ATP9 (MBA Iberia, ca. 1600 BC)

Oh no, you should not, you should not :)

Too much silence this year in regards to aDNA, just promises, promises, promises and no publications. At least we get some leaks now and then to speculate :)

I agree with you
;)

Or he may just link some wiki haplos in some post about his "cousins"
;)
 
I am not insisting that Rathlin1 was for sure a Celtic-speaker. He could be some other Indo-European.

There was no Celtic language in 2000 BCE. That was still Proto-Italo-Celtic. Keep in mind that the Italic branch only split from 1300 BCE, when R1b tribes crossed the Alps to invade the Italian peninsula. As for Rathlin, R1b-L51 people having expanded from central Europe from circa 2500 BCE, all of them must still have spoken reasonably close languages across all western and central Europe around 2000 BCE. The question is whether Gaelic descend directly from that Proto-Italo-Celtic tongue of the first R1b-L21 in Britain and Ireland, or if it is a later import from the continent? What is certain is that Brittonic Celtic languages were more closely related to Gaulish (P-Celtic group) than to Goidelic Celtic in Ireland, and must therefore have come later, probably with Hallstatt migrants, but reinforced later with the arrival of Belgic tribes.

Goidelic Celtic and Celtiberian both belonged to the older Q-Celtic group. The P-Celtic group is composed mostly of Gaulish and Brittonic. The Italic branch kept the Q (e.g. the word for horse is equus in Latin vs epos then eponos in Gaulish Celtic). The Q to P shift happened after R1b-L21 tribes had settled to Britain and Ireland, but also after R1b-D27 spread over Iberia, and after R1b-U152 invaded Italy, so after 1300 BCE. But it probably happened before the Hallstatt expansion to Britain around 500 BCE.
 
Keep in mind that the Italic branch only split from 1300 BCE, when R1b tribes crossed the Alps to invade the Italian peninsula.

I know this is probable but it isn't fact so you should insert a "probably" next time. Language aside, IMO, there's no room for debating whether Bell Beaker introduced L21 to the British Isles and U152 to Central Europe/France because of Ancient Y DNA. We have no confirmation but I'm pretty confident DF27's origin in Iberia is also Bell Beaker or at least people from the era Bell Beaker lived in. There is a confirmed, not by academics, DF27 from German Bell Beaker.

The only area we can debate about is Italy because Bell Beaker had a weak presence there. A U152 arrival after Bell Beaker wouldn't supine me. All I'm saying here is that Bell Beaker appears to have a close link with P312. The trend is that Indo European languages expanded with lots of genes. So unless Y DNA in Iberia, France, and Britain hardly changed as a result of the expansion of Celtic languages maybe they expanded with Bell Beaker and P312. Maybe the age estimates for the origins of different Celtic branches are wrong.

Goidelic Celtic and Celtiberian both belonged to the older Q-Celtic group. The P-Celtic group is composed mostly of Gaulish and Brittonic. The Italic branch kept the Q (e.g. the word for horse is equus in Latin vs epos then eponos in Gaulish Celtic). The Q to P shift happened after R1b-L21 tribes had settled to Britain and Ireland, but also after R1b-D27 spread over Iberia, and after R1b-U152 invaded Italy, so after 1300 BCE. But it probably happened before the Hallstatt expansion to Britain around 500 BCE.

Isn't there hardly any writing remaining from the Gaulish language(s)? Plus, only having some writings and no living speakers definitely hurts any efforts to understand the language. Isn't it possible contact between Gaul and Britain caused them to exchange vocab and pronunciation(q-p). Or maybe after a first arrival of Celtic languages in Britain in 2300 BC, France and Britain stayed in constant contact and their languages changed together, then broke off, then exchanged vocab. If a place as large as Gaul spoke basically the same language in 50 BC why couldn't, for a time maybe in 1800 BC or whatever, Britain and France have spoken the same language?

I'm not arguing for any of those sceniors I just think you're too confident in evidence that comes from sources as non-concrete as linguistics with extinct languages like Gaulish. I don't know anything about linguistics but I think I know enough to know it's difficult to make language age estimates or to know a lot about the origins of extinct languages and their relationship to modern languages.
 
Because just about everybody, yourself included, claims that R1b-M269, Eastern European autosomal DNA, and Indo-European languages didn't spread to Western Europe until well after 3000 BC. ATP3 and the other El Portalón samples prove them wrong.

I personally have no problem with that R1b-M269 sample from 3400 BCE Spain. I explained here when the paper was released that ATP3 was surely a Steppe immigrant because not only his Y-DNA, but also his mtDNA and autosomal DNA were clearly Proto-Indo-European. My conclusion was that this was an early incursion of R1b-M269 into western Europe, but one on a very small scale that would not have affected much the general ethnic make-up on the Iberian peninsula. So I agree with you that this ATP3 was a Steppe immigrant, but I very much doubt that this represent a group of people large enough to establish the Bell-beaker culture.


And so far it's all R1b-Z2103, not the R1b-L51 that now dominates Western Europe.

The German Bell-Beaker and Unetice samples belonged to R1b-P312 and even R1b-U152.

You should reflect on the fact that the Bell Beaker culture began in Iberia around 2900 BC, and later spread northward and eastward throughout Western and Central Europe. And also on the fact that the Bell Beaker samples we currently have from Central Europe carry mitochondrial haplogroups like H1 and H3 that originated in Southwestern Europe.

I agree that H1 and H3 lineages probably spread across western Europe and Scandinavia during the Bell Beaker period, but this process started with Megalithic people. The Bell-beaker were Neolithic people directly descended from the Megalithic cultures. They practised common burial in passage tombs too and had no cultural trait to link them to Yamna or other Steppe culture (except for the Yamna R1b migrants in Central Europe, who were immigrants among the Bell Beaker folks). I have explained in detail why the original Bell beakers could not have been R1b Steppe people.

- Why R1b couldn't have been spread around Western Europe by the Bell Beaker people

- Bell Beakers were a multicultural phenomenon & trade network, not an ethnic culture

- Spanish Chalcolithic mtDNA provides more evidence that Bell Beakers were non-IE

Apparently it's particularly hard for people to understand, as a majority of people disagree with me, even on this forum. At best, isolated R1b horse-riding adventurers like the one from El Portalon could have facilitated trade routes across western Europe, which was used by Megalithic people to trade objects such as the bell-beaker pottery that gave its name to the culture. But it is clear that this bell-beaker network encompassed a wide variety of people from very different regions. Yet almost none of them were Copper or Bronze Age societies, but Neolithic ones. I think that the confusion comes from a fundamental error by the archaeologists who named the Bell-beaker culture and named it after a pottery type, not realising that, contrarily to many other Neolithic cultures, the pottery was not developed locally by one homogeneous group of people, but was on the contrary traded for the first time across half of the continent, almost certainly for what it contained (e.g. beer or mead). Unfortunately that mistake is as serious as to look at the archaeological record of the Roman era and conclude that the Scandinavians, the Balts, the Scythians, the Indians or the Chinese were Roman because Roman objects from trade were found among their remains. Likewise, it's not because you find the skeletons of Roman merchants in India and DNA tests confirm that they were genetically close to Roman-era Italians, that it means that Indians 2000 years ago were Romans. Isolated samples don't mean anything if we don't know the story of how they got there.
 
Last edited:
Isn't there hardly any writing remaining from the Gaulish language(s)? Plus, only having some writings and no living speakers definitely hurts any efforts to understand the language. Isn't it possible contact between Gaul and Britain caused them to exchange vocab and pronunciation(q-p). Or maybe after a first arrival of Celtic languages in Britain in 2300 BC, France and Britain stayed in constant contact and their languages changed together, then broke off, then exchanged vocab. If a place as large as Gaul spoke basically the same language in 50 BC why couldn't, for a time maybe in 1800 BC or whatever, Britain and France have spoken the same language?

I'm not arguing for any of those sceniors I just think you're too confident in evidence that comes from sources as non-concrete as linguistics with extinct languages like Gaulish. I don't know anything about linguistics but I think I know enough to know it's difficult to make language age estimates or to know a lot about the origins of extinct languages and their relationship to modern languages.

There are about 800 surviving texts or inscriptions in Gaulish, written in Greek or Latin alphabet. That's enough to know over 1000 words and get a sense of the grammar (declensions, conjugation) and to classify the language with reasonable confidence. The Greeks and Romans also commented on Gaulish language and compared it to their language. In addition to the texts, there are thousands of place names in France, Belgium, Germany, Swizterland and northern Italy today that are derived from Gaulish.
 
I think that the confusion comes from a fundamental error by the archaeologists who named the Bell-beaker culture and named it after a pottery type, not realising that, contrarily to many other Neolithic cultures, the pottery was not developed locally by one homogeneous group of people, but was on the contrary traded for the first time across half of the continent, almost certainly for what it contained (e.g. beer or mead).

Not so wrong the archaeologists here, as the pots first appeared in a little region, a given dialect or language could evolve to a given idiom (or lingua franca) that thereafter would expand all over Western Europe. And pots are not the unique track, also Palmela points (for spears), winged arrowheads, wristguards, copper daggers, and so. By that I doubt much that they were simply trading beer or copper...
 
Maybe he spoke something else, closely related to Celtic.

So her language must have been closely related to Celtic because Celtic is spoken in the Isles in historic times? That's ludicrous. All we can say is that we don't know what language Rathlin1 spoke.


The remaining ones were Proto-Celts according to archaeologists (many archaeologists agree that the Unetice culture was Proto-Italo-Celtic).


As far as I know, a genetic relationship between Italic and Celtic is disputed by most linguists these days. I've never seen that claim about Unetice either. Most archaeologists see Hallstatt or La Tène as likely candidates for the dispersal of Celtic languages in the Iron Age.
 
So her language must have been closely related to Celtic because Celtic is spoken in the Isles in historic times? That's ludicrous. All we can say is that we don't know what language Rathlin1 spoke.

True.

I've never seen that claim about Unetice either. Most archaeologists see Hallstatt or La Tène as likely candidates for the dispersal of Celtic languages in the Iron Age.

It's essentially impossible for Hallstatt or La Tene to have anything to do with proto-Celtic because the oldest Celtic inscriptions are far away from Hallstatti(Southern Portugal, Northern Italy) and are as old as Hallstatt. If all of Gaul(inclu. ones in Italy) spoke the same language, CeltIberians spoke a slightly different language but still shared a Celtic identity(like classical writers suggest), if Britons spoke/speak a more distant but closely related language, and if Irish spoke/speak an even more distant but closely related language, then I guess an origin slightly before Hallstatt is possible.
 
@Maciamo
... And will people accept that in the absence of aDna, the best next thing is Nm dental traits such as J.Desideri work from Geneva Univ. and that work (s) clearly state that Bell beaker not only were genetics, but a genetic stock that resisted to any mixing at all.
 
@Genetiker.
You are too silent on your blog.

Anyway. - Most of us do not understand How you could call M269 on ATP3 and not other people. Can you explain how you did it?
 
All you can ever do is insinuate that the idea of pre-Viking transatlantic contact is somehow absurd, when of course there's nothing absurd about it. You never dispute the mountain of historical, archeological, anthropological, and genetic evidence proving the presence of Europeans in the Americas before the Vikings, because you can't.
What genetic evidence?

Most of ancient Chachapoya genomes that you tested have very low SNP counts. With such low coverage, their autosomal results are uselesss. The only ones of relatively good quality are NA40 and NA42. I have just uploaded NA40 to GEDmatch and I don't see any European admixture there (this "North-European-Mesolithic" was actually a Mongoloid-admixed population similar to modern Saami people / Lapps, so they just shared some ancient Northern Siberian ancestry with Native Americans):

GEDmatch kit Z656658, NA40, Laguna de Los Condores (ancient Peru), [1000-1500 AD]

That guy was one of the Chachapoyas:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chachapoya_culture

MDLP World-22 results:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Mesoamerican 51.43
2 North-Amerind 33.41
3 South-America_Amerind 5.88
4 North-European-Mesolithic 4.7
5 Paleo-Siberian 4.58

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Luiseno (derived) 8.82
2 Huichol (derived) 12.07
3 Mixtec (derived) 12.31
4 Maya (derived) 13.48
5 Cucupa (derived) 15.43
6 Kumiai (derived) 21.12
7 Apache (derived) 22.22
8 Karitiana (derived) 28.37
9 Colombian (derived) 28.86
10 Cochimi (derived) 30.69
11 Serrano (derived) 32.36
12 Navajo (derived) 32.95
13 Mexican (derived) 44.36
14 Haida (derived) 45.92
15 Miwok (derived) 47.42
16 Tsimsian (derived) 51.5
17 Pima (derived) 53.14
18 Tlingit (derived) 53.61
19 Mesomerican (ancestral) 59.91
20 Costanoan (derived) 61.06

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 68.9% Huichol (derived) + 31.1% Apache (derived) @ 7.57
2 88.5% Luiseno (derived) + 11.5% Navajo (derived) @ 7.76
3 85.2% Huichol (derived) + 14.8% Tlingit (derived) @ 7.84
4 83.9% Luiseno (derived) + 16.1% Apache (derived) @ 7.87
5 95.4% Luiseno (derived) + 4.6% North-Amerind (ancestral) @ 7.88
6 94.5% Luiseno (derived) + 5.5% Athabask (derived) @ 7.9
7 93.4% Luiseno (derived) + 6.6% Tlingit (derived) @ 7.97
8 77.9% Huichol (derived) + 22.1% Navajo (derived) @ 7.99
9 68.9% Mixtec (derived) + 31.1% Apache (derived) @ 8.01
10 96.8% Luiseno (derived) + 3.2% Paleo-Siberean (ancestral) @ 8.01
11 83.4% Huichol (derived) + 16.6% Haida (derived) @ 8.08
12 96.7% Luiseno (derived) + 3.3% Koryak (derived) @ 8.23
13 88.4% Huichol (derived) + 11.6% Athabask (derived) @ 8.29
14 77.8% Mixtec (derived) + 22.2% Navajo (derived) @ 8.3
15 85.4% Mixtec (derived) + 14.6% Tlingit (derived) @ 8.32
16 97.4% Luiseno (derived) + 2.6% North-European-Mesolithic (ancestral) @ 8.35
17 71.8% Apache (derived) + 28.2% Pima (derived) @ 8.36
18 94.5% Luiseno (derived) + 5.5% Haida (derived) @ 8.42
19 96.5% Luiseno (derived) + 3.5% Chukchi (derived) @ 8.43
20 97.4% Luiseno (derived) + 2.6% Bra1 (derived) @ 8.44

==============

And also Eurogenes K15:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Amerindian 87.39
2 Siberian 10.75
3 Northeast_African 1.18
4 Sub-Saharan 0.47
5 Oceanian 0.21

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Pima 7.07
2 Anzick-1 8.92
3 Mayan 10.08
4 Karitiana 18.59
5 North_Amerindian 24.26
6 East_Greenlander 65.86
7 West_Greenlander 68.91
8 MA-1 89.25
9 Chukchi 93.18
10 Koryak 103.9
11 Shors 106.99
12 Tatar 107.49
13 Afghan_Hazara 107.5
14 Afghan_Turkmen 107.74
15 Uygur 107.76
16 Uzbeki 107.78
17 Hazara 108.32
18 Nogay 108.48
19 Chuvash 108.61
20 Tadjik 108.83

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 87.3% Karitiana + 12.7% Evens @ 2.15
2 87.1% Karitiana + 12.9% Dolgan @ 2.41
3 87.4% Karitiana + 12.6% Evenki @ 2.41
4 83.5% Karitiana + 16.5% Chukchi @ 2.54
5 85% Karitiana + 15% Koryak @ 2.63
6 87.2% Karitiana + 12.8% Yakut @ 3.01
7 78.2% Karitiana + 21.8% East_Greenlander @ 3.03
8 56.8% Karitiana + 43.2% North_Amerindian @ 3.76
9 85.9% Karitiana + 14.1% Saqqaq @ 3.92
10 79.2% Karitiana + 20.8% West_Greenlander @ 4.41
11 94.3% Anzick-1 + 5.7% Evens @ 4.46
12 85.9% Karitiana + 14.1% Ket @ 4.51
13 94.3% Anzick-1 + 5.7% Evenki @ 4.61
14 87.4% Karitiana + 12.6% Oroqen @ 4.65
15 92.5% Anzick-1 + 7.5% Chukchi @ 4.69
16 93.2% Anzick-1 + 6.8% Koryak @ 4.72
17 86.3% Karitiana + 13.7% Selkup @ 4.72
18 94.3% Anzick-1 + 5.7% Dolgan @ 4.74
19 89.8% Anzick-1 + 10.2% East_Greenlander @ 4.88
20 94.4% Anzick-1 + 5.6% Yakut @ 4.89

==============

You cannot possibly be more purely Amerindian than this ancient Chachapoya guy.

BTW - if you uploaded other Chachapoyas to GEDmatch, give me their kit numbers.
 
Isn't there hardly any writing remaining from the Gaulish language(s)? Plus, only having some writings and no living speakers definitely hurts any efforts to understand the language. Isn't it possible contact between Gaul and Britain caused them to exchange vocab and pronunciation(q-p). Or maybe after a first arrival of Celtic languages in Britain in 2300 BC, France and Britain stayed in constant contact and their languages changed together, then broke off, then exchanged vocab. If a place as large as Gaul spoke basically the same language in 50 BC why couldn't, for a time maybe in 1800 BC or whatever, Britain and France have spoken the same language?

I'm not arguing for any of those sceniors I just think you're too confident in evidence that comes from sources as non-concrete as linguistics with extinct languages like Gaulish. I don't know anything about linguistics but I think I know enough to know it's difficult to make language age estimates or to know a lot about the origins of extinct languages and their relationship to modern languages.

https://digilib.phil.muni.cz/bitstream/handle/11222.digilib/114125/N_GraecoLatina_13-2008-1_4.pdf
 
DNA Land:

7juf2EK.png


Another one added to GEDmatch:

Kit Z713184, NA42, Laguna de Los Condores (ancient Peru), [1000-1500 AD]
 
What genetic evidence?

Most of ancient Chachapoya genomes that you tested have very low SNP counts. With such low coverage, their autosomal results are uselesss...

Right, just pretend that Cieza de León didn't write the following about the Chachapoyas:

These Indians of Chachapoyas are the whitest and most attractive of any that I have seen in the Indies, and their women are so beautiful that many of them were worthy to be wives of the Incas, and to be taken to the temples of the sun. To this day the Indian women of this race are exceedingly beautiful, for they are white and well formed. They go dressed in woolen clothes, like their husbands, and on their heads they wear their llautos, the sign by which they may be known in all parts.

Just pretend that the photographs of Chachapoya remains with wavy brown and red European hair and not stiff black Mongoloid Amerindian hair, linked to on my blog, don't exist.

Just pretend that the "Gringuito" descendants of the Chachapoyas don't have features like fair skin, blond and red hair, blue eyes, and freckles, which are typical of modern Northern Europeans, and not at all typical of modern Southern Europeans like Spaniards.

You're wasting your time with the seven published Chachapoya samples. Willerslev, Bustamante, and Guillén deliberately excluded samples with European admixture from their paper.

And if it's genetic evidence you want, then you can see the numerous analyses on my blog going back to a year and a half ago showing that a Chinchorro DNA sample dated to around 4000 BC was 30% European and 70% Amerindian. Analyses that were met with nothing but inane comments and a thread closure when I posted them on Anthrogenica, and which everybody has pretended never happened since then.
 
@Geneticker,

To me it seems when that Colonial Spanish guy wrote "white" he was using it as an adjective for something besides skin color or color at all or race. Also, because we Americans use the word for the color white to refer to Europeans we wrongly interpret people from other cultures when they use the word white when it describes people's appearance. We use color words to describe people unliterally sometimes, like when we say someone is blue we don't mean they're literally blue.

If Spanish found Northern European-looking people in South America I'm sure they would have said so. They knew about geography and knew it'd be strange if they found such people in America.
 
Going out of topic yet... what about to use Occam's razor: if red hair is debt by oxydization or mummyfication, if white chachapoyas werr so white by living in the cloud forests (when their neighbours in the coast and in the altiplanes were charred by the sun), if actual blue eyes of Gringuitos just is debt to some Conquistadores...
 
The Japanese, Koreans and Northern Chinese can also be called white based on their skin color.

Maybe the Chachapoyas had Mongoloid skin-lightening mutations, rather than Caucasoid ones.
 
Geneticker,

To me it seems when that Colonial Spanish guy wrote "white" he was using it as an adjective for something besides skin color or color at all or race. Also, because we Americans use the word for the color white to refer to Europeans we wrongly interpret people from other cultures when they use the word white when it describes people's appearance. We use color words to describe people unliterally sometimes, like when we say someone is blue we don't mean they're literally blue.

Absurd rubbish.

I can tell from the ignorance displayed in these comments that people don't even bother to look at what I've posted on my blog before ridiculing me and branding me a "kook".

In my post "Statuettes of the White Gods" I included the following quote from Pedro Pizarro, cousin of Francisco Pizarro, describing the Incas in his 1571 work Relation of the discovery and conquest of the kingdoms of Peru:

The people of this kingdom of Peru were white, swarthy in color, and among them the Lords and Ladies were whiter than Spaniards. I saw in this land an Indian woman and a child who would not stand out among white blonds. These people [of the upper class] say that they were the children of the idols.

And in my post "The Chachapoyas" I noted that at 45:55 in the documentary "Carthage's Lost Warriors" a painting from the Inca period is shown depicting captured Chachapoya women, showing that they had white skin and red hair.

If Spanish found Northern European-looking people in South America I'm sure they would have said so. They knew about geography and knew it'd be strange if they found such people in America.

You're not paying attention. They did say so. They were indeed astonished to find White people among the dark-skinned Amerindians of the New World, and they duly noted it.
 
Going out of topic yet... what about to use Occam's razor: if red hair is debt by oxydization or mummyfication

No. Hair doesn't magically change color after death. Here's a quote from Warren Royal Dawson that Thor Heyerdahl included in the section "Tall stature, narrow face, and non-Mongoloid hair on Paracas mummies" in his 1952 work American Indians in the Pacific:

From the examination of a large number of mummies both from Egypt and other countries including South America, my opinion is that hair does not undergo any marked change post-mortem. The hair of a wavy or curly individual remains curly or wavy, and that of a straight-haired person remains straight. In mummies and desiccated bodies the hair has a tendency to be crisp and brittle, but this is the natural result of the drying-up of the sebaceous glands, which during life, feed fatty matter into the hair follicles which keeps the hair supple and flexible. … it seems to me very unlikely that any change in colour would take place in a body which had never been exposed to the light, … To sum up then, all the evidence I have indicates that the nature of hair does not alter after death except in becoming dry and brittle.

And as I said above, a painting from the Inca period depicts Chachapoya women as having white skin and red hair.

Also, the hair of many ancient Peruvian mummies is European rather than Amerindian not only in its color, but also in its structure. See my post "More proof of Whites in ancient Peru and Chile".

if white chachapoyas werr so white by living in the cloud forests (when their neighbours in the coast and in the altiplanes were charred by the sun), if actual blue eyes of Gringuitos just is debt to some Conquistadores...

No, they're white because of their European admixture, as genetic testing of the Gringuitos has shown. That same testing has shown that the red hair found in the Gringuitos is of European origin.

If you look at the photographs of Gringuitos in my post "More proof of Whites in ancient Peru and Chile", then you'll realize that there's no way that the physical features they possess can possibly be due to admixture from Spaniards. Their features look more like the features of the Irish than any other European population I've seen.

Percy Fawcett saw similar-looking white natives on the Amazon, which he described as "people with red hair and blue eyes like a gringo". He explicitly stated that "They are not albinos". He recorded the following story he heard from the manager of a French rubber colony in 1906–7:

There are white Indians on the [river] Acre. My brother went up … in a launch, and one day, well up river, was told that white Indians were near. He didn't believe it and scoffed at the men who told him, but nevertheless went out in a canoe and found unmistakable signs of Indians. The next thing he knew, he and his men were being attacked by big, well-built, handsome savages, pure white with red hair and blue eyes. They fought like devils too. … Many people say these white Indians don't exist, and, when it's proved they do, that they are half-breeds, mixtures of Spanish and Indians. That's what people say who never saw them, but those who have seen them think differently.
 

This thread has been viewed 46314 times.

Back
Top