# Population Genetics > mtDNA Haplogroups >  another paper on Mtdna Iberia

## Sile

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot...ights-w-e.html

----------


## Eldritch

So basically the western half has more to do with North Africa than eastern half?

----------


## Sile

> So basically the western half has more to do with North Africa than eastern half?


Wait for Drac's insults ,tap, tap, tap feet.................but yes looks like the "north Africans" entered Spain and moved along the western side........there is very good sheep country there, I wonder if that was the reason

----------


## martiko

> Wait for Drac's insults ,tap, tap, tap feet.................but yes looks like the "north Africans" entered Spain and moved along the western side........there is very good sheep country there, I wonder if that was the reason


I'm not pyschologue but I think you have a problem or a fixation with Spanish, and I do not understand this.
Explain!

----------


## Drac II

> Wait for Drac's insults ,tap, tap, tap feet.................but yes looks like the "north Africans" entered Spain and moved along the western side........there is very good sheep country there, I wonder if that was the reason


Apparently you did not notice that "western third" of Iberia is mostly Portugal, not Spain, and you also failed to notice the comment the blogger made about this "west to east" gradient:

Much of this seems best explained by ancient flows from NW Africa (flows which may be Neolithic, Paleolithic or from the Metal Ages but hardly related to Phoenician or Muslim colonization, which had no W-E gradient whatsoever)

This curious pattern in fact contradicts the speculations of those who want to very quickly jump to conclusions regarding the origin of these markers in Iberia. Regarding the much ballyhooed "Moors", more specifically, it flies in the face of common sense and historical evidence since what today is Portugal actually was under Islamic "rule" for quite less than what today is southern Spain, yet it has a higher frequency of these markers. Once again, haplogroups or mtDNA do not confirm any supposed "huge influence" from any invasions of Iberia during historical times, whether Roman, Germanic or "Moorish".

----------


## Drac II

> So basically the western half has more to do with North Africa than eastern half?


Yes, or actually rather the western third. The gradient is not south to north, as some people with obvious agendas would certainly love it to be so they could keep on babbling about "Moors" in Iberia.

----------


## Wilhelm

> Wait for Drac's insults ,tap, tap, tap feet.................but yes looks like the "north Africans" entered Spain and moved along the western side........there is very good sheep country there, I wonder if that was the reason


You don't get it. The pattern of north-african input do not follow the patterns of Islamic rule. Ironically, in Granada, which is the only place of Iberia that lasted the full 780 years under islamic rule, has very low north-african, in fact lower than many parts of Northern Iberia from a Haplogroups prespective, specifically via E-M81/U6, and plenty of R1b (70% in East-Andalusia) which confirms this East-West gradient.

----------


## Angela

It's been known for quite some time that the gradient for the uniparental markers was east/west and not north/south here, so I don't see that the paper adds very much to our understanding of these matters. 

The only way to get some handle on the issue would seem to be through dating of very specific subclades of both the ydna and the mtdna. The time depths involved with mtdna might make conclusions difficult to draw, but the ydna questions might be easier. Still, that would require the sort of resolution for the "E" clades that is now available for the "R" clades. In the case of "R", the impetus for that work came from the hobbyist community in countries with high levels of ydna "R". Unfortunately, I don't see that hobbyist interest in resolving and dating the "E" clades. 

So, that said, it's unclear whether the E-M81 found in Iberia today, for example, is neolithic or from later Muslim expansions, or both. Of course, the source is still North Africa, regardless of the dating. 

Historical records aren't very helpful either. Obviously, none are available for the Neolithic, and there is an absolute dearth of data on the period of the Arab/Moorish domination of Iberia. The same problem existed in Sicily and southern Italy. History is written by the last victors, and the Normans and their successors didn't leave much information behind about their predecessors. That has been rectified for Sicily in the last couple of decades, as Sicilian scholars and English language scholars as well have turned to the Muslim sources for information. I'm not aware of any similar English language treatments of Spain for that era, which is surprising. Indeed, I'm not aware of any modern Spanish language treatment of the issue either. I would certainly be interested in reading it if one was available. For instance, it would be helpful in resolving the questions concerning the cline to know the extent of the relocations of the Spanish population following the expulsions of the Moors and the Jews.

----------


## Sile

> You don't get it. The pattern of north-african input do not follow the patterns of Islamic rule. Ironically, in Granada, which is the only place of Iberia that lasted the full 780 years under islamic rule, has very low north-african, in fact lower than many parts of Northern Iberia from a Haplogroups prespective, specifically via E-M81/U6, and plenty of R1b (70% in East-Andalusia) which confirms this East-West gradient.


don't be silly there are no such thing as an islamic markers or jewish marker or christian marker..................islam began less than 2000 years ago, how are they linked with E or any other haplogroup?............I thought you knew this.

Its north african...........who where these north african migrants....I am unsure, but I know they belonged to no religious group or even a linguistic group. If you know let me know

----------


## Sile

> It's been known for quite some time that the gradient for the uniparental markers was east/west and not north/south here, so I don't see that the paper adds very much to our understanding of these matters. 
> 
> The only way to get some handle on the issue would seem to be through dating of very specific subclades of both the ydna and the mtdna. The time depths involved with mtdna might make conclusions difficult to draw, but the ydna questions might be easier. Still, that would require the sort of resolution for the "E" clades that is now available for the "R" clades. In the case of "R", the impetus for that work came from the hobbyist community in countries with high levels of ydna "R". Unfortunately, I don't see that hobbyist interest in resolving and dating the "E" clades. 
> 
> So, that said, it's unclear whether the E-M81 found in Iberia today, for example, is neolithic or from later Muslim expansions, or both. Of course, the source is still North Africa, regardless of the dating. 
> 
> Historical records aren't very helpful either. Obviously, none are available for the Neolithic, and there is an absolute dearth of data on the period of the Arab/Moorish domination of Iberia. The same problem existed in Sicily and southern Italy. History is written by the last victors, and the Normans and their successors didn't leave much information behind about their predecessors. That has been rectified for Sicily in the last couple of decades, as Sicilian scholars and English language scholars as well have turned to the Muslim sources for information. I'm not aware of any similar English language treatments of Spain for that era, which is surprising. Indeed, I'm not aware of any modern Spanish language treatment of the issue either. I would certainly be interested in reading it if one was available. For instance, it would be helpful in resolving the questions concerning the cline to know the extent of the relocations of the Spanish population following the expulsions of the Moors and the Jews.


There where many different migrational groups entering iberia from the south before the moors entered. The Numidians, Carthaginians, Phoenicians, to name just 3

E marker was in Spain before the moors arrived

----------


## Angela

> There where many different migrational groups entering iberia from the south before the moors entered. The Numidians, Carthaginians, Phoenicians, to name just 3
> 
> E marker was in Spain before the moors arrived


I thought that's what I said.

----------


## Nobody1

'The registered frequencies of Eurasian markers, together with the *high incidence and diversification of African maternal lineages (15% of the total mitochondrial variability) among Huelva Andalusians*'

Huelva was the Moorish Walbah;
And by the looks of it it still is; Especially the sub-saharan mtDNA L seems to have stuck;

----------


## Wilhelm

Huelva on the paternal line in the study of Ambrosio et al. 2010 had only 3% of E-M81, which is lower than Spanish average, lower than many parts of northern Spain or parts of France.

----------


## martiko

> 'The registered frequencies of Eurasian markers, together with the *high incidence and diversification of African maternal lineages (15% of the total mitochondrial variability) among Huelva Andalusians*'
> 
> Huelva was the Moorish Walbah;
> And by the looks of it it still is; Especially the sub-saharan mtDNA L seems to have stuck;


http://www.eupedia.com/europe/europe...requency.shtml
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplog...er-12&at_pos=0

http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/ital...er-12&at_pos=0

You are right partly Drac, they can compare the galiciens which have never known occupation Muslim.

----------


## Angela

Perhaps you would care to explain the relevance of the link to material on Italian genetics?

The thread Sile started is on *Iberian* mtdna.

----------


## martiko

> Perhaps you would care to explain the relevance of the link to material on Italian genetics?
> 
> The thread Sile started is on *Iberian* mtdna.


 and could you explain the relevance iberia for customers with E1b while on the contrary it is especially in Italy.
The knowledge that seems related to E and L generally.
In fact there nothing seems relevant or having reason except interest the debate against Iberian.
, Being or not being is not important but the thought directed into propaganda is strange. I do not see how the Italian name on a card a problem? I think it's more because they are also the people as well as the Mediterranean French South like me or iberian.

It is a geographical focus

----------


## Drac II

> It's been known for quite some time that the gradient for the uniparental markers was east/west and not north/south here, so I don't see that the paper adds very much to our understanding of these matters. 
> 
> The only way to get some handle on the issue would seem to be through dating of very specific subclades of both the ydna and the mtdna. The time depths involved with mtdna might make conclusions difficult to draw, but the ydna questions might be easier. Still, that would require the sort of resolution for the "E" clades that is now available for the "R" clades. In the case of "R", the impetus for that work came from the hobbyist community in countries with high levels of ydna "R". Unfortunately, I don't see that hobbyist interest in resolving and dating the "E" clades. 
> 
> So, that said, it's unclear whether the E-M81 found in Iberia today, for example, is neolithic or from later Muslim expansions, or both. Of course, the source is still North Africa, regardless of the dating. 
> 
> Historical records aren't very helpful either. Obviously, none are available for the Neolithic, and there is an absolute dearth of data on the period of the Arab/Moorish domination of Iberia. The same problem existed in Sicily and southern Italy. History is written by the last victors, and the Normans and their successors didn't leave much information behind about their predecessors. That has been rectified for Sicily in the last couple of decades, as Sicilian scholars and English language scholars as well have turned to the Muslim sources for information. I'm not aware of any similar English language treatments of Spain for that era, which is surprising. Indeed, I'm not aware of any modern Spanish language treatment of the issue either. I would certainly be interested in reading it if one was available. For instance, it would be helpful in resolving the questions concerning the cline to know the extent of the relocations of the Spanish population following the expulsions of the Moors and the Jews.


There is enough surviving information from the historical period you are referring to which has allowed scholars of both Iberian and Islamic history since as far back as the 19th century to conclude that the Arab/Moorish population of Iberia was only a small minority. Info on this has already been pointed out before, like this one (page 144):

https://archive.org/stream/preaching...e/144/mode/2up

But of course, for those not happy with historical evidence that doesn't say what they desperately want to hear it keeps falling on deaf hears and they prefer to keep harping on about a mythological "800 years of Islamic rule of Spain".

----------


## Drac II

> 'The registered frequencies of Eurasian markers, together with the *high incidence and diversification of African maternal lineages (15% of the total mitochondrial variability) among Huelva Andalusians*'
> 
> Huelva was the Moorish Walbah;
> And by the looks of it it still is; Especially the sub-saharan mtDNA L seems to have stuck;


Huelva was also the Roman Onoba, and perhaps that's what really explains what you are so eager (as usual) to jump to conclude was due to "Moors", considering the authors themselves associate these African lineages quite possibly with the Roman empire as well:

_Lineage L2a, the second most represented in the network...  In Iberia, these lineages may be associated to Islamic expansion, which penetrated up to North Portugal, rendering its relationship with recent slave trade unlikely. However, its relationship with slavery during Roman Empire or Islamic rule cannot be ruled out._

The fact that Granada, which was in fact the area of Iberia longest under Islamic "rule", has lower frequencies of these markers argues that the other options considered by the authors (prehistoric migrations, Roman empire) are the more likely reasons.

----------


## Drac II

> http://www.eupedia.com/europe/europe...requency.shtml
> http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplog...er-12&at_pos=0
> 
> http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/ital...er-12&at_pos=0
> 
> You are right partly Drac, they can compare the galiciens which have never known occupation Muslim.


Yes, or Asturians and Cantabrians too. In fact, the areas of Iberia that had the least of any Islamic presence whatsoever, are in fact higher in these supposedly "Moorish" markers, once again contrary to historical evidence and thus arguing against the very convenient so-called explanations of some people.

----------


## Sile

> Yes, or Asturians and Cantabrians too. In fact, the areas of Iberia that had the least of any Islamic presence whatsoever, are in fact higher in these supposedly "Moorish" markers, once again contrary to historical evidence and thus arguing against the very convenient so-called explanations of some people.


You do know there where people in iberia before islam was created or judasim or any other religion.................whats with this paranoia ?

----------


## Angela

This is like being in Groundhog Day...same darn thing over and over.

We're aware of the anthrofora Iberians' position on these matters. You could just as well cut and paste from all your thousands of prior posts.

All of the yDNA "E" clades and the mtDNA "L" clades migrated into Spain only in the Neolithic (no matter that the only Neolithic yDNA "E" clade found in Iberia is E-V13, and that there is no E-M81 or mtDNA "L" trail along the northern shore of the Mediterranean). The Moors who carried E-M81, for example, and who invaded Spain in 711AD left next to no descendents in Iberia. That's because they used magical powers to take over an entire peninsula without troops. Probably a few dozen at the most appeared on the shore. They immediately put a spell on the natives to convert them to Islam, and it was these "NATIVE" Iberians who conquered the peninsula and had all those harems. The pitifully few descendents of the actual Moors who did exist were identified through the use of a DNA test and happily expelled or burned to death, along with many genetically pure Iberians whose ancestors had converted to Islam through the use of black magic. End of story. Do I have it right? 

Amazing. None of this, even if true, would change in the slightest the fact that these clades came from North Africa. I certainly understand the desire to flesh out the history of one's country and it's population genetics history as well. But other than that what difference does it make if an "E" clade arrived in 4000 BC or in 200AD as a slave or in 711AD with the Moors? Is it less "brown" if it came earlier? Or are you still fighting in the Reconquista? Honestly, I don't get the logic here at all.

If the desire is to truly get a grip on the population genetic history of Iberia, then wasting all this time virtually repeating the same sentences over and over again would not seem to be the most productive use of one's time. 
Instead, perhaps some of you could do some actual *work* on these matters. Get lots of Iberians who have these markers tested. Find more downstream snps. Try to distinguish and then date clusters. It's an imperfect methodology but would at least provide some parameters. 

The fact that none of this is being attempted leads me to conclude that the purpose is not to acquire actual data or broaden the understanding of Iberian history and genetics, but to respond, as a poster put it on another thread, to the constant "pounding" Iberians are taking on the issue of, I presume, their minor non-European ancestry. To that I can only respond that you are hanging around with the wrong people, and your assumptions are faulty. 

As an aside, I actually wouldn't be surprised ifsome clusters of these clades *did* arrive earlier than 711. I'm not a believer in these total replacement theories, even for the yDNA, unless it's very ancient indeed. Most often what I see is a layering of DNA from different time periods. The point is that you have to do the testing and analysis to find out.

----------


## Wilhelm

> All of the yDNA "E" clades and the mtDNA "L" clades migrated into Spain only in the Neolithic (no matter that the only Neolithic yDNA "E" clade found in Iberia is E-V13, and that there is no E-M81 or mtDNA "L" trail along the northern shore of the Mediterranean).


Wrong. There is mtDNA L in neolithic Spain in Tres Montes, Navarra. And there is E-M81 and mtDNA L all over Europe. For E-M81 for example you have : 

http://anthrospain.blogspot.com.es/2...in-europe.html

and mtDNA L in EUrope : 

http://anthrospain.blogspot.com.es/2...and-spain.html




> Amazing. None of this, even if true, would change in the slightest the fact that these clades came from North Africa. I certainly understand the desire to flesh out the history of one's country and it's population genetics history as well. But other than that what difference does it make if an "E" clade arrived in 4000 BC or in 200AD as a slave or in 711AD with the Moors? Is it less "brown" if it came earlier? Or are you still fighting in the Reconquista? Honestly, I don't get the logic here at all.


Of course it makes a lot of difference, from a historical point of view, is not the same 4000 BC than 711AD...

----------


## Sile

> Wrong. There is mtDNA L in neolithic Spain in Tres Montes, Navarra. And there is E-M81 and mtDNA L all over Europe. For E-M81 for example you have : 
> 
> http://anthrospain.blogspot.com.es/2...in-europe.html
> 
> and mtDNA L in EUrope : 
> 
> http://anthrospain.blogspot.com.es/2...and-spain.html
> 
> 
> Of course it makes a lot of difference, from a historical point of view, is not the same 4000 BC than 711AD...


Are these pro-spanish and anti-french sires, because they show more E in france than Iberia?

and why is L3 not african?.......from egypt to somalia is africa to me and that's L3 basal land

----------


## Angela

> Wrong. There is mtDNA L in neolithic Spain in Tres Montes, Navarra. And there is E-M81 and mtDNA L all over Europe. For E-M81 for example you have : 
> 
> http://anthrospain.blogspot.com.es/2...in-europe.html
> 
> and mtDNA L in EUrope : 
> 
> http://anthrospain.blogspot.com.es/2...and-spain.html
> 
> 
> Of course it makes a lot of difference, from a historical point of view, is not the same 4000 BC than 711AD...


I believe you're making my point for me. It seems that "E" yDNA in Iberia, and particularly E-M81 is objectionable only if it was left by the Moors. Isn't it a little late to be fighting the Reconquista all over again?

As for E-M81, yes, it does appear in other places in Europe, but only very spottily and it certainly doesn't look like there was a major movement of E-M81 from the Levant all along the northern Mediterranean in the Neolithic. That route seems to track E-V13. The major route for E-M81 was along the coast of North Africa. Therefore, although some of the E-M81 in Europe might have been there since the Neolithic, or perhaps since the Bronze Age, we would expect enrichment in those areas that saw a movement from North Africa into Europe post the dissolution of the Roman Empire.

----------


## Wilhelm

> Are these pro-spanish and anti-french sires, because they show more E in france than Iberia?
> 
> and why is L3 not african?.......from egypt to somalia is africa to me and that's L3 basal land


Depends what parts of France and what parts of iberia, but overall (national averages) as per Eupedia table of Y-DNa it's 7.5% for France and 7.0% for Spain, so very similar.

----------


## Wilhelm

> As for E-M81, yes, it does appear in other places in Europe, but only very spottily and it certainly doesn't look like there was a major movement of E-M81 from the Levant all along the northern Mediterranean in the Neolithic.


E-M81 is not Levantine...

----------


## Angela

Wilhelm, you're obfuscating. 

You, and other Iberians on this thread and numerous others on this Board, first maintained that all the "E" yDNA clades and "L" mtDNA clades arrived in Iberia in the Paleolithic and the Mesolithic. Well, now that we have ancient DNA results, that doesn't seem to be the case. Of course, the next discovery could change all of that, but we talking about the evidence as it exists now. 

When the Phoenicians and Carthaginians have been mentioned in the past, there was vociferous disagreement, the argument being that their settlements were few and far between and were just trading posts with no effect on the genetics of the Iberian peninsula. 

We've already discussed that the very possibility that E-M81, at least, was brought by the Moors is not even to be considered. (That "historical" text you posted is the best that exists, by the way?)

So now the argument is that it was brought during the Neolithic. O.K. that works for E-V13. How does it work for E-M81? The Neolithic began in eastern Anatolia, perhaps with an early offshoot to the Levant. From those areas it spread north, north west and south west along both littorals of the Mediterranean, generally south into Africa and east into Central Asia etc.

What route did E-M81 take during the Neolithic that led directly into Spain?

Where is the evidence, in terms of clusters of E-M81 and their TMRCA that would support the route that you are proposing?

----------


## Wilhelm

> Wilhelm, you're obfuscating.


Why ? 




> You, and other Iberians on this thread and numerous others on this Board, first maintained that all the "E" yDNA clades and "L" mtDNA clades arrived in Iberia in the Paleolithic and the Mesolithic. Well, now that we have ancient DNA results, that doesn't seem to be the case. Of course, the next discovery could change all of that, but we talking about the evidence as it exists now.


You are lying, nobody has ever said that haplogroup "E" in Europe or Iberia is Palaeolithic....at least not me personally, another thing is mesolithic, but that would be in South-East Europe, most probably. Anyways, we know nothing, since the ancient samples we have are scarce. 




> When the Phoenicians and Carthaginians have been mentioned in the past, there was vociferous disagreement, the argument being that their settlements were few and far between and were just trading posts with no effect on the genetics of the Iberian peninsula.


Which is true, the Phoenician/Carthaginian influence was cultural, not genetic. 




> We've already discussed that the very possibility that E-M81, at least, was brought by the Moors is not even to be considered. (That "historical" text you posted is the best that exists, by the way?)


Because of it's dsitribution in Iberia not followeing the same pattern as the Islamic conquest, this hints the big possibility that it came in pre-historical times (ie. flux movements from neolithic up to metal ages) and not from "moors" , which is a term used in the islamic context. 




> What route did E-M81 take during the Neolithic that led directly into Spain?


It had to came from Northern Africa.




> Where is the evidence, in terms of clusters of E-M81 and their TMRCA that would support the route that you are proposing?


What route I am proposing ?? I didn't .

----------


## martiko

> Wrong. There is mtDNA L in neolithic Spain in Tres Montes, Navarra. And there is E-M81 and mtDNA L all over Europe. For E-M81 for example you have : 
> 
> http://anthrospain.blogspot.com.es/2...in-europe.html
> 
> and mtDNA L in EUrope : 
> 
> http://anthrospain.blogspot.com.es/2...and-spain.html
> 
> 
> Of course it makes a lot of difference, from a historical point of view, is not the same 4000 BC than 711AD...


you are right in southeast of France Ydna E and Mt L is very high

----------


## Sile

> Why ? 
> 
> 
> You are lying, nobody has ever said that haplogroup "E" in Europe or Iberia is Palaeolithic....at least not me personally, another thing is mesolithic, but that would be in South-East Europe, most probably. Anyways, we know nothing, since the ancient samples we have are scarce. 
> 
> 
> Which is true, the Phoenician/Carthaginian influence was cultural, not genetic. 
> 
> 
> ...


You mean cities like Cartegena had not many Carthaginians and Cadiz had not many Phoenicians ?.................who where the original people then, ? IMO, they where more than just trading towns as they lasted for such a very long time

----------


## Nobody1

> Huelva was also the Roman Onoba, and perhaps that's what really explains what you are so eager (as usual) to jump to conclude was due to "Moors", considering the authors themselves associate these African lineages quite possibly with the Roman empire as well:
> 
> _Lineage L2a, the second most represented in the network...  In Iberia, these lineages may be associated to Islamic expansion, which penetrated up to North Portugal, rendering its relationship with recent slave trade unlikely. However, its relationship with slavery during Roman Empire or Islamic rule cannot be ruled out._
> 
> The fact that Granada, which was in fact the area of Iberia longest under Islamic "rule", has lower frequencies of these markers argues that the other options considered by the authors (prehistoric migrations, Roman empire) are the more likely reasons.


_Lineage L2a, the second most represented in the network... In Iberia, these lineages may be associated to Islamic expansion, which penetrated up to North Portugal, rendering its relationship with recent slave trade unlikely. However, its relationship with slavery during Roman Empire or Islamic rule cannot be ruled out._

The authors rule out the Atlantic (_recent slave trade_) slave trade - but give good chances to the Moors (Islamic rule) and/or whatever Africans the Romans pumped into Iberia/Spain when they were ruling it; 

Spain has a Moorish history from 711-1492 and belonged to two powerful Moorish kingdoms/dynasties with *Almoravid* and *Almohad* - spanning a period of over 200 years; So the Moors (Walbah/Huelva) are most def. an option as also the _authors themselves associate_;

----------


## Wilhelm

> You mean cities like Cartegena had not many Carthaginians and Cadiz had not many Phoenicians ?.................who where the original people then, ?


Exactly. The original people were the aborigines living there.




> IMO, they where more than just rading towns as they lasted for such a very long time


They were commercial-oriented seafarers, they were not large populations. Plus, we can know by genetics, since for exmaple the levantine type of R1b is almost non-existant in Iberia (unlike South-East Europe).

----------


## Nobody1

> http://www.eupedia.com/europe/europe...requency.shtml
> http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplog...er-12&at_pos=0
> 
> http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/ital...er-12&at_pos=0
> 
> You are right partly Drac, they can compare the galiciens which have never known occupation Muslim.


Not sure why you are addressing me with your post#14; But you must have your reasons because you clearly did address me; Equally not sure why you want to talk about Italians in a thread that has nothing to do with Italians; But you must have your reasons for that as well;

The major Hg E in Italy is E-V13 and E-M123 and the major Hg E in Spain is E-V13 and E-M81;
Read up (studies) on what the diffs. and distributions of these E-M35 Hg's are;

http://cache.eupedia.com/images/cont...oup-E-M123.gif
http://cache.eupedia.com/images/cont...roup-E-V13.gif
http://cache.eupedia.com/images/cont...roup-E-M81.gif


The presence of Sub-Saharan mtDNA L in Europe;

_Cerezo et al 2012_
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/22/5/821.full



And in the latest [K=20] admixture analysis from *Lazaridis et al 2013* - North African admixture occurred in every single Spanish sample tested and with a decent amount of it; An admixture which is virtually absent in other South European pops. a part from Sicily and Malta who were equally under Islamic rule from North Africa (Ifriqiya/Fatimid) akin to Spain and the Moors;

Every stripe in a population block indicates a sample from that population and its individual admixture result; 

*Lazaridis et al 2013* - http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6639.pdf


The Spaniards have the North African admixture collectively; Whereas in the other South European populations - only a few/certain samples have North African admixture and at a much lower amount than any Spaniard;

----------


## Sile

> _Lineage L2a, the second most represented in the network... In Iberia, these lineages may be associated to Islamic expansion, which penetrated up to North Portugal, rendering its relationship with recent slave trade unlikely. However, its relationship with slavery during Roman Empire or Islamic rule cannot be ruled out._
> 
> The authors rule out the Atlantic (_recent slave trade_) slave trade - but give good chances to the Moors (Islamic rule) and/or whatever Africans the Romans pumped into Iberia/Spain when they were ruling it; 
> 
> Spain has a Moorish history from 711-1492 and belonged to two powerful Moorish kingdoms/dynasties with *Almoravid* and *Almohad* - spanning a period of over 200 years; So the Moors (Walbah/Huelva) are most def. an option as also the _authors themselves associate_;


The Romans pumped Numidians from african into Iberia as promised for changing sides against the war against hannibal. at the battle of Zama, numidians fought for Rome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numidia

----------


## Sile

> Not sure why you are addressing me with your post#14; But you must have your reasons because you clearly did address me; Equally not sure why you want to talk about Italians in a thread that has nothing to do with Italians; But you must have your reasons for that as well;
> 
> The major Hg E in Italy is E-V13 and E-M123 and the major Hg E in Spain is E-V13 and E-M81;
> Read up (studies) on what the diffs. and distributions of these E-M35 Hg's are;
> 
> http://cache.eupedia.com/images/cont...oup-E-M123.gif
> http://cache.eupedia.com/images/cont...roup-E-V13.gif
> http://cache.eupedia.com/images/cont...roup-E-M81.gif
> 
> ...


looks conclusive to me

thanks

----------


## martiko

> Not sure why you are addressing me with your post#14; But you must have your reasons because you clearly did address me; Equally not sure why you want to talk about Italians in a thread that has nothing to do with Italians; But you must have your reasons for that as well;
> 
> The major Hg E in Italy is E-V13 and E-M123 and the major Hg E in Spain is E-V13 and E-M81;
> Read up (studies) on what the diffs. and distributions of these E-M35 Hg's are;
> 
> http://cache.eupedia.com/images/cont...oup-E-M123.gif
> http://cache.eupedia.com/images/cont...roup-E-V13.gif
> http://cache.eupedia.com/images/cont...roup-E-M81.gif
> 
> ...


I did not think that Italians were also touchy!
Therefore they can say everything and anything on Spanishes but you should not speak about Italians.
Few imports me that Spanishes have as much of E or of L as Italians, I am not racist, what bores me to see you playing with figures and denaturing a science to insinuate your propaganda.
I ignore your motivations but I want to oppose to it!
Yes I am a supporter for Europe (EU) and do not appreciate you! and it not because you are Italian but for you.

----------


## Drac II

> _Lineage L2a, the second most represented in the network... In Iberia, these lineages may be associated to Islamic expansion, which penetrated up to North Portugal, rendering its relationship with recent slave trade unlikely. However, its relationship with slavery during Roman Empire or Islamic rule cannot be ruled out._
> 
> The authors rule out the Atlantic (_recent slave trade_) slave trade - but give good chances to the Moors (Islamic rule) and/or whatever Africans the Romans pumped into Iberia/Spain when they were ruling it; 
> 
> Spain has a Moorish history from 711-1492 and belonged to two powerful Moorish kingdoms/dynasties with *Almoravid* and *Almohad* - spanning a period of over 200 years; So the Moors (Walbah/Huelva) are most def. an option as also the _authors themselves associate_;


Yes, but _the authors themselves_ also consider the Roman empire as well, and the geographical distribution pattern of these markers does not correspond with historical evidence from Islamic times.

Plus it wasn't Spain that even had African (and Near Eastern) "Roman" rulers at the time, but Roman Italy certainly did. Obviously immigrants would be more attracted to go to where the center of power was, not a periphery territory like Hispania. Same for the importation of slaves.

----------


## Drac II

> looks conclusive to me
> 
> thanks


"Pretty conclusive" cherry-picking, as his usual strategy has been since day 1, conveniently "forgetting" or trying to give a spin to other studies that suggest any different from what he wants to hear, as plainly seen in this thread, which are his very first interventions in these forums, after "another" angry Italian user ("Wormhole") with a suspiciously similar agenda was permanently evicted from the forum for rampant racist remarks:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...Dodecad)/page8

----------


## Drac II

> You do know there where people in iberia before islam was created or judasim or any other religion.................whats with this paranoia ?


You should ask that question to those obsessed with attributing anything "foreign/not-European" in Iberia to those "Moors".

----------


## Drac II

> This is like being in Groundhog Day...same darn thing over and over.
> 
> We're aware of the anthrofora Iberians' position on these matters. You could just as well cut and paste from all your thousands of prior posts.
> 
> All of the yDNA "E" clades and the mtDNA "L" clades migrated into Spain only in the Neolithic (no matter that the only Neolithic yDNA "E" clade found in Iberia is E-V13, and that there is no E-M81 or mtDNA "L" trail along the northern shore of the Mediterranean). The Moors who carried E-M81, for example, and who invaded Spain in 711AD left next to no descendents in Iberia. That's because they used magical powers to take over an entire peninsula without troops. Probably a few dozen at the most appeared on the shore. They immediately put a spell on the natives to convert them to Islam, and it was these "NATIVE" Iberians who conquered the peninsula and had all those harems. The pitifully few descendents of the actual Moors who did exist were identified through the use of a DNA test and happily expelled or burned to death, along with many genetically pure Iberians whose ancestors had converted to Islam through the use of black magic. End of story. Do I have it right? 
> 
> Amazing. None of this, even if true, would change in the slightest the fact that these clades came from North Africa. I certainly understand the desire to flesh out the history of one's country and it's population genetics history as well. But other than that what difference does it make if an "E" clade arrived in 4000 BC or in 200AD as a slave or in 711AD with the Moors? Is it less "brown" if it came earlier? Or are you still fighting in the Reconquista? Honestly, I don't get the logic here at all.
> 
> If the desire is to truly get a grip on the population genetic history of Iberia, then wasting all this time virtually repeating the same sentences over and over again would not seem to be the most productive use of one's time. 
> ...


You certainly are not so ingenuous, are you? I think you know perfectly well why. The people obsessed with them "Moors" in Iberia are the ones who for their respective agendas are trying to manipulate the history of Spain and Portugal to try to argue that the Iberians of today are not the same as the Iberians of ancient times, and that during the Middle Ages a "huge" change happened that altered the racial/ethnic make-up of these countries. You being an Italian and all should already know what this is all about very well, since the same people try to do it to you as well but by using events particular to Italian history instead. Example:

http://www.amazon.com/From-Slave-Emp.../dp/1493783599


As for your attempt at mocking historical scholarship: it is not far fetched at all that a minority of foreigners managed to take over large parts of Iberia. It had been done before by both Romans and Germanics, so nothing "strange" here. And it has also happened in other parts of the world as well. For example: it took less than 200 Spaniards to defeat the entire empire of the Incas. Military conquests, again, do not require huge numbers of people. The Islamic army that entered Iberia in the 8th century AD was only a few thousand strong, and the Iberian Peninsula already had several million inhabitants. Most people in a given country are NOT combatants. They actually stand aside and watch the people struggling for power duke it out among themselves. To boot, the Iberian population at the time did not like the Visigoths and their inept government and constant fighting among themselves for power, so the Muslims were in fact seen as a welcome intervention to help get rid of them.

----------


## Angela

> Why ? 
> You are lying, nobody has ever said that haplogroup "E" in Europe or Iberia is Palaeolithic....at least not me personally, another thing is mesolithic, but that would be in South-East Europe, most probably. Anyways, we know nothing, since the ancient samples we have are scarce.


Be careful who you call a liar. Oh yes, you personally...

Wilhelm:
"of the total 6% of E1b1b of Iberia about 4.6% is M-81 and it is of paleolithic origin."

You really shouldn't argue about things like this with someone who has almost total recall.

Ed. Oh, and you can also find posts there about the relocation of the population of Granada to the north and west after the Reconquista. So, there are indeed historical treatments of the issue in Spanish. Strange that you haven't incorporated that material into your speculations.(Yes, I read Spanish. There was a time when I studied in Spain, and was quite fond of it and its people. You are making me seriously reconsider that opinion.)

----------


## Wilhelm

> Be careful who you call a liar. Oh yes, you personally...
> 
> Wilhelm:
> "of the total 6% of E1b1b of Iberia about 4.6% is M-81 and it is of paleolithic origin."
> 
> You really shouldn't argue about things like this with someone who has almost total recall.


LOL, what is this from, like 5 years ago ??





> Ed. Oh, and you can also find posts there about the relocation of the population of Granada to the north and west after the Reconquista. So, there are indeed historical treatments of the issue in Spanish. Strange that you haven't incorporated that material into your speculations.(Yes, I read Spanish. There was a time when I studied in Spain, and was quite fond of it and its people. You are making me seriously reconsider that opinion.)


Yes, there were relocations , That doesn't mean the entire population was replaced. In fact the 70% R1b seems to follow the pattern East-West therefore seems to be native from the area, more than in Galicia, Asturias, CAstille (parts of northern Spain in which the repopulators came to Granada).

Why you italians so agreessive ? Seems like your life depends on it, wow.

----------


## Knovas

Someone asked for ancient mtDNA L in Iberia. There you are the samples mentioned by Wilhelm, which appear as L2 (the same as 5 of those samples from Huelva). Too bad there's no more resolution available.

http://realhistoryww.com/world_histo...y_location.htm

Only one L3 in Granada, by far the most relevant population regarding the Muslim influence...curiously enough, people weren't interested on that and prefered to focus on the data which seemed to match their usual rhetoric. Big surprise LOL.

----------


## Vallicanus

Can any of the Iberian posters suggest the reason why mtdna U6 is more common in NW Iberia and in western France even up to 4.5pc in Finistere on the western tip of Brittany.

*U6 isn't just "Moorish" because how could a female-mediated haplogroup be so common along the Atlantic shore of western Europe in areas never ruled by the "Moors".
*
U6 is not even a major haplogroup in North Africa (Mozabites excepted), ranging from 0 to 10pc in most areas.

----------


## Sile

> "Pretty conclusive" cherry-picking, as his usual strategy has been since day 1, conveniently "forgetting" or trying to give a spin to other studies that suggest any different from what he wants to hear, as plainly seen in this thread, which are his very first interventions in these forums, after "another" angry Italian user ("Wormhole") with a suspiciously similar agenda was permanently evicted from the forum for rampant racist remarks:
> 
> http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...Dodecad)/page8


Wormhole I see had a Canadian Flag, how do you know he was Italian?

LeBrock has a canadian flag also

----------


## Knovas

The time depth regarding maternal lines makes not possible to give an exact explanation. Quite a lot of the U6 in Europe could be at least as old as H, I have the feeling that, in the distant past, this line was quite popular in West Eurasia, not just North Africa or Western Europe. Many migration patterns could be correct, I do not discard an early offshoot from North Africa to Iberia and then to the rest of Europe.

----------


## Angela

> You certainly are not so ingenuous, are you? I think you know perfectly well why. The people obsessed with them "Moors" in Iberia are the ones who for their respective agendas are trying to manipulate the history of Spain and Portugal to try to argue that the Iberians of today are not the same as the Iberians of ancient times, and that during the Middle Ages a "huge" change happened that altered the racial/ethnic make-up of these countries. You being an Italian and all should already know what this is all about very well, since the same people try to do it to you as well but by using events particular to Italian history instead. Example:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/From-Slave-Emp.../dp/1493783599
> 
> 
> As for your attempt at mocking historical scholarship: it is not far fetched at all that a minority of foreigners managed to take over large parts of Iberia. It had been done before by both Romans and Germanics, so nothing "strange" here. And it has also happened in other parts of the world as well. For example: it took less than 200 Spaniards to defeat the entire empire of the Incas. Military conquests, again, do not require huge numbers of people. The Islamic army that entered Iberia in the 8th century AD was only a few thousand strong, and the Iberian Peninsula already had several million inhabitants. Most people in a given country are NOT combatants. They actually stand aside and watch the people struggling for power duke it out among themselves. To boot, the Iberian population at the time did not like the Visigoths and their inept government and constant fighting among themselves for power, so the Muslims were in fact seen as a welcome intervention to help get rid of them.



I'm afraid you're operating under a misapprehension about my position on this as on other matters. No one could have been more surprised than I was by the Ralph and Coop paper. I've studied the history of my country, and of Rome as part of that endeavor, my whole life, and have read the same things about slavery and its supposed impact on Italian genetics as everyone else. I accepted it almost without question. Slavery was a fact of life in all of the ancient Empires, (and in modern ones like the U.S., certain British possessions, the Spanish and Portuguese areas of the New World as well) The acquisition of slaves was, after all, both one of the goals of empire building, and one of the bulwarks of those empires. 

Has it annoyed me that the emphasis was always on the slaves from the Near East and North Africa, and nary a word was said about the multitudes of slaves from Germania and Gaul and Spain and Pannonia and the Balkans as well? Yes, of course it has, just as it has annoyed me that it isn't obvious to people that those slaves were spread all over the empire. But ultimately what difference does it make what some racists think? As my father always said, they're just jealous, lol. When you have true pride in who you are and who your people are, warts and all, the opinions of foreigners just doesn't matter very much. (How the historical record, scant as it is, can be reconciled with the IBD analyses being done is a question for another thread. This isn't a thread about Italy, you know, much as you are attempting to make it one.)

Which brings me to another point. I don't think it's gone unobserved that every time some one mentions any SSA or North African admixture in Iberians, or mtDNA "L" or yDNA "E" in Iberia, the immediate response is...well, there's some in France or Britain or Germany too. The strongest rejoinder, however, seems to be...well, the Italians have more. Were it true in every instance, for argument's sake, how does it make your (in a general sense) situation any better? It doesn't, so far as I can see. It also makes you subject to mockery because it is such a ridiculous tack to take. I recall one epic thread where the claim first was, well, we don't have as much of x as Italy. When that was shown to be untrue, it was, well, we don't have as much as southern Italy. Then it had to become well, at least we don't have as much as Sicily. I thought the heights of absurdity had been reached, but I was wrong. The claim then became that we don't have as much as *western* Sicily! Surely you see the ridiculousness of these arguments? The genetic evidence is what it is...you're not persuading anybody to the contrary by these bizarre antics. I'm afraid you're going to have to deal with it sooner or later. (Oh, and the much maligned and very proud Sicilians in my experience don't give a ***** ***about any of this. Nor do the Calabrians and Apulians. The only comment I've ever heard is oh no, does that Northern European mean German or Irish or something? Prejudice doesn't only run in one direction, you know.)

Now, after this philosophical detour, back to the North African impact on Iberia. As I said to one of your compatriots, my view in most cases is that there is rarely full scale replacement involved with population movements. Rather, the genetic data show a sequence of layers of dna. 

In the case of Iberia, north African genetic markers do not appear to have arrived in the Mesolithic, at least not from the results so far. 

The Neolithic, as it applies to Iberia, has traditionally been held to come from the east either along the northern littoral of the Mediterranean, or by sea. However, an argument could be made from a recent paper or two (You really are going to have to do your own research.) that there was movement from North Africa into Iberia, or at least southern Iberia during the early Neolithic. 

Then, despite your protestations, a cluster or so might date from the Carthaginians, not only because of the trading posts, but because so many of them were in Spain with Hannibal. The slaves brought to Spain and Portugal during the days of the Empire are another possibility, as are, despite the hysteria into which it sends Iberians, the Moors. 

The *ONLY* way to sort all this out is to do the hard *work* of breaking down these uniparental markers into sub-clusters and then attempting to date them. Until that is done, this is all just speculation, by you and by me. 

Oh, and if you're going to insist that all of this is Neolithic, you're still going to have to explain why there is an east/west cline. In terms of the relocations after the Reconquista, how would the R1b percentages change if *Moors* were relocated? They wouldn't. 

And of course, all of this is irrelevant as to the issue of whether Iberians have North African admixture. It isn't less "brown" when it's older, you know. Embrace your diversity...I do. 

And now, I'm going to use whatever time I have left today on something other than Spanish dna. Fascinating no doubt, but I have other interests.

----------


## martiko

> I'm afraid you're operating under a misapprehension about my position on this as.......... despite the hysteria into which it sends Iberians, the Moors. 
> 
> The *ONLY* way to sort all this out is to do the hard *work* of breaking down these uniparental markers into sub-clusters and then attempting to date them. Until that is done, this is all just speculation, by you and by me. 
> 
> ............................................... the R1b percentages change if *Moors* were relocated? They wouldn't. 
> 
> And of course, all of this is irrelevant as to the issue of whether Iberians have North African admixture. It isn't less "brown" when it's older, you know. Embrace your diversity...I do. 
> 
> And now, I'm going to use whatever time I have left today on something other than Spanish dna. Fascinating no doubt, but I have other interests.


they did not install in you light on all floors, it would seem. Either otherwise you grilled light bulbs or melted fuses.

----------


## Sile

> they did not install in you light on all floors, it would seem. Either otherwise you grilled light bulbs or melted fuses.


cheap comment............also known as, I have no come back.....I will deflect


I have never understood why some iberians deny the fact of north-african migration paths of peoples and *only* accept, sea migration (?) or of northern migration paths.

----------


## martiko

> cheap comment............also known as, I have no come back.....I will deflect
> 
> 
> I have never understood why some iberians deny the fact of north-african migration paths of peoples and *only* accept, sea migration (?) or of northern migration paths.




Your retorts is poor and stupid, as you and I guess you. 
Can be you detest spanishes because you envy them in the same way as the unable envy people who succeed

----------


## Sile

> Your retorts is poor and stupid, as you and I guess you. 
> Can be you detest spanishes because you envy them in the same way as the unable envy people who succeed


I don't detest Spaniards at all

you are just too paranoid, ...........paranoia is when you believe you are inferior ..............I will let you believe that.

You need to not care about nationalistic things when you are on forums like this, because nations and genetics do not mix

----------


## Drac II

> Can any of the Iberian posters suggest the reason why mtdna U6 is more common in NW Iberia and in western France even up to 4.5pc in Finistere on the western tip of Brittany.
> 
> *U6 isn't just "Moorish" because how could a female-mediated haplogroup be so common along the Atlantic shore of western Europe in areas never ruled by the "Moors".
> *
> U6 is not even a major haplogroup in North Africa (Mozabites excepted), ranging from 0 to 10pc in most areas.


U6 in fact may not even be North African after all but actually Middle Eastern in origin:

Sequencing of 81 entire human mitochondrial DNAs (mtDNAs) belonging to haplogroups M1 and U6 reveals that these predominantly North African clades arose in southwestern Asia and moved together to Africa about 40,000 to 45,000 years ago. [...] Thus, the early Upper Palaeolithic population(s) carrying M1 and U6 did not return to Africa along the southern coastal route of the "out of Africa" exit, but from the Mediterranean area.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/314/5806/1767

At the risk of sounding like a broken record -but it's just impossible not to address this obsession that even some "professionals" have with "Moors" in Iberia- the main reason why U6 used to be considered "African" and perhaps having something to do with the Islamic period in earlier studies was in fact because it had been mainly detected in Iberia, particularly on the western side, but once it started to show up elsewhere in considerable frequencies then the opinions regarding its origins changed.

----------


## Drac II

> Wormhole I see had a Canadian Flag, how do you know he was Italian?
> 
> LeBrock has a canadian flag also


If you read many of Wormhole's posts you will easily conclude that he was of Italian descent. He did not have to spell it out. It was very clear.

----------


## Drac II

> I'm afraid you're operating under a misapprehension about my position on this as on other matters. No one could have been more surprised than I was by the Ralph and Coop paper. I've studied the history of my country, and of Rome as part of that endeavor, my whole life, and have read the same things about slavery and its supposed impact on Italian genetics as everyone else. I accepted it almost without question. Slavery was a fact of life in all of the ancient Empires, (and in modern ones like the U.S., certain British possessions, the Spanish and Portuguese areas of the New World as well) The acquisition of slaves was, after all, both one of the goals of empire building, and one of the bulwarks of those empires. 
> 
> Has it annoyed me that the emphasis was always on the slaves from the Near East and North Africa, and nary a word was said about the multitudes of slaves from Germania and Gaul and Spain and Pannonia and the Balkans as well? Yes, of course it has, just as it has annoyed me that it isn't obvious to people that those slaves were spread all over the empire. But ultimately what difference does it make what some racists think? As my father always said, they're just jealous, lol. When you have true pride in who you are and who your people are, warts and all, the opinions of foreigners just doesn't matter very much. (How the historical record, scant as it is, can be reconciled with the IBD analyses being done is a question for another thread. This isn't a thread about Italy, you know, much as you are attempting to make it one.)
> 
> Which brings me to another point. I don't think it's gone unobserved that every time some one mentions any SSA or North African admixture in Iberians, or mtDNA "L" or yDNA "E" in Iberia, the immediate response is...well, there's some in France or Britain or Germany too. The strongest rejoinder, however, seems to be...well, the Italians have more. Were it true in every instance, for argument's sake, how does it make your (in a general sense) situation any better? It doesn't, so far as I can see. It also makes you subject to mockery because it is such a ridiculous tack to take. I recall one epic thread where the claim first was, well, we don't have as much of x as Italy. When that was shown to be untrue, it was, well, we don't have as much as southern Italy. Then it had to become well, at least we don't have as much as Sicily. I thought the heights of absurdity had been reached, but I was wrong. The claim then became that we don't have as much as *western* Sicily! Surely you see the ridiculousness of these arguments? The genetic evidence is what it is...you're not persuading anybody to the contrary by these bizarre antics. I'm afraid you're going to have to deal with it sooner or later. (Oh, and the much maligned and very proud Sicilians in my experience don't give a ***** ***about any of this. Nor do the Calabrians and Apulians. The only comment I've ever heard is oh no, does that Northern European mean German or Irish or something? Prejudice doesn't only run in one direction, you know.)
> 
> Now, after this philosophical detour, back to the North African impact on Iberia. As I said to one of your compatriots, my view in most cases is that there is rarely full scale replacement involved with population movements. Rather, the genetic data show a sequence of layers of dna. 
> 
> In the case of Iberia, north African genetic markers do not appear to have arrived in the Mesolithic, at least not from the results so far. 
> ...



The reason why Italians are sometimes brought up in these threads I think you know it all too well: they are in fact sometimes started or constantly assailed by some Italian posters with strange ideas and agendas. We are just giving them the replies that they apparently ask so much for.

Regarding the dating of "African" DNA in Iberia: I think you already have seen the results of such attempts so far, like in Moorjani et al. or Lazaridis et al., and they show that this DNA in Iberia predates even the advent of Islam itself (7th century AD) by centuries, if not even millennia, so needless to say any Islamic presence in Iberia (8th century AD) as well. This older age, coupled with the geographical distribution of this DNA in the Iberian Peninsula (west to east cline, not south to north), pretty much favors the opinion that this ancestry has little to do with any minority of "Moors" from the Middle Ages.

----------


## Sile

> If you read many of Wormhole's posts you will easily conclude that he was of Italian descent. He did not have to spell it out. It was very clear.


and you deciphered this over time............well let me try, you have:
USA flag
Aragon/catalan shield
English heraldric crown 
defender of Iberic people

hmm....hard decision..........unsure.........who cares about nationalism on this site!

----------


## Sile

> The reason why Italians are sometimes brought up in these threads I think you know it all too well: they are in fact sometimes started or constantly assailed by some Italian posters with strange ideas and agendas. We are just giving them the replies that they apparently ask so much for.
> 
> Regarding the dating of "African" DNA in Iberia: I think you already have seen the results of such attempts so far, like in Moorjani et al. or Lazaridis et al., and they show that this DNA in Iberia predates even the advent of Islam itself (7th century AD) by centuries, if not even millennia, so needless to say any Islamic presence in Iberia (8th century AD) as well. This older age, coupled with the geographical distribution of this DNA in the Iberian Peninsula (west to east cline, not south to north), pretty much favors the opinion that this ancestry has little to do with any minority of "Moors" from the Middle Ages.


what strange ideas ................never read any in 2 years...............the only nationalistic, propaganda, indoctrinated people I have seen on these forums are slavs, albanians and iberians

----------


## LeBrok

> *At the risk of sounding like a broken record* -but it's just impossible not to address *this obsession* that even some "professionals" have with "Moors" in Iberia- the main reason why U6 used to be considered "African" and perhaps having something to do with the Islamic period in earlier studies was in fact because it had been mainly detected in Iberia, particularly on the western side, but once it started to show up elsewhere in considerable frequencies then the opinions regarding its origins changed.


Obsessing about obsession of other's "obsession"?

----------


## martiko

> I don't detest Spaniards at all
> 
> you are just too paranoid, ...........paranoia is when you believe you are inferior ..............I will let you believe that.
> 
> You need to not care about nationalistic things when you are on forums like this, because nations and genetics do not mix


it is normal since I am with Spanish parents1187221678.gif

----------


## Drac II

> and you deciphered this over time............well let me try, you have:
> USA flag
> Aragon/catalan shield
> English heraldric crown 
> defender of Iberic people
> 
> hmm....hard decision..........unsure.........who cares about nationalism on this site!


It does not take Sherlock Holmes to easily figure out what his ancestry was. You can very often easily tell from the content of someone's posts. You just have to pay attention.

----------


## Drac II

> what strange ideas ................never read any in 2 years...............the only nationalistic, propaganda, indoctrinated people I have seen on these forums are slavs, albanians and iberians


Apparently you haven't been paying attention for the last 2 years, because there has been quite a bit of it coming not from those groups you mention but from some Italians.

----------


## martiko

> what strange ideas ................never read any in 2 years...............the only nationalistic, propaganda, indoctrinated people I have seen on these forums are slavs, albanians and iberians


They are paranoids as me? be wary you he could in credit of others there.
But that writes you to get angry them?

----------


## joeyc

> Wrong. There is mtDNA L in neolithic Spain in Tres Montes, Navarra. And there is E-M81 and mtDNA L all over Europe. For E-M81 for example you have : 
> 
> http://anthrospain.blogspot.com.es/2...in-europe.html
> 
> and mtDNA L in EUrope : 
> 
> http://anthrospain.blogspot.com.es/2...and-spain.html
> 
> 
> Of course it makes a lot of difference, from a historical point of view, is not the same 4000 BC than 711AD...


A few corrections:

1) The Tuscan samples come from only 3 isolated locations (Murlo, Volterra, Casentino) so you can't label them as Tuscan

2) Achilli et al. found 0 SSA haplotype out of 177 samples from Lombardy

3) _Boattini's study found ZERO mtDNA L anywhere in Italy._

----------

