Reply With QuoteI2 is a Y-DNA (paternal) haplogroup. I mt-DNA is maternal.
| Forum | Europe Travel Guide | Ecology | Facts & Trivia | Genetics | History | Linguistics |
| Austria | France | Germany | Ireland | Italy | Portugal | Spain | Switzerland |
 Eupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
|
| Forum | Europe Travel Guide | Ecology | Facts & Trivia | Genetics | History | Linguistics |
| Austria | France | Germany | Ireland | Italy | Portugal | Spain | Switzerland |
| Eupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
|
Uh...Originally Posted by Triskel
I2 is a Y-DNA (paternal) haplogroup. I mt-DNA is maternal.
Yeah, I don´t said it. R1b is principally Atlantic/celtic, probably braquicephally (Alpine types). Sardinians are the most Mediterranean people, they have a considerable percentage of I2, and in autosomal are very european and very paleolithic.The R1b distribution follows an Western pattern, there is not such thing as mediterranean :
I said that R1b males procreate with local females (daughters of I2 fathers). I know that females havent´t Y chromosome.
I'm not really sanguine with this latest map but the bottom line is that R1b peaks / saturates in the west.The R1b distribution follows an Western pattern, there is not such thing as mediterranean :
Alright, thanks for clearing that up. I was thinking that you couldn't have meant maternal Y-DNA, because that obviously doesn't exist, and Iberians don't have significant haplogroup I mtDNA, either. So, you're getting at a certain truth... namely, that Iberians are much more recently European on their patrilines than on their matrilines. Although I will make one more comment, re: Basques: Basques are overwhelmingly R1b, not I2... IIRC, the only ethnic group that has higher R1b than the Basques are the Welsh. I don't know of a good reason to assume that the Basque culture is directly related to Paleolithic Europeans, as opposed to having been brought over alongside Italo-Celtic culture, or sometime in-between.
It's not that I deny physical differences between populations. It's just that:
1. different average phenotypes between different populations often don't correlate with their autosomal DNA and real degree of relation (as already explained by Wilhelm)
2. correlations between those phenotypes and character traits are nonsense, as those characteristics were historically usually influenced by geographic environment, subsequent nutrition and social systems and then socialisation. In today's world of globalisation they are getting outdated. (as I explained in my previous post)
3. therefore I see no sense or practical usage of this kind of classification, except for the fun factor
Theoretically I think you are right. However, I fear before humanity has reached the one-world-race in a few hundred or more years, we've already got extinct (for other reasons).i don't know why europeans are so interested in making racial clasifications (esp certain countries)... the world population is destined to interbreed more and more, just like neanderthals interbreed with other humans in the past. some day all these useless racial clasifications will be obsolete.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT...DMIXTURE10.png
See Sardinians. They´re very homogeneous. They´ve a considerable percentage of I2. Sardinian pre-indoeuropean language had a clear link with basque. I2 only could be native paleolithic because south european component is different of West Asian (Neolithic farmers), and second major percentage is among basques, the third spaniards... (it increases to the west from Sardinia). Sardinia and Euskadi were isolated places where I2 native cro-magnon descendant culture and genetic survived better than in other places.
The bigger component in basques are south european too (related to I2 imo). In Spain the bigger percentages of paternal I2 are in the tradicional iberian/basque/preindoeuropean zones too. Basques are a matriarcal culture, their maternal line (I2 daughters imo) is more representative than the paternal r1b.
I agree that Sardinians are unusually paleolithic... even their branch of I2 is unusually ancient among haplogroup I branches. But the pre-IE Sardinian language is unknown. Why assume that it was related to Basque?
The Basques are quite paleolithic in non-patrilines and group OK with Sardinians (but better with Spaniards). But we still see a lack of evidence regarding where Basque language and culture originated, and if we assume that it's paleolithically European, we're breaking the pattern that we see with Celtic language and culture in particular. For Celtic language and culture, it appears to be the Y-DNA haplogroup spread that correlates best with its spread.
No, the bigger percentage of I2 in Spain is in Aragón/Castilla, and the highest maternal line of the Basques is the H1 ,which is authoctnous of the area, see the I2 :
There is a level of correlation between autosomal DNA and phenotypes. However, that's not the case with respect to haplogroups.
Actual sardinian has a clear basque substrate. See this... http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot...lative-of.html
Other map:
See the pyrennes (basques)
Yeah H1 is related to I2. Both are authoctonous paleolithic. In general terms, in my opinion H and V is related to I (Y-DNA), U and K related to R1b and R1a. J (m-dna and Y-dna) and T are neolithic. But mt-dna is difficult to associate with their Y-DNA lines...
Exactly. Because the autosomal includes the SNP's that make your phenotype, such as pigmentation, but not the case with haplogrups.
Ah ok...
Just for interest, is there any study on that?
I thought to have read somewhere, but I can't recall where, that SNPs don't necessarily correlate with phenotypes of populations. SNPs might be very different, but due to convergent development in a similar environment phenotypes look very close to each other, or the other way round. What is it like with Europeans?
That's not a very good map, for example, where is the I2a in the Balkans? I wouldn't really trust it. Grabbing quickly from Maciamo's tables, he has that Basques have 9% I2a, which is typical for Iberia and not the maximum in the area. They do have the maximum of R1b, 86%, which actually appears to be the highest in Europe. Interestingly, they have rather unique R1b subclades, indicating a split early on in R1b's (relatively recent) migration into Europe. So, quite unlike Sardinians, they are among the most recent arrivals in Europe on the patriline. It seems unlikely to me that there would be no connection between R1b and Basque if the Basques have the highest R1b, and the typical pattern is a correlation between culture/language and Y-DNA haplogroups. mtDNA correlates much more poorly.Actual sardinian has a clear basque substrate. See this... http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot...lative-of.html
Other map:
See the pyrennes (basques)
Yeah H1 is related to I2. Both are authoctonous paleolithic. In general terms, in my opinion H and V is related to I (Y-DNA), U and K related to R1b and R1a. J (m-dna and Y-dna) and T are neolithic. But mt-dna is difficult to associate with their Y-DNA lines...
I will defer to those who are better with linguistics at interpreting the attempt to link Sardinian place names with Basque. The linked article didn't explain enough to satisfy my curiosity. Like, what about the place names places them as clearly related to Basque? The comments on that page offer some insight but some also throw doubt on the whole thing.
Ah ok...
Just for interest, is there any study on that?
I thought to have read somewhere, but I can't recall where, that SNPs don't necessarily correlate with phenotypes of populations. SNPs might be very different, but due to convergent development in a similar environment phenotypes look very close to each other, or the other way round. What is it like with Europeans?
e.g. radiation level is higher in the South, so people there have more pigmentation for protection than people from the North. Which in the end doesn't necessarily mean that all people from the South are closer related to each other than to the people in the North?
Or by getting more precise now:
Is a differentiation of races in Europe (Nordic, Mediterranean, Alpinoid etc...) from a genetic point of view justified? And if yes or no, why?
The I2a is not frequent in the Balkans.
No. From a genetic point view there is no such divisions. Why ? Because for example the iberians are closer genetically to Belgians or English than they are to Greeks. Another example is that a blonde and blue-eyed spaniard would cluster with spanairds, not with northern-europeans, and vice versa, a southern-looking Swede is genetically swedish and cluster with his counterparts.
That is actually what I meant and wanted to be confirmed. Thank you!
Nordic, Med, etc. aren't "races" but European population categories. A couple of ways to describe an indigenous European racially are White-Caucasoid or Europid-Caucasoid.
The map shows I2a1 haplogroup i think...
Basques are the result of the mixture of two populations. R1b and I2. In autosomal they´re arround 55% SE and 45% NE. R1b can´t be related with the south european component, it´s very low in Ireland or Wales. The only haplogroup which could fit is I2 (high percentage in Sardinia-Sardinia is the maximum of SE).
Basques are practically half NE half SE but in Y-DNA is very R1b (NE), so in mt-dna they should be very different (SE-Cromagnon I2).
Yeah you´re right, the culture tend to correlate with the Y-DNA. For example, There are a lot of R1b in Mexico (there are a lot of R1b in Cameroon too, proof that only Y-DNA doesn´t mean anything). But you forgot something. Basques, opposite at the majority of cultures are matriarcal and matrilocal. The maternal line is more important than the paternal.
Anyway, if basque is a R1b language, what´s the haplogroup related to celtic? what´s the family language of the I haplogroup?
Interesting... that could be more telling. Although the source says that the map is from 2004... that's too old, more data has been collected since then. Does anyone have a reliable I2a1 map that we can use to add to this discussion?
I'm still uncomfortable with calling non-patrilines by their supposed former Y-DNA haplogroups, because that's mixing what is known with what is speculative. I think it's more accurate to say that Basques are mixes of R1b patrilines with the mtDNA haplogroups they have, like H. Undoubtedly, they cluster autosomally as a distinct group that is contiguous with Spanish, French, and Italian people.
Being more paleolithic on the matriline than the patriline is not unique to the Basques, it is true in general of Western Europe, so I don't think you can say R1b=NE.
The R1b in Cameroon is a different subclade entirely (R1b1a). Culture and language changes relatively quickly and can be spread amongst admixed populations that can then have their relative haplogroup frequencies change. So I don't think that we would really expect the R1b people in Cameroon to share a culture or language with the R1b in Europe. And of course, the rapid movement of people in the modern era has changed everything.
That could explain it if you're right. Italo-Celtic culture is certainly patriarchal in comparison. I question how ancient that tradition is though, and why that pattern doesn't seem to have made a difference in the cultural dispersion in Europe outside of the Basques.
Basque = R1b-M153 & R1b-M65.
Celtic = R1b-S1126*, R1b-L21, etc.
Split is circa 3,500 years ago.
There were probably a bunch of them pre-Neolithic expansion. The I MRCA is over 20,000 years ago. Probably, they are all extinct, unless Basque happens to be one, in which case it may be a descendant of an ancestral I2a1 language, which has a more comfortably recent MRCA of about 7,000 years ago. I am still hesitant to draw conclusions on Basque.
(Sorry for breaking up your argument into so many little points, you made a lot of different points).
The Maciamo map of I2a is similar, I2a1 in West Europe and I2a2 in the east.
Basque mt-dna (H and V) are paleolithic, like Y-DNA I. (Europe in general too but less paleolithic than basques)
Yes. I didn´t deny it. Basques are a mixture of two different populations. Or R1b is NE or it´s SE. Other zones with high R1b have a very low SE percentage. Sardinia has the maximum of SE (arround 98%) and they´ve high percentage of I2. Haplogroup I2 is the only with a considerable percentage among basques apart from R1b.
Yeah, but the first Cameroon R1bs were very different than their paternal line descendency. Sure. In the phenotypical and genetical sense.
Iberians, ligurians.... (Celts were more matriarcal than other indoeuropeans) preindoeuropean influence/cultural exchange/mixture?
Basque is too different of indo european languages. Impossible to explain with a split only 3500 years ago imo.
Basque is I language or R1b language. I would bet to I.
Yeah, I agree that the genetic split is younger than the cultural split, it's impossible to explain otherwise. I think it is possible that IE culture originated with R1a people rather than R1b people, and that R1b people were originally culturally Basque (or at least a small component was). Cultural transmission from R1a to R1b could have occurred, and subsequent expansion of the IE-ized R1b people caused the Italo-Celtic language and culture spread in Western Europe. In fact, it seems hard to explain the IE commonalities between R1a and R1b peoples without granting that there was transmission, because their continuity in culture is closer than their continuity in genetics. Of course, that doesn't rule out the possibility that R1b was originally something other than Basque, and that Basque is a direct descendant of paleolithic European culture... In fact, I don't know of anything to preclude the possibility that IE originated with someone other than R1a, they just seem to be the most-likely suspects. But my point is that all of these are still possibilities...
I will grant you this: I think your best point so far was about the long-held matrilineal transmission of Basque culture. I did a little follow-up research and it seems to be substantiated; I didn't even know about that beforehand.
I agree, almost. I wouldn't bet one way or another, for one. And for two, it's possible that it was transmitted pre-IE during the Neolithic... although your observation about the lack of non-R1b/I holds and makes it the least likely scenario. Likelihood of R1b vs. I vs. Neolithic origin of Basque culture seems like 1:1:0.001 odds to me. But we know so little that nothing would surprise me.
I am curious, how do you suppose Basque people became so R1b so quickly? I can imagine bottlenecking of the gene pool with subsequent gene flow from R1b peoples followed by expansion.
Posting Permissions
