Central-southern Italians are the Europeans of more Middle Eastern origin

[manu15151513]

63-69% clearly seems to me an exaggeration, I reach about 21.4% but it depends on what is meant by "Middle East". These are my results:

EEF,54 (originated in Anatolia)
CHG,14 (originated in the Caucasus)
GANJ_DAREH,11.4 (originated in Iran)
NATUFIAN,10 (originated in Egypt/Levant)
ANE,6.4 (originated in the Eurasian Steppe)
WHG,4.2 (originated in Mainland Europe)

With Middle Eastern origin I simply mean the percentage of ancestors present in the Middle East before the Neolithic migrations as a consequence of the fact that their descendants had not yet reached European territory. In this sense, the map I published represents very well, it is not an exaggeration, perhaps instead an underestimation because Italians more than other Europeans descend from migrants ancestrally linked to the culture of kura-araxes (homeland of the Italian caucasian-hunther-gathers) and anatolia farmer seems to be more of a good Levantine proxy than a whole Middle Eastern proxy, so perhaps about 67-74% of the ancestors of central and southern Italians were in the Middle East before Neolithic and Chalcolithic expansions. You do not arrive at such a negligible figure, it is absurd, not even the Norwegians arrive at so little. Middle East refers to the Middle East, in the central and southern Italian case about 40-50% of the ancestors should be ancestrally linked to the culture of Kura-araxes and arrived in Italy in the late Chalcolithic bringing j2a and j1, while the more remote Neolithic ancestors (g2a , t, partly l2a1 mainly) something similar to 30%, with a total of ancestors present in the Middle East of about 69-74%

[Ajeje Brazorf]

With Middle Eastern origin I simply mean the percentage of ancestors present in the Middle East before the Neolithic migrations as a consequence of the fact that their descendants had not yet reached European territory.

There, and I mean the same thing.

perhaps about 67-74% of the ancestors of central and southern Italians were in the Middle East before Neolithic and Chalcolithic expansions.

Again, it depends on what you mean by the Middle East. If you include Anatolia (where most of the ancestors of present-day Europeans lived anyway), then your estimate is correct. If you count Anatolia and the Caucasus as the Middle East then I would tell you that as many as 90% of my ancestors lived in the Middle East before the Neolithic period. But if you mean that 70% of your ancestors lived in the Levant or Caucasus then I would disagree.

in the central and southern Italian case about 40-50% of the ancestors should be ancestrally linked to the culture of Kura-araxes and arrived in Italy in the late Chalcolithic bringing j2a and j1, while the more remote Neolithic ancestors (g2a , t, partly l2a1 mainly) something similar to 30%, with a total of ancestors present in the Middle East of about 69-74%

You're pretty confused. Italy and even prehistoric Sicily had nothing to do with Kura-Araxes. Yes, there was probably a migration in the Bronze Age from the Aegean or Anatolia, but this only slightly changed the autosomal aspect of Southern Italy (in this case we have the genomes of Bronze Age Sicilians), which at the time continued to be largely Anatolian Neolithic:

EEF,76.2 (which is a lot)
CHG,7.7 (a negligible amount when you consider that many Europeans have double that)
WHG,6.6
GANJ_DAREH,4.8
ANE,1.9
NATUFIAN,1.6
TAFORALT,0.9

[Tauromachos]

If all South Italians look like you then i believe it is true

[Deusex99]

Overall it seems Italians have more ME ancestry than Moroccans. Here my results :

Target: Hamilcar_scaled
Distance: 2.9501% / 0.02950090
46.0 Anatolia_Barcin_N
27.4 MAR_Iberomaurusian
12.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
6.6 Yoruba
5.0 Levant_Natufian
1.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
1.4 WHG

Iberomaurusian is an hybrid component of 70% Natufian and 30% SSA, so your total amount of ME ancestry Is in the 25-30% range which Is higher than that found in South Italians.



This without considering that modern Middle Easterners have a non trivial amount of SSA admixture.

[Arch Hades]

No, it is not at all. Also on various calculator such as Eurogenes K13 emerges. North Africans are essentially descended from hunter-gatherers present from well before the Neolithic in North Africa and from Neolithic farmers of Middle Eastern origin who have spread agriculture. To a very minor extent they are descended from Sub-Saharanians, Phoenicians and Arabs responsible for the spread of Islam. From what I have seen in general about 8-9% of the ancestors are Muslim Arab migrants of the Middle Ages and about 1-2% of the ancestors are Phoenicians, so about 10% of that Anatolian component probably comes from them, and therefore in general about 50% of their ancestors are directly attributable to the descendants of Middle Eastern farmers. Differently from the Italians, however, their Neolithic origins are much more archaic: the Italians owe about 75% of anatolian farmer to Middle Eastern farmers who arrived in the late Chalcolithic in Italy, mainly responsible for the very high caucasian-hunther-gathers heritage and today's j2a diffusion with ancestral origin of the Kura-Araxes culture, while the North Africans derive almost totally that 50% of Anatolian farmer directed by the very first Levantine Neolithic farmers uncontaminated by the migrations that will take place around the Chalcolithic that will enrich the Levant and southern Europe with j2 and Chg. In that image it is called "anatolia" because it is specifically targeted for Europeans and Neolithic migrations in Europe have essentially made their way to Anatolia, but in the North African case there is nothing Anatolian but Levantine.

North Africans are descended predominately from a completely different batch of farmers. From Taforalt-Natufian like farmers. Not Anatolian farmers. They only have around 25% Anatolian farmer ancestry.

[Flashball]

There, and I mean the same thing.



Again, it depends on what you mean by the Middle East. If you include Anatolia (where most of the ancestors of present-day Europeans lived anyway), then your estimate is correct. If you count Anatolia and the Caucasus as the Middle East then I would tell you that as many as 90% of my ancestors lived in the Middle East before the Neolithic period. But if you mean that 70% of your ancestors lived in the Levant or Caucasus then I would disagree.



You're pretty confused. Italy and even prehistoric Sicily had nothing to do with Kura-Araxes. Yes, there was probably a migration in the Bronze Age from the Aegean or Anatolia, but this only slightly changed the autosomal aspect of Southern Italy (in this case we have the genomes of Bronze Age Sicilians), which at the time continued to be largely Anatolian Neolithic:

EEF,76.2 (which is a lot)
CHG,7.7 (a negligible amount when you consider that many Europeans have double that)
WHG,6.6
GANJ_DAREH,4.8
ANE,1.9
NATUFIAN,1.6
TAFORALT,0.9

If they were also "EEF", they clustered near the Sardinians, which is not the case.

They get more "R_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N" (more Caucasus/Iran farmer shifted) mixed with Caucasus and Iran farmer and others, on the Global 25 ...

[Ajeje Brazorf]

If they were also "EEF", they clustered near the Sardinians, which is not the case.

They get more "R_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N" (more Caucasus/Iran farmer shifted) mixed with Caucasus and Iran farmer and others, on the Global 25 ...

Who exactly are you talking about? The ancestral composition of Middle and Late Bronze Age Sicilian samples (1564-1004 BC) is 76.8% EEF, 7.5% CHG, 6.6% WHG, 4.9% Ganj_Dareh, etc. The modern Sardinian average (which is far from representative of most Sardinians) with 77.2% EEF is only slightly more "Neolithic", and it too has Ganj Dareh (4.2%) and CHG (2.2%) admixture. Nuragic Sardinians dating from the period mentioned above are not only more EEF than modern Sardinians (82.2%), but also completely lack the eastern input of the latter.

[Petalpusher]

The only relevant components are:

WHG - ANE - BASAL - East Asian - ASE - SSA. Evertyhing else are intermediates or mixes of those components, we can go even further but this is a good starting point, as they are quite removed from each others (maybe WHG/ANE have some relatively closer relationship, but we need those two apart in the more specific case of Europe)

It also doesn't make much sense to think in terms of past geographical locations, at different times it didn't fit what we consider related to a region nowadays. For example ANF had very little to do with present Anatolians. They were a basal eurasian branch that had likely stalled a bit more around the near east than earlier splits, and mixing later then, either West with WHG, East with ANE and South with SSA. Which in turns created ANF, CHG and ANA.

[Leto]

The standard Davidski run is quite good for Central and Southern Italy

[Luso]

If all South Italians look like you then i believe it is true

he looks like an ancient roman farmer