Genetic and Cultural Differences between Jews and Greeks

If you have to quote my beliefs at least get them right, I identify as Ethnically Southern Italian, and I acknowledge other parts of my distant heritage, such as my Jewish ancestors. I do this in real life as well.

As for your genetic position, having a conversation without discussing Uniparentals is a waste of time, its blatantly obvious that Levantine ancestry made its way through.

The only thing that is blatantly obvious is that you are delusional, and agenda-driven.

Please recognize that your North African admixture is likely (probably) Moorish. Iran-like ancestry is present throughout Italian genetic history since the Neolithic onward, and has nothing of significance to do with the Levant.
 
I wonder if this hyper focus from this AG contingent, on associating Greeks with Jews, is motivated by some kind of personal vendettas for the fact that Greece is the most anti-Semitic country in Europe:

Why Is Greece the Most anti-Semitic Country in Europe?

With 69 percent of Greeks espousing anti-Semitic views, according to the survey, Greece was on par with Saudi Arabia, more anti-Semitic than Iran (56 percent) and nearly twice as anti-Semitic as Europe’s second-most anti-Semitic country, France (37 percent).

https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/how-anti-semitic-is-greece-really-1.5248999
 
The only thing that is blatantly obvious is that you are delusional, and agenda-driven.

Please recognize that your North African admixture is likely (probably) Moorish. Iran-like ancestry is present throughout Italian genetic history since the Neolithic onward, and has nothing of significance to do with the Levant.

Are you saying Southern Italians have no or negligible Levantine ancestry (either Levant_N or, even more probably, Levant_MLBA)? That would be really stretching it a bit... not "Jewish", but not totally unrelated to people that once lived in the Levant, either.
 
First of all please don't make me a strawman or use my failure for accusing David and G25 of failing. Because I just start using these tools and my mistakes are not his. Also, I never claimed I have the authority to decide things with my quick runs, I just shared results I created and am open to correction and criticism.
I looked at YGorcs results and I quickly realised what went wrong with Sicilians and why it worked for Italians much better: They need additional North African admixture, while other Italians don't need any significant amount of it. This was what ruined my run. If adding ancient North African to the run, it looks like Sicilians are like other Southern Italians, just with some small percentage of North African ancestry. This was present in Ygorcs run and I can repeat it with both prehistoric and modern samples.

Prehistoric North African reference:
Modern_Antiquity_scaled_8_Italian.jpg

Modern North African reference:
Modern_Antiquity_scaled_9_Italian.jpg


This doesn't mean my model is good, but I think it shows that this additional slight NA is there and that was my mistake before. Its not more Levantine, but more North African admixture which was swallowed by Levantine because I didn't include it in the run and it wasn't necessary for other Italians, which was my main objective before. That was my fault.

As for the historical accounts of Levantine admixture into the Imperial Roman population: Yes, we had little hard data, but the study on ancient Romans delivered it with many clearly Near Eastern derived inhabitants. And while we can't be sure how many of those were permanent residents, we know from the historical records many descriptions of neighbourhoods and the people of Rome changing. But this can be, of course, subjective accounts. What else do we have? We have accounts of real people and biographies and nobody can deny that the percentage of people with "Eastern" ancestry in their pedigree was constantly rising from Early Republican (almost all Latin, Italic and Etruscan only) to later Imperial (many with Greek, Greco-Levantine and outright Near Eastern or North African) ancestry. Even in the senatorial class, among politicians, writers, soldiers, but also common people where we have accounts and of course masses of slaves coming in, like private teachers, farmworkers, merchant helpers, which often stayed as freed men and so on. This is of course hard to evaluate statistically, and I'm not a competent authority to make a definitive claim at all, so please keep that in mind when reading what I write. I doubt anybody can right now, but its impossible to deny this influx as if it didn't happen. Its amount can only be evaluated by even more samples and there is a decrease of clearly Near Eastern derived ancestry in Late Antiquity when the urban settlements were in decay and new people from rural areas and the North repopuled the later Medieval agglomerations.This is a very important moment, because it means whatever was there in the Imperial time, was reduced because of the collapse of urban Roman life throughout the imperium, but particularly in Central Italy. We all know the numbers for Rome at its height and after its collapse. I say a lot of these people moved to the East again, others died or sought refuge in the provinces, but some left descendents in the region.
The other reason seems to me therefore panmixture, in which only a slight shift remained, but no clear Levantine profile any more and the Northern influx pulled everything "up again". But that's just my opinion based on the latest study's results and historical accounts, but I have no troubles changing it according to the data anyone can provide. Sorry if anybody felt bad because of my comments, I had no intention to stir anything up, but just shared my opinion and ideas, which might sometimes just be wrong and need correction.
That's why I like honest debates, we all can improve. Ygorcs corrected my model from before, which was just wrong. That was not G25 data's failure, but my fault.
 
Are you saying Southern Italians have no or negligible Levantine ancestry (either Levant_N or, even more probably, Levant_MLBA)? That would be really stretching it a bit... not "Jewish", but not totally unrelated to people that once lived in the Levant, either.
Honestly a model is...a model: a possible way to explain the data and that could depict a past situation, but Italians are one of the most studied people on Europe and it is hard to believe that no researcher before now has realised that the best way to model Italians would be with a post neolithic Levant gene flow. Futhermore, according to this study, "continuity and Admixture in the last five millenia of levantine histori from ancient canaanite and present-day Lebanese genome sequences.", Sardinian and north Italians share more alleles with ancient levantines among European populations (Sidon_B in the study) because they are ones with higher EEF. It is one study and might be wrong ( and something else looks wrong, at least to me, such as the admixture graph), but imo it falls well with the other results we have ( as Lazaridis 2017 found no statistical reasons to model Myceneans with post neolithic Levant, which suggests it was not a source of subsequent migrations ). There is also a second reason why I do not trust results from G25 and/or data taken from the internet (and given the division between "Sicily east" and "Sicily ovest" I think the results are from there): under other conditions it would be certainly paranoid, but for reasons that go well beyond sane human understanding, there were individuals who spent long periods of their lives polluting the databases by sending handpicked and/or fake results in order to make Italians (especially southern Italians) appear as much "exotic" as possible, and on the other hand admixture softwares used/tinkered with by Davidsky tend to be very unreliable for Italians ( by making them "more exotic" than in reality, and there are many threads here, and the likeliest explanation is that Davidsky himself is not a honest broker and for reasons beyond my understanding wants Italians to "stand out" compared to other Europeans ). Certainly this judgment is possible only because we have accademic papers that debunk what one would see scrolling through "anthropology" fora and blogs. On a final note I also think it is not very reasonable to take literally the imperial Roman average as a surrogate for incoming gene flow for all Italy: actually only C4 samples were "exotic" and the other could have been natives or Greeks immigrants (thus very similar genetically), so it is no wonder they work so well as a proxy for modern Italians, but it is hard to see how all Italy should be like Rome in having received similar level of immigration ( If you were a merchant or could settle in another place than your homeland in the empire it was natural to choose the capital [ and the desappearance of the "levant teal" after Rome was no longer the capital seems to confirm this]; certainly other cities saw some immigration, but the point is that very likely it was not to the extent Rome saw it). As usual these are my two cents.
 
Last edited:
@Leopoldo: As long as there are only small samples available, all kind of samples, not just those of Italians, can be not ideal and not that representative of reality. Like I know it for various samples. Example being "Austrians": I know for sure that the Austrian sample used in G25 is too much Eastern and Southern shifted to represent all of Austria. That's just a fact. I don't know whether admixed people were in the sample or it was just from a specific part of the country, but it was for sure not predominantely from places like Salzburg and Upper Austria. No way.
If the sample sizes and quality improve, the whole reference will improve and at some point everybody can clearly see that people from Tyrol, Upper Austria, Carinthia and Burgenland will have somewhat different genetic profiles. But do I make a fuzz about it and think this is some kind of conspiracy to make Austrians look "more exotic"? If being asked I would just say what the sample is, more South and East shifted than the average or respective regional samples. That's it. I hope for better samples to trickle in, at some point, but the sample available is better than none and its at least not completely off to consider Austrian genetic variation.

Also, if you use Italians in the G25, you can actually disprove a lot of false ideas about Italians, because what the runs really show is that Italy is diverse and not that exotic at all. So if people come up with some strange concepts about Italian origins, you can check them in a minute and falsify them. If you are not that happy with the current sample from Western Sicily, believe me, 99 percent of the people would have no problem with an improved sample in their data bases, neither academics nor amateurs. If you can collect one with scientific quality, everybody would be happy to get a larger and more representative sample from Sicily. This is no conspiracy to make the region of Sicily look more exotic...
 
@Riverman There's definitely no cospiracy to make Italians look "more exotic" by scientists or laymen, but it's also a fact that there were (maybe still are around?) many samples sent by people like Sickeliot, to name one, which were not "scientifically" collected and that were at odds with accademic samples and oddly all showed what was functional to his agenda. Also, there were later deleted pages from Eurogenes about various Italians, for example this (save by wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/2019010...018/02/bronze-age-sicilian-vs-modern-day.html ), where G25 was used and the results gotten were at odd with every other accademic paper available ( and I think that's the reason why it has been deleted). Futhermore, even the second most recent entrance about Italians, the one about moot paper, the two italic outliers were modelled with 32 and 45% of Levant admixture, the ones similar to southern Italians, and what is more important is that in the paper they were modelled using ABA ( in accordance with the rest of the literature). To me it seems more than enough to doubt what comes out of certain sources, and what I want to stress now, what is the most important thing, is that I do not appeal to my studies or my data that disprove these models and samples, but to accademic, professional studies and samples scientifically gathered. It would have been really nice to trust samples "amateurishly" gathered, and/or whatever produced by "enthusiasts" on the internet, but I have (as many others have) my reasons to doubt them.
 
I wonder if this hyper focus from this AG contingent, on associating Greeks with Jews, is motivated by some kind of personal vendettas for the fact that Greece is the most anti-Semitic country in Europe:

as a jewish person ( although not relgious at all,)
I will say this
We are not greeks and we wiil
Never be
We are jews.... thats it
And those from anthrogenica need to deal with it....
We just happen to have some southern european admixture (thats it)
and overlapp in genetic markers... :unsure:
 
Are you saying Southern Italians have no or negligible Levantine ancestry (either Levant_N or, even more probably, Levant_MLBA)? That would be really stretching it a bit... not "Jewish", but not totally unrelated to people that once lived in the Levant, either.

Yeah that is exactly what I am saying Ygorc, negligible. Any
detectable
Levantine would probably have come by way of North African Berber influence via the Moors.

We also know that different parts of the south can be modeled differently. It doesn't matter what G25 says, because Raveane et al provides us with this:

OuozOmC.png


Like I have been saying for a while now, North African ancestry is an indicator of this, since Levantines definitely have it in them from the Holocene. However, so did the Moors too, but I think the fact that the Moors arrived a lot more recently points to the fact that it is likely the source of it, demonstrating any previous Levantine contribution being negligible.
 
To me it seems more than enough to doubt what comes out of certain sources, and what I want to stress now, what is the most important thing, is that I do not appeal to my studies or my data that disprove these models and samples, but to accademic, professional studies and samples scientifically gathered. It would have been really nice to trust samples "amateurishly" gathered, and/or whatever produced by "enthusiasts" on the internet, but I have (as many others have) my reasons to doubt them.

You know the problem with this is for years there were in the scientific literature for Central Europeans only CEU and you had Orcadians and the like for Western Europe. I mean what do you think can you do with this? I always got in rage when reading yet another study using just Orcadians and CEU, no Scandinavians, no Central European regional populations, no Western European diversity. Seriously, you can check how reliable the samples are by comparing the results with scientific studies, I completely agree with you on that. But if a study which wants to explore Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry (just as an example) uses no German and other Central European samples, that is missing the point. And if amateurs gather samples they are oftentimes as good or better, because I saw in many scientific samples outliers included which should have been removed, that's just an improvement. So this too is nothing which happens to amateurs only, but professional scientists too, like tweaking not or the wrong way with new tools.

Remind you, I'm all for checking scientific studies first, for being critical to EVERY source, but we all should be thankful for the efforts of amateurs which sometimes even forced the academic research to actually do some absolutely needed correction. Imagine some studies which use just Orcadians and other bad fits as a reference for Central Europeans would be still unquestioned. Its so great we finally have good (not necessarily perfect) samples for most populations and even more and more subpopulations around the world. That's highly important for the accuracy of any trial, professional or amateur.

I sometimes get the feeling some debates are too heated and just need to cool down. Because there are so many trolls and morons out there, some people think that every time someone comes up with an idea which deviates from the mainstream of the community, this person is "not honest", even if its not true. But that's because people got overly sensitive and lose their patience all too fast, because of their past experience with real trolls and morons which are just agent provocateurs or unwilling to learn. That's too bad for many honest debates, which I think are good and necessary. Sometimes professionals read it too and if they pick an idea up here or there and test it, this can be great for everyone.
This is also how I came to this place by the way, because of the efforts from Maciamo, which I appreciate very much. For some questions there is just no sound scientific literature out there right now, at least no summary of it.
 
Yeah that is exactly what I am saying Ygorc, negligible. Any
detectable
Levantine would probably have come by way of North African Berber influence via the Moors.

We also know that different parts of the south can be modeled differently. It doesn't matter what G25 says, because Raveane et al provides us with this:

OuozOmC.png


Like I have been saying for a while now, North African ancestry is an indicator of this, since Levantines definitely have it in them from the Holocene. However, so did the Moors too, but I think the fact that the Moors arrived a lot more recently points to the fact that it is likely the source of it, demonstrating any previous Levantine contribution being negligible.

Also take a look at WEurope1, vs WEurope3, these are Iberian populations, Both of them clearly have CHG admixture from I would guess Greek-like settlement, and migration from the Roman era. However, the Moorish contribution is apparent in WEuorpe1, due to Moorish occupation.

This same study suggested that ABA was the best fit to model Southern Italians, and other groups. Not necessarily saying it was in fact ABA, but as studies have shown, ABA was 40%CHG, and 60% Anatolian_N. Again, Levantine populations must have North African-like admixture, which ABA is absent of in modeling.

Also, if you are suggesting Levant_MLBA is good for modeling source populations, is not. Especially when trying to look at differences between Anatolian sources, and Levantine sources. Because Levant_MLBA has a significant contribution from Anatolian_N+CHG influence from the north, in the ballpark of 50%. While the Anatolian-CHG cline can be documented to have had genetic continuity during the same time.

Here, we report genome-wide data analyses from 110 ancient Near Eastern individuals spanning the Late Neolithic to Late Bronze Age, a period characterized by intense interregional interactions for the Near East. We find that 6
th
millennium BCE populations of North/Central Anatolia and the Southern Caucasus shared mixed ancestry on a genetic cline that formed during the Neolithic between Western Anatolia and regions in today’s Southern Caucasus/Zagros. During the Late Chalcolithic and/or the Early Bronze Age, more than half of the Northern Levantine gene pool was replaced, while in the rest of Anatolia and the Southern Caucasus, we document genetic continuity with only transient gene flow. Additionally, we reveal a genetically distinct individual within the Late Bronze Age Northern Levant. Overall, our study uncovers multiple scales of population dynamics through time, from extensive admixture during the Neolithic period to long-distance mobility within the globalized societies of the Late Bronze Age.

[SUB]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0092867420305092[/SUB]

Therefore, I stand by my statement:

North African admixture is likely (probably) Moorish. Iran-like ancestry is present throughout Italian genetic history since the Neolithic onward, and has nothing of significance to do with the Levant.
[SUB][/SUB]
 
@Riverman Naturally I am not claiming that every non accademic sample is bad or unreliable, even for southern Italians, or that anything that doesn't come from accademic sources is wrong and untrustworthy, actually many good ideas worth entertaining are gathered by reading on the internet (otherwise I should consider my very presence here as a mere waste of time), but let's be specific with what the topic of this thread is: was there a significant migration from the Levant to Italy and Greece that would make the people living there similar to the jews in being a mixture of south European and Levant dna? I have already exposed my points so I shalln't go over them again, but let's simply sum up that Italians ( and we have also many papers on Greeks) are one of the most studied populations in Europe, and up to now no accademic paper supports or even suggests such an event ( as far as I know; am I wrong, feel free to correct me), and the only data and models that do come from doubtful sources (to say an euphemism). Naturally were it to happen that there's some discovery that changes the scientific consensus ( which is not, as some anti-intellectual would like to claim, "agreed up at the whims of arbitrary wishes or states of mind or interpretations by scientists", but a methodology which assures that we make the best possible bet about what to believe to be true given reliable data), all my discourse would be made uncogent, and I'd have to change my mind if I wanted to be consistent in being rational, but until that I hold it's best we stick to the actual consensus.
 
North African admixture is likely (probably) Moorish. Iran-like ancestry is present throughout Italian genetic history since the Neolithic onward, and has nothing of significance to do with the Levant

I think its interesting how Greek people from Kos (closest to Imperial_Roman) and Greeks as well as Turks from Trabzon score. I tried to model them with Levante, doesn't work out and I think the best reference is still missing. But something like TUR_Alakah_MLBA is a better approximation. I see this really in the context of a Greco-Roman connection, from which not all, but most of the Anatolian-Levantine admixture came from. The reason why Imperial_Roman fits, is because it balances things out with a major body of this East Mediterranean/Greco-Roman component +/- Northern and actual Levantine/Near Eastern admixture.
From what I could see even Germans score some small percentage from this Imperial_Roman and close to it are various Roman samples. Romance speaking people seem to show it almost generally. The increase is directly proportional in comparison to non-Romance speaking neighbours quite often. Similar to higher DEU_MA for Germanics or Early Slav for the Slavic speaking people.
 
I think its interesting how Greek people from Kos (closest to Imperial_Roman) and Greeks as well as Turks from Trabzon score. I tried to model them with Levante, doesn't work out and I think the best reference is still missing. But something like TUR_Alakah_MLBA is a better approximation. I see this really in the context of a Greco-Roman connection, from which not all, but most of the Anatolian-Levantine admixture came from. The reason why Imperial_Roman fits, is because it balances things out with a major body of this East Mediterranean/Greco-Roman component +/- Northern and actual Levantine/Near Eastern admixture.
From what I could see even Germans score some small percentage from this Imperial_Roman and close to it are various Roman samples. Romance speaking people seem to show it almost generally. The increase is directly proportional in comparison to non-Romance speaking neighbours quite often. Similar to higher DEU_MA for Germanics or Early Slav for the Slavic speaking people.

Sorry, but what exactly does this have to do with what I am talking about?
 
The only thing that is blatantly obvious is that you are delusional, and agenda-driven.

Please recognize that your North African admixture is likely (probably) Moorish. Iran-like ancestry is present throughout Italian genetic history since the Neolithic onward, and has nothing of significance to do with the Levant.

Extremely aggressive there fratello, everyone is biased including myself and you.

Never denied North African ancestry from the Emirate period, in fact my uncle and I score higher North African than average probably due to the area being heavily settled by Berbers during that time. Yeah well unfortunately for you majority of Iran Neo/Levantine post Middle Eastern dna came in after Bronze Age, I don’t understand what is the big deal? So we both had Semitic speaking ancestors.
 
The only thing that is blatantly obvious is that you are delusional, and agenda-driven.

Please recognize that your North African admixture is likely (probably) Moorish. Iran-like ancestry is present throughout Italian genetic history since the Neolithic onward, and has nothing of significance to do with the Levant.

It's the same absurdity that crops up from time to time when people want to appropriate an ancestry which isn't really theirs.

My mtDna is U2e2a. My father's yDna is U-152. Am I supposed to identify as some Corded Ware person from the far northeast? The small amount of genetic material from them which hasn't been washed out is not enough to confer ethnic identity. It's absurd.

Likewise, a "Jewish" yDna from a thousand or 1500 years ago is not enough to be speaking of having a "Jewish" heritage.

It's like that white woman who found out she was 1% SSA and decided to go around talking about her African "roots".

Imo, it's a sign of some kind of neurosis.

I don't know any non-card-carrying skin head Italian who doesn't acknowledge that there is some North African ancestry in Sicilians, and traces of it also in mainland Southern Italians, all the way up the peninsula perhaps.

Likewise, looking at the yDna, some "Levantine" admixture "made it through", as someone put it. The question of burning interest for the non-Italians of anthrogenica is how much, and the position is that it was all Phoenicians, even though they were in only small parts of Sicily, or Jewish and Syrian slaves, or masses of Jews and Syrians, etc. who just decided to move en masse to Italy during the Empire.

It's this mania for quantifying it, and insisting on the numbers in the absence of ancient samples, and these analyses which do nothing to clarify when and with whom it arrived to which I object.

Why not check to see how much Levant PPNB is in an Anatolian Bronze or Iron Age individual, or an ancient Mycenaean, or even the Greek merchant from Spain. Heck, check a lot of the Spanish samples themselves from the appropriate era to see.

The whole thing smacks of agenda to me, and it all started with the racists at theapricity and all the other "fora" of their type. "Portuguese Princess, otherwise known as Sickeliot, posted tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of posts trying to prove Southern Italians were Levantines and not European at all.

Does everybody suddenly have amnesia?
 
Sorry, but what exactly does this have to do with what I am talking about?

I just pointed out that the Eastern Greek speaking, Hellenistic world, especially in Anatolia, fits the profile and Imperial Roman and Greeks can be modelled with TUR_Alakah_MLBA or a similar reference. How many Southern Italian samples fit the "Imperial_Roman" profile before the Greek and Phoenician settlement? Do you know? Honestly I'm not well informed on that and just read that some claim they were even as much or more East Mediterranean shifted, but there is still a lack of samples? The samples I know don't look like that (?).

@Angela:
Can just agree with your post. About the Greeks from Empuries or others, I tried and think they don't fit as good for some reason. There is additional Anatolian needed to model either Imperial_Roman, Aegean and Anatolian Greeks, as well as most Italians.
 
Extremely aggressive there fratello, everyone is biased including myself and you.

Never denied North African ancestry from the Emirate period, in fact my uncle and I score higher North African than average probably due to the area being heavily settled by Berbers during that time. Yeah well unfortunately for you majority of Iran Neo/Levantine post Middle Eastern dna came in after Bronze Age, I don’t understand what is the big deal? So we both had Semitic speaking ancestors.

I say you are delusional and agenda driven, because the studies point to prior in regards to Iran_N.
 
It's the same absurdity that crops up from time to time when people want to appropriate an ancestry which isn't really theirs.

My mtDna is U2e2a. My father's yDna is U-152. Am I supposed to identify as some Corded Ware person from the far northeast? The small amount of genetic material from them which hasn't been washed out is not enough to confer ethnic identity. It's absurd.

Likewise, a "Jewish" yDna from a thousand or 1500 years ago is not enough to be speaking of having a "Jewish" heritage.

It's like that white woman who found out she was 1% SSA and decided to go around talking about her African "roots".

Imo, it's a sign of some kind of neurosis.

I don't know any non-card-carrying skin head Italian who doesn't acknowledge that there is some North African ancestry in Sicilians, and traces of it also in mainland Southern Italians, all the way up the peninsula perhaps.

Likewise, looking at the yDna, some "Levantine" admixture "made it through", as someone put it. The question of burning interest for the non-Italians of anthrogenica is how much, and the position is that it was all Phoenicians, even though they were in only small parts of Sicily, or Jewish and Syrian slaves, or masses of Jews and Syrians, etc. who just decided to move en masse to Italy during the Empire.

It's this mania for quantifying it, and insisting on the numbers in the absence of ancient samples, and these analyses which do nothing to clarify when and with whom it arrived to which I object.

Why not check to see how much Levant PPNB is in an Anatolian Bronze or Iron Age individual, or an ancient Mycenaean, or even the Greek merchant from Spain. Heck, check a lot of the Spanish samples themselves from the appropriate era to see.

The whole thing smacks of agenda to me, and it all started with the racists at theapricity and all the other "fora" of their type. "Portuguese Princess, otherwise known as Sickeliot, posted tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of posts trying to prove Southern Italians were Levantines and not European at all.

Does everybody suddenly have amnesia?

And here is Azzurro's comment to illustrate exactly what I mean.

"Yeah well unfortunately for you majority of Iran Neo/Levantine post Middle Eastern dna came in after Bronze Age"

This is no disinterested analysis, this is a desire not only to prove a lot of Levantine dna in southern Italians, but to prove that it arrived at the times stated in their manifesto.

Obviously, it is impossible, given the present level of information to know either of those things.

Why is it so important that those things be true, i.e. that there's a lot of it, and that it be from Phoenicians, or Syrians or Jews?

Don't trust any of these people. Don't trust they're Italian, don't trust they love or are Jews. This is all started on blatantly anti-semitic sites with people like Davidski claiming that like the Jews, the southern Italians, who were like Jews themselves, should also be expelled from Europe.

If you know these things and are pretending to take an academic approach, you're disgusting hypocrites. If you don't, you should educate yourself about the history of this "hobby".
 
I say you are delusional and agenda driven, because the studies point to prior in regards to Iran_N.

That's a really important question, can you point to the study you are taking this from?

Also:
1. When do you think it first appeared independently from steppe ancestry in Italy the first time in significant numbers and with which people, cultural group? Anatolian Bronze Age is the main relationship, for sure, but the timing.
2. When did the independent Iranian component reach Imperial Roman/modern proportions in Southern and Central Italy? I mean that it was present earlier is one thing, the proportion another.
 

This thread has been viewed 188608 times.

Back
Top