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

## Wilhelm

Based on the NW European + Mediterranean + East-European scores. (Not mine)

----------


## Knovas

Very good to complete the series. Probably the East European map is also coming.

----------


## Wilhelm

I could add some holes, like Bulgaria, Ukraine, Denmark, and regions, like Catalonia/Valencia where averages 95%

----------


## julia90

but western asia genes are europoid looking too, no?.. if not we tuscans should look like african, indian or east asian

----------


## Knovas

Tuscans have substantial near eastern influence (not the same as Asian or African). Is what decreases the European average, but of course this admixture is mainly Caucasoid and the repercussion in phenotype is not drastic.

----------


## julia90

i've seen pictures of georgians and adygei and they don't look less european than sardinians. caucasian genes look europoid, and should be included in that map, since italians and people from the balkans are as european as the other people.

the title of the map is Misleading

----------


## Knovas

Some of the look European, and others not. In my opinion quite of them don't. But this refers to genetic admixtures, and Near Eastern is not the same as European, but it's quite similar. You can also find ethnic Berbers with incredibly high North African percent looking European, and it does not mean they are European.

----------


## julia90

And your idea is wrong. the map is misleading.. what do you consider european, is not what all the people consider european.
you can talk about europid looking, and caucasian genes are europoid. 

i was talking about the peak you find in people from the caucasus and Adygei

----------


## julia90

georgians.. aren't less europoid looking than sardinians

----------


## julia90

> You can also find ethnic Berbers with incredibly high North African percent looking European, and it does not mean they are European.


i consider "pure" berbers europoid looking

----------


## Alan

A good map, but some little Problems to mention. First of all Dodecad results about Kurds are from Northern Iraq and some from Iran. However you did place the results inn East Anatolia. The West-Northwest of Iran is mainly Kurdish populated and similar to that of Iraq. However you placed there the Iranian results. I would suggest to move the 25%(Iranian results) further East, on the southern coast of the Caspian and place the 32% in East Anatolia, between North Iraq, Northwest Iran and southeastern border of Anatolia.

----------


## Knovas

Ok Julia, but what I mean is that this is not a "looking" map, It's a genetic one. And in both places (Gerogia and North Africa) you can find individuals with European looking, and others who don't in a great number. They are predominantly caucasoid, but not the same as Europeans.

----------


## julia90

> Ok Julia, but what I mean is that this is not a "looking" map, It's a genetic one. And in both places (Gerogia and North Africa) you can find individuals with European looking, and others who don't in a great number. They are predominantly caucasoid, but not the same as Europeans.


since southern italians, tuscans, and many balkans people have high quantity of this genes, according to that map they are less european than northern italians, even if caucasian people are europoid looking.

i don't see your logic

----------


## Knovas

I did not create the map, components, and neither the thread. Not my logic, it's all based on academical studies. Doug McDonald's paintings show substantial levels of Mideast between Italians, this is actuallly how it works.

Nothing wrong with it.

----------


## julia90

yes, but why if those genes are present in southern eastern europe

and the people who bear them the most (adygeis and georgians), are so un-european looking lol less than other europeans.

the title is misleading, since it should have included also the genes that peak in the caucasus.
I'm not denying anything, and i'm ok being 30% similar to adygeans.

what some people consider european, or un european looking is relative, i could consider east european genes, un european too, but it doesn't change the fact that the people who have east european slavic genes are europoid looking.

----------


## Wilhelm

No way georgians look more european than Sardinians. To start with, georgians genetically cluster with Iranians and Turks, and also look similar to them (unless we talk about russian admixed georgians) while Sardinians cluster with Europeans and look mainly euro-mediterranean, maybe more archaic because of their strong palaeolithic ancestry.

----------


## julia90

this are adygeans (circassians), i found this images on the english wikipedia under the adygeans voice
link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adyghe_people






do they look un european?

LOL

----------


## julia90

this are Sardinians, a famous band Tazenda



LOL, southern italian less europoid than them.. another LOL, with all my respect to Sardineans.

No Way, the map is misleading, and deliberately to exclude some people from the "pure" european race.
It's misleading for the title given to that map, because that map assumes, that the circassians genes are "aliene to europe", which is not because that genes are present in south-eastern europe.

----------


## Knovas

Cherry-picking with pictures does not prove nothing, average is what really cares. Also, some of the others you posted above no way look European.

Georgians, Adygeans, etc., don't cluster with Europeans. The same as North Africans and other Caucasoids. Simply not the same, but similar.

----------


## julia90

that is what you and whilelm think, i don't think this, this is relative and higly subjective like the title given to that map.

and they are not cherrypicked, at least the adygeans.

caucasian genes, are part of europe, of south east europe, therefore european

----------


## Knovas

You are free to think what you want. I personally don't feel you are disagreeing with me for the reasons I already mentioned.

----------


## julia90

this genes, seems to not be middle eastern, (and i have nothing against middle eastern people), they peak in caucasus, so if that map is an attempt to exclude some people from the "white circle", and giving them strange looks, is wrong because caucasian genes are europid.
Middle eastern are perceived as less europid looking, as as some sorts of aliens, even if i don't consider them like that, and i find mediterranean middle eastern and iranian very good looking.

a question is why the peak is in caucasus, and it is widespread in the middle east and south eastern europe too.
are caucasian middle eastern or do the middle eastern have high caucasian genes?

----------


## Knovas

"Near East" or "Mideast" depending on the context can include both categories: West Asian and Southwest Asian. There's a map of the second component if you want to check.

Near the Ural Montains (European side) you can also find people with European looking but with some admixture. Nearly all people in Europe has a percent of admixture, although some people has more and others has less. But really, I respect your opinion, you are free to think this way as I said.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> Based on the NW European + Mediterranean + East-European scores. (Not mine)


Could there possibly be another motive besides an obvious racist one for wanting to prove to everyone that you are 'pure' Europeans? Your infatuation is beginning to concern me Wilhelm.

----------


## julia90

can you give me the link of the south west asian map?

Those from the urals are admixed with south-east asians (like people from mongolia)

----------


## Knovas

Here is the link: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthr...rom-Dodecad%29

----------


## julia90

this second map has more right to be called not european, being the peak in arabia saudita and southern egypt, thoght those people from saudi arabia are heavily mixed with ethiopians or sub saharian african, so it's not easy to know their purer south west asian look.

----------


## julia90

i think italy should be considered more properly euro-mediterranean with important genes from the caucasus and mediterranean south west asia.

thought also sardinia have south west asian genes like central southern italy.

it express very well it's mediterranean characters

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> that is what you and whilelm think, i don't think this, this is relative and higly subjective like the title given to that map.
> 
> and they are not cherrypicked, at least the adygeans.
> 
> caucasian genes, are part of europe, of south east europe, therefore european


Certainly, there is nothing subjective about the Eurogenes and Dodecad maps. The researchers for those projects use the identical cutting edge software as top research universities to break down autosomal samplings and determine percentages. Now, if you have an issue with the Eupedia maps that's different.

----------


## Knovas

No one deny's Italians are Europeans, it's where they cluster. Then, people is free to consider the admixture (present in all Europeans) in many different ways. This map gives a perspective some people doesn't like, well, separate maps are also available. Everybody happy.

I personally don't have any problem with any type of these maps.

----------


## Wilhelm

> that is what you and whilelm think, i don't think this, this is relative and higly subjective like the title given to that map.
> 
> and they are not cherrypicked, at least the adygeans.
> 
> caucasian genes, are part of europe, of south east europe, therefore european


 No, not european genes. Caucasian people don't even cluster with europeans, they cluster with Iranians, Turks and Levantines.

----------


## Alan

> No way georgians look more european than Sardinians. To start with, georgians genetically cluster with Iranians and Turks, and also look similar to them (unless we talk about russian admixed georgians) while Sardinians cluster with Europeans and look mainly euro-mediterranean, maybe more archaic because of their strong palaeolithic ancestry.


Now to be serious, first to start with. Comparing Georgians with Sardinians isnt even fair because in compare with Georgians (70% West Asian) Sardinians are still highly mixed and at least 30-40% West European. For Gods sake no disrespect but to understand how "swarthy" the Mediterranean component is in compare to West Asian you simply have to take Spaniards who are up to 50% West European and still the majority of them looks Mediterranean while Circassians with only 20-30% look to me simply South Slavic and it is very usual to find Chechens, Circassians who look fully Nordic though only 20% West/East European. This says much.

----------


## Alan

> this genes, seems to not be middle eastern, (and i have nothing against middle eastern people), they peak in caucasus, so if that map is an attempt to exclude some people from the "white circle", and giving them strange looks, is wrong because caucasian genes are europid.
> Middle eastern are perceived as less europid looking, as as some sorts of aliens, even if i don't consider them like that, and i find mediterranean middle eastern and iranian very good looking.
> 
> a question is why the peak is in caucasus, and it is widespread in the middle east and south eastern europe too.
> are caucasian middle eastern or do the middle eastern have high caucasian genes?


West Asian (the name is irritating) is simply a Caucasian gene. the Near East (Turks Iranians, Armenians etc) is a crossroad mainly between the Caucasian and Mediterranean Gene with some other influences.

----------


## Wilhelm

> Now to be serious, first to start with. Comparing Georgians with Sardinians isnt even fair because in compare with Georgians (70% West Asian) Sardinians are still highly mixed and at least 30-40% West European. For Gods sake no disrespect but to understand how "swarthy" the Mediterranean component is in compare to West Asian you simply have to take Spaniards who are up to 50% West European and still the majority of them looks Mediterranean while Circassians with only 15-20% look to me simply South Slavic and it is very usual to find Chechens, Circassians who look fully Nordic though only 20% West/East European. This says much.


Depends what you understand for mediterranean. To other people the majority of iberia is Atlanto-Med, similar to the dark types of Irish or SouthWest French

----------


## LeBrok

> Could there possibly be another motive besides an obvious racist one for wanting to prove to everyone that you are 'pure' Europeans? Your infatuation is beginning to concern me Wilhelm.


Yep, since 2009 Wilhelm dedicated 1,300 post to unbrowning and antibrowning of Iberia. 
Can it get more pathetic than this?!

----------


## spongetaro

Search "Sardinian faces" on google. You can see Sardinians people there. If Sardinian are representative for Mediterranean admixture, then I agree that West Asian lokks more Europoid than Mediterranean does.

----------


## Mzungu mchagga

This discussion reminds me very much of that one with Goga and as how European the Saami can be considered. While he was supporting a very 'geographic' point of view, julia90 advocates a more or less 'phenotypical' point of view.

I must admit, I'm also having problems with understanding why some genetic markers, which were fixed as European by certain people, have the sole claim to define 'true Europeaness'. They could aswell have taken other markers, or am I wrong? Where does Europeaness start and where does it end?

----------


## Knovas

Clustering studies show Georgians and similars removed from Europe, so I don't think all researchers are wrong. There are just a few picts here, don't be ingenuous thinking all people in those populations look like this. Sure not...

Sardinians are Certanly part of Europe geneticaly speaking, but it's possible not at the level some studies showed them (near 98%). They have many different phenotypes, but this is in great part because they should have substantial Eastern Mediterranean influence, very far from being fully Southwestern. And of course, it's possible they have 15% of admixture in average like the last run says.

I told this a lot of times, and Sardinians are a good example to understand it. If you check the K=10 run, you'll see Sardinians have more or less 98% European (almost enterely Southern European), but K=12 reduces the total European score to 85%. That's simply to understand: the Mediterranean component is even MORE European than it was before the Southern European one. If things are not like this, it is impossible to explain a huge change like this between Sardinians.

I posted the distances and comparisons between K=10 and K=12 in other posts, and I don't want to do it again. You can go and check what I'm saying, just keep in mind that according to the distances, the Southern European cluster was closer to Southwest Asian than the Mediterranean is now in comparison with the other groups, and the rest of the distances are more or less proportional. So it's clear that if Mediterranean is far from the non European groups than it was before (K=10 Southern European), it clearly means more European. Distances are numbers, so they don't lie. And again, the Sardinian example shows this perfectly, you won't find a better explanation to go from 98% to 85% European.

----------


## Alan

First of all to make something clear. the Caucasians arent further away from Europeans than Mediterrnean People. This is nonsense. Circassians, Lezgians etc are just further east but come very close to Northeuropeans while Mediterraneans (Spaniards, Italians) are further West just like the Mediterranean element .

Now look at this map and tell me even though Spaniards are up to 50% North European(East/West European) that they are closer to Russians as Lezgians. Basques fully European (according to your map) are further away from Russians and Lithuanians than Lezgians.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_6XAIk6ygt...s1600/waeu.png

Second point usually when someone says West Asian is closer to West European than Mediterranean is, than the argument is brought " it is also closer to Southwest Asian and East African". Of course it is but if you only have a bit knowledge about genetics and migrations you know that this is the case because actually Southwest Asian developed from West Asian farmers who moved into the Arabian Peninsula and mixed with North African. (Afro-Asiatic speakers). 

Just search for Circassians and Chechenya and compare them. 

Between before someone comes with this faces,

* this guy here is not a Chechen* but Saudi Arabian Mujahidin leader living in Chechenya.




*This here are real Chechens*

----------


## Knovas

Mediterranean according to the distances is even more Southern European than the K=10 cluster, so there's absolutly no point in separating Mediterranean from Europe. Sardinians show this clearly from K=10 to K=12 v3, because if Mediterranean was "less Southern European", they would get 100% European, not 85% (-13%). Caucasians are not incredibly removed, but the difference it's apreciable in the genetic plots, more or less the same as if you check European Jews (different levels of West Asian, Southwest Asian, and more or less half European admixture not present between Caucasians), who cluster in a similar distance.

Spaniards and North Italians (the rest of Italians it's difficult to say) are closer to Lithuanians than the populations you mention, it's very easy since the 3 have substantial West European (30% or more). Lithuanians are not pure East Europeans, and Spaniards and Italians aren't pure Meds. Even Lithuanians have nearly 0% West Asian, wich makes it more difficult. That's what it's required to know to understand this. No need to say none of the Gergians is pure West Asian till the moment, although it's possible some of them really are...who knows.

_usually when someone says West Asian is closer to West European than Mediterranean is, than the argument is brought " it is also closer to Southwest Asian and East African_

Of course must be said, because the correct way to check the distances is comparing one cluster with the rest (11), and do it 12 times if want to have an accurate idea about the other clusters. Checking only one vs one it tells absolutly nothing but in its "pure" form both are closer or far, but there's no idea about the origin/where it peaks. Checking one vs all, you could guess it with some effort if we imagine the clusters without names, just exactly how they come at the begining.

----------


## Wilhelm

> First of all to make something clear. the Caucasians arent further away from Europeans than Mediterrnean People.


Yes, they are. Much further away. Spaniards cluster between French and North-Italians, while Georgians cluster with Iranians and Turks.

----------


## Alan

@Knovas you are still not getting it do you? I am talking about apples you talk about oranges. It is clear that Spaniards and North Italians have more West/East European than Caucasians I did mentioned it but still they are further removed from Russians than Lezgians or Chechens. Why do you think? I will tell you the Mediterranean element makes the difference. The West Asian element on its self is more like a Southern Version of West European. Means Caucasians simply dont need to have high West/East European to get close to North Europeans because the West Asian element on its self is very similar. 

It isnt that hard to understand simply compare Armenians and Georgians physically and than genetically and see which element makes the main difference and why Armenians are compared to Georgians swarthier.

And no I never did claim that Mediterranean is not European. There is no way to exclude Mediterranean from Europe. I simply cant stay here and watch how people are playing with the definition of West Asian.

----------


## Knovas

Ok Alan, but the phrase Wilhelm quoted you was the same confused me. Now I see what you meant.

----------


## Alan

> Yes, they are. Much further away. Spaniards cluster between French and North-Italians, while Georgians cluster with Iranians and Turks.


Just look at Dienekes map and try to understand it. Georgians might have the highest West Asian component but are not that representative for the West Asian element because they have some of the Mediterranean component compared to Lezgians and Chechens, which pushes them further South to Iranians, Turks while Spaniards have 50% West European and still arent closer to North Europeans. It is the Mediterranean factor which makes the difference.

----------


## Alan

> Ok Alan, but the phrase Wilhelm quoted you was the same confused me. Now I see what you meant.


Ok I might try to express myself better the next time. Mediterranean is compared to West Asian further West while West Asian is compared to Mediterranean further North.

----------


## Wilhelm

> Just look at Dienekes map and try to understand it. Georgians might have the highest West Asian component but are not that representative for the West Asian element because they have some of the Mediterranean component compared to Lezgians and Chechens, which pushes them further South to Iranians, Turks while Spaniards have 50% West European and still arent closer to North Europeans. It is the Mediterranean factor which makes the difference.


 I don't know where do you get that but Spaniards are much closer to North-Europeans than any caucasian group.

----------


## Alan

Willhelm you simply dont understand or cant bring it in agreement with your ego.

A just better example. We know that Spaniards are up to 40-50% West/East European. Now to get a better compare just Imagine a half Georgian and half Lithuanian Person who would have something like 40% East European + 50% West Asian + 10% Mediterranean and now compare this imaginary person with an average Spaniard, better even with an ethnic Basque. Which Person would look more Northern in your opinion and why? A Georgian/Lithuanian or a Basque Spaniard?

Here a map.

Black where West Asian component peaks
Green where Mediterranean 
and Red an area between West and East European (North European)

europe.jpg

West/East European (as expected) most Northern.
Mediterranean more western somewhere on the Mediterranean
West Asian further east from Mediterranean but definitely more Northern somewhere between Mediterranean and North European.

----------


## Knovas

The problem Alan is that Caucasians are too Eastern direction, and not much North. Of course there are some of them who have a similar Northern European/Slavic look, but most of them really don't. In my opinion they simply look West Asians/Caucasians, they are easy to distinguish from Northern peoples in average.

----------


## Wilhelm

> Willhelm you simply dont understand or cant bring it in agreement with your ego.
> 
> A just better example. We know that Spaniards are up to 40-50% West/East European. Now to get a better compare just Imagine a half Georgian and half Lithuanian Person who would have something like 40% East European + 50% West Asian + 10% Mediterranean and now compare this imaginary person with a average Spaniard, better even with an ethnic Basque. Which Person would look more Northern in your opinion and why? A Georgian/Lithuanian or a Basque Spaniard?
> 
> Here a map.
> 
> Black where West Asian component peaks
> Green where Mediterranean 
> and Red an area between West and East European (North European)
> ...


 It's not my ego, is what genetic distances tell. See the study of Tian et al. where Spaniards are much closer to Swedes than Adyghe people. Also in genetic plots we are much closer to them than Georgians or other Caucasus are.

----------


## Alan

not much more Eastern than the East European component. It all depends on the definition of Eastern. If the North Caucasus is too Eastern, than All Russians North of the Caspian are this too and by God those look no way less European than Mediterraneans  :Laughing:  However I dont really care if West Asian is considered European I just wanted to make some points clear.

----------


## Alan

> It's not my ego, is what genetic distances tell. See the study of Tian et al. where Spaniards are much closer to Swedes than Adyghe people. Also in genetic plots we are much closer to them than Georgians or other Caucasus are.


Now it is official you are simply not able to understand this. I am talking about apples (Russians,Lithuanians) you come with oranges(Swedes).

Not much to add. You can believe what you want.

----------


## Wilhelm

What do you mean by "lookin more european" ? Do you take as a reference nordic people for what european looks like ? Do you have an inferiority complex ? You can see genetic plots or distances. It's clear. Iberians are closer to Scandinavians than any Caucasus are.

----------


## Wilhelm

> Now it is official you are simply not able to understand this. I am talking about apples (Russians,Lithuanians) you come with oranges(Swedes).
> 
> Not much to add. You can believe what you want.


 Oh, please you were talking of northern-europeans. Russians are Eastern-Europeans. well yes Caucasus are more Eastern than us, but not by much, since Georgians/Lezgins show 4% EE and Spaniards 2%.

----------


## Knovas

Both Russians and Lithuanians show 30% West European or more. It's good to keep this in mind as I said.

----------


## Alan

> What do you mean by "lookin more european" ? Do you take as a reference nordic people for what european looks like ? Do you have an inferiority complex ? You can see genetic plots or distances. It's clear. Iberians are closer to Scandinavians than any Caucasus are.


Not I have a inferior complex you are simply too mentally challenged to understand that a North European Russian is in the average Eye more European looking than anyone from the Mediterranean are you denying this? You are the only person here who tries to prove how even more European they are than Austrians or Germans. I am simply saying What is more European is based on the definition. The average Person would any day consider a Moldavian more European looking than a Spaniard or other Mediterraneans even though Moldavians are more West Asian.

----------


## Alan

:Rolleyes:  great Russians and Lithuanians are less North European than Brits and Swedes. Man you have some serious problems. I am out of this discussion.

----------


## Wilhelm

> Not I have a inferior complex you are simply too mentally challenged to understand that a North European Russian is in the average Eye more European looking than anyone from the Mediterranean are you denying this? You are the only person here who tries to prove how even more European they are than Austrians or Germans. I am simply saying What is more European is based on the definition. The average Person would any day consider a Moldavian more European looking than a Spaniard or other Mediterraneans even though more West Asian.


 Here is the problem. We are talking about genetics, not about looks. You are the one here who has posted hunderds of cherry-picked Chechens to prove something, that has proven to be wrong with genetics. You see, Basques are darker and much less blonder than Finnish people, or Russians, yet are much more Europeans. That is a fact. Second : Now that you talk about looks, anthropology has proven that blondiness and fair eyes are much more common in Iberian than among Caucasus people. That is also a fact.

----------


## Wilhelm

> great Russians and Lithuanians are less North European than Brits and Swedes. Man you have some serious problems. I am out of this discussion.


 Of course they are less north-european. See also Eurogenes, the same thing.

----------


## Knovas

Lithuanians are the most Northern European (Baltics), and Russians have more or less 80%, so they are near to be (more even than Swedes, yes). Alan is probably right here, although considering the clusters, Russians deviate towards mongoloid populations, while Lithuanians and Swedes don't.

Brits are definitely the less Northern European in the comparisson. All information according to Dodecad, it's possible Eurogenes show some things slightly different.

----------


## Wilhelm

> Lithuanians are the most Northern European (Baltics), and Russians have more or less 80%, so they are near to be (more even than Swedes, yes). Alan is probably right here, although considering the clusters, Russians deviate towards mongoloid populations, while Lithuanians and Swedes don't.
> 
> Brits are definitely the less Northern European in the comparisson. All information according to Dodecad, it's possible Eurogenes show some things slightly different.


 The K=10 "north-european" includes East-European, that's why, while the K=12 they are separate. The West peaks in Norwegians and thr East in Lithuanians. At Eurogenes, the separation is even more clear, Iberians get as much North-European as Estonians, and more than Russians, and it peaks in Swedes.

----------


## Knovas

But Lithuanians are mainly Baltic, wich is just a variation of Northern European (Northeast). So from this point they are more Northern European, doesn't matter if we refer to the Scandinavian type or another one. Northern European is very ambiguous depending on the context, but if we use it as whole, Baltics must com into the categorie, and the same for others.

----------


## julia90

pictures from Circassians found in wikipedia




LOL.. in wikipedia i've found also this, indeed the man in costumes are very goodlooking also the women too obviously

CIRCASSIAN BEAUTIES

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circassian_beauties

Circassian beauties is a term used to refer to an idealized image of the women of the Circassian people of the Northern Caucasus. A fairly extensive literary history suggests that Circassian women were thought to be unusually beautiful, spirited and elegant, and as such were desirable as concubines. This reputation dates back to the Ottoman Empire when Circassian women living in the Sultan's Imperial Harem started to build their reputation as extremely beautiful and genteel, and then became a common trope in Western Orientalism.
As a result of this reputation, in Europe and America Circassians were regularly characterised as the ideal of feminine beauty in poetry, novels and art. Cosmetic products were advertised, from the 18th century on, using the word "Circassian" in the title, or claiming that the product was based on substances used by the women of Circassia.
In the 1860s the showman P. T. Barnum exhibited women whom he claimed were Circassian beauties. They wore a distinctive Afro-like hair style, which had no precedent in earlier portrayals of Circassians, but which was soon copied by other female performers, who became known as "moss haired girls". These were typically presented as victims of sexual enslavement among the Turks, who had escaped from the harem to achieve freedom in America.



The legend of Circassian women in the western world is at least as old as 1734, when, in his Letters on the English, Voltaire alludes to the beauty of Circassian women:
The Circassians are poor, and their daughters are beautiful, and indeed it is in them they chiefly trade. They furnish with those beauties the seraglios of the Turkish Sultan, of the Persian Sophy, and of all of those who are wealthy enough to purchase and maintain such precious merchandise. These maidens are very honorably and virtuously instructed how to fondle and caress men; are taught dances of a very polite and effeminate kind; and how to heighten by the most voluptuous artifices the pleasures of their disdainful masters for whom they are designed.
– Letter XI, On Inoculation.[1]
Their beauty is mentioned in Henry Fielding's Tom Jones (1749), in which Fielding remarked, "How contemptible would the brightest Circassian beauty, drest in all the jewels of the Indies, appear to my eyes!"[2]
Similar erotic claims about Circassian women appear in Lord Byron's Don Juan (1818–24), in which the tale of a slave auction is told:
For one Circassian, a sweet girl, were given,
Warranted virgin. Beauty's brightest colours
Had decked her out in all the hues of heaven.
Her sale sent home some disappointed bawlers,
Who bade on till the hundreds reached the eleven,
But when the offer went beyond, they knew
‘Twas for the Sultan and at once withdrew.
- Don Juan, canto IV, verse 114
The legend of Circassian women was also repeated by legal theorist Gustav Hugo, who wrote that "Even beauty is more likely to be found in a Circassian slave girl than in a beggar girl", referring to the fact that even a slave has some security and safety, but a "free" beggar has none. Hugo's comment was later condemned by Karl Marx in The Philosophical Manifesto of the Historical School of Law (1842) on the grounds that it excused slavery.[3] Mark Twain reported in The Innocents Abroad (1869) that "Circassian and Georgian girls are still sold in Constantinople by their parents, but not publicly."[4]



An advertisement from 1782 titled "Bloom of Circassia" makes clear that it was by then well established "that the Circassians are the most beautiful Women in the World", but goes on to reveal that they "derive not all their Charms from Nature". They used a concoction supposedly extracted from a vegetable native to Circassia. Knowledge of this "Liquid Bloom" had been brought back by a "well-regarded gentleman" who had traveled and lived in the region. It "instantly gives a Rosy Hue to the Cheeks", a "lively and animated Bloom of Rural Beauty" that would not disappear in perspiration or handkerchiefs.[5]
In 1802 "The Balm of Mecca" was also marketed as being used by Circassians: "This delicate as well as fragrant composition has been long celebrated as the summit of cosmetics by all the Circassian and Georgian women in the seraglio of the Grand Sultan". It claims that the product was endorsed by Lady Mary Wortley Montague who stated that it was very helpful "for removing those sebacious impurities so noxious to beauty". The article continues, "Any lady must be as great an Infidel as the Grand Sultan himself, who, after receiving such authority can doubt that her skin will become as superlatively smooth, soft, white and delicate, as that of the lovely Fatima, whatever may have been its feel or its appearance before. What fair one but must yield implicit faith, when she has the honour of the Countess De --- fairly pledged, that all sepacious [sic] impurities will be at once removed by this wonder-working nostrum. And above all, who but must long for an article, from the seraglio of the Grand Turk, which produces a near resemblance to the Georgian and Circassian beauties?"[6]
"Circassian Lotion," was sold in 1806 for the skin, at fifty cents the bottle. "A sovereign remedy for surfeits, scorching from the heat of the sun, freckles, blights from cold and chills of winter, scorbutic, pimples or eruptions of the face and skin, however violent or disfigured, animalcula generated under the cuticle or outer skin, *****ley heat, shingles, ring worms, redness of the nose and chin, obstinate cutaneous diseases, and for every impurity or unnatural appearance with which the skin may be affected; to be used as a common wash for clearing and improving the complexion, and in a superior degree to preserve, soften, cleanse and beautify the skin".[7]
"Circassian Eye-Water" was marketed as "a sovereign remedy for all diseases of the eyes",[8] and in the 1840s "Circassian hair dye" was marketed to create a rich dark lustrous effect.[9]

By the early nineteenth century, Circassians were associated with theories of racial hierarchy, which elevated the Caucasus region as the source of the purest examples of the white race, which was named the Caucasian race after the area by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach. Blumenbach theorised that the Circassians were the closest to God's original model of humanity, and thus "the purest and most beautiful whites were the Circassians".[10] This fuelled the idea of female Circassian beauty.[11]
Circassians are depicted in images of harems at this time through these ideologies of racial hierarchy. John Frederick Lewis's The Harem portrays Circassians as the dominant mistresses of the harem, who look down on other women, as implied in the review of the painting in The Art Journal, which described it as follows,
It represents the interior of a harem at Cairo, wherein is seated in luxurious ease a young Turk, attired in the excess of Moslem fashion. Near him, and reclining upon cushions, are two Circassian women, also dressed in the extremity of Oriental taste... On the right is seen a tall Nubian eunuch, who removes from the shoulders of an Egyptian slave the shawl by which she had been covered, in order to show her to the master of the harem; this figure with her high shoulders and the characteristics of her features, is a most successful national impersonation. The Circassian women look languidly to the Egyptian with an expression of supreme contempt, which is responded to by a sneer on the face of the Nubian eunuch.[12]
Orientalizing paintings of nudes were also sometimes exhibited as "Circassians".
The Circassians became major news during the Caucasian War, in which Russia conquered the North Caucasus, displacing large numbers of Circassians southwards. In 1856 The New York Times published a report entitled "Horrible Traffic in Circassian Women — Infanticide in Turkey", asserting that a consequence of the Russian conquest of the Caucasus was an excess of beautiful Circassian women on the Constantinople slave market, and that this was causing prices of slaves in general to plummet.[13] The story drew on ideas of racial hierarchy, stating that,
the temptation to possess a Circassian girl at such low prices is so great in the minds of the Turks that many who cannot afford to keep several slaves have been sending their blacks to market, in order to make room for a newly-purchased white girl.
The article also claimed that children born to the "inferior" black concubines were being killed. This story drew widespread attention to the area, as did later conflicts.
At the same time writers and illustrators were also creating images depicting the authentic costumes and people of the Caucasus. Francis Davis Millet depicted Circassian women during his 1877 coverage of the Russo-Turkish war, specifying local costume and hairstyle.

The combination of the popular issues of slavery, the Orient, racial ideology and sexual titillation gave the reports of Circassian women sufficient notoriety at the time that the circus leader P. T. Barnum decided to capitalize on this interest. He displayed a "Circassian Beauty" at his American Museum in 1865. Barnum's Circassian beauties were young women with tall, teased hairstyles, rather like the Afro style of the 1970s.[14] Actual Circassian hairstyles bore no resemblance to Barnum's fantasy.[15] Barnum's first "Circassian" was marketed under the name "Zalumma Agra" and was exhibited at his American Museum in New York from 1864. Barnum had written to John Greenwood, his agent in Europe, asking him to purchase a beautiful Circassian girl to exhibit, or at least to hire a girl who could "pass for" one. However, it seems that "Zalumma Agra" was probably a local girl hired by the show, as were later "Circassians".[16] Barnum also produced a booklet about another of his Circassians, Zoe Meleke, who was portrayed as an ideally beautiful and refined woman who had escaped a life of sexual slavery.
The portrayal of a white woman as a rescued slave at the time of the American Civil War played on the racial connotations of slavery at the time. It has been argued that the distinctive hairstyle affiliates the side-show Circassian with African identity, and thus,
resonates oddly yet resoundingly with the rest of her identifying significations: her racial purity, her sexual enslavement, her position as colonial subject; her beauty. The Circassian blended elements of white Victorian True Womanhood with traits of the enslaved African American woman in one curiosity.[14]
The trend spread, with supposedly Circassian women featured in dime museums and travelling medicine shows, sometimes known as "Moss-haired girls". They were typically identified by the distinctive hairstyle, which was held in place by the use of beer. They also often performed in pseudo-oriental costume. Many postcards of Circassians also circulated. Though Barnum's original women were portrayed as proud and genteel, later images of Circassians often emphasised erotic poses and revealing costumes.[14] As the original fad faded, the "Circassians" started to add to their appeal by performing traditional circus tricks such as sword swallowing.[17]

----------


## julia90

a youtube reportage about Circassians living in Israel.. you can look from 1.03 , very good looking men and women

----------


## julia90

so un-europoid looking? i'd say no

----------


## Knovas

I'd say yes. Several don't look European to me considering what is possible to see (not much).

----------


## julia90

LOL.. what's not european.. and WHAT IS EUROPEAN ???

It's a waste of time.. i didn't want your response, i want response from other people, yours doesn't count

to all the other users: Do they look less europoid looking than Sardineans?

----------


## Knovas

I think I can give my opinion the same as you. And they don't to me, the same as quite Sardinians don't too. The problem is you'll never have a significant amount of people to see how the things work in average. A few picts doesn't mean anything.

----------


## julia90

think as you want, with all the respect to you, but the things you said above for me are bullshits

----------


## julia90

> the same as quite Sardinians don't too.


untill now sardinians were osanned as being one of the "most pure" european race, paleolithic and bullshits like that etc..
palelolithic for me doesn't account for european look.

you are biased, that's the truth

----------


## Alan

Is it just me or do you two not recognize that Circassians are living throughout the Middle East since at least thousand years and that the Circassians from Israel in the Video above are obviously mixed with the muslim Palestinian community there. An Circassian from Israel is as much representative for an real Circassian from Caucasus as a ethnic Spaniard whom ancestors lived since hundred years in South America and who were obviously mixed with the locals. To find Circassians who are from Dagestan is very problematic because there are as much Circassians throughout the Middle East, Europe, America as there are in Dagestan.


This here are real Circassians from Caucasus






Just for the information. The Circassians have due the Turkic influence some Asian admixture which is visible in some Persons. This is why I usually talk about Lezgians, Ossetians and Chechens more as representation for North Caucasus.

----------


## Knovas

> think as you want, with all the respect to you, but the things you said above for me are bullshits


 This is not respect, at least, not the same I had for your opinions. You are simply ofended becuase we don't agree...it's nothing drastic to my knowledge, but it's ok if you feel better. 

And I personally did not say anything of what you say about Sardinians, so I'm absloutely not biased, and you show to be plain liar telling this. What I said is they get very different genetic results from a run to another, and specialy in the last one they are 85% European, what means very far from being the most purest Europeans. So don't put words in my mouth dishonestly, since I dedicated a large post talking about the different results got by Sardinians between K=10 and K=12.

----------


## julia90

thank you alan for your useful post.
Indeed i noticed some mongolic look in some of them, due to turkik admixture.

To me they look europoid, and the people of europe originated in western asia (many of them, others from the plains of russia).. those of the balkans and italy have also genes in common with Circassians, also the other groups such slavic, germanic, etc.. arrived in prehistory from the areas around caucasus

----------


## julia90

> This is not respect, at least, not the same I had for your opinions. You are simply ofended becuase we don't agree...it's nothing drastic to my knowledge, but it's ok if you feel better. And I personally did not say anything of what you say about Sardinians, so I'm absloutely no biased, and you show to be plain liar telling this. What I said is they get very different genetic results from a run to another, and specialy in the last one they are 85% European, what means very far from being the most purest Europeans. So don't put words in my mouth dishonestly, since I dedicated a large post talking about the different results got by Sardinians between K=10 and K=12.


the thing is that you are contributing to spread false beliefs about people of southern italy and the balkans, agreeing on that map that says EUROPEAN ADMIXTURE, and European means Nothing and Everything.

I don't respect this opinion of you.

For the rest i'm okay with you.

----------


## Knovas

Southern Italians and Italians as whole cluster with Europeans, the same as Greeks and the Balkans. If you missed something like this (I think I told it several times), now you have it.

So if your problem was another, there was no need to put words in my mouth never said by me. Of course this means 0% respect, and sorry, but you can't tell nothing except you simply desagree.

----------


## julia90

My problem is that that map means nothing and everything
The title of that map means nothing and everything.

----------


## Alan

better representation of the People from North Caucasus.

Circassians



Ossetians





Lezgians-Avars start at 0:30 and also look at 2:40 there you can see most people.



Chechens



Georgians

----------


## Wilhelm

Please, Julia and Alan, stop spamming on my thread. This thread is not about how Caucasus people look. It has already been proven that they don't cluster with any europeans. My personal opinion is that Caucasus people have an exotic look, not found in Europe, while Sardinians are for the most part western-Med.

----------


## julia90

yes, the look it's found in europe, in southern italy and the balkans.
therefore it's european, like the others

----------


## Alan

> Please, Julia and Alan, stop spamming on my thread. This thread is not about how Caucasus people look. It has already been proven that they don't cluster with any europeans. My personal opinion is that Caucasus people have an exotic look, not found in Europe, while Sardinians are for the most part western-Med.


Actually it is not spamming because this has very well to do with the subject of whether West Asian admixture should be considered as European or not. I dont really care but I find it necessary to represent the component just like it is. spamming would rather be what persons like you do, namely repeating again and again the same nonsense with less than zero knowledge about what he is talking.

----------


## Wilhelm

> Actually it is not spamming because this has very well to do with the subject of whether West Asian admixture should be considered as European or not. I dont really care but I find it necessary to represent the component just like it is. spamming would rather be what persons like you do, namely repeating again and again the same nonsense with less than zero knowledge about what he is talking.


 This thread is about autosomal dna, not about phenotypes. If West-Asian was european that would make Georgians more european than most of Europe, it doesn't make any sense, considering they cluster with Iranians. Not only that, but middle-easterns would get over 70% european, even 80%. Professor Dr.McDonald treats the West-Asian as separate from the european scores, and his analysis are very accurate and popular. End of this discussion.

----------


## Kardu

Since my countrymen were mentioned several times on this thread I'd like to make a comment.

I am a 'pure' Georgian. My father, grandfather, great grandfather were blond with dark blue eyes. (reminding you that we have 0% Slavic blood in our family). Because of my maternal side I am darker with brown eyes. In Europe where I currently live people think that I am Italian or Spanish. I don't write this to prove anything or have inferiority complex and want to be 'European' :) I'm proud to be Georgian and just my family's history starts earlier than that of many European states. Just want to mention that on Interpetome.com my results come among European on HGDP World (100 000 SNP). There are Near Eastern clusters close-by too but I am surrounded by European triangles :)

----------


## Knovas

Hi Kardu,

Well, I'm not surprised for the Interpretome results, still a work in process but very interesting tool. Davidski, the Eurogenes genome blogger, made special mention of this: http://bga101.blogspot.com/2011/06/i...-analysis.html

I share genomes with an ethnic Georgian like you at 23andme, and although he has the highest similarity with Southern Europe (in a low value compared with Southern Europeans), there is also a very high similarity with the Near East. He doesn't cluster in the map with Europeans, also he does not cluster with Near Easterns. He just does not cluster with anybody except other Georgians (I asume). So your results seem reasonable to me, probably others would get similar reports as yours on Interpretome.

You are Caucasians, that's the most accurate definition. Of course, light traits can appear sometimes, nothing rare on this.

----------


## Alan

> You are Caucasians, that's the most accurate definition. Of course,* light traits can appear sometimes*, nothing rare on this.


someone who knows the Caucasus, he knows how usual this is. You can read it in many books.

----------


## Alan

> Since my countrymen were mentioned several times on this thread I'd like to make a comment.
> 
> I am a 'pure' Georgian. My father, grandfather, great grandfather were blond with dark blue eyes. (reminding you that we have 0% Slavic blood in our family). Because of my maternal side I am darker with brown eyes. In Europe where I currently live people think that I am Italian or Spanish. I don't write this to prove anything or have inferiority complex and want to be 'European' :) I'm proud to be Georgian and just my family's history starts earlier than that of many European states. Just want to mention that on Interpetome.com my results come among European on HGDP World (100 000 SNP). There are Near Eastern clusters close-by too but I am surrounded by European triangles :)


Thats nothing unusual for West Asians. All Kurds I have seen so far on 23andme cluster first with South European, second North European and third Near Eastern. This simply means that they cluster rather with Europeans than Southwest Asians however on global maps they dont appear as Near Eastern nor in European cluster. They disappear as if they have an own cluster but very close to Europeans.

----------


## Kardu

> Hi Kardu,
> 
> Well, I'm not surprised for the Interpretome results, still a work in process but very interesting tool. Davidski, the Eurogenes genome blogger, made special mention of this: http://bga101.blogspot.com/2011/06/i...-analysis.html
> 
> I share genomes with an ethnic Georgian like you at 23andme, and although he has the highest similarity with Southern Europe (in a low value compared with Southern Europeans), there is also a very high similarity with the Near East. He doesn't cluster in the map with Europeans, also he does not cluster with Near Easterns. He just does not cluster with anybody except other Georgians (I asume). So your results seem reasonable to me, probably others would get similar reports as yours on Interpretome.
> 
> You are Caucasians, that's the most accurate definition. Of course, light traits can appear sometimes, nothing rare on this.


I agree that the Caucasians would be the most accurate definition at the moment. More people needs to be tested from our region for more fine-grained analysis, it's very few of us compared to other populations.
As for the 23andme, there too I am among southern Europeans and not really close to Middle Easterners. Interpretome Reference Populations at 100 000 SNPs places me alone at equal distance between Europeans and Middle Easterners :)

----------


## Kardu

> someone who knows the Caucasus, he knows how usual this is. You can read it in many books.


Indeed, Alan, not that I consider light skin and blue/grey eyes admirable or desirable but it is a common trait in the Caucasus and has nothing to do with Slavic admixture. It is attested by medieval travelers and Greek and Latin authors.

----------


## Alan

look at this map. The light Eye color in Asia minor comes directly from Caucasus.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Augenfarbe.svg

----------


## julia90

Indeed i consider pure caucasian people look not so completely foreign to at least the look of italians and people from the balkans.
I think that caucasian people are goodlooking too, and many of them seems to be very tall.
I wouldn't distingue a caucasian for an italian if i saw him in italy, probably if he had a bit of a dissimilar look i would think he was from the balkans, but then in italy we have those looks too.

----------


## Kardu

> Indeed i consider pure caucasian people look not so completely foreign to at least the look of italians and people from the balkans.
> I think that caucasian people are goodlooking too, and many of them seems to be very tall.
> I wouldn't distingue a caucasian for an italian if i saw him in italy, probably if he had a bit of a dissimilar look i would think he was from the balkans, but then in italy we have those looks too.


 I personally was thought to be Italian by Italians in Spain several times :) As of height, indeed many people in Georgia are pretty tall. My grandfather and great-grandfather were 196 cm, I am just 180 because of my grandma probably but my cousins are still 190+ cm.

----------


## Knovas

They are very similar comparing with Europeans, although genetically speaking it's possible to make the distinction. Anyways, Caucasians are very relevant in Europe, since almost all Europeans have some West Asian admixture. Actually, only Baltics, Northeast Iberians and Basques, seem to lack the component frequently.

Possibly ethnic Catalans are the ones with less of this admixture as the West Asian map shows.

----------


## julia90

Indeed, genetically they area bit removed from the core bulk, but if you see for example finnish or russians, they are as equally distants to europeans as people from the caucasus... so Who is european or not is quite relative..

and for me it's more important the looks, and people from the caucasus don't look foreign in italy or the balkans.

also for example sardinians are very genetically distant from italians, but they don't look alien in italy

----------


## julia90

> I personally was thought to be Italian by Italians in Spain several times :) As of height, indeed many people in Georgia are pretty tall. My grandfather and great-grandfather were 196 cm, I am just 180 because of my grandma probably but my cousins are still 190+ cm.


here in italy as you have seen from the genetic map we have some genes shared with people from the caucasus, the peak of this genes is in the Adyghe people or Circassians..
this range from a 20%-30% of genes shared.
In the balkans is the same, expecially in the southern part of the balkans.

I think it should be curious and fashinating, know the history of the spread of genes from the caucasus to the balkans and italy, like the ancient migrantion that brought them there.. or could it be that all the people of europe comes from the caucasian area in pre historic times

----------


## Carlitos

*Hello, the server does not allow me to enter the forum.*

----------


## Knovas

No Julia. At least, all the all the Finns I remember to share genomes with me clustered with Northern Europe, but it's possible some Russians near the Urals show what you say (as well as Northern Finnish). The average Finns and Russians cluster with Northern Europe at the top.

----------


## julia90

not from all the european people.. adyge are more near to suoth eastern european, than finnish are

----------


## Knovas

Because the Finns as I said are too Northern. The closest reference are Lituanians and Belarusians, followed by Russians according to the Doug McDonald plot. I guess it's pretty similar to yours, I don't see all populations clearly, but the vast majority.

----------


## Kardu

> Possibly ethnic Catalans are the ones with less of this admixture as the West Asian map shows.


What is the genetic footprint of Phoenicians among contemporary ethnic Catalans?

----------


## Knovas

Autosomally speaking, If there was Phoenecian genes among ethnic Catalans, it has been totaly replaced, or almost entirely. Perhaps it's possible to find a little portion of E subclades, G2a or J2, but note this haplogroups are quite low among them, and very difficult to be linked with the Phoenicians. It is believed they spread more likely haplogroup T, wich is actually absent between Catalans.

I guess the Phoenicians were very famous in ancient times to make business in the Catalan coast (as well as others), and it's something has been integrated as part of the Catalan history. But it doesn't mean the genetic impact was significant, it basically seems it was nearly insignificant. Most of the haplogroups I mentioned, were surely brought by the Romans, not the Phoenicians.

----------


## Kardu

> Autosomally speaking, If there was Phoenecian genes among ethnic Catalans, it has been totaly replaced, or almost entirely. Perhaps it's possible to find a little portion of E subclades, G2a or J2, but note this haplogroups are quite low among them, and very difficult to be linked with the Phoenicians. It is believed they spread more likely haplogroup T, wich is actually absent between Catalans.
> 
> I guess the Phoenicians were very famous in ancient times to make business in the Catalan coast (as well as others), and it's something has been integrated as part of the Catalan history. But it doesn't mean the genetic impact was significant, it basically seems it was nearly insignificant. Most of the haplogroups I mentioned, were surely brought by the Romans, not the Phoenicians.


True, Phoenician genetic legacy still remains a mystery all around Mediterranean. 
Speaking of ethnic Catalans I've also read (and spoke with some people of these surnames) that many surnames which are considered Catalan actually are of conversos, those like: Galiana, Moyà, Bou, Martí, Miró, Picó and many more both in Catalonia and Baleares. I guess they belong to hg E and J you mention.

----------


## Knovas

Actually Catalunya is quite influenced by the rest of the Peninsula, but it's something probably started to happen from 1714, when the Castilians got Barcelona and Catalunya was definetly integrated with the rest. Anyways, specially during Franco's dictature, was when more peoples from other parts of Iberia came there to live. But still can find people who's heritage is 100% Catalan, or in a very high degree.

Also, ethnic Catalans usually have surnames of French origin, like Soler (Soiler) and similars. But I guess this is quite old, and it's perfectly known the Catalan language have several similarities with French, so I'd take this as native. In my opinion, the most ethnic Catalans you can find nowadays are in towns of the Tarragona province (not around the coast), and towns around Central Catalunya. This are regions like the Alt Camp, Conca de Barberà, Segarra (South), Anoia (South), and possibly parts of Urgell.

----------


## Kardu

> Actually Catalunya is quite influenced by the rest of the Peninsula, but it's something probably started to happen from 1714, when the Castilians got Barcelona and Catalunya was definetly integrated with the rest. Anyways, specially during Franco's dictature, was when more peoples from other parts of Iberia came there to live. But still can find people who's heritage is 100% Catalan, or in a very high degree.
> 
> Also, ethnic Catalans usually have surnames of French origin, like Soler (Soiler) and similars. But I guess this is quite old, and it's perfectly known the Catalan language have several similarities with French, so I'd take this as native. In my opinion, the most ethnic Catalans you can find nowadays are in towns of the Tarragona province (not around the coast), and towns around Central Catalunya. This are regions like the Alt Camp, Conca de Barberà, Segarra (South), Anoia (South), and possibly parts of Urgell.


 Interesting information, moltes gràcies :)

----------


## Sybilla

Adygei look very European and they cluster with Italians. The wrongness of this map, in my opinion, is that it considers to be "European" only the Western, the Eastern and the mediterranean admixtures. What about the Uralic, the Anatolian, the Baltic and other admixtures that are europoid as well?

----------


## Sybilla

> Indeed i consider pure caucasian people look not so completely foreign to at least the look of italians and people from the balkans.
> I think that caucasian people are goodlooking too, and many of them seems to be very tall.
> I wouldn't distingue a caucasian for an italian if i saw him in italy, probably if he had a bit of a dissimilar look i would think he was from the balkans, but then in italy we have those looks too.


100% agreed. Some Caucasians and some Balkanians would fit without problems in Italy.

----------


## Sybilla

> Because the Finns as I said are too Northern. The closest reference are Lituanians and Belarusians, followed by Russians according to the Doug McDonald plot. I guess it's pretty similar to yours, I don't see all populations clearly, but the vast majority.


Not really, Finns appear isolated, as although they look nordic, genetically they are isolated from the rest of Europe. They neither speak an Indo-European language.
Basically, from what I remember, the repopulation of Europe followed two lines: from West (Spain and Hiberia) in the paleolithic and from Anatolia during the neolitic. Both the admixture are very old and there is no reason to consider the first European and the second not.

----------


## Kardu

> Adygei look very European and they cluster with Italians. The wrongness of this map, in my opinion, is that it considers to be "European" only the Western, the Eastern and the mediterranean admixtures. What about the Uralic, the Anatolian, the Baltic and other admixtures that are europoid as well?


Out of curiosity, where do Adygei cluster with Italians?

----------


## Knovas

> Not really, Finns appear isolated, as although they look nordic, genetically they are isolated from the rest of Europe. They neither speak an Indo-European language.
> Basically, from what I remember, the repopulation of Europe followed two lines: from West (Spain and Hiberia) in the paleolithic and from Anatolia during the neolitic. Both the admixture are very old and there is no reason to consider the first European and the second not.


The language has nothing to do here, Basques don't speak IE and they usually get the highest European on admixture. It's that simple: the Finns cluster at the top of Northern Europe sligthly deviating towards Asia (small Mongoloid influence), while the others fall totally out being Southeast Europe the closest European reference (very strong mideast), but not the usual proximity you find in neighbour populations. They are quite close and similar to Europe, but not the same.

I consider the second people plain Caucasians or West Asians, there's no better sumary at all.

----------


## Sybilla

> The language has nothing to do here, Basques don't speak IE and they usually get the highest European on admixture. It's that simple: the Finns cluster at the top of Northern Europe sligthly deviating towards Asia (small Mongoloid influence), while the others fall totally out being Southeast Europe the closest European reference (very strong mideast), but not the usual proximity you find in neighbour populations. They are quite close and similar to Europe, but not the same.
> 
> I consider the second people plain Caucasians or West Asians, there's no better sumary at all.


Again, Finns appear isolated. Italians, in the maps that show the proximity also to the Balkanian populations, appear close to Greece, Romania and Yugoslavia at east, to Spain and Portugal at west and to France in the North. If we consider also the maps that show also the Middle Eastern and Caucasian peoples, Adygei are the closest to Italians.

http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.c...pg?w=600&h=392

----------


## Kardu

Sorry, Adigey and Italians are quite far away from each other autosomally speaking...

> DodecadOracle("Adygei", k=30)
[,1] [,2] 
[1,] "Adygei" "0" 
[2,] "Balkars_Y" "2.2782" 
[3,] "North_Ossetians_Y" "3.8923" 
[4,] "Chechens_Y" "6.5803" 
[5,] "Kumyks_Y" "11.5646"
[6,] "Lezgins" "16.0452"
[7,] "Georgians" "17.311" 
[8,] "Armenians" "18.245" 
[9,] "Abhkasians_Y" "19.5402"
[10,] "Turks" "22.0068"
[11,] "Nogais_Y" "23.3688"
[12,] "Turkish_D" "24.1895"
[13,] "Armenians_Y" "24.7481"
[14,] "Armenian_D" "25.0346"
[15,] "Kurds_Y" "29.7594"
[16,] "Azerbaijan_Jews" "30.0895"
[17,] "Uzbekistan_Jews" "30.9443"
[18,] "Georgia_Jews" "31.0673"
[19,] "Assyrian_D" "31.1609"
[20,] "Kurd_D" "31.5734"
[21,] "Iranian_D" "31.6223"
[22,] "Iranian_Jews" "34.3597"
[23,] "Cypriots" "35.3481"
[24,] "Druze" "36.1089"
[25,] "Iraq_Jews" "36.6274"
[26,] "Iranians" "37.027" 
[27,] "Turkmens_Y" "37.9041"
[28,] "Lebanese" "37.9861"
[29,] "Greek_D" "38.0726"
[30,] "Syrians" "40.3828"
> DodecadOracle("C_Italian_D", k=30)
[,1] [,2] 
[1,] "C_Italian_D" "0" 
[2,] "O_Italian_D" "4.0037" 
[3,] "Tuscan" "5.7105" 
[4,] "TSI25" "7.3722" 
[5,] "Sicilian_D" "8.0119" 
[6,] "S_Italian_Sicilian_D" "8.1456" 
[7,] "Ashkenazy_Jews" "9.1624" 
[8,] "Greek_D" "9.3226" 
[9,] "Ashkenazi_D" "10.171" 
[10,] "S_Italian_D" "10.3581"
[11,] "N_Italian_D" "15.0413"
[12,] "North_Italian"  "15.3245"
[13,] "Sephardic_Jews" "15.7032"
[14,] "Morocco_Jews" "17.6627"
[15,] "Romanians" "19.8562"
[16,] "Bulgarians_Y" "19.9434"
[17,] "Bulgarian_D" "20.0297"
[18,] "Cypriots" "26.5842"
[19,] "Portuguese_D" "27.3929"
[20,] "Turkish_D" "27.4754"
[21,] "Spaniards" "28.1125"
[22,] "IBS" "28.7962"
[23,] "Spanish_D" "29.9033"
[24,] "Turks" "31.6785"
[25,] "Lebanese" "31.7734"
[26,] "French_D" "32.0284"
[27,] "French" "32.1022"
[28,] "Druze" "34.2462"
[29,] "Syrians" "34.45" 
[30,] "Jordanians" "35.0924"

----------


## Kardu

DodecadOracle("C_Italian_D",mixedmode=T)
[,1] [,2] 
[1,] "C_Italian_D" "0" 
[2,] "41.5% Sicilian_D + 58.5% Tuscan" "0.68" 
[3,] "47.9% Sicilian_D + 52.1% TSI25" "0.9226"
[4,] "41.9% Ashkenazi_D + 58.1% TSI25" "1.0218"
[5,] "41% S_Italian_Sicilian_D + 59% Tuscan" "1.0858"
[6,] "35.7% Ashkenazi_D + 64.3% Tuscan" "1.1041"
[7,] "65% S_Italian_Sicilian_D + 35% N_Italian_D" "1.1229"
[8,] "59.3% S_Italian_D + 40.7% N_Italian_D" "1.1851"
[9,] "47.4% S_Italian_Sicilian_D + 52.6% TSI25" "1.2315"
[10,] "73.8% Tuscan + 26.2% Sephardic_Jews" "1.338" 
> DodecadOracle("Adygei",mixedmode=T)
[,1] [,2] 
[1,] "Adygei" "0" 
[2,] "77.7% Balkars_Y + 22.3% Chechens_Y" "1.3366"
[3,] "8.6% Lezgins + 91.4% Balkars_Y" "1.7054"
[4,] "0.9% Brahui + 99.1% Balkars_Y" "2.1487"
[5,] "0.9% Balochi + 99.1% Balkars_Y" "2.1512"
[6,] "0.9% Makrani + 99.1% Balkars_Y" "2.1627"
[7,] "0.8% Lithuanians + 99.2% Balkars_Y" "2.1918"
[8,] "0.8% Lithuanian_D + 99.2% Balkars_Y" "2.1928"
[9,] "1% Pathan + 99% Balkars_Y" "2.1952"
[10,] "95.1% Balkars_Y + 4.9% Kumyks_Y" "2.201"

----------


## MOESAN

> Interesting information, moltes gràcies :)


neither french surnames nor french language - they are of their own, latinized people in an intermediary position between old spanish latin languages (not the castillan which presents some links with gascon, basque and other unclear substratum) and old occitan language, but nearer to south-west occitan.

----------


## Kardu

> neither french surnames nor french language - they are of their own, latinized people in an intermediary position between old spanish latin languages (not the castillan which presents some links with gascon, basque and other unclear substratum) and old occitan language, but nearer to south-west occitan.


Thanks, Moesan, yes, I know. Since learning languages is my hobby I even speak basic Catalan :)

----------


## Knovas

> Again, Finns appear isolated. Italians, in the maps that show the proximity also to the Balkanian populations, appear close to Greece, Romania and Yugoslavia at east, to Spain and Portugal at west and to France in the North. If we consider also the maps that show also the Middle Eastern and Caucasian peoples, Adygei are the closest to Italians.
> 
> http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.c...pg?w=600&h=392


As Kardu showed now, no significant proximity between Italians and the Adiyei. Even the Greeks are far away as I pointed above about Southeast Europe, so I'm afraid your objections are not proving the opposite.

----------


## Wilhelm

Agree with guys here, there is no proximity between Adygei and Italians. The Adygei are a Caucasus population, they cluster near Georgians and Turks, not with italians.

----------


## Kardu

> Agree with guys here, there is no proximity between Adygei and Italians. The Adygei are a Caucasus population, they cluster near Georgians and Turks, not with italians.


Even between Adygei and Georgians there is a significant distance, although of course they are much closer to us than to Italians :)

[1,] "Georgians" "0" 
[2,] "Abhkasians_Y" "3.0806" 
[3,] "North_Ossetians_Y" "15.4032"
[4,] "Balkars_Y" "17.1225"
[5,] "Adygei" "17.311" 
[6,] "Armenians" "22.0152"
[7,] "Chechens_Y" "22.3917"
[8,] "Armenians_Y" "25.2067"
[9,] "Armenian_D" "25.5484"
[10,] "Kumyks_Y" "26.0678"

----------


## Sybilla

> Sorry, Adigey and Italians are quite far away from each other autosomally speaking...
> 
> > DodecadOracle("Adygei", k=30)
> [,1] [,2] 
> [1,] "Adygei" "0" 
> [2,] "Balkars_Y" "2.2782" 
> [3,] "North_Ossetians_Y" "3.8923" 
> [4,] "Chechens_Y" "6.5803" 
> [5,] "Kumyks_Y" "11.5646"
> ...


I had in mind a map that I have found once on the net, but I don't know if it is reliable and anyway I cannot find it anymore. So thank you for the info. So who are the closest populations to Italians?

----------


## Kardu

The closest would be Greeks

----------


## Knovas

It depends on the kind of Italians. Southern Italians for sure have a genetic overlap with the Greeks, and North Italians tend to be quite close to the Iberians in a lesser degree. Tuscans, Central Italians, etc., are in the middle, just check the Dodecad Oracle and see what they get.

----------


## MOESAN

> No way georgians look more european than Sardinians. To start with, georgians genetically cluster with Iranians and Turks, and also look similar to them (unless we talk about russian admixed georgians) while Sardinians cluster with Europeans and look mainly euro-mediterranean, maybe more archaic because of their strong palaeolithic ancestry.


I understand the feeling of these people of the Caucasus or Anatolia:anthropologically speaking they are 'caucasians' and 'caucasians' is the same general meaning as evolved 'white type' - all ancestors of Western Europe came from these areas! for my point of view, the majority of the 'western asian' and even 'south-west asian' and a lot of the 'north-west Africa' are genes of 'europoids' - if you want to "castrate lice"and be logical you have to break the 'european pole genes' down and to separate 'Western Europe' and 'medridterranean' and 'Eastern Europe' poles
it's my feeling

----------


## julia90

> LOL a typical comment from an complexed italian from mainland, that have difficult to accept that sardinians have less extraeuropean admixture than all other italians
> 
> moreover do you consider exotic from an italian point of view those sardinian musicians? where do you think to live? in Sweden? LOL
> 
> one of those musicians is even a south western european cromagnoid (Berid), ancient sub race spread also in Iberia, so they have more western looking than a southern italian, sardinians are pred. western mediterraneans, southern italians have high east mediterranean and armenoid component so they look much more caucasian or middle eastern.
> 
> unfortunately i can't still post links or photos, but when i will can it, i will post some exotic mainland italians, to understand that your attempt to consider sardinians like not europid exotic aliens is ridicolous!


infact i like sardinian people (for their mentality too wich isn't southern italian exagerated, but balanced and very educated mostly when they emigrate in another region) and also for their beautiful looks wich i don't consider swarthy.
i have even friends with sardinean origins

----------


## Carlos

> *Knovas*Actually Catalunya is quite influenced by the rest of the Peninsula, but it's something probably started to happen from 1714, when the Castilians got Barcelona and Catalunya was definetly integrated with the rest. Anyways, specially during Franco's dictature, was when more peoples from other parts of Iberia came there to live. But still can find people who's heritage is 100% Catalan, or in a very high degree.
> 
> Also, ethnic Catalans usually have surnames of French origin, like Soler (Soiler) and similars. But I guess this is quite old, and it's perfectly known the Catalan language have several similarities with French, so I'd take this as native. In my opinion, the most ethnic Catalans you can find nowadays are in towns of the Tarragona province (not around the coast), and towns around Central Catalunya. This are regions like the Alt Camp, Conca de Barberà, Segarra (South), Anoia (South), and possibly parts of Urgell.




These questions are very outlandish, looking at this map of Europe in 1235 Catalonia simply does not exist.

----------


## alais

Is it serious this map?

----------


## MOESAN

> Is it serious this map?


1- surname FERRER is not more french than catalan: the occtian language is close enough to the catalan one, so FERRER is AND a french name AND a cataln name (maybe too north italian name!!!) castillan HERRERO, leonese or aragonese FERRERO
see names as PUJOLS, CAMPS, BLANCH, MAS, TIMONER, MAYOL, CASTELLS...
2- yes, Catalunia has been part of the "french" territories for some times, in the Middle Ages! More under the Comte of Tulouse/Tolosa than ynder the french crown, perhaps. Historians could help us there

----------


## Knovas

> These questions are very outlandish, looking at this map of Europe in 1235 Catalonia simply does not exist.


¿Since when this has something to do with the fact that *Catalan speakers* exist in the same territories since a very long time? The blindness derived from your anti-Catalan agenda does not allow you to get the main idea. Please, stop mixing up things, there's no room here for nationalistic crusades.

----------


## alais

I was asking about first map.  :Smiling: 

Ferrero is an Italian surname too. Nutella.

----------


## zanipolo

> These questions are very outlandish, looking at this map of Europe in 1235 Catalonia simply does not exist.


Are you serious?
This is a map indicating heriditary lands of Kings only and since Aragon had a king it was named, Barcelona and the catalans where initially a dukedom which is ignored on this BIAS map. History tells us that the last aragon king gave his kingdom and crown to the duke of barcelona.

This same map also has the HRE as dominating all of Italy even though they had no hold on certain parts, had no rule on these parts and these parts ignored this HRE

It plainly a dreamers map for kings and a similar map was presented in 1815 at the congress of Vienna to eliminate all republics and non regal governments from Europe

----------


## MOESAN

> Could there possibly be another motive besides an obvious racist one for wanting to prove to everyone that you are 'pure' Europeans? Your infatuation is beginning to concern me Wilhelm.



this map has just to be taken as it is: a map about distribution of the more common geographically European genes according to a restricted meaning given to the name 'Europe': it is just an approach to genetic distirbution not trying to determine the most important and distinctive traits of far previous origin - so there are 'caucasian' types very close to most of the Europeans that bear some geographically different genes according to selection - 
the panneling of the chosen genes is partially arbitrary and doesn't determine which are the more important genes for a "racial" discrimination - nobody has to be offensed and everybody on this thread holds a part of truth

----------


## zanipolo

This is my mixture and have some questions for ............


Population


East_Eurasian
30.52%

West_Eurasian
1.90%

Caucasian
33.01%

South_Asian
13.50%

Paleo_mediterranean
21.07%





q1 - what is Paleo_mediterranean

q2 - my markers of my Y-dna indicate matches in majority british isles, norway, sweden or central europe ( swiss, Nitalian, austria and southern german ), with this mix, can I conclude my matching people all migrated to northern europe

q3 - 1 am 100% T1b when using all 37 markers, but a memeber excluded my fast moving markers and I am 92% T1b, would this effect my mixture

*Above is using #5 

and 

Below is using #11*

Population


Paleo_Balkanic
-

Celto_Germanic
3.30%

Caucasian
23.44%

Volga_Uralic
2.90%

Iberian
2.26%

Altaic_Turkic
28.12%

Paleo_North_European
1.13%

South_Central_Asian
12.90%

East_European
-

Uralic_Permic
1.74%

Mediterranean
24.21%




what number am I supposed to use

----------


## julia90

> everywhere in all anthropology forums is findable at least an italian from mainland italy affected from complex of inferiority that can't bear that sardinians are genetically the most europeans among italians
> 
> are you tuscans? well look about your 100% true european looking tuscans, like 
> Carlo Conti, Denis Verdini and Cecchi Gori...etc!
> a Sardinian who doesn't look completely european is the Senator Beppe Pisanu, that have ancient ancestors from Tuscany!
> 
> LOL


I'm not racist against swarthy italians, since in my family i have swarthy types.
and sardinianas are however more dark haired and have more pigmented skin than authentic tuscans since we tuscans live at about 43,20 of latitude and sardineans at about 40,20...

----------


## Vallicanus

> everywhere in all anthropology forums is findable at least an italian from mainland italy affected from complex of inferiority that can't bear that sardinians are genetically the most europeans among italians
> 
> are you tuscans? well look about your 100% true european looking tuscans, like 
> Carlo Conti, Denis Verdini and Cecchi Gori...etc!
> a Sardinian who doesn't look completely european is the Senator Beppe Pisanu, that have ancient ancestors from Tuscany!
> 
> LOL


This recent map of Italian skin tones shows that while Sardinia is often lighter-skinned than mainland southern Italy or Sicily, at least 2 Tuscan provinces, Florence and Prato, are among the lightest in Italy.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...b5/Italien.jpg

----------


## julia90

yep, that skin tone map is correct.. that goes with the map of annual solar radiance
people who live in places with more solar radiance are naturally selected for having dark hair and more pigmented skin, we tuscan are mostly in the yellow zone with florence and nortehrn tuscany in the green zone

----------


## MOESAN

the cousins people (from a steady shared admixture in same old ethny) living for long centuries in the same region don't have the same colours everyone of them: so skin colour is not a gentle graduation paint as a 'thermostat heating system' - it is the result of some different mutations plus some natural ANCIENT SELECTION - and this selection is no more at work, a long time ago yet on Mankind - genuine Saami have dark skins compared to southernmost people! look at Inuit too!
there are different brunet skins and different light skins, from different genetic histories-You can draw a line with a pencil from West to East at a certain lattitude and observe human populations, you could not find the same repartitions of elements and colours
some maps are nonsense as the maps about human skin colour - and "means" are not always a reflect of reality:
(I think in "facial means" produced with computers for the European countries: without any genetic NOR phenotypic signification)- to answer Julia here: Castillans of Mancha has approximatively the same kinds of skin colours as Valencians from the same Lattitude, but present more light skins and less dark skins: to go further on, skin colours, eyes colours and hairs colours are not always so tightly linked in certain populatyions (look at the N-W Celts)
&: pigmentation is only an element of indentification of genetic roots

buona notte - nos vad

----------


## LeBrok

Generally speaking it works for Europe. The frequent human migrations of last couple of thousands of years, or so, messed up it somewhat. Especially Germanics and Slavs moving south. 
Inuit and probably Saami, circumvented low sun radiation with their diet. They consume (used to even more) raw liver which contains lots of vitamin D. Plus, even if they are not blond, their skin tone is rather light.
You can see reverse in Bedouin communities of Arabian Peninsula. They, theoretically, should be darker, but they always wear whole body clothes/tunics for protection against intensive sun.

----------


## MOESAN

> Generally speaking it works for Europe. The frequent human migrations of last couple of thousands of years, or so, messed up it somewhat. Especially Germanics and Slavs moving south. 
> Inuit and probably Saami, circumvented low sun radiation with their diet. They consume (used to even more) raw liver which contains lots of vitamin D. Plus, even if they are not blond, their skin tone is rather light.
> You can see reverse in Bedouin communities of Arabian Peninsula. They, theoretically, should be darker, but they always wear whole body clothes/tunics for protection against intensive sun.


No contradiction, and I agree with you -
it is true that the Inuit and Saami are not so dark as negroid Africans! (true Saami skin colour(s) as a whole is:are lighter than the Inuit one(s) and the darker ones are on the model of "dark"-light skins of Caucasians, it is evident, but among TRUE Saami (before crossings) they are darker than the most of Scandinavians skins (or Irishmen or ...) -
what I was thinking is that "mean" colour is somewhat putting people to believe in a kind of gradual adaptation of pigmentation When it WAS an individual unlevel adaptation not by changing the genes in men but by changing the proportions of bearers of genes in a population; and that histories of seamingly close populations deduced from close enough skin colours can be very distinct because there have been more than ONE or TWO mutations giving way to the present colours...
Sun radiations played a big role firstable and selected surely close enough skins for colours even if the genes concerned to give some close results was not the same ones everytime (no *unique event* here!)but as you seam thinking, the last evolutions of Mankind suffered very less natural selection for that as for others traits
have a good midday

----------


## julia90

> the cousins people (from a steady shared admixture in same old ethny) living for long centuries in the same region don't have the same colours everyone of them: so skin colour is not a gentle graduation paint as a 'thermostat heating system' - it is the result of some different mutations plus some natural ANCIENT SELECTION - and this selection is no more at work, a long time ago yet on Mankind - genuine Saami have dark skins compared to southernmost people! look at Inuit too!
> there are different brunet skins and different light skins, from different genetic histories-You can draw a line with a pencil from West to East at a certain lattitude and observe human populations, you could not find the same repartitions of elements and colours
> some maps are nonsense as the maps about human skin colour - and "means" are not always a reflect of reality:
> (I think in "facial means" produced with computers for the European countries: without any genetic NOR phenotypic signification)- to answer Julia here: Castillans of Mancha has approximatively the same kinds of skin colours as Valencians from the same Lattitude, but present more light skins and less dark skins: to go further on, skin colours, eyes colours and hairs colours are not always so tightly linked in certain populatyions (look at the N-W Celts)
> &: pigmentation is only an element of indentification of genetic roots
> 
> buona notte - nos vad


thought, in many places of europe there were a large bulge of pre-historic and more ancient people, whose skin tone was adapted to the solar radiance kind of place they lives.. that explains why southern italians are more likely to tan well (well every people can, also the blonde ones, but the reds not) and quickly

----------


## MOESAN

> thought, in many places of europe there were a large bulge of pre-historic and more ancient people, whose skin tone was adapted to the solar radiance kind of place they lives.. that explains why southern italians are more likely to tan well (well every people can, also the blonde ones, but the reds not) and quickly


not so mechanically as you believe: the 'olive' dark "white" skins of south Europeans are for me recent (maybe mesolithic and after too, sure) enough re-introduction of Near-Eastern people and cousins of them maybe from arabian peninsula or North Africa - and prehistoric has no precise meaning because climate changed very much from 30000 BC to nowaday - the present day climate difference DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCES OF SKIN COLOUR AMONG EUROPEANS - we have to imagine other times and other places to explain it, with stronger climatic pressure and hazard too, perhaps(?), for I think.
it appears that a long time ago, in Eurasia, human beings dressed themselves against heat as against cold when they was submitted to weather pressure -

----------


## Dorianfinder

> This is my mixture and have some questions for ............
> 
> 
> Population
> 
> 
> East_Eurasian
> 30.52%
> 
> ...


Paleo Mediterranean differs from one calculator to another. It is generally not a good idea to compare similar groupings between various calculators as their components differ quite substantially. 

Concerning your 2nd question, it is important to remember that the majority of commercial DNA participants are from the regions you mention and therefore not a representative sample of your haplogroup's frequency distribution. Inferring from modern frequency distribution is fraught with all soughts of limitations.

Qu 3: Your ydna designation and STR-values do not effect admixture because they are found on different chromosomes. Admixture is on autosomal chromosomes whereas ydna and it's relevant STR-values are found on the sex chromosome (Y).

Your admixture shows a significant amount of Altaic Turkic (28%) suggesting mixed ancestry somewhere in your genealogy. I would have expected a Venetian to have negligable Altaic admixture.

----------


## zanipolo

> Paleo Mediterranean differs from one calculator to another. It is generally not a good idea to compare similar groupings between various calculators as their components differ quite substantially. 
> 
> Concerning your 2nd question, it is important to remember that the majority of commercial DNA participants are from the regions you mention and therefore not a representative sample of your haplogroup's frequency distribution. Inferring from modern frequency distribution is fraught with all soughts of limitations.
> 
> Qu 3: Your ydna designation and STR-values do not effect admixture because they are found on different chromosomes. Admixture is on autosomal chromosomes whereas ydna and it's relevant STR-values are found on the sex chromosome (Y).
> 
> Your admixture shows a significant amount of Altaic Turkic (28%) suggesting mixed ancestry somewhere in your genealogy. I would have expected a Venetian to have negligable Altaic admixture.


Then its all very much a complete fantasy

In regards to venetian , there is a difference between venetian and veneti, historical and the present even though 95% of the language is the same. The Venetians would represent the migrating Illyrian people and also the sole government body of the 1100 years venetian nation , while the Veneti would be the mainland people, originally ligurian , then subjected to various migrations.

below is where the ligurians where before the venetians arrived




and below is what the italian historian say is history


and this below is the only DNA done for venetians in which only 60000 are left ( although there are over 5M veneti)
http://venice2point0.blogspot.com.au...etian-dna.html

note the path, via turkic lands

My question to you is what is the best test to do if you are european ( i.e. for admixtures)

thanks

----------


## Dorianfinder

> My question to you is what is the best test to do if you are european ( i.e. for admixtures)
> 
> thanks


I suggest you have a look at gedmatch. There are many calculators with interesting tools available. Download your data file onto gedmatch and refrain from limiting access so that you may use the full array of admixture tools available.

Gedmatch includes a large database of data files and will compare your autosomal SNPs with other data files.

Altaic admixture of 28% is a strong indicator of recent admixture, you have approximately 20x more Altaic than any Balkan participants I've seen. Most Turks range in the region of between 30% & 50%.

The Ligurian population has a significant Celto-Germanic component. At least 15%. In addition to this there is a significant West Eurasian component as well. At least 15%. These components have a weak showing on your results suggesting a more interesting story with perhaps some recent Levantine admixture.

----------


## zanipolo

> I suggest you have a look at gedmatch. There are many calculators with interesting tools available. Download your data file onto gedmatch and refrain from limiting access so that you may use the full array of admixture tools available.
> 
> Gedmatch includes a large database of data files and will compare your autosomal SNPs with other data files.
> 
> Altaic admixture of 28% is a strong indicator of recent admixture, you have approximately 20x more Altaic than any Balkan participants I've seen. Most Turks range in the region of between 30% & 50%.
> 
> The Ligurian population has a significant Celto-Germanic component. At least 15%. In addition to this there is a significant West Eurasian component as well. At least 15%. These components have a weak showing on your results suggesting a more interesting story with perhaps some recent Levantine admixture.


Ok, here you go

East_Eurasian
30.52%

West_Eurasian
1.90%

Caucasian
33.01%

South_Asian
13.50%

Paleo_mediterranean
21.07%




a deeper test
1
Altaic_Turkic
18.27

2
Paleo_Mediterranean
24.07

3
Caucasian
33.17

4
South_Central_Asian
12.89

5
Celto_Germanic
3.44

6
Volga_Uralic
2.95

7
Iberian
2.33

8
Uralic_Permic
1.8

9
Balto_Finnic
0.7

10
Paleo_North_European
0.39



above also had this
1
NOG (Nogai)
27.7

2
UZ (Uzbek)
27.73

3
TRK (Turk)
32.33

4
NITAL (North-Italian)
35.43

5
BSHK (Bashkir)
36.27

6
CITAL (Central-Italian)
36.54

7
SIC (Sicilian)
36.93

8
GRK (Greek)
37.06

9
TTR (Tatar)
37.72

10
RMN (Romanian)
39.08

11
CRS (Corsican)
39.21

12
GGZ (Gagauz)
39.78

13
BLG (Bulgarian)
39.88



but as I stated before in another thread
*I have advice from some managers on this topic and they stated:

your T haplogroup Y chromosome has been inherited virtually intact for generations. That's why the Y chromosome is so useful for genealogy.
However, the rest of our chromosomes are subject to recombination every generation. After 5 generations or so, we don't inherit any detectable DNA from some of our ancestors. Wherever your T ancestors came from, it's likely so far back your Y chromosome is probably the only genetic inheritance you got from them.
Genetic analyses like "farmer vs. hunter gatherer," comparing to neanderthal, etc. are for novelty purposes only.
Since T is only 6000 years old your marker was K and F before T, so farmer and hunter gatherers are useless.
Autosomal DNA tests have nothing to do with haplogroups. The tests from 23andMe, FTDNA, and Ancestry all use essentially the same chip, with a few differences between their product offerings: 23andMe added several thousand custom SNPs, which actually do test a few Y-DNA and mtDNA SNPs, plus they specifically display medically relevant SNPs. On the other hand, FTDNA actually strips the data of some medically relevant SNPs in an effort to preemptively avoid FDA scrutiny.
Both companies give you data about segments shared with matches, and allow you to download your raw data. That's what you can use for the 3rd party bio-geographical ancestry (BGA) analyses. FTDNA also allows importing the data from others into their database (only from 23andMe presently).
So far, Ancestry neither gives any information on shared segments, nor how much DNA you share with matches; they won't even let you download your own raw data.

Then more information , with a note to check the Heruli people who settled in Concordia Friuli in around 460CE, they have the T markers, but more R1a1 markers
*
with test indicating my HG line was in the baltic as a hunter, and my HG is only 6000 years old, then either I entered the baltic as another HG ( maybe K ) and mutated to T while in the baltic 
or these tests are completely a waste of time and as stated above...only a novelty

I am looking at this in a logical point of view....and not on fantasy.

I now have to check myself , these Heruli because if my final test is positive, then I have only matches with 3 norwegians, if its negative then my closest matches are with the Irish and English

so, there it is , doing any admixture tests others than a european one ( if your european ) . I just want a calculator to use which is pure european only

BTW ..what do you mean by a recent admixture , what number of years are we talking about......I have a continous family line trail to northeast Italy until the 18th century, then a broken trail to northeast italy from the 15th century.


Thanks for your advice........always helpful

----------


## zanipolo

here is dodecad.

Again I state , that these admixtures are fantasy based on known markers in there database ( pity there is no world wide union of this data)

1
W_Africa
45.39

2
Europe
19.89

3
S_Africa
10.92

4
E_Africa
8.14

5
Biaka
7.72

6
SW_Asia
3.68

7
Mbuti
2.41

8
NW_Africa
1.85



note....no or little central or SW asian

and the population below , and ........I cannot find any negroid in my ancestors or myself, father etc etc
1

72.8%
 Kongo
 + 
27.2%
 North_Italian
 @ 
6.37

2

74%
 Fang
 + 
26%
 North_Italian
 @ 
6.95

3

72%
 Bamoun
 + 
28%
 North_Italian
 @ 
7.19

4

72.6%
 Kongo
 + 
27.4%
 Tuscan
 @ 
7.42

5

73.8%
 Fang
 + 
26.2%
 Tuscan
 @ 
7.91

6

78.6%
 Fang
 + 
21.4%
 French_Basque
 @ 
7.98

7

71.8%
 Bamoun
 + 
28.2%
 Tuscan
 @ 
8.07

8

77.7%
 Kongo
 + 
22.3%
 French_Basque
 @ 
8.17

9

77.1%
 Bamoun
 + 
22.9%
 French_Basque
 @ 
9.46

10

70.8%
 Kaba
 + 
29.2%
 North_Italian
 @ 
9.66

11

70.5%
 Kaba
 + 
29.5%
 Tuscan
 @ 
10.29

12

69.3%
 Hausa
 + 
30.7%
 North_Italian
 @ 
11.14




so, to conclude, it seems we as individuals can satisfy our *needs or phobias* by hunting for a company that gives you the results you want............tell me what value is this?

----------


## Knovas

All those results are nonsense for an ethnic North Italian. The only explanation is that you have unknown ancestry, or you're simply using a genotype file with just a few markers covered by the tests...in other words, perhaps you didn't test your "full genome" (AIMS), and you are testing whatever thing we still don't know LOL.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> ..what do you mean by a recent admixture , what number of years are we talking about......I have a continous family line trail to northeast Italy until the 18th century, then a broken trail to northeast italy from the 15th century.


Admixture changes significantly when recombination takes place, approximately 50% of your genome belongs to the most recent recombination event, namely when your mother's Autosomal DNA was introduced to your genome. This means that admixture can become very fragmented after 5 or 6 recombination events (5/6 generations ago) leaving very little trace of older Autosomal DNA. 

If a component is scarce in a region (Altaic in Venice); then we can assume that a strong signal was introduced recently, between two to five generations. It can take a single recent recombination event to significantly alter one's admixture. In most cases women are the carriers of the alternative markers.

----------


## zanipolo

> All those results are nonsense for an ethnic North Italian. The only explanation is that you have unknown ancestry, or you're simply using a genotype file with just a few markers covered by the tests...in other words, perhaps you didn't test your "full genome" (AIMS), and you are testing whatever thing we still don't know LOL.


I do not understand what you mean.

I uploaded by Gedcom from ftdna ( 37 marker) into gedmatch........the only thing I did not include was the optional choice of ethnicity ( which I left vacant) asked by Gedmatch............should I include this? Will it change anything. ?

----------


## zanipolo

> Admixture changes significantly when recombination takes place, approximately 50% of your genome belongs to the most recent recombination event, namely when your mother's Autosomal DNA was introduced to your genome. This means that admixture can become very fragmented after 5 or 6 recombination events (5/6 generations ago) leaving very little trace of older Autosomal DNA. 
> 
> If a component is scarce in a region (Altaic in Venice); then we can assume that a strong signal was introduced recently, between two to five generations. It can take a single recent recombination event to significantly alter one's admixture. In most cases women are the carriers of the alternative markers.


So, let me understand something.......My grandmother is a Baseggio , which is one of the 26 families that where founders of venice in 462CE approx, are you saying that her line dating back very far gave me the north italian?
or would my greatgrandmother Amadio ...give me the germanic component because she was mixed with the germanic and veneti people in the alps of north italy
or
my direct mother which comes from veneto just near tyrolese austrian border

Anyway , when I get the SNP finally tested it seems it will not give me anything regardless if it leans to norwegian or british matches ( lucky I did not pay for it, lol)

----------


## Wilhelm

> here is dodecad.
> 
> Again I state , that these admixtures are fantasy based on known markers in there database ( pity there is no world wide union of this data)
> 
> 1
> W_Africa
> 45.39
> 
> 2
> ...


These cannot be the results of a north-italian LOL. there is an error here, you either used another person's file or your raw data is not really yours. And it's not about "hunting for a company that gives you results you want" since all the results are the same, betwee admixture runs (be it Eurogenes, Dodecad, McDonald or genetic studies such as Rasmussen or Behar)

----------


## Knovas

> I do not understand what you mean.
> 
> I uploaded by Gedcom from ftdna ( 37 marker) into gedmatch........the only thing I did not include was the optional choice of ethnicity ( which I left vacant) asked by Gedmatch............should I include this? Will it change anything. ?


Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that this test only concerns haplogroups (Y-DNA and/or Mt-DNA). So if I'm right, you did not upload a full genotype file, just a few markers. Hence, those results are totally spurious and mean nothing (lack of thousands of ancestral markers). Dorian knows more than me about FtDNA, let's see what he says.

----------


## zanipolo

> These cannot be the results of a north-italian LOL. there is an error here, you either used another person's file or your raw data is not really yours. And it's not about "hunting for a company that gives you results you want" since all the results are the same, betwee admixture runs (be it Eurogenes, Dodecad, McDonald or genetic studies such as Rasmussen or Behar)


LOL, your funny!

First of all , Sparkey knows all my results and ftdna number , he can see my closest markers are a Mr. Parker from Kent and others from the british isles.
Secondly, I am trying to prove here that these admixture formulas are a load of guesses by these companies and surely a waste of time .........unless as stated, I should have put italian in the ethnic optional box in Gedmatch which might change something. 

If my gedcom is in error then its Ftdna fault and not what I have done.

Just understand , I am not paranoid about where I am from because I know all of us came via africa or middle-east.

Some cultures are too paranoid about this, I find, portugese, english, italian, swedes, finns and are not so paranoid as other cultures ( unwilling to name them), based on this forum and other forums like, rootsweb, ftdna, igenea etc etc

----------


## Yetos

> So, let me understand something.......My grandmother is a Baseggio , which is one of the 26 families that where founders of venice in 462CE approx, are you saying that her line dating back very far gave me the north italian?
> or would my greatgrandmother Amadio ...give me the germanic component because she was mixed with the germanic and veneti people in the alps of north italy
> or
> my direct mother which comes from veneto just near tyrolese austrian border
> 
> Anyway , when I get the SNP finally tested it seems it will not give me anything regardless if it leans to norwegian or british matches ( lucky I did not pay for it, lol)


sory Baseggio or Basaggio?

----------


## zanipolo

> Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that this test only concerns haplogroups (Y-DNA and/or Mt-DNA). So if I'm right, you did not upload a full genotype file, just a few markers. Hence, those results are totally spurious and mean nothing (lack of thousands of ancestral markers). Dorian knows more than me about FtDNA, let's see what he says.


Ok, then is this genotype file done by Ftdna via ? the finder calculator.

Maybe my T project manager who is guideing me, can eventually give me some answers

but this below is the only FTDNA map for T
http://www.arslanmb.org/ArmenianDNAP...mapupdated.png
I fall in the friuli area if you are interesed and also I am tested L131 positive which is also seperated on the map


thanks for info....my motto...always learning

----------


## zanipolo

> sory Baseggio or Basaggio?


http://www.baseggio.net/index.php?cc..._columns=b,c,d

Baseggio from Merlengo Veneto

You checking?

----------


## Knovas

> Ok, then is this genotype file done by Ftdna via ? the finder calculator.
> 
> Maybe my T project manager who is guideing me, can eventually give me some answers
> 
> but this below is the only FTDNA map for T
> http://www.arslanmb.org/ArmenianDNAP...mapupdated.png
> I fall in the friuli area if you are interesed and also I am tested L131 positive which is also seperated on the map
> 
> 
> thanks for info....my motto...always learning


Well, according to what you say, you *CAN'T* test your admixture proportions. It seems you only tested your Y-DNA with maybe some additional markers. That's the reason why you get such impossible results, because you didn't test the thousands of ancestral markers required to get reliable figures. The problem are not the tests, I can assure you they usuallly work (specially Dodecad and Eurogenes, I wouldn't pay attention to the others at the moment), so I think if you want to know your admixture proportions you'll have to get a full genotype file: in the range of 700.000 - 1.000.000 markers aprox.

You can get this via FTDNA, 23andme, etc.

----------


## Wilhelm

> LOL, your funny!
> 
> First of all , Sparkey knows all my results and ftdna number , he can see my closest markers are a Mr. Parker from Kent and others from the british isles.
> Secondly, I am trying to prove here that these admixture formulas are a load of guesses by these companies and surely a waste of time .........unless as stated, I should have put italian in the ethnic optional box in Gedmatch which might change something. 
> 
> If my gedcom is in error then its Ftdna fault and not what I have done.
> 
> Just understand , I am not paranoid about where I am from because I know all of us came via africa or middle-east.
> 
> Some cultures are too paranoid about this, I find, portugese, english, italian, swedes, finns and are not so paranoid as other cultures ( unwilling to name them), based on this forum and other forums like, rootsweb, ftdna, igenea etc etc


You are not fooling anyone. There are as much chances of seeing a cow flying than a native North-Italian getting 45% west-african on a DNA test...are you really sure what you took was a Autosoma Admixture run ?? (thousands of SNP's )

----------


## Knovas

I add that the option of telling the program your ethnic background wasn't available before, and the analysis worked (even if slightly different, because Gedmatch uses a different seed compared to Dodecad, Eurogenes, etc.). Also, when using DIY Calculator, there's no way to tell about your origins, and the major components are always reflected. But of course, spreadsheet results are always far more accurate than Gedmatch or DIY software.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that this test only concerns haplogroups (Y-DNA and/or Mt-DNA). So if I'm right, you did not upload a full genotype file, just a few markers. Hence, those results are totally spurious and mean nothing (lack of thousands of ancestral markers). Dorian knows more than me about FtDNA, let's see what he says.


@ zanipolo
There is a possibility that your data file was partially downloaded onto gedmatch (incomplete). When the file is incomplete the bychr function (by-chromosome) should indicate that only the first and perhaps 2nd chromosomes were downloaded. I would suggest running the file on a home pc first and then compare with the same calculator using gedmatch, to make sure that the gedmatch file was downloaded properly. 

If you need assistance running your file I can do this for you. You may have to contact gedmatch and request that your file be deleted so that you may try downloading it again.

----------


## zanipolo

> I add that the option of telling the program your ethnic background wasn't available before, and the analysis worked (even if slightly different, because Gedmatch uses a different seed compared to Dodecad, Eurogenes, etc.). Also, when using DIY Calculator, there's no way to tell about your origins, and the major components are always reflected. But of course, spreadsheet results are always far more accurate than Gedmatch or DIY software.


thanks for this , 

But gedmatch does use 4 companies, Dodecad, Eurogenes, happa??? and I think MLDP or something like this. My results are all over the place. and also their eye test based on your genes which is supposed to be 90% plus accurate was 0% accurate for me.

Maybe it was my data presented to Ftdna of my 220 continous ancestry names ( my father and mothers line) in which I excluded all the place and date of births which could also cause some issue ....especially on the mothers side.
BTW- 10 hours ago, I received information that my fathers line can now be stretched back to reflect info written in 1639 by a Pietro Giovanni Capriata ( i will need to confirm this).....will this change anything if I add these missing details and dates and birth places in Ftdna or others?

Then again , my marker is too small to give an accurate set of data 


On that note - I will *retract* my comment on these admixture programs until I gain this extra info and test them.

Again , thanks for clearing this issue of admixtures

----------


## zanipolo

> @ zanipolo
> There is a possibility that your data file was partially downloaded onto gedmatch (incomplete). When the file is incomplete the bychr function (by-chromosome) should indicate that only the first and perhaps 2nd chromosomes were downloaded. I would suggest running the file on a home pc first and then compare with the same calculator using gedmatch, to make sure that the gedmatch file was downloaded properly. 
> 
> If you need assistance running your file I can do this for you. You may have to contact gedmatch and request that your file be deleted so that you may try downloading it again.


what info do you need or how do I run my file ? 
Will updating Ftdna information change this because they only thing ftdna has confirmed for me is HG T1b* L131+ P327- all other markers they say "*could be positive*". Maybe this is why my project manager are paying for the new L446 and L447 tests

I did resend my ftdna info again to gedmatch yesterday ( after my written dialog in this forum) and obtained another number, I now have 2 there. My reason is because I continualy update my ancestry tree ( which is 220 names both sides of the family) . I am going to see my parents today to get further info from my mother who gave me an ancestor name older than what I placed in ftdna , name is Minotto ( a quick check on the net and he was the ambassador for venice in Constantinople when it fell in 1453. I am not saying they are associated )

----------


## Dorianfinder

@ zanipolo

Have you done the Family Finder at FTDNA? I am referring to the Family Finder data file.

----------


## Knovas

To my understanding he didn't...xd

----------


## zanipolo

> @ zanipolo
> 
> Have you done the Family Finder at FTDNA? I am referring to the Family Finder data file.


no, I was advised not to do it until all my SNPs are done

EDIT -
I am talking about this
 * Re: National Geographic and Family Tree DNA Announce Geno 2.0

Geno 2.0
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/about/

* Does not include STRs -- does not replace Y37/Y67/Y111 tests
* Does not predict family relationships -- does not replace Family Finder
* Is not a full mitochrondial sequence -- does not replace FMS
* Contains no medical information (avoid wrath of Big Brother)

* If pre-ordered from National Geographic, will ship no later than 30 Oct, but expected to go out in early September
* 6-8 weeks for results, no waiting list expected
* FTDNA customers will have the option to test an existing sample at an upgrade price. Link will appear on the myFTDNA page if the kit is eligible (late summer, early fall)

* Does replace the current Deep Clade tests
* No cost to transfer results from National Geographic to FTDNA
* 12,000 Y SNPs
* 3,352 mtDNA SNPs (if you see 32,000 referenced, they are referring to the number of probes necessary to accurately sample 3,352 mtDNA SNPs)
* Some 130,000 autosomal and X-chromosomal Ancestry Informative Markers, derived from roughly 450 populations around the globe
* Focus is deep ancestry, not finding relatives
* Raw data will be available for download
* Reference population data will be downloadable
* 400 WTY and 500 Y Samples were tested as proof of concept -- 5,291 new nodes found to add to the haplotree

Per Thomas Krahn:
* Cutoff on Y SNPs was rough Nov 2011; new DF, L, Z SNPs found after that won't be included [but will be in a future custom chip update]
* Not all "known" Y-SNPs will be available -- "not all SNPs can be typed on a chip"
* Spencer Wells has a paper pending; once that is published, information on markers being tested will be available via Thomas's db. [this fall for the paper??]
 
*
This is the new thing in ftdna and although it does not replace family finder I was told it was the better way to go.......unsure at the moment as I await my results before reading into it

http://genealem-geneticgenealogy.blogspot.com.au/

----------


## zanipolo

In eurogenes , they state that gedmatch and supportmix show genetics for your tests as far back as neolithic times, apparently if you want a test for a few hundered years then use 23andme

http://bga101.blogspot.com.au/2012_08_01_archive.html

So, with this info one needs to eveluate in which direction he wants to gather his/her data and for what purpose.........

----------


## Knovas

You don't understand Zanipolo. 23andme tests 1.000.000 SNP's (similar to Family Finder data file), but they only provide a simple ancestry painting: European, Asian and African.

Gedmatch admixture tools are what they are thanks to Eurogenes, Dodecad and other genetic projects...so Gedmatch it's just a copy, they don't provide nothing concerning this (except for the ancestry painting). Supportmix it's just a software Davidski used to generate ancestry paintings, the same as when he uses the admixture program to obtain clusters and different figures. So with the 23andme raw data (or Family Finder instead), you can obtain all these results, but not without it.

----------


## zanipolo

> You don't understand Zanipolo. 23andme tests 1.000.000 SNP's (similar to Family Finder data file), but they only provide a simple ancestry painting: European, Asian and African.
> 
> Gedmatch admixture tools are what they are thanks to Eurogenes, Dodecad and other genetic projects...so Gedmatch it's just a copy, they don't provide nothing concerning this (except for the ancestry painting). Supportmix it's just a software Davidski used to generate ancestry paintings, the same as when he uses the admixture program to obtain clusters and different figures. So with the 23andme raw data (or Family Finder instead), you can obtain all these results, but not without it.


i do not understand your concerns, I only stated what davidski wrote on the link provided. He says there is a difference. So how I read it , he prefers gedmatch and supportmix as they go back and include neolithic data.
The new Geno 2.0 will be something different I presume. Maybe somrthing between 23 and Ged

I am not saying anything bad about Gedmatch as I retracted my comments. I am just stating what people want to obtain for their own needs. I do understand that we all came out of africa, so I have no issue ATM.

Q- does gedmatch show your african genes?

regards

----------


## Dorianfinder

> Q- does gedmatch show your african genes?


Gedmatch is an independent site that makes the ancestry calculators of Davidski, Dodecad and a few others available to people who have a Relative Finder (23andMe) or Family Finder (FTDNA) data file but have not been able to figure out how to use the software themselves. Gedmatch is user-friendly and quick, it uses the same data that Davidski uses for his calculator, that Dienekes uses for the Dodecad ancestry project etc. The only difference is it's set at lower number of iterations to decrease computation time, making it more user-friendly.

----------


## wormhole

> Tuscans have substantial near eastern influence (not the same as Asian or African). Is what decreases the European average, but of course this admixture is mainly Caucasoid and the repercussion in phenotype is not drastic.


They don't have "substantial" at all. The mixture rate is over exaggerated. Their mixture is from Europeans who were in the Near East a while ago. It doesn't make them any "less European". That's stupid. They're pretty much on par with the rest of Northern Italians. In either case, it doesn't matter. Europeans originate in Mesopotamia for the most part anyways. Where do you think R1b/R1a originates? Western/Central Asia.

What is the map that the OP posted even mean? It's obviously bias against Southern Europeans. Italy is WAY more European than Spain/Portugal since Iberia received lots of SSA admixture through the Atlantic Slave trade.

----------


## Knovas

That's not true, you won't find any reliable source confirming your claims. For the same reason, I could argue that SSA admixture in Italy is really significant due to the Romans, since we all know they traded African slaves. Let's stop with the nonsense.

By the way, I know perfectly where R1b and R1a originated. As someone mentioned above, the map only shows the most common genes in Europe *nowadays*, represented mostly by 3 clusters taking the v3 analysis as reference. Even the mentioned clusters ARE admixed, they're basically a mix of Neolithic superposed to a Meso-Paleolilithic substratum. When I said Near Eastern I only pretended to distinguish both West Asian and Southwest Asian, since they're not between the most common genes in Europe according to this analysis. You can find other interpretations if you want, it's up to you.

----------


## julia90

only spaniards belive on this map... inferiority complex

----------


## MOESAN

> That's not true, you won't find any reliable source confirming your claims. For the same reason, I could argue that SSA admixture in Italy is really significant due to the Romans, since we all know they traded African slaves. Let's stop with the nonsense.
> 
> By the way, I know perfectly where R1b and R1a originated. As someone mentioned above, the map only shows the most common genes in Europe *nowadays*, represented mostly by 3 clusters taking the v3 analysis as reference. Even the mentioned clusters ARE admixed, they're basically a mix of Neolithic superposed to a Meso-Paleolilithic substratum. When I said Near Eastern I only pretended to distinguish both West Asian and Southwest Asian, since they're not between the most common genes in Europe according to this analysis. You can find other interpretations if you want, it's up to you.


I suppose you did not understand very well what Knovas was writing... read again

----------


## julia90

> I suppose you did not understand very well what Knovas was writing... read again


i agree that caucasian admixture was the last to come in europe; but the map titled european admixture is misleading...
for example we could consider "west mediterranean" admixture wich peaks in sardineans and it's an important part of today iberian genes not european proper because you find it also at substantial levels in north africa and the middle east..

and both caucasian and northern european admixture are very near to each other, while west med admixture is way much more distant to northern european admixture than caucasian is...
certainly both northern european and caucasian admix are more near to south asian admixt than west med is.

and sometimes genitcally distant population like aborigines and west african show similar look, without being genetically near.. so caucasian admix that evolved in the caucasus a place with climatic condition and solar irradiance very similar to southern europe, the people there look europoid


i don't why knovas and many other spaniards are obsessed with this map, and its misleading title; for the rest i'm ok with the spaniards memnber here, and i don't have anything against them; but with this map they are showing an inferiority complex, otherwise if they were ok, they wouldn't create this map

----------


## Knovas

> *this map has just to be taken as it is: a map about distribution of the more common geographically* European genes according to a restricted meaning given to the name 'Europe': it is just an approach to genetic distirbution not trying to determine the most important and distinctive traits of far previous origin - so there are 'caucasian' types very close to most of the Europeans that bear some geographically different genes according to selection - 
> the panneling of the chosen genes is partially arbitrary and doesn't determine which are the more important genes for a "racial" discrimination - nobody has to be offensed and everybody on this thread holds a part of truth


I don't see why you say I did not understand, maybe you should explain it better. There are obviously 3 main clusters in Europe according to this.

An by the way, Julia, there's no obsesion concerning the v3 analysis. As I pointed above, all the clusters ARE admixed, and there are other genome interpretations by Dodecad and Eurogenes. If the map is discussed here, I think it's only due to the fact that this analysis are mentioned here in Eupedia too (autosomal maps). Of course West Asian, Southwest Asian and North African are mainly Caucasoid (who said the opposite?), but they obviously deviate more towards inner African and East Asian populations. So what's exactly your point? It seems to me you see strange things everywhere, and there's no need to.

----------


## Knovas

> and both caucasian and northern european admixture are very near to each other, while west med admixture is way much more distant to northern european admixture than caucasian is...
> certainly both northern european and caucasian admix are more near to south asian admixt than west med is.


Oh, and telling only half of the info does not help you. It's logical that Mediterranean appears more isolated, because that's what the Fst distances show. West Asian converges with Northern European, but again, it also shifts inner African and East Asian results more than the Mediterranean related clusters.

There you are the explanation by Dienekes'. I think it's not surpirising at all that Mediterranean afected a lot more the European gene pool than West Asian did:
_
The Mediterranean components appear to be the most remote ones overall (also evidenced by the fact that Basques and Sardinians nearly always form the peak in the West/East Eurasian/African triangle), which makes sense since the region where the Mediterranean/Atlantic_Med component is modal is most remote from both Africa and Asia along the land migration routes._

----------


## MOESAN

[QUOTE=Knovas;397832]I don't see why you say I did not understand, maybe you should explain it better. There are obviously 3 main clusters in Europe according to this.

Sorry, I was supporting your point of view but I posted my post in the wrong "window" - I was trying to put it as a response* to Julia90* preceding post - no problem with what you was telling *her* in previous post

buenas nochas

----------


## Knovas

> I suppose you did not understand very well what Knovas was writing... read again


No, my apologies. Now I see it was me the one who didn't read properly XD

----------


## wormhole

> That's not true, you won't find any reliable source confirming your claims. For the same reason, I could argue that SSA admixture in Italy is really significant due to the Romans, since we all know they traded African slaves. Let's stop with the nonsense.
> 
> By the way, I know perfectly where R1b and R1a originated. As someone mentioned above, the map only shows the most common genes in Europe *nowadays*, represented mostly by 3 clusters taking the v3 analysis as reference. Even the mentioned clusters ARE admixed, they're basically a mix of Neolithic superposed to a Meso-Paleolilithic substratum. When I said Near Eastern I only pretended to distinguish both West Asian and Southwest Asian, since they're not between the most common genes in Europe according to this analysis. You can find other interpretations if you want, it's up to you.


Why is a Spaniard telling me about Slave holding and African admixture? You should be the last one to talk about that. Lots of European countries held slaves and went through admixture. The admixture of the Roman Empire in modern day populations is MINIMAL in Italian populations as results have shown, meanwhile, L mtDna frequencies can go up to 20% in parts of Spain and Portugal. You can't argue the point of SIGNIFICANT SSA admixture in modern Italian populations at all since it's incredibly minimal.

Take a look at this graph: Italians and Tuscans show >98% Caucasoid component along with other Europeans.
http://racialreality.110mb.com/italians.html
http://racialreality.110mb.com/refer...Rosenberg_2005

You'd have more ground talking about this issue concerning Sicilians only. Even Sicilians don't have as much SSA as Iberians.

----------


## Knovas

I can't believe what I'm reading LOL

You are not showing nothing based in population genes and the sources are extremely outdated. 2005? What the ****...?  :Laughing: 

I mean nothing in the sense that there are only a few samples in the Rosenberg et al study but, furthermore, the Caucasoid component looks like the 23andme ancestry painting, where almost all people of European descent comes out 100% European. So it's telling nothing, and Basques (from Iberia LOL) and Sardinians still get the highest Caucasoid.

This are the technical details of the Rosenberg study: 52 world populations, including three Italian samples, were typed for 993 autosomal polymorphisms and subjected to a clustering algorithm.

You should know that 993 autosomal markers = joke.

In year 2005 it was even believed that R1b originated in Europe and expanded after the last glacial age, while Dodecad's v3 analysis belong to year 2011 and it's really based in a large population dataset (more than a hundred populations/thousands of individuals used) and checks more than *150.000* autosomal markers. So stop with your nonsensical agenda about the MtDna L, which no way reaches 20% in Spain (nowhere) and in Portugal I think only a small village shows a significant % of this haplogroup (not representative at all of the main Portuguese people, basically the same as if you collect samples from the Azores or the Canary Islands). Check the Eupedia haplogroup table, which is by far the most accurate on the net, and you'll see you are the one who CAN'T continue with such an embarassing nonsense. The difference if you are able to understand my previous reply, is that I never thought there was significant SSA input in Italy, while you are still explaining fairy tales.

According to Eupedia (MtDNA other category):

_The "Other" category includes mostly the older haplogroups N, R, pre-HV and HV, but also occasionally a few African (L) or Asian haplogroups (A, B, C, D, M, Z)._

Italy: 15%
Portugal: 7%
Spain: 7%

L is not significant anywhere as noted above. However, let me remind that we are dealing with autosomal, not with haplogroups.

And by the way, I don't consider myself Spanish because my culuture is Catalan and most of my ancestors were Catalans. What I don't see is why are you so obsessed now in darkering Iberians if you have nothing to do with both Spanish and Portuguese. And posting doubtful sources, YOU should be the last one trying to teach something. Well, enough of this empty discussion, at least it was funny xd

----------


## wormhole

> I can't believe what I'm reading LOL
> 
> You are not showing nothing based in population genes and the sources are extremely outdated. 2005? What the ****...? 
> 
> I mean nothing in the sense that there are only a few samples in the Rosenberg et al study but, furthermore, the Caucasoid component looks like the 23andme ancestry painting, where almost all people of European descent comes out 100% European. So it's telling nothing, and Basques (from Iberia LOL) and Sardinians still get the highest Caucasoid.
> 
> This are the technical details of the Rosenberg study: 52 world populations, including three Italian samples, were typed for 993 autosomal polymorphisms and subjected to a clustering algorithm.
> 
> You should know that 993 autosomal markers = joke.
> ...


Regarding the Rosenberg study, either way, with the amount of markers given, no matter how small, Italians show a consistent overlap with other Europeans and are 98% Caucasoid. I wonder why they didn't test Spanish or Portuguese people XD The results would have been funny.

You're incredibly stupid. But it's funny, so I'll keep on going:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African....28.3E_1.25.29

Look at Spain/Portugal compared to Italy: These are Haplogroup L lineage frequencies.

Iberia
South Iberia
310
Casas et al. (2006)
7.40%

Spain
All regions
312
Alvarez et al. (2007)
2.90%

Spain

496
Pereira et al. (2005)
1.61%

Spain
Galicia
92
Pereira et al. (2005)
3.30%

Spain
North East
118
Pereira et al. (2005)
2.54%

Spain
Zamora
214
Alvarez et al. (2010)
4.70%

Spain
Sayago
33
Alvarez et al. (2010)
18.18%

Spain
Cordoba
108
Casas et al. (2006)
8.30%

Spain
Catalonia
101
Alvarez-Iglesias et al. (2009)
2.97%

Spain
Balearic Islands
231
Picornell et al. (2005)
2.20%

Spain
Canary Islands
300
Brehm et al. (2003)
6.60%


Portugal

594
Achilli et al. (2007)
6.90%

Portugal
North
188
Achilli et al. (2007)
3.19%

Portugal
Center
203
Achilli et al. (2007)
6.40%

Portugal
South
203
Achilli et al. (2007)
10.84%

Portugal

549
Pereira et al. (2005)
5.83%

Portugal
North
187
Pereira et al. (2005)
3.21%

Portugal
Center
239
Pereira et al. (2005)
5.02%

Portugal
South
123
Pereira et al. (2005)
11.38%

Portugal
North
100
Pereira et al. (2010)
5.00%

Portugal
Center
82
Pereira et al. (2010)
9.70%

Portugal
South
59
Pereira et al. (2010)
6.80%

Portugal
Alcacer do Sal
50
Pereira et al. (2010)
22%

Portugal
Coruche
160
Pereira et al. (2010)
8.7%

Portugal
Pias
75
Pereira et al. (2010)
3.9%

Portugal
Madeira
155
Brehm et al. (2003)
12.90%

Portugal
Azores
179
Brehm et al. (2003)
3.40%



Those are INCREDIBLY high for European populations

Onto Italy: as you can see L haplogroup frequencies are incredibly small and in certain regions, thus suggesting 98% of Italians don't carry an L mtDNA
Italy
Latium
138
Achilli et al. (2007)
2.90%

Italy
Tuscany
114
Achilli et al. (2007)
2.63%

Italy
Basilicata
92
Ottoni et al. (2009)
2.20%

Italy
Sicily
154
Ottoni et al. (2009)
2.00%



Ancestry Informative Markers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African...rope#Autosomal

A 2009 autosomal study by Moorjani et al. that used between 500K and 1.5 Million SNPs estimated that the proportion of sub-Saharan African ancestry is 2.4% in Spain, 1.9 % in Greece and 1.5% in Tuscany. According to the authors, this is consistent in the case of Spain, with the historically known movement of individuals of North African ancestry into Iberia, although it is possible that this estimate also reflects a wider range of mixture times.[36] According to the authors, application of f4 Ancestry Estimation, a method which produces accurate estimates of ancestry proportions, even in the absence of data from the true ancestral populations,[38] suggests that the "highest proportion of African ancestry in Europe is in Iberia (Portugal 3.2±0.3% and Spain 2.4±0.3%)

As you can see, the Iberian penninsula is the most spoiled by SSA admixture as a consequence of Moorish Invasion and the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade.

----------


## Knovas

> *You're incredibly stupid*. But it's funny, so I'll keep on going:


Hope moderators will do their job with you. This is my last answer dedicated to your baseless claims.

1. The Rosemberg study is not able to show nothing for more you repeat it like a parrot.

2. Why posting Wikipedia's figures where everyone can post info when there are reliable figures here in Eupedia?...to my knowledge only ignorants or t.r.o.l.l.s do so.

3. Congratulations, you posted another study which has been *largely debunked*: http://dienekes.blogspot.com.es/2011...-eurasian.html

Enjoy your life, it's time to go ;)

----------


## wormhole

> Hope moderators will do their job with you. This is my last answer dedicated to your baseless claims.
> 
> 1. The Rosemberg study is not able to show nothing for more you repeat it like a parrot.
> 
> 2. Why posting Wikipedia's figures where everyone can post info when there are reliable figures here in Eupedia?...to my knowledge only ignorants or t.r.o.l.l.s do so.
> 
> 3. Congratulations, you posted another study which has been *largely debunked*: http://dienekes.blogspot.com.es/2011...-eurasian.html
> 
> Enjoy your life, it's time to go ;)


Do their job with me? For what? Telling the truth?

1. You keep telling yourself that. There's ample evidence on Dienekes's blog, but then again, you'd find someway of convincing yourself otherwise.

2. Where do you think the wikipedia figures come from? A black hole. I even attatched the studies to the Wikipedia figures.

3. Even though Dienekes debunked some of the study, the end will always result in the Iberian Penninsula being "blacker" than Italy despite people thinking the opposite.

----------


## Wilhelm

That Wikipedia article on mtDNA L is stupid, since it inlcudes only Iberia or Italy, in fact there is mtDNA L in all of Europe, as shown in plenty of studies, and the article "forgets" the biggest study done on mtDNA in Spain, with a sample of 686 people, and 0% of mtDNA L (Rhouda et al. 2006), now look at this other blog : 

http://anthrospain.blogspot.com.es/2...and-spain.html

----------


## Knovas

The only fact is that there's no point supporting significant amounts of inner African contribution in mainland Europe (nowhere):

http://dienekes.blogspot.com.es/2012...-africans.html

_there is evidence for variable affiliation of Sub-Saharans with West Eurasians, but no real evidence for variable affiliation of West Eurasians with Sub-Saharans, except for the Mozabites and HGDP Arabs, with their well-known African admixture._

_Nor can the results be explained in terms of more recent common ancestry of African farmers with Eurasians in general, because African populations fall in a clear cline towards West Eurasian populations._

----------


## Vallicanus

> That Wikipedia article on mtDNA L is stupid, since it inlcudes only Iberia or Italy, in fact there is mtDNA L in all of Europe, as shown in plenty of studies, and the article "forgets" the biggest study done on mtDNA in Spain, with a sample of 686 people, and 0% of mtDNA L (Rhouda et al. 2006), now look at this other blog : 
> 
> http://anthrospain.blogspot.com.es/2...and-spain.html


Indeed, and Casas et alia (2006) stated that only the L1 and L2 mtdna haplogroups were specifically Subsaharan and not L3.

Maca-Meyer (2001) stated that L3 was more Eurasian and it was the haplogroup from which all modern non-African humans derive.

----------


## zanipolo

> Well, according to what you say, you *CAN'T* test your admixture proportions. It seems you only tested your Y-DNA with maybe some additional markers. That's the reason why you get such impossible results, because you didn't test the thousands of ancestral markers required to get reliable figures. The problem are not the tests, I can assure you they usuallly work (specially Dodecad and Eurogenes, I wouldn't pay attention to the others at the moment), so I think if you want to know your admixture proportions you'll have to get a full genotype file: in the range of 700.000 - 1.000.000 markers aprox.
> 
> You can get this via FTDNA, 23andme, etc.


Ok....I got my results today and FTDNA says 62% tuscan and 38% Western european

I did the Dodecad 13 with these results



*Admix Results (sorted):*

*#*
*Population*
*Percent*

1
Atlantic_Med
37.67

2
North_European
31.74

3
Caucasus
14.93

4
Gedrosia
10.06

5
Southwest_Asian
5.3

6
East_Asian
0.28

7
Siberian
0.02



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

1
French (Dodecad)
10.16

2
French (HGDP)
10.18

3
N_Italian (Dodecad)
11.42

4
North_Italian (HGDP)
13.84

5
Mixed_Germanic (Dodecad)
14.43

6
Galicia (1000Genomes)
14.54



Now , I picked up 700 more years with a confirmed family line (other sources ) , starting at regensburg in 1198 and moving to Sud tyrol by 1228 , then Veneto in 1688, then friuli in and around 1750 , then veneto again around 1780.

I would like to know why does FTDNA state these minor groupings ( see above) and Dodcad, eurogenes , Happa and others show difference.

Maybe I am doing it wrong.....so can someone email me for an educational lesson

hunter and gather below
Population


Anatolian Farmer
15.31%

Baltic Hunter Gatherer
42.60%

Middle Eastern Herder
5.02%

East Asian Farmer
-

South American Hunter Gatherer
1.22%

South Asian Hunter Gatherer
-

North Eurasian Hunter Gatherer
0.78%

East African Pastoralist
-

Oceanian Hunter Gatherer
-

Mediterranean Farmer
35.07%

Pygmy Hunter Gatherer
-

Bantu Farmer
-

----------


## Vallicanus

> i'm not racist too, in particular towards less european genetically italians, and in particular towards west asian admixtured central italians, with their peculiar big armenoid noses, that everyone knows are very common among pure tuscans, even the great poet Dante Alighieri had one!!!
> By the way you needn't a graduation in medicine and biology to understand how solar radiation (tanning) influence pigmentation of the skin, and that tanning is a temporary condition due to the exposure to the sun.
> Tuscans are known to be swarty in comparison with other central italians, and you are confirming it, infact Etrurians settled in Tuscany from the Middle East.



Nonsense.

According to Livi's survey Tuscans have more fair skin (43pc) than other central or southern Italians and also more than Emilians further north.
Also big tuscan noses are moistly Dinarid not Armenid.

----------


## mihaitzateo

> Ok....I got my results today and FTDNA says 62% tuscan and 38% Western european
> 
> I did the Dodecad 13 with these results
> 
> 
> 
> *Admix Results (sorted):*
> 
> *#*
> ...


You have very weird result,from which country are you?
UK?
I mean your ancestors.
Or you are mixed from more european people from more countries?

----------


## julia90

> i'm not racist too, in particular towards less european genetically italians, and in particular towards west asian admixtured central italians, with their peculiar big armenoid noses, that everyone knows are very common among pure tuscans, even the great poet Dante Alighieri had one!!!
> By the way you needn't a graduation in medicine and biology to understand how solar radiation (tanning) influence pigmentation of the skin, and that tanning is a temporary condition due to the exposure to the sun.
> Tuscans are known to be swarty in comparison with other central italians, and you are confirming it, infact Etrurians settled in Tuscany from the Middle East.


bah.. everyone know sardinians are the darkest italians.. maybe not in skin pigmentation; but in terms of eyes and hair pigmentation.. yeas.. other iralians have more light eyes and ligh hair

----------


## zanipolo

> You have very weird result,from which country are you?
> UK?
> I mean your ancestors.
> Or you are mixed from more european people from more countries?


my ancestors from great-great-great both sides are from north Italy.

with 800 years from bavaria, tyrol and veneto . I do not know where I am from.....I expected I would be around the caspian sea in ancient times...........maybe I am a very early middle-east "migrant' from neolithic times

this is FtDNA
Europe (Western European)
Basque, French, Orcadian, Spanish
 37.08%
 ±12.10%

Europe (Southern European)
Tuscan
 62.92%
 ±12.10%




what is Orcadian....Orkney islands?

----------


## Knovas

Now your results make a lot more sense considering you are North Italian descent. You can also send your data to Dodecad and Eurogenes for more accurate results, there are added benefits as for example genetic clustering maps.

By the way, I don't think you are representative of the Neolithic period, since Ótzi clusters modern Sardinians and you obviously don't according to your results. However,we still need more samples, because Basques are surely pretty much the same since Neolithic times (except for Y-DNA frequencies, ¿probably late Neolithic?), and they are quite different from Sardinians...I guess this is due to the fact they remained in mainland Europe (being easier to get influences from Northern Europe) while Sardinians got Isolated in the Middle of the Mediteranean sea.

----------


## zanipolo

> Now your results make a lot more sense considering you are North Italian descent. You can also send your data to Dodecad and Eurogenes for more accurate results, there are added benefits as for example genetic clustering maps.
> 
> By the way, I don't think you are representative of the Neolithic period, since Ótzi clusters modern Sardinians and you obviously don't according to your results. However,we still need more samples, because Basques are surely pretty much the same since Neolithic times (except for Y-DNA frequencies, ¿probably late Neolithic?), and they are quite different from Sardinians...I guess this is due to the fact they remained in mainland Europe (being easier to get influences from Northern Europe) while Sardinians got Isolated in the Middle of the Mediteranean sea.


I have recently been heavily involved with another project team - AlpGen group due to my marker as there are minor markers in the Tyrol area, like, Q, L, T and N ( N3) ............I will be seeking a ....where, when and how these groups sought refuge in the alps. 

Another thing with my Ftdna FF results states that 3 of my 22 chromosone markers has the comment "Not enough SNP data". I assume this is because I am one of the very few that has L446+.

Btw....I find more and more people describe test data or themselves as R-U106 or E-V13 or R-L21 etc etc.......maybe I should use T-L446 instead of my new T1a2b (august 2012).....!!!

Is there a fee with sending results to Dodecad or Eurogenes

thanks for info

----------


## Kardu

Dodecad and Eurogenes are totally free. Only requirement is to have 4 grandparents from the the same ethnicity.

You could also upload your data on Gedmatch

----------


## Cato

hello all , just a question , what is the average northern european admixture in southern Europe (Sardinia and Corsica too) ? also does northern admixture include even "central european admixture" ?

----------


## zanipolo

What does it mean by Scottish-irish in these admixture sites. Does it mean northireland and scottish lowland people?

next......... R1b-V88 is said to be out of Africa or went into africa - Chadic people.............are they noted as meditteraen mix or western european?

----------


## Vallicanus

> What does it mean by Scottish-irish in these admixture sites. Does it mean northireland and scottish lowland people?
> 
> next......... R1b-V88 is said to be out of Africa or went into africa - Chadic people.............are they noted as meditteraen mix or western european?


The Scots-Irish were mainly Lowland Scottish Presbyterians who settled in Ulster in the 17th century and moved on to the American frontier in the 18th century.
They were not "pure" Scots but were mixed a bit with northern English and also with Irish converts to Protestantism.

----------


## zanipolo

> The Scots-Irish were mainly Lowland Scottish Presbyterians who settled in Ulster in the 17th century and moved on to the American frontier in the 18th century.
> They were not "pure" Scots but were mixed a bit with northern English and also with Irish converts to Protestantism.


thanks

I have 1 match a 5th cousin from north carolina - william C Johnson ..........go figure!?

----------


## zanipolo

Question on percentages in admixture tests. 
Do , percentages indicate time , as in a higher % mean longer in that zone

below is mine from *MDLP World-22**Admix Results (sorted):*

*#*
*Population*
*Percent*

1
Atlantic_Mediterranean_Neolithic
37.31

2
North-East-European
35.12

3
West-Asian
13.54

4
Near_East
11.43

5
North-European-Mesolithic
1.78

6
Samoedic
0.47

7
Indo-Iranian
0.17

8
South-African
0.09

9
South-America_Amerind
0.08



*Single Population Sharing:*

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

1
Italian_North (derived)
5.26

2
Bulgarian (derived)
5.68

3
Romania (derived)
6.53

4
Swiss (derived)
6.75



also, What does derived mean?

----------


## zanipolo

where does this fit in the context of personnel admixtures

*
Importantly, the K=12 Caucasus component appears as a mixture of the K=7 West_Asian and Southern components. The former (West_Asian) is the most important one in the Burusho, and the latter (Southern) is the most important one in Sardinians.*

from
http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/09/rolloff-analysis-of-french-as-mixture.html


note; I have also been following the discovery in the Friulian alps - Rio Secco Cave
http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/peresani332/

does it mean that dodecad caucasus is now reflected as european in K12b ,........as I am about 20% caucasus in most admixture sites but have 100% european in ftdna population finder

----------


## Kardu

FTDNA Population Finder is not trustworthy atm. Probably this will change soon.

----------


## zanipolo

new Euogenes tests

Guess what I could be


*#*

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

1

91.4%
 North Italian
 + 
8.6%
 North Russian
 @ 
2.44

2

91.1%
 North Italian
 + 
8.9%
 East Finnish
 @ 
2.47

3

79.4%
 North Italian
 + 
20.6%
 Serbian
 @ 
2.47

4

90.6%
 North Italian
 + 
9.4%
 South Finnish
 @ 
2.48

5

90.9%
 North Italian
 + 
9.1%
 East Russian
 @ 
2.48

6

80.6%
 North Italian
 + 
19.4%
 AT
 @ 
2.5

7

91.6%
 North Italian
 + 
8.4%
 Erzya
 @ 
2.53

8

89.4%
 North Italian
 + 
10.6%
 North Swedish
 @ 
2.68

9

90.5%
 North Italian
 + 
9.5%
 Ukrainian-Russian
 @ 
2.69

10

92.5%
 North Italian
 + 
7.5%
 Udmurt
 @ 
2.71

11

90.7%
 North Italian
 + 
9.3%
 West Russian
 @ 
2.74

12

89.8%
 North Italian
 + 
10.2%
 Southwest Finnish
 @ 
2.74

13

92.8%
 North Italian
 + 
7.2%
 Komi
 @ 
2.78

14

84.2%
 North Italian
 + 
15.8%
 HU
 @ 
2.82

15

90.3%
 North Italian
 + 
9.7%
 PL
 @ 
2.82

16

92%
 North Italian
 + 
8%
 EE
 @ 
2.84

17

91.6%
 North Italian
 + 
8.4%
 Belorussian
 @ 
2.85

18

92.2%
 North Italian
 + 
7.8%
 Northwest Russian
 @ 
2.86

19

90.7%
 North Italian
 + 
9.3%
 UA
 @ 
2.9

20

80.1%
 North Italian
 + 
19.9%
 RO
 @ 
2.9

----------


## Drac II

> A 2009 autosomal study by Moorjani et al. that used between 500K and 1.5 Million SNPs estimated that the proportion of sub-Saharan African ancestry is 2.4% in Spain, 1.9 % in Greece and 1.5% in Tuscany. According to the authors, this is consistent in the case of Spain, with the historically known movement of individuals of North African ancestry into Iberia, although it is possible that this estimate also reflects a wider range of mixture times.[36] According to the authors, application of f4 Ancestry Estimation, a method which produces accurate estimates of ancestry proportions, even in the absence of data from the true ancestral populations,[38] suggests that the "highest proportion of African ancestry in Europe is in Iberia (Portugal 3.2±0.3% and Spain 2.4±0.3%)


Strange. You picked the paper they did NOT publish in preference to the one they DID publish, which actually contradicts their statement that the highest sub-Saharan input is supposedly in Iberia (unless you very dishonestly lump Spain and Portugal as one single "country"):

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/...entation=PNG_M

Which shows that southern Italy (2.7%) alone has more of it than all Spain put together (2.4%). They found these results for Italy "consistent with North African gene flow at the end of the Roman Empire". And using STRUCTURE they also found the same results: southern Italy (1.7%) had more than all of Spain (1.1%)

Notice also that they did not extend the same "courtesy" of separating Spain into 3 separate regions like they did with Italy.




> As you can see, the Iberian penninsula is the most spoiled by SSA admixture as a consequence of Moorish Invasion and the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade.


I would not be so sure about that, since judging by the latest autosomal results Italy also has more of it than even Portugal:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0050794

"This analysis indicated that Italians have a basal proportion of sub-Saharan ancestry that is higher (9.2%, on average) than other central or northern European populations (1.5%, on average). The amount of African ancestry in Italians is however more comparable to (but slightly higher than) the average in other Mediterranean countries (7.1%)."

----------


## wormhole

This study you linked me to is rather chaotic and poorly presented with potentially interesting but very confusingly reported data. This is seen through the hyper-obsolete and sometimes sloppy nomenclature they use and the many bugs in the presentation of the data. The very paper claiming 9.2% SSA ancestry (which is absurd) was debunked here (https://forwhattheywereweare.wordpre...s-messy-paper/) This thread has gotten ridiculous. Dienekes has already debunked any study you have found or posted including the Moorjani one. When people think of Black ancestry in Europe, it's Spain and Portugal. Not Italy. In fact, SSA mtDNA L can be found in up to 20% in some parts of Portugal. Let that sink in for awhile. By the way, North African's aren't Negroid so their gene flow doesn't matter. The "Africa" section of the study you posted was referencing Caucasoid North Africans. Not Negroes.

----------


## Drac II

> This study you linked me to is rather chaotic and poorly presented with potentially interesting but very confusingly reported data. This is seen through the hyper-obsolete and sometimes sloppy nomenclature they use and the many bugs in the presentation of the data.


Now you are just plagiarizing the opinions of an anonymous blogger. 




> The very paper claiming 9.2% SSA ancestry (which is absurd) was debunked here (https://forwhattheywereweare.wordpre...s-messy-paper/)


That's hardly a "debunking" of anything, more like an anonymous blogger expressing his opinions about supposedly obsolete nomenclature used in the paper. Plus he does not even say anything about the part being talked about here: the sub-Saharan African input in Italy according to their autosomal results.




> This thread has gotten ridiculous.


That happened the very second that you irrupted into it with your personal issues regarding "black" influence in Europe, specially in Italy. You have done this in several other threads, and your choice of words (like "spoiled") very clearly show why you desperately want any other Europeans to have higher levels of it than Italians. To you having anything to do with sub-Saharan Africa is a "blemish".




> Dienekes has already debunked any study you have found or posted including the Moorjani one.


That's funny, because it was you who brought up the authors of that study, an earlier version of the study which they did not publish in favor of a more complete version of it which they did publish. You should have been more careful and examined their results before bringing it up in your attempts to "slander" (because it is obvious that to you sub-Saharan influence is an "insult") Spaniards and Portuguese, because it backfired on you.

And Dienekes is just a blogger, an aficionado of genetics, he is no position to "debunk" a genetic study that other geneticists have not "debunked" or at least criticized. He can give his opinions about it, but that's it.




> When people think of Black ancestry in Europe, it's Spain and Portugal. Not Italy.



Really? Is that why by simply going to Google and looking for references to Italians and blacks you get so many thousands upon thousands of hits of people associating the two? I am pretty sure you are well aware of how common this topic is among people, which explains your behavior. 




> In fact, SSA mtDNA L can be found in up to 20% in some parts of Portugal. Let that sink in for awhile.



The difference is that those earlier studies you are referring to are about haplogroups, a subject open to interpration. The ones that you desperately want to question or eliminate altogether are autosomal studies, which are considered more thorough than haplogroups. "Let that sink in for a while".




> By the way, North African's aren't Negroid so their gene flow doesn't matter. The "Africa" section of the study you posted was referencing Caucasoid North Africans. Not Negroes.


Apparently you did not bother to read the quote, as it very clearly is referring to sub-Saharan African gene flow in Northern Europeans and European Mediterraneans.

----------


## wormhole

> Really? Is that why by simply going to Google and looking for references to Italians and blacks you get so many thousands upon thousands of hits of people associating the two? I am pretty sure you are well aware of how common this topic is among people, which explains your behavior.


Doesn't really help your case when they are only referring to Sicilians. Not all Italians. In addition to that, everybody is taking "evidence" from a fictional movie that Tarantino helped write. THAT is why there is a faulty common association between the 2. That is why there are so many search results. You know this, but aren't mentioning it because of how stupid you know it actually is. It's all Jewish/Liberal propaganda. The fact that you believe that this association is in anyway relevant is a testament to your stupidity.

Nothing backfired on me. I'm sure that you're aware of the Muslim conquest. It affected Spain and Portugal the most, hence why SSA gene flow is the most prevalent there and shows in specific gradients. I guess you're Portuguese or Spanish, and it upsets you which is why you're trying to insult Italians. That would explain your behavior. Looks like you flag is Catalan? You never know, somewhere in your maternal line could be a negro since it was clearly a common occurrence in those parts as shown in mtDNA studies. 

I didn't plagiarize when I provided the link right after the quote now did I? Read next time before talking.

You haven't "won any argument", or "stuck it to the man" at all. Nobody else thinks that these papers are valid and everybody most certainly knows that 9.2% SSA would in actuality, change the look of Italians dramatically. 

*Also, from an earlier post:*

"Medical studies have concluded that genetic traits found primarily in Africa (>80%) can be found at up to 20% of the Sardinian population and that there is a cline of African genetic input decreasing as one moves away from Iberia in a north easterly direction (*note, the Grain I mentioned earlier*) [3]. 

1. Sanchez-Velasco P, Gomez-Casado E, Martinez-Laso J, _et al._ (May 2003). "HLA alleles in isolated populations from North Spain: origin of the Basques and the ancient Iberians"

2. Choukri F, Chakib A, Himmich H, Raissi H, Caillat-Zucman S (June 2002). "HLA class I polymorphism in a Moroccan population from Casablanca". _European Journal of Immunogenetics_ 29 (3): 205–11.

3. Gómez-Casado E, del Moral P, Martínez-Laso J, _et al._ (March 2000). "HLA genes in Arabic-speaking Moroccans: close relatedness to Berbers and Iberians". _Tissue Antigens_ 55 (3): 239–49.

Thus, there is medical evidence that suggests Sardinia and Iberia share significantly higher levels of gene flow from Africa, perhaps as high as 20% in some areas. However, the relative isolation and European genetic influx into these areas has decreased the total African admixture to some degree."

----------


## Drac II

> Doesn't really help your case when they are only referring to Sicilians. Not all Italians. In addition to that, everybody is taking "evidence" from a fictional movie that Tarantino helped write. THAT is why there is a faulty common association between the 2. That is why there are so many search results. You know this, but aren't mentioning it because of how stupid you know it actually is. It's all Jewish/Liberal propaganda. The fact that you believe that this association is in anyway relevant is a testament to your stupidity.


It doesn't help yours the fact that so many people simply say "Italians" and do not single out your much dreaded Sicilians, who are just Italians like all others, despite your absurd claims of them being so different. That pretty much shows the "testament" to yours.




> Nothing backfired on me.


Sure it did, since even one of the very authors' study you were trying to use in your ridiculous quest actually shows quite different results than you were gloating about.





> I'm sure that you're aware of the Muslim conquest. It affected Spain and Portugal the most, hence why SSA gene flow is the most prevalent there and shows in specific gradients.


I'm sure that you are aware of Near Eastern and African slavery and immigration to Rome. As someone else informed you on another thread, Roman Italy was the "United States" of the day, attracting population movements from all over the then known world. It affected Italy the most, hence why SSA gene flow is the most prevalent there, as seen in these latest autosomal results.




> I guess you're Portuguese or Spanish, and it upsets you which is why you're trying to insult Italians. That would explain your behavior. Looks like you flag is Catalan? You never know, somewhere in your maternal line could be a negro since it was clearly a common occurrence in those parts as shown in mtDNA studies.


The one obviously trying to insult is you, plainly seen in your behavior in this and other threads. I am merely putting an obvious t-r-o-l-l in his place and giving him a nice taste of his own medicine. 

You are obviously of Italian descent and it seems to bother you a lot that sub-Saharan African influence in Europe could be highest in Italy. You never know, somewhere in your maternal or paternal line could be one of those "Negroes" you dread so much, since it was clearly a common occurrence in those parts as shown in autosomal studies.




> I didn't plagiarize when I provided the link right after the quote now did I?


Sure you did, you did not quote the passage but copied & pasted it into the body of your post as if it was your own.




> Read next time before talking.


Follow your own "advice".




> You haven't "won any argument", or "stuck it to the man" at all. Nobody else thinks that these papers are valid and everybody most certainly knows that 9.2% SSA would in actuality, change the look of Italians dramatically.


You haven't won anything at all, but in fact actually managed to shoot yourself in the foot by bringing up Moorjani et al. Nobody has refuted any of the autosomal studies in question. Keep trying.


*



Also, from an earlier post:


*


> "Medical studies have concluded that genetic traits found primarily in Africa (>80%) can be found at up to 20% of the Sardinian population and that there is a cline of African genetic input decreasing as one moves away from Iberia in a north easterly direction (*note, the Grain I mentioned earlier*) [3]. 
> 
> 1. Sanchez-Velasco P, Gomez-Casado E, Martinez-Laso J, _et al._ (May 2003). "HLA alleles in isolated populations from North Spain: origin of the Basques and the ancient Iberians"
> 
> 2. Choukri F, Chakib A, Himmich H, Raissi H, Caillat-Zucman S (June 2002). "HLA class I polymorphism in a Moroccan population from Casablanca". _European Journal of Immunogenetics_ 29 (3): 205–11.
> 
> 3. Gómez-Casado E, del Moral P, Martínez-Laso J, _et al._ (March 2000). "HLA genes in Arabic-speaking Moroccans: close relatedness to Berbers and Iberians". _Tissue Antigens_ 55 (3): 239–49.
> 
> Thus, there is medical evidence that suggests Sardinia and Iberia share significantly higher levels of gene flow from Africa, perhaps as high as 20% in some areas. However, the relative isolation and European genetic influx into these areas has decreased the total African admixture to some degree."


　
Now your desperation is even more blatant, trying to bring up even more obsolete stuff like HLA genes. You might as well try to bring back Arnaiz-Villena and his claims about the alleged sub-Saharan kinship of Greeks based on the same obsolete nonsense. Even comparing haplogroups with autosomal research is a bit silly, let alone HLA genes.

----------


## Drac II

> I can see how this bit of information has made you touchy. If Negro slaves were such a common occurrence in Rome, why aren't most Italians today Negroid?


Your "bit of information" is obsolete stuff that no population geneticists of today uses, just like sickle cell anemia and the like things. Would you like me to start pulling all those old papers/articles on sickle cell anemia and how they keep mentioning it as being endemic among Italians, and use it as "proof" that they are the most African-influenced people in Europe alongside the Greeks and Portuguese, like countless Neo-Nazis, Nordicists and Afrocentrists have been trying to do for a long time? But that's hardly necessary in the light of more recent autosomal studies. Now they have much more modern "ammo" against their Italian targets.




> You're just angry that Spaniards are always referred to as the Moors that they are. Surley you haven't forgotten Al-Andalus, which was the Arab dynasty that ruined Spain and pillaged all of their women, one of which could have been your grandmother.


Methinks that you are just angry that Italians have always been referred to as the most non-European influenced people in Europe that they are. Surely you DON'T want to start pulling quotations from historians specializing in the history of both Spain and Italy and comparing what they say about each country's contact with non-Europeans during the Middle Ages and the Roman period, respectively, do you? I assure you that you will lose... again. Even many of the emperors of Rome (Septimius Severus, Caracalla, Macrinus, Aemilianus, Philip the Arab, etc.) were Moors, Syrians and Libyans integrated into Roman society, any of which could have been your grandmother/grandfather.

Hint: the so-called "Moorish invasion" of the Middle Ages was only a military/religious affair, it did not bring huge numbers of foreigners into Spain. Most historians on the subject will inform you of that. What happened in Italy during Roman times, on the other hand, was a real large migration of people (both slaves and free citizens.) Most historians on the subject will inform you of that.

----------


## Drac II

> So what? The only thing Italians have going against them is the Jewish/Arabic claim.


I wonder if you realize how much you contradict yourself when you try to use "Moors" against Iberians? You must for some bizarre reason think that the "Moors" in Medieval Iberia were somehow "different" from the ones in Roman Italy. The only "different" thing about them was that the ones in the Middle Ages were Muslims, while the ones in Roman times were pagans and early Christians. That's about it. A difference of religions.




> I've never seen anybody say "Geez, that Italian sure looks 9.2% black" in my entire life. That's hardly as bad as the 20%+ L mtDNA haplogroups found in parts of Southwestern Europe which are from Niggers. Autosomal studies (Ancestral Informal Markers, not haplogroups), say the same thing.


Once again, trying to feign ignorance of a topic that you are already well aware of won't help you. You already have been informed that the claims about Italians having connections to "blacks" by all sorts of people, specially Nordicists and Afrocentrists, are legion. The main reason that the "Racial Myths/Racial Reality" guy (who is of Italian descent himself) started his web site was in fact because of these popular claims about Italians.




> Yes, all of whom are Caucasoid. Not Negroid like the Sub-Saharans who were involved in the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade.


The sub-Saharan slave trade was strongest in Portugal, and it actually even brought black Africans to Britain and Germany as well. 




> You do know that N.African's aren't Black right? Only until recently have they had contact with Saharan populations, and even that's towards the SOUTH of North Africa. Severus was a Caucasoid from Mediterranean N.Africa, Caracalla was of mixed Punic-Roman and Syrian descent (again, all Caucasoid groups), Macrinus was born right on the Coast of N.Africa. He could've been Greek/Ancient Egyptian/Phonecian, etc. Aemilianus was a Berber (white North African). Phillip the Arab was Syrian. Syrians aren't Negroes. NONE of these groups are Negroid like you claim.



I never claimed they were Negroid, but it is you who paradoxically seems to want to use them as such when it comes to Medieval Spain and Portugal, but not Roman Italy! 




> Let's focus on the Umayyad conquest of Hispania shall we? A few rulers of Spain during the Moorish conquest were; Tariq ibn Ziyad, Abd-ar-Rahman III, Abdullah ibn Muhammad al-Umawi (7th Emir of Cordoba), and the list goes on. You're a ******* idiot if you think Spaniards are "less polluted" than Italians because they're not. Let's not forget that the Conquest's stronghold was in Spain. Where it had the most affect. Not all slave owners in Rome bread with their slaves.


Once again, the idiot is you if you think that a military intervention involving only a few thousand foreign people in a geographic area already inhabited by several million people is equivalent to an actual migration of larger numbers of people. On top of that, in medieval Iberia there was a history of reconquest and expulsion of people from different religions other than that of the Christian conquerors. In Roman Italy no such thing happened since the "invasion" there was of a more peaceful kind, not in the form of a military/religious conflict. In other words, the foreign population of Roman Italy was never expelled. There never was any reason to. The Romans did not see these foreigners as a military/religious threat. In fact, as mentioned, they even allowed them to become emperors! So using your very own kind of "arguments", guess who must be the more "polluted"?




> Once again, it's the Portuguese and Spaniards who own this claim. Look up "are spanish people...", in the Google search engine. You will get JUST as many if not more results linking them to Negroes, Moors, Arabs, etc as Italians do. And a favorite of mine, the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade! As a matter of fact, whole towns in Iberia were composed of Negroids. WHOLE TOWNS. This is why the 20% L sequences exist in the first place. So don't give me shit about Italians inter-mingling with slaves when there was nowhere near as much of that going on as there were in some parts of Southwestern Europe. So it's likely that you have a nigger somewhere in there on your maternal line at-least.


Once again, look at all the results for Italians, as many if not more. But there is a difference between that (popular ideas, claims and so forth) and what the latest results of autosomal studies say. You already saw it. You did not like it. Lesson: don't try to t-r-o-l-l other people because it can come back at you, more easily than you thought it would.

PS: What parts of Southwestern Europe were supposedly populated only by Negroid slaves? I doubt that even in southern Portugal such a thing ever happened.

----------


## wormhole

> PS: What parts of Southwestern Europe were supposedly populated only by Negroid slaves? I doubt that even in southern Portugal such a thing ever happened.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa....28.3E_1.25.29

The highest frequencies of Sub-Saharan lineages found so far in Europe were observed by Alvarez et al. 2010 in the comarca of Sayago (18.2%) which is according to the authors "comparable to that described for the South of Portugal"[25][26] and by Pereira et al. 2010 in Alcacer do Sal (22%).[27]

Very recent study. Guess how many were found in Italy?

----------


## wormhole

> Once again, trying to feign ignorance of a topic that you are already well aware of won't help you. You already have been informed that the claims about Italians having connections to "blacks" by all sorts of people, specially Nordicists and Afrocentrists, are legion. The main reason that the "Racial Myths/Racial Reality" guy (who is of Italian descent himself) started his web site was in fact because of these popular claims about Italians.


And Spanish people haven't been associated with Blacks and N.Africans? The person who owned RR did indeed prove these claims wrong with genetic studies of his own. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's true.




> The sub-Saharan slave trade was strongest in Portugal, and it actually even brought black Africans to Britain and Germany as well.


I don't get what your trying to say? The majority of it was centered in SW Europe. So what if a few slaves went to Germany or Britain?

----------


## zanipolo

Unless you guys are neaderthals then you came from the east, middle-east or africa

sent your data to doug Mcdonald he does an analysis for free. he will tell you what you are with charts and information.

I am 100% european, but originated in the north caucasus ( approx 3500 years ago )......arriving in the eastern alps approx 50BC...that what the data showed and what I was told.

If you are scared to do the test, then keep continuing in this crap conversation,........... its boring and all wrong

----------


## wormhole

> Unless you guys are neaderthals then you came from the east, middle-east or africa
> 
> sent your data to doug Mcdonald he does an analysis for free. he will tell you what you are with charts and information.
> 
> I am 100% european, but originated in the north caucasus ( approx 3500 years ago )......arriving in the eastern alps approx 50BC...that what the data showed and what I was told.
> 
> If you are scared to do the test, then keep continuing in this crap conversation,........... its boring and all wrong


I'm not afraid. I know that there will probably be some high West/Southwest Asian component on my test. I know right now that I have origins in the Middle East. This doesn't bother me. There's probably even some N.African in there. Hell, I probably even have a few Jewish ancestors in there somewhere. That being said, I highly doubt though that there is little, if any sub-Saharan African component. 

I just have issue with this idiot claiming that Italians are 10% SSA, which everybody knows is absurd and un-true. I also have issue with him stating that most SSA gene-flow took place during Roman times when we all know that this claim is false as SW Europe was the most involved with the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.

I also notice how he didn't reply once confronted with the % of L mtDna haplogroups being found at over 20% in some parts of Portugal and 18% in Spain. I have yet to find values this high in the rest of Europe.

----------


## Drac II

> And Spanish people haven't been associated with Blacks and N.Africans? The person who owned RR did indeed prove these claims wrong with genetic studies of his own. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's true.


Now apply that to the Spanish and Portuguese you so desperately want to throw that nonsense to and you'll realize how silly you have been all this time.




> I don't get what your trying to say? The majority of it was centered in SW Europe. So what if a few slaves went to Germany or Britain?


Few? There were even "black" societies in Britain made up of ex-slaves. The levels of black servants/slaves there were comparable to the ones imported to Spain or France. Still, they did not even make up 2-3% of the population. So in an ironic sense, yes, there were relatively few slaves in all these countries, which again shows that you have no point.

----------


## Drac II

> I just have issue with this idiot claiming that Italians are 10% SSA, which everybody knows is absurd and un-true. I also have issue with him stating that most SSA gene-flow took place during Roman times when we all know that this claim is false as SW Europe was the most involved with the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.


The "idiot" here being the geneticists (many of them Italians themselves!) who have concluded that from sampling Italians and whom you desperately want to overlook or ignore just to concentrate on the studies that seem to say things you want to hear. How convenient, isn't it?




> I also notice how he didn't reply once confronted with the % of L mtDna haplogroups being found at over 20% in some parts of Portugal and 18% in Spain. I have yet to find values this high in the rest of Europe.


Apparently you have a knack for not noticing things that people keep reminding you of: haplogroups are open to interpretation (not all L sequences are considered "sub-Saharan" or having to do with "black" Africans) and they are also a small part of your DNA. Autosomal analysis is more thorough, and you already know what it says about the subject.

----------


## Drac II

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa....28.3E_1.25.29
> 
> The highest frequencies of Sub-Saharan lineages found so far in Europe were observed by Alvarez et al. 2010 in the comarca of Sayago (18.2%) which is according to the authors "comparable to that described for the South of Portugal"[25][26] and by Pereira et al. 2010 in Alcacer do Sal (22%).[27]
> 
> Very recent study. Guess how many were found in Italy?


The autosomal one that you dread so much is still more recent (published December 2012), and you already know what it says. Italians came up with higher sub-Saharan than everyone else in Europe, including the Portugese, which, by the way, seem to have made up most of their non-Italian European Mediterranean samples. See figure 2 of the said study; the only Mediterranean areas besides Italy being sampled for the study were Portugal and Northwest Spain. So the study should probably more likely have said "the amount of African ancestry in Italians is however more comparable to (but slightly higher than) the average in Portugal (7.1%)."

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

The great majority of Haplogroup studies (they have practically no significance with respect to full heritage) that Wormhole is quoting are outdated and some are very deficient, methodologically. Case in point, the Alcacer do Sal "research"; treated as "laughable" now-a-days by serious researchers. The latest K-12 autosomal Eurogenes study (Eurogenes site) shows Portugal with ~ 1% Sub-Saharan DNA, nearly all of it very old. Spain records even less. Hmmm ... wonder what the SSA percentages are for places like Liverpool and Bristol, possibly the biggest black slave ports in the Atlantic Slave Trade?

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

Funny how obviously racially insecure, social anxiety driven characters keep showing up here.

----------


## Knovas

Exaggerating all the time is what the guy did, the hate is obvious. 

When we're dealing with "Middle Eastern", "North African" or even "West Asian" components, it's easy to notice when checking the Fst distances that they're closer to African (aka Sub-Saharan) than the Mediterranean or North European components do for instance. So telling there's no Sub-Saharan in a population just because there's no result labeled "Sub-Saharan", is inaccurate and completely false. The components aren't pure and one should care to revise where they fall along the cline (the African/West-East Eurasian triangle). Oh, and results showing less than 1% in one cluster, are considered noise (admixture is good, but has its limitations). Iberians rarely have more than this, let alone the Catalans whose African ancestry is absolutely insignificant, and I know it by first hand experience.

Time to stop misinterpreting the components and this kind of tests for strange purposes (intentionally, of course). Note that the clusters come without names, and the researcher simply choses. But the Fst distances tell the whole story or, at least, it's the best aproximation.

By the way, the Eurogenes Project uses the Yoruba samples as the Sub-Saharan reference, which IMO increases the percents (they have some Eurasian compared to other groups). Actually, it is better to use San and Pygmies to get a better perspective, and one realises that there's really no significant Sub-Saharan element in Europe, although not absent for the reasons I already stated (but difficult to quantify).

----------


## LeBrok

wormhole is banned forever for racism.

----------


## nordicwarrior

He sounded unstable. Someone who is that hung up on racial identity probably shouldn't take an autosomal test.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> He sounded unstable. Someone who is that hung up on racial identity probably shouldn't take an autosomal test.


Unstable and terribly misinformed...

----------


## Wilhelm

Don't know what is that guy talking about, these idiots just go to Shittypedia on copy what they see there. The truth is that study on the 20% mtDNA L is from Alcacer Do Sal, a town with a well known history of isolation from descendants of slaves. 
The reality is that mtDNA L is found in all of Europe, and Spain barely reaches 1%, when combining all the studies, like here :

http://anthrospain.blogspot.com.es/2...and-spain.html

Not to mention that the largest study done so far in Spain, is Rhouda et al. 2006 with a sample of more than 800 people, and there was 0 % of mtDNA L...

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Don't know what is that guy talking about, these idiots just go to Shittypedia on copy what they see there. The truth is that study on the 20% mtDNA L is from Alcacer Do Sal, a town with a well known history of isolation from descendants of slaves. 
> The reality is that mtDNA L is found in all of Europe, and Spain barely reaches 1%, when combining all the studies, like here :
> 
> http://anthrospain.blogspot.com.es/2...and-spain.html
> 
> Not to mention that the largest study done so far in Spain, is Rhouda et al. 2006 with a sample of more than 800 people, and there was 0 % of mtDNA L...


Just another malicious hater... sociopath.

----------


## Sile

> Don't know what is that guy talking about, these idiots just go to Shittypedia on copy what they see there. The truth is that study on the 20% mtDNA L is from Alcacer Do Sal, a town with a well known history of isolation from descendants of slaves. 
> The reality is that mtDNA L is found in all of Europe, and Spain barely reaches 1%, when combining all the studies, like here :
> 
> http://anthrospain.blogspot.com.es/2...and-spain.html
> 
> Not to mention that the largest study done so far in Spain, is Rhouda et al. 2006 with a sample of more than 800 people, and there was 0 % of mtDNA L...


oh well, Spain miss out on L ...too bad :Rolleyes:

----------


## nordicwarrior

:Cool V:  Ha, I thought the same thing! :Cool V:

----------


## Nobody1

Im not sure if you actually understood the study you quoted, El Dracc
1. This study clearly shows that Sub-Saharan mtDNA in Italy is between 1%-2% (incl. M1 its 2.3%)
which corresponds perfectly with Achilli et al. 2007 or Gonzales et al. 2003 or Pereira et al. 2005 (all range from 0%-2.9%)

2. The "African" Y-DNA is E1b3 = E-M78 (Fig.3) and E-M78 is from the Balkans (as also mentioned in the study)
in addition there is E-M123 (Near East) and M-81 (Berber N.Africa); all clearly (and as such) mentioned in this study. 

Based on these 2 facts (from the study) the study itself concludes:
_"Finally, in agreement with uniparental markers, analysis of AIMs as carried out in the present study indicated that Italy shows a very minor sub-Saharan African component that is, however, slightly higher than non-Mediterranean Europe."_

Now if thats the case that there is only 1%-2% sub-saharan mtDNA and NO sub-saharan Y-DNA in Italy, (and that is the case based on the study itself) than those supposed 9.2% autosomal DNA is very dubious to say the least. especially when concerning the fact that there is no explanation or specific information given of how it was evaluated. It only refers to Figure 2, but also on Figure 2 there is no explanation.
And Its complete nonsense when given the fact that Moorjani et al. (2011) used the exact same method (as claimed in this study) for 'sub-saharan - AutosomalDNA' and determined a result of 1.1% N.Italy, 2.7% S.Italy, 2.4% Spain and 3.2% Portugal.
w w w . plosgenetics . org / article / info:doi / 10.1371 / journal . pgen . 1001373?

And its funny how the Spaniards get all excited at those numbers, when the study clearly shows that NW Spain (ie. Galicia (the great celtic region) is 7.1% (thats not far from 9.2%) and according to Figure2 NW Spain is even higher than Portugal (on average with Portugal 7.1%)
But unlike Italy, which has a relativly low sub-saharan mtDNA; 1%-2% (as also this study clearly shows), Spain and Portugal on the other hand have the highest sub-saharan mtDNA in Europe:
*Spain:* Galicia 3.3% Pereira et al. (2005) or Catalonia 2.9% Alvarez-Iglesias et al. (2009) with certain regions and towns 
as high as 4.7% - 18.1% Alvarez et al. (2010) and 8.3% (Cordoba) Casas et al. (2006)
*Portugal:* 11.3% sub-saharan mtDNA in South Portugal Pereira et al. (2005) and Central Portugal 4.3% Gonzales et al. (2003) and up to 22% in certain towns _"highest ever reported in Europe"_
w w w . ncbi . nlm . nih . gov / pubmed / 20737604 
South Iberia in total = 7.4% sub-saharan mtDNA Casas et al. (2006)

So 7.1% Sub-Saharan AutosomalDNA plus the highest rate of sub-saharan mtDNA in Europe (up to 22%). thats quite something. 
Good study.

----------


## Drac II

> Im not sure if you actually understood the study you quoted, El Dracc
> 1. This study clearly shows that Sub-Saharan mtDNA in Italy is between 1%-2% (incl. M1 its 2.3%)
> which corresponds perfectly with Achilli et al. 2007 or Gonzales et al. 2003 or Pereira et al. 2005 (all range from 0%-2.9%)
> 
> 2. The "African" Y-DNA is E1b3 = E-M78 (Fig.3) and E-M78 is from the Balkans (as also mentioned in the study)
> in addition there is E-M123 (Near East) and M-81 (Berber N.Africa); all clearly (and as such) mentioned in this study. 
> 
> Based on these 2 facts (from the study) the study itself concludes:
> _"Finally, in agreement with uniparental markers, analysis of AIMs as carried out in the present study indicated that Italy shows a very minor sub-Saharan African component that is, however, slightly higher than non-Mediterranean Europe."_
> ...


It doesn't matter how hard you try to "spin" things and deviate to older Y-Chromosome and mtDNA studies (and you conveniently leave out some that do not go along with your agenda, like Plaza et al. 2003: 8.1% sub-Saharan lineages in southern Italy), the fact is that the results of this study using autosomes concluded this (clearly identified as "Sub-Saharan African", not North African or from anywhere else):

"This analysis indicated that Italians have a basal proportion of sub-Saharan ancestry that is higher (9.2%, on average) than other central or northern European populations (1.5%, on average). The amount of African ancestry in Italians is however more comparable to (but slightly higher than) the average in other Mediterranean countries (7.1%)."

And where does it say in Figure 2 that "NW Spain (ie. Galicia, the great celtic region) is 7.1%" instead of this percentage being based on the two non-Italian Mediterranean samples they used (Portugal + only NW Spain)? Unless you have proof that a single region of Spain provided more samples than the whole nation of Portugal for an estimate that was intended to represent the entire non-Italian Mediterranean side of Europe in the study (quite unfairly, I may add, since Portugal is well-known to have more sub-Saharan influence than Spain and the rest of Mediterranean Europe, except Italy, according to the autosomal results of this study), don't jump to conclusions.

Also, the study does not even mention Moorjani et al 2011, so it seems that you are just assuming they used exactly the same methods the other authors employed for their estimates. The fact that you don't really know this is strongly suggested by your very own complaint that in this study "there is no explanation or specific information given of how it was evaluated."

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> It doesn't matter how hard you try to "spin" things and deviate to older Y-Chromosome and mtDNA studies (and you conveniently leave out some that do not go along with your agenda, like Plaza et al. 2003: 8.1% sub-Saharan lineages in southern Italy), the fact is that the results of this study using autosomes concluded this (clearly identified as "Sub-Saharan African", not North African or from anywhere else):
> 
> "This analysis indicated that Italians have a basal proportion of sub-Saharan ancestry that is higher (9.2%, on average) than other central or northern European populations (1.5%, on average). The amount of African ancestry in Italians is however more comparable to (but slightly higher than) the average in other Mediterranean countries (7.1%)."
> 
> And where does it say in Figure 2 that "NW Spain (ie. Galicia, the great celtic region) is 7.1%" instead of this percentage being based on the two non-Italian Mediterranean samples they used (Portugal + only NW Spain)? Unless you have proof that a single region of Spain provided more samples than the whole nation of Portugal for an estimate that was intended to represent the entire non-Italian Mediterranean side of Europe in the study (quite unfairly, I may add, since Portugal is well-known to have more sub-Saharan influence than Spain and the rest of Mediterranean Europe, except Italy, according to the autosomal results of this study), don't jump to conclusions.
> 
> Also, the study does not even mention Moorjani et al 2011, so it seems that you are just assuming they used exactly the same methods the other authors employed for their estimates. The fact that you don't really know this is strongly suggested by your very own complaint that in this study "there is no explanation or specific information given of how it was evaluated."


Just another insecure person using outdated and sometimes dubious haplogroup data to frame certain population groups unjustly. Haplogroups are only meaningful to decipher ancient migration patterns. Little does he know that Iberia's SSA is mostly ancient, unlike some other regions of Europe. So ancient that it's trivial. Some people never, ever learn...an Alice-in-Wonderland moment.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Im not sure if you actually understood the study you quoted, El Dracc
> 1. This study clearly shows that Sub-Saharan mtDNA in Italy is between 1%-2% (incl. M1 its 2.3%)
> which corresponds perfectly with Achilli et al. 2007 or Gonzales et al. 2003 or Pereira et al. 2005 (all range from 0%-2.9%)
> 
> 2. The "African" Y-DNA is E1b3 = E-M78 (Fig.3) and E-M78 is from the Balkans (as also mentioned in the study)
> in addition there is E-M123 (Near East) and M-81 (Berber N.Africa); all clearly (and as such) mentioned in this study. 
> 
> Based on these 2 facts (from the study) the study itself concludes:
> _"Finally, in agreement with uniparental markers, analysis of AIMs as carried out in the present study indicated that Italy shows a very minor sub-Saharan African component that is, however, slightly higher than non-Mediterranean Europe."_
> ...


The studies you reference are of haplogroups and outdated for the most part. Check some of the latest autosomal DNA (complete heritage) statistics and you will find Portugal at 1.4% and Spain comes in at < 1%. (Eurogenes May, 2012) Moreover, the markers are ancient (Mesolithic, Neolithic). Anything so old is trivial. I feel sorry for you, guy.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Doesn't really help your case when they are only referring to Sicilians. Not all Italians. In addition to that, everybody is taking "evidence" from a fictional movie that Tarantino helped write. THAT is why there is a faulty common association between the 2. That is why there are so many search results. You know this, but aren't mentioning it because of how stupid you know it actually is. It's all Jewish/Liberal propaganda. The fact that you believe that this association is in anyway relevant is a testament to your stupidity.
> 
> Read the autosomal research. Both Spaniards are far more European than Southern Italians. The facts are as plain as day. Haplogroup studies are meaningless w
> 
> Nothing backfired on me. I'm sure that you're aware of the Muslim conquest. It affected Spain and Portugal the most, hence why SSA gene flow is the most prevalent there and shows in specific gradients. I guess you're Portuguese or Spanish, and it upsets you which is why you're trying to insult Italians. That would explain your behavior. Looks like you flag is Catalan? You never know, somewhere in your maternal line could be a negro since it was clearly a common occurrence in those parts as shown in mtDNA studies. 
> 
> I didn't plagiarize when I provided the link right after the quote now did I? Read next time before talking.
> 
> You haven't "won any argument", or "stuck it to the man" at all. Nobody else thinks that these papers are valid and everybody most certainly knows that 9.2% SSA would in actuality, change the look of Italians dramatically. 
> ...


Read the autosomal research. That's what counts. The most recent autosomal research shows that both Spaniards and Portuguese are far more European than Southern Italians. Moreover, Northern and Western Euro input is well beyond 50% (see Eurogenes, 5 / 2012, among others). S. Italy is nowhere near 50%. Iberians are actually much closer to Danes (but obviously do not cluster with them) than Southern Italians. Professional human population geneticists will laugh at your assertions. Time to move on...

----------


## Nobody1

"spin" ??? whats the spin?

there is no spin, just read the post again. The study clearly states: _"Italy shows a very minor sub-Saharan African component"_ and the Study (itself) has results of 0% Y-DNA and 1%-2% mtDNA. its all in that study. 
Yet it claims based on an unknown method and 54 anonymous AIMs, that the AutosomalDNA is 9.2% average Italy and 7.1% average NW Spain and Portugal. 
That contradicts their own statements_ "Italy shows a very minor sub-Saharan African component"_ and their own results 0% Y-DNA and 1%-2% mtDNA (gene flow). 
Apart from that its also completely in contrast to Moorjani et al. (2011) His AutosomalDNA is 1.1% N.Italy, 2.7% S.Italy, 2.4% Spain and 3.2% Portugal. 
I posted a link (remove spaces) for Moorjani et al. (2011), read all about it.

The same goes for Cerezo et al. (2012) - (Iberia is largely effected but not Italy, despite great no. of samples)
genome . cshlp . org / content / 22 / 5 / 821 / F1. large. jpg

The diff. is that Moorjani actually explains his study and Brisighelli does not. 
But, also Brisighelli (your study) clealry shows that the mtDNA results for Italy are 1%-2%, and are therefor absolutely consistent with all other mtDNA studies that range Italy from 0%-2.9% [Ottoni et al. 2009 / Achilli et al. 2007 / Pereira et al. 2005 etc. etc.]

And Galicia is no longer in NW Spain. Thats a surprise. NW = North West

----------


## Nobody1

Are you kidding me? 
from what planet did you drop from? In order for a study to be Outdated or Debunked, another study must actually OUT DATE IT with NEW Data or actually Debunk it. Im not aware that thats the case with Achilli, Pereira, Gonzales, Cerezo, Moorjani, Ottoni etc. If you posses such links to studies that clearly "outdate them" than please post them.

Other than that its just wishful thinking calling Genetic studies Outdated because they bust your fantasy. 

And mtDNA is just a sprecise and important as AutosomalDNA. If not even preciser, because an AIM cannot be a substitute for a haplotype.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

^^

Sorry, guy, the latest autosomal data blows your codswallop away. There is nothing to talk about. Old haplogroup data? READ CAREFULLY: Haplogroup data is useful mainly to trace ancient migrations. Also, many studies you and your insecure friend quoted are defective in methodology, some radically so. Only autosomal facts count when it comes to determining true heritage percentages. You are using a pocket knife against a laser guided missile. You can't win.

----------


## Nobody1

listen dude, i don t know what game your playing or what you intend to win, 
But i let you in on a little secret: There is no such thing as a more important DNA sequence or a lesser one. 
mtDNA is just as important as atDNA or Y-DNA, because it reveals your direct maternal lineage so does Y-DNA (males - paternal line). autosomalDNA recombines and kicks out markers each Generation. so to conclude that thats "more" important or "more" precise is nonsense. 

Apart from it i have nothing against AutosomolDNA tests or results, i have repeatedly quoted Moorjani et al. (2011). im just saying that the study you hold so dear is in contrast to the results of Moorjani and contradicts its own mtDNA and Y-DNA results; it lacks explanation and method and are therefor dubious. thats all. 
you dont consider 7.1% average for NW Spain dubious?

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

^^ 

No games fella. You keep insisting on using haplogroup frequencies (doesn't matter if it's Y or MtDNA) and such cannot reveal full heritage, only VERY OLD migration patterns. Moorjani's results obviously make no sense, given all the evidence gathered by the likes of Behar (2010), The Eurogenes Project, etc.

This is a dying, almost laughable debate on the internet and new aDNA evidence pops up regularly blowing away the research you so desperately depend on. Don't let your primal insecurities get the best of you. Have a nice day / night.

----------


## Nobody1

> new aDNA evidence pops up regularly blowing away the research you so desperately depend on


That doesnt even make any sense, how can mtDNA be _blown away_ when its non-recombining (like Y-DNA) and therefor pretty stationary as a mean of a population (internal). And all those mtDNA and Y-DNA studies are spot on and still count, but good to know that your the decider.
Apart from that, Moorjani et al. (2011) and Auton et al. (2008) clearly state that autosomalDNA is a mirror of mtDNA and Y-DNA gene flow. 
So get your facts straight. and whats your point anyways? i just made a comment about a dubious study that contradicts its own statements and own results and is in-off with other studies. but good to know they are all _blown away_. 
keep blowing buddy.

----------


## Drac II

> "spin" ??? whats the spin?
> 
> there is no spin, just read the post again. The study clearly states: _"Italy shows a very minor sub-Saharan African component"_ and the Study (itself) has results of 0% Y-DNA and 1%-2% mtDNA. its all in that study. 
> Yet it claims based on an unknown method and 54 anonymous AIMs, that the AutosomalDNA is 9.2% average Italy and 7.1% average NW Spain and Portugal. 
> That contradicts their own statements_ "Italy shows a very minor sub-Saharan African component"_ and their own results 0% Y-DNA and 1%-2% mtDNA (gene flow). 
> Apart from that its also completely in contrast to Moorjani et al. (2011) His AutosomalDNA is 1.1% N.Italy, 2.7% S.Italy, 2.4% Spain and 3.2% Portugal. 
> I posted a link (remove spaces) for Moorjani et al. (2011), read all about it.
> 
> The same goes for Cerezo et al. (2012) - (Iberia is largely effected but not Italy, despite great no. of samples)
> ...


Yes, "spin", you know what I am talking about. Read your posts trying to move around what the study plainly states regarding their autosomal results. 


Somehow I strongly suspect, based on comparison of both Y-Chromosome/mtDNA and autosomal studies about Spain and Portugal, that if only NW Spain had been used as the only non-Italian Mediterranean sample the so-called "average in other Mediterranean countries" would have been fairly under that quoted 7.1% figure. Had they included people like Greeks and southern French, who in their turn seem to have less than the Spanish, it would still have been lower.


I was the one that brought up Moorjani et al. into the "conversation", remember? Your "friend" did not want to consider it since it does not agree well with his blatant anti-Iberian and pro-Italian agenda.


The study does not contradict itself. How do you know that the authors do not still consider 9.2% to be "minor"? It certainly can't be one of the major components of Italy's DNA, so in a sense it can only be considered "minor" no matter what it's actual value since it will always be small compared to other components of the Italian DNA. 


Unlike autosomoes, Y-Chromosomes and mtDNA are not very good for admixture estimates, that's why for this purpose population genetics concentrates more on autosomes.

----------


## Nobody1

No, your spinning things around concerning the 7.1% (of which acc. to Fig. 2 NW Spain is much higher.)
The point is, if you want to uphold this study, than uphold it as it is. Italy average 9.2% and NW Spain and Portugal average 7.1% with NW Spain clearly higher due to Fig.2. 
And also the other _FACTS_ from that study: mtDNA = 1%-2% / as low as in all other studies [0%-2.9% range] 
Those are the facts from that study. 
The conclusion is that mtDNA is truly low in Italy (1%-2% Confirmed) while in Spain it reaches up to 18.1% Alvarez et al. (2010) and Portugal 22% Pereira et al. (2010)

_"Y-Chromosomes and mtDNA are not very good for admixture estimates,"_
Yes and we all know the _admixture estimates_ from Moorjani and Cerezo. They paint a complete diff. picture than Brisighelli.

----------


## Drac II

> No, your spinning things around concerning the 7.1% (of which acc. to Fig. 2 NW Spain is much higher.)
> The point is, if you want to uphold this study, than uphold it as it is. Italy average 9.2% and NW Spain and Portugal average 7.1% with NW Spain clearly higher due to Fig.2. 
> And also the other _FACTS_ from that study: mtDNA = 1%-2% / as low as in all other studies [0%-2.9% range] 
> Those are the facts from that study. 
> The conclusion is that mtDNA is truly low in Italy (1%-2% Confirmed) while in Spain it reaches up to 18.1% Alvarez et al. (2010) and Portugal 22% Pereira et al. (2010)
> 
> _"Y-Chromosomes and mtDNA are not very good for admixture estimates,"_
> Yes and we all know the _admixture estimates_ from Moorjani and Cerezo. They paint a complete diff. picture than Brisighelli.


The spinning is all yours.

Once again: where in figure 2 does it say that NW Spain bears the brunt of this 7.1% figure? The figure is clearly for Portuguese and NW Spanish samples combined, not for these two separate areas individually.

Cerezo et al. study is about mtDNA lineages. Moorjani et al. was autosomal, and you already know what it says. Southern Italy alone had more than all of Spain put together.

Once again conveniently "forgetting" mtDNA results that do not go well with your agenda either, such as Plaza et al. (2003): 8.1% for Southern Italy, not just a county like in Alvarez et al. (2010)

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> That doesnt even make any sense, how can mtDNA be _blown away_ when its non-recombining (like Y-DNA) and therefor pretty stationary as a mean of a population (internal). And all those mtDNA and Y-DNA studies are spot on and still count, but good to know that your the decider.
> Apart from that, Moorjani et al. (2011) and Auton et al. (2008) clearly state that autosomalDNA is a mirror of mtDNA and Y-DNA gene flow. 
> So get your facts straight. and whats your point anyways? i just made a comment about a dubious study that contradicts its own statements and own results and is in-off with other studies. but good to know they are all _blown away_. 
> keep blowing buddy.


My friend, aDNA research always extensively trumps Y or mtDNA results. Haplogroups are a very tiny fraction of ancestry, while autosomal + full heritage gives you the most accurate picture possible of one's genome. You're the one playing games... and on a treadmill. Talk to a real population geneticist. Have a nice night.

----------


## Nobody1

In Fig.2, i believe its 14 with an asterisk that is all (only) NW Spain.
Yes correct, Moorjani figures are autosomal and they are as i have twice already posted: 1.1% N.Italy - 2.7% S.Italy - 2.4% Spain and 3.2% Portugal. And Moorjani and Auton clearly state that aDNA must mirror mtDNA and Y-DNA gene flow. So thats why i consider the Brisighelli numbers (No method, No explanation) highly dubious. If you want to uphold them, than uphold them, but than uphold all the facts from that study (mtDNA, Y-DNA, NW Spain sample etc. etc.) and dont just cherry pick.
_"Once again conveniently "forgetting" mtDNA results that do not go well with your agenda either, such as Plaza et al. (2003): 8.1 for Southern Italy,"_
No, im not forgetting anything. in fact im not familiar with this study, so if you have a link please post. Apart from that there are many studies after Plaza (2003); Pereira, Ottoni, Achilli, Cerezo and even Brisighelli that have complete diff. figures (1.3%-2.9% South Italy) than your supposed 8.1% from Plaza.

----------


## Nobody1

On what level does aDNA trump Y or mtDNA?
_"while autosomal + full heritage gives you the most accurate picture possible of one's genome."_ 
Correct, ones personal genome, not that of an entire population. And what exactly is _+Heritage_, isnt that the direct Paternal and Maternal lines? I think it is, and thats called Y-DNA and mtDNA

and again, your talking to the wrong dude. I have nothing against aDNA tests or the results of. But to completely (like you did) create a ranking of most valuable DNA is nonsense. there all equally valuable, if not mtDNA and Y-DNA more because of direct lineage and aDNA being recombining thus kicking out markers every generation. Thats my take.

----------


## zanipolo

> Are you kidding me? 
> from what planet did you drop from? In order for a study to be Outdated or Debunked, another study must actually OUT DATE IT with NEW Data or actually Debunk it. Im not aware that thats the case with Achilli, Pereira, Gonzales, Cerezo, Moorjani, Ottoni etc. If you posses such links to studies that clearly "outdate them" than please post them.
> 
> Other than that its just wishful thinking calling Genetic studies Outdated because they bust your fantasy. 
> 
> And mtDNA is just a sprecise and important as AutosomalDNA. If not even preciser, because an AIM cannot be a substitute for a haplotype.


This is logical and I agree.....until someone states that the new study is wrong, then the new study supercedes the old ones......better technology and science over time

----------


## Drac II

> In Fig.2, i believe its 14 with an asterisk that is all (only) NW Spain.
> Yes correct, Moorjani figures are autosomal and they are as i have twice already posted: 1.1% N.Italy - 2.7% S.Italy - 2.4% Spain and 3.2% Portugal. And Moorjani and Auton clearly state that aDNA must mirror mtDNA and Y-DNA gene flow. So thats why i consider the Brisighelli numbers (No method, No explanation) highly dubious. If you want to uphold them, than uphold them, but than uphold all the facts from that study (mtDNA, Y-DNA, NW Spain sample etc. etc.) and dont just cherry pick.
> _"Once again conveniently "forgetting" mtDNA results that do not go well with your agenda either, such as Plaza et al. (2003): 8.1 for Southern Italy,"_
> No, im not forgetting anything. in fact im not familiar with this study, so if you have a link please post. Apart from that there are many studies after Plaza (2003); Pereira, Ottoni, Achilli, Cerezo and even Brisighelli that have complete diff. figures (1.3%-2.9% South Italy) than your supposed 8.1% from Plaza.


Figure 2 clearly shows where the non-Italian Mediterranean samples came from: Portugal and NW Spain (bot have * identifying them as the "Mediterranean" areas in the study besides Italy.) It is two separate places, not just one. That is where their 7.1% figure comes from and they chose it (not quite satisfactorily, I may add, for reasons already explained: Portugal is not the average representative of the Euro-Mediterranean zone in this regard) to represent the rest of the Euro-Mediterranean zone minus Italy. The Italian figure is for all Italy by itself. So Italy by itself had more of this ancestry (9.2%) than Portugal and NW Spain combined (7.1%)

Moorjani et al. says that their results agree with Y-Chromosome and mtDNA data, but this is partly just an empty claim on their part. Geneticists often do this to be in good terms with other colleagues and their results, even if it is actually at odds with their own results. For example, mtDNA data also shows sub-Saharan L sequences clearly present in what Moorjani et al. consider "Northern Europe", yet they state that their results showed that "northern Europeans" do not show evidence of sub-Saharan African gene flow and that this agrees with Y-Chromosome/mtDNA data. A totally false statement. 

Plaza et al. 2003 is a very well-known study and easily found online, here:

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb....e_Hercules.pdf

----------


## Vallicanus

Where does it say 8.1pc SS African in South Italy in Plaza's survey?

Where does it say Italians have more African mtDNA than Iberians?
Thank you.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Figure 2 clearly shows where the non-Italian Mediterranean samples came from: Portugal and NW Spain (bot have * identifying them as the "Mediterranean" areas in the study besides Italy.) It is two separate places, not just one. That is where their 7.1% figure comes from and they chose it (not quite satisfactorily, I may add, for reasons already explained: Portugal is not the average representative of the Euro-Mediterranean zone in this regard) to represent the rest of the Euro-Mediterranean zone minus Italy. The Italian figure is for all Italy by itself. So Italy by itself had more of this ancestry (9.2%) than Portugal and NW Spain combined (7.1%)
> 
> Moorjani et al. says that their results agree with Y-Chromosome and mtDNA data, but this is partly just an empty claim on their part. Geneticists often do this to be in good terms with other colleagues and their results, even if it is actually at odds with their own results. For example, mtDNA data also shows sub-Saharan L sequences clearly present in what Moorjani et al. consider "Northern Europe", yet they state that their results showed that "northern Europeans" do not show evidence of sub-Saharan African gene flow and that this agrees with Y-Chromosome/mtDNA data. A totally false statement. 
> 
> Plaza et al. 2003 is a very well-known study and easily found online, here:
> 
> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb....e_Hercules.pdf


The more one goes over the Moorjani study the more holes you find. I have never seen any haplogroup studies agree with autosomal findings... most times the two are not even close.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> On what level does aDNA trump Y or mtDNA?
> _"while autosomal + full heritage gives you the most accurate picture possible of one's genome."_ 
> Correct, ones personal genome, not that of an entire population. And what exactly is _+Heritage_, isnt that the direct Paternal and Maternal lines? I think it is, and thats called Y-DNA and mtDNA
> 
> and again, your talking to the wrong dude. I have nothing against aDNA tests or the results of. But to completely (like you did) create a ranking of most valuable DNA is nonsense. there all equally valuable, if not mtDNA and Y-DNA more because of direct lineage and aDNA being recombining thus kicking out markers every generation. Thats my take.


Haplogroups relate essentially to ancient heritage - founder markers. You can have 1 ancestor in your genome that's L (presumably SSA) from, say, 2000 years ago and end up testing as L, and you can be light as a ghost and totally European looking. 

Perhaps you should address extra-Euro admixture in population groups that is not SSA, such as SW Asian (ME) and West Asian (region specific markers for SE Europe, compared to what is found in the west of Europe) in SE Europe. SSA, is mostly ancient and, by reputable findings, records at modest levels for South Euro countries. Moreover, anything ancient (e.g., Neolithic) does not affect phenotype. Why do you seem so overly concerned about which Euro country has lower or higher SSA readings compared to others? Seems a bit strange, don't you think?

----------


## MOESAN

very "bloody" thread for someones...
a remark, without going deeper in the matter (It needs time): two surveys, to be compared, have to deal with the same characteristics - AND IF THE CASE, a survey does not destroy the results of the other: we have to combine them to have better statistical worth - it seems to me that these large groupings of regions show tiny samples of population, is it not?
cheers (i'm having my midday coffie)

----------


## Knovas

Some people seems to not read the threads. The Moorjani et al study was, indeed, debunked long ago. I posted the extense criticism by Dienekes' about that, and it's perfectly clear how they got such a spurious figures (not only for Portugal, but also Italy and Greece). Not reliable at all, please, check.

And this is about autosomal results, so everyone with little knowledge (or honesty) would not give relevance to haplogroups here.

----------


## Nobody1

*at Dracc II* 
Correct, its 2 diff. places: 14* is NW Spain and 15* is Portugal, Brisighelli lumped the 2 together an evaluated the average of 7.1% 
But if you LOOK at Figure2 (the chart) you can clearly see more Orange (African) at 14* NW Spain than 15* Portugal, meaning NW Spain is clearly above the average of 7.1% and Portugal below [factor2]. Apart from the fact that 7.1% isnt that far from 9.2% in the first place, the Brisighelli study isnt an AutosomalDNA study to begin with. its largely a Y-DNA and mtDNA study and the results on mtDNA and Y-DNA are identical (confirms) with other studies you call _Debunked_ or _Outdated_ - Pereira, Achilli, Cerezo, Ottoni etc.

as for Plaza et al (2003); Thanks for the link.
Acc. to the chart the Sub-Saharan mtDNA (L1,L2,L3) and North African mtDNA (U6 - Mauritania) levels in Italy are absolutely in line with all other mtDNA studies on Italy that show a range of 0%-2.9% - [Achilli, Pereira, Cerezo, Ottoni etc.] so not only Brisighelli but also Plaza _CONFIRMS_ those studies.

Sicily = 0.6% L & 0.6 % U6 
Tuscany = 2.0% L & 0% U6 
Sardinia = 2.8% L & 0% U6 
Central Ita. = 1.2% L & 0% U6 
Italy total = 2.9% L & 0.1% U6

except for S. Italy which has an extremely small sample size of 37 samples (8.1% L = 3 samples & 0% U6) 
comparing S.Italy to Ottoni et al. (2009) = 2.2% / or Cerezo et al. 2012 or Achilli et al. 2007 or even Brisighelli et al. (2012) = 1%-2%

The interesting part however is that Italy's largest L haplogroup is L3 (1.7% of the 2.9%), which is East African [largely also in N.Africa and Near East] as compared to L1 and L2 which are West African (slave trade) in comparison with Portugal and Spain which are more L2 and L1 (west african slave trade). Something also Cerezo et al. (2012) evaluated. Also U6 is far more common in Spain in Portugal, where as in Italy its almost absent except for Sicily at 0.6%. 

Portugal total = 3.6% L & 5.6% U6 
North Portugal = 5% L & 7% U6 
Central Portugal = 6.1% L & 0% U6 
South Portugal = 5.1% L & 0% U6
Central Spain = 4% L & 2% U6 (also small sample size)

----------


## zanipolo

> *at Dracc II* 
> Correct, its 2 diff. places: 14* is NW Spain and 15* is Portugal, Brisighelli lumped the 2 together an evaluated the average of 7.1% 
> But if you LOOK at Figure2 (the chart) you can clearly see more Orange (African) at 14* NW Spain than 15* Portugal, meaning NW Spain is clearly above the average of 7.1% and Portugal below [factor2]. Apart from the fact that 7.1% isnt that far from 9.2% in the first place, the Brisighelli study isnt an AutosomalDNA study to begin with. its largely a Y-DNA and mtDNA study and the results on mtDNA and Y-DNA are identical (confirms) with other studies you call _Debunked_ or _Outdated_ - Pereira, Achilli, Cerezo, Ottoni etc.
> 
> as for Plaza et al (2003); Thanks for the link.
> Acc. to the chart the Sub-Saharan mtDNA (L1,L2,L3) and North African mtDNA (U6 - Mauritania) levels in Italy are absolutely in line with all other mtDNA studies on Italy that show a range of 0%-2.9% - [Achilli, Pereira, Cerezo, Ottoni etc.] so not only Brisighelli but also Plaza _CONFIRMS_ those studies.
> 
> Sicily = 0.6% L & 0.6 % U6 
> Tuscany = 2.0% L & 0% U6 
> ...



Has plaza got it correct, he has reversed the basque and galicians (P315) on the map...what about the data?


Is L1 and L2 , slave trade or purely Berber ( moors ) 

L3 is only in southern Italy and the Balkans, the major L3 became N in the Caucasus and that went west wardards

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

I Don't know why people keep insisting on haplogroups to measure admixture - plain inaccurate. Autosomal testing is what counts. 

BTW, nearly all SSA in Europe is exceedingly old and has practically nothing to do with The Slave Trade or "Moorish" invaders. Actually, I would love to see statistics (if there are any reliable ones) for SSA in the Liverpool region. Why do some people insist on quoting SSA figures - haplogroup studies no less - for Western / South Western European populations that are genetically nearly 60% western and northern European combined and 90% plus Euro in total? (see any number of Eurogenes studies, Behar, 2010, etc.) Puzzling.

Did anyone ever think that these SSA haplogroup studies sometimes show odd results because samples used are not representative of the native population? Think about it? Elevated scores for Galicia and N. Portugal? Absurd. The Moors hardly made it up there and blacks never did. Has anyone read about the Alcacer do Sal fiasco? The samples were taken from a little isolated community of outcasts in the Alentejo. People who descend from Morrish and black slaves and practice endogamy. Laughable! Yet, this kind of rubbish keeps making it into the (very) amateurish genetics circuses on the internet.

----------


## Nobody1

*at zanipolo*

I consider Plaza (2003) to be a good study, its actually one of the first [after Maca-Meyer (2001)] that did a full mtDNA study. Yes, there are mistakes in his study like the one you pointed out, but its still pretty solid and corresponds with later studies - Pereira, Cerezo or Achilli.

L3 is East African (Horn of Africa - Abyssinia) and the oldest of the mtDNA Haplogroup L. The fact that it has a high frequency in N. Africa and Near East suggests a Migration from East Africa into these regions and in Neolithic times (from Near East) into Balkans and Italy.
acc. Maca-Meyer (2001)
_"Likewise, African haplogroup L3 is more related to Eurasian haplogroups than to the most divergent African clusters L1 and L2."_ 

L1 and L2 are West African and can only be linked to the Atlantic slave trade.
U6 is _Berber_ - Mozabites and also in High frequency in Mauritania. The Presence of U6 in Portugal (5.6%), Spain (2%) and Sicily (0.6%) can be linked to the Islamic conquests in the Middle Ages.

----------


## Drac II

> *at Dracc II* 
> Correct, its 2 diff. places: 14* is NW Spain and 15* is Portugal, Brisighelli lumped the 2 together an evaluated the average of 7.1% 
> But if you LOOK at Figure2 (the chart) you can clearly see more Orange (African) at 14* NW Spain than 15* Portugal, meaning NW Spain is clearly above the average of 7.1% and Portugal below [factor2]. Apart from the fact that 7.1% isnt that far from 9.2% in the first place, the Brisighelli study isnt an AutosomalDNA study to begin with. its largely a Y-DNA and mtDNA study and the results on mtDNA and Y-DNA are identical (confirms) with other studies you call _Debunked_ or _Outdated_ - Pereira, Achilli, Cerezo, Ottoni etc.
> 
> as for Plaza et al (2003); Thanks for the link.
> Acc. to the chart the Sub-Saharan mtDNA (L1,L2,L3) and North African mtDNA (U6 - Mauritania) levels in Italy are absolutely in line with all other mtDNA studies on Italy that show a range of 0%-2.9% - [Achilli, Pereira, Cerezo, Ottoni etc.] so not only Brisighelli but also Plaza _CONFIRMS_ those studies.
> 
> Sicily = 0.6% L & 0.6 % U6 
> Tuscany = 2.0% L & 0% U6 
> ...


I am not convinced by what you are pointing out in figure 2 because if you look at the size of the "squares" they seem to also represent sample size, which make the orange and other color-keys look like "more" or "less", depending on the length of the square. Look at square #9 representing Britain, for example, which is quite small. The orange is almost at the same level as that of the much larger square representing NW Spain. Are we to conclude that Britain has the same level of sub-Saharan African as NW Spain? Judging by all evidence (including the very statements of this study regarding northern vs southern Europe in this regard), certainly not. Not even other parts of Spain do, let alone Britain. Now look at the squares representing northern and central Italy and then look at the one representing southern Italy: they also seem to have more "orange". Are we to conclude that northern Italy has more sub-Saharan African than southern Italy? Again, judging by all evidence available so far, certainly not. "Coincidentally", the southern Italian square is also longer than the ones for northern and central Italy, so the "orange" is more spread out. So things seem a bit more complicated than just saying "the level of orange in X seems to be more than the one for Y on the graph!" If my interpretation is correct, it shows that, as I suspected, the Portuguese sample was larger than the NW Spanish sample, and likely more responsible for the combined 7.1% figure.

The part of Brisighelli et al. under discussion was very clearly autosomal. The study deals with both autosomes and haplogroups. Their autosomal results are not as harmonious with haplogroup results as they like to claim, just like Moorjani et al.'s results were not, despite their claims to the contrary.

It is very common for some people trying to deny the results of Plaza et al. 2003 regarding southern Italy to use the argument that the sample size was too small. Fair enough. But what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. That means we can easily apply the exact same argument to some of those favorite papers used by anti-Spanish t-r-o-l-l-s trying desperately to inflate Spain's "sub-Saharan African influence", like the one for Sayago (Alvarez et al. 2010) with a sample size of only 33 (less than the southern Italian sample in Plaza et al. 2003.) So you can forget the much ballyhooed "even as high as 18% sub-Saharan mtDNA" in Spain.

U6 is prehistoric and its geographic origin is debated, either Near Eastern, North African or maybe even Iberian. It certainly is not sub-Saharan African.

----------


## Nobody1

*at Drac II*

Exactly, WHO KNOWS. I dont know what the figure for Britain is, or what the exact figure for NW Spain is, because the Study simply doesnt include it or clearly explains the chart, so its a guessing game what the Orange clearly indicates.
it also doesnt explain how it obtained these figures or what method was used or anything regarding the 54 AIMs. And those results obtained (both the 7.1 and the 9.2) are nowhere in line with any other study. its not even in line with its own aDNA conclusion based on PCA observation.
Therefor i consider Moorjani et al. (2011) far more precise (_detailed explanation on the SNPs used_) and more credible than Brisighelli.

and Dude, i have no business with Sayago i seriously couldnt care less what the sub-saharan mtDNA rate is for that region, i just pointed out that there is a Study [Alvarez et al. (2010)] that has a result as high as 18.1% just like you pointed out (twice) that Plaza et al (2003) has a result as high as 8.1% for S. Italy. Now if the Sayago result is based on a small sample-set than thats an explanation for that high figure. 
And thanks again for the Plaza et al (2003) link, good study.

----------


## Alexandros

From the discussions I notice a misunderstanding regarding what does "looking European" mean, especially as regards Georgians vs. Sardinians, etc. A misconception I notice is that people tend to think "Europeaness" as having lighter skin and fairer hair, etc. In other words several traits differentiating Europeans from their closest neighbors, the Middle Easterns and North Africans. This is fair enough, but the confusion comes when maps like this appear showing that Georgians, for example, are not so European and here come the complaints by some. Of course the majority of Georgians have very light skin, even some with blonde hair, blue eyes, but this does not mean that they are European. Someone may argue that Russians also look 'European', but are they? The point is what is the definition of European? Where does the continent end?? How far east can we stretch the limits? Does the continent end in Greece, Bulgaria and Romania, or does it stretch eastern to include Ukraine, Belarus, Turkey or even Georgia and Azerbaijan? Indeed, Caucasus was the place of origin of great migrations into Europe and no one can argue that. This does not mean however that today we can consider the Caucasus region and even eastern from there as 'Europe'. We don't have to be considered all as 'Europeans' in order to be proud of our genetic ancestry. Just some thoughts..

----------


## Knovas

The latest research seems to indicate that the most "European", "West Eurasian", or whatever...these are the Sardinians. At least, the Sardinians from the HGDP sample, who were probably so carefully selected. Judging from their phenotypes (images available all over google), one really doesn't know what to think, so it would worth to test other Sardinians to see how do they look in admixture analysis. But if we take the aforementioned sample as reference, there seems to be no question about it.

Still waiting to see the isolated samples from the Friulli region in detail though.

----------


## Toscano

Is that map made by some Nordicist? If we italians are like 70% European. Please tell me what the rest 30% are? Arabic/negroid? don't think so!

----------


## Nobody1

> Is that map made by some Nordicist? If we italians are like 70% European. Please tell me what the rest 30% are? Arabic/negroid? don't think so!


The numbers are from DODECAD:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...CPGxtqQM#gid=0


South Italy & Sicily [samples 14] - 
Near East = 44.9 / N Europe = 13.7 / S Europe = 38.9 / N Africa = 2.2 / Sub-Sahara = 0.4 

North Italy [samples 12] - 
Near East = 21.2 / N Europe = 31.0 / S Europe = 47.5 / N Africa = 0.1 / Sub-Sahara = 0 

Spain [samples 12] - 
Near East = 11.3 / N Europe = 37.8 / S Europe = 47.7 / N Africa = 2.3 / Sub-Sahara = 0.6 

Greece [samples 10] - 
Near East = 40 / N Europe = 21.1 / S Europe = 38.6 / N Africa = 0.1 / Sub-Sahara = 0

Portugal [samples 7] - 
Near East = 12.3 / N Europe = 36.1 / S Europe = 43.3 / N Africa = 5.8 / Sub-Sahara = 1.7

Sardinia [samples 28] - 
Near East = 2.5 / N Europe = 0.6 / S Europe = 96.5 / N Africa = 0.1 / Sub-Sahara = 0


Keep in mind its an Internet Blogger; not a scientist at an institution;
But the numbers seem alright;

----------


## Knovas

The map is based on K=12 v3 if I recall (the same as Epedia's autosomal maps). The figures you posted belong to the K=10 run. There many different genome interpretations using Admixture, so it's good to keep this in mind.

----------


## Sile

Dodecad and BCA

My BCA pinpoint 


Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Dodecad World data for me
*#*
*Population*
*Percent*

1
Amerindian
0.00

2
East_Asian
0.06

3
African
0.19

4
Atlantic_Baltic
56.29

5
Australasian
0.00

6
Siberian
0.00

7
Caucasus_Gedrosia
17.20

8
Southern
25.49

9
South_Asian
0.78




Pct. Calc. Option 1

1
N_Italian
92.05%

2
Mordovians
3.99%

3
Kalash
2.25%

4
Lezgins
1.51%

5
Romanians
0.15%

6
Greek
0.03%

7
O_Italian
0.01%

8
S_Italian
0.01%

9
Chechens
0.00%

10
Pathan
0.00%



Total RMSD: 0.269527

what about 2 pop mix
Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% C_Italian +50% French @ 1.439
2 50% North_Italian +50% Bulgarians @ 1.458
3 50% Sicilian +50% Kent @ 1.547
4 50% Sicilian +50% Cornwall @ 1.584
5 50% Sicilian +50% British_Isles @ 1.626
6 50% S_Italian_Sicilian +50% British_Isles @ 1.670
7 50% N_Italian +50% Bulgarians @ 1.755
8 50% S_Italian_Sicilian +50% Cornwall @ 1.768
9 50% S_Italian_Sicilian +50% Kent @ 1.774
10 50% British +50% Sicilian @ 1.777
31375 iterations.

Is this 2 pop mix the only one that matches the BCA pinpoint from Doug.
Let me know which to use

----------


## Sile

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/

new finds on admixtures

----------


## Angela

I took a look at Eurogenes' commentary about the latest Skoglund paper. I didn't personally find that this article added much to what Skoglund had already published other than confirming his results by adding more samples. The only additional piece of really new information that I could find is about the new sample from the Baltic Sea, which is older, and so is more firmly "Mesolithic" in terms of a time line than the Swedish hunter gatherer samples, which are only from about 3,000 B.C. This new sample carried mt dna U4b1.
See:http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/...FULLTEXT01.pdf

I also took a look at the three Eurogenes maps. I'm not part of that project, and don't really follow it, so I can't comment really on whether I think the maps are totally accurate according to his population averages for a northern European like component, or what actually appears more to be a northeast European component and a Mediterranean component. (I don't even know if he now publishes his population averages for each component. Last time I heard, he didn't.) Generally though, the first two maps seem to depict what looks like a Northeast European cline and a Mediterranean cline. The third map looks generally like a map of Dienekes' West Asian component.

Clearly, though, modern European populations are a mix of all three components.

In this regard, I find it interesting to look at the Geno 2.0 results. Their labelling of the third component as "Southwest Asian" is unfortunate, because I think a lot of people are confused by it...I think what they're talking about is a sort of combined Gedrosia/West Asia component if we were to use Dienekes type terms, but it's difficult to tell as they don't explain it anywhere. The percentages seem to be within a point or two of each other for all the countries. 
https://genographic.nationalgeograph...e-populations/

Of the populations they published, the Finns have the highest percentage of north Euro at 57%, but they also contain a northeast Asian component, so a population like the Lithuanians would probably have even higher percentages. The lowest among the European populations for that component is a tie between the Greeks and the Tuscans at 28%.

I wish they provided figures for all the populations, but so far this is it. 

I don't think that the timing of the arrival of the Mediterranean component in Europe is entirely a closed question, by the way. There are no samples as of yet from southern Spain, from Italy, or from the Balkans, although some are apparently in the pipeline. The possibility remains open, in my opinion, that it might have arrived in some of those areas in the Mesolithic. Time will tell...they are supposedly testing Mesolithic samples in the Balkans.

I wonder, also, how this will all fit with the findings of some recent papers that the major population expansion was actually pre-Neolithic, if indeed that is proven to be the case. 
See: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/conten...st156.abstract

----------


## Sile

> I took a look at Eurogenes' commentary about the latest Skoglund paper. I didn't personally find that this article added much to what Skoglund had already published other than confirming his results by adding more samples. The only additional piece of really new information that I could find is about the new sample from the Baltic Sea, which is older, and so is more firmly "Mesolithic" in terms of a time line than the Swedish hunter gatherer samples, which are only from about 3,000 B.C. This new sample carried mt dna U4b1.
> See:http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/...FULLTEXT01.pdf
> 
> I also took a look at the three Eurogenes maps. I'm not part of that project, and don't really follow it, so I can't comment really on whether I think the maps are totally accurate according to his population averages for a northern European like component, or what actually appears more to be a northeast European component and a Mediterranean component. (I don't even know if he now publishes his population averages for each component. Last time I heard, he didn't.) Generally though, the first two maps seem to depict what looks like a Northeast European cline and a Mediterranean cline. The third map looks generally like a map of Dienekes' West Asian component.
> 
> Clearly, though, modern European populations are a mix of all three components.
> 
> In this regard, I find it interesting to look at the Geno 2.0 results. Their labelling of the third component as "Southwest Asian" is unfortunate, because I think a lot of people are confused by it...I think what they're talking about is a sort of combined Gedrosia/West Asia component if we were to use Dienekes type terms, but it's difficult to tell as they don't explain it anywhere. The percentages seem to be within a point or two of each other for all the countries. 
> https://genographic.nationalgeograph...e-populations/
> ...


Eurogenes K9 ( not the K9B which is used for GPS mesolithic placements) is its mesolithic data. You can check it out.

----------


## IberoAtlantid

This map is definitive?

----------


## Pax Augusta

> This map is definitive?


No, of course not.

----------


## Angela

Three years is an eon in the field of population genetics. See Lazaridis et al:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture13673.html

This is the supplement, which is just as important:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...re13673-s1.pdf

Gamba et al is also very important:
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/14...comms6257.html

Skoglund et al 2012
http://211.144.68.84:9998/91keshi/Pu...f/466.full.pdf

Papers which should be out shortly will also refine our understanding of the population migrations which led to the creation of the "Europeans".

----------


## IberoAtlantid

> Not I have a inferior complex you are simply too mentally challenged to understand that a North European Russian is in the average Eye more European looking than anyone from the Mediterranean are you denying this? You are the only person here who tries to prove how even more European they are than Austrians or Germans. I am simply saying What is more European is based on the definition. The average Person would any day consider a Moldavian more European looking than a Spaniard or other Mediterraneans even though Moldavians are more West Asian.


You study taxonomy or what?

----------


## Oraliahenue

No. It was not a going AWOL. They took their rifles away.I agree. Pretty much every government in the world would have reacted in the same way.

----------

