leopoldo Leone View Post
    An entire "citation needed" disclaimer is needed, but let's work with what you say:
    As for J1, you yourself say that only half could be "unambigously" connected to Semitic speakers, which would mean that only half of the already few J1-carriers in Italy would descend paternally from men that spoke semitic tongues; furthermore, the Eupedia page about J1 states that it is only the L858 subclade of the J1-P58 subclade, and it also states that P58 itself likely originated from eastern Anatolia, so could be linked to the expansion of CHG in Europe, and lastly it says that MOST of the J1 in Europe, Anatolia and the Caucasus is NOT of the P58 variety.
    We are not bound to take it as gospel but often it is reliable enough, and given we are home we could ask Maciano to provide the sources.

    As for Jb, you have already said that "the shift is on Anatolia and the Caucasus", so again it could be linked to the Iran_N/CHG geneflow into Europe, and furthermore the Eupedia page on J2 states that the in subclades in Italy are likely of Greek origins, because they belike the varieties that peak on Crete, and the Z435 variety is linked with Romans, so I don't see how Jb can be taken as a Levantine uniparental marker; also, https://yhrd.org/tools/branch/J2b-M205, M205 seems to have nothing to do with the Levant, as does M92, https://yhrd.org/tools/branch/%20J2a-M92

    As for E, V12 is found also in french Basque, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E-V12, and the other two are canonically linked to the Balkans and north Africa respectively.

    First, provide a reliable source that shows that what you are saying isn't made up, and secondly argue why those are "unambigously semitic markers"; to be thorough, some such markers have been found, not only limited to Italy (and to be precise, the J1 distribution doesn't seem to have any north-south gradient in distribution), but to Europe as a whole, and, and this is what is cogent to the discussion, not in the amount required to back up your claim that uniparental data "shows a strong levantine gene flow in Italy".

    Dude common, https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-M205/ has been found in every single ancient Levantine site as well as Ancient Egypt. I have all of it tracked down from Ancient samples, I have an entire thread on Anthrogenica where every single J2 has been found in ancient dna and the corresponding clade, J-M205 is a non argument, there is nothing to say it is a confirmed marker of the ancient Levant and Egypt, the oldest sample we have of J2b-M205 is in EBA Jordan.

    J1-P58's downstream clade Z1853 which I stated along with J2b-M205 are the Iran Neolithic markers that moved into the Levant and mixed with the local ANF+Natufian population. The dates are practically identical and both have been found together in every single ancient site. With all fairness I respect Maciamo's genetics section but for J1 and J2 it is highly outdated. Like I said so far we have 2 M92 in Middle Bronze Age Meggido, which at the moment are the oldest J-M92, you didn't understand what I wrote, for M92 specific branches can be Levantine in origin and others could have an Anatolian origin.

    J-Z435 is linked with Roman expansion, but is not a Roman marker, has not been found in ancient Italics, and J-Z435 itself is highly contested, many samples are old in the Near East as well. Currently there is 3 theories for it, an Anatolian origin, Levantine origin and a Greek origin, we will have to wait and see what the ancient dna will yield, so far all the ancient samples under J-Z435 are young, we need Iron Age and Bronze Age samples to figure out its origin.

    https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z435/

    Umm no they are not, E-V13 is linked with the Balkans, and I did not mention E-V13. So what if E-V12 is found in the French Basque, their source will ultimately be either a Levantine or Egyptian one, it is a founder effect.

    Do me a favour and look at the ftdna projects and see what branches people are falling under.

  20. #945
    Banned
    Join Date
    31-08-16
    Posts
    452

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J-Y15222
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5a2b5

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by brick View Post
    It is enough to add the Neolithic sample Tepecik_Ciftlik_N and both Iran_N and Natufian descend significantly in the Italian samples.


    It still proves my point that you need a Levantine source, the whole argument of the other side is that there is none.

  21. #946
    Banned
    Join Date
    31-08-16
    Posts
    452

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J-Y15222
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5a2b5

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    @Azzurro, Sarno et al. 2021, found this modeling to be most appropriate:

    FYI, for Iran_N, they really mean non-steppe related CHG-related. But both are very similar and I believe used in the same cohort of samples for analysis often, such as in Raveane et. al. This ancestry is highly differentiated from Natufian.



    Canary Island also doesn't make sense to use, because it already has Natufian admixture in it. Also, another issue is that the eurogenes modeling is not picking up WHG, which is probably being subsumed by corded ware. This is why I never have too much faith is trying to achieve such precise analysis with these calculators. Rather is it better to use them for broader analysis, such as the 2-ways modeling. Not to mention, analyzing very old and distant samples like WHG has a lot of room for error.
    I use Canary Islander to account for North African admix, it would be the best proximate source for Berber ancestry in Sicily and Malta.

  22. #947
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    30-04-18
    Posts
    203


    Country: United Kingdom



    1 members found this post helpful.
    None of these models can be considered definitive evidence. Because of the possible sampling error, because of the errors in G25, and because of the very nature of these tools, which are tools that calculate only possible estimates that depend on the choices made (models, reference samples) and are not definitive proofs of anything.

    Again it is enough to change the settings, without Tepecik_Ciftlik_N and ADC: 0.5x RC these are the results, both Iran_N and Natufian descend significantly in the Italian samples.


  23. #948
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    30-04-18
    Posts
    203


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Azzurro View Post
    It still proves my point that you need a Levantine source, the whole argument of the other side is that there is none.
    I am not saying that there is nothing, something is certainly there the further south you go in Italy, I am saying that it is not possible to calculate it with precision, as it is not possible to understand what has happened for example in southern Italy without the ancient samples that are still missing.

  24. #949
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    78


    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Azzurro View Post
    Dude common, https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-M205/ has been found in every single ancient Levantine site as well as Ancient Egypt. I have all of it tracked down from Ancient samples, I have an entire thread on Anthrogenica where every single J2 has been found in ancient dna and the corresponding clade, J-M205 is a non argument, there is nothing to say it is a confirmed marker of the ancient Levant and Egypt, the oldest sample we have of J2b-M205 is in EBA Jordan.

    J1-P58's downstream clade Z1853 which I stated along with J2b-M205 are the Iran Neolithic markers that moved into the Levant and mixed with the local ANF+Natufian population. The dates are practically identical and both have been found together in every single ancient site. With all fairness I respect Maciamo's genetics section but for J1 and J2 it is highly outdated. Like I said so far we have 2 M92 in Middle Bronze Age Meggido, which at the moment are the oldest J-M92, you didn't understand what I wrote, for M92 specific branches can be Levantine in origin and others could have an Anatolian origin.

    J-Z435 is linked with Roman expansion, but is not a Roman marker, has not been found in ancient Italics, and J-Z435 itself is highly contested, many samples are old in the Near East as well. Currently there is 3 theories for it, an Anatolian origin, Levantine origin and a Greek origin, we will have to wait and see what the ancient dna will yield, so far all the ancient samples under J-Z435 are young, we need Iron Age and Bronze Age samples to figure out its origin.

    https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z435/

    Umm no they are not, E-V13 is linked with the Balkans, and I did not mention E-V13. So what if E-V12 is found in the French Basque, their source will ultimately be either a Levantine or Egyptian one, it is a founder effect.

    Do me a favour and look at the ftdna projects and see what branches people are falling under.
    I own up my slip on E-V22 and E-V13, but E-V22 has been found also in Asturians, and it is a bit hard to link that place with any Phoenician or Moorish legacy, given that neither set foot there, and the picture is still muddy to say the least.

    Also, J2-M205 is found also overall Europe, and J2-M92 even in India, so it is clear that you can't simply state "it is an ancient (of the last 5,000 years) Egyptian and Levantine marker", and either a CHG/Iran_N origin makes up for a much more parsimonious explanation, given that all these places have some admixture from it.

    The problems with your approach is that you take some haplogroups, throw away all the most plausible explanations, and build your own narrative around them discarding all the contrary evidence.
    If I am understandin you correctly, it seems you are saying that half of J1 in Italy is "surely of Levantine origins", and also a good chunk of J2. Also, I think it has already been noticed that potentially shared J1 and J2 subclades might be just shared CHG/Iran_N, so I am not sure that the argument "the oldest subclade we have is from place X so it must be a marker of ancestry from that place" is airtight.

  25. #950
    Banned
    Join Date
    31-08-16
    Posts
    452

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J-Y15222
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5a2b5

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by brick View Post
    I am not saying that there is nothing, something is certainly there the further south you go in Italy, I am saying that it is not possible to calculate it with precision, as it is not possible to understand what has happened for example in southern Italy without the ancient samples that are still missing.
    That is the thing, I always said its range, in the first or second post to Jovialis I said it is somewhere between 5-20%, we going to get another Ancient Roman Italy paper (with various Italic tribes), several Ancient Greek ones and one on the Iron Age Middle East those will papers will be crucial going forward. We can more accurately calculate autosomal and uniparental inheritance.

Page 38 of 40 FirstFirst ... 283637383940 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •