Remains of Bishop Teodomiro identified by archaeologists?

[Bradypus]

A number of Spanish and international news websites are reporting that a group of archaelogists have claimed to have identified a skeleton found last century under the Santiago cathedral as that of Teodomiro - the 9th century Bishop of Iria Flavia who first identified bones discovered on a Galician hillside as those of the Apostle James and therefore was indirectly responsible for the phenomenon of pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela. The identification is based on DNA analysis and other archaeological evidence.

"It is important to underline that he is the oldest historical character ever identified in Spain and one of the oldest in Europe,” said Pérez Ramallo, a researcher from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology.... Teodomiro was, unconsciously, the founder of the current city of Santiago de Compostela, but above all of the Camino de Santiago — vital for the course of the history of the Iberian peninsula, and especially of Galicia and Spain.”

DNA testing ends debate over origins of Camino de Santiago pilgrimage

A team of archaeologists claim to have identified the 9th-century bishop Teodomiro of Iria Flavia, who founded the city of Santiago and the pilgrimage to it

www.thetimes.com

 

[mazzarina]

If you'd like to read the full academic article, here it is - it's on open access. Lots of really interesting stuff on how they reached their conclusions through different forms of scientific analysis. https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...alicia-spain/3D7EA1E8EEE9E2B0F9832547FCF1B545

 

[jefferyonthecamino]

a lot is inferred, but i believe it!

 

[Pelegrin]

I read on El Correo Gallego that the genetic profile shows coincidences with Iberoromans, Visigoths of south Iberia (too much precision I think) and Islamic populations of Iberia (in year 800 ???).

 

[ivar]

Here is more on this:

El ADN identifica a Teodomiro, fundador del Camino de Santiago hace 12 siglos

Una investigación internacional confirma que los restos analizados en 2019 son los del obispo que encontró en Galicia la supuesta tumba del apóstol Santiago y dio inicio a una de las mayores peregrinaciones conocidas

elpais.com

 

[henrythedog]

According to a recent DNA test Mrs HtD is 25% Scandinavian.

She isn’t.

 

[Tincatinker]

Ah, “The myth of fingerprints”. I’ve always been fascinated by “cheddar man”. Neanderthal to schoolteacher in X generations and never moved more than a couple of miles from his ancestral cave. DNA also suggests that some of my roots are in China which can but demonstrate the oat sowing capacities of the Golden Horde. Aren’t we all either descended from Charlemagne or Genghis or even Alexander the Slightly Significant depending on our bent?

 

[SabsP]

According to a recent DNA test Mrs HtD is 25% Scandinavian.

She isn’t.

My DNA is quite an interesting mix according to a commercial DNA company.
I corresponded with a Belgian prof in human heredity who explained me very well how these tests and companies work.
So I took the results with a big grain of salt. Sure 18 % British .

 

[Kathor1]

"DNA testing ends debate over origins of Camino de Santiago pilgrimage" - quite a weird title in my humble opinion.

As this Times article is behind a paywall for me, I had a look at the article in El Pais (English edition) which lead me to the actual article published by the research team in "Antiquity" which is a peer-reviewed journal of world archaeology. Their chosen title is "Unveiling Bishop Teodomiro of Iria Flavia? An attempt to identify the discoverer of St James's tomb through osteological and biomolecular analyses"

Unveiling Bishop Teodomiro of Iria Flavia? An attempt to identify the discoverer of St James's tomb through osteological and biomolecular analyses (Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain) | Antiquity | Cambridge Core

Unveiling Bishop Teodomiro of Iria Flavia? An attempt to identify the discoverer of St James's tomb through osteological and biomolecular analyses (Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain) - Volume 98 Issue 400

www.cambridge.org

DNA testing identifies Teodomiro, the bishop who founded the Camino de Santiago pilgrimage 12 centuries ago

An international investigation confirms that the remains found in 2019 belong to the man who found the supposed tomb of the apostle James in the Spanish region of Galicia

english.elpais.com

 

[Pelegrin]

"DNA testing ends debate over origins of Camino de Santiago pilgrimage" - quite a weird title in my humble opinion.

As this Times article is behind a paywall for me, I had a look at the article in El Pais (English edition) which lead me to the actual article published by the research team in "Antiquity" which is a peer-reviewed journal of world archaeology. Their chosen title is "Unveiling Bishop Teodomiro of Iria Flavia? An attempt to identify the discoverer of St James's tomb through osteological and biomolecular analyses"

Unveiling Bishop Teodomiro of Iria Flavia? An attempt to identify the discoverer of St James's tomb through osteological and biomolecular analyses (Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain) | Antiquity | Cambridge Core

Unveiling Bishop Teodomiro of Iria Flavia? An attempt to identify the discoverer of St James's tomb through osteological and biomolecular analyses (Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain) - Volume 98 Issue 400

www.cambridge.org

DNA testing identifies Teodomiro, the bishop who founded the Camino de Santiago pilgrimage 12 centuries ago

An international investigation confirms that the remains found in 2019 belong to the man who found the supposed tomb of the apostle James in the Spanish region of Galicia

english.elpais.com

So one article says " or even from mixing between Christian and Islamic elites after the conquest in the central/ south regions of the península."
If the conquest was in 711 and Teodomiro was born in 800 (more or less) how it was possible that from an union between a Muslim Bereber and a Visigoth woman ( who had to convert) had a son or a grandson who was a bishop ?. My opinion is the Norteafrican genes in the remains have a previous origin maybe from the people that the Romans introduced in the peninsula.(soldiers and workers).

 

[JustOneGuy]

DNA testing ends debate over origins of Camino de Santiago pilgrimage

A team of archaeologists claim to have identified the 9th-century bishop Teodomiro of Iria Flavia, who founded the city of Santiago and the pilgrimage to it

www.thetimes.com

Interesting, but please be cautious. Unlike the title of the article on The Guardian, this one is misleading. From the "Conclusions" of the original paper (already linked by another commenter):

“Despite the limitations, and the caution that must be exercised in interpreting our results, these data support the possibility that the human remains found in association with the inscribed tombstone under the floor of the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela in 1955 are those of Bishop Teodomiro.”

(formatting mine.) So, "DNA tests" does NOT "end debate": the language of scientists is much more cautious and precise than that of the media for the general public.

 

[Kathor1]

Interesting, but please be cautious. Unlike the title of the article on The Guardian, this one is misleading. From the original paper (already linked by another commenter): So, "DNA tests" does NOT "end the debate": the language of scientists is much more cautious than that of the media for the general public.

Actually, I was not even aware that there had been a "debate over the origin of the Santiago pilgrimage". English is not my native language so this may well be the reason why I find this title of the article in The Times downright stupid.

As far as I can tell, there has been a debate about whether a bishop Teodomiro actually existed or whether he was a legendary figure. This debate ended in the 1950s when the tombstone with his name was discovered during an archaeological dig at the Cathedral of Santiago. The skeleton found under the tombstone was regarded to be Teodomiro's skeleton. This tombstone is currently prominently displayed in the Cathedral, and this has been the case for many years.

Almost 30 years later, however, an osteological reassessment based on photographs taken during the previous study—since access to the bones had not been permitted—concluded that the remains were actually those of a 50–70-year-old woman.​

So in the 1980s a debate started about whether the skeleton found under the tombstone with the name of Teodomiro and some of his personal data on it was the bishop's skeleton or not. A few researchers came to the conclusion that the skeleton was female and not male. Note: This new debate was based on an analysis of photographs taken in 1955! This is the debate that has ended now. It is a male skeleton and the scientific multi-disciplinary research has found other aspects that confirm that it is likely to be the bishop who lived around 830-840 in Santiago.

The article published by the researchers themselves in the journal Antiquity is very readable. I recommend it. I admit, though, that I skipped some of the detailed scientific data bits - I just read their conclusions. It is always better to read the original source than articles about it. The sequence of the information flow is presumably Antiquity article -> press release about Antiquity article -> article in El Pais in their Spanish and English version -> articles in the English speaking press -> forum thread. It is always similar.

 

[JustOneGuy]

The article published by the researchers themselves in the journal Antiquity is very readable. I recommend it. I admit, though, that I skipped some of the detailed scientific data bits - I just read their conclusions. It is always better to read the original source than articles about it. The sequence of the information flow is presumably Antiquity article -> press release about Antiquity article -> article in El Pais in their Spanish and English version -> articles in the English speaking press -> forum thread. It is always similar.

I concur. Just let me notice that El Pais is an excellent source and, AFAIK, their science journalists are professionals. I have been interviewed once (I am a scientist too) by one of them and, unlike other times, I was amazed by the preparation on the topic shown by that person. Same applies to The Guardian, at least most of the times. Not to The Times IMHO.

However, my advice is:

Always treat what is found in the general media regarding scientific topics with extreme caution. Usually, whether due to incompetence, lack of time and laxity on the part of the journalist, or the need to stimulate "clicks" from readers, the articles are misleading, incomplete or plain wrong.

Always read the original scientific article, if you can. If you are unable to do so, always use conditionals when referring to what you read. And if the original source of the article is not reported, or is another newspaper (or, worst, a TV show or some article on the Internet)... do not trust it at all.

 

[Kathor1]

I concur. Just let me notice that El Pais is an excellent source and, AFAIK, their science journalists are professionals. I have been interviewed once (I am a scientist too) by one of them and, unlike other times, I was amazed by the preparation on the topic shown by that person. Same applies to The Guardian, at least most of the time. Not to The Times IMHO.

However, my advice is: Always treat what is found in the general media regarding scientific topics with extreme caution. Usually, whether due to incompetence, lack of time and laxity on the part of the journalist, or the need to stimulate "clicks" from readers, the articles are misleading, incomplete or plain wrong.

Out of curiosity, I clicked on the names of the journalists of the news articles. The journalist who wrote for El Pais is a specialist in scientific reporting with the appropriate background. Those who wrote for the Times and the Guardian are all-purpose foreign correspondents. This does not make their writing bad per se, I just noticed it. The headlines, I think, are often written by an editor (I may be wrong) but that may be the reason why they are sometimes or often attention-seeking but misleading. And then some readers read nothing else but the headlines ...

 

[JustOneGuy]

And then some readers read nothing else but the headlines ...

General media headlines on science topics should always be seen as a big red button that says "Click me and win $1,000,000!!!"

 

[pjacobi]

My understanding is that the DNA evidence indicates the bones contained European DNA markers and not Middle Eastern DNA markers. While that rules out St. James, it does not positively identify the occupant of the tomb - the occupant could be any European!

To identify the occupant as Bishop Teodomiro, you would need to compare the DNA from the tomb with a proven family descendant. This may be difficult as Bishop Teodomiro is a legendary figure that may not have existed.

Similar DNA testing was conduct on the Three Kings in the Cologne Cathedral in Germany. The DNA evidence found Middle Easter DNA marker but cannot prove they were the Three Kings in the Gospel. It only proved that the remains were not European.


-Paul

 

[Kathor1]

My understanding is that the DNA evidence indicates the bones contained European DNA markers and not Middle Eastern DNA markers. While that rules out St. James, it does not positively identify the occupant of the tomb - the occupant could be any European!

To identify the occupant as Bishop Teodomiro, you would need to compare the DNA from the tomb with a proven family descendant. This may be difficult as Bishop Teodomiro is a legendary figure that may not have existed.

Similar DNA testing was conduct on the Three Kings in the Cologne Cathedral in Germany. The DNA evidence found Middle Easter DNA marker but cannot prove they were the Three Kings in the Gospel. It only proved that the remains were not European.

Woah, let's stay on topic and let's stay focused. This is not about relics.

This is about a person who was buried in a grave resp. sarcophagus with a tombstone resp. with a lid. It is about a person who was never venerated as a saint. If you read the articles in the various links you will know that there is no doubt about the existence of a Bishop Teodomiro who lived in Santiago in the 9th century and was buried there. The tombstone/lid is on prominent display in the Cathedral. It was found nearly a century ago. The writing on the tombstone says: IN HOC TVMVLO REQVIESCIT FAMVLVS DI THEODEMIRVS HIRIENSE SEDIS EPS QVI OBIIT XIII KLDS NBRS ERA DCCCLXXXV

Which apparently translates as: In this tomb rests the servant of God, Teodomiro, Bishop of the See of Iria, who died on the 13th of the Kalends of November in the year 885.

Walk into the Cathedral of Santiago and read it with your own eyes. If you haven't done so yet.

 

[Kathor1]

who died on the 13th of the Kalends of November in the year 885.

I can't be bothered to look up the reason once more but the year 885 on the bishop's tombstone/lid corresponds actually to the year 847 in our contemporary time system. I am happy to be corrected of course but you will have noticed both year numbers in the Antiquity journal too if you had read the article carefully.

 

[Kathor1]

the occupant could be any European!

To identify the occupant as Bishop Teodomiro, you would need to compare the DNA from the tomb with a proven family descendant.

@pjacobi, you are making these generalised claims but it makes me wonder whether you actually read the scientific article?

What I read is that the skeleton does not belong to just about "any European" but that this recent multidisciplinary research shows that the skeleton belongs to a person with traits that are typical for the population at that time in that specific part of south west Europe. Secondly, I read this line: "generational reshuffling and drift make tracing kinship beyond eight generations using genomic data almost impossible".

Doesn't that mean that a difference of some 1200 years between the death of this person and today makes it impossible to trace a kinship even if a descendant living today could be identified?

 

[pjacobi]

The article implies that DNA "proves" that the remains are of Bishop Teodomiro.

This is simply not possible, regardless of whose name is on the tombstone. Graves are often cleared out and recycled.

The DNA data supports only vague generations to a group of people, not to a specific person.


-Paul

 

[Kathor1]

The article implies that DNA "proves" that the remains are of Bishop Teodomiro.
This is simply not possible, regardless of whose name is on the tombstone. Graves are often cleared out and recycled.
The DNA data supports only vague generations to a group of people, not to a specific person.

I don't understand what you say.

You claimed it could be "any European" while the scientific article states: Results of this principal component analysis indicate that NCS200 lies outside modern European variation towards the direction of modern north African populations and close to Roman Iberians, south Iberian Visigoths and Iberian Islamic individuals. NCS200 is the name assigned to the individual whose bone fragments are examined.

They even provide a helpful visual (see below).

I also don't know which article you have read and refer to. The scientific article does not "prove" that the remains are of Bishop Teodomiro. It proves that it is highly likely. The conclusion - in case you did not read their conclusion before you commented - says this: "Despite the limitations, and the caution that must be exercised in interpreting our results, these data support the possibility that the human remains found in association with the inscribed tombstone under the floor of the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela in 1955 are those of Bishop Teodomiro."

 

[Kathor1]

I can't be bothered to look up the reason once more but the year 885 on the bishop's tombstone/lid corresponds actually to the year 847 in our contemporary time system.

I could not live with myself without looking it up .

It is the Spanish Era of course.

This is a year numbering system used in the Iberian Peninsula from the 5th century until the 15th century when it was phased out in favour of the Anno Domini (AD) system.

The difference between the Spanish Era system and the AD system is 38 years. Hence it says 885 as the year of death on Bishop Teodomiro’s tombstone which corresponds to the year AD 847 or just 847.

 

[Kathor1]

I read on El Correo Gallego that the genetic profile shows coincidences with Iberoromans, Visigoths of south Iberia (too much precision I think) and Islamic populations of Iberia (in year 800 ???).

I was puzzled by this, too, at first.

I am certainly not an expert and I don't adhere to the group that thinks that they know better than any expert in any subject area and can prove experts wrong - an ever growing group these days while decades ago it was the other way round and people tended to believe every word from experts in their area without questioning or checking. When I look at the visual aid from the scientific article (see post #21) I understand it to mean that his profile corresponds to a group that is marked in orange in that image. I don't think that it means that he had x % of Iberoromans, y % of Visigoths and z % of Iberian Islamic - which is the way that the popular DNA test results are usually presented when one sends in one's DNA to a DNA test organisation.

But I am happy to be corrected.

I think it is great that the scientific article is open access as @mazzarina has pointed out already in the second post in this thread! It makes it so much easier to understand the newspaper articles.

 

[Pelegrin]

I understand it to mean that his profile corresponds to a group that is marked in orange in that image. I don't think that it means that he had x % of Iberoromans, y % of Visigoths and z % of Iberian Islamic - which is the way that the popular DNA test results are usually presented when one sends in one's DNA to a DNA test organisation.

But I am happy to be corrected.

This part is confusing for me. I think that Teodomiro ( if existed) had to be definetely of " white complexion" what was a point for a leader at a time with still Visigoth elites.

 

[Pelegrin]

I could not live with myself without looking it up .

It is the Spanish Era of course.

This is a year numbering system used in the Iberian Peninsula from the 5th century until the 15th century when it was phased out in favour of the Anno Domini (AD) system.

The difference between the Spanish Era system and the AD system is 38 years. Hence it says 885 as the year of death on Bishop Teodomiro’s tombstone which corresponds to the year AD 847 or just 847.

Thank you very much @Kathar1na I had no idea. I think that the proper name should be " Hispanic era" ( from Hispania) because included Portugal. Portugal after its independence remained for a long time considering itself a country of Hispania but independent of Leon/ Castile.

 

[Kathor1]

the proper name should be "Hispanic era" (from Hispania) because included Portugal. Portugal after its independence remained for a long time considering itself a country of Hispania but independent of Leon/ Castile.

I like to read Wikipedia articles in several languages when possible as the content is not always the same. You are right: While it is called Spanish Era in English, it is known as Era hispánica in Spanish, simply Era in German and ère d'Espagne, ère de César and ère hispanique in French.

 

[Kathor1]

Just a quick comment on Wikipedia: I do quote from Wikipedia but with caution. I just looked at their articles on Bishop Teodomiro and dates ... . And the sources that some ambitious Wiki authors/editors have picked and used ... . It is often helpful to look at the Discussion page of each article. Don't rely on errors and mistakes being corrected by swarm intelligence. It does not always happen ...

 

[Kathor1]

If someone wants to view the slab / lid / tombstone of Bishop Teodomiro: It used to be on display in the Cathedral as shown in the first screenshot. They had apparently made a cast of the inscription on the stone and had mounted it on the wall above the stone slab. Later, during the recent restoration works, a somewhat famous statue of a Santiago Matamoros was moved to a different chapel and the Teodomiro tombstone was moved into its place plus there is a very small (bronze? gold?) statue of a Santiago Peregrino - is this the statue that is used for the procession on the 25th ofJuly, does anyone know? It looks like it. Anyway, the current arrangement is shown in the second screenshot. It ought to be easy to find it.

 

[caminka]

This part is confusing for me. I think that Teodomiro ( if existed) had to be definetely of " white complexion" what was a point for a leader at a time with still Visigoth elites.

What this means is that his dna and therefore his ancestors had come from these backgrounds. It does not indicate the colour of his skin. Children from mixed families could have different skin colours. The whiteness of his skin could be a later attribution to make him sound more contemporary, or to separate him from the darker skin tones not viewed favourably at the time Historia Compostelana was written.

What I found more surprising was that C14 data fell so much earlier than the date of his death recorded on the tombstone. 30 years is quite a difference.

 

[Kathor1]

Thank you, @caminka. I don't quite understand all these data and their interpretation but the visuals in the scientific article certainly help. I'm posting yet another view where I have cut out information about geographically more distant genetic profiles that are less relevant.

NCS200 is the name given to the skeleton (so just one person, i.e. n=1). The other profiles (Spain Late Islamic, Spain Islamic, Spain Medieval, Spain Carolingian and so on) are presumably based on more than one person's genetic profile from a known group and a kind of average genetic profile?

 

[Pelegrin]

Thank you, @caminka. I don't quite understand all these data and their interpretation but the visuals in the scientific article certainly help. I'm posting yet another view where I have cut out information about geographically more distant genetic profiles that are less relevant.

NCS200 is the name given to the skeleton (so just one person, i.e. n=1). The other profiles (Spain Late Islamic, Spain Islamic, Spain Medieval, Spain Carolingian and so on) are presumably based on more than one person's genetic profile from a known group and a kind of average genetic profile?

View attachment 176210

"Spain Visigoth south" ( which is not the same meaning obviously as "Visigoth of south Iberia") has a very similar genetic profile as "Spain late Islamic" According to this, the high North Africa component was previous to the conquest.

 

[Kathor1]

According to this, the high North Africa component was previous to the conquest.

I am not certain about such a conclusion but I simply don't know enough and don't understand enough about this topic.

The thought occurred to me that Northern Africa was a Roman province and that people were more mobile than we may think. Out of curiosity, I looked up Saint Martin, another bishop, who lived several centuries before Teodomiro. Born in Hungary, grew up in Italy, stationed in northern France, sent to Worms in Germany for a battle, then went to Tours in France, Italy, Hungary and finally Tours again.

I guess - really just a guess - whatever turned up in Teodomiro's genetic profile did not necessarily enter it in Spain after 711. It may have happened at another time earlier or later and elsewhere, and it became similar to the genetic profile of members of other geographical/cultural/social groups who have been researched so far and who were also mobile at one point in time or another.

But that is now really guesswork and speculation. I see that there is a thread going on on a more specialised forum. I am going to have a look:
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/s...ro-Shows-a-Significant-North-African-Ancestry
PS: I've not yet checked out the place. If you go there, you go at your own peril.

 

[caminka]

Thank you, @caminka. I don't quite understand all these data and their interpretation but the visuals in the scientific article certainly help. I'm posting yet another view where I have cut out information about geographically more distant genetic profiles that are less relevant.

NCS200 is the name given to the skeleton (so just one person, i.e. n=1). The other profiles (Spain Late Islamic, Spain Islamic, Spain Medieval, Spain Carolingian and so on) are presumably based on more than one person's genetic profile from a known group and a kind of average genetic profile?

View attachment 176210

As I understand this graph, each symbol represents one person's dna characteristics. That would seem logical to me but I could be wrong.

 

[Pelegrin]

I am not certain about such a conclusion but I simply don't know enough and don't understand enough about this topic.

The thought occurred to me that Northern Africa was a Roman province and that people were more mobile than we may think. Out of curiosity, I looked up Saint Martin, another bishop, who lived several centuries before Teodomiro. Born in Hungary, grew up in Italy, stationed in northern France, sent to Worms in Germany for a battle, then went to Tours in France, Italy, Hungary and finally Tours again.

I guess - really just a guess - whatever turned up in Teodomiro's genetic profile did not necessarily enter it in Spain after 711. It may have happened at another time earlier or later and elsewhere, and it became similar to the genetic profile of members of other geographical/cultural/social groups who have been researched so far and who were also mobile at one point in time or another.

But that is now really guesswork and speculation. I see that there is a thread going on on a more specialised forum. I am going to have a look:
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/s...ro-Shows-a-Significant-North-African-Ancestry
PS: I've not yet checked out the place. If you go there, you go at your own peril.

I read the article. As I wrote on a previous post. I am 100% Galician and my DNA test says that I am 87% from Neolitic + Palelitic, almost 10 % have coincidences with an area that includes Great Britain + France + west Germany and south Denmark, so ( Celtic + Germanic), 3% Malta, < 1% North Africa, < 1% from border Germany/ Poland ( Wandals). So, my North Africa component is less than 2 % (part of Malta included) . Said that, I saw a map that gave an incidence of E haplogroup ( North Africa) of 8% in the corner where Leon, Asturias and Galicia join, just where the Roman gold mines where located.

 

[caminka]

"Spain Visigoth south" ( which is not the same meaning obviously as "Visigoth of south Iberia") has a very similar genetic profile as "Spain late Islamic" According to this, the high North Africa component was previous to the conquest.

Why would that be surprising? People were moving all the time. For example, roman soldiers were stationed all over roman empire, usually far from their birth place. Merchants travelled with goods. Courts were itinerany (royal too). People may not have travelled all over Europe (as did st Martin) but they did travel around their province or country.

NCS200's data means he was of local origin (local in this contex meaning from this part of the peninsula) and not sent to the post from, eg., Italy.

 

[caminka]

I read the article. As I wrote on a previous post. I am 100% Galician and my DNA test says that I am 87% from Neolitic + Palelitic, almost 10 % have coincidences with an area that includes Great Britain + France + west Germany and south Denmark, so ( Celtic + Germanic), 3% Malta, < 1% North Africa, < 1% from border Germany/ Poland ( Wandals). So, my North Africa component is less than 2 % (part of Malta included) . Said that, I saw a map that gave an incidence of E haplogroup ( North Africa) of 8% in the corner where Leon, Asturias and Galicia join, just where the Roman gold mines where located.

That's very interesting. Is that a typical galician genetic mixture?

Perhaps in this context a map of different dna subgroups of Spain would be very helpful. (They could have included it in the article.)

 

[Pelegrin]

That's very interesting. Is that a typical galician genetic

I don' t know, maybe yes for the people from the north and centre of Galicia. My results are coherent with the number of people who came from outside, 5% Celtic, 5 % Germanic ( Suebe) 3% Malta ( Roman + Phoenician + North Africa). Phoenicians had a comercial settlement in Betanzos and < 1% Wandal also is coherent. In relation to North Africa origin <2% I have no idea because my village is far from the Roman mines. Roman < 1% reveals the low incidence of this origin in Galicia despite Lugo is not far from my village.

 

[Kathor1]

As I understand this graph, each symbol represents one person's dna characteristics. That would seem logical to me but I could be wrong.

I am looking at the graphic representation in post #30 on the right that looks like a multi-coloured band. When I look at NCS200 (n=1) I see that the various strata (purple, orange, blue, etc) are rectangles or areas separated by straight lines. That is not the case for the others (from Spain Late Islamic to Modern Romanian), hence my thought that these are not individuals. It tells me something intuitively but I'd like to understand it better .

Anyway, I find it fascinating, these highly sophisticated tools that we have today to look so far into the past.

BTW, I have next to no doubt whatsoever that this are Bishop Teodomiro's bones . I wonder whether they will remain where they currently are or united again with their tombstone ...

PS, just to illustrate what I am wondering about (the legend for colouring is in post #30):

 

[falcon269]

The DNA testing services should be able to compare the Teodomiro results with current living testees. Any matches would be quite interesting! Cousins, siblings, and ancestors/descendants of them could link to the living. If no comparisons have been made or released, that also would be quite interesting from a "why not" perspective.

I have an unexpected amount of Scandanavian/Norwegian/Swedish blood compared to rather extensive paper-based research that predated DNA testing. My conclusion is that my orphan great-grandmother was not Irish she was always believed; rather she was a New World foundling from a Scandinavian heritage. The docks of Boston may have had a lot of those types of undocumented immigrants in the 1850's.

My family tree includes many from Iberia including a couple of Alfonsos. Maybe I match "Ted"???

 

[David Tallan]

I was puzzled by this, too, at first.

I am certainly not an expert and I don't adhere to the group that thinks that they know better than any expert in any subject area and can prove experts wrong - an ever growing group these days while decades ago it was the other way round and people tended to believe every word from experts in their area without questioning or checking. When I look at the visual aid from the scientific article (see post #21) I understand it to mean that his profile corresponds to a group that is marked in orange in that image. I don't think that it means that he had x % of Iberoromans, y % of Visigoths and z % of Iberian Islamic - which is the way that the popular DNA test results are usually presented when one sends in one's DNA to a DNA test organisation.

But I am happy to be corrected.

I think it is great that the scientific article is open access as @mazzarina has pointed out already in the second post in this thread! It makes it so much easier to understand the newspaper articles.

I read it as his genetic profile (the various genetic markers they were looking at) is more similar to the genetic profile of remains that had been identified as belonging to Islamic Spain and southern Visigothic Spain (the orange ones) than the genetic remains that had been identified as Visigothic north (black x). I deduce this, because it is placed in that cluster on the graph.

I'm not a genetic archaeologist myself, so take that for what it is worth. I also don't know if Bishop Teodomiro was native to Galicia or had come up from a more southern part of the Spain that had been under Visigothic rule. My more general knowledge of medieval history tells me that Bishops did not always serve where they were born.

 

[pjacobi]

"Despite the limitations, and the caution that must be exercised in interpreting our results, these data support the possibility that the human remains found in association with the inscribed tombstone under the floor of the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela in 1955 are those of Bishop Teodomiro."

The key word is "possibility". Anything is possible!


-Paul

 

[Kathor1]

The DNA testing services should be able to compare the Teodomiro results with current living testees.

How is that supposed to work? I don’t think that anything is known about his relatives - mother, father, siblings if any. He isn’t a Richard III with a known lineage and if I understand correctly the 9th century is too many generations away for these kinds of DNA comparisons to work. But I’m not certain, it all seems rather technical and complicated and not as easy as in crime series on TV where somebody sits in front of a computer and shouts “I got a match!”

And anyway, the main result of the DNA analysis is the fact that the bones belong to a male person. In 1955, when the grave was discovered, they did not have the technical means to establish this with the certainty that we have now.

 

[C clearly]

The key word is "possibility". Anything is possible!

I agree that "possibility" is a key word. However, some things can be ruled out as impossible!

 

[falcon269]

How is that supposed to work? I don’t think that anything is known about his relatives - mother, father, siblings if any. He isn’t a Richard III with a known lineage and if I understand correctly the 9th century is too many generations away for these kinds of DNA comparisons to work. But I’m not certain, it all seems rather technical and complicated and not as easy as in crime series on TV where somebody sits in front of a computer and shouts “I got a match!”

And anyway, the main result of the DNA analysis is the fact that the bones belong to a male person. In 1955, when the grave was discovered, they did not have the technical means to establish this with the certainty that we have now.

Bits of DNA today may be identical to those in the 9th century. Some DNA services tell customers the amount of Neanderthal DNA in the sample, and that heritage is extinct. Charlemagne likely has millions of descendants. Test his DNA and you would get a lot of current matches including Christopher Lee!

 

[Kathor1]

Bits of DNA today may be identical to those in the 9th century. Some DNA services tell customers the amount of Neanderthal DNA in the sample, and that heritage is extinct. Charlemagne likely has millions of descendants. Test his DNA and you would get a lot of current matches including Christopher Lee!

I quoted this from the Antiquity article already and must be misunderstanding it then: “but generational reshuffling and drift make tracing kinship beyond eight generations using genomic data almost impossible”.

Anyway, the research work on those bones has ended. They are not going to pick up and pursue the suggestions made in this thread I guess.

 

[caminka]

I am looking at the graphic representation in post #30 on the right that looks like a multi-coloured band. When I look at NCS200 (n=1) I see that the various strata (purple, orange, blue, etc) are rectangles or areas separated by straight lines. That is not the case for the others (from Spain Late Islamic to Modern Romanian), hence my thought that these are not individuals. It tells me something intuitively but I'd like to understand it better .

Anyway, I find it fascinating, these highly sophisticated tools that we have today to look so far into the past.

BTW, I have next to no doubt whatsoever that this are Bishop Teodomiro's bones . I wonder whether they will remain where they currently are or united again with their tombstone ...

PS, just to illustrate what I am wondering about (the legend for colouring is in post #30):

View attachment 176227

Hmm. I would still lean towards these being dna sequences of individual people representing different ethnic backgrounds. But I don't know enough about dna analyses and their graphoc representations to be sure.

 

[caminka]

How is that supposed to work? I don’t think that anything is known about his relatives - mother, father, siblings if any. He isn’t a Richard III with a known lineage and if I understand correctly the 9th century is too many generations away for these kinds of DNA comparisons to work. But I’m not certain, it all seems rather technical and complicated and not as easy as in crime series on TV where somebody sits in front of a computer and shouts “I got a match!”

And anyway, the main result of the DNA analysis is the fact that the bones belong to a male person. In 1955, when the grave was discovered, they did not have the technical means to establish this with the certainty that we have now.

It could work if the sample has the correct sequences preserved. That's how it was discovered that the descendants of the Cheddar man still live around the Cheddar Gorge, and he is much older than Teodomiro. That's asduming he had descendants, of course.

 

[Kathor1]

It could work if the sample has the correct sequences preserved. That's how it was discovered that the descendants of the Cheddar man still live around the Cheddar Gorge, and he is much older than Teodomiro. That's asduming he had descendants, of course.

I find all this rather confusing but then I don't even know what a DNA test involves exactly and what is tested exactly. I've learnt in the meantime though that there are plenty of different bits that can be tested in a DNA test so perhaps that's got something to do with it.

Numerous mediumly reliable looking websites say that kinship cannot be tested for more than 10 generations back. Articles about Richard III say that he is the oldest person in the UK where kinship with 2 living relatives (albeit distant relatives) was tested and where DNA tests could confirm the kinship. That is about 18 resp. 20 generations back in time.

The distance between a living person and Charlemagne who lived at the same time as Bishop Teodorimo is about 40 generations. I happen to have read this because the family of Armin Laschert - a German politician and once a candidate for the national elections for Federal Chancellor - claims to be related to Charlemagne. They apparently established this through genealogical (document based) research. Of course, Charlemagne's life is well documented; he married 5 times and had 18 legitimate children, and a number of other children who were born out of wedlock.

 

[falcon269]

Tests on my Y-chromosome (paternal line) indicate:





I can match a specific cousin today to immigrant brothers in about 1710 in Pennsylvania through the Y testing. It can become very hazy before that!

I would be happy to allow the researchers of Ted to compare my DNA tests to those of his! I would not expect a match...

 

[Kathor1]

Hmm. I would still lean towards these being dna sequences of individual people representing different ethnic backgrounds. But I don't know enough about dna analyses and their graphoc representations to be sure.

Thanks. I found something under the Supplementary Material tab. It says:

​

“Population genomics datasets​

​

We trimmed 10bp at the end of each read in our ancient individual to remove the ancient damage patterns characteristic of ancient and degraded DNA. Next, we merged the ancient individual with […] where duplicate and related individuals were removed. Ancient individuals from Spain (n= 93) from the Iron Age to the late medieval period […] were used as comparative data in the population genetic analyses.”​

​

I think that gets me closer to an answer to one of the questions that I have but not even my questions are clear to me let alone the answers.

 

[Rick of Rick and Peg]

I quoted this from the Antiquity article already and must be misunderstanding it then: “but generational reshuffling and drift make tracing kinship beyond eight generations using genomic data almost impossible”.

I recently viewed a YouTube video that showed how this worked with animations. I couldn't find it but did come across this explanation.

YouTube video id: 9g-VwtRd8ks

Edit: I have since found the video with the animations that I mentioned. See post #54 below.

 

[Kathor1]

I recently viewed a YouTube video that showed how this worked with animations. I couldn't find it but did come across this explanation.
YouTube video id: 9g-VwtRd8ks

This is excellent, thank you! So we are perhaps all related to Teodomiro genealogically but not genetically and we will never find out for sure, right? The explanation in this video has been helpful for me.

I guess, in my case, I am more likely to be genealogically related to Charlemagne from Aachen who was touring around France and parts of Germany during all his adult life than to Teodomiro who, most likely, stayed put in Galicia .

We know of course that bishops from northern Spain did move around. For example Bishop Priscillian of Avila (Spain) got as far as Bordeaux in France and then Trier in Germany in the 4th century where he was executed and his body was taken back to Spain and buried there. If his bones are where some believe them to be ... erm ... then it is 100% certain that they will never be the subject of a DNA analysis.

PS: I got something wrong. I did not distinguish between being related to someone and being a descendent of someone. I think that distinction was not made in some other posts, too. I understand that all Europeans are genetically related to each other. And that we all are even genetically related to carrots . As always: happy to be corrected.

 

[Pelegrin]

This is excellent, thank you! So we are perhaps all related to Teodomiro genealogically but not genetically and we will never find out for sure, right? The explanation in this video has been helpful for me.

I guess, in my case, I am more likely to be genealogically related to Charlemagne from Aachen who was touring around France and parts of Germany during all his adult life than to Teodomiro who, most likely, stayed put in Galicia .

We know of course that bishops from northern Spain did move around. For example Bishop Priscillian of Avila (Spain) got as far as Bordeaux in France and then Trier in Germany in the 4th century where he was executed and his body was taken back to Spain and buried there. If his bones are where some believe them to be ... erm ... then it is 100% certain that they will never be the subject of a DNA analysis.

Yes, if to Charlemagne were forty generations from now, that means two to the power of forty that is 1099511627776 people needed and therefore Charlemagne is included in your group for sure.

 

[Rick of Rick and Peg]

I quoted this from the Antiquity article already and must be misunderstanding it then: “but generational reshuffling and drift make tracing kinship beyond eight generations using genomic data almost impossible”.

I found the video with the animations that I mentioned in post #51 above. It's title is "You DON’T Descend From All Your Ancestors” (but IMHO really should be something like “You DON'T Have Genetic Material From All Your Ancestors”). For those who prefer to read, the video uses material from the book Who We Are and How We Got Here by David Reich.

Click on the arrow in the thumbnail to view the video embedded on this page. Click on the title in the thumbnail to view the video in its own browser window/tab. To view on the YouTube app (say to cast to your TV) use the app to search for the video id: HclD2E_3rhI

I will edit post #51 to point to this post.

I'm really tempted to add more about genetics to respond to various posts but despite being helpful in some ways I'm likely to mess things up. I'm satisfied that the study's authors can't use the body's DNA to identify it with a name.

 

[Kathor1]

I found the video with the animations that I mentioned in post #51 above. It's title is "You DON’T Descend From All Your Ancestors” (but IMHO really should be something like “You DON'T Have Genetic Material From All Your Ancestors”).

That is an excellent visualisation and explanation! Thank you for digging this up!

I now understand the comment in the scientific article that, and I paraphrase here, many of our genealogical ancestors did not contribute a single snippet to our genes / genome when they had lived too many generations ago (and that can be as little as 8-10 generations ago).

PS: Now that it has been explained so clearly, it actually appears pretty obvious to me.

 

[t2andreo]

At the risk of being labelled a contrarian, I would like to observe that, given the fact that the scientists now have us at about a 98% certainty that the skeletal remains ARE those of Bishop Teodomiro, at some point we need to demonstrate our FAITH.

Science is great. But, at some point, there will always remain a gap in what we can objectively prove.

At that point, I opine, we need to take a step back and ask ourselves the question: Given that we will never know, with 100% certainty, that scientific analyses clearly and objectively establish that the skeletal remain ARE in fact those of Bishop Teodomiro, do I have enough information and objective data such that I can make a (relatively small) leap of faith and conclude that these ARE the remains of the Bishop Teodomiro who features so prominently in the entire cult of Santiago?

If I, and you can do that, then the issue is satisfactorily resolved. These are the skeletal remains of Bishop Teodomiro. We can proceed on that basis. This is one more piece of the legend and mythology of Santiago that falls into place. This piece of the rompecabezas - puzzle is settled, at least to my satisfaction. As such, it adds to our overall understanding of everything else.

I for one BELIEVE! I also accepted the forensic findings of the day from 187x, when doctor professors at the University of Santiago de Compostela examined the contents of the old ossuary. They determined, based on only a manual examination, that the contents were of a set of skeletal remains assessed to be one 40 - 50 year old man who had been decapitated by sword. The head was absent. This happens to be consistent with the varied stories relating to the remains of Saint James.

Yes, I am aware that there are alternative theories. But, and in my view, the odds go up when the three sets of skeletal remains are considered together. If you accept that the remains of Saint James were interred, later to be joined by the remains of his two companions (Athanasius and Theodorus) when they died a routine death, the context is made more clear.

The other two skeletal sets of remains were determined to be of men in their 60s, who had apparently died of natural causes. That age was considered old by the standards of the time - second half of the 800s.

This fits close enough to the historical narrative for me to choose to BELIEVE that the remains are in fact those of Saint James and those of his two followers, Athanasius and Theodorus. These are the two followers and traveling companions of Saint James who are believed to have conveyed his remains from Jerusalem to Iberia, following his execution by decapitation circa the year 44 AD.

To me at least, this is PERIOD - FULL STOP - end of argument. Also, I think that we must accept that the church - as in the Curia in Rome - would NEVER permit modern DNA or CF14 testing of the silver ossuary contents. There is no real, articulable purpose.

I believe that there is enough circumstantial and scientific evidence to improve our likelihood of success at interpreting the entire Santiago story in a correct context. My personal comfort level is establishing truth by a preponderance of the evidence - not beyond a reasonable doubt - using contemporary legal meanings.

Hope this helps the discussion.

Tom

 

[Kathor1]

At the risk of being labelled a contrarian

I would not say that you are a contrarian but I would say that the post is somewhat off topic for this thread.

Bishop Teodomiro has been considered to be a historical figure for several decades since the tombstone with inscription about his death had been discovered during works in the Cathedral.

Nobody is in any doubt that some prominent figure was at the start of the narrative that led to the development of the pilgrimage to Santiago, just as prominent figures were at the start of the narratives that led to the development of other pilgrimages such as monks, or an abbot, a priest, a bishop, an archbishop, a duke, a king. It does not matter whether the bones of that prominent figure have been found and identified or not. The medieval pilgrimage to Santiago is a historical fact.

The results of the recent research - macroscopic observation of some of the bones of this particular skeleton, osteoarchaeological analysis, radiocarbon dating, stable isotope analysis, and ancient DNA analysis of the whole genome - have revealed fascinating information about a person who died some 1100 years ago: that the skeleton is indeed that of a male person (which had been in doubt), that he was of gracile build, how old he was when he died, where he was likely to have lived, what he was likely to have eaten, and how all this personal information fits into the society of his time in north west Spain. These are fascinating tools of research that provide fascinating results in this 21st century.

Bishop Teodomiro is not a saint. His bones are not relics. He is one of numerous persons who were buried in a cathedral in the Middle Ages. A custom that was practiced in all other Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals, too.

I am not sure what that has to do with relics that will never be examined in this way and never have been examined in this way. If you think that there is any interest in a thread discussing the authenticity of the relics of the Cathedral in Santiago I would suggest starting a separate thread.

 

[t2andreo]

Oh, never mind… I do not choose to debate my statements, and I have nothing further to contribute to this thread.

Thank you for the opportunity to offer one, different perspective.

 

[Kathor1]

Any attempt to bring a discussion about relics and their authenticity and personal beliefs about them into this thread would only create confusion about the known facts of the life of a historical figure, namely a 9th century bishop of Padron named Teodomiro. It is no mean feat that such a discussion has been kept out of this thread so far.

Very very little is known about this bishop. There are no contemporary documents that mention him. Teodomiro is mentioned for the first time in a known document that dates from the year 1077. That is 230 years after his death!!!

A source that includes the dates of relevant documents can be found on the website of the Royal Academy of History in Madrid:

Teodomiro de Iria | Real Academia de la Historia

Teodomiro de Iria (u.t. s. VIII - 847) EMe [3ª]

dbe.rah.es

 

[JabbaPapa]

There is a straightforward inaccuracy in the titles used in the Press articles.

The Bishop's remains are identified by the funerary inscriptions, not by DNA.

This interesting study sought to discover if a DNA analysis could contradict the information from the inscriptions, in other words it attempted a falsification from hard evidence, but the results yielded no such falsification.

The analysis did not contradict the information provided by the inscriptions.

 

[Kathor1]

This thread is not about the identity and authenticity of medieval relics and it is not about faith. When a post is made that is off topic - and without any need to even make it in the given context of the thread - and contains wrong information, it is difficult to decide about how to react: Ignore it and the wrong information will not be challenged and corrected; or take it up with the result that the thread drift gets even worse.

I knew right away that this remark in post #16 is wrong:

Similar DNA testing was conduct[ed] on the Three Kings in the Cologne Cathedral in Germany. The DNA evidence found Middle Easter DNA marker but cannot prove they were the Three Kings in the Gospel. It only proved that the remains were not European.​

I decided to ignore this post. However, a few days ago I decided to contact the Cologne Cathedral in Germany. Here is their reply (translated from German into English):

The bones from the Shrine of the Three Kings in Cologne Cathedral have not been subjected to DNA analysis. The bones were last analysed in 1864 - long before DNA analysis was available. On Wikipedia - Dreikönigenschrein - Reliquien you can read, for example, in the section ‘Opening and examination of the shrine’, what findings were made.​

I replied by thanking them and said that fighting misinformation in social media is a Sisyphean task. And sometimes you just have to tackle it.

Will the poster of post #16 edit his comment and delete or correct the wrong statement about the relics kept in Cologne Cathedral, misplaced as it is in this thread? I am not holding my breath.

 

[pjacobi]

>>>The bones from the Shrine of the Three Kings in Cologne Cathedral have not been subjected to DNA analysis.

My memory from 1993 was from a sign in English in the Cologne Cathedral on the wall near the Three Kings Reliquary that said the remains were DNA tested and found to contains Middle Eastern DNA markers. Perhaps I am remembering incorrectly. Is there a sign there today? If my memory is not correct, what exactly is stated on the sign? Maybe the results were disproved, and the sign was later removed.


-Paul

 

[C clearly]

I cannot remember the words of any sign I saw in 1993!