"Widespread" Jewish converso ancestry in Latin America

[Angela]

Thanks to Lazaridis for the heads up.

However, I fail to see how they can distinguish "Converso" ancestry from any other "additional" Eastern Med ancestry, i.e. Phoenicians. Or, given so many of the migrants who went to the New World were from places like Extremadura and Andalucia, Moors/Arabians and/or more eastern Mediterranean migrants during the Bronze Age, if it shows up. The Raveana et al paper on Italy definitely finds it in what I assume is southern or south/central Spain.

It's not like Sephardim are able to be specifically distinguished, unlike Ashkenazim. They didn't go through that kind of bottleneck.

I mean, this sounds a bit like the Sikeliot school of population genetics.

I'll wait until they have ancient dna samples of the Moors, Arabs, Phoenicians, Jews, and Christians of that era in Spain for comparison before I come to those kinds of conclusions.

See:
Latin Americans show wide-spread Converso ancestry and imprint of local Native ancestry on physical appearance


https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/01/23/252155

"Abstract

"Historical records and genetic analyses indicate that Latin Americans trace their ancestry mainly to the intermixing (admixture) of Native Americans, Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans. Using novel haplotype-based methods, here we infer sub-continental ancestry in over 6,500 Latin Americans and evaluate the impact of regional ancestry variation on physical appearance. We find that Native American ancestry components in Latin Americans correspond geographically to the present-day genetic structure of Native groups, and that sources of non-Native ancestry, and admixture timings, match documented migratory flows. We also detect South/East Mediterranean ancestry across Latin America, probably stemming mostly from the clandestine colonial migration of Christian converts of non-European origin (Conversos). Furthermore, we find that ancestry related to highland (Central Andean) versus lowland (Mapuche) Natives is associated with variation in facial features, particularly nose morphology, and detect significant differences in allele frequencies between these groups at loci previously associated with nose morphology in this sample."

Edit to correct link to paper.

 

[Ygorcs]

I think they could even make such claims reasonably, in the absence of better and more numerous data, like ancient DNA of different ethnicities of medieval Iberia, if they had identified a clear signal of extra Eastern Mediterranean and more particularly Levantine-related ancestry in the Latin Americans compared to Iberians of the regions that were the source of most emigration to the Americas. Of course for that they would need to make a very careful selection of their Latin American samples, because it's famously the region with most descendants of Arabs (mainly Lebanese and Syrians) in the New World, particularly in Brazil (some 7 million descendants in this country alone), Argentina and Mexico.

But, anyway, that (extra East Mediterranean affinity of Latin Americans compared to Iberians) doesn't seem to be what they're saying in the paper. They seem to be carelessly assigning all Levantine-like ancestry they found to one and only cause: Jewish conversos. Not very imaginative, huh? I can't believe they just ignore the many Iberia-East Mediterranean contacts since the Bronze Age or perhaps even a bit earlier. Also, I'm surprised they didn't even consider the possibility that, just like Jewish conversos, some of the former Muslims of partial Arab/Berber ancestry could also have converted to Christianity, especially during the several generations (roughly until the 15th century) when the relation of the Muslims and Christians hadn't become too fraught and hateful yet, and there was ample opportunity for many people to convert to Christianity without any big issue.

As for phenotypic differentiation between Amerindians and also the European-Amerindian mestizos across Latin America, it should be unsurprising to anyone who lives or has traveled extensively in Latin America. Chilean mestizos do not look like Peruvian ones, and both certainly do not look exactly like Mexican mestizos. That certainly has a lot to do with pre-Columbian phenotypic and genetic variations. Brazilian Amerindians look strikingly different from Andeans, and these from Mapuches. And indeed that variation is particularly noticeable in the nose.
Something I find interesting is that many people still believe Chile is a mostly white country, even though autosomal DNA studies there have found a huge, ~43% (IIRC) proportion of Amerindian ancestry. Maybe the European-Amerindian mix in Chile created in many cases less "stereotypically mestizo" features, which probably, especially to Americans, means a "Mexican face", not other variations of phenotype found in Latin America.

 

[Angela]

I think they could even make such claims reasonably, in the absence of better and more numerous data, like ancient DNA of different ethnicities of medieval Iberia, if they had identified a clear signal of extra Eastern Mediterranean and more particularly Levantine-related ancestry in the Latin Americans compared to Iberians of the regions that were the source of most emigration to the Americas. Of course for that they would need to make a very careful selection of their Latin American samples, because it's famously the region with most descendants of Arabs (mainly Lebanese and Syrians) in the New World, particularly in Brazil (some 7 million descendants in this country alone), Argentina and Mexico.

But, anyway, that (extra East Mediterranean affinity of Latin Americans compared to Iberians) doesn't seem to be what they're saying in the paper. They seem to be carelessly assigning all Levantine-like ancestry they found to one and only cause: Jewish conversos. Not very imaginative, huh? I can't believe they just ignore the many Iberia-East Mediterranean contacts since the Bronze Age or perhaps even a bit earlier. Also, I'm surprised they didn't even consider the possibility that, just like Jewish conversos, some of the former Muslims of partial Arab/Berber ancestry could also have converted to Christianity, especially during the several generations (roughly until the 15th century) when the relation of the Muslims and Christians hadn't become too fraught and hateful yet, and there was ample opportunity for many people to convert to Christianity without any big issue.

As for phenotypic differentiation between Amerindians and also the European-Amerindian mestizos across Latin America, it should be unsurprising to anyone who lives or has traveled extensively in Latin America. Chilean mestizos do not look like Peruvian ones, and both certainly do not look exactly like Mexican mestizos. That certainly has a lot to do with pre-Columbian phenotypic and genetic variations. Brazilian Amerindians look strikingly different from Andeans, and these from Mapuches. And indeed that variation is particularly noticeable in the nose.
Something I find interesting is that many people still believe Chile is a mostly white country, even though autosomal DNA studies there have found a huge, ~43% (IIRC) proportion of Amerindian ancestry. Maybe the European-Amerindian mix in Chile created in many cases less "stereotypically mestizo" features, which probably, especially to Americans, means a "Mexican face", not other variations of phenotype found in Latin America.

I couldn't agree more. It's just very sloppy work.

 

[Lenab]

I think they could even make such claims reasonably, in the absence of better and more numerous data, like ancient DNA of different ethnicities of medieval Iberia, if they had identified a clear signal of extra Eastern Mediterranean and more particularly Levantine-related ancestry in the Latin Americans compared to Iberians of the regions that were the source of most emigration to the Americas. Of course for that they would need to make a very careful selection of their Latin American samples, because it's famously the region with most descendants of Arabs (mainly Lebanese and Syrians) in the New World, particularly in Brazil (some 7 million descendants in this country alone), Argentina and Mexico.

But, anyway, that (extra East Mediterranean affinity of Latin Americans compared to Iberians) doesn't seem to be what they're saying in the paper. They seem to be carelessly assigning all Levantine-like ancestry they found to one and only cause: Jewish conversos. Not very imaginative, huh? I can't believe they just ignore the many Iberia-East Mediterranean contacts since the Bronze Age or perhaps even a bit earlier. Also, I'm surprised they didn't even consider the possibility that, just like Jewish conversos, some of the former Muslims of partial Arab/Berber ancestry could also have converted to Christianity, especially during the several generations (roughly until the 15th century) when the relation of the Muslims and Christians hadn't become too fraught and hateful yet, and there was ample opportunity for many people to convert to Christianity without any big issue.

As for phenotypic differentiation between Amerindians and also the European-Amerindian mestizos across Latin America, it should be unsurprising to anyone who lives or has traveled extensively in Latin America. Chilean mestizos do not look like Peruvian ones, and both certainly do not look exactly like Mexican mestizos. That certainly has a lot to do with pre-Columbian phenotypic and genetic variations. Brazilian Amerindians look strikingly different from Andeans, and these from Mapuches. And indeed that variation is particularly noticeable in the nose.
Something I find interesting is that many people still believe Chile is a mostly white country, even though autosomal DNA studies there have found a huge, ~43% (IIRC) proportion of Amerindian ancestry. Maybe the European-Amerindian mix in Chile created in many cases less "stereotypically mestizo" features, which probably, especially to Americans, means a "Mexican face", not other variations of phenotype found in Latin America.

Most if not virtually all Muslims are Christian converts.

Finding Eastern Mediterranean heritage is nothing to do with Christianity or ''Arabs from the Levant'' most Arabs from those religions nowadays are Semites not even Levantines ( this isn't 6AD ) Ashkenazi share common similarities with Sephardic Jews before any European ethnic group, although the part of them that's European by nature is more Balkan/Eastern Mediterranean . I have no clue why they could find Eastern Mediterranean genetics in that region for any reason. Iberian genetics makes sense in the ''Latino'' populations

Apparently, Puerto Ricans have more Spanish European but also more Black ancestry than Mexicans who have more Amerindian and less Spanish but also less Black ancestry.

 

[Lenab]

Sikeliot He's just some Catholic bias person every other post of his is about the joys of the Catholic religion and how everyone who is Catholic is holy and Aryan.

 

[Ygorcs]

Most if not virtually all Muslims are Christian converts.

Finding Eastern Mediterranean heritage is nothing to do with Christianity or ''Arabs from the Levant'' most Arabs from those religions nowadays are Semites not even Levantines ( this isn't 6AD ) Ashkenazi share common similarities with Sephardic Jews before any European ethnic group, although the part of them that's European by nature is more Balkan/Eastern Mediterranean . I have no clue why they could find Eastern Mediterranean genetics in that region for any reason. Iberian genetics makes sense in the ''Latino'' populations

Apparently, Puerto Ricans have more Spanish European but also more Black ancestry than Mexicans who have more Amerindian and less Spanish but also less Black ancestry.

We're talking specifically of people of Iberia right before the European colonization begun in 1492, that is, until the 15th century. The prevalent situation at that time and place was Muslims converting to Christianity, not the other way around. And Eastern Mediterranean ancestry can and is found in Latin American people for the exact reason that Iberians also had East Mediterranean admixture from several different sources throughout history (and of course to that even more East Mediterranean ancestry was added due to the large scale Syrian-Lebanese immigration to Latin America after roughly 1890).

 

[Angela]

One thing I forgot to point out is that this ancestry, whatever its source, is extremely minor. So much for all those Hispanics in the American southwest who are converting to Judaism. Reminds me of some genetics posters. Honestly, this is one of the problems with young people of the modern era. They have no real sense of identity, or they're ashamed of their identity, so they glom onto Jews, whom they perceive as higher status, to give them one. It's really sad.

"SOURCEFIND finds that Sephardic/East/South Mediterranean ancestry is detectablein all the countries sampled: Brazil (1%), Chile (4%), Colombia (3%), Mexico (3%) and Peru(2%). Altogether, ~23% of the CANDELA individuals show >5% of such ancestry (Fig. 1D)and in these individuals SOURCEFIND infers this ancestry to be mostly Sephardic (7.3%),with smaller non-Sephardic East Mediterranean (3.9%) and non-Sephardic SouthMediterranean (1%) contributions."

 

[Govan]

If most Spaniards in Latin America by the late 1600 were from Extramadura, Andalusia and south Castilia, it's very likely that they hold among them a tad higher amounts of people with assimilated Muslim and Jewish ancestry.

 

[Angela]

If most Spaniards in Latin America by the late 1600 were from Extramadura, Andalusia and south Castilia, it's very likely that they hold among them a tad higher amounts of people with assimilated Muslim and Jewish ancestry.

Yes, and also some additional ancestry perhaps from the late Bronze Age, or the Roman Era.

The point is I'm not sure they were able to disentangle all those various strands.

 

[Govan]

Yes, and also some additional ancestry perhaps from the late Bronze Age, or the Roman Era.

The point is I'm not sure they were able to disentangle all those various strands.

That would mean they had stronger continuity with pre-Reconquistada Southern Spain than current Southern Spaniards do.

 

[berun]

I think that some here don't like much my critics about genetists and their frequent deficitary methodologies, but... they have tested if such additional Near Eastern ancestry is not coming / lumped by Gypsies? Nowadays there are good chunks in South Spain and to me it's difficult to distingish from Andalusians (it seems to me that they have intermingled a lot).

 

[Angela]

I think that some here don't like much my critics about genetists and their frequent deficitary methodologies, but... they have tested if such additional Near Eastern ancestry is not coming / lumped by Gypsies? Nowadays there are good chunks in South Spain and to me it's difficult to distingish from Andalusians (it seems to me that they have intermingled a lot).

Gypsies are basically South Asian with some Anatolian and European admixture. They look completely different genetically.

 

[berun]

Thank you to explain the basics and also to show me an example about why genetists have a short sight about the complexity of admixtures, in this case by having modern Levantines high Iranic admixture like Indians and Gypsies, these last pops untested, so ready to be lumped. Is not worth to discuss anything if that remains misunderstood.

 

[Angela]

Thank you to explain the basics and also to show me an example about why genetists have a short sight about the complexity of admixtures, in this case by having modern Levantines high Iranic admixture like Indians and Gypsies, these last pops untested, so ready to be lumped. Is not worth to discuss anything if that remains misunderstood.

Aren't you aware of how much ASI there is even in northwestern Indians? You think even an amateur produced run couldn't pick out all that ASI in gypsies???? It can be found even in people who are 1/4 or 1/8 gypsy. How could there be substantial gypsy admixture in a European population if the academics can't find the ASI?

Are you aware of how inbred they are, how bottlenecked? Researchers can even tell one gypsy group from another.

Where is their ancestry in Southern Europe, other than perhaps a few admixed Romanians or Bulgarians? What happened is that the Romani absorbed a little European, not that Romani affected the genetics of host populations in any "significant" way.

You don't even seem to be aware that they have indeed been tested.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...traces-gypsies-back-to-ancient-indian-origin/

To avoid confusion, it's very important to keep up with the research. It would also help to do some reading on how the algorithms work.

 

[Lenab]

We're talking specifically of people of Iberia right before the European colonization begun in 1492, that is, until the 15th century. The prevalent situation at that time and place was Muslims converting to Christianity, not the other way around. And Eastern Mediterranean ancestry can and is found in Latin American people for the exact reason that Iberians also had East Mediterranean admixture from several different sources throughout history (and of course to that even more East Mediterranean ancestry was added due to the large scale Syrian-Lebanese immigration to Latin America after roughly 1890).

Who are you talking about now? Only one type of people converting the Spanish and as you say it was hundreds of years ago.

And yes it's from several different sources throughout history.

 

[Lenab]

One thing I forgot to point out is that this ancestry, whatever its source, is extremely minor. So much for all those Hispanics in the American southwest who are converting to Judaism. Reminds me of some genetics posters. Honestly, this is one of the problems with young people of the modern era. They have no real sense of identity, or they're ashamed of their identity, so they glom onto Jews, whom they perceive as higher status, to give them one. It's really sad.

"SOURCEFIND finds that Sephardic/East/South Mediterranean ancestry is detectablein all the countries sampled: Brazil (1%), Chile (4%), Colombia (3%), Mexico (3%) and Peru(2%). Altogether, ~23% of the CANDELA individuals show >5% of such ancestry (Fig. 1D)and in these individuals SOURCEFIND infers this ancestry to be mostly Sephardic (7.3%),with smaller non-Sephardic East Mediterranean (3.9%) and non-Sephardic SouthMediterranean (1%) contributions."

It's sad that Jews aren't as elevated as what the Catholics make them out to be and Sephardics like Ashkenazis are Jews pointing that out isn't a racist remark, or a noted statement of inferiority quite the contrary it's how ''European Jews'' have slipped through the net for thousands of years without being detected since too many people especially Nordicists account Whiteness to having White skin when really those genes are recessive, and can happen in countless mixed race people Jews and Central Asians being one of them.

Modern day Ashkenazis and I assume Sephardics are almost certainly Middle Eastern through their Y dna.

 

[berun]

Aren't you aware of how much ASI there is even in northwestern Indians? You think even an amateur produced run couldn't pick out all that ASI in gypsies???? It can be found even in people who are 1/4 or 1/8 gypsy. How could there be substantial gypsy admixture in a European population if the academics can't find the ASI?

Are you aware of how inbred they are, how bottlenecked? Researchers can even tell one gypsy group from another.

Where is their ancestry in Southern Europe, other than perhaps a few admixed Romanians or Bulgarians? What happened is that the Romani absorbed a little European, not that Romani affected the genetics of host populations in any "significant" way.

You don't even seem to be aware that they have indeed been tested.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...traces-gypsies-back-to-ancient-indian-origin/

To avoid confusion, it's very important to keep up with the research. It would also help to do some reading on how the algorithms work.

you even don't understand what was speaking about? just a last try, I was speaking about gypsies, why you come with wither Europeans? sorry, no more wasting of time.

 

[ThirdTerm]

Fig. 3

Times since admixture estimated using GLOBETROTTER.

Chacón-Duque et al. (2018) may have overestimated Converso ancestry in Latin America. Fig. 3c shows that there is a time lag between a peak of this ancestry component (orange) and a peak of the Iberian ancestry component associated with the initial colonial immigrants (pink). When the Iberian ancestry component showed the maximum frequency around 10 generations ago, the frequency of the East Mediterranean & Sephardic component was actually low and it peaks with another migration wave in the middle 19th century. There is another peak around 4 generations ago with recent Jewish migration to Latin America in the early 20th century. It's also possible that the East Mediterranean & Sephardic component around 10 generations ago is associated with East Mediterranean ancestry rather than Sephardic ancestry.

It is possible that outliers with particularly high values of Sephardic/East/South Mediterranean ancestry are descendants from recent non-European immigrants. For 19 of 42 individuals with >25% Sephardic/East/South Mediterranean ancestry, genealogical information (up to grandparents) identified ancestors born in the Eastern Mediterranean (thus validating the SOURCEFIND inference). However, no recent immigration was documented for other individuals, including all Colombians with >5% Sephardic ancestry (despite these Colombians showing the highest estimated Sephardic ancestry across countries; ~10% on average, Fig. 1d). Furthermore, GLOBETROTTER estimates for the time since East/South Mediterranean admixture were not significantly different from those involving Iberian sources (Fig. 3c; Wilcoxon rank-sum test one-sided p-value > 0.1), consistent with most of this ancestry component being contributed simultaneously with the initial colonial immigrants.

East Asian ancestry in the CANDELA dataset

Other than the major Native American, European/Mediterranean and sub-Saharan African ancestry components, historical information indicates some East Asian migration to Latin America, particularly after independence in the 19th century30. SOURCEFIND estimates East Asian ancestry in the CANDELA sample to be, on average, very low (<1%) in Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and slightly higher in Peru (1.4%). In individuals with >5% East Asian ancestry, this component is inferred to be most closely related to the Chinese and to a lesser extent the Japanese, except in Brazil where the opposite is found (Supplementary Fig. 7). These results match historical records documenting the arrival of Chinese laborers to Peru since the middle 19th century40 and Japanese laborers to Brazil since the early 20th century41.