Two Ancient Iberia DNA Papers with articles.

The "Celt" I2a could either be from an absorbed local or it could have come with the newcomers. What specific type is it? There was plenty of I2a in Europe, and we know the "Slavs", for one, absorbed one variety of it.

"The Greeks certainly did start Western Civilization. Get out the history books, people."
Really? Did the Greeks not borrow the alphabet from Phoenicians?
Did the Greeks not borrow sculpting from Egyptians?
Did the Greeks not learn ship building from Arabs?
Did the Greeks not learn Algebra from Arabs?
Doesn't everyone else need to be credited for their contribution?

Yes, but there's a reason we in the West study the Greeks more than those cultures. Try to understand it.
 
Last edited:
Pardon me for interrupting a most fascinating discussion about Ancient Iberian Dna but How can I see the tables S1 to S5 of the suplements, because when I open the supplements I am only able to see the titles of those same tables.
 
I wonder how close is the I2a Celt to the I-CTS10228 as currently I still favour the theory that it (or his ancestor) was brought to Northern Balkans and the Carpathians (as well as Poland) by the Celts or later by some East Germanic tribe.
 
The other Iberian paper, that about Mesolithic and early Neolithic... the intra HG admixture... is good to explain the "steppe" in Iberian BB??
 
Last edited:
Could the J2a be Visigothic or Roman as well? Two of the Muslims are actually not E-M81 but E-V13, so it looks like at least around half of their paternal lines were European.

These particular samples are mixtures of "local" Iberian stock, however, admixed with North African and a bit of minority Levant admixture in some of them, so I don't see how that would work. The authors show the admixture of some of the more "Central and East Med" admixed people, who had about 25% of that kind of ancestry, but I don't think that has anything to do with these samples. Unless you mean that the J2 males were local Iberian autosomally with yDna from distant Greek and Roman ancestors?

You make a good point about the E samles. Two from the 10th to 16th century, the Moorish period, are M78. I can't imagine that being brought by the North African half of their ancestry, so it must be y from the Iberian Iron Age, yes?
 
I believe the Celtiberian is I2-M26 which existed in Iberia as early as the Chalcolithic. By 2000 BC, most of Iberia had become R1b-M269 in my view, and this is what the 271 samples suggest. Notice that even in modern Spain and Portugal, the haplogroups which offset R1b are Middle Eastern or North African in origin, such as J2, which is heavy in Portugal and possibly introduced by Phoenicians among other later groups. E-M81 introduced from south of Gibraltar, as well as Rome and Greece who carried J2 as well as other Middle Eastern lineages. We're going to find I1 and R1a in Andalusia from the reconquista as northerners helped reclaim the south from the Moors. However, the Bronze Age suggests a militaristic group from central Europe who were rich in M269+ moving into Iberia. I don't necessarily think this was the period that formed the Basque (some diversity under Z209). Many of those men may have come from southern France from Roman times, which suggests that Bronze Age France (rich in M269+) was already speaking "Iberian" related languages before moving into the peninsula.
 
These particular samples are mixtures of "local" Iberian stock, however, admixed with North African and a bit of minority Levant admixture in some of them, so I don't see how that would work. The authors show the admixture of some of the more "Central and East Med" admixed people, who had about 25% of that kind of ancestry, but I don't think that has anything to do with these samples. Unless you mean that the J2 males were local Iberian autosomally with yDna from distant Greek and Roman ancestors?

You make a good point about the E samles. Two from the 10th to 16th century, the Moorish period, are M78. I can't imagine that being brought by the North African half of their ancestry, so it must be y from the Iberian Iron Age, yes?

Yes, I meant the origin of the uniparentals only. E-V13 and J2a are in the pre-Muslim Visigothic sample already, and most of them are autosomally quite 'northern' still. My guess is they carried some of those 'Balkanic' or maybe 'Western Pontic' haplogroups into Spain and assimilated very quickly.

The 4 males from early Visigothic Pla de l'Horta (Catalonia) are R1b-L51, E-V13, J2a and I. These were Visigothic 'big men' from one of the most important necropolises of the period.

Some of the Visigoths have likely East Eurasian mtDNA too - C4a1a.
 
According to the data 500,000 natives of the current Andalusia move to the north of Spain at the arrival of the Almohads. That figure is an overpopulation for the north of that time and there they were 800 years until they returned home. That number in 800 years are many children. Is not taken into account?
 
Yes, I meant the origin of the uniparentals only. E-V13 and J2a are in the pre-Muslim Visigothic sample already, and most of them are autosomally quite 'northern' still. My guess is they carried some of those 'Balkanic' or maybe 'Western Pontic' haplogroups into Spain and assimilated very quickly.

The 4 males from early Visigothic Pla de l'Horta (Catalonia) are R1b-L51, E-V13, J2a and I. These were Visigothic 'big men' from one of the most important necropolises of the period.

Some of the Visigoths have likely East Eurasian mtDNA too - C4a1a.

That's certainly not what I expected for Visigoths, especially not the E-V13 and J2. I1 yes, and I would have thought possible some R1a or maybe R1b U106. The latter instead seems to be the Langobardi.

It just goes to show how misleading uniparentals can be.
 
Visigoths did a good trek from actual Sweden, and many outlaws and outcasted could have added to the tribe in Poland, Ukraine, Romania, Hungary, Italy... there are some accounts about that, Romans leaving civilization for ruthless barbarians, but free to pay taxes
:)

By the way, a lesson of hocus-pocus:

For all the populations in this section with good coverage (Iberia_CA_Stp, Iberia_BA, E_Iberia IA, N_Iberia_IA), the model Iberia_CA + Steppe_EBA shows a poor fit (P-value<2.24E-02). This is not surprising because in this model all the European Neolithic-related ancestry in those populations is attributed to Iberia_CA, when in fact a portion of it must be derived from incoming populations that were not entirely Steppe_EBA in ancestry. However, using a fixed set of outgroups less sensitive to the differences between Neolithic European populations we can try to estimate the proportion of Steppe_EBA-related ancestry in our populations of interest. Table S12 and Fig. S6 show these estimates using the following set of outgroups: Mota, Ust_Ishim, Kostenki14, GoyetQ116-1, Vestonice16, MA1, EHG, Iran_N, Israel_Natufian, Anatolia_N, LBK_EN.

Also the 100% replacement is wrong: 2 males from Arenas de Rey, Granada province (2200-2000 BC) aren't R1b.

And well, even being a 99% R1b in Bronze Age and Iron Age Iberians against a I2a1, which ailas was a Celtiberian.
 
That's certainly not what I expected for Visigoths, especially not the E-V13 and J2. I1 yes, and I would have thought possible some R1a or maybe R1b U106. The latter instead seems to be the Langobardi.

It just goes to show how misleading uniparentals can be.


Yeah, the Gothic 'big man' from a monumental kurgan in Crimea was J2a1a, too. Maybe the Germanics tended to be rather loose tribal federations like the Turkic groups for instance.
 
Visigoth I12034 had mtDNA haplogroup W6a, which is the same as my mtDNA haplogroup:

eQM1kTg.png


It was previously identified as a "Proto-Slavic" mtDNA haplogroup in my mtDNA Wiki Report:

6RAhKWS.png
 
Yeah, the Gothic 'king' from the monumental Tsarskiy Kurgan in Crimea was J2a1a, too. Maybe the Germanics tended to be rather loose tribal federations like the Turkic groups for instance.

That's certainly a possibility. Could it also be possible that these two "strange" haplogroups were picked up in Iberia? The Greeks very probably brought both of these markers to Spain, certainly to northeastern Spain, the site of their largest settlement. The Visigoths may have been such a small group inititally that they absorbed some more "local" men.

I wish this was more like that Langobard paper, which used data to tell us whether the samples were "new" arrivals or locals.
 
In the battle of the Guadalete the Gothic army is 40,000 men, I do not know the ethnic composition of the army but I do not think that the Goths were excessively minority in that army.
 
In the battle of the Guadalete the Gothic army is 40,000 men, I do not know the ethnic composition of the army but I do not think that the Goths were excessively minority in that army.

The only way we'd know, Carlos, is to have a good number of ancient samples from that army.

The four samples we have are from a Visigothic settlement. Perhaps it's not enough to come to hard and fast conclusions.
 
^^
I agree, I guess it was something more fat than you can believe today.
 
Visigoths come as exotic in terms of haplogroups and not really "Germanic",first the Bavarian imported "exotic gifts" woman with elongated skulls which resembled south-east Europeans,then now this "exotic" haplogroups among them again.

Not to mention the Ostrogoth from Crimea or the Gepid from the same previous paper.
 

This thread has been viewed 57808 times.

Back
Top