Genetic study The Genetic Landscape of Northeastern Iberian Communities from the Early to Late Iron Age

[Tautalus]

Abstract

During the Iron Age (800-100 BCE), the Iberian Peninsula was home to diverse cultural groups. Indigenous Iberians in the eastern coastal regions and Celtic-speaking populations in central and western regions interacted with Mediterranean civilizations, including the Phoenicians and Greeks during the Early Iron Age, and later Punics/Carthaginians and Romans. Iberian culture developed along the Mediterranean coast around the 6th century BCE, flourishing between 450-200 BCE. While archaeological evidence is abundant, genetic studies remain scarce due to predominant cremation practices. However, the tradition of burying newborns beneath houses provides a unique opportunity for paleogenomic analysis. This study investigates the genetic profile of northeastern Iberians from the Early to Late Iron Age by analyzing 54 newborns from three sites: the fortress of Vilars (775–325 BCE), Sant Miquel d’Olèrdola (350–200 BCE), and El Camp de les Lloses (125 BCE–50 CE). More than 20k SNPs from the 1240k panel are reported for 22 individuals, and mitochondrial data for a further 9 individuals. Our findings support the archaeological hypothesis that Iberians emerged from local Bronze Age groups, evolving gradually through the Iron Age, with increased Mediterranean ancestry. This genetic continuity persisted until the Late Iron Age and the arrival of the Romans. From then on, the new genetic influences led to a more diverse Iberian-Roman population alongside significant social and political transformations. This study provides the first paleogenomic insights into the enduring genetic legacy of Iberian communities, highlighting the complex interplay between cultural and genetic continuity in the northeastern Iberian Peninsula.​

The Genetic Landscape of Northeastern Iberian Communities from the Early to Late Iron Age

During the Iron Age (800-100 BCE), the Iberian Peninsula was home to diverse cultural groups. Indigenous Iberians in the eastern coastal regions and Celtic-spea

papers.ssrn.com

Registration is required to read the paper, it can be read here also :

Genetic Landscape of Northeastern Iberian.pdf

drive.google.com

PCA

 

[Tautalus]

The archaeological sites referred in the paper belong to the ancient Iberian peoples.
These ancient peoples settled in the east and south of the Iberian Peninsula.

 

[Moja]

Genetic interaction between Iberians and other Mediterranean cultures during the Iron Age in the Northeast of the Iberian Peninsula before Roman arrival (218 BCE)

Despite most Iberian individuals from the fortress of Vilars and Sant Miguel d'Olerdola clustering within or around the general diversity of the Iron Age population from the Iberian Peninsula in the PCA, two individuals—VILA04 and OLE06—deviate significantly from the probably-Iberian cluster, shifting towards the Caucasus and Southwestern Asia (Figure 3).

Two ancient Celtic samples in Iberia.

 

[Anfänger]

Genetic interaction between Iberians and other Mediterranean cultures during the Iron Age in the Northeast of the Iberian Peninsula before Roman arrival (218 BCE)

Despite most Iberian individuals from the fortress of Vilars and Sant Miguel d'Olerdola clustering within or around the general diversity of the Iron Age population from the Iberian Peninsula in the PCA, two individuals—VILA04 and OLE06—deviate significantly from the probably-Iberian cluster, shifting towards the Caucasus and Southwestern Asia (Figure 3).

Two ancient Celtic samples in Iberia.

I am not an expert on Iberia but these two samples are probably Carthaginians not Celts. Large parts of Iberia were part of the Carthaginian Empire before the Romans.

 

[Tautalus]

Genetic interaction between Iberians and other Mediterranean cultures during the Iron Age in the Northeast of the Iberian Peninsula before Roman arrival (218 BCE)

Despite most Iberian individuals from the fortress of Vilars and Sant Miguel d'Olerdola clustering within or around the general diversity of the Iron Age population from the Iberian Peninsula in the PCA, two individuals—VILA04 and OLE06—deviate significantly from the probably-Iberian cluster, shifting towards the Caucasus and Southwestern Asia (Figure 3).

Two ancient Celtic samples in Iberia.

Moja, please read the paper carefully before talking nonsense. These individuals have nothing to do with the Celts.
Anfänger is right, the Carthaginians dominated this entire part of Iberia. About OLE06, for example, the paper say that "OLE06 also presented Eastern Mediterranean ancestry (visible from Iran's Neolithic ancestry). This individual presented a mitochondrial haplogroup belonging to M1 (North African Ancestry). This mix could make us think of this individual as an outlier, a non-local individual. However, as a newborn who died at birth, the most probable conclusion is that we are facing a mixture of a local individual and a female with close Carthaginian/Punic ancestry."​

 

[Moja]

I am not an expert on Iberia but these two samples are probably Carthaginians not Celts. Large parts of Iberia were part of the Carthaginian Empire before the Romans.

In fact you know nothing about Iberia, the Carthaginians conquered the Mediterranean part of Iberia about 237 BC, VILA04 dates back to some centuries earlier.

 

[Anfänger]

In fact you know nothing about Iberia, the Carthaginians conquered the Mediterranean part of Iberia about 237 BC, VILA04 dates back to some centuries earlier.

Might be true but you said both of them are Celts which isn’t true. The paper says OLE06 is at least half Punic/half local.

There is plenty of research about the Celts and they are from Central Europe (Alps). No need to put them in an unrelated context just because it suits your ridiculous theories.

 

[Moja]

Might be true but you said both of them are Celts which isn’t true. The paper says OLE06 is at least half Punic/half local.

There is plenty of research about the Celts and they are from Central Europe (Alps). No need to put them in an unrelated context just because it suits your ridiculous theories.

Central European origin of the Celts is an old and outdated theory, read new researches, like this one: Gauls from the East by Xavier Rouard https://www.academia.edu/124449956/Gauls_from_the_East

 

[MOESAN]

Central European origin of the Celts is an old and outdated theory, read new researches, like this one: Gauls from the East by Xavier Rouard https://www.academia.edu/124449956/Gauls_from_the_East

The little I read (abstract) doesn't give me any confidence in this kind of "buz study"; so many magic theories have been showed as rubbish... Celtic languages are west european IE languages born by maybe central Eurasian preceding ones (IE). some slight ties with other central Eurasian (but not IE) languages are not structual but loans by contact, IMO.

 

[Moja]

The little I read (abstract) doesn't give me any confidence in this kind of "buz study"; so many magic theories have been showed as rubbish... Celtic languages are west european IE languages born by maybe central Eurasian preceding ones (IE). some slight ties with other central Eurasian (but not IE) languages are not structual but loans by contact, IMO.

According to the recent genetic studies IE people were those who had CHG/Iranian ancestry, non-IE people in Europe, such as Iberians, Etruscans, Basques, ... had a low amount of CHG/Iranian ancestry.

 

[Vallicanus]

According to the recent genetic studies IE people were those who had CHG/Iranian ancestry, non-IE people in Europe, such as Iberians, Etruscans, Basques, ... had a low amount of CHG/Iranian ancestry.

Interesting.
Do you have any links for this?

 

[MOESAN]

Central European origin of the Celts is an old and outdated theory, read new researches, like this one: Gauls from the East by Xavier Rouard https://www.academia.edu/124449956/Gauls_from_the_East

The little I read (abstract) doesn't give me any confidence in this kind of "buz study"; so many magic theories have been showed as rubbish... Celtic languages are west european IE languages born by maybe central Eurasian preceding ones (IE). some slight ties with other central Eurasian (but not IE) languages are not structual but loans by contact, IMO.

According to the recent genetic studies IE people were those who had CHG/Iranian ancestry, non-IE people in Europe, such as Iberians, Etruscans, Basques, ... had a low amount of CHG/Iranian ancestry.

People can change languages (not easily but it has occurred more than a time). The western Europeans who speak IE dialects had a strong steppic DNA component ( 50% > 60% at first) in which EHG+kind of CHG* were the strongest ones - These last pop* had been acculturated, MAYBE (!!!) by its proper kind of CHG component MAYBE come from southern Caucasus. ATW we are here ( for western Europe) in front of a mixing with here again an acculturation phenomenon. I even wonder if the mix of diverse CHG's subcomponents involved were not from east the Caspian, and not directy from southern Caucasus to northern Caucasus - when using other sorts of ancient clusters we see that the western Europeans (northern and northwestern Europe, and partly Basques) had a component 'westasian' closer to 'gedrosia' than to 'caucasus' at the contrary of Italians and Greeks, and even modern Slavs, by example.
Do not stay sticked to the IE supposed cradle: other people BECAME IE speakers along History.

 

[Vallicanus]

Do not stay sticked to the IE supposed cradle: other people BECAME IE speakers along History.

I agree. Entire forests have been felled to produce books and papers over this geographical obsession about a particular cradle in North or East Europe, rather closely linked to racist fantasy.

 

[Moja]

Interesting.
Do you have any links for this?

The genetic origin of the Indo-Europeans: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08531-5 A Caucasus–lower Volga (CLV) cline suffused with Caucasus hunter-gatherer ancestry extended between a Caucasus Neolithic southern end and a northern end at Berezhnovka along the lower Volga river. ... We therefore propose that the final unity of the speakers of ‘proto-Indo-Anatolian’, the language ancestral to both Anatolian and Indo-European people, occurred in CLV people some time between 4400 BC and 4000 BC.

 

[Pygmalion]

If I'm understanding the admxiture charts correctly, there were still Iberians without any Steppe ancestry in the late Iron Age and even in the Roman period.

Samples that are modeled only with EEF populations without additional admixtures include:


VILA13, from the fortress of Vilars, dating to 550–450 BCE, as the authors temselves remark: "Conversely, VILA13 exhibited high Mediterranean ancestry, lacking any Steppe component";

OLE03 and OLE04, both from Sant Miquel d’Olèrdola and dating back to 350–200 BCE;

I2641 and I9772, listed as "probably-Iberians";

I6492, from the Roman Period.

This is really puzzling, while Iberian populations still spoke Pre-Indoeuropean languages, samples lacking any Steppe admixture in such recent dates are unexpected, to say the least. Already during the Bell Beaker Period almost all Iberian samples exhibited some degree of Steppe admixture, and the same applies to later Bronze Age samples from Iberia, so it can't be said that the Steppe admixture was restricted only to the Bell Beaker populations of Iberia.

 

[MOESAN]

If I'm understanding the admxiture charts correctly, there were still Iberians without any Steppe ancestry in the late Iron Age and even in the Roman period.

Samples that are modeled only with EEF populations without additional admixtures include:


VILA13, from the fortress of Vilars, dating to 550–450 BCE, as the authors temselves remark: "Conversely, VILA13 exhibited high Mediterranean ancestry, lacking any Steppe component";

OLE03 and OLE04, both from Sant Miquel d’Olèrdola and dating to 350–200 BCE;

I2641 and I9772, listed as "probably-Iberians";

I6492, from the Roman Period.

This is really puzzling, while Iberian populations still spoke Pre-Indoeuropean languages, samples lacking any Steppe admixture in such recent dates are unexpected, to say the least. Already during the Bell Beaker Period almost all Iberian samples exhibited some degree of Steppe admixture, and the same applies to later Bronze Age samples from Iberia, so it can't be said that the Steppe admixture was restricted only to the Bell Beaker populations of Iberia.

Have we the detailed autosome makeup of these outside individuals?

 

[Pygmalion]

Have we the detailed autosome makeup of these outside individuals?

I2641, I9772, I6492 should be from another study so maybe. The same goes for I8211, a sample that I didn't mention in the other post and that is also modeled in the paper as only descending from an EEF population.

VILA13, OLE03 and OLE04 are from this study, which mentions the existence of supplementary materials, but I don't know if they've already published them anywhere.

 

[Pax Augusta]

If I'm understanding the admxiture charts correctly, there were still Iberians without any Steppe ancestry in the late Iron Age and even in the Roman period.

Samples that are modeled only with EEF populations without additional admixtures include:


VILA13, from the fortress of Vilars, dating to 550–450 BCE, as the authors temselves remark: "Conversely, VILA13 exhibited high Mediterranean ancestry, lacking any Steppe component";

OLE03 and OLE04, both from Sant Miquel d’Olèrdola and dating back to 350–200 BCE;

I2641 and I9772, listed as "probably-Iberians";

I6492, from the Roman Period.

This is really puzzling, while Iberian populations still spoke Pre-Indoeuropean languages, samples lacking any Steppe admixture in such recent dates are unexpected, to say the least. Already during the Bell Beaker Period almost all Iberian samples exhibited some degree of Steppe admixture, and the same applies to later Bronze Age samples from Iberia, so it can't be said that the Steppe admixture was restricted only to the Bell Beaker populations of Iberia.

That's quite odd but not unlikely.

 

[Pygmalion]

That's quite odd but not unlikely.

Maybe it' explained by their relatively low coverage. VILA13 is around 70-80k SNPs, OLE03 has slightly more than 20k SNPs, and OLE04 is around 35k SNPs; I2641, I9772, I6492 are from another study so I don't know their SNPs' numbers.

 

[MOESAN]

Central European origin of the Celts is an old and outdated theory, read new researches, like this one: Gauls from the East by Xavier Rouard https://www.academia.edu/124449956/Gauls_from_the_East

I looked at it and it seems "magic science" to me, a collection of series of similatities of every kind of chronological depth. Not serious. Hlas, todate these papers are become numerous...