Two Ancient Iberia DNA Papers with articles.

The older native man had a way of looking at life very different from the newcomer, the integration between the two was not compatible with either side. Contunuously the local tribes had to move to other areas and start again, at a certain time they lived far enough apart so that 500 years would pass. These newly arrived men were continually bothering with destruction even to make their horses jump on small children and at the slightest opportunity they killed young children as a sport. The native man was in communion with nature, tribe and family and the newcomer had a vortex incomprehensible to the older natives, so they were putting distance, but sooner or later they were and everything started again until finally the number of natives would descend by extrés and by difficulty of being established in a stable and safe place so that already very depleted could have been absorbed at all.
 
A logical explanation is that there was a caste system, which collapsed after 500 years.

That would only be logical if the archaeology indicated that the "locals" were in a "lower" position within "newcomer" settlements. When you find such DATA be sure to share it.

According to the authors, the two such groups co-existed for those 500 years.

We saw exactly the same situation in Europe with the arrival of the Anatolian farmers. The "locals" retreated to the north/northeast. The ones who remained stayed in their ancestral settlements, usually at rivers where they continued their fisher/gatherer life style. This remained the case for almost 2,000 years. People forget that the Europe of these periods was relatively unpopulated. There were very few hunter or fisher/gatherers, so there was plenty of room for the Anatolian farmers to expand without conflict with the farmers.

The only exception of which I'm aware is the presence of a low status hunter-gatherer in one of the oldest farmer settlements. An exception, however, does not a rule make.

In the case of Iberia, it was the steppe admixed people who were the minority, very much so in places in southern Iberia. Since you love speculation so much, perhaps the newcomers, who relied more on herding, initially even took the poorer, higher elevation areas. That's what happened in italy with the Appennine settlement.

Simplistic thinking devoid of nuance isn't helpful in these discussions. Nor is the anachronistic attribution of cultural artifacts or life styles to much more ancient societies. I would suggest that you and many others take a look at the archaeology of the Bell Beaker settlements and burial contexts in Central Europe. In the initial periods, they indicate much more primitive cultures than those they were encountering: bad copies of Beaker cups, wrist guards, and even bow and arrows.
 
That would only be logical if the archaeology indicated that the "locals" were in a "lower" position within "newcomer" settlements. When you find such DATA be sure to share it.

According to the authors, the two such groups co-existed for those 500 years.

We saw exactly the same situation in Europe with the arrival of the Anatolian farmers. The "locals" retreated to the north/northeast. The ones who remained stayed in their ancestral settlements, usually at rivers where they continued their fisher/gatherer life style. This remained the case for almost 2,000 years. People forget that the Europe of these periods was relatively unpopulated. There were very few hunter or fisher/gatherers, so there was plenty of room for the Anatolian farmers to expand without conflict with the farmers.

The only exception of which I'm aware is the presence of a low status hunter-gatherer in one of the oldest farmer settlements. An exception, however, does not a rule make.

In the case of Iberia, it was the steppe admixed people who were the minority, very much so in places in southern Iberia. Since you love speculation so much, perhaps the newcomers, who relied more on herding, initially even took the poorer, higher elevation areas. That's what happened in italy with the Appennine settlement.

Simplistic thinking devoid of nuance isn't helpful in these discussions. Nor is the anachronistic attribution of cultural artifacts or life styles to much more ancient societies. I would suggest that you and many others take a look at the archaeology of the Bell Beaker settlements and burial contexts in Central Europe. In the initial periods, they indicate much more primitive cultures than those they were encountering: bad copies of Beaker cups, wrist guards, and even bow and arrows.

With the Anatolian farmers and HGs, was it not the case that they were near each other but not within the same settlements? Whereas with the arrival of the Bell Beakers, they moved into pre-existing Iberian settlements? That's a big difference really, for two groups to be living side-by-side and not mixing requires a caste system or segregation. Even if I believe this to be true, it isn't necessarily the case that one group is above the other, though of course they were successful invaders so that is to be expected.
 
You can claim that these Visigoths are mixed and I agree with users who say it, but they are still predominantly Germanic. And this after 500 years since they left their Scandinavian homeland and then travelled across half of Europe before reaching Iberia.

These DNA results completely debunk the theory that Goths were just some "social construct of the Roman frontier".
 
@ maciamo

sorry but in the other recent paper about Iberia there are four Cardial samples being already I2a1b...
 
Of castes nothing, is incompatible with Iberia yesterday, today and always. Nobility has been and is with in so many places.


Yesterday I was walking through the quiet and I came across one of the old natives, it was very pure, it surprised me, our eyes met and then I understood everything. They had straight dark hair, pronounced cheekbones, marked features, eyes similar to those of La Dama de Eche but somewhat more round and brown. Gracil but not so much, were fibrados and strong, they were not easy adversaries. Look straight ahead and they are brave but without intending to start them a fight.


Like water and oil, that man had no intention of integrating with the newcomers and therein lies his disappearance.


Those of the Steppe attacked in group to the natives, their towns to all the tribe, but nevertheless fled and avoided the confrontation with a group of native men. It was the system of the newcomers to attack the family nucleus and the tribes but they withdrew if they had to fight with a group of native men who came out to meet them, that is what finally defeated them.
 
I am only finding time to reply now.

A quick look at the haplogroups by period reveals that:

New lineages that appear during the Chalcolithic include:

- I2a1a-M26 and I2a1b-M423. Until the MLN, the I2 individuals all belonged to I2a2 - mostly the now rare Western European L1228 clade, but also to Z161.

the other Iberian Paper found M26 in MLN Els Trocs, 5.9-5.65 ka
 
I believe you, but sample ID?


copy&paste better
;)

BAL0051 could be assigned to haplogroup I1, while BAL003 carries the C1a1a haplogroup. To the limits of our typing resolution,
EN/MN individuals CHA001, CHA003, ELT002 and ELT006 share haplogroup I2a1b, which was also reported for Loschbour [73] and
Motala HG [13], and other LN and Chalcolithic individuals from Iberia [7, 9], as well as Neolithic Scotland, France, England [9], and
Lithuania [14]. Both C1 and I1/ I2 are considered typical European HG lineages prior to the arrival of farming. Interestingly, CHA002
was assigned to haplogroup R1b-M343, which together with an EN individual from Cova de Els Trocs (R1b1a) confirms the presence
of R1b in Western Europe prior to the expansion of steppe pastoralists that established a related male lineage in Bronze Age Europe
[3, 6, 9, 13, 19]. The geographical vicinity and contemporaneity of these two sites led us to run genomic kinship analysis in order to
rule out any first or second degree of relatedness. Early Neolithic individual FUC003 carries the Y haplogroup G2a2a1, commonly
found in other EN males from Neolithic Anatolia [13], Starc¸ evo, LBK Hungary [18], Impressa from Croatia and Serbia Neolithic [19]
and Czech Neolithic [9], but also in MN Croatia [19] and Chalcolithic Iberia [9].

ok, I was too quick, the cardials were those from Cueva Chaves.
 
With the Anatolian farmers and HGs, was it not the case that they were near each other but not within the same settlements? Whereas with the arrival of the Bell Beakers, they moved into pre-existing Iberian settlements? That's a big difference really, for two groups to be living side-by-side and not mixing requires a caste system or segregation. Even if I believe this to be true, it isn't necessarily the case that one group is above the other, though of course they were successful invaders so that is to be expected.

To the best of my recollection there is nothing in the paper which indicates that.

It's very unwise to speculate based on facts which haven't been checked.

If that "was" the case it would be helpful if you could direct us to the place where it is so stated.
 
from the paper "PLA DE L’HORTA (SARRIÀ DE TER, GIRONA): UNA NECRÓPOLIS CON INHUMACIONES VISIGODAS EN LA TARRACONENSE ORIENTAL", googletranslated:

Concluding, in Pla de l'Horta we are facing
a necropolis largely comparable to most
of those that extend in the center of the peninsula
Iberian and that responds to the most common parameters
of this type of necropolis. Located near a large
communication route (the Via Augusta) and a major river
(the Ter), next to an old Roman villa,
It extends over a flat, gently sloping ground
towards the east, in the direction of the road and the river. Known
in a partial way, it is composed of a minimum
of 58 burials, none of them reused,
most in pit and a few (16) in cist,
other types of tomb being absolutely minority
(a tegulae box and a sarcophagus). In one part
important of the inhumations objects were recovered
of typical Germanic ornamentation
(brooches, buckles, fibulae ...), and its chronology
could establish quite accurately between finals
of the V century and the beginning of the VII as extreme dates.
We do not doubt that we are in front of a cemetery
unique in this area, used by elements of
Goth origin and Arian confession, establishing
so in this case a direct relationship between the type of
necropolis and the ethnic-cultural characteristics of
buried in it, an extreme that has sometimes
questioned or has been relativized in other cases
similar42. We do not know with absolute certainty the
habitat of those buried in Pla de l'Horta, but the
Visigoth presence in this region is more than enough
justified given the proximity of the strategic city
of Gerunda, the existence of a military castellum
control of an important communication channel
and, even, the possibility of reoccupation of an important
Roman villa as was Pla de l'Horta.
Finally, we can not escape that abandonment
of the necropolis coincides roughly with
the unifying provisions of Leovigildo and Recaredo
and the conversion to Catholicism of the community
goda Undoubtedly, the Visigoths of the region (except
probably those who resided in it
city ​​of Gerunda, which already had its own areas
cemeteries) were buried thereafter
elsewhere, perhaps in the old church of Sant
Julià, but also, why not, in a cemetery
common with the Hispano-Romans in the area, that we could
locate in all probability in the neighbor and
nearby necropolis of Les Goges, clearly dated
 
This Visigothic cemetery is a unicum in the region, not the best to do a time transect... but maybe very good data for an independent paper; well, there are many more local's cemeteries.
 
Another Global25 model for Visigoths, I used in total 17 reference populations in this run:

[1] "1. CLOSEST SINGLE ITEM DISTANCE%"
Poprad_Medieval Scythian_Ukraine Iberia_North_IA
3.701866 4.888225 4.947389
Iberia_Northeast_RomP Scythian_Moldova Balkans_BA
5.069968 5.216240 5.797893
Slavic_Bohemia Iberia_East_IA
5.916174 5.990847

[1] "distance%=1.2088" - distance is very good

Iberia_Northeast_c.6CE_PL

Poprad_Medieval - 23% (East Germanic from Slovakia)
Scythian_Ukraine - 16%
Iberia_Northeast_RomP - 12.2%
Sweden_Viking_Age - 10.2%
Iberia_East_IA - 10%
Balkans_IA - 7.6%
Nordic_IA - 6.6%
Scythian_Moldova - 6%
Mycenaean - 4.8%
Iberia_Southeast_c.3-4CE - 2%
Slavic_Bohemia - 1.6%

Reference populations used (do you think I should add something more and try again?):

Avar_Hungary_Szolad:Av1
Avar_Hungary_Szolad:Av2
Avar_Hungary_Szolad
Nordic_IA
Balkans_IA
Balkans_BA
Slavic_Bohemia
Iberia_North_IA
Iberia_Northeast_RomP
Iberia_Southeast_c.3-4CE
Iberia_East_IA
Baltic_IA
Scythian_Ukraine
Scythian_Moldova
Sweden_Viking_Age
Poprad_Medieval
Mycenaean
 
Another model also 17 pops but Poprad_Medieval removed and Germany_Medieval added:

[1] "distance%=1.1958"

Iberia_Northeast_c.6CE_PL

Germany_Medieval - 30.8%
Scythian_Ukraine - 16.2%
Iberia_East_IA - 14.6%
Iberia_Northeast_RomP - 13.2%
Balkans_IA - 10.2%
Scythian_Moldova - 8.4%
Slavic_Bohemia - 6.2%
Iberia_Southeast_c.3-4CE - 0.4%

And when using both Poprad_Medieval and Germany_Medieval (in total 18 reference pops):

[1] "distance%=1.1498"

Iberia_Northeast_c.6CE_PL

Germany_Medieval - 20.2%
Scythian_Ukraine - 16%
Poprad_Medieval - 14.6%
Iberia_Northeast_RomP - 12%
Iberia_East_IA - 11.8%
Balkans_IA - 8.2%
Scythian_Moldova - 5.4%
Sweden_Viking_Age - 4.6%
Mycenaean - 3.8%
Slavic_Bohemia - 3%
Iberia_Southeast_c.3-4CE - 0.4%
 
To the best of my recollection there is nothing in the paper which indicates that.

It's very unwise to speculate based on facts which haven't been checked.

If that "was" the case it would be helpful if you could direct us to the place where it is so stated.

I'm too lazy really but check here - http://homeland.ku.dk/ - it gives the exact location of the samples, so go to around like the 2500 BCE mark and zoom in all the way to the red shapes (Steppe) and you'll see basically all of them are in the same settlements as the yellow shapes (Farmer). The new study has many more samples but it'll be the same thing - the archaeology is pretty clear anyway that Bell Beakers were limited to certain clusters of sites and not spread diffusely.

Also, why is it so "unwise" - there's no reason to be so snarky, I'd prefer if I was wrong that you made me look like an idiot instead.
 
Another model also 17 pops but Poprad_Medieval removed and Germany_Medieval added:

[1] "distance%=1.1958"

Iberia_Northeast_c.6CE_PL

Germany_Medieval - 30.8%
Scythian_Ukraine - 16.2%
Iberia_East_IA - 14.6%
Iberia_Northeast_RomP - 13.2%
Balkans_IA - 10.2%
Scythian_Moldova - 8.4%
Slavic_Bohemia - 6.2%
Iberia_Southeast_c.3-4CE - 0.4%

And when using both Poprad_Medieval and Germany_Medieval (in total 18 reference pops):

[1] "distance%=1.1498"

Iberia_Northeast_c.6CE_PL

Germany_Medieval - 20.2%
Scythian_Ukraine - 16%
Poprad_Medieval - 14.6%
Iberia_Northeast_RomP - 12%
Iberia_East_IA - 11.8%
Balkans_IA - 8.2%
Scythian_Moldova - 5.4%
Sweden_Viking_Age - 4.6%
Mycenaean - 3.8%
Slavic_Bohemia - 3%
Iberia_Southeast_c.3-4CE - 0.4%

Have you taken a look at the Ostrogothic guy from Kerch?

I really hope someone from the prominent teams takes a look at Jastorf, so we get an idea what the earliest discernible Germanic groups looked like.
 
I should not use Scythians_Ukraine average because it was an internally diverse group.

I will remove Scythians and try again. Or try with individual Scythians instead of average.
 
Ukrainian Scythians removed from the model, but I still included Scythians Moldova (400-200 BC):

[1] "distance%=1.2278"

Iberia_Northeast_c.6CE_PL

Germany_Medieval - 19.8%
Poprad_Medieval - 14.6%
Iberia_Northeast_RomP - 14.2%
Slavic_Bohemia - 11.8%
Iberia_East_IA - 11%
Scythian_Moldova - 11%
Sweden_Viking_Age - 7.4%
Mycenaean - 5.6%
Balkans_IA - 4.6%
 

This thread has been viewed 53162 times.

Back
Top