Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 342

Thread: DNA of Iberians from Europe

  1. #1
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Johannes's Avatar
    Join Date
    26-12-14
    Posts
    435
    Points
    4,137
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,137, Level: 18
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 113
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2a1

    Ethnic group
    Celtic/Germanic/Basque
    Country: United States



    1 out of 2 members found this post helpful.

    DNA of Iberians from Europe

    I have exhausted my search for anyone here who had covered the Iberians from Europe. Even Maciamo on his "Genetic Origins of the Iberian People" skips the Iberians when he covers the Mesolithic and Neolithic and then skips into the Celts. Its incredible that no one has come out with the DNA of Iberians. Iberians were the first to inhabit Spain and Portugal. It is believed that they arrived from the farthest area of the Mediterranean during the Neolithic period (6,000-5,000 BCE). Some historians have stated that the Iberians were related to the Ligurians of Southern Gaul. Others have asserted that their originated in North Africa and migrated into Europe. While others claim that they were the same as the Basques. The Iberians did live very close to the Basques. Iberian towns were located from the Ebro River (hence the name "Iberian" and which is next to Navarra, the original homeland of the Basques) and settled all of the eastern sea board from Catalonia to Andalusia. During the 6th and 5th centuries the Celts arrived and occupied all of the center and northwest of the peninsula. In the center of the peninsula the Celts mixed with the Iberians and created the CeltiIberians. All of this but no DNA. It is clear that the bulk of the Iberian towns (and population) were located in the eastern seaboard of the peninsula and in southern Spain. When the Carthegenians colonized parts of southern Iberia they mixed with the locals. But it was the Romans who completely changed both the culture and the DNA of the Iberians. Did Iberians bring the R1b from Anatolia? Where they a proto-Celtic people? Were they related to the Basques? Or were the Iberians a Mesolithic people that carried I1a?

  2. #2
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger Second ClassVeteran10000 Experience Points
    Twilight's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-06-12
    Location
    Seattle, Washington
    Age
    25
    Posts
    882
    Points
    12,188
    Level
    33
    Points: 12,188, Level: 33
    Level completed: 34%, Points required for next Level: 462
    Overall activity: 1.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-U152-Z56-BY3957
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c7a

    Ethnic group
    15/32 British, 5/32 German, 9/64 Irish, 1/8 Scots Gaelic, 5/64 French, 1/32 Welsh
    Country: USA - Washington



    I don't think there is actually a known single origin for the Iberians at this point, although according to ancestrydna the average Spaniard/Portugese has about 51% Iberian.

    During the Spanish Neolithic, we are looking at 2 groups of people; La Almagra, Cardium Pottery and Tardenoisian cultures making up the Iberian people before the Celts arrived to create the celtiberians
    http://www.eupedia.com/europe/neolit...late_neolithic

  3. #3
    Banned Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    12-10-11
    Posts
    713
    Points
    4,883
    Level
    20
    Points: 4,883, Level: 20
    Level completed: 59%, Points required for next Level: 167
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: United States



    0 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Johannes View Post
    When the Carthegenians colonized parts of southern Iberia they mixed with the locals. But it was the Romans who completely changed both the culture and the DNA of the Iberians.
    Neither the Carthaginians nor the Romans came to Iberia in huge numbers. They were only foreign minorities who established themselves as ruling elites, while the bulk of the population were just the natives who were already there before, as it usually happens with military invasions. So trying to attribute any supposed large change in the DNA of the Iberians on either of them is not very plausible.

    Culture is a very different thing. Cultural/religious/linguistic elements from one population can be easily adopted and assimilated by another one with totally different origins without requiring any large population interactions between the two.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Johannes's Avatar
    Join Date
    26-12-14
    Posts
    435
    Points
    4,137
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,137, Level: 18
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 113
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2a1

    Ethnic group
    Celtic/Germanic/Basque
    Country: United States



    So it seems like the Iberians were I2a, I1b, G2a, and E1b1?

  5. #5
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Johannes's Avatar
    Join Date
    26-12-14
    Posts
    435
    Points
    4,137
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,137, Level: 18
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 113
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2a1

    Ethnic group
    Celtic/Germanic/Basque
    Country: United States



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    QUOTE=Drac II;457778]Neither the Carthaginians nor the Romans came to Iberia in huge numbers. They were only foreign minorities who established themselves as ruling elites, while the bulk of the population were just the natives who were already there before, as it usually happens with military invasions. So trying to attribute any supposed large change in the DNA of the Iberians on either of them is not very plausible.

    Culture is a very different thing. Cultural/religious/linguistic elements from one population can be easily adopted and assimilated by another one with totally different origins without requiring any large population interactions between the two.[ QUOTE]

    I know the Carthaginians did not constitute a large amount of male soldiers to mate with Iberian women. But certainly the four Roman Legions stationed in Iberia did make a considerable amount of DNA to the peninsula. Plus many Romans migrated to Iberia for free lands and other means. Therefore a considerable amount of DNA from Italy and other places was transferred into Iberia. Iberia only contained about 4 millions. Therefore a several thousands of males will make a considerable contribution in the DNA. You sound Spaniard are pure or something. Are you saying Iberians are pure race????

  6. #6
    Elite member Achievements:
    OverdriveThree Friends5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Hauteville's Avatar
    Join Date
    28-11-14
    Posts
    824
    Points
    9,640
    Level
    29
    Points: 9,640, Level: 29
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 310
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I-S185
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2b

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    Phoenician (and Carthaginians who were Phoenicias themselves) colonization was somewhat different from the Greek colonization and Roman one different as well.
    Greeks founded ex novo and populated their cities with their people (like early English in western american coast for example), Punic colonization was more like a commercial influences in the other native populations and their cities were more like multicultural emporiums, while Roman colonization is more like a large group of Italic families who settled in the pre existent cities and pre populated with local people.
    I.e group of Romans who settled in an existent and populated city of Celts in England.
    Sicilians and mainlander Southern Italian phenotype galleries.

    http://italicroots.lefora.com/topic/1111/Re-Groups-of-Sicilians
    http://italicroots.lefora.com/topic/375/Southern-italians-how-we-really-look

  7. #7
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Johannes's Avatar
    Join Date
    26-12-14
    Posts
    435
    Points
    4,137
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,137, Level: 18
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 113
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2a1

    Ethnic group
    Celtic/Germanic/Basque
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Hauteville View Post
    Phoenician (and Carthaginians who were Phoenicias themselves) colonization was somewhat different from the Greek colonization and Roman one different as well.
    Greeks founded ex novo and populated their cities with their people (like early English in western american coast for example), Punic colonization was more like a commercial influences in the other native populations and their cities were more like multicultural emporiums, while Roman colonization is more like a large group of Italic families who settled in the pre existent cities and pre populated with local people.
    I.e group of Romans who settled in an existent and populated city of Celts in England.
    That is correct. Virtually all of Andalusia and the eastern sea board of Spain was populated by Roman veterans and other Italians who came to settle on free land given by the emperors. We don't know the exact numbers but they were large. Usually after 25 years of service in the army the emperor gave the veterans land. This was dome to facilitate integration and they basically helped establish the Latin culture in the Iberian peninsula. Also the vast majority of the veterans married Iberian women (Celtic and Iberian) and thus added to the DNA.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Johannes's Avatar
    Join Date
    26-12-14
    Posts
    435
    Points
    4,137
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,137, Level: 18
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 113
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2a1

    Ethnic group
    Celtic/Germanic/Basque
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Drac II View Post
    Neither the Carthaginians nor the Romans came to Iberia in huge numbers. They were only foreign minorities who established themselves as ruling elites, while the bulk of the population were just the natives who were already there before, as it usually happens with military invasions. So trying to attribute any supposed large change in the DNA of the Iberians on either of them is not very plausible.

    Culture is a very different thing. Cultural/religious/linguistic elements from one population can be easily adopted and assimilated by another one with totally different origins without requiring any large population interactions between the two.
    The Roman conquest of Iberia was not just a "military invasion." Many soldiers in the 200 year span settled in Iberia an mostly married local women. Except Gaul Iberia was the most important part of the Roman Empire. Four legions were stationed in Iberia and they were rotated for roughly 200 years. If a legion consisted of 8,000-10,000 men then in 200 years a lot of DNA was transferred into Iberia through sexual contact and marriage with local women. I am not saying the DNA contribution of Italians was huge but I think it was significant in altering certain parts of the Iberian peninsula, such as Andalusia and possibly Catalonia.

  9. #9
    Banned Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    12-10-11
    Posts
    713
    Points
    4,883
    Level
    20
    Points: 4,883, Level: 20
    Level completed: 59%, Points required for next Level: 167
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: United States



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Johannes View Post
    I know the Carthaginians did not constitute a large amount of male soldiers to mate with Iberian women. But certainly the four Roman Legions stationed in Iberia did make a considerable amount of DNA to the peninsula. Plus many Romans migrated to Iberia for free lands and other means. Therefore a considerable amount of DNA from Italy and other places was transferred into Iberia. Iberia only contained about 4 millions. Therefore a several thousands of males will make a considerable contribution in the DNA. You sound Spaniard are pure or something. Are you saying Iberians are pure race????
    The population of Iberia during Roman times was about 6 million inhabitants:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=Nd...000%22&f=false

    "The population of Roman Iberia at its height is ordinarily estimated at 6,000,000"

    Plus over 90% of the inhabitants lived in rural areas (see same source as above), in other words: farmers, shepherds, miners, fishermen, woodsmen, etc. These people would hardly have much contact with foreigners. In fact they would have had very little contact even with other native Iberians/Celts/Celtiberians from other distant parts of the very same peninsula, let alone with small foreign minorities from abroad.

    So some few thousand Roman soldiers distributed in garrisons and cities through the geography of the peninsula are hardly an impressive number. To put the numbers of Roman soldiers you cited into perspective: they did not even make up 1% of the population of Roman-era Iberia.


    Quote Originally Posted by Johannes View Post
    The Roman conquest of Iberia was not just a "military invasion." Many soldiers in the 200 year span settled in Iberia an mostly married local women. Except Gaul Iberia was the most important part of the Roman Empire. Four legions were stationed in Iberia and they were rotated for roughly 200 years. If a legion consisted of 8,000-10,000 men then in 200 years a lot of DNA was transferred into Iberia through sexual contact and marriage with local women. I am not saying the DNA contribution of Italians was huge but I think it was significant in altering certain parts of the Iberian peninsula, such as Andalusia and possibly Catalonia.
    There wasn't any huge migration of Romans into Iberia either. It was just a military conquest, just like that of the earlier Carthaginians and the later Visigoths, Vandals, Swabians and Arabs/Moors, none of whom brought more than a few thousand of their own people into an area that was already populated by millions of native inhabitants (the majority of whom couldn't care less about who was nominally in control of the government, as long as they left them alone and did not overtax them.) The majority of the Iberian and Celtic/Celtiberian population of the peninsula hardly had much contact with the foreign Roman minority:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=fR...ed=0CCMQ6AEwAQ

    "...it was only a small percentage of middle- and upper-class Spaniards who gained any direct contact with Rome and the Romans. It was only in the towns of Andalusia, the east coast and the Ebro valley that there was any marked transition to Roman manners and the Roman way of life, in the first century a.d. The great contrast between city and country that is so noticeable in modern Spain, must have existed then.""

  10. #10
    Elite member Achievements:
    OverdriveThree Friends5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Hauteville's Avatar
    Join Date
    28-11-14
    Posts
    824
    Points
    9,640
    Level
    29
    Points: 9,640, Level: 29
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 310
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I-S185
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2b

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Romans were Italic and basically brothers of Celts.
    My city had strong Roman colonization but it's true that outside modern Italy the modern Spain was the second strategical point in the Roman period for agriculture of the wheat due the sun and the climate.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    26-01-09
    Posts
    624
    Points
    10,729
    Level
    31
    Points: 10,729, Level: 31
    Level completed: 26%, Points required for next Level: 521
    Overall activity: 1.0%


    Country: UK - Scotland



    From the time of Hadrian Italians were few in the legions who generally recruited locally.

    Most Italian legionaries from Augustus onwards came from the north, notably Cisalpine Gaul.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-11-14
    Posts
    177
    Points
    4,291
    Level
    19
    Points: 4,291, Level: 19
    Level completed: 11%, Points required for next Level: 359
    Overall activity: 1.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b U152 L2 L20
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1n

    Ethnic group
    Dutch / French
    Country: Canada-Ontario



    Quote Originally Posted by Johannes View Post
    So it seems like the Iberians were I2a, I1b, G2a, and E1b1?
    In terms of Y DNA I would say yes.
    Species adapt to their environment,
    and those who do so best (the fittest) survive and prosper the most.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Johannes's Avatar
    Join Date
    26-12-14
    Posts
    435
    Points
    4,137
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,137, Level: 18
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 113
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2a1

    Ethnic group
    Celtic/Germanic/Basque
    Country: United States



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Twilight View Post
    I don't think there is actually a known single origin for the Iberians at this point, although according to ancestrydna the average Spaniard/Portugese has about 51% Iberian.

    During the Spanish Neolithic, we are looking at 2 groups of people; La Almagra, Cardium Pottery and Tardenoisian cultures making up the Iberian people before the Celts arrived to create the celtiberians
    http://www.eupedia.com/europe/neolit...late_neolithic
    According to the DNA maps it seems the Iberians were a mix of the Meaglithic (I2a, I2b, G2a, and E1b1b) and Bell Beaker (EV13, G2a, I2a, R1b-P312) peoples. But since the Iberians arrive during the Neolithic roughly around 5,000-3,000 BCE they make a strong case for being candidates for R1b-P312.

    So from 6,000-5,000 BCE it seems that Neolithic farmers who carried G2a, E-M78-81, E-V13, T, J1 were the first to enter the Iberian peninsula from the Balkans. Then from 3,000-2500 BCE we see an intrusion of R1b-P312 folk. According to scholars the Iberians arrived in the Iberian peninsula during the 5th and 4th centuries BCE. This coincided with the entry of the Iberians into the Iberian peninsula. This makes sense because the earliest folk to arrive in Western Europe from the east had R1b. Aren't the Basques likewise R1b? can someone please tell me the R1b subclade of the Basques?

    Therefore either the Iberians belong to the Printed Cordium Culture or to the R1b folk. In other words, they were either from Middle East or "Aryan" folk who spoke a pre-Indo-European language close to the Celts.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Johannes's Avatar
    Join Date
    26-12-14
    Posts
    435
    Points
    4,137
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,137, Level: 18
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 113
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2a1

    Ethnic group
    Celtic/Germanic/Basque
    Country: United States



    "There wasn't any huge migration of Romans into Iberia either. It was just a military conquest, just like that of the earlier Carthaginians and the later Visigoths, Vandals, Swabians and Arabs/Moors, none of whom brought more than a few thousand of their own people into an area that was already populated by millions of native inhabitants"

    How can you possibly admit that there were "a few thousands"??? You make me laugh! I will agree with you on the Carthaginians and "Moors." But on others not. The Roman legions were composed of Italians until the Age of Augustus. After that the Romans became seriously decadent and they began to use foreigners or provincials in their armies. If you take 8,000 Italians per legion and multiply by four and 8 periods of rotation of service it comes to over 250,000 males. If they were all sexually starving and ready to settle, you can imagine the result. The same with the Germanics. On average German nations numbered 200,000. If you take Swabians and Goths only that is about half a million. Clearly not "a few thousands."

  15. #15
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Johannes's Avatar
    Join Date
    26-12-14
    Posts
    435
    Points
    4,137
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,137, Level: 18
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 113
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2a1

    Ethnic group
    Celtic/Germanic/Basque
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Vallicanus View Post
    From the time of Hadrian Italians were few in the legions who generally recruited locally.

    Most Italian legionaries from Augustus onwards came from the north, notably Cisalpine Gaul.
    We can roughly divide the participation of Italians into the legions into two periods: 1) from the time of the founding of the Roman Republic all were Italians until the time of Julius Caesar. During that time all veterans were given lands for their serve (25 years usually). Then after the Carthaginians were defeated and the Romans conquered the Greek kingdoms (220-100 BC) the greedy Roman patriarchs took over all the lands in Italy. Thus most Italians had to move out of Italy into other lands. This is why the emperors gave lands in Gaul and Iberia to the veterans. After the Italians became hopelessly decadent the soldiers came usually from Gaul, Iberia, and Germany.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Johannes's Avatar
    Join Date
    26-12-14
    Posts
    435
    Points
    4,137
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,137, Level: 18
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 113
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2a1

    Ethnic group
    Celtic/Germanic/Basque
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Hauteville View Post
    Romans were Italic and basically brothers of Celts. My city had strong Roman colonization but it's true that outside modern Italy the modern Spain was the second strategical point in the Roman period for agriculture of the wheat due the sun and the climate.
    Not by the 1st century BCE. By the time of Julius Caesar, most Romans were very mixed with Greeks, Etruscans, and other North African-Middle Eastern peoples. This is why Romans were generally short, dark haired and eyed, and swarthy. They resembled Jews or Syrians more than Celts. And during the Roman Empire the Italinas became even more mixed by importation of blacks and more Semites. So no they are not related to Celts.

  17. #17
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,561
    Points
    296,507
    Level
    100
    Points: 296,507, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    3 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Johannes View Post
    Not by the 1st century BCE. By the time of Julius Caesar, most Romans were very mixed with Greeks, Etruscans, and other North African-Middle Eastern peoples. This is why Romans were generally short, dark haired and eyed, and swarthy. They resembled Jews or Syrians more than Celts. And during the Roman Empire the Italinas became even more mixed by importation of blacks and more Semites. So no they are not related to Celts.
    Was there some big discovery of ancient Dna from Republican Rome and then from the time of Julius Caesar and then again from the later Empire and they were all compared and somehow I missed it? Or is this anthrofora genetics and history, perhaps?

    These are guesses, and not very well informed guesses either. Had you actually done any academic research into the subject you would know that the number of Sub Saharan Africans imported into Europe by the Romans was very small; the empire only reached the Sahara. (It's true we have the remains from the Roman era of a rather wealthy SSA woman in northern Britain, but these are exceptions rather than the rule, I think.)There was trade with SSAfrica, yes, and East Africa, and so some were bought and sold, but nothing like the numbers who came into Iberia, for example, especially Portugal after the New World was conquered. Watching "The Gladiator" doesn't count as a history lesson, you know.

    Second of all, slaves came from all the Roman conquests, which means there were just as many, if not more, British and Gallic and German and Dacian and Thracian slaves as there were Greeks, and Syrians, and then Jews. You might find it interesting to read about how the sale of slaves from Gaul made Caesar such a wealthy man that he was able to buy the support of the Roman mobs.

    Third of all, many slaves were freedmen who had sold themselves into slavery.

    Fourth of all, slaves were used, used up, usually, all over the empire, on the galleys, in the mines, and on the latifundia, and not just in Italy, and increasingly so as the Empire went on. Given the results from Ralph and Coop discussed below, most of them didn't survive to procreate. Not even the many women put to work in brothels were allowed to keep their children, as the many grave sites full of newborns and aborted fetuses can attest. It wasn't like the American south where because the importation of slaves from Africa was outlawed relatively early on they had to breed them; for a long time during the Empire there was always a new rebellion on the horizon, so they could afford to "waste" them. It's certainly a terrible thing, but those were terrible times, very brutal indeed.

    Now, it's true that the slave system during the Roman Empire was different from that of the American south in that the exceptionally able slaves sometimes managed to get their manumission and rise in society, occasionally to great heights, because "racism" as we understand it today didn't really exist. You have to imagine an American south where enslaved Africans were present, but also freed Africans who owned their own shops, and a few who could become very wealthy, and even wind up in the national legislature. It's difficult to imagine, yes, but that's how it was in the Greek and Roman worlds.

    So, you would think there would have been some gene flow into the "native" population from these freedmen, whom one would have to assume included Gauls and Germans and Dacians as well as Greeks and Syrians and Jews, unless you think the northerners were dumber and less able on average than the Easterners. Of course, that might have been true to a certain extent. An educated Greek scribe or Syrian entertainer or Jewish metal merchant might have been a lot more valuable than some farmer from the north who might just be sent to a latifundia or mine, but I don't think we know enough to speculate about that.

    As to how many manumitted slaves there might have been in any particular country, of what particular ancestry, and how much gene flow there might have been into the "native" population, I don't know. I used to think there must have been a significant amount of it. However, if Ralph and Coop were correct in their IBD study (and don't modify their results in their new upcoming paper), there has been no significant inflow of new genetic material into Italy since about 300 BC, which is late enough for the Celts (Gauls) into northern Italy, and the Greeks diffusing up from Magna Graecia, but not late enough to incorporate hordes of slaves from anywhere, either from Europe or the Near East.

    "There is relatively little common ancestry shared between the Italian peninsula and other locations, and what there is seems to derive mostly from longer ago than 2,500 ya. An exception is that Italy and the neighboring Balkan populations share small but significant numbers of common ancestors in the last 1,500 years."

    Also, "we have seen significant modern substructure within Italy (i.e., Figure 2) that predates most of this common ancestry, and estimate that most of the common ancestry shared between Italy and other populations is older than about 2,300 years."

    I have wondered if perhaps it doesn't register as "new" gene flow because it's just the same old "Near Eastern" farmer ancestry that came into Europe with the Neolithic, but they seem to indicate not. Also, there's the "Italian cline" to consider, where, as Ralph and Coop put it, the Italian cline shows a " distinctly bimodal distribution of numbers of IBD blocks that each Italian shares with both French-speaking Swiss and the United Kingdom, and that these numbers are strongly correlated. Furthermore, the amount that Italians share with these two populations varies continuously from values typical for Turkey and Cyprus, to values typical for France and Switzerland."

    If slaves came from Britain and Gaul and Germany and Dacia as well as Greece and the Near East, did they decide to send all the slaves from the Near East to the south and all the Germans and Gauls to the north for some reason? That doesn't seem to make any sense either, so maybe they're correct.

    See: Ralph and Coop for the source of the quotes.
    http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology...l.pbio.1001555

    As for physical appearance, the Romans were by no means all short and dark. Regardless, what would that have to do with whether the Italics were related to the Celts? You are aware that the two languages are very related yes? And that they came from the steppe, presumably, with the Indo-Europeans? And that the Yamnaya Indo-Europeans were "darker" than modern Europeans, even darker than many modern Italians or Iberians? You're also aware that not all the "Celtic" tribes were fair? Have you ever heard of the Silures? Perhaps you haven't read all the recent papers about the relatively recent selection for "fairness" in Europe and it's relationship to the environment?

    I would suggest you use our search engine. It's quite good...there are numerous papers and discussions which might help you catch up.


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  18. #18
    Elite member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Fire Haired14's Avatar
    Join Date
    20-04-14
    Posts
    2,195
    Points
    28,146
    Level
    51
    Points: 28,146, Level: 51
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 504
    Overall activity: 31.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b DF27*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2a2b1

    Country: USA - Illinois



    Quote Originally Posted by Johannes View Post
    According to the DNA maps it seems the Iberians were a mix of the Meaglithic (I2a, I2b, G2a, and E1b1b) and Bell Beaker (EV13, G2a, I2a, R1b-P312) peoples. But since the Iberians arrive during the Neolithic roughly around 5,000-3,000 BCE they make a strong case for being candidates for R1b-P312.

    So from 6,000-5,000 BCE it seems that Neolithic farmers who carried G2a, E-M78-81, E-V13, T, J1 were the first to enter the Iberian peninsula from the Balkans. Then from 3,000-2500 BCE we see an intrusion of R1b-P312 folk. According to scholars the Iberians arrived in the Iberian peninsula during the 5th and 4th centuries BCE. This coincided with the entry of the Iberians into the Iberian peninsula. This makes sense because the earliest folk to arrive in Western Europe from the east had R1b. Aren't the Basques likewise R1b? can someone please tell me the R1b subclade of the Basques?

    Therefore either the Iberians belong to the Printed Cordium Culture or to the R1b folk. In other words, they were either from Middle East or "Aryan" folk who spoke a pre-Indo-European language close to the Celts.
    I've read that R1b in Basuqe, Iberians, and SouthWest French belong mostly to R1b-DF27(subclade of P312). I've read about DF27 subclades which are "Basque-specific". So, R1b in Basque may be mostly from pretty recent founder effects.

    It don't think it came with Iberians because they only existed in Iberia, while P312 also exists in Celts, Basque, Italics, Germans, and probably: Estruscans and all the other pre-Roman people of Italy. Iberians weren't Indo European. And Aryan is a name only used for some Indo Iranians from South, Central, and West Asia. It's not used for all Indo Europeans. It's meaning has been perverted to mean Indo European or white or European.

  19. #19
    Elite member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Fire Haired14's Avatar
    Join Date
    20-04-14
    Posts
    2,195
    Points
    28,146
    Level
    51
    Points: 28,146, Level: 51
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 504
    Overall activity: 31.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b DF27*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2a2b1

    Country: USA - Illinois



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hauteville View Post
    Romans were Italic and basically brothers of Celts.
    My city had strong Roman colonization but it's true that outside modern Italy the modern Spain was the second strategical point in the Roman period for agriculture of the wheat due the sun and the climate.
    From what I've heard there probably is a close relationship between Celts and Italics. The Bronze age Urnfield culture was in Italy and Central Europe, and was at least partly culturally ancestral to the Gauls and Italics. The high amount of R1b-U152 in Italy and Central Europe clearly reflects this.

    Also, Tuscans can fit as about 50% Bronze age Hungarian and 30% Unetice or Urnfield(Using Eurogenes ANE K8). Either way there's clear Yamnaya, Corded Ware, etc. related blood in Tuscans, as there is in France and Germany(Former Gaulish lands).

  20. #20
    Elite member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Fire Haired14's Avatar
    Join Date
    20-04-14
    Posts
    2,195
    Points
    28,146
    Level
    51
    Points: 28,146, Level: 51
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 504
    Overall activity: 31.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b DF27*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2a2b1

    Country: USA - Illinois



    The Ancient Iberians are an interesting subject. I wish there was someone here who knew a lot about them. My guess is their language(and Basque) arrived in Neolithic times.

    So, their Y DNA originally was probably mostly G2a, I2a, T, H, R1b1(xM269), and E1b-M78(That's what Neolithic Y DNA suggests, see here) and their overall genetic makeup would have been like Middle Neolithic European genomes(40-50 WHG, 60-50 ENF).

    When using ANE K8 to estimate Middle Neolithic Spanish(Basque, Iberian, and related speakers?), Bronze age German, and Middle Eastern(NW Africa, Near East) proportions for Iberians, most come out with even amounts of Bronze age German/MN Spanish and the remaining being Middle Eastern. Basque though come out ~70% MN Spanish and ~30% Bronze age German, with no Middle Eastern.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,119
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Was there some big discovery of ancient Dna from Republican Rome and then from the time of Julius Caesar and then again from the later Empire and they were all compared and somehow I missed it? Or is this anthrofora genetics and history, perhaps?

    These are guesses, and not very well informed guesses either. Had you actually done any academic research into the subject you would know that the number of Sub Saharan Africans imported into Europe by the Romans was very small; the empire only reached the Sahara. (It's true we have the remains from the Roman era of a rather wealthy SSA woman in northern Britain, but these are exceptions rather than the rule, I think.)There was trade with SSAfrica, yes, and East Africa, and so some were bought and sold, but nothing like the numbers who came into Iberia, for example, especially Portugal after the New World was conquered. Watching "The Gladiator" doesn't count as a history lesson, you know.

    Second of all, slaves came from all the Roman conquests, which means there were just as many, if not more, British and Gallic and German and Dacian and Thracian slaves as there were Greeks, and Syrians, and then Jews. You might find it interesting to read about how the sale of slaves from Gaul made Caesar such a wealthy man that he was able to buy the support of the Roman mobs.

    Third of all, many slaves were freedmen who had sold themselves into slavery.

    Fourth of all, slaves were used, used up, usually, all over the empire, on the galleys, in the mines, and on the latifundia, and not just in Italy, and increasingly so as the Empire went on. Given the results from Ralph and Coop discussed below, most of them didn't survive to procreate. Not even the many women put to work in brothels were allowed to keep their children, as the many grave sites full of newborns and aborted fetuses can attest. It wasn't like the American south where because the importation of slaves from Africa was outlawed relatively early on they had to breed them; for a long time during the Empire there was always a new rebellion on the horizon, so they could afford to "waste" them. It's certainly a terrible thing, but those were terrible times, very brutal indeed.

    Now, it's true that the slave system during the Roman Empire was different from that of the American south in that the exceptionally able slaves sometimes managed to get their manumission and rise in society, occasionally to great heights, because "racism" as we understand it today didn't really exist. You have to imagine an American south where enslaved Africans were present, but also freed Africans who owned their own shops, and a few who could become very wealthy, and even wind up in the national legislature. It's difficult to imagine, yes, but that's how it was in the Greek and Roman worlds.

    So, you would think there would have been some gene flow into the "native" population from these freedmen, whom one would have to assume included Gauls and Germans and Dacians as well as Greeks and Syrians and Jews, unless you think the northerners were dumber and less able on average than the Easterners. Of course, that might have been true to a certain extent. An educated Greek scribe or Syrian entertainer or Jewish metal merchant might have been a lot more valuable than some farmer from the north who might just be sent to a latifundia or mine, but I don't think we know enough to speculate about that.

    As to how many manumitted slaves there might have been in any particular country, of what particular ancestry, and how much gene flow there might have been into the "native" population, I don't know. I used to think there must have been a significant amount of it. However, if Ralph and Coop were correct in their IBD study (and don't modify their results in their new upcoming paper), there has been no significant inflow of new genetic material into Italy since about 300 BC, which is late enough for the Celts (Gauls) into northern Italy, and the Greeks diffusing up from Magna Graecia, but not late enough to incorporate hordes of slaves from anywhere, either from Europe or the Near East.

    "There is relatively little common ancestry shared between the Italian peninsula and other locations, and what there is seems to derive mostly from longer ago than 2,500 ya. An exception is that Italy and the neighboring Balkan populations share small but significant numbers of common ancestors in the last 1,500 years."

    Also, "we have seen significant modern substructure within Italy (i.e., Figure 2) that predates most of this common ancestry, and estimate that most of the common ancestry shared between Italy and other populations is older than about 2,300 years."

    I have wondered if perhaps it doesn't register as "new" gene flow because it's just the same old "Near Eastern" farmer ancestry that came into Europe with the Neolithic, but they seem to indicate not. Also, there's the "Italian cline" to consider, where, as Ralph and Coop put it, the Italian cline shows a " distinctly bimodal distribution of numbers of IBD blocks that each Italian shares with both French-speaking Swiss and the United Kingdom, and that these numbers are strongly correlated. Furthermore, the amount that Italians share with these two populations varies continuously from values typical for Turkey and Cyprus, to values typical for France and Switzerland."

    If slaves came from Britain and Gaul and Germany and Dacia as well as Greece and the Near East, did they decide to send all the slaves from the Near East to the south and all the Germans and Gauls to the north for some reason? That doesn't seem to make any sense either, so maybe they're correct.

    See: Ralph and Coop for the source of the quotes.
    http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology...l.pbio.1001555

    As for physical appearance, the Romans were by no means all short and dark. Regardless, what would that have to do with whether the Italics were related to the Celts? You are aware that the two languages are very related yes? And that they came from the steppe, presumably, with the Indo-Europeans? And that the Yamnaya Indo-Europeans were "darker" than modern Europeans, even darker than many modern Italians or Iberians? You're also aware that not all the "Celtic" tribes were fair? Have you ever heard of the Silures? Perhaps you haven't read all the recent papers about the relatively recent selection for "fairness" in Europe and it's relationship to the environment?

    I would suggest you use our search engine. It's quite good...there are numerous papers and discussions which might help you catch up.
    you need to take it step by step.

    Romans where once only Latin
    after they conquered south-italians, the Romans where in majority south-Italians
    after they conquered etruscans and umbrians they gained some central italians, but the majority where still south-Italians.
    At the time of the hannibal wars there was only south and central italians as Romans.
    At the time of the MAcedonians wars there was only south and central italians, plus Iberians
    At the time of the Gallic wars , there was only south and central italians, Greeks plus Iberians plus numibians ( from north africa )
    At the time of the British invasion , there was only south and central italians, Greeks plus Iberians.

    etc

    The composition of Romans was different in every century
    The Time of the Republic was Different to the time of the Empire in regards to Roman legions
    có che un pòpoło no 'l defende pi ła só łéngua el xe prónto par èser s'ciavo

    when a people no longer dares to defend its language it is ripe for slavery.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Johannes's Avatar
    Join Date
    26-12-14
    Posts
    435
    Points
    4,137
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,137, Level: 18
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 113
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2a1

    Ethnic group
    Celtic/Germanic/Basque
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Hauteville View Post
    Phoenician (and Carthaginians who were Phoenicias themselves) colonization was somewhat different from the Greek colonization and Roman one different as well. Greeks founded ex novo and populated their cities with their people (like early English in western american coast for example), Punic colonization was more like a commercial influences in the other native populations and their cities were more like multicultural emporiums, while Roman colonization is more like a large group of Italic families who settled in the pre existent cities and pre populated with local people.
    I.e group of Romans who settled in an existent and populated city of Celts in England.
    That's what I was trying to say, but I focused on the Italian soldiers instead of the immigrants. The Romans brought a significant amount of DNA ONLY into the southern ad eastern areas of the Iberian peninsula, i.e., Andalusia, Valencia, and catalonia

  23. #23
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Johannes's Avatar
    Join Date
    26-12-14
    Posts
    435
    Points
    4,137
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,137, Level: 18
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 113
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2a1

    Ethnic group
    Celtic/Germanic/Basque
    Country: United States



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Was there some big discovery of ancient Dna from Republican Rome and then from the time of Julius Caesar and then again from the later Empire and they were all compared and somehow I missed it? Or is this anthrofora genetics and history, perhaps?

    These are guesses, and not very well informed guesses either. Had you actually done any academic research into the subject you would know that the number of Sub Saharan Africans imported into Europe by the Romans was very small; the empire only reached the Sahara. (It's true we have the remains from the Roman era of a rather wealthy SSA woman in northern Britain, but these are exceptions rather than the rule, I think.)There was trade with SSAfrica, yes, and East Africa, and so some were bought and sold, but nothing like the numbers who came into Iberia, for example, especially Portugal after the New World was conquered. Watching "The Gladiator" doesn't count as a history lesson, you know.

    Second of all, slaves came from all the Roman conquests, which means there were just as many, if not more, British and Gallic and German and Dacian and Thracian slaves as there were Greeks, and Syrians, and then Jews. You might find it interesting to read about how the sale of slaves from Gaul made Caesar such a wealthy man that he was able to buy the support of the Roman mobs.

    Third of all, many slaves were freedmen who had sold themselves into slavery.

    Fourth of all, slaves were used, used up, usually, all over the empire, on the galleys, in the mines, and on the latifundia, and not just in Italy, and increasingly so as the Empire went on. Given the results from Ralph and Coop discussed below, most of them didn't survive to procreate. Not even the many women put to work in brothels were allowed to keep their children, as the many grave sites full of newborns and aborted fetuses can attest. It wasn't like the American south where because the importation of slaves from Africa was outlawed relatively early on they had to breed them; for a long time during the Empire there was always a new rebellion on the horizon, so they could afford to "waste" them. It's certainly a terrible thing, but those were terrible times, very brutal indeed.

    Now, it's true that the slave system during the Roman Empire was different from that of the American south in that the exceptionally able slaves sometimes managed to get their manumission and rise in society, occasionally to great heights, because "racism" as we understand it today didn't really exist. You have to imagine an American south where enslaved Africans were present, but also freed Africans who owned their own shops, and a few who could become very wealthy, and even wind up in the national legislature. It's difficult to imagine, yes, but that's how it was in the Greek and Roman worlds.

    So, you would think there would have been some gene flow into the "native" population from these freedmen, whom one would have to assume included Gauls and Germans and Dacians as well as Greeks and Syrians and Jews, unless you think the northerners were dumber and less able on average than the Easterners. Of course, that might have been true to a certain extent. An educated Greek scribe or Syrian entertainer or Jewish metal merchant might have been a lot more valuable than some farmer from the north who might just be sent to a latifundia or mine, but I don't think we know enough to speculate about that.

    As to how many manumitted slaves there might have been in any particular country, of what particular ancestry, and how much gene flow there might have been into the "native" population, I don't know. I used to think there must have been a significant amount of it. However, if Ralph and Coop were correct in their IBD study (and don't modify their results in their new upcoming paper), there has been no significant inflow of new genetic material into Italy since about 300 BC, which is late enough for the Celts (Gauls) into northern Italy, and the Greeks diffusing up from Magna Graecia, but not late enough to incorporate hordes of slaves from anywhere, either from Europe or the Near East.

    "There is relatively little common ancestry shared between the Italian peninsula and other locations, and what there is seems to derive mostly from longer ago than 2,500 ya. An exception is that Italy and the neighboring Balkan populations share small but significant numbers of common ancestors in the last 1,500 years."

    Also, "we have seen significant modern substructure within Italy (i.e., Figure 2) that predates most of this common ancestry, and estimate that most of the common ancestry shared between Italy and other populations is older than about 2,300 years."

    I have wondered if perhaps it doesn't register as "new" gene flow because it's just the same old "Near Eastern" farmer ancestry that came into Europe with the Neolithic, but they seem to indicate not. Also, there's the "Italian cline" to consider, where, as Ralph and Coop put it, the Italian cline shows a " distinctly bimodal distribution of numbers of IBD blocks that each Italian shares with both French-speaking Swiss and the United Kingdom, and that these numbers are strongly correlated. Furthermore, the amount that Italians share with these two populations varies continuously from values typical for Turkey and Cyprus, to values typical for France and Switzerland."

    If slaves came from Britain and Gaul and Germany and Dacia as well as Greece and the Near East, did they decide to send all the slaves from the Near East to the south and all the Germans and Gauls to the north for some reason? That doesn't seem to make any sense either, so maybe they're correct.

    See: Ralph and Coop for the source of the quotes.
    http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology...l.pbio.1001555

    As for physical appearance, the Romans were by no means all short and dark. Regardless, what would that have to do with whether the Italics were related to the Celts? You are aware that the two languages are very related yes? And that they came from the steppe, presumably, with the Indo-Europeans? And that the Yamnaya Indo-Europeans were "darker" than modern Europeans, even darker than many modern Italians or Iberians? You're also aware that not all the "Celtic" tribes were fair? Have you ever heard of the Silures? Perhaps you haven't read all the recent papers about the relatively recent selection for "fairness" in Europe and it's relationship to the environment?

    I would suggest you use our search engine. It's quite good...there are numerous papers and discussions which might help you catch up.

    First of all I am an amateur historian and not a professional geneticist. I teach history and I mainly use historical sources to explain my reasons. And no-- these are not guesses. I never said the Romans imported hordes of Blacks into Rome or the provinces. I meant to say that the majority came from Syria, Judea and North Africa (more specifically Egypt), including Blacks. How many Blacks were imported no one knows. Either way these people mixed with the Romans and created the modern Italians. (Did you know that by the 5th century AD the majority of the population in Rome was non-Roman?) Yes there were many European slaves but an examination of the Italian DNA and the classical sources points to more Middle Eastern-North African than European. Even if there were 50% European and 50% non-European the Italians were mixed to a considerable extent. These figures clearly show that Italians are among the most mixed of all the peoples of Europe:
    Italy 4.5 3 2.5 4 39 9 15.5 3 13.5 2.5 0 0
    North Italy 7 1 3.5 4.5 49.5 7.5 10 1.5 11 2 0 0
    Tuscany 4 1.5 2.5 4 52.5 9 11.5 2 9 2 0 0
    Central Italy 2.5 2 1.5 3 36 11 23 5 11.5 3 0 0
    South Italy 2.5 3.5 1 3 27.5 10.5 21.5 4 18.5 2.5 0 0
    Sicily 3.5 3 1 4.5 26 8.5 23 3.5 20.5 4 1 0

    As you can see some Italians are not even European as their DNA is more than 50% Middle Eastern/North African.

    You dont have to tell me that Ancient Romans were related to the Celts. I know that. 4,000 years ago they were related but by the time of Julius Caesar the Romans were different. Language does not determine race. No one knows what the ancient Romans looked like but we do know that the Etruscans conquered the Romans and the Romans borrowed heavily fro Etruscans -- the legions, government, religion, and even manners. They also mixed with them. After the Romans conquered the Greeks they mixed with them as well. The Greeks were not fully European or "Aryan." We know from historical sources that the Ionians were descended form ancient peoples (Pelasgian?) who originally did not speak Greek. They adopted Greek probably in order to do business with the invading Mykenaians. Even Thucydides tell us on the causes of the Peloponnesian War that one of the reasons for the Spartans in deciding to go to war was that they suspected the Athenians were not Greek. Races change very rapidly over time when mixed with others that look different. Therefore the Romans were very mixed by the time of Caesar.

    Yes not all Romans were short, dark and swarthy. There were some tall, blondes, and red heads but they were a very small minority Only north of the Po valley were Italians fair and Celtic-looking, But these were not considered Roman). After the Celts were conquered they added more light hair to the "Romans." The same can be said of the Germans later on. However, the Romans, in general, were short, dark haired and eyed, and of fair to swarthy complexion. We see the evidence in their paintings, sculptures, and murals. I am also aware that not all Celts were blond or red haired with tall-muscular bodies. Some were dark. Yes I know who the Silures were. Again language does not determine race. Many peoples that were conquered by the Celts adopted the Celtic language. BUT , in general, the classical sources described the Celts as looking very similar to Germans. Even Julius Caesar got the Celts confused wit the Germans and vise versa.



    You can try and give me all this fancy DNA evidence to support your claims but history is also important.

  24. #24
    Banned Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    12-10-11
    Posts
    713
    Points
    4,883
    Level
    20
    Points: 4,883, Level: 20
    Level completed: 59%, Points required for next Level: 167
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Johannes View Post
    "There wasn't any huge migration of Romans into Iberia either. It was just a military conquest, just like that of the earlier Carthaginians and the later Visigoths, Vandals, Swabians and Arabs/Moors, none of whom brought more than a few thousand of their own people into an area that was already populated by millions of native inhabitants"

    How can you possibly admit that there were "a few thousands"??? You make me laugh! I will agree with you on the Carthaginians and "Moors." But on others not. The Roman legions were composed of Italians until the Age of Augustus. After that the Romans became seriously decadent and they began to use foreigners or provincials in their armies. If you take 8,000 Italians per legion and multiply by four and 8 periods of rotation of service it comes to over 250,000 males. If they were all sexually starving and ready to settle, you can imagine the result. The same with the Germanics. On average German nations numbered 200,000. If you take Swabians and Goths only that is about half a million. Clearly not "a few thousands."
    Look at the numbers you originally cited, they do not even make up 1% of the population of Roman-era Iberia. And by using the new (and likely inflated) numbers they still only would make up about 4% of the population. No matter how you want to look at it, the Romans in Iberia were only a very small minority. Ditto for the Vandals, Swabians and Goths. You are only dealing with military interventions here, not with actual migrations of entire populations. On top of that, these foreigners would have had very little contact with the bulk of the population of the peninsula, who lived in rural areas.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Johannes's Avatar
    Join Date
    26-12-14
    Posts
    435
    Points
    4,137
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,137, Level: 18
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 113
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2a1

    Ethnic group
    Celtic/Germanic/Basque
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Haired14 View Post
    I've read that R1b in Basuqe, Iberians, and SouthWest French belong mostly to R1b-DF27(subclade of P312). I've read about DF27 subclades which are "Basque-specific". So, R1b in Basque may be mostly from pretty recent founder effects.

    It don't think it came with Iberians because they only existed in Iberia, while P312 also exists in Celts, Basque, Italics, Germans, and probably: Estruscans and all the other pre-Roman people of Italy. Iberians weren't Indo European. And Aryan is a name only used for some Indo Iranians from South, Central, and West Asia. It's not used for all Indo Europeans. It's meaning has been perverted to mean Indo European or white or European.
    I am sorry my friend but you seem to have contradicted yourself. You say on the one hand that Iberians and Basques carried R1b-P312,. Then you say that "It don't think it came with Iberians because they only existed in Iberia". Historians never said Iberians were native to the Iberian peninsula. They came from the Balkans or North Africa (I personally think they were European who migrated from the east). So if the Iberians did introduce R1b along with the others, then they were probably related to pre-Celtic peoples, who spoke a pre-Indo European language.

    Aryan is not specific to Central Asian peoples. The word is found in many Indo-European languages. It means "noble." We find the root "Arios" in names among the Celts, Germans, and Greeks. For example, Aristotle = noble and Ariovistus (Suebic king). It is found all over Europe and Asia. No the Nazis did not pervert the term "Aryan." The original Aryans were Europeans (probably related to the Skythians) who moved into India and Iran. And yes -- they were white.

Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •