PDA

View Full Version : Lack of G2a in Basque



Bodin
22-08-11, 12:30
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 ) .
5089
if someone can share some light on this mistery , please do .

spongetaro
22-08-11, 12:45
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
22-08-11, 12:56
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).

Wilhelm
22-08-11, 16:46
It's curious because autosomally, the Basques also lack the west-asian component, which peaks in Georgia, just like G2a.

sparkey
22-08-11, 17:15
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.

Knovas
22-08-11, 17:16
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
22-08-11, 23:15
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 :smile:

Bodin
22-08-11, 23:38
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

Bodin
23-08-11, 22:10
Also in Basque graves from 4-5000 years BP there is 17% of mth DNA K , but in graves from 1500 years BP it falls to present 4% , so betwen was setlement of womens with diferent haplogroups .

Taranis
23-08-11, 22:14
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
23-08-11, 22:53
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).

iapetoc
24-08-11, 00:01
may i ask what is the origin of G2a?
Alps or minor Asia or caucas?

Bodin
24-08-11, 07:59
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.
But if G2a maded 90% of neolitic population of Western Europe , wouldnt that exclude that Alans were also G2a ?

Bodin
24-08-11, 08:14
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 ?

Bodin
24-08-11, 08:28
may i ask what is the origin of G2a?
Alps or minor Asia or caucas?
For G2a in Europe I would bet on Asia Minor - because of hotspots in Greek Macedonia , and Romania , Alps would be a major station before further spread to west , east and south to Italy.But spread from Caucasus is also very plausible . Maybe even simultanious settling from both locations - in that case Black see would be haplogroup G Mare Internum like Mediterranean see was to Romans . They concentrate on high mountins due to they goath breading or escaped to mountins infront of new invaders .
Thanks to all for answering

zanipolo
24-08-11, 08:34
you need to read the I2a AND i2B thread

from 1st of June 2011
[[ The two P37+ are consistent with I2a1 M26+. Note the ( - 12 ) for DYS385
> which I interpret to mean they only saw an electropherogram peak at 12
> repeats. I2a1 has a 12,12 modality at DYS385, and other STR repeats are
> consistent with the modalities of today's I2a1. Balkan I2a2a is modal 14-15
> at DYS385 and probably too young a clade to have populated France 5000 years
> ago. I2a1 M26+ on the other hand is one of the older (if not the oldest)
> clades in haplogroup I as measured by population variance.
>
> Today's I2a1 M26+ population is highly concentrated in far western Europe.
> It basically is the anti-R1a in European frequency --- rarely seen east of a
> line going north from Venice, Italy. Although very strong in Sardinia and
> Iberia, I2a1 M26+ continues at decent frequency up the Atlantic seaboard and
> into the British Isles, but hardly makes an appearance in Scandinavia. Very
> interesting to see it in SW France 5000 years ago.
>
> There are several snps now discovered downstream of M26. One of them, L160,
> nicely divides I2a1. It would be nice if these researchers have saved some
> dna and could run L160 on it?
>
> KN ]]

Basically I2a1 is from the west and stops at Venice , I2a2 is from the east
G2a went from the east to the west

zanipolo
24-08-11, 08:37
Read the thread I2a and I2b .

it states that G2a went from east to west and that I2a1 went from west to east and stopped at Venice.

[[ The two P37+ are consistent with I2a1 M26+. Note the ( - 12 ) for DYS385
> which I interpret to mean they only saw an electropherogram peak at 12
> repeats. I2a1 has a 12,12 modality at DYS385, and other STR repeats are
> consistent with the modalities of today's I2a1. Balkan I2a2a is modal 14-15
> at DYS385 and probably too young a clade to have populated France 5000 years
> ago. I2a1 M26+ on the other hand is one of the older (if not the oldest)
> clades in haplogroup I as measured by population variance.
>
> Today's I2a1 M26+ population is highly concentrated in far western Europe.
> It basically is the anti-R1a in European frequency --- rarely seen east of a
> line going north from Venice, Italy. Although very strong in Sardinia and
> Iberia, I2a1 M26+ continues at decent frequency up the Atlantic seaboard and
> into the British Isles, but hardly makes an appearance in Scandinavia. Very
> interesting to see it in SW France 5000 years ago.
>
> There are several snps now discovered downstream of M26. One of them, L160,
> nicely divides I2a1. It would be nice if these researchers have saved some
> dna and could run L160 on it?
>
> KN ]]

Bodin
24-08-11, 08:49
Read the thread I2a and I2b .

it states that G2a went from east to west and that I2a1 went from west to east and stopped at Venice.

[[ The two P37+ are consistent with I2a1 M26+. Note the ( - 12 ) for DYS385
> which I interpret to mean they only saw an electropherogram peak at 12
> repeats. I2a1 has a 12,12 modality at DYS385, and other STR repeats are
> consistent with the modalities of today's I2a1. Balkan I2a2a is modal 14-15
> at DYS385 and probably too young a clade to have populated France 5000 years
> ago. I2a1 M26+ on the other hand is one of the older (if not the oldest)
> clades in haplogroup I as measured by population variance.
>
> Today's I2a1 M26+ population is highly concentrated in far western Europe.
> It basically is the anti-R1a in European frequency --- rarely seen east of a
> line going north from Venice, Italy. Although very strong in Sardinia and
> Iberia, I2a1 M26+ continues at decent frequency up the Atlantic seaboard and
> into the British Isles, but hardly makes an appearance in Scandinavia. Very
> interesting to see it in SW France 5000 years ago.
>
> There are several snps now discovered downstream of M26. One of them, L160,
> nicely divides I2a1. It would be nice if these researchers have saved some
> dna and could run L160 on it?
>
> KN ]]
Is this on my adress , because I just said it is not logical that G2a went eastward , and that I2a1 is present only on west

sparkey
24-08-11, 17:39
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 ?

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.

Goga
25-08-11, 00:34
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.

Taranis
25-08-11, 01:03
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.

Goga
25-08-11, 01:16
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)

Goga
25-08-11, 01:19
Ryder and Nicholls: Proto-Indo-European 8,400 years old !!!

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/04/ryder-and-nicholls-proto-indo-european.html

Taranis
25-08-11, 01:20
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.


Ryder and Nicholls: Proto-Indo-European 8,400 years old !!!

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/04/ryder-and-nicholls-proto-indo-european.html

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.

Goga
25-08-11, 01:22
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).

Goga
25-08-11, 01:30
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.

Taranis
25-08-11, 01:34
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:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/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.

Goga
25-08-11, 01:48
Why is that? The spread and distribution of R1b in Western Europe very much matches the Beaker-Bell Culture of the Chalcolithic:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/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.

Taranis
25-08-11, 01:53
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.

Bodin
25-08-11, 09:00
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

zanipolo
25-08-11, 09:24
@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.

Bodin
25-08-11, 09:42
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

Bodin
25-08-11, 09:47
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
25-08-11, 10:03
@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.

Segia2
25-08-11, 10:35
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.

Goga
25-08-11, 16:47
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.

Taranis
25-08-11, 19:15
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.

Goga
25-08-11, 20:18
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.

Taranis
25-08-11, 20:59
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.

Bodin
25-08-11, 21:49
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

Taranis
25-08-11, 22:02
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 .

Let me say this, I linguistically absolutely disagree with that North African hypothesis on Iberian. I'm not sure if Basque and Iberian really were related, but there are some similarities, and there definitely were Basque/Aquitanian borrowings into Iberian, or vice versa.

Another issue is: North Africa was populated by Berber peoples, and Iberian (just like Basque) is *very* different from Berber. The Berber languages are part of the Afro-Asiatic family (together with Egyptian, the Semitic languages and a couple of others), which is - from what we can tell, the oldest reliably tracable language family we know.


So are you claiming that Basque is not African or Paleolitic but IE languague from Urnfild ? Please explain I never heard of such view .

I think he suggests that the Basques might be immigrants themselves. Basque, without a doubt, is a non-Indo-European language.


Do you speack about Gaskogne , because it was settled by Basques in fairly recent times - betwen VI and XIV century .Thanks for answering

I think he is refering to the west of modern-day Basque country.

Bodin
25-08-11, 22:38
There is also similarity of Iberian artefacts from Chalcolithe with Neolithic artefacts from Morocco - Hogans theory , and posible conection Iberian- Basque languague. Aldo Iberians use to burn their deads like Urnfild ( proto-Celtic ? ) , and had some similarities with cultures east from them in Meditteranea. Maybe Iberians were E1b1b which make 85% of Morocco ?
Thanks for answering

Knovas
25-08-11, 23:31
The North African influence in the Iberian Peninsula is not so huge according to admixture analysis. It's possible that thousands of years ago the first inhabitants arrived from North Africa, but they were quickly replaced/absorbed by the Celts and Proto-Celts, and surely before by I2a1a peoples (call it as you want). Then, this is not a serious possibility if we take present Iberians as reference...nothing to do with North Africans.

The Basque language will remain in mistery, it's clearly extremely ancient. Difficult to find a connection with North Africa since they are the most European population nowadays (genetically speaking). There's no language having substantial similarities with Basque, and if it hasn't been yet found, I think it's impossible. Basques probably speak the language of one of the first migrants who settled in Europe (at least, the only ones whose culture survived). We should go too deep in time to find the original people...very difficult.

Taranis
25-08-11, 23:59
Regarding North Africa: there is also the question when the Proto-Berbers did arrive in that ara. Clearly they must have been predominantly carriers of E1b1b (since it's very likely the Haplogroup linked with Afro-Asiatic). As I mentioned, Afro-Asiatic is the oldest language family from what we can tell, and (apart from Sumerian, which is an isolated language) it is also bears the oldest attested languages (Old Egyptian and Akkadian). Hence, Proto-Berbers must have arrived very early, which makes the claim of a connection between Basque and/or Iberian and any pre-Berber languages extremely dubious and difficult.

Segia2
26-08-11, 02:02
As Taranis wrote, I wanted to say that aquitanian and iberian languages -clearly non IE- could arrive with the Urnenfelder Kultur, although many scholars associate this culture exclusively to IE peoples. The question is, if basques/iberians came from Europe, where is the linguistic evidence outside France/Spain? Hard work for linguists, but -who knows- maybe these rivers -Ebro, Ibar, Ybbs, Ebrach...- are related to basque Ibai (river)..

About basque and iberian -I remember I posted it in other thread-, some numbers:

Ibérico Significado ibérico Protovasco Vasco actual y significado erder / erdi- "mitad / medio"
erdi "mitad / medio" ban " un / uno" *badV / *bade? bat "un / uno" bi / bin un numeral biga bi (antiguo biga) "dos" irur un numeral hirur hiru(r) "tres" laur un numeral laur lau(r) cuatro" borste / bors un numeral bortz / *bortzV? bost (antiguo bortz) "cinco" śei un numeral
sei "seis" sisbi un numeral?
zazpi "siete" sorse un numeral?
zortzi "ocho" abaŕ / baŕ un numeral *[h]anbar ? hamar "diez" oŕkei un numeral
hogei "veinte"

And seriously, I can accept a language can borrow one or two numbers, but not the whole serie.

Bodin
26-08-11, 02:28
The North African influence in the Iberian Peninsula is not so huge according to admixture analysis. It's possible that thousands of years ago the first inhabitants arrived from North Africa, but they were quickly replaced/absorbed by the Celts and Proto-Celts, and surely before by I2a1a peoples (call it as you want). Then, this is not a serious possibility if we take present Iberians as reference...nothing to do with North Africans.

The Basque language will remain in mistery, it's clearly extremely ancient. Difficult to find a connection with North Africa since they are the most European population nowadays (genetically speaking). There's no language having substantial similarities with Basque, and if it hasn't been yet found, I think it's impossible. Basques probably speak the language of one of the first migrants who settled in Europe (at least, the only ones whose culture survived). We should go too deep in time to find the original people...very difficult.
No I am not speacking about present Iberians ( supose you think on Spain and Portugal) , I speacked about ancient Iberians, ofcours all of these is speculations and nothing is certain, one new finding can change it all.
What do you mean most European , are you suporting theory about Paleolithe origin of R1b ( in Europe ) , to me most reliablle is theory that it comed during Neolithe somewhere in South and Central Europe from West Asia , and then pushed west by newcoming R1a and some more R1b - Indoeuropean .
Thanks for answering

Bodin
26-08-11, 02:34
Regarding North Africa: there is also the question when the Proto-Berbers did arrive in that ara. Clearly they must have been predominantly carriers of E1b1b (since it's very likely the Haplogroup linked with Afro-Asiatic). As I mentioned, Afro-Asiatic is the oldest language family from what we can tell, and (apart from Sumerian, which is an isolated language) it is also bears the oldest attested languages (Old Egyptian and Akkadian). Hence, Proto-Berbers must have arrived very early, which makes the claim of a connection between Basque and/or Iberian and any pre-Berber languages extremely dubious and difficult.
Yes it do but Morrocans do not speack Berber but Arabic , so before Arabs they could speack different languague , which kind of languague do you think Basque was , and who brought it ?If its not IE and not North Afric , maybe I2a1-Paleolithic?

Taranis
26-08-11, 02:36
As Taranis wrote, I wanted to say that aquitanian and iberian languages -clearly non IE- could arrive with the Urnenfelder Kultur, although many scholars associate this culture exclusively to IE peoples. The question is, if basques/iberians came from Europe, where is the linguistic evidence outside France/Spain? Hard work for linguists, but -who knows- maybe these rivers -Ebro, Ibar, Ybbs, Ebrach...- are related to basque Ibai (river)..

About basque and iberian -I remember I posted it in other thread-, some numbers:

Ibérico Significado ibérico Protovasco Vasco actual y significado erder / erdi- "mitad / medio"
erdi "mitad / medio" ban " un / uno" *badV / *bade? bat "un / uno" bi / bin un numeral biga bi (antiguo biga) "dos" irur un numeral hirur hiru(r) "tres" laur un numeral laur lau(r) cuatro" borste / bors un numeral bortz / *bortzV? bost (antiguo bortz) "cinco" śei un numeral
sei "seis" sisbi un numeral?
zazpi "siete" sorse un numeral?
zortzi "ocho" abaŕ / baŕ un numeral *[h]anbar ? hamar "diez" oŕkei un numeral
hogei "veinte"

And seriously, I can accept a language can borrow one or two numbers, but not the whole serie.

Let me say this: the case of the similarity between Basque and Iberian numerals makes a very strong argument in favour. Having said this, there is the precedent of the Turkic languages which were highly adaptive in terms of numerals. But, it's indeed very unlikely to replace a complete number system. In contrast to that, the Indo-European languages are extremely conservative in respect for numerals.

Regarding Urnfield, I have to disagree. You must not expect that archaeological cultures reflecting linguistic homogenity. Even if, you have to consider the vast extend of Urnfield (Poland, Italy) a vast area where there is no evidence for Basque / Iberian toponyms, and which I find far more plausible to assume that it was Indo-European already in the Brone Age. Basque toponyms, as mentioned, extend towards the north only approximately to the Garrone. In contrast, Iberian toponyms are found towards all the way down the Iberian penninsula into Andalusia, as far west as the Guadalquivir river.


Yes it do but Morrocans do not speack Berber but Arabic , so before Arabs they could speack different languague , which kind of languague do you think Basque was , and who brought it ?If its not IE and not North Afric , maybe I2a1-Paleolithic?

Sorry, Moroccans very much speak also Berber languages today. There is several million people in Morocco who speak the Central Atlas Berber:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/TamazightCentral.PNG

There are also other Berber languages spoken in Algeria, Tunisia and Western Libya. It is known that the Berbers inhabited these areas already in Antiquity, and Berber kingdoms in what today is Morocco were clients of the Carthagininians first, and then of the Roman Empire.

Bodin
26-08-11, 02:46
As Taranis wrote, I wanted to say that aquitanian and iberian languages -clearly non IE- could arrive with the Urnenfelder Kultur, although many scholars associate this culture exclusively to IE peoples. The question is, if basques/iberians came from Europe, where is the linguistic evidence outside France/Spain? Hard work for linguists, but -who knows- maybe these rivers -Ebro, Ibar, Ybbs, Ebrach...- are related to basque Ibai (river)..

About basque and iberian -I remember I posted it in other thread-, some numbers:

Ibérico Significado ibérico Protovasco Vasco actual y significado erder / erdi- "mitad / medio"
erdi "mitad / medio" ban " un / uno" *badV / *bade? bat "un / uno" bi / bin un numeral biga bi (antiguo biga) "dos" irur un numeral hirur hiru(r) "tres" laur un numeral laur lau(r) cuatro" borste / bors un numeral bortz / *bortzV? bost (antiguo bortz) "cinco" śei un numeral
sei "seis" sisbi un numeral?
zazpi "siete" sorse un numeral?
zortzi "ocho" abaŕ / baŕ un numeral *[h]anbar ? hamar "diez" oŕkei un numeral
hogei "veinte"

And seriously, I can accept a language can borrow one or two numbers, but not the whole serie.
So you think that Urnfield people use to speack few diferent languagues ( not even same familly of languagues) , interesting oppinion . Maybe some languague diference betwen rulling nation and conquered one ?
I believe that it is posible to borow all numbers , linguistics when they clasiffy languagues in famillies look only basic words ( 50-100) - familly members , basic food , house parts ,... I believe I already wrote about Hungarian languague , 95% of it words are IE , but basic words are Uralic , and it is classified like Uralic .So Iberico and Protovasco can be non IE , but yet use IE numbers .Thanks for answering

Bodin
26-08-11, 02:50
Let me say this: the case of the similarity between Basque and Iberian numerals makes a very strong argument in favour. Having said this, there is the precedent of the Turkic languages which were highly adaptive in terms of numerals. But, it's indeed very unlikely to replace a complete number system. In contrast to that, the Indo-European languages are extremely conservative in respect for numerals.

Regarding Urnfield, I have to disagree. You must not expect that archaeological cultures reflecting linguistic homogenity. Even if, you have to consider the vast extend of Urnfield (Poland, Italy) a vast area where there is no evidence for Basque / Iberian toponyms, and which I find far more plausible to assume that it was Indo-European already in the Brone Age. Basque toponyms, as mentioned, extend towards the north only approximately to the Garrone. In contrast, Iberian toponyms are found towards all the way down the Iberian penninsula into Andalusia, as far west as the Guadalquivir river.



Sorry, Moroccans very much speak also Berber languages today. There is several million people in Morocco who speak the Central Atlas Berber:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/TamazightCentral.PNG

There are also other Berber languages spoken in Algeria, Tunisia and Western Libya. It is known that the Berbers inhabited these areas already in Antiquity, and Berber kingdoms in what today is Morocco were clients of the Carthagininians first, and then of the Roman Empire.
No Berbers are separate nation of desert nomads that lives in Morocco , Algeria and Tunis , and in other parts of Sahara , Morrocans do not speack Berber but Arabic . Thanks for answering

Segia2
26-08-11, 03:26
Bodin, I think that an archaeological culture can be associated with different ethno-linguistic groups (diffusion, asimilation..) UFK is possibly IE, but not necessary and exclusively IE (I agree with you, Taranis, perhaps I explained myself wrongly)

BTW, sorry for my messy previous post, but basque and iberian numerals aren't IE. I wrote them to explain the similarity between both languages (there are more similar characteristics, as phonetic inventary, agglutinating system, shared derivational sufixes -en, -sken, ancient anthroponyms...) The problem lies on propperly comparing two languages, one living and the other dead more than fifteen centuries ago (corpus language), fragmentary and with a lack of "Rossetta stones" that could give light to the whole business.

Taranis
26-08-11, 03:34
Bodin, I think that an archaeological culture can be associated with different ethno-linguistic groups (diffusion, asimilation..) UFK is possibly IE, but not necessary and exclusively IE (I agree with you, Taranis, perhaps I explained myself wrongly)

Alright, I now understand. :)


BTW, sorry for my messy previous post, but basque and iberian numerals aren't IE. I wrote them to explain the similarity between both languages (there are more similar characteristics, as phonetic inventary, agglutinating system, shared derivational sufixes -en, -sken, ancient anthroponyms...) The problem lies on propperly comparing two languages, one living and the other dead more than fifteen centuries ago (corpus language), fragmentary and with a lack of "Rossetta stones" that could give light to the whole business.

I absolutely agree on the features of the Iberian language. Regarding comparison, what is more useful is what scarce evidence we do have (place names, personal names) of Aquitanian, and in turn compare it with reconstructed Proto-Basque (internal reconstruction based on how non-Basque loanwords are treated). Of course the term "Proto-Basque" is a bit of a misnomer because it technically refers to the Basque language around the time the Basques were subjugated by the Roman Empire, but on the upside Proto-Basque is very similar to what little we known about Aquitanian, therefore, in my opinion Aquitanian is probably the same as Proto-Basque.

Bodin
26-08-11, 08:13
Bodin, I think that an archaeological culture can be associated with different ethno-linguistic groups (diffusion, asimilation..) UFK is possibly IE, but not necessary and exclusively IE (I agree with you, Taranis, perhaps I explained myself wrongly)

BTW, sorry for my messy previous post, but basque and iberian numerals aren't IE. I wrote them to explain the similarity between both languages (there are more similar characteristics, as phonetic inventary, agglutinating system, shared derivational sufixes -en, -sken, ancient anthroponyms...) The problem lies on propperly comparing two languages, one living and the other dead more than fifteen centuries ago (corpus language), fragmentary and with a lack of "Rossetta stones" that could give light to the whole business.
Yes it can but if they both were R1b ( Basque and Celts ) why did they speack diferent languagues? And central Europe has some G( 2-3%) , why there is no in Basque?
Thanks for answering

Taranis
26-08-11, 13:33
No Berbers are separate nation of desert nomads that lives in Morocco , Algeria and Tunis , and in other parts of Sahara , Morrocans do not speack Berber but Arabic . Thanks for answering

I'm sorry, Berber languages are very well spoken in Morocco today. There's no point in denying that.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/Morocco_Region_Amazigh_Languages_Speakers.svg/500px-Morocco_Region_Amazigh_Languages_Speakers.svg.png

Besides, it's equally clear that the Berber languages were widely spoken in much of North Africa in Antiquity.


Yes it can but if they both were R1b ( Basque and Celts ) why did they speack diferent languagues? And central Europe has some G( 2-3%) , why there is no in Basque?
Thanks for answering

Very simple: people can swap their languages, but they canot swap their Haplogroups.

Knovas
26-08-11, 13:34
Bodin, when I said they are the most European I meant today. According to admixture analysis, as population, they are the less mixed of the entire Europe.

It's a good point the last one. Celts and Basques were both R1b, but I think we must find the answer, perhaps, in the type of R1b. Probably between the Basques there is an especific subclade at higher frequencies than in any other place. At least, they have the highest R1b, there would be nothing rare on this.

By the way, Here is the R1b of a distant cousin of mine at 23andme (he seems to be the most Basque person I found there till the moment): R1b1b2a1a2b

Can this subclade and a few others have higher presence between the Basques?

Taranis
26-08-11, 13:47
Bodin, when I said they are the most European I meant today. According to admixture analysis, as population, they are the less mixed of the entire Europe.

It's a good point the last one. Celts and Basques were both R1b, but I think we must find the answer, perhaps, in the type of R1b. Probably between the Basques there is an especific subclade at higher frequencies than in any other place. At least, they have the highest R1b, there would be nothing rare on this.

By the way, Here is the R1b of a distant cousin of mine at 23andme (he seems to be the most Basque person I found there till the moment): R1b1b2a1a2b

Can this subclade and a few others have higher presence between the Basques?

Well, one issue that is very clear is that there's quite a difference between various subclades of R1b. Both Basque and Celtic* subclades of R1b are part of R1b-L11/P310, but things end there. The question is, why did R1b-L11/P310 began to split up? From what I have seen, typically Celtic subclades of R1b appear to be near absent amongst the Basques.

*by "Celtic" subclades I mean L21 (found mainly on the British Isles and in the Atlantic facade) and U152 (centered around the Alpine region), however it's clear that U152 isn't exlcusively Celtic because there's also an Italic component to it.

Knovas
26-08-11, 13:55
Ok Taranis, your answer is enough. We can asume easily that the ancient R1b of the Celts and the Basques were associated to different peoples. That would explain the first question.

Wilhelm
26-08-11, 15:08
I don't agree at all. The (proto)-Celtic branch is tought to be the R-S116, which is where Basques and all spaniards belong too. In today's basque country there is Celtic or at least Indo-european toponymia. In historic times there were celts living there. As for the G2a, is curious that basques autosomally lack the West-Asian component (which peaks in Georgians) and as well the G2a peaks in Georgians.

Taranis
26-08-11, 15:22
I don't agree at all. The (proto)-Celtic branch is tought to be the R-S116, which is where Basques and all spaniards belong too. In today's basque country there is Celtic or at least Indo-european toponymia. In historic times there were celts living there. As for the G2a, is curious that basques autosomally lack the West-Asian component (which peaks in Georgians) and as well the G2a peaks in Georgians.

Yes and no. It still appears to me that the typically "Celtic" (at least, those that are usually considered that, as mentioned, L21 and U152) subclades of S116 are very rare in the Basque Country and in Iberia as a whole. It would be very nice/interesting to see a better resultion of the R1b subclades on the Iberian penninsula.

In any case it's clear that S116 isn't exclusively (Proto-)Celtic. This gets very clear if you take a look at the high concentrations of R1b-U152 in Italy, which cannot be exclusively explained by the historic Celtic immigration into northern Italy.

Otherwise, I agree that the lack of the West Asian component in Basque Autosomal DNA is very interesting.

Knovas
26-08-11, 15:58
According to K=12 v3, Southwest Asian is even more absent between them.

Some Iberians get high North Atlantic scores at Eurogenes when the cluster is included, and something similar would happen with Basques. Note that ancient subclades tell us nothing about the full admixture. Surely, Basques were mixed in the past with other peoples, althought they maintained their original culture pretty well.

Taranis
26-08-11, 16:30
In my opinion, Haplogroup I2a1 is most likely to be the "original" Y-Haplogroup associated with the Basques. I think so for several reasons: first off, we know that I2a1 was present in western Europe in the Neolithic (in Treilles), alongside G2a. In my opinion, the fact that Treilles was mixed G2a and I2a1 does by no means contradict the fact that modern-day Basques have virtually no G2a.

The other issue is that apart from Sardinia, the Basque country (and moreso, Aragon) has one of the highest concentrations of I2a1.

Knovas
26-08-11, 16:37
This makes sense to me. At least, I2a1 was one of the first, because we can't exclude the posibility of another one, as for example some subclades of R1b as I said, that could be more present between the Basques than in other populations.

Taranis
26-08-11, 17:03
This makes sense to me. At least, I2a1 was one of the first, because we can't exclude the posibility of another one, as for example some subclades of R1b as I said, that could be more present between the Basques than in other populations.

Haplogroup I as a whole is definitely old (despite the apparent bottleneck effect), and in my opinion it's the best candidate for Paleolithic Y-Haplogroups in Europe. But it doesn't necessarily have to be that. We merely know that it is at least Neolithic in age.

Something else I wanted to bring up is: just because I2a1 and G2a are present in Treilles doesn't mean the two Haplogroups are associated with each other. If you look at the distribution of I2a1 and G2a today it's very clear that they weren't.

sparkey
26-08-11, 17:46
I don't agree at all. The (proto)-Celtic branch is tought to be the R-S116, which is where Basques and all spaniards belong too. In today's basque country there is Celtic or at least Indo-european toponymia. In historic times there were celts living there. As for the G2a, is curious that basques autosomally lack the West-Asian component (which peaks in Georgians) and as well the G2a peaks in Georgians.

But there isn't good evidence that Basques are the same people as those who produced Celtic toponymia, is there? I recall reading that modern Basques are most likely primarily descended from people who lived in Aquitania in Classical times. Do you think they're more native to the Basque Country?

Besides, R1b-S116 includes populations other than Basques that were non-IE, like the Iberians of the Classical Age, unless you're suggesting that they were entirely R1b-S116-. So I don't think it would be inconsistent with the data to suppose that R1b-S116 peoples were descended from small non-IE populations who largely adopted IE languages, but not entirely. (Although I'm not sure I'm going to argue that it's the most likely scenario, just that it is a possible scenario).


Haplogroup I as a whole is definitely old (despite the apparent bottleneck effect), and in my opinion it's the best candidate for Paleolithic Y-Haplogroups in Europe. But it doesn't necessarily have to be that. We merely know that it is at least Neolithic in age.

Haplogroup I dated conventionally is about 22,000 years old... very Paleolithic. What are you suggesting? A serious dating error? Multiple migrations and subsequent extinction in Asia? (Keep in mind that I2 is itself dated to about 21,000 years ago and branches into 11+ extant subclades, all of which have a center of diversity in Europe, by the beginning of the Neolithic).


Something else I wanted to bring up is: just because I2a1 and G2a are present in Treilles doesn't mean the two Haplogroups are associated with each other. If you look at the distribution of I2a1 and G2a today it's very clear that they weren't.

But there are some interesting patterns they share, like how Sardinia has the largest frequency of both in Europe. I2a1a is the Haplogroup I subclade that appears to have spread the most during the Neolithic of the Haplogroup I subclades, and G2a seems to be the primary haplogroup of the Neolithic farmers, at least that we've found so far. So I do see some correlation, with the main reason they don't correlate strictly being that they started spreading from opposite sides of Europe.

Taranis
26-08-11, 17:56
Haplogroup I dated conventionally is about 22,000 years old... very Paleolithic. What are you suggesting? A serious dating error? Multiple migrations and subsequent extinction in Asia? (Keep in mind that I2 is itself dated to about 21,000 years ago and branches into 11+ extant subclades, all of which have a center of diversity in Europe, by the beginning of the Neolithic).

I was suggesting nothing, I just may have worded it somewhat unfortunately. The statement that I2a1 is known to have been in "in Europe at least since the Neolithic" does not rule out Paleolithic. From that perpective, Haplogroup I remains the most likely candidate for being Paleolithic. I agree that I also haven't seen any convincing model yet of how Haplogroup I could have entered at a later day, anyways, and also from where. Paleolithic is indeed the most likely explanation.


But there are some interesting patterns they share, like how Sardinia has the largest frequency of both in Europe. I2a1a is the Haplogroup I subclade that appears to have spread the most during the Neolithic of the Haplogroup I subclades, and G2a seems to be the primary haplogroup of the Neolithic farmers, at least that we've found so far. So I do see some correlation, with the main reason they don't correlate strictly being that they started spreading from opposite sides of Europe.

Yeah, I see your point.

Wilhelm
26-08-11, 21:19
Yes and no. It still appears to me that the typically "Celtic" (at least, those that are usually considered that, as mentioned, L21 and U152) subclades of S116 are very rare in the Basque Country and in Iberia as a whole.
Well, that's simply not true. L21 is not rare at all in Iberia. But I would want you to read this quote on R-S116 :


R-S116 shows maximum Y-STR diversity in France and Germany but maximum frequency in Iberia and the British Isles. In the latter region it is represented mainly by R-M529 with the R-M222 subclade being particularly prominent in Ireland but also North England. It would be interesting to see data for Scotland, and I do not doubt that R-M222 would be prominent there as well. R-S116 also shows signs of being a Celtic, or Celtiberian-related lineage.

European Journal of Human Genetics doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2010.146

A major Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b Holocene era founder effect in Central and Western Europe

Natalie M Myres et al.

Wilhelm
26-08-11, 21:22
Yes and no. It still appears to me that the typically "Celtic" (at least, those that are usually considered that, as mentioned, L21 and U152) subclades of S116 are very rare in the Basque Country and in Iberia as a whole.
Well, that's simply not true. L21 is not rare at all in Iberia. But I would want you to read this quote on R-S116 :


R-S116 shows maximum Y-STR diversity in France and Germany but maximum frequency in Iberia and the British Isles. In the latter region it is represented mainly by R-M529 with the R-M222 subclade being particularly prominent in Ireland but also North England. It would be interesting to see data for Scotland, and I do not doubt that R-M222 would be prominent there as well. R-S116 also shows signs of being a Celtic, or Celtiberian-related lineage.

European Journal of Human Genetics doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2010.146

A major Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b Holocene era founder effect in Central and Western Europe

Natalie M Myres et al.

Wilhelm
26-08-11, 21:23
Yes and no. It still appears to me that the typically "Celtic" (at least, those that are usually considered that, as mentioned, L21 and U152) subclades of S116 are very rare in the Basque Country and in Iberia as a whole.
Well, that's simply not true. L21 is not rare at all in Iberia. But I would want you to read this quote on R-S116 :


R-S116 shows maximum Y-STR diversity in France and Germany but maximum frequency in Iberia and the British Isles. In the latter region it is represented mainly by R-M529 with the R-M222 subclade being particularly prominent in Ireland but also North England. It would be interesting to see data for Scotland, and I do not doubt that R-M222 would be prominent there as well. R-S116 also shows signs of being a Celtic, or Celtiberian-related lineage.

European Journal of Human Genetics doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2010.146

A major Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b Holocene era founder effect in Central and Western Europe

Natalie M Myres et al.

Taranis
26-08-11, 21:28
Well, that's simply not true. L21 is not rare at all in Iberia. But I would want you to read this quote on R-S116 :

Explain to me why all studies I have seen thus far show common L21 only in the British Isles, plus some marginal evidence in northwestern France?

Even the Myres paper you cited says "In the latter region (ie Britain) it is represented mainly by R-M529 with the R-M222 subclade being particularly prominent in Ireland but also North England."

L21 appears to be quite rare in Iberia, just like for instance U152.

zanipolo
26-08-11, 21:50
I thought the majority of the Basques R1b was the R1b1b2 - M153 which although greater in the French basques was still the most dominanat of the R1b for basques.

Besides, the french basques which where related to the gascons in both genes and language seems correct.
The I - haplogroup seems to be more "hidden" in the pyrennes and so more original for the basques .

The MtDna found for both Spanish and french Basques as a Neolithic marker was J1c1 and J2a

spongetaro
26-08-11, 22:06
Well, that's simply not true. L21 is not rare at all in Iberia. But I would want you to read this quote on R-S116 :

Sorry but L21 is almost absent in Iberia

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/L21-S145-poE-CT.png

Wilhelm2
26-08-11, 22:15
Sorry but L21 is almost absent in Iberia

Well, where is this map from ? Anyways, it is obviously almost absent, since it has not been tested on academic studies. But there is a project going on (you can see it in the Y-DNA section of this forum) with quite an amount of Iberians with L-21.

Taranis
26-08-11, 22:19
Well, where is this map from ? Anyways, it is obviously almost absent, since it has not been tested on academic studies. But there is a project going on (you can see it in the Y-DNA section of this forum) with quite an amount of Iberians with L-21.

You might also want to check this out:

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/08/18/rspb.2011.1044.full.pdf

Also virtually no L21 on the Iberian penninsula, but, interestingly U152 which I had not seen before to this extend. It's also very clear that they have tested L21 in Iberian in their studies.

spongetaro
26-08-11, 22:19
Well, where is this map from ? Anyways, it is obviously almost absent, since it has not been tested on academic studies. But there is a project going on (you can see it in the Y-DNA section of this forum) with quite an amount of Iberians with L-21.

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/08/18/rspb.2011.1044.full.pdf

spongetaro
26-08-11, 22:23
Also virtually no L21 on the Iberian penninsula, but, interestingly U152 which I had not seen before to this extend.

Indeed, South West Portugal is also interesting

spongetaro
26-08-11, 22:24
http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/U152-S28-poE-CT.png

Indeed, South West Portugal is also interesting

Wilhelm2
26-08-11, 22:32
You might also want to check this out:

Also virtually no L21 on the Iberian penninsula, but, interestingly U152 which I had not seen before to this extend. It's also very clear that they have tested L21 in Iberian in their studies.
At the Myres et al. 2010 study there is 2.5% in Spain and 3% in Portugal. It's clearly not a celtic marker.

Taranis
26-08-11, 22:35
At the Myres et al. 2010 study there is 2.5% in Spain and 3% in Portugal. It's clearly not a celtic marker.

What makes you think U152 isn't Celtic at all? Granted, it can't beexclusively Celtic, but it very much matches the spread of the Hallstatt and La-Tene Cultures.

Wilhelm2
26-08-11, 22:44
What makes you think U152 isn't Celtic at all? Granted, it can't beexclusively Celtic, but it very much matches the spread of the Hallstatt and La-Tene Cultures.
I was talking of L-21. Anyways, these are mini-subclades. What matches the spread of Celts is R-S116, Maciamo even has a map about it :

h t t p://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/546/r1b.png/

spongetaro
26-08-11, 22:50
http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/R1b-L11-Europe.png

Surprisingly the study found more R1b S116 in Provence and Catalonia than in the Basque country

spongetaro
26-08-11, 22:55
I don't agree at all. The (proto)-Celtic branch is tought to be the R-S116, which is where Basques and all spaniards belong too.

We need more study on Z196 and its subclade for a better understanding of Iberian R1b and its relations to other Western european people

Bodin
27-08-11, 07:46
I'm sorry, Berber languages are very well spoken in Morocco today. There's no point in denying that.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/Morocco_Region_Amazigh_Languages_Speakers.svg/500px-Morocco_Region_Amazigh_Languages_Speakers.svg.png

Besides, it's equally clear that the Berber languages were widely spoken in much of North Africa in Antiquity.



Very simple: people can swap their languages, but they canot swap their Haplogroups.
I didnt try to denie that Berber is spocken in Morroco today , but it is not spocken by Moroccans , they speack Arabic ( atleast they were few weaks ago when I was there -joke:smile:).It is almoust certain that Berber was spocken during antiquity in North Africa , but we cant claim it was spocken by Moroccans , we dont know which languague they spocked.
Yes they can swap languagues but whose languague did Basque take ? Or you believe that Basque is ancient Celtic and other Celts took IE ?
Thanks for answering

Bodin
27-08-11, 08:15
Bodin, when I said they are the most European I meant today. According to admixture analysis, as population, they are the less mixed of the entire Europe.

It's a good point the last one. Celts and Basques were both R1b, but I think we must find the answer, perhaps, in the type of R1b. Probably between the Basques there is an especific subclade at higher frequencies than in any other place. At least, they have the highest R1b, there would be nothing rare on this.

By the way, Here is the R1b of a distant cousin of mine at 23andme (he seems to be the most Basque person I found there till the moment): R1b1b2a1a2b

Can this subclade and a few others have higher presence between the Basques?
O , you meant autosomal , that is a fact.
I believe Basque haplotype is R1b1a2a1a1b2( R-M135) , yes its quite possible.
Your cousin is Atlantic modal haplotype -R1b1b2 ( HT 15) and it is most comon in Europe of all R1b , its widely spreaded in Spain , Portugal ,Wales , Ireland , Scotland , and Ireland . So answer to your question is yes it can . Now I remembered one thing that I asked my self , if all R1b comed during IE setling when did it reached British islands ? It is obviosly that R1b tribes from Spain spreaded toward them .
Thanks for answer

Taranis
27-08-11, 17:49
I didnt try to denie that Berber is spocken in Morroco today , but it is not spocken by Moroccans , they speack Arabic ( atleast they were few weaks ago when I was there -joke:smile:).It is almoust certain that Berber was spocken during antiquity in North Africa , but we cant claim it was spocken by Moroccans , we dont know which languague they spocked.

What?! First off, Berber languages are clearly spoken by Moroccans, because regardless of wether they speak Berber or Arabic they are Moroccan citizens. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue there. That there were other native languages in Antiquity spoken on the area of-modern day Morocco besides Berber languages? If that it is what you're trying to argue, then you are very wrong because there is absolutely no evidence for that.

It is clear that Berber languages were spoken in Antiquity across a wide area from modern-day Morocco to Libya. It is also clear that the Berber language family must be rather old, because we know from the attestation of other Afro-Asiatic language families (ie, Egyptian and Semitic, the latter via Akkadian) that the Afro-Asiatic languages were already split up by 3rd millennium BC.


Yes they can swap languagues but whose languague did Basque take ? Or you believe that Basque is ancient Celtic and other Celts took IE ?
Thanks for answering

Sorry, what are you trying to argue there?

Bodin
28-08-11, 05:51
What?! First off, Berber languages are clearly spoken by Moroccans, because regardless of wether they speak Berber or Arabic they are Moroccan citizens. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue there. That there were other native languages in Antiquity spoken on the area of-modern day Morocco besides Berber languages? If that it is what you're trying to argue, then you are very wrong because there is absolutely no evidence for that.

It is clear that Berber languages were spoken in Antiquity across a wide area from modern-day Morocco to Libya. It is also clear that the Berber language family must be rather old, because we know from the attestation of other Afro-Asiatic language families (ie, Egyptian and Semitic, the latter via Akkadian) that the Afro-Asiatic languages were already split up by 3rd millennium BC.



Sorry, what are you trying to argue there?
Yes they are Morrocan citizens , so the Basque are Spanish citizens but they are not Spaniards , so the Sorabi are German citizens but they are not Germans , there is some Turks , Albanians , Serbs , Croats ,Roma... who are German citizens , but are they Germans ?I am German citizen( born in Meissen) , but I am not German.
I trying to say it is posibility that Berbers lived in Sahara desert next to Moroccans , but they didnt have to speack same languague , ofcourse there is no proof Moroccan speacked diferent languague , but there is no proof they ever speacked Berber.
About other question : There was claim that Basque and Celts are both from Urnfield culture , and they both are R1b , and speack languagues that are not even in same family , so I was curios why that hapened . Logicaly if they both comed with IE speackers than Basque took languague from some other group , if they comed before IE speackers than Celts spoke Basque and then took IE languague from newcoming IE speackers.
Thanks for answering

Taranis
28-08-11, 15:49
I trying to say it is posibility that Berbers lived in Sahara desert next to Moroccans , but they didnt have to speack same languague , ofcourse there is no proof Moroccan speacked diferent languague , but there is no proof they ever speacked Berber.

Sorry, no, there is no such possibility. You are making a totall wrong assumption there that somehow "Moroccans" existed in Antiquity in North Africa, which suggests that you are absolutely ignorant of the history of Morocco. This is approximately the same as assuming that "English" existed in Antiquity in Britain.

The country name "Morocco" derives from the city of Marrakech, which didn't exist in that form until the Medieval Ages. I heavily recommend you to read up on the history of Morocco before you make any other such claims.

As for there being no proof that they spoke Berber in Antiquity, I very much disagree. In Greek and Roman sources there very much are recorded Berber town names and personal names.


About other question : There was claim that Basque and Celts are both from Urnfield culture , and they both are R1b , and speack languagues that are not even in same family , so I was curios why that hapened . Logicaly if they both comed with IE speackers than Basque took languague from some other group , if they comed before IE speackers than Celts spoke Basque and then took IE languague from newcoming IE speackers.
Thanks for answering

Well, there is no easy answer here. The problem is this: we have very little evidence that Basque might have been spoken outside the area it was spoken in in Antiquity. If Basque was spoken across a larger area in previous times, we would find Basque borrowings not only into Celtic but also Italic and Germanic, which isn't the case. So, it is a mystery here.

Bodin
28-08-11, 22:09
Sorry, no, there is no such possibility. You are making a totall wrong assumption there that somehow "Moroccans" existed in Antiquity in North Africa, which suggests that you are absolutely ignorant of the history of Morocco. This is approximately the same as assuming that "English" existed in Antiquity in Britain.

The country name "Morocco" derives from the city of Marrakech, which didn't exist in that form until the Medieval Ages. I heavily recommend you to read up on the history of Morocco before you make any other such claims.

As for there being no proof that they spoke Berber in Antiquity, I very much disagree. In Greek and Roman sources there very much are recorded Berber town names and personal names.



Well, there is no easy answer here. The problem is this: we have very little evidence that Basque might have been spoken outside the area it was spoken in in Antiquity. If Basque was spoken across a larger area in previous times, we would find Basque borrowings not only into Celtic but also Italic and Germanic, which isn't the case. So, it is a mystery here.
And Morocco ( and Marrakech ) has nothing to do with Moors , who are recorded in antiquiti like diferent nation than Berbers ? I wouldnt say so .There was land Mauretania in place of Morroco before Romans and province with same name in empire. Aldo it is truth that first state in Midle Ages in Morroco was formed by Berbers . Ask any Morrocan ( nation not citizenship ) is he Berber , and ask any Berber is he Morrocan. What is also very interesting is shared mthDNA betwen Morrocans and Saami nation ( Laponia , Sweden). That seems to coincide with shared Paleolithical archeological findings of Europe and Morroco . After Morroco was also adopted Baker-Bell culture.Thanks for answering.

Taranis
28-08-11, 22:26
And Morocco ( and Marrakech ) has nothing to do with Moors , who are recorded in antiquiti like diferent nation than Berbers ? I wouldnt say so .There was land Mauretania in place of Morroco before Romans and province with same name in empire. Aldo it is truth that first state in Midle Ages in Morroco was formed by Berbers . Ask any Morrocan ( nation not citizenship ) is he Berber , and ask any Berber is he Morrocan.

Explain to me what exactly you have been trying to argue then all the time?! :confused2:


What is also very interesting is shared mthDNA betwen Morrocans and Saami nation ( Laponia , Sweden). That seems to coincide with shared Paleolithical archeological findings of Europe and Morroco . After Morroco was also adopted Baker-Bell culture.Thanks for answering.

I would still argue that it's likely that Berbers / Proto-Berbers were in North Africa since at least the early 3rd millennium BC, since the Semitic languages and Old Egyptian are attested from that time, and the other Afro-Asiatic branches besides Egyptian and Semitic must be at least as old, unless you somehow argue that Berber is somehow closer with the Chadic and Cushitic families and emerged from some kind of later, intermediate proto-language, something that I have no linguist so far claim.

Bodin
28-08-11, 23:17
Ok , you are the one that claimed Morrocan are Berbers ,but they are not , they are descendants of Moors , it is posible that Berbers made a state during Midle Ages in place of ancient (antique) Mauritian state ,and include Moors in that state , but Moors are not Berbers because of that . Like first independent Egyptian state in Middle ages was formed by Mameluks ( Kurds ) - Babers and Salah al Din ( Saladin) , and that isnt make Egyptians to become Kurds. Please ask some Morrocan to explain you a diference betwen Morrocans and Berbers , because I obviosly cannt:disappointed:
No I am not trying to say Berber is Chadic , I merely saying there is posibility Morrocan didnt speack Berber previosly to Arabic , maybe I am wrong.What about those common mthDNA dont they show conection of Morrocans with Europeans ?
Thanks for answering

Taranis
28-08-11, 23:36
Ok , you are the one that claimed Morrocan are Berbers ,but they are not , they are descendants of Moors , it is posible that Berbers made a state during Midle Ages in place of ancient (antique) Mauritian state ,and include Moors in that state , but Moors are not Berbers because of that . Like first independent Egyptian state in Middle ages was formed by Mameluks ( Kurds ) - Babers and Salah al Din ( Saladin) , and that isnt make Egyptians to become Kurds. Please ask some Morrocan to explain you a diference betwen Morrocans and Berbers , because I obviosly cannt:disappointed:

The Moors of the Medieval Ages were of mixed Arab/Berber descend, besides, the term "Moor" is an exonym, which is in turn derived from the word "Mauri", which was the name of a Berber tribe in North Africa in Antiquity, which also lend itself name to the kingdom / Roman province of Mauretania. The modern-day country of Mauritania is named for said territory, but otherwise bears no links whatsoever.


No I am not trying to say Berber is Chadic , I merely saying there is posibility Morrocan didnt speack Berber previosly to Arabic , maybe I am wrong.What about those common mthDNA dont they show conection of Morrocans with Europeans ?
Thanks for answering

As I said, there is no evidence what so ever that the native people in North(-west) Africa did speak another language except Berber languages in Antiquity. Mind you, this is a time from which there is written records in Greek and Roman sources, and various geographers (such as Strabo and Ptolemy) have fairly extensive reports on the region.

As I said, the fact that other branches of the Afro-Asiatic languages are attested from 3rd millennium BC onward (ie Egyptian and Semitic), it suggests that the Berber languages are just as old. In Antiquity, there is no evidence of native languages other than the Berber languages in northwestern Africa, which fits with what I said before, that the region is Berberized for a very long time.

Let's get back to your original claim there: you suggested the Iberians originally came from Africa. If this is the case, then the connection must be pretty old.

Bodin
30-08-11, 06:03
Although the Moors came to be identified as Muslim, the name Moor pre-dates Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam). It derives from the small Numidian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numidia) Kingdom of Maure of the 3rd century BCE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_century_BCE) in what is now northern central and western part of Algeria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algeria) and a part of northern Morocco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco).[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors#cite_note-8) The name was applied to people of the entire region. "They were called Maurisi by the Greeks", wrote Strabo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strabo), "and Mauri by the Romans."[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors#cite_note-9) During that age, the Maure or Moors were trading partners of Carthage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthage), the independent city state founded by Phoenicians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicia). During the second Punic war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punic_wars) between Carthage and Rome, two Moorish Numidian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numidia) kings took different sides, Syphax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syphax) with Carthage, Masinissa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masinissa) with the Romans, decisively so at Zama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zama).
Thereafter, the Moors entered into treaties with Rome. King Jugurtha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jugurtha) responded to violence against merchants with war. Juba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juba_II), a later king, was a friend of Rome. Eventually, the Roman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire) incorporated the region as the provinces of Mauretania Caesariensis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauretania_Caesariensis) and Mauretania Tingitana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauretania_Tingitana). The area around Carthage was already part of the province of Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tunisia). Roman rule was effective enough so that these provinces became integrated into the empire.

Bodin
30-08-11, 06:41
Yes to go back on my original thesis:
Why would it had to be ancient , there is only distance of 6-7 miles betwen Europe and Africa , so we should expect constant overflow . Like I mentioned similarity betwen Saami and Moroccan mthDNA showing ancient move of European Paleolithic mthDNA in Africa .
But there is also "African " yDNA in aerias of Iberian penincula that Arabs/ Moors never conquered( Galicia 22% E most in Spain, Castille and Leon 16% ), and even France . This point on move of African males (yDNA ) in betwen Paleolithe and Arab conquest .

Haplogroups by foloving order : I1; I2a and I2* ; I2b ; R1a ; R1b ; G;J2 ; J1 and J*; E1b1b ; T ; Q ; N .
Spain
1.5
4.5
1
2
69
3
8
1.5
7
2.5
0
0
http://www.eupedia.com/images/design/rate11.gif
Andalusia



0
9.5
0
3.5
58.5
3
10.5
2
10
3
0
0
http://www.eupedia.com/images/design/rate07.gif
Aragon



2
14.5
1
2
60.5
1
10.5
0
5
4
0
0
http://www.eupedia.com/images/design/rate05.gif
Asturias



2
2
0
2.5
58.5
8
8
2
14
3
0
0
http://www.eupedia.com/images/design/rate05.gif
Basque country



0
9
0
0
86
0
2.5
1
1
0
0.5
0
http://www.eupedia.com/images/design/rate05.gif
Cantabria



1
3
2
8.5
55
10.5
3
2.5
11
2.5
0
0
http://www.eupedia.com/images/design/rate05.gif
Castile & Leon



0.5
2
0.5
3
64
5
6
1
16
2
0
0
http://www.eupedia.com/images/design/rate07.gif
Castile-La-Mancha



1.5
1.5
0.5
1.5
66
8
10
4
5
2
0
0
http://www.eupedia.com/images/design/rate05.gif
Catalonia



0.5
5
0.5
0.5
82.5
6
2
0
3
0
0
0
http://www.eupedia.com/images/design/rate07.gif
Extremadura



3.5
5
1
0
50
5
11.5
0
18.5
5
0
0
http://www.eupedia.com/images/design/rate05.gif
Galicia



3
2.5
1.5
0
63
3
3.5
1
22
0.5
0
0
http://www.eupedia.com/images/design/rate05.gif
Valencia



3
5.5
1
3
63.5
1
6
2
13.5
1.5
0
0
http://www.eupedia.com/images/design/rate05.gif

Portugal
2
1.5
3
1.5
56
6.5
9.5
3
14
2.5
0.5
0
http://www.eupedia.com/images/design/rate09.gif

Thanks for answering

Taranis
30-08-11, 11:42
Although the Moors came to be identified as Muslim, the name Moor pre-dates Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam). It derives from the small Numidian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numidia) Kingdom of Maure of the 3rd century BCE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_century_BCE) in what is now northern central and western part of Algeria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algeria) and a part of northern Morocco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco).[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors#cite_note-8) The name was applied to people of the entire region. "They were called Maurisi by the Greeks", wrote Strabo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strabo), "and Mauri by the Romans."[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors#cite_note-9) During that age, the Maure or Moors were trading partners of Carthage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthage), the independent city state founded by Phoenicians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicia). During the second Punic war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punic_wars) between Carthage and Rome, two Moorish Numidian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numidia) kings took different sides, Syphax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syphax) with Carthage, Masinissa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masinissa) with the Romans, decisively so at Zama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zama).
Thereafter, the Moors entered into treaties with Rome. King Jugurtha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jugurtha) responded to violence against merchants with war. Juba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juba_II), a later king, was a friend of Rome. Eventually, the Roman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire) incorporated the region as the provinces of Mauretania Caesariensis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauretania_Caesariensis) and Mauretania Tingitana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauretania_Tingitana). The area around Carthage was already part of the province of Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tunisia). Roman rule was effective enough so that these provinces became integrated into the empire.

Yes, this is correct, but what language do you expect did the Numidians speak if not Berber languages? Especially if Berber town names and personal names are attested from the Numidians?

Even Wikipedia claims that they were Berber tribes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numidians).

If you have any evidence that the Numidians spoke a language other than Berber, please provide evidence.


Yes to go back on my original thesis:
Why would it had to be ancient , there is only distance of 6-7 miles betwen Europe and Africa , so we should expect constant overflow . Like I mentioned similarity betwen Saami and Moroccan mthDNA showing ancient move of European Paleolithic mthDNA in Africa.

I was talking about the linguistic connection here, and it has to be old. You claimed that the Iberians were originally from North Africa. Iberian, just like Basque, was an agglutinative language, whereas the Berber languages (part of the Afro-Asiatic family) are fusional. Also the sound inventories of Iberian and the Berber languages are very different and non-compatible. If there was any language in North Africa akin to Iberian, it must have been there before the Berber languages.

When did the Berbers come to North Africa? As I said, two other branches of Afro-Asiatic (Egyptian and Semitic families - the former via Old Egyptian, the latter via Akkadian) are attested from the early 3rd millennium BC, which proofs that the Afro-Asiatic language family already had split up at the time. This means, some kind of Proto-Berber must have been spoken simultaneous to Old Eygptian and Akkadian. Where did these speakers of Proto-Berber live, if not in North(-west) Africa?

The only logical conclusion is that if there was some kind of language in North Africa akin to Iberian, it must have been spoken very long ago and the connection would be very old, because the Berbers are likely to have lived there already for very long.

Bodin
31-08-11, 12:52
No there is not hard evidence Moroccans ever spoke other languague than Berberian , but there is not any evidence what languague they spocked before Arabic . Name of cities , rivers, names is Berberic but it could be because Berbers came hier before Moors ( like for instance all river names in Poland , Czech ,... are not Slavic ) .
Yes Wikipedia say Numidians are Berbers but Jordanes in his " Getica " speacking about Vandals wars against indigenous populations clearly separate Moors and Berbers , they make separate wars and are not the same nation .
It is not realy mein theory , I just folowed report of Pausania that Iberians comed in Iberia around 1200 BC from Africa , it is not certain , but just a posibility.
Iberian and Berberian are obviosly not the same , but Berberian could live next to the some other languague for very long time , like he live next to Arabic nowadays , again just proposition not hard claim . Because speackers of Berberic are nomads ( especialy in old times , less today) and they do not mix to much with sedimentary populations ( like Slavs didnt took to many words from Scyths and Sarmatians) .
Helens know the Berbers like Lothophagi ( Lothus eaters) ,and later they use Egyptian name Lybians , so as the Romans . They called themselves Imazighens ( town of Masyllia writen by Romans , Mshwhs mercenaries in Egypt ,... )

These is also very interesting:
Dating to the Mesolithic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesolithic) era, stone blades and tools, as well as small stone figurines, of the Capsian culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsian_culture) (named after Gafsa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gafsa), Tunisia) are connected indirectly to the prehistoric presence of the Berbers in North Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_Central_North_Africa). Also related are some of the prehistoric monuments built using very large rocks (dolmens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolmens)). Located both in Europe and Africa, these dolmens are found at locations throughout the region of the western Mediterranean.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlines_of_early_Tunisia#cite_note-8) The Capsian culture was preceded by the Ibero-Maurusian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibero-Maurusian) in North Africa.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlines_of_early_Tunisia#cite_note-9)
A commonly held view of Berber origins is that Paleo-Mediterranean peoples long occupying the region combined with several other largely Mediterranean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_race) groups, two from the east near S.W.Asia and bringing the Berber languages about eight to ten kya (one traveling west along the coast and the other by way of the Sahel and the Sahara), with a third intermingling earlier from Iberia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberians).[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlines_of_early_Tunisia#cite_note-15)[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlines_of_early_Tunisia#cite_note-16)[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlines_of_early_Tunisia#cite_note-17) "At all events, the historic peopling of the Maghrib is certainly the result of a merger, in proportions not yet determined, of three elements: Ibero-Maurusian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibero-Maurusian), Capsian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsian) and Neolithic," the last being "true proto-Berbers".[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlines_of_early_Tunisia#cite_note-18)
Perhaps eight millennia ago, already there were prior peoples established here, among whom the proto-Berbers (coming from the east) mingled and mixed, and from whom the Berber people would spring, during an era of their ethno-genesis.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlines_of_early_Tunisia#cite_note-23)[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlines_of_early_Tunisia#cite_note-24) Today half or more of modern Tunisians appear to be the descendants of ancient Berber ancestors
Ibero Maurisian culture egzisted in North Africa since LGM to Younger Dryas .
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/Iberomaurisiense-Capsiense_.png/200px-Iberomaurisiense-Capsiense_.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iberomaurisiense-Capsiense_.png)

It was suceded by Capsian culture :
The Capsian culture (named after the town of Gafsa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gafsa) in Tunisia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisia)) was a Mesolithic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesolithic) culture of the Maghreb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maghreb), which lasted from about 10,000 to 6,000 BCE. It was concentrated mainly in modern Tunisia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisia), Algeria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algeria) and Libya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya), with some sites attested in southern Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain) to Sicily (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicily). It is traditionally divided into two horizons, the Capsien typique (Typical Capsian) and the Capsien supérieur (Upper Capsian) which are sometimes found in chronostratigraphic sequence. They represent variants of one tradition, the differences between them being both typological and technological
So moving from Africa to Europe and backward was comon
Anatomically, Capsian populations were modern Homo sapiens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens), traditionally classed into two "racial" types: Proto-Mediterranean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_race) and Mechta-Afalou (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechta-Afalou) on the basis of cranial morphology. Some have argued that they were immigrants from the east, [7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsian_culture#cite_note-Ferembach_1985-6) whereas others argue for population continuity based on physical skeletal characteristics and other criteria,[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsian_culture#cite_note-Sheppard_and_Lubell_1991-7) et cetera.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsian_culture#cite_note-Lubell_et_al._1984-3)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsian_culture#cite_note-Sheppard_and_Lubell_1991-7)[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsian_culture#cite_note-Lubell_2001-8)
Given its widespread occurrence in the Sahara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara), the Capsian culture is identified by some historical linguists as a possible ancestor of the speakers of modern Afroasiatic languages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroasiatic_languages) of Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa) and the Middle East (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East) which includes the Berber languages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_languages) in North Africa ( aldo I prefer theory that Afro-Asiatic languagues came with Berbers during Neolithe )
Thanks for answering . Very inspiring discusion:good_job:

razyn
31-08-11, 16:42
We need more study on Z196 and its subclade for a better understanding of Iberian R1b and its relations to other Western european people

Hear, hear. There is a lot of peripheral discussion here, e.g about the absence of U152 and L21, brother clades of Z196 that appear to have walked through most of Europe with their livestock (one hesitates to say "behind their cows," but the temptation is there). That took a relatively long time. While those large clades were crossing the subcontinent, around the beginning of the Bronze Age, Z196 (or some of its subclades, including L176.2 or its descendant SRY2627; and including the "North/South cluster" and eventually its descendant M153, the "Basque marker") may well have arrived in Iberia by sea, and without much livestock -- but knowing such useful things as how to domesticate and use the local Pottock ponies (this was suggested by Didier Vernade); how to smelt metals, mine copper and tin; how to build cargo boats and use them, on rivers and at sea. Trading in metals and ores, amber, bell beakers, that sort of thing.

This is all highly speculative and premature; but it solves some of the conundrums that seem to occupy this thread unnecessarily, in the apparent absence of any mental picture of the very large, very old Z196 element of R1b-P312. (Z196 was mentioned in one post out of the first 95, here.)

I myself have speculated that the seafaring (and often absent) Z196 dads may have spoken some form of Indo-European, perhaps Ligurian; but their local wives (in Basque country) spoke the local language, and continued to do so while Dad was off somewhere trading. (Cornwall and Devon, Cantabria, Bretagne, and Poland are among the markets suggested by certain Z196 remnants.) Anyway, the kids learned to talk from Mom, not Dad (if he wasn't there); so the Basque language may be substantially older there than the paternal DNA marker M153. Which btw marks a somewhat younger mutation that probably occurred in a restricted area after Z196 was well established in Iberia, the Basque country, and elsewhere.

The anthropological and linguistic part of this post is wild speculation. The Y-DNA part is demonstrable; but you need to have heard of Z196 (a SNP that has only engaged the online forums since about May 2011, and is not yet to be found in academic papers on which the ink has dried).

sparkey
31-08-11, 17:36
This is all highly speculative and premature

Yup; the obvious conundrum we run into anytime we talk about the Basques is how isolated they are, and how much of a stretch it is to link their language to anything. Your explanation makes sense and is one of the most likely explanations IMHO, but remains one of several possibilities. I think you would tend to link the "original" proto-Basque-speaking population to Y-DNA haplogroup I2a1a, then, yes? As opposed to theories of the original population correlating better with R1b-Z196 (as opposed to its IE cousins, which could have picked up IE later), or being some sort of hybrid or transmitted language.


The Y-DNA part is demonstrable; but you need to have heard of Z196 (a SNP that has only engaged the online forums since about May 2011, and is not yet to be found in academic papers on which the ink has dried).

Why do we need to be familiar with this SNP when we already knew about M153? What are the relative age estimates?

razyn
31-08-11, 18:56
I think you would tend to link the "original" proto-Basque-speaking population to Y-DNA haplogroup I2a1a, then, yes?

I wouldn't, mainly because I haven't been following that at all. I'd prefer to link that population with its mitochondrial DNA, whatever that may be, because I'd expect it to be older in situ. Possibly a whole lot older. But that's someone else's project.


Why do we need to be familiar with this SNP when we already knew about M153? What are the relative age estimates?

Short answer, because Z196 is ancestral to the "Basque" marker M153 by a couple of steps; and is ancestral to the frequently Iberian SNP SRY2627 by a different couple of steps. Z196 is the part of P-312 that was there earliest, longest, however you'd like to express that. It would appear U152 and L21 weren't there; anyway they aren't ancestral to the most prevalent clades of R1b (where the sampling has been deep enough to detect clades) in Portugal, Spain and/or the Basque country. I think that's accurate. If not, I can take correction (by someone who knows better).

For the age estimates, that is being hotly debated as we speak; for the moment I'm with Mike Walsh (who has been doing variance tables that include Z196, unlike everybody else) and finds the ages of Z196 and L21 very close to that of P312 itself, with U152 possibly a very little bit younger, SRY2627 much younger and M153 the youngest of all (under discussion here). For specific ages (rather than relative), Z196 might be in Iberia around 4900 YBP, with any of its subclades younger than that, M153 much younger. But there are many fine arguments against dating this precisely, with no aDNA to confirm any of it; the mutation rate and the length of a generation just highly educated guesses; standard deviation being argued about by some smart people with their own axes to grind, etc. I'm not going there. But I'm confident somebody is.

spongetaro
31-08-11, 19:05
Interestingly, the subclades of Z196 seem to peak in non IE area (Iberia, Gallia Aquitania, Basque country).

sparkey
31-08-11, 19:23
Interestingly, the subclades of Z196 seem to peak in non IE area (Iberia, Gallia Aquitania, Basque country).

One way to look at that is by saying that the proto-Basque/Iberian connection on the R1b line would actually support the idea that the original proto-Basque population was mainly R1b, because it shows that one of the earliest (the earliest?) entrant clades into Western Europe is non-IE on its descendant branches.

Another way to look at it is by saying that it's only evidence that a particular clade dropped its IE language, and shows that Western European R1b was all IE at one point, as evidenced by the fact that we can now see that there is greater SNP diversity among IE than among non-IE.

So I think it's a wash regarding our understanding of the origin of the Basque language.

Bodin
31-08-11, 20:04
So lets get back on subject: where from would R-P312/Z196 come bringing so litle G2a with him ?And why was so litle G2a in Basque region before it comed?

spongetaro
31-08-11, 21:55
So lets get back on subject: where from would R-P312/Z196 come bringing so litle G2a with him ?And why was so litle G2a in Basque region before it comed?


R1b M153 and SRY2627 in the Basque country are like R1b L21 in Ireland. Those two subclades seem to leave no room for other haplogroups or even other R1b subclade.
While R1b U152 correlates to some extent with G2a (and perhaps J2), the R1b subclades of the Atlantic facade (L21, M153, SRY2627) really have their own territory.
The big differences between those Atlantic subclades is that while R1b L21 is mainly Celtic, the carriers of Z196 belong to different cultures (Q celtic, Iberian, Aquitanian) whose some were non IE.

So the age of R1b subclades is really decisive to understand the History of R1b in western Europe.
Is U152 older than Z196?

Knovas
01-09-11, 11:22
O , you meant autosomal , that is a fact.
I believe Basque haplotype is R1b1a2a1a1b2( R-M135) , yes its quite possible.
Your cousin is Atlantic modal haplotype -R1b1b2 ( HT 15) and it is most comon in Europe of all R1b , its widely spreaded in Spain , Portugal ,Wales , Ireland , Scotland , and Ireland . So answer to your question is yes it can . Now I remembered one thing that I asked my self , if all R1b comed during IE setling when did it reached British islands ? It is obviosly that R1b tribes from Spain spreaded toward them .
Thanks for answer
I wrote to my cousin asking if he wanted to join Dodecad. He has already sent the raw data to Dienekes'. In next days results will be published.

It's the first Dodecad participant with 4 Basque grandparents, all from Guipuzkoa.

Regards.

Asturrulumbo
01-09-11, 23:16
I would be inclined to think that R1b came with Indo-Europeans (aka Beaker Culture) to Western Europe, if not for the fact that if so there should be much more R1a there, as Indo-Europeans most probably had that haplogroup. Thus, I think that R1b came to Western Europe some time in the Middle to Late Neolithic.

Taranis
01-09-11, 23:50
I would be inclined to think that R1b came with Indo-Europeans (aka Beaker Culture) to Western Europe, if not for the fact that if so there should be much more R1a there, as Indo-Europeans most probably had that haplogroup. Thus, I think that R1b came to Western Europe some time in the Middle to Late Neolithic.

Welcome to the forum!

First off, I agree that the Beaker-Bell Culture is currently the best candidate for bringing both Indo-European languages and R1b into Western Europe. However, consider that Beaker-Bell is Chalcolithic (Copper Age), and not Neolithic. Also, in the case you did not know (it's mentioned a couple of times in this thread, however), there have been ancient DNA samples from two Neolithic sites (one in southern France, the other in Germany), both which failed to bring up any sample of R1b.

Asturrulumbo
02-09-11, 02:49
Thanks for the welcoming, oh great Thunder God (have you thout that his association with the wheel may be because of the sound it makes? Oh well, I better leave that for later)!

Yes, I am indeed aware of the aDNA tests in the LBK graves. However, is it not possibly that R1b in W. Europe comes from some time after the LBK but before the Beaker Culture; and that the Beaker material culture, as well as the IE languages were something that "caught on" among the relative newcomers? I know that it may be tempting to consider the arrival of IE languages and of R1b to W. Europe a joint enterprise, but then, ¿Why the lack of R1a?
Edit: Perhaps the R1b carriers can be associated with megalithism?

sparkey
02-09-11, 17:28
Yes, I am indeed aware of the aDNA tests in the LBK graves. However, is it not possibly that R1b in W. Europe comes from some time after the LBK but before the Beaker Culture; and that the Beaker material culture, as well as the IE languages were something that "caught on" among the relative newcomers? I know that it may be tempting to consider the arrival of IE languages and of R1b to W. Europe a joint enterprise, but then, ¿Why the lack of R1a?
Edit: Perhaps the R1b carriers can be associated with megalithism?

I think it's still possible that R1b has been around in Europe since the Neolithic, and we've just failed to test the right Neolithic ancient DNA so far, but the patterns of R1b across Europe don't fit that hypothesis very well. I'd certainly be willing to revise my position if we found Neolithic Western European DNA with Y-DNA R1b.

I think it's quite possible that Beaker people were transmitted a lot of culture from Corded Ware (R1a) peoples, and that transmission could have even had a significant impact on their expansion, which is likely linked to R1b expansion (and possibly the transmission of IE into Western Europe). However, to describe the patterns today, I think the most likely explanation is "it's complicated"... I would be unsurprised if it ended up being the case that Beaker culture was I2a2 dominant, with R1b a minority that later expanded within it, for example. Haplogroup R has this tendency to displace other haplogroups in populations, which some have linked to high sperm count, so it's quite possible that that might be in play here, as well.

All said, I have yet to see anything that would correlate R1b to G2a, which we know is Neolithic. R1b almost certainly came after, which helps us formulate an answer to the question in the topic: the expansion that brought G2a was likely blocked against entering into the Basque area by existing Haplogroup I peoples, while the expansion of R1b into Europe likely had some advantage (genetic or cultural or maybe both) which allowed it to assimilate into and genetically dominate the existing population.

Asturrulumbo
02-09-11, 18:30
I agree that G2a came before R1b in Europe, although I would doubt that G2a entered Western Europe at all during the Neolithic. In my opinion, the reason for the lack of G2a specifically in Euskadi must be sought at a later date.

Taranis
02-09-11, 19:05
I agree that G2a came before R1b in Europe, although I would doubt that G2a entered Western Europe at all during the Neolithic. In my opinion, the reason for the lack of G2a specifically in Euskadi must be sought at a later date.

Well, as I mentioned multiple times, G2a has been found in Neolithic sites, one of them in Treilles, France, along with I2a1. There has been another Neolithic site, from Germany, which yielded G2a, and curiously enough, Haplogroup *F. Thus, it stands to reason that Haplogroup G was *the* Y-Haplogroup of the Neolithic farmers.

Asturrulumbo
02-09-11, 19:22
In Treilles, France? That is indeed news for me! Can I have the link to the article? Thanks in advance! Also, about the haplogroup F they found, it wasn't necessarily F*, they just didn't do any further tests, so it could have been, for example, F3, which has been found in the Netherlands.

Taranis
02-09-11, 19:29
In Treilles, France? That is indeed news for me! Can I have the link to the article? Thanks in advance! Also, about the haplogroup F they found, it wasn't necessarily F*, they just didn't do any further tests, so it could have been, for example, F3, which has been found in the Netherlands.

Here you go:

this (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/05/y-chromosome-mtdna-and-autosomal-dna.html) and this (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-V7tI_aA8GHE/TeU29_qdqxI/AAAAAAAADzY/gZxm7wef6QM/s1600/treilles.png).

Asturrulumbo
02-09-11, 19:52
Very interesting... But I would have preferred that it specified the nature of the site (what culture it "belonged" to). Was it a remnant of the Cardium Pottery culture, or more of a megalith-building culture?

Bodin
02-09-11, 21:35
I wrote to my cousin asking if he wanted to join Dodecad. He has already sent the raw data to Dienekes'. In next days results will be published.

It's the first Dodecad participant with 4 Basque grandparents, all from Guipuzkoa.

Regards.
Eagerly await results . Thanks for answering

Bodin
02-09-11, 21:47
[QUOTE=sparkey;379299]I think it's still possible that R1b has been around in Europe since the Neolithic, and we've just failed to test the right Neolithic ancient DNA so far, but the patterns of R1b across Europe don't fit that hypothesis very well. I'd certainly be willing to revise my position if we found Neolithic Western European DNA with Y-DNA R1b.

I think it's quite possible that Beaker people were transmitted a lot of culture from Corded Ware (R1a) peoples, and that transmission could have even had a significant impact on their expansion, which is likely linked to R1b expansion (and possibly the transmission of IE into Western Europe). However, to describe the patterns today, I think the most likely explanation is "it's complicated"... I would be unsurprised if it ended up being the case that Beaker culture was I2a2 dominant, with R1b a minority that later expanded within it, for example. Haplogroup R has this tendency to displace other haplogroups in populations, which some have linked to high sperm count, so it's quite possible that that might be in play here, as well.

All said, I have yet to see anything that would correlate R1b to G2a, which we know is Neolithic. R1b almost certainly came after, which helps us formulate an answer to the question in the topic: the expansion that brought G2a was likely blocked against entering into the Basque area by existing Haplogroup I peoples, while the expansion of R1b into Europe likely had some advantage (genetic or cultural or maybe both) which allowed it to assimilate into and genetically dominate the existing population.[/QUOTE ]
That is the best answer on my question yet . But stil there is problem because Basque has 86% R1b , and that R1b had to pas tru West Europe (if it come with rest of R1b) , and it had to pick up some G2a like the rest of R1b did . I gues that reason for today Basque has less then 0,25% G2a is that old population ( I2a1) has very litle G2a , but also incoming population ( R1b) had to has very litle G2a , because they descendants are mayority today. You provided answer on first part of question , but second part is yet there.
Thanks for answer

Bodin
02-09-11, 22:28
I allready sugested there is posibility R1b was in Europe during Mesolithe , but not in western Europe . They could posibly been in south and central Europe . I would remind you that R1b* is realy rare and it is found only in Turkey - 2 cases , and maybe R1b* or R1a* in Jordan ( 20/45 on Dead sea coast ) ,Sudanes Fulani (14/26), Egypt in 2/92 cases . It seems to me that parts of R1 retrieved to Asia Minor and there has been maded R1b? Also there is 0,6% of R1b-V88( African R1b) on Balkans , and 0,3 % of it in west Asia.
What is even more important R1b1* is also rare 2 cases in Turkey , 3 in Italy , 1 in west Asia and 1 in east Asia. It look to me it emerged in west Asia and south Europe .
Posible theory could be : R1 took refugee in Asia Minor during LGM and produced R1b, other part of R1 gone north of Black sea and produced R1a ( they were both retreathing toward east , which is most likely scenario - simillar groups going together ).
during early Neolithe G2a moved from Caucasus and settled in Europe( maybe under presure of R1a or R1b ) , seatled with rare hunters - I2a1 , up to these times parts of R1 has already resetled parts of Europe - R1a on Balkans - 11.000 years old .
Then around 5500 BC there was catastrophe - ice caps on Caucasus melted , increasing levels of Caspian lake , and it overflow in Black sea ( that was in that time lake ) , Black sea has grown and floaded Asia Minor , bursting tru Bosphorus in to Aegean sea, and there was back wave , but before that hapened R1b crossed to Balkans. When waters retreated Asia Minor was empty , and that emptynes was filled with J and E1b1b1 coming from east and south . Parts of R1b hasnt fleed to Balkans but on the north mixing with R1a, creating IE and remaining in genetic makeup of Armenians , Baskhirs , Tocharians,... R1b under presure of incoming E1b1b1 and J retrived from Balkans in to central Europe , forming Baker -Bell culture . They stayed there until R1a started its expansion toward west
, R1b received IE languague and retrived west colonizing its curent habitats - that would explain lack of R1a in west Europe .
I know it is farrytale , but does it have some truth ?

Knovas
02-09-11, 22:42
Eagerly await results . Thanks for answering
Results are available. Check DOD818.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?authkey=COCa89AJ&key=0ArAJcY18g2GadDUyeEtjNnBmY09EbnowN3M3UWRyNnc&hl=en_US&authkey=COCa89AJ#gid=3

Also, he has sent to Eurogenes too, and Davidski was quite surprised with him. Probably he will be included in the next run.

It's a very interesting one. He clusters with the HGDP French-Basques almost neatly.

razyn
02-09-11, 22:43
That is the best answer on my question yet . But stil there is problem because Basque has 86% R1b , and that R1b had to pas tru West Europe (if it come with rest of R1b) , and it had to pick up some G2a like the rest of R1b did .

It didn't have to pass through, if it went around. The easiest way to do that would be in boats. There are other ways, and routes; in any case, there is some reason to suspect that the part of R1b represented by Z196 (and thus highly relevant to Basques) did not migrate westward with, alongside, or by the same routes (i.e., through Europe) as its brother clades U152 and L21, or its cousin U106. If it came by a path along which there was no G2a to pick up, it would not have picked any up.

That doesn't explain why there weren't already G2a guys in Basque country. (Maybe, the stuff they liked to hunt and gather didn't grow there?) It only explains how R1b could get there without picking up G2a. What you asked about, I thought.

Bodin
02-09-11, 23:07
It didn't have to pass through, if it went around. The easiest way to do that would be in boats. There are other ways, and routes; in any case, there is some reason to suspect that the part of R1b represented by Z196 (and thus highly relevant to Basques) did not migrate westward with, alongside, or by the same routes (i.e., through Europe) as its brother clades U152 and L21, or its cousin U106. If it came by a path along which there was no G2a to pick up, it would not have picked any up.

That doesn't explain why there weren't already G2a guys in Basque country. (Maybe, the stuff they liked to hunt and gather didn't grow there?) It only explains how R1b could get there without picking up G2a. What you asked about, I thought.
Sparkey allready explained why there was not G2a in previous populations ( posible enough eplanation ). I considered your theory about coming by boats when I was saying they have to pass tru Europe - if I understood you corectly you said they came from Liguria
but there is also G2a , or you think they came from Asia Minor , but there is more G2a than in Europe . So from where has they came ?

Bodin
02-09-11, 23:08
Results are available. Check DOD818.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?authkey=COCa89AJ&key=0ArAJcY18g2GadDUyeEtjNnBmY09EbnowN3M3UWRyNnc&hl=en_US&authkey=COCa89AJ#gid=3

Also, he has sent to Eurogenes too, and Davidski was quite surprised with him. Probably he will be included in the next run.

It's a very interesting one. He clusters with the HGDP French-Basques almost neatly.
Very interesting indeed . Thanks for answering

Asturrulumbo
02-09-11, 23:30
I cite Wikipedia:
"Artenacian culture, named after the archaeological site of Artenac in Charente appeared in the Late Chalcolithic, c. 2400 BC, apparently as reaction to migrations of Danubian peoples into Western France.
Because it is characterized by its abundant arrow points, it is considered a culture of bowmen. It participated fully in the megalithic culture of the Chalcolithic period.
In successive centuries it became dominant throughout western France, establishing a stable ethno-cultural border with the Danubian culture near the Rhine that remained stable for a whole millennium.
The Artenacian peoples are believed to be the ancestors of the historical Aquitani."
This could be the answer to the lack of G2a in Basques.
Edit: And maybe also the lack of Indo-European in Basques (?)!

Taranis
02-09-11, 23:39
I cite Wikipedia:
"Artenacian culture, named after the archaeological site of Artenac in Charente appeared in the Late Chalcolithic, c. 2400 BC, apparently as reaction to migrations of Danubian peoples into Western France.
Because it is characterized by its abundant arrow points, it is considered a culture of bowmen. It participated fully in the megalithic culture of the Chalcolithic period.
In successive centuries it became dominant throughout western France, establishing a stable ethno-cultural border with the Danubian culture near the Rhine that remained stable for a whole millennium.
The Artenacian peoples are believed to be the ancestors of the historical Aquitani."
This could be the answer to the lack of G2a in Basques.

Well, I personally suspect a link between I2a1 and the Atlantic Megalithic Builders. In particular, the Basques have one of the highest concentrations of I2a1 (after Sardinia).

Knovas
02-09-11, 23:51
Iberia is full of Megalithic buildings, but I don't know if concretely the Basque country has a lot of them. In general terms I agree to atribute those monuments, primarly, to I2a1 peoples.

Asturrulumbo
03-09-11, 00:25
Also, one should note that the places where there is least G2a (Euskadi and Aragon) have unusually high concentrations of I2a1...

Bodin
03-09-11, 15:01
But in Danubian region is one of hotspots of G2a , so they have to carry some of it . And if Artenacians come from Danube( which corelates with archer culture ) , then they couldnt be I2a1 , because it is in Iberian penincula since Paleolithe .Am I missing something ?
Do somebody know region ith high R1b and low or absent G2a which would colerate with Basque ?

Asturrulumbo
03-09-11, 17:45
But in Danubian region is one of hotspots of G2a , so they have to carry some of it . And if Artenacians come from Danube( which corelates with archer culture ) , then they couldnt be I2a1 , because it is in Iberian penincula since Paleolithe .Am I missing something ?
Do somebody know region ith high R1b and low or absent G2a which would colerate with Basque ?
Yes: The Artenacian culture grew as a local reaction to the Danubian Expansion, not as an extension of it.

razyn
03-09-11, 18:07
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 :smile:

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
04-09-11, 20:00
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

Bodin
04-09-11, 20:10
Also I believe that theory about higher sperm caunt of R yDNA haplogroups is false , there was R1b in Balkans and Anatolia atleast since Neolithe , but untill today they are very small percent of population .

sparkey
04-09-11, 21:45
Also I believe that theory about higher sperm caunt of R yDNA haplogroups is false , there was R1b in Balkans and Anatolia atleast since Neolithe , but untill today they are very small percent of population .

Anatolia OK, but the Balkans? Do we find R1b L11- in the Balkans? Or do you think that R1b-L11 has been in Europe since the Neolithic and has its most archaic form in the Balkans? I don't think we find a huge amount of diversity of it there... I think that that was one of the takeaway points of Capelli et al.

razyn
04-09-11, 21:50
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
05-09-11, 23:08
Anatolia OK, but the Balkans? Do we find R1b L11- in the Balkans? Or do you think that R1b-L11 has been in Europe since the Neolithic and has its most archaic form in the Balkans? I don't think we find a huge amount of diversity of it there... I think that that was one of the takeaway points of Capelli et al.


I didnt mention R1b-P310 I said R1b in general , maybe R1b-P310 developet after move from Balkans . In Balkans there is R1b-V88 ( African ) - which show R1b was on Balkans very long time . I believe that during LGM part of R1 from Europe took refuge in Anatolia ( and maybe Near East and Italy ) , there it developed in R1b (R1b* is found only in Turkey , Jordan , Italy and in China - which clearly shows where it was formed ) . Than larger part of R1b gradualy started to move in Europe during early Neolithe - Balkans and Central Europe . Lesser part of R1b from Anatolia moved across Caucasus and mixed with R1a in steppes forming IE group ( that R1b is found in Tocharians , Armenians ,...) and later moved in Europe . In late Neolithe first group of R1b was pushed from Anatholia and Balkans diper in to Central Europe by incoming E1b1b and J from east . There they formed CordedWare culture( they were probably acepted IE languague hier in excange with IE groups on east , except maybe Basque -who could maybe moved before that?) . But in Bronze Age R1a mixed with second group of R1b started his marsh to west spreading IE languagues and culture , that is the time when most of R1b moved to place where is it now- West Europe ( also it explains why there is not many R1a in west Europe - which would have to be if all R1b comed from steppes).
What do you think about this theory ?
Thanks for answering

Bodin
05-09-11, 23:28
Gdańsk.

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


Well east end of Mediterranean dont sound realy plausible because there is more G than in Europe , but Gdansk is quite posible ( or somewhere along Baltic coast where there is not G - maybe it didnt reached there because of climatic conditions ) . And it fit realy god with my theory of movements of R1b ( previous tread ). So we concluded Basques were R1b haplogroup peoples which moved by boats from Baltic coast , on land populated by I2a1 peoples which only in Europe managed to stop G invasion in early Neolithe . And I going to go with that theory , untill somebody show it is wrong . Did anybody think there is hole in theory ( I dont see it ) , please post.
Thanks to all for cooperation .
PS I didnt realy think you speack with R1b carriers from before few thousand years ( joke :smile: ) , I only wanted to hear you oppinion , and it is showed to be realy god one .Thanks:good_job:

razyn
06-09-11, 02:39
If you are happy with Gdańsk, I'm glad. I don't necessarily believe it, but I think it's one possibility among several. The Vistula river met the sea somewhere, in 3,000 BCE -- although that place is presumably farther north, now underwater, and the archaeological record of the modern port does not begin so long ago.

An early Bronze Age seaworthy boat found in Dover, UK was a "sewn boat," an ancient construction technique that has not been entirely lost in the Baltic area. Also, the long distance maritime trade around that time (roughly 5,000 ybp) included amber, presumably of Baltic origin.

I also think it is quite possible that a seafaring culture could have consisted primarily of one Y-DNA haplogroup, regardless of what other groups were found around it, or in the areas with which it traded. That would only require clan-based acceptance into the union, as it were. If that was the case, it may not matter whether the actual Y-DNA source turns out to have been in present Poland, southwestern Turkey, or in some more western Mediterranean coastal zone that now looks like a hotbed of G2a. I have no evidence that R1b included clans specialized in maritime and/or riverine transport; but if it did, Z196 looks like a fairly good candidate.

Bodin
06-09-11, 03:20
I dont believe Clans however closed they are wouldnt mixed with surounding population ( and G is realy high in Turkey ) . There was allways cheating of husbands ( ofcourse of wifes to , but this is not important for our story , because womans are the ones that would carry foreign DNA in to clan ), some researches claimed that even 1/3 of childs are result of cheating , I believe it is to much , but such childs are not rare .

Maciamo
08-09-11, 17:22
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.

Bodin
08-09-11, 17:34
Yes but we already concluded that I2a1 in Pirrinei stoped G2a , but also incoming R1b wouldnt have G2a ( there is 90% of R1b ) , so we concluded that it could have come from Baltic sea - there is also non G2a

Maciamo
08-09-11, 17:36
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.

European R1b, i.e. R1b1b2a1a, is usually estimated to be only 6000 years old. But that could be an overestimation due to the huge size of the European R1b population today, and therefore the larger number of mutations happening every year compared to rarer haplogroups. If R1b is 10x more frequent in a given population than say G2a, then mutations will also happen 10x faster within R1b, making it look older than it really is. That's why I think that if the age of R1b1b2a1 is mistaken, we should think of it as younger, not older. IMHO, the age of R1b1b2a1 looks fine; it is the age of haplogroups that were marginalised after the Bronze Age invasion of R1b, such as G2a, I2a and I2b, that need to be revised towards an older TMRCA.

sparkey
08-09-11, 17:45
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?

Taranis
08-09-11, 17:50
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.

Maciamo
09-09-11, 10:37
As Taranis wrote, I wanted to say that aquitanian and iberian languages -clearly non IE- could arrive with the Urnenfelder Kultur, although many scholars associate this culture exclusively to IE peoples. The question is, if basques/iberians came from Europe, where is the linguistic evidence outside France/Spain? Hard work for linguists, but -who knows- maybe these rivers -Ebro, Ibar, Ybbs, Ebrach...- are related to basque Ibai (river)..


That's an interesting observation. The Ebro being so near from the Basque country, the similarity with ibai is certainly not a coincidence. As for the other rivers in southern Germany, Austria and Montenegro, their geographic distribution remind me of the Danubian Neolithic (LBK). If these rivers were named by Neolithic farmers that would mean that Basque could also be descended from an extinct Near Eastern/West Asian (Anatolian or Caucasian) language. But it could just as well be that these rivers were named by the I2a2 Paleolithic inhabitants of the Danube basin, and that their language was distantly related to the language of I2a1 people of Franco-Iberia. I would favour this latter theory since there is little genetic evidence of West Asian admixture among the Basques.

Maciamo
09-09-11, 10:57
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
09-09-11, 11:02
Regarding the Iberians, I'd also like to reiterate what I did say earlier in this thread: the case that the Iberians were native to the Iberian penninsula (and didn't arrive from the north) can be also supported by Iberian name evidence: Iberian town names are found in a wide arc from the central Pyrenees and the Roussillon in the north towards Andalusia in the south, as far west as the Guadalquivir river.

I have personally speculated if the Iberians have their origin in the Bronze Age El-Argar Culture.

Maciamo
09-09-11, 13:06
Results are available. Check DOD818.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?authkey=COCa89AJ&key=0ArAJcY18g2GadDUyeEtjNnBmY09EbnowN3M3UWRyNnc&hl=en_US&authkey=COCa89AJ#gid=3

Also, he has sent to Eurogenes too, and Davidski was quite surprised with him. Probably he will be included in the next run.

It's a very interesting one. He clusters with the HGDP French-Basques almost neatly.

I expected Spanish and French Basques to be close. It's interesting that even Spanish Basques are closer to the overall French population than the Spanish one, and that they have over 50% of West European. This means that R1b invaders also brought some women with them, otherwise the proportion of East+West European probably wouldn't reach 50%. I assume that the small fraction of West Asian and Northwest African in the Basques came from intermarriages with neighbours (notably Cantabrians).

Maciamo
09-09-11, 13:26
Also I believe that theory about higher sperm caunt of R yDNA haplogroups is false , there was R1b in Balkans and Anatolia atleast since Neolithe , but untill today they are very small percent of population .

Each new mutation in the Y-chromosome can potentially influence the sperm count in its carrier. Therefore not all R1b subclades are equal. Older haplogroups (think about F, G*, IJ, I*, K*...) disappear because new mutations occurring in a few individuals increase their sperm count and therefore their chance of having children but also of having boys rather than girls. The big population explosion of R1b happened with R1b-L11 and its subclades. It could mean that this L11 mutation, or another one close in the phylogenic tree, did considerably increase sperm count compared to other haplogroups. If it is the case, then older subclades of R1b like those found in the Balkans, Anatolia and the Middle East wouldn't have any advantage compared to other haplogroups, and may actually be at a disadvantage if new mutations in, say J1c3 or J2a people made them more fertile.

Knovas
09-09-11, 13:52
If I have to give my opinion, I say that for the Basques this kind of analysis are not reliable for an obvious reason: they are simply Basques.

Of course they show an homogeneity pattern with the European categories available (DOD818 is almost the same as the HGDP French Basques; he's from Guipuzkoa), but they cluster very far from all people, althought French and Iberians are closer references if we compare with others. The best way to fit this population is introducing a Basque cluster, and I think results would be more accurate for Iberians and specially Southern French doing so too, since both have substantial Basque ancestry (even if it's ancient).

You have another curious example here at Dodecad comparing DOD133 and DOD725 using k=12 v3 data:

DOD 133 Gascon/Béarn: W.E (40.7) + E.E (7.6) + Medit. (50.9) = 99.2 %

DOD 725 Catalan: W.E (38.2) + E.E (4.1) + Medit. (54.4) = 96.7 %


38.2 + 4.1 + 50.9 = 93.2%

The first one is from Gascony, and he reported 58% Basque in the other K=12 (the highest Dodecad participant). The Catalan did not participate in these analysis, it was too late. However, both are more similar to each other in the European score than to any other individual of their own population. I mean, we must consider that deviations like this in both sides, can occur quite frequently, and not necesarily focussing in the Spanish Basques, since the example is rather some kind of a French Basque one knowing it belongs to the French side.

Also, would be interesting to see if the Catalan one reaches 40% Basque or more in the other k=12 analysis, reminding the conversation we had yesterday.

Bodin
09-09-11, 14:07
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.
What do you mean G2a came by sea - they are probably spreaded from Caucasus by land - Neolithic findings in Germany and France show they significant presence .
Also most of today G2a is concentrated on high mountains - Alps , Apenini ,Caucasus ,... You could say that they were pushed there by later invaders , but early Neolithic "farmers " use crops just like aditional food suply , they were mainly catlebriders , and use to hunt , fish and gather prety much

Bodin
09-09-11, 14:20
Each new mutation in the Y-chromosome can potentially influence the sperm count in its carrier. Therefore not all R1b subclades are equal. Older haplogroups (think about F, G*, IJ, I*, K*...) disappear because new mutations occurring in a few individuals increase their sperm count and therefore their chance of having children but also of having boys rather than girls. The big population explosion of R1b happened with R1b-L11 and its subclades. It could mean that this L11 mutation, or another one close in the phylogenic tree, did considerably increase sperm count compared to other haplogroups. If it is the case, then older subclades of R1b like those found in the Balkans, Anatolia and the Middle East wouldn't have any advantage compared to other haplogroups, and may actually be at a disadvantage if new mutations in, say J1c3 or J2a people made them more fertile.
Or R1b-L11 simply killed most of old male population , and replaced it . There is no evidence that R1b (west Europeans) ever have had more childs then "easteners" - E1b1b1, G2a or J , and its oposite case today ( but it could be because cultural reasons). And eb1b1 , J and G2a was in West Europe before R1b.
If we speack about reproductive disadvantage , I would say that is case with mthDNA I and W , but not with old European yDNA I2a1 or G2a .

Maciamo
09-09-11, 17:23
What do you mean G2a came by sea - they are probably spreaded from Caucasus by land - Neolithic findings in Germany and France show they significant presence .
Also most of today G2a is concentrated on high mountains - Alps , Apenini ,Caucasus ,... You could say that they were pushed there by later invaders , but early Neolithic "farmers " use crops just like aditional food suply , they were mainly catlebriders , and use to hunt , fish and gather prety much

How would they reach the Aegean Islands, jump from Greece to Italy, get to Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica and to North Africa, if not by sea ? Agriculture didn't spread first to the Danube and Alps, then down to Italy and Spain. Agriculture reached southern Spain before it reached the Alps. Just check the map of the diffusion of agriculture.

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Europe-diffusion-farming.gif

Travel by sea 9000 years ago wasn't such a big feat. Humans reached Australia by boat 45000 years ago !

Maciamo
09-09-11, 17:31
There is no evidence that R1b (west Europeans) ever have had more childs then "easteners" - E1b1b1, G2a or J , and its oposite case today ( but it could be because cultural reasons). And eb1b1 , J and G2a was in West Europe before R1b.


It doesn't matter the number of children. Higher sperm count give a slightly higher ratio of boys to girls, not more children.

Bodin
10-09-11, 11:34
How would they reach the Aegean Islands, jump from Greece to Italy, get to Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica and to North Africa, if not by sea ? Agriculture didn't spread first to the Danube and Alps, then down to Italy and Spain. Agriculture reached southern Spain before it reached the Alps. Just check the map of the diffusion of agriculture.

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Europe-diffusion-farming.gif

Travel by sea 9000 years ago wasn't such a big feat. Humans reached Australia by boat 45000 years ago !
Yes I know they have boats , but France and Germany Neolithic findings dont show any E1b1b or J - only posible place that I could remember they could come from is Caucasus .
G2a is not only haplogroup that spreaded agriculture , there is also E1b1b and J , so earlier agriculture on Balkans and South Spain could be from them . G2a could be pushed over sea ( Mediteranian islands and North Africa ) by incoming invaders , or it could get there from Asia?

Bodin
10-09-11, 11:40
It doesn't matter the number of children. Higher sperm count give a slightly higher ratio of boys to girls, not more children.
There is no diference in ratio boys-girls for R1b-L11 than in the rest of the world , that ratio is 1005 boys to 1000 girls all over the world , only boys die more during first years of life , and have shorter life . If West Europe would be diferent there would be lack of womans , and there is like everywhere more womans than mans

Bodin
10-09-11, 12:00
Yes I know they have boats , but France and Germany Neolithic findings dont show any E1b1b or J - only posible place that I could remember they could come from is Caucasus .
G2a is not only haplogroup that spreaded agriculture , there is also E1b1b and J , so earlier agriculture on Balkans and South Spain could be from them . G2a could be pushed over sea ( Mediteranian islands and North Africa ) by incoming invaders , or it could get there from Asia?
And maybe moving of agriculture from Asia Minor via Balkans toward North represent moving of R1b in to Central Europe , from Asia Minor , where it originated ( maybe becouse of Black sea floding ) . On Balkans they could be represented by Vinča culture , that invented bronze , and have population boom with bigest settlements in Europe of that time . Later they could be pushed by incoming E1b1b and J from Asia Minor ( took place of R1b after sea withdraw ) in Central Europe , there they are acepting IE languague from first waves of R1a , and then pushed to West Europe by later waves from stepes. is this posible scenario ?

Maciamo
20-09-11, 15:51
I have collected (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26805-New-mtDNA-amp-Y-DNA-frequencies-for-the-Basques) more Y-DNA data on the Basques, and it turns out that they do not completely lack G2a. I found 1.5% of G2a in 597 samples.

Bodin
22-09-11, 04:06
In that case theory is wrong , because data was wrong .

Maciamo
22-09-11, 08:59
In that case theory is wrong , because data was wrong .

You should never jump to conclusions based on Y-DNA data for one region, especially if the sample size is small. You should look at the bigger picture and foresee possible sampling biases.

Incidentally, the data wasn't wrong before. Every sample tested was correct, and there were already over 200 Basque samples. But you can never expect 200 samples to be as accurate as 500 or 1000 samples. I think that any sample size under 500 is bound to mislead us. That's why I have added confidence rating (stars) next to the Y-DNA tables. (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml) You should be very careful with any data that doesn't have at least 3 stars.

I wouldn't bother discussing data with less than 150 samples at all, even for regional comparisons. For example, I found two studies with about 100 samples for the Ile-de-France region (Paris), but the results were completely different. I merged them in the Y-DNA tables, but it still looks somewhat odd (too high R1a and J2, too low R1b).

spongetaro
22-09-11, 10:56
. I wouldn't bother discussing data with less than 150 samples at all, even for regional comparisons. For example, I found two studies with about 100 samples for the Ile-de-France region (Paris), but the results were completely different. I merged them in the Y-DNA tables, but it still looks somewhat odd (too high R1a and J2, too low R1b).


What were the two frequencies of R1b in the studies of Ile-de-France?

Taranis
22-09-11, 12:28
You should never jump to conclusions based on Y-DNA data for one region, especially if the sample size is small. You should look at the bigger picture and foresee possible sampling biases.

Incidentally, the data wasn't wrong before. Every sample tested was correct, and there were already over 200 Basque samples. But you can never expect 200 samples to be as accurate as 500 or 1000 samples. I think that any sample size under 500 is bound to mislead us. That's why I have added confidence rating (stars) next to the Y-DNA tables. (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml) You should be very careful with any data that doesn't have at least 3 stars.

I wouldn't bother discussing data with less than 150 samples at all, even for regional comparisons. For example, I found two studies with about 100 samples for the Ile-de-France region (Paris), but the results were completely different. I merged them in the Y-DNA tables, but it still looks somewhat odd (too high R1a and J2, too low R1b).

Yes, I already stumbled across this an issue in regard for the (apparent) lack of R1b-U152 in Austria. 18 samples?!
But yes, I jumped on false conclusions there too in the past (R1a in France, in particular).

Bodin
23-09-11, 01:46
You should never jump to conclusions based on Y-DNA data for one region, especially if the sample size is small. You should look at the bigger picture and foresee possible sampling biases.

Incidentally, the data wasn't wrong before. Every sample tested was correct, and there were already over 200 Basque samples. But you can never expect 200 samples to be as accurate as 500 or 1000 samples. I think that any sample size under 500 is bound to mislead us. That's why I have added confidence rating (stars) next to the Y-DNA tables. (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml) You should be very careful with any data that doesn't have at least 3 stars.

I wouldn't bother discussing data with less than 150 samples at all, even for regional comparisons. For example, I found two studies with about 100 samples for the Ile-de-France region (Paris), but the results were completely different. I merged them in the Y-DNA tables, but it still looks somewhat odd (too high R1a and J2, too low R1b).
Well I believed 200 samples were enough ,because parts shows picture of whole . Could it be G in Basque is concentrated in some pleces - did first genetic testing (( that show no G ) was done evenly over all Basque ? 200 is realy god size number . Aldo dealing with small percentage groups in certain aeria , they can fluctuate as number of samples grow - but again jump of 1,5% is realy big . How big was sample for second testing ( one that shown 1,5% G)?

Bodin
23-09-11, 01:56
About that sampling in Ill-de -France , were samples from same aeria ? Because some villages and geografical isolated aerias could show totaly diferent DNA than major population - egzample - Croatian islands of Krk, Pag and Hvar( probably strong Avar influence ) . So there is need for researchers to take samples evenly from ass much diferent aerias as he can .In Serbia there is also village Tatomir , and by legend it is settled by Mongols ( Tatars ) in raid from 1241 . His population shows Asiatic charachteristics - they are shorter , have dark eyes and hairs , mongol eyes,... And when somebody try to date girl from this village boys gathers and beat him up. Also they tend not to marry outside of village . I would expect them to have very diferent DNA than rest of Serbia

Brictus
27-09-11, 22:19
One thing. People speak "mother languages" not paternal langaguages. So Basque language is not the product of Y.Chr but of mtDNA

Taranis
27-09-11, 22:26
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
27-09-11, 22:29
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
27-09-11, 22:36
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.

sparkey
27-09-11, 22:56
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.

I have read that Basque culture is relatively matrilineal, at least compared to most IE cultures, so it's not impossible that it could play a part, but I doubt it's the primary part of the solution to the Basque question. Besides, "children will be more likely to learn their mothers language, even if we talk about a patrilineal society of conquerors" seems to have just as many counterexamples as examples... most of Latin America has relatively high Spanish patrilines versus Amerind matrilines, and yet Spanish is dominant. The Basques also seem to be an exception to the better correlation of Y-DNA to language families than mtDNA.

Taranis
27-09-11, 23:03
I have read that Basque culture is relatively matrilineal, at least compared to most IE cultures, so it's not impossible that it could play a part, but I doubt it's the primary part of the solution to the Basque question. Besides, "children will be more likely to learn their mothers language, even if we talk about a patrilineal society of conquerors" seems to have just as many counterexamples as examples... most of Latin America has relatively high Spanish patrilines versus Amerind matrilines, and yet Spanish is dominant. The Basques also seem to be an exception to the better correlation of Y-DNA to language families than mtDNA.

Well, I admit that you do have a good point about that, Sparkey. It really is more of an exception than the rule. What I recently brought up in the 'Ancient place names in Iberia' is the fact that the Basque language is very hard to estimate in it's age: Proto-Indo-European for a comparison is clearly a language of the Copper Age with common words for agriculture, horse, warfare, metals and metalworking. The Finnic languages are at least Neolithic in age, but it cannot be ruled out that it's actually Mesolithic (since the core vocabulary is that of a hunter-gatherer society). With Basque, you actually do have seemingly indigenous terms for agriculture, horse and metalworking... so, we're talking about a mystery here.

sparkey
27-09-11, 23:17
...we're talking about a mystery here.

Probably the truest words that can be spoken about Basque origins. It's funny that genetics, and especially Y-DNA, has actually muddied the waters further with respect to the Basques.

zanipolo
27-09-11, 23:43
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

zanipolo
27-09-11, 23:46
[QUOTE]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.

Woundedin3places
26-11-12, 18:37
There are some. There was a study done and 4 in about 130 samples came out as G in the Basque area, not alot though.

MOESAN
26-11-12, 21:39
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...

MOESAN
26-11-12, 21:48
Cardial expanded from Mediterranean sea in occident: S-France (through Corsica) to North by more than a way: on the western side they moved approximatively along Garonne river to the ocean, loosing demic weight by time (they was mixed in S-France yet) - it seams to me that present day basque territory was neolithized more by atlantic megalithers people than by genuine first E-mediterranean agriculture-breeding bearers... surely these ones played a role at first, acculturing local people of E-Iberia, S-Iberia and SW-Iberia (S-Portugal) - but their Y-G element, the predominent one in Cardial (with some few Y-E1b-V13 & J2b?), lost its weight very quickly - even if finally responsible for so called "basque" Neolithic, thing I 'm not sure of, it's not surprising Y-G is so light among Basques of today -

RobertColumbia
03-07-15, 17:58
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...

One thing that might be affecting things nowadays is that most areas nowadays have strong national or regional languages and strong public education systems that make learning the official or majority language a priority over either mom's or dad's language. So, for example, if an Italian-speaking father and a Polish-speaking mother both settle in New Jersey and have a child, that child will probably grow up to be a primarily English speaking person, because they will grow up immersed in English-language media and education. In the old days when most people lived on a farm in the middle of nowhere, learning whatever language was the nominal "national" language of your country was much harder and also much less useful in day-to-day life. This is what is happening with many former immigrant languages in the US like Cajun French, Pennsylvania "Dutch", and Yiddish. Except for a few holdouts, most kids from these communities attend regular English-medium schooling and each generation becomes more assimilated.

Fluffy
06-07-15, 22:04
I have collected (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26805-New-mtDNA-amp-Y-DNA-frequencies-for-the-Basques) more Y-DNA data on the Basques, and it turns out that they do not completely lack G2a. I found 1.5% of G2a in 597 samples.

They don't completely lack it, it is just in such small numbers compared to other parts of Spain.

gidai
23-08-18, 19:43
A possible explanation.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/36890-One-probable-cause-of-the-increase-and-decay-of-haplogroups-frequencies?p=551805&viewfull=1#post551805

Yetos
23-08-18, 22:27
:innocent: :innocent: :innocent: :innocent:

i wonder why they also do not speak IE,
combining their lack (such ratio are they significant?)