March 31, 2018

Iberian genetic clusters

I've been the last two weeks or so chewing on this pre-pub and there's a point when no more chewing seems to be useful. So let's get to discuss it as well as possible.

Clare Bycroft et al. Patterns of genetic differentiation and the footprints of historical migrations in the Iberian Peninsula. BioRxiv 2018 (pre-pub. DOI:10.1101/250191

The key finding is clustering of the populations of the Iberian Peninsula as in this map (locations for the Spanish state are precise, for Portugal unknown and located at random, also shadowing for Portugal is uniform for all the country):

Supp. Figure 1a

The weirdest thing for me is that the Catalan-Alacant and Seville-León-Asturias cluster are strongly related in the cladogram. I'll discuss this below.

Another very weird feature is the presence of a group in Pontevedra province (Galicia) that is the most different of all, even more distinct than Basques. It is composed of many small highly endogamous subgroups. I do not have at the moment any explanation for this, honestly.

External influences: mostly "French"

When factored as made up external populations, Iberians are mostly French (or something that approaches that label), although "mostly" varies from c. 60% in the West to c. 90% in Gipuzkoa. This pattern of "Frenchness" reminds that of the distribution R1b-S116. Correlation is not causation but it is still correlation and when R1b-S116 seems to stem from somewhere France and arrive to the Peninsula at least as early as the Bronze Age (or maybe before but still undetected, terminus ante quem at Los Lagos, as discussed recently). 

Supp. Fig 5a

The most affected population by this French influence are Basque1, which show no significant contribution from any other source (only very small from Italy1 and very tiny from North Morocco, see supp. fig. 7) but the authors say that (supp. info.):

Notably, the Basque-centred cluster has a markedly different profile from the rest. Firstly, it has much lower, or zero contributions from donor groups that contribute to all other clusters: Italy, NorthMorocco, and WesternSahara, and a very large contributionof 91% (88-93) from France. Additionally, the model fit for this cluster is strikingly less good than that for the other clusters (Supplementary Figure 4d), suggesting that Basque-like DNA is less well captured by the mixture of donor groups in this data set. Specifically the Basque share even more DNA with the French group than predicted by their mixture representation, which might reflect, for example, that the DNA the Basque share with present-day French is only a subset of modern French ancestry. This pattern is seen for other Spanish groups also, but to a much lesser extent.

Area that demands urgent genetic research

So it seems we may be dealing with some sort of "paleo-French" rather than modern Indoeuropeanized French. 

All genetic roads lead to France, at least in Western Europe: it also happens in Great Britain and Ireland, and it is very apparent in the geographically sorted phylogeny of R1b-S116. And is also this area where we see the earliest signs of mitochondrial DNA "modernity": in Paternabidea (Navarre) and Gurgy (Burgundy), an area that demands much greater attention from genetic and archaeogenetic research than has received to this day. 

The other major contributors are: Italy (mostly Italy1), with peaks of c. 20% and influencing mostly the South and Center, North Morocco, with peak of c. 10% in Portugal and a West and South distribution, and Ireland, with peak of c. 6% in Eastern Asturias and a broadly Western distribution. 

Italian contribution (Italy1)

North Morocco contribution
Ireland contribution

What do exactly these contributor components mean? Hard to say, although part of the Italian and North Moroccan elements could well be related to historical episodes such as Roman and Muslim conquests. But only partly so,because the North African in Galicia just cannot be that high only from a Muslim conquest that was very limited in time, nor should we expect to be that much "Muslim" nor "Roman" in the remote and largely ignored area of modern Portugal: there must be more ancient origins, probably dating to the Neolithic, Chalcolithic or Bronze Age. 

minor West Sahara contribution
And in the case of the North African component we may have a guide in a minor West Saharan contribution (at right), which may well reflect an older and "purer" form of North Africanness and which is againcon centrated in Portugal and Galicia, with extension to parts of the Central Plateau but does not affect the South, the area where we should expect most of the Muslim period's genetic influence. 

We cannot trace a line in Portugal because of the uncertainty of the geographic origins of the samples but we can do it within the boundaries of Spain and that line suggests that the Muslim genetic influence could be intense by the Southern third and maybe all the way to Zamora by the Western part but should not be relevant in Galicia nor Asturias nor (inferred, uncertain) much of Portugal. That in these areas, the North African element is peculiar and looks older than the Emirate/Caliphate of Cordoba. 

Speculating on the possible origins of the Iberian clusters

This part has given me a true headache. It is very hard to understand how these clusters formed and I will not pretend here that I have all the answers. The most strange of all is the affiliation of the Central-West and Eastern clusters. 

The problem is not only the highly implausible relation between Asturias-León and West Andalusia, which the authors seem to believe product of historical colonization at the time of the Reconquista (13th century) but which makes no sense whatsoever because the Kingdom of Seville was never part of the barely autonomous Kindgom of León but an administrative division of Castile (of which León was by then just a dependency) and we should thus see at least some important influence of the Central (yellow triangles) cluster, which is dominant in Valladolid, Madrid and even the city (but not the countryside) of Burgos, and we do not see anything like that. 

One possibility is of course that the components or some of them are not that real but I do not see any indication of that in the study, so, in wait of independent replication, I'll take them at face value. 

So why then? I've been scratching my head until I could not think any further, I swear. 

And this is my hypothesis, risky as it may be:

1. The essence of the split between the related Spanish components (excluding Galicians and Basques) and the Portuguese-Galician component could be at the Early Neolithic. When I mask the areas not or weakly affected by the Earliest Neolithic in the components map I get this:

... what seems to correspond odly too well to the first major split in the cladogram between the Portuguese-Galician (purple) component and the rest.

2. The expansion inwards may correlate with Chalcolithic and Bronze Age processes, which seem to be way too important everywhere and also in Iberia. So I used the Bell Beaker map I copied from Harrison (see here) as cutoff for another mask (radius are relative to Bell Beaker density circles in the reference map):

If so the split between the Central (yellow) and East (orange) groups (to which the brown and red and other groups are closely affiliated) could be related to this Bell Beaker period and derived Bronze Age cultures. The yellow or Central component could originate in Los Millares (Almería province) and spread northwards to Ciempozuelos (Madrid province) and from there to other areas with the Cogotas I culture of the Bronze Age. 

The Purple (Western) component should be somehow related to Zambujal or Vila Nova de Sao Pedro (VNSP) culture of Portuguese Estremadura and spread northwards to tin-rich Galicia with the group of Montelavar already in the Bronze Age maybe.

The mysterious Red (Central-West) component could be related to some colonization of that area from the Bell Beaker dense area of Catalonia or the Denia district, or maybe even an older colonization, hard to say. What I know of that area in the late Prehistory is that it is ill-defined, partly for lack of research in the heavily farmed alluvial plain, and that it correlates with Southern Portugal but not fully, always showing a distinct personality, until it grows a clearly distinct personality in the Tartessian period, already in the Iron Age. It is also clear that the so-called Silver Road runs straight through that cluster and that it was important, and growingly so, in the Late Prehistory, having both commercial and religious significance and being clearly the main path of penetration of Phoenician influences inland, already in the proto-historical period. 

While still caught with feeble pins, this Silver Road speculative explanation seems to make much better sense than the Reconquista hypothesis the paper appears to spouse and which I see nonsensical because the patterns observed are not as we could expect. 

But of course it is always up to you to make up your own mind, I'm just offering some variant considerations that for me make some sense but that are by no means a well finished theory either, just better than the simplistic historical interpretation, which does not fit the facts too well.


  1. Ah, again the same problem, they apparently don´t show from where the Portuguese samples come from and some villages in remote places, could have shown interesting results (but I doubt that those places have been studied or sampled).

    I wonder if Valencians were represented (still have to check the study more carefully), because I have read some people suggesting that a good part of Valencians maybe arrived from Western Iberia, and therefore bore a stronger resemblance, genetically speaking, to Western Iberians.
    Maybe I´m also remembering your detailed analysis on Iberian Y-DNA, that presented that possible connection, so that´s maybe bringing some bias into my thoughts. But well, Y-DNA isn´t everything...

    Interesting overall, nevertheless.

    Well done!

    1. Valencians do seem rather well represented and they seem to fall into three areas, corresponding roughly to the three provinces: (1) Castelló: with both Catalan (orange) and Aragon (blue circles) components, (2) Valencia: genetically central (bright and dark yellows), (3) Alacant: with Catalan (north) and a local Catalan-related component (south, cyan squares).

      So not sure what you're talking about but no purple and only one red dot in an urban area (Alacant City). Nothing "Western" but indeed some strong "Central" influence in Valencia province. Or alternatively very strong Valencia province influence in Central Spain...

      It's odd but the yellow (central) component exists defined in an Valencia-Almería-Valladolid "V-shaped" pattern, and I would think this may well be the order of founder effects: (1) Valencia (Neolithic?) (2) Almería (Neolithic or Chalcolithic?) and (3) Central wedge northwards with possible center at Ciempozuelos Bell Beaker.

  2. Maju, go to check the new Central Asian paper at
    It will make you happy, in particular the Excel file with the sample data.

    1. What's so good in the excel file? Other than a suprising group of Y-DNA A in ancient Turkmenistan, which I wonder if it is somehow related to "Basal Eurasian", I don't see anything (but I may well be just not paying enough attention and getting lost by the haplogroup labels, which in spite of being into this for so long still taste way too arid and "meaningless").

  3. You have argued that R1b is from Iran area and now you have one Neolithic R1 from Ganj Dareh, 8241-7962 calBCE (I1949). Moreover, to everybody's surprise, there is one Calcolithic R1b1a1a2a2 (R1b-M269) from Hajji_Firuz_C I2327 (5900-5500 BCE).

    1. That R1b is from West Asia is I believe an established fact. I'm not aware of anyone strongly denying that, although we do seem some occasional deviations they seldom go as far as challenging this basic notion because R1b overall is way to dispersede into Africa (critically) and also into Central Asia (branch distinct from those in Europe) and there are minor basal branches known to exist only or almost only in West Asia.

      Now R1b-M269 is another story and I have indeed said that it looks as if it was from either the Balcans (where it is low in frequency but high in "basality") or from Iran (same thing) or even somewhere in between (Turkey, Kurdistan). And this has indeed been challenged by neo-nordicists claiming a "Siberian" or "Eastern European" origin and a spread via Indoeuropean expansion, based on nothing but circumstantial archaeo-evidence.

      I would agree that the occurrence of M269 in Iran so early does support the Neolithic spread model or at the very least the presence of this haplogroup in Iran-Kurdistan in those ancient times (that's roughly the date of Neolithic arrival to the Western Mediterranean coasts) but it seems insufficient to reconstruct its pathways and overall chronology and I would not dare to take it as proof of anything but the most basic andmiage of the models I support.

      Also, I was hoping for some ancient R1a in southern Asia and I do not see it. This is troubling for my model in regard to this haplogroup and could well support the neo-nordicist stand on this particular aspect. It's a lesser issue for me but it's something they always bring around.

    2. Hi Kristiina, I send you what I sent Dr Narasimhan:
      Dr Narasimhan, why all these mistakes in attributing an haplogroup and above all a subclade? First of all the best I know are YFull for the .BAM files, and Genetiker for the SNPs calls. Those of yours, scholars with a little knowledge of haplogroups, lack in the interpretation. Not all the possible positve SNPs are terminal ones. Many may be fake per se, but above all many may be private SNPs and not terminal ones. The attribution of an haplogroup has to be coherent with all the upstream positve calls, as Genetiker does (or, better, many times I corrected him too...).

    3. Maju, also mt H32 was found in aDNA in Iran, with hurras of some stupid blogger, but I demonstrated that it came to Iran from Italy of course, very likely after the Younger Dryas, where there are all the upstream subclades. Ahahahahaah

    4. Gioello: you are absolutely one-sided and that detracts weight from your opinions. You always claim Italian origins for everything, which may or not be true but you have no valid model for:

      1. Explaining the fact that Ötzi (and thus presumably all or most pre-IE Italians) were at least significantly replaced in the Bronze Age by new waves arriving from Central Europe (Italics) and the Eastern Mediterranean (Etruscans, Siculi & Sicels).

      In spite of this evidence of drastic genetic change in the Bronze Age (mostly) you still claim everything existing in Italy being original from Italy.

      2. No single expansive culture other than maybe the Nuraghic Sardinians (Sherden) to a limited extent and definitely the Romans stems from Italy. So how do you explain "Italian ancestry" in Iran, Chad and everywhere around?

    5. Maju, I have many problems with my PC and am using an old notebook very slow. Of course my analyses were done upon the mt-s and Y-s of to-day, what many reproached me, but:
      1) Villabruna 14000 years ago R1b1
      2) Les Iboussiéres 12000 years ago very likley R1* against the analysis of Genetiker
      has been found.
      About mt H32 I demonstaed that al the upstream subclades are in Italy to day.
      My R1b1a2-L23-Z2110-FGC24408, massively present in Italy (also in Salerno province where Etruscans lived: see Pontecagnano etc) has close links in a French Basque, an Englishman and now people from Caucasus and also an Arab, thus no wonder if that sample R-Z2103 found in Iran may be linked to me.
      Of course I am waiting that Mr Reich tests all these Palaeolithic and Mesolithic samples from Italy he got.
      Anyway your delusion about R1a in Iran was largely foreseen from me when I criticized the papers of Underhill when they were published.

  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. This person, who goes by a varied range of pseudonyms is absolutely banned in all my Internet space because he is a psychopathic stalker and the main reason I have the pre-moderation barrier up.

  5. Maju

    Could you clarify me why you don't think middle neolithic europe ( square mouthed pottery, chassean, michelsberg, GAC, funnel beaker) could be the vector of the IEzation of the steppe peoples given the substantial amount of their presence in andronovo?
    Don't want to provoke anyone by the way but what do you think of the theories of basque being IE.

    1. Because: in terms genetic at least this Atlantic Neolithic derives from the Early Neolithic and appears to be totally "Basque" (Basque-like) or sometimes still close to Neolithic 1 (Sardinian-like). Also because both references of pre-IE Neolithic, Sardinians for Neolithic 1-2 and Basques for Atlantic Neolithic (and also ancient Iberians for something intermediate) spoke Vasconic languages. The Sardinian linguistic findings, which are overwhelming (cf. JM Elexpuru's "Euskararen aztarnak Sardinian?", Pamiela 2017, so far only published in Basque) and similar parallel developments in the understanding of ancient Iberian makes clear that the language of all types of Neolithic, at least in Southern Europe and at least in the late period, were Vasconic.

      Basque is not IE, definitely not but it does seem to share some core vocabutlary with PIE, what suggests a partially common orgin or an ancient influence of the same substrate on both families.

      My very limited work on linguistics seems to confirm that Basque (and this probably Vasconic) has some shared core vocabulary with Proto-Indoeuropean (PIE) but also with Nubian (part of East Sudanic) and in similar proportion with both. This may well be related to Anatolian Neolithic being roughly 50-50 Palestine-Zagros in composition (pre-PIE Neolithic is only Zagros + EHG) or maybe to European HG substrate, surely of the Easterh kind. Alternatively Vasconic expansion into Ukraine (Cucuteni-Tripolje) was somehow very influential into early IE, but I lean towards the West Asian Neolithic model as likely source, because Paleoeuropean HGs influenced both Neolithics in very different ways and should have got very diverged languages by region at the time of Neolithic arrival.

      See here:


  6. Shi Huang (as to the Narasimhan 2018 paper)

    Why no discussion at all on Y and mtDNA data? May be something inconvenient? Why were Y chr haplotype A and BT so commonly found in ancient Turkmenistan (in supplementary table), when only CT are thought to have left Africa in the OOA model?

    1. We know that B is present in Horzmuzgan and Afghanistan but A is a novelty. In any case it seems related to the "Basal Eurasian" ghostly thing, stronger towards Neolithic Iran than towards Palestine, even if these had more African Y-DNA.

      Anyway, in due time because I want to discuss three papers on ancient African first.

  7. Hi Maju,

    I think this North-Moroccan/Western-Saharan concentration in Galicia/Asturia might've finally nailed the proverbial coffin on the multiple detection of L3x2b in Northwestern Iberia.

    So far in all of Eurasia (excluding Palestine), L3x2b has only been detected in the Iberian peninsula (Asturia, Galicia, N. Portugal). Conversely, although scantly surveyed, it's detection in Africa has only been an Algerian (Arab) and my maternal line from the Ugandan West-Nile region (C/E.Sudanic speakers).

    Regarding a plausible time-period, here's an abstract from a pertinent mtDNA paper. It corroborates your assumption for an ancient vs. post-Islamic reasoning of this permeating N.African layer in NW Iberia:

    "..The most relevant results are the following: (1) North African sequences (haplogroup U6) present an overall frequency of 2.39%, and sub-Saharan sequences reach 3.83%, values that are, in both cases, much higher than those generally observed in Europe; and (2) there is a substantial geographic heterogeneity in the distribution of these lineages (haplogroup L being the most frequent in the south, whereas haplogroup U6 is generally more common in the north). The analysis of the observed diversity within each haplogroup strongly suggests that both were recently introduced (in historical times). Although for haplogroup U6 the documented event that is demographically compatible is the Islamic period (beginning of the 8th century to the end of the 15th century), for haplogroup L the most probable origin is the modern slave trade (mid 15th century to the end of the 18th century). ***However, the observed geographic structuring for one of the haplogroups does not fit the expected distribution provided by simplistic historical considerations. In fact, although for haplogroup L the north-south increasing frequency is corroborated by historical data, the opposite trend, observed for haplogroup U6, is more difficult to reconcile with the magnitude and time span of the Islamic political and cultural influence, which lasted longer and was more intense in the south. To clarify this conundrum, we need not only a substantial increase in the amount of mtDNA data (particularly for North Africa) but also new historical data and interpretations."

    African female heritage in Iberia: a reassessment of mtDNA lineage distribution in present times (Pereira, 2005)

    Given the overlapping concentration of U6 with these N.African clusters in NW Iberia, wouldn't it be fair to assume L3x2b's detection in Asturia/Galacia/N.Portugal means it's carriers were likely among these ancient migrations? Alternatively, as the paper mentions, the majority of other L lineages would be from more recent periods.

    Now I know you're not a fan of molecular-age estimates, and it probably doesn't help that I'm not qualified to argue this source but according
    to it, L3x2b's age is 26744.0000 +/- 6686.0000.

    Could that at least propose a possible time-ceiling for this migration? ....

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. Anyway, I just posted another entry on Morocco and Andalusia Neolithic ancient DNA, which basically shows that the European (not West Eurasian though) genetic influence in NW Africa is from the Neolithic perior. Previously they were like the purest Mozabites and afterwards they show European genetic ancestry of the Neolithic (Sardinian-like) type.


      The paper also has some data in mtDNA U6 and other North African genetic markers.

      IMO this strongly suggests that the North African influence in (mostly) West Iberia is a "bounce" from the Neolithic, i.e. European Farmers coming from the Aegean region, mostly by ship, upon arriving to Southern Iberia also crossed to NW Africa, where they had a sizable genetic impact, but they must also have incorporated some NW African genetics and brought them along to their next colonization leg: Portugal and West Iberia in general.

    3. I read "24515.2219 +/- 6303.5608" at your link for L3x2b but whatever. In any case it's old enough to have been in NW Africa by the time of Neolithic contact.

      Anyway, in a previous analysis I made almost a decade ago, it seemed to me that L3x could be an Aterian marker and have been in North Africa since maybe some 125.000 years ago. Unsure if this stands scrutiny but on the data available back then it looked like that.

    4. Thank you for clarifying, this interpretation makes a lot more sense -- I read the link.

      In hindsight, I should've crosschecked pertinent sources before sputtering unfounded theories - pardon the blind speculation, I think it was just a wild running spark of euphoria from finding that NW-Iberian U6/L3x2b correlation with North-Africa.

    5. It's interesting you mention the possibility of L3x being an Aterian marker. I recently found an unsupervised K15 ADMIX calc which identified a "Mozabite" cluster. The E.Sudanic samples I ran had a Mozabite affinity of 4-5% which was their highest Non-SSA affinity. This Mozabite cluster seemed like a revelation because previously this ancient layer of non-SSA ancestry would broadly appear in various ADMIX calcs as "Natufian"/"SW-Asian/Farmer".

      As you've best stated, "autosomal genetics are not an exact science", but the results did correlate with recent anthropology. The North African samples (S_Morrocans, Saharawis, Algerians etc) all had Bedouin and Mozabite as their highest affinities while Southern-Sahelian samples (Hausa, E.Sudanics) had the highest ratio of Mozabite sans Bedouin.

      Is this because prior to the Neolithic Subpluvial, South-Sahelian pops had contact with "purer" Mozabite populations who hadn't yet mixed with Bedouin-like populations?

      That's my tentative guess anyway based on admittedly scanty data. If it merits a look though, here's a spreadsheet of the K15 Admix Results (14 pops - 39 Samples):

    6. I have to correct, I was thinking in L3k, not L3x. Because L3x, per Behar 2008's data, has presence in Ethiopia, while L3k was apparently restricted to North Africa.

      All what I'm saying here is from work I did 8 years ago and based on data published 10 years ago, so feel free to revise and improve.



    7. As for the rest IDK but it seems (see the paper I linked to in a previous reply) that Iberomaurusian/Oranian populations, similar to modern-day Afars and thus partly ancient-African and partly Asian-African, spread into some parts of Tropical Africa (East). They are probably also responsible for the African influences into West Asia, be them "Basal Eurasian" or not (this "ghost" seems quite elusive to me and could well represent various waves of African backflow into West Asia).

  8. If so, that would allot enough time for the last drying of the Sahara (~26kya). If we consider this, could the Galician concentration of small highly endogamous subgroups be the relic of survived N.African populations who funneled OoA? That's my wild bottleneck theory anyway.

    It would explain the concentration of those seemingly "peculiar" subgroups. Maybe their counterparts didn't survive the last drying of the Sahara and the few that did were easily overrun by subsequent migrations. This could also explain the extreme overall lack of L3x2b detection. Imagine, within all of SSA, had I not taken a commercial test years back, there still wouldn't be an L3x2b detection anywhere south of Algeria!

    Let me know your thoughts, if it doesn't jive, I hope I've at least entertained you :)

    L3x2b Age Estimate:
    (http://xn--c1acc6aafa1c.xn--p1ai/data/mtdna/the_tree/hg/ages.htm) - (Zaporozhchenko, 2013 build)

    L3x2b detection cited specifically in N.Portugal:
    Diversity of mtDNA lineages in Portugal: not a genetic edge of European variation(PEREIRA, 2000) Pg 14

    1. Not sure why you consider 26 Ka BP to be "the last drying of the Sahara". I know that the pluvial periods (i.e. those in which the Sahara and the Arabian deserts were largely green and inhabitable) were as follows:

      1. Abbassia Pluvial c. 125-90 Ka BP >>

      2. Mousterian Pluvial c. 50-30 Ka BP (? I would have thought it shorter):

      3. Neolithic Subpluvial c. 10-5 Ka BP:

      These periods allow for easier trans-Saharan interaction but they do not guarantee it. In any case the matter seems to be solved now, as mentiond before, by a Neolithic and only Neolithic interaction between Iberia and NW Africa, not earlier.

      There are other papers that I want to discuss this week (if possible) on African (incl. NW African) genetics, one is behind paywall and deals on Iberomaurusian not being Iberian at all but rather West Asian-like, with African elements too, resulting in something like modern Afar People, and the other (open access) deals with a hoard of African ancient genetics, including West Asian genetic influence of the same type as we see in Iberomaurusian (or should we recover the "Oranian" alternative label?, I kinda like "Taforaltian" though).

      Link for the latter paper (I don't have the former at hand right now, but have a copy, will find):

    2. I was basing the 26 Ka BP calculation off the 41,000 cycle year of precession, the next being cycle being in 17,000 AD. At any rate, I wrongly reversed the climatic condition for that 26kya theory *face-palm*

      Kindly disregard,
      Thank you for the references.

      Looking forward to see you address those two papers, you have a way of synthesizing the data nicely. The latter paper has been discussed at length on a forum I frequent, I haven't delved into it though yet.

    3. Interesting paper, Maju.

      Regarding L3, recently there was this publication:

      Very interesting that mention (spoken on the comments above) on the L3x2b.
      And probably there are more...

      Aren´t L mtDNA in Iberia mostly derived from pre-neolithic movements? I do remember about this study:
      And that´s what seems to be suggested there.

      Regarding mtDNA U6, from where do you think that it arrived in Northwest Africa, Maju?
      Some U6 seem to have a pre-neolithic presence in Iberia, right?

      Do you think that these last findings, still support a very old connection between Northwest Africa and Iberia, that ended (mostly) during pre-roman times?

    4. Wow, Cabrera et al. make a major earth-shattering claim that goes against all I know. I have yet to read it but I must say I am very skeptic because all L3(xM,N) are found in Africa and are most basally diverse there. They would really need very very strong evidence to counter that other extremely heavy one.

      "Aren´t L mtDNA in Iberia mostly derived from pre-neolithic movements?"

      There have been some claims but we have no direct (aDNA) evidence for that other than one of the (sometimes disputed) Chandler et al 2005 individuals from Epipaleolithic Portugal, which in my review resulted to be likely L3d2 (but may be wrong, HVS-I haplogroup assignment is very uncertain). The other L3(xR) should be some sort of N but again undefined. A problem here is that without coding region analysis you can't discern N(xR) from L3(xN), unless it clearly falls in a well defined sublineage.

      The key paper is

      It's pay-per-view but I got a copy from a generous donor and hopefully will discuss it today, along with a related open-access paper. The result is that no WHG exists in Iberomaurusian/Oranian and thus pre-Neolithic interaction across Gibraltar seems discarded. Instead it seems to result in migration from West Asian Upper Paleolithic and an ancient North African and at times also East African population similar to modern day Afars (and also close to Naqab Bedouins and Mozabites).

      Monkeys don't like water... :D

    5. Reading the Cabrera pre-pub: it seems ideological shit.

      "So, we confront a dilemma; it seems that two gravity
      centers of L3 expansion exist, one in Africa and the other in
      southeastern Asia. A geographic equidistant midpoint would situate the primitive radiation of L3 in India if a southern route were chosen by the African colonizers or above the Himalayas, between Tibet and Pamir, if the northern route was preferred".

      This is the kind of logic I'd consider "flat earther". There does not seem to be anything new in the paper: just an Eurasian-centric rant.

  9. Maju, thanks for the all the effort you put into this. I believe P312/S116 originates west of the Rhine (which I interpret as France). I'm not so sure about DF27 originating in-situ in Iberia. I do believe SRY2627/M167 originates in the Eastern Pyrenees. Thoughts on the latter?

    1. I never said that DF27 originated in Iberia so I think we are on the same page.

      No idea about M167: too highly derived for my knowledge.

  10. Only found the abstract, but this paper can be interesting:

    1. It's pay-per-view, so only for academics and the well off. The worker class will have to day without, it seems. Just another case of class apartheid based on purchasing power.


Please, be reasonably respectful when making comments. I do not tolerate in particular sexism, racism nor homophobia. Personal attacks, manipulation and trolling are also very much unwelcome here.The author reserves the right to delete any abusive comment.

Preliminary comment moderation is... ON (it may take some time before your comment is published, thank that to Trumptards).