African mtDNA and Y-DNA in Iberia

[Maciamo]

What I also find strange about that study is how the hell did they manage to create this 19.8% of sephardic, when their same study for haplogroup J is about 9% for al Spain !! And all the EXACT 10.3% of E, ALL attributed to the north african rule. I don't know what the hell is crossing their minds...

I agree that Adams' study is completely off the mark in its "ethnic" attribution of haplogroups. It is a good example of geneticists with very little knowledge of history who jump to conclusions based on their own distorted and partial view of history.

One of the main reason I created a population genetics section on this website is to "set things straight" and denounce the historical aberrations I read in reports by geneticists. I was the first to say that R1b couldn't possibly have spread from the Franco-Cantabrian refuge 12,000 years ago, and the first to link the Maykop culture as the probable "R1b Proto-Indo-European-age/Bronze-age homeland". Many archaeologists, including the popular David Anthony, still think that Maykop was not Indo-European. Ironically Anthony's book
The Horse, The Wheel, and Language provided the archaeological evidence I needed to confirm my hypothesis, which was originally based only on linguistics and by comparing the age and geographic origin of older R1b subclades. The two converged around northern Anatolia and the North Caucasus. It is a shame that Anthony and other specialists of IE matters do not use genetics at all to confirm their own theories. Anthony explains that hardly any archaeologists have a background in linguistics, and vice-versa. He claims that Jim Mallory may be the only specialist of Indo-European studies trained in both fields. Apparently no renowned scientist is trained in archaeology/history, linguistics and population genetics. That is sad. As I was already a trained historian and linguist, I decided to study population genetics to fill that gap.

All this to say that I am not surprised that Susan Adams et al. could make such gross historical misassessments. But it doesn't mean it was intentional either. Almost any well-educated Spaniard would know better Spanish history than Adams, apparently. That doesn't mean that their Y-DNA results are wrong or were made up. I seriously doubt so. It would put her and her colleagues' career in jeopardy if it happened to be completely invalidated by other studies.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

I agree that Adams' study is completely off the mark in its "ethnic" attribution of haplogroups. It is a good example of geneticists with very little knowledge of history who jump to conclusions based on their own distorted and partial view of history.

One of the main reason I created a population genetics section on this website is to "set things straight" and denounce the historical aberrations I read in reports by geneticists. I was the first to say that R1b couldn't possibly have spread from the Franco-Cantabrian refuge 12,000 years ago, and the first to link the Maykop culture as the probable "R1b Proto-Indo-European-age/Bronze-age homeland". Many archaeologists, including the popular David Anthony, still think that Maykop was not Indo-European. Ironically Anthony's book
The Horse, The Wheel, and Language provided the archaeological evidence I needed to confirm my hypothesis, which was originally based only on linguistics and by comparing the age and geographic origin of older R1b subclades. The two converged around northern Anatolia and the North Caucasus. It is a shame that Anthony and other specialists of IE matters do not use genetics at all to confirm their own theories. Anthony explains that hardly any archaeologists have a background in linguistics, and vice-versa. He claims that Jim Mallory may be the only specialist of Indo-European studies trained in both fields. Apparently no renowned scientist is trained in archaeology/history, linguistics and population genetics. That is sad. As I was already a trained historian and linguist, I decided to study population genetics to fill that gap.

All this to say that I am not surprised that Susan Adams et al. could make such gross historical misassessments. But it doesn't mean it was intentional either. Almost any well-educated Spaniard would know better Spanish history than Adams, apparently. That doesn't mean that their Y-DNA results are wrong or were made up. I seriously doubt so. It would put her and her colleagues' career in jeopardy if it happened to be completely invalidated by other studies.

So, shall we just codify Adams and some others as bad scientists? Faulty methodology?

How about the clowns that produced a genetic "study" concluding that Greeks clustered with Ethiopians?

 

[Wilhelm]

As a citizen of other country I couldn't agree more with this statement.
Iberian guys, it's surely fine to believe what you believe, I understand your desire to like all research that supports your believes, and not agree with ones that don't. Human thing, I do that too.

It's not about 'what we believe' , it's about finding the truth.. And the truth is certainly not DNA-Tribes nor that study of the 20% Sephardic

The thing that bothers me is your total disrespect to anyone of different views. One thing is not to agree with point of view, other to bunch together, bully and throw epithets against an unfortunate sole that happens to express his/her opinion on Iberian forums. You basically prosecute people of different views, it's like Spanish Inquisition all over again.

hmm...I don't know what are you talking about.:bored:.
We are here to discuss ..that's what we are doing..People give their different opinions, different point of views..Where is the problem ?

Did someone give you the licence for the Truth?
Are you the chosen ones?
Genetics in archaeological and cultural context is quite new. For years it will be corrected, checked and corrected again. We are here to learn, discover, socialise and make friends. Let's talk about this, argue about this, have fun about this,...but with respect gentlemen, please, with respect.

That's what we do , thank you PSYCHOLOGIST

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

As a citizen of other country I couldn't agree more with this statement.
Iberian guys, it's surely fine to believe what you believe, I understand your desire to like all research that supports your believes, and not agree with ones that don't. Human thing, I do that too.
The thing that bothers me is your total disrespect to anyone of different views. One thing is not to agree with point of view, other to bunch together, bully and throw epithets against an unfortunate sole that happens to express his/her opinion on Iberian forums. You basically prosecute people of different views, it's like Spanish Inquisition all over again.
Did someone give you the licence for the Truth?
Are you the chosen ones?
Genetics in archaeological and cultural context is quite new. For years it will be corrected, checked and corrected again. We are here to learn, discover, socialise and make friends. Let's talk about this, argue about this, have fun about this,...but with respect gentlemen, please, with respect.

PS. And no, I'm not Mexican.

I understand what you are saying but the FACTS must be set straight. No one has the right to deny Iberians or any other people their TRUE ethnic heritage.

 

[Drac]

It's an average of several studies. Adams found nearly 17% of E1b1b in Galicia (9% is only for E-M81). Flores found a stunning 31.6%, including 10% of E-M81 and 10% of E-M123. Gonçalves found 21% of E1b1b in nearby North Portugal (higher than in Central or Southern Portugal), which does not seem to contradict Adams nor Flores.

The result for Flores et al. (2004) is obviously a fluke. Their Galician sample size was only 19.

 

[Drac]

Actually, I created this thread because there was so much interest/discussion about Iberia on the forum lately. It's also because Iberia has very diverse types of E1b1b, unlike most other European countries which have mostly E-V13 and E-M78 from the Balkans.

I was also wondering why a place like Galicia, with no recorded settlement from the Near East or North Africa, should have so much E1b1b. We could imagine a Paleolithic migration for E-M81, but how about the E-M123 from the Middle East ? Unknown Phoenician settlement ? I still do not have the answer.

E-M123 has been found among Greeks, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Romanians, Italians (2-7%; Cruciani et al. 2004), Albanians, and has even shown up among some descendants of British people in the New World. I am not so sure that a historical minority in Europe, like the Phoenicians were, have much to do with this marker.

 

[luis77]

Nope, as pointed out in another thread, you manipulated the data from at least one of the studies so you could try to inflate the frequencies in Spain to suit your obvious agenda. Casas et al. 2006 only considered L1-L2 sequences to be of sub-Saharan origin, so the actual data for that paper should be like this:

Spain, Priego de Cordoba : 1/108 =0.9%, Casas 2006

You also "mysteriously" left out the data for Pereira et al. 2005 in this latest "calculation" of yours:

Pereira et al. (2005) 8 L lineages out of 496 (1.61%)

Providing that the data for some of these other papers (Alvarez 2007, Picornell 2005, Brehm 2003) you refer to have not been manipulated as well, the actual frequencies are:

Spain, northwestern : 8/216 =3.70%, Achilli 2007
Spain, central : 1/148 =0.68%, Achilli 2007
Spain, Andalusia: 2/114 =1.75%, Achilli 2007
Spain, northeastern : 3/179 =1.68%, Achilli 2007
Spain, Basque Country: 1/156 =0.64%, Achilli 2007
Spain, all regions : 9/312 =2.90%, Alvarez 2007
Spain, Pyreneans : 0/233 =0.00%, Lopez-Parra 2009
Spain, Priego de Cordoba : 1/108 =0.9%, Casas 2006
Spain, all regions: 8/496 = 1.61%, Pereira 2005

Continental : 33/1962 = 1.68%

2) Islands

Spain, Balearic : 5/231 =2.20%, Picornell 2005
Spain, Canaries : 20/300 =6.60%, Brehm 2003

All Spain (including Balearic and Canaries) : 58/2493 = 2.32%

1) Casas found L3 sequences in Cordoba which are or course sub-saharan like all L sequences

2) Regarding Pereira et al. 2005, as specified, the 496 individuals from were not "left out" but were already included in other studies and in the data posted
Quote from Peireira 2005 :
"The Iberian database was constructed with the following data (92 individuals from Galicia (Salas et al. 1998); 118 individuals from Catalonia (Crespillo et al. 2000); 122 Basques [45 from Bertranpetit et al. (1995) and 77 from Richards et al. (1996)]; 61 individuals from Leon (Larruga et al. 2001); 38 individuals from Castile (Larruga et al. 2001); and 65 individuals from Andalusia [50 from Larruga et al. (2001) and 15 from Corte-Real et al. (1996)"

So all my calculations are perfectly correct. You did manipulate the data not me...

 

[Wilhelm]

Actually for Norway is 1.4% of Sub-Saharian admixture :

" In another recent study [3] on Norwegians, an L2 Sub-Saharan African sequence was found in the sample of 74 Norwegians (1.4% Sub-Saharan admixture).

3. Giuseppe Passarino et al., Different genetic components in the Norwegian population revealed by the analysis of mtDNA and Y chromosome polymorphisms, European Journal of Human Genetics10, 521 - 529 (23 Aug 2002)

 

[^ lynx ^]

Casas based his study on Priego de Cordoba citizens for modern samples, which is not the same than Cordoba, Luis2b. Priego de Cordoba is a town in the province of Cordoba. The rest of his study is based on Medieval samples (which date from the Almohade epoch) from some ancient burial sites located in the same town.

Here's his study in PDF: http://backintyme.com/admixture/casas01.pdf

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Medieval samples

Bone and teeth samples belonging to 71 individuals
were collected from the burial sites of El Palenque (45),
La Cava (8), and El Castillo (18), of the Islamic medieval
town Madinat Baguh (today called Priego de Cordoba).
The chronology of the human remains was determined
by the archaeological records as well as by calibrated 14C
dating of human bones (cal. A.D. 1218, 2r: 1025–(1218)–
1291; and cal. A.D. 1214, 2r: 1022–(1214)–1289). Dates
were consistent with the Almohade epoch, and therefore
the samples were considered a sole population.

In two of the sites, La Cava and El Palenque, the skeletons
were perfectly individualized and in anatomical
connection. At the third site, El Castillo, samples from
individualized burials were collected (4), but also teeth
from isolated jaws from no individualized complete skeletons
(14).

Femur and tibia in good macroscopic preservation conditions,
i.e., without fractures and with, at most, moderately
porous cortices, were the preferential bones
selected for sampling. Pieces of 4 cm2 were cut from
the front of the shaft in minimum informative areas
from an anthropological perspective, i.e., without pathological
signs and not corresponding to muscular or ligament
insertion areas. The sampled teeth were taken
directly from their alveoli, and for those from incomplete
skeletons, only inferior teeth were collected from complete
jaws, to be sure they belonged to different individuals.
The selected teeth showed no cracks, fractures, or
caries lesions.

For some individuals, two bones or teeth of the same
skeleton were collected, so that independent extractions
could be prepared.

Modern samples

Saliva samples of 108 unrelated individuals who gave
their informed consent were collected in FTA cards
(FTA1, Whatman). All the donors and their maternal
ancestors at least for two previous generations came
from Priego de Cordoba or nearby villages within 30 km
of the town.

I took a capture from the PDF:



MP = Medieval Population (of Priego de Cordoba)
PP = Present Population (of Priego de Cordoba)
SIP = South Iberian Peninsula.
NWA = North West Africa.

Greetings.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Casas based his study on Priego de Cordoba citizens for modern samples, which is not the same than Cordoba, Luis2b. Priego de Cordoba is a town in the province of Cordoba. The rest of his study is based on Medieval samples (which date from the Almohade epoch) from some ancient burial sites located in the same town.

Here's his study in PDF: http://backintyme.com/admixture/casas01.pdf



I took a capture from the PDF:



MP = Medieval Population (of Priego de Cordoba)
PP = Present Population (of Priego de Cordoba)
SIP = South Iberian Peninsula.
NWA = North West Africa.

Greetings.

Another ridiculous study...

 

[^ lynx ^]

MP: Medieval Population in Priego de Cordoba.
PP: Present " " " ".

Remember that L3 is the most dominant L haplogroup in non-african populations. It's believed to come from the initial migration by modern humans out of Africa 60.000 years ago. That's why Casas only considered L1-L2 sequences to be of sub-Saharan origin.

The right pies into the square try to show the impact caused by the expulsion of the muslims and "moriscos".

MP: Before the expulsion.
PP: Present days.

Greetings.

 

[Wilhelm]

Very Recent Study :

González-Pérez et al. (2010) have analyzed populations from the northern and southern shores of the Mediterranean, with Central Europeans and West Africans as external references. They estimate Sub-Saharan African admixture using two methods that yield vastly disparate results. In the Discussion section, they admit that the inflated "Alu/STR estimate might be artefactual" and favor the estimate based on the Alu loci set alone because it's consistent with previous mtDNA, Y-chromosome and 500,000-SNP structure data.

According to the more accurate latter method, Sub-Saharan African admixture is ~13% in North Africa and "imperceptible" (~0.01%) in Southern Europe:

 

[Marianne]

Very interesting! Although it doesn't include Italy. Or is it included in "North Mediterraneans as a whole"?

 

[^ lynx ^]

Thank you for this study Wilhelm, it seems more complete. Remember that Casas' study was mainly focused on Priego de Cordoba, a town.

 

[^ lynx ^]

It's an autosomal-DNA study btw.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

The levels are so trivial for Southern Europe it hardly makes sense to have follow-up studies.

 

[Drac]

1) Casas found L3 sequences in Cordoba which are or course sub-saharan like all L sequences

Read the study in question and you'll see that the authors DO NOT consider it "sub-Saharan". They only consider L1-L2 as such:

"The significant higher number of sub-Saharan African lineages (L1 and L2, Table 2) in MP..." (see pp. 546-547, starting from the fourth paragraph, and also Figure 1, where L3 and sub-Saharan L1-L2 are clearly separated.)

2) Regarding Pereira et al. 2005, as specified, the 496 individuals from were not "left out" but were already included in other studies and in the data posted
Quote from Peireira 2005 :
"The Iberian database was constructed with the following data (92 individuals from Galicia (Salas et al. 1998); 118 individuals from Catalonia (Crespillo et al. 2000); 122 Basques [45 from Bertranpetit et al. (1995) and 77 from Richards et al. (1996)]; 61 individuals from Leon (Larruga et al. 2001); 38 individuals from Castile (Larruga et al. 2001); and 65 individuals from Andalusia [50 from Larruga et al. (2001) and 15 from Corte-Real et al. (1996)"

Nope, in your "calculations" you clearly left out that study's results, and counted the others. Go back and read your own posts.

So all my calculations are perfectly correct. You did manipulate the data not me...

Nope, you did manipulate the data, and therefore your "calculations" are hardly "correct".

 

[Drac]

MP: Medieval Population in Priego de Cordoba.
PP: Present " " " ".

Remember that L3 is the most dominant L haplogroup in non-african populations. It's believed to come from the initial migration by modern humans out of Africa 60.000 years ago. That's why Casas only considered L1-L2 sequences to be of sub-Saharan origin.

The right pies into the square try to show the impact caused by the expulsion of the muslims and "moriscos".

MP: Before the expulsion.
PP: Present days.

Greetings.

Indeed. I would have posted links to the study myself since my first post, but there is some sort of silly link prohibition for members who have less than a certain minimum of posts.

Thanks for helping to expose this "Luis" fellow and his specious manipulations, clearly directed at trying to inflate sub-Saharan lineages in Spain. It is people like this who have taken over the Wikipedia article on "African admixture" and are posting such manipulations with seemingly all impunity (if you go to the discussion section you will see how they managed to successfully bar "Small Victory", one of the scarce users who was trying to fix that mess of an article.)

 

[Wilhelm]

About L3 :

According to Maca-Meyer et al. (2001), "L3 is more related to Eurasian haplogroups than to the most divergent African clusters L1 and L2".L3 is the haplogroup from which all modern humans outside of Africa derive

One of these lineages, defined by loss of the DdeI site at np 10394, represents only a few percent of the African mtDNAs but appears to be the progenitor of roughly half of all European, Asian and Native American mtDNAs."

1. ^ Maca-Meyer et al. (2001), Major genomic mitochondrial lineages delineate early human expansions, BMC Genetics 2001, 2:13
2. ^ https://www.cambridgedna.com/genealogy-dna-ancient-migrations-slideshow.php?view=step3

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Indeed. I would have posted links to the study myself since my first post, but there is some sort of silly link prohibition for members who have less than a certain minimum of posts.

Thanks for helping to expose this "Luis" fellow and his specious manipulations, clearly directed at trying to inflate sub-Saharan lineages in Spain. It is people like this who have taken over the Wikipedia article on "African admixture" and are posting such manipulations with seemingly all impunity (if you go to the discussion section you will see how they managed to successfully bar "Small Victory", one of the scarce users who was trying to fix that mess of an article.)

So, the question is, what is WIKI doing about it?