another paper on Mtdna Iberia

[Angela]

This is like being in Groundhog Day...same darn thing over and over.

We're aware of the anthrofora Iberians' position on these matters. You could just as well cut and paste from all your thousands of prior posts.

All of the yDNA "E" clades and the mtDNA "L" clades migrated into Spain only in the Neolithic (no matter that the only Neolithic yDNA "E" clade found in Iberia is E-V13, and that there is no E-M81 or mtDNA "L" trail along the northern shore of the Mediterranean). The Moors who carried E-M81, for example, and who invaded Spain in 711AD left next to no descendents in Iberia. That's because they used magical powers to take over an entire peninsula without troops. Probably a few dozen at the most appeared on the shore. They immediately put a spell on the natives to convert them to Islam, and it was these "NATIVE" Iberians who conquered the peninsula and had all those harems. The pitifully few descendents of the actual Moors who did exist were identified through the use of a DNA test and happily expelled or burned to death, along with many genetically pure Iberians whose ancestors had converted to Islam through the use of black magic. End of story. Do I have it right?

Amazing. None of this, even if true, would change in the slightest the fact that these clades came from North Africa. I certainly understand the desire to flesh out the history of one's country and it's population genetics history as well. But other than that what difference does it make if an "E" clade arrived in 4000 BC or in 200AD as a slave or in 711AD with the Moors? Is it less "brown" if it came earlier? Or are you still fighting in the Reconquista? Honestly, I don't get the logic here at all.

If the desire is to truly get a grip on the population genetic history of Iberia, then wasting all this time virtually repeating the same sentences over and over again would not seem to be the most productive use of one's time.
Instead, perhaps some of you could do some actual work on these matters. Get lots of Iberians who have these markers tested. Find more downstream snps. Try to distinguish and then date clusters. It's an imperfect methodology but would at least provide some parameters.

The fact that none of this is being attempted leads me to conclude that the purpose is not to acquire actual data or broaden the understanding of Iberian history and genetics, but to respond, as a poster put it on another thread, to the constant "pounding" Iberians are taking on the issue of, I presume, their minor non-European ancestry. To that I can only respond that you are hanging around with the wrong people, and your assumptions are faulty.

As an aside, I actually wouldn't be surprised ifsome clusters of these clades did arrive earlier than 711. I'm not a believer in these total replacement theories, even for the yDNA, unless it's very ancient indeed. Most often what I see is a layering of DNA from different time periods. The point is that you have to do the testing and analysis to find out.

 

[Wilhelm]

All of the yDNA "E" clades and the mtDNA "L" clades migrated into Spain only in the Neolithic (no matter that the only Neolithic yDNA "E" clade found in Iberia is E-V13, and that there is no E-M81 or mtDNA "L" trail along the northern shore of the Mediterranean).

Wrong. There is mtDNA L in neolithic Spain in Tres Montes, Navarra. And there is E-M81 and mtDNA L all over Europe. For E-M81 for example you have :

http://anthrospain.blogspot.com.es/2011/12/north-african-marker-e-m81-in-europe.html

and mtDNA L in EUrope :

http://anthrospain.blogspot.com.es/2012/02/mtdna-l-in-europe-and-spain.html

Amazing. None of this, even if true, would change in the slightest the fact that these clades came from North Africa. I certainly understand the desire to flesh out the history of one's country and it's population genetics history as well. But other than that what difference does it make if an "E" clade arrived in 4000 BC or in 200AD as a slave or in 711AD with the Moors? Is it less "brown" if it came earlier? Or are you still fighting in the Reconquista? Honestly, I don't get the logic here at all.

Of course it makes a lot of difference, from a historical point of view, is not the same 4000 BC than 711AD...

 

[Sile]

Wrong. There is mtDNA L in neolithic Spain in Tres Montes, Navarra. And there is E-M81 and mtDNA L all over Europe. For E-M81 for example you have :

http://anthrospain.blogspot.com.es/2011/12/north-african-marker-e-m81-in-europe.html

and mtDNA L in EUrope :

http://anthrospain.blogspot.com.es/2012/02/mtdna-l-in-europe-and-spain.html


Of course it makes a lot of difference, from a historical point of view, is not the same 4000 BC than 711AD...

Are these pro-spanish and anti-french sires, because they show more E in france than Iberia?

and why is L3 not african?.......from egypt to somalia is africa to me and that's L3 basal land

 

[Angela]

Wrong. There is mtDNA L in neolithic Spain in Tres Montes, Navarra. And there is E-M81 and mtDNA L all over Europe. For E-M81 for example you have :

http://anthrospain.blogspot.com.es/2011/12/north-african-marker-e-m81-in-europe.html

and mtDNA L in EUrope :

http://anthrospain.blogspot.com.es/2012/02/mtdna-l-in-europe-and-spain.html


Of course it makes a lot of difference, from a historical point of view, is not the same 4000 BC than 711AD...

I believe you're making my point for me. It seems that "E" yDNA in Iberia, and particularly E-M81 is objectionable only if it was left by the Moors. Isn't it a little late to be fighting the Reconquista all over again?

As for E-M81, yes, it does appear in other places in Europe, but only very spottily and it certainly doesn't look like there was a major movement of E-M81 from the Levant all along the northern Mediterranean in the Neolithic. That route seems to track E-V13. The major route for E-M81 was along the coast of North Africa. Therefore, although some of the E-M81 in Europe might have been there since the Neolithic, or perhaps since the Bronze Age, we would expect enrichment in those areas that saw a movement from North Africa into Europe post the dissolution of the Roman Empire.

 

[Wilhelm]

Are these pro-spanish and anti-french sires, because they show more E in france than Iberia?

and why is L3 not african?.......from egypt to somalia is africa to me and that's L3 basal land

Depends what parts of France and what parts of iberia, but overall (national averages) as per Eupedia table of Y-DNa it's 7.5% for France and 7.0% for Spain, so very similar.

 

[Wilhelm]

As for E-M81, yes, it does appear in other places in Europe, but only very spottily and it certainly doesn't look like there was a major movement of E-M81 from the Levant all along the northern Mediterranean in the Neolithic.

E-M81 is not Levantine...

 

[Angela]

Wilhelm, you're obfuscating.

You, and other Iberians on this thread and numerous others on this Board, first maintained that all the "E" yDNA clades and "L" mtDNA clades arrived in Iberia in the Paleolithic and the Mesolithic. Well, now that we have ancient DNA results, that doesn't seem to be the case. Of course, the next discovery could change all of that, but we talking about the evidence as it exists now.

When the Phoenicians and Carthaginians have been mentioned in the past, there was vociferous disagreement, the argument being that their settlements were few and far between and were just trading posts with no effect on the genetics of the Iberian peninsula.

We've already discussed that the very possibility that E-M81, at least, was brought by the Moors is not even to be considered. (That "historical" text you posted is the best that exists, by the way?)

So now the argument is that it was brought during the Neolithic. O.K. that works for E-V13. How does it work for E-M81? The Neolithic began in eastern Anatolia, perhaps with an early offshoot to the Levant. From those areas it spread north, north west and south west along both littorals of the Mediterranean, generally south into Africa and east into Central Asia etc.

What route did E-M81 take during the Neolithic that led directly into Spain?

Where is the evidence, in terms of clusters of E-M81 and their TMRCA that would support the route that you are proposing?

 

[Wilhelm]

Wilhelm, you're obfuscating.

Why ?

You, and other Iberians on this thread and numerous others on this Board, first maintained that all the "E" yDNA clades and "L" mtDNA clades arrived in Iberia in the Paleolithic and the Mesolithic. Well, now that we have ancient DNA results, that doesn't seem to be the case. Of course, the next discovery could change all of that, but we talking about the evidence as it exists now.

You are lying, nobody has ever said that haplogroup "E" in Europe or Iberia is Palaeolithic....at least not me personally, another thing is mesolithic, but that would be in South-East Europe, most probably. Anyways, we know nothing, since the ancient samples we have are scarce.

When the Phoenicians and Carthaginians have been mentioned in the past, there was vociferous disagreement, the argument being that their settlements were few and far between and were just trading posts with no effect on the genetics of the Iberian peninsula.

Which is true, the Phoenician/Carthaginian influence was cultural, not genetic.

We've already discussed that the very possibility that E-M81, at least, was brought by the Moors is not even to be considered. (That "historical" text you posted is the best that exists, by the way?)

Because of it's dsitribution in Iberia not followeing the same pattern as the Islamic conquest, this hints the big possibility that it came in pre-historical times (ie. flux movements from neolithic up to metal ages) and not from "moors" , which is a term used in the islamic context.

What route did E-M81 take during the Neolithic that led directly into Spain?

It had to came from Northern Africa.

Where is the evidence, in terms of clusters of E-M81 and their TMRCA that would support the route that you are proposing?

What route I am proposing ?? I didn't .

 

[martiko]

Wrong. There is mtDNA L in neolithic Spain in Tres Montes, Navarra. And there is E-M81 and mtDNA L all over Europe. For E-M81 for example you have :

http://anthrospain.blogspot.com.es/2011/12/north-african-marker-e-m81-in-europe.html

and mtDNA L in EUrope :

http://anthrospain.blogspot.com.es/2012/02/mtdna-l-in-europe-and-spain.html


Of course it makes a lot of difference, from a historical point of view, is not the same 4000 BC than 711AD...

you are right in southeast of France Ydna E and Mt L is very high

 

[Sile]

Why ?


You are lying, nobody has ever said that haplogroup "E" in Europe or Iberia is Palaeolithic....at least not me personally, another thing is mesolithic, but that would be in South-East Europe, most probably. Anyways, we know nothing, since the ancient samples we have are scarce.


Which is true, the Phoenician/Carthaginian influence was cultural, not genetic.


Because of it's dsitribution in Iberia not followeing the same pattern as the Islamic conquest, this hints the big possibility that it came in pre-historical times (ie. flux movements from neolithic up to metal ages) and not from "moors" , which is a term used in the islamic context.


It had to came from Northern Africa.


What route I am proposing ?? I didn't .

You mean cities like Cartegena had not many Carthaginians and Cadiz had not many Phoenicians ?.................who where the original people then, ? IMO, they where more than just trading towns as they lasted for such a very long time

 

[Nobody1]

Huelva was also the Roman Onoba, and perhaps that's what really explains what you are so eager (as usual) to jump to conclude was due to "Moors", considering the authors themselves associate these African lineages quite possibly with the Roman empire as well:

Lineage L2a, the second most represented in the network... In Iberia, these lineages may be associated to Islamic expansion, which penetrated up to North Portugal, rendering its relationship with recent slave trade unlikely. However, its relationship with slavery during Roman Empire or Islamic rule cannot be ruled out.

The fact that Granada, which was in fact the area of Iberia longest under Islamic "rule", has lower frequencies of these markers argues that the other options considered by the authors (prehistoric migrations, Roman empire) are the more likely reasons.

Lineage L2a, the second most represented in the network... In Iberia, these lineages may be associated to Islamic expansion, which penetrated up to North Portugal, rendering its relationship with recent slave trade unlikely. However, its relationship with slavery during Roman Empire or Islamic rule cannot be ruled out.

The authors rule out the Atlantic (recent slave trade) slave trade - but give good chances to the Moors (Islamic rule) and/or whatever Africans the Romans pumped into Iberia/Spain when they were ruling it;

Spain has a Moorish history from 711-1492 and belonged to two powerful Moorish kingdoms/dynasties with Almoravid and Almohad - spanning a period of over 200 years; So the Moors (Walbah/Huelva) are most def. an option as also the authors themselves associate;

 

[Wilhelm]

You mean cities like Cartegena had not many Carthaginians and Cadiz had not many Phoenicians ?.................who where the original people then, ?

Exactly. The original people were the aborigines living there.

IMO, they where more than just rading towns as they lasted for such a very long time

They were commercial-oriented seafarers, they were not large populations. Plus, we can know by genetics, since for exmaple the levantine type of R1b is almost non-existant in Iberia (unlike South-East Europe).

 

[Nobody1]

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_mtdna_haplogroups_frequency.shtml
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplo..._pco=smlwn-1.0&at_tot=1&at_ab=per-12&at_pos=0

http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/italian_dna.shtml#at_pco=smlwn-1.0&at_tot=1&at_ab=per-12&at_pos=0

You are right partly Drac, they can compare the galiciens which have never known occupation Muslim.

Not sure why you are addressing me with your post#14; But you must have your reasons because you clearly did address me; Equally not sure why you want to talk about Italians in a thread that has nothing to do with Italians; But you must have your reasons for that as well;

The major Hg E in Italy is E-V13 and E-M123 and the major Hg E in Spain is E-V13 and E-M81;
Read up (studies) on what the diffs. and distributions of these E-M35 Hg's are;

http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-E-M123.gif
http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-E-V13.gif
http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-E-M81.gif


The presence of Sub-Saharan mtDNA L in Europe;

Cerezo et al 2012
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/22/5/821.full

And in the latest [K=20] admixture analysis from Lazaridis et al 2013 - North African admixture occurred in every single Spanish sample tested and with a decent amount of it; An admixture which is virtually absent in other South European pops. a part from Sicily and Malta who were equally under Islamic rule from North Africa (Ifriqiya/Fatimid) akin to Spain and the Moors;

Every stripe in a population block indicates a sample from that population and its individual admixture result;

Lazaridis et al 2013 - http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6639.pdf

The Spaniards have the North African admixture collectively; Whereas in the other South European populations - only a few/certain samples have North African admixture and at a much lower amount than any Spaniard;

 

[Sile]

Lineage L2a, the second most represented in the network... In Iberia, these lineages may be associated to Islamic expansion, which penetrated up to North Portugal, rendering its relationship with recent slave trade unlikely. However, its relationship with slavery during Roman Empire or Islamic rule cannot be ruled out.

The authors rule out the Atlantic (recent slave trade) slave trade - but give good chances to the Moors (Islamic rule) and/or whatever Africans the Romans pumped into Iberia/Spain when they were ruling it;

Spain has a Moorish history from 711-1492 and belonged to two powerful Moorish kingdoms/dynasties with Almoravid and Almohad - spanning a period of over 200 years; So the Moors (Walbah/Huelva) are most def. an option as also the authors themselves associate;

The Romans pumped Numidians from african into Iberia as promised for changing sides against the war against hannibal. at the battle of Zama, numidians fought for Rome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numidia

 

[Sile]

Not sure why you are addressing me with your post#14; But you must have your reasons because you clearly did address me; Equally not sure why you want to talk about Italians in a thread that has nothing to do with Italians; But you must have your reasons for that as well;

The major Hg E in Italy is E-V13 and E-M123 and the major Hg E in Spain is E-V13 and E-M81;
Read up (studies) on what the diffs. and distributions of these E-M35 Hg's are;

http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-E-M123.gif
http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-E-V13.gif
http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-E-M81.gif


The presence of Sub-Saharan mtDNA L in Europe;

Cerezo et al 2012
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/22/5/821.full

And in the latest [K=20] admixture analysis from Lazaridis et al 2013 - North African admixture occurred in every single Spanish sample tested and with a decent amount of it; An admixture which is virtually absent in other South European pops. a part from Sicily and Malta who were equally under Islamic rule from North Africa (Ifriqiya/Fatimid) akin to Spain and the Moors;

Every stripe in a population block indicates a sample from that population and its individual admixture result;

Lazaridis et al 2013 - http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6639.pdf

The Spaniards have the North African admixture collectively; Whereas in the other South European populations - only a few/certain samples have North African admixture and at a much lower amount than any Spaniard;

looks conclusive to me

thanks

 

[martiko]

Not sure why you are addressing me with your post#14; But you must have your reasons because you clearly did address me; Equally not sure why you want to talk about Italians in a thread that has nothing to do with Italians; But you must have your reasons for that as well;

The major Hg E in Italy is E-V13 and E-M123 and the major Hg E in Spain is E-V13 and E-M81;
Read up (studies) on what the diffs. and distributions of these E-M35 Hg's are;

http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-E-M123.gif
http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-E-V13.gif
http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-E-M81.gif


The presence of Sub-Saharan mtDNA L in Europe;

Cerezo et al 2012
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/22/5/821.full

And in the latest [K=20] admixture analysis from Lazaridis et al 2013 - North African admixture occurred in every single Spanish sample tested and with a decent amount of it; An admixture which is virtually absent in other South European pops. a part from Sicily and Malta who were equally under Islamic rule from North Africa (Ifriqiya/Fatimid) akin to Spain and the Moors;

Every stripe in a population block indicates a sample from that population and its individual admixture result;

Lazaridis et al 2013 - http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6639.pdf

The Spaniards have the North African admixture collectively; Whereas in the other South European populations - only a few/certain samples have North African admixture and at a much lower amount than any Spaniard;

I did not think that Italians were also touchy!
Therefore they can say everything and anything on Spanishes but you should not speak about Italians.
Few imports me that Spanishes have as much of E or of L as Italians, I am not racist, what bores me to see you playing with figures and denaturing a science to insinuate your propaganda.
I ignore your motivations but I want to oppose to it!
Yes I am a supporter for Europe (EU) and do not appreciate you! and it not because you are Italian but for you.

 

[Drac II]

Lineage L2a, the second most represented in the network... In Iberia, these lineages may be associated to Islamic expansion, which penetrated up to North Portugal, rendering its relationship with recent slave trade unlikely. However, its relationship with slavery during Roman Empire or Islamic rule cannot be ruled out.

The authors rule out the Atlantic (recent slave trade) slave trade - but give good chances to the Moors (Islamic rule) and/or whatever Africans the Romans pumped into Iberia/Spain when they were ruling it;

Spain has a Moorish history from 711-1492 and belonged to two powerful Moorish kingdoms/dynasties with Almoravid and Almohad - spanning a period of over 200 years; So the Moors (Walbah/Huelva) are most def. an option as also the authors themselves associate;

Yes, but the authors themselves also consider the Roman empire as well, and the geographical distribution pattern of these markers does not correspond with historical evidence from Islamic times.

Plus it wasn't Spain that even had African (and Near Eastern) "Roman" rulers at the time, but Roman Italy certainly did. Obviously immigrants would be more attracted to go to where the center of power was, not a periphery territory like Hispania. Same for the importation of slaves.

 

[Drac II]

looks conclusive to me

thanks

"Pretty conclusive" cherry-picking, as his usual strategy has been since day 1, conveniently "forgetting" or trying to give a spin to other studies that suggest any different from what he wants to hear, as plainly seen in this thread, which are his very first interventions in these forums, after "another" angry Italian user ("Wormhole") with a suspiciously similar agenda was permanently evicted from the forum for rampant racist remarks:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26815-Autosomal-map-European-admixture-(from-Dodecad)/page8

 

[Drac II]

You do know there where people in iberia before islam was created or judasim or any other religion.................whats with this paranoia ?

You should ask that question to those obsessed with attributing anything "foreign/not-European" in Iberia to those "Moors".

 

[Drac II]

This is like being in Groundhog Day...same darn thing over and over.

We're aware of the anthrofora Iberians' position on these matters. You could just as well cut and paste from all your thousands of prior posts.

All of the yDNA "E" clades and the mtDNA "L" clades migrated into Spain only in the Neolithic (no matter that the only Neolithic yDNA "E" clade found in Iberia is E-V13, and that there is no E-M81 or mtDNA "L" trail along the northern shore of the Mediterranean). The Moors who carried E-M81, for example, and who invaded Spain in 711AD left next to no descendents in Iberia. That's because they used magical powers to take over an entire peninsula without troops. Probably a few dozen at the most appeared on the shore. They immediately put a spell on the natives to convert them to Islam, and it was these "NATIVE" Iberians who conquered the peninsula and had all those harems. The pitifully few descendents of the actual Moors who did exist were identified through the use of a DNA test and happily expelled or burned to death, along with many genetically pure Iberians whose ancestors had converted to Islam through the use of black magic. End of story. Do I have it right?

Amazing. None of this, even if true, would change in the slightest the fact that these clades came from North Africa. I certainly understand the desire to flesh out the history of one's country and it's population genetics history as well. But other than that what difference does it make if an "E" clade arrived in 4000 BC or in 200AD as a slave or in 711AD with the Moors? Is it less "brown" if it came earlier? Or are you still fighting in the Reconquista? Honestly, I don't get the logic here at all.

If the desire is to truly get a grip on the population genetic history of Iberia, then wasting all this time virtually repeating the same sentences over and over again would not seem to be the most productive use of one's time.
Instead, perhaps some of you could do some actual work on these matters. Get lots of Iberians who have these markers tested. Find more downstream snps. Try to distinguish and then date clusters. It's an imperfect methodology but would at least provide some parameters.

The fact that none of this is being attempted leads me to conclude that the purpose is not to acquire actual data or broaden the understanding of Iberian history and genetics, but to respond, as a poster put it on another thread, to the constant "pounding" Iberians are taking on the issue of, I presume, their minor non-European ancestry. To that I can only respond that you are hanging around with the wrong people, and your assumptions are faulty.

As an aside, I actually wouldn't be surprised ifsome clusters of these clades did arrive earlier than 711. I'm not a believer in these total replacement theories, even for the yDNA, unless it's very ancient indeed. Most often what I see is a layering of DNA from different time periods. The point is that you have to do the testing and analysis to find out.

You certainly are not so ingenuous, are you? I think you know perfectly well why. The people obsessed with them "Moors" in Iberia are the ones who for their respective agendas are trying to manipulate the history of Spain and Portugal to try to argue that the Iberians of today are not the same as the Iberians of ancient times, and that during the Middle Ages a "huge" change happened that altered the racial/ethnic make-up of these countries. You being an Italian and all should already know what this is all about very well, since the same people try to do it to you as well but by using events particular to Italian history instead. Example:

http://www.amazon.com/From-Slave-Emperor-Historians-Reasons/dp/1493783599


As for your attempt at mocking historical scholarship: it is not far fetched at all that a minority of foreigners managed to take over large parts of Iberia. It had been done before by both Romans and Germanics, so nothing "strange" here. And it has also happened in other parts of the world as well. For example: it took less than 200 Spaniards to defeat the entire empire of the Incas. Military conquests, again, do not require huge numbers of people. The Islamic army that entered Iberia in the 8th century AD was only a few thousand strong, and the Iberian Peninsula already had several million inhabitants. Most people in a given country are NOT combatants. They actually stand aside and watch the people struggling for power duke it out among themselves. To boot, the Iberian population at the time did not like the Visigoths and their inept government and constant fighting among themselves for power, so the Muslims were in fact seen as a welcome intervention to help get rid of them.