# Humanities & Anthropology > Anthropology & Ethnography > Guess the Ethnicity >  Celtiberian ethnicity_ (See before say that someone is iberian)

## Ziober

For all those people biased by anglo-american movies. I would like to show you how spaniards (celtiberians) looks. Thanks to the youtuber The Anthropology Society Guy.

----------


## Angela

Lots of phenotypic diversity in Spain and Portugal, as in Italy, Greece, the Balkans. I don't see anyone here doubting it.

See:

----------


## AdeoF

That's not true, it's a mixed bag in Spain to be honest. I'm from Galicia and I only got about 12% celtic admixture on average, which is minor so I can't call myself a celt at all.

----------


## LeBrok

> For all those people biased by anglo-american movies. I would like to show you how spaniards (celtiberians) looks.


Really, they parade in costumes and with funny flutes every day? ;) And do they call themselves Celtiberians?

----------


## Ziober

.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...

----------


## Ziober

> That's not true, it's a mixed bag in Spain to be honest. I'm from Galicia and I only got about 12% celtic admixture on average, which is minor so I can't call myself a celt at all.


What is not true?

----------


## Ziober

> Really, they parade in costumes and with funny flutes every day? ;) And do they call themselves Celtiberians?


Of course that we call ourselves celtiberians, in spanish celtíbero/a ( cultured people I mean)

----------


## halfalp

I'm sorry but how Hollywood represent " celtiberians " in general ? Do you talkin' about some kind of péplum in celtiberian context or do you talk about modern spaniards ?

----------


## Ziober



----------


## ROS

> That's not true, it's a mixed bag in Spain to be honest. I'm from Galicia and I only got about 12% celtic admixture on average, which is minor so I can't call myself a celt at all.


That there is a test that really tells you the percentage of genetic celticity you have or is pseudoscience or is directly a lie or hoax.

And by the way the Lady of Elche does not belong to the culture Celtibera but to the Ibera.

----------


## ROS

Angela, phenotypic diversity is everywhere in Europe, in any European country you find blond people very clear skin and blue eyes and dark brown eyes, the difference between north and south of Europe is in frequency, the further north you are an increase of people clearer and more dark southern story, but this does not mean that you are more or less Celtic, or more or less of the steppe (which is far from the Iberian peninsula) or more or less other categories, but you have simply and historically received more or less solar radiation.

But if we stick to empirical evidence (not to hypotheisis and theories) both Greeks and Romans cited the Celts in the Iberian peninsula on numerous occasions, which other countries can not say, and in the Iberian Peninsula there is one of the highest concentrations of Celtic and Indo-European toponyms, well these are empirical tests not hypotheses and theories.


There are texts in the Iberian Peninsula of several Celtic and non-Celtic Indo-European languages, in how many countries is this cumulation of scientific evidence and not hypotheses and theories?.

----------


## Angela

> Angela, phenotypic diversity is everywhere in Europe, in any European country you find blond people very clear skin and blue eyes and dark brown eyes, the difference between north and south of Europe is in frequency, the further north you are an increase of people clearer and more dark southern story, but this does not mean that you are more or less Celtic, or more or less of the steppe (which is far from the Iberian peninsula) or more or less other categories, but you have simply and historically received more or less solar radiation.
> 
> But if we stick to empirical evidence (not to hypotheisis and theories) *both Greeks and Romans cited the Celts in the Iberian peninsula on numerous occasions, which other countries can not say, and in the Iberian Peninsula there is one of the highest concentrations of Celtic and Indo-European toponyms,* well these are empirical tests not hypotheses and theories.
> 
> 
> There are texts in the Iberian Peninsula of several Celtic and non-Celtic Indo-European languages, in how many countries is this cumulation of scientific evidence and not hypotheses and theories?.


I think the bolded sentence and the last one as well are both easily falsifiable. I will use just Italy as an example, although there was a "Celtic" presence in other areas as well. All the territory north of the Po River, as well as Liguria and lands even south of the Po into Toscana and the Marche were settled by Celtic/Gallic speaking people in the first millennium BC, not to mention the earlier Urnfied assodicated migrations. Let's not forget also that the Italics were steppe related peoples. Celtic and Italic are on the same branch of the Indo-European tree. 

Some of my own ancestors were what are called the Celt-Ligurians of the Ligurian Alps and the Apennines Alps. Indeed, the major linguistic divide in Italy is between what used to be called the Gallo-Italian languages north of the Massa-Senigalia (or La Spezia-Rimini line), and the Eastern Romance languages of the areas south of it. This is similar to Spain in that there were Iberian speaking areas and Indo-European speaking areas even until the arrival of the Romans. The last "Celtic" area of Italy was not conquered by the Romans until 192 BC, and the Ligures later than that.

As for genetics, the people who arrived in Spain and Italy speaking "Celtic" languages might have been as much as half steppe in origin, yet Spain and Portugal are very low in steppe ancestry, as are many areas of Italy, so how high could their "Celtic" percentage have been? I'm not saying it's not there; I'm just saying it's much lower than some have thought.









In this chart from Haak et al, the steppe portion would have been perhaps in the Iberians as well as the Indo-European speakers, so you can't really double it to get a figure for the "Celtic" portion, so for a rough estimate, what is it, one-third?



The ancient dna calculators give us an idea of individual results as it compares an individual's raw data directly to the ancient samples. Perhaps you'll want to run your raw data through it, so far we only have one or two Iberian results.

The "steppe" ancestry would have come in with the first Indo-Europeans, then with "Celts" or "Gauls", then with the Germanic tribes. In the case of Italy that would be the Goths and Lombards, so it can't be used to compute "Celtic" ancestry, but it's clear steppe ancestry in southern European is always quite a bit less than in the north, and "farmer" ancestry corresponding higher in the south than in the north. 

See:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...ight=geneplaza

These are my results and I'm half Emilian, 1/4 eastern Ligurian and 1/4NW Tuscany, so hardly a far northern Italian.:

ANCIENT FARMERS74.3%

WEST EUROPEAN FARMERS (4000-5000 years)39.2%LEVANT (4000-8000 years)3.3%NEOLITHIC-CHALCOLITHIC IRAN-CHG (5000-12000 years)3.4%EAST EUROPEAN FARMERS (5000-8000 years)28.4%

STEPPE CULTURES25.7%
KARASUK-E SCYTHIAN (2000-3000 years)12.6%



ANDRONOVO-SRUBNAYA (3000-4000 years)5.3%



YAMNAYA-AFANASIEVO-POLTAVKA (4000-5000 years)

These are AdeoF's results, northwest Spain:


ANCIENT FARMERS66.1%
WEST EUROPEAN FARMERS (4000-5000 years)35.3%



LEVANT (4000-8000 years)4.6%



NEOLITHIC-CHALCOLITHIC IRAN-CHG (5000-12000 years)5.6%



EAST EUROPEAN FARMERS (5000-8000 years)20.6%




STEPPE CULTURES29.2%
KARASUK-E SCYTHIAN (2000-3000 years)4.2%



ANDRONOVO-SRUBNAYA (3000-4000 years)12.3%



YAMNAYA-AFANASIEVO-POLTAVKA (4000-5000 years)12.7%




AFRICAN4.3%
EAST AFRICAN (modern)4.3%



WEST AFRICAN (modern)0.0%

----------


## Angela

> I think the bolded sentence and the last one as well are both easily falsifiable. I will use just Italy as an example, although there was a "Celtic" presence in other areas as well. All the territory north of the Po River, as well as Liguria and lands even south of the Po into Toscana and the Marche were settled by Celtic/Gallic speaking people in the first millennium BC, not to mention the earlier Urnfied assodicated migrations. Let's not forget also that the Italics were steppe related peoples. Celtic and Italic are on the same branch of the Indo-European tree. 
> 
> Some of my ancestors were what are called the Celt-Ligurians of the Ligurian Alps and the Apennines Alps. Indeed, the major linguistic divide in Italy is between what used to be called the Gallo-Italian languages north of the Massa-Senigalia (or La Spezia-Rimini line), and the Eastern Romance languages of the areas south of it. This is similar to Spain in that there were Iberian speaking areas and Indo-European speaking areas even until the arrival of the Romans. The last "Celtic" area of Italy was not conquered by the Romans until 192 BC, and the Ligures even later.
> 
> As for genetics, the people who arrived in Spain and Italy speaking "Celtic" languages might have been as much as half steppe in origin, yet Spain and Portugal are very low in steppe ancestry, as are many areas of Italy, so how high could their "Celtic" percentage have been? I'm not saying it's not there; I'm just saying it's much lower than some have thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


'
Oh, I don't understand the significance of the video of the people marching in a religious procession with those white headpieces. Southern Italians and Sicilians do the same thing.

As for phenotype, yes, there are some dark haired people in Scandinavia, for example, but far fewer as a percentage of the whole than fairer haired people are in Southern European countries. There is more homogeneity in the north than in the south.

There are also, imo, more extreme differences in terms of phenotype in southern Europe than in northern Europe.

----------


## Ygorbr

> As for genetics, the people who arrived in Spain and Italy speaking "Celtic" languages might have been as much as half steppe in origin




Do we really have enough indications for that already? I mean, considering that the Indo-European arrival in the Iberian Peninsula seems to have happened quite late in comparison with other parts of Europe, many centuries after the main emigration out from the steppes, wouldn't we expect their steppe admixture to be already very diluted (e.g. in the order of 30% more than 50%), especially if they came not directly from northern/northwestern Europe, but rather from a more southerly place like France, Switzerland or Northern Italy?

----------


## ROS

Assuming that all Indo-European genetics had its origin in the steppe, a rather dubious thing, especially for the centum languages? What does the steppe have to do with the Celts? Where are the Celtic toponymy in the steppe? What Celtic texts do we find in the steppe? if they are going to say that there was no writing, but of course we are joining the steppe to the Celtic and have nothing to do, the classical people never said that there were Celts in the steppe, they referred to Gaul (France) and Spain, even if the Celtic people had part of their ancestors in the steppe was long before considered as such, since Celtic not only genetics, is culture, is language, etc., which by the way the difference between the north of Spain and France in stage component is very reduced.


Therefore you can not know the percentage of celticity of a person relating it to its steppe component because they have nothing to do, it is as absurd as a calculator that tells you the percentage of Romano has a current Spanish.

The right would be based on what the classical world called Celtic and where the toponymy and Celtic texts, France, Spain, Northern Italy, in the moment before the invasion of the Roman empire remove an autosomic component and from here a calculator of the celticity, although I have always thought that all this aspect of the genetics is very manipulable and on the other hand in the calculator K36 very interesting things are observed.

----------


## ROS

I am not using calculators but in K36 in the attached link it could be said that the regions that exceed 80% would be the classical celtic regions observing according to this calculator a surprising genetic homogeneity and that are also the rich areas in R1B, maybe here Basques and Aquitans deviate from the above.


I like to insist on my condition of amateur and not professional in genetic questions, I apologize beforehand if I say some nonsense.

https://fusiontables.googleuserconte...mplt=2&hml=KML

Ziober gives me the feeling that you are not Spanish and less than Rioja.

----------


## Ygorbr

> Assuming that all Indo-European genetics had its origin in the steppe, a rather dubious thing, especially for the centum languages? What does the steppe have to do with the Celts? Where are the Celtic toponymy in the steppe? What Celtic texts do we find in the steppe?


That's not a strong argument. Celtic as we know it with its main distinctive features is an Iron Age language family. A common Proto-Celtic language may have been spoken as late as 1,200-1,100 BC, in the very end of the Bronze Age. So, one doesn't need to wonder why there is nothing Celtic in the Pontic-Caspian steppe. All the Indo-European migration/expansion issue has to do with an entirely different and much earlier historic period, probably as distant from Proto-Celtic as we are now from Proto-Germanic and Classical Latin. You can't find Celtic toponymy in the steppes because Celts didn't even exist then, and it is the Celts that descend partly from the steppe tribes, not the other way around.

----------


## ROS

> That's not a strong argument. Celtic as we know it with its main distinctive features is an Iron Age language family. A common Proto-Celtic language may have been spoken as late as 1,200-1,100 BC, in the very end of the Bronze Age. So, one doesn't need to wonder why there is nothing Celtic in the Pontic-Caspian steppe. All the Indo-European migration/expansion issue has to do with an entirely different and much earlier historic period, probably as distant from Proto-Celtic as we are now from Proto-Germanic and Classical Latin. You can't find Celtic toponymy in the steppes because Celts didn't even exist then, and it is the Celts that descend partly from the steppe tribes, not the other way around.


So why is the celticity percentage associated directly with the steppe?

----------


## Angela

> Do we really have enough indications for that already? I mean, considering that the Indo-European arrival in the Iberian Peninsula seems to have happened quite late in comparison with other parts of Europe, many centuries after the main emigration out from the steppes, wouldn't we expect their steppe admixture to be already very diluted (e.g. in the order of 30% more than 50%), especially if they came not directly from northern/northwestern Europe, but rather from a more southerly place like France, Switzerland or Northern Italy?


That's a good point, Ygorbr, as far as the people who actually went into Spain and Italy. We need more proximate ancient dna samples to compare not only to the steppe, but to Iberian and Italian and Balkan MN people, and to modern people of those areas, which is why I said they _might have been_ as much as half-steppe. 

We do have a few ancient samples which can given us some hints, however. The admixture took place in central Europe, yes.

I should have initially posted the entire visual from Haak et al:



Then there are the Rathlin samples. Does anyone have a cite or a graphic that breaks down the "steppe" percentage of the Bronze Age English samples? As far as I remember Cassidy et al broke it down into farmer, hunter-gatherer (both WHG and EHG) and then the "Caucasian" element.

Anyway, we do get some information about similarity of various areas to the Rathlin samples, and while Spain has more than Italy, it's pretty faint.



Anyway, the "steppe" in southern Europe, 26% in my case, 29% in Adeo's, for example, wouldn't only have come from "Insular Celtic" or Rathlin related peoples. It would have come from the Italics, Ligures, Veneti, part of the ancestry of the Iberians etc., as well as the later Germanic tribes and whatever they brought with them. That might all be more related to the Hungarian Bronze Age part of the graphic.

Oh, one thing I should mention is that the "Northern Spain" in the Haak graphic,is, according to the authors, Pais Vasco.

----------


## ROS

But if there is a category that puts Basque.

We also have very old Indo-European languages in Anatolia, do you know if there is much steppe in Anatolia? in the map does not see much steppe, then in Greece despite being so close to the steppe apparently there is little, this as explained ?.


I insist in my humble opinion as an amateur I believe that the steppe can explain part of the Indo-European phenomenon but not everything and that still to be explained.


Just as the relationship between R1B and Indo-European still has too many obscure gaps that are filled with unconvincing explanations.

----------


## Angela

^^That is French Basque. The steppe is almost the same. The difference is more WHG in the Spanish Basque, which makes sense.

----------


## ROS

If the theory says that the Basque R1b comes from the steppe with faults higher than 80% or 90% as they have so little autosomal steppe, even according to some studies there are Basque people with 0% steppe ?.


Honestly the explanations that I have heard so far do not convince me, in this theory something is not right.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Anyway, we do get some information about similarity of various areas to the Rathlin samples, and while Spain has more than Italy, it's pretty faint.


Actually those who have more similarity to the Rathlin 1 sample are the Tuscans, even slightly more than Spanish.

The modern populations who "_received the most haplotypes_" from Rathlin1. 

Scottish 36.512
Ireland 36.313
Welsh 35.745
Germany Austria 33.658
French 32.299
English 32.213
Norwegian 31.425
Orcadian 30.072
Tuscan 29.202
Spanish 28.613
Hungarian 28.995
Belorussian 28.418
North Italian 27.829
Lezgin 27.029
Romanian 26.692
Polish 26.957
Finnish 26.431
Bulgarian 26.21
South Italian 26.127
Russian 25.537
Lithuanian 25.067
East Sicilian 24.689
West Sicilian 24.509
Greek 24.341

----------


## AdeoF

> Actually those who have more similarity to the Rathlin 1 sample are the Tuscans, even slightly more than Spanish.
> 
> The modern populations who "_received the most haplotypes_" from Rathlin1. 
> 
> Tuscan 29.202
> Spanish 28.613


Yeah but still that's only 1% more so it really does not make much of a difference on the Rathlin. Even the North Italian is 1% less then the Spanish aswell.

----------


## AdeoF

> That's a good point, Ygorbr, as far as the people who actually went into Spain and Italy. We need more proximate ancient dna samples to compare not only to the steppe, but to Iberian and Italian and Balkan MN people, and to modern people of those areas, which is why I said they _might have been_ as much as half-steppe. 
> 
> Anyway, the "steppe" in southern Europe, 26% in my case, 29% in Adeo's, for example, wouldn't only have come from "Insular Celtic" or Rathlin related peoples. It would have come from the Italics, Ligures, Veneti, part of the ancestry of the Iberians etc., as well as the later Germanic tribes and whatever they brought with them. That might all be more related to the Hungarian Bronze Age part of the graphic.
> .


That could explain why I score high with Northern Italians and sometimes Tuscans with the Oracle. That's very interesting, even in DNA tests Italian (or anything else grouped with Italian) is the 2nd highest. 

E.G (Dodecad K12B) (I can give out more Oracles)

1
Galicia (1000Genomes)
7.63

2
Extremadura (1000Genomes)
8.36

3
Portuguese (Dodecad)
8.37

4
Baleares (1000Genomes)
8.56

5
N_Italian (Dodecad)
8.76

6
North_Italian (HGDP)
9.89

7
Castilla_Y_Leon (1000Genomes)
10.85

8
Murcia (1000Genomes)
10.96

9
Cataluna (1000Genomes)
11.72

10
Canarias (1000Genomes)
12.01

----------


## Angela

> That could explain why I score high with Northern Italians and sometimes Tuscans with the Oracle. That's very interesting, even in DNA tests Italian (or anything else grouped with Italian) is the 2nd highest. 
> 
> E.G (Dodecad K12B) (I can give out more Oracles)
> 
> 1
> Galicia (1000Genomes)
> 7.63
> 
> 2
> ...


Oh, I believe you; I see it in my own results. On dodecad I get slightly different percentages depending on the calculator, but the Spanish populations are usually way up there, and if not them, Balkan populations. It all has to do with genetic ties between Southern European areas, imo, shared ancestry that is very old. 

1
N_Italian (Dodecad)
6.7

2
O_Italian (Dodecad)
7.36

3
TSI (HapMap)
7.63

4
Tuscan (HGDP)
7.95

5
Tuscan (Henn)
8.05

6
North_Italian (HGDP)
8.31

7
Tuscan (Xing)
8.75

8
C_Italian (Dodecad)
12.33

9
IBS (1000Genomes)
14.51

10
Portuguese (Dodecad)
14.94

11
Sardinian (HGDP)
15.18

12
Spaniards (Behar)
15.3

13
Spanish (Dodecad)
15.44

14
S_Italian_Sicilian (Dodecad)
18.01



Not all Italians get such high relatedness to Iberians. I think northwestern Italians have a particular affinity for Iberians because of 1) higher than average Italian percentages of shared "Western" farmer ancestry, which you can see on the Cassidy graphic above as "Irish" Neolithic, and 2) Rathlin type ancestry which came into Italy largely from Gaul. 

Of course, all Italians and Spaniards would also share steppe (and Central European MN ancestry) from more "Hungarian Bronze Age" type migrations, and from the eastern Neolithic as well. 

Then there is some shared J2 ancestry and Gothic ancestry.

I've always thought that the major differences were higher NA in Spain, versus more Caucasus in Italy, but perhaps even more importantly, more WHG in Iberia. They survived better there, I think.

Still, a great many similarities: Iberia is often my closest or second closest area after Italians, even before Southern Italians for me. 

Another interesting thing is that Ralph and Coop figured it out with IBD analysis quite a few years ago (2013). It's too bad they're not concentrating on human population genetics any more. Despite the large similarities in genetic make-up, it's all old, really ancient, certainly not in the Roman era.

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology...l.pbio.1001555

"There is relatively little common ancestry shared between the Italian peninsula and other locations, and what there is seems to derive mostly from longer ago than 2,500 ya. An exception is that Italy and the neighboring Balkan populations share small but significant numbers of common ancestors in the last 1,500 years"

"Patterns for the Iberian peninsula are similar, with both Spain and Portugal showing very few common ancestors with other populations over the last 2,500 years. However, the rate of IBD sharing within the peninsula is much higher than within Italy—during the last 1,500 years the Iberian peninsula shares fewer than two genetic common ancestors with other populations, compared to roughly 30 per pair within the peninsula; Italians share on average only about eight with each other during this period."

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Rathlin type ancestry which came into Italy largely from Gaul.


In my opinion Rathlin type ancestry came into Italy with the migrations from the Urnfield cultures (proto-Villanovans, Scamozzina, Canegrate, Golasecca...). It's a Bronze age sample, after all.

----------


## Angela

> In my opinion Rathlin type ancestry came into Italy with the migrations from the Urnfield cultures (proto-Villanovans, Scamozzina, Canegrate, Golasecca...). It's a Bronze age sample, after all.


Hungarian Bronze Age is also a Bronze Age culture, as its name tells us. These Bronze Age cultures were different from one another. Cassidy was looking at very specific samples from specific cultures. The Rathlin sample in Italy tracks with the movement of the Gauls into northwestern Italy and Tuscany, not the Veneto or the "Latin", Italic areas of Italy. Urnfield is, I think, more similar to Hungarian Bronze Age. 

It would be interesting to see this done for Urnfield, and see the areas of genetic overlap.

----------


## AdeoF

> Oh, I believe you; I see it in my own results. On dodecad I get slightly different percentages depending on the calculator, but the Spanish populations are usually way up there, and if not them, Balkan populations. It all has to do with genetic ties between Southern European areas, imo, shared ancestry that is very old. 
> 
> 1
> N_Italian (Dodecad)
> 6.7
> 
> 2
> O_Italian (Dodecad)
> 7.36
> ...


Oh I was thinking it was from the similar invader/settlers (Mostly Romans) who went to both Italy and Spain even sort of from the Aragonese/Spanish empire (Milan was a part of it). However this information for newbie like me about stuff like this is understandable so that answers about why I get a high score with Northern Italians. Very Interesting :)

----------


## MOESAN

> Assuming that all Indo-European genetics had its origin in the steppe, a rather dubious thing, especially for the centum languages? What does the steppe have to do with the Celts? Where are the Celtic toponymy in the steppe? What Celtic texts do we find in the steppe? if they are going to say that there was no writing, but of course we are joining the steppe to the Celtic and have nothing to do, the classical people never said that there were Celts in the steppe, they referred to Gaul (France) and Spain, even if the Celtic people had part of their ancestors in the steppe was long before considered as such, since Celtic not only genetics, is culture, is language, etc., which by the way the difference between the north of Spain and France in stage component is very reduced.
> 
> 
> Therefore you can not know the percentage of celticity of a person relating it to its steppe component because they have nothing to do, it is as absurd as a calculator that tells you the percentage of Romano has a current Spanish.
> 
> The right would be based on what the classical world called Celtic and where the toponymy and Celtic texts, France, Spain, Northern Italy, in the moment before the invasion of the Roman empire remove an autosomic component and from here a calculator of the celticity, although I have always thought that all this aspect of the genetics is very manipulable and on the other hand in the calculator K36 very interesting things are observed.


Celts languages are of I-E origin and we can think I-E language formed rather in Eastern Europe than in Western Europe; evidently there is no Celtic toponymy in Steppes but there the toponymy we have is surely a recent one so rather Slavic or Satemic; since PIE times I-E dialects evolved, of course!!! That said the old Celtic DNA we have is rather close to the Northern Europe one even if auDNA doesn't always allow detailed analysis; and so shows (like BB DNA) a strong enough "eastern" input (Steppes).
Wat we can say is Celts have ancestors in the Steppes or between East-Central Europe Steppes frontier (Y-R1b too, surely rather male ancestors more than female ones) even if their precise celticity was born later in West Central Europe

----------


## Seanp

Southern French, Iberians and North Italians can plot similar, due to shared Mesolithic ancestry. I don't think there's a significant Celtic admixture in Spain as we know Iberians didn't change a lot since the Neolithic compared to Portuguese Neolithic samples. Maybe 5-20% extra Celtic, Corded Ware admixture and also 5-20% Moorish, Phoenician, Jewish admix in Andalusia and Portugal compared to Neolithic Spanish samples.

----------


## ROS

> Southern French, Iberians and North Italians can plot similar, due to shared Mesolithic ancestry. I don't think there's a significant Celtic admixture in Spain as we know Iberians didn't change a lot since the Neolithic compared to Portuguese Neolithic samples. Maybe 5-20% extra Celtic, Corded Ware admixture and also 5-20% Moorish, Phoenician, Jewish admix in Andalusia and Portugal compared to Neolithic Spanish samples.


What is the Celtic additive? Which calculators include it?


What is clear is that before the Roman Empire invaded the Iberian Peninsula, in most of it there was a culture, languages, topon Indo-European archaeological sites, there was even a tribe in southern Portugal called Cetici, there were several indiomas Celtas and we have texts written in Iberian to prove it, as well as other non-Celtic but idoeuropean languages, ie empirical and scientific evidence of history.


It's what I understand as a simple amateur, maybe I'm wrong.

----------


## Angela

There's no doubt that at the time the Romans invaded Spain Celtic derived languages were being spoken there in some areas:


So, clearly, Celtic speakers had migrated there. The genetics question is a separate one. A group of Celtic speakers may have entered Spain and admixed with the people there without dramatically changing the genetic composition there. 

Once again, from Haak et al, you can see the composition of LN Beaker people from Central Europe versus Spanish and Portuguese MN. In the present day, the majority of Spain has one of the lower levels of "steppe" ancestry, which the Celtic speakers would have carried, although they would have carried their own MN ancestry as well. The reason is because Spain, like the other countries of Southern Europe, was less effected by the Indo-Europeans because of high population numbers, and also perhaps because they were more mixed with MN ancestry by the time they arrived. In Spain's case, as in the case of Southern Italy/Sicily, the Moorish invasions may also have slightly altered the mix. For that reason, maybe the Northern Spain-Pais Vasco graph is more similar to what was the case in Spain when the Romans arrived.


To get more or less accurate percentages for the time of the Roman conquest, we're going to need a good quality genome of these Celt-Iberians to compare to Spanish and Portuguese MN samples.

----------


## AdeoF

Yep even with my new Y-DNA haplogroup I found out. There where Celt speakers in Iberia and the Romans came in too. The best bet is the Basque admixture since it is the most related to the Celtic/Roman era of Iberia. There are a few sites which had Celtic settlement too (there's even a few from where my family is from). 

I don't know maybe I'm wrong????

----------


## ROS

What do the Celts have to do with the steppe?


I understand that the Celtic peoples are peoples of Indo-European origin who were already in the West and we have news with the classical world and assuming that they were originally from the steppe, these people have traveled throughout Europe and are in the western part , having mixed with other peoples in this journey.


Therefore it is not true, nor in the case that all the Indo-European origin was in the steppe, that Celtic = steppe.

The same would happen if the Indo-European were a Neolithic language from Anatolia, Therefore it is not true that Celtic = Anatolia.

----------


## Angela

> What do the Celts have to do with the steppe?
> 
> 
> I understand that the Celtic peoples are peoples of Indo-European origin who were already in the West and we have news with the classical world and assuming that they were originally from the steppe, these people have traveled throughout Europe and are in the western part , having mixed with other peoples in this journey.
> 
> 
> Therefore it is not true, nor in the case that all the Indo-European origin was in the steppe, that Celtic = steppe.
> 
> The same would happen if the Indo-European were a Neolithic language from Anatolia, Therefore it is not true that Celtic = Anatolia.


I never said Celtic=Anatolia. I said the Indo-European languages, including Celtic, were brought to Europe by people from the steppe who were about 43% "Caucasus" or Near Eastern derived, and the rest, or 57%, EHG or Eastern Hunter Gatherers. When they arrived in Central Europe they mixed with Middle Neolithic European people who were about 75% Anatolian farmer like and 25% Western European Hunter Gatherers. 

There's just no longer any debate possible. The closest to that "Celtic" group is probably Late German Bell Beaker from the Haak graphic I posted upthread.

I think perhaps it would be a good idea for you to read the ancient dna papers I have posted here:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...977#post523977

You may find Olalde et al the most informative as it is about Spain, but you need to read the prior papers to get the background.

----------

