Haplogroup J2, Romans, Christianity and Viticulture

Pat Southern - The Roman Army: A Social and Institutional History (2006) [Oxford Uni. Press]
The two elements of the early Republican Roman army were first, the legions and the citizen cavalry, made up of homogeneous Romans from the city of Rome, and second, the non-Roman troops comprising the Latin and Italian allies. The latter were perhaps allowed to fight with their own weapons and equipment at first, but eventually their organization was brought into line with the Roman legions......which earned them the title Alae Sociorum, literally meaning “the wings of the allies”......For a long time Rome resisted granting full citizenship to the Latins and Italians, but after the Social War of 91 to 87 BC, all the inhabitants of Italy became Roman citizens and therefore eligible for service in the legions......The legions were theoretically recruited from Roman citizens, with a predominance of Italians in the early Imperial legions, superseded by a rising number of provincial Roman citizens toward the end of the first century.


Polybius - Battle of Telamon 225 BC / Roman Rep. army
The cavalry of the Sabines and Etruscans, who had come to the temporary assistance of Rome..... The military contingent of the Umbrians and Sarsinates inhabiting the Apennines amounted to about twenty thousand, and with these were twenty thousand Veneti and Cenomani;


Plutarch - Battle of Aquae Sextiae 102 BC / Roman Rep. army
to encourage one another or to terrify the Romans by this announcement. The Ligurians, who were the first of the Italic people to go down to battle with them;


The majority of the recorded centurions of the early Imperial-age (Legio X Fratensis) were also largely of Itlaic or veteran-Italic origin; Most of the Legions of Caesar and Octavian were Italic or veteran-Italic levied as well;
Auxiliaries were recruited from the local (whatever province) populous;

Cicero - Philippics III-IX
3.27. firmissimum ... exercitum comparavit:
Octavian conducted levies in Etruria and raised troops from Caesar's veterans in Campania, particularly in the towns of Capua, Calatia and Casilinum;



The largest Italic veteran colony was ITALICA in Baetica;
Now if the Romans are a source for Y-DNA Hg's than why is the amount of R1b-U152, J2a, E-V13 or G2a so extremely low in modern day Andalusia or that part of Andalusia?

At the end of the Empire commanders like Stilicho [Vandal/Italic] or Aetius [Scythian/Italic]
- best represent the shift that occurred;
 
Now skip ahead to the marian reforms and the time of the actual roman empire, where there was somewhere besides italy to actually send people. Not to mention time of crisis and how claudius was the last mostly italic emperor of rome, and peoples like the alans and other allies of rome they settled in their borders. You can do it!

Like I said, this is not even an issue of theorizing. You can just read the answers in plain english, and if you don't know them then you should read a lot more about rome if you care about history at all. Or you can just deny the truth and give me a 0/1 people find this helpful like you do for every other post.
 
Skip ahead?
Marian reforms was 107 BC - thats 5 years before the battle of Aquae Sextiae;
Marian reforms firstly had a massive impact on the Italic tribes after the Social war 91-88 BC and was the system that enabled Veteran colonies;
So what are you even implying with the Marian reforms?
Dont throw around with big words if you have no clue about the meanings;

I think the Oxford book by Pat Southern explain the recruitment of Imperial Rome (early & later) pretty good; Might want to read it; [posted a quote on post #21]

Apart from that my point was that ITALICA a colony of Italic Roman veterans (the largest and most prominent) had no impact on the Genetic (Hg) make-up of modern day Andalusia;
Now if thats the case and that is the case why should the Romans have had a bigger impact anywhere else?

PS: Try Trajan as the last Italic emperor;
Gens Ulpia and from the Veteran colony of Italica;
 
Pat Southern - The Roman Army: A Social and Institutional History (2006) [Oxford Uni. Press]
The two elements of the early Republican Roman army were first, the legions and the citizen cavalry, made up of homogeneous Romans from the city of Rome, and second, the non-Roman troops comprising the Latin and Italian allies. The latter were perhaps allowed to fight with their own weapons and equipment at first, but eventually their organization was brought into line with the Roman legions......which earned them the title Alae Sociorum, literally meaning “the wings of the allies”......For a long time Rome resisted granting full citizenship to the Latins and Italians, but after the Social War of 91 to 87 BC, all the inhabitants of Italy became Roman citizens and therefore eligible for service in the legions......The legions were theoretically recruited from Roman citizens, with a predominance of Italians in the early Imperial legions, superseded by a rising number of provincial Roman citizens toward the end of the first century.


Polybius - Battle of Telamon 225 BC / Roman Rep. army
The cavalry of the Sabines and Etruscans, who had come to the temporary assistance of Rome..... The military contingent of the Umbrians and Sarsinates inhabiting the Apennines amounted to about twenty thousand, and with these were twenty thousand Veneti and Cenomani;


Plutarch - Battle of Aquae Sextiae 102 BC / Roman Rep. army
to encourage one another or to terrify the Romans by this announcement. The Ligurians, who were the first of the Italic people to go down to battle with them;


The majority of the recorded centurions of the early Imperial-age (Legio X Fratensis) were also largely of Itlaic or veteran-Italic origin; Most of the Legions of Caesar and Octavian were Italic or veteran-Italic levied as well;
Auxiliaries were recruited from the local (whatever province) populous;

Cicero - Philippics III-IX
3.27. firmissimum ... exercitum comparavit:
Octavian conducted levies in Etruria and raised troops from Caesar's veterans in Campania, particularly in the towns of Capua, Calatia and Casilinum;



The largest Italic veteran colony was ITALICA in Baetica;
Now if the Romans are a source for Y-DNA Hg's than why is the amount of R1b-U152, J2a, E-V13 or G2a so extremely low in modern day Andalusia or that part of Andalusia?

At the end of the Empire commanders like Stilicho [Vandal/Italic] or Aetius [Scythian/Italic]
- best represent the shift that occurred;

Well, one reason might be the subsequent Moorish invasion, which was followed by an 800 year occupation, following which we have the concerted effort by their most Catholic Majesties Ferdinand and Isabella to expel the Moors and the Jews, (an effort that I don't think was totally successful) which was followed by an also concerted effort to repopulate the southern areas with people from the north, which may indeed be why there isn't more substructure in Spain.

The same thing may have happened in many places that experienced a lot of migration and mixing during the Germanic and Slavic migrations.
 
Skip ahead?
Marian reforms was 107 BC - thats 5 years before the battle of Aquae Sextiae;
Marian reforms firstly had a massive impact on the Italic tribes after the Social war 91-88 BC and was the system that enabled Veteran colonies;
So what are you even implying with the Marian reforms?
Dont throw around with big words if you have no clue about the meanings;

I think the Oxford book by Pat Southern explain the recruitment of Imperial Rome (early & later) pretty good; Might want to read it; [posted a quote on post #21]

Apart from that my point was that ITALICA a colony of Italic Roman veterans (the largest and most prominent) had no impact on the Genetic (Hg) make-up of modern day Andalusia;
Now if thats the case and that is the case why should the Romans have had a bigger impact anywhere else?

PS: Try Trajan as the last Italic emperor;
Gens Ulpia and from the Veteran colony of Italica;

Yes but you began back in early republican times. Everything you said is irrelevant because all that changed long before the empire split between east and west. it's alsready been said here it wasn't long til everyone but centurion was a foreigner, and most of the emperors and generals were foreigners.

Aside from legionaries and what angela said, again, look up the alans. They have their dna all over GB, case closed. They are not the only ones either, just the only ones I could think of off the top of my head.

Another example, Goths. Romans settled them in their boundariess originally as well. I think that had some effect on genes in europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foederati
 
Skip ahead?
Marian reforms was 107 BC - thats 5 years before the battle of Aquae Sextiae;
Marian reforms firstly had a massive impact on the Italic tribes after the Social war 91-88 BC and was the system that enabled Veteran colonies;
So what are you even implying with the Marian reforms?
Dont throw around with big words if you have no clue about the meanings;

I think the Oxford book by Pat Southern explain the recruitment of Imperial Rome (early & later) pretty good; Might want to read it; [posted a quote on post #21]

Apart from that my point was that ITALICA a colony of Italic Roman veterans (the largest and most prominent) had no impact on the Genetic (Hg) make-up of modern day Andalusia;
Now if thats the case and that is the case why should the Romans have had a bigger impact anywhere else?

PS: Try Trajan as the last Italic emperor;
Gens Ulpia and from the Veteran colony of Italica;

I hope I'm not being too pedantic, but I think you can go further; that entire group of emperors until Commodus (192 A.D.), with the possible exception of Antoninus Pius, were of Italic origin, and most were connected with that same colony in Spain.

It's only with the disastrous third century that you get the Balkans emperors. Although one wonders how different they would have been...perhaps in terms of y dna...not all that U-152, but in terms of autosomal, over all genetic similarity? That paper cited by Dienekes maintained that a dna analysis of a Balkan from the Iron Age was "Otzi like".
 
Yes but you began back in early republican times. Everything you said is irrelevant because all that changed long before the empire split between east and west. it's alsready been said here it wasn't long til everyone but centurion was a foreigner, and most of the emperors and generals were foreigners.

Every source whether Classical Historians or Modern-day Historians will inform you that only Roman citizens were recruited for the Legions; And its not that difficult to find out to whom Roman citizenship was granted - and when;

For example:
Marius granted all Italic allies who served at Vercellae the Roman citizenship [101 BC];
All Italic tribes were granted the Roman citizenship after the Social war [88 BC];
All of Cisalpine Gaul was granted the Roman citizenship by Caesar [49 BC];


The only other provinces with masses of Roman citizens were Gallia Narbonensis and Hispania
(mostly Baetica/Ulterior)
But the majority (vast majority) of those Roman citizens were Colonists or Veterans from Roman Italy;

The Italic dominance of the Legions only began to change during the reign of Claudius [41-54 AD]
when Auxiliary troops (foreigners) were granted Roman citizenship upon discharge;
This granted right allowed their Roman citizen children to serve in the Legions;
That was the beginning (Claudian reign) of a foreign domination within the Roman Empire;
which was further continued by Nero and Vespasian and ultimately by Caracalla (Granting all populous of the Roman world citizenship) 212 AD;

So only the Roman Republic and the early Roman Empire [Augustus/Tiberius] can truly be considered Roman (Italic/Etruscan) and it was during this time (Republic-Tiberius) that Rome became an ancient super-power and conquered its Empire;
And therefor that epoch is far from Irrelevant;

The foederati system was the final nail in the coffin
after the Claudius policies and the split to West/East
But everything comes to an end and the Carolingian Empire was its Germanic successor;
 
I usually don't engage in discussions on internet sites with some Spanish posters for precisely this reason. What is there to be so concerned about? Is it such a terrible thing to have North African haplotypes or 4-5% of the North African component, or a percent or two of SSA, which is really what it boils down to? Yes, some of it could have come in the Mesolithic or the Neolithic, but to pretend that there was absolutely no admixture during the Moorish occupation, and that old Isabella kicked out every last Moor and Jew or part Moor and Jew is silly. After all, and thank goodness, she didn't have AC or Countries of Ancestry to sniff them out. That doesn't mean that this is in any way a majority component of the genomes either.

And why always drag comparisons with Italy into the discussion? Who cares? I certainly don't.

Genetics is genetics...it is what it is...and false or misleading information or just misinformation should be corrected.

In that regard, if you're going to discuss genetics, please don't post an autosomal study that uses 52 Aims, as you did above. Is it the stone age on this site? That was an abominable embarrassment of a study. Both Italians and Spaniards should be ashamed that their compatriots could put out such garbage. Even the mt dna and y dna analysis didn't use subclades that are clearly available, and the charts were disastrously put together.

And please don't quote Moorjani et al 2011, either. That's a Reich group paper...they realized their mistakes almost as soon as they wrote it, I think, and quickly corrected things in their following Patterson et al 2012 and Lipson et al 2013 papers.

This is a fast moving field...you have to keep up with the latest research, and read things in sequence. You can't go hopping around trying to find things that support your point of view, when the data may have been disproved, or at least refined in subsequent studies.

You also don't really want to get into the pigmentation area, not based on the most recent study. It might induce a coronary in the faint of heart :)

Well said.

Do you known anything about the religious order from mauretania (pre islam) which settled in lombardy and veneto? I suspect it was early AD times when the Roman empire still existed.
 
Last edited:
I agree in some sense because anything bad to come from outside will get purified out by selection and anything good will be retained by selection so long as the numbers coming in aren't so huge that can't happen, like it is today with more open borders and people fleeing countries en masse. The problem is some people of some groups are trying to put a claim onto the lands of other groups, and some people of other outside groups are trying to disavow their more southern cousins completely, when in reality all of western europe is mostly one big happy family.
 
Well said.

Do you known anything about the religious order from mauretania (pre islam) which settled in lombardy and veneto? I suspect it was early AD times when the Roman empire still existed.

Do you mean the legends about San Zeno of Verona?
http://www.santiebeati.it/dettaglio/49300

I've always thought that some of these monks might actually have fled from the Vandal invasions of North Africa. At that time, the Church was flourishing there, and some of the earliest monastic centers developed there. (In Egypt first, of course.)

The Saracens from Spain (Andalucia, actually) did invade and occupy Provence, and from there made incursions into Liguria, up into Piemonte, reaching Lombardia, the mountain passes and Switzerland. Of course, we're not talking about big groups of people here.
http://www.academia.edu/1415577/The_Saracens_of_St._Tropez
http://cronologia.leonardo.it/storia/tabello/tabe1549.htm
 
Do you mean the legends about San Zeno of Verona?
http://www.santiebeati.it/dettaglio/49300

I've always thought that some of these monks might actually have fled from the Vandal invasions of North Africa. At that time, the Church was flourishing there, and some of the earliest monastic centers developed there. (In Egypt first, of course.)

The Saracens from Spain (Andalucia, actually) did invade and occupy Provence, and from there made incursions into Liguria, up into Piemonte, reaching Lombardia, the mountain passes and Switzerland. Of course, we're not talking about big groups of people here.
http://www.academia.edu/1415577/The_Saracens_of_St._Tropez
http://cronologia.leonardo.it/storia/tabello/tabe1549.htm

yes thank you

my mother was born in San Zenone di Ezzelini

The Ezzelini being a bavarian nobility from Augsburg

San Zenone is east of Vicenza
 
I must have forgotten it; because i have no clue what your talking about;

Yes, it seems you have a case of very acute "selective memory". I am very sure you do know very well what I am talking about.

So Moorjani et al 2011 (Harvard Uni.) is also agenda driven, wrong and flawed;
Another one for the list;

And where exactly is Spain and Portugal lumped together ?

Sub-Saharan Africa admixture results;
Spain = 2.4%
S Italy = 2.7%
Portugal = 3.2%
N Italy = 1.1%
Greece = 1.9%

Im not sure what you are seeing;

Then you must be blind because you quoted the passage yourself in the other post. The only way the authors could get away with such a statement was by doing what you describe below: fragment Italy and lump Spain & Portugal together under the name "Iberia".

but im seeing the Portuguese with the highest level and N Italians with the lowest level;
S Italy 2.7% and Spain (all of it) 2.4%;
With Iberia (total) being the region of Europe with the highest overall;
And thats a Harvard study from 2011;

Once again, by adding two separate nations together as "one region". Considered singly, Italy is the region of Europe that has the highest level overall (all of Italy = south + north + Sardinia, all together, not separately)
 
You do know that MAP stands for Malaria Atlas Project and these predictions/estimates are based on their current data;

the Malaria Atlas Project .... maps the geographical contemporary distribution of sickle haemoglobin .... Our aim was to use available evidence-based epidemiological data from the literature combined with modern mapping and modelling methods to come up with the best maps and estimates.

I know it must be hard for you to actually read what you dont want to read and look at data maps you dont want to see;
But its a safe thing to trust in the Studies and resulting data from renown institutions like the Oxford University;

That's what it must be like for you, not me, since you are the one who did not even bother to read that your map is a "prediction" and is labelled as such by your very own source. You already made the same "mistake" before with a skin pigmentation map. It seems you make it a habit of not bothering to read what you post.

HemoglobinS (Sickle Cell) is nothing new to Spain;
Might want to read all about it In Serjeant 1985 studies;

Haemoglobinopathy Diagnosis - 2006
The Benin type has also spread to Spain, Portugal, Sicily (perhaps from Greece, perhaps from Sudanese soldiers in Arab armies) and southern mainland Italy, Greece (particularly Macedonia), Albania, Turkey, north-western Saudi Arabia and Oman;

As you can see from the data gathered by all those other universities and institutes, and even Italian researchers themselves, Spain hardly figures anywhere, while Italy is always present.
 
I usually don't engage in discussions on internet sites with some Spanish posters for precisely this reason. What is there to be so concerned about? Is it such a terrible thing to have North African haplotypes or 4-5% of the North African component, or a percent or two of SSA, which is really what it boils down to? Yes, some of it could have come in the Mesolithic or the Neolithic, but to pretend that there was absolutely no admixture during the Moorish occupation, and that old Isabella kicked out every last Moor and Jew or part Moor and Jew is silly. After all, and thank goodness, she didn't have AC or Countries of Ancestry to sniff them out. That doesn't mean that this is in any way a majority component of the genomes either.

And why always drag comparisons with Italy into the discussion? Who cares? I certainly don't.

Genetics is genetics...it is what it is...and false or misleading information or just misinformation should be corrected.

In that regard, if you're going to discuss genetics, please don't post an autosomal study that uses 52 Aims, as you did above. Is it the stone age on this site? That was an abominable embarrassment of a study. Both Italians and Spaniards should be ashamed that their compatriots could put out such garbage. Even the mt dna and y dna analysis didn't use subclades that are clearly available, and the charts were disastrously put together.

And please don't quote Moorjani et al 2011, either. That's a Reich group paper...they realized their mistakes almost as soon as they wrote it, I think, and quickly corrected things in their following Patterson et al 2012 and Lipson et al 2013 papers.

This is a fast moving field...you have to keep up with the latest research, and read things in sequence. You can't go hopping around trying to find things that support your point of view, when the data may have been disproved, or at least refined in subsequent studies.

You also don't really want to get into the pigmentation area, not based on the most recent study. It might induce a coronary in the faint of heart :)

Actually it's the other way around: it is tiresome to engage in discussions with some Italian posters for precisely this reason. What is there to be concerned about? Well you tell me. All those things you try to argue against some Spanish posters actually apply to such Italian posters, ironically. You want to accept any claim said in dubious/junky/agenda-driven genetic papers about Spain, but not those about Italy.

The study was written by Italian geneticists themselves, and 52 Aims autosomal is still a better and more informative genetic quantifier than any haplogroup, which is only a small part of the DNA, yet you want to give preference to the latter simply because it seems to support your wishes that Spain should be more "African" than Italy.

Moorjani et al. 2011 did not "realize" anything, as far as I know. They still stick to their results and their claims, even though some of them are indeed faulty (their autosomal results are not entirely in agreement with haplogroup results of previous studies, as they wished to pretend they were.)

You mean like that recent pigmentation study that showed Portuguese as lighter than Italians and that your pal Nobody1 has been trying to "spin" since day 1, as he usually does with anything that goes "against" Italy in these topics?
 
which elites where Arab, have you a link?

Ask any historian on the subject. It is well-known that the Arabs were the leaders of early Islam and they always established themselves at the top of the political ladder wherever they conquered, as is naturally done by all conquerors.

What does religion have to do with Genetics
, ?...........i find this absurd. So a special alleles was formed when either jewish, christian, islam, hindu or other religions was created? Please do not bring this stupidity up again...........................who cares about islam for Spain?

You should be asking those questions to the person who first brought it up as some sort of "counterargument" for a claim about a supposedly "Roman" genetic marker, and then ask the same question to yourself for trying to bring an agenda-driven Italian haplogroup study trying to make it look as if the genetic markers that they were using are really good indicators of medieval ancestry, which they aren't since they are thousands of years older.


So the paper was correct, it stated that Sicily was very similar to Spain , but the peninsula of Italy was relative minor at 1%. The query is here is that the heel of Italy has the most % apart from Sicily. I can only see it from a later ottoman incursion in the 15th century.

Once again, you are looking at an agenda-driven paper which not only tried to ignore the fact that the haplogroup markers they were using are thousands of years older than Islam itself, but also mysteriously "forgot" the fact that Italy already had Near Eastern and North African populations during Roman times, long before Islam even existed.

the 2010 paper , american journal stated.
MtDNA Haplogroup L lineages are relatively infrequent (1% or less) throughout Europe with the exception of Iberia where frequencies as high as 22%[39] have been reported and some regions of Italy where frequencies between 2 and 3% have been found.

In Iberia the mean frequency of Haplogroup L lineages reaches 3.83% and the frequency is higher in Portugal (5.83%) than in Spain (2.90%) and without parallel in the rest of Europe. Furthermore, in western Iberia, increasing frequencies are observed for Galicia (3.26%) and northern Portugal (3.21%), through the center (5.02%) and to the south of Portugal (11.38%).[40] Significant frequencies were also found in the Autonomous regions of Portugal, with L haplogroups constituting about 13% of the lineages in Madeira, significantly more than in the Azores.[41] In the Spanish archipelago of Canary Islands, frequencies have been reported at 6.6%.[41]

Now you are quoting from Wikipedia junk, not even a real study or a specialized site, which is heavily manipulated by all sorts of t-r-o-l-l-s with different interests and agendas. And the 22% says was found in "Iberia", not Spain. Iberia is Spain + Portugal. And it was found actually in a small town in Portugal (Alcacer do Sal.)
 
Once again, by adding two separate nations together as "one region". Considered singly, Italy is the region of Europe that has the highest level overall (all of Italy = south + north + Sardinia, all together, not separately)

Really???

Sub-Saharan African admixture:
Average of Italy (North/South/Sardinia) = 2.2%
Thats lower than the average of Spain 2.4% and the average of Portugal 3.2% and the average of Iberia 2.8%;

N Italy = 1.1% (Moorjani et al 2011)
Tuscany = 1.5% (Moorjani et al 2009)
S Italy = 2.7% (Moorjani et al 2011)

The split is necessary since the Italians [North/Central/South/Sardinian] are all Genetically diverse from each other (do not cluster with each other);

North Italy (1.1%) and Tuscany (1.5%) are clearly below the Spanish value of 2.4% and the Portuguese value of 3.2%;

The South Italian value (2.7%) is closer to the Spanish value than to the North Italian or Tuscan;
And clearly below the Portuguese value;

This data is supported by the recent study of
Botigue et al 2013
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2013/05/30/1306223110.DCSupplemental/sapp.pdf

iberia.jpg



That's what it must be like for you, not me, since you are the one who did not even bother to read that your map is a "prediction" and is labelled as such by your very own source. You already made the same "mistake" before with a skin pigmentation map. It seems you make it a habit of not bothering to read what you post.

Your mistake is your illusion that those "predictions" are based on thin air;
In reality they are based on proper data;

Oxford Uni. 2012
http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_releases_for_journalists/121025.html

Dr. Fred Piel from Oxford University’s Department of Zoology, who led the research, said: 'Sickle cell disease has now been studied intensively for more than a hundred years but our knowledge about its current distribution and burden is really poor. Our aim was to use available evidence-based epidemiological data from the literature combined with modern mapping and modelling methods to come up with the best maps and estimates.

Plans for the future -

In the future, we hope that accessing additional data, including from national screening programmes, would help further refine these results.

And thats the result;
Oxford Uni. 2012
- contemporary distribution of sickle haemoglobin
http://www.ox.ac.uk/images/hi_res/15799_Sickle_cell_anaemia_MAP.jpg


Too bad that this data doesnt fit your wildest fantasies (far from it);
But have fun telling yourself that its all a Hoax - based on wild baseless "predictions";
If you dont want to get it - than dont get it; luckely the study stands for itself and is well explained your version is therefor not needed;
 
Really???

Sub-Saharan African admixture:
Average of Italy (North/South/Sardinia) = 2.2%
Thats lower than the average of Spain 2.4% and the average of Portugal 3.2% and the average of Iberia 2.8%;

N Italy = 1.1% (Moorjani et al 2011)
Tuscany = 1.5% (Moorjani et al 2009)
S Italy = 2.7% (Moorjani et al 2011)

Nope. This is not a haplogroup study, it's already "averaged".

The split is necessary since the Italians [North/Central/South/Sardinian] are all Genetically diverse from each other (do not cluster with each other);

So? There is genetic differences among Spaniards too, specially in this regard, but they did not extend the same "courtesy" to them.

North Italy (1.1%) and Tuscany (1.5%) are clearly below the Spanish value of 2.4% and the Portuguese value of 3.2%;

You are comparing isolated regional results to country-wide results.

The South Italian value (2.7%) is closer to the Spanish value than to the North Italian or Tuscan;
And clearly below the Portuguese value;

This data is supported by the recent study of
Botigue et al 2013
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2013/05/30/1306223110.DCSupplemental/sapp.pdf

iberia.jpg

Oh, wow, there go again those silly maps you like to plaster all over the place since they seem to agree with your agenda. Those are IBDs, by the way. I am sure you already know how they can be viewed with suspicion since they do not indicate the direction of gene flow:

http://livingbiology.com/ibd-sharing-between-iberians-and-north-africans-botigue-et-al-2013/

Oh, and take a look at one of the graphics from actual admixture analysis from the same study, showing no sub-Saharan in Spain (except only Basques) at k=6 level, while Italy still shows it.

http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/7307/k36fig3.png

Funny how you don't like to plaster that one all over the place, isn't it, even though it comes from the exact same paper.

Your mistake is your illusion that those "predictions" are based on thin air;
In reality they are based on proper data;

Oxford Uni. 2012
http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_releases_for_journalists/121025.html

Dr. Fred Piel from Oxford University’s Department of Zoology, who led the research, said: 'Sickle cell disease has now been studied intensively for more than a hundred years but our knowledge about its current distribution and burden is really poor. Our aim was to use available evidence-based epidemiological data from the literature combined with modern mapping and modelling methods to come up with the best maps and estimates.

Plans for the future -

In the future, we hope that accessing additional data, including from national screening programmes, would help further refine these results.

And thats the result;
Oxford Uni. 2012
- contemporary distribution of sickle haemoglobin
http://www.ox.ac.uk/images/hi_res/15799_Sickle_cell_anaemia_MAP.jpg


Too bad that this data doesnt fit your wildest fantasies (far from it);
But have fun telling yourself that its all a Hoax - based on wild baseless "predictions";
If you dont want to get it - than dont get it; luckely the study stands for itself and is well explained your version is therefor not needed;


Once again trying to give it your usual spins, this time by trying to confuse what their mission statements are with the provided sample of a map clearly labelled as a "prediction". Plus the fact that southern England, the Netherlands and France are shown with more "blue" should already give you a clue that they are not talking exclusively about native inhabitants, but what the future distribution of this disease will be like given current population/immigration trends. If you look at the older maps, based on data from times before the modern levels of immigration, these areas (and Spain too) have so little of it that they do not even register:

http://itg.content-e.eu/Generated/pubx/173/mm_files/do_3427/co_68861/Cd_1093_038c.jpg
 

This thread has been viewed 197363 times.

Back
Top