Iberian Discussion Thread and News

[JJJ]

Dedicated space to discuss news, issues and information on Spanish and Portuguese genetics and anthropology.

[pelop]

Some interesting abstracts on Iberian paleogenetics were presented at the latest ISBA conference, in case people haven't seen them 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YruH2gc...SH3XS/view

[Strabo]

The map I linked clearly shows toponymic suffixes that are specific to the Franco-Cantabrian area where Basque is present today, despite these being completely absent elsewhere, specifically in areas we know IE languages existed. Even if there were some IE speakers in the western Pyrenees in the past, which is the area that I referred as being skipped during the ABA, they clearly weren't alone and these eventually disappeared. I don't know if they outweighed non-IE ones in this specific area or not.

By contrast Roman Era toponymy in Cantabria, Asturias, Galicia and northern Lusitania was essentially fully IE: partially Celtic, partially non-Celtic, with non-IE toponyms being virtually absent from the record. Leonard Curchin has works on this very subject.

For that specific area  the names are Roman era/LIA and should not necessarily be backdated to earlier times. iirc the source for those is Gorrochetegui. He and others like Lakarra, Zaldua (I presume they are all basque?) seem to be hardcore supporters of ancient basque being the oldest identifiable layer in most of the spanish Basque country, with the IE names (not necessarily celtic) being constructed through basque linguistics rules, ergo, thus proving the more ancient nature of basque in the basque country. 

However I dont think that this view is currently unanimously accepted in academia so at least specifically for Gipuzkoa, Bizkaia and Alava, the debate is still open.

Del euskera en la Tardoantigüedad. Expansión a occidente y dialectalización (2022)

https://ifc.dpz.es/ojs/index.php/palaeoh...e/view/437

As for gascony, seems hard to know if the celtic names are older than la tene or even roman conquest era. Specifically in the northern, western and eastern frontier areas. 

Based on what I read about facies based on metal ornaments, in the EIA/MIA there was a "facies pyreneen" on both sides of the mountains. Primarily in east navarre and west aragon, and central south gascony that expanded massively north and south. Tempting to link this expansions to Aquitanian language but it does not necessarily mean that aquitanian was not spoken in the areas of expansion in earlier times. The non inclusion of Basque country and Landes could just be due to current lack of research or finds in those areas.

Cultures transpyrénéennes Les parures du sud-ouest de la France et du nord-ouest de l’Espagne au Premier âge du Fer (VIIIe -Ve s. a.C.)

https://ressources.una-editions.fr/s/TNjSrjctymzgZHJ

[Strabo]

Why are the La Hoya samples (and other like El Sotillo) considered as possibly celtiberian if the site is outside of the core celtiberian zone, supposedly in the Berones area. Would be kinda like "greater celtiberia" or something like that? IIRC they are dated to on or after 400bc during the "celtiberian phase" of the site, but these should be considered Berones specifically? Or hispano celtic in a more general sense? Unless peoples from the Celtiberia proper expanded to here. Im guessing inscriptions from the area (if any) are in celtiberian as i am unaware of any other hispano celtic language.

Going by the map of BA/IA samples from Olalde 2019, seems the Celtiberian core area (upper duero, Jalon, upper Tagus) is entirely unsampled. 




So when people say basques are close to celtiberians are they really meaning berones from la hoya, a site geographically very close to, in some basque linguists opinions, indigenous ancient basque speaking areas in north? alava/bizkaia/gupizkoa?

[Rober_tce]

I want to share some documents about research of converse phenomenon (“judeoconversos”) in ancient Granada Kingdom. These investigations reflect a part of our history, almost forgotten cause of a number of circunstances, one of de the main reasons was the process of concealing lineages. These two links are signed by the Professor of Cordoba University Enrique Soria Mesa.

https://hispania.revistas.csic.es/plugin...F487%2F489

https://www.storiamediterranea.it/wp-con...imonio.pdf

[Sailgios]

Why are the La Hoya samples (and other like El Sotillo) considered as possibly celtiberian if the site is outside of the core celtiberian zone, supposedly in the Berones area. Would be kinda like "greater celtiberia" or something like that? IIRC they are dated to on or after 400bc during the "celtiberian phase" of the site, but these should be considered Berones specifically? Or hispano celtic in a more general sense? Unless peoples from the Celtiberia proper expanded to here. Im guessing inscriptions from the area (if any) are in celtiberian as i am unaware of any other hispano celtic language.

Going by the map of BA/IA samples from Olalde 2019, seems the Celtiberian core area (upper duero, Jalon, upper Tagus) is entirely unsampled. 




So when people say basques are close to celtiberians are they really meaning berones from la hoya, a site  geographically very close to, in some basque linguists opinions, indigenous ancient basque speaking areas in north? alava/bizkaia/gupizkoa?

The site's material culture and chronology is associated with Celtiberians rather than any other group, much like the Spain_LIA ones that are usually labelled "Cantabrian" are actually from Monte Bernorio and fall within the Vaccaean culture, so also technically Celtiberians.

[pelop]

Some results from IA Iberia:

Intramural child burials in Iron Age Navarra: How ancient DNA can contribute to household archaeology

PDF for this chapter and the whole book can be downloaded from the links below:

https://books.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/propy...pter/18012
https://books.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/propy...rsion/1168

[Sailgios]

The new samples seem to be from sites near La Hoya, where our Celtiberian samples were collected from, but many of these individuals seem to be heavier in WHG and Steppe-related ancestry than them, judging by the PCA anyway. On the other hand some published IA individuals seem to plot close, or with, modern non-Basque Iberians..I'm not sure why considering the dataset even includes North African samples which should theoretically pull modern Iberians towards them and away from IA ones. Maybe we haven't seen these yet in G25




Edit: Yeah, they do kind of state this in the study. 10% might not seem much, but BA Iberia had 15-20% Yamnaya-related so an additional 10% is very significant.

population genetic analyses revealed a relatively homogeneous group of individuals, with an increase of approximately 10 % of steppe-related ancestry, relative to the preceding Middle and Late Bronze Age individuals in northern Spain. Compared to published Iron Age individuals from northern/eastern Spain, the newly analysed individuals from Las Eretas, Alto de la Cruz, and El Castejón yielded less evidence of Mediterranean-related ancestry.

[Jalisciense]

The new samples seem to be from sites near La Hoya, where our Celtiberian samples were collected from, but many of these individuals seem to be heavier in WHG and Steppe-related ancestry than them, judging by the PCA anyway. On the other hand some published IA individuals seem to plot close, or with, modern non-Basque Iberians..I'm not sure why considering the dataset even includes North African samples which should theoretically pull modern Iberians towards them and away from IA ones. Maybe we haven't seen these yet in G25




Edit: Yeah, they do kind of state this in the study. 10% might not seem much, but BA Iberia had 15-20% Yamnaya-related so an additional 10% is very significant.

population genetic analyses revealed a relatively homogeneous group of individuals, with an increase of approximately 10 % of steppe-related ancestry, relative to the preceding Middle and Late Bronze Age individuals in northern Spain. Compared to published Iron Age individuals from northern/eastern Spain, the newly analysed individuals from Las Eretas, Alto de la Cruz, and El Castejón yielded less evidence of Mediterranean-related ancestry.

Los vamos a tener para el G25 pronto? Y qué serían considerados? Celtíberos?

[Sailgios]

Los vamos a tener para el G25 pronto? Y qué serían considerados? Celtíberos?

I doubt it. Haven't read the study but I think these types of burials are associated with Iberians, so they might have been be that linguistically.

Archaeological evidence indicates that perinatal infants
in settlements emerged as a funerary practice at the end of
the 2 nd millennium BC among communities settling in the
north-western Mediterranean regions and the Ebro Valley.
Later, by the middle of the 1st millennium BC, it became a
distinctive funerary practice of populations identified in
archaeology as »Iberian«, based on their settlement pattern,
artefact typology, the Northeastern Iberian script, and
pre-Roman toponymy of the Iberian Peninsula and south-
ern France.

[Jalisciense]

Los vamos a tener para el G25 pronto? Y qué serían considerados? Celtíberos?

I doubt it. Haven't read the study but I think these types of burials are associated with Iberians, so they might have been be that linguistically.

Archaeological evidence indicates that perinatal infants
in settlements emerged as a funerary practice at the end of
the 2 nd millennium BC among communities settling in the
north-western Mediterranean regions and the Ebro Valley.
Later, by the middle of the 1st millennium BC, it became a
distinctive funerary practice of populations identified in
archaeology as »Iberian«, based on their settlement pattern,
artefact typology, the Northeastern Iberian script, and
pre-Roman toponymy of the Iberian Peninsula and south-
ern France.

Gracias!

Entonces las diferencias en la Edad del Hierro en Iberia eran más lingüísticas que genéticas?

[Sailgios]

Gracias!

Entonces las diferencias en la Edad del Hierro en Iberia eran más lingüísticas que genéticas?

That's what we've been seeing since Olalde's study, the samples with the highest steppe-related ancestry in that one weren't even from an IE-speaking site (Empuries, Catalonia).

Here you can see some individuals look like Basques with quite a lot of steppe, so leaning heavily towards Brittany and Ireland (NW Europe); some look like Basques with relatively low WHG (for a Basque); and you can even see a few who plot close to where modern French and Spanish plot, so kind of like a modern Catalan with low East Med-related ancestry. I'm not sure whether this plot is affected by projection-bias or not, I wouldn't be surprised if it was and indeed I suspect so.

[Jalisciense]

Tenemos la muestra en el G25 del hombre WHG de La Braña?

[Manofthehour]

From what I've gathered, the ancient toponymy in much of the non-IE speaking areas has a layer considered to be IE. 

Correct me if I'm totally wrong, but I find it curious that even among the non-IE speaking Iberian tribes, the tribal names look to be of IE origin. The suffix "-tani"  suggests as much? from what I understand. I'm unsure how much the Greeks and Romans could be distorting the names though. 
I suppose at some point there was a strong presence of IE speakers in these areas, (steppe % and Y-dna also suggests that) but Iberian languages came to be the dominant tongue at some point in time. 

[Sailgios]

I'm not really sure about the suffix -tani, it might be just a latinisation/hellenisation of an indigenous name, but the prefix Turd- is very likely related to Tart- found in Tartessos which was almost certainly of non-IE origin, even if some groups eventually adopted IE/Celtic languages like the Turduli Oppidani. Ethnic names and languages apparently didn't always go hand-in-hand around here, and it's speculated that Iberian-speaking groups spread somewhen before the historic period and took over territories/groups that used to be IE-speakers. The exception was probably West Iberia, which seems to have preserved its IE-language that had likely arrived during the Bell Beaker period.