More HG pick up of ancestry after 4000 BCE in the north and center, so it makes sense it was more Canes like (NW) and therefore more like Central European KOI. The El Miron like ancestry was more in the southeast. I suppose some could have come with a slightly different Neolithic movement within Europe that came from around Hungary in addition to some from local HGs in the north?
Should we make much of the fact that El Miron for some reason plots closer to modern Europeans?
" Our Copper Age dataset includes a newly reported male (I4246) from Camino de las Yeseras(14) in central Iberia, radiocarbon dated to2473–2030 calibrated years BCE, who clusterswith modern and ancient North Africans in thePCA (Fig. 1C and fig. S3) and, like ~3000 BCEMoroccans (8), can be well modeled as havingancestry from both Late Pleistocene North Africans(15) and Early Neolithic Europeans (tables S9 andS10). His genome-wide ancestry and uniparentalRESEARCHOlalde et al., Science 363, 1230–1234 (2019) 15 March 2019 1 of 5on March 14, 2019
http://science.sciencemag.org/ Downloaded from markers (tables S1 and S4) are unique amongCopper Age Iberians, including individuals fromsites with many analyzed individuals such asSima del Ángel, and point to a North Africanorigin. Our genetic evidence of sporadic contactswith North Africa during the Copper Age fitswith the presence of African ivory at Iberiansites (16) and is further supported by a BronzeAge individual (I7162) from Loma del Puercoin southern Iberia who had 25% ancestry related to individuals like I4246 (Fig. 1D andtable S16). However, these early movementsfrom North Africa had a limited impact onCopper and Bronze Age Iberians, as NorthAfrican ancestry only became widespread inthe past ~2000 years."
Well, they seem pretty certain of that.
They show it in the graphs as well.
[/IMG]
Spain, except for the Basques, who are quite different, was apparently pulled south by these later migrations. Certain old posters who no longer darken our doors must be needing smelling salts. When I think of the abuse I took for merely raising the possibility...
"From the Bronze Age (~2200–900 BCE), weincrease the available dataset (6, 7, 17) from 7 to60 individuals and show how ancestry from thePontic-Caspian steppe (Steppe ancestry) appearedthroughout Iberia in this period (Fig. 1, C and D),albeit with less impact in the south (table S13)."
I knew it.
"The earliest evidence is in 14 individuals dated to
~2500–2000 BCE who
coexisted with local peoplewithout Steppe ancestry (Fig. 2B). These groupslived
in close proximity and admixed to formthe Bronze Age population after 2000 BCE with
~40% ancestry from incoming groups (Fig. 2Band fig. S6). Y-chromosome turnover was evenmore pronounced (Fig. 2B), as the lineages common in Copper Age Iberia (I2, G2, and H) werealmost completely replaced by one lineage, R1bM269. These patterns point to a higher contribution of incoming males than females, alsosupported by a lower proportion of nonlocal ancestry on the X-chromosome (table S14 and fig.S7).
Now there's some interesting information. So, they lived "relatively" peacefully for 500 years before mixing? No apparent immediate butchery of all the men. Yet, the local y lines wiped out. Wish we knew what happened.
Also, they meant
40% Central European Beaker ancestry after the admixture, and 60% local, although other data suggest the numbers weren't that high everywhere.The present day 20% steppe related ancestry in Spain is more logical now.
There's a second pulse of Central European ancestry, even northern ancestry, during the Iron Age, which they speculate is Urnfield related. Makes sense. That seems to have spread all the way south eventually, increasing the "foreign" ancestry from 10% to 20% in areas in the south, and 40% in some areas of the north.
They put a toe in the linguistic waters by saying that "Unlike in Central or Northern Europe, whereSteppe ancestry likely marked the introductionof Indo-European languages (12), our resultsindicate that, in Iberia, increases in Steppe ancestry were not always accompanied by switchesto Indo-European languages." So, in areas where the new gene flow was less than 20-30% the language didn't change? The Basques are a little more than that aren't they?
As to more "modern" admixture, I hate to be a naysayer, but if their only evidence of Bronze Age Aegean type ancestry is in the Greek colony in the northeast, and of Italian and Greek like ancestry is also in the northeast, can they really extrapolate this into a large scale impact Iberia wide? If it's true, so much for all the talk about how the Romans didn't change the genetics of the areas they conquered, whether through their own people or because of the mobility they made possible.
"In the historical period, our transect beginswith 24 individuals from the 5th century BCEto the 6th century CE from the Greek colony ofEmpúries in the northeast (19) who fall intotwo main ancestry groups (Fig. 1, C and D, andfig. S8): one similar to Bronze Age individualsfrom the Aegean, and the other similar to IronAge Iberians such as those from the nearby nonGreek site of Ullastret, confirming historicalsources indicating that this town was inhabitedby a multiethnic population (19). The impact ofmobility from the central/eastern Mediterranean during the Classical period is also evidentin 10 individuals from the 7th to 8th century CEsite of L'Esquerda in the northeast, who showa shift from the Iron Age population in thedirection of present-day Italians and Greeks (Fig.1D) that accounts for approximately one-quarterof their ancestry (Fig. 2C and table S17). The sameshift is also observed in present-day Iberiansoutside the Basque area and is plausibly aconsequence of the Roman presence in the peninsula, which had a profound cultural impactand, according to our data, a substantial geneticimpact too."
They also don't do much to disentangle the changes from the Iron Age on. How much of this change was because of the Greeks, how much the Phoenicians or Carthaginians? How much Roman colonists? What about the Jews or the North African Muslims?
"Unlike in Central or Northern Europe, whereSteppe ancestry likely marked the introductionof Indo-European languages (12), our resultsindicate that, in Iberia, increases in Steppe ancestry were not always accompanied by switchesto Indo-European languages. ancestry, probably related to the well-knownmobility patterns during the Roman Empire(22) or to the earlier Phoenician-Punic presence (23); the latter is also supported by theobservation of the Phoenician-associated Ychromosome J2 (24). Gene flow from NorthAfrica continued into the Muslim period, asis clear from Muslim burials with elevated NorthAfrican and sub-Saharan African ancestry (Fig.2D, fig. S4, and table S22) and from uniparentalmarkers typical of North Africa not presentamong pre-Islamic individuals (Fig. 2D andfig. S11). Present-day populations from southern Iberia harbor less North African ancestry(25) than the ancient Muslim burials, plausibly reflecting expulsion of moriscos (formerMuslims converted to Christianity) and repopulation from the north, as supported by historical sources and genetic analysis of present-daygroups (25)." The impact of Muslim rule is also seen in the Northeast, which explains the small percentages which show up there even today.
Also interesting is the yDna I2 coming in with the Central European Beakers.
The mixed "local" Iberian and North African samples are occasionally ydna R1b, so admixture with North African females, as well as the more expected bias.
Good catch, Alyan, for the Iron Age Greek. If other samples are similar, the Doric invasions wouldn't seem to have changed much at all.
Now for the Supplement.