Angela, the map I sent is from the E-M35 project, E-Y2947 is not Jewish and its in Bari not Molfetta. Secondly E-M123 branches aren’t the only Jewish branches, E-V12 also has a Jewish lines, and guess what E-V12 is found in Cisterino Brindisi, which Brindisi had a long a Jewish presence, dating back to Titus bringing 5000 Jews to the area.
Azzurro, Molfetta is part of Bari. Look it up.
Yes, there are Jewish lines in a lot of E, and J1, and J2, and other groups. In this case, we're talking about "E". The point is, however, that there is no sub-clade resolution to the level of the "Jewish" sub-sub-clades if you want to call it that.
If you see a clade in an area which might have a "Jewish" sub-clade under it, and if there is any Jewish settlement there ever recorded, then you jump to the conclusion that it is probably ALL in that JEWISH clade.
That's because, in my opinion, you want to believe that, or you just said it once and now have to stick to it.
All you would have to say is that some of it could be remnants of Jewish inhabitants from period X, but that we'd need to have further sub-clade resolution for it to be perfectly correct and unimpeachable.
It's this emotional dogmatism that is the problem.
The same is true for the little R1a in Puglia. There's no proof it is specifically SLAVIC from after the Slavic migrations into the Balkans, although it's certainly possible. Possible is not good enough for you. Even absent specific proof, IT HAS TO BE a certain way.
Or, look at clades that can be found in the Near East and in Southern Italy. If it's in Italy it HAS TO BE slaves during the Roman era, or Byzantines only from the Middle East, or Saracens. It can never just possibly be those things, but also possibly from much earlier.
That's why I find so many of your posts problematic.
You make rational, civil discussion of these things impossible.
