New distribution map of Y-haplogroup E-M81

[Wilhelm]

Maciamo, did you leave out this studies (just in case you didn't) :

For Gascony :

Gascony n=0/24 0.0% Adams et al.
Béarn, Gascony n=1/56 1.78% Martínez-Cruz et al. 2012,
Bigorre, Gacony n=1/44 2.72% Martínez-Cruz et al. 2012,

Croatia :
Croats n = 1/89 1.1% Battaglia et al. 2008

Northern Italy :
North-Italians n=1/67 1.5% Cruciani 2004.
Lombard n=1/18 5.6% Scozzari 2001.
Venetian n=20 0.0% Scozzari 2001.
Ligurian n=17 0.0% Scozzari 2001.

[Angela]

It's interesting how Moorjani et al's own calculations contradict some of their own claims. Even assuming that their calculations and the value they assigned for a "generation" (which is usually accepted as 30 or 35 years, not 29) are correct, that "African" ancestry in Europe still predates the existence of Islam itself, let alone any Islamic "invasions". Their dating, however, does indeed coincide with the late Roman period, another of their claims regarding how this ancestry entered Europe.

I would be wary of giving very much credence to any of the Moorjani et al conclusions. All of the figures for West African admixture are inflated. The Reich lab which produced it corrected the assumptions upon which their calculations were based in their subsequent papers, including, of course, Lipson et al. I think I already posted this somewhere. If you want to see the detail of the problems with Moorjani et al just search on Dienekes site. He pointed them out as soon as the paper came out, and the subsequent Reich Lab papers took exactly the same approach as he had advocated in his blog.

Also, in some cases, although not in all, the program used to date the admixture seems to have problems differentiating between the general time of the most recent admixture and the cumulative effect of all the prior admixture. In other words, let's assume that in a certain area, there has been admixture for two thousand years. The program might, depending on the population history of the particular area, pick up the last date of admixture as the only one which occurred.

An example of how the program might give erroneous conclusions is in the case of the Egyptians. If I remember correctly, the admixture with SSA was held to have occurred in the late classical era. That defies logic, in my opinion. While I'm sure that the Arab slave trade of the slightly later Arab/Muslim expansion greatly impacted Egypt, it seems pretty obvious to me from archaeology and the art of prior periods that there was SSA admixture before then.

[martiko]

As Maciamo already answered me (post#8 / 24-09-13) the dot with the high E-M81 are the Pasiegos from Cantabria;

yes! but it is not the motive of their presence, and it is that I give information to you because your question seemed. But it is not theory accept by all but the most likely historically.

[Drac II]

I would be wary of giving very much credence to any of the Moorjani et al conclusions. All of the figures for West African admixture are inflated. The Reich lab which produced it corrected the assumptions upon which their calculations were based in their subsequent papers, including, of course, Lipson et al. I think I already posted this somewhere. If you want to see the detail of the problems with Moorjani et al just search on Dienekes site. He pointed them out as soon as the paper came out, and the subsequent Reich Lab papers took exactly the same approach as he had advocated in his blog.

Also, in some cases, although not in all, the program used to date the admixture seems to have problems differentiating between the general time of the most recent admixture and the cumulative effect of all the prior admixture. In other words, let's assume that in a certain area, there has been admixture for two thousand years. The program might, depending on the population history of the particular area, pick up the last date of admixture as the only one which occurred.

An example of how the program might give erroneous conclusions is in the case of the Egyptians. If I remember correctly, the admixture with SSA was held to have occurred in the late classical era. That defies logic, in my opinion. While I'm sure that the Arab slave trade of the slightly later Arab/Muslim expansion greatly impacted Egypt, it seems pretty obvious to me from archaeology and the art of prior periods that there was SSA admixture before then.

I also wonder if they in fact did not also include some North African DNA as "sub-Saharan", possibly to "inflate" things a bit for southern Europe. Besides whatever problems their study may have, it is clear that they had a very transparent agenda to make it look as if northern Europe does not have sub-Saharan input. Contrary to their claims that other studies have not found it among northern Europeans, there's actually several studies that have, and I'm pretty sure that they were aware of it but claimed the contrary nonetheless.

[martiko]

I also wonder if they in fact did not also include some North African DNA as "sub-Saharan", possibly to "inflate" things a bit for southern Europe. Besides whatever problems their study may have, it is clear that they had a very transparent agenda to make it look as if northern Europe does not have sub-Saharan input. Contrary to their claims that other studies have not found it among northern Europeans, there's actually several studies that have, and I'm pretty sure that they were aware of it but claimed the contrary nonetheless.

http://thegeneticatlas.com/World_Y-DNA.htm
E1b.pngY_Hap_EM-81.PNG

http://thegeneticatlas.com/E1b_Y-DNA.htm


you must be able to explain me why there is as much in Italy as in Spain E1b1b1 on these cards.
E1b1b.jpg

Of other one by the period of the reconquista by Navarre was a bloody period from which policy was the destroying of the Muslim believers; rape and murder was the answer of violence to violence and it is not justice to reproach Spanishes for what was fact of of the vasco-navarre, they also left a lot M167 in regions purified by Spain, it shows that writings are far from having gone too far this period (according to genetics the reconquista was génocidaire). The Andalusia is the most convincing example on masculine descendants compared with the female descendants.

http://thegeneticatlas.com/population.htm

[Sile]

@martiko

I think the data you placed on Page 30 is too "up to date", its only 5 years old, maybe we need to go back 20 years for more accuracy!

[martiko]

given data are and I believe what I see, and you see you only what you want to believe
I point out to you that in these data there is polarity if you read them attentively.

[Beavrrit]

I spoke with a local Basque, neighbors to the Pasiegos, and he explained to me what they know from those 20-40% dot people. The singular and heavy presence of Pasiegos in the northern mountains of Iberia, and their spread among Cantabrians and some Basque territory, is attested since the XII century or earlier. Their origin seem to be owed to Royal grants on their valleys (and those of other peasant local folks) to have free range on all the communal pastures of others, and to be free of any taxation for it from the nearby nobility or Abbots, what made them hated and subject to all sort of mistrust from sedentary farmers, and to isolate themselves to shield their rights and cast abuses off. They couldn't tell me or didn't know, where the Pasiegos came from before that, or the reasons for their grants of such privileges. No later Gypsies or others foreigners were ever known to have such freedoms or territory rights, given among and above Christians, except those with similar royal grants around those centuries, given to the so called "Francos" to settle along the Compostela road valleys, fords or towns. But those were known from where they arrived, with their foreign family names and own languages, been called to do so all the way from Aquitaine, Champagne and Lower Saxony. Did Kings trade settlers with the Emperors of Central Europe, the Poles or Baltic Lithuanians in those "population booming" days before The Plague? Could Iberian families have ended up too in the other far away Christian new marches of Prussia, called along the French by the Knights of those places to settle "new territory"? How much medieval colonization was done over as vast distances as the Crusaders did?

[Beavrrit]

English settlers in Germany and Hungary too!

[martiko]

I spoke with a local Basque, neighbors to the Pasiegos, and he explained to me what they know from those 20-40% dot people. The singular and heavy presence of Pasiegos in the northern mountains of Iberia, and their spread among Cantabrians and some Basque territory, is attested since the XII century or earlier. Their origin seem to be owed to Royal grants on their valleys (and those of other peasant local folks) to have free range on all the communal pastures of others, and to be free of any taxation for it from the nearby nobility or Abbots, what made them hated and subject to all sort of mistrust from sedentary farmers, and to isolate themselves to shield their rights and cast abuses off. They couldn't tell me or didn't know, where the Pasiegos came from before that, or the reasons for their grants of such privileges. No later Gypsies or others foreigners were ever known to have such freedoms or territory rights, given among and above Christians, except those with similar royal grants around those centuries, given to the so called "Francos" to settle along the Compostela road valleys, fords or towns. But those were known from where they arrived, with their foreign family names and own languages, been called to do so all the way from Aquitaine, Champagne and Lower Saxony. Did Kings trade settlers with the Emperors of Central Europe, the Poles or Baltic Lithuanians in those "population booming" days before The Plague? Could Iberian families have ended up too in the other far away Christian new marches of Prussia, called along the French by the Knights of those places to settle "new territory"? How much medieval colonization was done over as vast distances as the Crusaders did?

the pasiegos which are a very located population, seem to be the descendants of ancient Roman troops or Carthaginian, parked strategically on the barrier of the Pyrenees, they are pushed back by the plagues of wisigoths then vasgondes later. They distinguish themselves only by them Y DNA from other Spanishes, but anything distinctive in Mt DNA.

[Beavrrit]

the pasiegos which are a very located population, seem to be the descendants of ancient Roman troops or Carthaginian, parked strategically on the barrier of the Pyrenees, they are pushed back by the plagues of wisigoths then vasgondes later. They distinguish themselves only by them Y DNA from other Spanishes, but anything distinctive in Mt DNA.

That is interesting. There is sources for that? But data seems not right. The Pasiegos are not really anywhere near the Pyrenees but in deep valleys within the Cantabrian coast mountains. The closest to the Pyrenees mountain passes (Pass-egos?) is 200 km away from the Pasiegos, either by the Romans road that connected the Asturica Legio main garrison city to the one in Pompaelo (modern Pamplona), from nearby Uxama or the one (longer) by the coast from nearby Flaviobriga. And if they were Roman North Africans stationed in the Pyrenees, why would they be pushed by the Basques, if these were always allied to the Romans who built their first urban market centers? They would have been already "locals" since Hannibal days. And if pushed by the hostile Visigoths, how comes these seem to have "merged" with the Pasiegos? The haplo R1a, probably carried by the Goths all the way from East Prussia, is among the Pasiegos the highest in all the Iberian peninsula

[Wilhelm]

That is interesting. There is sources for that? But data seems not right. The Pasiegos are not really anywhere near the Pyrenees but in deep valleys within the Cantabrian coast mountains. The closest to the Pyrenees mountain passes (Pass-egos?) is 200 km away from the Pasiegos, either by the Romans road that connected the Asturica Legio main garrison city to the one in Pompaelo (modern Pamplona), from nearby Uxama or the one (longer) by the coast from nearby Flaviobriga. And if they were Roman North Africans stationed in the Pyrenees, why would they be pushed by the Basques, if these were always allied to the Romans who built their first urban market centers? They would have been already "locals" since Hannibal days. And if pushed by the hostile Visigoths, how comes these seem to have "merged" with the Pasiegos? The haplo R1a, probably carried by the Goths all the way from East Prussia, is among the Pasiegos the highest in all the Iberian peninsula

All these theories are crap, it's more probable that the E-M81 ended up there in pre-historic times, like neolithic .

[Beavrrit]

OR... was hg E-M81 already brought by the Visigoths migration train along hg R1a from somewhere else? The Baltic or Black sea? From their Vandals or Ostrogoth allies in the Mediterranean? There were truly some of these barbarians who went back to Scandinavia with new "brothers in arms" as tribe members?

[Beavrrit]

All these theories are crap, it's more probable that the E-M81 ended up there in pre-historic times, like neolithic .

I also agree, the hg 81 seems too widespread, although in thin thread declining minority, to have appeared by queer chance from a few, or many, military outposts in a very conspicuous row of them, where the % must have been higher to get the surviving results. And if so.... HOW so much less E-M81 % presence, along the same Roman or Carthaginian or Arab much more important military stations in the opposite coast, the Mediterranean coastline roads or ports, where there was an accounted record in all Classic sources of these Numidians legions, or later Moorish cavalries, easier to exchange and to transport but much harder to avoid? The % in the European western Mediterranean should be much higher than in the Atlantic mountain valleys, even if just by Mediterranean seaports demographic surplus "overboard accidents", century after century, and millennia/s.

[Sile]

I also agree, the hg 81 seems too widespread, although in thin thread declining minority, to have appeared by queer chance from a few, or many, military outposts in a very conspicuous row of them, where the % must have been higher to get the surviving results. And if so.... HOW so much less E-M81 % presence, along the same Roman or Carthaginian or Arab much more important military stations in the opposite coast, the Mediterranean coastline roads or ports, where there was an accounted record in all Classic sources of these Numidians legions, or later Moorish cavalries, easier to exchange and to transport but much harder to avoid? The % in the European western Mediterranean should be much higher than in the Atlantic mountain valleys, even if just by Mediterranean seaports demographic surplus "overboard accidents", century after century, and millennia/s.

we can tell if numidian E is iberian E as numidian where brought to southern italy in great numbers after the demise of the Carthaginians ........if this E in the same as iberian E, then Iberian E is north-african.

The proposed ( by you ) E brought by vandals/visi/ostrogoths ( picked up along the way would be in majority E-v13

[martiko]

That is interesting. There is sources for that? But data seems not right. The Pasiegos are not really anywhere near the Pyrenees but in deep valleys within the Cantabrian coast mountains. The closest to the Pyrenees mountain passes (Pass-egos?) is 200 km away from the Pasiegos, either by the Romans road that connected the Asturica Legio main garrison city to the one in Pompaelo (modern Pamplona), from nearby Uxama or the one (longer) by the coast from nearby Flaviobriga. And if they were Roman North Africans stationed in the Pyrenees, why would they be pushed by the Basques, if these were always allied to the Romans who built their first urban market centers? They would have been already "locals" since Hannibal days. And if pushed by the hostile Visigoths, how comes these seem to have "merged" with the Pasiegos? The haplo R1a, probably carried by the Goths all the way from East Prussia, is among the Pasiegos the highest in all the Iberian peninsula

why ask questions you since according to your text you already know??

[Beavrrit]

why ask questions you since according to your text you already know??

I -as many- still can't really know it, thus why asking aloud in an open forum if somebody knows better theory/ies that may fall more accurate with the missing pieces of the Puzzle, and not in disarray with what known historically, pan-sifting through them as near and far back as historical recordings and archaeology allows possible to the mysterious Passiegos origins and their y-dna kin folk across Europe, as my grandparents seem to have been. But since when in the Baltic, and how did they got there? And I really wish and hope that some do not keep trying to see if the kindergarten history-legends omelette, or whatever is they still have vague memories, sticks at last after many tries to the History wall linking all the E-M81 in Western Europe, etc to the Romans "missing" IX Legion, jack of all jokers in the card deck of historical genetics, or to the garrison Moors of Granada or earlier Cordova had (in Auvergne or Brandenburg? but sure it works for Poitiers), unless somebody comes up with another one of these military campfire tales... and maybe link it all to one "about the famous elephants drivers of Carthago gone missing" that decided to quit on Hannibal, and took a trek away from Italy to tour around Europe.

[Beavrrit]

we can tell if numidian E is iberian E as numidian where brought to southern italy in great numbers after the demise of the Carthaginians ........if this E in the same as iberian E, then Iberian E is north-african.

The proposed ( by you ) E brought by vandals/visi/ostrogoths ( picked up along the way would be in majority E-v13

Not proposed, but asked -by me (note the "?")- if known about it or its possibility, given the mention by Martiko of those barbarians as "hostile to Passiegos" being the cause to their existence there. And taking into account who these really were and came from along with (according to UK expert Peter Heather reviews of all of their federations ethno-genesis).
As for to, linking Numidians in the Italian peninsula to those in the Iberian one, seems a great idea for something else, but as proof of coming from North Africa....why? Unless you identify the historical Numidians in southern Italy with those "Numidians from the Balkans". But the thread is not about those, or the other E1b1b spread in Europe, but just those possibly linked with the spread of E-M81. Capisci? ;)

[Biloo]

E-M81 is thought to be 5000 years old (Cruciani et al. 2004, Arredi et al. 2004). It has probably started to be widespread in Northwest Africa 3500 to 4000 years ago so its presence in Europe is even more recent.

[Beavrrit]

E-M81 is thought to be 5000 years old (Cruciani et al. 2004, Arredi et al. 2004). It has probably started to be widespread in Northwest Africa 3500 to 4000 years ago so its presence in Europe is even more recent.

"thought" and "probable" are very wobbly measures to end deducting as "is even" in that mathematic cloud (5000-3500=1500 BP???) and even harder to translate it through that howitzer over the ground hard evidence of the archaeological record dig of cultures or bones "still not walking that talk" (within the same chrono-slo-mo). So, shall we return to known evidence instead of faux-forensics in the lack of real dead bodies telling us the time when+where they fell on it? I am all Listening, but some times such pontifical "estimated age or movement time of haplogroups", or their presence in a geographic historical context, sounds from some lab experts as monday quarterbacking just from knowing the score or teams final pile of laundry, and never actually seen the game or corroborate with the field observers.

[martiko]

there were normal compsition of the Roman troops led from Carthage who occupied the peninsula fortified position on uncontrolled regions empire. The troops were varied in composition depending on the area that are occupied and as Carthage had taken dominion over the Iberian Peninsula in Rome for a long time.

[MOESAN]

E-M81 is thought to be 5000 years old (Cruciani et al. 2004, Arredi et al. 2004). It has probably started to be widespread in Northwest Africa 3500 to 4000 years ago so its presence in Europe is even more recent.

I have always had some doubts about the accuracy of these age calculations about genes - so, the first Y-E-M81 in North-Africa came only by the 2000/1500 BC ??? and reached a 80% of distributions among Marocco berber males??? glup! let's take a fresh drink and some rest too...
I have not the knowledge to discuss these results but I must say they seem nonsense to me (but I can mistake?)
the distribution as a whole in Europe is very western after being very southwestern and I 'm tempted to think this Y-HG is older than East Neolithic i it does not seem to me linked to any historical big move - I do not say there had not been more recent moves of less importannce, drown among more numerous HG's (the less neglictible could have been the moves implied by the megalithic and subsequent Atlantic Bronze, still at very very low rates -

[Beavrrit]

there were normal compsition of the Roman troops led from Carthage who occupied the peninsula fortified position on uncontrolled regions empire. The troops were varied in composition depending on the area that are occupied and as Carthage had taken dominion over the Iberian Peninsula in Rome for a long time.

Well, let's see why and for how long that runs.
This can't be part of the blind Africanism running savage elsewhere, but a "lite-version" of it trying to conscript all African traces in Europe into some pseudo-military "invader" intruder set. Is that it? And I hope is not either from the Nordicist rehash-supremacy kitchens.
So let's start with the Iberians peninsula conundrum, and the supposedly Legionnaire-theories. Which will it may work "as well" as those who LUMPED all "Asian" (Middle-easterners' most common) haplogroups present in the modern population of the peninsula, to their only brand of "Semites"... What was that, up to one THIRD of the modern inhabitants of Spain (perhaps Portugal) are "Jews" or descendants of them? Lost tribes, renegade Hebrews or what not?
But on the Military narrower view, it could explain those in "occupied" parts of Iberia or of Europe where the Romans or Carthaginians held territory, that must have cantoned larger numbers of soldiers or slaves just from Africa _including or composed mostly of those with E-M81.
But how that SPQR colonii-manumitio for their slaves or veterans discharge... works to explain the presence of those genetically alike beyond their maximum reach in Europe??? The Jews again, the Vatican, and their missionary missions sent to spread the news to the pagans among Slavs, Scandinavians, Balts or Finns, etc but integrated just.... with those from the African or -concentrated formula of E1b1b1- Iberian clergy? They must have been very busy proselytizing.Let's review the hard evidence (or until the bones "speak" from their time-period qualified graves) of the Classical sources, however incomplete they may be. The first reports of Africans within the Iberian peninsula comes from those -second hand- that witnessed them along the Ancient Greeks, Thyrrhenians, Lybians or Lydians and even Egyptians -not always middlemen involved- visiting and trading in the Tartessian Atlantic ports beyond the Mediterranean. Now, we do not have a way to know, if they just touched and go did their business and never stayed or left issue, however there must have been as true as it always have been yesterday as today, many "Polynesian style" welcoming Iberian women that were... expecting more, much more, many times from those happy sailors, and for many generations. We know that the Phoenician and later the Libyo-phoenicians did stay longer, and some forever thanks to their elaborate burials way before they built their own citadels, however not as much is left of their as sophisticated living rich refinements in the archaeological findings so far, as it is known from others sources contemporary to them. So, considering the proximity and for sure, a higher percentage presence of North-Africans among those from more distant ports through such busy navigated waters as those of the Tartessians and their neighbors, the input in the local demographic must have only snowballed over time and generations, as much if not higher as that of the so called "Orientals" genetic evidence left in the modern record, on that southern half of the Iberian peninsula before the arrival of others from the Urnfields-Hallsttat cultural spheres.
Next we hear of African-Iberian possible affairs in the Ancient Classical records, may be indirectly taken when they speak of Iberian mercenaries involved in the Greeks wars in Sicily. If they went, or were sent for, that far...would they have carried with as much ease but inversely as them, some North-Africans to be employed so in the Greek colonies in the coasts of Iberia or Gaul? But little is seen of that in the Mediterranean coasts where Greeks were masters of ceremonies for centuries.
Short after that, we read that the Phoenicians -locally made big in North Africa- started to take under Hannibal's father a serious interest in spreading their might and safety of colonies in the Iberian coasts, to which his sons took a serious effort before jumping themselves on the throat of Rome within the Italian peninsula. But Hannibal and his brothers or fellow generals never had time to go and do their "invader conquests in Spain", so they never took their North-African elephants and cavalry allies, much far inland than to "flex muscle and lean over" smaller neighbor tribes, with the purpose to leave a breathing space treaties with which to cover their backs and to extort as many troops FROM the Iberians as they did from the North-Africans before their road to Rome. The most far north they did campaigns was near modern Salamanca and Madrid, but on the Central plains! And it is known from contemporary and latter records that the local Celtiberians or Lusitanians didn't become "African occupied"....
So, however garrisoned or on campaign, the Carthaginians endeavours never took them anywhere near over the areas were the presence of the E-M81 is attributed to their African troops. Hannibal's brothers left in charge of their peninsula affairs had exactly this problem, lack of any kind of troops to confront the arrival of new Roman armies to contest the "control of Iberia" and even the very existence of the Carthaginian cities...
After this dramatic period, however confusing war times are, the Classical record becomes much better kept in line of events and provided with all sorts of details. The Romans on taking over the "control of Iberia" from the Carthaginians didn't got it all solved and done, not even the romantic view of North-African and Carthaginian troops at their northern mythical forts just changing flags and cruising in Latin, garbed in the latest Italian fashions. The Roman record is more concise and precise. They had to start from the scratch, and almost all past treaties of Iberians with Carthaginians became wet-papyrus, having to suffocate repeated rebellions even within coastal colonies and own former allies as the Saguntians were. By the time the Roman legates sent to their Iberian provinces arrived anywhere near the Iberian regions -where the presence of E-M81 is today more conspicuously notorious among the locals, their employed North-African auxiliaries in their armies have been fighting and stationed too all the way from Carthage-Nova. But interestingly and strangely, given the theory of "Military-M81's".... their imprint on the local population of those older Roman or Carthaginian provinces is soooo much less in lower percentage than in the other side of Iberia.

WHY IS THAT SIMPLE & COMMON LOGIC FAILING???
Even juxtaposing it too for the centuries later Arabs-Muslim dominion of similar Mediterranean coastal provinces of Iberia for many centuries too.
Where is the archaeological backing evidence of any substantial North-African presence in the North West of Iberia, if Moorish with their Mosques plants ruins or their minimal Moabite cenobiums, or just their tombstones (even recycled within later buildings) and their military accouterments from same origin, as they have been found in other regions of the peninsula -where their presence is supposedly on the genetic outcome to have been less-.
And they don't need to be even as big as the African elephant bones -from that period- found outside Numantia!
Just some North-African lesser things, anything somewhere within Portugal-Galicia-NW Spain. From small tweezers for personal use or horse trappings of the equestrian wings of North Africans within the Roman Empire, seen even by the Hungarian Limes stations. Why not more profuse in Northwest Iberia.... according to theory?

[Beavrrit]

And given, that we know for SURE, that North African troops of the Islamic Caliphate occupation armies were cantoned on the Northwest of the Iberian peninsula, from Asturica-Legio in the plains deep into the Gallaecia and Asturicum provinces all the way to their coastal city ports from Gijon to Vigo passing through the main towns of Lugo and Iriae Flavia, exactly from 713 to 739 when they abandoned their posts and shipped back to join the renewed rebellion in their homeland... Of those 26 so long years of certainty we have even less extant from the ground evidence, than what expected at any other side of the peninsula where their presence was sooooooo much looooooonger, but strangely (!) genetically of much less impact than seen over there. If they were so productive breeding in that short period of time, why would they have left that Paradise-dream military post to go join the carnage back in Maghreb? The reports and some archaeological data indicate, that those years of dream occupation and post-breeding "blooming season" were under the hardly good rearing times of plagues and famines, due to excessive dry weather that ruined harvests causing a high mortality twice in a row for any successful outcome of it, for new comers even less than for the most populous "local lineages".

[Drac II]

Well, let's see why and for how long that runs.
This can't be part of the blind Africanism running savage elsewhere, but a "lite-version" of it trying to conscript all African traces in Europe into some pseudo-military "invader" intruder set. Is that it? And I hope is not either from the Nordicist rehash-supremacy kitchens.
So let's start with the Iberians peninsula conundrum, and the supposedly Legionnaire-theories. Which will it may work "as well" as those who LUMPED all "Asian" (Middle-easterners' most common) haplogroups present in the modern population of the peninsula, to their only brand of "Semites"... What was that, up to one THIRD of the modern inhabitants of Spain (perhaps Portugal) are "Jews" or descendants of them? Lost tribes, renegade Hebrews or what not?

If I read you correctly, this is a reference to that claim by Adams et al., which besides being absurd (they interpreted even haplogroup I as "Jewish"; yes, that's how desperate they were to find anything they could attribute to "non-European" influence in the Iberian Peninsula) it does indeed refer to both Spain and Portugal put together under the term "Iberia".

Regarding foreign military occupations supposedly affecting the northwestern part of the peninsula: I agree. There was hardly any of it, either in Roman or Islamic times. Paradoxically for those who want to make such claims, the southern parts of the Peninsula, the ones that saw the most activity in this regard, have less of these haplogroups that keep getting manipulated by people with agendas.