I'm a geneticist and I think I'm qualified to be skeptical. Callafell team is quite famous for TMRCA infra-estimations and my concerns regarding sub haplogroups distribution are obvious. I still have to go deeper into paper maths but probably and with conservative premises should be closer to 3000 no 2000. I agree with you that the most probable E-M183 iberian origin were the punic wars and the Iberian peninsula barca invasions but also you have to be aware that it doesn't explain the higher E-M183* proportion in iberia and polymorphism rate. A Berber pre-bottelneck E-M183 iberian invasion could fit, but that implies a really short time between mutations appearing, genetic drift and polymorphism fixation in iberian populations. Maybe a population catastrophe after the punic wars...
The punic war theory is also my favorite but on the other hand doesn't explain Pasiegos neither Galicians-Leonese-Asturians. With Pasiegos I don't know. We don't have any idea how such and isolated northern population got such numbers; it is like a lost world population. Regarding Galicians-Leonese-Asturians could be only an infra-estimation of post-industrial modern admixture. After mine basin coal mining industrialization in Asturias and Leon huge waves of andalucians migrated to the north. Taking in account that a big part of the population is not indigenous preindustrial interpretations of the data should be cautious. In Galicia the fish industry was developed by catalans, andalusians and italians. They settled in the cities and small villages and also took all liberal jobs (lawyers, physicians, police...), low jobs were occupied by galicians always in the country side. Nowadays galician cities are full of non-galician surnames (Juncal, Alcaide, Mosquera, Norat, De Centi, Molk, my own surname is Catalan...) and the opposite in the countryside (my hillbilly pals: Ares, Gerpe, Cambre, Gesto...). Which samples should be used in a historical genetic approach, I have a clear answer but I agree sometimes is difficult to be accurate.
Best
Well, since you're a geneticist, the authors should probably be willing to discuss their methodology with you and either alleviate your concerns or acknowledge their errors. Well, I guess it could be a stand-off too.
At any rate, I'd be very interested indeed in hearing what comes of any such discussions or your thoughts after you delve into the math more deeply.
I would point out, however, that I was working with a figure of 3000 BC. So, yes, that would allow for the Carthaginians to have brought it initially to Iberia. However, that doesn't stop the Moors from having brought it as well. It could be additive.
In either case, tracing it to the Carthaginians, as you admit, doesn't solve the problem as to why it plots the way it does, since to my knowledge the Carthaginians never made it to the northwest either. I think looking at it from that perspective, some derivation from Moors makes more sense. At least they were in the north, even if not for a very long time.
As to the amount of admixture that might have occurred, I don't think records from the 1600s will tell the whole story. Invasions are not clean and civilized. We don't know how many boys were born of that initital encounter or the other conflicts throughout the years, times when records were not kept. (Did the parish record keeping in Spain not begin with the Council of Trent?) Even after the expulsions began, people hid, and they hid in more isolated, rural areas. Look at the Belmonte Jews. How many other groups could have done the same, but lost their memory of their heritage? We're not trying to explain R1b type of percentages here. The Pasiegos are, I think, easier to explain. In an isolated mountain community a certain y Dna lineage can easily drift to very high levels. Look at the Caucasus. My father's own Apennine valleys are another example. It doesn't change the autosomes, though.
As to that central issue, is there a text, something like the Chiarelli one about the Moors in Sicily, which specifically details the Moorish settlements, land grants, etc.? There must be one, or papers, but I haven't been able to find anything.
Also, can you give me a link to any source which details the population movements after the fall of Granada, i.e. population re-locations, not just those of people from the north to parts of Andalucia, but any out of Andalucia? It would make sense to try to scatter them or at least get them out of Andalucia to guard against revolts. Frederick II did something similar in Sicily. It doesn't matter if they're not in English. My Spanish reading skills are still adequate.
I'm totally with you about the problem with sampling. Amateur analysis is a mess and impossible to verify because you don't know the source of the samples*, or even if they just made it all up, but sometimes I wonder if the academics get it right all of the time as well. Four grandparents from one area are no longer sufficient, unless the person you're testing is ninety years old.
Ed. *Just as one example, an amateur PCA shows that a sample from the Canary Islands plots next to Swiss Germans. Yeah, right.
.