The genetic origin of Daunians

[ihype02]

South and East of Genova is La Spezia at 0% and then Toscana, which is again much lower. It makes little sense to me that Genova alone would have 16% but of course you're entitled to believe whatever you wish.

As for the map being incorrect, this is data from four papers, and each area has from 60-80 samples.

Could you please provide your academic sources (a cite to the paper for each province in Italy and the number of samples for each province)? All I saw you list on the other thread is Boattini et al, which has a very small number of samples.

As for the map being of E-M78 instead of E-V13, we can see from the Boattini paper that most of the E-M78 in Italy is E-V13, so I think we still get a general idea, although of course more specificity would be better.

E-V13 in Southern Italy outside of Apulia is only slightly greater than average. And we don't know how much Ancient Greek colonists of Italy carried this Y-Dna, or if they even had it all to begin with.
Italy is also very understudied when it comes to Y-Dna, expect for Sicily.

For example I think most R1b-z2103 in Italy is of Italic origin (it is mostly a Western variant) even though some clades could be of Old Greek origin.

 

[kingjohn]

Arbereshe Albanians in Calabria have 17% E-V13, which is higher than average.
Five haplogroups were found to particularly affect the genetic variability within and between the two Arbereshe groups (Supplementary Figure S1,Supplementary Table S4). The two most frequent HGs in ARB_CAL (E-V13, 16.9%; I-M223, 14.2%) do not match those found in ARB_SIC (I-P215, 20.5%; E-M123, 18.2%). By contrast, the third most frequent HG (R-SRY10831.2) is found at comparatively high frequencies in both Calabrian (9.43%) and Sicilian (11.35%) Arbereshe (Supplementary Table S4).
E-V13 in Sicily and Calabria is around 8%.
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Sicily?iframe=yresults

Thanks
You always got interesting links
Nice to see a well done research
On italian arbereshe

P.s
Side note cool to see e-m123 i wish
They have tested farther
To see how much of it is e-L791 and how much
Is e-m84 ( e-fgc18401, e-pf6751)
Afcorse the best would be to do y-sequence

 

[torzio]

@riverman

The italian paper you presented has

The case of the Common of Grignano P. is particularly interesting, since its main feature is the very high frequency (22.73%) of a non-R haplogroup, T-M70,

Grignano Polesine is in Rovigo province in Veneto region ...................these people drifted from Umbri stock ........some have said Sabellic -Umbri people ..................they are similar to the many T-M70 found in the central italian mountain towns with A'Quila the main one .........they are Umbri of Sabellic and or Samnite stock ( both from Umbri origin )

 

[Angela]

One can't just use the set of samples one prefers. That goes for both the Arbereshe of Cosenza and the Italians as a whole. They have to be combined.

Therefore, the 68 samples, which are probably less than 5.9% E-V13 given that what was being tested for was E-M78, have to be considered along with the Sarno paper on the Arbereshe.

That's not to say that I don't think the number for Albanian descendants is higher than 5.9%, because it probably is; it's just a cautionary tale of how it's dangerous to make predictions or conclusions based on just one set of samples when you're dealing with yDna. You need lots and lots of samples. Even 68, in this instance, probably wasn't enough to give a valid picture.

 

[Angela]

I wasn't referring to Italy alone, but the distribution as a whole. Like Greece has no higher percentages than Northern Albania-Kosovo, parts of Northern Italy and Switzerland have higher percentages, still there are differences on the same latitude between Baden-W�rttemberg/Swabia and core Bavaria etc. The point is, the map suggest a gradient, which could be associated with a simplified Neolithic model, which isn't there. The distribution is very different from that, because its no Neolithic spread, but a Bronze and Iron Age one, from a more Northern source than Greece.
Even in Italy, Apulia and the Venetian province, not just Liguria, stick out, with Central Italy being lower. Maciamo posted the numbers
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...of-E1b1b-subclades-in-Italy-(Boattini-et-al-)

and there were other hints from different studies, like the paper on Italian commons:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajpa.24302

Also if looking at areas like Bretagne and Slovenia, the real frequency distribution is much more complex. In Italy there is definitely a Ligurian and Venetian centre, because the tendency persists in the neighbouring provinces as far as I know, I stumbled across some numbers on different occasions, can't list all these and didn't use all them, since it would be more fine grained than the map allows anyway, but it generally confirmed the pattern. The more above average frequency in Apulia mostly comes from later Balkan and Albanian migrants from Late Antiquity on.
What's also noteworthy is that in some core Rhaetic areas, there might be a drop, rather than increase, which might point to a difference in the more Rhaetic-Etruscan area, but this is something which needs to be confirmed once more.

So basically, as far as Italy is concerned, you're hanging your hat on one paper: Boattini et al.

Sorry, that's not good enough. I don't see how you can base an entire hypothesis for Italy on one very small set of samples when there are indications from many other papers that are contra-indications.

At the least you'd have to look at the 68 samples in Semino et al and look at the data considering both sets of samples.

That would indicate to me a basic south/north skew, which makes perfect sense given that those areas are directly across from Greece and Albania.

 

[Riverman]

So basically, as far as Italy is concerned, you're hanging your hat on one paper: Boattini et al.

Sorry, that's not good enough. I don't see how you can base an entire hypothesis for Italy on one very small set of samples when there are indications from many other papers that are contra-indications.

At the least you'd have to look at the 68 samples in Semino et al and look at the data considering both sets of samples.

That would indicate to me a basic south/north skew, which makes perfect sense given that those areas are directly across from Greece and Albania.

The Southern increased frequency is mainly true for Apulia, which has the strongest Albanian impact. Other areas in Northern Italy are as high as in the South, not just by this one paper which we mostly rely upon, but also all the small papers with samples from Venetian province, Lombardy etc. And what's even more important, North of Italy, in Switzerland and Germany, this trend goes on, there are pockets of higher E-V13 frequency and the averages are not far below Central Italy, sometimes significantly higher actually.

From FTDNA and other sources we can see that in very Southern Italy other clades of E increase in frequency, like E-M81. This needs to be considered as well. If one considers that and the obviously more recent Balkan influences, what's more striking is the rather even distribution in Italy with some areas of higher frequency, especially some in the North and some in Greek settlements of the South, with some of the lowest frequencies in the core areas of Italics and Etruscans probably.
Even the Grugni paper showed a frequency not much below Apulia for e.g. Bergamo plain. The explanation he gives in the paper is insufficient, as long as we can't reconstruct the migration paths and phylogeny in detail. Its outdated like the description of the E-V13 expansion in the Balkans, though he is right about one thing: Its a Bronze Age(-Iron Age) phenomenon.

 

[Riverman]

What's even more striking between the North and South is the ratio between E-V13 and J-M241/L283, the Daco-Thracian and Illyrian marker respectively, vs. other clades of E and J.

Note how E-V13 dominates totally in Northern Italy and J-M241 dominates totally in the North East:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure...nd-R1b-and-their-sub-clades-in_fig3_322822562

The closest association is clearly with R-U152 higher ratio within R.

This also shows that there are at least three main pathways for E-V13 in Italy:
- with R-U152 and generally from the North
- with J-L283/Illyrian-Albanian-Balkan related from later times (mainly Apulia)
- with Greek-Roman colonisations and migrations (Calabria and Sicily)

That's no strict division, but my prediction is that with higher resolution data, we will find respective networks for E-V13 clades and subclades, with some Northern in the South and Southern in the North too of course.

Its also the best explanation, the different spreading events, for why E-V13 is relatively stable throughout Italy, whereas many other haplogroups are not:

 

[torzio]

What's even more striking between the North and South is the ratio between E-V13 and J-M241/L283, the Daco-Thracian and Illyrian marker respectively, vs. other clades of E and J.
Note how E-V13 dominates totally in Northern Italy and J-M241 dominates totally in the North East:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure...nd-R1b-and-their-sub-clades-in_fig3_322822562
The closest association is clearly with R-U152 higher ratio within R.
This also shows that there are at least three main pathways for E-V13 in Italy:
- with R-U152 and generally from the North
- with J-L283/Illyrian-Albanian-Balkan related from later times (mainly Apulia)
- with Greek-Roman colonisations and migrations (Calabria and Sicily)
That's no strict division, but my prediction is that with higher resolution data, we will find respective networks for E-V13 clades and subclades, with some Northern in the South and Southern in the North too of course.
Its also the best explanation, the different spreading events, for why E-V13 is relatively stable throughout Italy, whereas many other haplogroups are not:

I have never seem J-L283 as Albanian .....................can you supply the data .................all I see of this marker is in croatian/Dalmatian and slovene lands ( ie, pre slav migration )

 

[Hawk]

I have never seem J-L283 as Albanian .....................can you supply the data .................all I see of this marker is in croatian/Dalmatian and slovene lands ( ie, pre slav migration )
very very odd that the map shows T ydna on the west side and K2 ( old marker for T ydna ) on the east side of italy ....................is the map an union of 2 different papers ?

Well, according to some peoples taste or personal preference of view E-V13 is not related to Albanians, other peoples taste J-L283 is not as Albanian. Chunk this, chunk that then what's left?

 

[Hawk]

The Southern increased frequency is mainly true for Apulia, which has the strongest Albanian impact. Other areas in Northern Italy are as high as in the South, not just by this one paper which we mostly rely upon, but also all the small papers with samples from Venetian province, Lombardy etc. And what's even more important, North of Italy, in Switzerland and Germany, this trend goes on, there are pockets of higher E-V13 frequency and the averages are not far below Central Italy, sometimes significantly higher actually.

From FTDNA and other sources we can see that in very Southern Italy other clades of E increase in frequency, like E-M81. This needs to be considered as well. If one considers that and the obviously more recent Balkan influences, what's more striking is the rather even distribution in Italy with some areas of higher frequency, especially some in the North and some in Greek settlements of the South, with some of the lowest frequencies in the core areas of Italics and Etruscans probably.
Even the Grugni paper showed a frequency not much below Apulia for e.g. Bergamo plain. The explanation he gives in the paper is insufficient, as long as we can't reconstruct the migration paths and phylogeny in detail. Its outdated like the description of the E-V13 expansion in the Balkans, though he is right about one thing: Its a Bronze Age(-Iron Age) phenomenon.

You are just too narrowly scoping down the spread IMO. According to Bulgarian paper on Psenicevo they see an increase of Neolithic autosomal and E-V13 during Iron Age, so this autosomal in the new Danubian limes is called as Aegean considering that Iron Age Thracian sample was leaning toward Myceneans. Then the question is, how could this happen if their initial spread was from somewhere from Slovakia/Romania/Hungary border zone.

IMO, this zone applies only for certain subclades which were migrants from the South during earlier times. What pattern do i see is that of a back and forward between Balkans and Carpathian/Alpine zone (South Central Europe) for E-V13, and that will be the story.

 

[Riverman]

You are just too narrowly scoping down the spread IMO. According to Bulgarian paper on Psenicevo they see an increase of Neolithic autosomal and E-V13 during Iron Age, so this autosomal in the new Danubian limes is called as Aegean considering that Iron Age Thracian sample was leaning toward Myceneans. Then the question is, how could this happen if their initial spread was from somewhere from Slovakia/Romania/Hungary border zone.
IMO, this zone applies only for certain subclades which were migrants from the South during earlier times. What pattern do i see is that of a back and forward between Balkans and Carpathian/Alpine zone (South Central Europe) for E-V13, and that will be the story.

Its forth and backward for Pannonia, not Bulgaria. For Bulgaria I do expect a replacement by a Channelled Ware people pincer movement, one from the Serbian Danubian area (Belegis II-Gava), the other from the Eastern Carpathians.
But I also expect them to replace primarily the patrilineages, while picking up women.
And for Bulgaria itself it also depends on the references, because in some areas they replaced Bulgarian Yamnaya, which were high in steppe.
Where do you have that from? Details are key.
Its in any case important that Bulgaria was reached by Channelled Ware related groups, and Psenichevo-Basarabi being largely the result of a mixture of Gava and Encrusted Ware, by two independent movements. They might even have differed autosomally.
Interestingly, the East Carpathian group was more Neolithic it seems, just like the Moldovan Geto-Scythians, whereas the Pannonian Thraco-Scythians were more Northern/Epi-Corded, with connections and gene glow between them, like respective outliers prove.
Some archaeologists said the initial Gava impact came rather from the North directly, from the Gava core and Moldova, rather than the Danube. Both met in Macedonia-Bulgaria anyway.

 

[Hawk]

Its forth and backward for Pannonia, not Bulgaria. For Bulgaria I do expect a replacement by a Channelled Ware people pincer movement, one from the Serbian Danubian area (Belegis II-Gava), the other from the Eastern Carpathians.
But I also expect them to replace primarily the patrilineages, while picking up women.
And for Bulgaria itself it also depends on the references, because in some areas they replaced Bulgarian Yamnaya, which were high in steppe.
Where do you have that from? Details are key.
Its in any case important that Bulgaria was reached by Channelled Ware related groups, and Psenichevo-Basarabi being largely the result of a mixture of Gava and Encrusted Ware, by two independent movements. They might even have differed autosomally.
Interestingly, the East Carpathian group was more Neolithic it seems, just like the Moldovan Geto-Scythians, whereas the Pannonian Thraco-Scythians were more Northern/Epi-Corded, with connections and gene glow between them, like respective outliers prove.
Some archaeologists said the initial Gava impact came rather from the North directly, from the Gava core and Moldova, rather than the Danube. Both met in Macedonia-Bulgaria anyway.

I am pretty sure i have read it in some published paper for Psenicevo, though it included partial information, the same author who published the leaks in the TV Show was the author and he specifically mentioned an increase of Neolithic autosomal during Early Iron Age.

Bulgaria is out of consideration, Late Neolithic Bulgaria was dominated by G2a. But places like Serbia/Macedonia/Northern Greece are good candidates IMO, my best guess of initial spread is still Dalmatia, but at an earlier timeline than Cetina Culture phase. Places like Moldova/Ukraine by default are out of consideration. It's too East for E-V13.

 

[Riverman]

I am pretty sure i have read it in some published paper for Psenicevo, though it included partial information, the same author who published the leaks in the TV Show was the author and he specifically mentioned an increase of Neolithic autosomal during Early Iron Age.

Bulgaria is out of consideration, Late Neolithic Bulgaria was dominated by G2a. But places like Serbia/Macedonia/Northern Greece are good candidates IMO, my best guess of initial spread is still Dalmatia, but at an earlier timeline than Cetina Culture phase. Places like Moldova/Ukraine by default are out of consideration. It's too East for E-V13.

I think it came from around Dalmatia-Montenegro with Impresso-Cardial, moved up the Danube-Tisza valleys, was strong in Northern Lengyel, got cut off by Yamnaya and mixed initially, in a similar setting as Mokrin, then being integrated into Epi-Corded networks, related to the Nitra culture (R1a-dominated), probably it was in Late Otomani-F?zesabony, they came up when the Tumulus Culture pressed them Eastwards, into the triangle of Hungary-Slovakia-Romania. From there both Channelled Ware-G?va and in it E-V13 as the dominant lineage emerged.

Basically there is almost no way around the Tisza basin for the main initial spread. If we look at this map, the Upper Tisza basin was the source, the first spread along the Tisza basin, the secondary along the Danube basin, and you just got it:

Note that these "Danube basin countries" are still the very core of the E-V13 distribution to this day! The main exception is Greece!

Just compare it with the latest frequency map of mine:

https://imgbb.com/4Z575NM

If we, in the next step, make an overlap of the geography with the Channelled Ware/Eastern Urnfield and later Hallstatt spread, its again nearly everything, except the Greek territories, which are a special case of secondary spread down the Morava valley first and then sea borne.

its also noteworthy that E-V13 wasn't even the first E1b1b group which took this path, Lengyel-Michelsberger did it before, along the Danube as well. They were however largely replaced by TRB-GAC and the steppe people later.

Compare with the initial Channelled Ware/G?va expansion:

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...ith-the-most-important-sites-mentioned-in.png

Within the context of Urnfield:

https://media.springernature.com/original/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-1-4419-6633-9_10/MediaObjects/978-1-4419-6633-9_10_Fig2_HTML.gif

The main problem is of course that they initially cremated - compare the maps before with the early spread of cremation:

The main core was the Tisza basin, along the Danube basin the main spread of Urnfield and Channelled Ware customs took place, in successive waves. The latest was Hallstatt itself, which stems indirectly and directly, in part at least, from Channelled Ware-Basarabi.

 

[Hawk]

I think it came from around Dalmatia-Montenegro with Impresso-Cardial, moved up the Danube-Tisza valleys, was strong in Northern Lengyel, got cut off by Yamnaya and mixed initially, in a similar setting as Mokrin, then being integrated into Epi-Corded networks, related to the Nitra culture (R1a-dominated), probably it was in Late Otomani-F�zesabony, they came up when the Tumulus Culture pressed them Eastwards, into the triangle of Hungary-Slovakia-Romania. From there both Channelled Ware-G�va and in it E-V13 as the dominant lineage emerged.

Basically there is almost no way around the Tisza basin for the main initial spread. If we look at this map, the Upper Tisza basin was the source, the first spread along the Tisza basin, the secondary along the Danube basin, and you just got it:

Note that these "Danube basin countries" are still the very core of the E-V13 distribution to this day! The main exception is Greece!

Just compare it with the latest frequency map of mine:

https://imgbb.com/4Z575NM

If we, in the next step, make an overlap of the geography with the Channelled Ware/Eastern Urnfield and later Hallstatt spread, its again nearly everything, except the Greek territories, which are a special case of secondary spread down the Morava valley first and then sea borne.

its also noteworthy that E-V13 wasn't even the first E1b1b group which took this path, Lengyel-Michelsberger did it before, along the Danube as well. They were however largely replaced by TRB-GAC and the steppe people later.

Compare with the initial Channelled Ware/G�va expansion:

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...ith-the-most-important-sites-mentioned-in.png

Within the context of Urnfield:

https://media.springernature.com/original/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-1-4419-6633-9_10/MediaObjects/978-1-4419-6633-9_10_Fig2_HTML.gif

The main problem is of course that they initially cremated - compare the maps before with the early spread of cremation:

The main core was the Tisza basin, along the Danube basin the main spread of Urnfield and Channelled Ware customs took place, in successive waves. The latest was Hallstatt itself, which stems indirectly and directly, in part at least, from Channelled Ware-Basarabi.

I cannot say things or be so specific at which Neolithic context since it's quite an unpredictable spread so to say, by that i mean the Late Neolithic context since Cardial-Impresso for Early Neolithic is a safe bet. So far we know it had a Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age expansion, but how much similar were some of the cultures which are directly or indirectly related to Aegean migrations is yet to be explained. I am interested on the scope of the spread, of the language of the people that spread with this Y-DNA including all subclades. I already know about Daco-Thracians, i want to know if there is more than that.

 

[Riverman]

I cannot say things or be so specific at which Neolithic context since it's quite an unpredictable spread so to say, by that i mean the Late Neolithic context since Cardial-Impresso for Early Neolithic is a safe bet. So far we know it had a Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age expansion, but how much similar were some of the cultures which are directly or indirectly related to Aegean migrations is yet to be explained. I am interested on the scope of the spread, of the language of the people that spread with this Y-DNA including all subclades. I already know about Daco-Thracians, i want to know if there is more than that.

If you look at Channelled Ware and if we consider it being the culture of Daco-Thracians, there are some things to note:
First, they did expand into other people's territories, but seem to not have replaced them everywhere, but sometimes just influenced and mixed with them. Notable instances would be especially Greece and the areas West of the Middle Danubian-Channelled Ware borderzone, which affected Urnfield almost as a whole, up to Poland, Germany, Austria, Italy. But these might have been more sporadic individual and small group migrations and contacts, we don't know for sure as of yet.
However, with the Cimmerians going through Channelled Ware people like a wedge, cutting them in half and mixing with those in the middle, at least the female side, this was a major turning point. At the same time this pushed a lot groups even more up the Danube, and those fused Thraco-Cimmerians reached far and these "Cimmerianised" Thracians being at the very foundation of Hallstatt, by, after the destruction, combining the innovations of the Channelled Ware with those brought from the Pontic steppe and Caucasus by the Cimmerians. Urnfield just like Hallstatt being multi-ethnic, so we have to expect admixtures and layers, without complete ethnic shifts, in many areas.

The real special case are the Greeks, because they being culturally heavily influenced by the Channelled Ware people too, but in the end, they seem to have, after adopting some elements from them, pushed them back or "just swallowed them". So the early Iron Age Greeks are the truly unknown factor, as to how much of a lasting genetic impact the Urnfield groups reaching the Aegais had on them directly. Because of the many later shifts, this is without way more ancient DNA and modern data impossible to tell.

As for the Illyrians, the flame shaped spears and the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon tell the story, because some being more influenced from these Pannonian-Carpathian incoming groups which carried E-V13 presumably, others less. Similar to Veneti vs. Rhaeti. It was more of a contact and surely no overtake, on the contrary, on the longer run they gained a momentum and pushed Channelled Ware related groups back. The contact zone caused mixed groups like the Dardanians and the Triballi.

As for the position in the crucial moment, they can't have been more South in the LBA than the Serbian Danube, because if we consider the two main ingredients for the Psenichevo-Basarabi groups, Channelled Ware and Encrusted Ware, with Channelled Ware as the more dominant element, the E-V13 clans need to jump in, also because of their phylogeny, early, in the MBA already and spread wide, take a dominant position in the Channelled Ware networks. This means the G?va core in the triangle of Hungary-Slovakia-Romania is ideal, the Serbian Danube still possible, anything further away from the Tisza basin quite unlikely.

 

[Salento]

… the chrom. I share with ORD010 on GedMatch shows up as full Italian on my 23andme “DNA Painting”.
… for 23andme “Italian” means: Italian, Northern Italian, and Tuscan.

… obviously the chromosome and population I share with ORD010 could be different than yours

ORD010 vs S

my chrom. 17 DNA Painting filtered by Population:

 

[ihype02]

If E-V13 existed as a non minor linage in Classical Peloponnese it is the number one indicator of a Doric migration. Can't wait to find out.

 

[kingjohn]

… the chrom. I share with ORD010 on GedMatch shows up as full Italian on my 23andme “DNA Painting”.
… for 23andme “Italian” means: Italian, Northern Italian, and Tuscan.

… obviously the chromosome and population I share with ORD010 could be different than yours

ORD010 vs S

my chrom. 17 DNA Painting filtered by Population:

g25

Distance to:	Daunian_MA:ORD010_1088AD_Quality=66.86%
0.03408838	Italian_Jew
0.03521583	Italian_Calabria
0.03571421	Romaniote_Jew
0.03654870	Ashkenazi_Germany
0.03802511	Italian_Campania
0.03842613	Greek_Kos
0.03930560	Greek_Dodecanese
0.04066085	Italian_Basilicata
0.04115180	Greek_Crete
0.04150311	Sicilian_East
0.04200528	Maltese
0.04211272	Sephardic_Jew
0.04300372	Italian_Apulia
0.04565498	Cypriot
0.04632788	Ashkenazi_Poland
0.04711165	Italian_Abruzzo
0.04762662	Ashkenazi_Belarussia
0.04804729	Ashkenazi_Lithuania
0.04831682	Greek_Izmir
0.04853918	Greek_Laconia
0.04863658	Italian_Molise
0.04897330	Sephardic_Jew_o
0.04948669	Ashkenazi_Ukraine
0.05011956	Ashkenazi_Russia
0.05073157	Sicilian_West

 

[Salento]

g25

Distance to:	Daunian_MA:ORD010_1088AD_Quality=66.86%
0.03408838	Italian_Jew
0.03521583	Italian_Calabria
0.03571421	Romaniote_Jew
0.03654870	Ashkenazi_Germany
0.03802511	Italian_Campania
0.03842613	Greek_Kos
0.03930560	Greek_Dodecanese
0.04066085	Italian_Basilicata
0.04115180	Greek_Crete
0.04150311	Sicilian_East
0.04200528	Maltese
0.04211272	Sephardic_Jew
0.04300372	Italian_Apulia
0.04565498	Cypriot
0.04632788	Ashkenazi_Poland
0.04711165	Italian_Abruzzo
0.04762662	Ashkenazi_Belarussia
0.04804729	Ashkenazi_Lithuania
0.04831682	Greek_Izmir
0.04853918	Greek_Laconia
0.04863658	Italian_Molise
0.04897330	Sephardic_Jew_o
0.04948669	Ashkenazi_Ukraine
0.05011956	Ashkenazi_Russia
0.05073157	Sicilian_West

23andme assign Ashkenazy / Jewish population, … I don’t get any in my 23andme results, the chromos. position I share with ORD010 according to 23andme is totally Italian

 

[torzio]

23andme assign Ashkenazy / Jewish population, … I don’t get any in my 23andme results, the chromos. position I share with ORD010 according to 23andme is totally Italian

23andme are too slap-hazed on giving Ashkenazi