Two Ancient Iberia DNA Papers with articles.

Yes, but do you know why exactly was that described as "Ostrogothic"?

Did something in that grave indicate culturally Gothic (genetically not Gothic for sure)?

I think Kerch was never under Gothic rule.

That guy was probably a descendant of Bosporan Kingdom's population:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosporan_Kingdom

1024px-Bosporan_Kingdom_growth_map-en.svg.png

He's buried with typically Germanic implements. He was middle aged and buried with the woman to whom the famous Crown of Kerch belonged.

https://www.smb.museum/en/museums-i...exhibitions/detail/die-krone-von-kertsch.html

Perhaps a political marriage or something.
 
23andMe by itself doesn't mean much though, I didn't score any either, but when you run the rawdata though a PCA with nMonte - or even the old Gedmatch calculators - it's obvious it is present. We all have it, even Asturians.

I wouldn't say it's from the Berber revolt in itself, by that time the muslim garrisons were empied because they really wanted a more useful piece of land. The local cities had been at least partially emptied, the economy had collapsed, you didn't have a monetary economy up there, so it's usefulness for them was limited, and it doesn't seem they went back after the war finished..so the explanation must be another. However Mozarabs were quite important for Asturias/Leon, and since these would be people from further south, my guess is that they carried excess north African ancestry than the northern folks, as this study already shows LateRoman+Pre-Moorish South Iberians had very high amounts of this source of ancestry. However, even this might not be that relevant because we have no idea if their social/architectural impact was correlated with an impact on the local genepool in the early middle ages.

Be it as it may, the other Iberian study made it painfully obvious the similarities in Iberia follow a longitudinal cline, so whatever differences there might have been between ancient NW and SW Iberians, today they are mostly irrelevant. This also goes in very well with the fact that Andalusians are mostly descended from northern colonists, and thus carry less north African ancestry than we do (on average).





Angela, I suggest you look at the dates on the Supp tables and info. None of those samples are Muslim, only one is maybe dated after 711, the paper itself is the evidence.
l3982 200-400CE
l3983 265-427CE
l4055 200-400CE
l3980 432-601CE
l3981 400-600CE
l3574 400-600CE
l3575 400-600CE
l3581 400-600CE
l3576 408-538CE
l3583 400-600CE
l3577 400-600CE
l3578 400-600CE
l3579 400-600CE
l3582 400-600CE
l3585 677-866CE (Roman tradition - graves had grave goods or some object of personal use such as glass bowls, belt buckles, shells, iron rings, necklace beads, glasses with horizontal striae decoration, a rectangular belt brooch with decoration of cells filled with vitreous phase of Ostrogothic influence, and a brooch and two sheets of Byzantine origin)

Most of these samples had heavy north African ancestry, way above modern Iberian levels.
Even Reich annouced the large north African impact in Iberia during the Roman period, one or two weeks ago in a lecture. You seem to be pegging it to the Moors alone for some reason. They weren't Muslim, people from southern Spain (at least) were just like that. It wasn't expected, but hey ho.

I don't know the reason, but in every response to my posts you attribute statements to me which I never made. I NEVER said it was ONLY the Moors.

What I said is that EVEN if all the samples from the 3rd to 8th centuries was pre-invasion, the majority of North African came with the Muslims.

"There are three from the 3rd to 4th century, twelve from the 5th through 8th centuries (which would include the invasion period) and twenty-three from the last period. Even if "most" of the samples from the 5th through 8th century are pre-invasion, the majority of this component came in with the Moors from the information in these samples. "

Please explain to me how the above statement is in any way incorrect.

I even added this:

"
With more samples things may change, of course."

I try not to ascribe bias to people unless I see actual evidence of it. I suggest you do the same.

You wouldn't want me to peg you as one of those Iberians who can't stand the thought that he descends at least in part from the Moors, do you????

 
I don't know the reason, but in every response to my posts you attribute statements to me which I never made. I NEVER said it was ONLY the Moors.

What I said is that EVEN if all the samples from the 3rd to 8th centuries was pre-invasion, the majority of North African came with the Muslims.

"There are three from the 3rd to 4th century, twelve from the 5th through 8th centuries (which would include the invasion period) and twenty-three from the last period. Even if "most" of the samples from the 5th through 8th century are pre-invasion, the majority of this component came in with the Moors from the information in these samples. "

Please explain to me how the above statement is in any way incorrect.

I even added this:

"
With more samples things may change, of course."

I try not to ascribe bias to people unless I see actual evidence of it. I suggest you do the same.

You wouldn't want me to peg you as one of those Iberians who can't stand the thought that he descends at least in part from the Moors, do you????


However, thank you for the data on those pre-invasion samples. Did you check the yDna? On the summary graphic for Ydna they show about 40% for E1b for those samples and maybe close to 20% for J2a. So, Carthaginian remnants as well as relatively new arrivals?



Gidai, Gidai....Have I become your reason for living?

To the uninitiated, Gidai is a disgruntled Romanian former poster who is "punishing" me for by downvoting every single one of my posts. If I said spring is almost here he'd downvote it. :) It isn't yet clear to him that at his reputation level it's meaningless, or maybe he does get it, but it gives him emotional satisfaction. The working of some minds, or not working of some minds, is a mystery to me.

Gidai, I assume you're young. Wouldn't your time be better spent going outside and chasing girls, and kicking a football around????
 
"If I said spring is almost here he'd downvote it. :)"
too funny!!!!
 
[QUOTE = Angela; 570292] Depende de si crees que hay algún problema con la ascendencia del norte de África.

Sí, parece que hay más norteafricanos en el este de la península y más en Galicia (9%) que en Andalucía (¿7-8%?). ¿Eso merece felicitaciones?

BmlKz9g.png
[/ IMG]
Le sugiero que considere su respuesta con cuidado. Me gustas Carlos, pero no toleraré el racismo de nadie.

No entiendo por qué esto es tan importante, y nunca lo he hecho ... comparto con muchos sicilianos en 23andme, y en ocasiones aparecen porcentajes de aproximadamente el 4% en el norte de África, así como en Asia occidental. Ninguno de ellos se queja al respecto. Incluso mi marido, con su ascendencia calabria, obtiene casi el 2%. No le molestó ni un poco, ni su "adicional" de Asia Occidental. La única ascendencia que hubiera preferido no ver es la ascendencia noroccidental y septentrional.

Por supuesto, hay racistas italianos en el universo de Internet, pero no son el tipo de personas que yo conocería. [/ QUOTE]

The answer is that for the scientific community it has been a surprise a value so low for Andalusia, but it has not been any surprise for the Spaniards or Andalusians for the reason that the expulsions were well documented, which apparently was ignored or not. I thought it had been so organized and effective in its purpose in European or international thinking that it still clung to the fact of the 800 years of Islamization to the 10 remaining monuments and all the fantasy literature of the 18th or 19th centuries and also obiviando that in our families there is no oral tradition of having belonged or being of Berber or Arab origin, however little there would have been if there had been in some families there would have been some clue and that is not the case.


It is not a racist issue, it is about two visions about an identity, the international vision and the vision of the interested parties that as they know they have been shouting on the Internet for decades that we are not half Moors, and it is for the reasons I quote above , historical data on the expulsions, historical data on the repopulation and feeling that this is not the case.


If it has been a surprise for foreigners it is because they thought that values ​​were much higher ignoring the opinion of the interested parties, then the problem was not of the Spaniards but of the foreigners that there is nothing more to see the internet to give account of the stakeholders that have always been in granting higher values ​​of NA to Iberia and especially to Andalusia.


For us, if you had been like that, you would not have represented any problem but you can not assume or accept an identity as a people that does not belong to you, and in this case it is a relatively modern story where there is more data than in other times past.


Finally genetics has given the reason to all those Iberians who always said that it was not that way, not because of racism but because no, and if it is not so it is not, that simple.
 
well, in the admixture graph Andalusi Muslims have some 30% North African share (in fact Iberomaurisian!!! Jesus!), I doubt so it could be done a simple correspondence, but if actual Andalusians share some 8% North African it would imply a blend of one Andalusi for three Castillans (which much or less would carry also North African ancestry).
 
^^
You have said it for the Muslim Al-Andalus in particular. As of 2019 in Andalusia we are the Andalusians.
 
It doesn't, I've seen plenty of northern Portuguese individuals and their north African results are just like any other. Same goes for Trás-os-Montes. And León.
The explanation might be that it's way older than the Muslim period (as this paper proves in southern Spain) and fueled by the Romanisation, especially in coastal or urban areas - and Bracara was an important city - or that it might have something to do with Mozarabes during the Asturian and Leonese kingdoms. Or possibly Ibn Marwan and his rebellion against Cordoba, which was supported by Asturias and included both Muladis and Mozarabes.

If I had to bet I'd bet that it is mostly from Roman times although the Muslim invasion had to have an impact of some sorts, even if little it has to exist. Ancient people, and especially invading armies didn't need to marry to produce offspring.
Still, the history of what would become the county of Portugal is quite obscure but we know that for instance the city of Braga (which was the biggest in the area at that time) was sacked and its main church destroyed but somehow they left the small churches in the northern part of the city intact. And the city was in the power of the Christians again by 740 although because of the then frequent muslim raids it wasn't definitely occupied until about the 850's or 860's when Vimara Peres founded the county of Portugal, still the city was again destroyed by Almansor when he was on the way to Compostela. The city's Lord, the Bishop, later Archbishop of Braga only returned definitively in about 1070. Since 715 the bishops of Braga add changed residence to Lugo in northern Galicia, for several occasions the bishops returned to Braga but the city was destroyed over and over during muslim raids and the bishops kept returning to Lugo. (according to the book of information of the city of Braga of 1957, the city's history was referenced like this in other books but I only have this in my possession).
Still, until definitive proof is arranged I will still be a bit skeptical about the origin of this north African admixture though has I said it is most likely from roman times.
 
^^
You have said it for the Muslim Al-Andalus in particular. As of 2019 in Andalusia we are the Andalusians.

in fact the maths are to solve ancestry in actual Andalusians.
 
On the other hand I would also like to mention as I have seen all over the internet I do not say only in this forum how the opinion of the Iberians in the forums has been ignored or even taken into account when they were defending what has now been demonstrated.


I sincerely saw how the theories of the Iberians in the forums were confused by foreigners with racist attitudes and I think that it was not like that, it was simply that their vision as Iberians of their own history was clearer in their minds than in the minds of foreigners who did not realize that if someone is defending again and again a theory with such passion, it must be for some reason beyond the easy position of calling it racist.


You are simply talking about your identity in relatively modern times with enough data that there are not of other times and for that reason the Iberians took those attitudes in the forums simply because they were not understood, their mistake was in seeking the approval of foreigners when the time puts everything in its place as it has happened.
 
in fact the maths are to solve ancestry in actual Andalusians.

Well look what I say, when you go deeper and have more data there will be more surprises. I know that foreigners expected to find in Andalusia 25% 30% and even more of NA, maybe even you too. As data that believe lower will be higher, but to time.
 
me and foreigners expect what Spanish genetists have found, a 8%. By the way, Muslims stayed so till their deportation in places where they formed compact comunities (as quarters or mountain villages), and by that many thousands were expelled per example from Valencia region, instead, from Andalusia the number was lower, and it only can be understood if local Muslims faced a major religious or social pressure in the crown of Castille, or if they were more open to integration and blended easily, or facing deportation decided to change religion en masse.
 
IMO, most of the R1b-U152 in Iberia came with the Romans. Actually the distribution of U152 in Iberia matches very well the pattern of Roman colonies, with a particularly high concentration in Andalusia and along the Mediterranean coast up to Catalonia.

we still don't know what the Roman Y-DNA was, was a majority R1b-U152
the distribution of R1b-U152 matches pretty well with the Gaulish expansions, even upto Galatia
the Gaulish were probably Halstatt people
and some eastern Halstatt people would have been one of the founding faters of the Illyrians
that would account for R1b-U152 along the Dalmatian coastline
I would say the majority of the Hallstatt people were R1b-U152, and that would explain all of the distibution of R1b-U152, except for SW Iberia and Corsica
do we know what subclades of R1b-U152 are present in SW Iberia?
 
[CITA = berun; 570319] Yo y los extranjeros esperamos que los genetistas españoles hayan encontrado, un 8%. Por cierto, los musulmanes se mantuvieron así hasta su deportación en los lugares donde formaron las comunidades compactas (como barrios o aldeas de montaña), y por eso muchos millas fueron expulsados ​​por ejemplo de la región de Valencia, en el cambio, desde Andalucía el número Fue menor, y solo se puede entender si los musulmanes se enfrentaron a una gran presión religiosa o social en la corona de Castilla, o si ya estaban más abiertos a la integración y se mezclaron fácilmente, o si se enfrentaron a la deportación decidieron cambiar de religión en la masa [/ CITA]

What is the title of the movie?

Postscript: I leave this topic with you. Keep studying your subject that we already know what it is because it is better.
 
On the other hand I would also like to mention as I have seen all over the internet I do not say only in this forum how the opinion of the Iberians in the forums has been ignored or even taken into account when they were defending what has now been demonstrated.


I sincerely saw how the theories of the Iberians in the forums were confused by foreigners with racist attitudes and I think that it was not like that, it was simply that their vision as Iberians of their own history was clearer in their minds than in the minds of foreigners who did not realize that if someone is defending again and again a theory with such passion, it must be for some reason beyond the easy position of calling it racist.


You are simply talking about your identity in relatively modern times with enough data that there are not of other times and for that reason the Iberians took those attitudes in the forums simply because they were not understood, their mistake was in seeking the approval of foreigners when the time puts everything in its place as it has happened.

Carlos, I wish that were the case. The Spanish members on this forum, except for one, were all members of Stormfront, as racist and hateful a forum as can exist. They shouted constantly and consistently that every single person in Spain with North African ancestry was expelled. I was here; I read every post. When they weren't pushing that view of history they were claiming they were the purest, most European nationality in Europe. It was disgusting. Nothing justifies what they were posting, just like nothing justifies what some Italian racists were posting.

Someone can belong to our ethnicity and still be totally and utterly deluded.

I don't know about anyone else, but I never expected 30% North African in southern Spain or Portugal/Galicia, but going on yDna and mtDna alone I expected some, and indeed it is there.

Now, let's get back on topic discussing scientific results as objectively as possible.
 
we still don't know what the Roman Y-DNA was, was a majority R1b-U152
the distribution of R1b-U152 matches pretty well with the Gaulish expansions, even upto Galatia
the Gaulish were probably Halstatt people
and some eastern Halstatt people would have been one of the founding faters of the Illyrians
that would account for R1b-U152 along the Dalmatian coastline
I would say the majority of the Hallstatt people were R1b-U152, and that would explain all of the distibution of R1b-U152, except for SW Iberia and Corsica
do we know what subclades of R1b-U152 are present in SW Iberia?

That's how I see it as well.
 
On page 99 of the Supplement you can see the precise admixture proportions for the Copper, Bronze Age, and Iron Age. Very interesting the amount of variety in the admixture.

Later on there's this:
sR0qleL.png
[/IMG]

I skimmed through the archaeology section again. There are always a lot of complaints about the lack of correlation with archaeology, but in this case the archaeologists can offer almost no guidance. Either the sites were jumbled before they were ever found, or the archaeologists made a jumble of it, or they want to hoard the information for the time ten years from now when they finally get around to publishing, as Mathiesen implied in the speech he gave at Brown to which I linked.
 
Some observations I made as I read the results of the paper:

1) A 60% genetic continuity is more than enough to account for at least partial linguistic continuity in some regions, especially if the people that harbored that admixture originally wasfor a long time not inferior technologically and economically to the incoming 40%, and if - as it seems likely - those were just averages, with some regions initially having much more than 60%.

2) If there was indeed a 500-year-old coexistence, without any clear winning side, between BB-derived people and the Neolithic Iberian natives, then that would perfectly explain (not theonly possibility, though, but that is obvious) the presence of Indo-European and non-Indo-European languages in the Iron Age (perhaps not even belonging to the same language family, as there is no certainty that Basque, Iberianand Tartessian belonged to the same family or, if they did, were closely related). That would at least start to explain why not only are Basques like “Iron Age Iberians”, but also Celtic and Lusitanian speakershad also been presumably “Iron Age Iberians”. In 500 years of coexistence, a lot of sociopolitical and therefore linguistic dynamics may have happened, including mutual assimilation in different degrees and patterns(non-IE > IE; IE > non-IE), especially if the native polities were not far behind the immigrant communities - as was arguably the case, as the BB cultural package had spread from Iberia and been “culturally appropriated”later by other peoples. Al it took was for some IE-speaking people to be successfully absorbed by non-IE ones (much like not all Turks imposed Turkic languages where they migrated/conquered, even where they left some geneticimpact). Then centuries later the odds might’ve changed, and it was the turn of some non-IE-speaking people (even if they carried a significant Central European BB ancestry) to expand in Iberia, especially under EasternMediterranean influence (e.g. Tartessians, Iberians). If the initial success of some BB clans was more similar to the Franks in France or the Visigoths in Spain, then they might've changed their language even if and when they were at the top of the political hierarchy (and of course in some cases they might have originally been living on the periphery of the native civilization and offering - mercenary perhaps? - services to it, instead of dominating it).

3) The second pulse of Central European BB-like ancestry during the Early Iron Age would perfectly explain the arrival of Celtic languages to Iberia, but I wonder where Lusitanian fits.Lusitanian is scarcely attested, but it looks fairly closely related to Celtic and also to Italic, therefore suggesting a reasonably recent common origin with the Roman Era Celtic and Italic languages, not necessarily somethingas old as the first Bell Beaker incursions there around 2500 B.C., in which case we’d expect it to be much more distinctive (unless Italic or Celtic - or both - came from a source in very close contact with Iberian BB,which is IMHO unlikely). Maybe Lusitanian was not “archaic” at all after all and instead was just an Italic branch of the Iron Age expansion of Urnfield-derived people, whereas the others were from a Celtic branch.For the Indo-European speakers of Iberia, the language shift must’ve been relatively uncomplicated: if the extra Central European influx and language change happened around 800-600 B.C., then the IE Iberians’ nativelanguages were to Celtic or Lusitanian a bit like Portuguese is to French.

4) I always found it a bit strange that the Romans (i.e. Romanized Italians) had supposedly left no significant genetic impact at all even in the regions that are known to have become veryimportant for the empire’s economy, very prosperous and attractive, and to harbor hundreds of colonies. I think their Italian/Greek “eastward” shift between the Iron Age and the Early Medieval Era makes sensethen, even though 1/4 might be something of a local overstatement caused by outlier areas more exposed to Roman immigration. But if that is true, since they seem to have found a big decrease in the proportion of R1b in theY-DNA distribution, then all the J2, E1b1b and so on didn’t come mostly or almost exclusively from non-Indo-European populations (e.g. Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Berbers, Levantine Arabs, etc.), but also or even decisivelyby Late Antiquity Italians and Greeks. Were R1b levels as low as that in those regions, or maybe they just happen to have come from the hotspots of haplogroups like J2a in Southern Europe, or then randomly been more successfulthan the R1b coming from Italy and Greece (mainly U152 and Z2103, I believe?).
 
and also obiviando that in our families there is no oral tradition of having belonged or being of Berber or Arab origin, however little there would have been if there had been in some families there would have been some clue and that is not the case.

Carlos, do you sincerely believe that families, who had seen a long religious and increasingly racialized persecution of Muslims and even Moriscos (even born Christians, but merely descendants of former Muslims), and probably been exposed to the veritable demonization of Muslims in a fanatically Christian country, and doctrined about the limpieza de sangre, would still strive to maintain and pass down an oral tradition of being descendants of Berbers and Arabs who had been Muslims? Those kinds of "origin stories" in most families get lost after a few centuries (in Brazil many people have no idea when and where their family came from when they had been here for more than 200 years), let alone when there are very useful and in fact existential reasons to not stress tha, origin among so many others that would not get you in any trouble or make you feel lesser.
 
He's buried with typically Germanic implements. He was middle aged and buried with the woman to whom the famous Crown of Kerch belonged.

https://www.smb.museum/en/museums-i...exhibitions/detail/die-krone-von-kertsch.html

Perhaps a political marriage or something.
They were Thracian ruling families in the Bosporan kingdom from the Sparotocids onwards.
Usurped by a tyrant called Spartocus (438 – 431 BC), who was a Thracian.
Later Romans placed Rhescuporis relative of Mithridates,who will be of mix of Thracian,Greek,Persian ancestries if we look in his geneaology.Rhescuporis and Spartocus are typical noble Thracian names known from the Balkans.

The Ostrogoth from Kerch overlap with present Anatolia the most i guess.
 

This thread has been viewed 52875 times.

Back
Top