Estimating Germanic Y-DNA in Iberia

[Maciamo]

Spain and Portugal are fairly well studied countries for Y-chromosomal lineages. Unfortunately no study so far has tested for the Germanic S21/U106 subclade of R1b, and few papers even distinguish subclades of I (those who did only tested for I2a1a-M26).

I have analysed the raw data from Adams et al. (2008) and attempted to identify by myself the subclades of I as well as R1b-S21 by looking for the DYS390=23 values. About 80% of R1b-S21 has the value 23 at DYS390, which corresponds generally to the Frisian L48 subclade (close to 100% of which have DYS390=23). It's not a perfectly reliable method since DYS390=23 is also found at low frequency among some other R1b subclades - although I have excluded those found among the M153 and SRY2627 subclades.

Consequently it is important to compare the frequencies for haplogroups I1 and I2b1 with those of DYS390=23 so as to get a reasonable idea of the impact of Germanic peoples (Visigoths, Suebi, Vandals, Franks) on the Iberian gene pool.

Here is the data.


Aragon (n=34)

I1 = 2 (6%)
I2b1 = 1 (3%)
R1b3 S21 (DYS390=23) = 5 (14.7%)

Asturias (n=20)

I1 = 1 (5%)
I2b1 = 0 (0%)
R1b3 S21 (DYS390=23) = 2 (10%)


Basque Country (n=116)

I1 = 1 (0.85%)
I2b1 = 0 (0%)
R1b3 S21 (DYS390=23) = 14 (12%)


Catalonia (n=80)

I1 = 0 (0%)
I2b1 = 0 (0%)
R1b3 S21 (DYS390=23) = 5 (6.25%)


Castilla La Mancha (n=63)

I1 = 0 (0%)
I2b1 = 0 (0%)
R1b3 S21 (DYS390=23) = 9 (14.2%)


East Andalusia (n=95)

I1 = 0 (0%)
I2b1 = 1 (1%)
R1b3 S21 (DYS390=23) = 8 (8%)


Extremadura (n=52)

I1 = 3 (6%)
I2b1 = 1 (2%)
R1b3 S21 (DYS390=23) = 4 (8%)


Galicia (n=88)

I1 = 4 (4.5%)
I2b1 = 2 (2.2%)
R1b3 S21 (DYS390=23) = 8 (9%)


Northeast Castille (n=31)

I1 = 0 (0%)
I2b1 = 0 (0%)
R1b3 S21 (DYS390=23) = 3 (9.6%)


North Portugal (n=60)

I1 = 0 (0%)
I2b1 = 1 (1.6%)
R1b3 S21 (DYS390=23) = 5 (8.3%)


Northwest Castille (n=100)

I1 = 0 (0%)
I2b1 = 1 (1%)
R1b3 S21 (DYS390=23) = 8 (8%)


South Portugal (n=78)

I1 = 0 (0%)
I2b1 = 0 (0%)
R1b3 S21 (DYS390=23) = 5 (6.4%)


Valencia (n=73)

I1 = 3 (4.1%)
I2b1 = 1 (1.3%)
R1b3 S21 (DYS390=23) = 7 (9.5%)


West Andalusia (n=73)

I1 = 0 (0%)
I2b1 = 1 (1.3%)
R1b3 S21 (DYS390=23) = 7 (9.6%)


Ibiza (n=54)

I1 = 0 (0%)
I2b1 = 0 (0%)
R1b3 S21 (DYS390=23) = 5 (9.2%)


Majorca (n=62)

I1 = 3 (4.8%)
I2b1 = 0 (0%)
R1b3 S21 (DYS390=23) = 6 (9.6%)


Minorca (n=37)

I1 = 0 (0%)
I2b1 = 0 (0%)
R1b3 S21 (DYS390=23) = 4 (10.8%)


The frequency of R1b with DYS390=23 is surprisingly homogeneous all over Iberia, oscillating around 8% and 10% of the male population. Only South Portugal and Catalonia have less than 8%. Three regions exceed 10%: Aragon (14.7%), Castilla La Mancha (14.2%) and the Basque country (12%).

The Basques, however, have less than 1% of I1 and no I2b1 or R1a at all (this was confirmed by other, larger studies on the Basques), an almost undeniable proof that they have close to no Germanic ancestry, if proof was needed. The Basque DNA Project at FTDNA does not have a single R1b-U106 among members who tested for deep clades, and the U106 Project also lacks any member in or near the Basque country. The high percentage of DYS390=23 can therefore be considered to be due exclusively to the extremely high percentage of R1b (85%) among the Basques. If there is 12% of DYS390=23 among the 85% of Basques R1b and none of it is S21, that would give a ratio of 14% of non-Germanic R1b in Iberia that would misleadingly show up as DYS390=23. If I take an average of 9% of DYS390=23 for Iberia and 65% of R1b, we get about the same ratio of 14%. So it is well possible that very little DYS390=23 in Iberia corresponds to actual R1b-S21. Overall I think it is safe to consider that the percentage of R1b-S21 should always be a bit lower than I1.

My analysis of Germanic Y-DNA in Italy has assessed that the Lombards and Vandals at least, who both originated in southern Sweden, carried around 40% of I1, 30% of R1b, 25% of R1a and 5% of I2b1, not unlike modern Swedes. The Vandals probably didn't have much impact on the Iberian population. It is especially the Suebi who left a clear genetic print around Galicia, Portugal and Extremadura. Based on all the Y-DNA studies on Iberia (and not just Adams et al.) the peak of I1 in Iberia is to be found in Extremadura (3.5%) and Galicia (3%), while I2b peaks in Portugal at 3% (although that could include some Celtic I2b2). The Old Castile, founded by the Visigoths, has precious little I1 or I2b1 - one of the blanks on the map of Iberia along with Andalusia and Murcia.

There have been plenty of discussions on the reasons why the former Suebi kingdom had so much Germanic Y-DNA compared to the former Visigothic kingdom. Of all the Germanic peoples from the migration period the genetic impact of Visigoths is the most elusive. I believe that the reason is that the Goths stayed for many centuries in Eastern Europe and nearly two more centuries in the Balkans before invading Italy and Iberia and could have assimilated a lot of non-Germanic people, notably R1a and I2a1b Slavs and predominantly E1b1b, I2a1b and J2 Balkanic people. It would be pretty complicated at the moment to untangle the Balkanic E1b1b and J2 from all the others (Neolithic, Phoenician, Greek, Roman, Jewish, Arabic) found in Iberia. But it is remarkably easy to check the Eastern European I2a1b (M423). It is all the I2a that is not M26. And I cannot reasonably imagine who could have brought it in any number to Iberia besides the Eastern European populations assimilated by the Goths. The I2a Project at FTDNA has three M423-Dinaric-N and one M423-Isles-B2 from Spain.

It's a pity that no study looks at the subclades of R1a in Iberia, and that no member at the House of Spain DNA Project deemed necessary to test for deep clades. The Phoenicians and Jews could have brought some R1a-Z93 to the Mediterranean coast. Apart from that, all the R1a in Spain should have come with the Germanic migrations. It would be interesting to see how much of it is truly Germanic (L664, Z284) and how much is Slavic. By doing the same for Italy, and combining the figures with the percentage of I2a1b (M423), we could get a fairly accurate imagine of how Slavicised the Goths had become before invading the Roman Empire. It's probably no coincidence that the highest concentrations of R1a in Iberia, aside from the Mediterranean coast, are found in northern Castile, Asturias and Cantabria, the core of the old Visigothic kingdom before the Reconquista. The R1a in Cantabria is accompanied by typically East European mtDNA haplogroups like T1, T3, T5, U2, U3, U4 and U5b.

[sparkey]

More evidence for East Germanic peoples having higher I1 than R1b, unlike West Germanic peoples who have higher R1b, is the high I1 : R1b-U106 ratio in the Balkans. Put together with the geographic distribution of apparently Germanic Y-DNA in Iberia that you mention, and it is striking how much more Germanic Y-DNA the Suebi (and Franks?) seem to have introduced than the Goths (and Vandals?).

Using I2a-Din is an interesting trick to untangle the non-Germanic Y-DNA that was nonetheless introduced by the Visigoths, but can you get a number out of that? The I2a-Din in Iberia, even though samples exist, must be in the ~1% range, if that. I also doubt I2a-Din had finished expanding in Southeastern Europe by the time the Visigoths settled in Iberia, so using the I2a-Din figure is likely to give too low a number if we assume that I2a-Din frequencies were similar then to what they are now. So I'm not sure at this time how we can extract total the Y-DNA impact (Germanic and non-Germanic) of the Visigoths.

[Sile]

More evidence for East Germanic peoples having higher I1 than R1b, unlike West Germanic peoples who have higher R1b, is the high I1 : R1b-U106 ratio in the Balkans. Put together with the geographic distribution of apparently Germanic Y-DNA in Iberia that you mention, and it is striking how much more Germanic Y-DNA the Suebi (and Franks?) seem to have introduced than the Goths (and Vandals?).

Using I2a-Din is an interesting trick to untangle the non-Germanic Y-DNA that was nonetheless introduced by the Visigoths, but can you get a number out of that? The I2a-Din in Iberia, even though samples exist, must be in the ~1% range, if that. I also doubt I2a-Din had finished expanding in Southeastern Europe by the time the Visigoths settled in Iberia, so using the I2a-Din figure is likely to give too low a number if we assume that I2a-Din frequencies were similar then to what they are now. So I'm not sure at this time how we can extract total the Y-DNA impact (Germanic and non-Germanic) of the Visigoths.

You seem to be against Ken stating that I1 are baltic people and not germanic. a conversation with ken below:
Ken is in bold
Overnight two more members of CTS6364+ L22- showed up in FTDNA reports.
This is a gateway branch to the robust L22+ sector of the tree, as L22+
seems to be all CTS6364+
The two new 67 marker haplotype members have Polish surnames. There is an
eastern German surname which I am close to sure will test positive for this
haplogroup. This reinforces my hunch that the origins of I1 some 4500 years
ago will be more to the east than earlier expectations --- maybe Prussia or
Pomerania. Perhaps the late blooming I1 moved up into the north German
plain along the Elbe corridor, while M223+ Z161+ moved up using more the
Danube/Rhine route? My prejudice for the pre-agriculture staging area for
haplogroup I remains the middle Danube basin (present day Bohemia or
thereabouts).
Ken, I noticed you mentioned Prussia with Pomerania. Prussia is a very
broad, general territory unless you are speaking of Old Prussia or
specifically the area along Baltic east/northeast from Poland, mostly
Lithuania.
For most of my nine years in the hobby I have believed there is a close
association of U106+ R1b..... with I1 x L22

But by Prussia I mean the geographical heartland of the peoples once called
Prussians, not the political empire that the Prussians built up among the
German peoples in historic times.

You mean Old-Prussia (Alt-Preussen) vs. Prussian Duchy/ Kingdom/ Empire
Something like that. There was even originally a language of the Prussians
I believe, not part of the standard Germanic or Slavic language group,
although part of the Indo-European language group. Perhaps related to
Latvian?
They were Balts, related to Lithuanians (Samogitians).
Do you see any particular subclades of R1a, say Z284, lining up with
R1b-U106 and I1xL22?

I guess what I'm really getting to is who got to Scandinavia before the
formation of Proto-Germanic group and who came to Scandinavia as part of
the expansion of Germanics?
AS1 clade of I1 (L338+) has a definite geographical bias toward the west
(Netherlands, etc.) and there is a part of U106 which has the same. I'm
sure by now you have a snp for the low countries' brand of U106.
It seemed to me those two clades got their original demographic kick within
the same tribe --- perhaps the proto-Saxons. The U106 clade I'm talking
about, however, might be a bit older. Do you have a tmrca for it? KN]]

[sparkey]

You seem to be against Ken stating that I1 are baltic people and not germanic.

He's not "stating that I1 are baltic people and not germanic." He's not saying anything stronger than:

...the origins of I1 some 4500 years
ago will be more to the east than earlier expectations --- maybe Prussia or
Pomerania.

Nowhere does he conclude definitively that the MRCA of I1 was Baltic, or that any major I1 expansions were Baltic, etc. It's pretty clear from the data I've seen that Balts of all types, including Old Prussians, have/had lower I1 than practically all Germanic populations. I doubt anybody is certain what culture the MRCA of I1 belonged to. The more interesting question is: which populations expanded I1? Suggesting that the I1 MRCA lived east of the Germanic core area doesn't negate the fact that its later expansion was largely with Germanic peoples. Actually, it might even support my point that East Germanic peoples are more likely to have I1 than West Germanic peoples, if the place with the highest I1 diversity is east of the place with the highest R1b-U106 diversity.

Besides, what does this have to do with my idea about the relative proportion of I1 : R1b in East vs. West Germanic peoples? Are you suggesting that I1 got to the Balkans or to Iberia with the Balts? That doesn't even make sense.

[tjlowery87]

I guess im more simpler then most folks....i1 in west Europe.....germanic

[tjlowery87]

be warned fire haired will be on soon to say yall are all wrong...lol just kidding

[Sile]

He's not "stating that I1 are baltic people and not germanic." He's not saying anything stronger than:



Nowhere does he conclude definitively that the MRCA of I1 was Baltic, or that any major I1 expansions were Baltic, etc. It's pretty clear from the data I've seen that Balts of all types, including Old Prussians, have/had lower I1 than practically all Germanic populations. I doubt anybody is certain what culture the MRCA of I1 belonged to. The more interesting question is: which populations expanded I1? Suggesting that the I1 MRCA lived east of the Germanic core area doesn't negate the fact that its later expansion was largely with Germanic peoples. Actually, it might even support my point that East Germanic peoples are more likely to have I1 than West Germanic peoples, if the place with the highest I1 diversity is east of the place with the highest R1b-U106 diversity.

Besides, what does this have to do with my idea about the relative proportion of I1 : R1b in East vs. West Germanic peoples? Are you suggesting that I1 got to the Balkans or to Iberia with the Balts? That doesn't even make sense.

he states , not germanic nor slavic language group......what else is there, baltic and Finnic ........I recall no other, do you?
These Ken statements are from late June 2013, they are not from the distant past.

I do support your theory that I1 was more easterly than the west-germanic people, but what people where easterly, the lusitanian cultural people?
If we follow Jordanes ( which I do not, ) , then he states that the Goths homeland was from Dacia ( being I1 and I2a1 ) moved to the baltic coast prior to invading the Roman empire in the balkans. This is the Polish Theory.
The Gutes from Sweden reflect the go(u)ttones of Ptolemy who went to the baltic coast.

I believe the Vandals from Scandia settled in pomerania and over time assimilated into/the the native people there ( who where of baltic origin) and later under a germanic tongue, led the germanic invasions of the Roman empire. The goths already on the black sea coast joined in.

in regards to "relative proportion of I1 : R1b in East vs. West Germanic peoples". The marker U106 is clearly a west-germanic marker, a frisii , suebi marker between Netherlands and denmark. and later know as a Frankish marker. This marker in iberia is clearly a separate "invasion" and not the balkan invasion by the germanic people. So I agree


Maybe
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...l=1#post383585

was correct, I1 was always in the balkans and moved north . Then again, what where the baltic people markers on the coast since they are older than germanic or slavic people?

[nordicwarrior]

Oh boy, I think I'm opposed to these haplogroup "pairings". Where is the hard evidence? I say we wait for the ancient remains to be tested.

It's my opinion the best tools right now to trace hg. I1 movement are the subclade maps on FTDNA. Interestingly, there aren't huge gaps in the locations of these major I1 lines-- those who claim pronounced differences aren't seeing what I'm seeing. Please check for yourself.

Using I and R linkages should only be used as a hint in where to look, but this system of thought shouldn't pass for real proof.

[sparkey]

Oh boy, I think I'm opposed to these haplogroup "pairings". Where is the hard evidence? I say we wait for the ancient remains to be tested.

Yikes, so we need to wait for not only ancient samples to confirm presence, but enough ancient samples to confirm frequencies, across all of the source populations of interest? We could be waiting a very long time. I say let's have some fun now with the patterns we already see.

It's my opinion the best tool right now to trace hg. I1 movements are the subclade maps on FTDNA. Interestingly, there aren't huge gaps in the locations of these major I1 lines-- those who claim major differences aren't seeing what I'm seeing. Please check for yourself.

Who are you responding to here?

[nordicwarrior]

Sorry for the mix-up Sparkey, nobody on this thread. I have seen other conversations recently where the differences in location of the main I1 lines have been greatly exaggerated though. A red headed wrestler comes to mind. :) **EDIT** Even Ken seems to buy in to the idea that there are sizable geographical distances in the Norse clades early on. I don't agree, not yet anyway.

As long as this conversation is for fun, I can hang with it. By the way, anyone hear an update on those findings from Denmark?

[Maciamo]

he states , not germanic nor slavic language group......what else is there, baltic and Finnic ........I recall no other, do you?
These Ken statements are from late June 2013, they are not from the distant past.

That's a mute point. There were no Germanic languages 4500 years ago. The first Proto-Germanic speakers appeared around 3600 years ago with the Nordic Bronze Age, and the language didn't become properly Germanic until 2500 years ago according to most linguists. I don't know anybody reasonable and knowledgeable who would claim that Neolithic I1 people were Germanic or even Indo-European speakers. Proto-Germanic language developed when R1b people reached Scandinavia and mixed with the I1 and R1a people from Corded Ware. There is no Germanic people, culture or language without that trihybrid blend.

Obviously before the Indo-Europeans' arrival, the Nordic and Baltic I1 people spoke an Uralic language. So much can be guessed from the Finns and the Sami, who both have a lot of I1 (but hardly any R1b) and still speak Uralic languages.

[Sile]

That's a mute point. There were no Germanic languages 4500 years ago. The first Proto-Germanic speakers appeared around 3600 years ago with the Nordic Bronze Age, and the language didn't become properly Germanic until 2500 years ago according to most linguists. I don't know anybody reasonable and knowledgeable who would claim that Neolithic I1 people were Germanic or even Indo-European speakers. Proto-Germanic language developed when R1b people reached Scandinavia and mixed with the I1 and R1a people from Corded Ware. There is no Germanic people, culture or language without that trihybrid blend.

Obviously before the Indo-Europeans' arrival, the Nordic and Baltic I1 people spoke an Uralic language. So much can be guessed from the Finns and the Sami, who both have a lot of I1 (but hardly any R1b) and still speak Uralic languages.

I agree

Would there then be a chance that this "baltic I1" migration went to Scandinavian and then relayed to Iberia. looking at Latvian numbers
38 percent of Latvian men belong to Y-DNA haplogroup N1c1. The common European haplogroup R1b was discovered in 12 percent of Latvian men. Rounding out the list of Latvian Y-DNA haplogroups are I1 (6%), I2a (1%), I2b (1%), J2 (0.5%), E1b1b (0.5%), Q (0.5%), and T (0.5%).
12% of R1b and 6% of I1

and estonian
Estonian men is N, found among 34 percent of those tested, followed by R1a, found in about 32 percent. I1 is found in 15%, R1b in 8%, T in 3.5%, I2* and/or I2a in 3%, E1b1b in 2.5%, J2 in 1%, I2b in 0.5%, and Q in 0.5%.
8% of R1b and 15% of I1

Both are decent enough to carry R1b and I1 from east to west

[Maciamo]

I agree

Would there then be a chance that this "baltic I1" migration went to Scandinavian and then relayed to Iberia. looking at Latvian numbers
38 percent of Latvian men belong to Y-DNA haplogroup N1c1. The common European haplogroup R1b was discovered in 12 percent of Latvian men. Rounding out the list of Latvian Y-DNA haplogroups are I1 (6%), I2a (1%), I2b (1%), J2 (0.5%), E1b1b (0.5%), Q (0.5%), and T (0.5%).
12% of R1b and 6% of I1

and estonian
Estonian men is N, found among 34 percent of those tested, followed by R1a, found in about 32 percent. I1 is found in 15%, R1b in 8%, T in 3.5%, I2* and/or I2a in 3%, E1b1b in 2.5%, J2 in 1%, I2b in 0.5%, and Q in 0.5%.
8% of R1b and 15% of I1

Both are decent enough to carry R1b and I1 from east to west

Pre-I1 has been around the Baltic since the Mesolithic. I1 developed around the Baltic during the late Neolithic. I1 remained there until the Iron Age, when Germanic people started expanding south to Magna Germania, then when they invaded the Roman Empire. I really don't see any way I1 could have reached southern Europe before the late Roman period. If a very old migration (e.g. 2500 BCE) had taken place from northern to southern Europe, there would be uniquely southern I1 subclades in the south splitting very early in the phylogeny. The fact is that there isn't any uniquely southern European subclade of I1.

I don't see what hg N and R1b have anything to do with this, or with one another. N1c1 came westward from Siberia. R1b in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania came eastward from Germany and Poland during the Bronze Age, then again in various waves with the Vikings and the Teutonic knights during the Middle Ages, then again the Swedes during the Renaissance.

[kamani]

If a very old migration (e.g. 2500 BCE) had taken place from northern to southern Europe, there would be uniquely southern I1 subclades in the south splitting very early in the phylogeny. The fact is that there isn't any uniquely southern European subclade of I1.

My data shows ~9% I-M253 (no subclades) for South-Albania. The percentage lowers to 5% as you go North to Kosovo and then it drops to 2-3% in ex-Jugoslavian countries and Greece (based on published sources). How can you explain this distribution? If it were the Middle-age/late Roman Germanic migrations, the percentage would lower as you go South, but the opposite is true in this case.

[Maciamo]

My data shows ~9% I-M253 (no subclades) for South-Albania. The percentage lowers to 5% as you go North to Kosovo and then it drops to 2-3% in ex-Jugoslavian countries and Greece (based on published sources). How can you explain this distribution? If it were the Middle-age/late Roman Germanic migrations, the percentage would lower as you go South, but the opposite is true in this case.

The Goths. They settled in the southern Balkans for 200 years before migrating to Italy, France and Spain.

[kamani]

The Goths. They settled in the southern Balkans for 200 years before migrating to Italy, France and Spain.

9% I1, 3% I2b, 5% R1b L21, 3% R1b L48, 7% nordic R1a, means Albania is 26% Gothic...

[Shetop]

9% I1, 3% I2b, 5% R1b L21, 3% R1b L48, 7% nordic R1a, means Albania is 26% Gothic...

Where did you get that data?
Please give a source. If you don't, it would be wise to consider the data as a fabrication. Some of the percentages you posted simply make no sense.

[kamani]

Where did you get that data?
Please give a source. If you don't, it would be wise to consider the data as a fabrication. Some of the percentages you posted simply make no sense.

Consider it however you want, the data is from my own head count of about 70 people.

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Consider it however you want, the data is from my own head count of about 70 people.

That doesn't work. We need sources / facts to buttress opinions.

[Johannes]

"I believe that the reason is that the Goths stayed for many centuries in Eastern Europe and nearly two more centuries in the Balkans before invading Italy and Iberia and could have assimilated a lot of non-Germanic people, notably R1a and I2a1b Slavs and predominantly E1b1b, I2a1b and J2 Balkanic people."


This is incorrect Maciamo. I just read this thread, which was started one year ago, and found it interesting but with inaccuracies. I have read extensively on the Visigoths since my ancestors came from the same region they settled. If you would have read the history of the goths more carefully you would have known that they settled in Poland along the Vistula River (Weilbark Culture) and lived there for about 200-300 years, from about 100 BC to 200 AD (Jordanes who is unreliable claims 400 years). Either way the Slavic homeland has now been accepted by historians to have been in the Pripet Marshes around Belarus and western Ukraine. Thus they were never near the Goths. When the Goths migrated into "Oium" (southern Ukraine) in the second century AD they did meet the Slavs living in what is today western Ukraine, but they never settled there (Jordanes states that the Goths offered the Slavs battle but the Slavs refused). Therefore no Slav DNA was absorbed.

When the Goths arrived at the steppes (somewhere near Uman or south of Kiev) they split up into several groups -- the West Goths went into what is now Moldova and eventually into southern Romania. The Visigoths lived there about 200 years. The Gepids, Heruli, and Rugii seem to have followed the Visigoths but then went into Hungary and Slovakia, (but some seem to have followed the Ostrogoths, since they are mentioned as raiding Greece and Anatolia). The Ostrogoths went and settled in what is now southern Ukraine, between the Prut and Dnepr River. There were never any Slavs in the Ukrainian steppes or in Moldova or Romania or Hungary at that time. There were only Sarmatians and Scythians in that region and the Goths did conquer them. So any DNA the Ostrogoths picked up was R1a from the Sarmatian and Scythian peoples. But I doubt they altered the DNA of the Ostrogoths. The Visigoths on the other hand absorbed 0% Slavic genes, but I will admit they must have absorbed some J2 and E1b1 from Greeks and other Balkan peoples.

"The Goths. They settled in the southern Balkans for 200 years before migrating to Italy, France and Spain."

Only the Visigoths settled in the southern Balkans for less than 200 years. But they lived in what is now Moldova. If Moldova is considered part of the Balkans then yes. The Gepids and Rugii and Heruli lived in the north part of the Balkans. The Visigoths were pushed into the Roman Empire by their brothers the Ostrogoths at the end of the 4th century AD due to pressure by the Huns. After being defeated by the Huns the Ostrogoths followed Attila into Hungary and joined their brothers the Gepids and settled there at the end of the 4th century AD.

After destroying 3-4 legions, including the emperor Valens, at the Battle of Adrianople, the Visigoths wandered around the Balkans but were denied any land to settle. They eventually moved into Italy and sacked Rome in 410 AD. They were finally granted lands to settle in southwest France. So if they picked up any DNA it would have been in Romania/Moldova were they lived for about 200 years and in southern France. But since the Dacians were exterminated by the Romans it is very doubtful they picked up any Balkan DNA of considerable amounts.

In conclusion, I believe very little J2 and E1b1 or Slavic I2b were absorbed by the Goths. No slabs ever lived in the Balkans before the 7th century AD. And any people who lived in the southern Balkans who had J2 and E1b1 must have been negligible unless they lived in the Roman Empire. In other words, the Balkans were depopulated by neolithic peoples outside the Roman frontiers. Only Germanic and Dacians lived there. But since the Dacians were exterminated then only the Germans occupied it for 200-300 years.

[LeBrok]

"I believe that the reason is that the Goths stayed for many centuries in Eastern Europe and nearly two more centuries in the Balkans before invading Italy and Iberia and could have assimilated a lot of non-Germanic people, notably R1a and I2a1b Slavs and predominantly E1b1b, I2a1b and J2 Balkanic people."

For the lack of genetic evidence from Goth's genome, and lack of central and north european admixtures in Iberia, we are almost shooting blanks here.

This is incorrect Maciamo. I just read this thread, which was started one year ago, and found it interesting but with inaccuracies. I have read extensively on the Visigoths since my ancestors came from the same region they settled. If you would have read the history of the goths more carefully you would have known that they settled in Poland along the Vistula River (Weilbark Culture) and lived there for about 200-300 years, from about 100 BC to 200 AD (Jordanes who is unreliable claims 400 years). Either way the Slavic homeland has now been accepted by historians to have been in the Pripet Marshes around Belarus and western Ukraine. Thus they were never near the Goths. When the Goths migrated into "Oium" (southern Ukraine) in the second century AD they did meet the Slavs living in what is today western Ukraine, but they never settled there (Jordanes states that the Goths offered the Slavs battle but the Slavs refused). Therefore no Slav DNA was absorbed.

I was reading some time ago that in Wielbark Culture there were examples of coexistance of distinct villages (different cultures) close by. It might be true that Goths didn't mix much with locals from Vistula region, whoever lived there at the time.
Even if there were no Slavs by Vistula, the population must have been rich in R1a, I assume.

When the Goths arrived at the steppes (somewhere near Uman or south of Kiev) they split up into several groups -- the West Goths went into what is now Moldova and eventually into southern Romania. The Visigoths lived there about 200 years. The Gepids, Heruli, and Rugii seem to have followed the Visigoths but then went into Hungary and Slovakia, (but some seem to have followed the Ostrogoths, since they are mentioned as raiding Greece and Anatolia). The Ostrogoths went and settled in what is now southern Ukraine, between the Prut and Dnepr River. There were never any Slavs in the Ukrainian steppes or in Moldova or Romania or Hungary at that time. There were only Sarmatians and Scythians in that region and the Goths did conquer them. So any DNA the Ostrogoths picked up was R1a from the Sarmatian and Scythian peoples. But I doubt they altered the DNA of the Ostrogoths. The Visigoths on the other hand absorbed 0% Slavic genes, but I will admit they must have absorbed some J2 and E1b1 from Greeks and other Balkan peoples.

Interesting thought. If Goths mingled with locals in Balkans, they should have picked up lots of J and E. Then again we are not sure if they did.

In conclusion, I believe very little J2 and E1b1 or Slavic I2b were absorbed by the Goths. No slabs ever lived in the Balkans before the 7th century AD. And any people who lived in the southern Balkans who had J2 and E1b1 must have been negligible unless they lived in the Roman Empire. In other words, the Balkans were depopulated by neolithic peoples outside the Roman frontiers. Only Germanic and Dacians lived there. But since the Dacians were exterminated then only the Germans occupied it for 200-300 years.

The extermination of ethnicities is rather unlikely. From beginning of neolithic we can see substantial genetic continuation of locals in Europe. Cultures changed but people mostly stayed the same.

I don't believe that invasions of Goths, Vandals or Swabians to Iberia exceeded more than 5 percent of total Iberian population, probably even less and Vandals left anyway. Not numerous enough to change local genetics or local culture.
Probably when future genetic research analyzes village by village (small regions), with bigger definition than what we have right now, we should start seeing some more germanic haplotypes popping up in Iberia in some enclaves.

[Johannes]

"I was reading some time ago that in Wielbark Culture there were examples of coexistance of distinct villages (different cultures) close by. It might be true that Goths didn't mix much with locals from Vistula region, whoever lived there at the time.
Even if there were no Slavs by Vistula, the population must have been rich in R1a, I assume."

Yes, archaeologists have found sites that were near or next to the Wielbark Culture that were different. The problem is that it was hard to differentiate ethnicity because the skulls were very similar. However, the Vandals lived to next to the Goths on the left bank of the Vistula. On the right bank lived Balts and Slavs (Veneti).
Historians and archaeologists do not know exactly who were the Veneti -- German or Slav? Do you know what was the original or oldest DNA of the Slavs -- R1a or I2a1b? Since the Goths already contained a lot of R1a it did not alter their DNA considerable. Perhaps made it higher than other western Germans.


"Interesting thought. If Goths mingled with locals in Balkans, they should have picked up lots of J and E. Then again we are not sure if they did."

The Goths and their relatives -- the Gepids, Heruli, and Rugians -- never lived in the Balkans for a long time. They did live for a long time in the north of the Danube River. The Balkans are defined as all territories south of the Danube River up to Croatia and Serbia (following the Danube River). Hungary and Romania are not considered part of the Balkans. Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, and Moldova were sparsely populated when the German tribes came to occupy them. Any Neolithic farmers who stayed and lived in the forests of Transylvania and plains of Hungary and Wallachia were either fools or very brave because any Neolithic farmers would have been killed and/or enslaved. Worse: if the Huns would have gotten a hold of them it would have been hell. In fact the Huns are the ones who exterminated many of the peoples who lived in these areas, including Gothic peoples. So we must infer that the population was low at the time.

At that period people do't mix their DNA by shaking hands and dating. Peoples almost always mixed due to the effects of force and rape. Even when they are related by blood and culture. For example, the Romans and Sabines. Thus people who were invaded by more powerful nations usually left their villages or submitted to their will.

"The extermination of ethnicities is rather unlikely. From beginning of neolithic we can see substantial genetic continuation of locals in Europe. Cultures changed but people mostly stayed the same."

Well if you read the History of Romania you will learn that Emperor Trajan exterminated all the male Dacians and most of the women. Roman soldiers later married Dacian women and created the proto-Romanians. Dacia was then repopulated with a lot of Italians and others from Europe and Middle East. So they must have reintroduced a lot of G, J2 and E1b. But then Dacia was abandoned after the Goths attacked it in the middle of the 3rd century AD. Thus almost all of the population moved to the safe cities and towns below the Danube River. Thus very little mixture occurred between Germans and locals.

"I don't believe that invasions of Goths, Vandals or Swabians to Iberia exceeded more than 5 percent of total Iberian population, probably even less and Vandals left anyway. Not numerous enough to change local genetics or local culture.
Probably when future genetic research analyzes village by village (small regions), with bigger definition than what we have right now, we should start seeing some more germanic haplotypes popping up in Iberia in some enclaves."

When a master nation rules over another they usually increase their numbers. Why? because they get the best land, more wealth, and more women. Granted that the population of Iberia declined from 4 million to 3 million from the 4th to 5th centuries, due to famines, plagues and economic depression, the Germanics would have been affected -- but less. In the center and north of Iberia they did alter the DNA somewhat. I am sure if they do a careful and complete study of the northern Portuguese, Old Castilians, Leonese, and the Aragones you will find higher percentages than they have now. The reason why Germanic DNA is low in Iberia is due to low test numbers and includes the whole of Iberia. Iberia is much bigger than England or Germany or the Low Countries.

[sparkey]

Do you know what was the original or oldest DNA of the Slavs -- R1a or I2a1b?

R1a, presumably, owing to the fact that Slavs descend from Balto-Slavs, and Balts have high R1a but low I2a1b. It's possible that the Slavic ethnogenesis postdates the blending of R1a-carrying Balto-Slavs and some unknown I2a1b population, or that Balto-Slavs carried I2a1b earlier than that and I2a1b expanded within the subset of their population that became Slavs. Of course, we don't have ancient samples to confirm any of this yet.

[LeBrok]

It's possible that the Slavic ethnogenesis postdates the blending of R1a-carrying Balto-Slavs and some unknown I2a1b population, or that Balto-Slavs carried I2a1b earlier than that and I2a1b expanded within the subset of their population that became Slavs.

Recently I'm becoming a fan of this scenario. Looking at available ancient samples, it becomes obvious to see huge swings in Y-DNA haplogroups, especially connected to new variety of subclades expanding dramatically, while general autosomal admixtures don't point to population replacement, or other catastrophic changes. Other words, it is very natural and popular phenomenon.

[LeBrok]

Well if you read the History of Romania you will learn that Emperor Trajan exterminated all the male Dacians and most of the women. Roman soldiers later married Dacian women and created the proto-Romanians. Dacia was then repopulated with a lot of Italians and others from Europe and Middle East. So they must have reintroduced a lot of G, J2 and E1b. But then Dacia was abandoned after the Goths attacked it in the middle of the 3rd century AD. Thus almost all of the population moved to the safe cities and towns below the Danube River. Thus very little mixture occurred between Germans and locals.

When Romanians are analyzed autosomally or even with uniparental DNA they fit nicely into Balkans. They are not being located genetically in Italy or Near East. Whatever killing of dacians happened it wasn't as bad as historians say, or Dacians were strangers to this area anyway. We don't really see obvious correlation and relation between Italian and Romanian DNA. Obviously cultural Roman imprint on Romania was much bigger than genetic one.

When a master nation rules over another they usually increase their numbers. Why? because they get the best land, more wealth, and more women. Granted that the population of Iberia declined from 4 million to 3 million from the 4th to 5th centuries, due to famines, plagues and economic depression, the Germanics would have been affected -- but less. In the center and north of Iberia they did alter the DNA somewhat. I am sure if they do a careful and complete study of the northern Portuguese, Old Castilians, Leonese, and the Aragones you will find higher percentages than they have now. The reason why Germanic DNA is low in Iberia is due to low test numbers and includes the whole of Iberia. Iberia is much bigger than England or Germany or the Low Countries.

I believe there will be some statistical differences.