New Iberian paper with Celtiberian samples out!

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

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:



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).