# Population Genetics > Y-DNA Haplogroups >  New big paper on Catalan Y-DNA

## Sile

here are 55 pages of ydna from catalan people

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...g201514x13.pdf

from this

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...hg201514a.html

----------


## Maciamo

I have found a quick way to count the samples using the 'Find' tool in Adobe Reader.

- E1b1a (M180) : 1
*- E1b1b : 191* *(= 8.3%*)
- E-M35* : 1
-- E-V12 : 7
-- E-V13 : 92 *(= 4%*)
-- E-V22 : 6
-- E-M81 : 41 *(= 1.8%*)
-- E-M123 : 44 *(= 1.9%*)
- G* : 1
*- G2a : 99* *(= 4.3%*)
*- I1 : 44** (= 1.9%*)
*- I2 : 115* *(= 5%*)
-- I2-P215 : 11 *(= 0.5%*)
-- I2-M223 : 37 *(= 1.6%*)
-- I2-P37.2 : 25 *(P37.2+subclades = 2.9%*)
--- I2-M26 : 38
--- I2-M423 : 4
*- J1 : 55* *(= 2.4%*)
-- J1-P58 : 23 *(= 1%*)
*- J2a : 169* *(= 7.3%*)
-- J2a-M67 : 39
-- J2a-M92 : 27
*- J2b : 42* *(= 1.8%*)
- R1-M173* : 1
*- R1a : 32* *(= 1.4%*)
*- R1b : 1525* *(= 66.3%*)
- R1b-M343 (incl. V88) : 22 *(= 1%)*
-- R1b-L23 : 1
--- R1b-U106 : 51 *(U106+Z381 = 4.8%*)
---- R1b-Z381 : 59
--- R1b-P312 : 371
---- R1b-L21 : 140 *(= 6.1%*)
---- R1b-U152 : 199 *(= 8.7%*)
---- R1b-Z195 : 132 *(Z195+subclades = 28.2%*)
----- R1b-SRY2627 : 222
----- R1b-Z220 : 199
------ R1b-Z278 : 74
------- R1b-M153 : 21
*- T : 28 (= 1.2%)

TOTAL : 2309 samples* 



*ANALYSIS*

I have checked a bit the origin of the samples. A minority are immigrants from other regions of Spain. 

What we notice at first sight is that *I1, I2-M223, R1a, J1, J2a* *, E1b1b* (esp. E-M123) and *T* have slightly higher frequencies than previously reported in smaller studies, while *R1b* which is considerably lower (82% => 66%).

Interestingly there isn't any Germanic *R1b-106, I1* or *I2-M223* in the Balearic samples (Mallorca, Menorca). I1 and R1b-S106 appears to be most common around Barcelona and central Catalonia. Haplogroup I1 is just above 5% in coastal Catalonia.

*R1b-U152* is evenly distributed in all regions. At over 8%, it is by far the highest regional frequency reported to date in the Iberian peninsula. Since the Mediterranean coast of Spain was never known to be Celtic speaking, it looks like the Romans played a bigger role in spreading U152 in Iberia than the Celts.

There is a hotspot of *G2a* around *Lleida* (24 of of 223 samples, or *10.8%*), *Central Catalonia* (15 out of 234 samples, or *6.4%*) and around *Barcelona*, but there is very little of it in the Valencian region. Lleida is the inland Pyrenees region, which would have served as a refuge for the Neolithic population, like most mountainous parts of Europe. 

There is a hotspot of *J1* in *Girona* (both M267 and P58), where it makes up *8.3%* of the population (18 of 219 samples). But otherwise J1 is well distributed in most regions except Lleida and Mallorca which only have one sample.

There is a hotspot of *E-M123* in *Castelló* (16 out of 144 samples, or *11.1%*), but that haplogroup is absent from the Balearic samples.

Most of the *T1a* samples are concentrated around Central Catalonia, Camp de Tarragona and especially *Penedès* (7 out of 164 samples, or *4.3%*), but T1a is also found in Valencia, Mallorca, Barcelona and Girona. None in Lleide or Pireneu.

J1-P58, E-M123 and T1a are all potentially of Jewish or Arabic origin, although the Greeks and Romans could also have contributed in Catalonia.

----------


## Wilhelm

That's not exactly Catalonia, because it includes also Valencia and Balearic Islands.

----------


## Maciamo

> That's not exactly Catalonia, because it includes also Valencia and Balearic Islands.


Yes, that's the Catalan-speaking regions of Spain, or former County of Barcelona.

----------


## Sile

> Yes, that's the Catalan-speaking regions of Spain, or former County of Barcelona.


correct, and including the inland Aragon province


J2a seems to agree with the pheonician marker ( as once also stated by natgen)

R1b-Z195 sticks out


with the *other new paper .......from arabia to Iberia* ...........you basically have all of iberia covered

----------


## Sile

> I have found a quick way to count the samples using the 'Find' tool in Adobe Reader.
> 
> *- E1b1b : 190* *(= 8.3%*)
> -- E-V12 : 7
> -- E-V13 : 92 *(= 4%*)
> -- E-V22 : 6
> -- E-M81 : 41 *(= 1.8%*)
> -- E-M123 : 44 *(= 1.9%*)
> *- G2a : 99* *(= 4.3%*)
> ...


I can only see missing is ..............R2 , C* and K* ......and maybe plain R1b

----------


## Maciamo

> I can only see missing is ..............R2 , C* and K* ......and maybe plain R1b


Well done. There are indeed 3x C*, 1x K* and 2x R2. That's five. There are still five missing.

----------


## Sile

> Well done. There are indeed 3x C*, 1x K* and 2x R2. That's five. There are still five missing.


your counting is as good as mine.....that's six

----------


## Wilhelm

> correct, and including the inland Aragon province
> 
> 
> J2a seems to agree with the pheonician marker ( as once also stated by natgen)
> 
> R1b-Z195 sticks out
> 
> 
> with the *other new paper .......from arabia to Iberia* ...........you basically have all of iberia covered


There was never a Phoenician settlement in Catalonia. So no, it's not of phoenician origin. J2a-M67 is also common in the Caucasus, in Greece, Italy, etc.

----------


## Sile

> There was never a Phoenician settlement in Catalonia. So no, it's not of phoenician origin. J2a-M67 is also common in the Caucasus, in Greece, Italy, etc.


oh, yes there was...........

let me know what is the original iberian marker and we can discuss further :Good Job:

----------


## Wilhelm

> oh, yes there was...........
> 
> let me know what is the original iberian marker and we can discuss further


phoenician settlements in Catalonia ? Since when ? They traded with the greeks and iberians, but didn't have a settlement of their own in Catalonia.

----------


## Maciamo

> There was never a Phoenician settlement in Catalonia. So no, it's not of phoenician origin. J2a-M67 is also common in the Caucasus, in Greece, Italy, etc.


There was never any Roman or Slavic or Mesopotamian settlement in North America, and yet all these peoples' DNA is there now. Try to keep an open mind. People move over the centuries. The Phoenicians arrived in Spain 3000 years ago. Since then, the population of Iberia has been mixed countless times and re-exported to other regions (mostly Latin America, but not only). Immigration is not a recent phenomenon. Roman citizens moved freely inside a vast empire. The 16th century Netherlands was built on Protestant immigrants from various countries in Europe (Belgium, France, Germany and even Spain and Portugal). I don't know how you can seriously think that it is improbable that in the last 3000 years some men from Andalusia or Murcia moved up the coast to Valencia and Catalonia. People aren't immobile statues.

Anyway the presence of haplogroup R2 in Catalonia confirms that some people of Phoenician descent ended up in Catalonia. Nobody else could have brought R2.

----------


## Wilhelm

> There was never any Roman or Slavic or Mesopotamian settlement in North America, and yet all these peoples' DNA is there now.


But there's been massive immigration of Europeans to North-America. Not a good analogy. Where's the phoenicians settlements in Catalonia ? 




> Try to keep an open mind. People move over the centuries. . I don't know how you can seriously think that it is improbable that in the last 3000 years some men from Andalusia or Murcia moved up the coast to Valencia and Catalonia. People aren't immobile statues.


Of course they move inside of Iberia, but no such much as to be the reason for the whole 8% J2a. It's not even clear were it came from the J2 in South Spain to begin with. Also, Catalonia has a different y-DNA profile than Andalusia or Murcia, in terms of frequencies (80% of R1b).

Also you have to keep in mind this study was not about haplogroup distribution for the general population (as the standard studies do) , but about it's correlation with surnames. In other words, there is plenty of people having the same repeated surname in this study (which is the whole point), so it's not representative in terms of the general population. Obviously in a sample of more than 2000 people in a standard popuilation study there would be repetition in surnames, but not as much as in this one. 

But one thing that makes me wonder...why you attribut this 8-10% of J2 in Spain to Phoenicians, but then the 20% in Italy or Greece, or the 7% in France, you attribute it to different populations.

----------


## Wilhelm

> Anyway the presence of haplogroup R2 in Catalonia confirms that some people of Phoenician descent ended up in Catalonia. Nobody else could have brought R2.


confirms ? R2 is not even common in Lebanon. It's much more frequent in the Caucasus.

----------


## matbir

> Well done. There are indeed 3x C*, 1x K* and 2x R2. That's five. There are still five missing.


Plus 1xR1-M173* + 1xE-M35* + 1xE-M180 + 1xG* - it is four, so now there are 2309 samples.

----------


## Drac II

> But there's been massive immigration of Europeans to North-America. Not a good analogy. Where's the phoenicians settlements in Catalonia ? 
> 
> 
> Of course they move inside of Iberia, but no such much as to be the reason for the whole 8% J2a. It's not even clear were it came from the J2 in South Spain to begin with. Also, Catalonia has a different y-DNA profile than Andalusia or Murcia, in terms of frequencies (80% of R1b).
> 
> Also you have to keep in mind this study was not about haplogroup distribution for the general population (as the standard studies do) , but about it's correlation with surnames. In other words, there is plenty of people having the same repeated surname in this study (which is the whole point), so it's not representative in terms of the general population. Obviously in a sample of more than 2000 people in a standard popuilation study there would be repetition in surnames, but not as much as in this one. 
> 
> But one thing that makes me wonder...why you attribut this 8-10% of J2 in Spain to Phoenicians, but then the 20% in Italy or Greece, or the 7% in France, you attribute it to different populations.


The Phoenicians were also in continental Italy (coastal Etruria), alongside with the Etruscans, who were also originally from the Near East. But I agree that there were no Phoenician enclaves in Catalonia. Phoenician enclaves in Iberia were in the southern coasts, from where they traded with the Iberians further north.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> The Phoenicians were also in continental Italy (coastal Etruria), alongside with the Etruscans, who were also originally from the Near East. But I agree that there were no Phoenician enclaves in Catalonia. Phoenician enclaves in Iberia were in the southern coasts, from where they traded with the Iberians further north.


Phoenicians were *never* in coastal Etruria. There were Phoenician colonies in west Sicily and south Sardinia only. The origins of the Etruscans still aren't clear.

----------


## Drac II

> Phoenicians were *never* in coastal Etruria. There were Phoenician colonies in west Sicily and south Sardinia only. The origins of the Etruscans still aren't clear.


False:

*"Phoenician interest in central Italy, as in Sardinia, was motivated primarily by the metals trade; the wealth of the Etruscan cities also rendered them profitable commercial markets for Phoenician goods. The earliest and clearest evidence of Phoenician presence in Italy may be found on the island of Pithekoussai (modern Ischia) off the coast of southern Campania. An early Euboean foundation, the island housed an active community of Phoenician traders by the late eighth century BC, as finds of Phoenician pottery (some with graffiti) attest. In all likelihood, the islet, situated strategically en route to coastal Etruria, served as a "free port" at which native Greeks and Near Easterners mingled freely.The primary objective of Phoenician trade in Italy was, however, the northern Etrurian heartland with its ore-rich deposits of copper, lead, iron, and silver...; from an early date, it attracted Phoenician prospectors, commerciants, and artisans, who left in their wake a variety of imported goods, including luxury vessels in repoussé silver. The latter, locally produced by resident Phoenician craftsmen, may well have been offered as diplomatic gifts to local leaders in order to secure commercial mineral rights. Phoenician influence is also evident in the dramatic appearance, in the late eighth century BC, of a strongly orientalizing artistic tradition in Etruria.

Imported pottery finds suggest that the flourishing northern Etruscan coastal cities of Populonia and Vetulonia may have formed the primary bases of operation for the Phoenicians. Phoenician knowledge of Etrurian mineral resources may have come through contact with the native inhabitants of Sardinia or through the Cypriots, both of whom were involved in the Tyrrhenian metals trade."* 

http://books.google.com/books?id=smP...truria&f=false

Page 179. 

Better learn history from books, not from "maps".

Regarding the Etruscans, the most recent genetic study on the subject can be seen here:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0105920

From a historical, artistic, cultural & linguistic perspective the Oriental/Eastern origin of the Etruscans is also the one that has the most going for it:

http://www.i-italy.org/bloggers/3643...biased-history

----------


## Sile

The 

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...g201514x11.pdf


SNP's

----------


## Sile

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...hg201514x6.pdf


on another in reagrds surnames....the T1a surnames where only
Santacana
Melis
Vives

melis...."is" endings are usually greek , vives I have seen as southern french and santacana either iberian or italian


areas tested
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...g201514x10.pdf

----------


## Sile

another surname frequencies with gascons included

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...hg201514x7.pdf

----------


## Hauteville

> False:
> 
> *"Phoenician interest in central Italy, as in Sardinia, was motivated primarily by the metals trade; the wealth of the Etruscan cities also rendered them profitable commercial markets for Phoenician goods. The earliest and clearest evidence of Phoenician presence in Italy may be found on the island of Pithekoussai (modern Ischia) off the coast of southern Campania. An early Euboean foundation, the island housed an active community of Phoenician traders by the late eighth century BC, as finds of Phoenician pottery (some with graffiti) attest. In all likelihood, the islet, situated strategically en route to coastal Etruria, served as a "free port" at which native Greeks and Near Easterners mingled freely.The primary objective of Phoenician trade in Italy was, however, the northern Etrurian heartland with its ore-rich deposits of copper, lead, iron, and silver...; from an early date, it attracted Phoenician prospectors, commerciants, and artisans, who left in their wake a variety of imported goods, including luxury vessels in repoussé silver. The latter, locally produced by resident Phoenician craftsmen, may well have been offered as diplomatic gifts to local leaders in order to secure commercial mineral rights. Phoenician influence is also evident in the dramatic appearance, in the late eighth century BC, of a strongly orientalizing artistic tradition in Etruria.
> 
> Imported pottery finds suggest that the flourishing northern Etruscan coastal cities of Populonia and Vetulonia may have formed the primary bases of operation for the Phoenicians. Phoenician knowledge of Etrurian mineral resources may have come through contact with the native inhabitants of Sardinia or through the Cypriots, both of whom were involved in the Tyrrhenian metals trade."* 
> 
> http://books.google.com/books?id=smP...truria&f=false
> 
> Page 179. 
> ...


Don't say bullshits. Phoenicians and Carthage had just two small emporiums in extreme Western Sicily (Palermo and Mothia) and 5 or 6 in Sardinia. Never other in the rest of Italy. On the opposite Mediterranean Spain is plenty of their settlements.
Don't forget the big Carthage rule.

----------


## Angela

> False:
> 
> *"Phoenician interest in central Italy, as in Sardinia, was motivated primarily by the metals trade; the wealth of the Etruscan cities also rendered them profitable commercial markets for Phoenician goods. The earliest and clearest evidence of Phoenician presence in Italy may be found on the island of Pithekoussai (modern Ischia) off the coast of southern Campania. An early Euboean foundation, the island housed an active community of Phoenician traders by the late eighth century BC, as finds of Phoenician pottery (some with graffiti) attest. In all likelihood, the islet, situated strategically en route to coastal Etruria, served as a "free port" at which native Greeks and Near Easterners mingled freely.The primary objective of Phoenician trade in Italy was, however, the northern Etrurian heartland with its ore-rich deposits of copper, lead, iron, and silver...; from an early date, it attracted Phoenician prospectors, commerciants, and artisans, who left in their wake a variety of imported goods, including luxury vessels in repoussé silver. The latter, locally produced by resident Phoenician craftsmen, may well have been offered as diplomatic gifts to local leaders in order to secure commercial mineral rights. Phoenician influence is also evident in the dramatic appearance, in the late eighth century BC, of a strongly orientalizing artistic tradition in Etruria.
> 
> Imported pottery finds suggest that the flourishing northern Etruscan coastal cities of Populonia and Vetulonia may have formed the primary bases of operation for the Phoenicians. Phoenician knowledge of Etrurian mineral resources may have come through contact with the native inhabitants of Sardinia or through the Cypriots, both of whom were involved in the Tyrrhenian metals trade."* 
> 
> http://books.google.com/books?id=smP...truria&f=false
> 
> Page 179. 
> ...



Perhaps you should consider the difference between a port city where merchants from all over the world meet to trade and might have a small manufacturing operation, and a *colony* or series of colonies. Large parts of Spain were part of the Carthaginian Empire, which you can see on the map posted by Pax Augusta*.*

As for the Etruscans, I am very fond of their culture, and quite appreciative of the tremendous contributions they made to Roman civilization and through them to Europe. I honestly don't give a darn how much of their ancestry came from the Near East in the Neolithic versus in the first millennium BC. Perhaps there was large gene flow. Perhaps it was an elite migration. We _don't yet know_, and probably won't know until we get ancient dna. To imply that this poorly conceived paper is the gold standard for answering this question is absolutely unwarranted. This wasn't the Reich Lab, unfortunately. See the following thread for an analysis of its shortcomings.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...igin+Etruscans

As for that second article, the person who wrote it is sadly misinformed. There is nothing uniquely or exclusively "Italian", much less "northern Italian" about seeing the Etruscans as indigenous peoples of the Italic peninsula, and their culture as an outgrowth of the Villanovan culture. Anyone who claims that obviously has no grounding in archaeology or prehistory. Had the author done some honest research, he would have found names like J.P. Mallory, John Bryan Perkins and others , names which, unless I'm very mistaken, are not Italian. :)

You also might find it informative to read at least the Wiki article on the origin of the Etruscans. There are many references in that article, including some to scholars who have viewed the Etruscans as indigenous people. Had the person at least read that and followed the links, he would have found that indeed some Italian scholars used to believe they had a more recent Anatolian origin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_origins

Over and above all of that, what a certain anonymous blogger does or does not believe has nothing to do with the actual history of the migrations, and as I said that is going to have to wait for ancient dna, in my opinion.

Regardless, I would remind posters that this is not a thread about the Etruscans. Posts about them are off-topic. 

Also, posts that are motivated by "ethnic" agendas and rivalries are neither appreciated nor sought. Neither is there any place for incivility, by the way.

Ed. I have taken a closer look at that blog. It's very dodgy, in my opinion. I also have my doubts whether this person is even of Italian ancestry, and so his posts cannot have anything very informative to offer as to "Italian" opinions on any of these matters. (I understand it is quite an internet "thing" for people of non Italian or part Italian ancestry to claim it for various nefarious purposes. This makes me very leery and cautious. I just alert you to this so that you don't assume that statements from people claiming to be Italian are actually probative of the views of any actual Italians. Just some friendly advice.)

----------


## Alan

> T1a are all potentially of Jewish or Arabic origin, although the Greeks and Romans could also have contributed in Catalonia.


Wasn't T1a also found in a late Neolithic sample, who in turn was very Yamna like?

----------


## Alan

Not that I am against the idea of Phoenicians reaching Catalonia. But I am very sceptical that most of J2a was brought by them. I see other sources for that.

----------


## Drac II

> Don't say bullshits. Phoenicians and Carthage had just two small emporiums in extreme Western Sicily (Palermo and Mothia) and 5 or 6 in Sardinia. Never other in the rest of Italy. On the opposite Mediterranean Spain is plenty of their settlements.
> Don't forget the big Carthage rule.


Once again you are trying to deny historical/archaeological evidence from actual books on the subject, so the only "bullshit" is coming from your part. And we were talking about Phoenicians, not Carthaginians, who by the way ended up invading Italy as well:

Hannibal_route_of_invasion.jpg

----------


## Drac II

> Perhaps you should consider the difference between a port city where merchants from all over the world meet to trade and might have a small manufacturing operation, and a *colony* or series of colonies. Large parts of Spain were part of the Carthaginian Empire, which you can see on the map posted by Pax Augusta*.*
> 
> As for the Etruscans, I am very fond of their culture, and quite appreciative of the tremendous contributions they made to Roman civilization and through them to Europe. I honestly don't give a darn how much of their ancestry came from the Near East in the Neolithic versus in the first millennium BC. Perhaps there was large gene flow. Perhaps it was an elite migration. We _don't yet know_, and probably won't know until we get ancient dna. To imply that this poorly conceived paper is the gold standard for answering this question is absolutely unwarranted. This wasn't the Reich Lab, unfortunately. See the following thread for an analysis of its shortcomings.
> http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...igin+Etruscans
> 
> As for that second article, the person who wrote it is sadly misinformed. There is nothing uniquely or exclusively "Italian", much less "northern Italian" about seeing the Etruscans as indigenous peoples of the Italic peninsula, and their culture as an outgrowth of the Villanovan culture. Anyone who claims that obviously has no grounding in archaeology or prehistory. Had the author done some honest research, he would have found names like J.P. Mallory, John Bryan Perkins and others , names which, unless I'm very mistaken, are not Italian. :)
> 
> You also might find it informative to read at least the Wiki article on the origin of the Etruscans. There are many references in that article, including some to scholars who have viewed the Etruscans as indigenous people. Had the person at least read that and followed the links, he would have found that indeed some Italian scholars used to believe they had a more recent Anatolian origin.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_origins
> ...


We were talking about Phoenicians, not Carthaginians, plus the fact that Phoenician goods were being produced locally in Etruria itself shows that Phoenician presence there was not merely as traders, but also as residents. 

Funny that you want to dismiss i-italy.org and yet want to appeal to something like WikiPedia, the "Free Encyclopedia" which anyone can edit and manipulate. 

The author of the article at i-italy.org is an Italian American, and he cites plenty of sources on the subject, including those who try to argue for the "indigenous" origin. You don't have to be an Italian from Italy itself to be an expert on the subject of Etruscans. In fact, plenty of scholars on Etruscans, like the ones he cites, are not from Italy or have anything to do with Italy.

----------


## Hauteville

These complexed Spanish make me fun. A bunch of self hater who deny their history but not only that: they attack and brownwash Italians.
This is your history: European Roman territory against Carthage/Phoenician MENA territory.

----------


## Angela

> We were talking about Phoenicians, not Carthaginians, plus the fact that Phoenician goods were being produced locally in Etruria itself shows that Phoenician presence there was not merely as traders, but also as residents. 
> 
> Funny that you want to dismiss i-italy.org and yet want to appeal to something like WikiPedia, the "Free Encyclopedia" which anyone can edit and manipulate. 
> 
> The author of the article at i-italy.org is an Italian American, and he cites plenty of sources on the subject, including those who try to argue for the "indigenous" origin. You don't have to be an Italian from Italy itself to be an expert on the subject of Etruscans. In fact, plenty of scholars on Etruscans, like the ones he cites, are not from Italy or have anything to do with Italy.


I am not going to tell you again. This is not a thread about the Etruscans. If you wish to engage in a full scale debate about their origins, revive one of the old threads.

----------


## Angela

> These complexed Spanish make me fun. A bunch of self hater who deny their history but not only that: they attack and brownwash Italians.
> This is your history: European Roman territory against Carthage/Phoenician MENA territory.


Hauteville, please refrain from this kind of inflammatory language. Keep this to a discussion of history and genetics.

----------


## Angela

There is a fairly recent book on Carthage which is quite interesting:
Carthage Must Be Destroyed by Daniel Metcalf.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/201...estroyed-miles

Despite the fact that he is a little biased, in my opinion, in his view of the Rome-Carthage conflict, it's well worth reading.

The extent of the Carthaginian Empire in the Iberian peninsula is again quite substantial. However, one would think that the Phoenicians might have picked up some E-M81 in North Africa. The distribution of that subclade in Iberia doesn't match the parameters of the Carthaginian Empire. Of course, the scientists have speculated that either some of it came earlier or that the relocations of people from the south to the northwest might have re-arranged the distribution of this haplogroup. 

J2 is more problematic, as others have said, and may, indeed, probably does have more than one source. Once again, here are the graphics on J2 from Grugni et al:

J2a M67* appears to be the subclade present in Spain. It is the subclade whose highest frequencies today are in Caucasus populations like the Chechens and the Nakh, although this could be founder effect. The diversity graphic is not particularly helpful in this case because it could be interpreted as showing an origin in both the Levant and Italy. 

While it is present in North Africa and so could conceivably have been brought to the Iberian peninsula with the Phoenicians, the Carthaginians and perhaps even the Moors, it is also present all over the Balkans and with a noticeable presence in north-central Italy, areas which were not invaded by any of these people. So, I don't see how it was _necessarily_ brought to Iberia by these people, although some could have been swept up in those migrations.

Also, while it is definitely present in the eastern portions of the Iberian peninsula that were part of the Carthaginian Empire, the highest frequencies today are definitely once again in the west of the Iberian peninsula. 

I think this all points out the perils of using modern distributions to make grandiose pronouncements about ancient migration movements. Only ancient dna can give us answers and even then there is ambiguity. Particularly in Spain, where we know that there was systematic population relocation, the original patterns may have been lost. Certainly, however, the flow came from the east and seems to have a wide spread.

----------


## Sile

> These complexed Spanish make me fun. A bunch of self hater who deny their history but not only that: they attack and brownwash Italians.
> This is your history: European Roman territory against Carthage/Phoenician MENA territory.


the first map is correct, the second is all wrong, the romans where not in north italy in this period of time

----------


## Sile

> We were talking about Phoenicians, not Carthaginians, plus the fact that Phoenician goods were being produced locally in Etruria itself shows that Phoenician presence there was not merely as traders, but also as residents. 
> 
> Funny that you want to dismiss i-italy.org and yet want to appeal to something like WikiPedia, the "Free Encyclopedia" which anyone can edit and manipulate. 
> 
> The author of the article at i-italy.org is an Italian American, and he cites plenty of sources on the subject, including those who try to argue for the "indigenous" origin. You don't have to be an Italian from Italy itself to be an expert on the subject of Etruscans. In fact, plenty of scholars on Etruscans, like the ones he cites, are not from Italy or have anything to do with Italy.


Carthagians come from phoenicians people........do you know something different?

*The city of Carthage (/ˈkɑrθɪdʒ/; Arabic: قرطاج‎ Qarṭāj) is a city in Tunisia and was the centre of the ancient Carthaginian civilization. The city developed from a Phoenician colony of the 1st millennium BC into the capital of an ancient empire.[2]

**The Carthaginian Republic, also known as the Carthaginian Empire (alternatively "Carthaginian hegemony", or simply "Carthage") was the Phoenician city-state of Carthage and its sphere of influence, which included much of the coast of North Africa as well as substantial parts of coastal Iberia and the islands of the western Mediterranean during the 7th to 3rd centuries BC.[1]
*
*The city, called Qart-ḥadašt (New City)[2] in the Phoenician language, was founded in 814 BC.[3][4] A dependency of the Phoenician state of Tyre at the time, Carthage gained independence around 650 BC and established its political hegemony over other Phoenician settlements throughout the western Mediterranean, this lasting until the end of the 3rd century BC. At the height of the city's prominence, it was a major hub of trade with trading stations extending throughout the region.*
*
*

----------


## Sile

> Don't say bullshits. Phoenicians and Carthage had just two small emporiums in extreme Western Sicily (Palermo and Mothia) and 5 or 6 in Sardinia. Never other in the rest of Italy. On the opposite Mediterranean Spain is plenty of their settlements.
> Don't forget the big Carthage rule.


this map seems to be a map while hannibal was still fighting in Italy,......... the blockade of macedonian access to the adriatic sea to stop supplying their *ally* hannibal with supplies and men...........is the blue , hannibal controlled areas?

anyway are map that says nothing ...a war map in flux

----------


## Aberdeen

> the first map is correct, the second is all wrong, the romans where not in north italy in this period of time


The Punic Wars lasted, off and on, from 264 BC to 146 BC and the Romans did invade Cisalpine Gaul and conquer it during the Punic Wars, starting in the 220s BC. They were driven out for a time but returned in 202 BC and conquered the last independent Celtic kingdom in Cisalpine Gaul in 192 BC. So Rome was in what is now northern Italy during part of the Punic Wars.

----------


## Drac II

> Carthagians come from phoenicians people........do you know something different?
> 
> *The city of Carthage (/ˈkɑrθɪdʒ/; Arabic: قرطاج‎ Qarṭāj) is a city in Tunisia and was the centre of the ancient Carthaginian civilization. The city developed from a Phoenician colony of the 1st millennium BC into the capital of an ancient empire.[2]
> 
> **The Carthaginian Republic, also known as the Carthaginian Empire (alternatively "Carthaginian hegemony", or simply "Carthage") was the Phoenician city-state of Carthage and its sphere of influence, which included much of the coast of North Africa as well as substantial parts of coastal Iberia and the islands of the western Mediterranean during the 7th to 3rd centuries BC.[1]
> *
> *The city, called Qart-ḥadašt (New City)[2] in the Phoenician language, was founded in 814 BC.[3][4] A dependency of the Phoenician state of Tyre at the time, Carthage gained independence around 650 BC and established its political hegemony over other Phoenician settlements throughout the western Mediterranean, this lasting until the end of the 3rd century BC. At the height of the city's prominence, it was a major hub of trade with trading stations extending throughout the region.*
> *
> *


Yes, I know something different which is also known by many others, like the fact that the population of the Carthaginian republic also included the local Berber peoples who were not of Phoenician origin, not to mention the fact that the Carthaginian armies were really more nominally "Carthaginian" than anything else and the majority was actually made up from their _Berber, Iberian and Celtic_ allies and hired mercenaries, not the Carthaginians themselves: 

"In its diverse make-up of levies and mercenaries, Hannibal's army bore a strong resemblance to the armies of the Hellenistic world. The core of his expeditionary force consisted of experienced troops who had fought under him in Spain for a considerable amount of time. Of these, the majority of the heavily armed line infantry which Hannibal brought to Italy were Libyans from areas of North Africa which were subject to Carthage. Famous for their endurance and agility, they were equipped similarly to Roman legionaries, with large oval or oblong shields, short cutting and stabbing swords, and throwing spears. A large number of infantry also came from Spain. The Iberian peninsula supplied at least 8,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry for Hannibal's war effort. Iberian levies from areas of southern Spain which had been pacified by the Barcids over the previous twenty years made up a large part of this contingent."

https://books.google.com/books?id=eO...ies%22&f=false

Unpaginated.

"Hannibal's army included Celtiberians and Lusitanians, peoples of Celtic origin who inhabited the northern half of the peninsula. The majority of Hannibal's troops would, however, have been Iberians proper, from the southern half of the peninsula."

https://books.google.com/books?id=ox...ans%22&f=false

Page 94.

In fact, many historians have attributed the eventual defeat of the Carthaginians by the Romans (despite the fact that they even successfully invaded Italy and the Romans could not defeat them in their very own territories) due to the Carthaginian armies' inherent lack of "national" motivation which the Roman armies of the time had (being made up mostly of Romans themselves, not non-Roman conscripts and mercenaries):

"Carthaginian armies were mercenary armies, and their commanders did not possess the advantage of, say, Roman generals, whose troops were motivated by national pride and patriotism. More often than not, Hamilcar's armies, and later Hannibal's, contained only a minority of Carthaginians, the rest being tribal levies recruited during the campaign itself."

https://books.google.com/books?id=_C...lf.%22&f=false

Page 116.

So despite their military successes in Europe, the Carthaginians eventually failed because their actual presence simply was not numerically important. They were the leaders, the commanders, not the bulk of the armies. Their local allies simply were not motivated enough to continue fighting for a foreign interest. The Romans had a clear advantage at this time in their history, both their leaders and soldiers were by and large Romans themselves, they had all the motivation in the world to keep on fighting for their own interests.

----------


## Melancon

> These complexed Spanish make me fun. A bunch of self hater who deny their history but not only that: they attack and brownwash Italians.
> This is your history: European Roman territory against Carthage/Phoenician MENA territory.


LOL ^^ 


I had to put this guy on ignore. He just doesn't get it. Even though I explained several times that it was possible I was wrong. He continues arguments on things that cannot be answered and explains them with logical foxholes; and makes up his own reality.


I personally think he has insecurity issues or something. He self-projects his traits and pretends he knows more about the subject than everyone else; as if he is a seer of truth. But really doesn't have any concrete evidence to back that up, as anyone else here. He is basically claiming he knows more than the genealogists do.




Drac II there is no anti-iberianism; I just don't agree with you. 

He will probably be back. ^^ "Melancon you are an anti-iberian" yadda yadda...

----------


## Sile

> Yes, I know something different which is also known by many others, like the fact that the population of the Carthaginian republic also included the local Berber peoples who were not of Phoenician origin, not to mention the fact that the Carthaginian armies were really more nominally "Carthaginian" than anything else and the majority was actually made up from their _Berber, Iberian and Celtic_ allies and hired mercenaries, not the Carthaginians themselves: 
> 
> "In its diverse make-up of levies and mercenaries, Hannibal's army bore a strong resemblance to the armies of the Hellenistic world. The core of his expeditionary force consisted of experienced troops who had fought under him in Spain for a considerable amount of time. Of these, the majority of the heavily armed line infantry which Hannibal brought to Italy were Libyans from areas of North Africa which were subject to Carthage. Famous for their endurance and agility, they were equipped similarly to Roman legionaries, with large oval or oblong shields, short cutting and stabbing swords, and throwing spears. A large number of infantry also came from Spain. The Iberian peninsula supplied at least 8,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry for Hannibal's war effort. Iberian levies from areas of southern Spain which had been pacified by the Barcids over the previous twenty years made up a large part of this contingent."
> 
> https://books.google.com/books?id=eO...ies%22&f=false
> 
> Unpaginated.
> 
> "Hannibal's army included Celtiberians and Lusitanians, peoples of Celtic origin who inhabited the northern half of the peninsula. The majority of Hannibal's troops would, however, have been Iberians proper, from the southern half of the peninsula."
> ...


i don't know what your talking about, you have the wrong time period..........you might as well talk about yesterday............also carthagians where not celts

----------


## Maleth

> Yes, I know something different which is also known by many others, like the fact that the population of the Carthaginian republic also included the local Berber peoples who were not of Phoenician origin, not to mention the fact that the Carthaginian armies were really more nominally "Carthaginian" than anything else and the majority was actually made up from their _Berber, Iberian and Celtic_ allies and hired mercenaries, not the Carthaginians themselves: 
> 
> "In its diverse make-up of levies and mercenaries, Hannibal's army bore a strong resemblance to the armies of the Hellenistic world. The core of his expeditionary force consisted of experienced troops who had fought under him in Spain for a considerable amount of time. Of these, the majority of the heavily armed line infantry which Hannibal brought to Italy were Libyans from areas of North Africa which were subject to Carthage. Famous for their endurance and agility, they were equipped similarly to Roman legionaries, with large oval or oblong shields, short cutting and stabbing swords, and throwing spears. A large number of infantry also came from Spain. The Iberian peninsula supplied at least 8,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry for Hannibal's war effort. Iberian levies from areas of southern Spain which had been pacified by the Barcids over the previous twenty years made up a large part of this contingent."
> 
> https://books.google.com/books?id=eO...ies%22&f=false
> 
> Unpaginated.
> 
> "Hannibal's army included Celtiberians and Lusitanians, peoples of Celtic origin who inhabited the northern half of the peninsula. The majority of Hannibal's troops would, however, have been Iberians proper, from the southern half of the peninsula."
> ...


This is all correct information in my opinion:-

----------


## Alan

> i don't know what your talking about, you have the wrong time period..........you might as well talk about yesterday............also carthagians where not celts


Carthagians are Celts? Did just someone went so far and tried to celtify the Carthagians lol?

----------


## Aberdeen

> Carthagians are Celts? Did just someone went so far and tried to celtify the Carthagians lol?


They didn't say that Carthaginians were Celts. They said that Carthaginians used a lot of non-Carthaginians in the armies they used against Rome, which is correct. Some historians seem to be of the opinion that many Celts were motivated less by money than by fear that the Romans were a threat to their freedom (which proved to be true) so the part about mercenaries fighting less well than patriots may be at least partly wrong. Rome was defeated by the Carthaginians and their allies numerous times and the eventual Roman victory is down to Roman determination and their ability to change their military tactics.

----------


## Drac II

> LOL ^^ 
> 
> 
> I had to put this guy on ignore. He just doesn't get it. Even though I explained several times that it was possible I was wrong. He continues arguments on things that cannot be answered and explains them with logical foxholes; and makes up his own reality.
> 
> 
> I personally think he has insecurity issues or something. He self-projects his traits and pretends he knows more about the subject than everyone else; as if he is a seer of truth. But really doesn't have any concrete evidence to back that up, as anyone else here. He is basically claiming he knows more than the genealogists do.
> 
> 
> ...


Once again, you are childishly projecting your own issues and insecurities on others. Unlike you, I actually back up all my statements straight from legitimate historical, anthropological and genetic sources. And of course you have some sort of complex or resentment regarding at least some Iberians (apparently those from the south being your primary target), that is very evident from your posts.

----------


## Angela

> LOL ^^ 
> 
> 
> I had to put this guy on ignore. He just doesn't get it. Even though I explained several times that it was possible I was wrong. He continues arguments on things that cannot be answered and explains them with logical foxholes; and makes up his own reality.
> 
> 
> I personally think he has insecurity issues or something. He self-projects his traits and pretends he knows more about the subject than everyone else; as if he is a seer of truth. But really doesn't have any concrete evidence to back that up, as anyone else here. He is basically claiming he knows more than the genealogists do.
> 
> 
> ...


Was I not sufficiently clear? *Stop* with the personal attacks and the provocative comments. If you have points to make, make them. It would be even nicer if you had some evidence to back them up. Regardless, * keep it civil*. My patience for this kind of thing has its limits.

----------


## Drac II

> i don't know what your talking about, you have the wrong time period..........you might as well talk about yesterday............also carthagians where not celts


The quotes come straight from books about the Carthaginians written by experts on the subject. Not my problem if you don't want to accept facts. And pay attention to what they actually say, no one said Carthaginians were "Celts".

----------


## Drac II

> They didn't say that Carthaginians were Celts. They said that Carthaginians used a lot of non-Carthaginians in the armies they used against Rome, which is correct. Some historians seem to be of the opinion that many Celts were motivated less by money than by fear that the Romans were a threat to their freedom (which proved to be true) so the part about mercenaries fighting less well than patriots may be at least partly wrong. Rome was defeated by the Carthaginians and their allies numerous times and the eventual Roman victory is down to Roman determination and their ability to change their military tactics.


Indeed. This is well known stuff, can be found in a whole bunch of books on the subject.

----------


## Melancon

> Was I not sufficiently clear? *Stop* with the personal attacks and the provocative comments. If you have points to make, make them. It would be even nicer if you had some evidence to back them up. Regardless, * keep it civil*. My patience for this kind of thing has its limits.


There was no provocative comment. Re-read it again. This guy has always accused me of doing things that aren't even true. You're taking his stance in this? Don't drag me into this again Angela; I didn't want anything to do with him...

----------


## Alan

> and the eventual Roman victory is down to Roman determination and their ability to change their military tactics.



Hannibal stood with his elephants and army infront of Rome and it is said as he saw the desperation among the Romans he felt some kind of compassion and let them be. Later the Roman reorganized, changed tactics and managed to defeat the carthagians. Afterwards the Romans put their attention towards the East and the Roman-Parthian wars started.

----------


## Expredel

Is the C* ancient to Europe, or does it have a recent origin?

----------


## Alan

> Is the C* ancient to Europe, or does it have a recent origin?


seems very ancient.

----------


## Sile

> Carthagians are Celts? Did just someone went so far and tried to celtify the Carthagians lol?


Ask him, In relations with carthagians, I am talking about Phoenicians and he brings up celts ..............clear it with him

http://phoenicia.org/colonies.html



http://www.acampitelli.com/historia.htm

----------


## Angela

> There was no provocative comment. Re-read it again. This guy has always accused me of doing things that aren't even true. You're taking his stance in this? Don't drag me into this again Angela; I didn't want anything to do with him...


Melancon, you must have given your teachers fits. Calling someone out by saying they're insecure is provocative. I don't care who started what at this point...Do you know how many times in my life I've heard...she started it...no, he did it? At that point I usually turned the car around, brought them both back home and put them to bed without dinner. Just STOP already, and get back to the topic...and with civility.

----------


## Angela

> Hannibal stood with his elephants and army infront of Rome and it is said as he saw the desperation among the Romans he felt some kind of compassion and let them be. Later the Roman reorganized, changed tactics and managed to defeat the carthagians. Afterwards the Romans put their attention towards the East and the Roman-Parthian wars started.


Obviously a base slander! Just remember, "Carthage Must Be Destroyed!" :Grin:  

I always thought old Scipio probably had a bit of OCD, popping up after every bill about repairing the sewer mains or whatever to spout it!  :Laughing:  My husband, who used to be a bit of a classicist, used to mumble it every time someone would drone on and on about some pet peeve. Nerdish humor, I know.

----------


## Aberdeen

> Hannibal stood with his elephants and army infront of Rome and it is said as he saw the desperation among the Romans he felt some kind of compassion and let them be. Later the Roman reorganized, changed tactics and managed to defeat the carthagians. Afterwards the Romans put their attention towards the East and the Roman-Parthian wars started.


A Carthaginian showing compassion? Do you have a source for that? There was a lot about the Carthaginians that I admire, but most of their contemporaries seem to have considered them to be quite ruthless.

----------


## Melancon

> Is the C* ancient to Europe, or does it have a recent origin?


That's what I would like to know..

----------


## Aberdeen

> Is the C* ancient to Europe, or does it have a recent origin?


One particular subclade of Y DNA C is ancient in Europe. Do a search on this forum for information about La Brana Man and you'll find the subject being discussed.

----------


## LeBrok

> Is the C* ancient to Europe, or does it have a recent origin?


Here are nice syntheses of most that is known about C:
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origin...europe.shtml#C
http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2010/05/...hromosome.html

----------


## Melancon

> Melancon, you must have given your teachers fits. Calling someone out by saying they're insecure is provocative. I don't care who started what at this point...Do you know how many times in my life I've heard...she started it...no, he did it? At that point I usually turned the car around, brought them both back home and put them to bed without dinner. Just STOP already, and get back to the topic...and with civility.


How can I be anti-Iberian when I am 7th generation Galician. 

*Aguiar* turned into French *Aguillard*. They lived in Pontevedra. 

http://www.geni.com/people/Zenon-Agu...00012458963468

----------


## MOESAN

[QUOTE=Sile;450565]http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...hg201514x6.pdf


on another in reagrds surnames....the T1a surnames where only
Santacana
Melis
Vives

melis...."is" endings are usually greek , vives I have seen as southern french and santacana either iberian or italian


-IS: it cannot serve us too much but I precise here some catalan surnames exist with ending in -IS with seemingly latine (romance) or iberic origin: GOMIS (GOMEZ) SANCHIS (SANCHEZ) by istance so...

----------


## Alan

> A Carthaginian showing compassion? Do you have a source for that? There was a lot about the Carthaginians that I admire, but most of their contemporaries seem to have considered them to be quite ruthless.


Thats what my teacher told us back in the school. I didn't said the Carthagians were known for compassion lol. I said that, "it is said, after Hannibal saw the desperation among the Romans when he reached Rome crossing the Alps, he felt compassion and simply turned away without destroying Rome completely. He simply thought it was over with the Romans and they could never again come to their feets. How wrong he was.

----------


## Drac II

> Ask him, In relations with carthagians, I am talking about Phoenicians and he brings up celts ..............clear it with him
> 
> http://phoenicia.org/colonies.html
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.acampitelli.com/historia.htm


No, clear it with you, as you are the only one making such claims. All I pointed out is that the Carthaginian armies, specially in Europe, were barely "Carthaginian" and actually made up predominantly of local Iberian and Celtic conscripts and mercenaries. Again, not my problem if you have trouble understanding very clear quotes taken from books on the subject. Others certainly did not have any problem understanding them.

----------


## Drac II

> Hannibal stood with his elephants and army infront of Rome and it is said as he saw the desperation among the Romans he felt some kind of compassion and let them be. Later the Roman reorganized, changed tactics and managed to defeat the carthagians. Afterwards the Romans put their attention towards the East and the Roman-Parthian wars started.


It wasn't really compassion or direct clashes with Roman armies that eventually made the Carthaginians leave Italy, but a clever Roman diversionary tactic: since they could not beat Hannibal even in their own territories, the Romans proceeded to ally themselves with Carthage's enemies and launch attacks on Carthage itself. Hannibal and his army were forced to leave Italy to defend their own capital.

----------


## Melancon

> No, clear it with you, as you are the only one making such claims.


No he isn't, and you are once again making yet another baseless accusation.

To quote Maciamo earlier:




> Anyway the presence of haplogroup R2 in Catalonia confirms that some people of Phoenician descent ended up in Catalonia. Nobody else could have brought R2.

----------


## Sile

> No, clear it with you, as you are the only one making such claims. All I pointed out is that the Carthaginian armies, specially in Europe, were barely "Carthaginian" and actually made up predominantly of local Iberian and Celtic conscripts and mercenaries. Again, not my problem if you have trouble understanding very clear quotes taken from books on the subject. Others certainly did not have any problem understanding them.


Hannibals famed heavy infantry where phoenicians....................besides, the concensus is phoenicians settled in africa and spain and eventually became carthagians, you need to live with this............like the germanic angles and saxons became english

I do not know why *you hate the phoenicians*............do you actually know their ethnic makeup?

----------


## Aberdeen

> No, clear it with you, as you are the only one making such claims. All I pointed out is that the Carthaginian armies, specially in Europe, were barely "Carthaginian" and actually made up predominantly of local Iberian and Celtic conscripts and mercenaries. Again, not my problem if you have trouble understanding very clear quotes taken from books on the subject. Others certainly did not have any problem understanding them.


Based on the reading I've done, I would say that "barely "Carthaginian"" is an exaggeration. The Carthaginians did employ and/or ally with Iberians and Celts in their battles with the Romans, but that doesn't mean they had no soldiers of their own. However, I'm not convinced that any historian or archeologist to date has done a convincing job of figuring out to what extent the original Phoenician colonizers mixed with the local population to become Carthaginian or to what extent the Carthaginians were a ruling class dominating the locals without mixing with them. If it was the latter, the Carthaginian ruling class might have been fairly small in numbers and reluctant to train their subordinates in war, making the use of mercenaries and military allies a necessity caused by more than just the difficulties of fighting a war over a long distance. But the Carthaginians do seem to have been able to commit a fair number of their own troops to the cause of fighting overseas for an extended period of time, which suggests a fairly large population base and not too many concerns about disenfranchised subordinates who might turn on them.

Perhaps the use of strategic alliances and mercenaries is simply how merchants fight wars. And it made sense while the Carthaginians carried the war to the Romans, not only because of the very long supply lines but because any Carthaginian army trapped on Roman territory after a loss in battle would become and did become a 100% causality rate situation, with any Carthaginians who survived a lost campaign they couldn't retreat from being rounded up for execution or enslavement.

----------


## Angela

> Based on the reading I've done, I would say that "barely "Carthaginian"" is an exaggeration. The Carthaginians did employ and/or ally with Iberians and Celts in their battles with the Romans, but that doesn't mean they had no soldiers of their own. However, I'm not convinced that any historian or archeologist to date has done a convincing job of figuring out to what extent the original Phoenician colonizers mixed with the local population to become Carthaginian or to what extent the Carthaginians were a ruling class dominating the locals without mixing with them. If it was the latter, the Carthaginian ruling class might have been fairly small in numbers and reluctant to train their subordinates in war, making the use of mercenaries and military allies a necessity caused by more than just the difficulties of fighting a war over a long distance. But the Carthaginians do seem to have been able to commit a fair number of their own troops to the cause of fighting overseas for an extended period of time, which suggests a fairly large population base and not too many concerns about disenfranchised subordinates who might turn on them.
> 
> Perhaps the use of strategic alliances and mercenaries is simply how merchants fight wars. And it made sense while the Carthaginians carried the war to the Romans, not only because of the very long supply lines but because any Carthaginian army trapped on Roman territory after a loss in battle would become and did become a 100% causality rate situation, with any Carthaginians who survived a lost campaign they couldn't retreat from being rounded up for execution or enslavement.


Great summary and analysis of the situation.

----------


## Drac II

> No he isn't, and you are once again making yet another baseless accusation.
> 
> To quote Maciamo earlier:


I thought you had put me on ignore. Funny. And yes, it was him who made up the false claim that the Carthaginians were Celts. No one said anything of the sort except him. It's called "building a straw man". You should know about it, you do it regularly.

And to quote Wilhelm:





> confirms ? R2 is not even common in Lebanon. It's much more frequent in the Caucasus.


Eupedia itself does not mention Lebanon as having any particular connection to this haplogroup either.

----------


## Drac II

> Hannibals famed heavy infantry where phoenicians....................besides, the concensus is phoenicians settled in africa and spain and eventually became carthagians, you need to live with this............like the germanic angles and saxons became english
> 
> I do not know why *you hate the phoenicians*............do you actually know their ethnic makeup?


Once again building straw men. No one said anything about hating anyone. But this does not mean Iberians have to accept your manipulated version of things regarding the topic. I just showed you that:

1- Phoenicians enclaves were only found on the coasts of southern Iberia

2- Phoenicians were also found on coastal Etruria (and apparently according to one of the very web sites you tried to use in another thread also in Genoa as well) 

3- The Carthaginian armies in Europe were composed predominantly of local conscripts and mercenaries

4- They ended up invading Italy as well

We might as well send back at you the same strange question: Why do *you hate the Phoenicians/Carthaginians* and don't want any connections with them?

----------


## Drac II

> Based on the reading I've done, I would say that "barely "Carthaginian"" is an exaggeration. The Carthaginians did employ and/or ally with Iberians and Celts in their battles with the Romans, but that doesn't mean they had no soldiers of their own. However, I'm not convinced that any historian or archeologist to date has done a convincing job of figuring out to what extent the original Phoenician colonizers mixed with the local population to become Carthaginian or to what extent the Carthaginians were a ruling class dominating the locals without mixing with them. If it was the latter, the Carthaginian ruling class might have been fairly small in numbers and reluctant to train their subordinates in war, making the use of mercenaries and military allies a necessity caused by more than just the difficulties of fighting a war over a long distance. But the Carthaginians do seem to have been able to commit a fair number of their own troops to the cause of fighting overseas for an extended period of time, which suggests a fairly large population base and not too many concerns about disenfranchised subordinates who might turn on them.
> 
> Perhaps the use of strategic alliances and mercenaries is simply how merchants fight wars. And it made sense while the Carthaginians carried the war to the Romans, not only because of the very long supply lines but because any Carthaginian army trapped on Roman territory after a loss in battle would become and did become a 100% causality rate situation, with any Carthaginians who survived a lost campaign they couldn't retreat from being rounded up for execution or enslavement.


If we consider the mixing with the local Berber population argument, then it makes the genuinely or entirely "Phoenician" element among the Carthaginians even less than suggested by historians who have looked into the make-up of Carthaginian armies and the greater amount of non-Carthaginian conscripts and mercenaries they employed.

As you commented, the very issue of the long overseas supply lines alone strongly favors the use of "strategic alliances and mercenaries" from local sources more than a reliance on their own further removed national resources.

----------


## Sile

> Once again building straw men. No one said anything about hating anyone. But this does not mean Iberians have to accept your manipulated version of things regarding the topic. I just showed you that:
> 
> 1- Phoenicians enclaves were only found on the coasts of southern Iberia
> 
> 2- Phoenicians were also found on coastal Etruria (and apparently according to one of the very web sites you tried to use in another thread also in Genoa as well) 
> 
> 3- The Carthaginian armies in Europe were composed predominantly of local conscripts and mercenaries
> 
> 4- They ended up invading Italy as well
> ...


reply on your numbers

1 - Spain is in Iberia

2 - yes they did land and trade with etruscans, I see NO issue..............there was also a trade hub in the northern adriatic called Latisana ( near border of friuli and veneto ) , thats great


3 - Like every army in history until the start of Nationalism in the 18th century employed mercenaries........whats your point?

4 - yes agree, again, why would they exclude Italy ?

The problem you have is that you should think of 2 things when you come on sites like this
1 - There is no nationalism in ancient, medieval or renaissance times
2 - the ethnic makeup of an area to be the same populace as from the ancient times to today is minisule

----------


## Drac II

> reply on your numbers
> 
> 1 - Spain is in Iberia
> 
> 2 - yes they did land and trade with etruscans, I see NO issue..............there was also a trade hub in the northern adriatic called Latisana ( near border of friuli and veneto ) , thats great
> 
> 
> 3 - Like every army in history until the start of Nationalism in the 18th century employed mercenaries........whats your point?
> 
> ...


1- Yes, who said otherwise?

2- They also left residents who produced Phoenician goods locally. You see no issue, that's fine, neither do I, but another user apparently saw a lot of "issue" with this.

3- Yes, but the Carthaginian one particularly relied a lot on foreign conscripts and mercenaries. Later on we can also see the same thing happening with the Roman armies themselves, as the Roman empire kept expanding and it became clear that it could not supply enough manpower on its own.

4- We agree, there is no reason whatsoever. In fact Rome became a threat for Carthaginian interests, so it is hardly surprising that they would eventually have planned and executed an intervention in the Italian Peninsula.

----------


## Alan

> Eupedia itself does not mention Lebanon as having any particular connection to this haplogroup either.



Eupedia has no data about Haplogroup R2 anywhere. I remember few years ago suggesting to Maciamo to include Haplogroup R2 on his table so many of the "unknown" in Western Asia and North Caucasus would disappear. 

He agreed on this but seems to not have found anytime to do so.

Haplogroup R2 is indeed found in Lebanon (~1-3%). But it is more widespred in northern West Asia and the North Caucasus.

----------


## Maleth

> Based on the reading I've done, I would say that "barely "Carthaginian"" is an exaggeration. The Carthaginians did employ and/or ally with Iberians and Celts in their battles with the Romans, but that doesn't mean they had no soldiers of their own. However, I'm not convinced that any historian or archeologist to date has done a convincing job of figuring out to what extent the original Phoenician colonizers mixed with the local population to become Carthaginian or to what extent the Carthaginians were a ruling class dominating the locals without mixing with them. If it was the latter, the Carthaginian ruling class might have been fairly small in numbers and reluctant to train their subordinates in war, making the use of mercenaries and military allies a necessity caused by more than just the difficulties of fighting a war over a long distance. But the Carthaginians do seem to have been able to commit a fair number of their own troops to the cause of fighting overseas for an extended period of time, which suggests a fairly large population base and not too many concerns about disenfranchised subordinates who might turn on them.


Cartage was founded by Queen Dido who as legend has it murdered her husband back in Tyre. It is even known for her to have bought a piece of land from the *locals*. I would hardly imagine that building an army for war was her intention but a continuation of the trade practices as was practiced in her homeland. I have no doubt that by time they have assimilated much with the local Berber population and soon have changed to a society which has grown to be diverse from that of Phoenicia proper which now would be called Carthage.

----------


## Aberdeen

> Cartage was founded by Queen Dido who as legend has it murdered her husband back in Tyre. It is even known for her to have bought a piece of land from the *locals*. I would hardly imagine that building an army for war was her intention but a continuation of the trade practices as was practiced in her homeland. I have no doubt that by time they have assimilated much with the local Berber population and soon have changed to a society which has grown to be diverse from that of Phoenicia proper which now would be called Carthage.


I hope you realize that writers in the world of classical antiquity had a very different attitude toward history than most people in the modern world do. The people who wrote moving tales about the life and death of Queen Dido would have considered the foundational myths of various peoples to be as important and perhaps more important than historical facts. Not everything that was written as "history" in the past should be regarded as "history" in the modern sense of that word.

----------


## Aberdeen

> Once again building straw men. No one said anything about hating anyone. But this does not mean Iberians have to accept your manipulated version of things regarding the topic. I just showed you that:
> 
> 1- Phoenicians enclaves were only found on the coasts of southern Iberia
> 
> 2- Phoenicians were also found on coastal Etruria (and apparently according to one of the very web sites you tried to use in another thread also in Genoa as well) 
> 
> 3- The Carthaginian armies in Europe were composed predominantly of local conscripts and mercenaries
> 
> 4- They ended up invading Italy as well
> ...


Phoenicians and their Carthaginian successors controlled a fair bit of eastern Spain for a long time, and would presumably have left a considerable genetic footprint. We can argue about what that genetic footprint would have been and the extent to which subsequent historical events would have modified their genetic imprint, but most of eastern Iberia was partially populated by them at one point. It was much more than the occasional trading post. And recognizing the historical accounts of the Carthaginian use of allies and mercenaries in its wars with Rome doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that those same histories mention Hannibal leading his elephants and Carthaginian heavy infantry into Italy. If you have a fear that Carthaginian blood might run in your veins, you should keep those fears to yourself until we have a better idea of what Carthaginian DNA consisted of.

----------


## Angela

Thanks for that, Alan. So R2 might indeed be a remnant of their presence. 

As to the discussion of the nature and make-up of the Carthaginian army, I don't see how the fact that the Carthaginians, once they decided to attack Rome, bought some mercenaries from Libya, Spain, and then Gaul when they reached it, means that they didn't have miners, merchants, craftsmen, etc. in their Spanish settlements.

While there may not have been large scale colonization efforts, they controlled a not insubstantial portion of Spain for a very long time, as some posted maps would indicate.

One must also consider that while in southeastern and some areas of south-Central Europe it could be argued that J2 bearers migrated from the east with Sea Peoples, or from coastal Anatolia in the Bronze Age, none of that would apply to Spain to my knowledge.We also have no evidence yet of J2a in Europe in the Neolithic. So, unless we find evidence of some migration from the East directly to Spain sometime in the Copper or Bronze Ages, the Phoenicians/Carthaginians do seem as if they might have been a proximate source of some, at least, of this J2a. Perhaps they also brought some J1 and E as well.

The lack of complete correspondence between their footprint in Spain and current distributions may be the result, as the authors opined, of the fact that the deliberate relocation of people during and after the Reconquista has disturbed the ancient patterns. As we are discovering virtually every day, present distributions can often be very misleading. 

Of course, we are speculating, but on balance, I think the weight of the evidence is in favor of some amount of gene flow, even if it is not large. Time will tell.

----------


## Maleth

> I hope you realize that writers in the world of classical antiquity had a very different attitude toward history than most people in the modern world do. The people who wrote moving tales about the life and death of Queen Dido would have considered the foundational myths of various peoples to be as important and perhaps more important than historical facts. Not everything that was written as "history" in the past should be regarded as "history" in the modern sense of that word.


That is correct to a certain point, however there seem to be more and more evidence of some sort of truth in at least some myths and legends which in the advent of writing could have been written down as per oral tradition handed down from generation to the next. Troy and the great flood comes to mind which are not percieved as fictional as they once used to be......kind of there is no smoke without fire situation.

----------


## Melancon

> I thought you had put me on ignore. Funny. And yes, it was him who made up the false claim that the Carthaginians were Celts. No one said anything of the sort except him. It's called "building a straw man". You should know about it, you do it regularly.


You are still on ignore, but I feel I must comment. Many Iberians have Near Eastern/Levantine DNA entering from the Maghreb...DNA tests prove it, and also history does...Cadiz was founded by Phoenicians...first colony I believe. You have seriously got to get over it.

It's not to say all Iberians do; but the DNA is there...I've studied genealogy for a while; the Basques are the only guaranteed population who have the lowest admixture.




The Phoenicians, Arabs and Sephardic Jews were forced to assimilate. Some of them were threatened with execution by the Roman Catholics. Where did these people run off to; once the Romans came? Back to Lebanon and Israel? 


And by the way ... haplogroup R2 is highest in India. So it could have been brought to Iberian peninsula by the Roma people.

----------


## brianco

I am surprised to see so many U152  :Smile: 




> I have found a quick way to count the samples using the 'Find' tool in Adobe Reader.
> 
> - E1b1a (M180) : 1
> *- E1b1b : 191* *(= 8.3%*)
> - E-M35* : 1
> -- E-V12 : 7
> -- E-V13 : 92 *(= 4%*)
> -- E-V22 : 6
> -- E-M81 : 41 *(= 1.8%*)
> ...

----------


## Alan

> And by the way ... haplogroup R2 is highest in India. So it could have been brought to Iberian peninsula by the Roma people.


Not to be exactly. Roma lack R2. Only once has R2 been found in Roma group and this was from Roma in Tajikistan which can be explained with that they gained it from locals there. Since R2* is frequent in Tajikistan and is not found in any other Roma group. European Romas have no R2. They have more typical European Haplogroups + H1a.

And about R2 in India. Well it is just the same story as R1a* there. Allot of foundereffect in a huge society but not really much diversity. South_Central Asia has bigger diversity. To be exactly regions like Afghanistan and Pakistan. They have both R2* and R2a* (most common subclade in Western Asia).

So R2 might have different origin in Iberia. Now that I think of. Aren't the Alans documented in Iberia? Ossetians have ~5% R2a.
But also European Jews have quite some R2a. Another explanation is indeed Phoenicians.

----------


## Melancon

> Not to be exactly. Roma lack R2. Only once has R2 been found in Roma group and this was from Roma in Tajikistan which can be explained with that they gained it from locals there. Since R2* is frequent in Tajikistan and is not found in any other Roma group. European Romas have no R2. They have more typical European Haplogroups + H1a.
> 
> And about R2 in India. Well it is just the same story as R1a* there. Allot of foundereffect in a huge society but not really much diversity. South_Central Asia has bigger diversity. To be exactly regions like Afghanistan and Pakistan. They have both R2* and R2a* (most common subclade in Western Asia).
> 
> So R2 might have different origin in Iberia. Now that I think of. Aren't the Alans documented in Iberia? Ossetians have ~5% R2a.
> But also European Jews have quite some R2a. Another explanation is indeed Phoenicians.


The Alans are documented in Iberia; yes. They may have dispersed G2a around the peninsula possibly. I can see that on the G2a maps. Not sure if it's been there since the Neolithic or it was brought with the Alans. Maybe both possibilities. I would have to look up R2 in the population of Alans and Caucasian people in order to confirm a Caucasian origin. Do you have sources?

----------


## Drac II

> Phoenicians and their Carthaginian successors controlled a fair bit of eastern Spain for a long time, and would presumably have left a considerable genetic footprint. We can argue about what that genetic footprint would have been and the extent to which subsequent historical events would have modified their genetic imprint, but most of eastern Iberia was partially populated by them at one point. It was much more than the occasional trading post. And recognizing the historical accounts of the Carthaginian use of allies and mercenaries in its wars with Rome doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that those same histories mention Hannibal leading his elephants and Carthaginian heavy infantry into Italy. If you have a fear that Carthaginian blood might run in your veins, you should keep those fears to yourself until we have a better idea of what Carthaginian DNA consisted of.


There was no important Phoenician presence in Iberia except in some coastal areas of the south. The Phoenicians were very dependent on the sea for their business. We are not talking about a military power here, but people whose "empire" was based on international trade. As for the Carthaginians, their empire was rather short lived, and the fact that they had to rely heavily on conscripts and mercenaries from other nations to keep their armies well stocked with manpower pretty much tells us that they must not have been very interested in heavily colonizing other lands with their own people. Like most military conquerors throughout history, they were interested in controlling other lands, not in repopulating them with their own folk. As for the comment about "fears" of Carthaginian/Phoenician DNA, it would be best directed at the users who brought these people up in the first place, specially one who got really angry and in denial when it was shown that they were around his country as well.

----------


## Drac II

> You are still on ignore, but I feel I must comment. Many Iberians have Near Eastern/Levantine DNA entering from the Maghreb...DNA tests prove it, and also history does...Cadiz was founded by Phoenicians...first colony I believe. You have seriously got to get over it.
> 
> It's not to say all Iberians do; but the DNA is there...I've studied genealogy for a while; the Basques are the only guaranteed population who have the lowest admixture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Phoenicians, Arabs and Sephardic Jews were forced to assimilate. Some of them were threatened with execution by the Roman Catholics. Where did these people run off to; once the Romans came? Back to Lebanon and Israel? 
> 
> ...


If I was really on "ignore" you would not see my posts. 

Near Eastern/Levantine DNA is higher in Europe the more East you go, not West. So you should be directing your strange preoccupation with this subject towards those countries, not Spain. I wonder then why you only target Iberians when you have much more "fertile ground" for this topic elsewhere?

The Phoenicians, Arabs and Jews were only small minorities in Iberia, and the last two were in fact heavily expelled by the Inquisition, to top it off. As if that wasn't enough, the Jews who decided to convert to Christianity and stay were very often suspected of remaining "secret Jews" (Crypto Jews) and faced constant harassment and persecution by the same institution. Guess what a lot of these converts did as a result? Yep, the natural thing to do when you have someone constantly bothering you and you can't do much else to stop it: they got fed up and actually ended up leaving Spain for lands where the authorities were not as fixated with them, which included Portugal, the Netherlands, Italy and the Americas.

As for R2, considering how old it is, it could have come with a number of people who also could have brought it elsewhere in Europe.

----------


## Drac II

> Not to be exactly. Roma lack R2. Only once has R2 been found in Roma group and this was from Roma in Tajikistan which can be explained with that they gained it from locals there. Since R2* is frequent in Tajikistan and is not found in any other Roma group. European Romas have no R2. They have more typical European Haplogroups + H1a.
> 
> And about R2 in India. Well it is just the same story as R1a* there. Allot of foundereffect in a huge society but not really much diversity. South_Central Asia has bigger diversity. To be exactly regions like Afghanistan and Pakistan. They have both R2* and R2a* (most common subclade in Western Asia).
> 
> So R2 might have different origin in Iberia. Now that I think of. Aren't the Alans documented in Iberia? Ossetians have ~5% R2a.
> But also European Jews have quite some R2a. Another explanation is indeed Phoenicians.


Could this be because R2 in India seems predominant in the "upper castes"? Gypsies then would obviously have little of it as they are not from this caste.

As for the Alans: Yes, they were in Spain, and they came from the Caucasus:

Alani_map.jpg

Yet another people you can arbitrarily use to attribute this haplogroup to. It all depends on what the given agenda is.

----------


## Melancon

You were on ignore but, I have the option to click to see your posts or not. And I will probably unignore you; as I am beginning to believe this is a major misunderstanding. But I wasn't trouble-making; people took my comments way too seriously. I was just trying to get people to reassure that I was right or wrong in my analysis.

Anyway, I was basically trying to get others here to help reassure myself, of these theories and speculations of Iberians. I never meant to come across as Anti-Iberian or offend people; and I didn't believe literally that they had Arabic admixture. (This was just a saying; like a folk-tale that I had heard from Europeans.) I had thought that this was common-knowledge among Spaniards and Portuguese in their history; for some of them to know they have Phoenician or Arabic admixture. And from my own experiences; I can say Iberians, at least the ones down South; some of them do look like they have a bit of Near Eastern/Maghrebi mixture. But many will disagree.

In my (very amateurish) analogy; a lot of them (Southern Portuguese; Andalusians) look European mixed with Lebanese; in terms of phenotype.

feria_flamencas.jpg

11418676406_e0fe40efcf.jpg

People from the Near East; especially the Lebanese, have a low quantity of Blondism in their populations, as well. (In fact if you google Lebanese people on google images; you will find that the Lebanese look more European than Southern Iberians, ironically. Or look very similar.)

----------


## Angela

I don't understand this "Near East" aversion, honestly. The Near East and Europe are _very_ different in terms of culture and civilization, but there is a huge overlap in terms of genes. 
This is a chart from Haak et al 2015:
Lazaridis and Haak resnorm table.JPG

All Europeans except those from far eastern Europe and the Baltic areas are over 50% EN. That's EN not EEF.

The English have 63.8% of it, the Czechs 62.2%, the Norwegians 63.8% (the Germans probably somewhere around there but maybe higher in the south), the French 75.9%. The northern strip of Spain has 80.6%. The rest of Spain has 73.3% but then they needed 12.7% Bedouin to get a good fit, and, as that was used as a proxy for the early farmers in Lazardis et al, is mostly EN too, just with some small trace SSA. I don't know where the NA alleles go, but probably some goes into WHG, some into EN, or maybe the rest of it goes into Bedouin. The northern Italians look like the northern Spanish more or less, the Sicilians like most of the Spaniards but with some more Bedouin, and the Tuscans are in between. The difference between northern Europe and southern Europe in terms of EN seems to be that northern Europe has about 63% and southern Europe has around 80% or more. The Europe that created the Roman and Greek civilizations, the Renaissance, both the Italian one and the northern one, the later Agricultural Revolution, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, and on and on, was a Europe composed of people who were at least 60% EN (and some 80%) in terms of genetics.

So do some Europeans truly despise over half of their ancestry? Really? So there's going to be some sort of competition, and whoever has less of it is somehow better? Better in what way? Certainly not in terms of accomplishments or contributions to European Civilization. At least for young American hobbyists, don't they mandate a year long course in Western Civilization anymore?

Or is the issue when it came? Some of it came from the early EEF farmers, some of it came with Yamnaya migrations, some of it came perhaps in other Bronze Age migrations, or, God forbid, in the Iron Age. I don't know what makes a source with the Phoenicians so objectionable when it's the same alleles that came with Bronze Age migrations from the steppe, just not mixed with EHG. Is it just the association of the Phoencians with Semitic languages? Of course, it's probably the trace SSA that is left from the Moorish invasions that makes that invasion so unthinkable. 

Honestly, if people can't handle what the genetic data shows and incorporate it into their world view and sense of identity then maybe they just shouldn't bother to be involved at all. It's the same thing I tell anyone who gets their own genome tested. If you don't think you could handle certain results, don't test.

----------


## Sile

attachment 7118 from post#85 unviewable ( as I am not a member.......a member of what?)

----------


## Alan

> The Alans are documented in Iberia; yes. They may have dispersed G2a around the peninsula possibly. I can see that on the G2a maps. Not sure if it's been there since the Neolithic or it was brought with the Alans. Maybe both possibilities. I would have to look up R2 in the population of Alans and Caucasian people in order to confirm a Caucasian origin. Do you have sources?


It's P2* on the list.

https://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/caucasus.pdf

----------


## Sile

> It's P2* on the list.
> 
> https://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/caucasus.pdf


? P2 is part of the E haplogroup

----------


## Alan

> Near Eastern/Levantine DNA is higher in Europe the more East you go, not West. So you should be directing your strange preoccupation with this subject towards those countries, not Spain. I wonder then why you only target Iberians when you have much more "fertile ground" for this topic elsewhere?


Not entirely correct. First of all "Near Eastern" does not equal Levantine. *Ancient* Levantine Near Eastern Farmer ancestry is greater in Southwest Europe+Italy. Peaking in Sardinia going towards Iberia and Italy and getting weaker from there into any directions in and outside Europe. This is why Greeks for example have genetically more Yamna ancestry than Southwest European.

However ancient Zagros_Taurus/Caucasus Near Eastern Pastoralist DNA peaks in Southeast Europe, from the Balkans all the way into Italy, from North Caucasus into East Europe and from Central Europea over to Northwest Europe. It is weakes in Southwest Europe.

If we take both ancestries together however together however than the East has more Western Asian genes compared toB Southwest. The Western Asian DNA in Southwest Europe being almost completely Levantine like while the Western Asian DNA in Italy and Soueastern Europe showing stronger traces Yamna Zagros_Taurus pastoralist DNA.

----------


## Angela

> attachment 7118 from post#85 unviewable ( as I am not a member.......a member of what?)


Were you logged on? Try it again. 

Sile, I do have a name, btw.

----------


## Sile

> Were you logged on? Try it again. 
> 
> Sile, I do have a name, btw.


I had to have been logged on to write my post


still does not work, below is message
*vBulletin Message
**Invalid Attachment specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator*

----------


## Alan

> ? P2 is part of the E haplogroup


? P2 is the old name of R2.

P is ancestral to R and Q. Is there some misunderstanding?

----------


## Alan

> I had to have been logged on to write my post
> 
> 
> still does not work, below is message
> *vBulletin Message
> *
> 
> *Invalid Attachment specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator*


Same here.

----------


## Angela

Okay guys, I dumped some of my attachments...see if it works now. I thought this was all over already...
Lazaridis and Haak resnorm table.JPG

----------


## Drac II

> You were on ignore but, I have the option to click to see your posts or not. And I will probably unignore you; as I am beginning to believe this is a major misunderstanding. But I wasn't trouble-making; people took my comments way too seriously. I was just trying to get people to reassure that I was right or wrong in my analysis.
> 
> Anyway, I was basically trying to get others here to help reassure myself, of these theories and speculations of Iberians. I never meant to come across as Anti-Iberian or offend people; and I didn't believe literally that they had Arabic admixture. (This was just a saying; like a folk-tale that I had heard from Europeans.) I had thought that this was common-knowledge among Spaniards and Portuguese in their history; for some of them to know they have Phoenician or Arabic admixture. And from my own experiences; I can say Iberians, at least the ones down South; some of them do look like they have a bit of Near Eastern/Maghrebi mixture. But many will disagree.
> 
> In my (very amateurish) analogy; a lot of them (Southern Portuguese; Andalusians) look European mixed with Lebanese; in terms of phenotype.
> 
> feria_flamencas.jpg
> 
> 11418676406_e0fe40efcf.jpg
> ...


I am not sure if you are doing this deliberately or what is going on, but you go from sounding more or less "normal" to going back to making outlandish claims that have all the look of someone wanting to provoke others. To pretend that Lebanese look more "European" than southern Iberians is a nice example of this lunacy and "out of touchness" with reality. Once again I have to call your bluff. "Lebanese people" in Google Images:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22l...ed=0CAcQ_AUoAQ


"Andalusian people" ("Andaluces" in Spanish, which is a search term that will bring up more balanced results, not American tourists' ideas about the subject, which is basically Gypsies dancing Flamenco) on Google Images:

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=is...72.ZRbZmhGVsOg

And for a proper perspective, also Google Images results for "Greek people" for samples of another southern European population:

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=is...73.FQ5kqEhFfm4

Unless you are severely blind, there is no way anyone could possibly claim that on average Lebanese look more "European" than Andalusians. Looking at pictures of large numbers of both peoples will clear up the matter very quickly. As logic and common sense dictate, Lebanese look like what they are: Levantines. Andalusians are just rather average southern Europeans.

----------


## Melancon

> I am not sure if you are doing this deliberately or what is going on, but you go from sounding more or less "normal" to going back to making outlandish claims that have all the look of someone wanting to provoke others. To pretend that Lebanese look more "European" than southern Iberians is a nice example of this lunacy and "out of touchness" with reality. Once again I have to call your bluff. "Lebanese people" in Google Images:
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=%22l...ed=0CAcQ_AUoAQ
> 
> 
> "Andalusian people" ("Andaluces" in Spanish, which is a search term that will bring up more balanced results, not American tourists' ideas about the subject, which is basically Gypsies dancing Flamenco) on Google Images:
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?tbm=is...72.ZRbZmhGVsOg
> 
> ...


There was no provoking ... I'm not provoking anyone. I was just giving you a perspective. All you are doing is insulting people and self-projecting; also while denying the genetic evidence and perspectives people give you. You are seeing intentions that aren't there; and calling me and others out, based on your own prejudices..

And you accuse people without any basis or reasoning; and twist peoples' words, to fit-in with your delusional view. That is how I know you have a guilt-complex regarding this issue. It is a fact that Southern Iberians have Phoenician and Arabic ancestry; as well as Sephardic Jewish...did you not read Maciamo's thread? It doesn't matter the percentage of admixture; but it is definitely there, and definitely significant.

Keep up with these predetermined beliefs and baseless accusations against people; this is called slander and defamation. Don't think I am insulting or setting you up now; I am just being blunt. If you have a problem with someone disagreeing with you; then don't go out of your way trying to make them look bad. Keep your statements to yourself. end.

----------


## Sile

> ? P2 is the old name of R2.
> 
> P is ancestral to R and Q. Is there some misunderstanding?


I know P is father of R and Q and M and S

but P2 is a SNP of E haplogroup

----------


## Drac II

> There was no provoking ... I'm not provoking anyone. I was just giving you a perspective. All you are doing is insulting people and self-projecting; also while denying the genetic evidence and perspectives people give you. You are seeing intentions that aren't there; and calling me and others out, based on your own prejudices..
> 
> And you accuse people without any basis or reasoning; and twist peoples' words, to fit-in with your delusional view. That is how I know you have a guilt-complex regarding this issue. It is a fact that Southern Iberians have Phoenician and Arabic ancestry; as well as Sephardic Jewish...did you not read Maciamo's thread? It doesn't matter the percentage of admixture; but it is definitely there, and definitely significant.
> 
> Keep up with these predetermined beliefs and baseless accusations against people; this is called slander and defamation. Don't think I am insulting or setting you up now; I am just being blunt.


No, of course it is you and no one else who is trying to provoke a reaction when you write ridiculous things like this: _In fact if you google Lebanese people on google images; you will find that the Lebanese look more European than Southern Iberians, ironically. 

_And also stop trying to be disingenuous by trying to conjure up anything that Maciamo says as if it was some sort of God-given truth. He did not give any definitive answers, just possible explanations. And by the way, he also uses similar possible explanations for other populations, including the British people that you pretend to be related with:




> There may also have been Near Eastern merchants, like the Jews, whose diaspora started soon after the Roman conquest of Britain. Ancient Mediterranean people would have carried mostly haplogroups such as E1b1b, J1, J2a, and to a lower extent also G2a and T.


http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/brit...land_dna.shtml

Which is of course perfectly easy to back up with historical and archaeological sources, as it is well known that the Roman conquest of Britain (at a time when its armies alone were predominantly made up of non-Romans, unlike its earlier armies) brought people from all over the empire there, including from Africa and the Near East. Example:

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/c.../hadrians-wall

So, will we see you anytime soon going into threads about Brits carrying your bizarre fixation with Near Eastern DNA and telling them how they are not "white" or "European" too? Somehow I am 99.9% sure you won't. 

You are not fooling anyone, kid. Your little obsession with southern Iberians is pretty self-evident. Give it a rest.

----------


## Alan

> I know P is father of R and Q and M and S
> 
> but P2 is a SNP of E haplogroup


I see, but back in 2004 p2* was the name used for R2. 

And as I see they have changed the names once again. Few Years ago R2 was typically divided into R2a and R2*. But now most of these R2 are under R2a* too (R2a1 vs R2a1a vs R2a2 etc).

In East Europe R2/a seems to be mostly connected to Jewish, North Caucasic/Ossetian and Turkic people. I don't know about West Europe. 

The only R2 sample from Iberia on the ftDNA map is found in Galicia. And surname is Fernandez.

----------


## Melancon

> And also stop trying to be disingenuous by trying to conjure up anything that Maciamo says as if it was some sort of God-given truth. He did not give any definitive answers, just possible explanations.


Oh really?




> Anyway the presence of haplogroup R2 in Catalonia confirms that some people of Phoenician descent ended up in Catalonia. Nobody else could have brought R2.





> So, will we see you anytime soon going into threads about Brits carrying your bizarre fixation with Near Eastern DNA and telling them how they are not "white" or "European" too? Somehow I am 99.9% sure you won't.


Because there is no reason to. LOL. Please stop with this.

What you are doing is called "slander" with your baseless accusations and ad hominem attacks. If you keep this up; there may be repercussions.

----------


## Sile

> Oh really?
> 
> 
> 
> Because there is no reason to. LOL. Please stop with this.


if you act normal....i am putting you on my ignore list

----------


## Melancon

> if you act normal....i am putting you on my ignore list


Do you think I should report him? I don't know what to do with him...I thought that putting him on ignore might be an effective way for him to get the hint. He just never gives up.

----------


## Drac II

> Oh really?


Unfortunately, in this case he has been proven wrong. Any of a number of other peoples could easily have introduced that marker into Catalonia, or pretty much the rest of Iberia for that matter. He should have stuck to the more cautious "probablys/maybes", as he usually does. 




> Because there is no reason to. LOL. Please stop with this.


Sure there is, Maciamo says that Brits could have had some of their Near Eastern DNA from Near Eastern immigrants from Roman times. Since you take his possible answers as if they were "The Law", there you go. Now, when will we see you festering Brits with similar nonsense like you try to pull on southern Iberians? Methinks that the reason why it's very easy to predict that you won't is because that is not part of your obvious agenda.




> What you are doing is called "slander" with your baseless accusations and ad hominem attacks. If you keep this up; there may be repercussions.


What I am doing is called exposing and debunking your obvious manipulations and uncorroborated claims. Your _modus operandi_ is very familiar. We have seen it before many times.

----------


## Melancon

> Unfortunately, in this case he has been proven wrong. Any of a number of other peoples could easily have introduced that marker into Catalonia, or pretty much the rest of Iberia for that matter. He should have stuck to the more cautious "probablys/maybes", as he usually does.


Oh yeah, he has made a mistake. So there we have a new argument. You just contradicted yourself once again. 




> What I am doing is called exposing and debunking your obvious manipulations and uncorroborated claims.




What claims? There were no claims. All I have said can be backed up with evidence; but you have failed to acknowledge it; and instead are self-projecting in an attempt to defame. What you are trying to do is called "character assassination" and I am not the only person you have tried this with. I am not the one manipulating; you are. People have better things to do than waste their time on people like you who want to cause trouble, though. You are the trouble-maker; not I. Because you keep resorting to baseless accusations, self-projection and ad-hominem attacks.

And Alternatively; I am keeping you on ignore and am not responding to any more of your arguments. end

----------


## Maleth

> I don't understand this "Near East" aversion, honestly. The Near East and Europe are _very_ different in terms of culture and civilization, but there is a huge overlap in terms of genes. 
> This is a chart from Haak et al 2015:
> Attachment 7122
> 
> All Europeans except those from far eastern Europe and the Baltic areas are over 50% EN. That's EN not EEF.


I think 'aversion' is a little too strong word. I really don't think its the case. Some posters here are pointing out facts (which I happen to agree with) that the Phoenician genetic contribution is way out exaggerated and I also have my own reason to agree with what they are saying. (of course I can be wrong and when DNA is reliably fined tuned to distinguish J2a's of Phoenicians from those Greek to those neolithic then things will be more clear) I love Phoenician history, my partner is Lebanese and his dad is from Tyre (if it makes any difference). I would still insist that Phoenicians were more interested to fill their famous boats with goods rather then migrants, so the genetic impact would be minimal (in my opinion which can change with any concrete evidence). 

It is also being suggested that the generic genetic make up of Iberia is not much different from any other Southern European countries and I don't think that's an exaggeration. If someone is genuinely making a point with good arguments it cannot be considered as 'aversion'. 





> Honestly, if people can't handle what the genetic data shows and incorporate it into their world view and sense of identity then maybe they just shouldn't bother to be involved at all. It's the same thing I tell anyone who gets their own genome tested. If you don't think you could handle certain results, don't test.


I had to re read the posts of this thread and I think they are directed towards Iberia mostly and not much of a kind of denial to who had the farms first to who shot a wild animal for the next meals. At least thats how I understand it. I think the most important in genome testing is to be able to digest time frames as the world30,000, 20,000, 10,000 years ago is not the world in 2015 and its very easy and amateurish for people to explain DNA on events and (racial) terminologies that happened example (just for arguments sake) in lets say the last 300 years.

----------


## Drac II

> Oh yeah, he has made a mistake. So there we have a new argument. You just contradicted yourself once again.


The one who contradicts himself is you. You very arbitrarily take anything he says as "proven fact", but only as long as it involves Iberians and non-Europeans. When he says similar things about other Europeans you conveniently toss it out the window. Funny, isn't it?




> What claims? There were no claims. All I have said can be backed up with evidence; but you have failed to acknowledge it; and instead are self-projecting in an attempt to defame. What you are trying to do is called "character assassination" and I am not the only person you have tried this with. I am not the one manipulating; you are. People have better things to do than waste their time on people like you who want to cause trouble, though. You are the trouble-maker; not I. Because you keep resorting to baseless accusations, self-projection and ad-hominem attacks.
> 
> And Alternatively; I am keeping you on ignore and am not responding to any more of your arguments. end


You know very well which absurd claims: Lebanese look more European than southern Iberians, carefully cherry-picking pictures, paradoxically accepting as "fact" anything Maciamo theorizes about Near Eastern DNA in Iberia but disregarding his similar theories about Near Eastern DNA among other Europeans (including Brits), etc. You know perfectly well what you are doing, don't try to be disingenuous and play the "I am just an innocent victim being picked on for no reason at all" card.

----------


## Sile

> I think 'aversion' is a little too strong word. I really don't think its the case. Some posters here are pointing out facts (which I happen to agree with) that the Phoenician genetic contribution is way out exaggerated and I also have my own reason to agree with what they are saying. (of course I can be wrong and when DNA is reliably fined tuned to distinguish J2a's of Phoenicians from those Greek to those neolithic then things will be more clear) I love Phoenician history, my partner is Lebanese and his dad is from Tyre (if it makes any difference). I would still insist that Phoenicians were more interested to fill their famous boats with goods rather then migrants, so the genetic impact would be minimal (in my opinion which can change with any concrete evidence). 
> 
> It is also being suggested that the generic genetic make up of Iberia is not much different from any other Southern European countries and I don't think that's an exaggeration. If someone is genuinely making a point with good arguments it cannot be considered as 'aversion'. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had to re read the posts of this thread and I think they are directed towards Iberia mostly and not much of a kind of denial to who had the farms first to who shot a wild animal for the next meals. At least thats how I understand it. I think the most important in genome testing is to be able to digest time frames as the world30,000, 20,000, 10,000 years ago is not the world in 2015 and its very easy and amateurish for people to explain DNA on events and (racial) terminologies that happened example (just for arguments sake) in lets say the last 300 years.


let me know then if this link is rubbish

http://phoenicia.org/canaancornwall.html

----------


## Melancon

> The one who contradicts himself is you. You very arbitrarily take anything he says as "proven fact", but only as long as it involves Iberians and non-Europeans. When he says similar things about other Europeans you conveniently toss it out the window. Funny, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> You know very well which absurd claims: Lebanese look more European than southern Iberians, carefully cherry-picking pictures, paradoxically accepting as "fact" anything Maciamo theorizes about Near Eastern DNA in Iberia but disregarding his similar theories about Near Eastern DNA among other Europeans (including Brits), etc. You know perfectly well what you are doing, don't try to be disingenuous and play the "I am just an innocent victim being picked on for no reason at all" card.


No it's not funny at all. You keep creating arguments based on accusations. Stop that.

I am totally onto your game and can see that you are attempting to set me up with character assassination. It's not going to happen, clearly. I have never contradicted myself; show me my contradictions. Apart from reading your posts while you are on ignore. But I want to continue seeing your responses and your continuous baseless accusations because they are quite amusing.

If you keep this up; there will be consequences. I am not a Moderator but I know the rules. And I have warned you before. This will be your loss though; not mine. I have nothing against you; apart from a few disagreements.

----------


## Melancon

> The one who contradicts himself is you. You very arbitrarily take anything he says as "proven fact", but only as long as it involves Iberians and non-Europeans. When he says similar things about other Europeans you conveniently toss it out the window. Funny, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> You know very well which absurd claims: Lebanese look more European than southern Iberians, carefully cherry-picking pictures, paradoxically accepting as "fact" anything Maciamo theorizes about Near Eastern DNA in Iberia but disregarding his similar theories about Near Eastern DNA among other Europeans (including Brits), etc. You know perfectly well what you are doing, don't try to be disingenuous and play the "I am just an innocent victim being picked on for no reason at all" card.


I don't have an agenda. I was trying to find out things much like everyone else here is. What is your agenda? That all Iberians have no Phoenician, Arabic or Sephardic Jewish admixture? What are you exactly trying to prove here? I don't understand your arguments and reasoning and never did. What is the point in this?

----------


## Maleth

> let me know then if this link is rubbish
> 
> http://phoenicia.org/canaancornwall.html


I presume you are referring to my comments that Phoenician genetic imput is highly exagerated right? The link you quoted is a big read (my eyes are hurting), but as I am sure you know its a collection of quotes from certain (even old books) and Greek writings to prove Phoenician influence to the wider world. Am I missing something? is there some revelation of some huge mass migrations from Phoenicia? Just in case I missed it would you be so kind to guide me to it (then we can verify the source) Thank you in advance. 

Just some food for thought. Why would anyone in a well off region would want to migrate into a new land unless there is war or famine. Phoenicia was conquered by the Persians and Macedonians before there influence as it was known had diminished. Under The Persian occupation they still flourished to a certain degree the Macedonians allowed the Phoenician king to stay on. 

Localy we have Mcdonalds and burger kings. (like many other places) If their logos are discovered under rubble and earth in 5000 years from now...and no writing is found, but only knowing that they are American brands, the archaeologists would say that the Americans had colonized this Island....right?  :Grin: 

In regards to rubbish we can have a whole new debate on the chitty chat section and all the hidden challanges and maybe not so hidden ones its causing globally on many fronts.

----------


## Angela

> I think 'aversion' is a little too strong word. I really don't think its the case. Some posters here are pointing out facts (which I happen to agree with) that the Phoenician genetic contribution is way out exaggerated and I also have my own reason to agree with what they are saying. (of course I can be wrong and when DNA is reliably fined tuned to distinguish J2a's of Phoenicians from those Greek to those neolithic then things will be more clear) I love Phoenician history, my partner is Lebanese and his dad is from Tyre (if it makes any difference). I would still insist that Phoenicians were more interested to fill their famous boats with goods rather then migrants, so the genetic impact would be minimal (in my opinion which can change with any concrete evidence). 
> 
> It is also being suggested that the generic genetic make up of Iberia is not much different from any other Southern European countries and I don't think that's an exaggeration. If someone is genuinely making a point with good arguments it cannot be considered as 'aversion'. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had to re read the posts of this thread and I think they are directed towards Iberia mostly and not much of a kind of denial to who had the farms first to who shot a wild animal for the next meals. At least thats how I understand it. I think the most important in genome testing is to be able to digest time frames as the world30,000, 20,000, 10,000 years ago is not the world in 2015 and its very easy and amateurish for people to explain DNA on events and (racial) terminologies that happened example (just for arguments sake) in lets say the last 300 years.


Maleth, as to the Phoenicians/Carthaginians and their genetic impact on Spain, my opinions can be found in posts # 31 and 75. (I also endorse post #64 by Aberdeen.) No where do I say, and nor do I believe, that they had a large impact in Spain. I don't think there is any evidence at the present time to support that, and the nature of their empire would tend to mitigate against that. As for comments that Levantines look more European than Spaniards or other southern Europeans, it's patently absurd and meant to provoke certain people, and comments like that need to STOP.

However, neither do I think that it is a fair reading of the data to say they had _no_ genetic impact on Spain. Just as it is not a fair reading of the data that the Moorish invasions had no impact on Spain. The question as to how much must, in my opinion, await aDna and more resolution of yDna clades.

This leads me to my post #85, to which you responded. It was in no way addressed to you. It is a reaction to the fact that whenever the Phoenicians, the Carthaginians, any movements from Anatolia in the Bronze or Iron Ages (including any possible input into the Etruscans), or, God forbid, the Moorish invasions, are mentioned,there is what seems to me to be this knee-jerk reaction from certain people and groups that none of this affected _them_, although it may have affected _others._ The gene flow or lack of it from these groups has to be sorted using _data_, not prejudices. Furthermore, the whole reaction is illogical, because with the exception, perhaps, of the SSA that came with the Moors, these are alleles very similar to those which have been filtering into Europe for millennia. The culture of these later arriving people may have been very different, and has not survived in Europe, thankfully, in some cases, in my opinion, but the genes themselves are no different from the genes that came in earlier eras and which all Europeans share. I basically have gotten very tired of seeing reactions that, again in my opinion, are a-scientific and a-historical.

----------


## Drac II

> No it's not funny at all. You keep creating arguments based on accusations. Stop that.
> 
> I am totally onto your game and can see that you are attempting to set me up with character assassination. It's not going to happen, clearly. I have never contradicted myself; show me my contradictions. Apart from reading your posts while you are on ignore. But I want to continue seeing your responses and your continuous baseless accusations because they are quite amusing.
> 
> If you keep this up; there will be consequences. I am not a Moderator but I know the rules. And I have warned you before. This will be your loss though; not mine. I have nothing against you; apart from a few disagreements.


Of course it is not "funny", it was just a figure of speech to remark your hypocritical behavior. It seems that Maciamo's "unimpeachable" authority on this topic of Near Eastern DNA in Europe is conveniently restricted only to Iberians. Anything else similar that he says respecting other Europeans and this same DNA must be dismissed.

Show you contradictions? I already showed you several posts back, but here goes again: you tried to use a source (Maciamo/Eupedia) to claim that southern Iberians are the only people in Europe who are hardly European because of alleged Near Eastern DNA in the area, yet your exact same source also clearly points out similar things elsewhere in Europe. Is that contradiction enough for you?

All the "character assassinations" were done by you on yourself. You are responsible for what you post here, no one else. I am just commenting on the uncorroborated claims you make.

----------


## Sile

> I presume you are referring to my comments that Phoenician genetic imput is highly exagerated right? The link you quoted is a big read (my eyes are hurting), but as I am sure you know its a collection of quotes from certain (even old books) and Greek writings to prove Phoenician influence to the wider world. Am I missing something? is there some revelation of some huge mass migrations from Phoenicia? Just in case I missed it would you be so kind to guide me to it (then we can verify the source) Thank you in advance. 
> 
> Just some food for thought. Why would anyone in a well off region would want to migrate into a new land unless there is war or famine. Phoenicia was conquered by the Persians and Macedonians before there influence as it was known had diminished. Under The Persian occupation they still flourished to a certain degree the Macedonians allowed the Phoenician king to stay on. 
> 
> Localy we have Mcdonalds and burger kings. (like many other places) If their logos are discovered under rubble and earth in 5000 years from now...and no writing is found, but only knowing that they are American brands, the archaeologists would say that the Americans had colonized this Island....right? 
> 
> In regards to rubbish we can have a whole new debate on the chitty chat section and all the hidden challanges and maybe not so hidden ones its causing globally on many fronts.


I was more interested in what amount of truth there was, since you have an admiration for phoenicians.

I have other sources agreeing with their trade links with cornwall ....and southern ireland

----------


## Maleth

> As for comments that Levantines look more European than Spaniards or other southern Europeans, it's patently absurd and meant to provoke certain people, and comments like that need to STOP.


agreed




> However, neither do I think that it is a fair reading of the data to say they had _no_ genetic impact on Spain. Just as it is not a fair reading of the data that the Moorish invasions had no impact on Spain. The question as to how much must, in my opinion, await aDna and more resolution of yDna clades.


I have no doubt there is as much as the Romans had in Britian or the Turks in the Balkans but the probabilities none would have posed dramatic population shifts (as some people tend to fantasise about). The aboriginal peoples of these regions are often ignored especially when haplogroups were around and travelling much much earlier then any classic era. At least that is my opinion (that can change) at present

----------


## Maleth

> I was more interested in what amount of truth there was, since you have an admiration for phoenicians.
> 
> I have other sources agreeing with their trade links with cornwall ....and southern ireland


Thanks to Greek, Roman writings, Egyptian hieroglyphics and some other it seems undeniable that Phoenicians had a great influence on trade (maybe because it was done on sea routes rather then land). The Phoenicians are to be admired because they are not known to have acquired their wealth through war, plunder and booty, but trade, meaning selling desirable products and create more to sell reaching more destinations, with great sea navigation and entrepreneurship skills.

----------


## Degredado

> I don't understand this "Near East" aversion, honestly. The Near East and Europe are _very_ different in terms of culture and civilization, but there is a huge overlap in terms of genes. 
> This is a chart from Haak et al 2015:
> Attachment 7122
> 
> All Europeans except those from far eastern Europe and the Baltic areas are over 50% EN. That's EN not EEF.
> 
> The English have 63.8% of it, the Czechs 62.2%, the Norwegians 63.8% (the Germans probably somewhere around there but maybe higher in the south), the French 75.9%. The northern strip of Spain has 80.6%. The rest of Spain has 73.3% but then they needed 12.7% Bedouin to get a good fit, and, as that was used as a proxy for the early farmers in Lazardis et al, is mostly EN too, just with some small trace SSA. I don't know where the NA alleles go, but probably some goes into WHG, some into EN, or maybe the rest of it goes into Bedouin. The northern Italians look like the northern Spanish more or less, the Sicilians like most of the Spaniards but with some more Bedouin, and the Tuscans are in between. The difference between northern Europe and southern Europe in terms of EN seems to be that northern Europe has about 63% and southern Europe has around 80% or more. The Europe that created the Roman and Greek civilizations, the Renaissance, both the Italian one and the northern one, the later Agricultural Revolution, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, and on and on, was a Europe composed of people who were at least 60% EN (and some 80%) in terms of genetics.
> 
> So do some Europeans truly despise over half of their ancestry? Really? So there's going to be some sort of competition, and whoever has less of it is somehow better? Better in what way? Certainly not in terms of accomplishments or contributions to European Civilization. At least for young American hobbyists, don't they mandate a year long course in Western Civilization anymore?
> ...



Excellent post, one of the most thoughtful I've seen on this page. I always find it amusing how so many threads on Eupedia turn to the classic, heated debate about the presence of the "undesirable" Moorish/Arabic/Jewish/Carthaginian elements in the genetic makeup of Iberians. On one side, you always have non-Iberians more or less subtly attempting to provoke Spaniards and Portuguese with statements or hints that Iberians have a close genetic affinity with those peoples from the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean; offering them furious battle, the Iberians, always so incredibly ready to bite the bait and so eager to prove at all costs that they have not a single drop of non-European blood - alternatively, when against the ropes, they "accuse" others of having undesirable blood too, as if not to be alone and "drag" others down with them (typically, Italians), even if NO ONE is talking about these other ethnic groups. 

As I've mentioned here before, most people just don't want to associate themselves with "inferiors" (economically, socially, culturally, technologically etc); they only want to be related to the "winners". That's why so many Anglophones (especially genealogists) claim Norman ancestry, even if the Norman genetic impact in England was probably as minimal as the one left by Moors in Spain; that's why Indians of higher castes claim to be Aryans, even if they are thoroughly mixed with native Dravidian populations; that's why many Latin Americans, particularly from Spanish-speaking countries, try to associate themselves with Spain, even if they are, on the most part, mixed with Native Americans and/or Africans (this phenomenon is less common in Brazil, because Portugal, much smaller than Spain in every aspect, doesn't really evoke a great deal of interest or of admiration among Brazilians); that's why Iberians will gladly accept - or at least, will not refute - someone saying that they have partial Visigothic or Suevi blood, but will have a heart attack if someone mentions anything about Moors, and so on. 

Self-esteem. It all comes down to that.

----------


## Melancon

> Of course it is not "funny", it was just a figure of speech to remark your hypocritical behavior. It seems that Maciamo's "unimpeachable" authority on this topic of Near Eastern DNA in Europe is conveniently restricted only to Iberians. Anything else similar that he says respecting other Europeans and this same DNA must be dismissed.
> 
> Show you contradictions? I already showed you several posts back, but here goes again: you tried to use a source (Maciamo/Eupedia) to claim that southern Iberians are the only people in Europe who are hardly European because of alleged Near Eastern DNA in the area, yet your exact same source also clearly points out similar things elsewhere in Europe. Is that contradiction enough for you?
> 
> All the "character assassinations" were done by you on yourself. You are responsible for what you post here, no one else. I am just commenting on the uncorroborated claims you make.


No, they weren't. Cause I'm talking about recent admixture due to migration centuries ago. Early European Farmers have nothing to do with current European ethnicity. All Caucasians have EEF. And this also has absolutely nothing to do with the Y-DNA haplogroups in Andalusia and Southern Portugal that suggest a recent Levantine ethnic contribution...such as J1 or Q1b...or mtdna U6....which you have failed to explain their presence/origin.

----------


## Melancon

> Maleth, as to the Phoenicians/Carthaginians and their genetic impact on Spain, my opinions can be found in posts # 31 and 75. (I also endorse post #64 by Aberdeen.) No where do I say, and nor do I believe, that they had a large impact in Spain. I don't think there is any evidence at the present time to support that, and the nature of their empire would tend to mitigate against that. As for comments that Levantines look more European than Spaniards or other southern Europeans, it's patently absurd and meant to provoke certain people, and comments like that need to STOP.
> 
> However, neither do I think that it is a fair reading of the data to say they had _no_ genetic impact on Spain. Just as it is not a fair reading of the data that the Moorish invasions had no impact on Spain. The question as to how much must, in my opinion, await aDna and more resolution of yDna clades.
> 
> This leads me to my post #85, to which you responded. It was in no way addressed to you. It is a reaction to the fact that whenever the Phoenicians, the Carthaginians, any movements from Anatolia in the Bronze or Iron Ages (including any possible input into the Etruscans), or, God forbid, the Moorish invasions, are mentioned,there is what seems to me to be this knee-jerk reaction from certain people and groups that none of this affected _them_, although it may have affected _others._ The gene flow or lack of it from these groups has to be sorted using _data_, not prejudices. Furthermore, the whole reaction is illogical, because with the exception, perhaps, of the SSA that came with the Moors, these are alleles very similar to those which have been filtering into Europe for millennia. The culture of these later arriving people may have been very different, and has not survived in Europe, thankfully, in some cases, in my opinion, but the genes themselves are no different from the genes that came in earlier eras and which all Europeans share. I basically have gotten very tired of seeing reactions that, again in my opinion, are a-scientific and a-historical.


Well I'm not the one who is being willfully ignorant. There is no provocation whatsoever...the DNA evidence is there, and people are too lazy to acknowledge it.


http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J1_Y-DNA.shtml


J1 in Iberia:

Based on very limited data, the main *Lebanese* subclades of J1 appear to be J1-YSC234 and J1-YSC76. Both subclades have also been found in Sicily, Andalusia and Portugal, which suggests that they were already found among the *Phoenicians*. However, since the Arabs conquered the same regions as those colonised by the Phoenicians, it is too early to reach such a conclusion.



http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_Q_Y-DNA.shtml

Q1b:

*Q1b1a (L245)*: found in the Middle East, among the Jews, in Central Europe and in Sicily 

*Q1b1a1 (L272.1)*: found in Sicily (probably Phoenician)

----------


## Melancon

> Of course it is not "funny", it was just a figure of speech to remark your hypocritical behavior. It seems that Maciamo's "unimpeachable" authority on this topic of Near Eastern DNA in Europe is conveniently restricted only to Iberians. Anything else similar that he says respecting other Europeans and this same DNA must be dismissed.
> 
> Show you contradictions? I already showed you several posts back, but here goes again: you tried to use a source (Maciamo/Eupedia) to claim that southern Iberians are the only people in Europe who are hardly European because of alleged Near Eastern DNA in the area, yet your exact same source also clearly points out similar things elsewhere in Europe. Is that contradiction enough for you?
> 
> All the "character assassinations" were done by you on yourself. You are responsible for what you post here, no one else. I am just commenting on the uncorroborated claims you make.


There were no such claims. I was repeating what had already been posted here. But you are too lazy to consider the evidence. You are delusional.

You misunderstand everything I say; and continue pushing your own agenda, while being willfully ignorant. Near Eastern farmers (EEF) have nothing to do with current ethnicity. And you accuse me of being Anti-Iberian and provocative based on my own humble analysis and perspectives; so therefore you are the one who is provoking people; not I. And you accuse not only me, but also Sile of being prejudiced against Phoenicians or Carthaginians; when in reality this is probably (most likely) your own tendency. It would explain to me why you are so defensive against this possible reality. (For Iberians to have this admixture.)

I have always wanted to know these things for myself, because as I always said before; Europeans have always told me that Andalusians, Southern Portuguese (southern Iberians) weren't "white European" like they were. I don't have to be an anti-iberian to admit that...


You said that Maciamo merely gives possible explanations...not confirmations. But that he made one mistake with Y-DNA R2...But apparently I am someone who can't make mistakes either. So you therefore have contradicted yourself, by continuously accusing, attacking and provoking me with baseless arguments...

----------


## Drac II

> Excellent post, one of the most thoughtful I've seen on this page. I always find it amusing how so many threads on Eupedia turn to the classic, heated debate about the presence of the "undesirable" Moorish/Arabic/Jewish/Carthaginian elements in the genetic makeup of Iberians. On one side, you always have non-Iberians more or less subtly attempting to provoke Spaniards and Portuguese with statements or hints that Iberians have a close genetic affinity with those peoples from the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean; offering them furious battle, the Iberians, always so incredibly ready to bite the bait and so eager to prove at all costs that they have not a single drop of non-European blood - alternatively, when against the ropes, they "accuse" others of having undesirable blood too, as if not to be alone and "drag" others down with them (typically, Italians), even if NO ONE is talking about these other ethnic groups. 
> 
> As I've mentioned here before, most people just don't want to associate themselves with "inferiors" (economically, socially, culturally, technologically etc); they only want to be related to the "winners". That's why so many Anglophones (especially genealogists) claim Norman ancestry, even if the Norman genetic impact in England was probably as minimal as the one left by Moors in Spain; that's why Indians of higher castes claim to be Aryans, even if they are thoroughly mixed with native Dravidian populations; that's why many Latin Americans, particularly from Spanish-speaking countries, try to associate themselves with Spain, even if they are, on the most part, mixed with Native Americans and/or Africans (this phenomenon is less common in Brazil, because Portugal, much smaller than Spain in every aspect, doesn't really evoke a great deal of interest or of admiration among Brazilians); that's why Iberians will gladly accept - or at least, will not refute - someone saying that they have partial Visigothic or Suevi blood, but will have a heart attack if someone mentions anything about Moors, and so on. 
> 
> Self-esteem. It all comes down to that.


You very conveniently "forget", as usual, that among those who often start the tirades against Iberians in anthro/genetic forums are actually Italians (sometimes genuine Italians from Italy itself, sometimes they are actually descendants of Italians in the Americas), some of them apparently very desirous to try to portray themselves as more "European" and/or "lighter" than Portuguese and/or Spaniards, and that's why they get a backlash as a suitable response. "You reap what you sow", as the saying goes. Or "eye for eye, tooth for tooth", if you prefer.

----------


## Drac II

> No, they weren't. Cause I'm talking about recent admixture due to migration centuries ago. Early European Farmers have nothing to do with current European ethnicity. All Caucasians have EEF. And this also has absolutely nothing to do with the Y-DNA haplogroups in Andalusia and Southern Portugal that suggest a recent Levantine ethnic contribution...such as J1 or Q1b...or mtdna U6....which you have failed to explain their presence/origin.


Again, learn to read, because when Maciamo/Eupedia considers things like Jews or other Middle Eastern immigrants in Britain during *Roman* times as a possible source for the presence of some of the Near Eastern DNA found there, for example, he is obviously not talking about things from prehistoric times. 

And no, there is no proof whatsoever that any of those haplogroups in southern Iberia *must* be from recent times either. Once again, Maciamo/Eupedia is simply offering possible explanations, not definitive answers. The only one who keeps failing to provide any proof of the sort is you.

----------


## Alan

> As for comments that Levantines look more European than Spaniards or other southern Europeans, it's patently absurd and meant to provoke certain people, and comments like that need to STOP.


tbh I thought that he mean *some* Lebanese can look in the North Europeans eyes more "European" than average South Iberians. 

I agree to claim that Lebanese look more "European" than Europeans is absurd.

----------


## Drac II

> Well I'm not the one who is being willfully ignorant. There is no provocation whatsoever...the DNA evidence is there, and people are too lazy to acknowledge it.
> 
> 
> http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J1_Y-DNA.shtml
> 
> 
> J1 in Iberia:
> 
> Based on very limited data, the main *Lebanese* subclades of J1 appear to be J1-YSC234 and J1-YSC76. Both subclades have also been found in Sicily, Andalusia and Portugal, which suggests that they were already found among the *Phoenicians*. However, since the Arabs conquered the same regions as those colonised by the Phoenicians, it is too early to reach such a conclusion.
> ...


Once again, words like "probably" and "suggests" seem to fly over your head. This is not "proof" of anything, merely a suggestion based on something that is plausible, but not necessarily the only answer. 

Oh, and notice *Central Europe* also listed in the middle of a haplogroup (Q1b1a) typically found among Jews of the Middle East and Sicilians. Nice way of shooting yourself in the foot there. Instead of accusing others of being "lazy" you should try to follow your own "advice" and actually bother reading your own sources.

----------


## Alan

not all J1 in Iberia is "Semite" type. notice that roughly half of it is not J1c3d but belong to other subclades probably brought in by Alans.

----------


## Melancon

> Once again, words like "probably" and "suggests" seem to fly over your head. This is not "proof" of anything, merely a suggestion based on something that is plausible, but not necessarily the only answer. 
> 
> Oh, and notice *Central Europe* also listed in the middle of a haplogroup (Q1b1a) typically found among Jews of the Middle East and Sicilians. Nice way of shooting yourself in the foot there. Instead of accusing others of being "lazy" you should try to follow your own "advice" and actually bother reading your own sources.


Continuous ad hominem provocative arguments deserve no response. I did not shoot myself in the foot because I did not claim whether Central Europeans had Levantine admixture or not.

_"This is not "proof" of anything, merely a suggestion based on something that is plausible, but not necessarily the only answer."

_So what is your conclusion? That it's all just a bunch of misinformation? That you probably know more than the genealogists do? By the way, Maciamo does not get his theories and information from himself. He gets them from an external source.

----------


## Melancon

> not all J1 in Iberia is "Semite" type. notice that roughly half of it is not J1c3d but belong to other subclades probably brought in by Alans.


That is most likely a reality. But there is a good chance that many subclades are Levantine in origin. Naturally and understandably; it is easy to get confused.

----------


## Drac II

> Continuous ad hominem provocative arguments deserve no response. I did not shoot myself in the foot because I did not claim whether Central Europeans had Levantine admixture or not.


Yes, you did, in the other thread your intentions were very clear, you wanted to single out southern Iberians as the only "non-Europeans" on the continent and this based on a rather twisted attempt to use Maciamo/Eupedia's conjectures for your own agenda. You might be changing your tune now, though, as you have been forced to read other things that Maciamo/Eupedia also say about other areas of Europe regarding this topic.

----------


## Melancon

> Yes, you did, in the other thread your intentions were very clear, you wanted to single out southern Iberians as the only "non-Europeans" on the continent and this based on a rather twisted attempt to use Maciamo/Eupedia's conjectures for your own agenda. You might be changing your tune now, though, as you have been forced to read other things that Maciamo/Eupedia also say about other areas of Europe regarding this topic.


There was no agenda. As I said before; it was only speculation that I had heard from other Europeans. I did not mean "Arabs" literally; it was a metaphor from the rumors I had heard. It is not important whether or not Southern Iberians have Levantine admixture; but if there was genetic evidence, it would be an interesting footprint of history.

What's the agenda? The only non-Europeans on the continent. I don't understand what you are talking about...

----------


## Drac II

> There were no such claims. I was repeating what had already been posted here. But you are too lazy to consider the evidence. You are delusional.
> 
> You misunderstand everything I say; and continue pushing your own agenda, while being willfully ignorant. Near Eastern farmers (EEF) have nothing to do with current ethnicity. And you accuse me of being Anti-Iberian and provocative based on my own humble analysis and perspectives; so therefore you are the one who is provoking people; not I. And you accuse not only me, but also Sile of being prejudiced against Phoenicians or Carthaginians; when in reality this is probably (most likely) your own tendency. It would explain to me why you are so defensive against this possible reality. (For Iberians to have this admixture.)
> 
> I have always wanted to know these things for myself, because as I always said before; Europeans have always told me that Andalusians, Southern Portuguese (southern Iberians) weren't "white European" like they were. I don't have to be an anti-iberian to admit that...
> 
> 
> You said that Maciamo merely gives possible explanations...not confirmations. But that he made one mistake with Y-DNA R2...But apparently I am someone who can't make mistakes either. So you therefore have contradicted yourself, by continuously accusing, attacking and provoking me with baseless arguments...


Do you believe anything some clueless people tell you? There's Europeans/Americans/Australians who also say the same thing about Greeks, Southern Italians, Albanians, Bulgarians, Romanians, etc. not being "white European".

----------


## Melancon

> Do you believe anything some clueless people tell you? There's Europeans/Americans/Australians who also say the same thing about Greeks, Southern Italians, Albanians, Bulgarians, Romanians, etc. not being "white European".


I have interviewed and talked to Spaniards and Andalusians Spaniards myself who have admitted to me to believing that they have non-European admixture...

----------


## Drac II

> There was no agenda. As I said before; it was only speculation that I had heard from other Europeans. I did not mean "Arabs" literally; it was a metaphor from the rumors I had heard. It is not important whether or not Southern Iberians have Levantine admixture; but if there was genetic evidence, it would be an interesting footprint of history.
> 
> What's the agenda? The only non-Europeans on the continent. I don't understand what you are talking about...


I am referring to what you were claiming in the other thread, parts of which you also carried into this thread. But like I said in the previous post, maybe you are changing your opinion now that you have been shown a number of things regarding the subject. Things are not as clear-cut as you might have thought.

----------


## Drac II

> I have interviewed and talked to Spaniards and Andalusians Spaniards myself who have admitted to me to believing that they have non-European admixture...


You can also find people from other countries in Europe thinking the same thing. Does it make it true, though? Don't underestimate how ignorant some people can be about their own origins/history.

----------


## Sile

> Excellent post, one of the most thoughtful I've seen on this page. I always find it amusing how so many threads on Eupedia turn to the classic, heated debate about the presence of the "undesirable" Moorish/Arabic/Jewish/Carthaginian elements in the genetic makeup of Iberians. On one side, you always have non-Iberians more or less subtly attempting to provoke Spaniards and Portuguese with statements or hints that Iberians have a close genetic affinity with those peoples from the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean; offering them furious battle, the Iberians, always so incredibly ready to bite the bait and so eager to prove at all costs that they have not a single drop of non-European blood - alternatively, when against the ropes, they "accuse" others of having undesirable blood too, as if not to be alone and "drag" others down with them (typically, Italians), even if NO ONE is talking about these other ethnic groups. 
> 
> As I've mentioned here before, most people just don't want to associate themselves with "inferiors" (economically, socially, culturally, technologically etc); they only want to be related to the "winners". That's why so many Anglophones (especially genealogists) claim Norman ancestry, even if the Norman genetic impact in England was probably as minimal as the one left by Moors in Spain; that's why Indians of higher castes claim to be Aryans, even if they are thoroughly mixed with native Dravidian populations; that's why many Latin Americans, particularly from Spanish-speaking countries, try to associate themselves with Spain, even if they are, on the most part, mixed with Native Americans and/or Africans (this phenomenon is less common in Brazil, because Portugal, much smaller than Spain in every aspect, doesn't really evoke a great deal of interest or of admiration among Brazilians); that's why Iberians will gladly accept - or at least, will not refute - someone saying that they have partial Visigothic or Suevi blood, but will have a heart attack if someone mentions anything about Moors, and so on. 
> 
> Self-esteem. It all comes down to that.


I know what you mean...I am trying to figure out how the berber/moors built all those dozens of huge buildings in Spain in so few years and leave no genetic marker............maybe they used only women so no genetic marker could remain

I think Drac is only dreaming of his world for spain

----------


## Melancon

> Do you believe anything some clueless people tell you? There's Europeans/Americans/Australians who also say the same thing about Greeks, Southern Italians, Albanians, Bulgarians, Romanians, etc. not being "white European".


 Why does it seem like you have a problem with Iberians having Levantine admixture, anyway? I believe that you are holding an agenda of your own and are self-projecting. It is a reality that some Spaniards have Levantine admixture; some Sephardic Jews were forced to convert to Roman Catholicism or be executed. History shows that this is true and so do genetics. It seems to me you may be self-projecting your own prejudices onto others and accusing others.

----------


## Melancon

> Excellent post, one of the most thoughtful I've seen on this page. I always find it amusing how so many threads on Eupedia turn to the classic, heated debate about the presence of the "undesirable" Moorish/Arabic/Jewish/Carthaginian elements in the genetic makeup of Iberians. On one side, you always have non-Iberians more or less subtly attempting to provoke Spaniards and Portuguese with statements or hints that Iberians have a close genetic affinity with those peoples from the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean; offering them furious battle, the Iberians, always so incredibly ready to bite the bait and so eager to prove at all costs that they have not a single drop of non-European blood - alternatively, when against the ropes, they "accuse" others of having undesirable blood too, as if not to be alone and "drag" others down with them (typically, Italians), even if NO ONE is talking about these other ethnic groups. 
> 
> As I've mentioned here before, most people just don't want to associate themselves with "inferiors" (economically, socially, culturally, technologically etc); they only want to be related to the "winners". That's why so many Anglophones (especially genealogists) claim Norman ancestry, even if the Norman genetic impact in England was probably as minimal as the one left by Moors in Spain; that's why Indians of higher castes claim to be Aryans, even if they are thoroughly mixed with native Dravidian populations; that's why many Latin Americans, particularly from Spanish-speaking countries, try to associate themselves with Spain, even if they are, on the most part, mixed with Native Americans and/or Africans (this phenomenon is less common in Brazil, because Portugal, much smaller than Spain in every aspect, doesn't really evoke a great deal of interest or of admiration among Brazilians); that's why Iberians will gladly accept - or at least, will not refute - someone saying that they have partial Visigothic or Suevi blood, but will have a heart attack if someone mentions anything about Moors, and so on. 
> 
> Self-esteem. It all comes down to that.


This is the funniest post ever. A bunch of Iberians being uptight about their own heritage and arguing over nonsense.

----------


## Drac II

> I know what you mean...I am trying to figure out how the berber/moors built all those dozens of huge buildings in Spain in so few years and leave no genetic marker............maybe they used only women so no genetic marker could remain
> 
> I think Drac is only dreaming of his world for spain


You seem puzzled by things that have very simple answers: by taking over already existing buildings (like Cathedrals) and using them for themselves, by using local labor to build new ones (done by virtually every empire in history), as well as aided by an ever increasing number of natives who converted to Islam. The exact same reason why you have dozens and dozens of such Islamic buildings all over the Middle East, North Africa, the Balkans and even parts of Asia. Or do you seriously think they were all built by "Arabs"? Before they invaded other areas of the world, spreading their religion in the process, there were no Islamic buildings anywhere but in the Arabian Peninsula. By the 8th century AD there were already Mosques in places as far apart as Cordoba and Xi'an (China.)

----------


## Drac II

> Why does it seem like you have a problem with Iberians having Levantine admixture, anyway? I believe that you are holding an agenda of your own and are self-projecting. It is a reality that some Spaniards have Levantine admixture; some Sephardic Jews were forced to convert to Roman Catholicism or be executed. History shows that this is true and so do genetics. It seems to me you may be self-projecting your own prejudices onto others and accusing others.


I am bothered by manipulation, exaggerations and lies, and what you are trying, or were trying, to do is just that, or at least that is certainly the impression it gave. I don't know from where some people are getting this ridiculous idea that Iberians should be the only people in the world who have to stay quiet and do nothing when someone comes around and starts making incorrect claims or saying deliberate lies about their history, looks and/or genetics. When someone tries to do the same to other nationalities no one makes any such bizarre comments and objections when they defend themselves and set the record straight. It seems some people are deeply bothered only when Iberians do it, as if they should accept any nonsense claims thrown at them. Sorry, but this is highly unrealistic and it just ain't gonna happen. You bet Iberians will have a saying in such matters.

About the Jews: they were only like 1 - 3% of the population of the Iberian Peninsula. Even if all of them had been "absorbed" (which they weren't), they would hardly have been a significant demographic contribution to the Iberian gene pool.

----------


## Maleth

> As I've mentioned here before, most people just don't want to associate themselves with "inferiors" (economically, socially, culturally, technologically etc); they only want to be related to the "winners". 
> 
> Self-esteem. It all comes down to that.


I believe that there was nothing inferior in Southern Spain during the Moorish occupation at that time and age. (Time and age is not something that people can digest easily by the way) but very much to the contrary. Flourishing arts, education, maths, astrology, medicine and farming techniques all way ahead of what is known to be found in the rest of Europe during this era. 

The Alhambra is an architectural marvel in itself that not even queen Isabelle who was adamant to remove every trace of moorish occupation simply could not do it. The region was a well known intellectual and learning centre in the known world, so hardly inferior. If sofa google searching amateur 'historians' compare the moors of Spain at the time with the latest Radical Islam news item on main stream media then I can understand the confusion.

----------


## Melancon

> I am bothered by manipulation, exaggerations and lies, and what you are trying, or were trying, to do is just that, or at least that is certainly the impression it gave. I don't know from where some people are getting this ridiculous idea that Iberians should be the only people in the world who have to stay quiet and do nothing when someone comes around and starts making incorrect claims or saying deliberate lies about their history, looks and/or genetics. When someone tries to do the same to other nationalities no one makes any such bizarre comments and objections when they defend themselves and set the record straight. It seems some people are deeply bothered only when Iberians do it, as if they should accept any nonsense claims thrown at them. Sorry, but this is highly unrealistic and it just ain't gonna happen. You bet Iberians will have a saying in such matters.
> 
> About the Jews: they were only like 1 - 3% of the population of the Iberian Peninsula. Even if all of them had been "absorbed" (which they weren't), they would hardly have been a significant demographic contribution to the Iberian gene pool.


There was no manipulation and lies. Do you really think I care enough about Iberians to lie about them? You are paranoid.

But your insecurities really give people on this board something to laugh about. Look kid, Stop with the baseless accusation against people; I don't care and I'm sure others certainly don't either.

----------


## Degredado

> I believe that there was nothing inferior in Southern Spain during the Moorish occupation at that time and age. (Time and age is not something that people can digest easily by the way) but very much to the contrary. Flourishing arts, education, maths, astrology, medicine and farming techniques all way ahead of what is known to be found in the rest of Europe during this era. 
> 
> The Alhambra is an architectural marvel in itself that not even queen Isabelle who was adamant to remove every trace of moorish occupation simply could not do it. The region was a well known intellectual and learning centre in the known world, so hardly inferior. If sofa google searching amateur 'historians' compare the moors of Spain at the time with the latest Radical Islam news item on main stream media then I can understand the confusion.


I agree with you. When I spoke of societies that tend to be regarded by some as "inferior", in one way or another, I meant that from a contemporary perspective. Muslims once had the largest empire in the world, were the leading people in sciences and education and had Europe's most thriving learning center in Cordoba. But how many people know or remember that today? In our days, when people think of the Middle East or Africa, they mostly think of religious fanaticism, economic issues, shocking cultural habits, endless wars, dictatorships, political instability... many people feel uncomfortable to associate themselves with that. 

There's another factor: the Moors were eventually utterly defeated and expelled from Iberia. If this hadn't happened, i.e., had the Moors managed to successfully lock themselves in their castles without ever being expelled (as was the case with the Normans in England) and if the current elites of Spain still traced their origins to those Moorish invaders, I have no doubts that the average Iberian would feel much less awkward about the Moorish legacy in Spain, for the simple fact that it would (still) be the legacy of conquerors.

----------


## Degredado

BTW, some Lebanese really are surprisingly white, especially among their Christian community. It's definitely not uncommon to see Lebanese people who can easily pass for being even French or northern Italian, never mind Andalusian or Sicilian. Same goes for Syrians. But of course it's also true that many, if not most Lebanese carry a strong "semitic" look.

----------


## Angela

> BTW, some Lebanese really are surprisingly white, especially among their Christian community. It's definitely not uncommon to see Lebanese people who can easily pass for being even French or northern Italian, never mind Andalusian or Sicilian. Same goes for Syrians. But of course it's also true that many, if not most Lebanese carry a strong "semitic" look.


As I discussed with Alan, the similarities, in my opinion, are due to shared EEF like ancestry, in general, and the fact that due to climatic differences, the selection for depigmentation alleles was not as strong in some parts of southern Europe as it was in most of northern Europe. There are definitely differences, however. The Levant has seen inflows of other "components", including recent SSA. (even in the Lebanese Christians) Certain Near Eastern populations have a lot more ANE than southern Europeans as well and some of what I might describe as "Indic" admixture or Siberian admixture. There might also be heavier selection (after the Neolithic) for certain phenotypes, and later migrations spread them around. Of course, steppe migrations brought some of those phenotypes all over Europe. However, an additional dose probably hit the southeastern and some parts of the south central Mediterranean (and even southwest Mediterranean to some lesser degree) with later Bronze Age and perhaps Iron Age migrations. 

The result is that there is some overlap. However, without some serious cherrypicking going on, an _average_ group of Levantines would not "fit" very well in southern Europe, not even the Christian Levantines, although better in some places than in others. And I'm extremely familiar with both groups. :) Could some fit? Absolutely. Are there anything other than a few outliers who look more "European" to north Europeans than do average southern Europeans? No. I can assure you that if I'm walking around the Universita' degli Stranieri in Perugia or the University in Florence I have no trouble distinguishing the Italians from the Lebanese in the vast majority of cases. Whether a northern European or even more, a North American" could do so is a whole other story. I'm afraid that for them dark hair, eyes, an olive complexion, and anything other than a concave nose means you look like modern Near Easterners. There's a lot more to it than that.

However, if there is going to be an extended discussion of phenotypes, let's take it to the physical anthropology thread.

The reason that Christian Levantines and even the Druze to some extent look _more_ "European" is because, in my opinion, they are a relict of more "ancient" population groups which did not get as much gene flow from perhaps more drifted Arabian genetics and phenotypes and also from the slaves imported by the Arabs.

----------


## Maleth

> I agree with you. When I spoke of societies that tend to be regarded by some as "inferior", in one way or another, I meant that from a contemporary perspective. Muslims once had the largest empire in the world, were the leading people in sciences and education and had Europe's most thriving learning center in Cordoba. But how many people know or remember that today?


I found this interesting (although I dont agree with the title) documentary that goes into detail of all events (if one has enough time to watch it all) from the initial mass coverstion to Islam and reasons behind it, to the re coverstion to Christianity and final expulsions and the reasons for it. I have to say I find the details quite correct. 







> In our days, when people think of the Middle East or Africa, they mostly think of religious fanaticism, economic issues, shocking cultural habits, endless wars, dictatorships, political instability... many people feel uncomfortable to associate themselves with that.


Correct, thats what it boils down to

----------


## Maleth

> The result is that there is some overlap. However, without some serious cherrypicking going on, an _average_ group of Levantines would not "fit" very well in southern Europe, not even the Christian Levantines, although better in some places than in others. And I'm extremely familiar with both groups. :) Could some fit? Absolutely. Are there anything other than a few outliers who look more "European" to north Europeans than do average southern Europeans?


I agree and its also my impression, and of course I have met a few Lebanese, however as Degredado pointed out southern Levantines and even North Africans do distinguish a difference between their northern neighbors (as in Lebanese. Syrians and maybe Iraqis) (generally speaking that is)

----------


## Drac II

> There was no manipulation and lies. Do you really think I care enough about Iberians to lie about them? You are paranoid.
> 
> But your insecurities really give people on this board something to laugh about. Look kid, Stop with the baseless accusation against people; I don't care and I'm sure others certainly don't either.


Of course there was (carefully chosen pictures & carefully chosen quotes from Eupedia/Maciamo.) And yes, you apparently do care a lot, otherwise you wouldn't have started the whole thing in the first place. It is troublemakers like you who show plenty of insecurities and are the laughing stock of those better informed.

----------


## Drac II

> I found this interesting (although I dont agree with the title) documentary that goes into detail of all events (if one has enough time to watch it all) from the initial mass coverstion to Islam and reasons behind it, to the re coverstion to Christianity and final expulsions and the reasons for it. I have to say I find the details quite correct. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, thats what it boils down to


Thank goodness that you are not Iberian and remarked on what the documentary says about the well-known mass conversions of natives to Islam making up the majority of the Muslim population, otherwise rest assured someone would have tried to pull the "you have insecurities" card just for actually stating facts that they do not find convenient for their agendas.

----------


## LeBrok

> Thank goodness that you are not Iberian and remarked on what the documentary says about the well-known mass conversions of natives to Islam making up the majority of the Muslim population, otherwise rest assured *someone would have tried to pull the "you have insecurities" card* just for actually stating facts that they do not find convenient for their agendas.





> Of course there was (carefully chosen pictures & carefully chosen quotes from Eupedia/Maciamo.) And yes, you apparently do care a lot, otherwise you wouldn't have started the whole thing in the first place.* It is troublemakers like you who show plenty of insecurities* and are the laughing stock of those better informed.


Subconscious self critique or alzheimer?

----------


## Melancon

> Subconscious self critique or alzheimer?


lol you got him there! He keeps pulling this "agenda" and "troublemaker" card...And I never even did anything to him! lol

----------


## Degredado

> As I discussed with Alan, the similarities, in my opinion, are due to shared EEF like ancestry, in general, and the fact that due to climatic differences, the selection for depigmentation alleles was not as strong in some parts of southern Europe as it was in most of northern Europe. There are definitely differences, however. The Levant has seen inflows of other "components", including recent SSA. (even in the Lebanese Christians) Certain Near Eastern populations have a lot more ANE than southern Europeans as well and some of what I might describe as "Indic" admixture or Siberian admixture. There might also be heavier selection (after the Neolithic) for certain phenotypes, and later migrations spread them around. Of course, steppe migrations brought some of those phenotypes all over Europe. However, an additional dose probably hit the southeastern and some parts of the south central Mediterranean (and even southwest Mediterranean to some lesser degree) with later Bronze Age and perhaps Iron Age migrations.


In addition to all that, I believe Lebanese Christians have historically interacted and intermixed a lot more with Europeans, especially French (since the Crusades and all the way to the 20th century), than the Muslim community has. 

Just to illustrate, here are some people of Christian Lebanese background in Brazil:

Ellen Jabour
camiseta-ellen-jabour-ramones.jpg

Arnaldo Jabor
comentario-arnaldo-jabor1.jpg

Alberto Youssef
550280c1b52a60020dcfd87512e6b12f.jpg

Gilberto Kassab
noticia_241142_img1_kassab1.jpg

Of course I wouldn't be surprised if they are actually mixed with other ethnicities, seeing as how Lebanese immigrants and their descendants tend to be quite well off (all that ancestral Phoenician business skill) and thus often marry into local elites.

But anyhow, back to the thread topic.  :Smile:

----------


## Maleth

> In addition to all that, I believe Lebanese Christians have historically interacted and intermixed a lot more with Europeans, especially French (since the Crusades and all the way to the 20th century), than the Muslim community has. 
> 
> Just to illustrate, here are some people of Christian Lebanese background in Brazil:


Brazil holds the biggest group out of the Lebanese diaspora.

here is another one born to Lebanese parents in Colombia. Shakira = Grateful in Arabic :)

shakira-1396551062.jpg

----------


## LeBrok

> lol you got him there! He keeps pulling this "agenda" and "troublemaker" card...And I never even did anything to him! lol


I experienced this many times already. Every time anyone mentions any African or Near Eastern genetic influence in Iberia, or "browns" them in any way, they go defensive bananas. You are lucky only one Iberian Celtic warrior showed up.

----------


## Melancon

> I experienced this many times already. Every time anyone mentions any African or Near Eastern genetic influence in Iberia, or "browns" them in any way, they go defensive bananas. You are lucky only one Iberian Celtic warrior showed up.


I see. I believe that the Basques are the only remaining "Celtic" or "Celtiberian" population (metaphorically speaking) that still thrive in the Iberian peninsula. Seeing as they are the most homogeneous population and which carry the least admixture. The rest of the population of Spain and Portugal is mixed with all kinds of peoples. Visigoths, Romans, Celts, Alans, Vandals, Greeks, Sephardic Jewish, Moorish, Phoenician etc.

----------


## Sile

> You seem puzzled by things that have very simple answers: by taking over already existing buildings (like Cathedrals) and using them for themselves, by using local labor to build new ones (done by virtually every empire in history), as well as aided by an ever increasing number of natives who converted to Islam. The exact same reason why you have dozens and dozens of such Islamic buildings all over the Middle East, North Africa, the Balkans and even parts of Asia. Or do you seriously think they were all built by "Arabs"? Before they invaded other areas of the world, spreading their religion in the process, there were no Islamic buildings anywhere but in the Arabian Peninsula. By the 8th century AD there were already Mosques in places as far apart as Cordoba and Xi'an (China.)


I do not recall that moors/berbers have ever been arabs..........they are different people

----------


## Drac II

> I see. I believe that the Basques are the only remaining "Celtic" or "Celtiberian" population (metaphorically speaking) that still thrive in the Iberian peninsula. Seeing as they are the most homogeneous population and which carry the least admixture. The rest of the population of Spain and Portugal is mixed with all kinds of peoples. Visigoths, Romans, Celts, Alans, Vandals, Greeks, Sephardic Jewish, Moorish, Phoenician etc.


Never mind him, he has a well known history of siding with any real troublemakers who happen to come to these forums as long as they target Iberians, so his uncalled for and rude comments against normal forum posters are hardly surprising. As for the rest of your post, you have already been exposed and debunked on virtually all counts. Forced to never be able to back up your statements with actual facts, you are pretty much reduced to just keep on gratuitously repeating them despite having been proven wrong.

----------


## Drac II

> I do not recall that moors/berbers have ever been arabs..........they are different people


"Berbers" no, that is more specific, but "Moor" is a term that in the Middle Ages often also included Arabs (it even many times included all Muslims, no matter where they were from.) But the point is that the Berbers and everyone else got Islam from the Arabs, who were a comparatively small minority of military invaders outside their homeland in the Arabian Peninsula. Expecting that they personally built all Islamic buildings found outside of Arabia is highly unrealistic, almost like thinking that Berbers built everything having to do with Islam in Iberia.

----------


## Sile

> "Berbers" no, that is more specific, but "Moor" is a term that in the Middle Ages often also included Arabs (it even many times included all Muslims, no matter where they were from.) But the point is that the Berbers and everyone else got Islam from the Arabs, who were a comparatively small minority of military invaders outside their homeland in the Arabian Peninsula. Expecting that they personally built all Islamic buildings found outside of Arabia is highly unrealistic, almost like thinking that Berbers built everything having to do with Islam in Iberia.


following a religion or a language does not make one loose their original ethnicity.............arabs never built anything, while the others that became arab via language were building things.

it's like in anatolia , they only became turkish from 1100AD after turkic people entered their lands, there are less than 10% of turkic genes in anatolia, yet we call all anatolians, turks today

----------


## Drac II

> lol you got him there! He keeps pulling this "agenda" and "troublemaker" card...And I never even did anything to him! lol


No, not to me directly, but you did come to these forums trying to paint phony pictures of an entire region of Europe for who-knows what personal purposes. In the process you also tried to manipulate what this website actually says to try to back up your weird claims. Did you think you were going to get away with it and no one was going to say anything and put things back in the proper perspective?

----------


## Drac II

> following a religion or a language does not make one loose their original ethnicity.............arabs never built anything, while the others that became arab via language were building things.
> 
> it's like in anatolia , they only became turkish from 1100AD after turkic people entered their lands, there are less than 10% of turkic genes in anatolia, yet we call all anatolians, turks today


Well, saying that Arabs never built anything is the other end of the extreme opinion. Obviously they built many things themselves, but predominantly in their homeland, where they formed the bulk the population.

In the case you are using as an example, "Arab" would also have an ethno-linguistic connotation. The word "Arab" in this sense also includes any Arabic-speakers, just like "Turk" also includes any Turkish-speakers, even if ethnically speaking they are not so.

----------


## Sile

> Well, saying that Arabs never built anything is the other end of the extreme opinion. Obviously they built many things themselves, but predominantly in their homeland, where they formed the bulk the population.
> 
> In the case you are using as an example, "Arab" would also have an ethno-linguistic connotation. The word "Arab" in this sense also includes any Arabic-speakers, just like "Turk" also includes any Turkish-speakers, even if ethnically speaking they are not so.


let me know what the arabs built and I will check it out.

changing language does not change your ethnicity............if you believe it does, then you are English currently :Good Job:

----------


## Drac II

> let me know what the arabs built and I will check it out.
> 
> changing language does not change your ethnicity............if you believe it does, then you are English currently



1- Look at all the Mosques in the Arabian Peninsula

2- I did not disagree with the language thing

----------


## Melancon

> No, not to me directly, but you did come to these forums trying to paint phony pictures of an entire region of Europe for who-knows what personal purposes. In the process you also tried to manipulate what this website actually says to try to back up your weird claims. Did you think you were going to get away with it and no one was going to say anything and put things back in the proper perspective?


 Don't waste your time.

----------


## Drac II

> Don't waste your time.


That's the "advice" you should have considered for yourself before you came here posting weird claims about things that you only have rather nebulous notions about.

----------


## Melancon

> That's the "advice" you should have considered for yourself before you came here posting weird claims about things that you only have rather nebulous notions about.


There are no claims. What I say, is usually in perspectives and metaphors - There is a difference. I believe that Spain has a very interesting history. It seems that you are self-projecting your own insecurities onto other people. You are clearly paranoid if you see me as an Anti-Iberian or a threat. I live nowhere near Spain so what does it concern me with?

I have 7th generation Galician Spanish ancestry myself; that arrived in New Orleans from Tenerife, Canary Islands. So I do know a little bit about Iberian peninsula and it's history. (Aguiar which became French Aguillard - the ll's and d's are silent in French), they originally lived in a place called Pontevedra or something similar. My family had a mostly Catholic background; contrary to the English and German Protestants.

----------


## Drac II

> There are no claims. What I say, is usually in perspectives and metaphors - There is a difference. I believe that Spain has a very interesting history. It seems that you are self-projecting your own insecurities onto other people. You are clearly paranoid if you see me as an Anti-Iberian or a threat. I live nowhere near Spain so what does it concern me with?
> 
> I have 7th generation Galician Spanish ancestry myself; that arrived in New Orleans from Tenerife, Canary Islands. So I do know a little bit about Iberian peninsula and it's history. (Aguiar which became French Aguillard - the ll's and d's are silent in French), they originally lived in a place called Pontevedra or something similar. My family had a mostly Catholic background; contrary to the English and German Protestants.


You keep getting it backwards: people who come out of the blue and start manipulating sources and/or posting bizarre and absurd claims that have virtually no evidence to support them, in what has all the classic looks of purposely wanting to provoke others, are the ones projecting their own issues and insecurities, not the people who respond to such claims to set things in the proper perspective. You started the whole "southern Iberians look less European than the Lebanese and are the only people in Europe with Near Eastern DNA" thing, not me, not anyone else around here, so if anything it is you who is projecting your own issues and insecurities respecting that group that you are targeting. Accept responsibility for your own actions instead of absurdly trying to deny them.

----------


## Melancon

> You keep getting it backwards: people who come out of the blue and start manipulating sources and/or posting bizarre and absurd claims that have virtually no evidence to support them, in what has all the classic looks of purposely wanting to provoke others, are the ones projecting their own issues and insecurities, not the people who respond to such claims to set things in the proper perspective. You started the whole "southern Iberians look less European than the Lebanese and are the only people in Europe with Near Eastern DNA" thing, not me, not anyone else around here, so if anything it is you who is projecting your own issues and insecurities respecting that group that you are targeting. Accept responsibility for your own actions instead of absurdly trying to deny them.


you are seeing things that aren't there. i never had intentions to provoke anyone. and i will not apologize. i don't owe anyone anything. nobody cares except you, cause clearly you have an insecurity or inferiority complex, as LeBrok pointed out.

----------


## Melancon

> You keep getting it backwards: people who come out of the blue and start manipulating sources and/or posting bizarre and absurd claims that have virtually no evidence to support them, in what has all the classic looks of purposely wanting to provoke others, are the ones projecting their own issues and insecurities, not the people who respond to such claims to set things in the proper perspective. You started the whole "southern Iberians look less European than the Lebanese and are the only people in Europe with Near Eastern DNA" thing, not me, not anyone else around here, so if anything it is you who is projecting your own issues and insecurities respecting that group that you are targeting. Accept responsibility for your own actions instead of absurdly trying to deny them.


stop accusing me of things i haven't done. you don't even know me. sometimes i swear you are doing this on purpose to try and get me banned, and are playing the victim card. either that or you're just paranoid and insecure. either way, it doesnt matter. get the hint already.

----------


## Drac II

> stop accusing me of things i haven't done. you don't even know me. sometimes i swear you are doing this on purpose to try and get me banned, and are playing the victim card. either that or you're just paranoid and insecure. either way, it doesnt matter. get the hint already.


Anyone can plainly see what you did, your posts are there for all to see in both threads. Assume responsibility for what you write instead of trying to childishly deny everything and accuse others of having your own problems and issues.

----------


## berun

This paper must be taken with caution; its goal is to check relatedness of surnames and Y-DNA, so they are not getting regional DNA samples; by that they are getting samples even from Latin America with Catalan surnames, of course they do the same in other Catalan-speaking regions (Valencia, Majorca)... so all DNA is blended. Moreover from 52 surnames three are from migrants (Gasco, Danes...) and 7 are supposedly of Arab origin: more care with such biased data (!).

As to get "ancient" results as to figure out how was late Roman Catalonia i got the results from Old Catalonia (the historical Christian counties, as to distinguish it from New Catalonia, the conquered Muslim lands of Lleida / Tarragona around 1100-1150), excluding also Barcelona by being a city which attracts immigration. Also biased data are keept out (foreign origin surnames as Salom, Gasull, Massot, Melis, Moragues, Nàcher, Maymó, Alemany, Danés, Guasch).Doing so the "new" DNA carried by Arabs, Berbers, and Catalan/Frankish Christians in New Catalonia are mainly keept out.

C* : 3
-- E-V12 : 1
-- E-V13 : 23
-- E-V22 : 2
-- E-M81 : 5
-- E-M123 : 7 
- G* : 1
- G2a-P15 : 27
- I1-M253* : 17
- I2-M26 : 19
-- I2-P215* : 5
-- I2-M223 : 12
-- I2-P37.2* : 4 
--- I2-M26 : 21
--- I2-M423 : 1
- J1-M267* : 9
-- J1-P58 : 11 
- J2a-M410* : 25
-- J2a-M67* : 27 
-- J2a-M92 : 1
- J2b-M12 : 12
- R1a : 9 (R1a-SRY10831.2*)
- R1b : 7
- R1b-M343* : 9
--- R1b-U106* : 33 
---- R1b-Z381 : 22
--- R1b-P312* : 84
---- R1b-L21* : 45
---- R1b-U152 : 42
---- R1b-Z195* : 29
----- R1b-SRY2627 : 64
----- R1b-Z220* : 57
------ R1b-Z278* : 17
------- R1b-M153 : 5 
- R2 : 1
- T : 8

----------


## berun

That is (663 cases): 0,5% C; 6% E (3,5% E-V13); 4% G2a; 2,5% I1; I2 9,5% (3% I2-M26, 2% I2-M223; 3% I2-M26); 3% J1; 8% J2a; 2% J2b; 1,5% R1a; 62,5% R1b (5% R1b-U106*; 3,5% R1b-Z381; 12,5% R1b-P312*; 7% R1b-L21*; 6,5% R1b-U152; 4,5% R1b-Z195*; 9,5% R1b-SRY2627; 8,5% R1b-Z220*; 2,5% R1b-Z278*); 1% T

----------


## Alan

> - G* : 1
> - G2a-P15 : 27


Now thats interesting. P15 is not your Early Farmer type of G. 

Contrary P15 is exactly the type which has been found in Alan/Sarmatian graves, beside R1a-z93 and J1-m267 (9), J2a(53) of course which also seem to be quite common. Would love to know what kind of R1a this is. 

It so interesting because this is the dominant branch of G among them.

Than we have 17 samples of I1-M253 and 33 samples of R1b-U106, possibly of Gothic origin. 


45 samples of R1b-L21 The Celtic lineage.

R1b- U152 definitely Roman and a good chunk of the J2 possibly too.

----------


## Regio X

> Now thats interesting. P15 is not your Early Farmer type of G. 
> 
> Contrary P15 is exactly the type which has been found in Alan/Sarmatian graves, beside R1a-z93 and J1-m267 (9), J2a(53) of course which also seem to be quite common. Would love to know what kind of R1a this is. 
> 
> It so interesting because this is the dominant branch of G among them.
> 
> Than we have 17 samples of I1-M253 and 33 samples of R1b-U106, possibly of Gothic origin. 
> 
> 
> ...


Alan, G2a = G-P15 (TMRCA 17400 ybp), an Early Farmer type. Those G found in Alans were also P15, indeed, but I think you meant P16 (now FGC693).

References: 
http://www.marres.education/haplogroup_G.htm#note42
http://www.marres.education/alans.htm#dna
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alans#Genetics
http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/ossetians.html
http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpG.html
http://www.yfull.com/tree/G/

----------


## joeflood

Unfortunately the pdf link does not work. Do you have any suggestions to access it?

----------


## Aristocrat

Carthage was a Phoenician colony. Barcelona was established by the Phoenecian family Barca. Hannibal was the son of the founder. Perfectly reasonable to assume those Phoenician/Carthaginian soldiers and sailors deposited their Y DNA in Catalonia.

----------


## kingjohn

*e-v22 and e-v12 cases with catalan surnames from this paper 

e-v22*
CAR116 CAR Peri-Barcelona E-V22 LCAR04
CAR290 CAR Peri-Barcelona E-V22 LCAR04
MEL309 MEL Lleida E-V22 LMEL01
MEL803 MEL Peri-Barcelona E-V22 LMEL01
SOL808 SOL Múrcia E-V22 LSOL04
SOL128 SOL Andalusia E-V22 LSOL04


*e-v12*
NAD193 NAD Aragó E-V12 LNAD03
NAD795 NAD Aragó E-V12 LNAD03
NAD428 NAD Alacant E-V12 LNAD02
PON346 PON Peri-Barcelona E-V12 LPON02
PON540 PON Canàries E-V12 LPON02
PON622 PON Barcelona E-V12 LPON02
SER839 SER Lleida E-V12 LSER02

----------

