# Population Genetics > Y-DNA Haplogroups >  Black Irish come from R1b Iranians?

## JQP4545

Do the darker features of some Western Europeans (such as the Welsh, and Black Irish) come from R1b invaders? R1b is the most recent Y-Haplogroup in Europe, being spread by the Indo-Europeans who came from the East (I believe somewhere near present day Iran). Did these invaders bring Middle Eastern features?

----------


## Fire Haired

No way is this true. R1b in western Europe is almost all under R1b1a2a1a L11 it was spread with Germanic and Italo Celtic languages starting about 5,000ybp(spread of R1b L11 Germanic Italo Celts in western Europe. At some point R1b1a2a L23, R1b1a2 M269, or R1b1a P297 migrated to Russia or southeast Europe from the mid east and later developed into R1b L11 and spread to western Europe. No way is Iran connected. Yes Indo European languages started and spread east of Ireland but mostly in Europe and no where near Iran. It is really debatable exactly were Indo European languages began but Y DNa and archeology has been able to trace migrations of people who spoke ancestral language to proto Balto Slavic with y DNa R1a1a1b1 Z283 migrating out of Yamna culture in Russia and Ukraine same with Indo Iranians and Tocharian languages with R1a1a1b2 Z93 both spreading out of Yamna starting about 5,000ybp. Yamna was in Russia and Ukraine like I said before and most likely light skinned Europeans. There has been DNA taken from Yamna in southern Russia and Ukraine click here no paper has been released but they did mention they people of the Ukraine-Russia Steppe area not just Yamna culture from 5,000 and 6,000ybp had light skin like modern Europeans and darker eyes than average Europeans at least for Yamna I am not sure about the other culture Catcomb. So the traditional view with the Kurgen hypthiesis would have Indo Europeans begging in Ukraine and Russia area and defintley would not be the source for dark skin in Ireland.

Like I said the Germanic Italo Celtic R1b1a2a1a L11 father haplogroups at some point had to migrate to Europe and would have been probably mainly brown skinned. But if they had been in Europe for maybe 2,000 years before arriving in western Europe about 5,000ybp they may have been become mainly European and pale skinned. The Gedorsian in K12b has shown a huge connection with R1b in Europe click here which is almost all under R1b1a2a L23 and could mean R1b1a2a L23 in south east Europe came from the same migration originally as R1b1a2a1a L11 in western Europe. Which shows a transfer of Near eastern blood austomally with R1b1a2a L23 in Europe and it is highest in the British isles just like R1b1a2a1a L11 is. It also seems like red hair was spread in western Europe by R1b1a2a1a L11 Germanic italo Celts or at least raised above 1% which would mean when R1b L11 Germanic Italo Celts arrived in western Europe 5,000ybp they were mainly European ancestry.

----------


## Fire Haired

Like I said the Germanic Italo Celtic R1b1a2a1a L11 father haplogroups at some point had to migrate to Europe and would have been probably mainly brown skinned. But if they had been in Europe for maybe 2,000 years before arriving in western Europe about 5,000ybp they may have been become mainly European and pale skinned. The Gedorsian in K12b has shown a huge connection with R1b in Europe click here which is almost all under R1b1a2a L23 and could mean R1b1a2a L23 in south east Europe came from the same migration originally as R1b1a2a1a L11 in western Europe. Which shows a transfer of Near eastern blood austomally with R1b1a2a L23 in Europe and it is highest in the British isles just like R1b1a2a1a L11 is. It also seems like red hair was spread in western Europe by R1b1a2a1a L11 Germanic italo Celts or at least raised above 1% which would mean when R1b L11 Germanic Italo Celts arrived in western Europe 5,000ybp they were mainly European ancestry. 


I have also wondered if R1b L11 being originally mid eastern Gedorsian being highest in the British isles is were the black Irish come from. Brown skin pops up in my dad's family it comes from his grandpa 100% of his ancestry was from the British isles. There are people in my family as dark as Pakistani who are darker than People from Afghanistan and west of there. In my city and specifically my area there are tons of muslims mainly coming from Pakistani and they always think certain people in my family are Pakistani or at least near eastern. So I have always been wondering were the darkness in the British isles comes from. I was looking at ancient Roman writing when they were conquering the Britons, and said that the Britons had a darker appearance than the Gauls and less yellowish hair and said even some are olive to brown skinned kind of like Iberians. I cant find the quote now but I swear that's what it was saying. I know Welsh have been known to be olive by English and the black British thing really exists. It could just be random and exists in all of Europe or there really could be a people group responsibly.


I wish there was some type of DNA study on this. My dad's Geno 2.0 "who am I" results all of his ancestry is overall mainly Germanic mostly from the country Germany, then lowlands of Scotland, England, and southern Norway. He had 10% more meditreaen and 10% less North European than the average person from each of his ancestral countries. In the Geno 2,0 their only near eastern group is Southwest Asian while med is spread out in Europe and Near east most popular in Near east I think there is a chance that extra med could be Near eastern. My dad is a black Brit or whatever you want to call it I wonder what other dark skinned people from the British isles results would be. In the Irish book of invasions it says the Fir bog the people.

----------


## Degredado

The physical appearance of R1b bearers has no doubt changed pretty drastically over the millenia, from Mongoloid to Mongoloid-Caucasoid hybrid types to a Caucasoid/Middle Eastern type and finally to a Middle Eastern/Indigenous "Northern" European type.... a process that happened to a greater or lesser extent with all haplogroups, it's true, but R1b have made a particularly long trip, from Central Asia >> Middle East >> Steppes >> Atlantic (and not to mention the R-V88 in Africa), usually as conquerors and consequently having children with the native women as they went on. Which, of course, would result in their constant "change" of phenotype.

Until their M269 stage, when they reached the steppes and met women native of higher latitudes, R1b's were almost definitely "swarthy". But by the time they reached Ireland, after crossing all of Europe and mixing with the native women for thousands of years, I have no reason to believe they were still swarthy, although of course some of its members might have still been. Maybe haplogroups J, G and E (and why not certain mtDNA haplogroups) are better "suspects" for swarthy looks in Northwestern Europe, as these haplogroups arrived in Mediterranean Europe straight from the Middle East, without pooling in the Steppes/Eastern Europe.

----------


## JQP4545

> The physical appearance of R1b bearers has no doubt changed pretty drastically over the millenia, from Mongoloid to Mongoloid-Caucasoid hybrid types to a Caucasoid/Middle Eastern type and finally to a Middle Eastern/Indigenous "Northern" European type.... a process that happened to a greater or lesser extent with all haplogroups, it's true, but R1b have made a particularly long trip, from Central Asia >> Middle East >> Steppes >> Atlantic (and not to mention the R-V88 in Africa), usually as conquerors and consequently having children with the native women as they went on. Which, of course, would result in their constant "change" of phenotype.
> 
> Until their M269 stage, when they reached the steppes and met women native of higher latitudes, R1b's were almost definitely "swarthy". _But by the time they reached Ireland, after crossing all of Europe and mixing with the native women for thousands of years, I have no reason to believe they were still swarthy, although of course some of its members might have still been._ Maybe haplogroups J, G and E (and why not certain mtDNA haplogroups) are better "suspects" for swarthy looks in Northwestern Europe, as these haplogroups arrived in Mediterranean Europe straight from the Middle East, without pooling in the Steppes/Eastern Europe.


I guess this would be the question I am asking. Did some Irish people retain features of their Middle Eastern ancestors? Clearly not most of them, but do the minority who we call "Black Irish" retain darker features from their Near Eastern Ancestors? Or does it come from somewhere else?

----------


## Fire Haired

> The physical appearance of R1b bearers has no doubt changed pretty drastically over the millenia, from Mongoloid to Mongoloid-Caucasoid hybrid types to a Caucasoid/Middle Eastern type and finally to a Middle Eastern/Indigenous "Northern" European type.... a process that happened to a greater or lesser extent with all haplogroups, it's true, but R1b have made a particularly long trip, from Central Asia >> Middle East >> Steppes >> Atlantic (and not to mention the R-V88 in Africa), usually as conquerors and consequently having children with the native women as they went on. Which, of course, would result in their constant "change" of phenotype.
> 
> Until their M269 stage, when they reached the steppes and met women native of higher latitudes, R1b's were almost definitely "swarthy". But by the time they reached Ireland, after crossing all of Europe and mixing with the native women for thousands of years, I have no reason to believe they were still swarthy, although of course some of its members might have still been. Maybe haplogroups J, G and E (and why not certain mtDNA haplogroups) are better "suspects" for swarthy looks in Northwestern Europe, as these haplogroups arrived in Mediterranean Europe straight from the Middle East, without pooling in the Steppes/Eastern Europe.


You cant take J,G, and E in northwest Europe and look for swathy or whatever ones. Y DNA is just a direct male lineage Adolf Hitler had E1b1b and Y DNA E was originally sub sharan Africans he definitely doesn't look black. Its like what u said in the begging. It gets so annoying of how little people know about the human family tree. So many people assume R1 is Caucasian when actulley originally it would have been in Mongliods. I don't think you can say all R1b spread is conquest deifntley Germanic Italo Celtic R1b1a2a1a L11 but besides that we don't know. The G2a, E1b1b, J1, and J2 in northwest Europe had to go through eastern then central then northern Europe so not straight from the near east.

----------


## Fire Haired

> I guess this would be the question I am asking. Did some Irish people retain features of their Middle Eastern ancestors? Clearly not most of them, but do the minority who we call "Black Irish" retain darker features from their Near Eastern Ancestors? Or does it come from somewhere else?


What do you mean their near eastern ancestors obviously their ancestors are mainly European. The dark skin in the British isles might not be unique to them just it is more known. I doubt it has nothing to do with R1b because by the time it hit Ireland as R1b1a2a1a2c L21 and R1b1a2a1a2a Df27 around 4,000ybp it's lineage had already been in Europe for nearly 4,000 years. globe13, skull shape and other physical features, mtDNA, Y DNA, etc. Show Europeans, north Africans, and near easterns are in the same Caucasin family. People from Antolia-Caucus-all the way to Iran are more related to Europeans than north Africans their mtDNA lineages are more connected and most importantly Iranians have about 45% west Asian in globe13 which is the brother to the only European group called North Euro which on average is about 50% in Europe. Both North Africans and Near easterns have brownish skin this means most likely Europeans ancestors had the same skin color.

All of the different type of palness in Europeans skin, hair, and eye color exists in mid easterns and probably is not from European inter marriage(Origin of European palness(skin, hair, and eye color[/URL]). There are some domintely pale skinned near eastern people like Druze, Caucus ethnic groups, and Samartians. But European palness is more than skin color it is also hair and eye color. Its crazy that around the Atlantic Baltic most people have yellowish hair and blue eyes the change from all brown eyed and dark haired to that had to happen at some point. I think Europeans ancestors became totally pale skinned and very light haired and eyed separately but for the same reasons probably some type of adaption. I think happened before the last glacial maximum started 26,600ybp but maybe during it I don't know it is really impossible to say when it originated. I really don't understand how evolution is possible how Europeans ancestors could go from brown skinned to what they are now.

----------


## Alan

> The physical appearance of R1b bearers has no doubt changed pretty drastically over the millenia, from Mongoloid to Mongoloid-Caucasoid hybrid types to a Caucasoid/Middle Eastern type and finally to a Middle Eastern/Indigenous "Northern" European type.... a process that happened to a greater or lesser extent with all haplogroups, it's true, but R1b have made a particularly long trip, from Central Asia >> Middle East >> Steppes >> Atlantic (and not to mention the R-V88 in Africa), usually as conquerors and consequently having children with the native women as they went on. Which, of course, would result in their constant "change" of phenotype.
> 
> Until their M269 stage, when they reached the steppes and met women native of higher latitudes, R1b's were almost definitely "swarthy". But by the time they reached Ireland, after crossing all of Europe and mixing with the native women for thousands of years, I have no reason to believe they were still swarthy, although of course some of its members might have still been. Maybe haplogroups J, G and E (and why not certain mtDNA haplogroups) are better "suspects" for swarthy looks in Northwestern Europe, as these haplogroups arrived in Mediterranean Europe straight from the Middle East, without pooling in the Steppes/Eastern Europe.


R1b was never Mongoloid to begin with and Central Asia wasn't either before the Turkic and Mongol migrations. Also R1b did not start in Central Asia but Southwest of the Caspian where it entered as R1* and mutated to R1b.

You come to wrong conclusions because R is related to Q. But since we know P(ancestor of R and Q) ultimately originated from IJK and from what we have found out about American Indian tribes Q Haplogroup being more ancient than Mongolian Q and them being more "Caucasian" than modern East Asians, proves actually that Q and most Mongoloids were once Caucasoid and changed their physical features to what they are today.

----------


## Templar

> R1b was never Mongoloid to begin with and Central Asia wasn't either before the Turkic and Mongol migrations. Also R1b did not start in Central Asia but Southwest of the Caspian where it entered as R1* and mutated to R1b.
> 
> You come to wrong conclusions because R is related to Q. But since we know P(ancestor of R and Q) ultimately originated from IJK and from what we have found out about American Indian tribes Q Haplogroup being more ancient than Mongolian Q and them being more "Caucasian" than modern East Asians, proves actually that Q and most Mongoloids were once Caucasoid and changed their physical features to what they are today.


R though did probably have somewhat Mongoloid features. Features that developed to resist the cold. Like small noses and round faces. The two people that have the highest rates of R (slavs and celts) both are stereotyped as pug-nosed and chubby-faced.

----------


## Degredado

> R1b was never Mongoloid to begin with and Central Asia wasn't either before the Turkic and Mongol migrations. Also R1b did not start in Central Asia but Southwest of the Caspian where it entered as R1* and mutated to R1b.
> 
> You come to wrong conclusions because R is related to Q. But since we know P(ancestor of R and Q) ultimately originated from IJK and from what we have found out about American Indian tribes Q Haplogroup being more ancient than Mongolian Q and them being more "Caucasian" than modern East Asians, proves actually that Q and most Mongoloids were once Caucasoid and changed their physical features to what they are today.



Well maybe you're right... keeping in mind that we are all just speculating here. R1b is thought to have arisen east of the Caspian, so it's definitely possible that the original R1b carriers were at least partly Mongoloid (although fully Mongoloid would be unlikely, I'll agree on that). My wild guess would be that they probably looked somewhat like modern-day Uzbeks or Kazakhs or Tatars. As they went on their long westward trek, they picked up more and more Caucasoid genes, until becoming Irish redheads at the end of their journey.

----------


## Tone

As for the origin of "black" Irish, no one really knows, but we can make a few assumptions. 

The first assumption is that indigenous, Paleolithic Northern Europeans were probably all fair skinned and light haired like the Baltic type they most match with genetically today. 

*If* that is true, then originally all of Ireland was *probably* fair in complexion and the "black" comes from invaders. The most likely suspects for this invasion are 

1. Linearbandkeramilk Culture (LBK) that settled in Central Europe from Anatolia during the Neolithic around 5500 bc. These first farmers no doubt brought dark and maybe curly hair first into Central Europe, and maybe the British Islands too -- but their influence there was small. 

2. The second likeliest suspect was the Megalith builders who, around 4000 to 3000 bc, linked the Atlantic seaboard from Iberia to Ireland and beyond. 

3. The third and most likely suspect for bringing darker phenotypes into the British Islands were the Bell Beakers. The Beaker invasion from Iberia to Ireland and Britain around 2500 bc was massive, and we know they carried R1B. Were they swarthy, R1b-carrying boatmen from Iberia and the Eastern Mediterranean settling in fair, red-headed Ireland? No one knows for sure. 

We just have suspects.

----------


## Sile

My Irish friend is a black Irish, he and his father state the name comes from the Spanish armada sailors which where not butchered by the Irish after their ships sank rounding the north of Scotland and running down past Ireland to get back to Spain.
It refers to their olive skin.

----------


## Maciamo

> Do the darker features of some Western Europeans (such as the Welsh, and Black Irish) come from R1b invaders? R1b is the most recent Y-Haplogroup in Europe, being spread by the Indo-Europeans who came from the East (I believe somewhere near present day Iran). Did these invaders bring Middle Eastern features?


No there is no link. Actually I would expect Neolithic Western Europeans to have had darker pigmentation than present-day Western Europeans. Neolithic populations originated in the Middle East and North Africa. R1b originated in Central Asia before passing through the Middle East to the Pontic Steppe, where R1b men mixed extensively with blond and blue-eyed Northeast European women. I would think that the Indo-Europeans introduced blue eyes, fair hair and red hair to Europe, or at least re-introduced them where they had been overridden by Neolithic immigrants. 

The Black Irish just inherited more Neolithic phenotypes than other Northern Europeans. That is because they were the furthest from the source of the Indo-European migration (along with Iberians) and therefore inherited the most diluted autosomal DNA with their R1b. R1b remained unchanged all the way from the steppes to the Atlantic fringe of Europe, but their appearance became increasingly similar to the local population they conquered as they interbred with local women. Besides, England and Scotland got a fairly recent introgression of fair pigmentation from Anglo-Saxon and Viking migrations, which, in Ireland was mostly limited to coastal areas, especially in the Pale and in eastern Ulster.

I imagine the Neolithic inhabitants of Britain and Ireland as having straight black hair and being both long-faced and long-headed, like modern north-west Iberians. This kind of phenotype reminds me of Christopher Lee (Saruman in Lords of the Ring), who could easily pass for an Castilian or Leonese.

----------


## Butler

> My Irish friend is a black Irish, he and his father state the name comes from the Spanish armada sailors which where not butchered by the Irish after their ships sank rounding the north of Scotland and running down past Ireland to get back to Spain.
> It refers to their olive skin.


That is also my understanding, in 1588 the Spanish Armada crossed the top of Scotland but did not go far enough to the West before turning south, consequently they hit the coast of western Ireland there are, of course, other theories

----------


## Alan

> Well maybe you're right... keeping in mind that we are all just speculating here. R1b is thought to have arisen east of the Caspian, so it's definitely possible that the original R1b carriers were at least partly Mongoloid (although fully Mongoloid would be unlikely, I'll agree on that). My wild guess would be that they probably looked somewhat like modern-day Uzbeks or Kazakhs or Tatars. As they went on their long westward trek, they picked up more and more Caucasoid genes, until becoming Irish redheads at the end of their journey.


 According to Maciamo but this is one a the very few points were I disagree because m343 is much more common in the Near East and in Central Asia it was only found in higher proportion among Kurdish settlers from Western Asia. My own theory is that R1a is from East of the Caspian while R1b from Southwest of it. P probably in Central Asia while the Grandparent K South of the Caspian (in North Iran) which split earlier from IJ in the Zagros mountains. 
And about R* people having some mongoloid features, well compared to other West Eurasian haplogroups surely they did because they are somehow close related to Mongoloids. But it was rather ancient, archaic yDna P features which can be found among Caucasians as well mongoloid people. They never looked like Tatars, Uzbeks or Kazakhs because we know from their history as well autosomal DNA that they are a relatively recent mixture of Iranians (R1a, R1b, J2) and Mongols (East Asian mtDNA).

And I also do not believe that fair skin and light hair was so common in Paleolithic Europeans and the "Black Irish" are the result of Neolithic admixture. I rather believe that the Neolithic lifestyle was crucial for the development of light features.

----------


## Maciamo

> My Irish friend is a black Irish, he and his father state the name comes from the Spanish armada sailors which where not butchered by the Irish after their ships sank rounding the north of Scotland and running down past Ireland to get back to Spain.
> It refers to their olive skin.


That's extremely unlikely. I don't see why Renaissance Spaniards would not seek to return to Spain after being shipwrecked. Besides, they wouldn't have adapted well in a hostile land, and surely wouldn't have found any mate to reproduce. Perhaps just a few isolated cases, but nothing to influence a whole country's gene pool. Unless there were like 500,000 of them...  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Nobody1

*Tacitus* - Agricola XI
_The dark complexion of the Silures, their usually curly hair, and the fact that Spain is the opposite shore to them, are an evidence that Iberians of a former date crossed over and occupied these parts._ 

Clearly the 'Black Irish' must be from the *pre*-Indo-European Iberian stock (_Bell-Beaker culture_);
*Not* from the Indo-European Kelts;

*Rev. John Evans* - A Popular History of the Ancient Britons (1901)
_There certainly was one race, denominated the Iberians, a non-Aryan people, a remnant of whom existed in the time of Caesar as the Silurian tribes of South Wales - mainly in 'Monmouthshire' and the adjoining districts. When the Celts came they found these people in the possession of the country and war ensued. The Celts ultimately conquered the aboriginal Iberians and finally destroyed or absorbed them in the course of time._

----------


## Fire Haired

> No there is no link. Actually I would expect Neolithic Western Europeans to have had darker pigmentation than present-day Western Europeans. Neolithic populations originated in the Middle East and North Africa. R1b originated in Central Asia before passing through the Middle East to the Pontic Steppe, where R1b men mixed extensively with blond and blue-eyed Northeast European women. I would think that the Indo-Europeans introduced blue eyes, fair hair and red hair to Europe, or at least re-introduced them where they had been overridden by Neolithic immigrants. 
> 
> The Black Irish just inherited more Neolithic phenotypes than other Northern Europeans. That is because they were the furthest from the source of the Indo-European migration (along with Iberians) and therefore inherited the most diluted autosomal DNA with their R1b. R1b remained unchanged all the way from the steppes to the Atlantic fringe of Europe, but their appearance became increasingly similar to the local population they conquered as they interbred with local women. Besides, England and Scotland got a fairly recent introgression of fair pigmentation from Anglo-Saxon and Viking migrations, which, in Ireland was mostly limited to coastal areas, especially in the Pale and in eastern Ulster.
> 
> I imagine the Neolithic inhabitants of Britain and Ireland as having straight black hair and being both long-faced and long-headed, like modern north-west Iberians. This kind of phenotype reminds me of Christopher Lee (Saruman in Lords of the Ring), who could easily pass for an Castilian or Leonese.


You could be right about Neolithic west Europeans being tannish. Because Otzie and even Gok4 and other farmers from funnel beaker culture in south Sweden from about 5,000ybp austomal DNA is closest to Sardine. It seems to me there was a farmer race or whatever you want to call it in Europe or at least western Europe which sardine are the last true ones left(Sardine last of the European farmer race). Since the farmers and hunter gathers in Europe were so genetically different click here. Everyone who farmed may have really been very unmixed with the hunter gathers and the spread of farming could be the conquering of hunter gathers. That sounds kind of crazy and unlikely but Gok4 and the other farmers in south Sweden are pretty good evidence. If it is true then Neolithic west Europeans would look just like modern Sardine people. But the Indo Europeans were not one unifed group of people they were also farmers. 5,000 and 6,000ybp remains of Yamna people in southern Ukriane and Russia had darker eyes than average Europeans while proto Indo Iranians and Tocherians? who migrated to Asia from Yamna culture around that time were mainly light eyed. 

Red hair and fair hair are not connected their distributions in Europe are totally different correct me if I am wrong. Look at Finnish non Indo European only about 5% R1a1a1b1 Z283 from proto Balto Slavic Corded ware culture and very little Germanic blood from Sweden but they have majority fair hair and eyes and very little red hair. I think figuring out the history of hair and eye colors in Europe throughout history and in different pre historic people is extremely hard to do and the only way to find out is ancient DNA. The distribution of North Euro in globe13 correlates pretty well with the distribution of fair hair and North Euro was dominate in European hunter gather remains and is the only group to originate in Europe. So I think a high amount of fair hair in Europe goes back to the Paleoithic but not red hair. I think the black Irish or actulley it should be called black British because there are black Scots and Welsh. There is a chance their not unqiue at all I have seen many surprisingly dark white people. But since the even the ancient Romans noticed it might be unique to Insular Celts. Based on DNA some of my family members who are black brits I think it Is some type of near eastern inter marriage maybe from Neolithic. 

At one time Europeans ancestors were as dark as Iraqis how and why did they change. I don't really understand how evolution is even possible and how they would help in survival at all. Maybe the Black Irish or whatever are dark for the same reason Iraqi or west Asians are dark and it is European. It is really unique how European people don't have one hair color and eye color or like mid eastern people were maybe 0.1% don't have dark hair and eyes why did this happen.

----------


## Fire Haired

> *Tacitus* - Agricola XI
> _The dark complexion of the Silures, their usually curly hair, and the fact that Spain is the opposite shore to them, are an evidence that Iberians of a former date crossed over and occupied these parts._ 
> 
> Clearly the 'Black Irish' must be from the *pre*-Indo-European Iberian stock (_Bell-Beaker culture_);
> *Not* from the Indo-European Kelts;
> 
> *Rev. John Evans* - A Popular History of the Ancient Britons (1901)
> _There certainly was one race, denominated the Iberians, a non-Aryan people, a remnant of whom existed in the time of Caesar as the Silurian tribes of South Wales - mainly in 'Monmouthshire' and the adjoining districts. When the Celts came they found these people in the possession of the country and war ensued. The Celts ultimately conquered the aboriginal Iberians and finally destroyed or absorbed them in the course of time._


That sounds like total BS what do the Aryans have to do with Europe. The Aryans I guess are also the Indo Iranians who migrated out of Yamna culture in Russia about 5,000ybp into Asia and spread from there. We know at least the ones who eventulley migrated to Iran and also ones who migrated to India about 3,500ybp called themselves Aryans because of ancient writing. Almost all Europeans have 0% Aryan ancestry maybe some in far eastern Europe were different Indo Iranian tribes like Sycthians migrated to in the iron age and people around the area they originated probably have similar ancestry over 5,000 years ago. Why would the black Irish be from Iberia. Iberians are not even that dark when you compare them to non Europeans. Who knows were the very rare occurrence of brown skin in the British isles comes from I doubt there is a simple answer.

----------


## Fire Haired

> According to Maciamo but this is one a the very few points were I disagree because m343 is much more common in the Near East and in Central Asia it was only found in higher proportion among Kurdish settlers from Western Asia. My own theory is that R1a is from East of the Caspian while R1b from Southwest of it. P probably in Central Asia while the Grandparent K South of the Caspian (in North Iran) which split earlier from IJ in the Zagros mountains. 
> And about R* people having some mongoloid features, well compared to other West Eurasian haplogroups surely they did because they are somehow close related to Mongoloids. But it was rather ancient, archaic yDna P features which can be found among Caucasians as well mongoloid people. They never looked like Tatars, Uzbeks or Kazakhs because we know from their history as well autosomal DNA that they are a relatively recent mixture of Iranians (R1a, R1b, J2) and Mongols (East Asian mtDNA).
> 
> And I also do not believe that fair skin and light hair was so common in Paleolithic Europeans and the "Black Irish" are the result of Neolithic admixture. I rather believe that the Neolithic lifestyle was crucial for the development of light features.


Y DNA R was Mongliod that's true but through inter marriage R1b originated probably with Caucasians around Iran. The only R1b branch's to not originate in the Near east are R1b1a1 M73(Russia and central asia) and Germanic Italo Celtic R1b1a2a1a L11 (west Europe). The R1b in Europe is almost all under R1b1a2a L23. R1b1a2a L23* and R1b1a2a2 Z2103 are what take up most r1b in saoutheast Europe and Iraq, caucus, Antolia, Iran area.

----------


## Fire Haired

> According to Maciamo but this is one a the very few points were I disagree because m343 is much more common in the Near East and in Central Asia it was only found in higher proportion among Kurdish settlers from Western Asia. My own theory is that R1a is from East of the Caspian while R1b from Southwest of it. P probably in Central Asia while the Grandparent K South of the Caspian (in North Iran) which split earlier from IJ in the Zagros mountains. 
> And about R* people having some mongoloid features, well compared to other West Eurasian haplogroups surely they did because they are somehow close related to Mongoloids. But it was rather ancient, archaic yDna P features which can be found among Caucasians as well mongoloid people. They never looked like Tatars, Uzbeks or Kazakhs because we know from their history as well autosomal DNA that they are a relatively recent mixture of Iranians (R1a, R1b, J2) and Mongols (East Asian mtDNA).
> 
> And I also do not believe that fair skin and light hair was so common in Paleolithic Europeans and the "Black Irish" are the result of Neolithic admixture. I rather believe that the Neolithic lifestyle was crucial for the development of light features.


 Y DNA R was Mongliod that's true but through inter marriage R1b originated probably with Caucasians around Iran. The only R1b branch's to for sure not originate in the Near east are R1b1a1 M73(Russia and central asia) and Germanic Italo Celtic R1b1a2a1a L11 (west Europe). The R1b in Europe is almost all under R1b1a2a L23. R1b1a2a L23* and R1b1a2a2 Z2103 are what take up most r1b in saoutheast Europe and Iraq, caucus, Antolia, Iran area.

----------


## Nobody1

> That sounds like total BS what do the Aryans have to do with Europe. The Aryans I guess are also the Indo Iranians who migrated out of Yamna culture in Russia about 5,000ybp into Asia and spread from there. We know at least the ones who eventulley migrated to Iran and also ones who migrated to India about 3,500ybp called themselves Aryans because of ancient writing. Almost all Europeans have 0% Aryan ancestry maybe some in far eastern Europe were different Indo Iranian tribes like Sycthians migrated to in the iron age and people around the area they originated probably have similar ancestry over 5,000 years ago. Why would the black Irish be from Iberia. Iberians are not even that dark when you compare them to non Europeans. Who knows were the very rare occurrence of brown skin in the British isles comes from I doubt there is a simple answer.


Aryans is the *old* Synonym for Indo-Europeans;
Why this term was chosen i dont know but thats how the Indo-Europeans were termed in History before 1945; Not every time but in many cases;

Could have saved the entire post if you would have actual knowledge about the topic _i.e. Indo-Europeans_;

----------


## hope

> Unless there were like 500,000 of them...


I believe an envoy from Philip of Spain was sent to Ireland to inquire regarding survivors, there were, if I remember correctly seven, perhaps eight. Not even double figures, so certainly not enough to influence the gene pool, as you say.

----------


## hope

What I find odd, is the term Black Irish is not used or even recognised here in Ireland. It is a term that is used outside of Ireland and mostly, with respect, by Americans. It seems to run in par with the myths of the Irish being one of the twelve lost tribes and such-what.
As to the origin of it being attributed to the Spanish Armada, is most unlikely. Any survivors who reached shore around Ireland were either promptly killed by the Irish as invaders, rounded up and either hung or returned to England for ransom. 
Someone once told me there is a field in Co.Clare called The Field Of Hangings due to so many Spanish survivors being hung there by Sheriff Clancy (who I believe is still cursed by some in Spain to-day!) Regarding the name of such a field I cannot say, I myself have no knowledge of it.
I do know many survivors were executed, whilst some made it to Scotland, but I think they headed towards Orkney.

Dark hair either with blue or green eyes in Ireland is actually common. Of course red hair makes an appearance (not so much as some think however..) as does blonde hair, but I would say the the majority is light, medium or dark brown/black. We have pale skin, fair skin and what I would class a light cream skin. Some have freckles, some do not...in other words, we are a pretty mixed bunch. This is due in my opinion to repeated invasions and through trade. If I met someone from Ireland or Scotland who was very tanned, the chances are they have been lying in the sun( not that we have a lot of that), been on holiday, or simply applied it via a bottle!

----------


## Angela

This Spanish Armada story is quite common among Irish Americans to describe this look, but I think it's rather like an urban myth. I've seen it discussed on many genealogy forums, and the posters from Ireland have rather uniformly dismissed the idea, claiming that it is a North American term that is not used in Ireland itself. 

The consensus seemed to be that it was used in America merely to describe Irish people with darker hair and sometimes eyes than the majority of the Irish, and perhaps than the British people who had already emigrated to the New World. 

If there are any members here from Ireland, perhaps they could confirm that fact. 

An analogous term was the "Black Dutch" expression that seemingly arose in Pennsylvania after the large immigration of Palatine Germans. There is a Wiki article about the term.

It was claimed that both terms were sometimes appropriated by people who carried small amounts of SSA or Amerindian ancestry in order to obscure that fact. 

What I find interesting is that there is no such term for "dark" Welsh people, although there has been a lot of immigration from Wales to North America.

I've also often wondered if the Silures could be associated with the pocket of E-V13 that today shows up in Wales and surrounding areas, and might reflect descent from Bronze Age metal workers.

The only Welshman of whom I'm aware who at all resembles that Silure description is Tom Jones.
http://www.latimes.com/includes/proj.../tom_jones.jpg

----------


## Angela

> What I find odd, is the term Black Irish is not used or even recognised here in Ireland. It is a term that is used outside of Ireland and mostly, with respect, by Americans. It seems to run in par with the myths of the Irish being one of the twelve lost tribes and such-what.
> As to the origin of it being attributed to the Spanish Armada, is most unlikely. Any survivors who reached shore around Ireland were either promptly killed by the Irish as invaders, rounded up and either hung or returned to England for ransom. 
> Someone once told me there is a field in Co.Clare called The Field Of Hangings due to so many Spanish survivors being hung there by Sheriff Clancy (who I believe is still cursed by some in Spain to-day!) Regarding the name of such a field I cannot say, I myself have no knowledge of it.
> I do know many survivors were executed whilst some made it to Scotland, but I think they headed towards Orkney.
> 
> Dark hair either with blue or green eyes in Ireland is actually common. Of course red hair makes an appearance (not so much as some think however..) as does blonde hair, but I would say the the majority is light, medium or dark brown. We have pale skin, fair skin and what I would class a light cream skin. Some have freckles, some do not...in other words, we are a pretty mixed bunch. This is due in my opinion to repeated invasions and through trade. If I met someone from Ireland or Scotland who was tan, the chances are they have been lying in the sun( not that we have a lot of that), been on holiday, or simply applied it via a bottle!


Sorry...I think we cross-posted. :)

----------


## Alan

> Y DNA R was Mongliod that's true but through inter marriage R1b originated probably with Caucasians around Iran. The only R1b branch's to not originate in the Near east are R1b1a1 M73(Russia and central asia) and Germanic Italo Celtic R1b1a2a1a L11 (west Europe). The R1b in Europe is almost all under R1b1a2a L23. R1b1a2a L23* and R1b1a2a2 Z2103 are what take up most r1b in saoutheast Europe and Iraq, caucus, Antolia, Iran area.


R was not "Mongoloid" R* was Caucasian with similarities to Mongoloids. P the father of Q and R was most likely also not Mongoloid. Even Q being like modern Mongolians is very doubtful because Q among American Indians is more ancient and they show stronger Caucasian characteristics. R has some relation to Mongoloids but overall a Caucasian Haplogroup and always been.

----------


## hope

> The consensus seemed to be that it was used in America merely to describe Irish people with darker hair and sometimes eyes than the majority of the Irish, and perhaps than the British people who had already emigrated to the New World. 
> 
> If there are any members here from Ireland, perhaps they could confirm that fact.


I am not sure where this term originated, I don`t think to be honest any-one really does. If I had to guess I would say maybe from the an gorta mór.. the great famine. In 1847 things were particularly bad and in `47 a great number of Irish headed to Canada and America, where I have read they were called the Black 47... ( the blight turned the potatoes black and `47 was a dark time). Perhaps this has something to do with the term.

----------


## hope

@ Angela ...I think so . No worries :)

----------


## Degredado

The Spanish Armada thing just sounds like an urban legend. The darker phenotype is relatively common in the British Isles as a whole, not only Ireland (i.e. Orlando Bloom, Posh Spice, Sean Connery etc)

----------


## Fire Haired

> R was not "Mongoloid" R* was Caucasian with similarities to Mongoloids. P the father of Q and R was most likely also not Mongoloid. Even Q being like modern Mongolians is very doubtful because Q among American Indians is more ancient and they show stronger Caucasian characteristics. R has some relation to Mongoloids but overall a Caucasian Haplogroup and always been.


I have had this argument with so many people and it really gets annoying. We have to remember Y DNA Is just a direct male lineage E was originally sub sharan African Adolf Hitler had E1b1b does he look black. y DNA P brother NO has two decendants N which is dominate in north Asians and Urlaic speakers O is dominate in east Asians Q their cousin dominate in Native Americans, Na Dene(Eskimoe, Inuit, Etc.), and central Siberia. Why would for some reason R be Caucasian that makes no sense. Actulley NO and P's two other brothers S and M are very popular in Papue New gunie no where near the mid east or Europe. Papue New gunie are Oceania globe13 and y DNa and mtDNA have shown Mongliods and Oceania are extremely related coming from the same migration out of the near east maybe 80,000ybp or so. It gets so annoying how many people don't understand the human family tree. Something important to remember there is no such thing as the Eurasian race Caucasians and Mongliods are not very related besides that their human and maybe a connection with being non sub sharan African. Mongliod and Oceania the people in southern asia and Australia who have black skin and nappy hair their Oceania and are extremely related to Mongliods.

----------


## Alan

> I have had this argument with so many people and it really gets annoying. We have to remember Y DNA Is just a direct male lineage E was originally sub sharan African Adolf Hitler had E1b1b does he look black. y DNA P brother NO has two decendants N which is dominate in north Asians and Urlaic speakers O is dominate in east Asians Q their cousin dominate in Native Americans, Na Dene(Eskimoe, Inuit, Etc.), and central Siberia. Why would for some reason R be Caucasian that makes no sense. Actulley NO and P's two other brothers S and M are very popular in Papue New gunie no where near the mid east or Europe. Papue New gunie are Oceania globe13 and y DNa and mtDNA have shown Mongliods and Oceania are extremely related coming from the same migration out of the near east maybe 80,000ybp or so. It gets so annoying how many people don't understand the human family tree. Something important to remember there is no such thing as the Eurasian race Caucasians and Mongliods are not very related besides that their human and maybe a connection with being non sub sharan African. Mongliod and Oceania the people in southern asia and Australia who have black skin and nappy hair their Oceania and are extremely related to Mongliods.


My friend you do realize that NOP's ancestor is K, K has it's origin most likely in Iran is related to IJ(Caucasian) and has a common ancestor IJK.

So if the ultimate ancestor of NOP is Caucasian, P originated around Afghanistan (Caucasian land) I would not bet my money on P being originally Mongoloid.

----------


## Fire Haired

> What I find odd, is the term Black Irish is not used or even recognised here in Ireland. It is a term that is used outside of Ireland and mostly, with respect, by Americans. It seems to run in par with the myths of the Irish being one of the twelve lost tribes and such-what.
> As to the origin of it being attributed to the Spanish Armada, is most unlikely. Any survivors who reached shore around Ireland were either promptly killed by the Irish as invaders, rounded up and either hung or returned to England for ransom. 
> Someone once told me there is a field in Co.Clare called The Field Of Hangings due to so many Spanish survivors being hung there by Sheriff Clancy (who I believe is still cursed by some in Spain to-day!) Regarding the name of such a field I cannot say, I myself have no knowledge of it.
> I do know many survivors were executed, whilst some made it to Scotland, but I think they headed towards Orkney.
> 
> Dark hair either with blue or green eyes in Ireland is actually common. Of course red hair makes an appearance (not so much as some think however..) as does blonde hair, but I would say the the majority is light, medium or dark brown. We have pale skin, fair skin and what I would class a light cream skin. Some have freckles, some do not...in other words, we are a pretty mixed bunch. This is due in my opinion to repeated invasions and through trade. If I met someone from Ireland or Scotland who was very tanned, the chances are they have been lying in the sun( not that we have a lot of that), been on holiday, or simply applied it via a bottle!


I wouldn't say Irish are that mixed after Celts conquered it maybe 3,500-4,500ybp nothing as really changed. If you doubt the date I gave for Celtic invasion because uselly it is said to be only 500bc. Is because Urnfield(1,300-750bc) and decendant Hallstat cultures never made a very string presence in Ireland or Britian. The Y DNa hg Urnfield spread with Italian languages to Italy and with Celtic Hallstat-La Tene culture is R1b1a2a1a2b S28 almost non existent in Ireland. But its brotherclade R1b1a2a1a2c L21 takes up majority of Irish , highlander Scottish, and Welsh Y DNA probably came with pre Urnfield Celtic invasion. L21 is estimated to be 4,000-5,500 years old it also exists in France, Iberia, and even as east as Germany but no way was it brought over from urnfield it has be migrations from probably 3,500-4,500ybp. There were probably huge Celtic invasions of western Europe with subclades r1b1a2a1a2c L21 and R1b1a2a1a2a Df27 about 3,500-4,500ybp and not from Urnfield or Hallstat cultures which for so long were considered the first Celts. I think it is pretty cool there is a such thing as being genetically Insular Celtic. The Insular Celts are totally separate from Hallstat Celts from continental Europe.

----------


## Fire Haired

> My friend you do realize that NOP's ancestor is K, K has it's origin most likely in Iran is related to IJ(Caucasian) and has a common ancestor IJK.
> 
> So if the ultimate ancestor of NOP is Caucasian, P originated around Afghanistan (Caucasian land) I would not bet my money on P being originally Mongoloid.


NO, P, S, and M's father is K(xclt) its brother is LT then their father is K which is a brother of IJ so you have to go way back. That doesn't make NOP which doesn't even exist originally Caucasian.

----------


## Drac II

> No there is no link. Actually I would expect Neolithic Western Europeans to have had darker pigmentation than present-day Western Europeans. Neolithic populations originated in the Middle East and North Africa. R1b originated in Central Asia before passing through the Middle East to the Pontic Steppe, where R1b men mixed extensively with blond and blue-eyed Northeast European women. I would think that the Indo-Europeans introduced blue eyes, fair hair and red hair to Europe, or at least re-introduced them where they had been overridden by Neolithic immigrants. 
> 
> The Black Irish just inherited more Neolithic phenotypes than other Northern Europeans. That is because they were the furthest from the source of the Indo-European migration (along with Iberians) and therefore inherited the most diluted autosomal DNA with their R1b. R1b remained unchanged all the way from the steppes to the Atlantic fringe of Europe, but their appearance became increasingly similar to the local population they conquered as they interbred with local women. Besides, England and Scotland got a fairly recent introgression of fair pigmentation from Anglo-Saxon and Viking migrations, which, in Ireland was mostly limited to coastal areas, especially in the Pale and in eastern Ulster.
> 
> I imagine the Neolithic inhabitants of Britain and Ireland as having straight black hair and being both long-faced and long-headed, like modern north-west Iberians. This kind of phenotype reminds me of Christopher Lee (Saruman in Lords of the Ring), who could easily pass for an Castilian or Leonese.


I suppose that by "black hair" you are actually including dark brown shades, because the majority of "Iberian-type" Britons & Irish are in fact brown-haired, like their Spanish counterparts, not really "black" haired. True black hair in Spain is found in a minority of the population.

----------


## Maciamo

> I suppose that by "black hair" you are actually including dark brown shades, because the majority of "Iberian-type" Britons & Irish are in fact brown-haired, like their Spanish counterparts, not really "black" haired. True black hair in Spain is found in a minority of the population.


Black or dark brown hair. But in all fairness (no pun intended) light hair came with the Celts and Germanics well after the Neolithic, so Neolithic Britons, Irish and Iberians would have had pretty much black hair.

This kind of reaction just sounds like you have a complex about pigmentation. I have never heard an East Asian (or any Asian for that matter) feel uncomfortable about the fact that they have pitch black hair. This feeling is something I have discovered with Iberians on this forum (and other places on the Internet, I have since noticed). I don't know of any people more complexed about their hair, skin and eye colours than Spaniards and Portuguese people. What's with the obsession of trying to prove that Iberians are more Celtic or Germanic or northern European ?

----------


## Butler

> The Spanish Armada thing just sounds like an urban legend. The darker phenotype is relatively common in the British Isles as a whole, not only Ireland (i.e. Orlando Bloom, Posh Spice, Sean Connery etc)


The Armada sailors washed up on the western cost of Ireland did happen 17 Armada ships came ashore, it is well documented please see the link. I do have doubts that a relatively small number of Spanish sailors would have a large impact of the Irish population given that 1588 is not so far in the past. http://www.my-secret-northern-irelan...ada-ships.html

----------


## Alan

> NO, P, S, and M's father is K(xclt) its brother is LT then their father is K which is a brother of IJ so you have to go way back. That doesn't make NOP which doesn't even exist originally Caucasian.


And Lt is Caucasian.  :Smile:  You see what I am trying toe explain you here? The Haplogroups among the NOP or K in wider sense are not mongoloid. depending on the clades (R or Q) or sub clades (Q1b or Q1a) they can be Mongoloid or Caucasian but than they probably share some characteristics which are not specifically mongoloid or Caucasian, like square heads/wider faces.

----------


## ElHorsto

> No there is no link. Actually I would expect Neolithic Western Europeans to have had darker pigmentation than present-day Western Europeans. Neolithic populations originated in the Middle East and North Africa. R1b originated in Central Asia before passing through the Middle East to the Pontic Steppe, where R1b men mixed extensively with blond and blue-eyed Northeast European women. I would think that the Indo-Europeans introduced blue eyes, fair hair and red hair to Europe, or at least re-introduced them where they had been overridden by Neolithic immigrants. 
> 
> The Black Irish just inherited more Neolithic phenotypes than other Northern Europeans. That is because they were the furthest from the source of the Indo-European migration (along with Iberians) and therefore inherited the most diluted autosomal DNA with their R1b. R1b remained unchanged all the way from the steppes to the Atlantic fringe of Europe, but their appearance became increasingly similar to the local population they conquered as they interbred with local women. Besides, England and Scotland got a fairly recent introgression of fair pigmentation from Anglo-Saxon and Viking migrations, which, in Ireland was mostly limited to coastal areas, especially in the Pale and in eastern Ulster.
> 
> I imagine the Neolithic inhabitants of Britain and Ireland as having straight black hair and being both long-faced and long-headed, like modern north-west Iberians. This kind of phenotype reminds me of Christopher Lee (Saruman in Lords of the Ring), who could easily pass for an Castilian or Leonese.


Indeed. The abundance of mediterranean admixture in Britain (> 40% K12b) is likely mostly neolithic (or even mesolithic) and it is the simplest explanation for "dark brits". The ~10% Gedrosian and R1b explanation is unnecessarily complex. Another example is Rowan Atkinson who looks stereotypically iberian.

----------


## Fire Haired

> R was not "Mongoloid" R* was Caucasian with similarities to Mongoloids. P the father of Q and R was most likely also not Mongoloid. Even Q being like modern Mongolians is very doubtful because Q among American Indians is more ancient and they show stronger Caucasian characteristics. R has some relation to Mongoloids but overall a Caucasian Haplogroup and always been.


You cant say Caucasian with some Mongliod characteristics that fact is they originated in Mongliod people. Something important to remember Mongliods and Oceania go back to the same family and Mongliods are not very related to Caucasians at all besides being human.

----------


## MOESAN

to Hope:
Ireland has surely not more crossings than other lands, and everypart of Europe knew "invasions" or "contamination" in some degree - and sometimes "invasions" bore the same ethnies 
Irish people have the highest percentages of spreckling with Scotland (and yet this trait is more evident when skin is submitted to sun), from 40% to 60% -
but it is true Irish population is not an unique one and has more than a geographical and genetic origin - and the Y-Hgs are old enough and knew surely some drifts (male domination, natural selection for some reason...) so different stories for diverse branchs of the same common male ligneages can create at end very different looking and genetical populations, spite this far common origin

----------


## MOESAN

> I have had this argument with so many people and it really gets annoying. We have to remember Y DNA Is just a direct male lineage E was originally sub sharan African Adolf Hitler had E1b1b does he look black. y DNA P brother NO has two decendants N which is dominate in north Asians and Urlaic speakers O is dominate in east Asians Q their cousin dominate in Native Americans, Na Dene(Eskimoe, Inuit, Etc.), and central Siberia. Why would for some reason R be Caucasian that makes no sense. Actulley NO and P's two other brothers S and M are very popular in Papue New gunie no where near the mid east or Europe. Papue New gunie are Oceania globe13 and y DNa and mtDNA have shown Mongliods and Oceania are extremely related coming from the same migration out of the near east maybe 80,000ybp or so. It gets so annoying how many people don't understand the human family tree. Something important to remember there is no such thing as the Eurasian race Caucasians and Mongliods are not very related besides that their human and maybe a connection with being non sub sharan African. Mongliod and Oceania the people in southern asia and Australia who have black skin and nappy hair their Oceania and are extremely related to Mongliods.


Y-R "mongoloid" ?!?
why? OR why not?
'european' (phenotypes) and 'mongoloids' are the two divergent branches of a first big one that diverged from 'african' (old stage: not by force the current 'negroid' paradygm) - our differences today are evident but no population shares exactly ALL THE TYPICAL FEATURES OF ITS GROUP, not only because of some crossings during pre-modern and modern Hsitory but because the raciation process is a slow one, produced by isolation (not always total) and ACCUMULATION OF MUTATIONS THAT DID NOT ALWAYS IMPOSED THEMSELVES UPON THE WHOLE POPULATION CONCERNED - the rarest traits disappear but slowly, spite the "big numbers law" and sexual selection... NOT PERFECT!!!
I suppose (I cannot say : "I know") the first bearers of Y- P/Q/R was rather on the 'European' side of the 'eurasion' group - some "mongoloid" traits amid Europeans and some"european" ones amid Asiatic people ARE NOT ALWAYS THE SIGN OF CROSSINGS AFTER SEPARATION!!!
the western rare Y-Q knew an different genetical story compared to majority of eastern Y-Q : the contrary for Y-R1 (a, b)
the N-E America Amerindians and some of the Central Siberian peoples show intermediary traits: a lot are due to crossings in Siberia, but I'm not sure it is the case for the old N-E Amerindians we know through old pictures before racial crossings with "white" people...
typical mongoloid and australian primitive people were separated very early and knew yet more different story... mt and autosomlas have their words to say against Y-DNA
have a good week-end

----------


## hope

> to Hope:
> Ireland has surely not more crossings than other lands, and everypart of Europe knew "invasions" or "contamination" in some degree - and sometimes "invasions" bore the same ethnies 
> Irish people have the highest percentages of spreckling with Scotland (and yet this trait is more evident when skin is submitted to sun), from 40% to 60% -
> but it is true Irish population is not an unique one and has more than a geographical and genetic origin - and the Y-Hgs are old enough and knew surely some drifts (male domination, natural selection for some reason...) so different stories for diverse branchs of the same common male ligneages can create at end very different looking and genetical populations, spite this far common origin


MOESAN, I believe we are in agreement. 
Yes, of course Europe knew "invasion" and "input" and Ireland is not unique in this regard. 
However I was speaking on the theory some give for, what they call the "Dark Irish" as if it were something brought into Ireland rather than something that has always been in Ireland. I stated dark hair in Ireland is quite common. My reference to repeated invasion was only to give an example of how red or blonde hair came to be in the population here ( as I do not think light hair was native to here).
I apologise if I failed to make this clear :)

----------


## Degredado

> Black or dark brown hair. But in all fairness (no pun intended) light hair came with the Celts and Germanics well after the Neolithic, so Neolithic Britons, Irish and Iberians would have had pretty much black hair.
> 
> This kind of reaction just sounds like you have a complex about pigmentation. I have never heard an East Asian (or any Asian for that matter) feel uncomfortable about the fact that they have pitch black hair. This feeling is something I have discovered with Iberians on this forum (and other places on the Internet, I have since noticed). I don't know of any people more complexed about their hair, skin and eye colours than Spaniards and Portuguese people. What's with the obsession of trying to prove that Iberians are more Celtic or Germanic or northern European ?


I too have noticed this perennial crusade of the Spaniards and Portuguese on forums to prove that they are every bit as Celtic and Germanic as other Europeans. They always seem to take things very personally and get easily riled up with any remark that so much as hints at their supposed Moorish ancestry or makes any reference to "olive skin", "dark hair" and what not. This deep concern they have comes off as a bit silly... Spain and Portugal both have a lot of history and great achievements, they were kings of the world not too long ago. Iberians should worry less about what others think of their hair color or about the fact that others may think they have an Arab great-great-great grandfather somewhere down the line. 

I am of Iberian ancestry myself and I'm perfectly ok with the idea that I probably had some Arab/Berber ancestor 800 years ago who spent his time smoking shisha and being surrounded by beautiful women in his harem in Cordoba or Granada.  :Good Job:

----------


## Sile

original theory of Black Irish -
refers to someone of Irish descent who had black hair, green eyes and porcelain white skin, coming from spanish and french basques lands. Arrived in Ireland before the celts did.

----------


## Fire Haired

> original theory of Black Irish -
> refers to someone of Irish descent who had black hair, green eyes and porcelain white skin, coming from spanish and french basques lands. Arrived in Ireland before the celts did.


Total BS I get sick of hearing the Iberian origin of Irish or pre Celtic Irish. It is true that is the typical Irish from what I have seen look like that.

----------


## Drac II

> Black or dark brown hair. But in all fairness (no pun intended) light hair came with the Celts and Germanics well after the Neolithic, so Neolithic Britons, Irish and Iberians would have had pretty much black hair.
> 
> This kind of reaction just sounds like you have a complex about pigmentation. I have never heard an East Asian (or any Asian for that matter) feel uncomfortable about the fact that they have pitch black hair. This feeling is something I have discovered with Iberians on this forum (and other places on the Internet, I have since noticed). I don't know of any people more complexed about their hair, skin and eye colours than Spaniards and Portuguese people. What's with the obsession of trying to prove that Iberians are more Celtic or Germanic or northern European ?


More like this kind of reaction, seen in your bizarre answer, when someone is corrected about misleading statements based on false propaganda & stereotypes which are not backed up by actual pigmentation data is the one that displays either a complex or an agenda.

Funny, because the northern Italians (and not just around here) are the ones who keep trying to portray themselves as "blond" and "blue eyed" and "Germanic" and lighter than anyone in southern Europe, yet you never say anything like that about them. More of your agendas, I suppose.

The reason why East Asians wouldn't complain about having pitch-black hair is because... **DRUM ROLL**: they do indeed have such hair. If they were constantly portrayed as having red or blonde hair, I am sure they would protest that this is a false stereotype or some strange agenda.

----------


## Drac II

> I too have noticed this perennial crusade of the Spaniards and Portuguese on forums to prove that they are every bit as Celtic and Germanic as other Europeans. They always seem to take things very personally and get easily riled up with any remark that so much as hints at their supposed Moorish ancestry or makes any reference to "olive skin", "dark hair" and what not. This deep concern they have comes off as a bit silly... Spain and Portugal both have a lot of history and great achievements, they were kings of the world not too long ago. Iberians should worry less about what others think of their hair color or about the fact that others may think they have an Arab great-great-great grandfather somewhere down the line. 
> 
> I am of Iberian ancestry myself and I'm perfectly ok with the idea that I probably had some Arab/Berber ancestor 800 years ago who spent his time smoking shisha and being surrounded by beautiful women in his harem in Cordoba or Granada.


Once again another case of someone trying to project his complexes onto others. Spaniards HAVE to defend themselves from such propaganda, specially coming from Latin Americans with a complex who are always trying to distort the image and history of Spain and its inhabitants, it's not like they have a choice. An old saying says "silence means consent".

----------


## Fire Haired

> MOESAN, I believe we are in agreement. 
> Yes, of course Europe knew "invasion" and "input" and Ireland is not unique in this regard. 
> However I was speaking on the theory some give for, what they call the "Dark Irish" as if it were something brought into Ireland rather than something that has always been in Ireland. I stated dark hair in Ireland is quite common. My reference to repeated invasion was only to give an example of how red or blonde hair came to be in the population here ( as I do not think light hair was native to here).
> I apologise if I failed to make this clear :)


For Ireland the last invasion to make any major genetic input is R1b L21 and Df27 Celtic invasions about 3,500-4,500ybp. There is a good chance Irish may trace almost all their ancestry to those invaders(British ancestry almost all from Celtic and Germanic invaders). The majority dark hair and then the surprisingly common green eyes probably come from the same source as the over 10% red hair. Figuring out the history of percentage of hair color in areas of Europe overtime is extremely hard. My opinon on it is Europeans main ancestors migrated to Europe from the Near east from 40,000-50,000ybp. They were as dark as all other Caucasians so light brown-brown skinned and almost all dark haired and eyed. But the genes for pale skin and all different types of non dark hair and eye colors where there but much more rare than today. The prove is they exist in other Caucasins besides Europeans (Origin of European palness(hair, skin, and eye color). It is hard to say when Europeans ancestors became dominated by pale skin it could have been before they migrated to Europe because of some Near eastern ethnic groups who are dominated by pale skin for example Samaritans, Druze, and Caucus people.

Either way becoming pale skinned and very light haired and eyed happened separately but probably for the same reasons. There is really nothing to use to get an age estimate of when this all happened. Since in globe13 aust dna test the group called North Euro Is the only to originate in Europe and it takes up over 71% if European hunter gather samples and could have been 100% in Europeans before the spread of farming. And that it shows very close correlation to the distribution of fair hair and eyes in Europe I think Europe was much more light haired and eyed before the spread of farmers from the Near east starting 9,000ybp. But the Soumi in far northern Scandinavia and northeastern Finnish who have about 80% North Euro have the same hair color and eye color percentages as central French and Iberians. 

I am not sure about red hair since it is almost totally isolated in western Europe and Volga Russia well it exists in probably all of Europe but those are the only areas with 1% or more. Since red hair does exist in non European Samartiens in Palestine and that globe13 test of all 700 showed 0% pre Neolithic European North Euro this probably means red hair originated in the Near east over 50,000ybp. And since red hair in western Europe is connected with the spread of Germanic Italo Celtic R1b1a2a1a L11 and existed in Indo Iranians and Tocherians and is over 1% in Volga Russia. This may mean the first population to have over 1% red hair was in central Russia. The best way to figure out the hair color and eye color history of Europe is ancient DNA.

----------


## Degredado

> Once again another case of someone trying to project his complexes onto others. Spaniards HAVE to defend themselves from such propaganda, specially coming from Latin Americans with a complex who are always trying to distort the image and history of Spain and its inhabitants, it's not like they have a choice. An old saying says "silence means consent".


Oh dear... another Spaniard getting emotional and ripping his hair off over these supposed "Latin American agendas". Drac, fella, I assure you I have absolutely nothing against (and very little for) Spain. Spain is not a country that Brazilians spend time thinking about, we weren't a Spanish colony, we don't speak Spanish, etc. When we think Europe, we think France, UK, Germany, Italy... Maybe Guatemalans or Hondurans might have some kind of obsession or, as you put it, "complex" with Spain... but you can rest assured that Brazilians don't.

----------


## Sile

> More like this kind of reaction, seen in your bizarre answer, when someone is corrected about misleading statements based on false propaganda & stereotypes which are not backed up by actual pigmentation data is the one that displays either a complex or an agenda.
> 
> Funny, because the northern Italians (and not just around here) are the ones who keep trying to portray themselves as "blond" and "blue eyed" and "Germanic" and lighter than anyone in southern Europe, yet you never say anything like that about them. More of your agendas, I suppose.
> 
> The reason why East Asians wouldn't complain about having pitch-black hair is because... **DRUM ROLL**: they do indeed have such hair. If they were constantly portrayed as having red or blonde hair, I am sure they would protest that this is a false stereotype or some strange agenda.


WOW, I did not know Maciano was northern Italian, I thought he was belgic area in ethnicity ( although I could be wrong). Besides, whats your paranoia with northern Italians and southern french?.
Look after your own ethnicity and do not bother about comparing about other ethnicity.

----------


## Fire Haired

> Y-R "mongoloid" ?!?
> why? OR why not?
> 'european' (phenotypes) and 'mongoloids' are the two divergent branches of a first big one that diverged from 'african' (old stage: not by force the current 'negroid' paradygm) - our differences today are evident but no population shares exactly ALL THE TYPICAL FEATURES OF ITS GROUP, not only because of some crossings during pre-modern and modern Hsitory but because the raciation process is a slow one, produced by isolation (not always total) and ACCUMULATION OF MUTATIONS THAT DID NOT ALWAYS IMPOSED THEMSELVES UPON THE WHOLE POPULATION CONCERNED - the rarest traits disappear but slowly, spite the "big numbers law" and sexual selection... NOT PERFECT!!!
> I suppose (I cannot say : "I know") the first bearers of Y- P/Q/R was rather on the 'European' side of the 'eurasion' group - some "mongoloid" traits amid Europeans and some"european" ones amid Asiatic people ARE NOT ALWAYS THE SIGN OF CROSSINGS AFTER SEPARATION!!!
> the western rare Y-Q knew an different genetical story compared to majority of eastern Y-Q : the contrary for Y-R1 (a, b)
> the N-E America Amerindians and some of the Central Siberian peoples show intermediary traits: a lot are due to crossings in Siberia, but I'm not sure it is the case for the old N-E Amerindians we know through old pictures before racial crossings with "white" people...
> typical mongoloid and australian primitive people were separated very early and knew yet more different story... mt and autosomlas have their words to say against Y-DNA
> have a good week-end


Why cant you just admit y DNA R was originally Mongliod. That Mongliods and the so called negriod people in southern asia and Austrilla are really in the same sub group of Humans Mongliod Oceania Austomal, Y DNA, and MtDNA have proven this. I get so annoyed when people who don't know a lot about genetics say when Europeans and east Asians diverged. Europeans are NOT their own sub group of humans they group with near easterns and north Africans so you cant say European skull shape or whatever it is the Caucasian skull shape. I do think there is good evidence the first humans looked Negriod since Oceania do and they get it from the same source as sub sharan Africans so originally I guess Mongliods did too. In globe13 mongliod Oceania is no more related to Caucasians as Sub sharan African group is but Y DNa and mtDNA point to them coming from the same non African family. So originally Caucasians ancestors too may have had black skin and nappy hair. Since sub sharan Africans have not left Africa maybe that's why they never lost the black skin and nappy hair. But there is no true Sub Sharan African skull shape. But since straight hair just seems to make so much more sense look at apes and other animals all have straight hair and fur none have nappy. And since girls natural have longer hair even black ones than men that is more evidence maybe not the first humans had straight hair but human ancestors did.

----------


## Alan

> Why cant you just admit y DNA R was originally Mongliod. That Mongliods and the so called negriod people in southern asia and Austrilla are really in the same sub group of Humans Mongliod Oceania Austomal, Y DNA, and MtDNA have proven this. I get so annoyed when people who don't know a lot about genetics say when Europeans and east Asians diverged. Europeans are NOT their own sub group of humans they group with near easterns and north Africans so you cant say European skull shape or whatever it is the Caucasian skull shape. I do think there is good evidence the first humans looked Negriod since Oceania do and they get it from the same source as sub sharan Africans so originally I guess Mongliods did too. In globe13 mongliod Oceania is no more related to Caucasians as Sub sharan African group is but Y DNa and mtDNA point to them coming from the same non African family. So originally Caucasians ancestors too may have had black skin and nappy hair. Since sub sharan Africans have not left Africa maybe that's why they never lost the black skin and nappy hair. But there is no true Sub Sharan African skull shape. But since straight hair just seems to make so much more sense look at apes and other animals all have straight hair and fur none have nappy. And since girls natural have longer hair even black ones than men that is more evidence maybe not the first humans had straight hair but human ancestors did.


Sorry Fire Haired but here I agree with MOEASAN. There is really no reason to believe that R* haplogroups were mongoloid. In one of your other post you even implied that R1 people where "Caucasified by R2 people but now you call all R people mongolid. 

The thing is Any R haplogroup is exclusively connected to West Eurasian autosomal DNA. All R people are Caucasian or have a part Caucasian history (like Turkic tribes in Central Asia who have paternal Iranian ancestry).


As I said earlier, I believe just like Moeasan, that most NOP were neither Caucasian nor Mongolid. They had characteristics of both. With R people becoming Caucasian while O East Asian and N and Q people depending on sub clades something in between while leaning slightly more towards East Asians.

----------


## Drac II

> Oh dear... another Spaniard getting emotional and ripping his hair off over these supposed "Latin American agendas". Drac, fella, I assure you I have absolutely nothing against (and very little for) Spain. Spain is not a country that Brazilians spend time thinking about, we weren't a Spanish colony, we don't speak Spanish, etc. When we think Europe, we think France, UK, Germany, Italy... Maybe Guatemalans or Hondurans might have some kind of obsession or, as you put it, "complex" with Spain... but you can rest assured that Brazilians don't.


Yes, we can plainly see how little you care about this and how you have no agendas whatsoever on the subject by the fact that you quickly jumped on the "Bash Spain & Spaniards" bandwagon. Whenever Spaniards defend themselves (and, unlike many others who attempt to do the same, they do so by using actual facts and legitimate sources) then such people quickly jump out with the "you have a complex" projections. I am not sure who is it that these folks are trying to fool, but such childish tactics do not work. You are not going to "silence" opposition to mistaken claims, stereotypes and propaganda with such cheap psychology.

----------


## Drac II

> WOW, I did not know Maciano was northern Italian, I thought he was belgic area in ethnicity ( although I could be wrong). Besides, whats your paranoia with northern Italians and southern french?.
> Look after your own ethnicity and do not bother about comparing about other ethnicity.


I never said he was, but he obviously doesn't mind when they do it (and they do it so often that even web sites have addressed the issue of their propaganda and lies, something I have never seen for any Spaniards, simply because contrary to his claims most Spaniards in fact are quite unconcerned about such things, while lots of northern Italians are obsessed about them), he apparently only notices such things whenever he thinks Spaniards do it. And looking at cases when he and certain other admins attack Spaniards for supposedly having a "complex" it's almost always Spaniards clarifying mistaken statements about them or defending themselves from attacks and lies made by others, which is nothing short of bizarre since these are administrators we are talking about. They should be on the side of the people being attacked out-of-nowhere, not joining the ranks of the forum disrupters & provocateurs! How much do you want to bet that if we had people around here often saying that Italians are short, swarthy, black-haired, Jewish/Arab-nosed, descended from Roman-era Near Eastern and North African slaves and immigrants, etc., they would actually join the side of Italians against those making the uncalled-for propaganda & attacks? I bet you anything they would not join the provocateurs and say things like "Italians have a complex about their pigmentation" whenever Italians tried to defend themselves. Yet that's exactly what he (and certain others who shall remain nameless) do whenever similar things are thrown at Spaniards and Spaniards answer back. Then comes the "Spaniards have a complex" nonsense just because they refuse to stay quiet and accept whatever nonsense some people with complexes, agendas and obsessions try to throw at them. 

And you should talk about bothering & paranoias about other ethnicities!

----------


## Sile

> I never said he was, but he obviously doesn't mind when they do it (and they do it so often that even web sites have addressed the issue of their propaganda and lies, something I have never seen for any Spaniards, simply because contrary to his claims most Spaniards in fact are quite unconcerned about such things, while lots of northern Italians are obsessed about them), he apparently only notices such things whenever he thinks Spaniards do it. And looking at cases when he and certain other admins attack Spaniards for supposedly having a "complex" it's almost always Spaniards clarifying mistaken statements about them or defending themselves from attacks and lies made by others, which is nothing short of bizarre since these are administrators we are talking about. They should be on the side of the people being attacked out-of-nowhere, not joining the ranks of the forum disrupters & provocateurs! How much do you want to bet that if we had people around here often saying that Italians are short, swarthy, black-haired, Jewish/Arab-nosed, descended from Roman-era Near Eastern and North African slaves and immigrants, etc., they would actually join the side of Italians against those making the uncalled-for propaganda & attacks? I bet you anything they would not join the provocateurs and say things like "Italians have a complex about their pigmentation" whenever Italians tried to defend themselves. Yet that's exactly what he (and certain others who shall remain nameless) do whenever similar things are thrown at Spaniards and Spaniards answer back. Then comes the "Spaniards have a complex" nonsense just because they refuse to stay quiet and accept whatever nonsense some people with complexes, agendas and obsessions try to throw at them. 
> 
> And you should talk about bothering & paranoias about other ethnicities!



I told you many times, in genetics, culture, ethnicity and linguistically, Spain, Italy, Germany, France etc etc have many many differences within their own nations. 
Nationality is a BS in this type of discussion. 
nationality serves one purpose, to make one's family safe and have a higher standard of living . It does nothing else. If it does not achieve this , then that group or individual should leave this articifical system of the nation he resides in . Why do you think we have immigration?
So, thinking that all spaniards are identical and discussng this against another false term called Italian or German etc is misleading to all. I for one, do not even know what part of Spain you refer to, I don't even know where you are from, so how can I possibily discuss the colour of Spaniards.
*Why don't you give a brief summary of what a Spaniard is suppose to be and we can discuss it*

----------


## Degredado

> Yes, we can plainly see how little you care about this and how you have no agendas whatsoever on the subject by the fact that you quickly jumped on the "Bash Spain & Spaniards" bandwagon. Whenever Spaniards defend themselves (and, unlike many others who attempt to do the same, they do so by using actual facts and legitimate sources) then such people quickly jump out with the "you have a complex" projections. I am not sure who is it that these folks are trying to fool, but such childish tactics do not work. You are not going to "silence" opposition to mistaken claims, stereotypes and propaganda with such cheap psychology.


"Bash Spain & Spaniards" bandwagon... lol, wtf? I even went out of my way to make a compliment to Spain... but your paranoia only allowed you to see the so-called "international agenda to denigrate Spain". 

It is notorious that in any History/Anthropology/Genetics forum, if someone makes a completely normal, neutral statement such as "the average Spaniard has dark hair", 50 Spaniards will jump on that person and will say "BUT BUT BUT WE HAVE PLENTY OF BLONDE HAIRED BLUE EYED PEOPLE! THE MOORS NEVER PUT THEIR DIRTY FEET IN THE NORTH OF SPAIN! MOORS NEVER HAD CHILDREN! WE ARE CELTSSS!" etc.

Look, anyone with an IQ over 80 and with a minimally reasonable amount of knowledge knows that there are plenty of tall, blonde haired, blue eyed, freckled people in Spain who could pass for being Vikings (all over Spain, too, not only in the "immaculate Gothic North"). But that doesn't change the fact that in most people's perception, the average Spaniard has dark hair, dark eyes and is likely to have a trace of Arabic blood. Just like there are brown haired, brown eyed Swedes, but in most people's minds, that isn't the average Swedish type. 

Could this be some kind of agenda for some people? Hey, I don't doubt that there might be some people out there who might genuinely hold something against Spain, for some reason or another... but my honest impression is that it really isn't the case, in the vast majority of times.

----------


## Fire Haired

> I told you many times, in genetics, culture, ethnicity and linguistically, Spain, Italy, Germany, France etc etc have many many differences within their own nations. 
> Nationality is a BS in this type of discussion. 
> nationality serves one purpose, to make one's family safe and have a higher standard of living . It does nothing else. If it does not achieve this , then that group or individual should leave this articifical system of the nation he resides in . Why do you think we have immigration?
> So, thinking that all spaniards are identical and discussng this against another false term called Italian or German etc is misleading to all. I for one, do not even know what part of Spain you refer to, I don't even know where you are from, so how can I possibily discuss the colour of Spaniards.
> *Why don't you give a brief summary of what a Spaniard is suppose to be and we can discuss it*


No the genetics' of different Spaniards of course is very similar.

----------


## Fire Haired

> "Bash Spain & Spaniards" bandwagon... lol, wtf? I even went out of my way to make a compliment to Spain... but your paranoia only allowed you to see the so-called "international agenda to denigrate Spain". 
> 
> It is notorious that in any History/Anthropology/Genetics forum, if someone makes a completely normal, neutral statement such as "the average Spaniard has dark hair", 50 Spaniards will jump on that person and will say "BUT BUT BUT WE HAVE PLENTY OF BLONDE HAIRED BLUE EYED PEOPLE! THE MOORS NEVER PUT THEIR DIRTY FEET IN THE NORTH OF SPAIN! MOORS NEVER HAD CHILDREN! WE ARE CELTSSS!" etc.
> 
> Look, anyone with an IQ over 80 and with a minimally reasonable amount of knowledge knows that there are plenty of tall, blonde haired, blue eyed, freckled people in Spain who could pass for being Vikings (all over Spain, too, not only in the "immaculate Gothic North"). But that doesn't change the fact that in most people's perception, the average Spaniard has dark hair, dark eyes and is likely to have a trace of Arabic blood. Just like there are brown haired, brown eyed Swedes, but in most people's minds, that isn't the average Swedish type. 
> 
> Could this be some kind of agenda for some people? Hey, I don't doubt that there might be some people out there who might genuinely hold something against Spain, for some reason or another... but my honest impression is that it really isn't the case, in the vast majority of times.


I don't get this if you want to find out who Spanish are or any people genetically just look at DNA. And its a fact the majority of Spaniards do have dark hair and eyes i don't see why there would be an argument about that. The Muslims that conquered Spain were not Arab maybe part Arab and Spanish have little to no blood from those Muslims. central and southern French people have the same hair color and eye color percentages as Iberians. So for Spanish to call themselves Celts which most of their ancestors were before Rome would not mean they would look like people in Scandinavia. Why does height have to be connected with hair color I really doubt it is. People go off stero types that I think go back to ancient Rome. I think pretty much all European countries are around the same height 5'10. Except Denmark, former Yugoslavia, and Netherlands maybe others which are over 6'0. And I have looked at studies of ancient remains the average European till really the 1800's was about 5'6-5'8 same fro the rest of the world except extra short Mongliods in Asia and definitely MesoAmericans. There was only a height difference my centimeters between Germanic tribesmen and Roman centurions and remains of ancient Gauls didn't really show a height difference from Romans even though they were almost always described as tall. I think the average Frenchmen today is 5'9 a little below the European average. If what your saying is true Spanish shouldn't be so sensitive about how they look and try to be like the stero typical northern European I though Iberians were if anything proud about being darker complicated than other Europeans.

----------


## Fire Haired

> "Bash Spain & Spaniards" bandwagon... lol, wtf? I even went out of my way to make a compliment to Spain... but your paranoia only allowed you to see the so-called "international agenda to denigrate Spain". 
> 
> It is notorious that in any History/Anthropology/Genetics forum, if someone makes a completely normal, neutral statement such as "the average Spaniard has dark hair", 50 Spaniards will jump on that person and will say "BUT BUT BUT WE HAVE PLENTY OF BLONDE HAIRED BLUE EYED PEOPLE! THE MOORS NEVER PUT THEIR DIRTY FEET IN THE NORTH OF SPAIN! MOORS NEVER HAD CHILDREN! WE ARE CELTSSS!" etc.
> 
> Look, anyone with an IQ over 80 and with a minimally reasonable amount of knowledge knows that there are plenty of tall, blonde haired, blue eyed, freckled people in Spain who could pass for being Vikings (all over Spain, too, not only in the "immaculate Gothic North"). But that doesn't change the fact that in most people's perception, the average Spaniard has dark hair, dark eyes and is likely to have a trace of Arabic blood. Just like there are brown haired, brown eyed Swedes, but in most people's minds, that isn't the average Swedish type. 
> 
> Could this be some kind of agenda for some people? Hey, I don't doubt that there might be some people out there who might genuinely hold something against Spain, for some reason or another... but my honest impression is that it really isn't the case, in the vast majority of times.


I don't get this if you want to find out who Spanish are or any people genetically just look at DNA. And its a fact the majority of Spaniards do have dark hair and eyes i don't see why there would be an argument about that. The Muslims that conquered Spain were not Arab maybe part Arab and Spanish have little to no blood from those Muslims. central and southern French people have the same hair color and eye color percentages as Iberians. So for Spanish to call themselves Celts which most of their ancestors were before Rome would not mean they would look like people in Scandinavia. Why does height have to be connected with hair color I really doubt it is. People go off stero types that I think go back to ancient Rome. I think pretty much all European countries are around the same height 5'10. Except Denmark, former Yugoslavia, and Netherlands maybe others which are over 6'0. And I have looked at studies of ancient remains the average European till really the 1800's was about 5'6-5'8 same fro the rest of the world except extra short Mongliods in Asia and definitely MesoAmericans. There was only a height difference my centimeters between Germanic tribesmen and Roman centurions and remains of ancient Gauls didn't really show a height difference from Romans even though they were almost always described as tall. I think the average Frenchmen today is 5'9 a little below the European average. If what your saying is true Spanish shouldn't be so sensitive about how they look and try to be like the stero typical northern European I thought Iberians were if anything proud about being darker pigmented than other Europeans.

----------


## Fire Haired

> Sorry Fire Haired but here I agree with MOEASAN. There is really no reason to believe that R* haplogroups were mongoloid. In one of your other post you even implied that R1 people where "Caucasified by R2 people but now you call all R people mongolid. 
> 
> The thing is Any R haplogroup is exclusively connected to West Eurasian autosomal DNA. All R people are Caucasian or have a part Caucasian history (like Turkic tribes in Central Asia who have paternal Iranian ancestry).
> 
> 
> As I said earlier, I believe just like Moeasan, that most NOP were neither Caucasian nor Mongolid. They had characteristics of both. With R people becoming Caucasian while O East Asian and N and Q people depending on sub clades something in between while leaning slightly more towards East Asians.


Study Human Y DNA family tree R is MONGLIOD!!!!! R1b1a2a1a L11 became 50% of western European y DNA with the migration of Germanic Italo Celts which started only 5,000ybp. R1a1a1b1 Z283 became around 30-60% in most of eastern and central Europe with the spread of Corded ware culture and Balto Slavic languages starting a little over 5,000ybp. R1a1a1b2 became popular in asia with the migration of Indo Iranian and Tocharian speakers out of Yamna culture which started at the earliest 5,000ybp. There deifntley would have been some people around Russia and Ukriane 6,000-8,000ybp with close to 100% R1a1a1 M417. And R1b1a2a L23 and R1b1a2a2 Z2103 is about 20-40% in Caucus, Anatolia, Iraq, and western Iran and probably is not of Indo European origin but Is definitely connected with Germanic Italo Celtic R1b1a2a1a L11. If you take out Indo European migrations R would be very unpopular in Eurasia. I claim that R was originally mongliod and mixed with Caucasians and formed a branch R2 maybe also R1 or maybe that was Mongliod then mixed with Caucasians. R1a probably originated in Europe and R1b around Iran or somewhere else in the Near east. I already have showed you how Caucasians and Mongliods are not that realted like so many have assumed it is the Black looking people in southern asia and Austrilla who are extremely related to Mongliods. The split between Oceania MOngliod and Caucasian Y DNA lineages most likely happened with y DNA IJK and LT I think came out of India. What is weird is Indians or south Asians mtDNA and Y DNA fit with Oceania Mongliod also in globe13 their group called south Asian does not fit with Oceania Mongliod, Caucasian, or sub sharan African families a little closer to Oceania Mongliod. But they have Caucasian skull shape it is very confusing. But since Oceania have black skin and nappy hair like sub sharan Africans and it seemd to me that is what the first humans would have. Then why are South Asians a kind of mysterious branch of the human family tree and if anything most related to Oceania Mongliod have totally Caucasian features.

----------


## Degredado

> I don't get this if you want to find out who Spanish are or any people genetically just look at DNA. And its a fact the majority of Spaniards do have dark hair and eyes i don't see why there would be an argument about that. The Muslims that conquered Spain were not Arab maybe part Arab and Spanish have little to no blood from those Muslims. central and southern French people have the same hair color and eye color percentages as Iberians. So for Spanish to call themselves Celts which most of their ancestors were before Rome would not mean they would look like people in Scandinavia. Why does height have to be connected with hair color I really doubt it is. People go off stero types that I think go back to ancient Rome. I think pretty much all European countries are around the same height 5'10. Except Denmark, former Yugoslavia, and Netherlands maybe others which are over 6'0. And I have looked at studies of ancient remains the average European till really the 1800's was about 5'6-5'8 same fro the rest of the world except extra short Mongliods in Asia and definitely MesoAmericans. There was only a height difference my centimeters between Germanic tribesmen and Roman centurions and remains of ancient Gauls didn't really show a height difference from Romans even though they were almost always described as tall. I think the average Frenchmen today is 5'9 a little below the European average. If what your saying is true Spanish shouldn't be so sensitive about how they look and try to be like the stero typical northern European I though Iberians were if anything proud about being darker complicated than other Europeans.


I know that the Arabs/Berbers didn't make a significant genetic impact on Spain. It's not like they replaced the millions of natives who were already there. They were always just a ruling minority, running things from their palaces, sort of like the Normans in England. And just like it's pretty much impossible, mathematically speaking, for an Englishman born in the 20th century not to have at least a couple of Norman ancestors somewhere way back, the same goes for Spain. It doesn't mean the English are Normans or that the Spanish are Arabs. The difference is that the Arabs got kicked out from Spain, while the Normans never did. If they hadn't been kicked out, maybe Spaniards today would make extensive genealogical research to prove that they had some Arab caliph ancestor, just like Anglo people seem to have a fascination with looking for Norman ancestors and claiming Norman descent.

But the point is, if someone says Spanish people have dark hair, as someone did in this thread, some Spaniards will tend to see it as an agenda against them, as an insinuation that they are Arabic, etc. Spaniards are definitely not Arabs, and the world isn't on a mission to attack Spain. Simple as that. Now let's allow the thread to go back to its original subject...

----------


## Sile

> No the genetics' of different Spaniards of course is very similar.


Really !, so the 8% of Berber E in the south is equal to what in the galician, basque, catalan etc north?

----------


## Nobody1

Looks like Drac II is having his period again;

----------


## Drac II

> Looks like Drac II is having his period again;


Look who's talking, the very spokesperson of that biological function around here. Only that yours are almost a daily cycle;

----------


## Drac II

> "Bash Spain & Spaniards" bandwagon... lol, wtf? I even went out of my way to make a compliment to Spain... but your paranoia only allowed you to see the so-called "international agenda to denigrate Spain". 
> 
> It is notorious that in any History/Anthropology/Genetics forum, if someone makes a completely normal, neutral statement such as "the average Spaniard has dark hair", 50 Spaniards will jump on that person and will say "BUT BUT BUT WE HAVE PLENTY OF BLONDE HAIRED BLUE EYED PEOPLE! THE MOORS NEVER PUT THEIR DIRTY FEET IN THE NORTH OF SPAIN! MOORS NEVER HAD CHILDREN! WE ARE CELTSSS!" etc.
> 
> Look, anyone with an IQ over 80 and with a minimally reasonable amount of knowledge knows that there are plenty of tall, blonde haired, blue eyed, freckled people in Spain who could pass for being Vikings (all over Spain, too, not only in the "immaculate Gothic North"). But that doesn't change the fact that in most people's perception, the average Spaniard has dark hair, dark eyes and is likely to have a trace of Arabic blood. Just like there are brown haired, brown eyed Swedes, but in most people's minds, that isn't the average Swedish type. 
> 
> Could this be some kind of agenda for some people? Hey, I don't doubt that there might be some people out there who might genuinely hold something against Spain, for some reason or another... but my honest impression is that it really isn't the case, in the vast majority of times.



Paranoia? I guess that you missed the very easily verifiable fact of how quickly you jumped to suck-it-up to the guy who went into a fit and started lashing out only because I "dared" to point out that the modern Spaniards he was referring to are not characterized by being black-haired. 

All your other babblings about "Moors" and "Goths" and what have you has nothing to do with what was being talked about with that administrator and only reveals your own issues. Thanks for confirming that you are indeed one of these Latin Americans with a strange fixation with Spaniards.

----------


## Drac II

> I told you many times, in genetics, culture, ethnicity and linguistically, Spain, Italy, Germany, France etc etc have many many differences within their own nations. 
> Nationality is a BS in this type of discussion. 
> nationality serves one purpose, to make one's family safe and have a higher standard of living . It does nothing else. If it does not achieve this , then that group or individual should leave this articifical system of the nation he resides in . Why do you think we have immigration?
> So, thinking that all spaniards are identical and discussng this against another false term called Italian or German etc is misleading to all. I for one, do not even know what part of Spain you refer to, I don't even know where you are from, so how can I possibily discuss the colour of Spaniards.
> *Why don't you give a brief summary of what a Spaniard is suppose to be and we can discuss it*


The whole thing started because one post in this thread tried to characterize Spaniards as being "black-haired", to which I replied that it is not so. I think you already have read enough about these discussions (specially in the "Anthropology" forum) to know that it's a simple matter of averages. Samples from a given population are taken and then measured. The results for Spain obviously back up what I said (the majority of Spaniards are brown haired, not black haired.) There is no "issue" or "complexes" here, except that the administrator apparently did not like a simple correction to one of his posts and then started throwing ad hominem accusations about supposed "complexes" (he has already done similar things several times in the past whenever Spaniards in this forum have corrected or defended themselves against erroneous claims, which reveals his general attitude towards this nationality.)

----------


## Knovas

Certainly, no one can think there's an agenda behind when saying most Spaniards have brown hair. It's what it is, ¿why saying it's black? Just think about it guys.

Since several months ago, I refuse to take part in discussions like this to avoid the "complexes argument". It becomes really boring when the answer is always the same.

I don't know if Drac thinks the same way (maybe according to his avatar), but I personally have no interest on definding Spain, since I am a Catalan in favor of independence and that's because we have many problems with its politicians (not the people, I have great friends in Madrid for instance). I don't consider myself Spanish and will never do so, it's that simple. So I think my opinion is enough neutral in that sense to not be replied in the terms I stated.

As for the Black Irish topic, the phenotype issue is very complex. Depeneding on how pigmenatation genes recombine, we obtain a "Black" Irish or a lighter one, but both are essentially the same. There's no mistery in my honest opinion.

----------


## Alan

> Study Human Y DNA family tree R is MONGLIOD!!!!! R1b1a2a1a L11 became 50% of western European y DNA with the migration of Germanic Italo Celts which started only 5,000ybp. R1a1a1b1 Z283 became around 30-60% in most of eastern and central Europe with the spread of Corded ware culture and Balto Slavic languages starting a little over 5,000ybp. R1a1a1b2 became popular in asia with the migration of Indo Iranian and Tocharian speakers out of Yamna culture which started at the earliest 5,000ybp. There deifntley would have been some people around Russia and Ukriane 6,000-8,000ybp with close to 100% R1a1a1 M417. And R1b1a2a L23 and R1b1a2a2 Z2103 is about 20-40% in Caucus, Anatolia, Iraq, and western Iran and probably is not of Indo European origin but Is definitely connected with Germanic Italo Celtic R1b1a2a1a L11. If you take out Indo European migrations R would be very unpopular in Eurasia. I claim that R was originally mongliod and mixed with Caucasians and formed a branch R2 maybe also R1 or maybe that was Mongliod then mixed with Caucasians. R1a probably originated in Europe and R1b around Iran or somewhere else in the Near east. I already have showed you how Caucasians and Mongliods are not that realted like so many have assumed it is the Black looking people in southern asia and Austrilla who are extremely related to Mongliods. The split between Oceania MOngliod and Caucasian Y DNA lineages most likely happened with y DNA IJK and LT I think came out of India. What is weird is Indians or south Asians mtDNA and Y DNA fit with Oceania Mongliod also in globe13 their group called south Asian does not fit with Oceania Mongliod, Caucasian, or sub sharan African families a little closer to Oceania Mongliod. But they have Caucasian skull shape it is very confusing. But since Oceania have black skin and nappy hair like sub sharan Africans and it seemd to me that is what the first humans would have. Then why are South Asians a kind of mysterious branch of the human family tree and if anything most related to Oceania Mongliod have totally Caucasian features.


Give me a link to this study.

----------


## Degredado

> Paranoia? I guess that you missed the very easily verifiable fact of how quickly you jumped to suck-it-up to the guy who went into a fit and started lashing out only because I "dared" to point out that the modern Spaniards he was referring to are not characterized by being black-haired. 
> 
> All your other babblings about "Moors" and "Goths" and what have you has nothing to do with what was being talked about with that administrator and only reveals your own issues. Thanks for confirming that you are indeed one of these Latin Americans with a strange fixation with Spaniards.


Those "babblings" about "Moors and Goths" are the quintessential Spanish rhetoric, which you would have eventually made in following posts, had I not pre-emptively quoted you.  :Rolleyes: 

Some people feel the need to believe that the entire world is conspiring against them, in order to feel motivated or special... it seems you are one of those. Again - as a Brazilian, I have very little to do with Spain. I don't speak Spanish, my country was not a Spanish colony and has never had a war with Spain, I don't know and don't care for Spanish culture, Spanish artists, etc. You are really joking with yourself if you think that I have some kind of problem or infatuation with Spain. This isn't the 16th century anymore, "Drac". There's no real reason why anyone would hate Spain in 2013... as much as you may wish that were the case.

----------


## MOESAN

> Once again another case of someone trying to project his complexes onto others. Spaniards HAVE to defend themselves from such propaganda, specially coming from Latin Americans with a complex who are always trying to distort the image and history of Spain and its inhabitants, it's not like they have a choice. An old saying says "silence means consent".


I 'm sorry, but me too noticed this tendancy of Spaniards (far more than Portuguese, I believe) to affirm for themselves more fair hair and less black hair than they have -
but they have the excuse they had to fight against a "touristic conventional false image" of all uniformly black haired people, giving of them a "gitano" supposed aspect, and also to destroy the too exagerated ready-for-use opinion concerning weight of north-african-arabic influence on them...
all the way, as a whole, Portuguese present more dark hairs and eyes than Spaniards, and Spain regions are more variated than Portugal ones, even if Portugal is not completely uniform : I think in Minho by instance, South of Galicia...
(&: for pigmentation, for other traits, Portugal show even more numerous different southern strains that pigmentation cannot reveal): -
Northern Italy is not uniform in its pigmentation, even if we can tell as a whole it is fairer than center fairer itself than South and so on...(with spotty exceptions)
Spain has few blond people, it is not new: but brown non-blakish hair are very common in Castilla, Vieja and Nueva, in Catalunya, in Basque country/Navarra, in Aragon, in Cantabria, and on the shores of Asturias and N-W Galicia (all that without speak of certain spotty subregions, even in Andalusia or Valencia) - so don't forget that "blonds" genes , as black ones or very dark brown ones, are commoner than blonds or dark phenotypes, for the big majority of brown hairs are the mix or light+dark, even if some genetical homozygotous browns seem existing... so not only Iberians have some cro-magnoid remnants in some places, but they have a non negligeable blond "nordic" (?) element, as almost every land of Southern Europe - the less 'blondish' are the Sardinians and the Cypriots, and some valleys of other southern Europe in Iberia, Greece - 
&&: by the way, "blond" don't signify "nordic" everytime!
my %s I recall:
Spain as a whole: blonds-very ligh browns 3,5%, diverse browns: > 37% , very dark browns and blakish and blacks: > 59%, but the regions I mentionned above, fairer:
4-5% 41-43% 52-55%
Portugal (whole) 1,5% > 19% 78-79%
Italy as a whole 7,5% > 44% > 48%
North-North Italy (rough, Piemonte darker) 10% < 50% < 40% (true rural people, not big towns!!!)

no offense to anybody
just trying to be objective, knowing pigmentation is not too well measured at this time as phenotype, what makes genetic links to it not too evident

----------


## MOESAN

> Why cant you just admit y DNA R was originally Mongliod. That Mongliods and the so called negriod people in southern asia and Austrilla are really in the same sub group of Humans Mongliod Oceania Austomal, Y DNA, and MtDNA have proven this. I get so annoyed when people who don't know a lot about genetics say when Europeans and east Asians diverged. Europeans are NOT their own sub group of humans they group with near easterns and north Africans so you cant say European skull shape or whatever it is the Caucasian skull shape. I do think there is good evidence the first humans looked Negriod since Oceania do and they get it from the same source as sub sharan Africans so originally I guess Mongliods did too. In globe13 mongliod Oceania is no more related to Caucasians as Sub sharan African group is but Y DNa and mtDNA point to them coming from the same non African family. So originally Caucasians ancestors too may have had black skin and nappy hair. Since sub sharan Africans have not left Africa maybe that's why they never lost the black skin and nappy hair. But there is no true Sub Sharan African skull shape. But since straight hair just seems to make so much more sense look at apes and other animals all have straight hair and fur none have nappy. And since girls natural have longer hair even black ones than men that is more evidence maybe not the first humans had straight hair but human ancestors did.


I thought I had explained very well THE point of phenotypes and Y-haplogroups (read Maciamo too, and others)
AND WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO ADMIT SOMETHING THAT IS NOT PROVED ?!? I NEVER SAID IT WAS PROVED IT WAS NOT MONGOLOID, I SAID I DID NOT KNOW (read "Why? or Why not"), what is different in FACT - Man outside Africa did not completely mutate when just passed the doll, and first Eurasiatic people did not do so immediatly after: read again what I wrote on raciation!
no offense
Sadornwezh mad deoc'h (have a good Saterday)

----------


## MOESAN

> Certainly, no one can think there's an agenda behind when saying most Spaniards have brown hair. It's what it is, ¿why saying it's black? Just think about it guys.
> 
> Since several months ago, I refuse to take part in discussions like this to avoid the "complexes argument". It becomes really boring when the answer is always the same.
> 
> I don't know if Drac thinks the same way (maybe according to his avatar), but I personally have no interest on definding Spain, since I am a Catalan in favor of independence and that's because we have many problems with its politicians (not the people, I have great friends in Madrid for instance). I don't consider myself Spanish and will never do so, it's that simple. So I think my opinion is enough neutral in that sense to not be replied in the terms I stated.
> 
> As for the Black Irish topic, the phenotype issue is very complex. Depeneding on how pigmenatation genes recombine, we obtain a "Black" Irish or a lighter one, but both are essentially the same. There's no mistery in my honest opinion.


_dark hues among Europoids or Caucasians if you like are from very very dark brown (french "brun clair") to black (french "noir") - the last one seems typical overall for dolichocephalic dark populations of various stature, called unprecisely 'mediterranean', 'arabic', 'indo-afghan' or 'near-eastern', supposedly all "gracile" - 
I use this "balck" term for this kind of darker dark hue among "whitish" people, because it is very close to true balck - it is true that in fact you can found "blacker" hairs among mongoloid, dravidian (not all of them) and true negroid population - it is not a matter of scandal for me -_

----------


## MOESAN

to get back to the thread, I don't believe we can say all the dark haired people in Ireland are of a same unique human stock - 
we do not know if a well constitued collective phenotype reached Ireland with black (what kind of "black"?), green eyes and milky (freckling) skin?
we only constate that there is a trend (not "strain" as I wrote above: I'm sorry) for too much light eyes and too much ligh skins opposed to less light hairs -
the people that reached Ireland (and surely someones were there BEFORE the Celts of any kind: think in 'Long Barrows' people and 'Food Vessels' dinaroids ones) were already mixtures of diverse European "clans" (someones surely were almost autochtonous of Atlantic Europe) - the Celts that invaded (in what proportion) Ireland in more than a wave (we find gaelic but too Brittonics and Belgae tribes) were themselves mixed with acculturated (by Y-R1b-P312 males?) shores inhabitants of the same stock than their predecessors in the island...
concerning blonds, we are almost sure Celts were poor enough of them, had dark blond-very light brown hairs when they had, surely where for the most brown haired with very dark and fair too (Belgae, maybe purer, were a bit fairer) - what is possible is that the elite were fairer than the mass of people: what elite: a new one, or the former? it is very possible that at Iron Age new warriors took the strong side upon the already formed celtic society of south-Germany tumuli... very uneasy ground -
what we know is that this elite (new or not) as a MEAN was very easy to tell from the 'corded', germanic or supposed illyrian ones, and closer to some Slavs tribes - 
I have hundreds of pictures of irish people and can recognize classical 'nordic' unfluence', some more on the 'corded' side, some well attested 'brünn' and 'cro-magnoid' types, some small 'alpines' types, and too some 'small gracile mediterranean' types with more robust ones of indo-afghan-eurafrican affinities (and even some 'dinaroid' types!!! 
the most of 'cro-magnoids' and 'brunnoids' AND some of the southern types were ont the shores of Atlantic a long time ago yet (Meso- and Neo-lithic), the 'alpine' types came along with some 'nordic' types from continental Celts ('alpines surely had infiltred the mesolithic types before), with some other less dense types, 'dinaroids' were among more than a wave or set of Calcholithic prospectors ...
&: what makes Irish people partly special is their new combinations of crossings sometime very old: what occurs for the most in old mixtures living a long time in small number... this said, they are very typical of N-W Atlantic Europe by this mixture and the choices made by drift and selection - Basques show the same process of recombination, with other %s
when we try to understand mixtures, features and body proportions are of more use than pigmentation, even if this last thing can help - look at the people imaginating they are all black haired or all blond haired: it changes the approach!

----------


## Fire Haired

> Really !, so the 8% of Berber E in the south is equal to what in the galician, basque, catalan etc north?


Just stop look at genetics and stop making assumptions their all difffernt.

----------


## LeBrok

> I am not sure where this term originated, I don`t think to be honest any-one really does. If I had to guess I would say maybe from* the an gorta mór*.. the great famine. In 1847 things were particularly bad and in `47 a great number of Irish headed to Canada and America, where I have read they were called the Black 47... ( the blight turned the potatoes black and `47 was a dark time). Perhaps this has something to do with the term.


It might as well be the beginning of the use or this term. And it's probably East Coast US phenomenon.

----------


## LeBrok

> I "dared" to point out that the modern Spaniards he was referring to are not characterized by being black-haired.


We can agree that some people can perceive Spaniards as being too dark, but we would also need to agree, that some can be subjective at the other side of the spectrum, and see Spaniards too blond. You claim to be an objective person, therefore show us the one post where you "defended" Spain against being labeled too blond by some subjective people.
Right, there is none. You only come to "defend" (attack others) Spain when, in your eyes, it is shown too dark. This shows how "objective" you are on this point.




> There is no "issue" or "complexes" here, except that the administrator apparently did not like a simple correction to one of his posts and then started throwing ad hominem accusations about supposed "complexes" (he has already done similar things several times in the past whenever Spaniards in this forum have corrected or defended themselves against erroneous claims, which reveals his general attitude towards this nationality.)


Administrator are against Spaniards, and so are most members of Eupedia? This is the biggest lie you can tell to yourself. 
Scientifically speaking, external observers on any issue, are more objective than people personally involved in these issues. Wouldn't you conclude that most of Eupedia members, the external observers, are more objective than you are on issue of pigmentation in Iberia? Extending this logic, we don't give a damn, whether Spain is blond or dark. The only ones that make an issue out of it are some Iberians, actively blogging about this around internet.
Think about this, if you wouldn't care whether you're dark or white, how others (who don't like Iberians) could hurt you telling you that you're "brown"? If you wouldn't care, telling you about being darker than you are, wouldn't hurt you. Therefore your supposed enemies wouldn't use this argument, would they? Making an issue out of it and defending Spaniards against "browning" you show others your phobias and insecurities. You are making a problem where it doesn't exist (to the rest of the world), and you are showing your enemies (if they are) where they can hurt you. You are telling them that you don't want to be perceived as "brown", and this is exactly what will use against you. *You are your worse enemy!*
Also, vigorously and aggressively defending pigmentation status of Iberia, every time someone mentions something about this issue, doesn't help your cause either. You are acting like a child when someone hurts its feelings.
Most people who I know don't care how Spaniards look, and actually they love Spanish culture, architecture, music, etc. You don't realize obviously, but you have more sympathetic people around this planet than you imagine. Please, stop making enemies where there are none.





> This kind of reaction just sounds like you have a complex about pigmentation.


That's the only logical conclusion.

----------


## Butler

It is interesting that the Vikings were referred to, by the Irish, as the Dark invaders, the Gaelic word for black is 'dubh' and for foreigner is 'gall' Many of the invaders families took Gaelic names that utilised these two descriptive words. The name Doyle is in Irish 'O'Dubhghaill' which literally means 'dark foreigner' which reveals their heritage as an invading force with dark intentions. _Dubhlinn_, (Dublin) itself means "black pool". The Gaelic word "dubh" forms part of many old Irish Surnames which, over time have become anglicised. My great grandmother, Mary Delaney, Gaelic surname "Ó Dubhshláine" ("descendant of Dubhshláine"). Dubhshláine, in itself, means "dark challenge," Perhaps the dubh is the foundation of the Black Irish and the description has nothing to do with physical appearance!

----------


## Drac II

> I 'm sorry, but me too noticed this tendancy of Spaniards (far more than Portuguese, I believe) to affirm for themselves more fair hair and less black hair than they have -
> but they have the excuse they had to fight against a "touristic conventional false image" of all uniformly black haired people, giving of them a "gitano" supposed aspect, and also to destroy the too exagerated ready-for-use opinion concerning weight of north-african-arabic influence on them...
> all the way, as a whole, Portuguese present more dark hairs and eyes than Spaniards, and Spain regions are more variated than Portugal ones, even if Portugal is not completely uniform : I think in Minho by instance, South of Galicia...
> (&: for pigmentation, for other traits, Portugal show even more numerous different southern strains that pigmentation cannot reveal): -
> Northern Italy is not uniform in its pigmentation, even if we can tell as a whole it is fairer than center fairer itself than South and so on...(with spotty exceptions)
> Spain has few blond people, it is not new: but brown non-blakish hair are very common in Castilla, Vieja and Nueva, in Catalunya, in Basque country/Navarra, in Aragon, in Cantabria, and on the shores of Asturias and N-W Galicia (all that without speak of certain spotty subregions, even in Andalusia or Valencia) - so don't forget that "blonds" genes , as black ones or very dark brown ones, are commoner than blonds or dark phenotypes, for the big majority of brown hairs are the mix or light+dark, even if some genetical homozygotous browns seem existing... so not only Iberians have some cro-magnoid remnants in some places, but they have a non negligeable blond "nordic" (?) element, as almost every land of Southern Europe - the less 'blondish' are the Sardinians and the Cypriots, and some valleys of other southern Europe in Iberia, Greece - 
> &&: by the way, "blond" don't signify "nordic" everytime!
> my %s I recall:
> Spain as a whole: blonds-very ligh browns 3,5%, diverse browns: > 37% , very dark browns and blakish and blacks: > 59%, but the regions I mentionned above, fairer:
> ...


There is no need to speculate about percentages. The works of Spanish, Portuguese and Italian anthropologist have already recorded the actual percentages of hair pigmentation in these countries.

There is no such "tendency" of Spaniards to do anything like that, except a few radicals who are not happy with reality and would like for things to be different, which kind of people you can find in any country, not just Spain. The only thing that has been said regarding hair pigmentation in Spain in this thread is that modern Spaniards are not characterized by having black hair. Maciamo argues that this is because Celts brought lighter hair to both Spain and the British Isles, so the darker prehistoric inhabitants eventually got lighter features. Fair enough, I never disagreed with this. I only disagreed with his original characterization of modern-day Spaniards as "black haired", which is not backed up by pigmentation surveys. It seems you can never make a backed-up statement about modern Spanish pigmentation in these forums without some people going into strange angry fits.

----------


## JQP4545

I question the studies that say Irish and English are closely related. For example, here is Pierce Brosnan (Irish):

PierceBrosnanCannesPhoto2.jpg

Here is Antonio Banderas (Spanish):
antonio_banderas_1140168.jpg

They look very similar to me. Then here is Prince William (English):

5669-william-profile.jpg

He looks more like a Dane or maybe a German. So back to the topic. Where do the features come from?

----------


## Butler

Not surprising that Prince William looks a little German his 5th Greatgrandfather is Prince Albert of Saxe Coburg Gotha who married Queen Victoria. His 4th Great grandmother was Princess Alexandra daughter of Christian IX King of Denmark. Both Banderas and Brosnan do look similar.

----------


## Templar

> I question the studies that say Irish and English are closely related. For example, here is Pierce Brosnan (Irish):
> 
> PierceBrosnanCannesPhoto2.jpg
> 
> Here is Antonio Banderas (Spanish):
> antonio_banderas_1140168.jpg
> 
> They look very similar to me. Then here is Prince William (English):
> 
> ...


The British upper class has far more Germanic ancestry than the lower classes.

----------


## Butler

> The British upper class has far more Germanic ancestry than the lower classes.


The British Monarchy has many ties with the Germanic people, there is Germanic Blood even through the Princes Williams maternal line, Queen Victoria's Grandfather was King George III (of England), King George III was also the King of Hanover. George the III spoke English and was born in England, his father, King George II (of England) and his Grandfather King George I (of England) were both born in Hanover and spoke German as their first language.

----------


## Templar

> The British Monarchy has many ties with the Germanic people, there is Germanic Blood even through the Princes Williams maternal line, Queen Victoria's Grandfather was King George III (of England), King George III was also the King of Hanover. George the III spoke English and was born in England, his father, King George II (of England) and his Grandfather King George I (of England) were both born in Hanover and spoke German as their first language.


Beyond just that, the upper classes have more Norman ancestry.

----------


## Drac II

> We can agree that some people can perceive Spaniards as being too dark, but we would also need to agree, that some can be subjective at the other side of the spectrum, and see Spaniards too blond. You claim to be an objective person, therefore show us the one post where you "defended" Spain against being labeled too blond by some subjective people.
> Right, there is none. You only come to "defend" (attack others) Spain when, in your eyes, it is shown too dark. This shows how "objective" you are on this point.
> 
> 
> Administrator are against Spaniards, and so are most members of Eupedia? This is the biggest lie you can tell to yourself. 
> Scientifically speaking, external observers on any issue, are more objective than people personally involved in these issues. Wouldn't you conclude that most of Eupedia members, the external observers, are more objective than you are on issue of pigmentation in Iberia? Extending this logic, we don't give a damn, whether Spain is blond or dark. The only ones that make an issue out of it are some Iberians, actively blogging about this around internet.
> Think about this, if you wouldn't care whether you're dark or white, how others (who don't like Iberians) could hurt you telling you that you're "brown"? If you wouldn't care, telling you about being darker than you are, wouldn't hurt you. Therefore your supposed enemies wouldn't use this argument, would they? Making an issue out of it and defending Spaniards against "browning" you show others your phobias and insecurities. You are making a problem where it doesn't exist (to the rest of the world), and you are showing your enemies (if they are) where they can hurt you. You are telling them that you don't want to be perceived as "brown", and this is exactly what will use against you. *You are your worse enemy!*
> Also, vigorously and aggressively defending pigmentation status of Iberia, every time someone mentions something about this issue, doesn't help your cause either. You are acting like a child when someone hurts its feelings.
> Most people who I know don't care how Spaniards look, and actually they love Spanish culture, architecture, music, etc. You don't realize obviously, but you have more sympathetic people around this planet than you imagine. Please, stop making enemies where there are none.
> ...


I wonder why did you rush to erase my original reply to your post? Did it touch a nerve?

----------


## Drac II

> I question the studies that say Irish and English are closely related. For example, here is Pierce Brosnan (Irish):
> 
> PierceBrosnanCannesPhoto2.jpg
> 
> Here is Antonio Banderas (Spanish):
> antonio_banderas_1140168.jpg
> 
> They look very similar to me. Then here is Prince William (English):
> 
> ...



It depends on what parts of England you consider. According to British writers on this topic, the more west you go (closer to Ireland and Wales), the less "Germanic" and the more "Iberian/Celtic" the average English population gets.

----------


## LeBrok

> I wonder why did you rush to erase my original reply to your post? Did it touch a nerve?


Did you mean to hurt me with your post? Besides, I got enough of your non-sense posts, and telling us that only you can see how the world works.
Just watch out and tone down your conspiracies of the whole world against Iberians.

----------


## Toscano

Haha most stupid treadstart ive read! INDOEUROPEANS where NOT from IRAN they orginated on the steppes north of black sea. In modern day Ukrania!

R1b is a Italic-Celtic haplogroup!

----------


## Drac II

> Did you mean to hurt me with your post? Besides, I got enough of your non-sense posts, and telling us that only you can see how the world works.
> Just watch out and tone down your conspiracies of the whole world against Iberians.


Apparently it did just that, since you went ahead and erased it. If all I had posted was harmless "nonsense" (all supposedly the product of my imagination) that I couldn't back up you would not have done that.

----------


## JQP4545

> Haha most stupid treadstart ive read! INDOEUROPEANS where NOT from IRAN they orginated on the steppes north of black sea. In modern day Ukrania!
> 
> R1b is a Italic-Celtic haplogroup!


So then why do Irish have so much gedrosia and not caucasus on admixture tests?

----------


## adamo

Irish are as west-European a population you could find, with "European" genetic input cranked to the maximum, the type belonging to R1b, very west-European.

----------


## adamo

Wether pierce brosnan looks like you or not the most similar clustering countries as those such as England, Wales, Scotland, France, Spain or Belgium for example.

----------


## adamo

Other extreme west European nations basically lol. This is where most men are R1b and most of it is M269+ With later U106+ and P312+ mutations dominating.

----------


## MOESAN

> There is no need to speculate about percentages. The works of Spanish, Portuguese and Italian anthropologist have already recorded the actual percentages of hair pigmentation in these countries.
> 
> There is no such "tendency" of Spaniards to do anything like that, except a few radicals who are not happy with reality and would like for things to be different, which kind of people you can find in any country, not just Spain. The only thing that has been said regarding hair pigmentation in Spain in this thread is that modern Spaniards are not characterized by having black hair. Maciamo argues that this is because Celts brought lighter hair to both Spain and the British Isles, so the darker prehistoric inhabitants eventually got lighter features. Fair enough, I never disagreed with this. I only disagreed with his original characterization of modern-day Spaniards as "black haired", which is not backed up by pigmentation surveys. It seems you can never make a backed-up statement about modern Spanish pigmentation in these forums without some people going into strange angry fits.


false concerning your first paragraph: the "scientists" of these times in southern lands of Europe (Spanish ones more yet than Italian ones) had a very "special" conception of pigmentation categories and did not worry about the genetic signification of the catégories they created - sorry and sorry... the better categorization I saw with my proper experience is the German scientists ones (I don't care if they were 'nazies' or not: some said their works were so accurate that Hitler's band refused to publish the results, because a lot of bordering regions of the 'germanic great country' (Austria, Flanders, Elsass, Switzerland included) were too dark...

----------


## MOESAN

> So then why do Irish have so much gedrosia and not caucasus on admixture tests?


_1- links surely existed at first between Y-HGs and autosomals but with time drift and male biased crossings-admixtures they have had the opportunity to break off - our amateurs task is to try to ponderate these links, to see in what proportions they kept consistance
2- Irish all I-Es IN FAR ORIGIN? Maybe not?
3- I-E? steppic or eastern-anatolian at first? who knows for now? it is debated! what is sure for me is that 'caucasian' autosomal component whatever the first P-I-E speaker, seems more linked to A PART OF the Neolithical expansion (more complicated we previously believed ) than to the I-Eans expansion: indoeuropeanized or genuine indoeuropean, it seems the northernmost (steppic,) part of them was very slightly 'caucasian' and more 'european' (and very secondarly 'gedrosian'?)- I have no "religion" at this point of my life; I'm not a wizard! but I think some later movements of I-Eans in southern Europe contained more 'caucasian' than their predecessors... AND that the first arrived in Europe came from the Steppes (apparently) does not prove anymore they were THE FIRST I-Eans speakers and the Anatolians the last ones; no proof...
what seems evident is that 'gedrosian' component in NW Europe came SEPARATED FROM 'caucasian' component, whatever the way taken by these last ones (trans Caucasus, W-Anatolia???)
interesting debate where we can discover new theories if we had more ancient data
to conclude, dark hairs among Irish people (autosomals conditioned) arrived in ireland at different times from diverse regions (except Scandinavia for the most) and with different phenotypes (again autosomals) - there is not something like an unique BLACK GAEL type, it is sure._

----------


## Sile

> _1- links surely existed at first between Y-HGs and autosomals but with time drift and male biased crossings-admixtures they have had the opportunity to break off - our amateurs task is to try to ponderate these links, to see in what proportions they kept consistance
> 2- Irish all I-Es IN FAR ORIGIN? Maybe not?
> 3- I-E? steppic or eastern-anatolian at first? who knows for now? it is debated! what is sure for me is that 'caucasian' autosomal component whatever the first P-I-E speaker, seems more linked to A PART OF the Neolithical expansion (more complicated we previously believed ) than to the I-Eans expansion: indoeuropeanized or genuine indoeuropean, it seems the northernmost (steppic,) part of them was very slightly 'caucasian' and more 'european' (and very secondarly 'gedrosian'?)- I have no "religion" at this point of my life; I'm not a wizard! but I think some later movements of I-Eans in southern Europe contained more 'caucasian' than their predecessors... AND that the first arrived in Europe came from the Steppes (apparently) does not prove anymore they were THE FIRST I-Eans speakers and the Anatolians the last ones; no proof...
> what seems evident is that 'gedrosian' component in NW Europe came SEPARATED FROM 'caucasian' component, whatever the way taken by these last ones (trans Caucasus, W-Anatolia???)
> interesting debate where we can discover new theories if we had more ancient data
> to conclude, dark hairs among Irish people (autosomals conditioned) arrived in ireland at different times from diverse regions (except Scandinavia for the most) and with different phenotypes (again autosomals) - there is not something like an unique BLACK GAEL type, it is sure._


I think they ( black irish) did come from the steppes and they might have been cimmerians/thracians . the year would have been not later then 700BC. they had black hair, light eyes and pale "irish" skin .............the markings of a black irish.
the components of cimmerians/thracians are gedrosian ( eastern persian )and north caucasus

----------


## Sile

> The British upper class has far more Germanic ancestry than the lower classes.


the bottom picture was confirmed as having Indian genetics last month

----------


## MOESAN

> I think they ( black irish) did come from the steppes and they might have been cimmerians/thracians . the year would have been not later then 700BC. they had black hair, light eyes and pale "irish" skin .............the markings of a black irish.
> the components of cimmerians/thracians are gedrosian ( eastern persian )and north caucasus


_very often I find worth in what you write but here I disagree, no offense: it is normal not always being of the same opinion...
you seem pretty sure of your story, I cannot guess as well as you:
my thoughts in disorder: the pale skins (today) seems more typical to N-W Europe than to East - 
even in southern countries, SW show less numerous typically brunet white skins than S-E - even among Slavs I noted a % of very dark skins in comparison of latitude - 
I 'm not sure at all dark haired light eyed light skinned people are typical of the 'gedrosian' component - 
there is one or two black haired dark eyed relatively brunet skinned components among Irish people, even if very moderate
there is something close to an alpinish-lapponish component among Irish people, to , and other components hard to link to a precise global autosomal component (because the today poolings are for the most partially unsatisfying for me)
by the way, the lilly to pinkish white skin (freckled under sun) of a lot of Irishmen has nothing to do with the very greyish white skin of Baltic and Finnic regions - but I don't say you ever pretend that, it is just a statement of mine - 
and Irish people (if I rely on Dodecad K12b, maybe not available?) has almost no 'caucasian' component, the same as Orcadians and Basques and Norwegians
the dark haired light eyed light skinned element is present too if less than in Ireland, and dicreasing gradually, among W-British people, W-Bretons, and in some part some other regions of W Europe but does not represent a dominent percentage, only in some parts of Ireland (West) - I don't know more, maybe this element has a tendancy to erythrism (red hairs or beards) - (red minority among black or verydark brown: no contradiction: red is not "light" but "reddish more than brownish" do not confuse)
&: superficially we could think in Mordvins concerning pigmentation but it is going very far! red hair and white skin among only certain tribes can be linked there to another kind of gene... but who knows??? there are living in steppes for a long time I presume...?_
nos vad deoc'h a-benn ur wezh arall

----------


## Sile

> _very often I find worth in what you write but here I disagree, no offense: it is normal not always being of the same opinion...
> you seem pretty sure of your story, I cannot guess as well as you:
> my thoughts in disorder: the pale skins (today) seems more typical to N-W Europe than to East - 
> even in southern countries, SW show less numerous typically brunet white skins than S-E - even among Slavs I noted a % of very dark skins in comparison of latitude - 
> I 'm not sure at all dark haired light eyed light skinned people are typical of the 'gedrosian' component - 
> there is one or two black haired dark eyed relatively brunet skinned components among Irish people, even if very moderate
> there is something close to an alpinish-lapponish component among Irish people, to , and other components hard to link to a precise global autosomal component (because the today poolings are for the most partially unsatisfying for me)
> by the way, the lilly to pinkish white skin (freckled under sun) of a lot of Irishmen has nothing to do with the very greyish white skin of Baltic and Finnic regions - but I don't say you ever pretend that, it is just a statement of mine - 
> and Irish people (if I rely on Dodecad K12b, maybe not available?) has almost no 'caucasian' component, the same as Orcadians and Basques and Norwegians
> ...


no offense taken

my overall opinion is based on the current people I work with or am related to via marriages.
I work with a russian from Socie and a moldovan, both females ( females are overall lighter in skin tone than men, so!!). Both are black haired ( natural ) and one has grey eyes and other pale blue eyes. both tan easily but both loose natural tan colour quickly as well. Both born in their countries, both under 30 years of age, both been in Australia less than 10 years.

Via marriages....I see a dozen irish regularly during functions ( born and bred in ireland and recent( more than 20 years ago) arrivals). while only 1, I would declare "black irish" , i find the others have skin colour which is pale, but not as pale as the "black irish" and the females noted above. more of a pinkish colour.

To conclude, although I base my findings on current population, I see no reason why this would be a major error. Basically there is no way we can figure out the body skin colours of the ancients. So what is left is the AuDna. Everyone in Europe except the finns have a % of gedrosian

While on the subject of light skin, see below

http://dienekes.blogspot.com.au/2013...-share-by.html

----------


## ElHorsto

> I think they ( black irish) did come from the steppes and they might have been cimmerians/thracians . the year would have been not later then 700BC. they had black hair, light eyes and pale "irish" skin .............the markings of a black irish.
> the components of cimmerians/thracians are gedrosian ( eastern persian )and north caucasus


Maybe partially, but I think it is rather the med admixture. Are Basques darker than the Irish? They have the same Gedrosia as the Irish in this run. But Basques have more Mediterranean admixture than Irish. Thus I think it is also the mediterranean admixture in Irish which produces fewer dark Irish. Also many south europeans can still become as pale as many north-europeans, when both are at northern latitude.
But for Eastern europe other admixtures might be more responsible though, for instance Caucasus, although Mediterranean is present as well. East europe is also sunnier than the northern atlantic.
After all, not even "100% North_europeans" (regardless which run, just imagine maximum) necessarily implies 0% dark.

----------


## ElHorsto

> no offense taken
> 
> my overall opinion is based on the current people I work with or am related to via marriages.
> I work with a russian from Socie and a moldovan, both females ( females are overall lighter in skin tone than men, so!!). Both are black haired ( natural ) and one has grey eyes and other pale blue eyes. both tan easily but both loose natural tan colour quickly as well. Both born in their countries, both under 30 years of age, both been in Australia less than 10 years.


Atlantid-Pontid similarity comes to mind.

----------


## Brokensword

> R1b was never Mongoloid to begin with and Central Asia wasn't either before the Turkic and Mongol migrations. Also R1b did not start in Central Asia but Southwest of the Caspian where it entered as R1* and mutated to R1b.


https://www.google.com.tr/url?sa=t&r...57752919,d.bGQ

----------


## ElHorsto

> here is Pierce Brosnan (Irish):
> 
> Attachment 6035


I think he is very good example of an average Irishman, illustrating well the Mediterranean-Northern blend (K12b). He would look out of place in both, northern Germany and southern Europe. But he would not at all look out of place in southern Germany, pointing toward a IE-connection. So I'm still undecided whether this type is more aboriginal atlantic or rather Indo-European.

----------


## Angela

> _very often I find worth in what you write but here I disagree, no offense: it is normal not always being of the same opinion...
> you seem pretty sure of your story, I cannot guess as well as you:
> my thoughts in disorder: the pale skins (today) seems more typical to N-W Europe than to East - 
> even in southern countries, SW show less numerous typically brunet white skins than S-E - even among Slavs I noted a % of very dark skins in comparison of latitude - 
> I 'm not sure at all dark haired light eyed light skinned people are typical of the 'gedrosian' component - 
> there is one or two black haired dark eyed relatively brunet skinned components among Irish people, even if very moderate
> there is something close to an alpinish-lapponish component among Irish people, to , and other components hard to link to a precise global autosomal component (because the today poolings are for the most partially unsatisfying for me)
> by the way, the lilly to pinkish white skin (freckled under sun) of a lot of Irishmen has nothing to do with the very greyish white skin of Baltic and Finnic regions - but I don't say you ever pretend that, it is just a statement of mine - 
> and Irish people (if I rely on Dodecad K12b, maybe not available?) has almost no 'caucasian' component, the same as Orcadians and Basques and Norwegians
> ...


The same kind of coloring can appear, as someone else mentioned, in other countries, but without the person looking at all Irish...
http://www.atuvu.ca/img/serie/2/7/7/1/2771.jpg

I also doubt it has much, if anything, to do with the Gedrosia component, which, after all, is centered in the Balochi. I think it may appear when there has been an admixture between a predominantly "fairer" group, and one that is darker, there is a founder effect, and then the population remains relatively isolated, and drift brings the phenotype close to fixation. Of course, climatic factors are also important. A phenotype like this thrives in cloudy, rainy, places; it wouldn't do very well in areas of high solar radiation, which is one of the reasons, I think, that it appears so often in far northwestern Europe.

I also agree that the type of fair skin seen in eastern Europe and even in the Balkans is quite different from the fair skin even in places like my own northwest Italy, where, although the redheads are covered with freckles, the dark haired people with very fair skin tend not to freckle, and absolutely don't tan, or at least it's not what anyone else would call a tan. Freckling due to sun damage is another issue. I'd describe this kind of complexion as having a blue, not a ruddy undertone. The closest the cosmetics companies can come is "pale ivory" or "nude". :) Luckily, this complexion is also not prone to early wrinkling...I don't know the cause for that. 

I'd like to just mention that your posts in this thread have been excellent; informative, but not dogmatic, and very reasoned. It's much appreciated, as are the posts others contributed that saved this thread...

----------


## mihaitzateo

Darker Irish people are because of Iberian admixture (no idea how that got in Great Britain) but also because most Celts seems to not have been red haired,but dark haired,with darker skin.
Look here an ancient picture (from 990,so more than 1000 yrs old),depicting people from 4 ethnicities/areas bringing gifts (offerings) to King Otto:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...f_Otto_III.jpg
As you can see,those from Gallia,are darkest and they have black hair.
There are also darker Norwegians 4_Gift_Bringers_of_Otto_III.jpg,so is clear the darker skin is not only from Iberian admixture,since most Norwegians are quite low on Iberian (7% or so,even lower,on average).
People seems to forget that most Celtic populations mixed with Germanic people,this happened in France,Great Britain,Switzerland etc.
Were the mix was not that significant,as happened in Spain,for example,people are still quite dark.

----------


## skaheen15

My understanding is that paleolithic Europeans('Cro-Magnons') most likely had dark hair/eyes, and, isn't it true that there's quite a bit of continuity from the paleolithic populations in the British isles, outside of the(obviously imported) y-chromosomal majority? Wouldn't it then stand to reason that many inhabitants of the isles should have dark hair/eyes?

----------


## Aberdeen

> My understanding is that paleolithic Europeans('Cro-Magnons') most likely had dark hair/eyes, and, isn't it true that there's quite a bit of continuity from the paleolithic populations in the British isles, outside of the(obviously imported) y-chromosomal majority? Wouldn't it then stand to reason that many inhabitants of the isles should have dark hair/eyes?


Since darker people seem to be more common in certain areas (northern Wales, western Ireland, certain parts of Norway) I have wondered whether they're the descendants of paleolithic populations. However, some people seem to think that darker populations in fringe areas are the descendants of neolithic populations. It would be interesting to test the DNA of some of these people to see if there's any correlation. Of course, a person's mtDNA and Y DNA aren't necessarily indicative of what their main ancestry is. Perhaps autosomal DNA could clarify this issue.

----------


## skaheen15

> some people seem to think that darker populations in fringe areas are the descendants of neolithic populations.


Yeah, there's that as well, but I'm pretty sure that, to whatever extent migration played a part in the spread of the neolithic revolution, there was less to the British isles, and to northern Europe in general, then there was to Italy, the Balkans, and so on. In other words, less migration and more diffusion. That's my understanding, anyway. I'm sure that several factors are behind the 'black Irish' phenomenon, and, naturally, you see dark hair/eyes scattered around most of northern Europe if you're looking, to varying degrees. I'm always skeptical of any single-bullet explanation for things like that.

----------


## American Idiot

> My Irish friend is a black Irish, he and his father state the name comes from the Spanish armada sailors which where not butchered by the Irish after their ships sank rounding the north of Scotland and running down past Ireland to get back to Spain.
> It refers to their olive skin.


yeah but that is just an old myth long held in Ireland. Even most geneticists discount that. How many "Black Irish" are there in Ireland? a few, handful of soldiers wouldn't be enough to account for that.

common sense says, the most likely source is from neolithic-farmer settlers in Ireland who would have come from both spain and other parts of western europe, at the time into Ireland.

The source for the Black Irish is probably the same source for the stereotypical dark Welshman, which again is mostly likely from a neolithic farmer population in the British Isles not from a handful of Spanish sailors that only date back to the later middle ages or the early Tudor period.

As for people who claim the neolithic settlers didnt have much genetic impact in the British Isles, that is true if you take the British Isles as a whole.
But as for certain locations or certain regions, such as south Wales or Western Ireland, those neolithic settlers could easily have had a larger, more isolated genetic impact than is common throughout most of the Isles in general.

There are Atlantic-Mediterranean types found scattered throughout the British Isles in general, including England and Scotland as well, so obviously those darker neolithic types did have some kind of genetic impact in the Isles to varying degrees depending on what region or locality you are looking at.
There is not one single place in the entire British Isles where those types are not found at all. 
They're just more common in certain areas.

As for the dark stereotype of south Wales, even Tacitus thought their ancestors had come originally from spain due to their features.
and there was no Spanish armada in Wales.

Many of the neolithic settlers in the western Isles came originally from Spain and SW Europe, so the olive skin of the Black Irish and some Welshmen are most likely due to neolithic settlers and they were already there long before the Armada crashed on the shore.

----------


## American Idiot

> Darker Irish people are because of Iberian admixture (no idea how that got in Great Britain) but also because most Celts seems to not have been red haired,but dark haired,with darker skin.
> Look here an ancient picture (from 990,so more than 1000 yrs old),depicting people from 4 ethnicities/areas bringing gifts (offerings) to King Otto:
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...f_Otto_III.jpg
> As you can see,those from Gallia,are darkest and they have black hair.
> There are also darker Norwegians 4_Gift_Bringers_of_Otto_III.jpg,so is clear the darker skin is not only from Iberian admixture,since most Norwegians are quite low on Iberian (7% or so,even lower,on average).
> People seems to forget that most Celtic populations mixed with Germanic people,this happened in France,Great Britain,Switzerland etc.
> Were the mix was not that significant,as happened in Spain,for example,people are still quite dark.


that makes no sense what so ever. That picture is most likely a depiction of the Gallo-Roman population, not a typical pre-Roman, Celtic speaking Gaul. How can you look at this ONE picture and take it to mean that is how MOST Celts looked like? How can you completely misread something so bad?

The reason the Iberians today dont look like typical Celtic descendants from other parts of Europe is because the Iberians never mixed with the Celts to any meaningful degree.

Besides, when the Romans invaded Britain they talked of how most of the inhabitants were fair skinned and had light hair.......this was at a time long before there was any significant number of Germanic settlers in Britain. 

This picture was painted between 950-1000 A.D. ? So, that is after about 7 or 800 years or more, of the descendants of Roman settlers and Gauls mixing and assimilating together in Gallia. 

If it had been painted before 50 B.C. then your view might seem more credible, maybe.

----------


## adamo

The entire British isles have no more than 10% Neolithic component on the y-DNA side; even less possibly; 5-10%. These rare individuals could explain part of the "black" Irish phenomenon.

----------


## adamo

The celts poured into Iberia by the way; Albiones, Astures, Gallaeci,celtici, bracari, interamici; these are but some of them. Many place names across Iberia such as Galicia are indicative of Celtic presence and the genetics show that 70-75% of Spanish males belong to R1b; most of it R1b-P312. Again, the Romans invaded and conquered Gaul, but did not significantly alter France's genetic make-up ; they may have brought some few Neolithic lineages, if we set aside those few already present. The Neolithic lineages peak in southeastern France, not due to its proximity with northwestern Italy, but due to local Greek colonization with small sites such as Massilia, for example. The French as well have low Neolithic lineages, albeit slightly higher than those found across the British isles, I would estimate around 15% of French men belong to the Neolithic lineages; possibly slightly more or slightly less.

----------


## adamo

No lower than 10% but possibly a tad lower or equal to 20% of them. Spain and Portugal have a solid 20% Neolithic lineages nationally but not quite 30% and NEVER more than 25%; on a NATIONAL level of course.

----------


## Drac II

> that makes no sense what so ever. That picture is most likely a depiction of the Gallo-Roman population, not a typical pre-Roman, Celtic speaking Gaul. How can you look at this ONE picture and take it to mean that is how MOST Celts looked like? How can you completely misread something so bad?
> 
> The reason the Iberians today dont look like typical Celtic descendants from other parts of Europe is because the Iberians never mixed with the Celts to any meaningful degree.
> 
> Besides, when the Romans invaded Britain they talked of how most of the inhabitants were fair skinned and had light hair.......this was at a time long before there was any significant number of Germanic settlers in Britain. 
> 
> This picture was painted between 950-1000 A.D. ? So, that is after about 7 or 800 years or more, of the descendants of Roman settlers and Gauls mixing and assimilating together in Gallia. 
> 
> If it had been painted before 50 B.C. then your view might seem more credible, maybe.


You are right about the origin of so-called dark British and Irish, it's due to the prehistoric populations, which were of similar type as the Iberians and the Aquitanians. The Romans already had noticed these darker types in Britain, nothing to do with any "Spanish Armada" from centuries later.

The Romans, by the way, seem to have had contrasting opinions about whether the majority of inhabitants of Britain were like Germans or not. Some try to stereotype them as "fair haired" while others distinguished them from Germans by their darker traits. 19th and 20th century British ethnologists and anthropologists generally dismissed the Roman accounts that try to paint them as "blond" or "red-haired" based on the fact that these stereotypes most certainly did not fit the majority of the modern British or Irish people, as pigmentation surveys of the time easily showed (not even in Scotland, the most red-haired place on the planet, did rufosity made up much more than just 5% of the population, for example, as John Gray's large-scale pigmentation survey of Scotland showed.) 

You are wrong, however, about the Celts not having influence on the Iberians. About half of the Iberian Peninsula was inhabited by Celtic tribes since long before recorded times. The Greeks and Romans noticed their presence in the area. Romans also used the word "Celtiberian", apparently for peoples of mixed Iberian and Celtic background. Modern day Iberians in fact are predominantly brown-haired and not "olive-skinned" (Von Luschan scale numbers 15 to 18) but of lighter skin tones (Jablonski and Chaplin's "The evolution of human skin coloration" study found Spanish samples from the region of Leon, an old Celtic territory, lighter in tone than Belgian and southern English samples, and of similar tone as the Welsh and Irish samples.) The "black haired and olive-skinned" stereotype that many people still believe today about Spaniards is based mostly on tourist-oriented images of Gypsies dancing Flamenco and romanticized Hollywood images of the "Latin lover", not on a realistic view of what the native peoples are actually like.

----------


## mihaitzateo

I do not think that Celts were uniform,as physical look.And to say that most Celts were red haired,is something that is not supported by any evidences.
For example is well known and not contested that lots of Celts settled in France,however,France does not have a very high frequency of red hair.
So is clear that some Celts were red haired and is clear that those Celts who settled in Ireland and Scotland and Wales were having red hair often.
There is also a difference in languages,Welsh is coming from Britonic,while Irish and Scottish are from Goidelic.All are Insular Celtic languages.
However,those Celts who settled in France should have been speakers of Continental Celtic.
I did not said that all Celts were darker,I said that were also darker skinned Celts,that is what that old image shows.
And those dark skinned Celts being from Gallia should have been speaker of Continental Celtic,which is different branch of Celtic from Insular Celtic,to which Irish,Scottish and Welsh belongs to.
Gallia did not included Great Britain,but you do not think is possible that Insular Celtic speakers have mixed with some Continental Celtic speakers?

----------


## adamo

Drac, what is this indigenous origin of Aquitani nonsense? The Aquitani were in line with the Vascones (Basque people) they would have been high R1b, as the celts were, regardless of the fact that they differed culturally. The dark Irish may have been the few rare Neolithic lineages in Ireland, nothing indicates they were necessarily from Iberia.

----------


## Drac II

> Drac, what is this indigenous origin of Aquitani nonsense? The Aquitani were in line with the Vascones (Basque people) they would have been high R1b, as the celts were, regardless of the fact that they differed culturally. The dark Irish may have been the few rare Neolithic lineages in Ireland, nothing indicates they were necessarily from Iberia.


Read what the Romans said about both the culture and physical type of the Aquitanians. They compared them to Iberians, not the people they called "Gauls". Galia was divided between 3 populations, according to the Romans: the Aquitanians, who were much like the Iberians, the Gauls and a people they called the "Belgae".

Even as far back as the Romans, the association of the darker type of Britons with Iberians, properly (not the people the Romans called Celtiberians who also inhabited part of the Iberian Peninsula), was made. 19th and 20th century British ethnologists and anthropologists kept making pretty much the same observations and linking these darker types in the British Isles to people like Iberians, Ligurians and Aquitanians. The topic of "dark Britons" is a very common one in their writings. And by the way, they did not see them as just "a few", but in fact a very important element of the British and Irish populations, the oldest and most "native" type of Britons and Irish. Read the works of Beddoe, Huxley, Thurnam, etc. Even British "Aryanists" like Laurence Waddell saw the majority of the population of the British Isles as not "Nordic" or "Aryan" but in fact heavily influenced by these earlier "Iberian" inhabitants.

----------


## adamo

They compared them to "Iberians" because the Aquitani where more similar in culture and in line with northern Spain's basque people; there is no evidence or reason for them to have been darker than celts across either the rest of France or Spain. These "separate" Belgae you mention where most deffinetly celts too. There is no way that the non-indo European Iberians proper (possibly Phoenician or Ancient Greek colonizers) could have represented the genetic bulk of the Irish. Answer this question: how the bloody he_ _ could the Romans have known that these black Irish you speak of that apparently are found all over Ireland, would have come from Iberia? Even if they did migrate from northern Spain or something towards Ireland/British isles, it's more that R1b-P312 Celtic variety that I would be looking for. I guess these black Irish are represented by the Neolithic lineages, wether the extremely rare in British isles J,E3b,G,T etc. men or the mtdna J,K etc. women that represent in reality a definite minority of lineages in the British isles.

----------


## adamo

Sure; there may be a link, if I recall there is an ancient tribe amongst the Aquitani known as the pictones. You see we found a link between scots and southern French, just not the one you were looking for lol. The basque of northern Spain were no different than the Aquitani of southwestern France. There's certainly an R1b P-312 Celtic link as Aquitania is well within that region of France where P312 peaks; this not only continues into central, western France but also extends well into the Iberian peninsula where it makes up a monstrous amount of R1b among the spaniards and Portuguese. High P312 lineages frequency is also found well into the British iles (mostly downstream L21 of course) but P312 derived lineages make up about in my estimates, 80% of Irish, 65% of Scottish and welsh and 50% of English lineages! for example, if we include R-S28, R-L21, R-P312* with their different histories/origin points etc.

----------


## adamo

This only further supports my idea that the Aquitani WHERE similar to Celt-Iberians; in a typically CELTIC west European way, through their sharing of the R1b-P312 marker.

----------


## Drac II

> They compared them to "Iberians" because the Aquitani where more similar in culture and in line with northern Spain's basque people; there is no evidence or reason for them to have been darker than celts across either the rest of France or Spain. These "separate" Belgae you mention where most deffinetly celts too. There is no way that the non-indo European Iberians proper (possibly Phoenician or Ancient Greek colonizers) could have represented the genetic bulk of the Irish. Answer this question: how the bloody he_ _ could the Romans have known that these black Irish you speak of that apparently are found all over Ireland, would have come from Iberia? Even if they did migrate from northern Spain or something towards Ireland/British isles, it's more that R1b-P312 Celtic variety that I would be looking for. I guess these black Irish are represented by the Neolithic lineages, wether the extremely rare in British isles J,E3b,G,T etc. men or the mtdna J,K etc. women that represent in reality a definite minority of lineages in the British isles.



No, the physical traits of the Aquitanians were also distinguished from that of the "Gauls". The Gauls were stereotyped as a blondish-pigmented people, the Aquitanians as a brunet-pigmented people.

The Iberians were not Phoenician or Greek. They were descendants of prehistoric Europeans, not Semitic or Indo-European arrivals from later times. The Iberian language, much like Basque, has no relation to either Semitic or Indo-European languages.

The Romans did not know much about Ireland, since they never managed to establish enclaves there, but they became acquainted with Britain. They pointed out that the darker tribes in Britain, like the Silures, were similar to Iberians and speculated that they were descendants of Iberians who had moved north in remote times. The 19th and 20th century British writers on the subject pretty much agreed with these ancient opinions, and kept referring to these earliest inhabitants of Britain & Ireland as "Iberians" or "Iberian Britons". They held them to be the basal population of those islands, onto which has been superimposed later Indo-European arrivals.

You are trying to attach phenotypical attributes to haplogroup markers, which is not quite correct since they are only a small part of the DNA. No geneticists have ever done such a thing as attributing "dark" or "light" features to haplogroups, that I know of.

----------


## adamo

The Tartessians and Turdetanians where similar to Phoenicians; the Iberians could have been pre-indo-Europeans; then there were the celts that largely invaded Spain. So what, the basque didn't speak an indo-European tongue and they have 90% R1b; explain the drastically high R1b frequencies across Aquitania then. Prove in one way or another that the Romans were around long enough to correctly decide that these Britons came from Iberia. YOUR trying to attribute different phenotypes to populations that share the same haplogroups and relative genetic profiles.

----------


## adamo

In fact, the northeastern Iberians where considered levantines; and the eastern and southern coasts of Spain were heavily colonized by both Greeks and Phoenicians. The proto-basques were the same people as the aquitanians just on the other side of the Pyrenees.

----------


## adamo

The Turdetanians and Tartessians, similar to the Lusitanians may have been celts or pre-indo-European Y-DNA I men.

----------


## American Idiot

> And those dark skinned Celts being from Gallia should have been speaker of Continental Celtic,which is different branch of Celtic from Insular Celtic,to which Irish,Scottish and Welsh belongs to.
> Gallia did not included Great Britain,but you do not think is possible that Insular Celtic speakers have mixed with some Continental Celtic speakers?



actually Welsh, Cornish, Cumbric, and Old British as well as Pictish were all P-Celtic languages and were related to Old Gaullish, also a P-Celtic language.

The Brythonic dialects if the Isles were related to Gaulish.

----------


## adamo

I agree with the above statement, an ancient R1b-P312 link.

----------


## Drac II

> In fact, the northeastern Iberians where considered levantines; and the eastern and southern coasts of Spain were heavily colonized by both Greeks and Phoenicians. The proto-basques were the same people as the aquitanians just on the other side of the Pyrenees.


There never was any "heavy colonization" by either Greeks or Phoenicians in Iberia. They only had some coastal enclaves.

Northeastern Spaniards were not "Levantines" either. They were Basques and Iberians.

----------


## Drac II

> The Tartessians and Turdetanians where similar to Phoenicians; the Iberians could have been pre-indo-Europeans; then there were the celts that largely invaded Spain. So what, the basque didn't speak an indo-European tongue and they have 90% R1b; explain the drastically high R1b frequencies across Aquitania then. Prove in one way or another that the Romans were around long enough to correctly decide that these Britons came from Iberia. YOUR trying to attribute different phenotypes to populations that share the same haplogroups and relative genetic profiles.


The Iberians were definitely pre-Indo-Europeans, like the Basques or the Etruscans. The Iberian language confirms this.

R1b is not necessarily "Indo-European". It is in fact found in its heaviest concentrations in Western Europe (Spain, France, British Isles), all of which had old pre-Indo-European populations long before the Indo-Europeans arrived.

I never said anything about phenotypes and haplogroups, you are the one who is trying to attach fixed phenotypical values to haplogroups, which, like I said, it's just not done by any genetic study I have ever seen.

----------


## Knovas

True. The Basques are the most similar to those pre-Indo-European inhabitants. And as we see in admixture experiments, both Aragonese and Catalans, appear to be much closer than the average Spaniards. So definitely no levantines in Northeastern Iberia, not at least something representative.

I also have my doubts on R1b being "Indo-European". Let's assume they were Indo-Europeans who just failed to impose their language among Basques. Why then the Basques still cluster apart? Obviously they were less affected by other genetic influences, which makes quite difficult to state R1b was responsible of this.

----------


## Wilhelm

> In fact, the northeastern Iberians where considered levantines; and the eastern and southern coasts of Spain were heavily colonized by both Greeks and Phoenicians. The proto-basques were the same people as the aquitanians just on the other side of the Pyrenees.


You sir are misinformed. Catalans are near 80% R1b, and have like only 2-3% of haplogorups J and E (similar levels as Sweden or Northern Germany). 

The iberian language had nothing to do with levantines, it was related with Basque. And it's not true that greeks and phoenicians "heavily" colonized, they had only a few coastal towns, that were used as trading ports. Thieir population numbers was ridiculously low and their influence is cultural, not ethnic.

----------


## Alan

> https://www.google.com.tr/url?sa=t&r...57752919,d.bGQ


Even the area proposed by this study to be the place of R1b origin (Kazakhstan, South- Southeastern Russia and Central Asia) was Iranian or Indo European in general to begin with. The last to appear in this area were Turkic tribes. So how does prove that R1b is Turkic when the Turkic ethno-linguistic family is not much older than 2000 years. Also R1b is virtually absent in almost all Turkic tribes, expect Turkmanistanis which are, by aDNA and history as well, most likely turkified Dahaeans. 

That R* in general has not much to do with Turkic tribes but is the relict of Iranian admixture is also indicated by the fact that the oldest attest R* individual in the World (from Siberia) has virtually no sign of East or Northeast Asian Autosomal admixture! But what he has is West-Central Asian, South Asian, North European, Amerindian and Southeast Asian admixture. Three of these common in Iranians and/or Indo Aryans. 

The only Autosomal admixture in modern Turkic tribes, which can be connected to R1, are West_Central Asian, North European and South Asian. All three which are common in Iranian and/or Indo-Aryan tribes from South_Central Asia.

East Asian/"Siberian" component, which is the most common and only admixture associated with Turkic origin, is absent from this ancient R1* individual.

So it is very unlikely that R1b or R1a has Turkic origin. R* would have more in common with Amerindians than Turkic people.

----------


## adamo

You failed the moment you classed the basque with the Etruscans. YOU are misinformed; I never said Catalans where Levantine, everyone here knows I wouldn't make such a claim; I am the one that has constantly postulated the massive presence of R1b all across Iberia; stop trying to twist my words. The Catalonian and southern Iberian coast though saw both Phoenician and Greek colonizing outposts along its coasts, and the Iberians proper where said to have been of non-indo-European origin. Linguistic affiliation proves absolutely nothing as the basque are 90% R1b and have NOTHING to do with the Pelasgian Etruscans. Quote on basque genetics: "Autosomal genetic studies, on the one hand, confirm that Basques have a very close relationship with other Europeans, especially with the rest of Spaniards, who have a common genetic identity of over 70% with Basques." I hope this puts some of your garbage theories to rest.

----------


## adamo

The basque have a pre-indo-European LANGUAGE, but they are heavily bombarded with the same genetics found across most of Western Europe, indicating they may have been culturally isolated for a very long time. Catalonians have 75-80% R1b and yet the Iberians were none the less of NON-indo-European origin. The only thing that unites the basque and Etruscans is that they where "pre-indo-European" according to you, but genetically these two people would have varied from one another tremendously.

----------


## adamo

Comments on the language of the Iberians spoken in northeastern Spain: "There is no agreement on this, but some researchers conclude that it is linked to the Phoenician alphabet alone, whilst others believe the Greek alphabet also had a role." I honestly believe the Iberians where either Phoenicians or came from the Caucasus region with some J-M67 and were predominantly Neolithic lineages.

----------


## Aberdeen

> Comments on the language of the Iberians spoken in northeastern Spain: "There is no agreement on this, but some researchers conclude that it is linked to the Phoenician alphabet alone, whilst others believe the Greek alphabet also had a role." I honestly believe the Iberians where either Phoenicians or came from the Caucasus region with some J-M67 and were predominantly Neolithic lineages.


I'm curious as to why you couldn't have put your three posts into one, but whatever. What I really want to know is who you're quoting there.

----------


## adamo

Dont fret the small things Aberdeen; write my quotes into google and track them; they are basic knowledge at this point. I am currently using a finger-touch IPad is why.

----------


## Wilhelm

> Comments on the language of the Iberians spoken in northeastern Spain: "There is no agreement on this, but some researchers conclude that it is linked to the Phoenician alphabet alone, whilst others believe the Greek alphabet also had a role." I honestly believe the Iberians where either Phoenicians or came from the Caucasus region with some J-M67 and were predominantly Neolithic lineages.


You are the one with crazy bullshit theories. We have ancient DNA from Iberians, and If the iberians were phoenicians, then how on earth their mtDNA tested to be similar to modern iberians.

----------


## adamo

Okay so the Iberians where similar to modern Iberians; I guess they WERE indo-Europeans then? Tell me Wilhelmina, what were they?

----------


## Wilhelm

> Okay so the Iberians where similar to modern Iberians; I guess they WERE indo-Europeans then? Tell me Wilhelmina, what were they?


They were not indo-european, but PRE-indoeuropean similar to Basques, we have told you that already.

----------


## Aberdeen

> Dont fret the small things Aberdeen; write my quotes into google and track them; they are basic knowledge at this point. I am currently using a finger-touch IPad is why.


Small things such as hallucinating that the Basque language came from Phoenician or a mixture of Phoenician and Greek? Modern Basque is a language isolate, regardless of whether it did or didn't pick up any Phoenician or Greek loan words back in the day. Whether or not Basque-like languages were widely spoken across western Europe in the pre-IE era is a subject for debate, but Basque is definitely not an IE or a Semitic language.

----------


## adamo

I never made a link between basques and Iberians Aberdeen; that's you. I already know it isn't indo-European and that it is a language isolate. So Wilhelmina you are saying the Iberians were pre-indo-Europeans with R1b, similar to basques? I never said the basque language came from Phoenician, open your eyes and read correctly, you drew those conclusions yourself Aberdeen. I am specifically referring to the Iberians situated in modern day Catalonia; a non-indo-European people that had significant contact with both Phoenician and Greek colonizers, not modern day Iberians in general. I meant small things as in where the quote came from.

----------


## Wilhelm

> I never made a link between basques and Iberians Aberdeen; that's you. I already know it isn't indo-European and that it is a language isolate. So Wilhelmina you are saying the Iberians were pre-indo-Europeans with R1b, similar to basques? I never said the basque language came from Phoenician, open your eyes and read correctly, you drew those conclusions yourself Aberdeen. I am specifically referring to the Iberians situated in modern day Catalonia; a non-indo-European people that had significant contact with both Phoenician and Greek colonizers, not modern day Iberians in general. I meant small things as in where the quote came from.


Stop calling me with "wilhelmina" Im more manly than you faggot, I demand an explanation from Moderators.

----------


## adamo

Wow, dude......that was the auto-correct on my iPad bro; my bad....

----------


## adamo

> Stop calling me with "wilhelmina" Im more manly than you faggot, I demand an explanation from Moderators.


 Gonna make sure I keep this though so lebrok can see it, wow dude....,that's harsh....I wish I could say "my bad" but my iPad instantly corrects everything before I even press send, making modifications to my text....so it's not even my fault! : (

----------


## Aberdeen

> I never made a link between basques and Iberians Aberdeen; that's you. I already know it isn't indo-European and that it is a language isolate. So Wilhelmina you are saying the Iberians were pre-indo-Europeans with R1b, similar to basques? I never said the basque language came from Phoenician, open your eyes and read correctly, you drew those conclusions yourself Aberdeen. I am specifically referring to the Iberians situated in modern day Catalonia; a non-indo-European people that had significant contact with both Phoenician and Greek colonizers, not modern day Iberians in general. I meant small things as in where the quote came from.


Yes, modern day Basques live on the Iberian Peninsula (or in France), but Spanish Basque country isn't in Catalona, it's further west. However, perhaps I'm just not understanding whatever it is that you're trying to say. I do want to know where that quote comes from, as it seems to me to be improbable that someone would actually publish such nonsense. However, rather than personalize this discussion any further, I think I'll take a break from it for a bit. I may be back when things cool down.

----------


## adamo

"But Basque Country isn't Catalonia", dude, dude, dude........I know exactly where Basque Country is but I'm not referring to the basque people, I'm referring to the ancient Iberians of the eastern coast of Spain, the ancient Iberians.

----------


## Aberdeen

> "But Basque Country isn't Catalonia", dude, dude, dude........I know exactly where Basque Country is but I'm not referring to the basque people, I'm referring to the ancient Iberians of the eastern coast of Spain, the ancient Iberians.


Something tells me that I'm going to regret not staying away from this thread but okay, you're not talking about the Iberian Peninsula in general and you've moved on from the Basques, you're now talking exclusively about the people that the ancient Greeks called "Iberians", the descendants of Neolithic settlers who were living along the south and east coast of the Iberian Peninsula when they entered history and who were influenced by the Greek and Phoenician colonies along their coastline. And for some reason you're only talking about the "Iberians" of Catalona. The language they spoke is generally considered to be an isolate, despite attempts to link it to Basque or to an Indo-European language. The fact that the northeastern Iberian script may have been influenced by Phoenician or Greek doesn't mean that the Iberian language was related to Phoenician or Greek. 

At one point you suggested that the "Iberians" were Indo-European and at another point you suggested that they were Phoenicians. They can't be both, and I don't think they were either. They were just people who had been living in the east and south of the Iberian Peninsula since the Neolithic. What does this have to do with the topic of the thread?

----------


## adamo

No I never "moved on" that's what I was referring to all along. I may have emitted more than one hypothesis earlier , but I never claimed they were indo-Europeans, I was asking the question because I was told earlier I was wrong about their origins; anyways

----------


## Aberdeen

> In fact, the northeastern Iberians where considered levantines; and the eastern and southern coasts of Spain were heavily colonized by both Greeks and Phoenicians. The proto-basques were the same people as the aquitanians just on the other side of the Pyrenees.


The "northeastern Iberians" were and are not considered to be "levantines", although the Phoenicians did settle along the eastern coast of the Iberian Peninsula. What does this have to do with the initial question of whether R1b is an Indo-European marker related to the darker population of Ireland? A lot of us agree that the western European folks with darker complexions could be descended from Neolithic types - is that your point?

----------


## toyomotor

It has been argued for some time that R1b originated in Eurasia, in particular, north eastern Europe bordering on modern China etc. It has been further claimed that R1b moved west until it had reached the farther most parts of western Europe, which includes the Iberian Peninsula. But some historian posit that so called "Black Irish" could be descendants of Spanish washed ashore in southern Ireland as a result of the English defeat of The Great Armada. Irish Central ( http://www.irishcentral.com/roots/Wh...-92376439.html) quite properly says that for the many explanations of the origins of the Black Irish, none can be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

----------


## Drac II

> You failed the moment you classed the basque with the Etruscans. YOU are misinformed; I never said Catalans where Levantine, everyone here knows I wouldn't make such a claim; I am the one that has constantly postulated the massive presence of R1b all across Iberia; stop trying to twist my words. The Catalonian and southern Iberian coast though saw both Phoenician and Greek colonizing outposts along its coasts, and the Iberians proper where said to have been of non-indo-European origin. Linguistic affiliation proves absolutely nothing as the basque are 90% R1b and have NOTHING to do with the Pelasgian Etruscans. Quote on basque genetics: "Autosomal genetic studies, on the one hand, confirm that Basques have a very close relationship with other Europeans, especially with the rest of Spaniards, who have a common genetic identity of over 70% with Basques." I hope this puts some of your garbage theories to rest.


No one said the Basques and Etruscans were "the same", but both of them were Pre-Indo-Europeans, their languages, again, confirm this. You are the one trying to go against the grain here. I have never seen any historian, ethnologist or linguist classifying Basques as Indo-Europeans.

Again, there was no heavy colonization of Phoenicians or any Semitic peoples anywhere in Iberia. There were some coastal trading towns, this does not equal "heavy colonization".

The Iberians being Non-Indo-European does not mean they were Semitic. If they had been so, their language would be related to Semitic languages. But it isn't.

Affiliation of a people's native language is very important, it's in fact one of the chief criteria used by historians and ethnologists to determine which peoples were Pre-Indo-European, Indo-European or Semitic. Unlike religious beliefs, which can be easily borrowed by contact with other cultures (just look at the Romans and their heavily Greek-influenced deities, one would have to erroneously conclude that Greeks and Romans were the same people), an ancient people's native language is something truly developed by the people in question.

Basques being genetically associated with other Western Europeans is hardly surprising. I already told you that Westernmost Europe (Iberia, France, British Isles) was populated by these prehistoric Pre-Indo-European peoples long before any Indo-Europeans arrived. In fact, the surprising thing would be if Basques would have had no relationship whatsoever with Spaniards, French, Britons and Irish. That they do is not surprising to any ethnologist. If you had a time machine and went back to the 19th century and you showed the results of those modern genetic studies to British writers on the subject of British & Irish ethnic origins, like John Beddoe, far from being surprised or disappointed they would say "We told you so!" They did not need the benefit of any genetic studies to come to similar conclusions of strong Pre-Indo-European influence in all these populations. They did so just by looking at linguistic, historical, ethnological and anthropological evidence.

----------


## Drac II

> Comments on the language of the Iberians spoken in northeastern Spain: "There is no agreement on this, but some researchers conclude that it is linked to the Phoenician alphabet alone, whilst others believe the Greek alphabet also had a role." I honestly believe the Iberians where either Phoenicians or came from the Caucasus region with some J-M67 and were predominantly Neolithic lineages.


If we had to believe that a link to the Phoenician alphabet makes a language "Semitic", then Greek and Latin too would be "Semitic" languages, as they too have links to that alphabet. From your same source:

"The Greek alphabet (and by extension its descendants such as the Latin, the Cyrillic and the Coptic), was a direct successor of Phoenician, though certain letter values were changed to represent vowels."

However, all these languages are distinguished from Semitic languages.

----------


## Drac II

> It has been argued for some time that R1b originated in Eurasia, in particular, north eastern Europe bordering on modern China etc. It has been further claimed that R1b moved west until it had reached the farther most parts of western Europe, which includes the Iberian Peninsula. But some historian posit that so called "Black Irish" could be descendants of Spanish washed ashore in southern Ireland as a result of the English defeat of The Great Armada. Irish Central ( http://www.irishcentral.com/roots/Wh...-92376439.html) quite properly says that for the many explanations of the origins of the Black Irish, none can be proved beyond reasonable doubt.


The people who believe that whole "Black Irish descend from Armada soldiers" crock are not really "historians". Even your referred to article dismisses the whole thing as practically baseless.

----------


## adamo

I agree with much of what you said, but come on, the basque are like 85% genetically similar to modern spaniards and very similar to west Europeans as well! nothing other than their language necessarily indicates they were pre indo European, certainly their genetics don't.

----------


## mihaitzateo

> actually Welsh, Cornish, Cumbric, and Old British as well as Pictish were all P-Celtic languages and were related to Old Gaullish, also a P-Celtic language.
> 
> The Brythonic dialects if the Isles were related to Gaulish.


That is the P-Q hypothesis of the Celtic languages.
The other theory is that of Insular and Continental Gaulish languages.
Welsh people are also high on red hair and that can not be contested,while in France red hair is even more rare than it is in Norway.
To contest that France have a lot of genetics from Gauls I think is not possible,since is well known that ancestors of today French people were mostly Gauls.
EDIT:
According to some source,the percentage of red heads in France is 0.03% which I think is more than 1000 times lower than the percentage of red heads in Wales,Ireland and Scotland.

----------


## toyomotor

> The people who believe that whole "Black Irish descend from Armada soldiers" crock are not really "historians". Even your referred to article dismisses the whole thing as practically baseless.


 So much of our current thinking in the area of DNA is based on what has been found so far. Time, further "finds" and the advancement of technology will no doubt alter many current beliefs. _I threw in the "Spanish Armada" as an alternative view, not as fact._ We still have a while to wait before the original question can be answered with any authority.

----------


## Drac II

> I agree with much of what you said, but come on, the basque are like 85% genetically similar to modern spaniards and very similar to west Europeans as well! nothing other than their language necessarily indicates they were pre indo European, certainly their genetics don't.


You are discarding the other side of the coin too fast: The reason for this genetic similarity with Basques can be because the other Western Europeans are strongly influenced by Pre-Indo-European populations.

----------


## Knovas

Quite obvious. And don't forget that Indo-European speakers from close regions such as Gascony, Aragón, or even Catalonia, quite often deviate towards Basques when the vast majority of Spaniards and French don't. So that is telling us something about the pre-Indo-European substratum.

No one said on the other hand Basques remained unaltered since the Neolithic: basically they were the less affected by subsequent migrations, the same as Sardinians with some differences due to the fact that Basques show more Northern European affinities (lower among Sardinians).

----------


## adamo

Sardinians have very low R1b frequencies and that R1b arrived recently. He Sardinians are very representative of old European populations, having 40-45% I2a1a. The basques are 90% R1b of the same variety found today across much of westernmost Europe. What is the link exactly you are trying to make knovas?

----------


## Knovas

Sardinian Y-DNA frequencies tell absolutely nothing. They have very high I2a1a (I2a2??WTF) for instance, which obviously didn't originate there (the same as R1b in the case of Basques). No reason to assume I2a1a is not recent among Sardinians (diversity in Iberia speaks for itself). So Y-DNA is not particularly informative in that matter, you'd better ask yourself what are you trying to deny here.

To make it more clear, Basques and Sardinians share the same componenets with different proportions. Makes sense considering Basques are more "Continental" European than Sardinians. And both usually lack West Asian afinities in most admixture experiments, what leads to the conclusion they are good proxies for pre-Indo-European inhabitants, since their Indo-European speaking neighbours all have some West Asian.

As for the language issues, other forumers already gave you the answer.

----------


## Aberdeen

> Sardinians have very low R1b frequencies and that R1b arrived recently. He Sardinians are very representative of old European populations, having 40-45% I2a2. The basques are 90% R1b of the same variety found today across much of westernmost Europe. What is the link exactly you are trying to make knovas?


Please define "quite recently" and provide proof. Thank you.

----------


## adamo

I-M26 is the oldest element on the island is what I meant to say, G-P15 was Neolithic; obviously R1b never really impacted Sardinia as it's R1b levels are slightly lower than those found in southern Italy, comparable to the frequencies in Greece for example (1.5-2 out of every 10 men.) who knows, these men may even represent much later colonizers to the area, R-S28 represents about 10% of Sardinian lineages. Also I've read recently that the ancient language spoken on Sardinia is somewhat similar to Basque and they are postulating a pre-indo-European I-M26 origin for the basque language...I find it odd because basque don't really have any I-M26 either way. There must be some group on Iberia though that represents the pre-indo-European I-M26 men found at 20% in the central Castille region of Spain.

----------


## adamo

"Sardinia was first colonized in a stable manner during the Upper Paleolithic and the Mesolithic by people from the Iberian peninsula and the Italian peninsula. During the Neolithic period, people from Italy, Spain and the Aegean area settled in Sardinia. In the Eneolithic-Early Bronze age the "Beaker folk" from the Franco-Iberian area and from Central Europe settled on the island, bringing new metallurgical techniques and ceramic styles and probably some kind of Indo-European speech."

----------


## adamo

"The Nuragic civilization arose during the Middle Bronze Age. At that time the island was divided into three or more major ethnic groups, the most important being the Ilienses, the Balares and the Corsi. Nuragic Sardinians have been connected by some scholars to the Shardana, a tribe of the Sea Peoples, which appear several times in ancient Egyptian records, but this hypothesis has been discredited by most historians." That's a good chronology of sardinian DNA to me. The very oldest Sardinians belonged to I-M26. These I2a1 men where continental survivors of "old Europe", looking for a refugium and eventually migrating from Iberia onto Sardinia.

----------


## adamo

Personally, I've always believed the men of I, responsible for Gravettian culture, where widespread across Europe before being forced into refuges during the ice age. The men of I2a1 scattered westwards reaching Iberia and eventually migrating onto Sardinia with it's Mediterranean climate. The men of I2a2 may have headed from general Central Europe eastwards; towards the warmer Adriatic coast Bosnian refuge. The men of I1 also stayed on the Iberian peninsula; eventually migrating north to Scandinavia when things heated up with mtdna V and some H females. These men would have been a part of what I like to call "old Europe".

----------


## Aberdeen

> I-M26 is the oldest element on the island is what I meant to say, G-P15 was Neolithic; obviously R1b never really impacted Sardinia as it's R1b levels are slightly lower than those found in southern Italy, comparable to the frequencies in Greece for example (1.5-2 out of every 10 men.) who knows, these men may even represent much later colonizers to the area, R-S28 represents about 10% of Sardinian lineages. Also I've read recently that the ancient language spoken on Sardinia is somewhat similar to Basque and they are postulating a pre-indo-European I-M26 origin for the basque language...I find it odd because basque don't really have any I-M26 either way. There must be some group on Iberia though that represents the pre-indo-European I-M26 men found at 20% in the central Castille region of Spain.


If this post is in fact in response to my request that you provide proof of your claim that the R1b on Sardinia is recent, the fact that R1b is the second most common haplotype on Sardinia (not infrequent as you said before) does not prove that it's recent. The fact that I2 is more common than R1b does not, in itself, prove that I2 got there first (although I believe it did, for other reasons). Would you argue that the scarcity of haplotype T "proves" that it's more recent - I don't think so. If you can present some coherent argument about the age of subclades or whatever to prove which haplotypes have been in Sardinia the longest, I'll read that, although I think some of this science is still in its development stage, so cannot be taken as gospel. However, putting comments within quotation marks without attributing the source of your quotes is poor form. People will take a quotation seriously if it's from a scientific or historical paper or journal but will be much more skeptical of quotes from Wikipedia, since the publication standards are different.

----------


## adamo

I never said the frequency made it oldest, I said I2a1 is the oldest element on Sardinia ; it arrived during "old Europe" when I and it's subclades dominated europe, pre-indo-European. As for indo-european R1b, it arrived during the Bronze Age to Sardinia.

----------


## adamo

Now stop asking stupid questions that you know yourself the answer which arrived first.

----------


## Aberdeen

> I never said the frequency made it oldest, I said I2a1 is the oldest element on Sardinia ; it arrived during "old Europe" when I and it's subclades dominated europe, pre-indo-European. As for indo-european R1b, it arrived during the Bronze Age to Sardinia.


Haplogroups don't speak languages - how do you know that Sardinian R1b is associated with the Indo-Europeans? Are you arguing that a group of pastoralists from the grasslands of southern Russia sailed from there to Sardinia? Since R1b may have originated in Anatolia, perhaps it reached Sardinia because sailors brought it from the coast of what is now Turkey to Italy and then to Sardinia. Do you have proof that a particular haplotype is only associated with one linguistic group? That certainly doesn't seem to be the case today. And how do you know that R1b arrived in Sardinia in the Bronze Age? You may have opinions on certain things, but what are your reasons for those opinions? That's what I want to hear - unless you tell me the reasons for your opinions, I can't decide whether or not I agree with you. And if you don't attribute the sources of your quotes, I can't decide whether or not I should take them seriously. Unless you can support your assertions, I'm done with this conversation because you seem to simply make statements you can't substantiate.

----------


## adamo

No, how about having entered Sardinia more recently from adjoining countrie's with high R1b frequencies like France or Spain? "Haplogroups don't speak languages"; yeah, I know, but R1 and it's derivatives in Europe are highly linked to indo-Europeans and the customs that came with them, including indo-European language. And how do I know that R1b arrived later in Sardinia than I2a1? Because it would have arrived at a similar period that R1b arrived in Corsica, predominantly via indo-Europeans, long after the old Europe I2a1 men had moved to Sardinia. I-M26 represents the first archaic colonizers of Sardinia, having arrived there some 10,000 years ago, it is fact. Stop asking me for studies/sources as I do not have them at hand, I just speak what I know to be fact through learning, the answers are in my head.

----------


## adamo

Did they sail from the plains of Russia to Sardinia you ask.....no they didn't, but is already explained that above Lol.

----------


## matbir

> And how do I know that R1b arrived later in Sardinia than I2a1? Because it would have arrived at a similar period that R1b arrived in Corsica, predominantly via indo-Europeans, long after the old Europe I2a1 men had moved to Sardinia. I-M26 represents the first archaic colonizers of Sardinia, having arrived there some 10,000 years ago, it is fact. Stop asking me for studies/sources as I do not have them at hand, I just speak what I know to be fact through learning, the answers are in my head.


Facts seem to support that I2a1 entered Sardinia after R1b did it. Try to read this thread: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...cci-et-al-2013

----------


## adamo

I have many sources that directly contradict that.

----------


## Aberdeen

> I have many sources that directly contradict that.


 Perhaps you could name some of those many sources? Trying to debate a topic with you is like trying to nail jello to a wall.

When I read "Paleosardo: The Linguistic Roots of Neolithic Sardinian" by Eduardo Blasco Ferrer, it made me question whether R1b is always associated with IE languages, although I suppose the Romans could have brought R1b to Sardinia in sufficient quantity to explain why it's the second largest haplogroup there, since it's still less than 20%. I doubt if R1b arrived in Sardinia in any quantity during the Bronze Age, since Sardinians seem to have spoken a non-IE language or languages until after the Romans conquered them, and that fact has left its mark on the Sardinian language.

----------


## adamo

Wikipedia for starters: "Furthermore, the I haplogroup of the indigenous Sardinians is of the I2a1 subtype (I-M26), which is almost unique to the island, though it takes origin in the Pyrenees region. The I2a1 haplogroup also has a low distribution around the Pyrenees, the Basque Country, Castile, the department of Béarn and Brittany in France, England, Sweden and Corsica. I-M26 may have evolved in southern France. It could have been introduced to Sardinia around 9,000 years ago and been preserved by isolation and drift.[44] The second-most common Y-chromosome haplogroup among the Sardinian male population is the haplogroup R1b (22% of the total population) mainly present in the northern part of the island. Sardinia also has a relatively high distribution of Y-chromosome haplogroup G (11%),[45] which is also found mainly in the Caucasus, the Sardinian subtype of the Haplogroup G is closer to that one still present today in the Alps region, in particular the Tyrol area. Ötzi the Iceman, the mummy of a man who lived about 3,300 BC, found on the Alps in 1991 was discovered recently to be closely related genetically to modern Sardinians."

----------


## adamo

I2a1 originated near the Pyrenees on the northern Spanish border; not too far from where the basques would have been.

----------


## adamo

According to some studies, along with the Basques, Sardinians represent an example of a pre-Indo-European population surviving in Europe from the Paleolithic period.[37][38] The lineage of most Sardinians today goes back approximately 20,000 years, to the island's original settler population.[39][40]

----------


## adamo

Haplotypes eu7, with the mutation M170, derived by M89, that arrived via the Middle East 20,000-25,000 years ago, associated with gravettian culture, is very frequent in the central part of Eastern Europe, but it is present also among Basques and Sardinians. Sardinians successfully accumulated a mutatation (M26) that differentiates haplotypes eu8 with frequencies of 35%. 

Other study: according to the authors, the high frequency of I2a1 in the archaic area of Sardinia Is explained by its presence in the first colonizers who arrived 10,000 years ago."

----------


## Aberdeen

Adamo, you should be embarrassed to quote Wikipedia as a source. And I wasn't talking about I2, I was talking about R1b. I think it's very unlikely that R1b arrived in Sardinia as part of an IE bronze age invasion for linguistic reasons. IMO, either R1b was brought to Sardinia in the neolithic or the early bronze age by people who weren't IE speakers or it arrived later with the Romans. I don't know which possibility is more likely, but I suspect it could have been a bit of both. How do you reconcile your comments about R1b being bronze age with your comments or quotations from dubious sources stating that "According to some studies, along with the Basques, Sardinians represent an example of a pre-Indo-European population surviving in Europe from the Paleolithic period. The lineage of most Sardinians today goes back approximately 20,000 years, to the island's original settler population." I personally think the haplotypes of people in Sardinia suggest that they have a lot of neolithic ancestry, since they have a fair bit of G, J2 and E1b1b. I don't know where the I2 came from - it could be quite old or it could be more recent. Of course I2 is old in Europe, but that doesn't automatically mean that it's old in Sardinia.

----------


## adamo

12.5% J total, 10-15% G and 10% E3b; you call that high? Not really. Half the R1b in Sardinia is R-S28

----------


## adamo

The distribution of haplogroups in Sardinia appears strongly heterogenous. In particular the frequency of G-M201 is significantly higher in the north, and the haplogroup I-M26 is more easily represented in the central-eastern area, characterized by a reduced presence of haplogroup R-M269. The sub-haplogroup I-M26 appears heterogeneously distributed in relation to the ancestral collocation of surnames. The majority of male surnames carrying this haplogroup seem to have arisen in the central-eastern area of the island, characterized by a reduced presence of R-M269. The island's native population retreated to this area during Phoenician, Carthaginian and roman occupations. Their subsequent isolation and genetic drift allowed an increase of I-M26 frequency, which on the north of the island has a frequency significantly lower than what is expected. The isolation of the central-eastern (archaic) area of the island could also explain the distribution of other haplogroups. R-M269 has a low frequency in the central area and a high prevalence in the northern area of the island, which also suggests that it arrived via Corsica or the European continent after the earlier diffusion of I-M26 in Sardinia.

----------


## adamo

About half of R1b on Sardinia (10 of 20%) is U152. Oops; looks like it's time to get off my case, Wrong-Berdeen at this point it's you that should feel embarrassed, not me.

----------


## Aberdeen

> About half of R1b on Sardinia (10 of 20%) is U152. Oops; looks like it's time to get off my case, Wrong-Berdeen at this point it's you that should feel embarrassed, not me.


Well, my grasp of genetics probably isn't any better than yours, but I think that if about half the R1b on Sardinia is a type that's common in Italy and about half of it is of a type that's more common in the Balkans and the Middle East, that confirms my idea that there were two main sources of R1b in Sardinia, one that may have been brought by the Romans when they occupied Sardinia and one that may have entered Sardinia from the Mediterranean at some point. I still don't see any reason to think that R1b was brought to Sardinia by Bronze Age Indo-Europeans. But I'm out of my depth when it comes to talking about subclades being related to specific population movements. I'm just dubious about R1b having been brought to Sardinia during the Bronze Age when it appears that the Sardinians spoke non-IE languages prior to the Roman occupation. And yes, if G, J2 and E1b1b represent Neolithic lineages, I do think that a total of about 30% of Sardinian YDNA for these three haplotypes shows that there was a significant input of DNA into Sardinia during the Neolithic, especially when you consider that YDNA is more likely to have been replaced by invaders such as Romans than mtDNA would be.

----------


## adamo

Lol. Don't even compare us you don't know squat. R1b peaks in northern Sardinia, indicative that much of it arrived from Corsica and southern France before that (R-S28 represents half of R1b in Sardinia, about 10% of the island's men.) the other 10% is an amalgamy of Greek R1b-M269* and a few odd P312* here and there; represents a very small fraction of Sardinians.

----------


## Sile

> Lol. Don't even compare us you don't know squat. R1b peaks in northern Sardinia, indicative that much of it arrived from Corsica and southern France before that (R-S28 represents half of R1b in Sardinia, about 10% of the island's men.) the other 10% is an amalgamy of Greek R1b-M269* and a few odd P312* here and there; represents a very small fraction of Sardinians.


@adamo

No Offence

But for awhile I have noticed a few terms in your writings which makes me think you live in an English speaking country, am I right............could it be Canada?

----------


## adamo

I can't tell u that lol, no offense taken

----------


## Aberdeen

> Lol. Don't even compare us you don't know squat. R1b peaks in northern Sardinia, indicative that much of it arrived from Corsica and southern France before that (R-S28 represents half of R1b in Sardinia, about 10% of the island's men.) the other 10% is an amalgamy of Greek R1b-M269* and a few odd P312* here and there; represents a very small fraction of Sardinians.


If I was going to compare the two of us, I'd say that I try to analyse the facts I have to work with while you reprint stuff from Wikipedia without understanding it. But that's bye the bye.

Since about half the R1b in Sardinia is of a type found in the Balkans and Anatolia, how did it get to Sardinia? My guess is that it arrived by sea. I still think there's a good chance that Atlantic R1b arrived in Spain, Wales, Ireland, etc. as a result of the spread of seafaring Neolithic types that didn't speak Indo-European languages. However, I'm sure that we'll eventually have enough old Y DNA to be able to make a firm conclusion as to whether there's anything to this Neolithic seafaring R1b idea or whether the "R1b always = IE expansion" crowd will be proven right. As for the other subclade, it could have been brought to Sardinia from southern France by BB types in the late neolithic or copper age but the BB population numbers were probably small enough that they may not have left much of a genetic footprint. And the post BB culture seems to have been local in nature. I still think that the Romans are probably responsible for the presence of this subclade on Sardinia. They must have left some kind of genetic footprint.

But how does any of this relate to the original question? I'm not sure it does. Unless there's some data comparing modern day darker complexioned Irish with current Y DNA distribution, we can't be sure that there's any connection between R1b and any particular skin colouration.

----------


## JQP4545

Here is more evidence. I finding matches from Ireland who have mtDNA haplogroup W3a. They also show North Indian/Pakistani admixture on Eurogenes calculators, but are fully Irish and English on 23andMe. So there is some kind of distant connection between these two regions.

----------


## Mars

> Total BS I get sick of hearing the Iberian origin of Irish or pre Celtic Irish. It is true that is the typical Irish from what I have seen look like that.


Me too... this old crappy theory is becoming boring.

----------


## joeyc

The butthurt among Iberians here is stronk.

It must be the 2-3% ssa admixture in them.

----------


## Nobody1

> The butthurt among Iberians here is stronk.
> 
> It must be the 2-3% ssa admixture in them.


Or the 12.6% Mozabite admixture in connection to the 2.2% sub-Saharan admixture (Lazaridis et al 2013); Maybe its also the certain high African IBD sharing featured in Botigue et al 2013; Who knows but they def. need a scape-goat for whatever their probs. are either way; And mind you its not Iberians but *Celt*-Iberians por favor;

----------


## mihaitzateo

From what I remember Goths got as strong allies Sarmatians.
Now these Sarmatians were people that came from Iran,very possible that they were darker skinned,not as Indians or Africans,but darker than Europeans.
Maybe a part of these Sarmatians went to Scandinavia and settled there and later,they joined the Vikings raids in Ireland and maybe from these people some of the black Irish came.
Another source of darker people could be from native Sami/Siberian people,that mixed with Vikings and later went to raid in Ireland.
As for African admixture,I have not saw that kind of admixture in UK people,instead they have Gedrosia admixture,which is actually present at all Western &Northern Europeans (did not included Finns at Northern Europeans).

----------


## Drac II

> The butthurt among Iberians here is stronk.
> 
> It must be the 2-3% ssa admixture in them.


More like the "butthurt" (as you say) of Italians like you and Nobody1 is strong, no wonder you keep trying to attack Iberians. It must be the 2-9.2% ssa in you, and then also all the Near Eastern admixture.

----------


## Drac II

> Or the 12.6% Mozabite admixture in connection to the 2.2% sub-Saharan admixture (Lazaridis et al 2013); Maybe its also the certain high African IBD sharing featured in Botigue et al 2013; Who knows but they def. need a scape-goat for whatever their probs. are either way; And mind you its not Iberians but *Celt*-Iberians por favor;


Or the 9.2% sub-Saharan admixture in Italians (Brisighelli et al. 2012), or the close genetic relationship with Jews (Atzmon et al. 2010, Behar et al. 2010, Oster et al. 2013, Costa et al. 2013), or the high IBD sharing not only with Africans but as well as the even higher one with Middle Easterners in Boutique et al. 2013. Who knows, but def. you seem to need a escape-goat for whatever your complexes and issues are either way. And mind you it's not just Italians but *Celto-Germano*-Italics, per favore.

----------


## joeyc

> More like the "butthurt" (as you say) of Italians like you and Nobody1 is strong, no wonder you keep trying to attack Iberians. It must be the 2-9.2% ssa in you, and then also all the Near Eastern admixture.


2-9.2% ssa in me??? That's new for me. My ancestry is from 2 areas of Italy (Friul and Campania) who score 0% SSA autosomally and have 0% of SSA mtdna.

Brisighelli et al. uses only 52 SNPs. Not very reliable. On the other hand Iberians are the only Europeans scoring SSA/North African on the admixture analysis of Lazaridis et al. and Botigue et al.

Mucho sensibilidad?

----------


## Nobody1

> Or the 9.2% sub-Saharan admixture in Italians (Brisighelli et al. 2012),


Brisighelli 2012 also had a sub-Saharan admixture of *7.1*% for Spain and Portugal (NW Spain even) where *N*orth*W*est Spain was even higher than that 7.1% average (Fig.2); And the 9.2% for Italy was not found (_not even close_) in any other study before or after Brisighelli which makes that result a little dubious; You can double-ceck that by looking at all the Admixture results from Moorjani 2009/2011 - Lazaridis 2013/DiCristofero 2013 or even the latest Chaubey 2014 [K=10]; Whereas the Spanish 7.1% has been exceeding in other studies as their African admixture results; Lazaridis 2013: '_The Spanish population may harbor some African-related admixture representing a fourth wave of migration into Europe, but affecting Spain much more than the other groups_'; The result was: 12.6% Mozabite 0.7% Mbuti 1.5% Yoruba; And in the K=20 admixture analysis every single Spanish sample had North African admixture (i.e. a stable component in the Spanish pop.) and a decent amount of it; 

In *Botigue2013* the IBD results are given at p.9 
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/20...ental/sapp.pdf
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1Y6nfb7Ka8...600/iberia.jpg

*Spain*: N Africa=192 / N Morocco=227 / Sub-Sahara=5 / S Morocco=196 / Near East=108
*Galicia*: N Africa=204 / N Morocco=254 / Sub-Sahara=4 / S Morocco=241 / Near East=110
*Andalusia*: N Africa=186 / N Morocco=236 / Sub-Sahara=7 / S Morocco=214 / Near East=107
*Portugal*: N Africa=227 / N Morocco=283 / Sub-Sahara=9 / S Morocco=246 / Near East=110
*Italy*: N Africa=98 / N Morocco=103 / Sub-Sahara=4 / S Morocco=76 / Near East=170
*Tuscany*: N Africa=71 / N Morocco=78 / Sub-Sahara=2 / S Morocco=52 / Near East=120
*Central EU*: N Africa=53 / N Morocco=78 / Sub-Sahara=2 / S Morocco=41 / Near East=70

So the African IBD sharing in comparison to Italy and Tuscany is always about 2x-3x/3x-4x higher in Spain whereas the Near East ratio is only about 1.6x higher for Italy while Tuscany is right about even; Also some fun-facts from p.5_ North African samples that have highest IBD sharing with Iberian populations also tend to have the lowest proportion of the European cluster in ADMIXTURE (Fig.1), e.g. Saharawi, Tunisian Berbers and South Moroccans_




> And mind you it's not just Italians but *Celto-Germano*-Italics, per favore.


Those people do not exist (apart from your twisted fantasy) - or have you seen any Italians on Eupedia (Angela/Sile/Adamo/Julia90 etc.) self-identifying in such a way - no you have not; In comparison to all the *Celt*-Iberians that one will find here and all other places;

----------


## joeyc

There is also the admixture analysis in the supplementary information from Botique et al., where Iberians (Spaniards, Portuguese and Canarians) are the only Europeans scoring any SSA/North African.

----------


## Knovas

I though it was clear since a very long time that Celtic folks aren't specially old in Europe. No need to say, that Celticity has nothing to do with race or admixtures, but culture. Just seems there's a link between the Celts and R1b, which is strong in Iberia and Northwestern Europe.

¿Is that so terrible for you guys? Grow up.

PD: 17 posts, all of them about Iberians and by an Italian fella. Complexes who?  :Laughing: 

I'm done with this. Enjoy.

----------


## Drac II

> 2-9.2% ssa in me??? That's new for me. My ancestry is from 2 areas of Italy (Friul and Campania) who score 0% SSA autosomally and have 0% of SSA mtdna.


Not just you, but the Italian gene pool.




> Brisighelli et al. uses only 52 SNPs. Not very reliable.


Funny coming from the guy who desperately wants to put a lot of reliability on "prediction" studies using only 1 SNP. Plus the SNPs that Brisighelli et al. used are AIMS (ancestry-informative markers), you don't need huge numbers of those to get reliable results. Italians had higher levels of both Asian and African AIMS than any other Europeans sampled in that study, including the Portuguese.




> On the other hand Iberians are the only Europeans scoring SSA/North African on the admixture analysis of Lazaridis et al. and Botigue et al.


Check again, because Italians are also scoring it. And Boutique et al. is about IBDs, not quite the same as admixture analysis the way you have in mind. IBDs are about shared ancestry. Several possibilities can be conjured up to explain it.




> Mucho sensibilidad?


Molto manipolazione?

----------


## Drac II

> Brisighelli 2012 also had a sub-Saharan admixture of *7.1*% for Spain and Portugal (NW Spain even) where *N*orth*W*est Spain was even higher than that 7.1% average (Fig.2);


Not "even", but actually ONLY, as no other part of Spain was included. And they lumped NW Spain and Portugal together as one. You are obviously trying the same old manipulation that you already unsuccessfully tried in your first posts in that other thread, the one where you showed up not too long after the "other" Italian poster also trying to spin-doctor that study got banned. 




> And the 9.2% for Italy was not found (_not even close_) in any other study before or after Brisighelli which makes that result a little dubious;


Other studies very likely did not use the same AIMS as that one, plus other studies using other methods have also found more African (and Asian) in Italian samples than in Spanish ones (example: Bauchet et al. 2007)




> You can double-ceck that by looking at all the Admixture results from Moorjani 2009/2011


We've been over this one before, in that thread where you took over spin-doctoring when your "buddy" got banned. Italy was separated into three parts in this study, while Spain was all lumped together. Even so, south Italy alone, by itself, had higher African input than all Spain put together. You can double-check... again.




> - Lazaridis 2013/DiCristofero 2013 or even the latest Chaubey 2014 [K=10]; Whereas the Spanish 7.1% has been exceeding in other studies as their African admixture results


Quite false. No autosomal study has ever found 7.1% sub-Saharan African in Spain. And that figure in Brisighelli et al. is for BOTH northwest Spain and Portugal lumped together. But the 9.2% figure in that study is for Italy all by itself, all of it, north, center and south.




> Lazaridis 2013: '_The Spanish population may harbor some African-related admixture representing a fourth wave of migration into Europe, but affecting Spain much more than the other groups_'; The result was: 12.6% Mozabite 0.7% Mbuti 1.5% Yoruba;


Apparently the word "may" flied over your head, plus you also forgot that Mozabites are North African Berbers, not sub-Saharan Africans, plus the authors themselves also offered the following possible explanation that you "mysteriously" keep forgetting to notice: 

_Such ancestry has also been suggested to occur at low levels in other European populations, and perhaps the Spanish stand out in our analysis because of_ _their large sample size._




> And in the K=20 admixture analysis every single Spanish sample had North African admixture (i.e. a stable component in the Spanish pop.) and a decent amount of it; 
> 
> In *Botigue2013* the IBD results are given at p.9 
> http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/20...ental/sapp.pdf
> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1Y6nfb7Ka8...600/iberia.jpg
> 
> *Spain*: N Africa=192 / N Morocco=227 / Sub-Sahara=5 / S Morocco=196 / Near East=108
> *Galicia*: N Africa=204 / N Morocco=254 / Sub-Sahara=4 / S Morocco=241 / Near East=110
> *Andalusia*: N Africa=186 / N Morocco=236 / Sub-Sahara=7 / S Morocco=214 / Near East=107
> ...


Yet when actual ADMIXTURE analysis of these samples was made, it is your fellow Italians who still showed some sub-Saharan African admixture (blue on the graph) at K=6:

http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/7307/k36fig3.png






> Those people do not exist (apart from your twisted fantasy) - or have you seen any Italians on Eupedia (Angela/Sile/Adamo/Julia90 etc.) self-identifying in such a way - no you have not; In comparison to all the *Celt*-Iberians that one will find here and all other places;


Of course they don't exist, except in your wild imagination, unlike Celt-Iberians, which even the Romans used to refer to certain inhabitants of Iberia. Don't try to be so disingenuous. Anyone can easily tell by looking at some of your posts and those of some of your friends that you indeed seek such relationship/kinship with Central Europe. Plus how many web sites like this mocking the well-known "Germanic" fetish of some Italians have you ever seen made for Spaniards regarding "Celts"?

http://www.geocities.ws/racial_reality/leganord.html

http://www.geocities.ws/racial_reality/padania/

----------


## joeyc

> Not just you, but the Italian gene pool.


There is no Italian gene pool, muchacho. Italians are genetically less homogeneous than Slavs as whole (Including South Slavs).




> Funny coming from the guy who desperately wants to put a lot of reliability on "prediction" studies using only 1 SNP. Plus the SNPs that Brisighelli et al. used are AIMS (ancestry-informative markers), you don't need huge numbers of those to get reliable results. Italians had higher levels of both Asian and African AIMS than any other Europeans sampled in that study, including the Portuguese.


Brisighelli et al. uses the 52 SNPs genotyped according to Sánchez et al. 2006

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?c...identification

Indeed comparing genome wide studies (which require 300.000/1.000.000 of SNPs to be reliable) with pigmentation prediction studies, is very clever.




> Check again, because Italians are also scoring it. And Boutique et al. is about IBDs, not quite the same as admixture analysis the way you have in mind. IBDs are about shared ancestry. Several possibilities can be conjured up to explain it.


Botigué et al. has also an admixture analysis.



Look how Iberians (And, Gal, Spa, Por, Canls...) are the only Europeans scoring significant amount of both SSA (light blue) and Magrebi (Orange) admixtures.

----------


## Drac II

> There is no Italian gene pool, muchacho. Italians are genetically less homogeneous than Slavs as whole (Including South Slavs).


Sure there is, bambino, just like in any other country.




> Brisighelli et al. uses the 52 SNPs genotyped according to Sánchez et al. 2006
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?c...identification
> 
> Indeed comparing genome wide studies (which require 300.000/1.000.000 of SNPs to be reliable) with pigmentation prediction studies, is very clever.


Indeed it is, since pigmentation seems like a more complex and less explored subject than ancestry markers. Even haplogroups have been used for such purposes for decades. It is only more recently that we have started seeing these pigmentation prediction attempts. Plus with AIMS you don't need such huge numbers of markers. Huckins et al. 2014 used as little as 25 markers and still obtained good results. 




> Botigué et al.





> has also an admixture analysis.
> 
> 
> 
> Look how Iberians (And, Gal, Spa, Por, Canls...) are the only Europeans scoring significant amount of both SSA (light blue) and Magrebi (Orange) admixtures.


Yes, it is the same one I gave the link for, and if you bother to look at K=6 you will notice that "And", "Gal" and "Spa" don't show any SSA, while "Ita" still does.

----------


## joeyc

> Sure there is, bambino, just like in any other country.


No there isn't. Do not try teach me things about my country.




> Indeed it is, since pigmentation seems like a more complex and less explored subject than ancestry markers. Even haplogroups have been used for such purposes for decades. It is only more recently that we have started seeing these pigmentation prediction attempts. Plus with AIMS you don't need such huge numbers of markers. Huckins et al. 2014 used as little as 25 markers and still obtained good results.


Huckins et al. 2014 used 25 AIMs for PCA plot, not for an admixture analysis, which is a computer algorithm designed for large numbers of SNPs.




> Yes, it is the same one I gave the link for, and if you bother to look at K=6 you will notice that "And", "Gal" and "Spa" don't show any SSA, while "Ita" still does.


Yes because the SSA got sucked in the North African component (very high in Iberians and almost zero in Italy).

----------


## Drac II

> No there isn't. Do not try teach me things about my country.


So Italy must be the only country in the world without a gene pool. You should communicate this amazing discovery to geneticists.




> Huckins et al. 2014 used 25 AIMs for PCA plot, not for an admixture analysis, which is a computer algorithm designed for large numbers of SNPs.


Kosoy et al. 2009, Ruiz-Narvaez et al. 2011 also used small numbers of AIMS in studies regarding admixture. There is a reason why no other geneticists -at least that I am aware of- have criticized that part of Brisighelli et al.'s study. They did not do anything outrageous or that is considered some sort of capital mistake in genetics. You don't need humongous quantities of AIMS to get good results.

Plus another thing: all the other European samples in the study got the exact same 52 AIMS "treatment". It was not like it was only the Italians who did and everyone else got a higher set of ancestry informative markers. It was Italians who scored higher than all others using the same AIMS. Even if we accepted that the 9.2% might be an inflated percentage due to low AIMS, it would obviously also mean that it is also proportionally inflated for everyone else as well. So even if we reduced the actual percentage by, say, half, Italians would still score higher than even Portuguese.




> Yes because the SSA got sucked in the North African component (very high in Iberians and almost zero in Italy).


If it got "sucked in" then it probably wasn't SSA to begin with.

----------


## joeyc

> So Italy must be the only country in the world without a gene pool. You should communicate this amazing discovery to geneticists.


Italy has not an _homogeneous gene pool. So you can't generalize a statement regarding DNA for the whole country._




> Kosoy et al. 2009, Ruiz-Narvaez et al. 2011 also used small numbers of AIMS in studies regarding admixture. There is a reason why no other geneticists -at least that I am aware of- have criticized that part of Brisighelli et al.'s study. They did not do anything outrageous or that is considered some sort of capital mistake in genetics. You don't need humongous quantities of AIMS to get good results.
> 
> Plus another thing: all the other European samples in the study got the exact same 52 AIMS "treatment". It was not like it was only the Italians who did and everyone else got a higher set of ancestry informative markers. It was Italians who scored higher than all others using the same AIMS. Even if we accepted that the 9.2% might be an inflated percentage due to low AIMS, it would obviously also mean that it is also proportionally inflated for everyone else as well. So even if we reduced the actual percentage by, say, half, Italians would still score higher than even Portuguese.


An admixture analysis with only 52 SNPs is not reliabe, muchacho. The _computer algorithm was designed to work with hundreds of thousands of SNPs, not 52. 
_
I don't think you really understand how admixture analysis really works.




> If it got "sucked in" then it probably wasn't SSA to begin with.


North Africans score 20% SSA on average. Of course the SSA among Iberians will get sucked in North African cluster on the higher Ks. That's not rocket science.

----------


## mihaitzateo

Lol,why some people here thinks that having African admixture is shameful?
Or that being dark is related to African admixture?
There are plenty of darker Romanians,but their admixture is neither containing African or South Asian,instead,is of other Asian source,this darkness (Central or East Asian).
Besides,Eastern Europeans are very light skinned but well known for being very corrupt,very trouble makers (see Russians & Ukrainians,alto Latvia&Lithuania) so light skin does not tell too much about civilization and education.
Eastern Europeans were in contact,or even mixed,with Tatars,Mongols and so on and from here they are so trouble makers and lacked of education.(is
not inherited by genes but by the way in which people are behaving and what are the values for the people and so on ).
I can show you people from Central Asia living in tents and eating raw flesh and being very cruel and backward ,with light blue eyes and skin as white as paper.

----------


## Drac II

> Italy has not an _homogeneous gene pool. So you can't generalize a statement regarding DNA for the whole country._




Technically speaking, no country has a homogeneous gene pool. So there is nothing unique here. That still doesn't prevent countries from having gene pools. Countries way more diverse than Italy, like Brazil, for example, still have gene pools.




> An admixture analysis with only 52 SNPs is not reliabe, muchacho. The _computer algorithm was designed to work with hundreds of thousands of SNPs, not 52. 
> _
> I don't think you really understand how admixture analysis really works.


Yes, bambino, I am sure that you know better than all these geneticists who write admixture studies using AIMS.




> North Africans score 20% SSA on average. Of course the SSA among Iberians will get sucked in North African cluster on the higher Ks. That's not rocket science.


Says who? Last time I checked North Africans show a wide varying range of SSA admixture, so it would depend on what North Africans we are talking about. Plus they must not be very informative markers if they can't distinguish two different populations. Plus Middle Easterners, of which Italy has plenty of, also have a varying range of SSA. It seems that it did not cause the SSA in the Italian sample to completely "vanish".

----------


## joeyc

> Technically speaking, no country has a homogeneous gene pool. So there is nothing unique here. That still doesn't prevent countries from having gene pools. Countries way more diverse than Italy, like Brazil, for example, still have gene pools.


You are working on semantics here. None has denied that there is an Italian genepool. I've just denied that the Italian genepool is _homogeneous. Indeed it's the less_ _homogeneous in Europe._




> Yes, bambino, I am sure that you know better than all these geneticists who write admixture studies using AIMS.


The accuracy of the admixture analysis is directly proportional to the number of SNPs used. 99% of geneticists know that.




> Says who? Last time I checked North Africans show a wide varying range of SSA admixture, so it would depend on what North Africans we are talking about. Plus they must not be very informative markers if they can't distinguish two different populations. Plus Middle Easterners, of which Italy has plenty of, also have a varying range of SSA. It seems that it did not cause the SSA in the Italian sample to completely "vanish".


I am talking about the North Africans used in this study, who have plenty of SSA. The North African cluster, which appears on the high Ks, is centered on them.

And Italians have barely any SSA the lower Ks, which are the most informative when it comes to showing SSA admixture.

----------


## Drac II

> You are working on semantics here. None has denied that there is an Italian genepool. I've just denied that the Italian genepool is _homogeneous. Indeed it's the less_ _homogeneous in Europe._




I am going by what you wrote, and you clearly originally wrote: "there is no Italian gene pool, muchacho" (???)




> The accuracy of the admixture analysis is directly proportional to the number of SNPs used. 99% of geneticists know that.


Unfortunately, not all SNPs are as useful for such purposes, therefore geneticists create sets of them to be used, like AIMS. Like I showed you before, it is known that you don't need huge amounts of these to get good results in genetic studies.




> I am talking about the North Africans used in this study, who have plenty of SSA. The North African cluster, which appears on the high Ks, is centered on them.
> 
> And Italians have barely any SSA the lower Ks, which are the most informative when it comes to showing SSA admixture.


Says who? Youm? Higher Ks are considered more informative. Plus the Middle Eastern sample has actually more SSA than some of the North African samples.

----------


## joeyc

> [/I]
> 
> I am going by what you wrote, and you clearly originally wrote: "there is no Italian gene pool, muchacho" (???)


And after that I've said "there is not a _homogeneous Italian genepool. So what's your point?_




> Unfortunately, not all SNPs are as useful for such purposes, therefore geneticists create sets of them to be used, like AIMS. Like I showed you before, it is known that you don't need huge amounts of these to get good results in genetic studies.


That's not how Admixture Analysis works. Otherwise 99% of Admixture Analysis would not use hundreds of thousands of SNPs.




> Says who? Youm? Higher Ks are considered more informative. Plus the Middle Eastern sample has actually more SSA than some of the North African samples.


On the higher Ks, some components hide some signals because many clusters are centered on Admixed populations. So the runs with many Ks are less informative than the ones with less Ks. The Qataris have much less SSA than any North African. Check better.

----------


## Drac II

> And after that I've said "there is not a _homogeneous Italian genepool. So what's your point?_




Only after you persisted in claiming that Italy had no gene pool. 




> That's not how Admixture Analysis works. Otherwise 99% of Admixture Analysis would not use hundreds of thousands of SNPs.


Different researchers prefer different methods. The ones who use AIMS often don't use such large numbers of markers.




> On the higher Ks, some components hide some signals because many clusters are centered on Admixed populations. So the runs with many Ks are less informative than the ones with less Ks. The Qataris have much less SSA than any North African. Check better.


Look around genetics blogs/forums, the highger Ks are considered more informative. The Qataris at k=6 have more "blue" than 3 of the North African samples.

----------


## joeyc

> Look around genetics blogs/forums, the highger Ks are considered more informative. The Qataris at k=6 have more "blue" than 3 of the North African samples.


Look around blogs??? Components centered on admixed populations like North Africans, hide other signals. That's why runs on lower Ks are more informative when it comes to showing SSA admixture. I could make countless of examples, but anyone with a mean IQ above average will agree with me.

----------


## Drac II

> Look around blogs??? Components centered on admixed populations like North Africans, hide other signals. That's why runs on lower Ks are more informative when it comes to showing SSA admixture. I could make countless of examples, but anyone with a mean IQ above average will agree with me.


If you look around genetic blogs/forums, the consensus seems to be that the higher Ks are better.

Since Qataris are also "admixed" then they should also "hide" it. It doesn't seem they are doing a very good job at it, though.

----------


## joeyc

Dude you makes no sense. Lower Ks are more informative when it comes to showing SSA admixture. That's the truth. 

You are either just kidding or are simply mentally challenged.

----------


## Drac II

> Dude you makes no sense. Lower Ks are more informative when it comes to showing SSA admixture. That's the truth. 
> 
> You are either just kidding or are simply mentally challenged.


This "law" is written where exactly?

----------


## joeyc

> This "law" is written where exactly?


It's official. You are mentally challenged.

----------


## MOESAN

> [/I][/COLOR]
> 
> Technically speaking, no country has a homogeneous gene pool. So there is nothing unique here. That still doesn't prevent countries from having gene pools. Countries way more diverse than Italy, like Brazil, for example, still have gene pools.


that said, it is true that Italy on plottings and other "distance"maps whatever their value, shows a VERY VERY STRETCHED picture from N-Italians close to Iberians (it could be refined after some time?) to Sicilians and southern Italians closer to Greeks: no central or western Europe country shows a so big difference between regions, for I know, taking in account the current knowledge...
by the way, you can name me "bambino" if you want, I'm 65's and it would please me...
no offence, of course!

----------


## Drac II

> It's official. You are mentally challenged.


I never claimed to be an expert on the relative values of Ks, I am just going by what I have seen in genetic blogs/forums that higher Ks seem to be considered as more accurate. But if you can point out a study that validates your point then do so.

----------


## Knovas

> Look how Iberians (And, Gal, Spa, Por, Canls...) are the only Europeans scoring *significant* amount of both SSA (light blue) and Magrebi (Orange) admixtures.


The Sub-Saharan references aren't the best at all, since only Yorubas are included and they carry some West Eurasian ancestry related to North Africa. No Biaka Pygmies, no Mbuti Pygmies, no San, and so on. Also, excluding East Eurasian populations does not help, since it obviously affects the purple component as well as the yellow one to a lesser extent.

Even ignoring such evident methodological problems, the low amount of "SSA" (also present in some Italian and even Basque samples, which is quite rare among the later) is simply ridiculous to be taken seriously if one does not have an agenda. That doesn't change phenotype so drastically as some individuals would like to hear.

It only can be concluded that it's all about some people's hate. Otherwise, we wouldn't be discussing *insignificant* figures.

Time to keep on topic, please.

----------


## Degredado

Funny how these concepts change over time... in the days when the Mediterranean was the center of the world, Greeks prided themselves in being olive-skinned and in being darker than the "barbarians" from the North (and also in being lighter than the Egyptians, it's true). Now that we live in an era of Anglo-Germanic "supremacy", everyone in Southern Europe (and other places) wants to claim light skin and light eyes, and abuse each other for possibly being slightly darker than the other. 

I can imagine Germans 2000 years ago having these passionate disputes over who had darker hair and darker eyes (and thus more similar to the Romans)

----------


## Angela

I would be absolutely thrilled to be called "bambina"..."cocca" or "ninnina" would be nice too, or how about "ciao bella"?!

Obviously, it's time for people to re-read Ralph and Coop, et al, 2013...
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/i...l.pbio.1001555

Based on extensive and exhaustive IBD analysis, which has not been challenged to date, the authors concluded the following:

"Two of the more striking examples of substructure are illustrated in Figure 2. Here, we see that variation within countries can be reflective of continuous variation in ancestry that spans a broader geographic region, crossing geographic, political, and linguistic boundaries. Figure 2A shows the distinctly bimodal distribution of numbers of IBD blocks that each Italian shares with both French-speaking Swiss and the United Kingdom, and that these numbers are strongly correlated. Furthermore, the amount that Italians share with these two populations varies continuously from values typical for Turkey and Cyprus, to values typical for France and Switzerland. It is natural to guess that there is a north-south gradient of recency of common ancestry along the length of Italy, and that southern Italy has been historically more closely connected to the eastern Mediterranean.

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, as seen in Figures S16 and S17S17. The rate of genetic common ancestry between pairs of Italian individuals seems to have been fairly constant for the past 2,500 years, which combined with significant structure within Italy suggests a constant exchange of migrants between coherent subpopulations.

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.

In addition to the very few genetic common ancestors that Italians share both with each other and with other Europeans, we have seen significant modern substructure within Italy (i.e., Figure 2) that predates most of this common ancestry, and estimate that most of the common ancestry shared between Italy and other populations is older than about 2,300 years (Figure S16). Also recall that most populations show no substructure with regards to the number of blocks shared with Italians, implying that the common ancestors other populations share with Italy predate divisions within these other populations. This suggests significant old substructure and large population sizes within Italy, strong enough that different groups within Italy share as little recent common ancestry as other distinct, modern-day countries, substructure that was not homogenized during the migration period. These patterns could also reflect in part geographic isolation within Italy as well as a long history of settlement of Italy from diverse sources."

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j...97920436573814

----------


## Nobody1

> _Such ancestry has also been suggested to occur at low levels in other European populations, and perhaps the Spanish stand out in our analysis because of_ _their large sample size._


Yes the Spanish chicos def. stand out when it comes to African admixture in comparison to all other Europeans that were tested (which included Tuscany and North Italians); And using a larger sample set makes the result the more credible; And that "_may harbor_" turned out (by proper Method described in the previous page) as being 14.8% African (Mozabite/Yoruba/Mbuti) and the K=20 analysis also shows a good doze of East African [Ethiopian] Admixture apart from the overwhelming Mozabite amount and occurance in every Spanish sample i.e. thus every Spanish ''Celt'' is actually part African (Lazaridis et al 2013);

Thats the K=20 analysis (a comparison to other South Europeans)

----------


## Nobody1

> Yet when actual ADMIXTURE analysis of these samples was made, it is your fellow Italians who still showed some sub-Saharan African admixture (blue on the graph) at K=6: http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/7307/k36fig3.png




Doesnt this admixture result [K=6] also debunk Brisighelli given that only one sample has a minimal amount of sub-saharan admixture where as all the other _Ita_ samples have absolutely *none* and all the Tuscany (_Tsi_) samples have also absolutely *none*; So this is yet another study (Botigue 2013) that has a completely diff. result as Brisghelli did as did also all studies before it (Moorjani 2011 / Behar 2010 /Henn 2012) and all studies after it (Lazaridis 2013 / DiCristorfero 2013 / Rhagavan 2013 / Chauby 2014) thus making the Brisighelli result (_and its dubious method_) quite unique; But despite its uniqueness and great love for it you always fail to mention the *7.1*% sub-saharan admixture for North Spain and Portugal; 

And have you also noticed (Botigue 2013 / ADMIXTURE) the masses of African and Near East admixture in Spain (especially "Celt-Iberian" Galicia / not quite like your fantasy i.e. just like the British); Whereas _Ita_ and _Tsi_ (Tuscany) only have a decent amount of Near East which gets the more minor at K=10 (and no African at K=10 unlike Spain); And there is yet another study (Mallick 2013) which has a K=7 admixture analyses (_and once again a completely diff. result than Brisighelli - yet another study_) in which the Spanish samples are once more the most with sub-Saharan admixture (*not* Sardinia, Italy or Tuscany);

*Mallick et al 2013 -*
Figure_S2 (corr. to the chron. of Table_S8)
*Download* Figure_S2 for better visual of K=7;
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/...l.pgen.1003912

I even sketched it out for you; 
_red_ block is the Spanish sample (almost all have sub-saharan admixture);
_yellow_ block is the Italian group 1. Sardinian block 2. Italian block 3. Tuscany block (only 3 samples from all these blocks have sub-saharan admixture an at the most minimal level and far less than the average Spanish sample);

----------


## Angela

> Funny how these concepts change over time... in the days when the Mediterranean was the center of the world, Greeks prided themselves in being olive-skinned and in being darker than the "barbarians" from the North (and also in being lighter than the Egyptians, it's true). Now that we live in an era of Anglo-Germanic "supremacy", everyone in Southern Europe (and other places) wants to claim light skin and light eyes, and abuse each other for possibly being slightly darker than the other. 
> 
> I can imagine Germans 2000 years ago having these passionate disputes over who had darker hair and darker eyes (and thus more similar to the Romans)


Please don't include me in this sorry crew...or the vast, vast majority of Italians! Even Raoul Bova needs a nice tan to look really good. 




Discussions like this are a prime example of why scientists in this field have to constantly defend themselves against charges of racism, and why I feel like a criminal every time I try to access this site in a public venue only to be told it's blocked as a racist site.

@Nobody 1
As you yourself said, there's no reasoning with certain people. Logic, science, math, it's all useless in the face of obsession and self-delusion. I just have him on "ignore", and he's one who will never be taken off! 




If you want to predict skin color, a simple way is to look carefully at a good map of UV radiation in Europe. It's not going to be far off.

----------


## Drac II

> Yes the Spanish chicos def. stand out when it comes to African admixture in comparison to all other Europeans that were tested (which included Tuscany and North Italians); And using a larger sample set makes the result the more credible; And that "_may harbor_" turned out (by proper Method described in the previous page) as being 14.8% African (Mozabite/Yoruba/Mbuti) and the K=20 analysis also shows a good doze of East African [Ethiopian] Admixture apart from the overwhelming Mozabite amount and occurance in every Spanish sample i.e. thus every Spanish ''Celt'' is actually part African (Lazaridis et al 2013);
> 
> Thats the K=20 analysis (a comparison to other South Europeans)


That's only your wishful spin, as usual. These are IBDs, not exactly admixture, plus the authors themselves mention the larger Spanish sample size as an explanation for the seemingly larger "African" results.

----------


## Nobody1

> That's only your wishful spin, as usual. These are IBDs, not exactly admixture, plus the authors themselves mention the larger Spanish sample size as an explanation for the seemingly larger "African" results.


No; 
The authors only mention that the Spanish result [for African admixture] _stands out_ in comparison to the other Europeans; Which has nothing to do with the result itself; And the result is of course more reliable given its a *larger* sample set; And the method with the 3 African ref. pops was _admixture linkage disequilibrium_ to determine the extent of admixture p.84 (older PDF p.64);

Talk about a wishful spin - you spin great DracII;

----------


## Drac II

> Doesnt this admixture result [K=6] also debunk Brisighelli given that only one sample has a minimal amount of sub-saharan admixture where as all the other _Ita_ samples have absolutely *none* and all the Tuscany (_Tsi_) samples have also absolutely *none*; So this is yet another study (Botigue 2013) that has a completely diff. result as Brisghelli did as did also all studies before it (Moorjani 2011 / Behar 2010 /Henn 2012) and all studies after it (Lazaridis 2013 / DiCristorfero 2013 / Rhagavan 2013 / Chauby 2014) thus making the Brisighelli result (_and its dubious method_) quite unique; But despite its uniqueness and great love for it you always fail to mention the *7.1*% sub-saharan admixture for North Spain and Portugal;


Moorjani et al. found more sub-Saharan in southern Italy alone than in all Spain put together, we've been over this. Brisghelli et al. 2012 used AIMS, and Italians were found to have the most sub-Saharan of all sampled Europeans using this method. That study only included NW Spanish samples, not from all the north. We've been over this many times already.




> And have you also noticed (Botigue 2013 / ADMIXTURE) the masses of African and Near East admixture in Spain (especially "Celt-Iberian" Galicia / not quite like your fantasy i.e. just like the British); Whereas _Ita_ and _Tsi_ (Tuscany) only have a decent amount of Near East which gets the more minor at K=10 (and no African at K=10 unlike Spain);


Apparently you need your eyes checked, because the yellow (Near Eastern) is higher in the Italian samples. Notice the difference between it (and also its African & Jewish) and that of German samples, BTW. Not the "kinship" of your dreams, surely.

K=10 is not included on the chart for ADMIXTURE results for the main text of that study (fig. 1), but k=6 is included and plainly visible, and it is the Italian samples that still show a bit of sub-Saharan here, not the Spanish. I took a look at the supplement but unfortunately I could not find a clear view of K=10, the graphic provided there is too small.




> And there is yet another study (Mallick 2013) which has a K=7 admixture analyses (_and once again a completely diff. result than Brisighelli - yet another study_) in which the Spanish samples are once more the most with sub-Saharan admixture (*not* Sardinia, Italy or Tuscany);
> 
> *Mallick et al 2013 -*
> Figure_S2 (corr. to the chron. of Table_S8)
> *Download* Figure_S2 for better visual of K=7;
> http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/...l.pgen.1003912
> 
> I even sketched it out for you; 
> _red_ block is the Spanish sample (almost all have sub-saharan admixture);
> _yellow_ block is the Italian group 1. Sardinian block 2. Italian block 3. Tuscany block (only 3 samples from all these blocks have sub-saharan admixture an at the most minimal level and far less than the average Spanish sample);


Where are these samples identified in the text of the study?

----------


## Aristocephalic

This has to be the trolliest of your "black Irish" threads yet.




> No there is no link. Actually I would expect Neolithic Western Europeans to have had darker pigmentation than present-day Western Europeans.


Black Irish don't have dark pigment, they just have dark hair. No Black Irish in America are dark. Any dark Irish in Ireland probably come from Basque input or Spanish input from 1600s. Christopher Lee does not have Irish features at all.

----------


## Drac II

> No; 
> The authors only mention that the Spanish result [for African admixture] _stands out_ in comparison to the other Europeans; Which has nothing to do with the result itself; And the result is of course more reliable given its a *larger* sample set; And the method with the 3 African ref. pops was _admixture linkage disequilibrium_ to determine the extent of admixture p.84 (older PDF p.64);
> 
> Talk about a wishful spin - you spin great DracII;


The study itself is about IBDs, and you know very well what their quote says regarding sample size. They use it as a possible argument to explain this "stand out" of the Spanish sample in their analysis. Meaning that had it been like the other samples maybe the "stand out" may not have been there.

----------


## Nobody1

> Moorjani et al. found more sub-Saharan in southern Italy alone than in all Spain put together, we've been over this. Brisghelli et al. 2012 used AIMS, and Italians were found to have the most sub-Saharan of all sampled Europeans using this method. That study only included NW Spanish samples, not from all the north. We've been over this many times already.


The *Moorjani* 2009/2011 results for sub-saharan admixture:
(averages of the total sample-sets tested)
N Italy 1.1%
Greece 1.9%
Spain 2.4%
S Italy 2.7%
Portugal 3.2%

And the fact remains that the Brisighelli results for Italy were not found (_not even close_) in any other study before or after it (post#124) making it and its method a little bit obscure and most def. unique; And yes NW Spain and Portugal are on *average* (both) 7.1% sub-saharan (Brisighelli 2012) but at Fig.2 one can see that the NW Spain is clearly above that average; 




> Apparently you need your eyes checked, because the yellow (Near Eastern) is higher in the Italian samples. Notice the difference between it (and also its African & Jewish) and that of German samples, BTW. Not the "kinship" of your dreams, surely. K=10 is not included on the chart for ADMIXTURE results for the main text of that study (fig. 1), but k=6 is included and plainly visible, and it is the Italian samples that still show a bit of sub-Saharan here, not the Spanish. I took a look at the supplement but unfortunately I could not find a clear view of K=10, the graphic provided there is too small.


Obviously you need your eyes checked because there are plenty of K=10 analysis on p.11 of the supp. material;
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/20...ental/sapp.pdf

And one can clearly see that [on *a)* K=10 (from which the snippet is from)] has a more minimal Near East admix in _Ita_ and _Tsi_ (Tuscany) whereas the African component is still grasading in the Spanish samples (And/Gal/Spa); And the sub-saharan admixture in K=6 is limited to *one* sample of _Ita_ and that at the most minimal amount (_as also in other European pops._) while all the other _Ita_ samples and *all* the _Tsi_ (Tuscany) samples have absolutely none sub-saharan admix [K=6]; 




> Where are these samples identified in the text of the study?


As i have written: *
Table_S8* - _List of populations included in the ADMIXTURE run along with their geographic region and source of study_;

----------


## Drac II

> The *Moorjani* 2009/2011 results for sub-saharan admixture:
> (averages of the total sample-sets tested)
> N Italy 1.1%
> Greece 1.9%
> Spain 2.4%
> S Italy 2.7%
> Portugal 3.2%
> 
> And the fact remains that the Brisighelli results for Italy were not found (_not even close_) in any other study before or after it (post#124) making it and its method a little bit obscure and most def. unique; And yes NW Spain and Portugal are on *average* (both) 7.1% sub-saharan (Brisighelli 2012) but at Fig.2 one can see that the NW Spain is clearly above that average;


The figure that you seem to have in mind does not show exactly that. If we were to interpret it like you want to, then the British samples would have almost as much sub-Saharan as the NW Spanish, Portuguese and even Italians, something that would hardly have gone unnoticed in the study. The sample size seems to be reflected in the size of the rectangles for each group in that graph. 




> Obviously you need your eyes checked because there are plenty of K=10 analysis on p.11 of the supp. material;
> http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/20...ental/sapp.pdf
> 
> 
> And one can clearly see that [on *a)* K=10 (from which the snippet is from)] has a more minimal Near East admix in _Ita_ and _Tsi_ (Tuscany) whereas the African component is still grasading in the Spanish samples (And/Gal/Spa);


Obviously you need to check your reading skills, since I did point out that they included it in the supplement, but it's just too small to see any details. Maybe you have Superman's vision and can see it, but I can't. It's not clearly visible like k=6 in the main text, where they included a nice big visible graphic of it.




> And the sub-saharan admixture in K=6 is limited to *one* sample of _Ita_ and that at the most minimal amount whereas all the other _Ita_ samples and *all* the _Tsi_ (Tuscany) samples have absolutely none sub-saharan admix [K=6];


Aha, and the Spanish have zero sub-Saharan here at K=6. And the Italians still have larger Near Eastern (and Jewish) here as well.




> As i have written: *
> Table_S8* - _List of populations included in the ADMIXTURE run along with their geographic region and source of study_;


OK, just saw it, it's an Excel doc. How did you correlate the samples of each population to the graphic? It does not seem to be plainly indicated in the graph itself. Are they in the same order as they appear on the Excel doc?

----------


## Nobody1

> The figure that you seem to have in mind does not show exactly that. If we were to interpret it like you want to, then the British samples would have almost as much sub-Saharan as the NW Spanish, Portuguese and even Italians, something that would hardly have gone unnoticed in the study. The sample size seems to be reflected in the size of the rectangles for each group in that graph.


Maybe they should present the British results on their own and not lumped together; In order to than judge how obscure that method actually was; That study was corrected (for the Y-Haplogroups) a year later anyways maybe they can pass that info in later as well;




> Obviously you need to check your reading skills, since I did point out that they included it in the supplement, but it's just too small to see any details. Maybe you have Superman's vision and can see it, but I can't. It's not clearly visible like k=6 in the main text, where they included a nice big visible graphic of it.


One can still see it and also certain components but not as detailed as in the snippet of K=3-6;




> Aha, and the Spanish have zero sub-Saharan here at K=6. And the Italians still have larger Near Eastern (and Jewish) here as well.


But much more North African and the Jewish is given at less than 2% [p.5] not sure which K analysis based on however; More Near East in Italians, Tuscans and also Greeks what a shocker;




> OK, just saw it, it's an Excel doc. How did you correlate the samples of each population to the graphic? It does not seem to be plainly indicated in the graph itself. Are they in the same order as they appear on the Excel doc?


Yes Table_S8 lists the blocks in the chronological order of the K=7 analysis; One can also simply double check the chronology with the results given at K=7 i.e. Sardinia is easily spotted (and on that position as in Table_S8) and so is Lithuania after Tuscany and the end with the Chuvashs (most E Asian comp.) all corresponding to the chronology given in Table_S8;

----------


## Drac II

> Maybe they should present the British results on their own and not lumped together; In order to than judge how obscure that method actually was; That study was corrected (for the Y-Haplogroups) a year later anyways maybe they can pass that info in later as well;


Different authors seem to lump populations together at their whim and fancy, while others they leave on their own. Unfortunately, they do not always explain what criterion they used for such decisions.





> One can still see it and also certain components but not as detailed as in the snippet of K=3-6;


Let me know if you find a more detailed view of K=10, because I really can't tell much from looking at the small pictures in that PDF. I was not kidding or teasing you about this, I really can't tell much from such pictures.




> But much more North African and the Jewish is given at less than 2% [p.5] not sure which K analysis based on however; More Near East in Italians, Tuscans and also Greeks what a shocker;


Yes, I never contested the North African. I am well aware that this one is more common in Iberia than Italy.




> Yes Table_S8 lists the blocks in the chronological order of the K=7 analysis; One can also simply double check the chronology with the results given at K=7 i.e. Sardinia is easily spotted (and on that position as in Table_S8) and so is Lithuania after Tuscany and the end with the Chuvashs (most E Asian comp.) all corresponding to the chronology given in Table_S8;


Why are the North African/Middle Eastern samples apparently in just three single blocks in the graph when there's more sampled populations from these areas in the Excel doc? It makes it hard to correlate which of the blocks in the graph belongs to which of the populations in the Excel doc.

----------


## joeyc

Drac is a clown. Me and Nobody1 have already debunked all his "arguments" on this forum, but he still thinks he can win with "words".

He is not even an Iberian, but a fat 1.50 m tall brown mestizo in the US who lives on welfare and wants the brown cookie from his Iberian masters.

Leave the clown alone.

----------


## joeyc

> The *Moorjani* 2009/2011 results for sub-saharan admixture:
> (averages of the total sample-sets tested)
> N Italy 1.1%
> Greece 1.9%
> Spain 2.4%
> S Italy 2.7%
> Portugal 3.2%
> 
> And the fact remains that the Brisighelli results for Italy were not found (_not even close_) in any other study before or after it (post#124) making it and its method a little bit obscure and most def. unique; And yes NW Spain and Portugal are on *average* (both) 7.1% sub-saharan (Brisighelli 2012) but at Fig.2 one can see that the NW Spain is clearly above that average;


Brisighelli et al. uses an Admixture analysis with 52 SNPs. Do not quote anymore that rubbish for God's sake.

Moorjani et al. uses a Structure 2.2 analysis with about 13 K SNPs. Structure is an outdated and unreliable computer algorithm.

----------


## joeyc

On the K=6 only one Italian (probably a Sicilian) scores some SSA, whereas several Portuguese, Canarians and even a Basque score some SSA. Beside that all the Iberians have a great amount of Magrebi admixture, that Italians and other Europeans completely lack.

And this genius still thinks that Italians are more African than his Iberian slave masters, doesn't he? ROFL!

Drac II the average Mexican mestizo is 40% Amerindian and 5% African. Beside that Mexicans have a mean IQ of 85, while Italians have a mean IQ of 102. Enjoy that stuff and stop messing with the white man.

----------


## Ha-Nasr

you're both in the same ship buddy, i really feel bad for all these insecure south Europeans

----------


## Degredado

Leaving aside all the discrepancies and quirks of these genetic researches, I don't think anyone non-Spanish and non-Italian really views one or the other group as being particularly "whiter" or "darker"... At the end of the day, any given Spaniard can perfectly blend in with a crowd of Italians and vice-versa. Rome ruled Hispania for centuries, Aragon/Habsburg Spain ruled (most of) Italy for centuries... Italy probably achieved more in the arts and culture, Spain carved itself a global empire... both are pretty damn good at football and have beautiful women... as someone who traces a part of their ancestry to both countries, I say have a Birra Morretti and a Estrella Damm and celebrate the draw :Beer: 


^ I agree with Angela, Eupedia does feel like Stormfront lite sometimes, lol

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Leaving aside all the discrepancies and quirks of these genetic researches, I don't think anyone non-Spanish and non-Italian really views one or the other group as being particularly "whiter" or "darker"... At the end of the day, any given Spaniard can perfectly blend in with a crowd of Italians and vice-versa. Rome ruled Hispania for centuries, Aragon/Habsburg Spain ruled (most of) Italy for centuries... Italy probably achieved more in the arts and culture, Spain carved itself a global empire... both are pretty damn good at football and have beautiful women... as someone who traces a part of their ancestry to both countries, I say have a Birra Morretti and a Estrella Damm and celebrate the draw
> 
> 
> ^ I agree with Angela, Eupedia does feel like Stormfront lite sometimes, lol



Hello, R1b Df27 brother. I discovered about a week ago(through FTDNA) that i am a member of Df27 and have recent(300-400BP) paternal relatives living in Spain and France, and that my paternal lineage is from Spain. My overall Spanish ancestry is only around 6%, but still it's exciting because i had no idea i had any Spanish ancestry.

We'er both members of mtDNA U5b to, and both our maternal lineages are probably descended of Mesolithic central-western Europeans.

----------


## Drac II

> Brisighelli et al. uses an Admixture analysis with 52 SNPs. Do not quote anymore that rubbish for God's sake.
> 
> Moorjani et al. uses a Structure 2.2 analysis with about 13 K SNPs. Structure is an outdated and unreliable computer algorithm.


As usual trying to desperately invalidate studies that don't go along with your agenda. Brisighelli et al. used AIMS, you don't need such huge amounts of markers. Perhaps the only thing they can be accused of is of having obtained inflated results by using a smaller panel of AIMS (but that goes for the results of all the populations they sampled, not just Italians.) And one of the few things that Moorjani et al. can be accused of is very likely having passed North African input as "sub-Saharan".

----------


## Drac II

> On the K=6 only one Italian (probably a Sicilian) scores some SSA, whereas several Portuguese, Canarians and even a Basque score some SSA. Beside that all the Iberians have a great amount of Magrebi admixture, that Italians and other Europeans completely lack.


Check your eyesight again, bright guy, because alongside the Iberians that you want to "slander" so much Italians and to a lesser extent the French are in fact among the other Europeans in that admixture analysis who have Magrebi (orange on graph) input to speak of. Yes, less than Iberians, but still there nonetheless.

----------


## Drac II

> Yes Table_S8 lists the blocks in the chronological order of the K=7 analysis; One can also simply double check the chronology with the results given at K=7 i.e. Sardinia is easily spotted (and on that position as in Table_S8) and so is Lithuania after Tuscany and the end with the Chuvashs (most E Asian comp.) all corresponding to the chronology given in Table_S8;


By the way, I checked the study where the Excel doc says that the Spanish sample came from (Li et al. 2008 Worldwide Human Relationships Inferred from Genome-Wide Patterns of Variation) but I could not find any such sample either in the study or the supplements. Any ideas where is this coming from?

----------


## joeyc

@ Drac

Both the Structure and the Admixture analysis with AIMs are outdated and unreliable methods. That's why none is using them.

Right now even the Admixture analysis with 100-200 Ks of SNPs is becoming outdated.

Moreover Brisighelli et al. uses a pre-2004 nomenclature for the haplogroups and their 52 SNPs come from an outdated study from 2006.

Arguing against these simple facts is pointless.

----------


## Degredado

> Hello, R1b Df27 brother. I discovered about a week ago(through FTDNA) that i am a member of Df27 and have recent(300-400BP) paternal relatives living in Spain and France, and that my paternal lineage is from Spain. My overall Spanish ancestry is only around 6%, but still it's exciting because i had no idea i had any Spanish ancestry.
> 
> We'er both members of mtDNA U5b to, and both our maternal lineages are probably descended of Mesolithic central-western Europeans.


Hey Fire Haired, welcome back. I told you you were DF27  :Cool V:

----------


## Silesian

> We'er both members of mtDNA U5b to, and both our maternal lineages are probably descended of Mesolithic central-western Europeans.


Interesting mtdna you have. :Cool V:  




> _The most ancient identified subhaplogroup, U5b2, requires further phylogeographic studies. However the data presented here allow us to suggest that at least subcluster U5b2a is characterized by a predominantly central European distribution, since a large number of U5b samples from Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic fall into this subcluster (Figure 1). For instance, subcluster U5b2a2 is frequent in central Europe (with the highest frequency of its subcluster U5b2a2a1 in Poles) and dated as arising between 12–18 kya, depending on the mutation rate used (Table 1)_


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2858207/

----------


## Dubhthach

Tbh, as an Irish person living in Ireland I haven't a clue what the term "Black Irish" means, we hear americans talking about it but it's not a term ever used in Ireland. The only people we'd classify as "Black Irish" would be people with recent african admixture (Phil Lynott good example) or immigrants

----------


## Drac II

> @ Drac
> 
> Both the Structure and the Admixture analysis with AIMs are outdated and unreliable methods. That's why none is using them.
> 
> Right now even the Admixture analysis with 100-200 Ks of SNPs is becoming outdated.
> 
> Moreover Brisighelli et al. uses a pre-2004 nomenclature for the haplogroups and their 52 SNPs come from an outdated study from 2006.
> 
> Arguing against these simple facts is pointless.


AIMS are still being used, they certainly have not been dropped. Of course, it is recommended to use over 300 AIMS to get better results, but still there are geneticists who are convinced that these larger numbers are not a requirement to get good results and continue to use lower numbers.

Notice that Brisighelli et al. did not make any changes to their AIMS part of the study though they made some updates to it after publication. I have not seen other geneticists criticize their AIMS results, so they probably did not feel any necessity to make any corrections there.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Interesting mtdna you have. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2858207/


My maternal lineage is from German Prussians so constant with the statement U5b2a2 is most popular in central Europe. Popularity doesn't equal origin, but there is a Mesolithic U5b2a2 sample in Germany and multiple Neolithic ones. Indo Europeans brought many typical east European U5(namely U5a1) lineages to central-west Europe, and i am sure other regions of Europe have brought new U5 lineages to central Europe since the Mesolithic. Mesolithic central-west Europeans U5 was defintley mainly U5b2 and U5b1.

----------


## Degredado

> Tbh, as an Irish person living in Ireland I haven't a clue what the term "Black Irish" means, we hear americans talking about it but it's not a term ever used in Ireland. The only people we'd classify as "Black Irish" would be people with recent african admixture (Phil Lynott good example) or immigrants


Interesting. I blame this on the fetish that Americans cultivate for Irishness and its stereotypes, i.e., the Irish being extremely pale, freckled, red-haired and green-eyed (+ riverdancers, brawlers etc). If an Irishman doesn't fit the Hollywood mold, then he must be somehow less Irish (he must be Spanish, he must be Mexican...), whereas to the real Irish people, from Ireland, that person is every bit as Irish as any other, completely undeserving of a distinctive label like "Black Irish".

----------

