Autosomal map : African admixture (from Dodecad)

Not exactly 0%, the average should be around 1%, althought it's difficult to say. But I highly doubt North Italy is 0% as the map shows for the same reason (Southern influence).

If we take the Autosomal data available, both Basques and North Italians must appear with 0%
I have checked and Basques have 0.3%. That's less than what French have. Probably the surrounding regions have about the same (Navarra, Aragon, etc). So the map is wrong.

Edit: Also Tuscany has 1%, and is not in the map.
 
Going by haplogroup frequencies it surprises me Greece has no autosomal North African component at all.
 
They have substantial West Asian and Southwest Asian that can perfectly be associated to the migration of some E subclade peoples.
 
They have substantial West Asian and Southwest Asian that can perfectly be associated to the migration of some E subclade peoples.
A middle-eastern map would be interesting (West Asian + Southwest-Asian)

PD: Greeks have 32% mid-east/caucasus autosomal, and 58% by paternal line.
 
I have modified a bit the map. Added Vasco-Navarres, and also the 100 Tuscans (1% African) :

africanadmixture.gif
 
Greeks: E + G2a + J1 + J2 + T = 58%

Most J2 (23%) must be J2b, more likely Southeast Mediterranean. A core of the rest is what makes Greeks 32% Mideast/Cucasus, with a residual 0.5% Northwest African. There is 41% of other haplogroups that probably replaced African autosomes and reduced others.
 
There should be a Middle Eastern map like the one above that combines West and SW Asian.
 
Carthigian empire ruled Iberia with it north africans people, numidians, libyans and carthigians ( pre-roman).

They also ruled majorca, sicily and sardinia
 
Carthigian empire ruled Iberia with it north africans people, numidians, libyans and carthigians ( pre-roman).

They also ruled majorca, sicily and sardinia
Guys we are talking about percentages bordering the noise levels ~0.5% african.
 
Guys we are talking about percentages bordering the noise levels ~0.5% african.

I do not understand this comment, clearly if the celtic, gothic and vandal invasion did not occur and dilute the percentages , they percentages would have been higher.

Maybe you should drirect you comment to maciano and tell him to not place and figures less the 5% fro any map
 
I do not understand this comment, clearly if the celtic, gothic and vandal invasion did not occur and dilute the percentages , they percentages would have been higher.

Maybe you should drirect you comment to maciano and tell him to not place and figures less the 5% fro any map
You clearly have no idea of history. These percentages were already present in times of the Celts or Goths. Why you think Galicia has more E-M81 than Andalusia.
 
So the varieties of E1b1b in Iberia (unlike those in the Balkans) are of the North African variety?
 
Almost all E subclades you can find in Europe originated in North Africa. What essentially changes is the migration way those peoples followed (crossing the sea to get into Iberia or going through the Near East).

I'm not sure, but probably the vast majority of E sublclades you can find in Iberia are E-M81 and variants, as for example E-M165. This ones should crossed the sea a very long time ago, of course.
 
Almost all E subclades you can find in Europe originated in North Africa. What essentially changes is the migration way those peopples followed.

But how then in places like Greece and southern Italy, would you associate E1b1b with something from the Middle East proper and not North African components?
 
Checking the subclade is the best way. The two I mentioned are clearly associated with sea migrants, and have almost all presece in North Africa. But if you check for example E-M78, you can find this one in Northeast Africa, the Near East, Anatolia, The Balkans...so yes, it's possible to make the atributions with very low margin of error, althouth it's also possible some of the others could get to Greece via sea too...who knows.
 
You clearly have no idea of history. These percentages were already present in times of the Celts or Goths. Why you think Galicia has more E-M81 than Andalusia.

You did not understand what I meant. Maciano claims that these percentages in iberia are from ancient times and not medieva/renaissance times. I said that if the invasions ( celt ,goth and vandal) from the north did not occur, then the likelyhood of these current percentages would have been higher than what they are today.

Unless you mean that the celt in iberia where always there and did not come from gallic lands.

but then again. in ancient times I agree with many scholars that indicate that the celts meant a linguistic associated people and not always a migratory one. So, you have, gallic-celtic, iberic-celtic, italic-celtic, germanic-celtic etc etc.
I do beleive in time they ( celts ) developed there own culture, But I think that is only where they are present at the moment.

Tartessains where in the south, be them phoenicians or north africans, and some say they originated in modern romania from the black sea
http://www.pelasgians.org/website5/32_06.htm
 
I personally think the first inhabitants of Iberia came from North Africa a very long time ago. Or, at least, they entered the Peninsula more or less at the same time the Megalithic Builders went down the Pyrenees.
 
I do not understand this comment, clearly if the celtic, gothic and vandal invasion did not occur and dilute the percentages , they percentages would have been higher.

Maybe you should drirect you comment to maciano and tell him to not place and figures less the 5% fro any map

You have to remember that the Iberian Peninsula had hugely significant Paleolithic influences well before the great Neolithic migrations occurred. Therefore, it's not all a simple matter of Celts and Germanics diluting North African DNA.
 
You have to remember that the Iberian Peninsula had hugely significant Paleolithic influences well before the great Neolithic migrations occurred. Therefore, it's not all a simple matter of Celts and Germanics diluting North African DNA.

Other than Iberia's apparent geographic location which lends itself nicely to a pre-IE LGM refuge, its proximity, or rather distance from the Middle East and Anatolia, suggests North African genetic input since the earliest migrations took place. The word 'diluted' is perhaps condescending but it could explain high R1b penetration with certain isolated regions suggesting elevated levels of pre-IE haplogroups. African genetic input may include introductions from long before the introduction of Celtic influences to more recent times. We should expect some diffusion from North African Muslim invaders but also remember that a large section of the Iberian population converted to Islam. Portuguese diffusion into Spain is also a factor throughout recent times. Many an Angolan and Mozambican with mixed ancestry have integrated themselves into the Iberian community. The relative strength of the region lies in its heterogeneity, this has provided Iberia with a low-cost labor force. As the endemic increasingly began to resist being exploited by the wealthier classes so more South American and African migrants were being used to fill these basic functions. Roman societies used local servants from surrounding areas, we can expect Iberia to have been no different. These may have been to some extent from North African Roman colonies.
 
Last edited:
I have modified a bit the map. Added Vasco-Navarres, and also the 100 Tuscans (1% African) :

I have modified the map too for Tuscany too. I was the first map on the Tuscan samples from Dodecad members, but it's true that the HapMap TSI is more representative as there are over 100 samples.

The few Spanish Basque members I know from the Dodecad Project have over 1% of African admixture. Which members did you take into account ?
 

This thread has been viewed 140291 times.

Back
Top