The Gedrosia component and the origin of R1b M269

It only bugs me why have the Basque proportionally more Gedrosian than North European then? Maybe this is either noise, or the clustering algorithm had some problems to group them properly, assuming the Basques developed genetic peculiarities over time due to isolation.


Yes, the Gedrosia makes more than 1/3 of the North European component for the Basque while it makes less than 1/4 of the Northern European component for the Irish. This maybe explain why the Basque don't speak an IE language.


In this case, Proto Indo European would be the language of the "North European" of the eastern steppe while Basque would be related to the more southward culture of Central Asia (carrying Gedrosia admixture to the Steppe ) of Djebel, Dam Dam Chashma, and Keltermnar.
I prefer this theory because it explains why Basque is so isolated in Europe (even compared to Iberian and Tartessian in the Iberian Peninsula) and why there is no Basque substratum in Europe.
 
It also seems that Horse wasn't domesticated in the Pontic steppe near the Black sea but in the Botai culture located in North Central Asia (Near Astana, Kazakhstan).
 
Yes, the Gedrosia makes more than 1/3 of the North European component for the Basque while it makes less than 1/4 of the Northern European component for the Irish. This maybe explain why the Basque don't speak an IE language.


In this case, Proto Indo European would be the language of the "North European" of the eastern steppe while Basque would be related to the more southward culture of Central Asia (carrying Gedrosia admixture to the Steppe ) of Djebel, Dam Dam Chashma, and Keltermnar.

I rather think the Basque language is mesolithic/paleolithic Atlantic Med because of the Atlantic_Med peak. Usually, the language is inherited from the mothers. Maybe the maternal society of Basques combined with the paternalistic IE system produced something odd. Maybe the centum-IE peoples had more than 25% Gedrosian. I have no clue.

From an algorithmic point of view, it could be that the Gedrosian component in Europe is underestimated in general, because the place of origin is very far away and that could result in an own european genetic branch of "Gedrosian", difficult to recognize by the algorithm. But I don't know how the algorithm works exactly.
 
Both K12a and K12b experiments show more noise than ancestry IMO. There's even little or no correlation with the K7b experiment, which was developed at the same time and mathes better what was done before (also present experiments by the Eurogenes Project). There we see for example that Sardinians are 0% West Asian, while the Caucasus component it's over 20% in the others. Honestly, I wouldn't take any conclusions based on this.

According to Dienekes himself. K12a and more even K12b is the best of all experiments so far.

In my own opinion the Gedrosia component evolved somewhere in Southeast Caucasus/West Iran and moved into West Europe and Central- South Asia. Another indication for this is that Gedrosia is highest among Baluch people which originated in Northwest Iran and speak a language closely related to Kurdish.
 
The question is, what does this make of the Basques if they have virtually no Caucasus/West Asian admixture (both usually taken as a signature of the Neolithic farmers)? I mean, essentially things are all the more mysterious. We might interprete it this way that the Basques must be either older (ie, Mesolithic), or they arrived even later (Copper Age / Bronze Age)?

You make a big mistake by equalizing Caucasus with the West Asian component of v3. The West Asian component was split into Caucasus (a Northwest Caucasian component) and Gedrosia (an East Caucasian-Iranian component).
 
You make a big mistake by equalizing Caucasus with the West Asian component of v3. The West Asian component was split into Caucasus (a Northwest Caucasian component) and Gedrosia (an East Caucasian-Iranian component).

I didn't mean to equalize them.
 
I didn't mean to equalize them.

well sorry than. I had the impression that you think Caucasus is the same as West Asian. But in reality West Asian (Caucasus + Gedrosia). I got something interesting for the topic. Gedrosia is relatively high among West Asian Groups with significant presence of R1b. The Lezgins, Kurds, Iranians, Armenians as example.
I start to believe that R1b evolved in (North)west Iran (Which is also a hotspot of R1(R1b as well R1a).

Interestingly I once red that Italian archaeologists found Celtic (like) graves there.
 
According to Dienekes himself. K12a and more even K12b is the best of all experiments so far.

In my own opinion the Gedrosia component evolved somewhere in Southeast Caucasus/West Iran and moved into West Europe and Central- South Asia. Another indication for this is that Gedrosia is highest among Baluch people which originated in Northwest Iran and speak a language closely related to Kurdish.
I know what Dienekes's thinks, but my opinion is exactly the same. The little or no correlation with the K7b experiment (developed at the same time), speaks in favor of this IMO. Actually, the most accurate tool one could find is a genetic plot using as much samples as possible. Obviously you don't recieve any %, but the individual position compared to others is based on all AIMs, and it's absolutely true if the sample size is enough significant (Davidski also said it's really accurate). I mentioned the Eurogenes project specially for this, and my conclusion focussing in my results, is that the only experiments not matching what I see in the West Eurasian genetic plots, are both K12a and K12b (same could be applied to other people). Then, I must asume there's a lot of noisy or ambiguous results, not useful to understand ones ancestry (or at least quite problematic in some ethnic groups).

And no Alan, your thoughts about West Asian cannot be true simply because I was 0% West Asian, and I became 6% Caucasus+ 3% Gedrosian aprox. Results which I never obtained again, even in the Eurogenes project using West-Central Asian references. So I find quite difficult that the only experiments not matching my regular scores and detailed plots, could be the best ones as you suggest. I only use them to compare what other Iberians get, just curious about this, but I don't take it seriously.
 
And no Alan, your thoughts about West Asian cannot be true simply because I was 0% West Asian, and I became 6% Caucasus+ 3% Gedrosian aprox. Results which I never obtained again, even in the Eurogenes project using West-Central Asian references. So I find quite difficult that the only experiments not matching my regular scores and detailed plots, could be the best ones as you suggest. I only use them to compare what other Iberians get, just curious about this, but I don't take it seriously.


Look the answer for this is very simply. Namely because those so called "components" do not exist in reality and are only meant to help to understand better the relationship between groups. Some of the former "Mediterranean" component moved into the new Caucasus one and the ANI "South Asian" component which has cost many errors moved into the new Gedrosia component simply because in fact the former "South Asian" was a zombie component which combined all Caucasian (be it North European or West Asian) and aboriginal Indian genes into one. Now with K12b Dienekes did distinguish West Asian and North European genes from aboriginal South Asian and took it into the new Gedrosia.

Gedrosia and Caucasus are not exactly the same as West Asian but those two taken together are the closest to the former West Asian component.
 
actually all of this experiments (be it Dodecad v3, k12 or k7) say very much the same when it comes to the relationship of different populations. Just they use different definitions for some Genes.

as example.

population Spaniards got genes y x z n a c
Germans got y x z n a b g
and Kurds got z n a b d c


dodecad v3
Spaniards= Mediterranean(y,x,z,n) West Asian(a) North European(c)
Germans= Mediterranean(y,x,z,n) West Asian(a) North European(c,g)
Kurds= Mediterranean(z,n) West Asian(a,b,d) North European (c)

Dodecad K12b
Spaniards= Atlantic Med(y,x,z) Caucasus/Gedrosia(n,a) North European(c)
Germans= Atlantic Med(y,x,z) Caucasus/Gedrosia(n,a) North European(c,g)
Kurds= Atlantic Med (z) Caucasus/Gedrosia(n,a,b,d) North European (c)

Now what did change? Did the new admixture programm change the genes Spaniards and Germans share? NO
Did it made Spaniards closer to West Asians(Kurds) as before? NO
What did change? The definitions changed and he moved some genes from one category to another ( in my example it was a gene from Mediterranean which moved into category West Asian).
 
Those points are obvious Alan, noone could think seriously that some genes changed. My point is that these experiments hide the proximities between some ethnic groups, as for example Spaniards and Basques to my knowledge, so it rather gives a strange picture which is a bit far from reality. If the main goal is to show how do populations connect to each other, I think this could become even more confusing. In that issue, it was much useful, for example, the K12 with Sardinian and Basque components (best example I found).

And to understand ones ancestry, as I said, the Eurogenes Project is becoming now more interesting IMO, with both admixture experiments and genetic plots. Really informative. However, I'm sure Dienkes' is going to surprise us too.
 
And also 25,5% for the Kurds!
The Gedrosian admixture in Turkey could also be from Tukish tribes who came from Central Asia where Gedrosia admixture is high. Anyway, Gedrosia admixture didn't come with the caucasus one to Northern Europe. It was either sole Gedrosia or North European+Gedrosia, or Med+ Gedrosia.
But as the med admixture is centred on western mediterranean and Atlantic it is very unlikely that Gedrosia ad came with the Med one. I personally think that the first men carrying R1b to Europe were 75% North European and 25% Gedrosia.

If you look at this proposed Urheimat below, it is located enough North to lack the Caucasus admixture and enough East to have a little bit of Gedrosia admixture. The question is why are Russian and Ukrainian lacking Gedrosia ad? Maybe, only the branch of IE represented by Tocharian and Italo Celtic (which are closely related)
included this component because of its more eastern initial location.

Kurgan_map.png


View attachment 5572

A further tiny evidence that your theory might be right is the elevated Y-HG Q in Basque land. Although it is very low (<1%), it shows that asian connections are indeed possible. Also, R1a is suddenly almost absent right east from the "Urheimat", which is important, since Basques don't have R1a either:

300px-R1a1a_distribution.png

And Y-HG Q is already present at this place, mainly in turcic peoples:

300px-Haplogroup_Q_(Y-DNA).PNG


Another country with high Gedrosia component and elevated Q is Scandinavia. It was speculated here that it might be brought together with the peculiar central asian/non-slavic R1a clades peaking in Tröndelag. Either that is a different Gedrosia source than for Basque, or Q has actually more to do with R1b, even in Scandinavia. Maybe also both, R1b and R1a.
 
I start to believe that R1b evolved in (North)west Iran (Which is also a hotspot of R1(R1b as well R1a).
Actually it's possible that hg. R1* (direct ancestor of R1b* and R1a*) is from an area between Northeast Kurdistan - Northwest Iran. I read somewhere that they also found some of the oldest subclades of hg. R1a* there.
 
Yes, the Gedrosia makes more than 1/3 of the North European component for the Basque while it makes less than 1/4 of the Northern European component for the Irish. This maybe explain why the Basque don't speak an IE language.


In this case, Proto Indo European would be the language of the "North European" of the eastern steppe while Basque would be related to the more southward culture of Central Asia (carrying Gedrosia admixture to the Steppe ) of Djebel, Dam Dam Chashma, and Keltermnar.
I prefer this theory because it explains why Basque is so isolated in Europe (even compared to Iberian and Tartessian in the Iberian Peninsula) and why there is no Basque substratum in Europe.

I take on very late, sorry
I red some posts and I find it interesting and difficult also -
1) some big "pools" of genes could be broken down some coming day
2) to associate 'Gedrosia' AS to North European and Y-R1b is not absurd even if a speculation (our job!)
We could associate as do Spongetaro mt-J to Gedrosia and R1b: but R1b closer to the North European component by origin in a previous population and mt J and Gedrosia pertening to an other and distinct population - these two populations could have merged sometime in Antiquity, in Siberia at the frontier between a I-E speaking population and maybe a turkish one or why not (as poposed on french forums) a proto-bask one? with some exchanges of females or even males??? these last case could explain the Basque mistery: a non-IE tribe associated with more numerous I-E (centum?) ones? at the arrival in West these Basques could have been influenced by 'north european' (what kind of mt DNA?) but kept a lot of 'gedrosia' and mt J... very speculative too!
 
some questions yet:
I thought to Y-Q present in Scandinavia and Orkney-Shetland for a male correspondant of mt-J and 'gedrosia' - what is hard to understand is the big difference of percentages between AS 'gedrosia' and Y-Q in Central Asia where we find a lot of Y-R1a - but drift has been frequent in ancient times so?
for basque substrate I say again what concluded a survey on lappish finnic language: they find two substrate, one satem I-E (or proto-satem) and one proto-basque: hard to make an opinion without beeing a specialist....
 
There's no Gedrosia component in Eastern Europe because I believe that R1a arrived in Central Europe before R1b. Before R1a migrated into Eastern Europe from the 'West' it was already mixed with native Central Europeans, hg. I2 folks. R1b came to Europe much later.

byeurogenes.png
 
Last edited:
... we can conclude that the Caucasus component (only 0,1% among French Basque but 22,3% for Otzi) only represents the neolithic legacy of men carying G2a, EV13, J1 etc.
So we have the caucasus admixture related to Neolithic farmers and R1b somewhat related to the Gedrosia admixture in Northwestern Europe (and in the Basque country).
It really looks like R1b men came to Europe directly from an area East of the Caspian sea without settling around the Black sea area (Maykopp etc) .

Maybe the Proto-Celtic Hallstatt-LaTéne region (Austria, Pannonia, Switzerland) represents a similar problem then, given that Ötzi genetically was like Sardinians (approx. 20%Caucasus, 0%Gedrosia). Assuming that he and his people lived that close to the Alps or even in the Alps, one might expect (Proto-)Celts got caucasian admixture at least during their stay in that region. And even today, germany has much caucasian admixture (10%), more than gedrosian, and I believe that most of it is concentrated in the south. The dutch for instance have only half that much caucasian.
If the british celts are of celtic origin too, they should carry caucasian admixture, if not from the pontic steppe than at least from the alpine region. But strangely, they have the least Caucasian admixture, almost similar to the Basques.

I'm now speculating that Gedrosian admixture (possibly R1b or even pre-centum-IE) could have come not by land but by the Mediterranean and Atlantic coast, starting from Anatolia or the Levant already before the semitic peoples arrived. That migration then should have happened in the neolithic or even earlier. Of course, there again are very sparse genetic traces at the Mediterranean shores, but it is easier to not leave any genetic traces by sea than by land. Perhaps they just did not go ashore before they reached west europe. But even if they had settled in east mediterranean regions long enough ago, then they might have been again expelled by the subsequent neolithic "caucasian" invaders. Maybe they got expelled by the neolithic newcomers already in the near east, provided they (gedrosian) lived there before. Gedrosians then might have been the first migration wave at the beginning of the neolithic, triggered by caucasian and semitic farmers. The sumerians also disappeared.
 
And I'm not suggesting that Hallstatt-LaTéne was not Celtic, but maybe they were a different celtic branch. Actually I find the celtic traces in the balkans surprisingly sparse. Most of the few traces can be explained by later intrusions from central europe (scordisci, galatians etc.)
 
And I'm not suggesting that Hallstatt-LaTéne was not Celtic, but maybe they were a different celtic branch. Actually I find the celtic traces in the balkans surprisingly sparse. Most of the few traces can be explained by later intrusions from central europe (scordisci, galatians etc.)

I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here: the Hallstatt Culture wasn't really on the Balkans, anyways. It's core area was what is today eastern France, southern Germany, Austria and the Czech Republic.

500px-Hallstatt_culture-de.svg.png


You're correct that the incursion onto the Balkans occured only relatively late, and are part of the events that lead up to the Celtic/Galatian invasion of Greece in the early 3rd century BC. There can be little doubt though about wether the people of the Hallstatt Culture were speakers of a Celtic language (I always like to ask, if not, what else? Etruscan? Germanic? Slavic?? None of this makes any real sense). However, the problem is trying to link this with genetics.

This is the problem between the Britons and the Basques. But, we do have other examples: I suppose that from the genetic perspective (that is, comparing with their adjacent neighbours), nobody would suspect that the Hungarians speak an Uralic language.
 
I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here: the Hallstatt Culture wasn't really on the Balkans, anyways. It's core area was what is today eastern France, southern Germany, Austria and the Czech Republic.

Sorry, I was not precise enough. I was just wondering why the proto-Celts did not leave more traces between the Maykop and Hallstatt-LaTéne regions. The Balkans just jumped to my mind as a region in-between. I should have said Ukraine and northern Balkans.

500px-Hallstatt_culture-de.svg.png


You're correct that the incursion onto the Balkans occured only relatively late, and are part of the events that lead up to the Celtic/Galatian invasion of Greece in the early 3rd century BC. There can be little doubt though about wether the people of the Hallstatt Culture were speakers of a Celtic language (I always like to ask, if not, what else? Etruscan? Germanic? Slavic?? None of this makes any real sense).

Of course not, therefore I said in my previous post that I'm not suggesting that Hallstatt-LaTéne were non-celtic speaking.

However, the problem is trying to link this with genetics.

This is the problem between the Britons and the Basques. But, we do have other examples: I suppose that from the genetic perspective (that is, comparing with their adjacent neighbours), nobody would suspect that the Hungarians speak an Uralic language.

Very much agree, the language and genetics rarely do corellate (for instance romance speaking amerindians, germanic/english peaking indians). It's just that we already used to link R1b to Italo-Celts, and the new "gedrosia" component is yet another third attribute that correlates nicely to both inside Europe.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still preferring the theory of an eastern origin of Indo-Europeans. The latest admixture analysis just adds a tiny question mark to the Caspian-Steppe/Maykop origin of the Q-Celts. And for the same reason I question a bit the Hallstatt-LaTéne region as likely source for those island celts. The admixture suggests a possible Iberian origin of at least some celts, because british celts have relatively more in common with the Basques than with Germans, Austrians, and Ötzi or Sardinians in particular. The Atlantic_Med and Northern_euro components are not significant in my opinion because they are ubiquitous in europe.
If my speculation about gedrosian-centum relation is wrong, than the peculiar gedrosia component on the Atlantic shores must be older than bronze age, or just did not leave traces of the migration.
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 82039 times.

Back
Top