Lack of G2a in Basque

[Bodin]

Reading treads I encountered very interesting problem : why there is no G2a in west Pirinei ? G2a is present in whole Europe , except in that region , east Baltic coast, central and northern Scandinavia .Lack of it in east Baltic coast , central and north Scandinavia can be explained by the fact that Neolitic farmers that use to carry G2a havent reached that regions , but that explanation is not god enough for west Pirinei. What is even stranger , that region is mountain , and G2a is elevated exactly in mountain regions : Apenini , Alps , Caucasus , ... Sometimes it is even described like haplogroup of goatbriders . Lack of G2a seems to corespond with spread of Basque ( in Spain and in France ) .
Haplogroup_G2a ydna.jpg
if someone can share some light on this mistery , please do .

[spongetaro]

looks like the original R1b P312 people spoke something similar to Basque. Then with the regions G2a/ R1b mixed we got the Celtic language.
G2a might have spread (alongside R1b U152) the Celtic languages from the Alpes.

[Taranis]

looks like the original R1b P312 people spoke something similar to Basque. Then with the regions G2a/ R1b mixed we got the Celtic language.
G2a might have spread (alongside R1b U152) the Celtic languages from the Alpes.

Sorry, I think you are making too much of an assumption of a connection between language and Y-Haplogroups. If the language of the R1b-P312 people (very likely the Beaker-Bell Culture) would have been Basque, one would expect there to Basque loanwords in Proto-Celtic, Proto-Germanic and possibly the Italic languages, which simply is not the case. Even the number of Celtic loans into Basque is unlikely small given the extended contact the languages should have had.

Another problem is that the known evidence of the maximum extend of Basque (or it's ancestor language, Aquitanian), is only a relatively small area, extending as far north as the Garonne river (which corresponds relatively well actually with the map).

[Brictus]

One thing. People speak "mother languages" not paternal langaguages. So Basque language is not the product of Y.Chr but of mtDNA

[Taranis]

One thing. People speak "mother languages" not paternal langaguages. So Basque language is not the product of Y.Chr but of mtDNA

Welcome to the forum. :)

And yes, I agree (and others on this forum mentioned it before), that this is an idea that has been suggested in respect for explaining the discrepancies/differences between Basque Y-DNA, mitochondrial/autosomal DNA and the language.

[sparkey]

One thing. People speak "mother languages" not paternal langaguages. So Basque language is not the product of Y.Chr but of mtDNA

Obviously it's a product of neither, and if language was universally matrilineally inherited, we would expect all of Iberia to speak Basque, wouldn't we?

Either way, we still don't have anything to compare Basque to, so we can't be sure when the language (or the ancestral language(s) from which it is derived) arrived in Western Europe. But if we're certain it's Paleolithic, we can rest easy knowing that there is significant Paleolithic Y-DNA among Basques, and that it is of the most common variety in the Neolithic (I2a1a), as we've mentioned. The only problem remaining if all of that proves to be true is explaining how R1b expanded within Basques... and that explanation doesn't even have to be entirely based on culture or language inheritance patterns.

[Taranis]

Obviously it's a product of neither, and if language was universally matrilineally inherited, we would expect all of Iberia to speak Basque, wouldn't we?

Either way, we still don't have anything to compare Basque to, so we can't be sure when the language (or the ancestral language(s) from which it is derived) arrived in Western Europe. But if we're certain it's Paleolithic, we can rest easy knowing that there is significant Paleolithic Y-DNA among Basques, and that it is of the most common variety in the Neolithic (I2a1a), as we've mentioned. The only problem remaining if all of that proves to be true is explaining how R1b expanded within Basques... and that explanation doesn't even have to be entirely based on culture or language inheritance patterns.

Well, what I think what Brictus was refering to is, which also has a few historically attested examples (Taino and Caribs in the Carribean), is that children will be more likely to learn their mothers language, even if we talk about a patrilineal society of conquerors. This is a scenario that could easily explain how the Basques as a society could end up being majorly R1b while retaining a Neolithic or even Paleolithic language.

[zanipolo]

[QUOTE=sparkey;382533]

Obviously it's a product of neither, and if language was universally matrilineally inherited, we would expect all of Iberia to speak Basque, wouldn't we?

? , maternal language is not nationalistic, its a language used in the home, the village, the town. It grows in this slow way.

[zanipolo]

One thing. People speak "mother languages" not paternal langaguages. So Basque language is not the product of Y.Chr but of mtDNA

this is correct, languages are maternal and not paternal.

So, basically linguistics to a degree call regional/provincial languages maternal , while national languages are paternal.

basque would have retain its language from its maternal side

[MOESAN]

this is correct, languages are maternal and not paternal.

So, basically linguistics to a degree call regional/provincial languages maternal , while national languages are paternal.

basque would have retain its language from its maternal side

there is no general everlasting rule I think:
maternal language more local in ancient time; it's turning the contrary now: with possibility to women to live their lives, to work and move, regional or local languages (in a lot ot Europe countries) have more male supporters...

[Wilhelm]

It's curious because autosomally, the Basques also lack the west-asian component, which peaks in Georgia, just like G2a.

[sparkey]

Another curiosity is that I2a1a normally correlates with G2a, indicating that I2a1a joined with expanding farmers in the Neolithic and spread accordingly, with Basque Country's high I2a1a and low G2a being the major exception. I wonder if we're just seeing a case of major genetic drift here.

[Maciamo]

Another curiosity is that I2a1a normally correlates with G2a, indicating that I2a1a joined with expanding farmers in the Neolithic and spread accordingly, with Basque Country's high I2a1a and low G2a being the major exception. I wonder if we're just seeing a case of major genetic drift here.

If I2a, like all of haplogroup I, was in Europe since the Paleolithic, the combined presence of G2a and I2a in Neolithic sites is simply the result of the indigenous people mixing with the newcomers, not necessarily a sign that they migrated together. In that case, it wouldn't be strange at all to find areas with plenty of I2a and no G2a, if Neolithic immigrants never got there. I think that is the case of the Basques, and which is why Basque language doesn't seem to be even remotely related to any ancient Middle Eastern language. It might truly be the last remnant of Paleolithic European language.

[sparkey]

If I2a, like all of haplogroup I, was in Europe since the Paleolithic, the combined presence of G2a and I2a in Neolithic sites is simply the result of the indigenous people mixing with the newcomers, not necessarily a sign that they migrated together. In that case, it wouldn't be strange at all to find areas with plenty of I2a and no G2a, if Neolithic immigrants never got there. I think that is the case of the Basques, and which is why Basque language doesn't seem to be even remotely related to any ancient Middle Eastern language. It might truly be the last remnant of Paleolithic European language.

IIRC I2a1a has highest diversity among the Basques, indicating an eastward spread. That could mean that the G2a people mixed with I2a1a people on the periphery of the I2a1a people's geographic extent, and then the resulting mixed population spread to places like Sardinia later. I think you're right about the fact that the patterns we see are the result of mixing. Either way, we end up with G2a not penetrating into the "original" I2a1a population, whose most direct descendants appear to be the Basques.

The question is, why couldn't they penetrate into the I2a1a population? Was it that the Neolithic farmers weren't really that much more advanced than the hunter-gatherers? Or did the I2a1a people take the G2a people's cultural advances for themselves before the G2a people could reach them?

[Maciamo]

IIRC I2a1a has highest diversity among the Basques, indicating an eastward spread. That could mean that the G2a people mixed with I2a1a people on the periphery of the I2a1a people's geographic extent, and then the resulting mixed population spread to places like Sardinia later. I think you're right about the fact that the patterns we see are the result of mixing. Either way, we end up with G2a not penetrating into the "original" I2a1a population, whose most direct descendants appear to be the Basques.

The question is, why couldn't they penetrate into the I2a1a population? Was it that the Neolithic farmers weren't really that much more advanced than the hunter-gatherers? Or did the I2a1a people take the G2a people's cultural advances for themselves before the G2a people could reach them?

I basically agree with that, except that I think that I2a1 (or I2a1a if you will) was already in Sardinia when G2a arrived in the western Mediterranean.

I doubt that the initial contact between two completely different people, the Southwest European I2a1 hunter-gatherers and the Near-Eastern farmers-herders G2a, was a very friendly one. There were probably confrontations for a few centuries, and I imagine the two communities living secluded from each others. With time they may have started trading with each others, exchange spouses, and warmed to each others' presence.

But I cannot conceive a blend of the two populations soon after they ran into each others. I also doubt that either of them was significantly superior to the other militarily. Paleolithic and Neolithic weapons were both made of wood and (flint)stone*. The G2a were surely outnumbered at first, which makes it unlikely that they displaced I2a1 people. The G2a population might have increased faster once their primitive crops started yielding more food and their herds grew in number, but once they had settled down somewhere they couldn't easily move far away without losing their crop.

It's likely that G2a first settled in territories that were less favourable for hunting (so less frequented by I2a1 folks) and better suited to farming and herding. As they apparently travelled by sea, the G2a people would have colonised the coastal areas first, and avoided moving too much inland if there was an important I2a1. As the Basque country is still heavily forested to this day, it was obviously not convenient for farming or herding, but rich in game for hunters. The Pyrenees were obviously not very fertile for crop either, but had enough wild animals for I2a1 people to live there in small densities.


* the real revolution in military technology came with bronze, which could produce sharp and strong weapons like battle axes and swords, instead of wooden arrows and wood-and-flintstone spears and hatchets. Copper alone, like gold, silver or lead, was not very good for weapons as it was too brittle and flaky, although it did improve agricultural tools.

[Taranis]

If I2a, like all of haplogroup I, was in Europe since the Paleolithic, the combined presence of G2a and I2a in Neolithic sites is simply the result of the indigenous people mixing with the newcomers, not necessarily a sign that they migrated together. In that case, it wouldn't be strange at all to find areas with plenty of I2a and no G2a, if Neolithic immigrants never got there. I think that is the case of the Basques, and which is why Basque language doesn't seem to be even remotely related to any ancient Middle Eastern language. It might truly be the last remnant of Paleolithic European language.

I absolutely agree that the explanation that the Neolithic farmers never got there is a very likely one.

The problem with linking the Basque language to any other language is that we essentially just have the modern Basque language, and very little else. The ancient Near Eastern languages which have some similarities in grammatical structures (Hurrian, Sumerian) were all spoken thousands of years ago, and we have no way to compare them.

Using internal reconstruction, it is possible to reconstruct a "Proto-Basque". This is achieved by taking a look how various Indo-European loans (mainly Latin, Spanish) were shifted according to Basque sound laws. The problem is that this "Proto-Basque" is essentially the Basque language of approximately 2000-2300 years ago. It has indeed been shown that the reconstructed Proto-Basque words are similar to the few Aquitanian words we have recorded in Roman sources (thereby suggesting that Aquitanian, indeed, is very likely the same as Old Basque). However, it's virtually impossible to reconstruct the Basque language further back. It's also impossible to reconstruct languages like Hurrian or Sumerian further back because there is nothing to compare against and it's hence impossible to say which words are loanwords and which are not. So it's impossible to say if Basque has any relationship with any of the agglutinative languages of the ancient Near East (thereby making Basque a Neolithic language), or if it's indeed the sole survivor of Paleolithic European languages.

What is clear is that the Basques didn't have any contact with Indo-European languages until at least the Copper Age, more probably into the Bronze Age.

[Knovas]

It's not impossible they have, at least, around 0.5 -1 % of G2a. The problem could be there aren't enough samples to reflect this, like happens with other haplogroups like I1 (note that they show some Q). However, it's true that the West Asian component seems to be absent, and almost the same if we check Southwest Asian.

As population, they are the most purest Europeans, although some individuals (mainly Lithuanians) sometimes get even more incredible results.

[Bodin]

I was able to think only these scenarios :
1) Genocide (killing or resettling) of old populations by newcomers , but it would mean that I2a1 is not native to region , and also that R1b is comed from region with almoust no G2a
2) G2a farmers never managed to conquer paleolitic I2a1 in region , only R1b had , but again R1b is coming from region with very low G2a
3)Maybe lack of G2a that comed with R1b significaly decreased % of G2a in Basque , so it is less then 0,5%
This could also be significant for origin of R1b : Maybe Basque R1b comed from Africa - but only found R1b there is V88 , so these is unlikly scenario ( Is there some G2a in North Africa ? ) ; Second posibility is that Basque R1b could come from aerias with no G2a like : central and north Scandinavia or Baltic coast or some other , any sugestions?
Maybe you can find some more scenarios please post

[razyn]

I was able to think only these scenarios :
snip --
3)
snip --
Second posibility is that Basque R1b could come from aerias with no G2a like : central and north Scandinavia or Baltic coast or some other , any sugestions?
Maybe you can find some more scenarios please post

You said it. All I meant was that, having left someplace without a G2a population component, if Z196 didn't walk through the European subcontinent but took boats (or a different, mostly land route), there was no requirement of picking up G2a along the way. Also, G2a may have daughtered out in some places that are relevant -- or were, at the time of the Z196 movement. Or there might have been a caste system. That could be at their place of departure; some intermediate stopover (such as Liguria, which btw is not my suggestion but one that has been made by a French colleague); or the Basque country in which the M153 subclade, at least, ended up. What we see in populations today may not reveal much about what these migrants (traders, conquerors, lovers, musicians, guys with high sperm count, or whatever they were) saw, roughly 5,000 years ago.

[Bodin]

You said it. All I meant was that, having left someplace without a G2a population component, if Z196 didn't walk through the European subcontinent but took boats (or a different, mostly land route), there was no requirement of picking up G2a along the way. Also, G2a may have daughtered out in some places that are relevant -- or were, at the time of the Z196 movement. Or there might have been a caste system. That could be at their place of departure; some intermediate stopover (such as Liguria, which btw is not my suggestion but one that has been made by a French colleague); or the Basque country in which the M153 subclade, at least, ended up. What we see in populations today may not reveal much about what these migrants (traders, conquerors, lovers, musicians, guys with high sperm count, or whatever they were) saw, roughly 5,000 years ago.

You lost me , please say clearly where from did you think they came on boats?
Thanks for answering

[razyn]

You lost me , please say clearly where from did you think they came on boats?

Gdańsk.

Or somewhere at the eastern end of the Mediterranean, it's not as if I was there and asked them.

[Bodin]

I just got another idea : maybe spread of R1b was preceltic , and Celts maybe ones that carried G2a in Spain( from Austria , Switzerland both rich with G2a and also centers of La Tene culture) , but Celts werent able to get in to Basque aerias . This could in a streach mean that La Tene culture was 30-40% G2a , and even that G2a is the one that carried IE languague -Celtic to west Europe , but its nor realy likely

[Taranis]

I just got another idea : maybe spread of R1b was preceltic , and Celts maybe ones that carried G2a in Spain( from Austria , Switzerland both rich with G2a and also centers of La Tene culture) , but Celts werent able to get in to Basque aerias . This could in a streach mean that La Tene culture was 30-40% G2a , and even that G2a is the one that carried IE languague -Celtic to west Europe , but its nor realy likely

I've said before, there is clear evidence that G2a was in Europe before R1b. We have 0% R1b from two Neolithic sites which today have ~70% R1b and ~40% R1b, respectively. Conversely, we have 2 out of 22 samples of I2a from Treilles, whereas today there is maybe 1-3% of that Haplogroup in the region.

There's also a statistical argument in favour of this. If we assume for a moment that the samples from Treilles are actually representative of the situation back in the Neolithic (9% I2a, 91% G2a), we can actually go ahead compare the relationship of I2a and G today in the region for comparison. If I may take from Maciamo's database from nearby regions in southern France:

Auvergne 1% I2a, 9% (10% I2a, 90% G)
Provence 3% I2a, 7% (30% I2a, 70% G)

Even if we take the value for Provence, which differs considerably, we still get a reasonably similar distribution of I2a and G towards each other today.

[sparkey]

Even if we take the value for Provence, which differs considerably, we still get a reasonably similar distribution of I2a and G towards each other today.

I2a1a and G2a have an affinity which is very interesting. I2a1a in Iberia tends to be a bit more ancient than other I2a1a in places like Sardinia. That could explain why G2a doesn't extend quite into the Basques--as G2a expanded into Europe during the Neolithic, it expanded Eastward and encountered extant I2a1a, which could have spread the opposite direction as its carriers adopted farming from the G2a peoples. That would also explain why Basques are in the unique situation of having a lot of I2a1a and no G2a, while most other places with I2a1a have a lot of G2a, like Sardinia with both the highest levels of I2a1a and the highest levels of G2a in Europe. (There are also plenty of places with high G2a but no I2a1a, which is easily explained of course).

[Bodin]

I2a1a and G2a have an affinity which is very interesting. I2a1a in Iberia tends to be a bit more ancient than other I2a1a in places like Sardinia. That could explain why G2a doesn't extend quite into the Basques--as G2a expanded into Europe during the Neolithic, it expanded Eastward and encountered extant I2a1a, which could have spread the opposite direction as its carriers adopted farming from the G2a peoples. That would also explain why Basques are in the unique situation of having a lot of I2a1a and no G2a, while most other places with I2a1a have a lot of G2a, like Sardinia with both the highest levels of I2a1a and the highest levels of G2a in Europe. (There are also plenty of places with high G2a but no I2a1a, which is easily explained of course).

I didnt realy understud you , are you saying that G2a entered Europe from Africa ( " expanded eastward" ) ,maybe you ment westward?( from Asia Minor via Balkans , or Caucasus) . I2a1 is not present east of line Germany -Switzerland-Italy so how would it be east ? I use to believe they were Vandalic haplogroup ( empty land after them for century until it is settled by Slavs - reson for no I2a1 in east ) . But I was convinced to abandone that theory , because it didnt sound logical to me anymore . I still dont understand why would Basques had high I2a1 and no G2a ?