- Time of past OR future Camino
- Too many and too often!
Remove ads on the forum by becoming a donating member. More here. |
---|
According to a recent DNA test Mrs HtD is 25% Scandinavian.
She isn’t.
So one article says " or even from mixing between Christian and Islamic elites after the conquest in the central/ south regions of the península.""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 400www.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 Galiciaenglish.elpais.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):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 itwww.thetimes.com
(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.“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.”
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.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.
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.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.
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 ...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.
General media headlines on science topics should always be seen as a big red button that says "Click me and win $1,000,000!!!"And then some readers read nothing else but the headlines ...
Woah, let's stay on topic and let's stay focused. This is not about relics.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.
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.who died on the 13th of the Kalends of November in the year 885.
@pjacobi, you are making these generalised claims but it makes me wonder whether you actually read the scientific article?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.
I don't understand what you say.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 could not live with myself without looking it upI 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 was puzzled by this, too, at first.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 ???).
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
"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.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
I am not certain about such a conclusion but I simply don't know enough and don't understand enough about this topic.According to this, the high North Africa component was previous to the conquest.
As I understand this graph, each symbol represents one person's dna characteristics. That would seem logical to me but I could be wrong.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
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.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.
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."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.
That's very interesting. Is that a typical galician genetic mixture?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.
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.That's very interesting. Is that a typical galician genetic
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 intuitivelyAs I understand this graph, each symbol represents one person's dna characteristics. That would seem logical to me but I could be wrong.
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 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.
"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."
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!”The DNA testing services should be able to compare the Teodomiro results with current living testees.
I agree that "possibility" is a key word. However, some things can be ruled out as impossible!The key word is "possibility". Anything is possible!
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!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.
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”.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!
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.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 intuitivelybut 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
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.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.
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.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.
Thanks. I found something under the Supplementary Material tab. It says: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.
I recently viewed a YouTube video that showed how this worked with animations. I couldn't find it but did come across this explanation.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”.
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 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
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.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.
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.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”.
That is an excellent visualisation and explanation! Thank you for digging this up!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”).
I would not say that you are a contrarian but I would say that the post is somewhat off topic for this thread.At the risk of being labelled a contrarian
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?