Italian genetics

[Ouistreham]

The Eurogenes Project has one of such maps too, where a bunch of Italians are grouped according to their respective origin. If only one "Italian" cluster existed it would be easily the biggest cluster in Europe:

How come North Italians and Spaniards are so close to each other on this map, and more surprinsingly with Portugueses overlapping with both clusters?

Could it be a consequence of the Last Glacial Maximum (about 20,000 years ago), when human presence in Europe was limited to its Southern shores?

About sardinians, most likely the core population has been the same since Mesolithic times, and the neolithic influences and other invasions have been more minoritary than it is thought.

All century long invasions, occupations and empires we love to fantasize about on that board were likely to have lesser consequences than one month of immigration right now in any major European airport (or in Lampedusa).

[Sikeliot]

Similar amount of Northern European and Neolithic influences in both places (Iberia and northern Italy) perhaps.

[Polako]

North Italians are about as European as it gets, and very similar to French and Iberians in terms of intra-European genetic diversity (obviously minus the North Afro influence seen in Iberians).

Southern Italians, on the other hand, are a whole different kettle of fish, and have a lot of interesting influences in their DNA from various places. But I won't get into that, because I've got a South Italian posse after me on the internet already, as a result of the stuff I've published. So I'll just let Dienekes take care of that side of things.

[Ibericus]

North Italians are about as European as it gets, and very similar to French and Iberians in terms of intra-European genetic diversity (obviously minus the North Afro influence seen in Iberians).

Yes, but North-Italians have double of Southwest-Asian and west-Asian than Iberians.

[Polako]

Yes, but North-Italians have double of Southwest-Asian and west-Asian than Iberians.

Yes, but that's older (ie. Neolithic) and more widespread than the North African influence in Iberians. So it's basically part of the modern European genetic structure.

[alzo zero]

Yes, but that's older (ie. Neolithic) and more widespread than the North African influence in Iberians. So it's basically part of the modern European genetic structure.

Beside the North African isn't the only African component in Iberians.

[Agrippa]

Can we say for sure when North African Europid and South West Asian Europid entered Europe? I think we can't say it for sure in both cases...

Only for the others it is pretty clear to me that they were present since the Neolithic. As for those, I don't know for sure when they entered or whether they came in with more than one movement and in different periods of time, similar to the Mongoloid influence in Eastern-North Eastern Europe.

[Sikeliot]

Can we say for sure when North African Europid and South West Asian Europid entered Europe? I think we can't say it for sure in both cases...

Only for the others it is pretty clear to me that they were present since the Neolithic.

The only thing that confuses me about the idea of North African admixture entering Europe in the Neolithic is that it's very low in Greece, while Greece is one of the most Neolithic parts of Europe as a whole.

[Agrippa]

The only thing that confuses me about the idea of North African admixture entering Europe in the Neolithic is that it's very low in Greece, while Greece is one of the most Neolithic parts of Europe as a whole.

That is no mystery. North Africa itself was inhabited by more archaic hunter gatherer elements, strong Cromagnoid tendencies. So essentially, both in Europe AND North Africa waves of culturally and racially usually more progressive elements made their way through the region.

We deal therefore with two waves from the Near East - one going from Anatolia-Caucasian-Central Asian areas into Europe, the other from Anatolia-Near East-Egypt into the rest of North Africa.

Two movements and the longer term differences between these components being primarily the exact origin in the Near East (North vs. South, different populations and cultures), as well as the pre-Neolithic elements, with which they mixed.

So modern Europeans are pre-Neolithic Europeans + Neolithic and later waves and modern North Africans are pre-Neolithic NA + Neolithic and later waves (including new Negroid influences through slave trade primarily).

If you see it that way, it is ultimately very clear where these two waves would have met each other, surely not in Greece, but in Iberia.

Now the street of Gibraltar might still have served as a strong barriere, but obviously, some elements might have made it.

Yet those would have been, in my opinion, mostly Near Eastern culture bearers on the move, rather than the equivalent to modern North Africans. But some of those could have been taken with those Neolithic culture bearers, as already assimilated elements, even then - and later for sure too in a similar fashion - so you don't need later Moors for such an influence, even though those might have played in as well - on a very low and unimportant, but still noticeable level.

That the Eastern Mediterranean and North Africa being rather isolated from each other at that time already, you can clearly observe if looking at the distribution of E-V13 for example.



Most of it in North Africa is the result of later expansions of Levantine-European people (Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans etc.).

E1b1b1a1b (E-V13).

Contrary to that, other variants of E1b1b are more common in Iberia and shared with North Africans partly.

[Ibericus]

Yes, but that's older (ie. Neolithic) and more widespread than the North African influence in Iberians. So it's basically part of the modern European genetic structure.

No, we don't know if the North-African is neolithic or even older. Anyways, the SWA and WA are clearly not european, since they peak outside of Europe, the first one peaking in Arabians and the second in the Caucasus/Anatolia.