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

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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) ?
 
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.
 
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 !!
 
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."

7QbnU4O.png
[/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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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
 
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...
 
@Moesan, from weak to 40% in the incoming paper, too much hocus pocus to my taste.
 
@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 ."
 
Look at archeology of El Argar around 2000 BC or a bit before...

I know of the argaric sites and I don't see evidence of any direct link with the Aegean except for the rectangular houses which exist all over the world.
 
Any known DNA from El Argar ?
 
Well G2 and I2a2 are present in Iberia, so it is not safe to assume that ALL men were exterminated. Even though they are fairly limited in modern Iberians.
 
Last edited:
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.

Some of those conclusions are a bit surprising to me, especially the supposed "reappearance" of non-IE lineages after the BA during the IA and afterwards. I mean, some parts of Iberia, like Portugal, Extremadura and Cantabria, have really high percentages of non-R1b/R1a lineages, even as much as 40-50%. Could that huge transformation away from the "100% replacement of Neolithic males" scenario of Bronze Age Iberia have happened in the last ~2,500 years without leaving a huge genetic imprint in the shape of a much more significant North African and East Mediterranean admixtures in modern Iberians? Was there such a huge transformation (I mean, deducing from ~0% in the BA exploding to an average ~35% of non-steppe lineages nowadays) that is reflected autosomally comparing modern and ancient Iberians? And is there any archaeological, material sign of such a massive if partial replacement?
 
Some of those conclusions are a bit surprising to me, especially the supposed "reappearance" of non-IE lineages after the BA during the IA and afterwards. I mean, some parts of Iberia, like Portugal, Extremadura and Cantabria, have really high percentages of non-R1b/R1a lineages, even as much as 40-50%. Could that huge transformation away from the "100% replacement of Neolithic males" scenario of Bronze Age Iberia have happened in the last ~2,500 years without leaving a huge genetic imprint in the shape of a much more significant North African and East Mediterranean admixtures in modern Iberians? Was there such a huge transformation (I mean, deducing from ~0% in the BA exploding to an average ~35% of non-steppe lineages nowadays) that is reflected autosomally comparing modern and ancient Iberians? And is there any archaeological, material sign of such a massive if partial replacement?

Why does Scandinavia have one of the highest steppe % for a modern population when their primary male lineage is I1 wich has, as we know for now, nothing to do with steppe ancestry? Ancestry is very difficult to calculate i guess, Y-dna lineage doesn't explain entirely ancestry. The real success of steppe ancestry must be found in exogamic mariages. If we admit for exemple that R1b / Steppe in Iberia was entering and located firstly in North, local Neolithic or WHG? women, will very fast turn their ancestry into steppe like. After few generations, some of those women would give steppe ancestry to more southern people, while other southern group would stay pre-indo-european. At the time were cultural have take some step further than demographic, we can see pre-indo-european lineages or ancestry became again more dominant than IE ones. I think the same happened in the Alps and the Balkans, maybe even in Anatolia.
 

This thread has been viewed 248080 times.

Back
Top