New big paper on Catalan Y-DNA

[Sile]

Oh really?



Because there is no reason to. LOL. Please stop with this.

if you act normal....i am putting you on my ignore list

 

[Melancon]

if you act normal....i am putting you on my ignore list

Do you think I should report him? I don't know what to do with him...I thought that putting him on ignore might be an effective way for him to get the hint. He just never gives up.

 

[Drac II]

Oh really?

Unfortunately, in this case he has been proven wrong. Any of a number of other peoples could easily have introduced that marker into Catalonia, or pretty much the rest of Iberia for that matter. He should have stuck to the more cautious "probablys/maybes", as he usually does.

Because there is no reason to. LOL. Please stop with this.

Sure there is, Maciamo says that Brits could have had some of their Near Eastern DNA from Near Eastern immigrants from Roman times. Since you take his possible answers as if they were "The Law", there you go. Now, when will we see you festering Brits with similar nonsense like you try to pull on southern Iberians? Methinks that the reason why it's very easy to predict that you won't is because that is not part of your obvious agenda.

What you are doing is called "slander" with your baseless accusations and ad hominem attacks. If you keep this up; there may be repercussions.

What I am doing is called exposing and debunking your obvious manipulations and uncorroborated claims. Your modus operandi is very familiar. We have seen it before many times.

 

[Melancon]

Unfortunately, in this case he has been proven wrong. Any of a number of other peoples could easily have introduced that marker into Catalonia, or pretty much the rest of Iberia for that matter. He should have stuck to the more cautious "probablys/maybes", as he usually does.

Oh yeah, he has made a mistake. So there we have a new argument. You just contradicted yourself once again.

What I am doing is called exposing and debunking your obvious manipulations and uncorroborated claims.

What claims? There were no claims. All I have said can be backed up with evidence; but you have failed to acknowledge it; and instead are self-projecting in an attempt to defame. What you are trying to do is called "character assassination" and I am not the only person you have tried this with. I am not the one manipulating; you are. People have better things to do than waste their time on people like you who want to cause trouble, though. You are the trouble-maker; not I. Because you keep resorting to baseless accusations, self-projection and ad-hominem attacks.

And Alternatively; I am keeping you on ignore and am not responding to any more of your arguments. end

 

[Maleth]

I don't understand this "Near East" aversion, honestly. The Near East and Europe are very different in terms of culture and civilization, but there is a huge overlap in terms of genes.
This is a chart from Haak et al 2015:
View attachment 7122

All Europeans except those from far eastern Europe and the Baltic areas are over 50% EN. That's EN not EEF.

I think 'aversion' is a little too strong word. I really don't think its the case. Some posters here are pointing out facts (which I happen to agree with) that the Phoenician genetic contribution is way out exaggerated and I also have my own reason to agree with what they are saying. (of course I can be wrong and when DNA is reliably fined tuned to distinguish J2a's of Phoenicians from those Greek to those neolithic then things will be more clear) I love Phoenician history, my partner is Lebanese and his dad is from Tyre (if it makes any difference). I would still insist that Phoenicians were more interested to fill their famous boats with goods rather then migrants, so the genetic impact would be minimal (in my opinion which can change with any concrete evidence).

It is also being suggested that the generic genetic make up of Iberia is not much different from any other Southern European countries and I don't think that's an exaggeration. If someone is genuinely making a point with good arguments it cannot be considered as 'aversion'.

Honestly, if people can't handle what the genetic data shows and incorporate it into their world view and sense of identity then maybe they just shouldn't bother to be involved at all. It's the same thing I tell anyone who gets their own genome tested. If you don't think you could handle certain results, don't test.

I had to re read the posts of this thread and I think they are directed towards Iberia mostly and not much of a kind of denial to who had the farms first to who shot a wild animal for the next meals. At least thats how I understand it. I think the most important in genome testing is to be able to digest time frames as the world30,000, 20,000, 10,000 years ago is not the world in 2015 and its very easy and amateurish for people to explain DNA on events and (racial) terminologies that happened example (just for arguments sake) in lets say the last 300 years.

 

[Drac II]

Oh yeah, he has made a mistake. So there we have a new argument. You just contradicted yourself once again.

The one who contradicts himself is you. You very arbitrarily take anything he says as "proven fact", but only as long as it involves Iberians and non-Europeans. When he says similar things about other Europeans you conveniently toss it out the window. Funny, isn't it?

What claims? There were no claims. All I have said can be backed up with evidence; but you have failed to acknowledge it; and instead are self-projecting in an attempt to defame. What you are trying to do is called "character assassination" and I am not the only person you have tried this with. I am not the one manipulating; you are. People have better things to do than waste their time on people like you who want to cause trouble, though. You are the trouble-maker; not I. Because you keep resorting to baseless accusations, self-projection and ad-hominem attacks.

And Alternatively; I am keeping you on ignore and am not responding to any more of your arguments. end

You know very well which absurd claims: Lebanese look more European than southern Iberians, carefully cherry-picking pictures, paradoxically accepting as "fact" anything Maciamo theorizes about Near Eastern DNA in Iberia but disregarding his similar theories about Near Eastern DNA among other Europeans (including Brits), etc. You know perfectly well what you are doing, don't try to be disingenuous and play the "I am just an innocent victim being picked on for no reason at all" card.

 

[Sile]

I think 'aversion' is a little too strong word. I really don't think its the case. Some posters here are pointing out facts (which I happen to agree with) that the Phoenician genetic contribution is way out exaggerated and I also have my own reason to agree with what they are saying. (of course I can be wrong and when DNA is reliably fined tuned to distinguish J2a's of Phoenicians from those Greek to those neolithic then things will be more clear) I love Phoenician history, my partner is Lebanese and his dad is from Tyre (if it makes any difference). I would still insist that Phoenicians were more interested to fill their famous boats with goods rather then migrants, so the genetic impact would be minimal (in my opinion which can change with any concrete evidence).

It is also being suggested that the generic genetic make up of Iberia is not much different from any other Southern European countries and I don't think that's an exaggeration. If someone is genuinely making a point with good arguments it cannot be considered as 'aversion'.




I had to re read the posts of this thread and I think they are directed towards Iberia mostly and not much of a kind of denial to who had the farms first to who shot a wild animal for the next meals. At least thats how I understand it. I think the most important in genome testing is to be able to digest time frames as the world30,000, 20,000, 10,000 years ago is not the world in 2015 and its very easy and amateurish for people to explain DNA on events and (racial) terminologies that happened example (just for arguments sake) in lets say the last 300 years.

let me know then if this link is rubbish

http://phoenicia.org/canaancornwall.html

 

[Melancon]

The one who contradicts himself is you. You very arbitrarily take anything he says as "proven fact", but only as long as it involves Iberians and non-Europeans. When he says similar things about other Europeans you conveniently toss it out the window. Funny, isn't it?



You know very well which absurd claims: Lebanese look more European than southern Iberians, carefully cherry-picking pictures, paradoxically accepting as "fact" anything Maciamo theorizes about Near Eastern DNA in Iberia but disregarding his similar theories about Near Eastern DNA among other Europeans (including Brits), etc. You know perfectly well what you are doing, don't try to be disingenuous and play the "I am just an innocent victim being picked on for no reason at all" card.

No it's not funny at all. You keep creating arguments based on accusations. Stop that.

I am totally onto your game and can see that you are attempting to set me up with character assassination. It's not going to happen, clearly. I have never contradicted myself; show me my contradictions. Apart from reading your posts while you are on ignore. But I want to continue seeing your responses and your continuous baseless accusations because they are quite amusing.

If you keep this up; there will be consequences. I am not a Moderator but I know the rules. And I have warned you before. This will be your loss though; not mine. I have nothing against you; apart from a few disagreements.

 

[Melancon]

The one who contradicts himself is you. You very arbitrarily take anything he says as "proven fact", but only as long as it involves Iberians and non-Europeans. When he says similar things about other Europeans you conveniently toss it out the window. Funny, isn't it?



You know very well which absurd claims: Lebanese look more European than southern Iberians, carefully cherry-picking pictures, paradoxically accepting as "fact" anything Maciamo theorizes about Near Eastern DNA in Iberia but disregarding his similar theories about Near Eastern DNA among other Europeans (including Brits), etc. You know perfectly well what you are doing, don't try to be disingenuous and play the "I am just an innocent victim being picked on for no reason at all" card.

I don't have an agenda. I was trying to find out things much like everyone else here is. What is your agenda? That all Iberians have no Phoenician, Arabic or Sephardic Jewish admixture? What are you exactly trying to prove here? I don't understand your arguments and reasoning and never did. What is the point in this?

 

[Maleth]

let me know then if this link is rubbish

http://phoenicia.org/canaancornwall.html

I presume you are referring to my comments that Phoenician genetic imput is highly exagerated right? The link you quoted is a big read (my eyes are hurting), but as I am sure you know its a collection of quotes from certain (even old books) and Greek writings to prove Phoenician influence to the wider world. Am I missing something? is there some revelation of some huge mass migrations from Phoenicia? Just in case I missed it would you be so kind to guide me to it (then we can verify the source) Thank you in advance.

Just some food for thought. Why would anyone in a well off region would want to migrate into a new land unless there is war or famine. Phoenicia was conquered by the Persians and Macedonians before there influence as it was known had diminished. Under The Persian occupation they still flourished to a certain degree the Macedonians allowed the Phoenician king to stay on.

Localy we have Mcdonalds and burger kings. (like many other places) If their logos are discovered under rubble and earth in 5000 years from now...and no writing is found, but only knowing that they are American brands, the archaeologists would say that the Americans had colonized this Island....right? :grin:

In regards to rubbish we can have a whole new debate on the chitty chat section and all the hidden challanges and maybe not so hidden ones its causing globally on many fronts.

 

[Angela]

I think 'aversion' is a little too strong word. I really don't think its the case. Some posters here are pointing out facts (which I happen to agree with) that the Phoenician genetic contribution is way out exaggerated and I also have my own reason to agree with what they are saying. (of course I can be wrong and when DNA is reliably fined tuned to distinguish J2a's of Phoenicians from those Greek to those neolithic then things will be more clear) I love Phoenician history, my partner is Lebanese and his dad is from Tyre (if it makes any difference). I would still insist that Phoenicians were more interested to fill their famous boats with goods rather then migrants, so the genetic impact would be minimal (in my opinion which can change with any concrete evidence).

It is also being suggested that the generic genetic make up of Iberia is not much different from any other Southern European countries and I don't think that's an exaggeration. If someone is genuinely making a point with good arguments it cannot be considered as 'aversion'.




I had to re read the posts of this thread and I think they are directed towards Iberia mostly and not much of a kind of denial to who had the farms first to who shot a wild animal for the next meals. At least thats how I understand it. I think the most important in genome testing is to be able to digest time frames as the world30,000, 20,000, 10,000 years ago is not the world in 2015 and its very easy and amateurish for people to explain DNA on events and (racial) terminologies that happened example (just for arguments sake) in lets say the last 300 years.

Maleth, as to the Phoenicians/Carthaginians and their genetic impact on Spain, my opinions can be found in posts # 31 and 75. (I also endorse post #64 by Aberdeen.) No where do I say, and nor do I believe, that they had a large impact in Spain. I don't think there is any evidence at the present time to support that, and the nature of their empire would tend to mitigate against that. As for comments that Levantines look more European than Spaniards or other southern Europeans, it's patently absurd and meant to provoke certain people, and comments like that need to STOP.

However, neither do I think that it is a fair reading of the data to say they had no genetic impact on Spain. Just as it is not a fair reading of the data that the Moorish invasions had no impact on Spain. The question as to how much must, in my opinion, await aDna and more resolution of yDna clades.

This leads me to my post #85, to which you responded. It was in no way addressed to you. It is a reaction to the fact that whenever the Phoenicians, the Carthaginians, any movements from Anatolia in the Bronze or Iron Ages (including any possible input into the Etruscans), or, God forbid, the Moorish invasions, are mentioned,there is what seems to me to be this knee-jerk reaction from certain people and groups that none of this affected them, although it may have affected others. The gene flow or lack of it from these groups has to be sorted using data, not prejudices. Furthermore, the whole reaction is illogical, because with the exception, perhaps, of the SSA that came with the Moors, these are alleles very similar to those which have been filtering into Europe for millennia. The culture of these later arriving people may have been very different, and has not survived in Europe, thankfully, in some cases, in my opinion, but the genes themselves are no different from the genes that came in earlier eras and which all Europeans share. I basically have gotten very tired of seeing reactions that, again in my opinion, are a-scientific and a-historical.

 

[Drac II]

No it's not funny at all. You keep creating arguments based on accusations. Stop that.

I am totally onto your game and can see that you are attempting to set me up with character assassination. It's not going to happen, clearly. I have never contradicted myself; show me my contradictions. Apart from reading your posts while you are on ignore. But I want to continue seeing your responses and your continuous baseless accusations because they are quite amusing.

If you keep this up; there will be consequences. I am not a Moderator but I know the rules. And I have warned you before. This will be your loss though; not mine. I have nothing against you; apart from a few disagreements.

Of course it is not "funny", it was just a figure of speech to remark your hypocritical behavior. It seems that Maciamo's "unimpeachable" authority on this topic of Near Eastern DNA in Europe is conveniently restricted only to Iberians. Anything else similar that he says respecting other Europeans and this same DNA must be dismissed.

Show you contradictions? I already showed you several posts back, but here goes again: you tried to use a source (Maciamo/Eupedia) to claim that southern Iberians are the only people in Europe who are hardly European because of alleged Near Eastern DNA in the area, yet your exact same source also clearly points out similar things elsewhere in Europe. Is that contradiction enough for you?

All the "character assassinations" were done by you on yourself. You are responsible for what you post here, no one else. I am just commenting on the uncorroborated claims you make.

 

[Sile]

I presume you are referring to my comments that Phoenician genetic imput is highly exagerated right? The link you quoted is a big read (my eyes are hurting), but as I am sure you know its a collection of quotes from certain (even old books) and Greek writings to prove Phoenician influence to the wider world. Am I missing something? is there some revelation of some huge mass migrations from Phoenicia? Just in case I missed it would you be so kind to guide me to it (then we can verify the source) Thank you in advance.

Just some food for thought. Why would anyone in a well off region would want to migrate into a new land unless there is war or famine. Phoenicia was conquered by the Persians and Macedonians before there influence as it was known had diminished. Under The Persian occupation they still flourished to a certain degree the Macedonians allowed the Phoenician king to stay on.

Localy we have Mcdonalds and burger kings. (like many other places) If their logos are discovered under rubble and earth in 5000 years from now...and no writing is found, but only knowing that they are American brands, the archaeologists would say that the Americans had colonized this Island....right? :grin:

In regards to rubbish we can have a whole new debate on the chitty chat section and all the hidden challanges and maybe not so hidden ones its causing globally on many fronts.

I was more interested in what amount of truth there was, since you have an admiration for phoenicians.

I have other sources agreeing with their trade links with cornwall ....and southern ireland

 

[Maleth]

As for comments that Levantines look more European than Spaniards or other southern Europeans, it's patently absurd and meant to provoke certain people, and comments like that need to STOP.

agreed

However, neither do I think that it is a fair reading of the data to say they had no genetic impact on Spain. Just as it is not a fair reading of the data that the Moorish invasions had no impact on Spain. The question as to how much must, in my opinion, await aDna and more resolution of yDna clades.

I have no doubt there is as much as the Romans had in Britian or the Turks in the Balkans but the probabilities none would have posed dramatic population shifts (as some people tend to fantasise about). The aboriginal peoples of these regions are often ignored especially when haplogroups were around and travelling much much earlier then any classic era. At least that is my opinion (that can change) at present

 

[Maleth]

I was more interested in what amount of truth there was, since you have an admiration for phoenicians.

I have other sources agreeing with their trade links with cornwall ....and southern ireland

Thanks to Greek, Roman writings, Egyptian hieroglyphics and some other it seems undeniable that Phoenicians had a great influence on trade (maybe because it was done on sea routes rather then land). The Phoenicians are to be admired because they are not known to have acquired their wealth through war, plunder and booty, but trade, meaning selling desirable products and create more to sell reaching more destinations, with great sea navigation and entrepreneurship skills.

 

[Degredado]

I don't understand this "Near East" aversion, honestly. The Near East and Europe are very different in terms of culture and civilization, but there is a huge overlap in terms of genes.
This is a chart from Haak et al 2015:
View attachment 7122

All Europeans except those from far eastern Europe and the Baltic areas are over 50% EN. That's EN not EEF.

The English have 63.8% of it, the Czechs 62.2%, the Norwegians 63.8% (the Germans probably somewhere around there but maybe higher in the south), the French 75.9%. The northern strip of Spain has 80.6%. The rest of Spain has 73.3% but then they needed 12.7% Bedouin to get a good fit, and, as that was used as a proxy for the early farmers in Lazardis et al, is mostly EN too, just with some small trace SSA. I don't know where the NA alleles go, but probably some goes into WHG, some into EN, or maybe the rest of it goes into Bedouin. The northern Italians look like the northern Spanish more or less, the Sicilians like most of the Spaniards but with some more Bedouin, and the Tuscans are in between. The difference between northern Europe and southern Europe in terms of EN seems to be that northern Europe has about 63% and southern Europe has around 80% or more. The Europe that created the Roman and Greek civilizations, the Renaissance, both the Italian one and the northern one, the later Agricultural Revolution, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, and on and on, was a Europe composed of people who were at least 60% EN (and some 80%) in terms of genetics.

So do some Europeans truly despise over half of their ancestry? Really? So there's going to be some sort of competition, and whoever has less of it is somehow better? Better in what way? Certainly not in terms of accomplishments or contributions to European Civilization. At least for young American hobbyists, don't they mandate a year long course in Western Civilization anymore?

Or is the issue when it came? Some of it came from the early EEF farmers, some of it came with Yamnaya migrations, some of it came perhaps in other Bronze Age migrations, or, God forbid, in the Iron Age. I don't know what makes a source with the Phoenicians so objectionable when it's the same alleles that came with Bronze Age migrations from the steppe, just not mixed with EHG. Is it just the association of the Phoencians with Semitic languages? Of course, it's probably the trace SSA that is left from the Moorish invasions that makes that invasion so unthinkable.

Honestly, if people can't handle what the genetic data shows and incorporate it into their world view and sense of identity then maybe they just shouldn't bother to be involved at all. It's the same thing I tell anyone who gets their own genome tested. If you don't think you could handle certain results, don't test.

Excellent post, one of the most thoughtful I've seen on this page. I always find it amusing how so many threads on Eupedia turn to the classic, heated debate about the presence of the "undesirable" Moorish/Arabic/Jewish/Carthaginian elements in the genetic makeup of Iberians. On one side, you always have non-Iberians more or less subtly attempting to provoke Spaniards and Portuguese with statements or hints that Iberians have a close genetic affinity with those peoples from the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean; offering them furious battle, the Iberians, always so incredibly ready to bite the bait and so eager to prove at all costs that they have not a single drop of non-European blood - alternatively, when against the ropes, they "accuse" others of having undesirable blood too, as if not to be alone and "drag" others down with them (typically, Italians), even if NO ONE is talking about these other ethnic groups.

As I've mentioned here before, most people just don't want to associate themselves with "inferiors" (economically, socially, culturally, technologically etc); they only want to be related to the "winners". That's why so many Anglophones (especially genealogists) claim Norman ancestry, even if the Norman genetic impact in England was probably as minimal as the one left by Moors in Spain; that's why Indians of higher castes claim to be Aryans, even if they are thoroughly mixed with native Dravidian populations; that's why many Latin Americans, particularly from Spanish-speaking countries, try to associate themselves with Spain, even if they are, on the most part, mixed with Native Americans and/or Africans (this phenomenon is less common in Brazil, because Portugal, much smaller than Spain in every aspect, doesn't really evoke a great deal of interest or of admiration among Brazilians); that's why Iberians will gladly accept - or at least, will not refute - someone saying that they have partial Visigothic or Suevi blood, but will have a heart attack if someone mentions anything about Moors, and so on.

Self-esteem. It all comes down to that.

 

[Melancon]

Of course it is not "funny", it was just a figure of speech to remark your hypocritical behavior. It seems that Maciamo's "unimpeachable" authority on this topic of Near Eastern DNA in Europe is conveniently restricted only to Iberians. Anything else similar that he says respecting other Europeans and this same DNA must be dismissed.

Show you contradictions? I already showed you several posts back, but here goes again: you tried to use a source (Maciamo/Eupedia) to claim that southern Iberians are the only people in Europe who are hardly European because of alleged Near Eastern DNA in the area, yet your exact same source also clearly points out similar things elsewhere in Europe. Is that contradiction enough for you?

All the "character assassinations" were done by you on yourself. You are responsible for what you post here, no one else. I am just commenting on the uncorroborated claims you make.

No, they weren't. Cause I'm talking about recent admixture due to migration centuries ago. Early European Farmers have nothing to do with current European ethnicity. All Caucasians have EEF. And this also has absolutely nothing to do with the Y-DNA haplogroups in Andalusia and Southern Portugal that suggest a recent Levantine ethnic contribution...such as J1 or Q1b...or mtdna U6....which you have failed to explain their presence/origin.

 

[Melancon]

Maleth, as to the Phoenicians/Carthaginians and their genetic impact on Spain, my opinions can be found in posts # 31 and 75. (I also endorse post #64 by Aberdeen.) No where do I say, and nor do I believe, that they had a large impact in Spain. I don't think there is any evidence at the present time to support that, and the nature of their empire would tend to mitigate against that. As for comments that Levantines look more European than Spaniards or other southern Europeans, it's patently absurd and meant to provoke certain people, and comments like that need to STOP.

However, neither do I think that it is a fair reading of the data to say they had no genetic impact on Spain. Just as it is not a fair reading of the data that the Moorish invasions had no impact on Spain. The question as to how much must, in my opinion, await aDna and more resolution of yDna clades.

This leads me to my post #85, to which you responded. It was in no way addressed to you. It is a reaction to the fact that whenever the Phoenicians, the Carthaginians, any movements from Anatolia in the Bronze or Iron Ages (including any possible input into the Etruscans), or, God forbid, the Moorish invasions, are mentioned,there is what seems to me to be this knee-jerk reaction from certain people and groups that none of this affected them, although it may have affected others. The gene flow or lack of it from these groups has to be sorted using data, not prejudices. Furthermore, the whole reaction is illogical, because with the exception, perhaps, of the SSA that came with the Moors, these are alleles very similar to those which have been filtering into Europe for millennia. The culture of these later arriving people may have been very different, and has not survived in Europe, thankfully, in some cases, in my opinion, but the genes themselves are no different from the genes that came in earlier eras and which all Europeans share. I basically have gotten very tired of seeing reactions that, again in my opinion, are a-scientific and a-historical.

Well I'm not the one who is being willfully ignorant. There is no provocation whatsoever...the DNA evidence is there, and people are too lazy to acknowledge it.


http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J1_Y-DNA.shtml


J1 in Iberia:

Based on very limited data, the main Lebanese subclades of J1 appear to be J1-YSC234 and J1-YSC76. Both subclades have also been found in Sicily, Andalusia and Portugal, which suggests that they were already found among the Phoenicians. However, since the Arabs conquered the same regions as those colonised by the Phoenicians, it is too early to reach such a conclusion.



http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_Q_Y-DNA.shtml

Q1b:

Q1b1a (L245): found in the Middle East, among the Jews, in Central Europe and in Sicily

Q1b1a1 (L272.1): found in Sicily (probably Phoenician)

 

[Melancon]

Of course it is not "funny", it was just a figure of speech to remark your hypocritical behavior. It seems that Maciamo's "unimpeachable" authority on this topic of Near Eastern DNA in Europe is conveniently restricted only to Iberians. Anything else similar that he says respecting other Europeans and this same DNA must be dismissed.

Show you contradictions? I already showed you several posts back, but here goes again: you tried to use a source (Maciamo/Eupedia) to claim that southern Iberians are the only people in Europe who are hardly European because of alleged Near Eastern DNA in the area, yet your exact same source also clearly points out similar things elsewhere in Europe. Is that contradiction enough for you?

All the "character assassinations" were done by you on yourself. You are responsible for what you post here, no one else. I am just commenting on the uncorroborated claims you make.

There were no such claims. I was repeating what had already been posted here. But you are too lazy to consider the evidence. You are delusional.

You misunderstand everything I say; and continue pushing your own agenda, while being willfully ignorant. Near Eastern farmers (EEF) have nothing to do with current ethnicity. And you accuse me of being Anti-Iberian and provocative based on my own humble analysis and perspectives; so therefore you are the one who is provoking people; not I. And you accuse not only me, but also Sile of being prejudiced against Phoenicians or Carthaginians; when in reality this is probably (most likely) your own tendency. It would explain to me why you are so defensive against this possible reality. (For Iberians to have this admixture.)

I have always wanted to know these things for myself, because as I always said before; Europeans have always told me that Andalusians, Southern Portuguese (southern Iberians) weren't "white European" like they were. I don't have to be an anti-iberian to admit that...


You said that Maciamo merely gives possible explanations...not confirmations. But that he made one mistake with Y-DNA R2...But apparently I am someone who can't make mistakes either. So you therefore have contradicted yourself, by continuously accusing, attacking and provoking me with baseless arguments...

 

[Drac II]

Excellent post, one of the most thoughtful I've seen on this page. I always find it amusing how so many threads on Eupedia turn to the classic, heated debate about the presence of the "undesirable" Moorish/Arabic/Jewish/Carthaginian elements in the genetic makeup of Iberians. On one side, you always have non-Iberians more or less subtly attempting to provoke Spaniards and Portuguese with statements or hints that Iberians have a close genetic affinity with those peoples from the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean; offering them furious battle, the Iberians, always so incredibly ready to bite the bait and so eager to prove at all costs that they have not a single drop of non-European blood - alternatively, when against the ropes, they "accuse" others of having undesirable blood too, as if not to be alone and "drag" others down with them (typically, Italians), even if NO ONE is talking about these other ethnic groups.

As I've mentioned here before, most people just don't want to associate themselves with "inferiors" (economically, socially, culturally, technologically etc); they only want to be related to the "winners". That's why so many Anglophones (especially genealogists) claim Norman ancestry, even if the Norman genetic impact in England was probably as minimal as the one left by Moors in Spain; that's why Indians of higher castes claim to be Aryans, even if they are thoroughly mixed with native Dravidian populations; that's why many Latin Americans, particularly from Spanish-speaking countries, try to associate themselves with Spain, even if they are, on the most part, mixed with Native Americans and/or Africans (this phenomenon is less common in Brazil, because Portugal, much smaller than Spain in every aspect, doesn't really evoke a great deal of interest or of admiration among Brazilians); that's why Iberians will gladly accept - or at least, will not refute - someone saying that they have partial Visigothic or Suevi blood, but will have a heart attack if someone mentions anything about Moors, and so on.

Self-esteem. It all comes down to that.

You very conveniently "forget", as usual, that among those who often start the tirades against Iberians in anthro/genetic forums are actually Italians (sometimes genuine Italians from Italy itself, sometimes they are actually descendants of Italians in the Americas), some of them apparently very desirous to try to portray themselves as more "European" and/or "lighter" than Portuguese and/or Spaniards, and that's why they get a backlash as a suitable response. "You reap what you sow", as the saying goes. Or "eye for eye, tooth for tooth", if you prefer.