@Ygorcs
I am sorry that my asking has made you wary, but I hope you see that when your claims are "counter-dominant", as you acknowledge, than the onus of proof falls on you, and it is part of a rational discussion to ask the other what his reasons are.
Now let's talk about the paper you cited: a first criticism is that oddly it doesn't have Anatolia as a reference, thus it doesn't help clarify whether there is a gradient with Anatolia ( and two possible ways for explanation would be open: the classical two way model plus the Levant as a genetic sink of subsequent migration from Anatolia, as the latest paper on the matter shows:
https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092...ItvxtjMuLGWfxiStk27qI--flIkfbpvAZNATQR4-uDoSM, or your model), but it isn't an obstacle to our discussion.
However, what are the biggest issues is that the same paper goes against your claims: from the section about Y chromosome: "As for TMRCA estimates, STR variation within the most frequent haplogroups of SSI suggests that most of them (with the exception of haplogroup G2a-P15: 9339?3302 YBP) date back to relatively recent times (
Table 1), in some cases falling into time periods compatible with specific documented historical events occurred in SSI. Despite the fact that these time estimates must be taken with caution, as they might be affected by the choice of both STRs markers and their mutation rates, overall our results agree in suggesting that most of the Y-chromosomal diversity in modern day Southern Italians originated during late Neolithic and Post-Neolithic times (∼2,300 YBP for E-V13; from ∼3,200 to ∼3,700 YBP for J sub-lineages; ∼4,300 YBP for R-M17 and R-P312; and ∼2,000 YBP for R-U106 and R-U152).", thus it doesn't help to see clear whether there was a post-late bronze age migration of Levant-rich populations to south east Europe ( and talking specifically about south Italy the levels of J1 are very low, thus they don't support an admixture event that would have brought an average 9% Levant-neolithic.)
From the section about MtDna: "Differently from Y-chromosome results, TMRCA estimates for the most frequent mtDNA haplogroups of Sicily and Southern Italy (
Table 1) date back to pre-Neolithic times and could be mainly classified in lineages pre-dating the Last Glacial Maximum - LGM (∼32,200 YBP for HV; ∼31,100 YBP for J2; ∼28,900 and ∼28,600 YBP for T1 and T2; ∼27,300 for U5; and ∼25,000 YBP for J1) or dating immediately after it (∼16,700 YBP for H5 and ∼15,700 YBP for H1)", meaning that it is sure as hell that the maternal similarities are well older than the bronze age.
It is spectacular how you accuse me of ignoring data that do not comform to my beliefs, when you have only cited three papers, of which the last one doesn't point to your thesis or goes against it, and about the other two I have already talked about them, they have been talked about in this forum, and their results can be interpreted using the "classical" two way model, and when you dismiss
the majority of the literature using the two way model by claiming the absurdly weak claim that to
none of the authors that worked on those papers came to mind to check if other admixture models using Levant-N worked better than the ones they actually used. Certainly it was a fault of them not to discuss other models in the supplement, but c'mon, how can you rationally argue that no genetist thought about it while working on those papers. Also Lazaridis 2017 explicitely rejected models with Levant_N for Myceneans and used barely a 6% for ABA, and we have empuries greek samples hundreds of years later the mycenean period and they are still most similar to Myceneans, and a working hypothesis of yours is that this gene flow interested a good chunk of south east Europe and Italy, thus hitting Greece first, so when did this Levant-gene flow take place? It must have take place, given the empuries samples, in or later the classical period, yet there are no indication that such a massive population movement took place.
For a comparison, taking for good Lazaridis and the greek empuries samples (and by extension south and central Italy, and in fact Antonio paper about Rome showed that central Italian samples had Iran-neolithic but no levant-N, and in that study they did use Levant-N as a possible donor.), in order to pass from 0% ( you have not shown Greeks modelled by you but you have talked about the fact that according to your models all south east Europe show an excess of Levant N, thus I assume that Greeks would show similar if not higher levels) to around 10% east asian in Anatolian there happened a massive migration of Turks from central Asia, yet we have no account of such an event for Greece, Italy or the Balkans.
Also, "Punics" and "phoenicians" are the same people ( the phoenicians Italians had contact with were Punics) had three emporiums in Sicily, Greeks and Anatolians carried no post-neolithic levant admixture ( or a 6% in south west Anatolia, well under what would have been needed to give a 9% to Italians) according to the literature, and regarding other populations Angela has already told you that there are no reliable historical accounts that record such a massive presence in
all south and central Italy.
It is certainly intriguing to understand why G25 and similar tools show systematically an excess of Levant N in south east europeans populations and south and central Italians, but I object that it is a valid inference to think that they are more reliable than accademic results. It is a rational counterpoint to ask
why we oughtn't take seriously the results from such hobbist tools, but there are reasons for that: At least G25 is known to give the worse results for people of Italian descent, it has given results of Italians with exactly an excess of Levant_N ( so wrong that they have been deleted by Davidsky himself ), and I don't know if this tool has been developed or "adjusted" by Davidsky, but if that is the case, then we know also the reasons why he would want a systematic error to show for certain populations. Thus, imo it ought to be obvious what is more trustworthy between the majority of the literature and the thesis supported by amateur software, especially if these have been know to give the exact problems ( a surplus of Levant_N ) for certain populations.
To sum up, the "evidence" for your thesis exists only if we take for good the results of doubtful hobbyist softwares, and the counterevidence offered by accademic papers is bypassed only if we accept the rather weak claim that
all the two way models are faulty because
no author checked whether other models worked best.