Genomic Diversity in Italy

Most people don't really care about pigmentation and other stuff such being less or more "European", thankfully. Many have just a more "technical" interest on pigmentation, or intellectual curiosity. But I agree that there're few Southern Europeans obsessed with this subject, and so are few Northern Europeans, yes; generally some immature young men, but there must be exceptions.
Well, that said, here we go. There're certainly variations within North Italy itself in phenotype. When it comes to genotype, admixture is one perspective. There is also the actual genetic distance/Fst between populations. So, perhaps the table below helps to dissolve the "dichotomy"? It comes from the paper The Italian genome reflects the history of Europe and the Mediterranean basin. See: n.it, c.it, ibe, fra, ceu, gbr etc.
N5TuS4o.jpg

Perhaps an explanation would be possible even under the perspective of admixture, if we consider selective process and timing. I mean, we've to keep in mind that these "light" traits were uncommon in all ancient populations, and that they become more frequent through selection (more in some areas, less in others). We associate them to certain modern populations, and that may be misleading in this case. So, I wonder if it's possible that what you observed could be explained also by the fact that the relevant "conditions" that shifted North Italians towards North (in a modern perspective) were more recent than those that shifted Iberia (beginning from Neolithic, if Bicicleur is right in saying that Iberian farmers had more WHG than Central European/North Italian farmers). It would mean that, when Steppe-rich folks arrived in Iberia to add up with farmers and WHGs, the selective process was in an earlier stage, at the same time that "later" migrations from Central Europe haven't had the same impact over Iberians than they had over North Italians, and also at the same time that selective process in Iberia itself was not that strong (as it was in Central Europe), due to geographical reasons. On the other hand, when these pops Angela just listed reached Italy, some selection has already been done. Perhaps it helps to explain it too?
Finally, still regarding this perspective, Iberians must get extra-WHG compared to Bergamo, and fewer extra-CHG/Iran. The former component is weak in "West Asians", so it's naturally more strongly related to the North in some of these tools, even if indirectly, while the latter is shared with "West Asians", being Southern or Northern depending on the other components associated. The CHG/Iran in Steppe must be associated to North, but the extra-CHG/Iran must be Southern. That's possibly why other people such Romanians may plot South as well (if the North reference is not East Europe), compared to Iberians. Some Westerners (such S. English and N. Spanish) may even plot closer to each other than to Easterners, depending on the PCA.
Possibly there're other components involved, of course, and not just these two.

that paper was not treated well because nearly all the adriatic side italians where excluded ...................IIRC , the author wanted to point out an iberian connection with Italy, be it a non-adriatic side
 
that paper was not treated well because nearly all the adriatic side italians where excluded ...................IIRC , the author wanted to point out an iberian connection with Italy, be it a non-adriatic side
Hmm... I don't know how the paper itself was treated, but I'm affraid the fact that Eastern parts of Italy were not well covered doesn't change the point, even if more coverage is generally a good thing. At the end it's an additional attempt on my side to make sense of these differences between Iberians and N. Italians when it comes to certain traits, using actual genetic distance. Se non è vero, è bene trovato. :) The paper was discussed here more deeply.
Perhaps these genetic distances are somehow related to this "timing" I mentioned in my previous post?

Finally, as a side note, I'd say that even some admixture tool may reinforce this notion, depending on how it was built. An example is perhaps the similarity map based on K36 (see post here), with huge fragmentation of clusters. My own results show a certain overlap between N. Italy and vicinities (likely due to natural contacts along history) - including C. Italy, obviously -, but certainly contained by the Alps, an important genetic barrier. That's also why North Italy is into Italian cline in the first place, not in another cline. :)
By the way, interesting to notice that both the mentioned similarity map and the table of genetic distance I posted above evidence N. Italians and C. Italians are pretty close to each other, more than to Iberians, for example. It may be not in agreement with certain admixture tools. Those which shows Tuscans as the closest for N. Italians are likely right.
ED: Angela commented some times that the major gap happens from C. Italy to S. Italy, which is also shown by these tools above.
 
Hmm... I don't know how the paper itself was treated, but I'm affraid the fact that Eastern parts of Italy were not well covered doesn't change the point, even if more coverage is generally a good thing. At the end it's an additional attempt on my side to make sense of these differences between Iberians and N. Italians when it comes to certain traits, using actual genetic distance. Se non è vero, è bene trovato. :) The paper was discussed here more deeply.
Perhaps these genetic distances are somehow related to this "timing" I mentioned in my previous post?
Finally, as a side note, I'd say that even some admixture tool may reinforce this notion, depending on how it was built. An example is perhaps the similarity map based on K36 (see post here), with huge fragmentation of clusters. My own results show a certain overlap between N. Italy and vicinities (likely due to natural contacts along history) - including C. Italy, obviously -, but certainly contained by the Alps, an important genetic barrier. That's also why North Italy is into Italian cline in the first place, not in another cline. :)
By the way, interesting to notice that both the mentioned similarity map and the table of genetic distance I posted above evidence N. Italians and C. Italians are pretty close to each other, more than to Iberians, for example. It may be not in agreement with certain admixture tools. Those which shows Tuscans as the closest for N. Italians are likely right.
ED: Angela commented some times that the major gap happens from C. Italy to S. Italy, which is also shown by these tools above.

I cannot see it

here is mine .................not much diversity for me



is K36 too much to be reliable?

the alpine people of france , italy, swiss, austrian etc are mostly all similar ............if they create an admixture of only alpine peoples, then one can at least see differences, but no, everyone wants to use nationalistic borders for admixture results...............fine, nations began after 1750 , why are we using national theories for pre 17 century results
 
Hmm... I don't know how the paper itself was treated, but I'm affraid the fact that Eastern parts of Italy were not well covered doesn't change the point, even if more coverage is generally a good thing. At the end it's an additional attempt on my side to make sense of these differences between Iberians and N. Italians when it comes to certain traits, using actual genetic distance. Se non è vero, è bene trovato. :) The paper was discussed here more deeply.
Perhaps these genetic distances are somehow related to this "timing" I mentioned in my previous post?

Finally, as a side note, I'd say that even some admixture tool may reinforce this notion, depending on how it was built. An example is perhaps the similarity map based on K36 (see post here), with huge fragmentation of clusters. My own results show a certain overlap between N. Italy and vicinities (likely due to natural contacts along history) - including C. Italy, obviously -, but certainly contained by the Alps, an important genetic barrier. That's also why North Italy is into Italian cline in the first place, not in another cline. :)
By the way, interesting to notice that both the mentioned similarity map and the table of genetic distance I posted above evidence N. Italians and C. Italians are pretty close to each other, more than to Iberians, for example. It may be not in agreement with certain admixture tools. Those which shows Tuscans as the closest for N. Italians are likely right.
ED: Angela commented some times that the major gap happens from C. Italy to S. Italy, which is also shown by these tools above.

Actually according to Raveane et al. 2019, Central Italians are closer to Southern Italians. However, Tuscans cluster with Northern Italians.

A sharp north-south division in cluster distribution was detected, the separation between northern and southern areas being shifted north along the peninsula (Fig. 1B) (12). The reported structure dismissed the possibility that the Central Italian populations differentiated from the Northern and Southern Italian groups (Fig. 1A) (13). Individuals from Central Italy were, in fact, assigned mostly to the Southern Italian clusters, except for samples from Tuscany, which grouped instead with the Northern Italian clusters (Fig. 1, A and B) (12). Contrary to previous results, no outliers were detected among the Northern Italian clusters (12).

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/9/eaaw3492.full
 
I cannot see it

here is mine .................not much diversity for me



is K36 too much to be reliable?

the alpine people of france , italy, swiss, austrian etc are mostly all similar ............if they create an admixture of only alpine peoples, then one can at least see differences, but no, everyone wants to use nationalistic borders for admixture results...............fine, nations began after 1750 , why are we using national theories for pre 17 century results
It's just one more reference, a subsidiary tool to add up to the table, with the difference that the genetic similarity map is an "amateur" one. It'd be kind of an improved Oracle with so many clusters, but at the expense of their individual meaning.
I'm not discussing politics. Notice that you're closer to Tuscans than to Iberians and Central Europeans according also to this tool, and so am I. The exception is my mother, but I trust more on the non-amateur tool anyway. I'd like to check her also in Dodecad.
Additionally, you seem to share something more with the vicinities, yes. Especially with part of France, Switzerland, Austrian Tyrol/South Germany...

Admixture and genetic distance are different things; both have their use and limitations. The former is useful to break down ancestry, for example.
I mean, if you married an English woman and had a child with her, you'd be closer to other North Italians than to this child in ancestry, right? However, you'd be still closer to your child genetically, in absolute terms.


>=85; >= 80; >=75; >=70; >= 60; >=50. Roughly.







 
Actually according to Raveane et al. 2019, Central Italians are closer to Southern Italians. However, Tuscans cluster with Northern Italians.
Thanks, Jovialis. So it "more or less" corresponds to the maps above.

I wonder if c.it means Tuscans in Fiorito et al. then. If not, who are they? (I'll check later.)
 
Most people don't really care about pigmentation and other stuff such being less or more "European", thankfully. Many have just a more "technical" interest on pigmentation, or intellectual curiosity. But I agree that there're few Southern Europeans obsessed with this subject, and so are few Northern Europeans, yes; generally some immature young men, but there must be exceptions.
Well, that said, here we go. There're certainly variations within North Italy itself in phenotype. When it comes to genotype, admixture is one perspective. There is also the actual genetic distance/Fst between populations. So, perhaps the table below helps to dissolve the "dichotomy"? It comes from the paper The Italian genome reflects the history of Europe and the Mediterranean basin. See: n.it, c.it, ibe, fra, ceu, gbr etc.
N5TuS4o.jpg

Perhaps an explanation would be possible even under the perspective of admixture, if we consider selective process and timing. I mean, we've to keep in mind that these "light" traits were uncommon in all ancient populations, and that they become more frequent through selection (more in some areas, less in others). We associate them to certain modern populations, and that may be misleading in this case. So, I wonder if it's possible that what you observed could be explained also by the fact that the relevant "conditions" that shifted North Italians towards North (in a modern perspective) were more recent than those that shifted Iberia (beginning from Neolithic, if Bicicleur is right in saying that Iberian farmers had more WHG than Central European/North Italian farmers). It would mean that, when Steppe-rich folks arrived in Iberia to add up with farmers and WHGs, the selective process was in an earlier stage, at the same time that "later" migrations from Central Europe haven't had the same impact over Iberians than they had over North Italians, and also at the same time that selective process in Iberia itself was not that strong (as it was in Central Europe), due to geographical reasons. On the other hand, when these pops Angela just listed reached Italy, some selection has already been done. Perhaps it helps to explain it too?
Finally, still regarding this perspective, Iberians must get extra-WHG compared to Bergamo, and fewer extra-CHG/Iran. The former component is weak in "West Asians", so it's naturally more strongly related to the North in some of these tools, even if indirectly, while the latter is shared with "West Asians", being Southern or Northern depending on the other components associated. The CHG/Iran in Steppe must be associated to North, but the extra-CHG/Iran must be Southern. That's possibly why other people such Romanians may plot South as well (if the North reference is not East Europe), compared to Iberians. Some Westerners (such S. English and N. Spanish) may even plot closer to each other than to Easterners, depending on the PCA.
Possibly there're other components involved, of course, and not just these two.

It's good to be reminded that there are other tools besides Admixture and the newer statistical measures, but fst is a more "blunt" tool imo.

It does, of course, show overall genetic similarity. My usual take away from looking at it, though, is how similar most Europeans are to one another. :)

Be that as it may, I definitely think and have previously said that the extra WHG in Spain, which was present even in the Neolithic, and the fact they have less CHG/Iran Neo is what makes them plot slightly "north" of Italians. You can see it on any PCA.
 
It's good to be reminded that there are other tools besides Admixture and the newer statistical measures, but fst is a more "blunt" tool imo.

It does, of course, show overall genetic similarity. My usual take away from looking at it, though, is how similar most Europeans are to one another. :)

Be that as it may, I definitely think and have previously said that the extra WHG in Spain, which was present even in the Neolithic, and the fact they have less CHG/Iran Neo is what makes them plot slightly "north" of Italians. You can see it on any PCA.
Yes, fst won't break down ancestry given a timeframe. Not its goal. That's something to other tools do. It just provides a raw genetic distance.

Indeed, Europeans seem very similar to each other genetically. Physical traits, for example, may distract us from this fact. :)
 
It's just one more reference, a subsidiary tool to add up to the table, with the difference that the genetic similarity map is an "amateur" one. It'd be kind of an improved Oracle with so many clusters, but at the expense of their individual meaning.
I'm not discussing politics. Notice that you're closer to Tuscans than to Iberians and Central Europeans according also to this tool, and so am I. The exception is my mother, but I trust more on the non-amateur tool anyway. I'd like to check her also in Dodecad.
Additionally, you seem to share something more with the vicinities, yes. Especially with part of France, Switzerland, Austrian Tyrol/South Germany...
Admixture and genetic distance are different things; both have their use and limitations. The former is useful to break down ancestry, for example.
I mean, if you married an English woman and had a child with her, you'd be closer to other North Italians than to this child in ancestry, right? However, you'd be still closer to your child genetically, in absolute terms.

Yours makes it look like "Central" Italy begins in southern Toscana and goes to the border of Campania? That might be pretty accurate.

It was Novembre et al, in first talking about genetic "breaks" in Europe, which said there was a pronounced break at the Alps, and a smaller one "just south of Rome". So, in this two part bifurcation, it's just about where the originally Campanian areas of Lazio are located?

The difficulty with all of this is the population of Lazio itself. In relatively recent times (I don't mean post 1950) wasn't there a very large migration from the Abruzzi into Lazio? That's in addition to the incorporation of former areas of Campania.

All that complicates our understanding of the more ancient borders.

"Central Italy" might have become more "southern" relatively recently.

I wish we had more samples from Umbria. That might clarify matters. Are they more like Tuscans or more like Lazio?

The one thing that is clear is that Toscana is more related to northern Italy, and I think that increases the more north in Toscana you go. At the end, I don't think there's probably much difference between some Tuscans and some Romagnoli.
 
With respect to modern Youth, yes, your description is accurate. Not sure how many young people today know how or are capable to sit down and read a book. As for the politics of modern Italy, well I can't speak directly to that but there is a line of thinking in terms of language used in some of this genetic research that has lets see if I can say it as civilly as possible, has suggestions that the authors have strong EU/NGO/open border ideology. But EU/NGO/open border are political issues so I will stop here on that front.

why that? can you explain why for example the use of the term "near eastern" here is EU/NGO/open border ideology? if the standpoint is that borders should be closed because of genetic difference then i understand why you would think terminology that puts emphasis on genetic similarity could be there because of EU/NGO/open border ideology. else i see no logic behind this. and it's not even wrong terminology it's just that it's a bit broad. it might provocate some people but that's it.
 
Ailchu: I am not for open borders anywhere. I have stated that numerous times on the political forums on this site. People crashing borders and demanding legal status in countries not their own is not something I am for. Period. Yes, I understand I am part of the Italian-diaspora, the large number of Italian immigrants that left Italy between 1880 and 1920, mostly from the South of Rome and Sicily, but "all of my Ancestors, again ALL" immigrated through "legal ports of entry in the USA" and have the appropriate documentation as to who they are and where they were from. Nobody left Italy and went to Canada or Mexico and crashed the border. Doing my own research, I have all the ship manifest that documents when my great-grandparents arrived in the USA that were "Required to be given to USA Port and Immigration officials". I am not for open borders that allows migrants to come in to a country and those migrants and immigrants demand the host country conform its culture and history and traditions to the newcomers, often from cultures that are fundamentally different than the country that they illegally immigrate to. None of my ancestors came here and demanded the USA conform its culture to the culture of Sicily and Southern Italy, which would include religion as well. Most Italian immigrants lived in their tight ethnic neighborhoods and kept their family, ethnic, and religious customs that they brought over from the regions they immigrated from but they did not expect nor demand the USA conform its culture to them. They kept their cultural traditions but in the secular world, they integrated and adapted to the broader USA political, social, and economic, legal, etc culture.

I have been through this with you before. I am not for the EU/NGO/UN policies of immigration and migrants nor am I for similar policies in the USA. Period, end of discussion. You want to immigrate to a country or culture not your own, you go through the legal process and legally immigrant, etc, just as what my ancestors did when they immigrated here.
 
Last edited:
@Palermo i didn't want to discuss immigration, i asked why you think that the used terminology in this paper is EU/NGO/open border ideology.
 
@Palermo i didn't want to discuss immigration, i asked why you think that the used terminology in this paper is EU/NGO/open border ideology.

Ailchu: I think some of the authors when words in the text had some political leanings. That is of course my opinion and I am not saying it is reality. Some of the samples they used for comparison purposes to the ancient Italians could have been better done. Some of the authors in quotes to Science news magazines I think made statements that reflected lets say political leanings consistent with EU/NGO/UN open border policies. Again, reading quotes from the authors like "Moots", and others (most of these are American Academics quoted in the article) the language they use to me indicates political leanings. I don't see what they see in the data, that is this huge turnover in population that these select set of authors find. I see the ancient Romans in the Antonio/Moots et al 2019 paper pretty much clustering between Northern Italy, along with Southern France to Southern Iberia with I think 8 of the 11 Iron Age samples and Southern Italy, with shifts between those 2 points. I don't see in the data ancient Romans ever being shifted anywhere but pretty much along what is modern Italy.

https://www.genengnews.com/news/dna...c-crossroads-of-europe-and-the-mediterranean/

This article has a segment on "Migration is nothing new" and then goes into a discussion about that, etc.

https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/romans-0012832


I think there are some authors engaging what in Theological Scholarship is Eisegesis vs. Exegesis, The former being where one has pre-conceived positions and then reads into the text, in the case of Theological scholarship, or in this case reading into the DNA data notions that fit your modern Political leanings. Some of the authors it is my view engaged in Eisegesis although I think there were enough different authors on the paper that it did not go to far to what the likes of Moots wanted to say and Pritchard.

And for the record, I like the Antonio et al 2019 paper, I think overall it was pretty good but some of the text (hmmm) and some of the samples used for comparison purposes (hmm) but more so some of the authors (not all of them not even a majority of them] own quotes to the Scientific press are what caused me to tie in EU/NGO/UN Open border political leanings.
 
Yours makes it look like "Central" Italy begins in southern Toscana and goes to the border of Campania? That might be pretty accurate.

It was Novembre et al, in first talking about genetic "breaks" in Europe, which said there was a pronounced break at the Alps, and a smaller one "just south of Rome". So, in this two part bifurcation, it's just about where the originally Campanian areas of Lazio are located?

The difficulty with all of this is the population of Lazio itself. In relatively recent times (I don't mean post 1950) wasn't there a very large migration from the Abruzzi into Lazio? That's in addition to the incorporation of former areas of Campania.

All that complicates our understanding of the more ancient borders.

"Central Italy" might have become more "southern" relatively recently.

I wish we had more samples from Umbria. That might clarify matters. Are they more like Tuscans or more like Lazio?

The one thing that is clear is that Toscana is more related to northern Italy, and I think that increases the more north in Toscana you go. At the end, I don't think there's probably much difference between some Tuscans and some Romagnoli.

I think there may have been at least some southern Italian-like people in Central Italy, since at least the Iron Age, with samples like R437, and R850. But It probably really ramped up from Medieval times, with samples seen in Villa Magna.
 
Yours makes it look like "Central" Italy begins in southern Toscana and goes to the border of Campania? That might be pretty accurate.

It was Novembre et al, in first talking about genetic "breaks" in Europe, which said there was a pronounced break at the Alps, and a smaller one "just south of Rome". So, in this two part bifurcation, it's just about where the originally Campanian areas of Lazio are located?

The difficulty with all of this is the population of Lazio itself. In relatively recent times (I don't mean post 1950) wasn't there a very large migration from the Abruzzi into Lazio? That's in addition to the incorporation of former areas of Campania.

All that complicates our understanding of the more ancient borders.

"Central Italy" might have become more "southern" relatively recently.

I wish we had more samples from Umbria. That might clarify matters. Are they more like Tuscans or more like Lazio?

The one thing that is clear is that Toscana is more related to northern Italy, and I think that increases the more north in Toscana you go. At the end, I don't think there's probably much difference between some Tuscans and some Romagnoli.
After all these studies, I think it's evident at this point that Tuscans are very close to North Italians, indeed.
Dodecad K12b seems to work well for my parents and I. TSI/Tuscan is presented here as our second pop, after N_Italian (there is this O_Italian in between, but apparently it's not that informative).
Btw, the similarity map is fine. As we discussed in other threads, it just has a big problem with Sardinians (West Med in the calculator) and Basques, due to drift and correspondence between clusters and references.

Concerning Alps, recently I noticed that a far match of my mother, an old woman with all 4 grandparents from San Vito di Cadore-BL, have virtually the same results. So even those people from far North in Veneto are not so different.

I didn't know all these peculiarities about Lazio. Very interesting.

As for Umbria, even Ethnopedia was trying hard to get more results from there. Apparently the region is the most underrepresented in Italy when it comes to genetics. I'm also curious about it.

ED: Still regarding the genetic distance table, I wonder if "aos" has some issue, since it's getting too low values to other pops. It'd be interesting to see more recent tables involving these statistics (including shared IBD segments) for Euro pops.

@Jovialis
I think the impact of South Italian-like was relevant even in North Italy (with Romans), and in other parts of Europe to a lesser extent.
 
Last edited:
Ailchu: I think some of the authors when words in the text had some political leanings. That is of course my opinion and I am not saying it is reality. Some of the samples they used for comparison purposes to the ancient Italians could have been better done. Some of the authors in quotes to Science news magazines I think made statements that reflected lets say political leanings consistent with EU/NGO/UN open border policies. Again, reading quotes from the authors like "Moots", and others (most of these are American Academics quoted in the article) the language they use to me indicates political leanings. I don't see what they see in the data, that is this huge turnover in population that these select set of authors find. I see the ancient Romans in the Antonio/Moots et al 2019 paper pretty much clustering between Northern Italy, along with Southern France to Southern Iberia with I think 8 of the 11 Iron Age samples and Southern Italy, with shifts between those 2 points. I don't see in the data ancient Romans ever being shifted anywhere but pretty much along what is modern Italy.

https://www.genengnews.com/news/dna...c-crossroads-of-europe-and-the-mediterranean/

This article has a segment on "Migration is nothing new" and then goes into a discussion about that, etc.

https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/romans-0012832


I think there are some authors engaging what in Theological Scholarship is Eisegesis vs. Exegesis, The former being where one has pre-conceived positions and then reads into the text, in the case of Theological scholarship, or in this case reading into the DNA data notions that fit your modern Political leanings. Some of the authors it is my view engaged in Eisegesis although I think there were enough different authors on the paper that it did not go to far to what the likes of Moots wanted to say and Pritchard.

And for the record, I like the Antonio et al 2019 paper, I think overall it was pretty good but some of the text (hmmm) and some of the samples used for comparison purposes (hmm) but more so some of the authors (not all of them not even a majority of them] own quotes to the Scientific press are what caused me to tie in EU/NGO/UN Open border political leanings.

you still couldn't explain why exactly the used terminology here should be indicating EU/NGO/open border ideology for you. about Pritchards words, migration really is nothing new, it always happened. we didn't need the moots paper about rome to know this.
 
you still couldn't explain why exactly the used terminology here should be indicating EU/NGO/open border ideology for you. about Pritchards words, migration really is nothing new, it always happened. we didn't need the moots paper about rome to know this.

So when local populations are conquered by invaders, they should just tell one another, "Oh well, nothing new."?

More often than not, these "migrations", we read about in human population genetics, are done by means of conquest.
 
So when local populations are conquered by invaders, they should just tell one another, "Oh well, nothing new."?

More often than not, these "migrations", we read about in human population genetics, are done by means of conquest.

of course not but who is conquered by which invaders? you are starting way too extreme. for example beeing against migration of different people just because they look different is far away from defence against a real invasion. migration and mixing is nothing unusual in human history and as a consequence we are all mixed. stating this fact has nothing to do with modern border politics for most people. only for some special ones like the identitarians it has a lot to do with each other but speaking against these ideologies doesn't mean that you are for open borders.
 
you still couldn't explain why exactly the used terminology here should be indicating EU/NGO/open border ideology for you. about Pritchards words, migration really is nothing new, it always happened. we didn't need the moots paper about rome to know this.

I have said all I am going to say on this particular subject in this thread.

Best regards to you and yours.
 
is this also open border ideology?

"The village of Sumte, population 102, had to take in 750 asylum seekers. Most villagers swung into action, in keeping with Germany?s strong Willkommenskultur, or ?welcome culture.? But one self-described neo-Nazi on the district council told The New York Times that by allowing the influx, the German people faced ?the destruction of our genetic heritage? and risked becoming ?a gray mishmash.?
In fact, the German people have no unique genetic heritage to protect. They?and all other Europeans?are already a mishmash, the children of repeated ancient migrations, according to scientists who study ancient human origins.
New studies show that almost all indigenous Europeans descend from at least three major migrations in the past 15,000 years, including two from the Middle East.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/theres-no-such-thing-pure-european-or-anyone-else

or this?
Genetic tests of ancient settlers' remains show that Europe is a melting pot of bloodlines from Africa, the Middle East, and today's Russia.


https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...europeans-immigrants-genetic-testing-feature/


no it's not, it's just reality. it has nothing to do with modern politics and it mostly hits those who have certain tendencies like that nazi from Sumte.
 

This thread has been viewed 30871 times.

Back
Top