Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 3 of 34 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 846

Thread: All Iberian men were wiped out by Yamna men 4,500 years ago

  1. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    30-05-17
    Posts
    82


    Country: USA - New York



    Native American tribe of the Incas, what decimated the population?:

    One of the most comprehensive and thoroughly researched is that by Carlos Sempat Assadourian (1994). His thickly documented analysis based on an impressively wide range of sources blames the demographic disaster on three decades of near total war, excessive labor demands, wholesale environmental destruction, widespread famine, and sheer cruelty. Alien diseases are secondary factors, dating from 1558 with the first smallpox epidemic, once the population has already been halved.
    http://users.pop.umn.edu/~rmccaa/aha2004/whypox.htm

    Newsweek did an article titled: California Slaughter: The State-Sanctioned Genocide of Native Americans

    an Indian girl raped and left to die somewhere near Mendocino; as many as 50 killed at Goose Lake; and, two months later, as many as 257 murdered at Grouse Creek, scores of them women and children. There were the four white ranchers who tracked down a band of Yana to a cave, butchering 30.

    The debate over genocide in Native American history often turns to California, where the Native American population fell dramatically, from about 150,000 to 30,000, in the middle decades of the 19th century.

    His book shows that the intent to rid California of its indigenous inhabitants was openly and repeatedly voiced, and that the means to achieve these ends were unambiguously brutal: mass deportations, slavery, massacres.

    It was a widely held belief in 19th-century California that all of the Indians had to be exterminated. Reported the Daily Alta California, “Whites are becoming impressed with the belief that it will be absolutely necessary to exterminate the savages before they can labor much longer in the mines with security.”
    The killing of Indians was performed for reasons that seem, today, pathetically feeble.

    One of the killers sent a bill to California: $11,143. The state paid it nearly in full. Madley notes that of the $1.5 million that California spent on 24 different Indian-killing militia campaigns between 1850 and 1861, Congress paid the state back all but $200,000.
    https://www.newsweek.com/2016/08/26/...de-490824.html

    Though a bit different with not the whole male native population vanishing in the Conquest of the New World. And the Indian women staying with their family.

    But in both cases the new conquerors wanted what the natives had and got it after the conquest. The conquest of Europe and the conquest of the Americas. The proto-celts did not set up reservations for the natives to live in or suffer the male natives to live among them as in Latin America with the natives. However, it was in both cases genocide.

  2. #52
    Regular Member ToBeOrNotToBe's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-12-16
    Posts
    1,110


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Messier 67 View Post
    Native American tribe of the Incas, what decimated the population?:



    http://users.pop.umn.edu/~rmccaa/aha2004/whypox.htm

    Newsweek did an article titled: California Slaughter: The State-Sanctioned Genocide of Native Americans



    https://www.newsweek.com/2016/08/26/...de-490824.html

    Though a bit different with not the whole male native population vanishing in the Conquest of the New World. And the Indian women staying with their family.

    But in both cases the new conquerors wanted what the natives had and got it after the conquest. The conquest of Europe and the conquest of the Americas. The proto-celts did not set up reservations for the natives to live in or suffer the male natives to live among them as in Latin America with the natives. However, it was in both cases genocide.
    Not my job as I'm not a mod, but that is virtually entirely irrelevant IN THE CONTEXT of paleogenetics, so let's not get sidetracked.

  3. #53
    Regular Member ToBeOrNotToBe's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-12-16
    Posts
    1,110


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by GloomyGonzales View Post
    Welcome to the club. Two years ago I made a post on eurogenes with similar theory about migrations of R1b folks and posted a migration map.
    My post from September 11, 2016

    Main splits of R1b subclades occurred in Caucasus, Anatolia and Corsica.

    http://s014.radikal.ru/i328/1609/e0/6e7b657881e5.jpg
    Very interesting - I personally prefer my variant with R1b1a (at least) originating from the Balkans rather than Iran (lots of reasons - the origin and spread of the Swastika as a huge one, spread of metallurgy, more recently V88 being found amongst Balkan HGs, amongst others), but to post that at a time of Yamnaya-fetishism takes some pretty big balls (plus, we had no idea about V88 in the Mesolithic Balkans back then). Main point of contention is Gedrosian admix. being associated with R1b, and whether or not it's a pretty much fictitious descriptor, the correlation is still there in distinguishing from Eastern Europe. Perhaps R1b reached its Balkan breeding grounds from the Iran region (maybe more Eastern than that) in the first place?

    For srs though, the Balkan and Ukraine region has GOT to be the breeding ground of R1b. At a minor stretch, it could involve Anatolia too.
    Last edited by ToBeOrNotToBe; 04-10-18 at 00:01.

  4. #54
    Regular Member ToBeOrNotToBe's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-12-16
    Posts
    1,110


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by firetown View Post
    But looking at the low percentages, it could have been that all adult men were wiped out and some young boys survived. And of course, there would have been some pregnant women spared whose I2a and G2a offspring would have at least help preserve the original line.

    Do we know for example how high the Proto-Basque population could have been at that point? And how large the group of R1b invaders was?
    If anything, over time R1b would only increase due to elite status. I recall seeing speculation that the increase in Neolithic-like haplogroups in Iberia came at a later date, through immigration.

  5. #55
    Regular Member ToBeOrNotToBe's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-12-16
    Posts
    1,110


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    The blurb seems to be about the "new" Olalde paper, which I mentioned in the thread I started about the ISBA Conference. Here is the abstract:

    "O–PSM–01The genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula over the last 8000 yearsI. Olalde1, N. Rohland1, S. Mallick1,2,3, N. Patterson2, M. Allentoft4, K. Kristiansen5, K. G. Sjögren5, R. Pinhasi6, C. Lalueza-Fox7D. Reich1,2,31Harvard Medical School, Genetics, Boston, MA/United States2Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA/United States3Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA/United States4University of Copenhagen, Centre for GeoGenetics, Natural History Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark5University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden6University of Vienna, Department of Evolutionary Anthropology, Vienna, Austria7CSIC-Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Institute of Evolutionary Biology, Barcelona, SpainThe Iberian Peninsula, lying on the southwestern corner of Europe, provides an excellent opportunity to assess the final impactof population movements entering the continent from the east and to study prehistoric and historic connections with NorthAfrica. Previous studies have addressed the population history of Iberia using ancient genomes, but the final steps leading tothe formation of the modern Iberian gene pool during the last 4000 years remain largely unexplored. Here we report genomewidedata from 153 ancient individuals from Iberia, more than doubling the number of available genomes from this region andproviding the most comprehensive genetic transect of any region in the world during the last 8000 years. We find thatMesolithic hunter-gatherers dated to the last centuries before the arrival of farmers showed an increased genetic affinity tocentral European hunter-gatherers, as compared to earlier individuals. During the third millennium BCE, Iberia receivednewcomers from south and north. The presence of one individual with a North African origin in central Iberia demonstratesearly sporadic contacts across the strait of Gibraltar. Beginning ~2500 BCE, the arrival of individuals with steppe-relatedancestry had a rapid and widespread genetic impact, with Bronze Age populations deriving ~40% of their autosomal ancestryand 100% of their Y-chromosomes from these migrants. During the later Iron Age, the first genome-wide data from ancientnon-Indo-European speakers showed that they were similar to contemporaneous Indo-European speakers and derived most oftheir ancestry from the earlier Bronze Age substratum. With the exception of Basques, who remain broadly similar to Iron Agepopulations, during the last 2500 years Iberian populations were affected by additional gene-flow from the Central/EasternMediterranean region, probably associated to the Roman conquest, and from North Africa during the Moorish conquest butalso in earlier periods, probably related to the Phoenician-Punic colonization of Southern Iberia."

    This isn't much different from what Reich said in his book if I remember correctly.

    A 100% y line replacement seems a bit of an exaggeration given that I2a and G2a of the appropriate clades still exist in Iberia, unless they mean non-Basque Iberians perhaps?

    I don't think we can really conclude how reasonable this is until we see the location and quality of the samples.

    Just in general terms, the burials you're likely to find might be disproportionately those of more elite groups, so I always think it would be better to say something along the lines of....in the samples we've found to date...

    If they're correct, Iberian speakers were no different from the Indo-European speakers. So, maybe in some areas they were small in number and adopted the language of the "natives"? Seems odd if there was a near wipe out of the ylines, but the Basques are odd too; it's not "that" isolated an area.

    Under this scenario, the other y lines, especially a lot of the "E" and all of the "J" would have arrived later, with Carthaginians, North Africans proper, perhaps Romans?
    The pattern in Y DNA seems to suggest a North African origin for the bulk of the immigrants (EDIT: I didn't even bother to check the particular subclade of E - it's E-V13 obviously, my bad. IGNORE THE NORTH AFRICAN ORIGIN BIT!), with later less (but still) significant additions from classical populations (Phoenicians/Carthaginians etc.) and Jews, rich in J2 especially but also J1. The imbalance of the J2:J1 ratio suggests not all J2 came from these two Levantine populations. The Kura-Araxes expansion is an interesting hypothesis, but I'd expect some more Y DNA L. Perhaps it got lost on the way there

  6. #56
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    20,521


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    I fail to see how genocide of males (and an analogy to the treatment of indigenous people of the Americas as an example) as an explanation for the decimation of y lines in Iberia during the Bronze Age is irrelevant.

    The y lines of the "natives" were not decimated during the Neolithic. In fact one of the most prolific y lines was an adopted Mesolithic hunter line, and moreover hunters and farmers lived side by side for years. There's NO comparison. None of that is "SPECULATION" any longer. We have the proof in ancient dna.

    The only "North African" lineages that would have crossed to Iberia at that time period were from yDna "E". In fact, they have one such ancient sample. The "new" lineages in the Neolithic came from Anatolia, perhaps including ancestry from the Anatolia/Levant region. The new lineages in the Bronze Age came from the East: from the Pontic Caspian plain with the "Indo-Europeans", and from south of that with non-Indo-Europeans traveling along the Northern European coast of the Mediterranean. The Iron Age is another matter, because you have a big footprint from Carthage and perhaps a bit of one from Roman veterans. Then there's the Moorish period after the collapse of Rome.

    Do I really have to direct some posters, once again, to the thread on essential ancient dna papers?

    Look, I don't like some of this stuff either, but facts are inconvenient things.


    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

  7. #57
    Regular Member ToBeOrNotToBe's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-12-16
    Posts
    1,110


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I fail to see how genocide of males (and an analogy to the treatment of indigenous people of the Americas as an example) as an explanation for the decimation of y lines in Iberia during the Bronze Age is irrelevant.

    The y lines of the "natives" were not decimated during the Neolithic. In fact one of the most prolific y lines was an adopted Mesolithic hunter line, and moreover hunters and farmers lived side by side for years. There's NO comparison. None of that is "SPECULATION" any longer. We have the proof in ancient dna.

    The only "North African" lineages that would have crossed to Iberia at that time period were from yDna "E". In fact, they have one such ancient sample. The "new" lineages in the Neolithic came from Anatolia, perhaps including ancestry from the Anatolia/Levant region. The new lineages in the Bronze Age came from the East: from the Pontic Caspian plain with the "Indo-Europeans", and from south of that with non-Indo-Europeans traveling along the Northern European coast of the Mediterranean. The Iron Age is another matter, because you have a big footprint from Carthage and perhaps a bit of one from Roman veterans. Then there's the Moorish period after the collapse of Rome.

    Do I really have to direct some posters, once again, to the thread on essential ancient dna papers?

    Look, I don't like some of this stuff either, but facts are inconvenient things.
    You can quote me btw...

    And fair enough, I didn't look at all into what particular subclades of E1b1b are amongst modern Spaniards, I've edited my post appropriately.

    ALSO it basically is irrelevant, you only need a sentence, not bringing in a different topic of discussion.

    What I'm about to say isn't true, but all anyone's interested in is the origin of R1b-L51 (particularly in the context of Western IE), let's be honest

  8. #58
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    05-01-18
    Location
    Seattle, Washington (Ballard)
    Posts
    303

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2a-Y31616>FT435332
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U2e1d

    Ethnic group
    Irish/Scottish/British/Scandi/C Euro
    Country: United States



    http://nautil.us/issue/58/self/socia...a-genetic-mark

    David Reich:

    This Yamnaya expansion also cannot have been entirely friendly, as is clear from the fact that the proportion of Y chromosomes of steppe origin in both western Europe14 and in India15 today is much larger than the proportion of the rest of the genome. This preponderance of male ancestry coming from the steppe implies that male descendants of the Yamnaya with political or social power were more successful at competing for local mates than men from the local groups. The most striking example I know is from Iberia in far southwestern Europe, where Yamnaya-derived ancestry arrived suddenly at the onset of the Bronze Age between 4,500 and 4,000 years ago. Daniel Bradley’s laboratory and my laboratory independently produced ancient DNA from individuals of this period.14 We find that in the first Iberians with Yamnaya-derived ancestry, the proportion of Yamnaya ancestry across the whole genome is almost never more than around 15 percent. However, around 90 percent of males who carry Yamnaya ancestry have a Y-chromosome type of steppe origin that was absent in Iberia prior to that time. It is clear that there were extraordinary hierarchies and imbalances in power at work in the Yamnaya expansions.
    An additional factor could have been the Celtic "skull cult":

    "There is also that custom, barbarous and exotic, which attends most of the northern tribes, when they depart from the battle they hang the heads of their enemies from the necks or their horses, and when they have brought them home, nail the spectacle to the entrance of their houses." - Strabo

  9. #59
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    07-08-18
    Posts
    842


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Messier 67 View Post
    One source:



    Confucius says, "Reviewing what you have learned and learning anew, you are fit to be a teacher."

    If this study shows violence killed off the men and left the women and girls to be victimized, what about the previous studies of these proto-celts who had the same means, same background, same weapons, and same customs and motives who also replaced the male population elsewhere and had fill of the women and girls.

    The mtDNA of the neolithic women shows up in the same native population today. Showing that some of the women did survive, while some who resisted their new husbands were killed.

    These proto-celts had the morality of Beavis and Butthead, except they cared about the fellow proto-celts.
    These were not Proto-Celts. Not that the Celts were much better.

    The very same thing happened in Central Europe a few hundred years earlier, which was dominated by CW and R1a. The Y-haplotypes of the men virtually disappeared, while the women probably made it and would have been integrated into the populations of the invaders.

    Coon already noted that the "Zoned Bell Beakers" who would spread from Germany all over Europe were a mix of skeletally Beaker, CW & Megalithic types. He suspected that BB was the socially dominant element in this mix, but he probably didn't realize that CW males were more or less excluded.

    Putting it as impersonally as possible, the general rule in prehistory seems to have been that when a group managed to obtain an economic and thus also a numerical advantage that meant bad news for the Y-Chromosomes of competing groups. Coon remarked that the behavior of early CW groups made it seem like they were racketeers, monopolizing on sources of wealth. The BBs who succeeded them were even more proficient at this.

  10. #60
    Regular Member ToBeOrNotToBe's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-12-16
    Posts
    1,110


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by markod View Post
    These were not Proto-Celts. Not that the Celts were much better.

    The very same thing happened in Central Europe a few hundred years earlier, which was dominated by CW and R1a. The Y-haplotypes of the men virtually disappeared, while the women probably made it and would have been integrated into the populations of the invaders.

    Coon already noted that the "Zoned Bell Beakers" who would spread from Germany all over Europe were a mix of skeletally Beaker, CW & Megalithic types. He suspected that BB was the socially dominant element in this mix, but he probably didn't realize that CW males were more or less excluded.

    Putting it as impersonally as possible, the general rule in prehistory seems to have been that when a group managed to obtain an economic and thus also a numerical advantage that meant bad news for the Y-Chromosomes of competing groups. Coon remarked that the behavior of early CW groups made it seem like they were racketeers, monopolizing on sources of wealth. The BBs who succeeded them were even more proficient at this.
    I will say, though, that I do not think (even if I used to a few months ago) that CW women significantly affected non-Central European Bell Beakers. There is no possibility of Corded influence in non-Central European Beakers, realistically. True Iberian Bell Beakers still carried, in my opinion, decent Steppe admix (not anything near the level of CW though) long before meeting with the CWC though.

  11. #61
    Advisor bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,730


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I fail to see how genocide of males (and an analogy to the treatment of indigenous people of the Americas as an example) as an explanation for the decimation of y lines in Iberia during the Bronze Age is irrelevant.

    The y lines of the "natives" were not decimated during the Neolithic. In fact one of the most prolific y lines was an adopted Mesolithic hunter line, and moreover hunters and farmers lived side by side for years. There's NO comparison. None of that is "SPECULATION" any longer. We have the proof in ancient dna.

    The only "North African" lineages that would have crossed to Iberia at that time period were from yDna "E". In fact, they have one such ancient sample. The "new" lineages in the Neolithic came from Anatolia, perhaps including ancestry from the Anatolia/Levant region. The new lineages in the Bronze Age came from the East: from the Pontic Caspian plain with the "Indo-Europeans", and from south of that with non-Indo-Europeans traveling along the Northern European coast of the Mediterranean. The Iron Age is another matter, because you have a big footprint from Carthage and perhaps a bit of one from Roman veterans. Then there's the Moorish period after the collapse of Rome.

    Do I really have to direct some posters, once again, to the thread on essential ancient dna papers?

    Look, I don't like some of this stuff either, but facts are inconvenient things.
    the bronze age was different from the neolithic age
    the neolithic age was still family based or tribal
    they tried to defend their own settlement but they were not capable of conquest
    the Tollense battle shows that in the bronze age there were already powerfull people who were capable of organising large armies and military operations 100's of kilometers away

  12. #62
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    20,521


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    the bronze age was different from the neolithic age
    the neolithic age was still family based or tribal
    they tried to defend their own settlement but they were not capable of conquest
    the Tollense battle shows that in the bronze age there were already powerfull people who were capable of organising large armies and military operations 100's of kilometers away
    It's more than that.

    Small groups of migrating farmers can still decimate, if not wipe out, the different y line men they encounter. Look at the Bantus. For whatever reason, that didn't happen with the migration into Europe. It's just a fact.

    On the steppe, and long before there were any large, organized armies even the R1b and R1a lines were severely pruned. Different ethos? Different social structure? I don't know, but there was a difference.

  13. #63
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    30-08-17
    Posts
    179


    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by hrvclv View Post
    Yes... probably J2a people originally from Kura-Araxes, coming west along the northern shores of the Mediterranean, parallel to Steppe men in the north - after a stopover in Greece, where they picked an extra share of EEF. They'd have brought their bull worship and "corrida" with them, and shifted Iberian PCA south again. (cf. Maciamo's J2a page)

    Plus, of course, the Muslim invasions that occurred later.

    Depending on the region of Spain you consider, in terms of y-dna, J2a and E1b1 alternately come second to R1b, far ahead of other haplogroups.
    Bull worship was already present since the fourth millennium bc in Sardinia, and probably in Malta as well to some degree.
    As for the idea of an eastern mediterranean intrusion in Iberia during the chalcolitic I honestly see no convincing material evidence, if a significant migration capable of impacting the native gene pool took place it would have left some traces, but there aren't any. The first evidence of contact between the Iberia and the Eastern Mediterranean dates to the fourteenth century bc, and it's not more than a handful of fragments from very few sites.

  14. #64
    Advisor bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,730


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    It's more than that.
    Small groups of migrating farmers can still decimate, if not wipe out, the different y line men they encounter. Look at the Bantus. For whatever reason, that didn't happen with the migration into Europe. It's just a fact.
    On the steppe, and long before there were any large, organized armies even the R1b and R1a lines were severely pruned. Different ethos? Different social structure? I don't know, but there was a difference.
    the Bantus had iron weapons (not at first, but soon after the start of their expansion) and warrior kings
    look at the Zulu
    maybe some of the bronze age people in Europe were organised in the same way

    there is the Unetice culture which transformed into the Tumulus culture
    it looks like warlords had taken over controll
    even more so in Urnfield
    then Halstatt were peacefull and prosperous, until the Gauls took over, who were part of Halstatt themselves though

  15. #65
    Regular Member hrvclv's Avatar
    Join Date
    14-03-17
    Location
    Auvergne, France
    Posts
    452

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-U152-DF103
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1bm

    Ethnic group
    Arvern
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Pygmalion View Post
    if a significant migration capable of impacting the native gene pool took place it would have left some traces, but there aren't any. The first evidence of contact between the Iberia and the Eastern Mediterranean dates to the fourteenth century bc, and it's not more than a handful of fragments from very few sites.
    Yes, I'll grant that there is scant evidence. But the figures are intriguing : 11.5% J2a in Extremadura, 10.5% in Andalucia, Aragon, Galicia, 10% in Castile la Mancha. These are not insignificant figures.

    Is it your opinion then that a few Carthaginian and Greek trading posts, plus the Roman soldiers/settlers, were enough to contribute 10% of the Iberian genome in several regions, some of them far from the east coast (where most of the trading must have taken place) ?
    It is therefore worth while to search out the bounds between opinion and knowledge; and examine by what measures, in things whereof we have no certain knowledge, we ought to regulate our assent and moderate our persuasion. (John Locke)

  16. #66
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    30-08-17
    Posts
    179


    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by hrvclv View Post
    Yes, I'll grant that there is scant evidence. But the figures are intriguing : 11.5% J2a in Extremadura, 10.5% in Andalucia, Aragon, Galicia, 10% in Castile la Mancha. These are not insignificant figures.

    Is it your opinion then that a few Carthaginian and Greek trading posts, plus the Roman soldiers/settlers, were enough to contribute 10% of the Iberian genome in several regions, some of them far from the east coast (where most of the trading must have taken place) ?
    Well, each of those cultures you mentioned (Carthaginian, Greek, and Roman) left plenty of traces of their settlement in Iberia, while the supposed third millennium bc kura axes-admixed Aegeans left zero, so it's much more likely for the former peoples combined to have influenced the iberian gene pool, there's not a single cycladic sherd in all of Iberia.

    some of them far from the east coast (where most of the trading must have taken place) ?
    There were phoenician settlements in the Western coast of Iberia, including Portugal. Besides even the scantiest phoenician/greek/roman settlement alone beats the non existent third millenium bc aegean ones.

  17. #67
    Regular Member hrvclv's Avatar
    Join Date
    14-03-17
    Location
    Auvergne, France
    Posts
    452

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-U152-DF103
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1bm

    Ethnic group
    Arvern
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Pygmalion View Post
    Well, each of those cultures you mentioned (Carthaginian, Greek, and Roman) left plenty of traces of their settlement in Iberia, while the supposed third millennium bc kura axes-admixed Aegeans left zero, so it's much more likely for the former peoples combined to have influenced the iberian gene pool, there's not a single cycladic sherd in all of Iberia.

    There were phoenician settlements in the Western coast of Iberia, including Portugal. Besides even the scantiest phoenician/greek/roman settlement alone beats the non existent third millenium bc aegean ones.
    I stand corrected. I had built my hypothesis upon the Eupedia J2a map, which seemed to suggest some sort of continuum from Anatolia to Minoan Crete, to the Peloponnese, to Sicily, Corsica, and finally Iberia, with decreasing degrees of density. It all seemed pretty logical. And somehow it wasn't all wrong... except for the chronology !!

  18. #68
    Regular Member berun's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-11-15
    Posts
    1,085


    Country: Spain - Catalonia



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    The change to R1b certainly took place.
    However, as to autosomal admixture, your assertion is true only insofar as their ADMIXTURE analysis is concerned.
    When they ran Chromopainter/Finestructure, this was their finding:
    "Consistent with this, when comparing Portuguese Neolithic to Bronze Age samples, the former presented an excess of haplotype donation to Sardinian and Spanish (p = 0.017). Northern/eastern ancestry is evident in the Bronze Age, with significantly increased enrichment in Chuvash, Orcadian (p = 0.017), Lezgin and Irish (p = 0.033). However, this shift from southern to northern affinity is markedly weaker than that observed between Neolithic and Bronze Age genomes in Ireland, Scandinavia, Hungary and Central Europe. These findings suggest detectable, but comparatively modest, Steppe-related introgression present at the Portuguese Bronze Age."

    [IMG][/IMG]
    They show the same movement in PCA form.
    Second of all, this is the situation in one area of Portugal in the Middle Bronze Age. As even their ADMIXTURE analysis makes clear, the steppe admixture is present in modern Spaniards and Portuguese.
    If the new Olalde paper is correct, and there was a shift to 40% autosomal steppe admixture in Spain, and the 20 to a maximum of 20% today, then subsequent migrations must have cut into that percentage.
    The other programs find increased WHG like ancestry, it's far to be that Yamna, we need samples from Chalcolithic herders and look if G2a and I2a megalithic farmers were extingished or suffered successive dry periods with lack of food and a successive decayment of the old societies. By 2750 BB were profiting old steles to make their own dolmens in Catalonia.

    And what? other than repeat what wrote your head yamnayists can you provide material proofs of such impressive migrations?
    "What I've seen so far after my entire career chasing Indoeuropeans is that our solutions look tissue thin and our problems still look monumental" J.P.Mallory

    "The ultimate homeland of the group [PIE] that also spread Anatolian languages is less clear." D. Reich

  19. #69
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    20,521


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by berun View Post
    The other programs find increased WHG like ancestry, it's far to be that Yamna, we need samples from Chalcolithic herders and look if G2a and I2a megalithic farmers were extingished or suffered successive dry periods with lack of food and a successive decayment of the old societies. By 2750 BB were profiting old steles to make their own dolmens in Catalonia.
    And what? other than repeat what wrote your head yamnayists can you provide material proofs of such impressive migrations?
    Look, I don't have a personal stake in this. I'm certainly no admirer of the whole Indo-European myth making and aggrandizement.

    The fact remains that there is a change in Europe in the Bronze Age in terms of both yDna and autosomal dna, and all the papers show it, and IT IS NOT JUST WHG increasing. It is a signal of both WHG/EHG and CHG. You clearly didn't read Mariniano carefully because he shows the beginning of it too. When this paper comes out it is going to be clear that the autosomal change happened in Iberia too, just later.

    You don't want to believe it, great, don't believe it. That's your prerogative.

  20. #70
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    20,521


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    I wouldn't be so sure that wave didn't also hit Iberia. Do we have dna from the first centers of Bronze making in Iberia?

  21. #71
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    73
    Posts
    5,234

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by berun View Post
    Not the same, the paper presented R1b men without steppe admixture, but as they were R1b they came from the steppes, just a circular argument used frequently by steppists and Gimbutas' religion worshippers.
    Consistent with this, when comparing Portuguese Neolithic to Bronze Age samples, the former presented an excess of haplotype donation to Sardinian and Spanish (p = 0.017). Northern/eastern ancestry is evident in the Bronze Age, with significantly increased enrichment in Chuvash, Orcadian (p = 0.017), Lezgin and Irish (p = 0.033). However, this shift from southern to northern affinity is markedly weaker than that observed between Neolithic and Bronze Age genomes in Ireland, Scandinavia, Hungary and Central Europe. These findings suggest detectable, but comparatively modest, Steppe-related introgression present at the Portuguese Bronze Age.

    Berun, WEAK steppe will never be NO steppe

  22. #72
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    73
    Posts
    5,234

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Pygmalion View Post
    Bull worship was already present since the fourth millennium bc in Sardinia, and probably in Malta as well to some degree.
    As for the idea of an eastern mediterranean intrusion in Iberia during the chalcolitic I honestly see no convincing material evidence, if a significant migration capable of impacting the native gene pool took place it would have left some traces, but there aren't any. The first evidence of contact between the Iberia and the Eastern Mediterranean dates to the fourteenth century bc, and it's not more than a handful of fragments from very few sites.
    Look at archeology of El Argar around 2000 BC or a bit before...

  23. #73
    Regular Member berun's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-11-15
    Posts
    1,085


    Country: Spain - Catalonia



    @Moesan, from weak to 40% in the incoming paper, too much hocus pocus to my taste.

  24. #74
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    1,032


    Country: Albania



    And what was their Y-DNA before 2500BC?

  25. #75
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    20,521


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    @Berun,

    Really objective mindset. How about you wait until you see the paper?


    As to yDna...from Olalde et al 2017 on the Spanish "Beaker" samples:

    "Iberian individuals with enough data to produce a reliable Y-chromosome haplogroup1882 determination belonged to haplogroups I2a2 and G2 (Supplementary Table 3), bothpresent in high frequencies in European Neolithic farmers124,130–132 1883 and also in Iberian1884 Copper Age populations. Haplogroup G2 probably entered Europe from the Near East1885 during the Neolithic expansion, and haplogroup I2a2 was likely introduced into the1886 Neolithic population through admixture with European hunter-gatherers. Two Iberian1887 individuals belonged to haplogroup R1b but likely not to R1b-L23 and therefore not to1888 R1b-S116/P312. Similar R1b haplogroups were present in low frequencies in Europe1889 during the Neolithic period, as they have been previously observed in both centralEurope (I0559) and Iberia (I0410)124 1890 ."

Page 3 of 34 FirstFirst 1234513 ... 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
  •