Page 2 of 57 FirstFirst 12341252 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 565

Thread: Iberian Ancient DNA on the works

  1. #11
    Registered Users
    Posts
    765
    Sex
    Location
    Lisbon, Portugal
    Ethnicity
    Western Meseta Iberian
    Nationality
    Portuguese
    Y-DNA
    E-Y31991 > PF4428
    mtDNA
    H20

    Portugal 1143 Portugal 1485 Portugal Order of Christ
    Looking at the Bronze Age samples there doesn't really seem to be any big surprises, but the abstract differs slightly from Reich's book in which he states a 30% replacement rate
    We found that approximately 30 percent of the Iberian population was replaced along with the arrival of steppe ancestry.
    Whereas here we are given the value of 40%
    Beginning ~2500 BCE, the arrival of individuals with steppe-related ancestry had a rapid and widespread genetic impact, with Bronze Age populations deriving ~40% of their autosomal ancestry and 100% of their Y-chromosomes from these migrants.
    These slight differences are to be expected when you don't have a gazillion samples from the period that would give you a very accurate value - unless Reich was being purposely conservative in his book - but on the other hand it only gives us a range of values that are expected from the period. This might be the reason why the abstract says IE-speaking and non-IE-speaking Iron Age populations are similar, ie the range of steppe-related ancestry values are close/overlap even if the mean value isn't the same, eg 60% VS 65% EEF-related, meaning that the difference exists but it's statistically not very significant, kind of like how modern West and East Iberians are similar but not the same.


    Whatever the case, their expansion into Iberia didn't seem to stem from a massive migration of populations, but rather from smaller and continuous movements from beyond the Pyrenees. Some groups might have been bigger than others, which would enable their languages taking over, whereas other groups could have been smaller and ended up adpoting the native languages over a period of a few centuries. This, of course, besides the fact that some areas of the peninsula were more sophisticated and densely populated than others (VNSP vs interior mountain regions of Portugal). It's very well possible that before para-Celtic languages arrived in the beggining of the first millenium BC there were few IE-languages being spoken, and that the IA linguistic differences are a result of elites imposing their language and culture on a majority, thus giving you a small genetic difference between IE-speakers and non-IE-speakers.
    On the topic, I still think that the idea of Lusitanian representing the evolution of a survival language form these groups as extremelly unlikely, for the time being I'm putting my money on peoples like those at Fonte da Malga, Viseu north-central Portugal, who had individual burials with cremations, possibly dating the Late Bronze period, so early first millenium BC - although the dating isn't too reliable. People talk a lot about Lusitanians, but compared to other groups our knowledge of them is pretty limited.
    Last edited by Ruderico; 09-07-2018 at 10:12 AM.
    G25 Hidden Content and Hidden Content distances
    Hidden Content
    Hidden Content
    Hidden Content

    DEIBABOR
    IGO
    DEIBOBOR
    VISSAIEIGO
    BOR

  2. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Ruderico For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (09-07-2018),  Hando (10-07-2018),  jeanL (09-08-2018),  Jessie (09-19-2018),  kingjohn (09-19-2018),  Pribislav (09-07-2018),  Principe (09-07-2018),  Psynome (09-07-2018),  Webb (09-07-2018)

  3. #12
    Registered Users
    Posts
    53
    Sex
    Location
    Seville (Spain)
    Ethnicity
    Spanish
    Nationality
    Spanish
    Y-DNA
    R-L21 (DF49+ Z2976*)
    mtDNA
    U5a2c

    Spain
    Roderico, I ask you this question out of curiosity:

    Why do you list "Iberian" as your ethnicity if the ancient Iberians lived in Eastern Spain and Northern Portugal was populated by Lusitanians and Gallaecians?

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to r_r_abril For This Useful Post:

     Hando (10-07-2018)

  5. #13
    Registered Users
    Posts
    765
    Sex
    Location
    Lisbon, Portugal
    Ethnicity
    Western Meseta Iberian
    Nationality
    Portuguese
    Y-DNA
    E-Y31991 > PF4428
    mtDNA
    H20

    Portugal 1143 Portugal 1485 Portugal Order of Christ
    It's obviously a geographic term, there are no Gallaecians or Lusitanians living today. Using a group that has been gone for two thousand years to identify your own ethnicity is silly
    G25 Hidden Content and Hidden Content distances
    Hidden Content
    Hidden Content
    Hidden Content

    DEIBABOR
    IGO
    DEIBOBOR
    VISSAIEIGO
    BOR

  6. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Ruderico For This Useful Post:

     ArmandoR1b (09-08-2018),  Hando (10-07-2018),  Jessie (09-19-2018),  Principe (09-07-2018),  Psynome (09-07-2018)

  7. #14
    Registered Users
    Posts
    120
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by jeanL View Post
    So the ISBA 2018 has blessed us with great new prospective studies for those of us with an interest in Iberian genetics.



    So it seems there was a population structure in the Iberian peninsula as it pertains to the Hunter Gatherer populations, this other abstract appears to support that notion.



    Next big elephant in the room is the following:




    So it seems there was a replacement rate of about 40% of the pre-Steppe bronze age genome by this incoming migrants. However, I don't think the statement above means that Bronze Age Iberians were 40% Yamnaya, but that Bronze Age Iberians were 40% Central European Beakers, who in turn are ~50% Yamnaya-like. Thus Bronze Age Iberians were on average about 20% Yamnaya. This is in line with the few results we have seen coming from Beaker genomes in Iberia with Steppe ancestry. Now, the sampling of the very first non-Indo-European speakers is key here! If this are Iberians genomes, as in from the Iberian tribes, then I think the non-difference between contemporary Indo-European speaking population and non-Indo-European speaking population shows that either the diffusion of Indo-European languages in Iberia had little gene flow during the Iron Age, or that non-Indo-European speaking Iberians were also from the same stock population. The high degree of similarity between Iron Age Iberians and Bronze age Iberians posits a dilemma. Either:

    1) Indo-European languages were brought over during the Bronze Age expansion starting at 2500 BCE and then non-IndoEuropean languages arrive much later in small proportions and were adopted by the majority of the population, thus resulting a majority Non-Indo-European speaking population with a Steppe-component like their Indo-European speaking neighbors. Perhaps Lusitanian and Tartessian are vestiges of this first Indo-European layer.

    2) The Bronze Age migrants from Central Europe spoke a non-Indo European language to begin with, and did not change the language landscape in Iberia. Then starting during the Urnfield culture, and proceeding with the Hallstat & La Tene Migrations Indo-European languages were brought over to Iberia via elite dominance, therefore yielding the genetic similarity between non-IE and IE Iron Age Iberians.

    I think the lack of genetic differentiation between non-IE speaking Iron Age Iberians and IE speaking Iron Age Iberians opens a pandora's box, and I think that the link of R1b-DF27+Steppe= IE is not that clear in Iberia to begin with, if it were then we need to explain how large percentages of its population did not acquire the IE languages in spite of acquiring the IE gene footprint. I don't think Celt-Iberian, not Gallaecian are old enough to have come in the Bronze Age, Lusitanian is the only possibility, however again, assuming that the first wave was Lusitanian, and Celt-Iberian+other Celtic languages arrive via elite dominance, then one still has to explain the Iberian Language, the Aquitanian Language.

    In laymen terms, this isn't just about the pesky Basque anymore, add to them now the humongous amount of non-IE speaking Iberians who appear be no different from their IE speaking neighbors, which means they are likely R1b-DF27 derived and have Steppe Ancestry yet kept their nonIE language.
    Maybe, just maybe, R1b-L51 originally had little to do with Indo-Europeans proper. Maybe, the Corded Ware culture spread IE languages into Europe, with the correlation between Western IE and R1b-L51 being due to a hybrid Unetice culture, with Steppe ancestry from maternal admixture. We accept the same thing happened on the Steppe, after all (R1bs dominating over "female R1as" (yes, don't say anything) yet retaining a heavily patriarchal culture). Why is it blasphemy to criticise the idea that R1b-L51 came from the Steppe? Because non-Iberian Bell Beakers had Steppe ancestry?!

    We need to follow Goethe's interpretation of the scientific method and look at the big picture. What is the ultimate migrational source of R1b L51? Is it likely to be from Yamnaya, which has so far belonged to the Asiatic Z2103 branch of R1b, and not L51? And has left virtually no trace of L51 in that region? Surely, the migration of L51 into Europe would have come from a traceable culture. If it isn't Yamnaya, what other Steppe culture could it be from? Is the idea of Bell Beakers originating in Iberia as a people not a flow of ideas that outrageous? Is it not plausible just because the samples we have were typical Megalithic I2a samples?! Even Coon mentioned Bell Beaker remains in Iberia were particularly sparse...

    http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot...-and-df27.html
    Last edited by Ethereal; 09-09-2018 at 02:59 AM.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Ethereal For This Useful Post:

     palamede (09-09-2018)

  9. #15
    Gold Member Class
    Posts
    10,624
    Sex
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Ethnicity
    British and Irish
    Nationality
    USA
    Y-DNA
    R1b-FGC36981
    mtDNA
    U5a2c3a

    Wales Ireland Scotland France Bretagne England Switzerland

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Maybe, just maybe, R1b-L51 originally had little to do with Indo-Europeans proper . . .
    It's more likely that idea is wrong as hell. Really wrong.

    Ever wonder why Reich, in his recent book, pretty obviously refers to R1b-P312 as a y chromosome of steppe origin?

    This is from pages 239-240 of Who We Are and How We got Here:

    Quote Originally Posted by David Reich
    This Yamnaya expansion also cannot have been entirely friendly, as is clear from the fact that the proportion of Y chromosomes of steppe origin in both western Europe26 and India27 today is much larger than the proportion of steppe ancestry in the rest of the genome. This preponderance of male ancestry coming from the steppe implies that male descendants of the Yamnaya with political or social power were more successful at competing for local mates than men from the local groups. The most striking example I know of is from Iberia in far southwestern Europe, where Yamnaya-derived ancestry arrived at the onset of the Bronze Age between forty-five hundred and four thousand years ago. Daniel Bradley's laboratory and my laboratory independently produced ancient DNA from individuals of this period.28 We found that approximately 30 percent of the Iberian population was replaced along with the arrival of steppe ancestry. However, the replacement of Y chromosomes was much more dramatic: in our data around 90 percent of males who carry Yamnaya ancestry have a Y-chromosome type of steppe origin that was absent in Iberia prior to that time. It is clear there were extraordinary hierarchies and imbalances in power at work in the expansions from the steppe.
    Last edited by rms2; 09-19-2018 at 10:42 AM.
     


    Hidden Content


    Y-DNA: R1b-FGC36981 (L21> DF13> Z39589> CTS2501> Z43690> Y8426> BY160> FGC36974>FGC36982 >FGC36981)

    Additional Data:
    Lactase Persistent:
    rs4988235 AA (13910 TT)
    rs182549 TT (22018 AA)

    Red Hair Carrier:
    Arg160Trp+ (rs1805008 T) aka R160W

    Dad's mtDNA: K1a1

  10. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to rms2 For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (09-23-2018),  Hando (10-07-2018),  Jessie (09-19-2018),  Onur Dincer (09-19-2018),  Radboud (09-24-2018),  sweuro (09-19-2018),  Webb (09-19-2018)

  11. #16
    Gold Member Class
    Posts
    202
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by rms2 View Post
    It's more likely that idea is dopey as hell. Really dopey.

    Ever wonder why Reich, in his recent book, pretty obviously refers to R1b-P312 as a y chromosome of steppe origin?

    This is from pages 239-240 of Who We Are and How We got Here:
    Yup it is very clear now that R1b was one of the if not the main original IE Y-DNA marker.

  12. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to J Man For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (09-23-2018),  Hando (10-07-2018),  Jessie (09-19-2018),  Onur Dincer (09-19-2018),  Radboud (09-24-2018),  rms2 (09-19-2018),  Ruderico (09-19-2018),  Webb (09-19-2018)

  13. #17
    Gold Member Class
    Posts
    10,624
    Sex
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Ethnicity
    British and Irish
    Nationality
    USA
    Y-DNA
    R1b-FGC36981
    mtDNA
    U5a2c3a

    Wales Ireland Scotland France Bretagne England Switzerland
    Of course, we have to wait for the paper to come out, but the abstract does say the following, somewhat enigmatically:

    During the later Iron Age, the first genome-wide data from ancient non-Indo-European speakers showed that they were similar to contemporaneous Indo-European speakers and derived most of their ancestry from the earlier Bronze Age substratum.
    The non-IE speakers "derived most of their ancestry from the earlier Bronze Age substratum". So, what was that substratum if not Neolithic farmers? Deriving most of their ancestry (i.e., autosomal dna) from the substratum was how non-IE speakers in Iberia were like IE speakers in Iberia?

    That seems to be what the abstract says.

    We know already from what Reich wrote in his book that replacement with "a y chromosome type of steppe origin" (Reich's words) far outstripped replacement in the rest of the Iberian genome.

    I'm guessing the non-IE Iberians were like the IE Iberians in having an autosomal genome that was like that of the Neolithic farmer substrate, with the exception of some steppe dna in the IE Iberians.

    We'll have to wait and see what the y-dna situation was. Of course, the situation in the Iron Age doesn't really tell us much about the situation in the Bronze Age.

    One thing I have noticed about the abstracts of papers on ancient dna is that they are often not very clear and straightforward. In fact, writing style is one of the weak points in scientific papers in general.

    Here is something DMXX posted some years back that is worth remembering:

    Quote Originally Posted by DMXX
    The directional nature of time means the past generally explains the present and not vice versa.
    The same principle applies in this case.

    The directional nature of time means the Bronze Age generally explains the Iron Age and not vice versa.
    Last edited by rms2; 09-22-2018 at 09:53 PM.
     


    Hidden Content


    Y-DNA: R1b-FGC36981 (L21> DF13> Z39589> CTS2501> Z43690> Y8426> BY160> FGC36974>FGC36982 >FGC36981)

    Additional Data:
    Lactase Persistent:
    rs4988235 AA (13910 TT)
    rs182549 TT (22018 AA)

    Red Hair Carrier:
    Arg160Trp+ (rs1805008 T) aka R160W

    Dad's mtDNA: K1a1

  14. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to rms2 For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (09-23-2018),  Hando (10-07-2018),  Psynome (09-22-2018),  Webb (09-22-2018)

  15. #18
    Registered Users
    Posts
    648
    Sex
    Location
    Macerata
    Ethnicity
    Italian
    Y-DNA
    G2a
    mtDNA
    H1

    Italy Israel
    Quote Originally Posted by rms2 View Post
    Of course, we have to wait for the paper to come out, but the abstract does say the following, somewhat enigmatically:



    The non-IE speakers "derived most of their ancestry from the earlier Bronze Age substratum". So, what was that substratum if not Neolithic farmers? Deriving most of their ancestry (i.e., autosomal dna) from the substratum was how non-IE speakers in Iberia were like IE speakers in Iberia?

    That seems to be what the abstract says.

    We know already from what Reich wrote in his book that replacement with "a y chromosome type of steppe origin" (Reich's words) far outstripped replacement in the rest of the Iberian genome.

    I'm guessing the non-IE Iberians were like the IE Iberians in having an autosomal genome that was like that of the Neolithic farmer substrate, with the exception of some steppe dna in the IE Iberians.

    We'll have to wait and see what the y-dna situation was. Of course, the situation in the Iron Age doesn't really tell us much about the situation in the Bronze Age.

    One thing I have noticed about the abstracts of papers on ancient dna is that they are often not very clear and straightforward. In fact, writing style is one of the weak points in scientific papers in general.

    Here is something DMXX posted some years back that is worth remembering:



    The same principle applies in this case.

    The directional nature of time means the Bronze Age generally explains the Iron Age and not vice versa.
    I think you are reading too much into the bolded sentence: I simply think that both Non-IE speakers and IE speakers are from the same stock.

  16. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Romilius For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (09-23-2018),  Hando (10-07-2018),  Ruderico (09-23-2018),  Shamayim (10-05-2018)

  17. #19
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,738
    Sex

    Yeah, it seems that there was a homogenization of genetic ancestry throughout Iberia during the Bronze Age, but various language families survived there into the Iron Age and beyond.

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Generalissimo For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (09-23-2018),  Hando (10-07-2018),  Onur Dincer (09-25-2018)

  19. #20
    Registered Users
    Posts
    238
    Y-DNA
    I-Y16419
    mtDNA
    T2e1

    during the last 2500 years Iberian populations were affected by additional gene-flow from the Central/Eastern Mediterranean region, probably associated to the Roman conquest, and from North Africa during the Moorish conquest but also in earlier periods, probably related to the Phoenician-Punic colonization of Southern Iberia.
    So Roman colonization did have an effect, then its also expected in other areas of Roman colonization, in Britain perhaps, all areas speaking or once spoke, Romance languages.

    there were colonies in Greece too, so did they leave some ancestry in Greece as well?


  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to IronHorse For This Useful Post:

     Hando (10-07-2018),  palamede (09-27-2018)

Page 2 of 57 FirstFirst 12341252 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Continuation of Jean Manco ancestral journey works ?
    By halfalp in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-10-2018, 12:00 AM
  2. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-17-2018, 03:12 PM
  3. 23&Me v5 now works on old Gedmatch. Somebody noticed it?
    By lukaszM in forum Open-Source Projects
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-20-2018, 07:30 AM
  4. Question about how Gedmatch works
    By Ravens119 in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-25-2016, 12:36 AM
  5. Gene therapy works in cystic fibrosis for the first time
    By Jean M in forum Medical Genetics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-04-2015, 07:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •