Talk:Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Frequencies of haplogroups

@Asilah:, the maps reverted in the article are not consisted with the frequencies found in Spain. Please, check:[1]
Aragon: E - 6%, I - 18%, R1b - 56%
Andalusia East: E - 4%, I - 6%, R1b - 72%
Asturias: E - 15%, I - 10%, R1b - 50%
Basques: E - 1%, I - 8%, R1b - 87%
Castilla La Mancha:E - 4%, I - 2%, R1b - 72%
Castile NE: E - 9%, I - 3%, R1b - 77%
Castile NW: E - 20%, I - 3%, R1b - 60%
Catalonia: E - 3%, I - 3%, R1b - 81%
Extremadura: E - 18%, I - 10%, R1b - 50%
Galicia: E - 17%, I - 10%, R1b - 57%
Gascony: E - 0%, I - 0%, R1b - 97%
Valencia: E - 10%, I - 10%, R1b - 64%
QLao (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

QLao: This is one study out of many. Are you aware the Gascony is in France, not Spain? Where are the Canary Islands? Can you see in your own source that Western Andalusia has 16% E, 15% J and 5% I (mostly I2 of bosnian origin)? The numbers you provide for Andalusia are a sample for the less populated eastern region. I believe there is a more recent meta-analysis of haplogroups frequencies and Eupedia also seems to be the best source in terms of mapping.Asilah1981 (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Would you provide us with the frequencies you know, otherwise these remain empty statements? Andulusia is Sardinian I2a1a, not Bosnian I2a1b, nowhere stated in the source. QLao (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Asilah, most of the frequencies on the maps are wrong aren't they, e.g. see Aragon and Asturias on the map are R1b - 90+ and 80+, but in fact is only 50%+ in the list above and in eupedia[2]. Do you agree?QLao (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

QLao I have not stopped you or reverted you in removing the distribution maps. I am perfectly happy with them being replaced.Asilah1981 (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

QLao There are many studies on ychromosome frequencies. The list should be by study rather than by region and not based on only one study. Could you do this please, following general practice in other similar articles?Asilah1981 (talk) 05:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Asilah1981: The list is based on two studies. I only found these two. I misunderstood you because you did not state what you want to be done. To add more sources or to mark which frequency is according to which study? Could you be more concrete?QLao (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

QLaoIts fine we can leave it like this for now, although should remove Gascony from list.Asilah1981 (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Gascony should be removed, agree(also the Y-Chromosome DNA "subsection" should have better table, not well delineated) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v12/n10/fig_tab/5201225t1.html#figure-title Additional link for sourcing. Asilah1981 (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

New Study.

A new study confirms the ancient origins of 95% of modern Iberians, but there is a new interesting discovery coming from the Russian steppes. It also points out the important effect of the Spanish reconquest on the population. From this article I cut and pasted this:

"While many Moorish individuals analysed in the study seem to have been a 50:50 mix of North African and Iberian ancestry, North African ancestry in the peninsula today averages just 5%.

Modern Iberians derive about 50% of their ancestry from Neolithic farmers, 25% from ancient hunter-gatherers, and 20% from the steppe people."

Article: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47540792 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.222.89.95 (talk • contribs)

New Study Points to African Influence in Iberian Peninsula as insignificant when compared to other European countries

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-41580-9

The study focused on paternal lineages in south-east Spain, where the historical presence of North African muslims was longest (see Al-Andalus). The study concludes:

″...population does not reflect any male genetic influence of the North African people. The presence of African haplogroups in the... population is irrelevant when their frequency is compared with those in other European populations.″

The introductory paragraph of this Wikipedia page already points to this same observation. However, one third of the whole page focuses just on "North African Influence", which is misleading, and rambles on about obscure or minute details. I plan to rewrite that section to simplify it. Baidelan (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

This is total nonsense. Its just a small sample of male haplogroups. It is established fact that Iberia has far higher levels of North African admixture than anywhere in the rest of Europe. Dozens of recent autosomal DNA studies confirm this. Neo-nazi trolls from Spain and Portugal - particularly Melroross who has been blocked a number of times - please stop vandalizing this page. Php2000 (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Values for Malaga, Cadiz, etc.

Those values are contradictory with the values for Eastern Andalusia. Besides, I do not see those values in the sources given. It should be checked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.67.6.211 (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

New structure + remaining issues

Had a go at improving the page, namely in terms of structure which I think was the main barrier moving forward. The page still has multiple issues, but now I think it's easier to find the material you're interested in and to just work on improving smaller parts of the page. The remaining issues I see are:

• This page seems to forget that it's about genetic history, not a description of modern-day Iberian genetics. For example, the table of Y-DNA groups for Spain is uninteresting because it gives no insight into the history of Spain (see what I did for Alcácer and Pias). I would replace it by text that explains statistical differences from the average of Spain and historically contextualizes them.
• The North African section is too long and has no focus. I think the best solution may be to just delete it and spread its content to the various other sections (autosomal, Y-DNA, mt-DNA), where it is more relevant. Makes no sense to ghettize that information to a particular section.
• The Portugal section is also pretty confusing and lacking in focus. Summarizing the article instead of copy-pasting the abstract may be a way to improve. And also removing the references to Galicia and Catalonia, - that info should be outside the Portugal section, maybe in dedicated sections to Catalonia and Galicia.

All the best!, CriMen1 (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Percentage of major Y-DNA haplogroups in Europe.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Fixing lead

I have corrected the lead which seems to have been damaged by some persistent editing by banned editor James Oredan and also possibly Melroross who seems to be pushing a certain line based on his/her own personal views.

Briefly, I am fixing the following:

• Mentioning in starting sentence that the main ancestral component of modern day Iberians comes from Anatolian farmers who arrived in the Neolithic. This is supported by every single source on the subject over the past 10 years. Why this is excluded from the lead is beyond me.
• Explaining that R1b is the result of an input from central Europe invaders who were predominantly male and came with horses and chariots (facilitating the fast conquest) - also supported by all sources.
• Changing low level of Western Asian admixture to "Lower". It is not low but lower than Italy and it is not necessarily lower than everywhere in the Balkan peninsula.
• Removing the statement that West Asian admixture arrived "in the Roman period" - no source supports this statement. Sources support that it arrived predominantly from Eastern Mediterranean civilizations, Jews and the Arab period.
• Sicily, Sardinia and Southern Italy do not have similar levels of North African admixture as the Iberian peninsula. All recent sources support that Iberia has higher levels than anywhere else in the continent and that this is the result of prolonged genetic input lasting into the late medieval era. So I have removed this. Again no lack of sources on this matter since 2013.
• The Canary Islands have higher North African admixture than Iberia - around 25% and it is due to the Guanches. I think the vandals working on this page were attempting to hide North African admixture in Iberia due to some racial complex.
• For the same reason I removed "though it is a minor component of the overall mix. This is a rather debatable value judgement. Sources show that of all the peoples who have settled the peninsula since bronze age R1b carriers, North Africans seem to have had the largest genetic impact.

I think that's it. I will be adding sources progressively.Php2000 (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hidden comments by sock of banned user JamesOredan --IamNotU (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The problem of your changes are mainly three: - The image only shows a very limited representation of the regions of Spain and Portugal and establishes a comparison with other countries. The image is not suitable for an article focused on Iberia, not at all - Spain's North African influence varies greatly from one region to another. The North African influence of the Southern Italy, especially of Sicily is very similar, but again it depends on the compared region of Spain it can be more or less. And as if that weren't enough, we don't know how much North African influence is in Malta, Greece or another South European regions. To assert that Iberia's North African influence is the highest in Europe is a generalization. - Iberia's North African influence represents a minority of Iberia's genetic pool. Whether or not this minority is historically significant is not disputed, but rather the weight of the total mix. With respect to the rest I agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavideNotta (talk • contribs) 01:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Struck comments by sock of banned user JamesOredan. --IamNotU (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC) DavideNotta: I'm glad you agree with most of my edits. Just a few points responding to you: - The image provided is a 5 component admixture plot for seven different Iberian populations both from the North and South of the country. If you have a better one to propose, let me know. So far I can find none better than this one which we are lucky to have. - I agree that North African influence varies a lot from one region to another, but I would have sworn the lead did state this. Perhaps we should give this statement more salience? In any case Iberian admixture is above "normal" levels for Southern Europe in most of the Iberian peninsula except for the North East as is seen in the recent Bycroft study. But if we do so we also need ranges for West Asian admixture. - Although some North African admixture has been detected in the island of Sicily, recent studies show that Southern Italy does not have significant North African admixture - certainly no where near iberian levels. This is understandable since we now know genetic input comes from the medieval period. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0096074#s3 Although North African input is negligible, Southern Italy (except Sardinia) does have a larger West Asian component than the Iberian peninsula. Sicily also has North African input for which the average is similar to the average for the Iberian peninsula. - No doubt that African admixture influence is a minority of the overall mix (as are all other influences except perhaps the original Anatolian farmers). I did mention that Central European input was substantial (estimates of its peak in the copper /bronze age vary). I think we can solve this issue of the extent of North African admixture by stating a range for the peninsula (2.5 - 11) according to Bycroft. - We can use Olalde's study as well for all of this although we should be a little cautious about some of his conclusions which are a bit shaky based on the results he produces. I will list some recent sources here which need to be used throughout this article. A lot of it needs to be re-written from scratch. Remember the main genetic components of Iberia are 1) Mesolithic Iberian 2) Neolithic Anatolian 3) Central European 4) West Asian (both Caucasus and SW Asian) 5) North Africa. The main historical points of genetic impact where: The Neolithic (2), The Chalcolithic(3), the Classical period(4) and the Islamic/medieval(5) period. --Php2000 (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC) I believe you are acting in good faith and with certain knowledge on the subject. But we are forgetting what a Lead is. A Lead is simply a basic summary, without technicalities. The Lead should be a summary of the article as a whole, not the technical description of a single study. This is established by the Wikipedia rules. - We cannot put the percentages of a study and ignore all the others that are in the article body. Percentages, in-depth and more technical details should go to the appropriate section of the article. There are many technical percentages in this article, some are higher and some are lower, we must use general descriptions in the Lead, and not particular percentages to describe where there is more influence from North Africa. In the case of Iberia, there is a higher mix with North Africa in the south and west of the peninsula and it is always a minority component, as all the sources agree, that should be the summary in the Lead. - With regard to Italy, many sources suggest that Southern Italy has significant North African and Middle Eastern levels. And specifically in Sicily the level of North Africa becomes higher. Also sources suggest that Malta has high North African and Middle Eastern standards, which makes sense. On Greece there are also sources that affirm significant levels from North Africa, and especially from the Middle East and West Asia. Anyway, it does not matter, I do not debate that, my point is that the phrase of the stable version is more cautious, because the estimates can vary a lot from one source to another. More or less mix the truth is that Iberia as a whole has North African genetics that depends a lot from one region to another like other areas of southern Europe, and this should be summarized. You will never see in the Lead of the article about the Greeks or Italians claim that they are the European people with the most genetics in the Middle East and West Asia. It is too bold, and it is not suitable as a summary. - I don't like the image, mainly because I think the ideal would be an image of only Iberia where the diagrams of each region are shown. This is what is usually done with articles focused on a single geographic region. I also don't like the studio the image belongs to, because the main study itself is of only 142 people representing Iberia (Southwest parts only) and North Africa. (Morocco only). I will search another one. - The stable version of the Lead article and its structure was the result of consensus long ago, it is not a recent version of someone. This can be seen in the article history. What you want to add, put it in its corresponding section of the body, do not modify the Lead without consensus. DavideNotta (talk • contribs) 15:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Struck comments by sock of banned user JamesOredan. --IamNotU (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Hi DavideNotta, Answering your comments. I understand your point about the article on Genetic history of Italy not mentioning that Southern Italy has higher levels of West Asian admixture than elsewhere in Europe, but I think it should. The content of the article does seem to imply it - or at least those sources referenced - so is a matter of cleaning up/editing that article not using its chaotic structure as a model for this one. On the North African admixture in Iberia, I think that (whether we like it or not) it is something which cannot be ignored in the Lead since it is a core genetic differentiator from the rest of Western (and even Southern Europe) - the wealth of recent studies analyzing this specific dimension are witness to it. Hiding it due to people being "sensitive" about their "Europeanness", is not really the way to go. On Italy, admixture analysis has not found significant levels of North African admixture in mainland Italy - even in the south. You are right that in Sicily it averages around 6% and this is also likely due to its Islamic period. But I still cannot find any studies showing North African admixture on the Italian mainland or Sardinia. I have to say that what we are calling the "Stable" version is the product of relentless POV pushing by two editors, one of which has been banned and the other seems to be pursuing a rather relentless "racial" agenda. I would not call it the product of any form of consensus or reasonable discussion by editors knowledgeable on the topic. I think we should discuss here more, but all reading the sources and showing real interest in the topic. The main issue I have is not regarding North African admixture but regarding the Basques as I explain below. They need to be discussed in more detail even though they compose a small percentage of the Iberian population - particularly since they are a genetic isolate. --Php2000 (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC) I'll be brief this time, because I basically repeating my comment: - The Lead is a summary and not percentages or statements of a particular study or technical data ignoring the rest of the body of the article. It is not my opinion, it is established like this in the Wikipedia rules on how the Lead should be. - There are many studies that show significant North African genetics in other parts of Southern Europe. And again, Iberia is not a block and its genetics vary significantly from its different regions. And some of your last claims seem Original Research. - The stable version is not as you have described it. And anyway, that doesn't change the fact that Lead cannot be radically changed without consensus. DavideNotta (talk • contribs) 17:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Struck comments by sock of banned user JamesOredan. --IamNotU (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Ok DavideNotta. Main thing is we are both here in good faith. I will give it a break for now and will come back next week to add sources to the talk page only. I suggest we create a list of studies in the talk page and work together to redraft the article. All I ask is that we try to have a cutoff line for publication dates since population genetics is a fast evolving science. I suggest 2011 or 2012. --Php2000 (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC) I don't think it's appropriate to arbitrarily establish a specific cut-off date without technical and empirical criteria. I don't see myself able to establish that, and I believe that I couldn't legally in Wikipedia eliminate established sources based solely on their publishing date. The important thing is that the Lead must be a summary of All articles sources and must use a neutral, general and cautious language. Btw, your decision seems good to me, I'll be pending next week. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavideNotta (talk • contribs) 18:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Struck comments by sock of banned user JamesOredan. --IamNotU (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Turns out DavideNotta was not in fact here in good faith... --IamNotU (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Olalde study

I think the Olalde study requires discussion on Talk page. It seems to contradict most other studies regarding the Basques and their genetic make-up - most consider them more EEF than the average for Iberia whereas Olalde seems to show them as having less. Any ideas?Php2000 (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Study Repository for discussion and inclusion

Below is a skeleton list of genetic studies to be discussed and incorporated in this article. It will ideally also help us to improve its overall structure as well as its content.

Study 1: Patterns of Differentiation and the footprint of historical migrations in the Iberian peninsula (2019).

Supplementary information available here: [3]

References

Brief summary

• Combined dataset (300,895 SNPs) of 2919 individuals from various locations in Europe and Africa clustered into 29 non-Iberian donor groups.
• ~1400 Spanish individuals for whom geographic information inferring 6 distinct clusters based on coancestry.
• Fitted each cluster as a mixture of all 29 donor groups to approximate the unknown ancestral groups that actually contributed to modern-day Iberian individuals. Portuguese excluded for obvious reasons. Turkish samples grouped under one of the Italian clusters.
• Applied the GLOBETROTTER method to each of our six clusters to infer dates of admixture and the make-up of the source populations, and tests whether admixture patterns are consistent with a simple mixing of two groups at a single time in the past, compared to more complex alternative models.

The origin of "Western Asian" ancestry in southern Europe

Much of the "Western Asian" ancestry - which is highest in Italians and Greeks - in southern Europe is actually of Copper Age or Bronze Age Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer (or Iranian farmer-related) origin, and dates to the Chalcolithic or Bronze Age. It's a distinct, non-Steppe source of Caucasus/Iranian-farmer related ancestry in Europe:

"Italian genomes capture several ancient signatures, including a non–steppe contribution derived ultimately from the Caucasus...The analysis of both modern and ancient data suggests that in Italian populations, ancestries related to CHG and EHG derive from at least two sources. One is the well-characterized steppe (SBA) signature associated with nomadic groups from the Pontic-Caspian steppes. This component reached Italy from mainland Europe at least as long ago as the Bronze Age, as suggested by its presence in Bell Beaker samples from North Italy (data file S4). The other contribution is ultimately associated with CHG ancestry, as previously suggested, and predominantly affected Southern Italy, where it represents a substantial component of the ancestry profile of local modern populations. Although the details of the origins of this signature are still uncharacterized, it may have been present as early as the Bronze Age in Southern Italy (data file S4). The very low presence of CHG signatures in Sardinia and in older Italian samples (Remedello and Iceman), but its occurrence in modern-day Southern Italians, might be explained by different scenarios not mutually exclusive: (i) population structure among early foraging groups across Italy, reflecting different affinities to CHG; (ii) the presence in Italy of different Neolithic contributions, characterized by a different proportion of CHG-related ancestry; (iii) the combination of a post-Neolithic, prehistoric CHG-enriched contribution with a previous AN-related Neolithic layer; and (iv) a substantial historical contribution from Southeastern Europe across the whole of Southern Italy."

Population structure of modern-day Italians reveals patterns of ancient and archaic ancestries in Southern Europe

Recent studies on islands in the western Mediterranean (e.g. Sicily and the Balearics) have elucidated further that this Iranian-farmer related/Caucasus ancestry has origins going back to the early Bronze Age:

The spread of steppe and Iranian-related ancestry in the islands of the western Mediterranean:

"Steppe-pastoralist-related ancestry reached Central Europe by at least 2500 BC, whereas Iranian farmer-related ancestry was present in Aegean Europe by at least 1900 BC...In Sicily, steppe pastoralist ancestry arrived by ~2200 BC, in part from Iberia; Iranian-related ancestry arrived by the mid-second millennium BC, contemporary to its previously documented spread to the Aegean;"

This Caucasus/Iranian-farmer related component which reached Iberia in historical times was found by both Olalde, et al. and Bycroft et al., to be of Roman origin. This is most of the "Western Asian" component in Iberia:

"In the historical period, our transect begins with 24 individuals from the Greek colony of Empúries in the northeast from 500 BCE to 600 CE who fall into two ancestry groups (Fig. 1C-D and fig. S8): one similar to Bronze Age individuals from the Aegean, and the other similar to the population of Iron Age Iberia that includes the nearby non-Greek site of Ullastret, confirming historical sources indicating that this town was inhabited by a multi-ethnic population. The impact of mobility from the Central/Eastern Mediterranean during the Classical period is also evident in 10 individuals from the 7th-8th centuries CE site of L’Esquerda in the northeast, who show a shift from the Iron Age population in the direction of present-day Italians and Greeks (Fig. 1D), accounting for approximately one quarter of their ancestry (Fig. 2C and table S17). The same shift is also observed in present-day populations from Iberia outside the Basque area and is plausibly a consequence of the Roman presence in Iberia, which had a profound cultural impact and, according to our data, a substantial genetic impact too." [4]

Bycroft et al. also found this to be of Roman (Italian) origin, with major admixture from "Italy1" and "Italy2" sources, but not from the Middle East: [5] AnthroVeritas (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

AnthroVeritas, at the risk of sounding patronizing, you are misunderstanding these sources. No one is claiming West Asian admixture came from the Italian peninsula.

Bycroft does not have any Middle East samples or clusters in its study - Only Europeans and Africans. There are a couple of Turkish individuals in dataset which are grouped with Italy2, so the study as a whole has nothing to say about Middle Eastern admixture.

Olalde evidently will not try to argue Middle Eastern ancestry came solely during the Roman period when Iberia was settled by Phoenicians, Carthaginians etc. Yet, the Roman period was particularly long in Iberia and involved an empire which covered the entire Mediterranean. There was a lot of movement between the Iberian peninsula and North Africa, particularly since they were part of the same province for a significant period. Beyond that it is not clear to me what your point is.

Incidentally, I suggest we discuss each individual study above individually. I can add another section on Olalde since there is a lot to discuss about that study. --Php2000 (talk) 09:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Php2000, I read these sources regularly. You are the one who is misunderstanding the sources. I provided the content verbatim from the sources, as can seen above. There is no singular "West Asian" admixture. There are several different admixtures associated with Neolithic Anatolian farmers, Iranian farmers, Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer, Dzudzuana, Basal Eurasian, as well as Arabian, Natufian and North African ancestries. I suggest you read the papers by Lazaridis, et al. since 2017-2018.

Bycroft IS claiming that ancestry came from the Italian peninsula. And it does use samples from both the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa in the data set and the analysis. It specifically analyzes the low levels of sub-Saharan admixture in Fig.6, as I already pointed out to you. It never goes above 1% in any part of the peninsula, and neither do Middle Eastern ancestries. The article specifically states this, and references Italian admixture from two modern population groups (Italians) from Italy. That is the source of those populations. Your claims about one or two "Turkish" individuals in those data sets is false. The reference populations are Italian. One or two outliers from western Anatolia clustering close to it is irrelevant. Not only that, but coastal Anatolians are of largely Greco-Anatolian heritage, and already genetically cluster close to island Greeks and southern Italians, as numerous papers have already demonstrated. These "Italy1" and Italy2" populations are about specifically Italian admixture in Iberia, just as the other reference populations are genetically about their source regions:

See the admixture components from France, 'Ireland', Italy, North Morocco, Western Sahara and west Africa:

• "For all six Iberian clusters the largest contribution comes from France (63–91%), with smaller contributions that relate to present-day Italian (5–17%) and Irish (2–5%) groups...The major source was inferred to contain almost exclusively European donor groups, and the minor source is made up of mainly north-west African donor groups, including Western Sahara, and to a lesser extent west Africans (YRI), consistent with the overall ancestry profiles. The ‘Portugal-Andalucia’ cluster shows the greatest YRI contribution."[6]

• Also refer to >>> Figure 6 <<< specifically, which states "donor groups are only shown if at least one cluster has a range not including zero and a point estimate >0.001. The exact values plotted here and cluster sample sizes are in Supplementary Table." There are clusters in the analysis from Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, among other sources, that would show actual Middle Eastern and/or Arab contributions if they exceeded 1%, as those groups cluster close to Middle East populations and have high Arab and other ME admixtures. But they do not exceed this threshold in the study. If there was a >1% recent Middle Eastern contribution, a cluster like Egypt would have shown such. AnthroVeritas (talk) 05:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, Olalde also states this in his paper. Olalde says specifically that the Romans left a significant genetic impact. Olalde, in his paper, claims that there is a strong North African component due to the Carthaginian period (nothing about Middle Eastern), but does not detect anything about the earlier Phoenician period. Olalde, more importantly, specifically says that Roman settlement left a major genetic impact that pushes non-Basque Iberians toward ITALIANS and GREEKS specifically (who already genetic cluster very closely together):

• "The impact of mobility from the Central/Eastern Mediterranean during the Classical period is also evident in 10 individuals from the 7th-8th centuries CE site of L’Esquerda in the northeast, who show a shift from the Iron Age population in the direction of present-day Italians and Greeks (Fig. 1D), accounting for approximately one quarter of their ancestry (Fig. 2C and table S17). The same shift is also observed in present-day populations from Iberia outside the Basque area and is plausibly a consequence of the Roman presence in Iberia, which had a profound cultural impact and, according to our data, a substantial genetic impact too." [7]AnthroVeritas (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Ibero-Romance languages are all derived from vulgar Latin. The Roman presence in Iberia lasted around 800 years. It was one of the most culturally Romanized parts of the entire Roman Republic and Roman Empire outside of Italy. The architecture and cities built by the Romans in Hispania are enormous. It is also known that many Roman families settled heavily in parts of Spain, especially in the west, south and eastern coastal areas. Several Roman emperors, senators, etc. of Latin or other Italic Italian ancestry were from Italian families who long settled in Spain since the Roman Republic, like Trajan and Hadrian. AnthroVeritas (talk) 05:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)  

I would add here that Php2000 also ignored the other studies above from 2020 showing the early (Bronze Age) presence of Neolithic Iranian farmer-related/Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer ancestry (Greco-Anatolian) in Greece, Italy and Sicily. This genetic component is ancient and distinct from historical Middle Eastern groups like Phoenicians or Jewish groups, which have other ancestral components (Semitic Levantine and North African). AnthroVeritas (talk) 05:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The "Western Asian" ancestry in Italians, for example, is shown not to be of Middle Eastern origin, but dates to the Bronze Age and comes from Anatolia and the Caucasus. Read this study: Population structure of modern-day Italians reveals patterns of ancient and archaic ancestries in Southern Europe. Heavy Roman and other Italian settlement in the non-Basque regions of Iberia during the Roman Republic and Roman Empire brought this component to the region, as detected by both Bycroft and Olalde. Bycroft notably shows that Italian admixture is largely absent from Basques, but is still quite high in Aragon-Catalonia, even though that region also has low North African admixture. That is clearly from Roman settlement (eastern Spain was very heavily Romanized), either directly from the Roman period or indirectly from Occitan-Catalan settlement in the Middle Ages from southern France.

Considering the cultural, linguistic and historical impact of the Italian Romans on Iberia was enormous, and larger and longer than any other historical cultural group since the early Iron Age, the genetic Italian admixture detected by both the Bycroft ('Italy1' and 'Italy2' pops) and Olalde (CENTRAL/Eastern Mediterranean) studies is obvious. Over 800 years of direct Roman rule in Iberia. Known heavy Romanization of both the indigenous Iberians and invaders like the Visigoths (who culturally assimilated and were Latinized). Spanish and Portuguesse culture in the Americas is referred to as Latin America. The languages spoken by non-Basque Iberians are all from Latin. We know from multiple historical sources there was large Roman and Italian settlement in most parts of Iberia (except the Basque region). The Carthaginians and Phoenicians were, by contrast, only confined to the south. And the Moorish Berbers were largely confined to the southern half as well, and look at their genetic impacts. To ignore the Roman genetic contribution is ridiculous. Italian Roman families from Italy settled heavily elsewhere in the western empire too, like southern France, but their impact in Iberia was massive and unseen in most regions outside of Italy. AnthroVeritas (talk) 06:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

AnthroVeritas Please try to make your point in 2 or 3 short paragraphs at the most rather than clogging this talk page with walls of text which no one has the time to read. But it seems to me you are editing here for ideological reasons exalting the Roman and Latin heritage of Spain. No one doubts this, but this doesn't' translate into Iberians descending from Romans. For one, Italic clades of R1b are not particularly common in Spain and Portugal which tells us settlement was not huge.

As I said, there are no Levantine samples or defined clusters in the study. All are North African, Sub-Saharan African and European, except one Turkish sample which is included in the Italy2 cluster. It is clear that what is termed "Italy2" in Bycroft refers to Eastern Mediterranean admixture - admixture of sources which are cluster closer to the Eastern Med than to the Western Med. Having a Druze, Syrian or Sephardic cluster would be interesting but there is not. However, we do know that Iberia has a higher proportion of SW Asian over Caucasus admixture than Italy and the Balkan do. In the same way "French" admixture does not mean admixture from France but (since the Portugal cluster is excluded) it refers to the second closest and thus indigenous Iberian admixture - the original mix of Mediterranean Neolithic with Central European.

Olalde's "historical conclusions" on many issues are questionable to say the least. This includes the supposed Carthaginian origin of North African admixture - particularly since the origin of North African admixture has been dated by no less than three studies over the past three years to the medieval period. The 10% North African admixture in Galicians in North West Spain is dated to the 9th century in all three separate studies. So no. Berbers were clearly NOT confined to Southern Spain. Carthaginians, on the other hand, never reached Northern Spain. Their genetic impact must have been limited. Php2000 (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

There are no ideological motivations here, other than reporting the facts directly as they are stated in the studies. The massive and long lasting Roman legacy in Iberia does translate to a partial Italian Roman ancestry in non-Basque Iberians. The Bycroft study shows this specifically, as does the Olalde study. Bycroft shows the genetic contributions of two distinct Italian populations in modern Iberians. Olalde refers to specifically CENTRAL Mediterranean admixture, and outright states that the Romans left a genetic impact, and that the post-Roman Spanish samples are more drifted towards modern Italians and Greeks than Iron Age or Basque samples. This is unsurprising. We know the Romans settled significantly in many parts of their provinces in Hispania and southern Gaul (Hadrian and Trajan were born in Spain, but of Italian or mixed Italian-Iberian ancestry), except for the Basque region and Aquitania.

• "As I said, there are no Levantine samples or defined clusters in the study. All are North African, Sub-Saharan African and European, except one Turkish sample which is included in the Italy2 cluster. It is clear that what is termed "Italy2" in Bycroft refers to Eastern Mediterranean admixture - admixture of sources which are cluster closer to the Eastern Med than to the Western Med."

There are samples in the study which are from Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, however, which do have heavy Middle Eastern and Arab admixture, particularly Egypt and Libya. Neither of those reference populations registers above 1% in any Iberian population. You ignore the fact that there are two Italian reference populations (Italy1 and Italy2) from northern/central Italy. "Italy2" does NOT include a Turkish/Anatolian sample - you mean 'Italy1'. 'Italy2' is entirely confined to north/central Italians (see here: [Figure 6] (Bycroft et al.), and is a direct reference of specific Italian admixture from modern Italians. There is no "eastern Mediterranean" ancestry; that label includes different ancestries. Italian, Greek and western Anatolian ancestry has a distinct Bronze Age Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer/Iranian farmer-related ancestry that sets them apart from the rest of Europe. This is Bronze Age Anatolian and Caucasian in origin, not Levantine or Arabian ancestry (which are distinct). As for the 'Italy1' ancestry that has a "Turkish" sample from Anatolia, as I already said before, it is 1) an outlier; and 2) not surprising, as many Anatolians (especially Greek Muslims, Cretan Turks, Karamanlides, Cappadocian Greeks, etc.) are of native Greco-Anatolian ancestry that clusters close to island Greeks and central/southern Italians. Furthermore, you ignore the fact that both 'Italy1' and 'Italy2' (Italians exclusively) have significant levels of admixture in all modern Iberians, except for Basques. This is consistent with every other genetic study done on Iberia, showing the isolation of the Basque region since the Iron Age. This also corresponds with classical sources stating the Basque and Aquitania regions were never under full Roman authority. It is conclusive evidence for Latin and other Italic Roman ancestry in Spanish and Portuguese, since it corresponds to regions of Italian Roman settlement. The only other possible source - Greeks - had a tiny presence in Iberia with only two or three brief colonies on the eastern coast. Olalde, and especially Bycroft, are definitive evidence for some significant Italian Roman ancestry in Iberia. AnthroVeritas (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• "Olalde's "historical conclusions" on many issues are questionable to say the least. This includes the supposed Carthaginian origin of North African admixture - particularly since the origin of North African admixture has been dated by no less than three studies over the past three years to the medieval period."

Olalde's study is extremely thorough and his conclusions about Carthaginian contributions are reliable. He only says that at least some small part came from Carthaginians, not all of it. He clearly states most was from the Moorish period. It actually supports earlier studies showing a tiny bit of North African gene flow as early as the Bronze Age in southern Iberia. His finding about North African ancestry from the Carthaginian periods is taken directly from ancient DNA human remains from those periods. That is solid evidence. Also, the studies about the date of North African admixture did not find that 100% of it came from the Moorish period, and it admit it may be hiding contributions from earlier periods. And even then, Carthaginian ancestry already existing in southern Spain could have been confined there until the Medieval period and associated regional movements.

• "Berbers were clearly NOT confined to Southern Spain."

I didn't say they were, as the high admixture in the northwest shows, and they had long lasting rule in what became the Kingdom of Aragon (e.g. Zaragoza), but not Catalonia (the Spanish March), where it was brief or absent.

• "Carthaginians, on the other hand, never reached Northern Spain. Their genetic impact must have been limited."

Olalde already states this. He specifically says the Carthaginian admixture from that period was limited to southern Iberia, unlike the later Moorish admixture. Carthaginians, and their Phoenician predecessors, had a long and important presence in southern Spain, founding cities like Cadiz, Malaga and Cartagena. Considering studies show they left a small genetic impact even in the very isolated Sardinians, it is almost certain they also left some small impact in southern Spain.

I apologize for the length of the reply, but I need to address each of your points directly for proper clarity. AnthroVeritas (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

AnthroVeritas Firstly, I created a section to discuss each study individually at the top which I think could be useful for us. Since there are a number of studies and more will be published over time.

I don't like saying any study is "bad" but I have a serious issue with the conclusions Olalde attempts to draw from 176 sample individuals spanning the last two thousand years of Iberian history (!!!) That's a very small sample for a very long period and very large and diverse country. The study does not acknowledge this and systematically considers the genetic make-up of specific individuals representative of the wider population of the time to the point that some of its statements I find outlandish. There simply is no data to reasonably support them so they can only be driven by a combination of anecdote and the authors' own understanding of history.

As a point of comparison, Bycroft uses 1413 living individuals from across Spain, selecting those who's four grandparents were born in the same region. They come from stomach cancer patients - i.e. as random as humanly possible (unless there is an unknown link between stomach cancer and genetic make-up). This is a serious effort to make his dataset large and representative - even if there are fewer samples from Southern Spain. Olalde made bold conclusions for the press but if you look at the dataset and his methodology, it is very disappointing.Php2000 (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)