E-m123*

azurro my dear friend
you have a point about apuglia {jewish past}
but the ones here in volterra 2/113 1.8% are e-m123* you can see it in the table angela posted
meaning they were checked for e-m34 mutation and found negetive like valerius
i do think it is significant that they found e-m123% in volterra etruscan area even thoughit is low %
kind regards
adam

I'd like to understand your reasoning Kingjohn. What do you see in the Volterra results that couldn't be Neolithic, or Chalcolithic? Have you run the STRS in Boattini for this clade? Does that provide a clue? That's Grosseto, but that's also an area with Etruscan ruins.

As for "Jewish" y in Puglia, fine with me if it's there, but what samples are you using to draw that conclusion? I linked to the Italy project at FTDNA, looked up every town with which I wasn't familiar, and only found two for Puglia under "E": one E-M35 and one E-L117.
 
Hello,

I was confirmed by FTDNA as E-M123* which is negative for M34 or any other branches. It's a rare haplogroup found in North-Western Iberia, The Middle East and even one case in my country Bulgaria, everywhere in just 1% or less. I want to ask about its presence in Europe - is it possible that E-M123* came to the Balkans with the Neolithic farmers from the Middle East? Or its presence there its due to late migrations like Roman colonists? Is it possible to be determined? My male ancestors are Vlachs who are said to be a mixture of Thracians and Roman colonists - so E-M123* could either be from Romans or Thracians. That's why I'm kinda confused with correlating my haplogroup with historical events. Any ideas? I know that with no branchings I can't compare myself with other E-M123 people so that's why I'm asking if someone knows something more than I do.

Also the distribution map of M123 from Geno 2.0 is different than the one in Eupedia - http://imgur.com/F1EYKue

It looks logical, according to the map, that M123 entered the Balkans from Anatolia and the highlighted area is more or less in the boundaries of Ancient Thrace.

I also have a rare M34- ancestor. In my case the family line surfaces in England ca 1300. My limited research indicates this Haplo was dominant around Lebanon, and It appears that in my case it was brought into England via the Roman Legions ca 100-400CE.
 
Kingjohn my dear friend, thanks for the support. The E-PH3893 found in La Spezia is probably very old, do we know that checked for M34? There are also 2 E-PF6759 found in Sardegna which are on Yfull, this too is under E-M34, if they did actually test for E-M34 and it turns out they are negative it only leaves Valerius’ subclade left.

the ones in volterra are negetive that why i am so damn excited and happy for valerius
 
I also have a rare M34- ancestor. In my case the family line surfaces in England ca 1300. My limited research indicates this Haplo was dominant around Lebanon, and It appears that in my case it was brought into England via the Roman Legions ca 100-400CE.

Interesting - does this person uploaded his data to haplozone or Yfull ? I'm aware of 3 people xM34 from England.
 
I'd like to understand your reasoning Kingjohn. What do you see in the Volterra results that couldn't be Neolithic, or Chalcolithic? Have you run the STRS in Boattini for this clade? Does that provide a clue? That's Grosseto, but that's also an area with Etruscan ruins.

As for "Jewish" y in Puglia, fine with me if it's there, but what samples are you using to draw that conclusion? I linked to the Italy project at FTDNA, looked up every town with which I wasn't familiar, and only found two for Puglia under "E": one E-M35 and one E-L117.

dear angela ,
i do think that m123*
could be chl or bronze age presence in this area of italy
anyway much before jews , and pheonician set foot in italy
they could brought e-m34 to italy .....
about the latest research the sample from salento south apuglia are 5.9% e-m34
i am not talking about the greek salento sample whre e-m34 is only 1-2%

kind regards
Adam

p.s
i wish people here would not fight you are all italians you should stick togather
 
Is that the one sample from Molfetta labeled E-L117? I already listed that. Is your theory of the presence of Jewish "E" in Puglia based on that one sample?

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.
 
I agree with Kingjohn, Congrats Valerius
 
dear angela ,
i do think that m123*
could be chl or bronze age presence in this area of italy
anyway much before jews , and pheonician set foot in italy
they could brought e-m34 to italy .....
about the latest research the sample from salento south apuglia are 5.9% e-m34
i am not talking about the greek salento sample whre e-m34 is only 1-2%

kind regards
Adam

p.s
i wish people here would not fight you are all italians you should stick togather

As to Volterra, I thought the question you were raising was whether the E-M123* in Volterra could be connected to Etruscans, and my question was why, even if there was a big migration from the Aegean or western Anatolia, it couldn't be Neolithic as per the quote from Maciamo I posted above.

As to Puglia, OK, you're not talking about Grecia Salentina, where it's 1.2%. You're talking about Apulia as a whole having E-M34 at 5.9%. Fair enough. Perhaps some of that is "Jewish". I don't know.

Again, I'd point to Maciamo's work on E-M34.
https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_E1b1b_Y-DNA.shtml

It certainly doesn't seem as if he believes all E-M34 is Jewish, certainly not if it's being spread by Greeks etc. Wouldn't you need more detailed sub-clade information even than that to come to that conclusion?

Is there something else that leads you to believe it is all "Jewish", other than that they are E-M34, and that there used to be Jews there, if that is indeed how you see it?

It would be good to know exactly the areas where the samples are located, as Lucera (up by Foggia) was re-settled with some Saracens from Sicily.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_settlement_of_Lucera

As for your final question, this isn't the place to discuss it at length. Let me just say that I don't pick my friends or the opinions with which I agree based on whether a person is Italian, or indeed on anything having to do with ethnicity. In terms of friendship, it is based on character, personality and to some extent on common interests. In terms of opinions, I judge them based on the clarity, specificity, proof presented, logic, etc. that I see exhibited. I distrust anything that seems motivated by emotion or personal agendas of any kind. I also judge them based on the civility with which they're expressed, although I probably shouldn't.

For the record, Molfetta is probably usually listed as Bari.
 
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.
 
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.

Angela, yes I saw Molfetta is under the Metropolitan area of Bari.

The problem is no Italian will get those Ashkenazi Jewish subclades simply because of history and bottleneck. Italian Jewish Y lines would belong to older branches.

Look trust me there’s nothing more I would like for civil discussions, I hate this fighting, it really aggravates me and isn’t fun.
 
^^Then stop stating as dogmatic and incontrovertible FACT things for which you have no proof and perhaps for which no proof will ever be available. It sets people's backs up, because they know in most cases it's far more complicated than you make out.

As an aside, some Southern Italian Jews might have wound up in Ashkenazi areas after fleeing or being expelled from Southern Italy after the Spanish took over. (Most of them, however, seem to have gone to Ottoman areas or North Africa.) Ashkenazi Jews would not have been moving to Southern Italy, generally speaking. I don't know why the the Sephardi Jews and the Ashkenazi Jews might not have shared certain sub-clades.

It's too bad there isn't more detailed sub-clade data posted on the y from strictly Sephardic Jews. The same kind of data from Roman Jews or Italkim Jews would be helpful as well. There are also very well known Italian Jewish families who claim to have been in Italy for hundreds of years. Many of those in Piemonte, in particular, were in Italy since the expulsions from Iberia. It would be nice to know if they have tested to deep sub-clade resolution.
 
the most important thing
people be happy for valerius for those volterra m123* without the e-m34 mutation
:)
 
Azzurro, you may think me asking you questions about some of your statements is construed as fighting. It is not; we are engaging in debate, and not everyone is going to agree with some of the things you have said. Moving forward, you should anticipate from time to time, that forum users are going to ask questions. Especially if you make them appear like absolute statements. There is nothing wrong with people disagreeing, as long as we are civil. Please be conscious that making assumptions on incomplete data, that has not been resolved by the experts is not reliable. Thus you should probably defer to academic articles, rather than speculation based on data from private companies. There are a lot of variables to be considered, and we do not want to mislead people. Furthermore, it is important to substantiate claims with links to reputable sources so we may access the data ourselves. I have to say, that I took exception to the comment you made about me not being able to "School" you on Jewish history. I'm not trying to "school" you but rather bringing up salient points in my question to your statement. Everyone on the forum must be objective as possible, and present all of the verified academic data available, so we can further our knowledge.
 
Hello,

I was confirmed by FTDNA as E-M123* which is negative for M34 or any other branches. It's a rare haplogroup found in North-Western Iberia, The Middle East and even one case in my country Bulgaria, everywhere in just 1% or less.
Well hello, cousin, I'm also E-M123*, family from Northern Portugal, which seems to be the place it's less rare :)
 
But was found in 2 indo -aryans from swat valley north pakistan they are E-m123* just like the saka dude from north east kazachstan ,
It look like m123* without the m-34 mutation is indo-aryan or indo-iranian clade aka aryan
Amazing😉😎
 
But was found in 2 indo -aryans from swat valley north pakistan they are E-m123* just like the saka dude from north east kazachstan ,
It look like m123* without the m-34 mutation is indo-aryan or indo-iranian clade aka aryan
Amazing������������

Why couldn't it already have been there and was just absorbed? I think the same thing happened with E-V13 in the Balkans, and maybe J2b2. I hope we get more ancient samples from that area and perhaps the Carpathians before the arrival of the steppe people.
 
yes it could be native clade(who absorbed the indo-aryan language) to area even though today e1b1b1 generally speaking is rare in pakistan and india.
Regards
Adam

P.s
Anyway it is cool thats why i like ancient dna there are always surprises.... 🤗
Clade who are rare today could have been much more frequent back than...
For example :in armenia bronze age they found 2 e1b1b1c1a individuals today this clade in armenia is only 4-5%.... 😉
 
Kingjohn, all those Swat Valley individuals are E-Y31991 and PF4428, same clade as you say as the Saka outlier (who is also positive for Y134097 and Y168265, likely making him E-Y168273). It was a family grave site, and considering the people buried there were done so with care, and gifts - including gold - they might have been relatively high status in their local area. Looking at the present distribution of E-Y31991 individuals, it seems likely the haplogroup crossed into Europe from the Levant sometime by the neolithic (you can see European and Levantine branches, although the samples are heavily biased in favour of people with European ancestry as is usual in DNA testing) before being absorbed by IE-speaking peoples who moved into Central Asia and became Indo-Iranian/Aryan speaking, at the moment this seems the most parsimonous explanation.

However, considering we're talking about the ancient Gandhara kingdom, I'm a bit skeptical they were Indo-Aryan speakers. For the time being I'm betting on Indo-Iranian, which would make sense considering the Scythian connection and its location in the far NW corner of the subcontinent
 
Last edited:
Ruderico so all of them truly amazing👍
Did someone run the bam file ?
I have aquestion I1992 individual from the paper is realy Belong to E1a haplogroup acording to the bam file ?
Best regards
Adam
 

This thread has been viewed 58096 times.

Back
Top