New big paper on Catalan Y-DNA

Hannibal stood with his elephants and army infront of Rome and it is said as he saw the desperation among the Romans he felt some kind of compassion and let them be. Later the Roman reorganized, changed tactics and managed to defeat the carthagians. Afterwards the Romans put their attention towards the East and the Roman-Parthian wars started.

It wasn't really compassion or direct clashes with Roman armies that eventually made the Carthaginians leave Italy, but a clever Roman diversionary tactic: since they could not beat Hannibal even in their own territories, the Romans proceeded to ally themselves with Carthage's enemies and launch attacks on Carthage itself. Hannibal and his army were forced to leave Italy to defend their own capital.
 
No, clear it with you, as you are the only one making such claims.
No he isn't, and you are once again making yet another baseless accusation.

To quote Maciamo earlier:

Anyway the presence of haplogroup R2 in Catalonia confirms that some people of Phoenician descent ended up in Catalonia. Nobody else could have brought R2.
 
No, clear it with you, as you are the only one making such claims. All I pointed out is that the Carthaginian armies, specially in Europe, were barely "Carthaginian" and actually made up predominantly of local Iberian and Celtic conscripts and mercenaries. Again, not my problem if you have trouble understanding very clear quotes taken from books on the subject. Others certainly did not have any problem understanding them.

Hannibals famed heavy infantry where phoenicians....................besides, the concensus is phoenicians settled in africa and spain and eventually became carthagians, you need to live with this............like the germanic angles and saxons became english

I do not know why you hate the phoenicians............do you actually know their ethnic makeup?
 
No, clear it with you, as you are the only one making such claims. All I pointed out is that the Carthaginian armies, specially in Europe, were barely "Carthaginian" and actually made up predominantly of local Iberian and Celtic conscripts and mercenaries. Again, not my problem if you have trouble understanding very clear quotes taken from books on the subject. Others certainly did not have any problem understanding them.

Based on the reading I've done, I would say that "barely "Carthaginian"" is an exaggeration. The Carthaginians did employ and/or ally with Iberians and Celts in their battles with the Romans, but that doesn't mean they had no soldiers of their own. However, I'm not convinced that any historian or archeologist to date has done a convincing job of figuring out to what extent the original Phoenician colonizers mixed with the local population to become Carthaginian or to what extent the Carthaginians were a ruling class dominating the locals without mixing with them. If it was the latter, the Carthaginian ruling class might have been fairly small in numbers and reluctant to train their subordinates in war, making the use of mercenaries and military allies a necessity caused by more than just the difficulties of fighting a war over a long distance. But the Carthaginians do seem to have been able to commit a fair number of their own troops to the cause of fighting overseas for an extended period of time, which suggests a fairly large population base and not too many concerns about disenfranchised subordinates who might turn on them.

Perhaps the use of strategic alliances and mercenaries is simply how merchants fight wars. And it made sense while the Carthaginians carried the war to the Romans, not only because of the very long supply lines but because any Carthaginian army trapped on Roman territory after a loss in battle would become and did become a 100% causality rate situation, with any Carthaginians who survived a lost campaign they couldn't retreat from being rounded up for execution or enslavement.
 
Based on the reading I've done, I would say that "barely "Carthaginian"" is an exaggeration. The Carthaginians did employ and/or ally with Iberians and Celts in their battles with the Romans, but that doesn't mean they had no soldiers of their own. However, I'm not convinced that any historian or archeologist to date has done a convincing job of figuring out to what extent the original Phoenician colonizers mixed with the local population to become Carthaginian or to what extent the Carthaginians were a ruling class dominating the locals without mixing with them. If it was the latter, the Carthaginian ruling class might have been fairly small in numbers and reluctant to train their subordinates in war, making the use of mercenaries and military allies a necessity caused by more than just the difficulties of fighting a war over a long distance. But the Carthaginians do seem to have been able to commit a fair number of their own troops to the cause of fighting overseas for an extended period of time, which suggests a fairly large population base and not too many concerns about disenfranchised subordinates who might turn on them.

Perhaps the use of strategic alliances and mercenaries is simply how merchants fight wars. And it made sense while the Carthaginians carried the war to the Romans, not only because of the very long supply lines but because any Carthaginian army trapped on Roman territory after a loss in battle would become and did become a 100% causality rate situation, with any Carthaginians who survived a lost campaign they couldn't retreat from being rounded up for execution or enslavement.

Great summary and analysis of the situation.
 
No he isn't, and you are once again making yet another baseless accusation.

To quote Maciamo earlier:

I thought you had put me on ignore. Funny. And yes, it was him who made up the false claim that the Carthaginians were Celts. No one said anything of the sort except him. It's called "building a straw man". You should know about it, you do it regularly.

And to quote Wilhelm:


confirms ? R2 is not even common in Lebanon. It's much more frequent in the Caucasus.

Eupedia itself does not mention Lebanon as having any particular connection to this haplogroup either.
 
Hannibals famed heavy infantry where phoenicians....................besides, the concensus is phoenicians settled in africa and spain and eventually became carthagians, you need to live with this............like the germanic angles and saxons became english

I do not know why you hate the phoenicians............do you actually know their ethnic makeup?

Once again building straw men. No one said anything about hating anyone. But this does not mean Iberians have to accept your manipulated version of things regarding the topic. I just showed you that:

1- Phoenicians enclaves were only found on the coasts of southern Iberia

2- Phoenicians were also found on coastal Etruria (and apparently according to one of the very web sites you tried to use in another thread also in Genoa as well)

3- The Carthaginian armies in Europe were composed predominantly of local conscripts and mercenaries

4- They ended up invading Italy as well

We might as well send back at you the same strange question: Why do you hate the Phoenicians/Carthaginians and don't want any connections with them?
 
Based on the reading I've done, I would say that "barely "Carthaginian"" is an exaggeration. The Carthaginians did employ and/or ally with Iberians and Celts in their battles with the Romans, but that doesn't mean they had no soldiers of their own. However, I'm not convinced that any historian or archeologist to date has done a convincing job of figuring out to what extent the original Phoenician colonizers mixed with the local population to become Carthaginian or to what extent the Carthaginians were a ruling class dominating the locals without mixing with them. If it was the latter, the Carthaginian ruling class might have been fairly small in numbers and reluctant to train their subordinates in war, making the use of mercenaries and military allies a necessity caused by more than just the difficulties of fighting a war over a long distance. But the Carthaginians do seem to have been able to commit a fair number of their own troops to the cause of fighting overseas for an extended period of time, which suggests a fairly large population base and not too many concerns about disenfranchised subordinates who might turn on them.

Perhaps the use of strategic alliances and mercenaries is simply how merchants fight wars. And it made sense while the Carthaginians carried the war to the Romans, not only because of the very long supply lines but because any Carthaginian army trapped on Roman territory after a loss in battle would become and did become a 100% causality rate situation, with any Carthaginians who survived a lost campaign they couldn't retreat from being rounded up for execution or enslavement.

If we consider the mixing with the local Berber population argument, then it makes the genuinely or entirely "Phoenician" element among the Carthaginians even less than suggested by historians who have looked into the make-up of Carthaginian armies and the greater amount of non-Carthaginian conscripts and mercenaries they employed.

As you commented, the very issue of the long overseas supply lines alone strongly favors the use of "strategic alliances and mercenaries" from local sources more than a reliance on their own further removed national resources.
 
Once again building straw men. No one said anything about hating anyone. But this does not mean Iberians have to accept your manipulated version of things regarding the topic. I just showed you that:

1- Phoenicians enclaves were only found on the coasts of southern Iberia

2- Phoenicians were also found on coastal Etruria (and apparently according to one of the very web sites you tried to use in another thread also in Genoa as well)

3- The Carthaginian armies in Europe were composed predominantly of local conscripts and mercenaries

4- They ended up invading Italy as well

We might as well send back at you the same strange question: Why do you hate the Phoenicians/Carthaginians and don't want any connections with them?

reply on your numbers

1 - Spain is in Iberia

2 - yes they did land and trade with etruscans, I see NO issue..............there was also a trade hub in the northern adriatic called Latisana ( near border of friuli and veneto ) , thats great


3 - Like every army in history until the start of Nationalism in the 18th century employed mercenaries........whats your point?

4 - yes agree, again, why would they exclude Italy ?

The problem you have is that you should think of 2 things when you come on sites like this
1 - There is no nationalism in ancient, medieval or renaissance times
2 - the ethnic makeup of an area to be the same populace as from the ancient times to today is minisule
 
reply on your numbers

1 - Spain is in Iberia

2 - yes they did land and trade with etruscans, I see NO issue..............there was also a trade hub in the northern adriatic called Latisana ( near border of friuli and veneto ) , thats great


3 - Like every army in history until the start of Nationalism in the 18th century employed mercenaries........whats your point?

4 - yes agree, again, why would they exclude Italy ?

The problem you have is that you should think of 2 things when you come on sites like this
1 - There is no nationalism in ancient, medieval or renaissance times
2 - the ethnic makeup of an area to be the same populace as from the ancient times to today is minisule

1- Yes, who said otherwise?

2- They also left residents who produced Phoenician goods locally. You see no issue, that's fine, neither do I, but another user apparently saw a lot of "issue" with this.

3- Yes, but the Carthaginian one particularly relied a lot on foreign conscripts and mercenaries. Later on we can also see the same thing happening with the Roman armies themselves, as the Roman empire kept expanding and it became clear that it could not supply enough manpower on its own.

4- We agree, there is no reason whatsoever. In fact Rome became a threat for Carthaginian interests, so it is hardly surprising that they would eventually have planned and executed an intervention in the Italian Peninsula.
 
Eupedia itself does not mention Lebanon as having any particular connection to this haplogroup either.


Eupedia has no data about Haplogroup R2 anywhere. I remember few years ago suggesting to Maciamo to include Haplogroup R2 on his table so many of the "unknown" in Western Asia and North Caucasus would disappear.

He agreed on this but seems to not have found anytime to do so.

Haplogroup R2 is indeed found in Lebanon (~1-3%). But it is more widespred in northern West Asia and the North Caucasus.
 
Based on the reading I've done, I would say that "barely "Carthaginian"" is an exaggeration. The Carthaginians did employ and/or ally with Iberians and Celts in their battles with the Romans, but that doesn't mean they had no soldiers of their own. However, I'm not convinced that any historian or archeologist to date has done a convincing job of figuring out to what extent the original Phoenician colonizers mixed with the local population to become Carthaginian or to what extent the Carthaginians were a ruling class dominating the locals without mixing with them. If it was the latter, the Carthaginian ruling class might have been fairly small in numbers and reluctant to train their subordinates in war, making the use of mercenaries and military allies a necessity caused by more than just the difficulties of fighting a war over a long distance. But the Carthaginians do seem to have been able to commit a fair number of their own troops to the cause of fighting overseas for an extended period of time, which suggests a fairly large population base and not too many concerns about disenfranchised subordinates who might turn on them.

Cartage was founded by Queen Dido who as legend has it murdered her husband back in Tyre. It is even known for her to have bought a piece of land from the locals. I would hardly imagine that building an army for war was her intention but a continuation of the trade practices as was practiced in her homeland. I have no doubt that by time they have assimilated much with the local Berber population and soon have changed to a society which has grown to be diverse from that of Phoenicia proper which now would be called Carthage.
 
Cartage was founded by Queen Dido who as legend has it murdered her husband back in Tyre. It is even known for her to have bought a piece of land from the locals. I would hardly imagine that building an army for war was her intention but a continuation of the trade practices as was practiced in her homeland. I have no doubt that by time they have assimilated much with the local Berber population and soon have changed to a society which has grown to be diverse from that of Phoenicia proper which now would be called Carthage.

I hope you realize that writers in the world of classical antiquity had a very different attitude toward history than most people in the modern world do. The people who wrote moving tales about the life and death of Queen Dido would have considered the foundational myths of various peoples to be as important and perhaps more important than historical facts. Not everything that was written as "history" in the past should be regarded as "history" in the modern sense of that word.
 
Once again building straw men. No one said anything about hating anyone. But this does not mean Iberians have to accept your manipulated version of things regarding the topic. I just showed you that:

1- Phoenicians enclaves were only found on the coasts of southern Iberia

2- Phoenicians were also found on coastal Etruria (and apparently according to one of the very web sites you tried to use in another thread also in Genoa as well)

3- The Carthaginian armies in Europe were composed predominantly of local conscripts and mercenaries

4- They ended up invading Italy as well

We might as well send back at you the same strange question: Why do you hate the Phoenicians/Carthaginians and don't want any connections with them?

Phoenicians and their Carthaginian successors controlled a fair bit of eastern Spain for a long time, and would presumably have left a considerable genetic footprint. We can argue about what that genetic footprint would have been and the extent to which subsequent historical events would have modified their genetic imprint, but most of eastern Iberia was partially populated by them at one point. It was much more than the occasional trading post. And recognizing the historical accounts of the Carthaginian use of allies and mercenaries in its wars with Rome doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that those same histories mention Hannibal leading his elephants and Carthaginian heavy infantry into Italy. If you have a fear that Carthaginian blood might run in your veins, you should keep those fears to yourself until we have a better idea of what Carthaginian DNA consisted of.
 
Thanks for that, Alan. So R2 might indeed be a remnant of their presence.

As to the discussion of the nature and make-up of the Carthaginian army, I don't see how the fact that the Carthaginians, once they decided to attack Rome, bought some mercenaries from Libya, Spain, and then Gaul when they reached it, means that they didn't have miners, merchants, craftsmen, etc. in their Spanish settlements.

While there may not have been large scale colonization efforts, they controlled a not insubstantial portion of Spain for a very long time, as some posted maps would indicate.

One must also consider that while in southeastern and some areas of south-Central Europe it could be argued that J2 bearers migrated from the east with Sea Peoples, or from coastal Anatolia in the Bronze Age, none of that would apply to Spain to my knowledge.We also have no evidence yet of J2a in Europe in the Neolithic. So, unless we find evidence of some migration from the East directly to Spain sometime in the Copper or Bronze Ages, the Phoenicians/Carthaginians do seem as if they might have been a proximate source of some, at least, of this J2a. Perhaps they also brought some J1 and E as well.

The lack of complete correspondence between their footprint in Spain and current distributions may be the result, as the authors opined, of the fact that the deliberate relocation of people during and after the Reconquista has disturbed the ancient patterns. As we are discovering virtually every day, present distributions can often be very misleading.

Of course, we are speculating, but on balance, I think the weight of the evidence is in favor of some amount of gene flow, even if it is not large. Time will tell.
 
I hope you realize that writers in the world of classical antiquity had a very different attitude toward history than most people in the modern world do. The people who wrote moving tales about the life and death of Queen Dido would have considered the foundational myths of various peoples to be as important and perhaps more important than historical facts. Not everything that was written as "history" in the past should be regarded as "history" in the modern sense of that word.

That is correct to a certain point, however there seem to be more and more evidence of some sort of truth in at least some myths and legends which in the advent of writing could have been written down as per oral tradition handed down from generation to the next. Troy and the great flood comes to mind which are not percieved as fictional as they once used to be......kind of there is no smoke without fire situation.
 
I thought you had put me on ignore. Funny. And yes, it was him who made up the false claim that the Carthaginians were Celts. No one said anything of the sort except him. It's called "building a straw man". You should know about it, you do it regularly.
You are still on ignore, but I feel I must comment. Many Iberians have Near Eastern/Levantine DNA entering from the Maghreb...DNA tests prove it, and also history does...Cadiz was founded by Phoenicians...first colony I believe. You have seriously got to get over it.

It's not to say all Iberians do; but the DNA is there...I've studied genealogy for a while; the Basques are the only guaranteed population who have the lowest admixture.




The Phoenicians, Arabs and Sephardic Jews were forced to assimilate. Some of them were threatened with execution by the Roman Catholics. Where did these people run off to; once the Romans came? Back to Lebanon and Israel?


And by the way ... haplogroup R2 is highest in India. So it could have been brought to Iberian peninsula by the Roma people.
 
I am surprised to see so many U152 :)

I have found a quick way to count the samples using the 'Find' tool in Adobe Reader.

- E1b1a (M180) : 1
- E1b1b : 191 (= 8.3%)
- E-M35* : 1
-- E-V12 : 7
-- E-V13 : 92 (= 4%)
-- E-V22 : 6
-- E-M81 : 41 (= 1.8%)
-- E-M123 : 44 (= 1.9%)
- G* : 1
- G2a : 99 (= 4.3%)
- I1 : 44 (= 1.9%)
- I2 : 115 (= 5%)
-- I2-P215 : 11 (= 0.5%)
-- I2-M223 : 37 (= 1.6%)
-- I2-P37.2 : 25 (P37.2+subclades = 2.9%)
--- I2-M26 : 38
--- I2-M423 : 4
- J1 : 55 (= 2.4%)
-- J1-P58 : 23 (= 1%)
- J2a : 169 (= 7.3%)
-- J2a-M67 : 39
-- J2a-M92 : 27
- J2b : 42 (= 1.8%)
- R1-M173* : 1
- R1a : 32 (= 1.4%)
- R1b : 1525 (= 66.3%)
- R1b-M343 (incl. V88) : 22 (= 1%)
-- R1b-L23 : 1
--- R1b-U106 : 51 (U106+Z381 = 4.8%)
---- R1b-Z381 : 59
--- R1b-P312 : 371
---- R1b-L21 : 140 (= 6.1%)
---- R1b-U152 : 199 (= 8.7%)
---- R1b-Z195 : 132 (Z195+subclades = 28.2%)
----- R1b-SRY2627 : 222
----- R1b-Z220 : 199
------ R1b-Z278 : 74
------- R1b-M153 : 21
- T : 28 (= 1.2%)

TOTAL : 2309 samples




ANALYSIS

I have checked a bit the origin of the samples. A minority are immigrants from other regions of Spain.

What we notice at first sight is that I1, I2-M223, R1a, J1, J2a , E1b1b (esp. E-M123) and T have slightly higher frequencies than previously reported in smaller studies, while R1b which is considerably lower (82% => 66%).

Interestingly there isn't any Germanic R1b-106, I1 or I2-M223 in the Balearic samples (Mallorca, Menorca). I1 and R1b-S106 appears to be most common around Barcelona and central Catalonia. Haplogroup I1 is just above 5% in coastal Catalonia.

R1b-U152 is evenly distributed in all regions. At over 8%, it is by far the highest regional frequency reported to date in the Iberian peninsula. Since the Mediterranean coast of Spain was never known to be Celtic speaking, it looks like the Romans played a bigger role in spreading U152 in Iberia than the Celts.

There is a hotspot of G2a around Lleida (24 of of 223 samples, or 10.8%), Central Catalonia (15 out of 234 samples, or 6.4%) and around Barcelona, but there is very little of it in the Valencian region. Lleida is the inland Pyrenees region, which would have served as a refuge for the Neolithic population, like most mountainous parts of Europe.

There is a hotspot of J1 in Girona (both M267 and P58), where it makes up 8.3% of the population (18 of 219 samples). But otherwise J1 is well distributed in most regions except Lleida and Mallorca which only have one sample.

There is a hotspot of E-M123 in Castelló (16 out of 144 samples, or 11.1%), but that haplogroup is absent from the Balearic samples.

Most of the T1a samples are concentrated around Central Catalonia, Camp de Tarragona and especially Penedès (7 out of 164 samples, or 4.3%), but T1a is also found in Valencia, Mallorca, Barcelona and Girona. None in Lleide or Pireneu.

J1-P58, E-M123 and T1a are all potentially of Jewish or Arabic origin, although the Greeks and Romans could also have contributed in Catalonia.
 
And by the way ... haplogroup R2 is highest in India. So it could have been brought to Iberian peninsula by the Roma people.

Not to be exactly. Roma lack R2. Only once has R2 been found in Roma group and this was from Roma in Tajikistan which can be explained with that they gained it from locals there. Since R2* is frequent in Tajikistan and is not found in any other Roma group. European Romas have no R2. They have more typical European Haplogroups + H1a.

And about R2 in India. Well it is just the same story as R1a* there. Allot of foundereffect in a huge society but not really much diversity. South_Central Asia has bigger diversity. To be exactly regions like Afghanistan and Pakistan. They have both R2* and R2a* (most common subclade in Western Asia).

So R2 might have different origin in Iberia. Now that I think of. Aren't the Alans documented in Iberia? Ossetians have ~5% R2a.
But also European Jews have quite some R2a. Another explanation is indeed Phoenicians.
 
Not to be exactly. Roma lack R2. Only once has R2 been found in Roma group and this was from Roma in Tajikistan which can be explained with that they gained it from locals there. Since R2* is frequent in Tajikistan and is not found in any other Roma group. European Romas have no R2. They have more typical European Haplogroups + H1a.

And about R2 in India. Well it is just the same story as R1a* there. Allot of foundereffect in a huge society but not really much diversity. South_Central Asia has bigger diversity. To be exactly regions like Afghanistan and Pakistan. They have both R2* and R2a* (most common subclade in Western Asia).

So R2 might have different origin in Iberia. Now that I think of. Aren't the Alans documented in Iberia? Ossetians have ~5% R2a.
But also European Jews have quite some R2a. Another explanation is indeed Phoenicians.
The Alans are documented in Iberia; yes. They may have dispersed G2a around the peninsula possibly. I can see that on the G2a maps. Not sure if it's been there since the Neolithic or it was brought with the Alans. Maybe both possibilities. I would have to look up R2 in the population of Alans and Caucasian people in order to confirm a Caucasian origin. Do you have sources?
 

This thread has been viewed 107106 times.

Back
Top