Mitogenomes illuminate the origin and migration patterns of the indigenous people of the Canary Islands

Abstract

The Canary Islands’ indigenous people have been the subject of substantial archaeological, anthropological, linguistic and genetic research pointing to a most probable North African Berber source. However, neither agreement about the exact point of origin nor a model for the indigenous colonization of the islands has been established. To shed light on these questions, we analyzed 48 ancient mitogenomes from 25 archaeological sites from the seven main islands. Most lineages observed in the ancient samples have a Mediterranean distribution, and belong to lineages associated with the Neolithic expansion in the Near East and Europe (T2c, J2a, X3a…). This phylogeographic analysis of Canarian indigenous mitogenomes, the first of its kind, shows that some lineages are restricted to Central North Africa (H1cf, J2a2d and T2c1d3), while others have a wider distribution, including both West and Central North Africa, and, in some cases, Europe and the Near East (U6a1a1, U6a7a1, U6b, X3a, U6c1). In addition, we identify four new Canarian-specific lineages (H1e1a9, H4a1e, J2a2d1a and L3b1a12) whose coalescence dates correlate with the estimated time for the colonization of the islands (1st millennia CE). Additionally, we observe an asymmetrical distribution of mtDNA haplogroups in the ancient population, with certain haplogroups appearing more frequently in the islands closer to the continent. This reinforces results based on modern mtDNA and Y-chromosome data, and archaeological evidence suggesting the existence of two distinct migrations. Comparisons between insular populations show that some populations had high genetic diversity, while others were probably affected by genetic drift and/or bottlenecks. In spite of observing interinsular differences in the survival of indigenous lineages, modern populations, with the sole exception of La Gomera, are homogenous across the islands, supporting the theory of extensive human mobility after the European conquest.

Perinatal burials at pre‐Hispanic noncemetery sites in Gran Canaria: Tophet, infanticide, or natural mortality?

“…MtDNA and Y‐chromosome haplogroups obtained for Cendro samples are in agreement with the genetic composition of the indigenous people of the Canary Islands observed in previous studies (Fregel et al, 2015; Fregel et al, 2019; Fregel, Gomes, et al, 2009; Fregel, Pestano, et al, 2009; Ordóñez et al, 2017). All individuals showed different haplotypes indicating they do not share a direct maternal relationship, although two of the samples belong to haplogroup U6a6a1.…”

The talus of the pre‐Hispanic population from Punta Azul (El Hierro, Canary Islands): Variability and sexual dimorphism of nonmetric traits

“…As demonstrated by previous research (Fregel et al, 2019; Ordóñez et al, 2017), the population of Punta Azul had a low genetic diversity. This may explain the high prevalence of os trigonum among this population, higher than that previously reported in a sample of ballet dancers and other samples of high ankle activity (Peace et al, 2004; Sewell, 1904; Tsuruta et al, 1981; Zwiers et al, 2018).…”

“…Although previous DNA analysis on the Punta Azul site indicated exceptional preservation of the human remains with endogenous rates reaching values higher than 30% (Fregel et al, 2019), in this research, DNA extraction was necessarily restricted to tali, a type of bone that is not within the usual sources of ancient DNA. This explains why we were only able to determine genetic sex in only 19 out of the 35 cases selected for analysis (54%).…”

A Genetic History of Continuity and Mobility in the Iron Age Central Mediterranean

“…When compared to other ancient individuals using qpWave analysis (Fig. 5), this individual forms a clade with ancient Canary Island inhabitants thought to be representative of the original founding population (25). The Canary Islands were originally settled in the 1st millennium BCE by a population genetically ancestral to today’s Amazigh populations of Saharan Africa (26).…”