Celts don't exist ?

[gixajo]

It's been quite some time now that I regularly read about our genetics I'm pretty sure guanches/modern north africans are representative of ancient north africans since the bronze age before that period things start to be a bit different. What makes you think guanches would not be entirely representative of IA moroccans ? And as expected you get better results with guanche, a more accurate NA %

Because modern North Moroccans are the result of many genetic inputs at least the last 2 millennia, so couldn´t be so close to 2000 years ago islanders that lived suposedly isolated since several centuries BC and 1000 km south to the current modern closer population.

You already know that in the Guanche average there are individuals with several centuries of difference and that half of the individuals tested in the original study are missing.

I'm not saying it couldn't be, I'm saying that I see it unlikely.

More accurate according to what? Using MAR_LN could be also accurate, but the results would show a different thing, for example showing the shared genetic between both coasts of the Gibraltar straight in BA...(and maybe in IA).

With which reference of those 2 do you get better results and distances? Not to the reference, I already know you get better distance to the Guanches, I mean distance in your results of the model.

[Damião de Góis]

I tried with both:

Target: Gil_Vicente
Distance: 2.0653% / 0.02065297
43.6 Continental_celt
25.6 Insular_Celt
16.0 Roman
13.2 Canary_Islands_Guanche
1.6 MAR_LN

[gixajo]

It's been quite some time now that I regularly read about our genetics I'm pretty sure guanches/modern north africans are representative of ancient north africans since the bronze age before that period things start to be a bit different. What makes you think guanches would not be entirely representative of IA moroccans ? And as expected you get better results with guanche, a more accurate NA %

Anyway, Guanches are mostly Berbers, that it´s clear.

But...there are so many questions surrounding their presence in the Canary Islands and how they were genetically, that I am reluctant to think that they were a common population of the NA.

I would prefer to put them in limbo, in a separate and special category, at least until there are no more ancient Berber samples that do not come from colonies or areas close to colonies or settlements of other Mediterranean cultures.

[gixajo]

I tried with both:

LN

But try them separatedly to see the differences.

[Hamilcar]

Because modern North Moroccans are the result of many genetic inputs at least the last 2 millennia, so couldn´t be so close to 2000 years ago islanders that lived suposedly isolated since several centuries BC and 1000 km south to the current modern closer population.

You already know that in the Guanche average there are individuals with several centuries of difference and that half of the individuals tested in the original study are missing.

no sorry don't transpose the iberian case on us. Guanches were totally isolated from any of this supposed "inputs" and yet they were exactly similar to modern moroccans (multiple studies already confirmed this).

P values associated to FST calculations for the Punta Azul cave STR data (n ¼ 28) and modern populations from North Africa (n ¼ 75) and the Iberian Peninsula (n ¼ 335) (Table 3), indicates that the aboriginal population is not significantly different from Moroccan Berbers (p ¼ 0.676), but it is to the Iberian samples (p ¼ 0.036). Finally, autosomal diversity for the Punta Azul cave (66.40 ± 7.60) is smaller than that in the Iberian Peninsula (78.65 ± 1.10), but similar to Moroccan Berbers (68.42 ± 3.91).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...05440316301686

The good conservation level of the Puna Azul allowed us to
analyzed nuclear STR markers on the aboriginal population of the
Canary Islands for the first time. The STR profile of Punta Azul is not
significantly different from modern samples from Marocco. These
results are in agreement with previous ancient DNA analysis
pointing out the tight relationship of the aboriginal people of the
Canary Islands and North Africa (Fregel, 2010). Giving the fixation of
H1-16260 lineage in Punta Azul, one striking result was the STR
diversity obtained for Punta Azul is similar to modern population of
Morocco.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...05440316301686

Regarding the origin of El Hierro aboriginal population, Slatkin-linearized Fst distances based on autosomal STR are congruent with a great similarity of the Bimbapes with Berbers from Morocco, and a significant differentiation from Europe. This result is in accordance to previous archaeological, linguistic and genetic evidence about the Berber origin of aboriginal people. One of the most outstanding archaeological remains from El Hierro consists of a series of lybicberber inscriptions, clearly related with the ancient North African Berber's inscriptions

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...05440316301686


I still can't see where are these 2 millenias of inputs ? Copper age north africans were already quite similar to us but you want us to believe iron age north africans were different...sure.

I'm not saying it couldn't be, I'm saying that I see it unlikely.

More accurate according to what? Using MAR_LN could be also accurate, but the results would show a different thing, for example showing the shared genetic between both coasts of the Gibraltar straight in BA...(and maybe in IA).

With which reference of those 2 do you get better results and distances? Not to the reference, I already know you get better distance to the Guanches, I mean distance in your results of the model.

maybe "unlikely" for someone who hasn't read much about our history yes but for someone like me everything points to a great stability and continuity in North Africa (probably one of the most preserved area of the mediterranean region).

No MAR_LN wouldn't be accurate because they didn't participate in your ethnogenesis and had extra EEF ancestry which gives the false impression that you have more NA ancestry than what you really have.


as for my distances here :

Target: Hamilcar
Distance: 2.3422% / 0.02342161 --> with guanches

Target: Hamilcar
Distance: 4.1945% / 0.04194516 ---> with MAR_LN

[Hamilcar]

Anyway, Guanches are mostly Berbers, that it´s clear.

But...there are so many questions surrounding their presence in the Canary Islands and how they were genetically, that I am reluctant to think that they were a common population of the NA.

I would prefer to put them in limbo, in a separate and special category, at least until there are no more ancient Berber samples that do not come from colonies or areas close to colonies or settlements of other Mediterranean cultures.

wait so you believe that the isolated guanches were somewhat different to IA north africans but at the same time happened to be similar to modern north africans. What a coincidence

[Damião de Góis]

But try them separatedly to see the differences.

Not sure what to conclude. It favours guanches but i do get a better distance with both. It's not a good model for iberians anyway:

Target: Gil_Vicente
Distance: 2.3203% / 0.02320269
34.0 Continental_celt
27.6 Insular_Celt
17.8 MAR_LN
12.4 Roman
8.2 German_MA

Target: Gil_Vicente
Distance: 2.0685% / 0.02068479
44.6 Continental_celt
24.6 Insular_Celt
16.6 Roman
14.2 Canary_Islands_Guanche

[Hamilcar]

Not sure what to conclude. It favours guanches but i do get a better distance with both. It's not a good model for iberians anyway:

Target: Gil_Vicente
Distance: 2.3203% / 0.02320269
34.0 Continental_celt
27.6 Insular_Celt
17.8 MAR_LN
12.4 Roman
8.2 German_MA

Target: Gil_Vicente
Distance: 2.0685% / 0.02068479
44.6 Continental_celt
24.6 Insular_Celt
16.6 Roman
14.2 Canary_Islands_Guanche

so I was right when I said that some portuguese can easily reach 13-15% NA ancestry.

[gixajo]

no sorry don't transpose the iberian case on us. Guanches were totally isolated from any of this supposed "inputs" and yet they were exactly similar to modern moroccans (multiple studies already confirmed this).




LN

I know you like Guanches, because they seem to you a proof that your people of the present time were similar to the ones that lived in your area a long time ago, but I doubt that is the case.

We have spoken about this issue many times, but sorry, I'm going to keep thinking the same thing, until I see many more ancient individuals from West NA.

Guanches were totally isolated from any of this supposed "inputs" and yet they were exactly similar to modern moroccans (multiple studies already confirmed this).

That´s is the question.

How can they be the same if you received hundreds of thousands of Jews expelled from the Iberian Peninsula, and a hundred years later another hundreds of thousands of Moors, after having been invaded by the Arabs, who in turn came after the Romans and the Phoenicians. ?

You were genetically in a way, for centuries you were separating, and finally you came back to look like the originals? it´s too strange Nass.

If it really is as you say, I would have no problem accepting it.

And please, let's put aside the typical discussion that you usually have with Spanish and Portuguese about the usual issues, I am not comparing Iberians and NAs, not about Al Andalus or anything like that.

as for my distances here :

Target: Hamilcar
Distance: 2.3422% / 0.02342161 --> with guanches

Target: Hamilcar
Distance: 4.1945% / 0.04194516 ---> with MAR_LN

And...results?

[Damião de Góis]

so I was right when I said that some portuguese can easily reach 13-15% NA ancestry.

With the right model you can demonstrate almost anything, including close to 25% Insular_Celt in portuguese people, which has no base of reality. Clearly there are some native samples missing in this model.
And like we discussed before, we have no west Iron Age iberian samples for a good model. I'm sure that would shift some scores if they were present.