Lack of G2a in Basque

European R1b subclade is very old. At least it is not younger than the Neolithic age. The Caucasus range has got the highest mountain tops in Europe. Mount Elbrus is much higher than Mont Blanc. So G2a in the Caucasus had more chance to survive than in the Pyrenees. Due to the isolation.

Is there any evidence this is really the case? All the older varieties of R1b-M269 are either found only outside of Western Europe or are very rare. Western European R1b-M269 is in turn dominated by R1b-P310/L11, which in turn is very rare outside of Western Europe. I really fail to see how R1b-P310/L11 could be older than Neolithic.

Maybe before R1b Europe was populated by the I and G2a folks. Maybe in Europe both haplogroups were both equally distributed, but not in Basque land. Maybe there was much more I than G2a in Basque land before R1b arrived at the first place, due to the bottleneck (founder) effect. Maybe the distribution in Basque was more like 80-20 (I-G2a).

In my opinion, the Neolithic population of Treilles was of mixed hunter-gatherer / farmer stock.

How old is PIE?

PIE must have been spoken in the late Neolithic / early Chalcolithic. There are common words for agriculture, cattle, horses and most importantly metals and metal-working.

European R1b is maybe 10.000 years old. So maybe it didn't belong to the PIE but to the Neolithic farmers that were not proto-Indo-European at all.

European R1b is decisively younger than 10,000 years, even if the M269 is about 10,000 years old - it wasn't in Western Europe until after 3000 BC. And as I said, none of the Neolithic farmer sites thus far turned up any evidence for R1b in Europe. I do agree however that the Neolithic Farmers were - very likely non-Indo-Europeans.
 
Thank you for your reply.

Is there any evidence this is really the case? All the older varieties of R1b-M269 are either found only outside of Western Europe or are very rare. Western European R1b-M269 is in turn dominated by R1b-P310/L11, which in turn is very rare outside of Western Europe. I really fail to see how R1b-P310/L11 could be older than Neolithic.


European R1b is decisively younger than 10,000 years, even if the M269 is about 10,000 years old - it wasn't in Western Europe until after 3000 BC. And as I said, none of the Neolithic farmer sites thus far turned up any evidence for R1b in Europe. I do agree however that the Neolithic Farmers were - very likely non-Indo-Europeans.
"The point of origin of R1b is thought to lie in Eurasia, most likely in Western Asia.[7] T. Karafet et al. estimated the age of R1, the parent of R1b, as 18,500 years before present.[1]Early research focused upon Europe. In 2000 Ornella Semino and colleagues argued that R1b had been in Europe before the end of Ice Age, and had spread north from an Iberian refuge after the Last Glacial Maximum.[8] Age estimates of R1b in Europe have steadily decreased in more recent studies, at least concerning the majority of R1b, with more recent studies suggesting a Neolithic age or younger.[7][9] However some authors continue to argue for an older date.[10][11]Barbara Arredi and colleagues were the first to point out that the distribution of R1b STR variance in Europe forms a cline from east to west, which is more consistent with an entry into Europe from Western Asia with the spread of farming.[12] A 2009 paper by Chiaroni et al. added to this perspective by using R1b as an example of a wave haplogroup distribution, in this case from east to west.[13] The proposal of a southeastern origin of R1b were supported by three detailed studies based on large datasets published in 2010. These detected that the earliest subclades of R1b are found in western Asia and the most recent in western Europe.[7][9][14] While age estimates in these articles are all more recent than the Last Glacial Maximum, all mention the Neolithic, when farming was introduced to Europe from the Middle East as a possible candidate period. Myres et al. (August 2010), and Cruciani et al. (August 2010) both remained undecided on the exact dating of the migration or migrations responsible for this distribution, not ruling out migrations earlier or later than the Neolithic.[7]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_(Y-DNA)
 
Note that this is apparently about R1b as a whole, where as I was specifically talking about R1b-P310/L11, which dominates Western European R1b.


Such "exact" datings are HIGHLY dubious because they mostly rely on Glottochronology, which has been largely discredited in comparative linguistics.

They are, in particular, citing Gray and Atkinson, which, bluntly put, produced complete nonsense.

The underlying assumption of Glottochronology is that replacments/changes in languages occur at a constant rate. However, it is historically known that languages don't do that. Therefore, this method has been decisively discredited.
 
Note that this is apparently about R1b as a whole, where as I was specifically talking about R1b-P310/L11, which dominates Western European R1b.
Yes, but they're talking about R1b IN Europe, (European R1b).
 
Such "exact" datings are HIGHLY dubious because they mostly rely on Glottochronology, which has been largely discredited in comparative linguistics.

They are, in particular, citing Gray and Atkinson, which, bluntly put, produced complete nonsense.

The underlying assumption of Glottochronology is that replacments/changes in languages occur at a constant rate. However, it is historically known that languages don't do that. Therefore, this method has been decisively discredited.
Ok. If it's true what you're saying that I'm pretty much convinced that the R1b carriers in Europe were not Indo-Europeans.
 
Ok. If it's true what you're saying that I'm pretty much convinced that the R1b carriers in Europe were not Indo-Europeans.

Why is that? The spread and distribution of R1b in Western Europe very much matches the Beaker-Bell Culture of the Chalcolithic:

Beaker_culture.png


The Beaker-Bell Culture is, in my opinion, the best candidate for spreading both R1b and the Indo-European languages into Western Europe.
 
Why is that? The spread and distribution of R1b in Western Europe very much matches the Beaker-Bell Culture of the Chalcolithic:

Beaker_culture.png


The Beaker-Bell Culture is, in my opinion, the best candidate for spreading both R1b and the Indo-European languages into Western Europe.
Yeah, I think you're right about the Beaker-Bell Culture. Those folks were most likely R1b.

But you have got some kind of tunnel vision. Why do you think that the EU r1b is not older than the Beaker-Bell Culture? Maybe these folks first lived somewhere in South Europe (Iberian Peninsula), invented something or got knowledge of something special which made them stronger than other ancient native Europeans. Maybe that possession of knowledge made it possible that they migrated northwards into northern part of Europe. But that EU haplogroup R1b existed in Europe millennia before them.
 
Yeah, I think you're right about the Beaker-Bell Culture. Those folks were most likely R1b.

But have got some kind of tunnel vision. Why do you think that the EU r1b is not older than the Beaker-Bell Culture? Maybe these folks first lived somewhere in South Europe (Iberian Peninsula), invented something or got knowledge of something special which made them stronger than other ancient native Europeans. Maybe that possession of knowledge made it possible that they migrated northwards into northern part of Europe. But EU haplogroup R1b existed in European millennia before them.

Well, let me rephrase what I said: R1b did not enter Western Europe until after the Neolithic, as above. You are absolutely correct that it must have been somewhere before, and it's absolutely conceivable that it actually was somewhere in eastern or southern Europe before the Chalcolithic, and I also agree it must have migrated into Western Europe from somewhere.
 
Yeah I meant Westward not Eastward. I2a1a is the one that expanded Eastward, opposite of G2a. Basically my point was that the I2a1a peoples who contributed to the modern Basque population must have been close to an area where I2a1a started expanding from, which adopted G2a methods and then spread the opposite direction as G2a. G2a had a head start and therefore exists most places across Europe, whereas I2a1a couldn't make it.

I wonder if this supports Paleolithic continuity of Basque language? It's feasible that they have continued I2a1a culture and language despite having such ridiculously high levels of R1b. I suppose we still don't know.
It makes sence , so would you say that I2a1 is more likely started expanding from France ( Treilles ) or from Iberia ( higher % ) . Maybe something stoped extending of I2b1 beyond the line Germany - Switzerland -Italy , someting ( actualy someone ) that was not there during previous extension of G2a , or the moving of I2a1 hapened before arival of G2a ? It is posibility that Basque languague is descendant of " I languague" from Paleolithe , but to me more likely is conection with Iberic -Aquitanian , which come from Africa.Thanks for answering
 
@Bodin

If I2a1a-M26 started in Iberia ( modern catalonian area ) and the Pyrennes around 6-8000BC , then went to Sardinia around 5000BC and next found among the burials in the Cave of Treilles in Aveyron, in the South of France. The Treilles culture of c. 3000 BC, and lastly around 2000BC in Venice as per the atatement from KN. then we assume that this left iberia and headed towards the balkans. What stopped them was in the statement calling it an "anti-R1a" gene.

The "serbian" marker is I2a1b1-L69 (formerly I2a2a).

I2a2a-M223 (formerly I2b1) is in Germany and in eastern Sweden

I2-M438 is the "illyrian" marker on bothe sides of the adriatic sea.


its very difficult to figures out these I -haplogroup when they keep reasigning the numbers to different areas.
 
European R1b subclade is very old. At least it is not younger than the Neolithic age. The Caucasus range has got the highest mountain tops in Europe. Mount Elbrus is much higher than Mont Blanc. So G2a in the Caucasus had more chance to survive than in the Pyrenees. Due to the isolation.

Maybe before R1b Europe was populated by the I and G2a folks. Maybe in Europe both haplogroups were both equally distributed, but not in Basque land. Maybe there was much more I than G2a in Basque land before R1b arrived at the first place, due to the bottleneck (founder) effect. Maybe the distribution in Basque was more like 80-20 (I-G2a).

How old is PIE?

European R1b is maybe 10.000 years old. So maybe it didn't belong to the PIE but to the Neolithic farmers that were not proto-Indo-European at all.
This is interesting idea , I would say it could be posible. PIE is old betwen 6.700 and 5.700 years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language
Acording to Treilles there was 90% of G and 10% of I2a1 in France ,so it could hapen that in Basque was oposite . There is also posibility that R1b took refuge in Asia Minor during LGM , and spread from there to Europe , Armenia and Xinjang ( I read somewhere it comed there after R1a ) .Thanks for answering
 
Is there any evidence this is really the case? All the older varieties of R1b-M269 are either found only outside of Western Europe or are very rare. Western European R1b-M269 is in turn dominated by R1b-P310/L11, which in turn is very rare outside of Western Europe. I really fail to see how R1b-P310/L11 could be older than Neolithic.



In my opinion, the Neolithic population of Treilles was of mixed hunter-gatherer / farmer stock.



PIE must have been spoken in the late Neolithic / early Chalcolithic. There are common words for agriculture, cattle, horses and most importantly metals and metal-working.



European R1b is decisively younger than 10,000 years, even if the M269 is about 10,000 years old - it wasn't in Western Europe until after 3000 BC. And as I said, none of the Neolithic farmer sites thus far turned up any evidence for R1b in Europe. I do agree however that the Neolithic Farmers were - very likely non-Indo-Europeans.
And where were finded the oldest R1b -M269? But only few neolitic sites were tested , maybe in that time R1b was not in France and Germany but on Balkans or East Europe ?Thanks for answering
 
@Bodin

If I2a1a-M26 started in Iberia ( modern catalonian area ) and the Pyrennes around 6-8000BC , then went to Sardinia around 5000BC and next found among the burials in the Cave of Treilles in Aveyron, in the South of France. The Treilles culture of c. 3000 BC, and lastly around 2000BC in Venice as per the atatement from KN. then we assume that this left iberia and headed towards the balkans. What stopped them was in the statement calling it an "anti-R1a" gene.

The "serbian" marker is I2a1b1-L69 (formerly I2a2a).

I2a2a-M223 (formerly I2b1) is in Germany and in eastern Sweden

I2-M438 is the "illyrian" marker on bothe sides of the adriatic sea.


its very difficult to figures out these I -haplogroup when they keep reasigning the numbers to different areas.
Yes I2a1-M26 is from Pirinei or somewhere around them , but it couldnt reach Balkans because it didnt cross line Germany - Switzerland - Italy , and it couldnt produce I2a1b1-L69 "Serbian" ( I would call it Sarmatian ) , because they separated 12.000 years ago. I am not realy shore even I2 - M438 is Illyrian because there was lot of crosing to Italy during Ottoman conquering , mostly Croats , but Serbs to . But basicaly you are right . Thanks for answering.
 
I agree with the iberian-aquitanian connection, but it has nothing to do with Africa and, in my opinion, with the paleolithic. We have discussed it here before, but the only archaeological fact that could "match" with the spread of theses languages is the Urnenfelder Kultur, wich is considered mainly IE by most scholars.

I'd like to add another point. When people think about basques assume they are an homogeneous group who has spoken one language in one delimited territory for thousands of years. However, some of the current (politically) basque territories seemed to be in prerroman (and early roman) era at least IE speakers, attested by the overhelming presence of toponyms and anthroponyms related to this linguistic family.
 
Is it possible that western Europeans were the first proto-Indo-European speakers and that the satem languages came after the centum languages? And that other folks in the east adopted their languages.
 
I'd like to add another point. When people think about basques assume they are an homogeneous group who has spoken one language in one delimited territory for thousands of years. However, some of the current (politically) basque territories seemed to be in prerroman (and early roman) era at least IE speakers, attested by the overhelming presence of toponyms and anthroponyms related to this linguistic family.

Very good point. I agree about that. The area where Basque/Aquitanian was spoken seems to have shifted across time. In Antiquity, the evidence for Basque extends northwards to approximately the river Garonne (the name "Garonne" itself is derived from the Aquitanian word for rock, compare with the modern-day Basque word "Harria"). In the south/southwest, a good chunk of area which became settled by Basques in Antiquity appears to have been inhabited by Celtic (or otherwise Indo-European, like the Lusitanians) peoples. Another bizarre issue about Basque is the surprisingly small number of Celtic loanwords.

Is it possible that western Europeans were the first proto-Indo-European speakers and that the satem languages came after the centum languages? And that other folks in the east adopted their languages.

Short answer is "no".

Long answer is that technically, neither Centum nor Satem was first. You have to understand the nature of what this actually means:

There are three reconstructed sounds in Proto-Indo-European ( k´, g´ and g´h), the so-called palatovelars, which were treated differently in various branches of Indo-European.

The Centum languages (Celtic, Germanic, Greek, Italic, Tocharian, etc.) merged k´, g´ and g´h with the sounds k, g and gh.

The Satem languages (Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranic, Armenian and some of the Paleo-Balkan languages such as Thracian) turned into fricatives (such as s, z, sh and ʒ).

The way that sounds correspond it is pretty clear that neither is the original sound, in particular because there's other k, g, gh and s reconstructed in Proto-Indo-European that are NOT shifted according to the Centum/Satem laws.

The Anatolian languages are a bit of an exception here, but they are generally considered the first branch to have diverged from Proto-Indo-European.

Otherwise, with exception of Tocharian, all Centum languages are found in Europe. The question is, did these shifts occur everywhere simultaneously, or did they occur separately at different times? In any case, the general idea is that the Satem shift only occured around what appears to have been the IE core area.
 
Taranis said:
short answer is "no".

Long answer is that technically, neither Centum nor Satem was first. You have to understand the nature of what this actually means:

There are three reconstructed sounds in Proto-Indo-European ( k´, g´ and g´h), the so-called palatovelars, which were treated differently in various branches of Indo-European.

The Centum languages (Celtic, Germanic, Greek, Italic, Tocharian, etc.) merged k´, g´ and g´h with the sounds k, g and gh.

The Satem languages (Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranic, Armenian and some of the Paleo-Balkan languages such as Thracian) turned into fricatives (such as s, z, sh and ʒ).

The way that sounds correspond it is pretty clear that neither is the original sound, in particular because there's other k, g, gh and s reconstructed in Proto-Indo-European that are NOT shifted according to the Centum/Satem laws.

The Anatolian languages are a bit of an exception here, but they are generally considered the first branch to have diverged from Proto-Indo-European.

Otherwise, with exception of Tocharian, all Centum languages are found in Europe. The question is, did these shifts occur everywhere simultaneously, or did they occur separately at different times? In any case, the general idea is that the Satem shift only occured around what appears to have been the IE core area.
Some folks speak about the 'Satemization' of Centum languages. According to them the 'Satemization' of West European languages and Tocharian didn't occur due to largely failing to reach the Atlanto European or Tocharian peripheries.
 
Some folks speak about the 'Satemization' of Centum languages. According to them the 'Satemization' of West European languages and Tocharian didn't occur due to largely failing to reach the Atlanto European or Tocharian peripheries.

This is very broadly what I said in the last passage of my previous post.
 
I agree with the iberian-aquitanian connection, but it has nothing to do with Africa and, in my opinion, with the paleolithic. We have discussed it here before, but the only archaeological fact that could "match" with the spread of theses languages is the Urnenfelder Kultur, wich is considered mainly IE by most scholars.

I'd like to add another point. When people think about basques assume they are an homogeneous group who has spoken one language in one delimited territory for thousands of years. However, some of the current (politically) basque territories seemed to be in prerroman (and early roman) era at least IE speakers, attested by the overhelming presence of toponyms and anthroponyms related to this linguistic family.
I read somewhere Diodorus or Paussania ( Description of Hellas ) that Iberians come from North Africa , i couldnt remember where , and I cant find it ( realy cant read both books again , maybe some time later) , do someone know ?If do please post .
So are you claiming that Basque is not African or Paleolitic but IE languague from Urnfild ? Please explain I never heard of such view .
Do you speack about Gaskogne , because it was settled by Basques in fairly recent times - betwen VI and XIV century .Thanks for answering
 

This thread has been viewed 142817 times.

Back
Top