Leopoldo Leone
Regular Member
- Messages
- 269
- Reaction score
- 207
- Points
- 43
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/ J2a-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: