# Population Genetics > Autosomal Genetics > Dodecad >  Autosomal map : Mediterranean admixture (from Dodecad)

## Maciamo

I have made distribution maps for most of the major haplogroups. I thought it would be interesting to compare Y-DNA distributions with autosomal admixtures. I used the data for the Mediterranean admixture from the Dodecad Project to make this map. It's far from perfect because many key populations were missing (Croatians, Bosnians, Serbs, Czechoslovaks, Belarusians, Ukrainians, most of the Caucasus beside Georgia and Armenia). I used the data from individual members to fill the gaps.



In my opinion, this Mediterranean admixture has a strong E1b1b (E-M78 and subclades, though not E-M81) component to it, as well as a likely I2a1 influence in places like Northeast Spain and Sardinia. I believe that R1b in Western Europe is hiding a lot of anterior lineages, which could have been principally I2a and E-M78. 

Autosomal genes are naturally more evenly spread out inside a population sharing the same borders or language. That is because women are more likely to be "imported" as wives from other regions, and also because autosomal genes mix very quickly in the gene pool. A third reason the autosomal map looks more evenly distributed is that I didn't have as much data for regional populations (mostly country averages).

There is no correspondence with G2a, J2 or J1 because this Mediterranean admixture is lowest in the Mediterranean region where G2a, J1 and J2 are the highest. 



I doubt that it is a coincidence that this Mediterranean admixture matches quite well the so-called Mediterranean Race described by anthropologist Madison Grant. One of the main characteristics of Mediterranean people is the dolichocephalic skull shape (long head), which they have in common with the Nordics.

----------


## Taranis

I agree that the distribution definitely matches E1b1b + I2a1 the best. It's also funny how that old anthropologist was actually up to something.

The only place where that strikes me as non-matching is northern Europe, however: how does one explain the large concentrations in Britain and Scandinavia?

----------


## Maciamo

> I agree that the distribution definitely matches E1b1b + I2a1 the best. It's also funny how that old anthropologist was actually up to something.
> 
> The only place where that strikes me as non-matching is northern Europe, however: how does one explain the large concentrations in Britain and Scandinavia?


That's because these are high-R1b countries. I suspect that the Indo-Europeans might have killed a big percentages of the local men when they arrived. If that is the case, regions with a lot of R1b (Catalonia, Basque country, Western France, pre-Anglo-Saxon British Isles) probably inherited their Mediterranean genes from the local women taken as wives/concubines by the R1b invaders. 

As for Scandinavia, the Norwegian Dodecad members have a little bit more Mediterranean admixture than the Swedish ones, which makes sense if Irish an Scottish people were imported to Norway in the Middle Ages (and they almost certainly were, as attested by R1b-L21). What we don't know if how many Goidelic women were taken to Scandinavia, but I assume that it is at least as much, and surely more than the percentage of R1b-L21. A study has already confirm the practice of Viking men taking foreign women as wives.




> Archaeological and historical records suggest individuals from the British Isles and Scandinavia settled Iceland about 1100 years ago. Based on studies of today's Icelanders, researchers have suggested that less than 40 percent of Icelandic mtDNA — representing matrilinear ancestry — originated in Scandinavia, while as much as 75 to 80 percent of their paternal ancestry, gauged by Y-chromosome DNA, is Scandinavian.
> 
> That is consistent with the notion that Scandinavian men, namely Vikings, frequently settled the area with women from other regions.


In other words, 60% of Iceland's mtDNA lineages would be of Goidelic origin, and 20-25% of its Y-DNA too (almost all of it R1b-L21, which is why Iceland has over 40% of R1b, unlike anywhere in continental Scandinavia).

All this to say that if the Irish and British have about 22% of Mediterranean admixture, it is not surprising to find 15% in Norway. I expect it to be around 18-20% in Iceland.

----------


## Taranis

> That's because these are high-R1b countries. I suspect that the Indo-Europeans might have killed a big percentages of the local men when they arrived. If that is the case, regions with a lot of R1b (Catalonia, Basque country, Western France, pre-Anglo-Saxon British Isles) probably inherited their Mediterranean genes from the local women taken as wives/concubines by the R1b invaders. 
> 
> As for Scandinavia, the Norwegian Dodecad members have a little bit more Mediterranean admixture than the Swedish ones, which makes sense if Irish an Scottish people were imported to Norway in the Middle Ages (and they almost certainly were, as attested by R1b-L21). What we don't know if how many Goidelic women were taken to Scandinavia, but I assume that it is at least as much, and surely more than the percentage of R1b-L21. A study has already confirm the practice of Viking men taking foreign women as wives.


This is a good point. The largest _overall_ R1b concentrations are after all found in that "clean-swept arc" (seen in the distribution of Haplogroup E1b, but also in Haplogroup T, for istance) stretching along the Atlantic coast from the Basque Country to Brittany (and theoretically extending into the British Isles).




> In other words, *60% of Iceland's mtDNA lineages would be of Goidelic origin*, and 20-25% of its Y-DNA too (almost all of it R1b-L21, which is why Iceland has over 40% of R1b, unlike anywhere in continental Scandinavia).
> 
> All this to say that if the Irish and British have about 22% of Mediterranean admixture, it is not surprising to find 15% in Norway. I expect it to be around 18-20% in Iceland.


Wow. I had known before that the Vikings were big into slavery, but I had no idea that it was THIS drastic!  :Petrified:

----------


## Knovas

Mediterranean is very well separated from the non European groups as It's easy to know while checking the distances, so I desagree of course. I posted the reasons in the other post.

And also, don't forget it's not the same West Med and East Med. Eastern populations carry also quite West Asian and Southwest Asian, so the influence in phenotype is not the same in others who simply don't have, or have very low of each admixtures (the really who can include the mentioned E-M78 influences together with others).

----------


## julia90

Where is the reference population for mediterranean admixture?

Sardinians?

i think part of the balkans should be more mediterranean... how can be Croatia less mediterranean than western Germany??

if this map is true, Friuli Venezia Giulia is genetically diverse from the rest of italy for this trait.. but i doubt..

----------


## Knovas

It's possible, but there isn't data about Croacia. Probably this is due to more West Asian and Southwest Asian admixture. The same happens in Italy, less Mediterranean than Iberia (having Iberia very low West Asian and Southwest Asian levels).

Here you have the averages: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...COCa89AJ#gid=0

Sardinians are the top Mediterranean scorers followed by Iberians. However, the Iberian Mediterranean is more likely Southwestern/Basque in a large percent, and it isn't the same representative as others.

----------


## julia90

i think it's genes similarity to sardinians then.

Tuscans are: 
Mediterranean 47,8%
West European 25,8%
West Asian 17,3
Southwest Asian 4,3%
Est European 3,7%

South Asian 0,5%
north-west african 0,3%
South east asian 0,2%
North East Asian 0,1%
East african 0,1%
Neo African 0%
paleo african 0%

----------


## Milovan

I think this "mediterranean" autosomal corresponds to y-dna hap I and all it's subclades both I1 and I2. I think it is pure hap I and has nothing to do with hap E or any of its subclades at all. Look at y-dna, I (mediterranean) is going to be closer to J (middle eastern) as the both evolved from the same root IJ. E is so far away on the y-dna tree from I it is ridiculous. I think E will cluster with african haplogroups.

----------


## Maciamo

> I think this "mediterranean" autosomal corresponds to y-dna hap I and all it's subclades both I1 and I2. I think it is pure hap I and has nothing to do with hap E or any of its subclades at all. Look at y-dna, I (mediterranean) is going to be closer to J (middle eastern) as the both evolved from the same root IJ. E is so far away on the y-dna tree from I it is ridiculous. I think E will cluster with african haplogroups.


There is nearly no haplogroup I in North Africa and the Middle East. Hg I is far more common in the Balkans, Scandinavia and Finland than the Mediterranean admixture. So I must absolutely rule out at least I1 and I2a2 from the Mediterranean admixture (unless Croatian and Bosnian samples, which I do not have yet, happen to have an exceptionally high degree of Mediterranean admixture, but I doubt so).

What you don't see beyond the map is that the East African have about 4% of Mediterranean admixtures, and the Ethiopians 2%. 

Furthermore, Iranians have about 15%, while Afghan and Pakistani tribes range from 5 to 9%. 

The Mediterranean admixture is almost certainly a component of Mediterranean E-M78 (especially E-V13), I2a1 and R1b (especially the L11- variety found around the Mediterranean and the Middle East, but also R1b-S28 and R1b-Z196).

----------


## Knovas

North Africa doesn't need any haplogroup I to explain the Mediterranean admixture, it can fit in the maternal linages (H, V, etc.). Haplogroup I can perfectly fit in all European admixtures considering all branches, since most of them are enough old to do so.

By the way, 2-4% is not huge between East Africans, this can be easily inherited via the Middle East in thousands of years. Also, the Nepalese show more West + East European than Mediterranean...nothing rare in the percents given to Iranians, Afghan and Pakistanis. It doesn't mean anything.

About Bosnians, I don't know how homogeneous are they, but if the Balkan sample shows 30% Mediterranean, I don't expect most of them to be much different, and probably Croatians go in a similar way. The actual percent looks significant in my book.

It's not clear wich haplogroups include the Mediterranean admixture. It can include many different clades of I, even those two due to its antiquity. Also, some Eastern Mediterranean represented, in my opinion, by J2b and L11 too (that's possible), and probably there's a clade we are forgeting. But I don't see it in the case of E-M78 for the reasons I have already stated in other posts, this has been simply replaced by other autosomes long ago. Also, again, it's good not to underestimate maternal linages, since they can explain more admixtures than we usually think.

----------


## Maciamo

> North Africa doesn't need any haplogroup I to explain the Mediterranean admixture, it can fit in the maternal linages (H, V, etc.). Haplogroup I can perfectly fit in all European admixtures considering all branches, since most of them are enough old to do so.


And what makes you think that H and V are not maternal equivalent of E1b1b1a ? The most common varieties of H in Iberia are H1 and H3, but these are found throughout Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. H3 and V are most common among the Basques and Sardinians, so they are probably linked to I2a1, but H1 peaks in the Cantabrians (known for their high percentage of E1b1b), West Andalusians and Maghrebans.

For the sake of the argument, assuming that H1, H3 and V were all related to hg I instead, and that all I2a men in North Africa were exterminated to the last one by E1b1b1a invaders, H and V only amount to some 30% of the mtDNA in North Africa. If autosomes were passed only by women, that the percentage of autosomal DNA from H and V would be only half, or 15%. In contrast, E-M78 has a frequency of about 30% in Morocco, ranging from 10-15% in the South to 40% in North Morocco. That's makes it a better candidate.





> By the way, 2-4% is not huge between East Africans, this can be easily inherited via the Middle East in thousands of years. Also, the Nepalese show more West + East European than Mediterranean...nothing rare in the percents given to Iranians, Afghan and Pakistanis. It doesn't mean anything.


It means it can be related to R1a or R1b, but not to I1 or I2.

----------


## spongetaro

> And what makes you think that H and V are not maternal equivalent of E1b1b1a ? The most common varieties of H in Iberia are H1 and H3, but these are found throughout Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. H3 and V are most common among the Basques and Sardinians, so they are probably linked to I2a1, but H1 peaks in the Cantabrians (known for their high percentage of E1b1b), West Andalusians and Maghrebans.


I wonder why Norwegian have not more Med admixture given the frequencies of H1 and H3 they have.

----------


## Knovas

The amount of haplogroup H is much higher than what you say according to this study: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/10/8

The percent goes to 55% without need to include V (here says 8.2%: http://www.healthanddna.com/EuropeanmtDNA.pdf). So of course it can fit. H1 and H3 are linked to Iberia, of course, but are also quite present in all Europe. And haplogroup E1b1b in Iberia is not extremely huge as whole, much less in several parts of Europe, so I think it's unlikely.

And I'm sorry, but it doesn't mean anything a small percent between 2-4%. This is linked absolutely with nothing, it's just the result of an admixture core in the Middle East wich was inherited in small quantities by East Africans in progressive migrations coming from there (more than 20% Southwest Asian supports what I'm saying). Not of course in one week, thousands of years are required for this. It's just residual, the Nepalese example shows more or less the same.

And if you are interested, I can check a Bosnian girl at 23andme, who at least shows the major similarity with Southern Europe in the public profile. So I'm afraid it's very likely she has substantial Mediterranean percent. I could try if she wants to join Dodecad project too. I'll invite her, and will see...

----------


## Knovas

> I wonder why Norwegian have not more Med admixture given the frequencies of H1 and H3 they have.


 Keep in mind this haplogroups are very old in Europe. It's very difficult to tell exactly what they represent in terms of admixture. It's good always to check both Y-DNA and MtDNA to have a better idea, although it's never enough.

----------


## Wilhelm

I agree with Knovas. The mediterranean component peaks in Sardinians at 55%, North-Italy 49% and Iberia 48%, the E1b1b in these regions is, respectively, 10-11-7, so it doesn't seem very correlated. What's more, Catalans show almost 50% med, and the E1b1b in Catalonia is very low 2-3%. So, the connection with E1b1b or J is discarded. It has to be associated with I2, even I1, R1b-S116 ? and maternally with H1/H3/something else. Seems like a paleolithic european component, associated with hap I1/I2
pd: If it was a neolithic near-east component it would peak in the South-East (Balkans, Greece,etc) and not in the West of Europe

----------


## Knovas

The Mediterranean cluster includes Southwest and Southeast Europe, sure (Greeks have very high percent too). So I don't discard haplogroup J, but we should focus in concrete clades like for example J2b or perhaps another one, as well as other concrete subclades of other haplogroups wich could be representative of the Eastern Mediterranean side. And it's important not to forget MtDNA.

What I absolutely discard, but it's just my opinion, is the E-M78 connection. This simply diluted and broght West Asian and Southwest Asian due to the migration through the Middle East and Anatolia, and diluted again with the indigenous Southern Europeans while entering Greece, Macedonia and the Balkans. So quite of the different I subclades must be linked, some R1b's, clades like J2b (you are free to think in another one similar), and MtDNA haplogroups in my opinion. The Catalan example is very obvious, because there isn't probably any measurable E-M78 between them, and the other E's appear in the Northwest/East African admixture. Very difficult to match this with the other explanation.

Also, I have checked the Balkan_D portrait (30% Mediterranean average), and several individuals from unknown regions show more than 35% Mediterranean, and there is one with more than 40%. I'm willing to contact the Bosnian girl, since I'm pretty sure she has a very similar profile comparing with the last one.

PD: DOD747 is the Balkan with more Mediterranean (*44.1%*). Still thinking I1 and *I2a2* have nothing to do here considering the haplogroup frequencies? I highly doubt it.

----------


## julia90

i think that this mediterranean admixture can correspond to south west mediterranean genes, given the fact that Sardinia the peak, and secondly the area around Catalunia and Valencia region has the highest part of this genes, but then spain should have the same quantity as catalunia no?.. and why Turkey and south est europe are somewhat high in this genes?

----------


## Knovas

Because as, I said, it includes Southwest and Southeast Europe, it's not only Southwestern. For this reason Greece has a significant amount.

And I can assure you Sardinia is not the most Southwestern population. These are probably ethnic Catalans, although there are surely Navarrans, Aragonese...even Gascons or other Southern French who can get into the category. Sardinians probably have significant Eastern Mediterranean in comparison with Iberians, but not at the same level as Greece, even probably less than most Italians.

----------


## julia90

i agree it could be a west plus east southern european genes
but 
those it in the "south west part" of the map are sardineans, sardinieans are as western as spaniards, but more on the "southern part" of the map

----------


## Knovas

It depends on the plot: 23andme is different, this one is different, Doug McDonalds plot is different too...etc., etc. The only thing it represents is that they are isolated, not necesarily the most Southwestern people. I'm 100% sure they are not.

It's even difficult to fit this population with components. They get very different results from a test to another.

----------


## julia90

those blue on the top part are sardineans




Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

----------


## Wilhelm

> It depends on the plot: 23andme is different, this one is different, Doug McDonalds plot is different too...etc., etc. The only thing it represents is that they are isolated, not necesarily the most Southwestern people. I'm 100% sure they are not.
> 
> It's even difficult to fit this population with components. They get very different results from a test to another.


 All the plots are pretty much the same, the same pattern. If you look at the McDonald map, is almost the same as 23andMe but 90 degrees to the right, like this :

----------


## Knovas

Yes, like this it's pretty similar. What I meant is that the meaning is just isolation, not necesarily pure Southwestern.

Going back to the thread, the Bosnian girl accepted me. I'll check the values and propose her to join Dodecad.

----------


## Goga

Interesting map!

I believe that the Mediterranean admixture in most folks in Asia & Africa is *not* from Europe!
If it was from Europe, 'Northwest European admixture' was there in very high ammounts too!

I believe that the Mediterranean admixture in Asia is Semitic/Jewish and native to the Levant, since it's very high among the native people of the Levant, but Northwest-European-admixture is almost abscent there! So it's *not* from Europe!

I mean these 2 maps don't correlate with each other outside Europe!

----------


## Goga

Since Northwest-European-admixture is very rare in the Levant, I came to the next conclusion:

Mediterranean admixture = native to South Europe (Europeans) + native to Africa (north Africans) + native to the Semites from the Levant (like Jews, Assyrians, Lebanese etc.)

Think about it and please share your thougts!

----------


## oreo_cookie

> Since Northwest-European-admixture is very rare in the Levant, I came to the next conclusion:
> 
> Mediterranean admixture = native to South Europe (Europeans) + native to Africa (north Africans) + native to the Semites from the Levant (like Jews, Assyrians, Lebanese etc.)
> 
> Think about it and please share your thougts!



I think the Mediterranean element represents Paleolithic Southern Europeans while in Europe, West Asian and to a lesser extent Southwest Asian represent Neolithic movements from the Near East (and simultaneously North African components would come in small amount into Southwest Europe).

----------


## Goga

> I think the Mediterranean element represents Paleolithic Southern Europeans while in Europe, West Asian and to a lesser extent Southwest Asian represent Neolithic movements from the Near East (and simultaneously North African components would come in small amount into Southwest Europe).


Thank you for your reply!

But there's just way to much Mediterranean admixture in *Africa*. Also Semites who are originaly from the Levant, like Jews, Palestinians, Jordanians, Assyrians, Lebanese have very much of these admixture too, while non-semitic folks in the region, like Iranians and Caucasians don't have that much of it.

I mean Jews have for about 35% of it while Adygei only 8,3%.

Is the Mediterranean admixture JEWISH, since it's the most important and biggest component in them?

----------


## oreo_cookie

> Thank you for your reply!
> 
> But there's just way to much Mediterranean admixture in *Africa*. Also Semites who are originaly from the Levant, like Jews, Palestinians, Jordanians, Assyrians, Lebanese have very much of these admixture too, while non-semitic folks in the region, like Iranians and Caucasians don't have that much of it.
> 
> I mean Jews have for about 35% of it while Adygei only 8,3%.
> 
> Is the Mediterranean admixture JEWISH, since it's the most important and biggest component in them?


I don't think so because it is also the largest component in Italians and Greeks. Also North Africans and Iberians have it too in great amounts so maybe it is a pan-Mediterranean component.

----------


## Goga

> I don't think so because it is also the largest component in Italians and Greeks. Also North Africans and Iberians have it too in great amounts so maybe it is a pan-Mediterranean component.


I do agree with you!

I don't think that Mediterranean component belongs exclusively to South Europe, but also belongs (is native) to Africans and Semites in the Levant.

I think in Europe it is South European.
In Africa it's African.
And in the Levant it's Semtic.

Accroding to me it would make more sence if they would split Mediterranean admixture in 3 parts: Mediterranean-S_Euro, Mediterranean-Afro and Mediterranean-Asia!

----------


## oreo_cookie

> I do agree with you!
> 
> I don't think that Mediterranean component belongs exclusively to South Europe, but also belongs (is native) to Africans and Semites in the Levant.
> 
> I think in Europe it is South European.
> In Africa it's African.
> And in the Levant it's Semtic.
> 
> Accroding to me it would make more sence if they would split Mediterranean admixture in 3 parts: Mediterranean-S_Euro, Mediterranean-Afro and Mediterranean-Asia!


I'd like to see Southwest as opposed to Southeast Europe quantified.

----------


## Goga

Yeah, that would be even greater!

----------


## oreo_cookie

Because I think what would happen is, Iberia would be strongly a mixture of NW European, SW European, with minor North African, whereas Greece would be a mixture of SE European, East European, and West Asian, with Italy depending on the region differing in one or the other direction.

----------


## Goga

> Because I think what would happen is, Iberia would be strongly a mixture of NW European, SW European, with minor North African, whereas Greece would be a mixture of SE European, East European, and West Asian, with Italy depending on the region differing in one or the other direction.


Ok. 

I guess that folks from Southwest Europe, would have 75% of Southwest European Mediterranean component, 15% of Southeast European Mediterranean component and 10% of African Mediterranean component.

While people on the other part of the sea in the Levant, like Labanese would have 70% of Asian Mediterranean component, 15% of Southeast European Mediterranean component and 15% of African Mediterranean component.

----------


## Maciamo

> Interesting map!
> 
> I believe that the Mediterranean admixture in most folks in Asia & Africa is *not* from Europe!
> If it was from Europe, 'Northwest European admixture' was there in very high ammounts too!
> 
> I believe that the Mediterranean admixture in Asia is Semitic/Jewish and native to the Levant, since it's very high among the native people of the Levant, but Northwest-European-admixture is almost abscent there! So it's *not* from Europe!


That's exactly why I also think that the Mediterranean admixture comprises some non-European element present as much in the Middle East as in North Africa. The only one that matches these criteria is E-M78. However I am pretty sure that the Mediterranean admixture can be split in two or even three separate admixtures, just like the Northwest European. This should split more neatly the E-M78 component from the I2a (+ G2a ?) component in the Mediterranean admixture.

----------


## Cobol19

> Since Northwest-European-admixture is very rare in the Levant, I came to the next conclusion:
> 
> Mediterranean admixture = native to South Europe (Europeans) + native to Africa (north Africans) + native to the Semites from the Levant (like Jews, Assyrians, Lebanese etc.)
> 
> Think about it and please share your thougts!


Assyrians are not from the Levant.

----------


## Knovas

I can't understand the insistance to put such non European element in the Mediterranean admixture, when there are the same or more evidences to do so in the West and the East European. I agree the Mediterranean cluster can be devided in two, but not necesarily must include haplogroup E. MtDNA in North Africa could perfectly explain the Mediterranean element there.

Some subclades of J2 (J2b and perhaps another one) and G2a subclades can perfectly fit in an Eastern Mediterranean element.

----------


## Alan

Maciamo congratulation for another great work but there are some amendments. The Mediterranean element in reality reaches 20-21% all the way into West Iran. I myself know one person from the border of Iran-Iraq he has 22% Mediterranean. Just like many scientist had found out earlier the Zagros seems like a barrier of Iran. 

The red points show where this individual is from. And inside the black framed border, there is definitely 20-21% Mediterranean from my observation and the results I have seen so far. The reason why the Kurd_D cluster has only 19,8% is because there are only 5 individuals in that project so far and one of them is rather an outsider.

----------


## Maciamo

> Maciamo congratulation for another great work but there are some amendments. The Mediterranean element in reality reaches 20-21% all the way into West Iran. I myself know one person from the border of Iran-Iraq he has 22% Mediterranean. Just like many scientist had found out earlier the Zagros seems like a barrier of Iran. 
> 
> The red points show where this individual is from. And inside the black framed border, there is definitely 20-21% Mediterranean from my observation and the results I have seen so far. The reason why the Kurd_D cluster has only 19,8% is because there are only 5 individuals in that project so far and one of them is rather an outsider.


Iraq was the only country missing in the data list from the Middle East, so it's good to know. Does the person you know from the Iraq-Iran border have a Dodecad number ? If not could you send me a PM with the admixtures percentages ?

----------


## Sybilla

Here the Eastern European admixture too:

DOD-v3-East-European2-1024x660.jpg

----------


## Wilhelm

> Thank you for your reply!
> 
> But there's just way to much Mediterranean admixture in *Africa*. Also Semites who are originaly from the Levant, like Jews, Palestinians, Jordanians, Assyrians, Lebanese have very much of these admixture too, while non-semitic folks in the region, like Iranians and Caucasians don't have that much of it.
> 
> I mean Jews have for about 35% of it while Adygei only 8,3%.
> 
> Is the Mediterranean admixture JEWISH, since it's the most important and biggest component in them?


 The meditarreanean element in North-Africa could be explained by the presence of south-european mtDNA such as H1,H3,V it's definately paleolithic.

----------


## Knovas

According to the study I posted in the other thread, H1 + H3 in North Africa represent 55%. V is not included, I found a source also posted giving +8%. So it's the most likely explanation.

E-M78, in my opinion, simply diluted and was replaced by West Asian, Southwest Asian, and indigineous Southern Europeans. However, I agree to consider J2 and G2a subcaldes to be part of an Eastern Mediterranean/Southeast European element, as well as MtDNA haplogroups.

----------


## Wilhelm

By the way the northern strip of North-Africa is wrong, since Northern-Moroccans have 28% mediterranean, should be in the 20-30% range.

----------


## Alan

> Iraq was the only country missing in the data list from the Middle East, so it's good to know. Does the person you know from the Iraq-Iran border have a Dodecad number ? If not could you send me a PM with the admixtures percentages ?


I have sent you a PM.

----------


## oreo_cookie

Due to its geographic spread I would bet that with the Mediterranean component, it's not so much it has non-European elements to it but whatever that component is, obviously transcends continental boundaries and represents shared origin throughout, thus I'd bet this component is one of the oldest.

----------


## Knovas

Probably the oldest one, that's the main reason. West and East European are also quite widespread. Between the Nepalese for example you find more West and East European than Mediterranean, and the same happens between the Indians. It does not necesarily mean you must include non European influence.

For example, Catalans have very high Mediterranean, and the little haplogroup E it is obviously read as Northwest African. It means the low Eastern Mediterranen between them can't be atributted to E peoples, it must be atributed to some G2a's, J2's (possibly J2b) and perhaps R1b-L11.

The fact is Iberians are mainly Southwestern, so they have little to do with Eastern Mediterranean peoples. Of course, I guess we carry some Eastern Mediterranean/Southeast European, but surely the lowest in all Southern Europe. Without considering the fact there's very low West Asian and Southwest Asian in Iberia, wich makes this even less significant. Take your own conclusions.

----------


## Wilhelm

Well, we have some new information about this mysterious mediterranean component. Today Dienekes made an extra-polation with other project components (MDLP) using zombies (virtual people who are 100% one component) and the results for this Mediterranean component is surprising. The Celto-Germanic component of MDLP is, when translated to Dodecad mostly Mediterranean , and the other way around the Mediterranean of Dodecad is a mix of Celto-Germanic, Balto-Slavic, and Balkans-Anatolia

----------


## Knovas

The Mediterranean is possible to be read in different ways, like the latest Calculator shows. Seems clear that the SNP's choiced by Dienekes showed the Southwestern side, since it's the most dominant in Western Europe from South to North in the specific division. For this reason, I think admixture selected this variant before Southeastern. And also, because the last one needs to be broken down properly, and separated from Southwest Asian as clearly as possible.

For Western Europe the latest Euro7 Calculator gives a good idea, but as you go Eastern direction, more difficult is to make the interpretation. We'll see if the new Dodecad v4 gives a more clear idea, hoping it will be based on the same components.

----------


## MOESAN

> Interesting map!
> 
> I believe that the Mediterranean admixture in most folks in Asia & Africa is *not* from Europe!
> If it was from Europe, 'Northwest European admixture' was there in very high ammounts too!
> 
> I believe that the Mediterranean admixture in Asia is Semitic/Jewish and native to the Levant, since it's very high among the native people of the Levant, but Northwest-European-admixture is almost abscent there! So it's *not* from Europe!
> 
> I mean these 2 maps don't correlate with each other outside Europe!


why did they must correlate one with another? in every country it could have been a lot of different historic events and colonization, not?
this "mediterranean" admixture is partially linked, I suppose, to climate, plagues, and very influenced too by mothers absent from the Y-DNA surveys. HG's are statistically linked to others genes, biallelic, and it's interesting and very tempting trying to see linked repartitions in today populations (I do too) - but the very wide spread HG's did setlle a long time ago yet in very far countries and their bearers sometimes (not evreytime) mixed with populations and bearers of other non close Hg's - with time they could have acquirred a lot of "foreign" autosomals - I believe that I2a1 (old nom. sorry) could have taken some Western mediterranean traits as could do E1b-V78 - but I should be curious to know on what extensive samples are founded these studies, because some genes could have been in a very ancient shared part of the genome in some populations, even irrespective to present days geography an climate, and to old to tell something us at the scale of Proto-History. Somewhat, these "mediterranean" genes evoque for a part old autochtonous population of the LGM refuges West of Ukraina and Caucasus...
Aside of that, I red some surveys telling us that as a whole mt DNA was not so different between the whole populations of Mediterranée, West or East, included Near-Eastern ones, and that the gape is more between Near-Easterners and South Arabic regions. What do you think?

----------


## ElHorsto

> Due to its geographic spread I would bet that with the Mediterranean component, it's not so much it has non-European elements to it but whatever that component is, obviously transcends continental boundaries and represents shared origin throughout, thus I'd bet this component is one of the oldest.


Good thoughts. I think "Mediterranean admixture" genetically represents the epipalaeolithic Combe-Capelle (9500 y old) and partially even Cro-Magnons. I know that the traditional assumption is that those Palaeos mainly moved back to the north when the ice melted, such that today many North-West Europeans consider themselves to be descendants of Palaeolithic Europeans. I question that. Why should Palaeos move back completely? I think most of them have adapted to the mild climate of South Europe, while only few went back to the north. From skull finds we know that Cro-Magnon skull was not the only skull shape during palaeolithic, but also Combe-Capelle was very important, although it was just from the Epipalaeolithic (7600 BC) and possibly did not yet exist in europe before. Yet it could have merged with the earlier Cro-Magnons. Combe-Capelle is very different from Cro-Magnon skulls: It is long-faced, roundish and dolichocephalic, which as a basic type is the dominant type in many mediterranean countries: Portugal, Spain, Sardinia, Bulgaria. 

Pro-Arguments:

- The map for autosomal mediterranean admixture indicates an epicentre in western mediterranean, suggesting to be autochtonous for a long time, rather than being neolithic.

- The map shows wide and even diffusion of that cluster, even into neighbouring continents, suggesting to have had enough time for diffusion.

- Mediterranean cluster significantly extends to North-West Europe, a region that has been less covered by ice.

- No reason why to believe that those glacial refuge areas have been entirely abandoned by those refugees.

Conclusion: North-West-Europeans are a mix of "Mediterranean" (late Palaeolithic) and Indo-European "NW-European component" (probably carriers of R1b). BTW, the indo-europeans themselves might well have had a Cro-Magnoid look, according to Gimbutas.

----------


## anthropico

I think Mediterranean admixture, instead of West Asian (which is phenotypically mediterranean, too, but an "eastern" variant) has an older origin and in Europe was carried until early Neolithic.
In fact, Sardinia has the highest percentage of this admixture, and its people is known as an early neolithic people, with a high percentage of Mesolithic I2a1a and early Neolithic G2a haplogroups... and a lower percentage of Bronze Age J2 (typically West Asian admixture) than the rest of Italy.

----------


## sonici

Y-DNA is important for me, genetics are just physical features.

----------


## Moor

I'm southern Moroccan I have 25% Mediterranea according to the dodecad, the map shows 10-20% not accurate for my results.

----------


## Sile

Using Dodecad v3 still gives very good results

*My fathers results

Admix Results (sorted):*

*#*
*Population*
*Percent*

1
West_European
36.13

2
Mediterranean
34.25

3
West_Asian
12.56

4
East_European
9.04

5
Southwest_Asian
6.12

6
Northwest_African
1.17

7
Southeast_Asian
0.29

8
Palaeo_African
0.26

9
Neo_African
0.15

10
South_Asian
0.03



*Single Population Sharing:*

*#*
*Population (source)*
*Distance*

1
Tuscan (Henn)
8.78

2
Tuscan (Xing)
9.19

3
TSI (HapMap)
9.36

*4
*
*N_Italian (Dodecad)*
*10.78*

*5*
*O_Italian (Dodecad)*
*14.02*

*6*
*Portuguese (Dodecad)*
*15.51*

7
North_Italian (HGDP)
15.71

*8
*
*French (Dodecad)*
*16.12
*

9
French (HGDP)
16.22

10
Slovenian (Xing)
16.53

11
Tuscan (HGDP)
16.77

12
IBS (1000Genomes)
17.37

13
Spaniards (Behar)
17.68

*14
*
*Spanish (Dodecad)*
*17.92*

15
Romanians_14 (Behar)
18.49

16
Hungarians (Behar)
18.69

17
Ashkenazy_Jews (Behar)
18.97

18
CEU (HapMap)
19.04

*19
*
*C_Italian (Dodecad)*
*19.3*

20
N._European (Xing)
20.11



*Mixed Mode Population Sharing:*

*#*

*Primary Population (source)*
*Secondary Population (source)*
*Distance*

1

60.1%
 O_Italian (Dodecad)
 + 
39.9%
 German (Dodecad)
 @ 
2.14





and mine below
*Admix Results (sorted):*

*#*
*Population*
*Percent*

1
West_European
35.5

2
Mediterranean
33.55

3
West_Asian
13.97

4
East_European
9.92

5
Southwest_Asian
5.3

6
Northwest_African
1.5

7
Neo_African
0.09

8
Palaeo_African
0.09

9
South_Asian
0.07


 
*Single Population Sharing:*

*#*
*Population (source)*
*Distance*

1
Tuscan (Henn)
8.75

2
Tuscan (Xing)
8.9

3
TSI (HapMap)
9.16

*4
*
*N_Italian (Dodecad)*
*11.36*

*5*
*O_Italian (Dodecad)*
*13.93*

6
Slovenian (Xing)
15.81

7
North_Italian (HGDP)
16.41

*8
*
*Portuguese (Dodecad)*
*16.79*

9
Tuscan (HGDP)
16.9

10
French (HGDP)
17.19

*11
*
*French (Dodecad)*
*17.2*

12
Romanians_14 (Behar)
17.27

13
Hungarians (Behar)
17.92

14
Ashkenazy_Jews (Behar)
18.3

15
IBS (1000Genomes)
18.68

*16
*
*C_Italian (Dodecad)*
*19.03*

17
Spaniards (Behar)
19.06

*18
*
*Spanish (Dodecad)*
*19.27*

*19*
*Balkans (Dodecad)*
*19.37*

20
CEU (HapMap)
19.38


 
*Mixed Mode Population Sharing:*

*#*

*Primary Population (source)*
*Secondary Population (source)*
*Distance*

1

52.5%
 C_Italian (Dodecad)
 + 
47.5%
 German (Dodecad)
 @ 
1.35




I bolded the dodecad samples .................It seems by mothers influence added a bit more italian into me than what my father did

----------


## jgviv

Interesting difference

----------


## Dibran

Hey all. I don't really know how to interpret these results. Using dodecad v3 these were my results(btw I am Albanian):

Admix Results (sorted):

#	Population	Percent
1	Mediterranean	38.16
2	West_European	25.04
3	West_Asian	20.54
4	East_European	8.96
5	Southwest_Asian	5.87
6	Northwest_African	1.28
7	Northeast_Asian	0.15

Single Population Sharing:

#	Population (source)	Distance
1	Tuscan (Xing)	6.18
2	O_Italian (Dodecad)	6.61
3	TSI (HapMap)	7.07
4	Tuscan (Henn)	7.1
5	C_Italian (Dodecad)	8.78
6	Ashkenazy_Jews (Behar)	10.11
7	Tuscan (HGDP)	10.53
8	Ashkenazi (Dodecad)	10.83
9	N_Italian (Dodecad)	12.48
10	Greek (Dodecad)	12.84
11	S_Italian_Sicilian (Dodecad)	13.1
12	Sicilian (Dodecad)	14.52
13	Romanians_14 (Behar)	14.82
14	S_Italian (Dodecad)	16.01
15	North_Italian (HGDP)	16.08
16	Morocco_Jews (Behar)	16.66
17	Sephardic_Jews (Behar)	18.98
18	Balkans (Dodecad)	19.86
19	Portuguese (Dodecad)	22.6
20	Sardinian (HGDP)	23.16

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source)	Secondary Population (source)	Distance
1 67%	S_Italian (Dodecad)	+	33%	German (Dodecad)	@	1.77
2 77.6%	Greek (Dodecad)	+	22.4%	Irish (Dodecad)	@	1.77
3 76.5%	Greek (Dodecad)	+	23.5%	Cornwall (1000 Genomes)	@	1.83
4 76.4%	Greek (Dodecad)	+	23.6%	British (Dodecad)	@	1.84
5 76.5%	Greek (Dodecad)	+	23.5%	British_Isles (Dodecad)	@	1.92
6 74.7%	Greek (Dodecad)	+	25.3%	Dutch (Dodecad)	@	1.99
7 75.6%	Greek (Dodecad)	+	24.4%	Kent (1000 Genomes)	@	2
8 74.1%	Greek (Dodecad)	+	25.9%	Mixed_Germanic (Dodecad)	@	2.1
9 85.7%	C_Italian (Dodecad)	+	14.3%	Finnish (Dodecad)	@	2.11
10 74.2%	C_Italian (Dodecad)	+	25.8%	Slovenian (Xing)	@	2.23
11 65.5%	S_Italian_Sicilian (Dodecad)	+	34.5%	Slovenian (Xing)	@	2.5
12 65.6%	Tuscan (Henn)	+	34.4%	Greek (Dodecad)	@	2.65
13 65.8%	TSI (HapMap)	+	34.2%	Greek (Dodecad)	@	2.67
14 78.8%	Greek (Dodecad)	+	21.2%	Norwegian (Dodecad)	@	2.72
15 75%	C_Italian (Dodecad)	+	25%	Hungarians (Behar)	@	2.73
16 60.7%	S_Italian (Dodecad)	+	39.3%	Slovenian (Xing)	@	2.73
17 85%	C_Italian (Dodecad)	+	15%	FIN (1000Genomes)	@	2.73
18 71.6%	S_Italian_Sicilian (Dodecad)	+	28.4%	German (Dodecad)	@	2.81
19 70.9%	O_Italian (Dodecad)	+	29.1%	Romanians_14 (Behar)	@	2.83
20 69.3%	Sicilian (Dodecad)	+	30.7%	German (Dodecad)	@	2.88

----------


## Azzurro

My admixture results

Half Lucanian and Half Sicilian

*#**Population**Percent
*1 Mediterranean 37.71
2 West_Asian 21.34
3 West_European 20.93
4 Southwest_Asian 11.22
5 East_European 3.79
6 Northwest_African 3.51
7 Neo_African 0.59
8 Palaeo_African 0.47
9 East_African 0.44

This test of Dodecad for me is the least accurate in terms of population mixes.

----------


## Alan

> My admixture results
> 
> Half Lucanian and Half Sicilian
> 
> *#**Population**Percent
> *1 Mediterranean 37.71
> 2 West_Asian 21.34
> 3 West_European 20.93
> 4 Southwest_Asian 11.22
> ...


This calculator is quite outdated and predates anything we have found out with ancient data so far.

----------


## Azzurro

> This calculator is quite outdated and predates anything we have found out with ancient data so far.


Makes sense, this test for me was the most way off in terms of oracle 4, which one is the most updated?

----------


## Joey D

*#*
*Population*
*Percent*

1
Mediterranean
34.3

2
West_Asian
27.99

3
West_European
17.68

4
Southwest_Asian
10.69

5
East_European
4.81

6
Northwest_African
2.81

7
Neo_African
0.63



*#*
*Population (source)*
*Distance*

1
Ashkenazi (Dodecad)
4.18

2
Ashkenazy_Jews (Behar)
4.76

3
Morocco_Jews (Behar)
8.54

4
S_Italian_Sicilian (Dodecad)
10.48

5
C_Italian (Dodecad)
12.04

6
S_Italian (Dodecad)
12.88

7
Greek (Dodecad)
12.91

8
Sicilian (Dodecad)
12.95

9
Sephardic_Jews (Behar)
13.39

10
O_Italian (Dodecad)
13.9

11
Tuscan (Xing)
14.08

12
TSI (HapMap)
14.85

13
Tuscan (Henn)
15.02

14
Turkish (Dodecad)
16.7

15
Tuscan (HGDP)
18.17



Using 4 populations approximation:
1 Armenians_16 + Sephardic_Jews + Sephardic_Jews + N._European @ 1.849716
2 Armenians_16 + German + Sephardic_Jews + Sephardic_Jews @ 1.861409
3 Armenian + German + Sephardic_Jews + Sephardic_Jews @ 1.941576
4 Armenian + Sephardic_Jews + Sephardic_Jews + N._European @ 2.018164
5 Armenian + Sephardic_Jews + Sephardic_Jews + Argyll @ 2.155078
6 Armenians_16 + CEU + Sephardic_Jews + Sephardic_Jews @ 2.175092
7 Armenians_16 + Sephardic_Jews + Sephardic_Jews + Argyll @ 2.201028
8 Ashkenazi + Morocco_Jews + TSI + Turkish @ 2.229323
9 Ashkenazy_Jews + Morocco_Jews + TSI + Turkish @ 2.257721
10 Armenian + CEU + Sephardic_Jews + Sephardic_Jews @ 2.264643
11 Ashkenazi + Morocco_Jews + Turkish + Tuscan @ 2.338351
12 Ashkenazy_Jews + Ashkenazy_Jews + Assyrian + N_Italian @ 2.338849
13 Armenians_16 + Orcadian + Sephardic_Jews + Sephardic_Jews @ 2.367444
14 Armenian + French + Greek + Palestinian @ 2.371409
15 Armenians_16 + Orkney + Sephardic_Jews + Sephardic_Jews @ 2.373824
16 Ashkenazi + Morocco_Jews + Turkish + Tuscan @ 2.385565
17 Ashkenazy_Jews + Morocco_Jews + Turkish + Tuscan @ 2.392817
18 Cypriots + French + Morocco_Jews + Turks @ 2.426138
19 Ashkenazy_Jews + Morocco_Jews + Turkish + Tuscan @ 2.441977
20 Armenian + Orcadian + Sephardic_Jews + Sephardic_Jews @ 2.443026

----------


## Angela

> *#*
> *Population*
> *Percent*
> 
> 1
> Mediterranean
> 34.3
> 
> 2
> ...


Now that you've done so many, which one gives you the best fits?

----------


## New Englander

Admix Results (sorted):


#	Population	Percent
1	Mediterranean	31.37
2	West_European	24.81
3	West_Asian	22.11
4	Southwest_Asian	10.52
5	East_European	8.11
6	Northwest_African	1.54
7	South_Asian	1.15




Finished reading population data. 227 populations found.
12 components mode.


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


Least-squares method.


Using 1 population approximation:
1 Ashkenazy_Jews @ 7.046566
2 Ashkenazi @ 8.798317
3 Tuscan @ 9.340907
4 Tuscan @ 10.314009
5 TSI @ 10.633063
6 O_Italian @ 13.250822
7 C_Italian @ 15.191481
8 Morocco_Jews @ 15.911724
9 S_Italian_Sicilian @ 17.478785
10 Romanians_14 @ 18.492083
11 Greek @ 18.493767
12 Tuscan @ 18.780405
13 Sicilian @ 19.891289
14 N_Italian @ 20.192476
15 S_Italian @ 21.152630
16 Sephardic_Jews @ 21.979015
17 Balkans @ 23.479164
18 North_Italian @ 24.715025
19 Stalskoe @ 25.281397
20 Turkish @ 26.534128


Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Cypriots +50% N._European @ 4.026691




Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Greek +25% Norwegian +25% Syrians @ 1.747165




Using 4 populations approximation:
1 Cypriots + French + Georgia_Jews + Slovenian @ 1.032320
2 Georgia_Jews + Mixed_Germanic + Romanians_14 + Sephardic_Jews @ 1.092663
3 Georgia_Jews + Kent + Romanians_14 + Sephardic_Jews @ 1.094614
4 Dutch + Georgia_Jews + Romanians_14 + Sephardic_Jews @ 1.101209
5 Cypriots + French + Georgia_Jews + Slovenian @ 1.140119
6 Iraq_Jews + Tuscan + Slovenian + Tuscan @ 1.186475
7 Balkans + Cornwall + Iraq_Jews + Sephardic_Jews @ 1.239372
8 Iraq_Jews + Slovenian + Tuscan + Tuscan @ 1.277937
9 Balkans + Iraq_Jews + Kent + Sephardic_Jews @ 1.282583
10 British_Isles + Iraq_Jews + Romanians_14 + Sephardic_Jews @ 1.292782
11 Iraq_Jews + Tuscan + Tuscan + Slovenian @ 1.318040
12 Ashkenazi + French + Georgia_Jews + Romanians_14 @ 1.335380
13 Balkans + British + Iraq_Jews + Sephardic_Jews @ 1.339466
14 British_Isles + Georgia_Jews + Romanians_14 + Sephardic_Jews @ 1.340084
15 British + Georgia_Jews + Romanians_14 + Sephardic_Jews @ 1.387007
16 Balkans + British_Isles + Iraq_Jews + Sephardic_Jews @ 1.419597
17 Iraq_Jews + TSI + Slovenian + Tuscan @ 1.432325
18 Cornwall + Georgia_Jews + Romanians_14 + Sephardic_Jews @ 1.443631
19 Ashkenazy_Jews + French + Georgia_Jews + Romanians_14 @ 1.449065
20 Balkans + Dutch + Iraq_Jews + Sephardic_Jews @ 1.454222

----------


## Joey D

> Now that you've done so many, which one gives you the best fits?


I've got no idea.

----------


## Angela

> I've got no idea.


Well, if you're interested, and you've saved the results, just check for the lowest Oracle number for your actual ancestry. 

For example, in this run, your accuracy of "fit" number for Sicilian is 12.95. South Italian isn't much better. Now, Italians almost never get fits under 1 like some northern Europeans get, but the calculators should be able to do better than this.

FWIW, the best for me is MDLP, for the simple reason that it has numerous Northern Italian and Tuscan samples.

----------


## Joey D

> Well, if you're interested, and you've saved the results, just check for the lowest Oracle number for your actual ancestry. 
> 
> For example, in this run, your accuracy of "fit" number for Sicilian is 12.95. South Italian isn't much better. Now, Italians almost never get fits under 1 like some northern Europeans get, but the calculators should be able to do better than this.
> 
> FWIW, the best for me is MDLP, for the simple reason that it has numerous Northern Italian and Tuscan samples.


So am I looking for the one which has the smallest number match to Sicilian on a single population?

----------


## Angela

> So am I looking for the one which has the smallest number match to Sicilian on a single population?


Well, that's what I do...

For example, on this Dodecad run my best score is the N_Italian Dodecad group at 6.7. On MDLP 23b I get Piemonte at 4.7. The World 22 is worse.

I should add that MDLP isn't good for my husband at all, who is Southern Italian.

For him, I think I remember that Eurogenes K13 wasn't bad, and it wasn't terrible for me either. I think it was around 5 for both North Italian and Tuscan, which reflects my actual ancestry, which on other tests shows that I'm right between Bergamo and Firenze, leaning slightly toward Bergamo. 

All this variation is one reason why I don't take these calculators all that seriously.

----------


## Joey D

My Dodecad 12b results look pretty close to the mark:

Caucasus
37.67

Atlantic_Med
25.61

North_European
13.81

Southwest_Asian
10.26

Gedrosia
7.38

Northwest_African
3.67

East_African
1.13

Sub_Saharan
0.45




Single Population:
1
Ashkenazy_Jews (Behar)
5.36

2
S_Italian_Sicilian (Dodecad)
5.47

3
Sicilian (Dodecad)
5.56

4
Ashkenazi (Dodecad)
6.29

5
Greek (Dodecad)
7.95

6
Sephardic_Jews (Behar)
9.52

7
C_Italian (Dodecad)
10.89

8
Morocco_Jews (Behar)
12.75

9
O_Italian (Dodecad)
13.7

10
Tuscan (HGDP)
14.8




Using 4 populations approximation:
1 Abhkasians + North_Italian + Portuguese + Samaritians @ 1.351221
2 Abhkasians + Castilla_Y_Leon + N_Italian + Samaritians @ 1.517337
3 Abhkasians + Extremadura + North_Italian + Samaritians @ 1.523689
4 Abhkasians + Canarias + North_Italian + Samaritians @ 1.583644
5 Abhkasians + Castilla_Y_Leon + North_Italian + Samaritians @ 1.618618
6 Armenian + Bulgarians + Canarias + Cypriots @ 1.631697
7 Abhkasians + Galicia + North_Italian + Samaritians @ 1.683491
8 Abhkasians + Murcia + N_Italian + Samaritians @ 1.713063
9 Abhkasians + Canarias + N_Italian + Samaritians @ 1.717037
10 Armenians + Morocco_Jews + O_Italian + O_Italian @ 1.732806

That first 4 population mix is one of the lower numbers I return, if not the lowest.

Mind you, I had to look up what Abhkasian and Samaritian were! (which I take to be estimates of what is getting picked up from the Caucasus and Levant).

----------


## Joey D

According to Wikipedia, only 777 Samaritans remain alive (which I assume is the same as Samaritian).

----------


## Angela

> My Dodecad 12b results look pretty close to the mark:
> 
> Caucasus
> 37.67
> 
> Atlantic_Med
> 25.61
> 
> North_European
> ...


Thanks. I was interested to see if after all these years the Dodecad K12b was still among the best for Southern Italians, and I guess it is. It's good for my husband too.

For him too his closest matches are Ashkenazim, Greeks, and only then Central Italians.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Using 1 population approximation:
> *1 Ashkenazy_Jews @ 7.046566*


Your first result is very distant. I guess that you're not fully Ashkenazy.

----------


## Angela

Those results are strange altogether. I've never seen Ashkenazim score near Tuscans, or the Tuscan groups separated that way. They always appear as a cluster. Sicilians are never anywhere near Northern Italians either. As I said, there's always Ashkenazim, Greeks, then maybe Central Italians, and Northern Italians at a far remove.

----------


## New Englander

Im 50% Campanian from Naples and Avellino, last name is Salerno (Y-DNA R1b-U152)

25% Scottish-English from New Brunswick (Mt-DNA J1c8)

12.5% Ashkenazim (Lithuania) 

12.5% Sephardim (Istanbul) 

Thats why my results are so strange.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Those results are strange altogether. I've never seen Ashkenazim score near Tuscans, or the Tuscan groups separated that way. They always appear as a cluster. Sicilians are never anywhere near Northern Italians either. As I said, there's always Ashkenazim, Greeks, then maybe Central Italians, and Northern Italians at a far remove.



That's even more strange, how many Tuscan samples are there in this calculator? I count 4. 

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Ashkenazy_Jews @ 7.046566
2 Ashkenazi @ 8.798317
*3 Tuscan @ 9.340907
4 Tuscan @ 10.314009
5 TSI @ 10.633063*
6 O_Italian @ 13.250822
7 C_Italian @ 15.191481
8 Morocco_Jews @ 15.911724
9 S_Italian_Sicilian @ 17.478785
10 Romanians_14 @ 18.492083
11 Greek @ 18.493767
*12 Tuscan @ 18.780405*
13 Sicilian @ 19.891289
14 N_Italian @ 20.192476
15 S_Italian @ 21.152630
16 Sephardic_Jews @ 21.979015
17 Balkans @ 23.479164
18 North_Italian @ 24.715025
19 Stalskoe @ 25.281397
20 Turkish @ 26.534128




> Im 50% Campanian from Naples and Avellino, last name is Salerno (Y-DNA R1b-U152)
> 
> 25% Scottish-English from New Brunswick (Mt-DNA J1c8)
> 
> 12.5% Ashkenazim (Lithuania) 
> 
> 12.5% Sephardim (Istanbul) 
> 
> Thats why my results are so strange.



Indeed.

----------


## Angela

Well, admixed people certainly don't get "standard" results, but what usually happens is that you get totally "wrong" results that are a sort of genetic midpoint but have nothing to do with you. 

Someone I share with who is 1/4 Northern Italian, 1/4 Ashkenazi and 1/2 British comes out as various northern Balkan nationalities or Central Europeans as the best fits. Someone half Chinese and half British might come up as Uigher, as another example. I've known half Sicilian/half Irish people come out as Northern Italian.

In your case, as you're half Neapolitan plus some Jewish mix I could see you come out as southern Italian maybe or Ashkenazi, but it seems odd that Tuscans would be so high on your list. Plus, why would the Tuscans be separated? 

Still, those are the results apparently. As I said to Joey, I don't take these calculator results too much to heart, other than that they seem to get me "generally" right.

@Pax Augusta,
I only remember there being three Tuscan samples, but I'm wrong, obviously.

----------


## Sile

> That's even more strange, how many Tuscan samples are there in this calculator? I count 4. 
> 
> Using 1 population approximation:
> 1 Ashkenazy_Jews @ 7.046566
> 2 Ashkenazi @ 8.798317
> *3 Tuscan @ 9.340907
> 4 Tuscan @ 10.314009
> 5 TSI @ 10.633063*
> 6 O_Italian @ 13.250822
> ...


I get in this old tester.............N_Italian followed by O_Italian

*Dodecad ProjectJune 22, 2011 at 1:34 AM
*
*O_Italian is Other Italian, and that is all due to a single individual that I am waiting to hear from to see whether he/she has any explanation for these results. I will also carry another data cleanup once I'm done with this, to detect submitted relatives or outliers that likely misreported their ancestry. This is part of the reason why I am not reporting raw averages at this time, as I have not cleaned up all the latest submissions.

Part of the (to be continued) involves visually inspecting the population portraits to catch outliers such as the one contributing the "Northeast Asian" in the O_Italian sample.

*Using Eurogenes K13 ..........O_Italian for me is Moldovian ( it could have been austrian, slovenian etc )
Using this program
Using 1 population approximation:
1 North_Italian @ 6.561348
2 Tuscan @ 10.774459
3 Romanian @ 11.652096
4 Portuguese @ 12.593212
5 Bulgarian @ 12.972255
6 Serbian @ 13.157703

Using 4 populations approximation:
1 Moldavian + North_Italian + North_Italian + North_Italian @ 0.846187


Eurogenes K13 is an upgrade from Dodecad k12b (below)
Using 1 population approximation:
1 N_Italian @ 7.232117
2 O_Italian @ 10.282262
3 North_Italian @ 10.633726
4 TSI30 @ 12.199794
5 Tuscan @ 13.774434
6 C_Italian @ 16.037565
7 Romanians @ 16.207996
8 Baleares @ 16.422617
9 Galicia @ 17.024021
10 Bulgarian @ 17.031006

Although Dodecad was once good it has fallen away badly ...........best id Mdlp k23 ..............or his new ones K16 ( modern ) and K11 ( ancient )

----------


## Joey D

^ I was wondering what O_Italian meant (to be honest, I'm not sure I still understand what it means).

----------


## New Englander

Well personally I find it very odd I would match Jews, and then Tuscan, and than be so far off from South Italians. Jews are usually very Similar to Sicilians, and on most tests I get Greek, or Sicily or Abruzzo as result number 1.

I mean Moroccan Jew before North and South Italian, and in the middle of the Tuscan scores lol.

----------


## Joey D

Does anyone know why Ashkenazi Jews plot so closely to Sicilians and Maltese?

It's true that Sicily had a significant Jewish population up to 1492, but it would only have been about 8% of the population at the most.

We must be talking about something which goes back into pre-history.

Anyone have any theories?

----------


## Pax Augusta

> @Pax Augusta,
> I only remember there being three Tuscan samples, but I'm wrong, obviously.


I've checked, I did not remember, but actually there are four Tuscan sample in Dodecad v3:

1) Tuscan (HGDP) the southern Tuscan sample from Stanford
2) Tuscan (HapMap) the HapMap3/1000 genomes sample who used the 3 out of 4 grandparents were born in Tuscany rule. A huge sample but likely with a significant number of outliers.
3) Tuscan (Henn) a subset of Tuscan (HapMap), 25% of the original sample
4) Tuscan (Xing) a subset of Tuscan (HapMap), 25% of the original sample

Practically the real sampe are two, HGDP and HapMap.





> Well personally I find it very odd i would match Jews, and then Tuscan, and than be so far off from South Italians. .


These three are likely HapMap, Henn, Xing (all basically the same sample)

3 Tuscan @ 9.340907
4 Tuscan @ 10.314009
5 TSI @ 10.633063

while this is likely HGDP

12 Tuscan @ 18.780405

Actually you match as second, but at a very significant distance, with Tuscan (HapMap) but not with Tuscan (HGDP) which remains separate and even more distant. Very odd as well.

----------


## New Englander

Well I figure I am matching Tuscan based off my Western European score, while I am matching Ashkenazim based on my West Asian, and South West Asian scores. I have far too much West European for a Southern Italian, but at the same time, I have far too much Middle Eastern for a Tuscan. That, along with my lower Med scores, I pull towards Ashkenazim, a bit more than Sicilians, but still farther from Northern Italians. 

I would think I would have matched a Campanian, or Abruzzo sample if there were one. 

If I did not have the Scottish ancestry, I think I would plot between Sicilians and Cypriots.

----------


## Angela

The HGDP samples were chosen by Cavalli-Sforza, and I think he chose to sample in southern Tuscany because he wanted samples from the more heavily "Etruscan" areas.

The rest of the Tuscan samples are confusing in terms of the source because of variable labeling. On K12b Dienekes uses that Tuscans(HGDP) sample, and then a TSI30 sample. He doesn't label the source for TSI as HapMap. He labels the source as Metspalu. I'm much closer in terms of fit to the TSI sample than to the Tuscan sample.

On the dv3 that's the subject of this thread, he uses all four Tuscan samples and labels TSI as Hap Map. Again, I'm closest to that sample. The other three are HGDP, Henn, Zing in that order. They all cluster in one group. The samples are labeled in terms of source, so New Englander should know the order.

I think you're right that really there are only 2 samples: HGDP from southern Tuscany, and TSI Hap Map, which I believe was taken from a village northeast of Firenze. Henn and Zing are just subsets of Hap Map.

I also looked at the population averages for a few of the calculators, and the TSI group is often 2 or 3 points less "Caucasus", for example, than HGDP. The Italian cline is always there, even within an individual province. 

Dienekes really knew what he was doing. Too bad he lost interest.

----------


## New Englander

As far as the map goes, how do we know things have not been screwed due to migration northwards from the South, as well as depopulation during the North American Migration. Meaning, those "Tuscan" samples might be from further south, just not as far south as Calabria.

----------


## srdceleva

my fathers as a full slovak is 19.92 % med, but i would expect my dad to have elevated med just based on his appearance, I do think the wallachian influence in slovakia could have elevated this trait.

----------


## Angela

> As far as the map goes, how do we know things have not been screwed due to migration northwards from the South, as well as depopulation during the North American Migration. Meaning, those "Tuscan" samples might be from further south, just not as far south as Calabria.


All academic samples are checked to make sure that all four or at least three out of four grandparents are "local". If the sample was collected twenty years ago, for example, and the person was forty years old at the time, and all four grandparents were Tuscan, that takes you back before the time of the migrations north. That's why these results can be trusted, unlike random people who just post results on some site or other, which is what a lot of people used to do on 23andme, for example.

The thing about these "calculator" results is that it only approximates accuracy for those people whose ancestors are from one place for the last couple of hundreds of years. They're not very useful at all for admixed people, in my opinion, or adoptees, for example, who make up a lot of the market for these tests. If a customer doesn't already have a really good handle on their genealogical tree, these calculators are not going to provide the kind of clarity that people want.

----------


## New Englander

Thank you for the explanation. I find the members on this forum to be very informative, and kind. 

I honestly did not know where any of these samples come from. As far as I know, its just people putting stats together in there free time. If these are peer reviewed, Collegiate studies and data, what programs and what Schools are known for this type of research?

----------


## Angela

The HGDP samples were collected by Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, who I believe could be called the "father of population genetics". He collected them for Stanford University. A lot of really wonderful work is being done at the Broad Institute at Harvard, home of David Reich, Patterson, and Lazaridis. Haak is another respected researcher, and Allentoft, and the people at the Max Plank Institute and the Estonian BioCenter, and on and on.

There are also bloggers, the people who created the calculators people use at gedmatch. They use the statistical programs created by these scientists, and the samples collected by them as well. Dienekes was the first of them and really got the ball rolling. (He actually also collected some samples himself. I'm one of them.)

One general rule of thumb in terms of these calculators is that the more samples they have from your "country", the better your match will be, especially in a country like Italy. Some very interesting calculators have been created by a Kurd, whose work and transparency I respect, but they're pretty useless for half of Italy, because he only has some southern Italian samples. He has me coming out variously as Bulgarian and then Albanian. Pretty useless for some adoptee of Northern Italian ancestry, for example, searching for his ancestry, as I'm sure you can see.

----------


## srdceleva

> All academic samples are checked to make sure that all four or at least three out of four grandparents are "local". If the sample was collected twenty years ago, for example, and the person was forty years old at the time, and all four grandparents were Tuscan, that takes you back before the time of the migrations north. That's why these results can be trusted, unlike random people who just post results on some site or other, which is what a lot of people used to do on 23andme, for example.
> 
> The thing about these "calculator" results is that it only approximates accuracy for those people whose ancestors are from one place for the last couple of hundreds of years. They're not very useful at all for admixed people, in my opinion, or adoptees, for example, who make up a lot of the market for these tests. If a customer doesn't already have a really good handle on their genealogical tree, these calculators are not going to provide the kind of clarity that people want.


Do you really think using people with 3/4 grandparents from a certain region, is a very scientific way of collecting data? I already see some quite critical changes in admixture from my father whose four grand parents were all from the same region and myself whose 3 grandparents are from one region. I personally wouldn't trust any study that didn't use samples that has proven all four grandparents were from one region or country.

----------


## Angela

> Do you really think using people with 3/4 grandparents from a certain region, is a very scientific way of collecting data? I already see some quite critical changes in admixture from my father whose four grand parents were all from the same region and myself whose 3 grandparents are from one region. I personally wouldn't trust any study that didn't use samples that has proven all four grandparents were from one region or country.


I basically agree. Most academic papers do use the all 4 grandparents from one area rule, however. Academicians like Boattini use a surname filter as well, which is helpful in Italy because some surnames are indeed strongly localized. 

In addition, most academicians "prune" their samples. It's sort of what 23andme does, which obviously can't check the assertions of their testees in the real world as to their ancestry when creating their reference samples. You can analyze the samples from a specific area as a group. Any outliers are probably going to stick out. Dienekes did something similar when he created the category "Other Italian". My recollection is that it was supposed to be a group of "Italians" from neighboring countries. (Could someone confirm or correct that?) The problem with it was, as he explained, that one of the samples in it had an unusual North East European score and so it's a questionable grouping which he didn't always use.

----------


## Sile

> Does anyone know why Ashkenazi Jews plot so closely to Sicilians and Maltese?
> 
> It's true that Sicily had a significant Jewish population up to 1492, but it would only have been about 8% of the population at the most.
> 
> We must be talking about something which goes back into pre-history.
> 
> Anyone have any theories?


If the program has no sephatic jews, then Sicilians and maltese received many of these jews from 1480 onwards....usually from Valencia and Cadiz ...........or via spanish held Oman

oops meant Oran

----------


## Angela

> If the program has no sephatic jews, then Sicilians and maltese received many of these jews from 1480 onwards....usually from Valencia and Cadiz ...........or via spanish held Oman


Could you please provide the academic sources for this?

----------


## New Englander

From what I learned on Anthroscape.

Due to pre history Neolithic as well as Roman influence from around the Eastern Med, South Italy averages out to that of a mid point between Parts of the Middle East and Europe. 

As far as Jews go, they are a mix of modern (past 2000 years) East Med populations (about 60%), Pre-slav Greeks (about 30%), and Central/Western Europe. 

Most of the direct ancestry between Ashkenazim and Italians is from the Neolithic, and not a result of recent mixture. The rest comes from mixing with similar yet, unrelated NW Europeans.

Of course there has been intermarriage between Jews and Italians in the past 1000 years or so, but its not significant enough to mean anything.

----------


## Angela

> no thanks
> 
> I do not trust you ..............like the fabricated warnings you recently gave me...........I cannot find them


Excuse me? 

In terms of trust, when posters refuse to provide cites to support their assertions then we know we can't "trust" the validity of the assertion. We have a lot of readers here, and I think they can be "trusted" to read sources and see if they support the assertions another poster has made. 

One more insult and you'll get an infraction, and I'll give you one infraction for every insult you utter. I'm tired of different rules being applied to you because you've been here for so long.

If you can't conduct yourself in a civil, manner, don't post.

----------


## Angela

> From what I learned on Anthroscape.
> 
> Due to pre history Neolithic as well as Roman influence from around the Eastern Med. South Italy averages out to that of a mid point between Parts of the Middle East and Europe. 
> 
> As far as Jews go, they are a mix of modern (past 2000 years) East Med populations (about 60%), Pre-slav Greeks (about 30%), and Central/Western Europe. 
> 
> Most of the direct ancestry between Ashkenazim and Italians are from the Neolithic, and not a result of recent mixture. The rest comes from mixing with similar yet, unrelated NW Europeans.
> 
> Of course there has been intermarriage between Jews and Italians in the past 1000 years or so, but its not significant enough to mean anything.


I personally wouldn't put much credence on things posted on anthroscape. 

We've had a lot of discussions here on Ashkenazi ethnogenesis. My advice would be to just use the search engine, concentrating on the most recent threads. Bottom line, no one knows precisely what happened, other than that they've been bottlenecked since sometime around 1000 BC. 

Southern Italian ethnogenesis is still a bit of a mystery too, in my opinion, and will be until we get lots of ancient dna from there. Even then it might be difficult: how can you tell if the remains are from merchants, slaves who didn't procreate, etc. or from people who actually did contribute to the mix? It has to be interpreted carefully. 

My own personal theory is that southern Italians plot differently from mainland Greeks, as one example, because they have about 4% North African in some areas (less in others) which probably arrived during the Muslim domination.

----------


## Angela

Oh, I posted this on another thread, but in case you don't see it there. 

This is a spreadsheet for both ancient and modern genomes. The breakdown of the Italian samples is very interesting, especially in comparison, for example, to the mainland Greek and Ashkenazi samples. You can see why the Ashkenazi might plot close to southern Italians, but you can also see the differences in terms of ancient gene flows. Very interesting. There's lots of interesting stuff in there: Remedello, Otzi, the various Neolithic groups, Anatolia Chalcolithic showing CHG had already arrived along with some EHG etc. The Spanish samples are very variable, but generally speaking perhaps one could say the Iran Neolithic and CHG numbers, and the higher North African numbers are offset by their Loschbour numbers.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...gid=1880196592

----------


## New Englander

Well Its hard to put into words because all the moving pieces and little details. But, I think Jews were originally a Kurdish like population, maybe with a bit more South West Asian opposed to South Asian. 

Than they mixed over the span of the first 1000 years with Greeks, Romans, Gauls, and Central European groups until they became a intermediate group between Europe and the MENA. They then became isolated and inbred, possible screwing genetic tests as well as dominant and recessive traits. 

Italians on the other hand, were mostly Neolithic farmer (Sardinian like), and took in a large amound of MENA during pre history. They than absorbed a large amount of Celtic Germanic linage over the last 1000 year or so.

This is just my general understanding at the moment. 

Something I feel like may have been a large factor in the present populations, is the Black Death. Huge amounts of populations were lost, genetic variability may have been decreased due to re population, and the genetic variables of surviving the plague. Also, Population movements may have effected Haplogroup distributions as well. 

I think the Black Death screwed everything we understand about Haplogroups and population in the last 700 years.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Italians on the other hand, were mostly Neolithic farmer (Sardinian like), and took in a large amound of MENA during pre history. They than absorbed a large amount of Celtic Germanic linage over the last 1000 year or so.
> 
> This is just my general understanding at the moment.


Indo-European migrations to Italy date back to the Bronze Age.

----------


## New Englander

There should be some kind of timeline/map. I guess there is the Haplogroup one, but Im talking about Autosomal oriented. 

So would it be correct to state:

_Italians on the other hand, were mostly Neolithic farmer (Sardinian like), MIXED WITH THE INDO EUROPEAN ITALICS, THAN took in a large amount of MENA during pre history. They than absorbed a large amount of Celtic Germanic linage over the last 1000 year or so mostly in the north._

----------


## Sile

> Does anyone know why Ashkenazi Jews plot so closely to Sicilians and Maltese?
> 
> It's true that Sicily had a significant Jewish population up to 1492, but it would only have been about 8% of the population at the most.
> 
> We must be talking about something which goes back into pre-history.
> 
> Anyone have any theories?


maybe you should try this site


http://www.sephardicstudies.org/entrance.html

the law below to remove Sephatic jews from Spain

http://www.sephardicstudies.org/decree.html

----------


## Angela

> Indo-European migrations to Italy date back to the Bronze Age.


Indeed. I've taken the position in the past that the Lombard contribution is limited and mostly a factor in northeastern Italy, Lombardia etc. My opinion was in large part based on the low frequency and the distribution of U106 and I1 in Italy as well as the history and archaeology of those regions and time periods. 

I'm a bit less sure now. I want to see the yDna of the Lombards not only from the earliest arrival periods in Italy but from the "staging" eras in central-eastern Europe. Could they have already had some U152 L2, for example? I don't know. Hopefully we'll soon see. I also want to see yDna from the Gauls/Celts, and down to the subclade level. Only then will we know what the Gauls carried versus the Italics who arrived so much earlier. 

@ New Englander, I don't even know what MENA means in the way that anthrofora people use it. Is Barcin Neolithic MENA? How about CHG? What about any Caucasus people who might have traveled across Anatolia to get to southeastern Europe in the late Neolithic or Copper Age or Bronze Age? Is it only people who arrived in the last 2,000 years? How would we be able to tell without ancient dna to help in the interpretation since all of these groups are just the same old ancestral groups in different combinations? Even today, Near Eastern people from the Caucasus or Turkey or even the Levant have some Barcin, although in lower proportions than southern Europeans, and Kotias in significant numbers(CHG), as well as lots of Iran Neolithic and some Karelia. How do we figure out who brought what and how much and when without ancient dna, ancient dna which we don't yet have from Italy?

Also, why is this issue only discussed with regard to Italians? 

Just take a look at these percentages from the spreadsheet to which I linked above:

Southern Italians:
Loschbour-.3
Barcin Anatolian Neolithic - 46.7
Esperstadt Middle Neolithic-15.2
Karelia (EHG) 8.2
Kotias (CHG) 10.8
Mozabite 3.4
Iran Neolithic 13.2

Greek northern mainland (the islands would definitely be different, and perhaps even the Peloponnese if other studies are any guide.)
Loschbour .1
Barcin 29.3
Esperstadt MN 35.5
Karelia 11.9
Kotias 18.7
Mozabite 0
Iran Neolithic 4.4

So, when you balance it all out this Thessaly sample is about 5-6 points less "southern" than the Southern Italians and half of that is attributable to the "Mozabite" number (3.4) I think a very large factor is the fact that Greece was affected by the Slavic invasions, and southern Italy was not. 

As to some of these specific clusters, and if we can "date" their arrival in Italy, if you go to the spreadsheet again and look at the Barcin Neolithic data, 10/19 samples already had "Mozabite", from .4 to 6.2. Copper Age Otzi already had 5.6 Kotias, 5.5 Mozabite, 1.3 Iran Neolithic, and 8.9 Natufian. Now, is that a holdover from the Early Neolithic perhaps Cardial migrations, or is it from Copper Age migrations into the Balkans bringing metallurgy and then or at the same time moving into southern Italy? If it's the former, especially, some of that 3.4% Mozabite might just show up because their Barcin number is so high in comparison to what other people get (46.7). Iberian Neolithic also gets some "Mozabite" if you check. On the other hand, some of it is undoubtedly from the Saracens. 

Iran Neolithic is another interesting one. I'm not so sure there's not bleed-over between CHG and Iran Neolithic. (Iran Neolithic is often associated with Gedrosia.) Interestingly enough, some Bell-Beaker also had Iran Neolithic (2.7), although it might be better not to put too much faith in these very small percentages. The Otzi figures, however, are legit. Even the dodecad runs found CHG, there labeled "West Asian", and North African, and Natufian, there labeled South West Asian, in Otzi. 

Another thing that has to be considered is that the CHG in a lot of southern European populations is in the "wrong" proportion to Karelia or EHG. It should be less, yes? However, it isn't. I think it's true that there was a movement into Europe, affecting southern Europe more than northern Europe, of a CHG heavy population (carrying other cluster as well, of course), but we need ancient dna to make sense of it. 

Finally, if we're going to talk about MENA ancestry, or at least Middle Eastern ancestry, Germany is about 56% "Middle Eastern". (That includes about 80% of Eperstadt, plus CHG.) You can perform the same analysis with all the European samples. Of course, if you believe the WHG came into Europe from the Near East, then all of Europe is just a subset of the Near East. It all gets rather ridiculous if you have an objective frame of mind not formed by 19th century racist physical anthropologists.

----------


## Joey D

> maybe you should try this site
> 
> 
> http://www.sephardicstudies.org/entrance.html
> 
> the law below to remove Sephatic jews from Spain
> 
> http://www.sephardicstudies.org/decree.html



The very same law also removed all Jews from Sicily, which by that time, came under the Spanish crown.

----------


## Angela

@ Joey,

There is no IBD sharing between Ashkenazim and the major Italian groups. Maybe tomorrow some paper will come out finding it in some group, but for now that's the story.

They *have* found IBD sharing between Poles and Ashkenazim, which can probably be extended to Russians, Lithuanians etc.

----------


## Joey D

King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, by the grace of God, King and Queen of Castile, Leon, Aragon, *Sicily*, Granada, Toledo, Valencia, Galicia, the Balearic Islands, Seville, Sardinia, Cordoba, Corsica, Murcia, Jaen, of the Algarve, Algeciras, Gibraltar, and of the Canary Islands, count and countess of Barcelona and lords of Biscay and Molina, dukes of Athens and Neopatria, counts of Rousillon and Cerdana, marquises of Oristan and of Gociano...

----------


## New Englander

@Angela

I thought I knew my history pretty well, but your taking this to a whole new level. Im going to have to do weeks of research in order to respond to this haha. 

When I say "MENA", I am taking not about Neolithic Stuttgart. But, more along the lines of the East Med, West Asian, South West Asian, and South Asian components that are found in Italy, Greece, and Jewish populations at a significant level. 

CHG is found all over Europe, as well as the ENF components, these are not what Im talking about, as these are the Bronze age Indo-Europeans I think?.

----------


## New Englander

So you are saying that Jews did not mix with the Romans or Greeks in the classical era, and are strictly the result of Eastern Mediterranean populations mixing with NE Euros, and than bottle necking?

----------


## Angela

> @Angela
> 
> I thought I knew my history pretty well, but your taking this to a whole new level. Im going to have to do weeks of research in order to respond to this haha. 
> 
> When I say "MENA", I am taking not about Neolithic Stuttgart. But, more along the lines of the East Med, West Asian, South West Asian, and South Asian components that are found in Italy, Greece, and Jewish populations at a significant level. 
> 
> CHG is found all over Europe, as well as the ENF components, these are not what Im talking about, as these are the Bronze age Indo-Europeans I think?.


Then I really don't know what you mean. There's almost nothing left. The "West Asian" cluster was tracking CHG in the calculators before the Kotias and Satsurblia samples were discovered. My point was that some came with the Indo-Europeans, and some may have come separately to southern Europe in the Copper or Bronze Age or even later. Maybe that's how Otzi got some. We won't know until we get ancient genomes. Even when we do, you're going to say the same genetic component isn't MENA if it came in with Indo-Europeans in the third millenium BC through central Europe but it *is* MENA if it came 500 or a thousand years later through the southeast?

Southwest Asian was tracking Natufian, some of which was already in Otzi in the Copper Age, although some may have, once again, come later. So what percentage is MENA? Said another way, is all the southwest Asian a later arrival or did some come with Cardial, and shows up in some Neolithic populations but not others? There's no appreciable South Asian in Italy. 

You've already said that you don't include EN, as in Barcin, LBK etc. as MENA. So, what's left....Mozabite? Yet, some was present in the Neolithic. Was it all wiped out to be all re-introduced later? How do we know without the appropriate genomes from southeast Europe? Maybe some of the Iranian Neolithic, of which there's not very much anywhere? Was it MENA when it was in the Bell Beaker samples? Maybe a portion of Southwest Asian? The same applies to it as to "Mozabite". East Med is precisely Barcin, Natufian (some of which is incorporated into the Anatolian Neolithic) etc. None of the academic papers talk about it. It's an anthrofora term. ALL "Med" on the calculators comes originally from the eastern Med. The Sardinian samples from the isolated interior were and usually still are the modal for "Mediterranean" in the calculators, and they plot very near the EN farmers who came from...wait for it...the Eastern Mediterranean, i.e. the Levant and Anatolia. They just have some additional WHG.

This is not just me saying some of this...From the creator of the spreadsheet:

"- It's nice how the old "West Asian/Caucasus" component in Admixture runs based solely on modern populations predicted the CHG population. CHG peaks at some 62-63% in Georgians and Abkhasians, just like "West Asian" did in some of those calculators.

- Also the "Gedrosia" component of those runs predicted nicely the Iran_Neolithic population, both peaking in Brahui.

- Same goes for the "South West Asian" component predicting the Natufian population, both very BedouinB-like.

- Not such a good job with WHG and EHG, where Admixture could never really show what we see with ancient DNA. I don't remember any West Eurasian component peaking around the Urals (it seems that EHG peaks in Udmurts among modern populations). It was broadly a North European/Baltic component that contained both WHG and EHG."

Go back and look at the percentages from the spread sheet. 

I'm not, I should add, saying this analysis is the be all and end all or that one should take these percentages as gospel. I'm just trying to show the complexities and how you have to use more than Admixture runs to figure this all out. Most important, we need ancient dna.

As to Jewish ethnogenesis, if I had the answer and could prove it, I'd publish a paper on it. I hate to sound like a broken record, but until we get a first century AD "Jewish" genome from Israel we're really in the dark. As I said above, the Italian populations which have been compared to the Ashkenazim show no IBD sharing. Maybe tomorrow some population that has been overlooked will show it, or a new way to look at IBD will emerge, but for now, despite all the theories that it's Roman conversions in the Classical Era or a group of Italian women from around Tuscany or just north who were absorbed before the Jews went to the Rhineland, it doesn't appear. There's one other remote possibility, I suppose. Perhaps the Philistines were Sardinians or Aegean peoples and they changed the "Jewish" genome of Israel. I don't know. That's totally unsupported speculation that I've seen floating around.

----------


## New Englander

I think its because I'm thinking of a diffrent GEDmatch test. 

Ill have to find the spread sheets, and PM you.

----------


## Sile

> The very same law also removed all Jews from Sicily, which by that time, came under the Spanish crown.


It came under the house of Angevins ( french rule ) from 1493 to 1503 ...............Isabella of Castille died in 1504 ..........ferdinand of Aragon pursued the princess of navarre and then got sicily back under the house of Aragon.

The French period is the period when the sephatic jews where kicked out of Spain .....................I doubt that ferninand and the aragon cortes pursued this anti-jew law as much as Isabella and the castillian cortes did.

south Italian peninsula never came under the castilian rule until the 18th century ..............the Aragon rule was not that rigid ..... in its second period from ~1504 to 1720ish

Also Aragon needed the jews in Italy for the money, they where involved in the 55year long "Italian wars" from 1496 to 1551

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Indeed. I've taken the position in the past that the Lombard contribution is limited and mostly a factor in northeastern Italy, Lombardia etc. My opinion was in large part based on the low frequency and the distribution of U106 and I1 in Italy as well as the history and archaeology of those regions and time periods. 
> 
> I'm a bit less sure now. I want to see the yDna of the Lombards not only from the earliest arrival periods in Italy but from the "staging" eras in central-eastern Europe. Could they have already had some U152 L2, for example? I don't know. Hopefully we'll soon see. I also want to see yDna from the Gauls/Celts, and down to the subclade level. Only then will we know what the Gauls carried versus the Italics who arrived so much earlier.


U152 L2, among the Germanic Lombards? I guess not. I mean, if it existed it was a minor line. 

Map based on the frequency of R-U106, I-M253, I-M223 in Italy made by user Passa at Anthrogenica. Of course it's not a peer reviewed map and we need specific studies based on Medieval yDna.

----------


## Hauteville

> It came under the house of Angevins ( french rule ) from 1493 to 1503 ...............Isabella of Castille died in 1504 ..........ferdinand of Aragon pursued the princess of navarre and then got sicily back under the house of Aragon.
> 
> The French period is the period when the sephatic jews where kicked out of Spain .....................I doubt that ferninand and the aragon cortes pursued this anti-jew law as much as Isabella and the castillian cortes did.
> 
> south Italian peninsula never came under the castilian rule until the 18th century ..............the Aragon rule was not that rigid ..... in its second period from ~1504 to 1720ish
> 
> Also Aragon needed the jews in Italy for the money, they where involved in the 55year long "Italian wars" from 1496 to 1551


Angevin rule in Sicily was from 1268 to 1282, later with the vesper only the continental part of the old kingdom of Sicily remained to Angevins, while Sicily was ruled by an Aragonese dinasty who was mixed with the Hohenstaufen. The Jewish expulsion is dated to 1492 in Sicily and Sardinia and in 1516 in the kingdom of Naples who were viceroyalties of Spain, together with Milano (Lombardia) and the Presidi (modern area around Grosseto).

----------


## Hauteville

> King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, by the grace of God, King and Queen of Castile, Leon, Aragon, *Sicily*, Granada, Toledo, Valencia, Galicia, the Balearic Islands, Seville, Sardinia, Cordoba, Corsica, Murcia, Jaen, of the Algarve, Algeciras, Gibraltar, and of the Canary Islands, count and countess of Barcelona and lords of Biscay and Molina, dukes of Athens and Neopatria, counts of Rousillon and Cerdana, marquises of Oristan and of Gociano...


And for all the 1300 Athens, Neopatria, Gerba and Kerkennah were part of the kingdom of Sicily, the same king (Federico III and later Pietro II ecc) also Malta and Gozo of course...

----------


## Joey D

> It came under the house of Angevins ( french rule ) from 1493 to 1503 ...............Isabella of Castille died in 1504 ..........ferdinand of Aragon pursued the princess of navarre and then got sicily back under the house of Aragon.
> 
> The French period is the period when the sephatic jews where kicked out of Spain .....................I doubt that ferninand and the aragon cortes pursued this anti-jew law as much as Isabella and the castillian cortes did.
> 
> south Italian peninsula never came under the castilian rule until the 18th century ..............the Aragon rule was not that rigid ..... in its second period from ~1504 to 1720ish
> 
> Also Aragon needed the jews in Italy for the money, they where involved in the 55year long "Italian wars" from 1496 to 1551


I actually quoted the edict above, that law which expelled the jews from Spain in 1492 also applied to Sicily, and they were expelled at the same time. At the time, the Kingdom of Sicily was split, thus there were two separate Kingdoms of Sicily, one occasionally referred to as the Kingdom of Trinacria, and the other eventually become better known as the Kingdom of Naples.

So it makes sense that the edict applied to Sicily (because the Sicilian crown was united with Aragon when Martin I died without an heir), but not to the Kingdom of Naples (Sicily and Naples had been united briefly during the 15th century, but separated again in 1458).

The point is that you may have been intimating that upon the expulsion of the Jews from Spain they sought refuge in Sicily, but this clearly could not have happened because Sicily was under the exact same expulsion order.

----------


## Sile

> I actually quoted the edict above, that law which expelled the jews from Spain in 1492 also applied to Sicily, and they were expelled at the same time. At the time, the Kingdom of Sicily was split, thus there were two separate Kingdoms of Sicily, one occasionally referred to as the Kingdom of Trinacria, and the other eventually become better known as the Kingdom of Naples.
> 
> So it makes sense that the edict applied to Sicily (because the Sicilian crown was united with Aragon when Martin I died without an heir), but not to the Kingdom of Naples (Sicily and Naples had been united briefly during the 15th century, but separated again in 1458).
> 
> The point is that you may have been intimating that upon the expulsion of the Jews from Spain they sought refuge in Sicily, but this clearly could not have happened because Sicily was under the exact same expulsion order.


ok

Maybe this below and the links attached within this site can be of help to others

http://www.bestofsicily.com/mag/art354.htm

----------


## Hauteville

Best of Sicily is a website without knowledge and with a clear agenda. Jews were around 3% after 1492 and they were expelled in 1493, very few were converted but in no way they were refugees from Spain since the same edict was for Sicily and for Spaniard kingdom.
Here we go.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> ok
> 
> Maybe this below and the links attached within this site can be of help to others
> 
> http://www.bestofsicily.com/mag/art354.htm


Sile, honestly that site has no credibility.

----------


## New Englander

Ya, .COMs are not reliable, from what Iv learned in College. Whenever I do citations, it needs to be .ORG

----------


## Joey D

> Sile, honestly that site has no credibility.


True, it's more a tourist brochure for American Sicilians.

Nevertheless, it too mentions the expulsion of the Jews in 1492, so I'm not really sure what we are debating - that a proportion converted to remain? Yes, no doubt, it's unclear what proportion, but it definitely did happen.

Anyway, my original question to all was why the Ashkenazi plotted so closely to Sicilians and Maltese.

The existence of a sizeable Jewish population pre-1492 might be part of the answer, but logically, it can't be the whole answer, because the percentage of the population at the time was something like 5% to 8%, and less than half would have remained.

I happen to have a personal interest because I keep popping up as overwhelmingly Ashkenazi, and I have already had DNA matches confirmed on GEDMatch with 10 kits verifiably Ashkenazi.

My Ancestry DNA came back as 1% European Jewish, which was small enough to ignore, until I started doing all these GEDMatch tests.

Anyway, just throwing it out there.

----------


## Maleth

> Does anyone know why Ashkenazi Jews plot so closely to Sicilians and Maltese?
> 
> It's true that Sicily had a significant Jewish population up to 1492, but it would only have been about 8% of the population at the most.
> 
> We must be talking about something which goes back into pre-history.
> 
> Anyone have any theories?


I believe it has nothing to do with having any* (original)* Ashkenazi Jews settling in the area. I believe that Ashkenazi dna evolved similarly in percentages and types (long settlement in central and Eastern Europe and intermixing with groups arriving directly from the Middle east proper) to that of Sicily without one having to be the other. Any *direct 'Jewish'* Inputs in both Sicilian and Maltese population would be possible but very minimal and more probable from a Sephardic source. Both mixtures through the millennia produced similar results.

----------


## Joey D

> I believe it has nothing to do with having any* (original)* Ashkenazi Jews settling in the area. I believe that Ashkenazi dna evolved similarly in percentages and types (long settlement in central and Eastern Europe and intermixing with groups arriving directly from the Middle east proper) to that of Sicily without one having to be the other. Any *direct 'Jewish'* Inputs in both Sicilian and Maltese population would be possible but very minimal and more probable from a Sephardic source. Both mixtures through the millennia produced similar results.


I get that, and it makes good sense, but does that mean all these various GEDMatch tests struggle to differentiate between Sephardic and Ashkenazi?

Why do my results keep popping overwhelmingly as Ashkenazi?

This Dodecade test:

*#*
*Population (source)*
*Distance*

1
Ashkenazi (Dodecad)
4.18

2
Ashkenazy_Jews (Behar)
4.76

3
Morocco_Jews (Behar)
8.54

4
S_Italian_Sicilian (Dodecad)
10.48

5
C_Italian (Dodecad)
12.04



And then this Harappa test (from another thread):

*#*
*Population (source)*
*Distance*

1
ashkenazy-jew (behar)
5.34

2
ashkenazi (harappa)
6.68

3
sephardic-jew (behar)
9.31

4
morocco-jew (behar)
12.1

5
turk-aydin (hodoglugil)
12.89



why do these results keep popping up for me?
Also, even more generally, we know Sicilians, Maltese and Ashkenazi plot very closely together (Sicilians closer to Ashkenazi than Greeks) - map on that same Harappa thread.

Is it just a matter of saying these GEDMatch tests are inaccurate? That they cannot differentiate between Ashkenazi and Sephardic?

----------


## Hauteville

> True, it's more a tourist brochure for American Sicilians.
> 
> Nevertheless, it too mentions the expulsion of the Jews in 1492, so I'm not really sure what we are debating - that a proportion converted to remain? Yes, no doubt, it's unclear what proportion, but it definitely did happen.
> 
> Anyway, my original question to all was why the Ashkenazi plotted so closely to Sicilians and Maltese.
> 
> The existence of a sizeable Jewish population pre-1492 might be part of the answer, but logically, it can't be the whole answer, because the percentage of the population at the time was something like 5% to 8%, and less than half would have remained.
> 
> I happen to have a personal interest because I keep popping up as overwhelmingly Ashkenazi, and I have already had DNA matches confirmed on GEDMatch with 10 kits verifiably Ashkenazi.
> ...


According to Anna Foa the Jews were around 3% of total Sicilian population, and according to Francesco Renda only from 4000 to max 9000 remained as converted, and many of them were persecuted in the inquisition, so a very small number was integrated to the local population. Ashkenazi do not plot only with Sicilians and Maltese but also with other South Italians and with the Greeks, especially the islanders. Even though judging by many Ashkenazis results they appear more West Asian than the ethnicities i've cited. A question of this similarity (by autosomal but not by IBDs and haplogroups) should be in the fact that Southern Italians, Sicilians, Maltese and Greeks have a certain amount of CHG-like from the early bronze age, while Ashkenazi have absorbed around 60% of European admix (at least the proportion of a recent study said it) in the last 1000 years.

----------


## Hauteville

> I believe it has nothing to do with having any* (original)* Ashkenazi Jews settling in the area. I believe that Ashkenazi dna evolved similarly in percentages and types (long settlement in central and Eastern Europe and intermixing with groups arriving directly from the Middle east proper) to that of Sicily without one having to be the other. Any *direct 'Jewish'* Inputs in both Sicilian and Maltese population would be possible but very minimal and more probable from a Sephardic source. Both mixtures through the millennia produced similar results.


Yeah, our Jews were Sephardies (Italkims) and not Ashkenazi, genetically Sephardies and Ashkenazis are different.

----------


## New Englander

Those GED math results are just approximations. They do not mean your Jewish. They mean that you are Italian, with a DNA profile resembling that of a Jew. Could mean that one of your grandparents is part Calabrian, or Cypriot. Maybe they were Syrian christian migrants. Could have nothing to do with Jews. Maybe the test is bias to show South Italians as "less European", who knows.

----------


## Angela

Italkim aren't Sephardic. They follow what is called the "Italian rite", not the Sephardic rite, and in rituals they speak a Judeo-Italian language, not the Ladino of the Sephardi. There's even a division between northern Italian Italkim and the Roman Italkim. The legend is that the Italkim have been in Italy since the time of the Romans, perhaps even from the time of the Maccabees.

Italian Jews are made up of the Italkim plus Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews who moved to Italy later, some as early as the 1300s however. (IBD sharing is extremely high between all the Jewish groups.)

The Italkim plot closer to Middle Eastern Jews than do the Ashkenazim or even the Sephardim. Perhaps they are slightly less "mixed" than the Jews who went into Spain and Central Europe?

Take a look at this admixture plot:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT...cture-jews.jpg



This PCA shows it too:

----------


## Seanp

Ashkenazim are genetically a mixed population of Levant/Anatolian originated genetic profile later mixed with Greco-Romance which shows them plotting with South-Eastern European groups (Greeks, Sicilians, etc.) 

Ashkenazim are also highly inbreed due to lack of recent gene flow from other groups so their genetic is drifted from both Europeans and Middle Easterners.

----------


## New Englander

The real question is how much has the genetic drift effected the plotting position, and overall Genetic results. I think that the Levantine Greek hybrid population moved into Central and Northern Europe, and interbred with BOTH Slavic/Germanic as well as Middle Eastern immigrants. Than they ended up isolating themselves after the population was somewhat diverse.

----------


## Angela

Where do you people get this stuff? More importantly, how can you so arrogantly proclaim as a certainty things for which there is as yet no proof?

NO ONE KNOWS PRECISELY HOW THE ASHKENAZIM FORMED, and until we get ancient genomes from the Near East during the first millennium BC and the Roman era, and the early post Roman era in Europe as well it's all just speculation.

The only thing which is certain is that Elhaik's ideas are nonsense. 

Take advantage of the excellent search engine here and read the numerous threads that have been posted on the subject. That might cure some of this misplaced, arrogant, certainty.

----------


## Hauteville

> Ashkenazim are genetically a mixed population of Levant/Anatolian originated genetic profile later mixed with Greco-Romance which shows them plotting with South-Eastern European groups (Greeks, Sicilians, etc.) 
> 
> Ashkenazim are also highly inbreed due to lack of recent gene flow from other groups so their genetic is drifted from both Europeans and Middle Easterners.


Yeah, in this map above their plot is a bit more isolated than Greeks, Italians (afaik in that study they are from the Southern mainland and from Sicily).

----------


## Seanp

> The real question is how much has the genetic drift effected the plotting position, and overall Genetic results. I think that the Levantine Greek hybrid population moved into Central and Northern Europe, and interbred with BOTH Slavic/Germanic as well as Middle Eastern immigrants. Than they ended up isolating themselves after the population was somewhat diverse.


The North European ancestry in Ashkenazi Jews are quite low, Ashkenazim are basically the same as Sephardi Jews with 10-15% more extra European. As far as i know they didn't mix with any recent ME populations except some Ashkenazi who mixed with Bukharian/Caucasian Jews in Russia.

----------


## davef

JoeyD, SeanP

This is one of the best threads on here about Ashkenazi genetics. The study fails to conclude how the Ashkenazim genome came to be and we desparately need ancient samples for comparison , but it's interesting noneoftheless.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...azim-Xue-et-al

----------


## Joey D

^ Thanks for the link.

Interesting post from oreo cookie:

This right here is why people assume that Ashkenazim have Italian DNA. Because Sicilians and Ashkenazim on PCA plots, are both roughly halfway between North Italians and modern day Levantines, people say "well, Ashkenazim are Levantine on the male side, North Italian on the female side, and thus plot like Sicilians when you mix it all up." But Sicilians have very low IBD sharing with the Levant, which implies that West Asian input into Sicily occurred in the Bronze Age rather than from Phoenicians or anything more recent, and that the Sikels, Sicanians, and Elymians at the time of contact with Phoenicians had already been genetically shifted toward West Asia.

At this point, Ashkenazim would not have existed... they'd still be Israelites. My guess is that ancient Israelites were probably closer to Druze than to Lebanese Arabs or Palestinians, and thus we should look at Druze or Cypriots as a good proxy, which means that you'd need closer to 1/3 South European admixture, not 1/2, to explain European Jews' plotting today. They only land in Sicily because Sicilians have enough West Asian affinity that they drift away from the core European cluster, it's not due to any directly shared ancestry. The same would be true of Cretans, who also are very close to Ashkenazim autosomally. 

IBD sharing, above all, reflects how recent the exchange took place. Sicilians DO have high IBD sharing with Maghrebi people, implying that the North African input into the population is more recent. I am unclear if Ashkenazim have the same.

Not that this is scientific, but I have seen a few Druze results on GEDmatch and compared to Lebanese Arabs, they shift toward Iberia, Sardinia, etc. and their overall closest population is Cyprus.

----------


## Hauteville

> Sicilians DO have high IBD sharing with Maghrebi people, implying that the North African input into the population is more recent.


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...gid=1260717827

"HIgh IBD between NW Africa and Italy 
South Italy(inclu. Sardinia) gets extremly high IBD with NW Africa, suggesting NW African ancestry. 
Although other Italians also get much higher IBD with NW Africa than with West Asia, much of it is .25+ 
If anything this points towards European ancestry in NW Africa."

Calabrians, Lucanians and Sardinians get also similar amount of IBD share with NW Africans and those lands were not under muslim invasion. It's more logic to think that most of the IBD sharing has to do with the Roman colonization to NW Africa and many Sicilian muslims expelled to modern Tunisia rather than the opposite. Otherwise the sharing must be limitated only for Sicily.




> But Sicilians have very low IBD sharing with the Levant, which implies that West Asian input into Sicily occurred in the Bronze Age rather than from Phoenicians or anything more recent, and that the Sikels, Sicanians, and Elymians at the time of contact with Phoenicians had already been genetically shifted toward West Asia


The West Asian shift is not again only exclusivity of Sicily but also for the rest of South Italy, impossible to calculate an important Phoenician contribution in our gene-pool since they came here only for commercial purposes and only in two isolated and coastal emporiums in an ocean of Siculi, Sicani, Elimi, Morgeti and Greek and later Roman colonizers. And these last made an ethnic cleansing of Punic ethnicity from all over the Western Mediterranean after the three Punic wars.

Bronze age introgression waves seems to be confermated by the last genetic studies by the way as well as older times (neolithic):




> However, the estimated age for Sicilian and Southern-Italian J1 haplotypes refers to the end of the Bronze Age (32611345 YBP), thus suggesting more ancient contributions from the East.











> However, sub-lineages of haplogroup J2 have been also associated with the Neolithic colonization of mainland Greece, Crete and Southern Italy [52], and our TMRCA estimates for J2-subhaplogroups (ranging from 32711157 YBP to 37671332 YBP) cannot exclude an earlier arrival of at least some of the J2 chromosomes in Sicily and Southern-Italy during Neolithic times.


http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0096074

----------


## Aspar

Mine Dodecad V3:
#	Population	Percent
1	Mediterranean	31.55
2	West_European	27.34
3	West_Asian	18
4	East_European	13.56
5	Southwest_Asian	8.48
6	Northwest_African	0.52
7	Southeast_Asian	0.42
8	Northeast_Asian	0.12
I think that the Mediterranean admixture is a little bit exaggerated in Macedonia.
Hardly any ethnic Macedonian have over 40 percent Mediterranean admixture.
As you can see, mine is 31.55!

----------


## Sizzles

Decode v3
East euro 12.49
West euro 35.94
Mediterranean 28.76
West asian 14.68
South asian. 90
Northeast asian 0.30
Southwest Asian 4.79
Northwest african 2.13
Sicilian Croatian Slovenian german/french, british/irish

I guess they are representative?

----------


## bigsnake49

Dodecad V3:

Population


East_European
15.42

West_European
23.31

Mediterranean
33.03

Neo_African
-

West_Asian
21.00

South_Asian
0.85

Northeast_Asian
0.52

Southeast_Asian
-

East_African
0.84

Southwest_Asian
4.73

Northwest_African
0.20

Palaeo_African
0.11



My folks migrated to the Western Thrace region from the Eastern Thrace region of Turkey during the Great Population Exchange of 1922. They only moved about 15 km to the other side of the Evros/Maritsa River.

----------


## bigsnake49

Eurogenes K13:

Population


North_Atlantic
19.45

Baltic
19.80

West_Med
19.27

West_Asian
15.01

East_Med
22.41

Red_Sea
0.88

South_Asian
0.67

East_Asian
0.51

Siberian
0.33

Amerindian
0.28

Oceanian
0.28

Northeast_African
0.54

Sub-Saharan
0.57

----------


## New Englander

Wouldn't Med just represent Early Neolithic movement into Europe, while the Caucasian/West Asian represent a later migration of similar peoples? And the South Western Asian could be in the last 3,000 years? 

Western European could be a mix old Europe (HG) and Indo European, with HG component being larger, while Eastern Europe having a larger Indo European percentage. 

*#*
*Population*
*Percent*

1
Mediterranean
31.37

2
West_European
24.81

3
West_Asian
22.11

4
Southwest_Asian
10.52

5
East_European
8.11

6
Northwest_African
1.54

7
South_Asian
1.15

8
Neo_African
0.25

9
Southeast_Asian
0.14

----------

