Impact of invasions and/or settlements in the Iberian Peninsula

[lorddraco14]

If you are trying to find out the impact of the muslim invasions in Spain, then the first thing you have to do is understand that;

1-There is a very ancient north African ancestral component in all of Europe

2-This component can be evaluated taking into account the results of contemporary populations comparing those countries that have suffered invasions and those in which they have not occurred.

3-In this way, we can observe a very small BASAL NA percentage in Bulgaria (1,40)<France (1,44)<Tuscany (2,39). I f we consider rhst 2,39 in Tuscany as the basal percentage, the excess up to 4,40 in Spain i.e 2.01, is the percentage that could be attributed to extra population movements from north Africa to Spain during the Roman Empire and 711 AD. That percentage IMHO is insignificant and already existed in ancient samples from the Betica and Lusitania durong the Roman Empires so the impact of the conquest (711AD) is practically non existent.

4-Another component that could be involved is Arabian-Morocco (13,87)>Tuscany (8,24)>Sardinia (7,37)>Bulgaria (6,88)>Spain (3,06)>France (2,25) which is evidently related to Natufians and Levant_Neolithic

5-Western Asia (Levant & Anatolia)-Tuscany (28,17)>Bulgaria (26,06)>Sardinia (23,75)>Spain (14,53)>France (12,42)>Morocco (0,90)

6- For those who are interested in the Levantine markers in Spain, everyone can see that the sum of Western_Asia and Arab is- Tuscany (36,41)>Bulgaria (32,94), while Spain (17,59) has much lower levels similar to the French ones (14,67) and half than Tuscany or Bulgaria. Geography is very important in genetics and explains why the Levantine markers in Spain and France are so small.

The distance between Europe, North Africa and the Near East is interesting but we are also talking about the self-sufficient component, that is, because Iberia is divided West - East and if that had to do with the Islamic invasion, since at least looking at the papers there is not much difference in Regions like Valencia or Andalusia pre and durint islamic times except for the samples from Granada

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...14-1492%29.svg

https://www.zupimages.net/up/19/12/3lt4.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/BQMsmwkB/modelo-olalde-2.png

https://www.academia.edu/61630332/La...rary_structure

https://html.scribdassets.com/72vgo6...f7e4a6a6b2.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/S6ptng7/3.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/RjHz8SC/4.jpg

[vettor]

Do you mean Iberia or Italy? If you mean the first, at least the Carthaginians seem to have left a considerable impact, since the Bronze Age Southeast Iberian sampels show an average Nafr of 1% while the Roman and medieval average reaches 20%. If you are referring to the second case, I understand that West Sicily and Cantabria are the 2 areas of Italy with the most Nafr, so there may be a combination of both towns, but then the question comes to me ¿ How many Nafr do the 2 areas mentioned ?

Carthaginians ( only lasted from 806 to 140BC , modern Tunisia ) and Numidians ( modern Algeria ) where both in Cadiz ( southern spain ) under the umbrella of Phoenicians.

What to you want to only include ?

[Ruderico]

It depends, as always, on which populations are used.

0.00924177 Spanish_Extremadura = 90% Spanish_Peri-Barcelona + 10% Moroccan_North

I get 10% NA because Peri-Barcelona already has some Taforalt, but when I remove Spanish references, I get 15% NA in both scaled and unscaled coordinates instead.

Scaled

Target: Spanish_Extremadura
Distance: 0.0099% / 0.00992506 | R3P
43.9 French_Chalosse
41.5 Italian_Aosta_Valley
14.6 Berber_Tunisia_Chen

Unscaled

Target: Spanish_Extremadura
Distance: 0.0040% / 0.00403609 | R3P
56.4 French_Chalosse
27.4 Italian_Northeast
16.2 Tunisian_Berber_Tamezret

Eurogenes K15 also shows a similar figure.

Target: Spanish_Extremadura
Distance: 1.6011% / 1.60112585 | R3P
47.4 French_Provence_outlier
42.0 French_Southwest
10.6 Moroccan

Target: Spanish_Extremadura
Distance: 1.7698% / 1.76976134 | R3P
43.6 French_Southwest
38.8 Italy_Aostavalley
17.6 Algerian

Because it's mandatory to use a penalty with unscaled data, and the one from Vahaduo simply doesn't do the job well. If you try it in nMonte3 you'll get different results and lower North African. But the figure isn't even from G25, it's from genetics studies.

[Gentica277282]

Because it's mandatory to use a penalty with unscaled data, and the one from Vahaduo simply doesn't do the job well. If you try it in nMonte3 you'll get different results and lower North African. But the figure isn't even from G25, it's from genetics studies.

Was the creator of nMonte talking about an update

[Ajeje Brazorf]

Because it's mandatory to use a penalty with unscaled data, and the one from Vahaduo simply doesn't do the job well. If you try it in nMonte3 you'll get different results and lower North African.

But the figure isn't even from G25, it's from genetics studies.

I guess you are referring to this study and this figure:

Patterns of genetic differentiation and the footprints of historical migrations in the Iberian Peninsula
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08272-w

Ok, but the choice of populations also plays a key part in the models. For instance, what does exactly "France" include? What about "Italy1," "Italy2"? Because choosing one population over another can affect the outcome quite a bit.

[lorddraco14]

Carthaginians ( only lasted from 806 to 140BC , modern Tunisia ) and Numidians ( modern Algeria ) where both in Cadiz ( southern spain ) under the umbrella of Phoenicians.

What to you want to only include ?

I don't understand you, Carthage also came to control West Iberia and if you see the samples, the Iberian samples from the Bronze Age have a minimum Nafr and in the Iron Age there was a great change.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...age_323_BC.png

https://www.zupimages.net/up/19/12/3lt4.jpg

[Ruderico]

I guess you are referring to this study and this figure:

Patterns of genetic differentiation and the footprints of historical migrations in the Iberian Peninsula
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08272-w

Ok, but the choice of populations also plays a key part in the models. For instance, what does exactly "France" include? What about "Italy1," "Italy2"? Because choosing one population over another can affect the outcome quite a bit.

Sure, "France" is a bit dubious, but appears Basque-like, "Italy1" is from southern Italy, and "Italy2" from the north. The only reference that includes some relevant IBM ancestry is NorthMorocco so there's not much room for the model to vary in this specific component, unlike others.

There's another study, which I can't remember, that showed similar figures.



Iirc the Corsican study also gave a maximum of ~10% North African in Iberia in their models, the cluster included all Portuguese and a few Spanish (I guess mostly Galicians).
There isn't 15-16% North African-related ancestry in western Spain, nor in Portugal, those figures are too high and G25 scaled bottles it. The only way to get such a figure is by using a NA reference that's very East Med shifted, but in that case the remaining southeastern-related ancestry will be even smaller because it will be partially captured by the NA one.

[Bodilkas]

The distance between Europe, North Africa and the Near East is interesting but we are also talking about the self-sufficient component, that is, because Iberia is divided West - East and if that had to do with the Islamic invasion, since at least looking at the papers there is not much difference in Regions like Valencia or Andalusia pre and durint islamic times except for the samples from Granada

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...14-1492%29.svg

https://www.zupimages.net/up/19/12/3lt4.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/BQMsmwkB/modelo-olalde-2.png

https://www.academia.edu/61630332/La...rary_structure

https://html.scribdassets.com/72vgo6...f7e4a6a6b2.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/S6ptng7/3.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/RjHz8SC/4.jpg

1-What is "self sufficent component"- I hardly ever understand what you are saying.

2-Neither you nor anyone else has any idea of the genetic composition of southeastern Iberia before or post-islamic conquest, because we only have 20 SAMPLES from a population of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE.

3-The samples chosen by Olalde belong to selected islamic cemeteries and therefore cannot tell you ANYTHING about the genetic composition of Roman or Muslim Hispania. The only thing you can do is speculate about a topic we dont know about, until we have MANY MORE SAMPLES

4-I dont know if you will understand, but I will try to explain it. IF Jewish cemeteries are analyzed in the future, probably 100% levantine samples will appear, IF Islamic cemeteries are analyzed, samples similar to berbers will probably appear, and IF christian cemeteries are analyzed 100% european samples will appear, but the important thing is the final result , that is to say, insignificant % of NA blood in Spain. What else it matter to you to know if an islamic sample from Murcia has 15% NA, if other samples has Zero and if in addition that component has been diluted until reaching the minimum levels of contemporary Murcians

5-If you are interested in the role played by the Carthaginians in Spain, the first thing you have to do is STUDY our history well and not talk nonsense about thier presence in Iberia. The Carthaginians only maintained few and small colonies and trading factories founded by the phoenicians in southern Iberia. After the battle of Alalia (537 BC), the Carthaginians controlled trade in the western Mediterranean and ONLY after the loss of Sicily (First Punic War), Amilcar Barca began the conquest of Hispania (237 BC), and as evryone knows, the Carthaginians were resoundingly defeated in the battle of Ilipa (206 BC) and returned to Africa, where they were again defeated and Carthage devastated.

6-The Carthaginians traded with the Tartesios-Turdetanos but NEVER conquered western, southwestern, or central Iberia. Their domain of the peninsular southeast lasted EXACTLY 30 YEARS (236-206 BC).

7- I have already said many times that their influence on Iberian genetics (outside of their colonies and the adjacent iberian villages) was ZERO.

8-In ALL the Iberian Bronze age cultures (we have more than 200 samples) there is only one outlier with a small NA percentage at a site in Lorca, Murcia (Zapaterias)

9-What big change was there in the Iberian Iron Age?????????- The Iron Age Iberians are indistinguisable both in its autosomal composition an in its uniparental markers from their ancestors- Argar, Cogotas, Valencian and Atlantic Bronze Age cultures, and th is in turn are indistinguishable from their Bell Beaker culture ancestors. We have many Iberian samples from the Iron Age in the Mediterranean and some Iron Age samples in the north. There is NOT the slighest sign of Carthaginian, levantine or north african genetic influence in any of them. NOT even a single outlier as happens for example in Etruria or Lazio

10-The Hispano-Roman samples are very heterogeneus and also very SCARCE, we only have a few from the Tarraconense (ZERO NA admixture), from Lusitania (NA between 1-2% in Conimbriga up to an 18% outlier in Miroico) and in Betica (up to 10%), but the existence of samples practically IDENTICAL to many contemporary Spanish populations makes me think that the genetic influence of the 711 conquest was also ZERO.

11-I know that regardless of what I tell you, you will continue to insist in the subject, sending the same links that EVERYONE knows and asking the same questions, but at least I tried

[Gentica277282]

I think the issue is we are measuring ibm ancestry only to tell how much North African a population has which is wrong

[Bodilkas]

I guess you are referring to this study and this figure:

Patterns of genetic differentiation and the footprints of historical migrations in the Iberian Peninsula
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08272-w

Ok, but the choice of populations also plays a key part in the models. For instance, what does exactly "France" include? What about "Italy1," "Italy2"? Because choosing one population over another can affect the outcome quite a bit.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...08.12.455263v1

I have already said on other occasions, this supossed north African ancestry is not exclusive to the Portuguese and Spaniards, but common to all Europe, you should ask yourself why G25 does not detect it.

If you trust Globetrotter you may be familar with this paper above (Wangkumhang Hellenthal, 2.021)

FastGlobetrotter-Europe- 36 clusters had >50 individuals, a single inferred admixture date, and 3-36% inferred ancestry from sources related to Central-West Asia, NORTH AFRICA and/or Sub-Saharan Africa, along with inferred ancestry related to southern Europe.

Among these 36, THE HIGHEST DEGREES >20% of inferred ancestry related to WEST ASIANS, and NORTH-SUBSAHARAN AFRICANS are founded in 3 clusters that predominantly consist of ITALIANS, with inferred dates covering a broad range spanning 1000-1500 years ago.

Interestingly, 7 of these 36 clusters, consisting of BELGIANS, FRENCH and GERMANS (clusters C44, C46, C47, C52-C55) have similar inferred amounts (5-12%) of ancestry related to NORTH AFRICAN and WEST ASIAN (Armenia, Morocco, Turkey) sources and similar admixture dates of 300-700 CE."