New Iberian paper with Celtiberian samples out!

[Lucas]

I use K15 because someone could tell that using my own K36 oracle is not fair. Using K15 is neutral.

[Grace O'Malley]

The source of Celtic ancestry in Celtiberians is very Northern and similar to modern British, Breton and Irish.

This may not be obvious in K15 but it is obvious in K36 which is better in distinguishing Germanic from Celtic.

I discarded I3757 due to low coverage (just 18563 SNPs) and checked only at the remaining two.

I was just going to ask you what the source could be? I'd say it's more likely to be Urnfield or some group like that. It's still a bit of a mystery about whether Insular Celts are actually genetically Celtic and if they would have spread any Celtic languages.

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

https://i.postimg.cc/kGXTkMs7/Sem-T-tulo.jpg

Roman invasion has made us drift South-Eastern. If it weren't for Romans we would be genetically closer to Basques and modern France\NW Europe.

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

Sample i3758-Celtiberian

https://i.postimg.cc/CLd0Wkcn/Sample-i3758-Celtiberian.png (https://postimages.org/)

Sample i3759-Celtiberian

https://i.postimg.cc/dVyY0vPq/Sample-i3759-Celtiberian.png (https://postimages.org/)

[Grace O'Malley]

https://i.postimg.cc/kGXTkMs7/Sem-T-tulo.jpg

Roman invasion has made us drift South-Eastern. If it weren't for Romans we would be genetically closer to Basques and modern France\NW Europe.

I really find it so interesting that the Romans had that much of an impact. No matter what people think all these populations coming into a country do appear to contribute to the gene pool. The Celtiberians below do look fairly Spanish from that map anyway.

[IncelSlayer]

We are all part middle eastern farmer, being part north african is cool, they are still eurasian, idiots love to talk shit about spainarids having 5% berber blood

Everything you said in this post is utter CRAP.Otzi wasn't like ancient,medieval or modern middle easterners,north africans aren't even close to full eurasian,spaniards have at the lowest in the North 5% NA, on average its more like 10%

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

I really find it so interesting that the Romans had that much of an impact. No matter what people think all these populations coming into a country do appear to contribute to the gene pool. The Celtiberians below do look fairly Spanish from that map anyway.

From my estimations they contributed an average of ~10% to ~15% of the gene pool depending on the individual and region. The Celtiberians on K36 have indeed high level of similarity with all the Iberian regions but they show the highest similarity with Cantabria, Aragon and Valencia (regions with lower incidence of the Eurogenes component known as East Med\West Asian from what I remember).

[JMack]

Everything you said in this post is utter CRAP.Otzi wasn't like ancient,medieval or modern middle easterners,north africans aren't even close to full eurasian,spaniards have at the lowest in the North 5% NA, on average its more like 10%

Actually it seems Southern Spaniards usually score less North African than Northern Spaniards for some strange reason.

[Cristiano viejo]

Everything you said in this post is utter CRAP.Otzi wasn't like ancient,medieval or modern middle easterners,north africans aren't even close to full eurasian,spaniards have at the lowest in the North 5% NA, on average its more like 10%

Show a single dna test where a Spaniard scores 10% NA, Zingaro.

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

Actually it seems Southern Spaniards usually score less North African than Northern Spaniards for some strange reason.

This has been discussed a thousand times already, the gradience is not from North to South but rather from West to East. Southern Spaniards in the West side are likely to have more NA genomes than Southern Spaniards from the East side. Same for Spanish Northerners, Galiza has more, Cantabria has less. In the Basque Country among native Basques, NA genomes are absent. The average of Spain as a whole - taking into account all regions - is around 5%.

[FilhoV]

On the K36 I’m in between Portuguese and Sardinian

[Ibericus]

Everything you said in this post is utter CRAP.Otzi wasn't like ancient,medieval or modern middle easterners,north africans aren't even close to full eurasian,spaniards have at the lowest in the North 5% NA, on average its more like 10%
Spanish average is more like 4-5%.
The regions of Basque Country, Navarra, Rioja, Cantabria, Aragon are in the 0-3% range
The Catalonia, Valencia, Balearic Islands are in the 3-4% range
Castille-La Mancha would be about average at 5-6%
Andalusia, Murcia about 6-7% (but there is a lot of variation inside of Andalusia
Extremadura, Castille-Leon, Galicia would have higher

Here is a nMonte for Spanish average:

[1] "distance%=1.1619 / distance=0.011619"

Spanish_average

Iberia_North_IA 30.0
Iberia_Central_CA 19.1
Greek_Crete 18.9
Germany_Medieval 17.9
Beaker_France 8.9
Mozabite 5.2

[FilhoV]

Spanish average is more like 4-5%.
The regions of Basque Country, Navarra, Rioja, Cantabria, Aragon are in the 0-3% range
The Catalonia, Valencia, Balearic Islands are in the 3-4% range
Castille-La Mancha would be about average at 5-6%
Andalusia, Murcia about 6-7% (but there is a lot of variation inside of Andalusia
Extremadura, Castille-Leon, Galicia would have higher

Here is a nMonte for Spanish average:

[1] "distance%=1.1619 / distance=0.011619"

Spanish_average

Iberia_North_IA 30.0
Iberia_Central_CA 19.1
Greek_Crete 18.9
Germany_Medieval 17.9
Beaker_France 8.9
Mozabite 5.2

Does that Spanish result include all Spanish regions

Also can you post the extremadura average

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

Does that Spanish result include all Spanish regions

Also can you post the extremadura average



Spanish_Extremadura,0.105096,0.14996,0.033061,-0.001184,0.040931,-0.002789,-0.003995,-0.001,0.024679,0.031223,-0.001299,0.005046,-0.010604,-0.012248,0.007555,0.002608,-0.002347,-0.003294,-0.006411,0.000417,0.002121,-0.00474,-0.001479,-0.002771,0.001437

[Aren]

Spanish average is more like 4-5%.
The regions of Basque Country, Navarra, Rioja, Cantabria, Aragon are in the 0-3% range
The Catalonia, Valencia, Balearic Islands are in the 3-4% range
Castille-La Mancha would be about average at 5-6%
Andalusia, Murcia about 6-7% (but there is a lot of variation inside of Andalusia
Extremadura, Castille-Leon, Galicia would have higher

Here is a nMonte for Spanish average:

[1] "distance%=1.1619 / distance=0.011619"

Spanish_average

Iberia_North_IA 30.0
Iberia_Central_CA 19.1
Greek_Crete 18.9
Germany_Medieval 17.9
Beaker_France 8.9
Mozabite 5.2

This run doesn't make sense. You shouldn't be using CA samples with IA etc, and you should not use mixed averages such as Germany_Medieval.

[Mingle]

This shows that Proto-Celts were like Brits and not like Hallstatt Bylany.

Of course British-like people also existed in Central Europe (e.g. RISE150).

So then why does Hallstatt Bylany plot far from Brits?

[Mingle]

This has been discussed a thousand times already, the gradience is not from North to South but rather from West to East. Southern Spaniards in the West side are likely to have more NA genomes than Southern Spaniards from the East side. Same for Spanish Northerners, Galiza has more, Cantabria has less. In the Basque Country among native Basques, NA genomes are absent. The average of Spain as a whole - taking into account all regions - is around 5%.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the cline is a southwest to northeast cline?

Who score more NA between the Portuguese and Galicians?

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the cline is a southwest to northeast cline?

Who score more NA between the Portuguese and Galicians?

Galicians by a small margin (1-2% more).

[Vasconcelos]

Galicians by a small margin (1-2% more).

Galicians might actually score slightly less than us on average, not more. The difference is very small though

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-N4Qt1Uu23XM/Wr8a2yJ7iTI/AAAAAAAADy0/5m9VSUHNE54SN0iq8dwj2jEjLAm9peEJQCEwYBhgL/s1600/NMorocco.png

[Morena]

Waiting for Grace O'Maley's thoughts on the subject. xD
https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fbestpicturesintheworld.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F02%2FWaiting_Patiently1 .jpg&f=1

[Peterski]

So then why does Hallstatt Bylany plot far from Brits?

Looks like they were mixed with a population similar to Bronze Age Hungarians. Bylany was just one of many and a rather late branch of Hallstatt anyway. Another name for Bylany is Hallstatt C. It would be nice to have DNA from Hallstatt A and B too.

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

Galicians might actually score slightly less than us on average, not more. The difference is very small though

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-N4Qt1Uu23XM/Wr8a2yJ7iTI/AAAAAAAADy0/5m9VSUHNE54SN0iq8dwj2jEjLAm9peEJQCEwYBhgL/s1600/NMorocco.png

That paper is inaccurate regarding Portugal, they tested Pontevedra (Galiza) and assumed that the entire genetic profile of Portugal would be the same (as you can see there's no regional breakdown for Portugal). The reason for that is that they used samples for each different region in Spain whereas the Portuguese samples were in much smaller numbers and random (no Portuguese regions were specified). You can't use that map to make a point when that paper was clearly a Spanish-focused study, they used more than 1400 genetic samples from various regions of Spain whereas only 117 Portuguese samples with fewer SNPs were used ("in a complementary analysis that included Portugal, although fewer SNPs [Methods]").

If you run the same model that Ibericus used you will see that Portuguese has slightly lower NA than Galiza and Extremadura and the same as Castela e Leão.

[1] "distance%=1.4018"

Portuguese

Iberia_North_IA,23.4
Greek_Crete,20.4
Iberia_Central_CA,19.4
Beaker_France,17.4
Germany_Medieval,9.8
Mozabite,9.6

[1] "distance%=1.3998"

Spanish_Extremadura

Iberia_Central_CA,24.4
Greek_Crete,21.6
Beaker_France,17.8
Germany_Medieval,17.4
Mozabite,10
Iberia_North_IA,8.8

distance%=1.2045"

Spanish_Galicia

Beaker_France,42
Iberia_Central_CA,28.8
Greek_Crete,17.2
Mozabite,11.4
Iberia_North_IA,0.6

[1] "distance%=1.5223"

Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon

Iberia_North_IA,46.4
Germany_Medieval,18.8
Greek_Crete,15.4
Mozabite,9.6
Iberia_Central_CA,8.6
Beaker_France,1.2

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

Portuguese members should start gathering samples so that we can have a similar break down as they have in Spain (Galiza, Murcia, Catalonia, Extremadura, Basque Country, etc) even if we are pretty homogeneous. We should have at least Norte, Centro, Lisboa e Vale do Tejo, Alentejo, Algarve, Madeira e Açores. Judging by 23andMe saying that every Portuguese closest match is the Azores, I don't think it is exaggeration to assume that the majority of Portuguese samples circulating are from Azores due to our huge Azorean diaspora in the U.S. and Canada.

[Lucas]

Moriscos from Grenada (XVI-XVII) on Gedmatch:)


kit QR4214923 sample I7424


Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Atlantic 26.37
2 East_Med 18.78
3 West_Med 18.3
4 North_Sea 8.2
5 Red_Sea 7.88
6 West_Asian 6.36
7 Baltic 6.07
8 Eastern_Euro 3.2
9 Northeast_African 2.99
10 Sub-Saharan 0.97
11 Southeast_Asian 0.87

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Tuscan 9.5
2 North_Italian 10.58
3 West_Sicilian 10.92
4 Spanish_Andalucia 12.4
5 Italian_Abruzzo 13.24
6 Spanish_Extremadura 13.36
7 Spanish_Murcia 13.57
8 Spanish_Valencia 14.06
9 Greek 14.24
10 Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha 14.49
11 Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon 14.7
12 Portuguese 14.86
13 East_Sicilian 15.11
14 Spanish_Cataluna 15.89
15 Spanish_Aragon 16.18
16 Central_Greek 16.21
17 Greek_Thessaly 16.4
18 Spanish_Galicia 16.43
19 Ashkenazi 16.58
20 South_Italian 16.65

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 56.5% French_Basque + 43.5% Bedouin @ 3.7
2 56.4% French_Basque + 43.6% Jordanian @ 3.73
3 57.1% French_Basque + 42.9% Palestinian @ 4.13
4 73.3% Spanish_Andalucia + 26.7% Bedouin @ 4.36
5 55.6% Southwest_French + 44.4% Tunisian_Jewish @ 4.7
6 53.2% Tunisian_Jewish + 46.8% French_Basque @ 4.79
7 67.3% Spanish_Aragon + 32.7% Bedouin @ 4.83
8 74% Spanish_Andalucia + 26% Palestinian @ 4.86
9 70.6% Spanish_Valencia + 29.4% Bedouin @ 4.86
10 55.2% French_Basque + 44.8% Syrian @ 4.89
11 78.6% Spanish_Andalucia + 21.4% Saudi @ 4.91
12 73.5% Spanish_Andalucia + 26.5% Jordanian @ 4.92
13 79.4% Spanish_Andalucia + 20.6% Yemenite_Jewish @ 4.93
14 65.5% Southwest_French + 34.5% Palestinian @ 4.96
15 67.2% Spanish_Aragon + 32.8% Jordanian @ 4.99
16 65% Southwest_French + 35% Bedouin @ 5.01
17 73.8% Spanish_Andalucia + 26.2% Egyptian @ 5.02
18 64.9% Southwest_French + 35.1% Jordanian @ 5.07
19 70% Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha + 30% Bedouin @ 5.12
20 57.3% French_Basque + 42.7% Samaritan @ 5.14


kit GA6617765 sample i3808

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Med 31.19
2 West_Med 20.23
3 Atlantic 14.27
4 Red_Sea 11.67
5 North_Sea 7.28
6 Baltic 5.95
7 West_Asian 2.88
8 Northeast_African 2.14
9 Amerindian 1.39
10 South_Asian 0.87
11 Oceanian 0.77
12 Eastern_Euro 0.74
13 Siberian 0.62

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Algerian_Jewish 9.43
2 Italian_Jewish 9.93
3 Sephardic_Jewish 11.02
4 West_Sicilian 11.2
5 East_Sicilian 12.22
6 Ashkenazi 12.56
7 South_Italian 12.67
8 Tunisian_Jewish 12.69
9 Libyan_Jewish 13.25
10 Central_Greek 14.09
11 Italian_Abruzzo 14.78
12 Tuscan 15.15
13 Greek 16
14 Greek_Thessaly 16.11
15 Tunisian 17.75
16 Algerian 18.71
17 Cyprian 18.87
18 North_Italian 19.92
19 Moroccan 20.6
20 Mozabite_Berber 21.19

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 62.5% North_Italian + 37.5% Yemenite_Jewish @ 6.94
2 56.2% Spanish_Andalucia + 43.8% Yemenite_Jewish @ 7.29
3 70.2% Tuscan + 29.8% Yemenite_Jewish @ 7.58
4 51.1% Southwest_French + 48.9% Yemenite_Jewish @ 7.75
5 73.4% Libyan_Jewish + 26.6% Southwest_French @ 7.83
6 82.6% Algerian_Jewish + 17.4% Spanish_Galicia @ 7.84
7 54.7% Spanish_Valencia + 45.3% Yemenite_Jewish @ 7.92
8 52% Spanish_Cantabria + 48% Yemenite_Jewish @ 7.93
9 82.6% Algerian_Jewish + 17.4% Portuguese @ 7.95
10 83.4% Algerian_Jewish + 16.6% Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon @ 7.95
11 82.3% Algerian_Jewish + 17.7% Spanish_Extremadura @ 7.96
12 85.4% Algerian_Jewish + 14.6% Southwest_French @ 7.97
13 72.5% Libyan_Jewish + 27.5% Spanish_Aragon @ 7.99
14 85.2% Algerian_Jewish + 14.8% Spanish_Cantabria @ 8.03
15 82.9% Algerian_Jewish + 17.1% Spanish_Murcia @ 8.03
16 85% Algerian_Jewish + 15% Spanish_Aragon @ 8.06
17 70.9% Libyan_Jewish + 29.1% Spanish_Valencia @ 8.09
18 78.3% Libyan_Jewish + 21.7% French_Basque @ 8.1
19 69.6% Libyan_Jewish + 30.4% Spanish_Andalucia @ 8.11
20 84.6% Algerian_Jewish + 15.4% Spanish_Cataluna @ 8.14




kit PT4597257 sample i7425

# Population Percent
1 Atlantic 24.57
2 West_Med 20.12
3 North_Sea 15.92
4 East_Med 14.92
5 Red_Sea 5.55
6 West_Asian 5.46
7 Sub-Saharan 4.7
8 Northeast_African 4.38
9 Eastern_Euro 3.99
10 Oceanian 0.26
11 Baltic 0.14

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Spanish_Extremadura 9.37
2 North_Italian 10.07
3 Spanish_Murcia 10.14
4 Portuguese 10.26
5 Spanish_Andalucia 11.02
6 Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon 11.63
7 Spanish_Galicia 11.67
8 Tuscan 11.79
9 Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha 12.06
10 Spanish_Valencia 12.41
11 Spanish_Cataluna 12.52
12 Spanish_Cantabria 13.88
13 Spanish_Aragon 14.18
14 West_Sicilian 15.16
15 Southwest_French 16.17
16 Italian_Abruzzo 16.75
17 French 17.04
18 Greek_Thessaly 18.92
19 East_Sicilian 18.92
20 Greek 19.05

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 74.9% Spanish_Extremadura + 25.1% Tunisian @ 4.99
2 72.8% Spanish_Murcia + 27.2% Algerian @ 5.09
3 74.9% Spanish_Extremadura + 25.1% Algerian @ 5.12
4 73% Spanish_Murcia + 27% Tunisian @ 5.17
5 73.1% Spanish_Murcia + 26.9% Mozabite_Berber @ 5.18
6 75.2% Spanish_Extremadura + 24.8% Mozabite_Berber @ 5.2
7 68.5% Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha + 31.5% Algerian @ 5.4
8 67.6% Spanish_Cataluna + 32.4% Tunisian @ 5.46
9 82.1% Spanish_Extremadura + 17.9% Egyptian @ 5.52
10 73.1% Portuguese + 26.9% Tunisian @ 5.52
11 67.7% Spanish_Cataluna + 32.3% Mozabite_Berber @ 5.53
12 73.1% Spanish_Cantabria + 26.9% Egyptian @ 5.55
13 67.6% Spanish_Cataluna + 32.4% Algerian @ 5.57
14 74.4% Spanish_Murcia + 25.6% Moroccan @ 5.61
15 76.8% Spanish_Extremadura + 23.2% Moroccan @ 5.71
16 68.9% Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha + 31.1% Tunisian @ 5.75
17 73.5% Portuguese + 26.5% Mozabite_Berber @ 5.79
18 76.6% Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha + 23.4% Egyptian @ 5.83
19 68% Spanish_Valencia + 32% Algerian @ 5.85
20 80.8% Spanish_Murcia + 19.2% Egyptian @ 5.96


Rest of them had shit quality.

[Vasconcelos]

That paper is inaccurate regarding Portugal, they tested Pontevedra (Galiza) and assumed that the entire genetic profile of Portugal would be the same (as you can see there's no regional breakdown for Portugal). The reason for that is that they used samples for each different region in Spain whereas the Portuguese samples were in much smaller numbers and random (no Portuguese regions were specified). You can't use that map to make a point when that paper was clearly a Spanish-focused study, they used more than 1400 genetic samples from various regions of Spain whereas only 117 Portuguese samples with fewer SNPs were used ("in a complementary analysis that included Portugal, although fewer SNPs [Methods]").


No, they actually used Portuguese for the study, but since they didn't know their geographic origin, they averaged the result and randomly distributed them inside the country. Read the paper.

[Vasconcelos]

Treatment of Portugal. One cluster in the fineSTRUCTURE analysis CIII overlaps
significantly (98%) with the individuals with grandparental origins in Portugal as
reported by the data source (POPRES). For the purposes of the analyses in this
chapter (and fineSTRUCTURE analysis B), this group of 117 individuals is referred
to as ‘Portugal’ or ‘Portuguese individuals’ (e.g. in Fig. 6a). The strong genetic
similarity between individuals from Portugal and Spanish individuals, especially
those located in Galicia (Fig. 2a), means they are likely to share a similar admixture
history, and including Portugal as a donor group would mask the signal from those
shared events. We therefore excluded them from the set of donor groups and
instead treated them in the same way as the Spanish individuals, bringing the total
number of Iberian samples we analysed to 1530. This is analogous to the rationale
for excluding Ireland as a donor group in the British Isles study6.


More individuals (1530) were used in the inference, but only those with adequate geographic data are shown
on the map. Background colours and the positions of points on the map are determined using the same procedure as for Fig. 1b, with the exception of
individuals of Portuguese origin. No fine-scale geographic information was available for these individuals, so we placed them randomly within the
boundaries of Portugal and show a single background colour (Methods).

[Cristiano viejo]

Moriscos from Grenada (XVI-XVII) on Gedmatch:)


kit QR4214923 sample I7424


Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Atlantic 26.37
2 East_Med 18.78
3 West_Med 18.3
4 North_Sea 8.2
5 Red_Sea 7.88
6 West_Asian 6.36
7 Baltic 6.07
8 Eastern_Euro 3.2
9 Northeast_African 2.99
10 Sub-Saharan 0.97
11 Southeast_Asian 0.87


This proves how North African ethnically they were :rolleyes:

Even their descendants in Africa look quite European, 400 years later their expulsion of Spain
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?88192-Classify-real-Moors

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

No, they actually used Portuguese for the study, but since they didn't know their geographic origin, they averaged the result and randomly distributed them inside the country. Read the paper.

No one is denying that they have used Portuguese samples but they used 1400 Spanish samples and only 117 Portuguese samples which were of poorer quality and had fewer SNPs as quoted from the study itself: "in a complementary analysis that included Portugal, although fewer SNPs [Methods]". Portugal was complementary in a study that was clearly Spanish-focused and broke down each Spanish region. Read my posts.

[Vasconcelos]

No one is denying that they have used Portuguese samples but they used 1400 Spanish samples and only 117 Portuguese samples which were of poorer quality and had fewer SNPs as quoted from the study itself: "in a complementary analysis that included Portugal, although fewer SNPs [Methods]". Portugal was complementary in a study that was clearly Spanish-focused and broke down each Spanish region. Read my posts.
Having less SNP doesn't make the analysis invalid. The quality was good enough for them to bother including them in the study.

[Lucas]

Sample I10892 from Sant Julià de Ramis, Girona, Catalonia (vauge dated: VIII-XII century AD)


kit HZ6463887



# Population Percent
1 Atlantic 32.75
2 West_Med 19.55
3 North_Sea 19.25
4 East_Med 16.45
5 Red_Sea 2.78
6 West_Asian 2.73
7 Baltic 2.67
8 South_Asian 1.82
9 Eastern_Euro 0.7
10 Northeast_African 0.56
11 Siberian 0.39
12 Southeast_Asian 0.35

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Spanish_Murcia 5.96
2 Spanish_Valencia 6.8
3 Spanish_Andalucia 7.38
4 Spanish_Extremadura 7.53
5 Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha 7.56
6 Spanish_Aragon 8.21
7 Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon 8.27
8 Spanish_Cataluna 8.33
9 Portuguese 9.08
10 North_Italian 10.27
11 Spanish_Cantabria 10.29
12 Spanish_Galicia 11.21
13 Southwest_French 11.64
14 Tuscan 14.4
15 French 14.92
16 French_Basque 17.17
17 West_Sicilian 18.92
18 South_Dutch 19.13
19 Italian_Abruzzo 20.23
20 West_German 21.65

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 87% Spanish_Aragon + 13% Lebanese_Druze @ 5.01
2 87.2% Spanish_Aragon + 12.8% Palestinian @ 5.45
3 94.8% Spanish_Murcia + 5.2% Lebanese_Druze @ 5.47
4 92.9% Spanish_Valencia + 7.1% Yemenite_Jewish @ 5.51
5 89.6% Spanish_Aragon + 10.4% Yemenite_Jewish @ 5.51

[Morena]

No one is denying that they have used Portuguese samples but they used 1400 Spanish samples and only 117 Portuguese samples which were of poorer quality and had fewer SNPs as quoted from the study itself: "in a complementary analysis that included Portugal, although fewer SNPs [Methods]". Portugal was complementary in a study that was clearly Spanish-focused and broke down each Spanish region. Read my posts.

About how much NA do you score?

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

About how much NA do you score?

Which run\model?

[Morena]

Which run\model?

just in general, a ballpark estimation or an average. (Does it change that much depending on the run?) Because it seems to me that if you score less than the purported 11%, then there is a good chance that the area you're from also has about the same. And you had your father tested too, right? So I think the area where your family comes from probably doesn't deviate too much from that. [Populations] remained stable for hundreds of years, up to recently.

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

just in general, a ballpark estimation or an average. (Does it change that much depending on the run?) Because it seems to me that if you score less than the purported 11%, then there is a good chance that the area you're from also has about the same. And you had your father tested too, right? So I think the area where your family comes from probably doesn't deviate too much from that. [Populations] remained stable for hundreds of years, up to recently.

Yes, it does change depending on which samples I am using on nMone. Per example, if I use Mozabite it is about 10% and with Iberomaurusian I usually get 5%. I always get a better fit and lower distance when using Iberomaurusian but I am not entirely sure why, perhaps someone could explain. If you play around with several samples and create your own models the % will always change. This is a good fit for me:

[1] "distance%=0.9783"

Brás_Garcia

Spanish_Pais_Vasco,28.8
Nordic_IA,17.8
Remedello_BA,10.4
Beaker_Italy_North_no_steppe,9.2
Hungary_Medieval_Szolad_o1,8
Parkhai_MBA,6.8
Iberomaurusian,5.6
Maros,5.6
Wales_CA_EBA,2.8
Basque_French,2.6
Lithuanian,1.2
Jordanian,0.8
Satan_MLBA_Alakul,0.4

[Vasconcelos]

Yes, it does change depending on which samples I am using on G25 runs. Per example, if I use Mozabite it is about 10% and with Iberomaurusian I usually get 5%. I always get a better fit and lower distance when using Iberomaurusian but I am not entirely sure why, perhaps someone could explain.

Because Iberomaurusian is unique and not present in other references included in the dataset, but it is present in all individuals with north African ancestry. Mozabites will have some sort of profile or ancestry that might not really be fit for us (excess Levantine or SSA, maybe?), so the fit will drop.

I like using Iberomaurusian, but since it picks up exclusively (a part of) north african ancestry it will potentially inflate other results

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

Because Iberomaurusian is unique and not present in other references included in the dataset, but it is present in all individuals with north African ancestry. Mozabites will have some sort of profile or ancestry that might not really be fit for us (excess Levantine or SSA, maybe?), so the fit will drop.

I like using Iberomaurusian, but since it picks up exclusively (a part of) north african ancestry it will potentially inflate other results

On the other hand, when you use Mozabite as sample it potentially inflates our North African ancestry.

[Vasconcelos]

On the other hand, when you use Mozabite as sample it potentially inflates our North African ancestry.

Maybe so. I also like using the Guanche sample from 800-900AD, I guess it make some sense to be used instead of others. Ideally, however, we'd like Roman Era Berbers since that's when this sort of ancestry entered Iberia in significant amounts, and that's probably when most our of ancestry got it.


Here's a very simple model using just three different references

[1] "distance%=1.0711"

Portuguese

Celtiberian,70.8
Roman_Imperial_proxy,19.8
Guanche,9.4


[1] "distance%=1.4228"

Viriato

Celtiberian,69.8
Roman_Imperial_proxy,18.8
Guanche,11.4


[1] "distance%=1.77"

Vasconcelos

Celtiberian,77.6
Roman_Imperial_proxy,14.2
Guanche,8.2



edit:
[1] "distance%=1.4345"

Spanish_Galicia

Celtiberian,70.2
Roman_Imperial_proxy,20.2
Guanche,9.6

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

Maybe so. I also like using the Guanche sample from 800-900AD, I guess it make some sense to be used instead of others. Ideally, however, we'd like Roman Era Berbers since that's when this sort of ancestry entered Iberia in significant amounts, and that's probably when most our of ancestry got it.


Here's a very simple model using just three different references

[1] "distance%=1.0711"

Portuguese

Celtiberian,70.8
Roman_Imperial_proxy,19.8
Guanche,9.4


[1] "distance%=1.4228"

Viriato

Celtiberian,69.8
Roman_Imperial_proxy,18.8
Guanche,11.4


[1] "distance%=1.77"

Vasconcelos

Celtiberian,77.6
Roman_Imperial_proxy,14.2
Guanche,8.2

Can you add Visigoth sample and run the same model, please?

[Morena]

On the other hand, when you use Mozabite as sample it potentially inflates our North African ancestry.

What is Mozabite?

[Vasconcelos]

Can you add Visigoth sample and run the same model, please?

It won't work that well because he's not very different, so he'll reduce the Celtiberian share a lot, and a bit of the Roman one because they also have SE Euro ancestry.
I removed the obvious "Iberian Visigoth" and included the other four:


[1] "distance%=0.9638"

Portuguese

Celtiberian,58.6
Iberia_Northeast_c.6CE_PL,20.6
Guanche,11.8
Roman_Imperial_proxy,9


[1] "distance%=1.4215"

Lusitano

Celtiberian,64
Iberia_Northeast_c.6CE_PL,14.2
Guanche,11.2
Roman_Imperial_proxy,10.6

[1] "distance%=1.7522"

Vasconcelos

Celtiberian,73.8
Guanche,9.6
Iberia_Northeast_c.6CE_PL,9.6
Roman_Imperial_proxy,7

[1] "distance%=1.098"

Spanish_Galicia

Celtiberian,57.2
Iberia_Northeast_c.6CE_PL,25.6
Guanche,12
Roman_Imperial_proxy,5.2


The Visigothic result seems very much inflated and inconsistent, there's no way Galicians have 25% of it and Olalde would sweep the result under the rug. Besides if you look at the PCA (https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lGEL8zoKxQI/XI-H9Zh9hJI/AAAAAAAAHr0/9E7lYOFnoVg1OsNdAfQQmlmUaLMeGpCaACLcBGAs/s1600/Ancient_Iberia_PCA.png) and take into account that they estimated some 25% average Roman ancestry in modern Iberians, this figure seems way off the chart.

However, they way the Gothic score varies from each individual might hint at something that is slightly different between ourselves. Me getting very low amounts is expected

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

What is Mozabite?

Berber ethnic group.

[Morena]

Berber ethnic group.

So, let me get this straight, because I'm having a hard time understanding these different calculators. If you add Mozambite, it inflates the NA score. But why? I can understand how Iberomaurusian would decrease it.

So, if Iberomaurusian takes away NA component because it's found with Berbers, and you score 10% NA when using Mozambite, why wouldn't it be reasonable for you to conclude that you have 10% NA?

[Vasconcelos]

So, let me get this straight, because I'm having a hard time understanding these different calculators. If you add Mozambite, it inflates the NA score. But why? I can understand how Iberomaurusian would decrease it.

So, if Iberomaurusian takes away NA component because it's found with Berbers, and you score 10% NA when using Mozambite, why wouldn't it be reasonable for you to conclude that you have 10% NA?

There's variation amongst the various populations, so the score will vary depending on which source you choose. I do not know if Mozabite increases or not (compared to, say, Morocco average), it's irrelavant because that's just a statistical consequence, but since you should use samples that are roughly contemporary (unless you have no references) I tend not to use them. Guanche11 is from the early Middle Ages and probably a better reference than Mozabite or Moroccan

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

[1] "distance%=0.5362"

Mozabite

Saharawi,41.8
Iberomaurusian,13.4
Germany_Medieval_o,8.8
Algerian,8.4
Vucedol_no_steppe,7.6
Esan_Nigeria,2.8
Hungary_Medieval_Szolad_o1,2.8
Jordanian,2.8
Moroccan,2.2
Beaker_Sicily_no_steppe,1.4
Spanish_Pais_Vasco,1.4
Tanzania_Pemba_700BP,1.4
Ukraine_N_o,1.4
Saltovo-Mayaki,0.8
Remedello_BA,0.6
Yoruba,0.6
Czech_EBA_o,0.4
Petrovka_MLBA,0.4
Bantu_Kenya,0.2
Biaka,0.2
Darkveti-Meshoko,0.2
Spanish_Canarias,0.2
Spanish_Valencia,0.2

Mozabite breakdown.

[Token]

Yes, it does change depending on which samples I am using on nMone. Per example, if I use Mozabite it is about 10% and with Iberomaurusian I usually get 5%. I always get a better fit and lower distance when using Iberomaurusian but I am not entirely sure why, perhaps someone could explain. If you play around with several samples and create your own models the % will always change. This is a good fit for me:

[1] "distance%=0.9783"

Brás_Garcia

Spanish_Pais_Vasco,28.8
Nordic_IA,17.8
Remedello_BA,10.4
Beaker_Italy_North_no_steppe,9.2
Hungary_Medieval_Szolad_o1,8
Parkhai_MBA,6.8
Iberomaurusian,5.6
Maros,5.6
Wales_CA_EBA,2.8
Basque_French,2.6
Lithuanian,1.2
Jordanian,0.8
Satan_MLBA_Alakul,0.4

Crap model, extremely overfitted. Focus on selecting populations that makes sense, not very low fits.

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

Crap model, extremely overfitted. Focus on selecting populations that makes sense, not very low fits.

I used all the G25 population averages.

[Token]

How they managed to miss that in L'Esquerda is surely puzzling.

[1] "distance%=1.9883"
Iberia_Northeast_c.6-8CE_ES

Iberia_North_IA,52.2
Germany_Medieval,30.4
Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2,13.4
Moroccan,4

[Aren]

So, let me get this straight, because I'm having a hard time understanding these different calculators. If you add Mozambite, it inflates the NA score. But why? I can understand how Iberomaurusian would decrease it.

So, if Iberomaurusian takes away NA component because it's found with Berbers, and you score 10% NA when using Mozambite, why wouldn't it be reasonable for you to conclude that you have 10% NA?

Because some people think that North African input is apparently unique. It's not. Berbers and other North Africans have substantial amount of Levant_N and Anatolia_N input. And the NA source in Iberians is likely to be close to modern day Mozabites. If you use Iberomaurusian instead of Berbers nMonte seems to give excess Levnatine to many Iberians although I highly doubt there's any Levantine input apart from what was brought with Romans and Greeks in Iberia today.

IMO this is the most accurate run with the samples we have so far. Collegno outliers represent Romans in all likelihood and the Empuries2 samples represent classical era Greeks. From the actual Collegno samples I use only the ones closest to Norwegians.

"distance%=1.2129"

Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha

Iberia_North_IA,64.8
Italy_Medieval_Collegno_o1,12.8
Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2,9.8
Italy_Medieval_Collegno,7.2
Guanche,5.4

However it doesn't matter much whether we use earlier East Med samples such as Mycenaeans.

"distance%=1.2723"

Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha

Iberia_North_IA,66.8
Italy_Medieval_Collegno_o1,16.8
Mycenaean,6.4
Guanche,5.2
Italy_Medieval_Collegno,4.8

But IMO, I think once we get early Roman samples they won't be as far southern shifted as Mycenaeans or other East Med samples but instead probably Central Italian like. What is almost 100% certain at this case is that modern Iberians in comparison to their Celt-Iberian ancestors need substantial amount of Roman/Greek input in addition to varying degrees of North African admix from a source similar to modern day Mozabites or medieval Guanches. So far it seems like small amount of Germanic is needed aswell, but it depends on how northern-like the Roman settlers are gonna turn out.

[Token]

Because some people think that North African input is apparently unique. It's not. Berbers and other North Africans have substantial amount of Levant_N and Anatolia_N input. And the NA source in Iberians is likely to be close to modern day Mozabites. If you use Iberomaurusian instead of Berbers nMonte seems to give excess Levnatine to many Iberians although I highly doubt there's any Levantine input apart from what was brought with Romans and Greeks in Iberia today.

IMO this is the most accurate run with the samples we have so far. Collegno outliers represent Romans in all likelihood and the Empuries2 samples represent classical era Greeks. From the actual Collegno samples I use only the ones closest to Norwegians.

"distance%=1.2129"

Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha

Iberia_North_IA,64.8
Italy_Medieval_Collegno_o1,12.8
Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2,9.8
Italy_Medieval_Collegno,7.2
Guanche,5.4

However it doesn't matter much whether we use earlier East Med samples such as Mycenaeans.

"distance%=1.2723"

Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha

Iberia_North_IA,66.8
Italy_Medieval_Collegno_o1,16.8
Mycenaean,6.4
Guanche,5.2
Italy_Medieval_Collegno,4.8

But IMO, I think once we get early Roman samples they won't be as far southern shifted as Mycenaeans or other East Med samples but instead probably Central Italian like. What is almost 100% certain at this case is that modern Iberians in comparison to their Celt-Iberian ancestors need substantial amount of Roman/Greek input in addition to varying degrees of North African admix from a source similar to modern day Mozabites or medieval Guanches. So far it seems like small amount of Germanic is needed aswell, but it depends on how northern-like the Roman settlers are gonna turn out.

Their qpAdm runs gave a figure of ~25% 'Central-East Mediterranean' to L'Esquerda. I can only replicate this percentage using something like Tuscans. The Germanic in this site though is very obvious no matter what references we use, yet qpAdm failed to catch it.

[1] "distance%=1.8969"
Iberia_Northeast_c.6-8CE_ES

Iberia_North_IA,51.8
Italian_Tuscan,23
Germany_Medieval,21.6
Moroccan,3.6

[Vasconcelos]

But IMO, I think once we get early Roman samples they won't be as far southern shifted as Mycenaeans or other East Med samples but instead probably Central Italian like. What is almost 100% certain at this case is that modern Iberians in comparison to their Celt-Iberian ancestors need substantial amount of Roman/Greek input in addition to varying degrees of North African admix from a source similar to modern day Mozabites or medieval Guanches. So far it seems like small amount of Germanic is needed aswell, but it depends on how northern-like the Roman settlers are gonna turn out.

Maybe you missed the report on the upcoming Italian study. Imperial Era Romans are reported to be like modern Southern ones/Sicilians, not Central Italians

[Friends of Oliver Society]

Here is a thought I'm going to throw out there:

The possibility that people leaving the north for better opportunities in the south (throughout the Middle Ages and not specific to any time) when territory was open up for them caused an economic incentive to move Moors captured in raids in the south and otherwise north to fill that void. This doesn't explain the eastern half of Iberia but we do know the feudal system was stronger there than in the west and so perhaps there was better control of population movement or in other words it was better organized as to not cause an economic issue.

[Aren]

Maybe you missed the report on the upcoming Italian study. Imperial Era Romans are reported to be like modern Southern ones/Sicilians, not Central Italians

That's not what it said at all.

Dense cluster centroid between Greeks, Cypriots, South Italians/Sicilians, and Syrians, closest to Sicilians. Long tail stretching from central cluster to Syrians and Iraqi Jews. Couple of Northern-shifted samples overlapping N Italy, France, Spain.

So anything from Mesopotamians to North-Central Europeans were present in Imperial Rome, but that doesn't tell us about the Roman settlers in Iberia. Creating an average of so completely different people even if it centres around modern Southern Italians is not particularly informative either..

[Vasconcelos]

That's not what it said at all.


So anything from Mesopotamians to North-Central Europeans were present in Imperial Rome, but that doesn't tell us about the Roman settlers in Iberia. Creating an average of so completely different people even if it centres around modern Southern Italians is not particularly informative either..

Yeah, what are the odds the settlers were the outliers instead of where most samples plot?

[HolyMoon]

Because some people think that North African input is apparently unique. It's not. Berbers and other North Africans have substantial amount of Levant_N and Anatolia_N input. And the NA source in Iberians is likely to be close to modern day Mozabites. If you use Iberomaurusian instead of Berbers nMonte seems to give excess Levnatine to many Iberians although I highly doubt there's any Levantine input apart from what was brought with Romans and Greeks in Iberia today.

IMO this is the most accurate run with the samples we have so far. Collegno outliers represent Romans in all likelihood and the Empuries2 samples represent classical era Greeks. From the actual Collegno samples I use only the ones closest to Norwegians.

"distance%=1.2129"

Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha

Iberia_North_IA,64.8
Italy_Medieval_Collegno_o1,12.8
Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2,9.8
Italy_Medieval_Collegno,7.2
Guanche,5.4

However it doesn't matter much whether we use earlier East Med samples such as Mycenaeans.

"distance%=1.2723"

Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha

Iberia_North_IA,66.8
Italy_Medieval_Collegno_o1,16.8
Mycenaean,6.4
Guanche,5.2
Italy_Medieval_Collegno,4.8

But IMO, I think once we get early Roman samples they won't be as far southern shifted as Mycenaeans or other East Med samples but instead probably Central Italian like. What is almost 100% certain at this case is that modern Iberians in comparison to their Celt-Iberian ancestors need substantial amount of Roman/Greek input in addition to varying degrees of North African admix from a source similar to modern day Mozabites or medieval Guanches. So far it seems like small amount of Germanic is needed aswell, but it depends on how northern-like the Roman settlers are gonna turn out.
Wrong
Levantines have a substantial North African input, not the other way around.

[Peterski]

Romans were moving to Iberia already in Republican times.

[Vasconcelos]

Romans were moving to Iberia already in Republican times.

But it's undeniable that the core and biggest part of romanization of Iberia was during the imperial period, from the early Empire up to Trajan and after

[FilhoV]

Had this run for me using my coordinations


[1] "1. CLOSEST SINGLE ITEM DISTANCE%"
Iberia_Northeast_Greek Beaker_Switzerland Iberia_East_IA
4.174354 5.611206 5.891126
Beaker_Hungary Italy_Medieval_Collegno Hallstatt_Bylany
5.961423 6.742269 7.334697
Beaker_Bavaria Beaker_Central_Europe
7.979990 8.379455

[1] "distance%=1.9331"

Filho_V_scaled

Iberia_East_IA,32.2
Italy_Medieval_Collegno,21.9
Guanche:guanche8_scaled,20.8
Anatolia_ChL,13.7
Beaker_Hungary,9.3
Iberia_Northeast_Greek,1.6
Yoruba,0.5

[FilhoV]

[1] "Distance% = 1.5279"

Iberia_North_IA

Iberia_North_BA_Alava, 55.7
Hallstatt_Bylany, 26.4
Beaker_Mittelelbe-Saale, 9.7
Beaker_Switzerland, 7.3
Guanche: guanche8_scaled, 0.5
Clovis, 0.4

[1] "Distance% = 1.1461"

Iberia_East_IA

Iberia_Northeast_BA, 39.1
Iberia_North_BA_Alava, 32.3
Iberia_North_BA_Rioja, 19.4
Beaker_Switzerland, 3.8
Anatolia_ChL, 3.1
Guanche: guanche12_scaled, 2.3

[Peterski]

But it's undeniable that the core and biggest part of romanization of Iberia was during the imperial period, from the early Empire up to Trajan and after

Maybe but they started coming already ca. year 250 BC:

http://slideplayer.es/slide/1438330/9/images/2/Fases+de+la+conquista+romana+de+Hispania.jpg

It took them almost three centuries to conquer the whole thing.

[Peterski]

By the way does anyone still doubt that modern French people have a lot of Roman/Italian admixture, which made them southern-shifted compared to ancient Gauls? Because I was saying this on various forums for a looong time but of course everyone was denying just like everyone was denying Roman admixture in Iberia and in Southern England (the latter - Roman admixture in South-East England- is something that David Reich suggested recently as well, as one of possible explanations why they have higher Neolithic Farmer admixture).

[Peterski]

By the way does anyone still doubt that modern French people have a lot of Roman/Italian admixture, which made them southern-shifted compared to ancient Gauls? Because I was saying this on various forums for a looong time but of course everyone was denying just like everyone was denying Roman admixture in Iberia and in Southern England (the latter - Roman admixture in South-East England- is something that David Reich suggested recently as well, as one of possible explanations why they have higher Neolithic Farmer admixture).

Of course every autist was claiming that modern French must be more northern than Gauls, not more southern. Because "muh Germoneyc Tribes" and "muh Romanization was just a language shift".

Allegedly a "pierdyllion of bazzillions" of Germoneyc tribes moved in and supposedly changed DNA but not language (even Normandy remained Romance speaking). On the other hand, all Gauls miracurously started speaking Latin without a touch of Italian DNA. Yeah, suuure...

Except that we have written and archaeological sources which confirm large scale Roman settlement, on the other hand Franks in Gaul were probably not more numerous than Vikings in Russia.

Not to mention that Caesar's Legions slaughtered a double digit % of the population of Gaul before Roman settlers started to move in.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr8er4XBhTw

Some of Germanic areas were also affected by Roman admixture (and temporarily Roman control extended up to the Elbe River):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVLGwTggO8U

[Peterski]

Romanization in both Iberia and Gaul can be compared to Medieval German Ostsiedlung in West Slavic lands.

And I expect that similar level of new admixture in all of these areas was necessary to change the language.

Pre-Ostsiedlung Slavic DNA in East Germany is waiting to be sampled:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?258847-Early-Medieval-Slavic-DNA-from-Germany

https://www.wochenspiegel-web.de/autothumb/620x400/Neue_Gleise_auf_alten_Wegen_slawisches.jpg

Proto-Ashkenazi Jewish DNA in West Germany is waiting to be sampled:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grabstein_des_Jakob_haBachur

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?282661-Ancient-Ashkenazi-Jewish-DNA

====

Edit:

I would not be surprised if my Y-DNA is from a Roman soldier who settled in Poland in 1st or 2nd century AD.

Recently archaeologists have discovered a Roman Legionary Camp in northern half (!) of Poland, in Kujawy:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?242535-Roman-legionary-camp-discovered-in-Northern-Poland

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?261257-Danish-Polish-Brotherhood&p=5885874&viewfull=1#post5885874

As for Roman admixture in western and southern fringes of Germania:

Check how south-western shifted are modern Belgians etc. compared to Pre-Roman Dutch with R1b-U106:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?282060-Early-Proto-Germanic-R1b-U106-1900-1650-BC-on-GEDmatch-Genesis

https://i.imgur.com/7KpjwVs.png

[FilhoV]

"Distance% = 1.8949"

Filho_V_scaled

Iberia_North_IA, 36

Iberia_Northeast_Greek, 23

Anatolia_ChL, 13.2

Guanche: guanche8_scaled, 12.1

Italy_Medieval_Collegno, 8

Guanche: guanche12_scaled, 5.6

Beaker_Hungary, 1.3

Yoruba, 0.8

[Peterski]

And R1b-U106 is not exclusively Germanic but also Celts could have some of it.

As proven by this sample from a Non-Germanic area (at that time at least):

Czech Republic, I7196 Unetice Culture, R1b-U106 - kit number NC1911258

[Lucas]

Ok, Peterski but calm down a little. Your Germanic-tribes-phobia today has some peak I suppose, buy a Heineken then and relax:) Should be better for some time.

[Vasconcelos]

Maybe but they started coming already ca. year 250 BC:

It took them almost three centuries to conquer the whole thing.

In many areas, during the early stages of Roman occupation, their control over the local populace was feeble for a number of reasons, for example the terrain is rugged, and the society was very tribal, so they had to be in multiple places with only so many men avaliable - these two combined made the pacification of various areas of Iberia a bit of a headache.
You can still see this in a map of Roman roads of Iberia, the interior north of Portugal is basically void of (major) roads. You see one on the coastal area that connects the centre/south to modern Galicia, but inner northern Portugal is blank. This was mirrored with Roman occupation, whereas Decimus Junius Brutus Callaicus defeated many Gallaecian tribes along the coastline, the interior didn't yield as quickly, it was only during the time of Julius Caesar that Lusitanian tribes in inner northern Portugal were finally subdued.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Hispania_roads.svg/300px-Hispania_roads.svg.png

Just to state the obvious, there were Roman roads there, but they were much smaller and of less importance than the ones shown above.






By the way does anyone still doubt that modern French people have a lot of Roman/Italian admixture, which made them southern-shifted compared to ancient Gauls? Because I was saying this on various forums for a looong time but of course everyone was denying just like everyone was denying Roman admixture in Iberia and in Southern England (the latter - Roman admixture in South-East England- is something that David Reich suggested recently as well, as one of possible explanations why they have higher Neolithic Farmer admixture).

You are probably right, but it shouldn't be surprising given what we know from historical sources on the Roman treatment of Gaul, and how they built colonies basically everywhere

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Romancoloniae.jpg





Had this run for me using my coordinations


[1] "1. CLOSEST SINGLE ITEM DISTANCE%"
Iberia_Northeast_Greek Beaker_Switzerland Iberia_East_IA
4.174354 5.611206 5.891126
Beaker_Hungary Italy_Medieval_Collegno Hallstatt_Bylany
5.961423 6.742269 7.334697
Beaker_Bavaria Beaker_Central_Europe
7.979990 8.379455

[1] "distance%=1.9331"

Filho_V_scaled

Iberia_East_IA,32.2
Italy_Medieval_Collegno,21.9
Guanche:guanche8_scaled,20.8
Anatolia_ChL,13.7
Beaker_Hungary,9.3
Iberia_Northeast_Greek,1.6
Yoruba,0.5


Here's your result using the same simple model I used for Brás and myself

[1] "distance%=1.1569"

FilhoV

Celtiberian,64.2
Roman_Imperial_proxy,27.8
Guanche,8

For comparison:

[1] "distance%=1.036"

Portuguese

Celtiberian,69.2
Roman_Imperial_proxy,19.4
Guanche,11.4


[1] "distance%=0.8919"

Spanish_Extremadura

Celtiberian,66.8
Roman_Imperial_proxy,21
Guanche,12.2


[1] "distance%=1.4194"

Spanish_Galicia

Celtiberian,70
Roman_Imperial_proxy,19.6
Guanche,10.4


[1] "distance%=0.999"

Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon

Celtiberian,72.8
Roman_Imperial_proxy,16.8
Guanche,10.4


[1] "distance%=1.339"

Spanish_Cantabria

Celtiberian,81.6
Roman_Imperial_proxy,13
Guanche,5.4


[1] "distance%=1.7636"

Vasconcelos

Celtiberian,76.6
Roman_Imperial_proxy,15
Guanche,8.4


[1] "distance%=1.4083"

Brás

Celtiberian,68.2
Roman_Imperial_proxy,20.4
Guanche,11.4

[Morena]

By the way does anyone still doubt that modern French people have a lot of Roman/Italian admixture, which made them southern-shifted compared to ancient Gauls? Because I was saying this on various forums for a looong time but of course everyone was denying just like everyone was denying Roman admixture in Iberia and in Southern England (the latter - Roman admixture in South-East England- is something that David Reich suggested recently as well, as one of possible explanations why they have higher Neolithic Farmer admixture).

I don't know why this is so. Many Iberians tend to score some Italian. It's obvious where this comes from IMO.

[Grace O'Malley]

Waiting for Grace O'Maley's thoughts on the subject. xD
https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fbestpicturesintheworld.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F02%2FWaiting_Patiently1 .jpg&f=1

I've read the supplementary but there are plenty of people on this thread who are much more knowledgeable than me and have made some great comments already. It is a great study and I hope more like this are done in other countries. What is really missing from the genetics of Europe is a good study on France. That would also help in answering some questions for this study i.e. who were the Bell Beakers that came to Iberia. They most likely were from France. It would be interesting to see if Roman occupation had affected France re genetics like it did in Iberia. It obviously did but to a lesser extent.

Some things I found interesting have already been touched on here but the study ruled out British Beaker as a source for the Beakers in Iberia which is not too surprising really. It is also interesting that they most likely picked up a pulse of Celtic migration after the Beakers. This is a very interesting thing especially as they are saying that the Beakers didn't Indo-Europeanize the language in Iberia. Celtic language is still a bit of a mystery then in places i.e. is it a later migration everywhere that brought Celtic languages which looks like it is the case in Iberia? It is also interesting that there was quite a Moorish presence that was picked up and there must have been quite a large expulsion of these people along with Jewish populations. It also shows that the Reconquista was a huge event in Spain and it can be shown in these studies.

This was a very good paper in that they could analyse so many different periods in Iberian history. I think we know more now about the Iberian Peninsula than any other part of Europe. Looking forward to the paper that is going to be released on Italy.

If I think of anything else I'll comment. Some very interesting observations already on this thread.

Another think is that what was happening with all the Bell Beakers that went to Iberia were DF27 and all the British ones were L21. Some obvious split there and I hope they nut that out eventually. But why such a sharp differentiation in the ydna?

[Grace O'Malley]

By the way does anyone still doubt that modern French people have a lot of Roman/Italian admixture, which made them southern-shifted compared to ancient Gauls? Because I was saying this on various forums for a looong time but of course everyone was denying just like everyone was denying Roman admixture in Iberia and in Southern England (the latter - Roman admixture in South-East England- is something that David Reich suggested recently as well, as one of possible explanations why they have higher Neolithic Farmer admixture).

We need some dna from France with ancient Gauls. Basically a study like this one needs to be done in France.

[Bellbeaking]

Some things I found interesting have already been touched on here but the study ruled out British Beaker as a source for the Beakers in Iberia which is not too surprising really. It is also interesting that they most likely picked up a pulse of Celtic migration after the Beakers. This is a very interesting thing especially as they are saying that the Beakers didn't Indo-Europeanize the language in Iberia. Celtic language is still a bit of a mystery then in places i.e. is it a later migration everywhere that brought Celtic languages which looks like it is the case in Iberia?


https://i.snag.gy/lXf4AH.jpg

having read the entire paper and thread it isn't clear to me when the celtic pulse comes in, this diagram doesn't show it, basques recieve both pulses of northern influx, but i might be being retarded

edit: from eurogenes:



We reveal sporadic contacts between Iberia and North Africa by ~2500 BCE and, by ~2000 BCE, the replacement of 40% of Iberia’s ancestry and nearly 100% of its Y-chromosomes by people with Steppe ancestry. We show that, in the Iron Age, Steppe ancestry had spread not only into Indo-European–speaking regions but also into non Indo-European–speaking ones, and we reveal that present-day Basques are best described as a typical Iron Age population without the admixture events that later affected the rest of Iberia.

However, in the paper it's revealed that "Indo-European regions" actually refers to a Celtic-speaking part of northern Iberia. And it's quite possible that Celts moved into this area from outside of Iberia only during the Iron Age. In other words, the speakers of Indo-European languages here may not have been the descendants of any of the people with steppe ancestry who came to Iberia by ~2000 BCE.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/03/open-thread-what-are-linguistic.html read it if you are yet to

[Vasconcelos]

https://i.snag.gy/lXf4AH.jpg

having read the entire paper and thread it isn't clear to me when the celtic pulse comes in, this diagram doesn't show it

Fig.2B

It's just not as big as the previous BB pulse. In fact it might have been a constant trickle, as you can still find IA individuals who cluster with/close to modern French.

[Grace O'Malley]

This diagram from Reich is interesting as it shows the differences between Spain and Britain.

http://www.r1b.org/imgs/David_Reich_Lecture.png

The population replacement in Britain was sudden and only took a couple of generations with a near total population replacement whereas in Iberia it was a lot slower and took over 500 years to 40% replacement. This could be the reason why the language wasn't replaced in Iberia.

This is an interesting comment from Richard Rocca on Eurogenes.


That's anything but "very sudden". See Reich's two graphics (Bell Beaker Britain versus Bell Beaker Iberia). As you can see, Bell Beaker in Britain was absolute and sudden (what you are describing). Literally within one or two generations the entire population was replaced, and obviously Indo-European languages as well. Bell Beaker in Iberia was anything but "very sudden", lasting 550 years which is roughly 22 generations. That is more than enough time for partial or total language replacement in the case of Iberia, although I think there is some founder effects at work there... perhaps DF27+ZZ12+ and DF27>>Z220 whereas in plaes like France you have almost 100% Z195 above Z220.

[Cristiano viejo]

Romanization in both Iberia and Gaul can be compared to Medieval German Ostsiedlung in West Slavic lands.


Romans lasted 7 years in conquering the Gaul... and 200 years in conquering Iberia (not even all Iberia), just saying.

[Morena]

I've read the supplementary but there are plenty of people on this thread who are much more knowledgeable than me and have made some great comments already. It is a great study and I hope more like this are done in other countries. What is really missing from the genetics of Europe is a good study on France. That would also help in answering some questions for this study i.e. who were the Bell Beakers that came to Iberia. They most likely were from France. It would be interesting to see if Roman occupation had affected France re genetics like it did in Iberia. It obviously did but to a lesser extent.

Some things I found interesting have already been touched on here but the study ruled out British Beaker as a source for the Beakers in Iberia which is not too surprising really. It is also interesting that they most likely picked up a pulse of Celtic migration after the Beakers. This is a very interesting thing especially as they are saying that the Beakers didn't Indo-Europeanize the language in Iberia. Celtic language is still a bit of a mystery then in places i.e. is it a later migration everywhere that brought Celtic languages which looks like it is the case in Iberia? It is also interesting that there was quite a Moorish presence that was picked up and there must have been quite a large expulsion of these people along with Jewish populations. It also shows that the Reconquista was a huge event in Spain and it can be shown in these studies.

This was a very good paper in that they could analyse so many different periods in Iberian history. I think we know more now about the Iberian Peninsula than any other part of Europe. Looking forward to the paper that is going to be released on Italy.

If I think of anything else I'll comment. Some very interesting observations already on this thread.

Another think is that what was happening with all the Bell Beakers that went to Iberia were DF27 and all the British ones were L21. Some obvious split there and I hope they nut that out eventually. But why such a sharp differentiation in the ydna?

Well, you did focus on the Celtic stuff, which is a little different from what everyone else focused on. I'm not surprised that they came from different branches, TBH, because of geography. The two landmasses are too out of the way for any large, direct travel (outside of traders) at the time. The journey would have been more difficult. I don't see settlers going from Ireland to Spain as an obvious, organic, trip. People will take the easier routes, and France seeding both the Isles and Iberia makes the most sense.

When it comes to the BellBeakers and such, I think of a bunch of marauding polygamists. Their sons would inherit some piece of territory, and like most polygamous societies, this meant that younger sons and ordinary men who weren't in power were at a disadvantage. This pretty much explains everything to me. If you wanted a bride, and all the women were taken by the most powerful, you had no choice but to go somewhere else to get one. If you were the tenth son and due to inherit little to nothing in terms of brides/land/cattle, then you hand no choice but to become warlord yourself, take a group of unmarried men, and seek fortune somewhere else. This may have even been encouraged, as we know little of how their practical culture was so long ago. Perhaps big Ulfrir the BellBeaker Chieftain (with his three hundred wives and 500 sons) would notice that son #266 had a great deal of potential. Perhaps this made him a threat, or a future rival to his more favored sons. Ulfrir's would wisely advise son #266 to go with a bunch of unmarried (and therefore unstable) men and seek fortune elsewhere.

There could also be variations between cultures, some being more violent than others. It could be that those who reached Iberia were simply more violent than those who went to Ireland/BI (or visa versa).

I agree that having a similar paper done on France would solve many of these issues. Thanks for the insights.

Btw, what do you think of the Roman incursions matching the greater North African input? I think most of it came from there, as it matches the Roman occupations. But most people don't know what sort of rejection we had to the Moors at the time. It wasn't racial, as far as I know. This was different from North Africans coming as Romanized settlers. It think the reason we don't remember this "event," had to do with the character of the Roman Empire. It was very Civic in nature, so that everyone who was a Roman Citizen was a Roman. That once Iberians were Romanzied, that there wouldn't have been too much of a perceived difference between the North Africans and themselves.

[Morena]

This diagram from Reich is interesting as it shows the differences between Spain and Britain.

http://www.r1b.org/imgs/David_Reich_Lecture.png

The population replacement in Britain was sudden and only took a couple of generations with a near total population replacement whereas in Iberia it was a lot slower and took over 500 years to 40% replacement. This could be the reason why the language wasn't replaced in Iberia.

This is an interesting comment from Richard Rocca on Eurogenes.

My father's Y is I2a, which means that it may have been a direct line from one of the few remaining male lineages. ^_^

[Peterski]

This is an interesting comment from Richard Rocca on Eurogenes.

But that comment is not entirely true, just check Supplementary Tables:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?282366-Resurgence-of-Neolithic-Britons

In Britain also Neolithic British Y-DNA survived (similar levels as autosomal).

[Grace O'Malley]

Well, you did focus on the Celtic stuff, which is a little different from what everyone else focused on. I'm not surprised that they came from different branches, TBH, because of geography. The two landmasses are too out of the way for any large, direct travel (outside of traders) at the time. The journey would have been more difficult. I don't see settlers going from Ireland to Spain as an obvious, organic, trip. People will take the easier routes, and France seeding both the Isles and Iberia makes the most sense.

When it comes to the BellBeakers and such, I think of a bunch of marauding polygamists. Their sons would inherit some piece of territory, and like most polygamous societies, this meant that younger sons and ordinary men who weren't in power were at a disadvantage. This pretty much explains everything to me. If you wanted a bride, and all the women were taken by the most powerful, you had no choice but to go somewhere else to get one. If you were the tenth son and due to inherit little to nothing in terms of brides/land/cattle, then you hand no choice but to become warlord yourself, take a group of unmarried men, and seek fortune somewhere else. This may have even been encouraged, as we know little of how their practical culture was so long ago. Perhaps big Ulfrir the BellBeaker Chieftain (with his three hundred wives and 500 sons) would notice that son #266 had a great deal of potential. Perhaps this made him a threat, or a future rival to his more favored sons. Ulfrir's would wisely advise son #266 to go with a bunch of unmarried (and therefore unstable) men and seek fortune elsewhere.

There could also be variations between cultures, some being more violent than others. It could be that those who reached Iberia were simply more violent than those who went to Ireland/BI (or visa versa).

I agree that having a similar paper done on France would solve many of these issues. Thanks for the insights.

Btw, what do you think of the Roman incursions matching the greater North African input? I think most of it came from there, as it matches the Roman occupations. But most people don't know what sort of rejection we had to the Moors at the time. It wasn't racial, as far as I know. This was different from North Africans coming as Romanized settlers. It think the reason we don't remember this "event," had to do with the character of the Roman Empire. It was very Civic in nature, so that everyone who was a Roman Citizen was a Roman. That once Iberians were Romanzied, that there wouldn't have been too much of a perceived difference between the North Africans and themselves.

I agree with a lot of what you have said. The way you describe what happened with the Bell Beakers is exactly what happened in Ireland and why there are subclades such as M222 and L226 in certain areas. Powerful men monopolising the women and men on the lower rungs found it very difficult. The clan leaders had many children with lots of women so they had a large amount of sons who still had prestige. Once you got down to great great grandchild level it tapered off so young men then would have to try to go elsewhere to get a wife or try to gain some power in some way. This I think would be typical Bell Beaker behaviour.

The Romans could have increased North African as they had people from all over the Roman Empire. It is known that in certain areas of Britain i.e. parts of Wales and along Hadrians Wall there is an increase in ydna E (but from memory I think it might be a Balkan clade more than North African) but yes it could possibly be Roman influence but there is definitely a Moorish influence.

[Grace O'Malley]

But that comment is not entirely true, just check Supplementary Tables:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?282366-Resurgence-of-Neolithic-Britons

In Britain also Neolithic British Y-DNA survived (similar levels as autosomal).

There has been a similar study as this on Ireland looking at genomes from Ireland over a 10,000 year period by Dr Lara Cassidy. There is an embargo on this for at least a year so it will be a while before it comes out. Imperator Biff said that he heard that some parts of Ireland had higher neolithic and also wasn't Haak looking at the Southeast of England as he found higher neolithic there. I'm sure we'll find out more when these papers are finally published.

[Imperator Biff]

There has been a similar study as this on Ireland looking at genomes from Ireland over a 10,000 year period by Dr Lara Cassidy. There is an embargo on this for at least a year so it will be a while before it comes out. Imperator Biff said that he heard that some parts of Ireland had higher neolithic and also wasn't Haak looking at the Southeast of England as he found higher neolithic there. I'm sure we'll find out more when these papers are finally published.
There’s a thread on anthrogenica regarding it. Last year Lara did a lecture in the RDS on the upcoming study to be published in may of 2020. Unfortunately I was unable to attend but some AG users were. Apparently Rhenish beakers weren’t the only ones to migrate here during the Bronze Age. They also have samples going all the way back to the Mesolithic. Unsurprisingly these were your typical early Holocene WHG.

[Aren]

When we look at IA samples adjacently to the north and south of France, ie Engish and Northern Spanish IA samples we might get a hint of what France was like, at that period.

English IA samples look pretty much like modern day Brits, almost exactly. Very high Dutch Beaker admixture and the rest being from farmers.

"distance%=1.5866"

England_IA

Beaker_The_Netherlands,82.6
Baden_LCA,11.4
England_N,6

The Spanish samples look like they are a mix of the same populations but in different proportions

"distance%=2.1176"

Iberia_North_IA

Beaker_The_Netherlands,49.2
Iberia_Central_CA,46.4
Mycenaean,3
Mozabite,1.4

So I think maybe the Gauls had something around 60-80% Dutch-Beaker admixture depending on the region.

[Bellbeaking]

But that comment is not entirely true, just check Supplementary Tables:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?282366-Resurgence-of-Neolithic-Britons

In Britain also Neolithic British Y-DNA survived (similar levels as autosomal).

this suggests there was no conquest in the British Isles

[Token]

https://i.snag.gy/lXf4AH.jpg

having read the entire paper and thread it isn't clear to me when the celtic pulse comes in, this diagram doesn't show it, basques recieve both pulses of northern influx, but i might be being retarded
Of course it shows, look at the additional pulse of Central/Northern Europe ca 1000BC, exactly when Celts began flooding Iberia.

[Bellbeaking]

Of course it shows, look at the additional pulse of Central/Northern Europe ca 1000BC, exactly when Celts began flooding Iberia.

basques also recieve that

[Ibericus]

basques also recieve that
They did, and there is Celtic toponymy in basque-speaking territory. It seems like in the long-run the Celtic invaders adopted the local language,

[Vasconcelos]

basques also recieve that

What's wrong with that? Just because a population recieved influx form another it doesn't need to impact their language. The paper clearly states that Basques are basically identical to IA Iberians. You also have a few Iberia_East_IA individuals who are very steppe-shifted. It's perfectly fine

[Token]

What's wrong with that? Just because a population recieved influx form another it doesn't need to impact their language. The paper clearly states that Basques are basically identical to IA Iberians. You also have a few Iberia_East_IA individuals who are very steppe-shifted. It's perfectly fine

But let's not ignore the fact that non-Basque Iberians have more steppe admixture than Basques even after receiving Roman and North African admixture.

[Ibericus]

But let's not ignore the fact that non-Basque Iberians have more steppe admixture than Basques even after receiving Roman and North African admixture.
not really They have the same as other iberians which is around 30% of steppe ancestry

[Imperator Biff]

not really They have the same as other iberians which is around 30% of steppe ancestry

Despite the higher prevalence of R1b basques do actually have slightly less steppe ancestry overall. They don’t have any NA admixture though which causes other Iberians that do have it to shift further away from steppe derived populations.

[Peterski]

this suggests there was no conquest in the British Isles

In New Zealand Maoris initially declined to 5% of the population, then recovered to 20% due to higher birthrates than Whites. Something similar could take place in Britain (also initially mixing between newcomers and locals could be on a very limited scale):

Decline from 100% to 5% (ca. 1840-1901):

https://nzhistory.govt.nz/files/styles/fullsize/public/economic-expansion-1.jpg?itok=_P8b0HDy

Recovery to 20% (between 1901 and 2019):

http://archive.stats.govt.nz/~/media/Statistics/browse-categories/people-and-communities/maori/maori-popln-article-2015/M%C4%81ori%20ethnic%20population.gif?h=339&w=575

1840-1858 decline from 100% to 50% Maori:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Bryant7/publication/5204043/figure/fig1/AS:669379029127181@1536603805989/Total-population-and-Maori-population-1858-2000.png

Also Maoris killed much of their own people (few dozen thousand) already before 1840, during the Musket Wars:

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

"The Musket Wars were a series of as many as 3,000 battles and raids fought throughout New Zealand (including the Chatham Islands) among Māori between 1807 and 1845, after Māori first obtained muskets and then engaged in an intertribal arms race in order to gain territory or seek revenge for past defeats.[1] The battles resulted in the loss of between 20,000 and 40,000 lives and the enslavement of tens of thousands of Māori and significantly altered the rohe, or tribal territorial boundaries, before the imposition of colonial government in the 1840s.[2][3] (...) Responsibility for the beginning of the musket wars is usually attributed to Ngāpuhi chief Hongi Hika, who in 1818 used newly acquired muskets to launch devastating raids from his Northland base into the Bay of Plenty, where local Māori were still relying on traditional weapons of wood and stone. In the following years he launched equally successful raids on iwi in Auckland, Thames, Waikato and Lake Rotorua,[2] taking large numbers of his enemies as slaves, who were put to work cultivating and dressing flax to trade with Europeans for more muskets. His success prompted other iwi to procure firearms in order to mount effective methods of defence and deterrence and the spiral of violence peaked in 1832 and 1833, by which time it had spread to all parts of the country except the inland area of the North Island later known as the King Country and remote bays and valleys of Fiordland in the South Island. In 1835 the fighting went offshore as Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama launched devastating raids on the pacifist Moriori in the Chatham Islands. Historian Michael King suggested the term "holocaust" could be applied to the Musket War period;[5] another historian, Angela Ballara, has questioned the validity of the term "musket wars", suggesting the conflict was no more than a continuation of Māori tikanga (custom), but more destructive."

In Neolithic Britain there was also a very sharp decline of population already before the arrival of Beaker settlers.

The original population of Pre-Colonial New Zealand was about 120,000 in up to 30 tribes:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015005286961;view=1up;seq=96

After European colonization was there was initially a decline in fertility during the 1800s:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015005286961;view=1up;seq=245

[Grace O'Malley]

In New Zealand Maoris initially declined to 5% of the population, then recovered to 20% due to higher birthrates than Whites. Something similar could take place in Britain (also initially mixing between newcomers and locals could be on a very limited scale):

Decline from 100% to 5% (ca. 1840-1901):

https://nzhistory.govt.nz/files/styles/fullsize/public/economic-expansion-1.jpg?itok=_P8b0HDy

Recovery to 20% (between 1901 and 2019):

http://archive.stats.govt.nz/~/media/Statistics/browse-categories/people-and-communities/maori/maori-popln-article-2015/M%C4%81ori%20ethnic%20population.gif?h=339&w=575

1840-1858 decline from 100% to 50% Maori:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Bryant7/publication/5204043/figure/fig1/AS:669379029127181@1536603805989/Total-population-and-Maori-population-1858-2000.png

British/Irish populations are still very Steppe shifted though as far as Europeans go which is why they cluster where they do. If they were more Neolithic they would cluster differently. But we will have more answers to these questions when the Cassidy paper is published and hopefully one will be done on Britain but the Cassidy paper will cover some of that also.

[Peterski]

British/Irish populations are still very Steppe shifted though as far as Europeans go which is why they cluster where they do.

Many British Beakers cluster with Scandinavians on GEDmatch, not with modern British, because they had higher Steppe.

However, Late Bronze Age British cluster with modern British, or even get British + Basque in various GEDmatch Oracles.

That's because Neolithic British Farmer admixture increased from ~5% in Beaker Period to ~15% in Late Bronze Age:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?282366-Resurgence-of-Neolithic-Britons

There were individuals in the Bronze Age with very high Neolithic British (indicating that mixing with surviving farmers continued, just like mixing between Maoris and whites continues in New Zealand, and also full-blooded Maori population increases due to high birthrates):

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?282395-Bronze-Age-English-(from-Kent)-on-GEDmatch

Also modern South-Eastern English have higher Neolithic Farmer, but much of their Neolithic is closely related to Italian Neolithic Farmers. On the other hand, all of Pre-Beaker Britain was inhabited by farmers closely related to Iberian Farmers - not to Italian Farmers.

[Grace O'Malley]

Many British Beakers cluster with Scandinavians on GEDmatch, not with modern British, because they had higher Steppe.

However, Late Bronze Age British cluster with modern British, or even get British + Basque in various GEDmatch Oracles.

That's because Neolithic British Farmer admixture increased from ~5% in Beaker Period to ~15% in Late Bronze Age:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?282366-Resurgence-of-Neolithic-Britons

There were individuals in the Bronze Age with very high Neolithic British (indicating that mixing with surviving farmers continued, just like mixing between Maoris and whites continues in New Zealand, and also full-blooded Maori population increases due to high birthrates):

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?282395-Bronze-Age-English-(from-Kent)-on-GEDmatch

Also modern South-Eastern English have higher Neolithic Farmer, but much of their Neolithic is closely related to Italian Neolithic Farmers. On the other hand, all of Pre-Beaker Britain was inhabited by farmers closely related to Iberian Farmers - not to Italian Farmers.

Modern British are still Northern shifted though but I'm looking forward to an in depth study on this from Cassidy when it comes out. Apparently Southwest Ireland retained a higher neolithic than the east and north of Ireland. From looking up info on that as well there was populations that came into Ireland after the Bronze Age so looking forward to hearing the nitty gritty about that. I've posted this Ancestry plot on another thread and it's applicable to this thread as well as I think it's noticeable that Spanish are pulled towards Italy on this. What do others think?

https://www.ancestrycdn.com/dna/static/images/ethnicity/help/PCA.jpg

Would that Italian Neolithic Farmer input be related to the Romans in Britain?

[Grace O'Malley]

Some Visigothic too, and Suebi in Galicia and by extension Portugal. Germanic admixture should be not higher than North African admix. Aren's post pretty much nails it:

Just reading the paper again and from the study Visigoths didn't have any lasting impact.


In contrast to the demographic changes in the Classical period, movements into Iberia during the decline of the Roman Empire had less long-term demographic impact.
Nevertheless, individual sites—for example, the 6th century site of Pla del'Horta in the northeast—bear witness to events in this period. These individuals, archaeologically
interpreted as Visigoths, are shifted from those at L'Esquerda in the direction of Northern and Central Europe (Figs. 1D and 2C and table S18), and we observe the Asian mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup C4a1a also found in Early Medieval Bavaria (20), supporting a recent link to groups with ancestry originally derived from Central and Eastern Europe.

Although some of the Celtiberians had high North Euro and Steppe. They are possibly from Urnfied culture.

[Token]

Just reading the paper again and from the study Visigoths didn't have any lasting impact.



Although some of the Celtiberians had high North Euro and Steppe. They are possibly from Urnfied culture.

Where did they say that they didn't have any lasting impact? They wrote they had 'less long term demographic impact' compared to Romans, which of course is true.

[Grace O'Malley]

Where did they say that they didn't have any lasting impact? They wrote they had 'less long term demographic impact' compared to Romans, which of course is true.

I'm also reading Eurogenes Blog and Anthrogenica and there were a few comments along that line. I wonder if someone else could clarify the situation.

[Morena]

I'm also reading Eurogenes Blog and Anthrogenica and there were a few comments along that line. I wonder if someone else could clarify the situation.

I'm going to have to go there. They go more in depth.

[Token]

I'm also reading Eurogenes Blog and Anthrogenica and there were a few comments along that line. I wonder if someone else could clarify the situation.

These guys are more interested in discussing the Beakers than anything else.
Btw, i made a post on Anthrogenica with some G25 runs. Germanic admixture is obvious in samples post-dating barbarian invasions, specially in the l'Esquerda samples which qpAdm failed to flesh out.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?16699-Olalde-et-al-2019-Genetic-profile-of-Muslims-Moriscos-from-Granada-Valencia&p=554773&viewfull=1#post554773

[Bellbeaking]

Would that Italian Neolithic Farmer input be related to the Romans in Britain?


Central Europeans like Austrians and Bavarian farmer input is Italian farmer + lbk/gac according to eurogenes, so it could also be halstatt/urnfield etc.

[J. Ketch]

Central Europeans like Austrians and Bavarian farmer input is Italian farmer, so it could also be halstatt/urnfield etc
Is there any real difference between 'Italian' farmers and 'Iberian' famers, other than the latter having more WHG? I thought British Farmers were closer to Iberians because they had more WHG than both.

Even if there is a discernable difference, wouldn't the British Beakers have had mostly Italian-like Neolithic blood in the first place, from LBK etc?

[Token]

Is there any real difference between 'Italian' farmers and 'Iberian' famers, other than the latter having more WHG? I thought British Farmers were closer to Iberians because they had more WHG than both.

Even if there is a discernable difference, wouldn't the British Beakers have had mostly Italian-like Neolithic blood in the first place, from LBK etc?
Iberian, British and Central European farmer cultures such as GAC and TRB are all entirely descended from Paris Basin Megalithic builders, so there is basically no difference between them.

[J. Ketch]

Iberian, British and Central European farmer cultures such as GAC and TRB are all entirely descended from Paris Basin Megalithic builders, so there is basically no difference between them.
What about Italian Farmers?

[Token]

What about Italian Farmers?

Need more samples.

[J. Ketch]

Need more samples.
From what there is it looks like they're just lacking the added WHG of the others. Trying to separate minor 'Italian' farmer admixture from 'Iberian' admixture in modern people seems silly to me.

[TheOldNorth]

Very interesting paper with Celtiberian, Visigothic, Iberian and Tartessian genomes. I'm going to read it carefully and post a summary soon.

We assembled genome-wide data from 271 ancient Iberians, of whom 176 are from the largely unsampled period after 2000 BCE, thereby providing a high-resolution time transect of the Iberian Peninsula. We document high genetic substructure between northwestern and southeastern hunter-gatherers before the spread of farming. We reveal sporadic contacts between Iberia and North Africa by ~2500 BCE and, by ~2000 BCE, the replacement of 40% of Iberia’s ancestry and nearly 100% of its Y-chromosomes by people with Steppe ancestry. We show that, in the Iron Age, Steppe ancestry had spread not only into Indo-European–speaking regions but also into non-Indo-European–speaking ones, and we reveal that present-day Basques are best described as a typical Iron Age population without the admixture events that later affected the rest of Iberia. Additionally, we document how, beginning at least in the Roman period, the ancestry of the peninsula was transformed by gene flow from North Africa and the eastern Mediterranean.
https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/2019_Olalde_Science_IberiaTransect_0.pdf

I've been wanting to hear something about this... this is exciting news!

[Token]

From what there is it looks like they're just lacking the added WHG of the others. Trying to separate minor 'Italian' farmer admixture from 'Iberian' admixture in modern people seems silly to me.

Besides that, Chalcolithic Italian farmers had a lot of Iran_N-related admixture that is entirely lacking in Northern French Megalithic builders and derived cultures, so it shouldn't be that difficult to separate them.

[TheOldNorth]

Yeah, like i've been saying over and over, Urnfield was the culture that spread Celtic languages to Western Europe.

28 to 43% in three individuals at
La Hoya in the north where Indo-European
Celtiberian languages were likely spoken (fig. S6
and tables S11 and S12). This trend documents
gene flow into Iberia during the Late Bronze
Age or Early Iron Age, possibly associated with
the introduction of the Urnfield tradition (18).

I feel like the Urn-fields and the Atlantic bronze age cultures had something to do with it, considering there hasn't been any urn-field finds in the British isles, and recent research suggest the celts have been there sense at least 2000 bc

[Peterski]

Is there any real difference between 'Italian' farmers and 'Iberian' famers, other than the latter having more WHG? I thought British Farmers were closer to Iberians because they had more WHG than both.

Even if there is a discernable difference, wouldn't the British Beakers have had mostly Italian-like Neolithic blood in the first place, from LBK etc?

The difference was due to local drift as well, not just different proportions of WHG. And also the Iran Neolithic admixture. In K36, Insular Celts tend to score much higher Iberian than Italian, while the English tend to score more Italian.

This is example of Italian farmer, in K36 scores 40% Italian and 20% Iberian:

I2477 Italian Beaker No Steppe - kit number GQ2993310

[FilhoV]

Italian Beaker no steppe

Eurogenes K13 Oracle results:

K13 Oracle ref data revised 21 Nov 2013

Kit GQ2993310

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_Med 55.02
2 East_Med 22.48
3 North_Atlantic 22.28
4 Red_Sea 0.23

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Sardinian 3.7
2 Spanish_Andalucia 29.7
3 North_Italian 30.41
4 Tuscan 31.13
5 Spanish_Valencia 31.55
6 Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha 31.57
7 Spanish_Extremadura 31.57
8 Spanish_Aragon 31.75
9 West_Sicilian 32.22
10 Spanish_Cantabria 32.4
11 Spanish_Murcia 32.41
12 Southwest_French 32.8
13 Spanish_Galicia 33.12
14 Portuguese 33.12
15 Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon 33.51
16 South_Italian 33.96
17 Spanish_Cataluna 34.08
18 Algerian_Jewish 34.9
19 East_Sicilian 35.17
20 Italian_Abruzzo 35.31

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 100% Sardinian + 0% Abhkasian @ 3.7
2 100% Sardinian + 0% Adygei @ 3.7
3 100% Sardinian + 0% Afghan_Pashtun @ 3.7
4 100% Sardinian + 0% Afghan_Tadjik @ 3.7
5 100% Sardinian + 0% Afghan_Turkmen @ 3.7
6 100% Sardinian + 0% Aghan_Hazara @ 3.7
7 100% Sardinian + 0% Algerian @ 3.7
8 100% Sardinian + 0% Algerian_Jewish @ 3.7
9 100% Sardinian + 0% Altaian @ 3.7
10 100% Sardinian + 0% Armenian @ 3.7
11 100% Sardinian + 0% Ashkenazi @ 3.7
12 100% Sardinian + 0% Assyrian @ 3.7
13 100% Sardinian + 0% Austrian @ 3.7
14 100% Sardinian + 0% Austroasiatic_Ho @ 3.7
15 100% Sardinian + 0% Azeri @ 3.7
16 100% Sardinian + 0% Balkar @ 3.7
17 100% Sardinian + 0% Balochi @ 3.7
18 100% Sardinian + 0% Bangladeshi @ 3.7
19 100% Sardinian + 0% Bantu_N.E. @ 3.7
20 100% Sardinian + 0% Bantu_S.E. @ 3.7

[Vasconcelos]

recent research suggest the celts have been there sense at least 2000 bc

That would be quite remarkable, considering there was no Celtic language by 2000BC ;)

[Grace O'Malley]

Updated Celtic vs Germanic plot with the Celtiberians.

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PT0v9gT5FJE/XJWE7FZA7FI/AAAAAAAAHsQ/ZTHz1hAR5Tc3RLCXzyrpuonobPOpUEQywCLcBGAs/s1600/Celto-Germanic_PCA_new.png

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/03/celtic-probably-not-from-west.html

[Vasconcelos]

Updated Celtic vs Germanic plot with the Celtiberians.

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PT0v9gT5FJE/XJWE7FZA7FI/AAAAAAAAHsQ/ZTHz1hAR5Tc3RLCXzyrpuonobPOpUEQywCLcBGAs/s1600/Celto-Germanic_PCA_new.png

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/03/celtic-probably-not-from-west.html

Here's one which includes all Iron Age Iberian samples. The I12034 Visigoth was moved out of the Visigothic group because he's not actually one.
It also includes me because I was just posting this image on my results' thread

https://i.postimg.cc/qkNCJw3b/base.png

[Morena]

So the Celtiberians were mostly southern too, clustering with Southern Europeans of the time? That is interesting.

[Vasconcelos]

So the Celtiberians were mostly southern too, clustering with Southern Europeans of the time? That is interesting.

Of course they do, but this isn't a standard PCA, this is the Celtic vs Germanic one which is aimed at detecting Germanic ancestry.
The general west Eurasian PCA with G25 looks like this (https://i.postimg.cc/x9qNSYHv/westeurasiag25total.png). Below a zoom where they plot

https://i.postimg.cc/vMGh9gf3/westeurasiag25.png

[Grace O'Malley]

So the Celtiberians were mostly southern too, clustering with Southern Europeans of the time? That is interesting.

They look like they are mixed already with Spanish. I guess that is why they are called Celtiberians.

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Atlantic 31.57
2 North_Sea 26.32
3 West_Med 23.28
4 Eastern_Euro 8.38
5 East_Med 4.95
6 Siberian 2.31
7 Baltic 1.44
8 Northeast_African 0.82
9 Oceanian 0.66
10 Red_Sea 0.28

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Spanish_Cantabria 8.67
2 Spanish_Cataluna 9.62
3 Portuguese 10.43
4 Southwest_French 10.45
5 Spanish_Aragon 10.76
6 Spanish_Galicia 10.76
7 Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha 10.81
8 Spanish_Murcia 10.83
9 Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon 11
10 Spanish_Extremadura 11.01
11 Spanish_Valencia 11.5
12 French 11.98
13 Spanish_Andalucia 12.87
14 South_Dutch 15.08
15 French_Basque 15.78
16 Southwest_English 16.07
17 North_Italian 16.87
18 Southeast_English 17.61
19 West_German 17.93
20 Irish 19.74

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 79.7% Spanish_Cantabria + 20.3% Orcadian @ 7.21
2 83.4% Spanish_Cantabria + 16.6% West_Norwegian @ 7.35
3 75.9% Spanish_Cantabria + 24.1% Southwest_English @ 7.39
4 78.6% Spanish_Cantabria + 21.4% Southeast_English @ 7.5
5 81% Spanish_Cantabria + 19% West_Scottish @ 7.51
6 83.8% Spanish_Cantabria + 16.2% Norwegian @ 7.53
7 82.6% Spanish_Cantabria + 17.4% Danish @ 7.63
8 82% Spanish_Cantabria + 18% Irish @ 7.7
9 83.2% Spanish_Cantabria + 16.8% North_Dutch @ 7.71
10 86.5% Spanish_Cantabria + 13.5% North_Swedish @ 7.76
11 86.5% Spanish_Cantabria + 13.5% Swedish @ 7.84
12 81.7% Spanish_Cantabria + 18.3% West_German @ 7.88
13 78.9% Spanish_Cantabria + 21.1% South_Dutch @ 7.97
14 73.3% Spanish_Cantabria + 26.7% French @ 8.04
15 63.2% Orcadian + 36.8% Sardinian @ 8.07
16 76.3% Spanish_Aragon + 23.7% West_Norwegian @ 8.08
17 72.3% Spanish_Aragon + 27.7% Orcadian @ 8.08
18 86.2% Spanish_Cantabria + 13.8% North_German @ 8.11
19 66.3% Spanish_Aragon + 33.7% Southwest_English @ 8.13
20 63.6% West_Scottish + 36.4% Sardinian @ 8.21

# Population Percent
1 Atlantic 39.06
2 North_Sea 22.11
3 West_Med 20.16
4 Baltic 10.38
5 East_Med 2.67
6 Eastern_Euro 1.74
7 Red_Sea 1.43
8 Northeast_African 0.9
9 Sub-Saharan 0.84
10 Amerindian 0.71

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Southwest_French 8.03
2 Spanish_Cantabria 9.33
3 Spanish_Aragon 9.38
4 French_Basque 9.85
5 Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha 10.71
6 Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon 10.75
7 Spanish_Valencia 10.91
8 Spanish_Cataluna 11.05
9 Spanish_Murcia 12.48
10 Spanish_Andalucia 12.87
11 Spanish_Extremadura 13.31
12 Portuguese 13.64
13 Spanish_Galicia 14.36
14 French 14.78
15 South_Dutch 16.55
16 Southwest_English 17.52
17 Southeast_English 18.48
18 North_Italian 19.21
19 Irish 19.57
20 West_Scottish 20.44

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 74.4% French_Basque + 25.6% Swedish @ 4.2
2 71.1% French_Basque + 28.9% North_Dutch @ 4.6
3 74.2% French_Basque + 25.8% Norwegian @ 4.63
4 69.8% French_Basque + 30.2% North_German @ 4.66
5 75.1% French_Basque + 24.9% West_Norwegian @ 4.8
6 76.1% French_Basque + 23.9% North_Swedish @ 4.81
7 68.8% French_Basque + 31.2% Irish @ 4.81
8 66.3% French_Basque + 33.7% Southwest_English @ 4.89
9 70.6% French_Basque + 29.4% West_German @ 4.9
10 65% French_Basque + 35% South_Dutch @ 4.93
11 71.5% French_Basque + 28.5% Danish @ 4.95
12 67.7% French_Basque + 32.3% Southeast_English @ 4.95
13 71.5% French_Basque + 28.5% East_German @ 5
14 70.1% French_Basque + 29.9% West_Scottish @ 5.07
15 76.6% French_Basque + 23.4% Southwest_Finnish @ 5.17
16 78.8% French_Basque + 21.2% Finnish @ 5.22
17 74.9% French_Basque + 25.1% Hungarian @ 5.27
18 80.7% French_Basque + 19.3% Estonian @ 5.27
19 71.9% French_Basque + 28.1% Orcadian @ 5.33
20 62.5% French_Basque + 37.5% French @ 5.37

# Population Percent
1 Atlantic 31.21
2 North_Sea 27.5
3 West_Med 23.08
4 Baltic 7.87
5 East_Med 5.07
6 Southeast_Asian 2.52
7 Eastern_Euro 2.39
8 Oceanian 0.19
9 Red_Sea 0.11
10 Sub-Saharan 0.05

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Spanish_Cataluna 8.02
2 Spanish_Cantabria 8.21
3 Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon 9.05
4 Southwest_French 9.32
5 Spanish_Galicia 9.46
6 Portuguese 9.71
7 Spanish_Murcia 10.34
8 Spanish_Aragon 10.38
9 French 10.45
10 Spanish_Extremadura 10.87
11 Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha 10.87
12 Spanish_Valencia 10.9
13 Spanish_Andalucia 12.6
14 South_Dutch 13.82
15 Southwest_English 14.57
16 French_Basque 15.82
17 North_Italian 16.01
18 Southeast_English 16.26
19 West_German 16.34
20 Irish 18.09

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 79.7% Spanish_Cantabria + 20.3% West_Norwegian @ 5.98
2 70.5% Spanish_Cantabria + 29.5% Southwest_English @ 6.05
3 76.7% Spanish_Cantabria + 23.3% Orcadian @ 6.08
4 65.5% Irish + 34.5% Sardinian @ 6.16
5 64.7% West_Scottish + 35.3% Sardinian @ 6.25
6 80% Spanish_Cantabria + 20% Norwegian @ 6.26
7 74% Spanish_Cantabria + 26% Southeast_English @ 6.29
8 71.1% Southwest_English + 28.9% Sardinian @ 6.3
9 77.8% Spanish_Cantabria + 22.2% North_Dutch @ 6.32
10 77.1% Spanish_Cantabria + 22.9% West_Scottish @ 6.33
11 76.5% Spanish_Cantabria + 23.5% Irish @ 6.35
12 81.1% Spanish_Cantabria + 18.9% Swedish @ 6.36
13 68.3% Southeast_English + 31.7% Sardinian @ 6.41
14 64.1% Orcadian + 35.9% Sardinian @ 6.47
15 73.1% Spanish_Aragon + 26.9% West_Norwegian @ 6.55
16 79.1% Spanish_Cantabria + 20.9% Danish @ 6.57
17 62% Spanish_Aragon + 38% Southwest_English @ 6.66
18 75.7% Spanish_Cantabria + 24.3% West_German @ 6.66
19 66.7% Southwest_French + 33.3% Southwest_English @ 6.71
20 73.5% Southwest_French + 26.5% Orcadian @ 6.72

Like a lot of older samples they aren't really close to any population today if you look at the distances. Here's their kit numbers if anyone wants to look at them further.

DE6039149
EU2387062
GW9459600

[Vasconcelos]

Like a lot of older samples they aren't really close to any population today if you look at the distances. Here's their kit numbers if anyone wants to look at them further.

DE6039149
EU2387062
GW9459600

This is why I don't like Oracles on ancient samples using modern populations populations, it's methodologically wrong and makes no sense. They are basically like modern Iberians but without post-IA Mediterranean (and possibly Germanic) ancestry, which is why on the PCA we are shifted in the Italian direction relative to them (obvious Roman colonial ancestry).

However they have the components one would expect: high Atlantic, North Sea and West Med, low East Med and all that southern stuff we usually have in higher quantities

[Grace O'Malley]

This is why I don't like Oracles on ancient samples using modern populations populations, it's methodologically wrong and makes no sense. They are basically like modern Iberians but without post-IA Mediterranean (and possibly Germanic) ancestry, which is why on the PCA we are shifted in the Italian direction relative to them (obvious Roman colonial ancestry).

However they have the components one would expect: high Atlantic, North Sea and West Med, low East Med and all that southern stuff we usually have in higher quantities

Yes that makes sense. It is the post Roman ancestry that pulls modern Iberians away from these Celtiberians.

[Morena]

Yes that makes sense. It is the post Roman ancestry that pulls modern Iberians away from these Celtiberians.

Bigus Dickus >.<

[FilhoV]

Here's one which includes all Iron Age Iberian samples. The I12034 Visigoth was moved out of the Visigothic group because he's not actually one.
It also includes me because I was just posting this image on my results' thread

https://i.postimg.cc/qkNCJw3b/base.png

Thanks

[FilhoV]

Yes that makes sense. It is the post Roman ancestry that pulls modern Iberians away from these Celtiberians.

Can you post his or hers MDLP K23b and PuntDNAL K12 modern

[Grace O'Malley]

Can you post his or hers MDLP K23b and PuntDNAL K12 modern

K23b

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 European_Early_Farmers 38.75
2 European_Hunters_Gatherers 22.75
3 Caucasian 20.02
4 Ancestral_Altaic 6.25
5 Near_East 3.63
6 Subsaharian 3.47
7 Australoid 3.18
8 Paleo_Siberian 1.36
9 South_Indian 0.58

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 French ( ) 7.38
2 Spanish_Baleares_IBS ( ) 9.11
3 Spaniard ( ) 9.38
4 English_Kent_GBR ( ) 10.72
5 Spanish_Cataluna_IBS ( ) 10.77
6 Spanish_Galicia_IBS ( ) 11.02
7 Spanish_Extremadura_IBS ( ) 11.08
8 English_Cornwall_GBR ( ) 11.28
9 Portugese ( ) 11.28
10 Welsh ( ) 11.54
11 British ( ) 11.61
12 Spanish_Murcia_IBS ( ) 11.9
13 CEU ( ) 12.21
14 Spanish_Castilla_y_Leon_IBS ( ) 12.82
15 Spanish_Andalucia_IBS ( ) 13.3
16 North_European ( ) 13.42
17 Belgian ( ) 13.65
18 English ( ) 13.78
19 Spanish_Valencia_IBS ( ) 14.01
20 Orcadian ( ) 14.08

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 65.7% Swede ( ) + 34.3% Sardinian ( ) @ 6.34
2 51% Sardinian ( ) + 49% Finnish-East ( ) @ 6.49
3 53.7% Finn_West ( ) + 46.3% Sardinian ( ) @ 6.5
4 51.4% Sardinian ( ) + 48.6% Finnish_FIN ( ) @ 6.52
5 64.3% Dane ( ) + 35.7% Sardinian ( ) @ 6.53
6 57.9% Swede_Saami ( ) + 42.1% Sardinian ( ) @ 6.58
7 79% English_Kent_GBR ( ) + 21% Sardinian ( ) @ 6.58
8 51.4% Sardinian ( ) + 48.6% Finn_East ( ) @ 6.61
9 52.8% Sardinian ( ) + 47.2% Russian-Ural ( ) @ 6.64
10 72.8% Belgian ( ) + 27.2% Sardinian ( ) @ 6.71
11 52.5% Sardinian ( ) + 47.5% Finn ( ) @ 6.72
12 91.9% French ( ) + 8.1% Sardinian ( ) @ 6.84
13 56% Sardinian ( ) + 44% Vepsa ( ) @ 6.87
14 55.2% Sardinian ( ) + 44.8% Karelian ( ) @ 6.94
15 53% Sardinian ( ) + 47% Erzya ( ) @ 6.94
16 58.1% Croat ( ) + 41.9% Basque_Spanish ( ) @ 7.02
17 93% Spanish_Baleares_IBS ( ) + 7% AA_Denver ( ) @ 7.04
18 59.1% Croat ( ) + 40.9% Basque_French ( ) @ 7.04
19 93.4% Spanish_Baleares_IBS ( ) + 6.6% Nguni ( ) @ 7.05
20 55.5% Sardinian ( ) + 44.5% Tatar_Kryashen ( ) @ 7.06

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 European_Early_Farmers 41.88
2 European_Hunters_Gatherers 28.23
3 Caucasian 18.67
4 North_African 3.26
5 Ancestral_Altaic 2.99
6 Near_East 2.16
7 South_Central_Asian 0.8
8 Khoisan 0.67
9 East_Siberian 0.58
10 Amerindian 0.52
11 Paleo_Siberian 0.15
12 Australoid 0.1

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Spaniard ( ) 3.87
2 Spanish_Cataluna_IBS ( ) 4.74
3 Spanish_Galicia_IBS ( ) 5.22
4 Spanish_Extremadura_IBS ( ) 5.55
5 Spanish_Murcia_IBS ( ) 5.99
6 Spanish_Castilla_y_Leon_IBS ( ) 6.77
7 Spanish_Andalucia_IBS ( ) 7.3
8 French ( ) 7.67
9 Portugese ( ) 7.75
10 Spanish_Valencia_IBS ( ) 8.11
11 Spanish_Baleares_IBS ( ) 8.16
12 Spanish_Castilla_la_Mancha_IBS ( ) 9.85
13 Spanish_Cantabria_IBS ( ) 11.25
14 Spanish_Aragon_IBS ( ) 11.51
15 Welsh ( ) 12.71
16 English_Kent_GBR ( ) 12.85
17 English_Cornwall_GBR ( ) 13.04
18 British ( ) 13.1
19 Spanish_Canarias_IBS ( ) 13.13
20 CEU ( ) 13.72

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 58% Sardinian ( ) + 42% Finn ( ) @ 2.1
2 60.3% Sardinian ( ) + 39.7% Karelian ( ) @ 2.3
3 52.6% Sardinian ( ) + 47.4% Finn_West ( ) @ 2.33
4 57.9% Swede ( ) + 42.1% Sardinian ( ) @ 2.35
5 57.2% Sardinian ( ) + 42.8% Finnish_FIN ( ) @ 2.48
6 57.1% Sardinian ( ) + 42.9% Finn_East ( ) @ 2.51
7 60.6% Norwegian_East ( ) + 39.4% Sardinian ( ) @ 2.58
8 56.8% Sardinian ( ) + 43.2% Finnish-East ( ) @ 2.58
9 63.3% Norwegian_West ( ) + 36.7% Sardinian ( ) @ 2.92
10 77.2% Spanish_Cantabria_IBS ( ) + 22.8% Croat ( ) @ 2.92
11 61.2% Sardinian ( ) + 38.8% Vepsa ( ) @ 2.92
12 78% Spanish_Cantabria_IBS ( ) + 22% Croat_BH ( ) @ 2.94
13 86% Spanish_Valencia_IBS ( ) + 14% Belarusian_Russian ( ) @ 2.96
14 85.3% Spanish_Valencia_IBS ( ) + 14.7% Pole ( ) @ 2.97
15 86% Spanish_Valencia_IBS ( ) + 14% Mixed_East_Slav ( ) @ 2.97
16 76.7% Spanish_Aragon_IBS ( ) + 23.3% Croat ( ) @ 2.97
17 77.6% Spanish_Aragon_IBS ( ) + 22.4% Croat_BH ( ) @ 2.98
18 84.6% Spanish_Valencia_IBS ( ) + 15.4% Ukrainian_Center ( ) @ 3
19 83% Spanish_Valencia_IBS ( ) + 17% Sorb ( ) @ 3.02
20 84.5% Spanish_Valencia_IBS ( ) + 15.5% Belarusian-East ( ) @ 3.02

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 European_Early_Farmers 43.08
2 European_Hunters_Gatherers 27.81
3 Caucasian 20.63
4 Arctic 2.1
5 Ancestral_Altaic 1.77
6 Subsaharian 1.09
7 Melano_Polynesian 0.89
8 East_Siberian 0.63
9 South_East_Asian 0.58
10 North_African 0.54
11 Near_East 0.35
12 South_Indian 0.33
13 Khoisan 0.2

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Spaniard ( ) 6.8
2 Spanish_Cataluna_IBS ( ) 7.53
3 Spanish_Baleares_IBS ( ) 7.56
4 French ( ) 9.17
5 Spanish_Galicia_IBS ( ) 9.6
6 Spanish_Murcia_IBS ( ) 9.69
7 Spanish_Extremadura_IBS ( ) 9.92
8 Spanish_Andalucia_IBS ( ) 10.18
9 Spanish_Valencia_IBS ( ) 10.46
10 Spanish_Castilla_y_Leon_IBS ( ) 10.95
11 Portugese ( ) 11.3
12 Spanish_Castilla_la_Mancha_IBS ( ) 12.37
13 Spanish_Cantabria_IBS ( ) 13.72
14 Spanish_Aragon_IBS ( ) 14.02
15 English_Kent_GBR ( ) 14.23
16 English_Cornwall_GBR ( ) 14.8
17 Welsh ( ) 14.8
18 British ( ) 15.1
19 Italian_Bergamo ( ) 15.6
20 CEU ( ) 15.78

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 61.1% Sardinian ( ) + 38.9% Estonian ( ) @ 4.38
2 55.7% Swede ( ) + 44.3% Sardinian ( ) @ 4.56
3 61.8% Belgian ( ) + 38.2% Sardinian ( ) @ 4.57
4 61.5% Sardinian ( ) + 38.5% Latvian ( ) @ 4.59
5 60% Sardinian ( ) + 40% Erzya ( ) @ 4.61
6 59.9% Sardinian ( ) + 40.1% Russian-Upper-Volga ( ) @ 4.64
7 54.5% Dane ( ) + 45.5% Sardinian ( ) @ 4.65
8 54.4% Sardinian ( ) + 45.6% Finn_West ( ) @ 4.66
9 54.8% North_German ( ) + 45.2% Sardinian ( ) @ 4.67
10 61.2% Sardinian ( ) + 38.8% Russian-North ( ) @ 4.67
11 60.8% Sardinian ( ) + 39.2% Balt ( ) @ 4.71
12 62.3% Sardinian ( ) + 37.7% Russian_Vologda ( ) @ 4.71
13 50.9% Sardinian ( ) + 49.1% Swede_Saami ( ) @ 4.78
14 53% Sardinian ( ) + 47% German ( ) @ 4.91
15 59.1% Sardinian ( ) + 40.9% Russian-North-West ( ) @ 4.97
16 66.9% English_Kent_GBR ( ) + 33.1% Sardinian ( ) @ 4.99
17 58.9% Sardinian ( ) + 41.1% Finnish_FIN ( ) @ 5.01
18 61.2% Frisian ( ) + 38.8% Sardinian ( ) @ 5.02
19 62.7% Sardinian ( ) + 37.3% Vepsa ( ) @ 5.03
20 59.8% Sardinian ( ) + 40.2% Russian_Meshtchyora ( ) @ 5.07

[Grace O'Malley]

Puntdnal K12 Modern

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Anatolian_NF 41.33
2 European_HG 37.42
3 Caucasus_HG 13.91
4 East_Asian 4.01
5 Sub-Saharan 2.37
6 Siberian 0.37
7 South_African_HG 0.34
8 Amerindian 0.24

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 French 5.89
2 Belgian 8.29
3 German_South 8.38
4 Spanish_Northeast 8.69
5 Utahn_European 9.14
6 Romanian 10.04
7 English_South 10.6
8 Dutch_South 11.25
9 Italian_Bergamo 11.31
10 Spanish_Southwest 11.6
11 Irish 11.93
12 French_South 12.91
13 Hungarian 13.01
14 Croatian 13.29
15 German_North 14.01
16 Norwegian 14.05
17 Dutch_North 14.11
18 Scottish_West 14.13
19 Czech 14.93
20 Spanish_Canaries 15.06

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 96.4% French + 3.6% Ami @ 4.39
2 96.1% French + 3.9% Vietnamese @ 4.42
3 96% French + 4% Han_Chinese @ 4.45
4 95.9% French + 4.1% Cambodian @ 4.51
5 95.9% French + 4.1% Japanese @ 4.55
6 95.9% French + 4.1% Korean @ 4.57
7 95.9% French + 4.1% Mongolian @ 4.72
8 79.4% Spanish_Northeast + 20.6% Russian @ 4.88
9 76.3% Spanish_Northeast + 23.7% Belarusian @ 4.96
10 79.1% Spanish_Northeast + 20.9% Finnish @ 4.97
11 65% Spanish_Northeast + 35% Scottish_West @ 5.01
12 77.4% Spanish_Northeast + 22.6% Mordovian @ 5.02
13 56.8% Spanish_Northeast + 43.2% English_South @ 5.05
14 71% Spanish_Northeast + 29% Icelandic @ 5.05
15 64.9% Spanish_Northeast + 35.1% German_North @ 5.05
16 60.5% Spanish_Northeast + 39.5% Irish @ 5.06
17 79.5% Spanish_Northeast + 20.5% Estonian @ 5.06
18 65% Spanish_Northeast + 35% Norwegian @ 5.07
19 50.2% French_South + 49.8% Hungarian @ 5.09
20 65.2% Spanish_Northeast + 34.8% Dutch_North @ 5.11

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Anatolian_NF 42.27
2 European_HG 37.79
3 Caucasus_HG 13.56
4 Near_East 4.02
5 Siberian 1.33
6 Amerindian 0.45
7 Beringian 0.43
8 South_African_HG 0.16

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 French 3.74
2 Spanish_Northeast 6.85
3 Belgian 7.67
4 German_South 8.56
5 Romanian 8.59
6 Spanish_Southwest 8.95
7 Utahn_European 9.02
8 Italian_Bergamo 9.85
9 English_South 10.69
10 Dutch_South 11.37
11 French_South 11.71
12 Irish 12.05
13 Croatian 12.65
14 Hungarian 12.82
15 Spanish_Canaries 13.95
16 German_North 14.21
17 Norwegian 14.24
18 Scottish_West 14.26
19 Dutch_North 14.35
20 Czech 14.72

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 66.3% Czech + 33.7% Sardinian @ 1.79
2 64.9% Romanian + 35.1% Basque_Spaniard @ 1.94
3 80.8% Spanish_Northeast + 19.2% Finnish @ 1.99
4 81.2% Spanish_Northeast + 18.8% Russian @ 1.99
5 54.7% Belarusian + 45.3% Sardinian @ 2.03
6 79.5% Spanish_Northeast + 20.5% Mordovian @ 2.36
7 78.7% Spanish_Northeast + 21.3% Belarusian @ 2.38
8 69.3% Spanish_Northeast + 30.7% Czech @ 2.39
9 62% Spanish_Southwest + 38% Norwegian @ 2.42
10 55.4% Croatian + 44.6% Basque_Spaniard @ 2.43
11 81.9% Spanish_Northeast + 18.1% Lithuanian @ 2.44
12 81.4% Spanish_Northeast + 18.6% Estonian @ 2.47
13 65% Spanish_Southwest + 35% Swedish @ 2.48
14 58.2% Romanian + 41.8% French_South @ 2.57
15 74.1% Spanish_Northeast + 25.9% Icelandic @ 2.65
16 67.9% Spanish_Southwest + 32.1% Icelandic @ 2.67
17 69% Spanish_Northeast + 31% Scottish_West @ 2.68
18 62.1% Spanish_Southwest + 37.9% Scottish_West @ 2.7
19 67.2% Scottish_West + 32.8% Sardinian @ 2.72
20 50.4% Russian + 49.6% Sardinian @ 2.73

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Anatolian_NF 47.85
2 European_HG 33.52
3 Caucasus_HG 10.81
4 Near_East 2.39
5 East_Asian 1.55
6 Amerindian 1.52
7 Beringian 1.26
8 Sub-Saharan 0.71
9 South_African_HG 0.39

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Spanish_Northeast 3.39
2 French_South 6.51
3 Spanish_Southwest 6.67
4 Italian_Bergamo 8.32
5 French 9.06
6 Spanish_Canaries 10.01
7 Basque_Spaniard 10.77
8 Belgian 13.97
9 German_South 14.51
10 Romanian 14.69
11 Utahn_European 15.54
12 English_South 17.32
13 Tuscan 17.46
14 Dutch_South 17.66
15 Albanian 17.94
16 Croatian 18.7
17 Irish 18.8
18 Greek 19.2
19 Bulgarian 19.43
20 Hungarian 19.64

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 97.8% Spanish_Northeast + 2.2% Eskimo @ 2.8
2 98.4% Spanish_Northeast + 1.6% Mayan @ 2.87
3 98.5% Spanish_Northeast + 1.5% Pima @ 2.88
4 87.2% French_South + 12.8% Nogai @ 2.92
5 98.5% Spanish_Northeast + 1.5% Ami @ 2.95
6 98.4% Spanish_Northeast + 1.6% Vietnamese @ 2.96
7 98.3% Spanish_Northeast + 1.7% Han_Chinese @ 2.97
8 98.4% Spanish_Northeast + 1.6% Chukchi @ 2.97
9 51.2% Scottish_West + 48.8% Sardinian @ 2.97
10 98.3% Spanish_Northeast + 1.7% Japanese @ 2.99
11 98.3% Spanish_Northeast + 1.7% Cambodian @ 3
12 98.3% Spanish_Northeast + 1.7% Korean @ 3
13 98.3% Spanish_Northeast + 1.7% Mongolian @ 3.04
14 98.6% Spanish_Northeast + 1.4% Koryak @ 3.05
15 58.4% Sardinian + 41.6% Belarusian @ 3.06
16 89.2% Spanish_Northeast + 10.8% Basque_Spaniard @ 3.15
17 79.4% Basque_Spaniard + 20.6% Nogai @ 3.17
18 83.1% Spanish_Northeast + 16.9% French_South @ 3.19
19 50.4% Czech + 49.6% Sardinian @ 3.2
20 51.3% German_North + 48.7% Sardinian @ 3.21

[FilhoV]

Thank you Miss Grace

[Gallop]

My results on yourdnaportal K36

Población Distancia
i3759_Celtiberian_IA 1.333519
I2462_Bronze_Age_England_Kent 1.423613
I3759_Celtiberian 1.501593
i3758_Celtiberian_IA 1.550354
BA_Hungary_RISE373 1.567452
I3874_Beaker_South_France 1.608371
I10892_Catalonia_medieval 1.650611
SZ45_Pannonian 1.751551

Población Valor
i3759_Celtiberian_IA 36.8
i3758_Celtiberian_IA 5
BA_Hungary_RISE373 4.8
I3874_Beaker_South_France 4.4
i7425_Morisco_Andalusia_1500AD 3.8
BA_Portugal_TorreVelha_32032 3
I7424_Morisco_Andalusia_1500AD 2
EMA_north-Italian_NW_54 1.8
I3759_Celtiberian 1.8
N_Sweden_Gökhem7 1.4
IA_Britain_York_6DRIF21 1.2
CHL_Iberia_I1274 1
I10851_medieval_Catalonia 1
CHL_Iberia_I1303 0.8
DA112_Hallstatt-Bylany_800BC 0.8
I3578_EMA_Andalusia 0.8
IA_Britain_York_6DRIF18 0.8
MN_Germany_I0560 0.8
MN_Iberia_I0405 0.8
N_Levant_AinGhazal5 0.8
Sz43_north-italiano 0.8
BA_Portugal_MonteGato_104 0.6
BA_Srubnaya_I0235 0.6
BA_Unetice_Poland_RISE154 0.6
CHL_Iberia_I1277 0.6
CHL_Remedello_IT_RISE489 0.6
CL87_Longobard 0.6
CWC_Sweden_RISE97 0.6
EMA_Alpine_STR_535 0.6
IA_Wielbark_Kow_55_PL 0.6
SZ45_Pannonian 0.6
BA_Armenia_RISE407 0.4
BA_Portugal_ERR1524174 0.4
BA_Unetice_Czechia_RISE577 0.4
Bell_Beaker_Germany_I0112 0.4
Bell_Beaker_Germany_I0113 0.4
Bell_Beaker_Germany_I0171 0.4
Bell_Beaker_Germany__RISE560_ 0.4
CHG_Kotias 0.4
CHL_Iberia_I1281 0.4
CL36_north-italiano 0.4
CWC_Denmark_RISE71 0.4
CWC_Germany_I0108 0.4
EMA_Hinxton5_Anglosaxon 0.4
EN_Iberia_I0411_I041 0.4
Gepid_Vim2 0.4
I1767_EarlyBronze_Age_Briton 0.4
MBA_ATP2_Iberia 0.4
Niederstotzingen_Alemmani_6 0.4
Sz28_north-italiano 0.4
TAF009_Iberomaurasia 0.4
Visigoth_I12163 0.4
Amerindian_Chachapoya 0.2
BA_Hungary_RISE371 0.2
BA_Levant_I0867 0.2
BA_Srubnaya_I0358 0.2
BA_Srubnaya_I0359 0.2
BA_Sydon 0.2
BA_Unetice_Alemania_I0164 0.2
BA_Unetice_Alemania_I0803 0.2
BA_Unetice__Alemania_I0116 0.2
Baiuvarii_Germanic_ALH_10 0.2
Baiuvarii_Germanic_NW_255 0.2
Baiuvarii_Germanic_STR_360 0.2
Baiuvarii_Germanic_STR_480 0.2
Baiuvarii_Germanic_STR_486 0.2
Bell_Beaker_Czech_RISE566 0.2
Bell_Beaker_Czech_RISE567 0.2
Bell_Beaker_Germany_I0059 0.2
CHG_7700_Kotias 0.2
CHL_Armenia_I1409 0.2
CHL_Iberia_1280 0.2
CHL_Iberia_I1314 0.2
CHL_Yamnaya_Kalmykia_RISE552 0.2
CL121__north-Italian 0.2
CL25_south_Italian 0.2
CL31_Greek_Balkan 0.2
CL47_Alpine 0.2
CWC_Estonia_Kunila1_MA971 0.2
CWC_Germany_I0103 0.2
CWC_Germany_I0111 0.2
DA222_Karluk 0.2
DA87_Kazakhstan_Kimak 0.2
DA_205_Kazajstan_Karakhanid 0.2
EBA_Poland_RISE431 0.2
EMA_Alpine_STR_310 0.2
EN_Iberia_I0409 0.2
EN_Iberia_I0410 0.2
Egipcio_mummy_III_jk2911_ 0.2
Egipcio_mummy_II_JK2134_ 0.2
I2446_Beaker_Britain 0.2
I2462_Bronze_Age_England_Kent 0.2
IA_AltaI_RISE601 0.2
IA_Britain_York_3DRIF16 0.2
IA_Britain_York_6DRIF23 0.2
IA_Hungary_IR1 0.2
LBA_Afontova_Gora_RISE554 0.2
LBA_Armenia_RISE396 0.2
Lapita_Vanuatu_Il_370 0.2
MBA_Armenia_RISE416 0.2
MBA_Ireland_Rathlin 0.2
MN_Germany_I0172 0.2
N_Germany_I0797 0.2
N_Levant_AinGhazal1 0.2
N_Sweden_Gokhem5 0.2
SZ15_Longobard 0.2
SZ24_Longobard 0.2
SZ30_Celtic 0.2


The Celtiberians of antiquity were Celtic Iberians or the mixture of Celts and Iberians?

[Vasconcelos]

I suggest G25 instead, using modern models for ancients is bad methodology

PS: Interesting paternal haplogroup, have you done FTDNA BigY?


The Celtiberians of antiquity were Celtic Iberians or the mixture of Celts and Iberians?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Celtiberians were naturally a mixture of continental Hallstatt Celts and native peoples from Iberia, who probably spoke a myriad of different dialects - some spoke non-IE languages, related or ancestral to Iberian, Basque, etc, whereas others spoke IE languages that have been in place since the Bell Beaker and/or Atlantic Bronze cultures, of which the only to survive into the historical period was Lusitanian

[Lucas]

Celtiberians on Gedmatch

DE6039149 sample i3757
EU2387062 sample i3758
GW9459600 sample i3759

[Gallop]

I suggest G25 instead, using modern models for ancients is bad methodology

PS: Interesting paternal haplogroup, have you done FTDNA BigY?



I'm not sure I understand the question. Celtiberians were naturally a mixture of continental Hallstatt Celts and native peoples from Iberia, who probably spoke a myriad of different dialects - some spoke non-IE languages, related or ancestral to Iberian, Basque, etc, whereas others spoke IE languages that have been in place since the Bell Beaker and/or Atlantic Bronze cultures, of which the only to survive into the historical period was Lusitanian


LOL thanks. I plan to do it later.

[J. Ketch]

Iberians from least to most Steppe


[1] "distance%=5.4211"

Bell_Beaker_Iberia_C

Barcin_N,70.8
WHG,29.2

[1] "distance%=4.4361"

Bell_Beaker_Iberia

Barcin_N,69.2
WHG,24.6
Yamnaya_Samara,5.8
Clovis,0.2
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,0.2

--------------Bronze Age-----------------------

[1] "distance%=3.9603"

Iberia_Southwest_BA

Barcin_N,65.4
WHG,21.8
Yamnaya_Samara,10.2
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,1.8
Nganassan,0.8

[1] "distance%=4.4749"

Iberia_Southeast_BA

Barcin_N,65.8
WHG,22.6
Yamnaya_Samara,11
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,0.6

[1] "distance%=4.5622"

Iberia_Southwest_BA_Afr

Barcin_N,60.6
WHG,20.4
Yamnaya_Samara,11.6
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,7.4

[1] "distance%=3.9242"

Iberia_Central_BA

Barcin_N,61.6
WHG,23
Yamnaya_Samara,14.4
Clovis,0.6
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,0.4

[1] "distance%=3.7651"

Iberia_Northeast_BA

Barcin_N,61.4
WHG,22.8
Yamnaya_Samara,15.4
Clovis,0.4

[1] "distance%=3.7487"

Iberia_North_BA

Barcin_N,61
WHG,22.2
Yamnaya_Samara,16.8

------------------Iron Age, Roman, Medieval-------------------------------

[1] "distance%=2.717"

Iberia_Southeast_c.3-4CE

Barcin_N,58.4
Yamnaya_Samara,21
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,10
WHG,6.8
Ganj_Dareh_N,1.4
Armenia_EBA,1.2
Yoruba,1.2

[1] "distance%=2.2117"

Iberia_Southeast_c.5-8CE

Barcin_N,56.4
Yamnaya_Samara,21.2
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,10.8
WHG,7.6
Armenia_EBA,2.2
Yoruba,1.2
Ganj_Dareh_N,0.6

[1] "distance%=3.7144"

Iberia_East_IA

Barcin_N,59.4
Yamnaya_Samara,21.6
WHG,19

[1] "distance%=1.9886"

Iberia_Southeast_c.10-16CE

Barcin_N,53.6
Yamnaya_Samara,24.6
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,10.8
WHG,7
Armenia_EBA,2.8
Dinka,0.8
Ganj_Dareh_N,0.4

[1] "distance%=4.3379"

Iberia_Northeast_RomP

Barcin_N,55
Yamnaya_Samara,25.6
WHG,18.4
Clovis,0.8
Jarawa,0.2

[1] "distance%=4.2354"

Iberia_North_IA

Barcin_N,53.8
Yamnaya_Samara,26.4
WHG,19.8


[1] "distance%=2.8811"

Iberia_Northeast_c.8-12CE

Barcin_N,57
Yamnaya_Samara,29.6
WHG,10
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,3.2
Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA3,0.2

[1] "distance%=3.9939"

Iberia_Northeast_c.6-8CE_ES

Barcin_N,51.4
Yamnaya_Samara,32.8
WHG,13.6
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,2.2

[1] "distance%=2.564"

Iberia_Northeast_c.6CE_PL

Barcin_N,47
Yamnaya_Samara,40.8
WHG,12.2

[TheOldNorth]

Cool so I gather that first wave 40% replacement 100% Y-DNA replacement may not have changed the language anywhere, but it was later celtic waves that did!

the first wave likely were pre-proto celts or italo-celts, explaining both Lusitanian and the spread of celtic northwards into gaul and the british isles from iberia

[TheOldNorth]

I suggest G25 instead, using modern models for ancients is bad methodology

PS: Interesting paternal haplogroup, have you done FTDNA BigY?



I'm not sure I understand the question. Celtiberians were naturally a mixture of continental Hallstatt Celts and native peoples from Iberia, who probably spoke a myriad of different dialects - some spoke non-IE languages, related or ancestral to Iberian, Basque, etc, whereas others spoke IE languages that have been in place since the Bell Beaker and/or Atlantic Bronze cultures, of which the only to survive into the historical period was Lusitanian

their is actually no genetic proof of a high amount of central european entering iberia in the iron or late bronze ages, the only time this happened is with the bell beakers, and they became the proto celts in iberia, and the proto italics in italy and the ligurians in france

[J. Ketch]

their is actually no genetic proof of a high amount of central european entering iberia in the iron or late bronze ages, the only time this happened is with the bell beakers, and they became the proto celts in iberia, and the proto italics in italy and the ligurians in france
Look at the post literally above yours, the one that bumped this thread, there were at least two waves of Steppe into Iberia, in the Bronze Age they were 10-16% Steppe, in the Iron Age and since they are 21-32% Steppe.

[TheOldNorth]

Look at the post literally above yours, the one that bumped this thread, there were at least two waves of Steppe into Iberia, in the Bronze Age they were 10-16% Steppe, in the Iron Age and since they are 21-32% Steppe.

both of the northern examples in the bronze age are higher, it's likely a combination of gallo-roman settlement, and genetic diffusion between the unified north and south of Iberia that caused this sense all the iron age samples listed are from post roman Iberia

[J. Ketch]

both of the northern examples in the bronze age are higher, it's likely a combination of gallo-roman settlement, and genetic diffusion between the unified north and south of Iberia that caused this sense all the iron age samples listed are from post roman Iberia
"Additional geneflow from Central/Northern Europe."
Bronze Age Orange squares vs Iron Age Green Squares.
https://i.postimg.cc/rpT8YvPn/Capture.jpg

Now look at the increase in Neolithic ancestry in Britain during the same period

[1] "distance%=3.8174"

England_MBA

Yamnaya_Samara,51.4
Barcin_N,33
WHG,15.6

[1] "distance%=4.156"

England_LBA

Yamnaya_Samara,52.2
Barcin_N,32.6
WHG,13.6
Clovis,0.6
Ethiopia_4500BP,0.4
Han,0.4
Dinka,0.2

[1] "distance%=3.9038"

England_IA

Yamnaya_Samara,49.4
Barcin_N,37
WHG,13.6

[Token]

Look at the post literally above yours, the one that bumped this thread, there were at least two waves of Steppe into Iberia, in the Bronze Age they were 10-16% Steppe, in the Iron Age and since they are 21-32% Steppe.

And probably a third wave too with the Gothic Kingdom since modern-day Iberians are as much steppe as Celtiberians even after being shifted south by Roman and North African

[Token]

Necrobump, let's revisit this :D:D

There was nothing new since then, nothing to revisit here.

[Jingle Bell]

Hm thats a very informative thread, so its a consensus that modern iberians are made of Mostly Celtiberians and Related tribes from IA (Which were a mix of BA/CA Iberians + Strong Hallsttat/Urnfield input) + A lot of Roman/East-Med + some NA and maybe some minor/residual Germanic

[Jingle Bell]

Model Test with Galicians individuals:

https://i.imgur.com/LfvYVFK.png

with portuguese individuals:

https://i.imgur.com/Rrmw0Fz.png

[Gallop]

Model Test with Galicians individuals:

https://i.imgur.com/LfvYVFK.png

with portuguese individuals:

https://i.imgur.com/Rrmw0Fz.png

Greeks colonies Romans no eran nativos de la península Ibérica, creo recordar que la mayoría eran nativos, algún siciliano y algún centroeuropeo mercenarios probablemente o la muestra es griega?

[Jingle Bell]

Greeks colonies Romans no eran nativos de la península Ibérica, creo recordar que la mayoría eran nativos, algún siciliano y algún centroeuropeo mercenarios probablemente o la muestra es griega?

The samples in colonies greek/romam are both from Ancient Greek and ancient Romans

the calculator is here: https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?369375-Realistic-Ancient-Iberian-Calculator-G25 Jgab was who made

[Gallop]

The samples in colonies greek/romam are both from Ancient Greek and ancient Romans

the calculator is here: https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?369375-Realistic-Ancient-Iberian-Calculator-G25 Jgab was who made

Ok, a veces he visto que utilizabas Ampurias.