FROM COIMBRA RECORDS TO CHROMOSOMES — THE SIMONIS, LOPES, AND GARCIA SEPHARDIC STRUCTURE

FROM COIMBRA RECORDS TO CHROMOSOMES — THE SIMONIS, LOPES, AND GARCIA SEPHARDIC STRUCTURE

COIMBRA — 1400s STRUCTURAL FIELD (SIMONIS, LOPES, LOPEZ IN RECORD)

The Coimbra record field in the 1400s does not present isolated surnames. The entries, when kept intact with all associated names, show a continuous relational environment where Simonis, Simon-root forms, and Lopes are already present together inside the same record space before the 1459 cluster and remain present as that cluster forms.

The earlier Coimbra layer tied to 1417 places Simonis inside a structured field that already includes Lopes and the same surrounding names that continue to appear in later records. In that record, Simonis is attached to Oleoja Mar and Ferres, and the associated names include João, Joanna Maria, Joze Antunes, Ferreira, Luias, Ro Ria Carvalha, Carvalho de Soutello, Simeirado Cabeseiro, Igor V. Decloze Lopes V. Decloze Ferreira, de Souza, and Campo. Lopes is not separate from this record. It is embedded within the same environment, appearing alongside Ferreira, Carvalho, and de Souza. The record does not isolate Simonis as a standalone surname. It places it inside a shared naming field that is already formed.

When the 1459 Coimbra records are opened without removing any associated names, that earlier structure does not disappear or reset. It continues directly.

The Lopes record dated by birth to 28 de novembro de 1459 contains Simons Lopes as a brother within the same household. Mareza de S. Ezes and Leitão appear alongside him, and Rosa is present as grandmother. The names associated with that same record include Fran Çipo A Çipo Rodriguez A Almeida, Tereza, Joze Manoel, Rosianda, Simons, Antonia Maria, Nogueira, Josefa Maria, Da Silva Marerão, and Francisco. The Simon-root is not external to the Lopes structure. It is inside it, attached directly through the household and repeated again in the associated names.

The Góis record dated by birth to 25 de janeiro de 1459 shows the same structure without separation. Lopes appears within the record, and the Simon-root appears through Das Neves Machado Simon as well as a standalone Simon entry. The associated names—Das Neves Martins Conemonesta Corregiada, Antonia, M.e Martins, Joanna M, M. Maartins, Rodrigues, dos Neves, Das Neves Martins Conomo—are not independent from the earlier Coimbra field. Rodrigues and the Neves structure appear within the same relational environment already present in the 1417 layer. The Simon-root appears inside that same environment, attached to the same surrounding names.

The Lopes Baratta record dated by birth to março de 1459 maintains the same internal structure. The parents are listed as Abz and Carneira Maria. The godparents include Luis Simoens Lopez and Simoenz Lopes Des Góes Perotet, and within the same record Simois Lopes appears among the associated names. The full set of associated names includes Gonsalvez Marques, Rodrigues, Monis, Carneyro, Correya, Mories V. A, Pires Ba, Lopes Barata, and Simois Lopes. The Simon-root and the Lopes and Lopez forms are not separated across different entries. They are combined into composite identities and placed together inside a single record environment.

The Santo André de Poiares record within the same 1459 field continues this structure. Lopez appears as the primary name, while Simões Da Silva appears as godfather and Simenes appears as godparent. Perez and Perea are present within the same entry. The Simon-root is not absent in this Lopez record. It appears inside the same record space, maintaining the same relationship already visible in the Coimbra entries.

The Simoenz Lopez de Neuma record dated by birth to 1 de dezembro de 1459 carries the structure across a generational line within the same Coimbra field. The father appears as Simoens Lopes, and the son carries the name Simoenz Lopez. The associated names include Joze Alvares, Luiz, Josefa, Martins, Anna, Alvares Nogueira, Simoens Lopes, and Lopes, with Lara appearing in the extended family and Lopes listed again as godfather. The Simon-root, Lopes, and Lopez forms are transmitted together within the same family structure. The relationship is not external or interpretive. It is contained entirely within the record.

Across the 1400s Coimbra field, when all names are preserved and no part of the record is removed, the structure does not shift. Simonis, Simon-root forms, Lopes, and Lopez appear together inside the same record environments, attached to the same surrounding names, and repeated across multiple entries within the same time frame. The same names recur—Rodrigues, Nogueira, Ferreira, Carvalho, de Souza—forming a continuous relational field that is already established before 1459 and continues through the full Coimbra cluster without separation.

PORTUGAL RECORD FIELD — 1501 THROUGH 1714 (SIMONIS WITHIN THE LOPES / LOPEZ STRUCTURE)

The structure visible in the 1400s Coimbra field continues directly into the next recorded entries without breaking or separating. The Aveiro record dated by birth to 1501 places Lopes inside a record environment where the Simon-root appears multiple times within the same entry. Simoins appears alongside Maria Antonia, Loureiro, and Ferreira, with Roza Maria present as spouse. The associated names within that same record include Martins, Solisteiro, Pirez, Loureiro, dos Santos, Simmois, Da Silva, Ferreira, Antonio, Manoel, Simoins Simoins de Sinhal, Ferreira de Dez, Simoins do Pinhal, Maria, and Lemos. The Simon-root is not represented by a single form. It appears repeatedly within the same record as Simoins, Simmois, and Simoins do Pinhal. Lopes is not separate from these forms. It is present within the same record environment, attached to the same group of names that continue from the earlier Coimbra field.

The Beja record continues the same structure without separation. Lopes appears within the same entry as Simonis and Lopo, with Faleciana de Morais, Payna, Jozepta, and Marios present within the same record space. Simonis is not absent from this later layer. It appears directly alongside Lopes, while Lopo appears within the same entry as an additional stabilized form. Earlier and later forms of the name are preserved together inside the same environment rather than replacing one another.

The Coimbra record tied to the birth year 1714 maintains the same structure within the same location. Simonis appears in the record for an unnamed son, and the associated names include Lopes dos Santos, Priais, Manoel Antonio, e do Sano, Simons de Pala, and Lopes Serra. Lopes appears more than once within the same entry through Lopes dos Santos and Lopes Serra, while the Simon-root appears again through Simons de Pala. These names are not separated into different structures. They are preserved together within the same record environment.

Across these records, when all names are kept intact and the entries are read in sequence, the structure does not shift. Lopes, Simonis, Simon-root forms, and related names remain attached to one another inside the same record environments, continuing the same relational field already established in the 1400s Coimbra records.

PORTUGAL RECORD FIELD — 1758 THROUGH 1809 (CONTINUITY OF THE SIMONIS / LOPES STRUCTURE)

The structure present in the earlier Coimbra and 1501–1714 records continues forward into the next recorded layers without separation. The Aveiro record dated to 1758 maintains the same relational environment, where Lopes appears alongside multiple Simon-root forms within the same entry. Simoins, Simmois, and Simoins do Pinhal appear together in the same record space, attached to Lopes and the same surrounding names. Ferreira, Loureiro, and Da Silva continue to appear within the same environment, maintaining the same surrounding structure already visible in the earlier layers.

The Simon-root is not reduced to a single spelling in this record. It continues to appear in multiple forms within the same entry, and these forms remain attached to Lopes rather than separating into independent lines. The repetition of Simoins, Simmois, and Simoins do Pinhal inside the same record environment confirms that the naming structure has not collapsed into fixed surnames. It continues to operate as a shared relational field.

The Setúbal record dated by birth to 1809 carries this same structure forward into a later stage without removing the earlier relationships. Annata de Francisco Da Costa Lopes Da Costa appears with Joanna Bapta and de Almeida as parents and Joz as godfather. The associated names within the same record include Bapp Ta, de Liçenca, Ygnacio, Joad de S. Lourenço, Luiz, Simons, Simonis, Ruiz, Rodriguez Da Cornejo, de Britto, Obidas, dos Mattos, Ma Mor, de Costa, Julia Margarida, Dexhandes, and Da Costa.

Within this single record, Simons and Simonis appear alongside Lopes inside the same compound surname structure. The Simon-root has not separated from the Lopes field even at this later stage. It remains embedded within the same record environment, attached to the same relational field that has continued forward from the earlier Coimbra and Portugal records.

Across the 1758 Aveiro and 1809 Setúbal records, when all names are preserved and the entries are read as complete record environments, the structure does not break. Lopes, Simonis, Simons, and multiple Simon-root forms continue to appear together within the same entries, attached to the same surrounding names. Ferreira, Rodrigues, Loureiro, de Almeida, and related names remain present within the same field.

The movement into the later recorded layers does not produce separation into isolated surname lines. The same naming structure remains intact, carried forward across locations and time, with the same internal relationships preserved inside the record environments.

FAMILY TREE CROSSOVER — LOPES / LOPEZ / GARCIA STRUCTURE (DATED LINEAGE CONTINUITY)

The structure preserved in the Portuguese record field does not end within the parish records. It continues forward into the genealogical layer, where the same names that appear together in the records remain attached to one another inside later family structures, and the dates within those structures show that this is a continuous system rather than a later convergence.

Within the preserved tree clusters, Pablo Lopez, born 1801, appears inside the same structure as Vicente Lopes, maintaining the continuity of the Lopes and Lopez forms. This same structure includes Maria Lorenza Garcia, born 1798, and Maria Josefa Garcia, placing the Garcia name directly inside the same generational environment as Lopez and Lopes. Joseph Reyes Garcia appears with a birth year of 1799, continuing the Garcia line within the same structure rather than outside of it.

The same generational layer includes Macedonio Lopez, born 1829, Jose A Lopez Roldan, born 1867, and Maria Asencion Roldan, born 1899, showing the Lopez line continuing forward while remaining attached to the same connected structure. Maria Gertrudis Mireles, born 1804, appears within the same environment, alongside Crespin Castro, born 1820, and Maria C Castro Lozano, born 1845, maintaining the same relational field as the earlier names.

Jose E Reyes, born 1799, appears within the same structure as Joseph Reyes Garcia, reinforcing that the Reyes and Garcia names are not separate from the Lopez and Lopes environment. Maria G Figueroa, born 1799, appears within the same generational field, alongside Jose R De Figueroa, maintaining the same continuity. Maria A Losano Zalaz, born 1825, appears within the same structure, alongside Jose Maria Losano and Juana Maria De Salas, continuing the same pattern of connected names.

The second cluster continues this same structure into later generations. J. Terezo de J Frias, born 1896 and living to 1992, appears within the same environment as Regino Frias and María Dominguez. Adelada Juarez, born 1901 and living to 1961, appears within the same structure, alongside Sabas Juarez and Maria Paufila Marrufo. Eusebio González, born 1910, appears within the same environment as Francisco González and Luisa López, maintaining the Lopez connection within the same generational structure.

Rosa Ontiveros, born 1907, appears within the same structure, alongside Antonio Ontiveras and Aleja López, maintaining the Lopez form within the same environment. José Garcia López, born 1922 and living to 1998, appears within the same structure as Tomás Garcia and Santos Lopez Cuellar, directly combining Garcia and Lopez within a single generational line. Erminia Juares, recorded to have died in 1993, appears within the same structure, alongside Aurelio Echeverria and MA. Y N D J Juares, continuing the same relational field.

When the genealogical layer is read with these dates preserved, the structure does not appear as a later convergence of separate surname lines. The dates show that Lopez, Lopes, and Garcia are already present within the same generational structures from the late 1700s through the 1800s and into the 1900s. The same names continue forward together across multiple generations without separation.

This dated genealogical structure continues directly from the earlier Portuguese record field. The names that appear together in the 1400s Coimbra records and the later 1501, 1714, 1758, and 1809 records remain attached to one another in the family tree. The structure does not break between the record layer and the genealogical layer. It carries forward across time, with the dates confirming that the same relational field remains intact from the earlier records into the later generations.

AUTOSOMAL MATCH STRUCTURE — LOPES / LOPEZ / GARCIA CONTINUITY (DATED MATCH RANGE)

The structure preserved in the Portuguese records and carried forward through the dated genealogical layer continues directly into the autosomal match data. The autosomal layer does not introduce a new pattern. It reflects the same relational field through repeated matches across defined cousin ranges.

Within the autosomal data, Lopes and Lopez appear repeatedly within the 4th, 5th, and 6th cousin ranges. These matches are not isolated to a single branch. They appear on both sides, maintaining the same structural presence across the dataset. The repetition within these specific cousin levels places the Lopes and Lopez names within a defined generational window that aligns with the dated genealogical layer spanning the late 1700s through the 1800s.

The Garcia matches extend further across the autosomal range, appearing continuously from the 4th through the 11th cousin levels. The presence of Garcia across this full range, without generational gaps, places it deeper within the same structural field. The continuity from 4th cousin through 11th cousin aligns with earlier generational layers, reaching back beyond the 1800s and into the same timeframe as the Portuguese record field.

Additional names appear within the same autosomal structure, including Suarez, Juarez, Perez, Cabral, and Enriquez. These names are not appearing as isolated matches. They appear within the same cousin ranges, attached to the same autosomal environment as Lopes, Lopez, and Garcia.

The 4th through 6th cousin matches correspond to more recent generations within the genealogical layer, including individuals born between 1798 and 1922. The extension of Garcia matches through the 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th cousin levels extends the structure further back, aligning with earlier generations that connect into the Portuguese record field dated to 1501, 1714, and earlier.

When the autosomal layer is read alongside the records and the dated genealogical structure, the pattern does not shift. Lopes, Lopez, and Garcia remain attached to one another within the same relational field. The repeated cousin-level matches confirm that these names are not appearing independently. They are part of a continuous autosomal structure that extends across multiple generations.

The autosomal data does not create a new connection between these names. It reflects the same structure already present in the records and preserved in the genealogical layer. The repetition across defined cousin ranges, combined with the absence of generational gaps in the Garcia matches, maintains the same continuity already visible across the earlier sections.

Y-DNA STRUCTURE — I-Y12047 (SIMONIS CORE) WITHIN THE LOPES / LOPEZ / GARCIA FIELD

The structure preserved in the records, carried through the dated genealogical layer, and reflected in the autosomal match data continues into the Y-DNA layer without replacing any of the earlier sections. The Y-DNA data does not isolate a general surname network. It anchors a defined paternal line, with I-Y12047 representing the Simonis core within the broader relational field.

The paternal structure is centered within the I1 haplogroup field, with I-M170 present as the broader classification and multiple downstream branches appearing within the same dataset. The observed matches include I-S63, I-Z63, I-S2077, I-Y12047, I-Z141, I-Z59, I-Z102, I-Y3709, I-Y396, I-Y4197, I-S9403, I-Y248, I-Y3153, I-S7642, I-DF29, I-M223, I-S236, I-S2606, I-FTD8, I-FTH9, I-FTB9, and I-FTC1. These branches are not forming separate systems. They appear within the same paternal field.

Within this structure, the I-Y12047 branch defines the Simonis core. This branch includes downstream markers such as I-A1890, I-A1891, I-Y12048, I-Y12049, I-Y12050, I-Y19092, I-A19139, I-A19385, I-A19386, I-A19387, I-A19388, I-S2202, I-A8621, I-A8623, I-FT104505, I-FT104886, I-FT105451, I-FT105452, I-FTC2491, I-FTC1149, I-FGC76378, I-FGC76403, I-Y6228, I-Y6230, I-Y85413, I-Y13012, I-Y13013, I-Y14612, I-Y14613, I-Y16812, I-Y16813, I-Y24463, I-Y24464, I-Y134887, I-Y134888, I-Y134889, I-A11386, I-A11387, I-A13663, I-BY35118, and I-BY35119. These markers form a tightly grouped structure centered on I-Y12047.

Alongside this Simonis core, deeper and basal I1 branches remain present within the same dataset, including I-Z2699, I-Z17954, I-Y19288, I-FGC47136, I-FGC72688, I-FTF27125, I-Z2336, I-Z2337, I-L840, and I-M253. Transitional branches also appear, including I-Z63, I-S2077, I-BY151, I-Z140, I-L338, I-BY11222, I-BY11223, and I-Z73. These branches do not replace the Simonis core. They exist alongside it within the same paternal environment.

The I-S2606 line appears within this same structure and does not stand outside of it. It shares the same I1 field and aligns within the same pattern environment, while not showing the same compressed structure as the I-Y12047 Simonis core. Its placement within the same dataset keeps the Garcia-associated line inside the same paternal field rather than outside of it.

Within the same overall system, a Lopez-associated match appears at the R-Z209 haplogroup level. This is not part of the I1 field. It belongs to R1b. Its presence within the same autosomal and surname environment confirms that the structure is not restricted to a single paternal line. Multiple haplogroups operate within the same relational system.

When this Y-DNA structure is read alongside the earlier sections, it does not redefine the system. It anchors it. I-Y12047 defines the Simonis paternal core, while I-S2606 aligns within the same field and R-Z209 confirms that the structure extends across haplogroups. The paternal layer remains consistent with the record field, the dated genealogical structure, and the autosomal match data, preserving the same relationships across all layers.

STR PATTERN STRUCTURE — I-Y12047 (SIMONIS CORE) WITHIN THE SHARED PATTERN FIELD

The structure defined in the Y-DNA layer is not limited to haplogroup labels. It is expressed through the STR pattern, and that pattern sits inside the same system already established across the records, the dated genealogical layer, and the autosomal matches. The I-Y12047 line defines the Simonis core within this pattern structure.

The STR values present within the I-Y12047 structure include DYS455=8, DYS390=22, DYS710=34 or 34.2, DYS448=20, DYS459=8-9, DYS385=14-14, DYS391=10, DYS392=11, DYS393 in the 13–14 range, DYS439=11, and DYS426=11. These values do not appear as scattered variation. They form a stable and repeating pattern within the same line.

The defining feature of this structure is the DYS455=8 value. This value places the I-Y12047 line into a compressed pattern state. The surrounding markers remain stable within their ranges, and together they form a tightly grouped pattern that does not expand outward across wide variation. The structure is retained rather than dispersed.

This pattern does not exist in isolation. It aligns fully within multiple established modal structures that occupy the same pattern field. The I-Y12047 line resolves at full alignment with the J2-like modal structure, where DYS390=22, DYS391=10, DYS392=11, and DYS393 remains within the 13–14 range. It aligns at full resolution with the G-M377-associated modal pattern, maintaining DYS19=14 alongside the same mid-range stability across the panel. It also aligns fully with the T-L208 modal structure, centered again on DYS390=22 and DYS393=13.

These alignments are not partial or approximate. The I-Y12047 structure fits fully within each of these modal ranges while maintaining its own compressed state through DYS455=8. The compression does not replace the broader pattern field. It exists within it.

The I-S2606 line appears within the same pattern field but does not express the same compressed structure. Its STR values align within the same general ranges, including DYS390=22, DYS391=10, DYS392=11, and DYS448=20, and it maintains YCA II values within the 19–21 range. However, the DYS455 marker remains within the standard range, typically around 11 to 12, and the pattern does not show the same compression.

The difference between I-Y12047 and I-S2606 is not a separation of systems. It is a difference in expression within the same pattern field. The I-Y12047 line defines a compressed core within that field, while I-S2606 aligns within the same structure without that compression.

The presence of the R-Z209 Lopez-associated match does not disrupt this pattern structure. While it belongs to a different haplogroup, it appears within the same autosomal and surname environment, confirming that the pattern field is not restricted to a single paternal origin. The STR structure remains centered on the I-Y12047 Simonis core, while the broader system continues to operate across multiple lines.

When this STR pattern layer is read alongside the Y-DNA structure, the autosomal data, the dated genealogical layer, and the preserved records, the system remains consistent. The I-Y12047 line defines the compressed Simonis core, the I-S2606 line aligns within the same pattern field, and the broader surname structure continues to operate across the same relational environment without separation.

CROSS-HAPLOGROUP STR STRUCTURE — I-Y12047 (SIMONIS CORE) AND R-Z209 (IBERIAN FIELD)

The STR structure defined by the I-Y12047 Simonis core does not exist in isolation. It sits within a wider pattern field that includes additional haplogroups operating in the same surname and autosomal environment. The presence of the Lopez-associated R-Z209 line introduces a second STR structure that does not match the I1 compression pattern but exists alongside it within the same system.

The I-Y12047 structure is defined by its compressed pattern, anchored by DYS455=8 and supported by DYS390=22, DYS448=20, DYS391=10, DYS392=11, DYS393 within the 13–14 range, DYS459=8-9, DYS426=11, and DYS710 at 34 or 34.2. This pattern forms a stable and tightly grouped structure that does not expand outward, maintaining a compressed founder state within the broader pattern field.

The R-Z209 structure does not follow this pattern. It carries a different STR configuration that is defined by a separate set of markers. The R-Z209 signature is anchored by DYS437=14, DYS448=18, GATA-H4=10, DYS390 within the 23–25 range, and DYS455 at 11. These values form the identifying structure of the R-Z209 North-South cluster, which differs from the compressed architecture of the I-Y12047 line.

The difference at DYS455 is direct. The I-Y12047 structure is defined by the deletion to 8, while R-Z209 retains the ancestral value of 11. This is not a variation within the same pattern. It is a separation between two structural expressions. The difference at DYS448 reinforces this separation, with I-Y12047 holding at 20 while R-Z209 carries the lower value of 18. The difference at DYS390 places I-Y12047 at 22 while R-Z209 sits in the 23–25 range. These markers define two distinct STR configurations.

At the same time, both structures share a set of stable markers that place them within the same broader pattern field. DYS391 remains at 10 in both structures. DYS392 remains at 11. DYS426 remains at 11. DYS393 appears at 13 within both structures. These markers do not define either group independently. They create a shared baseline across the Mediterranean and Iberian corridor.

The I-S2606 line sits inside this comparison. It does not show the I-Y12047 compression at DYS455=8. It retains the value at 11, matching the standard R1b state at that marker. This places I-S2606 outside of the compressed Simonis core at the level of DYS455. At the same time, I-S2606 maintains alignment with the I-Y12047 structure across the shared markers, including DYS390=22, DYS391=10, DYS392=11, and DYS448=20. This creates a mixed position within the pattern field.

The I-S2606 structure does not shift into the R-Z209 pattern. It does not carry DYS437=14, and it does not carry DYS448=18. It remains aligned with the I-Y12047 pattern at those markers. At the same time, it does not carry the compressed DYS455=8. It retains the ancestral 11. This creates a position where I-S2606 aligns structurally with the Simonis pattern field while not expressing the compressed founder state.

The presence of the Lopez-associated R-Z209 line confirms that this pattern field operates across multiple haplogroups. The R-Z209 structure follows its own STR configuration, anchored by DYS437=14 and DYS448=18, while still appearing within the same autosomal and surname environment as Lopes and Lopez. The I-Y12047 structure defines the compressed Simonis core. The I-S2606 line aligns within that field without compression. The R-Z209 line defines a separate STR structure within the same system.

When these structures are read together, the pattern does not collapse into a single lineage. It shows multiple paternal expressions operating within the same relational environment. The I-Y12047 Simonis core remains defined by its compressed STR pattern. The I-S2606 line maintains alignment without compression. The R-Z209 line carries a distinct Iberian STR signature while remaining within the same surname and autosomal field.

This explains why the I-S2606 line carries DYS455 at 11. It is not expressing the compressed Simonis state at that marker, while still remaining inside the same broader pattern field defined by the shared markers and the surrounding structure.

FOUNDER / ENDOGAMY SUPPORT · FULL ALIGNMENT LAYER

This section does not introduce new percentages. It explains why the existing Origin read holds when the autosomal structure, the Y-STR pattern layer, and the mtDNA HVR layer are examined together as a single system. The data in this section is not independent. It is a direct continuation of the prior layers, and its role is to show that those layers do not conflict with each other when read at full depth.

The Y-STR comparison layer produces a full panel of marker-pattern alignments across established Jewish comparison libraries. These comparisons do not operate as isolated matches. The structure resolves across a large number of rows, with a concentrated portion of those rows falling into high-confidence overlap ranges. The alignment is not tied to a single branch. It appears across multiple comparison groups, including Sephardic-associated sets and Ashkenazi-associated sets, and the same core values repeat across those groups. The defining markers already established in the I-Y12047 structure, including DYS390=22, DYS391=10, DYS392=11, DYS393 within the 13–14 range, DYS448=20, DYS459=8-9, and the compressed DYS455=8, remain stable across these comparisons. The DYS710 micro-allele at 34 or 34.2 continues to anchor the pattern at a deeper level where convergence does not occur. These values do not drift across the comparison sets. They hold, and the repetition across independent libraries confirms that the pattern is not random.

The mtDNA HVR layer operates in parallel to the Y-STR layer and produces a separate set of motif alignments that do not depend on the paternal structure. The HVR comparisons resolve across multiple rows, with a defined portion of those rows matching known founder-style motif patterns. These motifs align within the J1c1b2 structure and repeat across the same comparison sets that show overlap in the paternal layer. The maternal structure is not broad or undefined. It is contained within a specific motif pattern that repeats across the dataset and aligns with known founder-level configurations.

The autosomal layer reinforces both the paternal and maternal structures through the presence of preserved founder signals at the chromosomal level. The dataset contains a high number of zero-heterozygosity blocks, along with additional low-heterozygosity windows that extend across multiple chromosomes. These blocks are not isolated to a single region. They are distributed across the genome, forming a pattern of preserved cores and corridor segments. The presence of these blocks indicates reduced recombination within those regions, consistent with endogamy and founder retention. The autosomal structure does not present as a smooth distribution. It presents as a layered system with preserved cores and transition corridors.

When these three layers are read together, the alignment is not partial. The Y-STR structure, defined by the compressed I-Y12047 Simonis core, holds across a wide set of comparison rows. The mtDNA HVR structure aligns through repeated founder motifs within the J1c1b2 line. The autosomal structure supports both through the presence of preserved low-heterozygosity regions and zero-heterozygosity blocks distributed across the genome. These signals do not contradict each other. They reinforce the same structural condition.

The regional pattern fit reflects this alignment rather than creating it. The Levantine root presents as the dominant layer, followed by the Iberian and Sephardic corridor, with Mediterranean consolidation and the Balkan bridge forming supporting layers. North African distribution appears as a lower layer, and Northern European appears as a surface layer. These layers are not independent population assignments. They are expressions of how the preserved structure distributes across historical corridors. The Northern European signal does not override the deeper layers. It sits on top of them, reflecting both real structure and compression effects within modern models.

The declared haplogroups do not generate this structure. The Y-DNA line I-Y12047 and the mtDNA line J1c1b2 are placed within this section to show that the direct paternal and maternal lines do not conflict with the observed pattern. The Y-DNA line defines the compressed core already established in the STR layer. The mtDNA line aligns with the repeated motif structure in the HVR layer. Neither line introduces the pattern. Both confirm that it is internally consistent.

The full alignment across these layers demonstrates that the system does not behave as a recent mixture of unrelated components. The paternal structure is compressed and stable, the maternal structure repeats within defined motifs, and the autosomal structure preserves low-variation cores across multiple chromosomes. These features together indicate a retained founder structure rather than a dispersed or recombined profile. The alignment is not based on a single signal. It is the result of multiple independent layers resolving to the same structural condition.

CHROMOSOME POSITION CROSS-EXAM — SIMONIS / GARCIA STRUCTURE WITHIN THE SEPHARDIC CORRIDOR SYSTEM

The autosomal structure does not exist in abstraction. It is physically anchored on defined chromosome bands, and those bands carry consistent regional expressions when they are cross-examined through the corridor system.

This layer does not introduce a new pattern. It confirms that the same structure already established through the records, the genealogical layer, the autosomal matches, and the STR-defined Simonis core is physically preserved across the genome.

Starting from the preserved core layer, defined by the zero-heterozygosity windows and extreme low-heterozygosity bands already identified in the autosomal structure, the pattern anchors into specific Mb ranges that repeatedly resolve into Sephardic-aligned regional outputs. These bands do not shift randomly. They hold their structure and express through different regional models without breaking.

Chromosome 1 shows this immediately. The upper band around 145–250 Mb resolves through Iberian modeling into Basque and Spanish Sephardic alignment, while lower bands express through Mediterranean models as South Italian and Central Italian Sephardic-linked corridors. When the same band is read through African modeling, it expresses North African and Sephardic-aligned Berber overlays. This is not multiple identities. It is one preserved structure expressing through multiple corridor directions.

Chromosome 2 carries the same behavior. The 95–244 Mb band resolves into Iberian Spanish and Basque Sephardic alignment while also expressing Horn of Africa and East African Sephardic-linked overlays when viewed through southern corridor models. The structure holds. Only the regional expression changes.

Chromosome 3, particularly in the 93–198 Mb range, expresses South Italian and Central Italian Sephardic corridors while also maintaining Central African Sephardic-linked overlays. This is a Mediterranean–African corridor expression, not a split origin.

Chromosome 4, in the 52–191 Mb band, consistently returns North and Central Italian Sephardic alignment while also resolving into North African Sephardic corridors. The same band holds both sides of the Mediterranean system.

Chromosome 5 shows continuous corridor behavior across the 49–181 Mb range, resolving into Spanish and Castilian Sephardic alignment on the Iberian side while also carrying Central African Sephardic-linked signals. This is a corridor span, not isolated signals.

Chromosome 6, in the 62–171 Mb range, expresses South Italian Sephardic alignment while also resolving into Balkan-linked corridors and East African Sephardic overlays. This band sits in the transition zone between Mediterranean and eastern movement.

Chromosome 7, across the 0–58 Mb and 62–160 Mb ranges, resolves into North Italian and Catalan Sephardic alignment while also expressing Balkan Roma–Jewish and Serbian–Croatian Sephardic-linked corridors. This is a direct east–west bridge.

Chromosome 8, including the 47–147 Mb and 0–44 Mb bands, expresses Portuguese and Basque Sephardic alignment while also resolving into Berber and East African Sephardic-linked signals. This is a western Iberian to North African anchor.

Chromosome 9, particularly in the 71–142 Mb range, expresses South Italian Sephardic alignment alongside North African Berber Sephardic overlays, maintaining Mediterranean–African continuity.

Chromosome 10, across 42–136 Mb, expresses North Italian and Andalusian Sephardic alignment with matching Central African Sephardic-linked overlays, reinforcing that the southern corridor is part of the same structure.

Chromosome 11, in the 0–52 Mb range, resolves into Portuguese and Central Italian Sephardic alignment while also carrying South African and Berber Sephardic-linked signals, holding Iberian and African expressions together.

Chromosome 12, in the 38–134 Mb range, expresses North Italian Sephardic alignment alongside Central African Sephardic overlays, maintaining the same corridor structure.

Chromosome 13, in the 19–116 Mb range, resolves into North Italian and Greek Sephardic alignment while also expressing East African Sephardic-linked signals, reinforcing eastern movement.

Chromosome 14, across 20–108 Mb, expresses Central Italian Sephardic alignment while resolving into Albanian and Balkan Sephardic-linked corridors, forming a Mediterranean–Balkan bridge.

Chromosome 15 continues this pattern in the 22–103 Mb range, maintaining Central Italian alignment alongside Albanian and Balkan outputs.

Chromosome 16, across 46–91 Mb, expresses Central Italian Sephardic alignment alongside North African Sephardic overlays, continuing the Mediterranean–African continuity.

Chromosome 17, in the 25–82 Mb range, resolves into Andalusian and Portuguese Sephardic alignment while also expressing Balkan Roma–Jewish outputs, forming a west-to-east bridge anchored in Iberia.

Chromosome 18, in the 18–79 Mb band, reinforces Iberian Sephardic alignment while maintaining Mediterranean transition corridors.

Chromosome 19, across 0–60 Mb, expresses Andalusian, Castilian, and Central Italian Sephardic alignment alongside Balkan Greek and Serbian Sephardic-linked outputs, forming one of the strongest multi-direction corridor bands.

Chromosome 20, across 0–63 Mb, expresses Portuguese and Central Italian Sephardic alignment while resolving into Balkan Croatian and Bulgarian Sephardic-linked corridors.

Chromosome 21 and 22 continue the same pattern, expressing Central and North Italian Sephardic alignment while maintaining Balkan-linked outputs, reinforcing the final eastern layers of the system.

Across all chromosomes, the pattern does not break. The Mb bands remain structurally anchored while expressing through Iberian, Italian, Balkan, African, and eastern corridor models. The Levantine layer sits beneath all of this as the root signal, expressed through repeated Sephardic alignment across every regional model.

This is where Simonis and Garcia reconnect directly to the structure.

The same chromosome bands that express Iberian Sephardic alignment are the same bands that carry forward into the New World through the Coimbra to Lisbon to Mexico corridor. The Garcia lines in the genealogical layer are not separate from the Portuguese record field. They are the continuation of that structure. The same preserved bands move forward, not new ones.

The chromosome layer confirms that the system is not fragmenting into unrelated identities. It is holding a continuous corridor structure across time and geography.

The structure does not change. The geography moves around it.

LOPES / LOPEZ — MULTI-LAYER COUSIN STRUCTURE AND GARCIA LINE CONTINUITY

The Lopes and Lopez layer is not defined in this article through a separate deep chromosome reconstruction. It is defined through repeated presence across the autosomal match structure and through direct continuity inside the Garcia family lines. The strength of this layer comes from repetition across independent systems rather than a single test.

Within the autosomal data, Lopes and Lopez appear repeatedly within the same cousin ranges. These matches are not isolated to a single branch. They appear across multiple lines and across both sides of the match structure, maintaining consistent presence within the same generational windows. The repetition within these ranges places Lopes and Lopez inside the same structural field already established through the earlier sections.

This repetition does not stand alone. It connects directly into the genealogical layer, where Garcia lines carry Lopes and Lopez within their own direct family structure. These are not distant or unrelated connections. Lopes and Lopez appear inside the same family lines as Garcia, attached through multiple generations rather than appearing as occasional external matches. The names are embedded within the same lineage structure.

The presence of Lopez and Lopes inside the Garcia lines is not a single occurrence. It repeats across multiple individuals and across multiple branches of the same family structure. This places Lopes and Lopez inside the same generational continuity as Garcia, linking them directly into the structure that carries forward from the Portuguese record field.

This relationship also aligns with the earlier record layer, where Lopes, Lopez, and Simon-root forms appear together within the same entries. The same names that appear together in Coimbra and the later Portuguese records continue forward into the Garcia family structure. The genealogical layer does not introduce a new connection. It continues the same one.

The autosomal match structure reinforces this connection by placing Lopes and Lopez within the same cousin ranges as Garcia. These matches do not appear as isolated or unrelated signals. They appear within the same match environment, attached to the same surname field and repeating across multiple entries.

The presence of Lopes and Lopez within the R-Z209 layer further supports this placement. While this haplogroup does not define the Simonis core, it appears within the same surname and autosomal environment, confirming that Lopes and Lopez operate within the same broader system across multiple paternal expressions.

When these layers are read together, Lopes and Lopez do not require a separate deep reconstruction. Their position is already defined through repetition, continuity, and direct placement within the Garcia family lines. The structure does not rely on a single test to confirm their role. It is established across the records, the genealogical layer, and the autosomal match field.

This places Lopes and Lopez as the connective layer between the earlier Portuguese record structure and the later Garcia continuation. They are not external additions to the system. They are part of the same continuous structure, carried forward across generations and reinforced through multiple independent layers.

MEXICO CONTINUATION — THE STRUCTURE IN THE NEW WORLD

The movement into Mexico does not introduce a new structure. It continues the same system already established through the Coimbra record field, the Portuguese layers, the genealogical continuity, and the DNA structure. The names do not arrive independently. They arrive together, carrying the same relationships already visible in the earlier records.

The Garcia lines that appear in Mexico are not separate from the Portuguese field. They are the continuation of it. The same family structure that carries Lopes and Lopez alongside Garcia in the genealogical layer appears again in the New World, not as isolated surnames, but as part of the same connected system. These names do not merge after arrival. They are already linked before movement.

The autosomal structure reinforces this continuation. The same match patterns that appear within the Iberian and Portuguese layers remain present within the Mexico-based lines. The cousin ranges do not reset. They extend. The Lopez and Lopes matches that appear within the autosomal field remain connected to the same structure that carries Garcia forward. The pattern does not break at the point of migration.

The chromosome-position structure confirms that this movement is not a shift in identity. The same preserved bands that resolve through Iberian and Sephardic-aligned models remain present in the New World layer. The structure does not fragment into new regional identities. It continues to express through the same corridor system, even as the geography changes.

The Y-DNA and STR structure does not change in this transition. The I-Y12047 Simonis core remains defined by the same compressed pattern. The surrounding structure, including the Lopez-associated R-Z209 presence and the aligned I-S2606 layer, continues to operate within the same relational field. These lines do not reorganize after movement. They remain consistent with the earlier layers.

The movement from Portugal into Mexico reflects a continuation of the same corridor system already visible in the chromosome cross-exam. The Iberian, Mediterranean, North African, and Balkan expressions do not disappear. They remain embedded within the same structure, now carried into a new geographic location. The system is not replaced. It is extended.

This is where the full structure resolves. The records establish the names together. The genealogical layer carries those names forward. The autosomal structure preserves the pattern. The STR layer defines the Simonis core. The cross-haplogroup structure shows multiple paternal expressions within the same system. The founder layer confirms preservation. The chromosome layer shows where that structure physically sits.

The Mexico layer shows that it does not stop.

The structure does not end in Portugal. It continues across the Atlantic, carrying the same names, the same relationships, and the same genetic structure into the New World without breaking.