Haplogroup J2, Romans, Christianity and Viticulture

[Angela]

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".

[Noman]

ah, nevermind.

[Nobody1]

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;

[Sile]

I was checking if AuDna -Dodecad K12b listed moors as sub-saharan or african and it is different

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/...l.pgen.1002397


African auDna numbers in Europe are far older

[Sile]

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.

[Noman]

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.

[Sile]

as per link below , for autosomal it seems K1 is the only one affiliated with the berbers

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot...l-context.html

[Angela]

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_..._of_St._Tropez
http://cronologia.leonardo.it/storia...o/tabe1549.htm

[Sile]

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_..._of_St._Tropez
http://cronologia.leonardo.it/storia...o/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

[Drac II]

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)

[Drac II]

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.

[Drac II]

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?

[Drac II]

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.)

[Nobody1]

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/20...ental/sapp.pdf

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_relea...ts/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/15...naemia_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;

[Drac II]

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/20...ental/sapp.pdf

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...ue-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_relea...ts/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/15...naemia_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/pu..._1093_038c.jpg

[Sile]

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.



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.




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.



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.)

You are a road block in finding the truth of ancient Iberia, .....advise me who the Carthaginians annexed in Spain and what was the haplotype. Clearly there where people already in iberia before the Carthaginians arrived, agree?

[Drac II]

You are a road block in finding the truth of ancient Iberia, .....advise me who the Carthaginians annexed in Spain and what was the haplotype. Clearly there where people already in iberia before the Carthaginians arrived, agree?

Yes, there were Iberians and Celts in Iberia before that. Haven't we been over this before? I think so. The Carthaginian armies in Europe (which ended up invading Italy through the Alps, BTW) were made up mostly of Iberian and Celtic mercenaries, not Carthaginians. They were a mercenary army. Carthaginians were not as nationalistic as their Roman foes at the time, when their armies were almost exlusively made up of Romans, not foreign conscripts.

[Nobody1]

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

What?

So? There is genetic differences among Spaniards too, specially in this regard, but they did not extend the same "courtesy" to them. You are comparing isolated regional results to country-wide results

And?
Do those "isolated regions" not stand for themselves;
Yes they do (Genetically);

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...ue-et-al-2013/


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.

Concerning the Sub-Saharan admixture; just take a look at p.8 & p.9

Botigue et al 2013 - p.8 / p.9
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/20...ental/sapp.pdf

ITA is lower than SPA
ITA is the same as GAL (Galicia)
ITA is much lower than AND (Andalusia)
TSI (Tuscans) is far lower than anything in Iberia
SWZ_IT is far lower than anything in Iberia

POR (Portugal) tops the charts again - by far;

The map [post#61] from this study [Botigue et al 2013] of course represents these values exactly;

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.

Are you joking?
And have you noticed K=3/k=4/k=5



And can you also provide the full study to that chart; and not just the bits and pieces;

[Drac II]

What?

You know "what". This is not the "divide by x" case as with haplogroup frequency studies. Autosomal results are already averaged.

And?
Do those "isolated regions" not stand for themselves;
Yes they do (Genetically);

Not in the study they don't. They lumped all of Spain as one. So it is not possible to know what the results would have been for northern or western Spain, as opposed to southern or eastern Spain, had they decided to do something along the lines they did for Italy. Perhaps the majority of their autosomal "African" results was found more concentrated in the south or NW of Spain.

Concerning the Sub-Saharan admixture; just take a look at p.8 & p.9

Botigue et al 2013 - p.8 / p.9
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/20...ental/sapp.pdf

ITA is lower than SPA
ITA is the same as GAL (Galicia)
ITA is much lower than AND (Andalusia)
TSI (Tuscans) is far lower than anything in Iberia
SWZ_IT is far lower than anything in Iberia

POR (Portugal) tops the charts again - by far;

The map [post#61] from this study [Botigue et al 2013] of course represents these values exactly;

The map is for IBDs. Their admixture results are another thing (the graphic I posted is a tabulation of these results.) Which takes us back to this:

Are you joking?
And have you noticed K=3/k=4/k=5



And can you also provide the full study to that chart; and not just the bits and pieces;

Those results were tabulated from the exact same study (page 11)

And are you the one joking? K=6 is a better resolution than the lower Ks. At that higher level all the "sub-Saharan" in the non-Basque Spanish samples disappears, while in the non-Tuscan Italian samples there is still some visible.

[Angela]

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?

Please don't lay all the blame on the Italian academics for that junk paper...there were Spaniards involved too :)

Also, I would totally agree that there are Italian posters on "anthrofora" who also don't know what they're talking about. There's a reason I don't frequent those sites. Furthermore, I don't speak for anyone but myself.

Did I ever say that y dna or mt dna is very informative about total genetic similarity? I think I'm on record all over this site saying the opposite.

Junk is junk no matter who does it...52 AIMS is ridiculous and totally outdated in terms of autosomal analysis. You are aware that autosomal studies today from internationally recognized universities use at least 500,000 autosomal snps, yes?

As for Patterson et al, and Lipson et al, it's the SAME exact people...the same group from Harvard and M.I.T. that produced Moorjani et al 2011. Honestly, I don't know how to make this any clearer...look at the authors of the Patterson et al paper (2012)...Moorjani is one of the authors of that and the subsequent Lipson et al.(2013) Moorjani et al 2011 was off because they didn't take into account the North Eurasian admixture which is higher in northern Europeans.

Moorjani et al 2011 was first. Dienekes explained why the methodology was wrong here...they used a two population model when they should have used a three population model (i.e. they didn't take into account the north east Asian shift in northern Europeans.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/04...-eurasian.html

Then, lo and behold, Patterson et al comes out, and then Lipson et al, which do use a three population model.
Patterson et al http://www.genetics.org/content/earl...45037.full.pdf
Lipson et al: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.2555v2.pdf
Lipson et al is discussed here:http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/12...erence-of.html

It's very clear.

I don't see what the huge issue is...Look at Globe 13 dodecad analysis...
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...tUE9kaUE#gid=2
All the Spanish populations are analyzed, as are the Italian populations.

The highest number for combined West African, Paleo African and East African for any Spanish population is 2.3, I think, in Galicians. Catalans seem to have about .3 West African. What's so terrible about that? As someone mentioned, for these alleles to be retained, perhaps they confer some sort of selective advantage in these environments.

By the way, the Sicilians have 1.7, the southern Italians have 1.2. In this particular analysis the Tuscans don't show any, but I've seen analyses, older ones, that show .5 or something. I'm sort of half Tuscan... should I get bent out of shape over this?

I truly regret bringing up the pigmentation study as it's so completely off topic...but no, I don't mean any comparison of people's skin tones...I mean actual snps for pigmentation.

The table I was thinking of is actually in the Lucotte et al 2011 study here:
http://www.academicjournals.org/JEBR...uasa%20pdf.pdf

The most recent study is Norton et al: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/3/710.long

This is the pigmentation table from that study, which examines all five snps involved, but it's only of the HapMap populations.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/conten...010_msl203.pdf

This is a graphic for all the populations:
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/conten...expansion.html
You can click on each map to see a larger version.

Of course, the only scientific purpose for this kind of study is to show that this trait is subject to selection based on the solar radiation of the location. There's no absolute value attached to having less pigmentation. You really shouldn't assume that everyone thinks there is...I, for one, quite prefer Mediterranean phenotypes. :)

(And, by the way, you're not understanding the importance of the lower "K" levels.)

And now, I'm out of this discussion. For one thing, all of this has been off-topic, and I apologize for my share in it. For another, there's no point in discussion if it's not going to be rational.

[Noman]

Pigmentation is highly selected for so don't base ancestry on that. Meaning, yes, you don't have as much darnkness as you might because lightness is slected for by most mates. But that doesn't change the real ancestry of the person.

So we come back to what I said about looking at autosomal DNA for populations and how ridiculous it is. There's absolutely no such thing as a "neutral" marker that is homogenous in a population. They have to be selected on somehow for that to happen, and that completely invalidates ALL these nonsense studies.

I can't see how you can talk about rationality when you consistently say the y-dna and mtDNA in populations aren't indicative of anything but that skin color genes are.

[Drac II]

Please don't lay all the blame on the Italian academics for that junk paper...there were Spaniards involved too :)

In cooperation with and approval of their Italian colleagues :)

Did I ever say that y dna or mt dna is very informative about total genetic similarity? I think I'm on record all over this site saying the opposite.

Junk is junk no matter who does it...52 AIMS is ridiculous and totally outdated in terms of autosomal analysis. You are aware that autosomal studies today from internationally recognized universities use at least 500,000 autosomal snps, yes?

52 AIMS might not be the best, but it still doesn't change the basic results. All populations were analyzed using the same autosomal method, yet the Italians came up with a higher proportion of what the authors concluded was "sub-Saharan African" than any of the other Europeans sampled. You can argue that the 9.2% figure might be inflated and the actual value is lower, but then again so would it be for the other populations. Whatever the actual percentages are, the proportions remain.

As for Patterson et al, and Lipson et al, it's the SAME exact people...the same group from Harvard and M.I.T. that produced Moorjani et al 2011. Honestly, I don't know how to make this any clearer...look at the authors of the Patterson et al paper (2012)...Moorjani is one of the authors of that and the subsequent Lipson et al.(2013) Moorjani et al 2011 was off because they didn't take into account the North Eurasian admixture which is higher in northern Europeans.

Moorjani et al 2011 was first. Dienekes explained why the methodology was wrong here...they used a two population model when they should have used a three population model (i.e. they didn't take into account the north east Asian shift in northern Europeans.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/04...-eurasian.html

Then, lo and behold, Patterson et al comes out, and then Lipson et al, which do use a three population model.
Patterson et al http://www.genetics.org/content/earl...45037.full.pdf
Lipson et al: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.2555v2.pdf
Lipson et al is discussed here:http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/12...erence-of.html

It's very clear.

The fact that some people have found faults with a given study does not mean that their authors have acknowledged any of them and recanted. Many of these geneticists can be incredibly stubborn and will not accept faults in their methodology or conclusions. For example, of all the people who participated in that infamous Adams et al. (2008) study about Iberians, only one (Calafell) sort of recanted some of their absurd claims (the one about estimates of supposed "Jewish" ancestry by using Neolithic markers like J and I, which Calafell admitted were dubious at best.) It's been 5 years, and despite all the pointed out flaws and criticism, even by some of their fellow geneticists (Stephen Oppenheimer, for example), and the rest of the authors still have not "officially" recanted. So I still have my doubts that anyone from Moorjani et al. 2011 has rejected any of their conclusions either, just like so many other claims in genetic studies of this nature. Show me if you know any paper or interview by any of its authors where any of their own claims are rejected.

I don't see what the huge issue is...Look at Globe 13 dodecad analysis...
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/04...-eurasian.html
All the Spanish populations are analyzed, as are the Italian populations.

The highest number for combined West African, Paleo African and East African for any Spanish population is 2.3, I think, in Galicians. Catalans seem to have about .3 West African. What's so terrible about that? As someone mentioned, for these alleles to be retained, perhaps they confer some sort of selective advantage in these environments.

By the way, the Sicilians have 1.7, the southern Italians have 1.2. In this particular analysis the Tuscans don't show any, but I've seen analyses, older ones, that show .5 or something. I'm sort of half Tuscan... should I get bent out of shape over this?

Where are these figures? The link you posted is just a commentary on the Moorjani et al. 2011 paper.

I truly regret bringing up the pigmentation study as it's so completely off topic...but no, I don't mean any comparison of people's skin tones...I mean actual snps for pigmentation.

The table I was thinking of is actually in the Lucotte et al 2011 study here:
http://www.academicjournals.org/JEBR...uasa%20pdf.pdf

The most recent study is Norton et al: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/3/710.long

This is the pigmentation table from that study, which examines all five snps involved, but it's only of the HapMap populations.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/conten...010_msl203.pdf

This is a graphic for all the populations:
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/conten...expansion.html
You can click on each map to see a larger version.

Of course, the only scientific purpose for this kind of study is to show that this trait is subject to selection based on the solar radiation of the location. There's no absolute value attached to having less pigmentation. You really shouldn't assume that everyone thinks there is...I, for one, quite prefer Mediterranean phenotypes. :)

"Mediterranean" phenotypes have nothing to do with pigmentation, and I think you already realize that such conjectures about SNPs mean little when it comes to measuring actual skin pigmentation. The already referred to study that found Portuguese samples to be lighter than Italian samples (Candille et al. 2012) also found more of these SNPs among Italians than among Portuguese, yet when the actual measurement took place (in unexposed parts of the body, to avoid effects of tanning) the Italians were found to have a higher frequency of darker skin tones. When it comes to pigmentation studies, actual physical measurements still have the final word. "The proof is in the pudding", as they say.

(And, by the way, you're not understanding the importance of the lower "K" levels.)

And now, I'm out of this discussion. For one thing, all of this has been off-topic, and I apologize for my share in it. For another, there's no point in discussion if it's not going to be rational.

If you have been around genetic discussion forums, you will see that more reliance is placed on the higher K levels than on the lower.

[Sile]

Yes, there were Iberians and Celts in Iberia before that. Haven't we been over this before? I think so. The Carthaginian armies in Europe (which ended up invading Italy through the Alps, BTW) were made up mostly of Iberian and Celtic mercenaries, not Carthaginians. They were a mercenary army. Carthaginians were not as nationalistic as their Roman foes at the time, when their armies were almost exlusively made up of Romans, not foreign conscripts.

I took your advice and used K12b Dodecad and found what I wanted...thanks

Population	Source	N	Northwest_African
Portuguese_D	Dodecad	9	7.7
Sephardic_Jews	Behar	19	6.2
Castilla_Y_Leon_1KG	1000Genomes	12	6.1
Extremadura_1KG	1000Genomes	8	6
Murcia_1KG	1000Genomes	8	6
Andalucia_1KG	1000Genomes	4	5.1
Spanish_D	Dodecad	20	5.1
Galicia_1KG	1000Genomes	8	5
Ashkenazy_Jews	Behar	17	4.2
Sicilian_D	Dodecad	15	4.1
Baleares_1KG	1000Genomes	6	3.7
Castilla_La_Mancha_1KG	1000Genomes	6	3.5
Aragon_1KG	1000Genomes	6	3.4
Cantabria_1KG	1000Genomes	6	3.1
Spaniards	Behar	10	3
Valencia_1KG	1000Genomes	10	3
Sardinian	HGDP	24	2.6
S_Italian_Sicilian_D	Dodecad	10	2.5
Cataluna_1KG	1000Genomes	8	2.4
C_Italian_D	Dodecad	13	2.3
O_Italian_D	Dodecad	5	1.1
N_Italian_D	Dodecad	5	0.9
TSI30	Metspalu	21	0.8
North_Italian	HGDP	11	0.7
French_Basque	HGDP	21	0

northwest African which is berber is on the far right

BTW, I care little for nations in Europe because I currently favour the removal of all nations in the EU so that the EU can be saved.

[Nobody1]

The map is for IBDs. Their admixture results are another thing (the graphic I posted is a tabulation of these results.) Which takes us back to this:

Botigue et al 2013 -
North African samples that have highest IBD sharing with Iberian populations also tend to have the lowest proportion of the European cluster in ADMIXTURE(Fig.1), e.g. Saharawi, Tunisian, Berbers and South Moroccans.
This suggests that gene flow occurred from Africa to Europe rather than the other way around.

So the map [post # 61] and the IBD sharing results from p.8/p.9 are not as insignificant as you claim them to be;
And with Portugal and Spain having the highest IBD sharing with Africa - clearly reveals the gene flow;

Botigue et al 2013 - p.8/p.9
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/20...ental/sapp.pdf

52 AIMS might not be the best, but it still doesn't change the basic results. All populations were analyzed using the same autosomal method, yet the Italians came up with a higher proportion of what the authors concluded was "sub-Saharan African" than any of the other Europeans sampled. You can argue that the 9.2% figure might be inflated and the actual value is lower, but then again so would it be for the other populations. Whatever the actual percentages are, the proportions remain.

Those 52 AIMs (Brisighelli et al 2013) also revealed that North Spain and Portugal are 7.7% sub-saharan admixture;

[Knovas]

Actually when dealing with components such as Northwest African or East African, which are not purely African at all, the results should be taken with a lot of caution. For instance, an individual showing less than 1% East African it is unlikely to have any Sub-Saharan ancestry, since the West Eurasian shift can easily produce the aforementioned result. Even 0.5% Sub-Saharan is ridiculously low to be taken seriously (as fact). I know to some extent all Europeans carry some sort of admixture, so keep in mind I refer to something significant, relevant and easy to quantify, which I don't see it is the case in both Italy and Spain (note the one who's posting does not consider himself Spanish).

Checking idividual Globe13 results, all Europeans have 0.3%, 0.8% (and so on) of something. Time to wonder why.

Being that said, it seems to me some individuals keep going on trying to give more relevance always to the same exact things. And that's not only biased, but also incredibly boring.

PD: Nobody, your last post it is not true at all, or at least the conclusions stated in the paper. What North Africans share the most with Iberias is their Sardinian-like ancestry, labeled as Mediterranean in Dodecad experiments. So the gene flow occured mostly the other way around, I don't see the point in denying such thing when North Africans are, obviously, overwhelmingly West Eurasian regarding genetics. So that's the answer to the IBD sharing issue, I think there's no doubt about it.