GEDMatch HarappaWorld Gedmatch, post and compare your admixtures to ancient and contemporary.

[h=2]12 Marker[/h][h=5]EXACT MATCH[/h]
CountryMatch TotalCountry TotalPercentageComments
Albania1811.2%
Austria111400.1%
Belarus212450.2%
Bulgaria24300.5%
Croatia13810.3%
Czech Republic111370.1%
England138191< 0.1 %
Germany319996< 0.1 %Saxony (1)
Greece110640.1%
Hungary219100.1%
Italy15401< 0.1 %
Lithuania317520.2%
Macedonia11240.8%
Poland862120.1%
Romania38520.4%
Russian Federation970140.1%
Slovakia27900.3%
Slovenia12760.4%
Ukraine629170.2%


[h=5]GENETIC DISTANCE -1[/h]
CountryMatch TotalCountry TotalPercentageComments
Albania2812.5%
Austria211400.2%
Belarus1012450.8%
Bosnia and Herzegovina91884.8%
Bulgaria64301.4%
Croatia83812.1%
Czech Republic311370.3%
Denmark113420.1%
England338191< 0.1 %
Finland14695< 0.1 %
France15681< 0.1 %
Georgia14890.2%
Germany13199960.1%German (1)
Greece1110641%
Hungary819100.4%
Italy25401< 0.1 %
Kazakhstan15330.2%
Latvia14040.2%
Lithuania417520.2%
Macedonia31242.4%
Moldova11450.7%
Montenegro2653.1%
Poland3762120.6%Galicia (1)
Prussia (1)
Qatar15970.2%
Romania48520.5%
Russian Federation3270140.5%
Serbia32221.4%
Slovakia117901.4%
Slovenia22760.7%
Sweden14877< 0.1 %
Syrian Arab Republic13620.3%
Turkey112660.1%
Ukraine3529171.2%
United Kingdom114062< 0.1 %
Uzbekistan12320.4%




[h=2]25 Marker[/h][h=5]GENETIC DISTANCE -1[/h]
CountryMatch TotalCountry TotalPercentageComments
Lithuania112380.1%


[h=5]GENETIC DISTANCE -2[/h]
CountryMatch TotalCountry TotalPercentageComments
Belarus19390.1%
Croatia12160.5%
Italy13078< 0.1 %
Lithuania112380.1%
Poland442560.1%
Slovenia11570.6%
Ukraine12114< 0.1 %




[h=2]37 Marker[/h][h=5]GENETIC DISTANCE -4[/h]
CountryMatch TotalCountry TotalPercentageComments
Lithuania111750.1%
Poland14078< 0.1 %
Ukraine12033< 0.1 %




[h=2]67 Marker[/h]No Matches Found



[h=2]111 Marker[/h]
[h=3]You have not purchased the upgrade to this level of testing.[/h]
 
Seanp; We can't associate Germanic haplogroups to modern Germans. Northern Italy was colonized by tonns of Germanic tribes who might be genetically the same as North Italians now than German speakers today.

What??? So, Germanic groups in pre-history had totally different haplogroups than they have today??? Where is your proof of that? Believe me, I don't think following the y lineages is the only way to track migrations, but it's certainly one way. What are you substituting in the absence of uniparental markers, ancient dna, etc., a crystal ball?



Yet many Sicilians or Italian Americans today claim Norman heritage. (It's a solely mistake all these people concern on anthroforums)

What's the problem with claiming Norman heritage? Given how good our church records are, it's perfectly plausible that someone would be able to prove descent from one of the Norman lords or men at arms. The males of that line might possess yDna connected to either Scandinavia or France. That doesn't mean that there was much autosomal impact, although with enough endogamy in the family or village there might be some.

for contrary I don't see what's the problem for someone to mention the Berber/Carhagian ancestry in South Italy but not the Norman or Lombard. - Maybe those groups can't be viewed as European to fit someone's agenda. **Cough cough**

The only one with an agenda on this thread is you. Who says there's a problem with carrying a "Berber" y line? Who says there's a problem with having some minor ancestry from the Saracens? Certainly not me. Granted, I'm not southern Italian myself, but I assure you it doesn't bother my husband, who is southern Italian, one iota that he carries a small percentage of NA and some tenths of a percent of SSA on 23andme.

The point is to strive for accuracy, and the evidence shows that the percentage of what could be called "Berber" lines in Sicily and adjacent southern Italy is low, as you would know if you had been following the genetics instead of just posting the the same unsourced generalities on site after site. As for the Carthaginians, so far as I know, they only had two emporia in northwestern Sicily. I doubt that made a huge impact autosomally. If you're talking about J2a, I don't know where or when most of it arrived. We await ancient dna.

The same exact phenomenon exist among Antro Iberians who tries to distract themselves from Moors/North Africans but can't delete the 800 years of Moorish rule in Iberia.

I think people should realize that anthrofora Italians, Iberians, Poles, Americans and any other ethnic group don't necessarily speak for all members of their group.

So what prevents people like you calling Italians Jews non Italians when there's no strict definition on what Italian means to be. If a Jew identifty as Italian he has the right to be called as such, the same way someone of Lombard, Germanic, Italic ancestry is not less Italian than someone of Greek ancestry from the South.

Where the heck did I ever say that I don't consider Italian Jews Italians? Italian Jews have been patriotic Italians ever since they were freed from the ghettos and given their civil rights. They were a very well assimilated group and have contributed mightily to Italian culture.

The fact remains that their genetic history is different, a combination of ancient settlers in Rome, Sephardim who arrived after the expulsions in other parts of Europe, and then some Ashkenazim as well. Their own religious and cultural laws have meant that they have remained very endogamous. That was true to some extent even within the Jewish community, with separate marriage patterns, liturgy and liturgical languages etc. For example, there are Ashkenazi rite Italian Jews, Sephardic rite Italian Jews, and Italkim, who have their own unique Italian rite.

That's my identity and i don't identify myself based on DNA results. I have no problem to embrace "European" and "Asian" heritage of my ancestry as that's what makes someone Hungarian.
But to us these are just meaningless labels as we know Europe didn't even exist before the entry of Judo-Christianity which made this pseudo term "European"
I can't degrade myself to identify with modern French or Germans who sooner or later become a land of Turks and Muslims and redefine the definition of European under the blue flag.

Oh, I see, it's only Italians who have to identify themselves strictly genetically? Hungarians like yourself don't have to follow that rule?

What I also see is that you don't understand genetics and that you contradict yourself at every turn.

There's no point to any further interaction on this topic.
 
Bergamo is the HGDP sample used in calculators like Eurogenes to represent North Italians.

thanks, it still does not answer the question

what about

Dodecad North_Italian ( HGDP ) must then = Eurogenes Bergamo ............is this correct?


It was once said ( and I cannot find it ) that dodecad has................. N_italian was NE-Italian , their N-Italian was NW-Italian, their O_Italian where out of Italy italians ( ie, istrians, dalmatians, tyrolese etc ) and of course North_Italian their Bergamo ..............is this correct?


1
N_Italian (Dodecad)
6.68
2O_Italian (Dodecad)9.29
3North_Italian (HGDP)9.84


We do not even have clarity in this
 
@DMZ, what is that chart you posted? Iv never seen that kind of set up, or analysis. Is that your results?
 
thanks, it still does not answer the question

what about

Dodecad North_Italian ( HGDP ) must then = Eurogenes Bergamo ............is this correct?


Yes, it's correct. Dodecad North_Italian (HGDP) is the same of Bergamo HGDP used also by Eurogenes, sometimes labelled as Italian_Bergamo, and it's definitely the North-Western Italian sample. The sample is composed of 13 individuals from Bergamo (but not always the calculators' population average is based on the entire sample, Dodecad usually has 11 out of 13).

N_Italian (Dodecad) is a north Italian sample collected by Diekenes himself, there are surely at least one or two Northern-Eastern Italians in this sample, but likely also someone else from other parts of North Italy, it's not clear. Anyway this sample is composed of 5 individuals, if I remember correctly.

O_Italian is Other Italian, a sample collected by Dodecad/Diekenes of ethnic Italians with probably mixed Italian roots and they are originally from historical Italian communities abroad (Istria, Dalmatia...). They were labelled Other_Italians because they don't come from a specific Italian area.
 
Luckily this study can answer to many questions on this thread. Germanic Y-DNA in Southern Italy and Sicily are much bigger than Berber one, and the same few Berber or Arabic Y-DNA are not introduced by Muslim conquest, who only touched mostly the Western part of Sicily, while in the East was much more shorter and with no cultural penetration. Mainland South Italy had only some coastal conquest for shorter time, but in both cases nothing comparable to Arabo-Berber conquest of Iberia and Ottoman conquest of the Balkans.
Only two of five E-M81 detected in this study (four in Sicily and one in Calabria in 326 samples) have the same haplotype of North African E-M81, while J1 is introduced in the Bronze age not with muslims conquest, our J1 usually do not belong to J1 L222 which is the typical Arabian marker, but with our haplotype.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0096074

At this respect, the distribution of Y-chromosome haplogroup E-M81 is widely associated in literature with recent gene flows from North-Africa [49]. Besides the low frequency (1.5%) of E-M81 lineages in general observed in our SSI dataset, the typical Maghrebin core haplotype 13-14-30-24-9-11-13 [8] has been found in only two out of the five E-M81 individuals. These results, along with the negligible contribution from North-African populations revealed by the admixture-like plot analysis, suggest only a marginal impact of trans-Mediterranean gene flows on the current SSI genetic pool.

However, the estimated age for Sicilian and Southern-Italian J1 haplotypes refers to the end of the Bronze Age (3261?1345 YBP), thus suggesting more ancient contributions from the East. Nevertheless, our time estimate does not necessarily coincide with the time of arrival of J1 in SSI; in fact a pre-existing differentiation could potentially backdate the time estimate here obtained
 
What??? So, Germanic groups in pre-history had totally different haplogroups than they have today??? Where is your proof of that? Believe me, I don't think following the y lineages is the only way to track migrations, but it's certainly one way. What are you substituting in the absence of uniparental markers, ancient dna, etc., a crystal ball?

Neolithic Stuttgart who lived in Germany was genetically more southern (Neolithic farmer) than any Southern European living today, if we consider that the EHG/SHG waves of migrations started since the Bronze age it's quite possible that tribes who might had been Germanic speakers were more Southern/Neolithic genetically and it had nothing to do with their cultural identity.

My theory is that before the appear of Pestilence most of Europe was genetically significantly more Southern shifted than now.
After the appeal of Pestilence North European tribes migrated to South and started to spread Northern genes.

Pestilence_spreading_1347-1351_europe.png



What's the problem with claiming Norman heritage? Given how good our church records are, it's perfectly plausible that someone would be able to prove descent from one of the Norman lords or men at arms. The males of that line might possess yDna connected to either Scandinavia or France. That doesn't mean that there was much autosomal impact, although with enough endogamy in the family or village there might be some.

There's nothing wrong with claiming North European/Norman heritage.

The only one with an agenda on this thread is you. Who says there's a problem with carrying a "Berber" y line? Who says there's a problem with having some minor ancestry from the Saracens? Certainly not me. Granted, I'm not southern Italian myself, but I assure you it doesn't bother my husband, who is southern Italian, one iota that he carries a small percentage of NA and some tenths of a percent of SSA on 23andme.

People should understand that Y-dna displays little to no evidence of population exchanges due to bottleneck effect and cases of inbreeding. Take consider that Argentinean people often end up 80-95% European yet 80-90% of their Female (mtdna) lineages trace back to Native American, African women due the lack of European women and inbreeding.

Othervise the 90% R1b Northern Cameroonians should be 40% West Eurasian but they end up 100% Sub Saharan just like their southern E1a, B2 countymen.

Yes the recent North African input is minimal in Europe except parts of Iberia.
 
Luckily this study can answer to many questions on this thread. Germanic Y-DNA in Southern Italy and Sicily are much bigger than Berber one, and the same few Berber or Arabic Y-DNA are not introduced by Muslim conquest, who only touched mostly the Western part of Sicily, while in the East was much more shorter and with no cultural penetration. Mainland South Italy had only some coastal conquest for shorter time, but in both cases nothing comparable to Arabo-Berber conquest of Iberia and Ottoman conquest of the Balkans.
Only two of five E-M81 detected in this study (four in Sicily and one in Calabria in 326 samples) have the same haplotype of North African E-M81, while J1 is introduced in the Bronze age not with muslims conquest, our J1 usually do not belong to J1 L222 which is the typical Arabian marker, but with our haplotype.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0096074

At this respect, the distribution of Y-chromosome haplogroup E-M81 is widely associated in literature with recent gene flows from North-Africa [49]. Besides the low frequency (1.5%) of E-M81 lineages in general observed in our SSI dataset, the typical Maghrebin core haplotype 13-14-30-24-9-11-13 [8] has been found in only two out of the five E-M81 individuals. These results, along with the negligible contribution from North-African populations revealed by the admixture-like plot analysis, suggest only a marginal impact of trans-Mediterranean gene flows on the current SSI genetic pool.

However, the estimated age for Sicilian and Southern-Italian J1 haplotypes refers to the end of the Bronze Age (3261�1345 YBP), thus suggesting more ancient contributions from the East. Nevertheless, our time estimate does not necessarily coincide with the time of arrival of J1 in SSI; in fact a pre-existing differentiation could potentially backdate the time estimate here obtained


Very true with the Germanic impact is higher than the Berber one in Sicily, both collectively probably impact 5% of total Sicilian dna. I1 and R1a seem to be from the Germanic tribes into Sicily, however further snp testing needs to be done to determine whether Vandals and Ostrogoths were the main source, I would assume R1a but for I1 Normans and Swabians could have brought it. In terms of Berber I do not know which specific clade is associated with the Berbers of the Emirate period but I was able to find 4 on ftdna in Sicily, 1 E-M183 in the province of Messina, 2 in Caltanissetta under E-CTS12555 and E-PF6789, those 3 are under E-M81 and there is one E-V65 in Catania I would say this is Berber as well very frequent in North Africa and is rare in Sicily. Not sure about J1 as there is quite a few clades in Sicily, the most frequent seems to be the J-CTS1460 branch which seems to be Caucasian, might be a neolithic farmer clade in the case.
 
My theory is that before the appear of Pestilence most of Europe was genetically significantly more Southern shifted than now.
After the appeal of Pestilence North European tribes migrated to South and started to spread Northern genes.

Which source is your theory based on? There are no migrations of North European tribes recorderd after the 1346–1353 pestilence. Your theory is based on conjecture, which approaches pure flights of fantasy.

Early Germanic Y-DNA in southern Europe, and specifically in Italy, dates back to Ancient Roman times. The most numerous North European tribes migrations to South happened after the fall of the Western Roman Empire and descreased around 1100/1200 AD.


That's my identity and i don't identify myself based on DNA results.

You're a good example of double standard.


Luckily this study can answer to many questions on this thread. Germanic Y-DNA in Southern Italy and Sicily are much bigger than Berber one, and the same few Berber or Arabic Y-DNA are not introduced by Muslim conquest, who only touched mostly the Western part of Sicily, while in the East was much more shorter and with no cultural penetration. Mainland South Italy had only some coastal conquest for shorter time, but in both cases nothing comparable to Arabo-Berber conquest of Iberia and Ottoman conquest of the Balkans.

Indeed.
 
@DMZ, what is that chart you posted? Iv never seen that kind of set up, or analysis. Is that your results?
Familytreedna,Y-dna67 marker Ancestral Origins results of mine.
 
Very true with the Germanic impact is higher than the Berber one in Sicily, both collectively probably impact 5% of total Sicilian dna. I1 and R1a seem to be from the Germanic tribes into Sicily, however further snp testing needs to be done to determine whether Vandals and Ostrogoths were the main source, I would assume R1a but for I1 Normans and Swabians could have brought it. In terms of Berber I do not know which specific clade is associated with the Berbers of the Emirate period but I was able to find 4 on ftdna in Sicily, 1 E-M183 in the province of Messina, 2 in Caltanissetta under E-CTS12555 and E-PF6789, those 3 are under E-M81 and there is one E-V65 in Catania I would say this is Berber as well very frequent in North Africa and is rare in Sicily. Not sure about J1 as there is quite a few clades in Sicily, the most frequent seems to be the J-CTS1460 branch which seems to be Caucasian, might be a neolithic farmer clade in the case.
Germanic YDNA is bigger than 5% while E-V65 could not be entered in the short muslim period. Passa is an expert of E-V65 and he tolds me there are two haplotypes, one specific of Europe and another for Maghreb. Anyway muslims were expelled, Germanic peoples not.
 
Germanic YDNA is bigger than 5% while E-V65 could not be entered in the short muslim period. Passa is an expert of E-V65 and he tolds me there are two haplotypes, one specific of Europe and another for Maghreb. Anyway muslims were expelled, Germanic peoples not.

I'm not sure Germanic YDNA accounts more than 5% maybe in certain areas, it just does not show in autosomal, just look at all the people who tested on ftdna and nat geo you rarely hear people getting % of Scandinavian or Western Central European, I get zero. Though that does not mean it's the total picture, I agree with you Germanic if you include Swabians and Normans does surpass North African, as for the Vandal and Ostrogoths they had Sicily for 110 years, the Emirate of Sicily was in place for close to 240 years in some places nearly double, yes certain parts of Sicily particularly the East, like Taormina with all the revolts and somewhat were under Muslim control less than 120 years, but still... As for the expelled yes Muslim Berbers were expelled to Lucera and a couple of other Southern Italian villages, but there was conversions, for North African to still appear in Sicilian autosomal, there must of have quite a few converts, as for numbers I don't know. Whatever the numbers it cannot be comparable to the Iberian peninsula as you mentioned earlier parts of Spain (Andalucia) were almost under Muslim control for 700 years, its apples and oranges for a comparison. I don't think E-V65 in Sicily is European but rather Berber, it is so rare that I wouldn't see how any neolithic expansion could have brought it, E-V22 has a strong case of being an earlier diffusion, it is still rare but more common that E-V65 in Sicily.
 
There's no genetic difference between East and West Sicily, as we can't take account that the Western part of the Island was under Norman, Phoenician etc. rules when migrations happened on the island from West to East and barely any people descend from the same village they were born. It's just as absurd as to say someone from Berlin had the same roots living there since 1000 A.D

The genetic study of Sicily worth as much as if we would make a genetic study on East vs West Cyprus (basically zero sense) the only difference comes when people get tested from Lombard towns which has recent North Italian input and when it comes to genetic all Sicilians (and South Italians) cluster somewhere between Central Italians and Greek Islanders because the only significant foreign input was from Greeks apart from Lombards.
 
There's no genetic difference between East and West Sicily, as we can't take account that the Western part of the Island was under Norman, Phoenician etc. rules when migrations happened on the island from West to East and barely any people descend from the same village they were born. It's just as absurd as to say someone from Berlin had the same roots living there since 1000 A.D

The genetic study of Sicily worth as much as if we would make a genetic study on East vs West Cyprus (basically zero sense) the only difference comes when people get tested from Lombard towns which has recent North Italian input and when it comes to genetic all Sicilians (and South Italians) cluster somewhere between Central Italians and Greek Islanders because the only significant foreign input was from Greeks apart from Lombards.

You're derailing completely this thread, moreover with a lot of misinformation. There are no people from the Lombard towns in Sicily tested in any study. Recent North Italian/Lombard input in Sicily? It's 900/800 years old, very recent indeed.

In any case you should tell your friend Sikeliot that he can directy post his nonsense and conjecture. He has still an account in this forum.

I'm not sure Germanic YDNA accounts more than 5% maybe in certain areas

This map was made by anthrogenica's user Passa based on specific subclades. Of course it's not a peer-reviewed stuff.

13709823_690252044462447_8329495196490145252_n.jpg
 
^^ Sicily has been receiving migrations from Mainland Italy as well from all corners of Europe and the Mediterranean basin. Nobody claims Saracen heritage but it's clear that if we consider Autosomal dna the estimated North European ancestry is the lowest there after Sardinia. The study which was linked to prove the weak Arabic compared to North European ancestry stated what Autosomal studies display that the Southern part of Italy (inc Sicily, Malta) hasn't changed much since the late Bronze age being primarly Neolithic Levant-Anatolian with minor Indo-European like ancestry.
 
OK. Enough is enough. This is not the thread for an extensive and detailed analysis of Italian genetics. Is that clear? You're on notice, seanp.
 
my results

T220060_2B9C95.gif


[FONT=&quot]Kit Num: T220060 [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1.000 ayarlanmış bileşenlerin Eşik [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]% 0.25 olarak ayarlanmış y?ntemin Eşiğinde [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Kişisel veriler okundu. 20 yaklaşımlar modu.[/FONT]
[h=2]Gedmatch.Com[/h][h=2]HarappaWorld 4-Atalar Oracle[/h][FONT=&quot]Bu program, Alexandr Burnashev g?re 4-Ata Oracle s?r?m 0.96 dayanır. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][email protected]: sonu?lar hakkında sorular kendisine g?nderilmesi gerekmektedir [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sergey Kozlov tarafından ?nerilen Orijinal kavram. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Bize yardımcı olduğunuz i?in Alexandr i?in ?ok teşekk?r ederiz, bu web s?r?m? geliştirdi olsun. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]23 Nisan 2013 - Oracle referans n?fus y?zdeleri revize edilmiştir. [/FONT]

Admix Sonu?lar (sıralı):

#n?fusY?zde
1Kafkas39.44
2Baloch14.37
3Akdeniz13.89
4SW-Asya11.74
5NE-Euro10.46
6NE-Asya2.68
7S-Hint2.20
8Beringian1.78
9Sibirya1.37


N?fus verileri okuma bitirdi. 377 pop?lasyonları bulundu.
16 bileşenler modu.

--------------------------------

En k???k kareler y?ntemi.

1 n?fus yaklaşımı kullanılarak:
1 turk-kayseri 7.651587 @
7,653186 @ 2 turk-istanbul
3 turk-aydin 7,767722 @
4 T?rk 8,824174 @
5 turk @ 9,285530
6 ermeni 11,905169 @
7 Azeri 12,057047 @
8 uzbekistan-yahudi 14,820162 @
15.110064 @ 9 kurd
10 L?bnan @ 15.264257
11 L?bnan-m?sl?man 15,303683 @
12 Kıbrıslı 15,349828 @
13 Aşkenaz-yahudi @ 15,399670
14 iraqi-arab 15,537961 @
16,303885 @ 15 kuzey-Oset
16,317814 @ 16 Sefarad-yahudi
16,476582 @ iranian 17
16,639181 @ Filistinli 18
16.753130 @ Suriyeli 19
20 16.832850 @ kurd

2 n?fusları kullanma Yaklaşım:
1% 50 Aşkenaz-yahudi +% 50 azeri 3.283274 @


3 n?fusları kullanma Yaklaşım:
1% 50 Kıbrıslı +% 25 tajik +% 25 turk aydin-2.098772 @


4 n?fusları kullanma Yaklaşım:
1 Ashkenazi + georgian + fas-yahudi + turkmen 1,670837 @
1,803299 @ 2 Aşkenaz-yahudi + G?rc? + fas-yahudi + T?rkmenlerin
3 D?rzi + t?rk + turkmen + tuscan 1,870414 @
4 D?rzi + t?rk + turkmen + tuscan @ 1,875345
5 + L?bnan-m?sl?man ermeni t?rkmen + Toskana @ 1,920042
6 + L?bnan-m?sl?man ermeni + turkmen + tuscan 1,920232 @
1,932068 @ 7 Aşkenazi + Kıbrıslı + t?rk + turkmen
1,939520 + tuscan 8 ermeni + L?bnan + T?rkmenler
9 D?rzi + t?rk + turkmen + tuscan @ 1,948603
10 ermeni + italyan 1.962133 + turkmen + L?bnan-d?rzi
1,963442 + tuscan 11 + L?bnan-m?sl?man ermeni + T?rkmen
1,965451 + tuscan 12 ermeni + L?bnan + T?rkmen
1,970183 + tuscan 13 ermeni + Suriye + T?rkmenler
14 ermeni + L?bnan-m?sl?man + T?rkmenlerin + Toskana @ 1.987924
15 Aşkenaz + azeri + Kıbrıslı + turkmen @ 1,991716
16 + L?bnan-m?sl?man ermeni + turkmen + tuscan @ 2,006990
17 ermeni + Suriye + turkmen + tuscan @ 2,015513
18 ermeni + L?bnan + turkmen + tuscan @ 2,023961
19 ermeni + Suriye + turkmen + Toskana 2,034332 @
2.035268 @ Toskana 20 L?bnan-D?rzi + turk + T?rkmenler +

Bitti.
 
Where did you find these charts.
Please use the "Reply With Quote" button when communicated with someone or responding to a post. Otherwise we don't know who you are talking to, and what you mean.
 
Baloch is from EHG and Iranian Farmers/CHG mix, both came from East with Indo Europeans/Corded Ware/Celts and Greeks.
Main source of Caucasian was EEF in Europe. IE brought some too, but they rather diluted what was already there than added.
Mediterranean was present in WHG, especially the ones closer to the Med Sea, later some more came with EEF farmers. The highest level so far was in Neolithic Spain up to 60%. Your increased Med might point to some relationship with Spain and area. Netherlands in general or you personal. With more contemporary European samples we should know better soon.

On second thought: could the Bell Beakers mean the difference between the (North) Dutch and Polish guys like you or Tomenable? The Spanish connection was an eye opener for me. North Dutch (=NW European gene pool) and Poland (=NE European gene pool) share much of the same genetic, population developments, but when it comes to a (tiny) difference it could be the Bell Beakers and the influence from Iberia.....or?

http://eurogenes.blogspot.nl/2016/06/german-bell-beakers-in-context-of.html
 

This thread has been viewed 348304 times.

Back
Top