The concep of a "mediterranean" race/mediterranean genetics

Actual sardinian has a clear basque substrate. See this... http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2011/03/paleo-sardinian-language-relative-of.html

Other map:
Y-DNA_I2a.gif


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...

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.

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?
 
That's not a very good map, for example, where is the I2a in the Balkans?
The I2a is not frequent in the Balkans.

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?
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.
 
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!
 
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?

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.
 
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.

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.

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?
 
The map shows I2a1 haplogroup i think...

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?

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).

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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

But you forgot something. Basques, opposite at the majority of cultures are matriarcal and matrilocal. The maternal line is more important than the paternal.

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.

Anyway, if basque is a R1b language, what´s the haplogroup related to celtic?

Basque = R1b-M153 & R1b-M65.
Celtic = R1b-S1126*, R1b-L21, etc.
Split is circa 3,500 years ago.

what´s the family language of the I haplogroup?

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).
 
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?

The Maciamo map of I2a is similar, I2a1 in West Europe and I2a2 in the east.

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.

Basque mt-dna (H and V) are paleolithic, like Y-DNA I. (Europe in general too but less paleolithic than basques)

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.

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.

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.

Yeah, but the first Cameroon R1bs were very different than their paternal line descendency. Sure. In the phenotypical and genetical sense.

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.

Iberians, ligurians.... (Celts were more matriarcal than other indoeuropeans) preindoeuropean influence/cultural exchange/mixture?

Basque = R1b-M153 & R1b-M65.
Celtic = R1b-S1126*, R1b-L21, etc.
Split is circa 3,500 years ago.

Basque is too different of indo european languages. Impossible to explain with a split only 3500 years ago imo.

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).

Basque is I language or R1b language. I would bet to I.
 
Basque is too different of indo european languages. Impossible to explain with a split only 3500 years ago imo.

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.

Basque is I language or R1b language. I would bet to I.

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.
 
Yeah, it´s the other possibility. Finally i agree with you. We can´t be 100% sure about it. Anyway R1a is practically inexistent in italo-celtic areas. I think that cultural and genetic expansion are related.

My explication: Probably I2 males fought against R1b and they lost. R1b survivors kill males, form an aristocracy and procreate with local females (there were much more females than males sure) and they adopt her culture. I think that in Cameroon was the same history (or similar) and latin america is a good example too, but they adopt our culture (patriarcal). Why R1b males left their patriarcal society and they integrate in the matricarcal local basque society? Probably the number of R1b males could explain it. I don´t know. It´s a good and important question.
 
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...
No, the basques, maternally, have been living in the area since the paleolithic, because the mtDNA H1, H3 and V originated in the Franco-Cantabrian region, and today H1 peaks in Basques, so we must think the basque people, and their culture, is authoctonous, at least maternally.
 
No, the basques, maternally, have been living in the area since the paleolithic, because the mtDNA H1, H3 and V originated in the Franco-Cantabrian region, and today H1 peaks in Basques, so we must think the basque people, and their culture, is authoctonous, at least maternally.

I don't disagree about the paleolithic origin of Basque mtDNA, but their Y-DNA is just as extremely recent. As I explained, it's not clear whether the culture and language came out of their paleolithic-origin matrilines or their very recent patrilines. We don't really have a reference point for the Basques (although Triskel thinks that the Sardinians are a good reference point, which would indicate paleolithic origins).

Some more good reading on this topic: The Basques: Not So Unusual.
 
From a genetic point of view there is no such thnig as mediterranean race.

Thats wrong, Dienekes in his last ADMIXTURE study "Genetic structure of West Eurasians"

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/04/genetic-structure-of-west-eurasians.html

showed that there is clearly a Mediterranean cluster (similar to a "race") in Caucasians.

"At K=5, a new Mediterranean component emerges. This is highly represented in populations to the North, South, and East of the Mediterranean sea. This component is noteworthy for its absence in India and Northeastern Europe. In Northeastern Europe, the Mediterranean component is hardly represented at all..."

Look at K=5 at https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc...GZ19YNElZMTRxNGc&hl=en&authkey=CKPVjOMP#gid=5

Its distribution almost perfectly matches the description of the Mediterrean race described by anthropologists in the 20th century. For example Carleton Coon :

"Our area, from Morocco to Afghanistan, is the homeland and cradle of the Mediterranean race. Mediterraneans are found also in Spain, Portugal, most of Italy, Greece and the Mediterranean islands, and in all these places, as in the Middle East, they form the major genetic element in the local populations... Who, then, are these Mediterraneans? Nearly all the Arabs, practically all the oriental Jews, most of the inhabitants of Egypt whatever their religion, most of the Berbers, most of the Persians proper, many of the Kurds, most of the Baluchis, a large number of the Afghans and many of the Turks of Anatolia and Azerbaijan. Nearly 80% of the individuals living in the Middle East and participating in its civilization (excluding Europeans) are Mediterraneans of one variety or another; of the other twenty per cent at least half probably show an increment of Mediterranean genes. The Mediterranean race, then, is indigenous to, and the principal element in, the Middle East, and the greatest concentration of a highly evolved Mediterranean type falls among two of the most ancient Semitic-speaking peoples, notably the Arabs and the Jews. (Although it may please neither party, this is the truth.) "

Distribution from Dienekes (k=5) where Maghrebis, Arabs and Jews have highest percentages as described by Coon ... Striking, isn't it ? As usual, genetics very often confirms what antropologist said.

dienikes2.jpg
 
Thats wrong, Dienekes in his last ADMIXTURE study "Genetic structure of West Eurasians"

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/04/genetic-structure-of-west-eurasians.html

showed that there is clearly a Mediterranean cluster (similar to a "race") in Caucasians.

"At K=5, a new Mediterranean component emerges. This is highly represented in populations to the North, South, and East of the Mediterranean sea. This component is noteworthy for its absence in India and Northeastern Europe. In Northeastern Europe, the Mediterranean component is hardly represented at all..."

Look at K=5 at https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc...GZ19YNElZMTRxNGc&hl=en&authkey=CKPVjOMP#gid=5

Its distribution almost perfectly matches the description of the Mediterrean race described by anthropologists in the 20th century. For example Careleton Coon :

"Our area, from Morocco to Afghanistan, is the homeland and cradle of the Mediterranean race. Mediterraneans are found also in Spain, Portugal, most of Italy, Greece and the Mediterranean islands, and in all these places, as in the Middle East, they form the major genetic element in the local populations... Who, then, are these Mediterraneans? Nearly all the Arabs, practically all the oriental Jews, most of the inhabitants of Egypt whatever their religion, most of the Berbers, most of the Persians proper, many of the Kurds, most of the Baluchis, a large number of the Afghans and many of the Turks of Anatolia and Azerbaijan. Nearly 80% of the individuals living in the Middle East and participating in its civilization (excluding Europeans) are Mediterraneans of one variety or another; of the other twenty per cent at least half probably show an increment of Mediterranean genes. The Mediterranean race, then, is indigenous to, and the principal element in, the Middle East, and the greatest concentration of a highly evolved Mediterranean type falls among two of the most ancient Semitic-speaking peoples, notably the Arabs and the Jews. (Although it may please neither party, this is the truth.) "

As usual, genetics very often confirms what antropologist said.
LOL, why did you stop at K=5 ? He made until K=11, in which the mediterranean cluster disappears and splitts between Basque and Sardinian. There is no mediterranean race, this has nothing to do with race.
 
LOL, why did you stop at K=5 ? He made until K=11, in which the mediterranean cluster disappears and splitts between Basque and Sardinian. There is no mediterranean race, this has nothing to do with race.

Each cluster defined at a given K IS a "race". Higher K only split a given race into sub-races... you can ask Dienekes, he will confirm... There is definitely a mediterranean race as proven by Dienekes
 
i think italic tribes weren't of med stock. First because they entered italy fron north east (veneto friuli), before they were stantiated in pannonia near the celts (language affinities due to arial territorial contact). So they were one of those people that came in europe not from the south east

Their appearance wouldn't have differed much from for example the people you will find in Lazio.
Besides Mediterannoids can even found in Russia (Pontids) and as far as in India skullwise (Eastern Med type)
J2b map:

J2Bm102map.jpg
 
From a genetic point of view there is no such thing as mediterranean race. The iberians cluster with french, basques and north-italians. There is more genetic affinity between iberians and belgians than with greeks. Also, the distribution of haplogroups is vastly different from Iberia to other parts of the mediterranean.

But from a phenotypic point of view they do look like mediterraneans don't they? Perhaps Y-DNA is not that important when we are dealing with how people look like
 
Palaeolithic contribution in Europe, Andalusia has the most after Sardinia :

paleolithic.png

This makes sense considering that Albania is said to have the lowest levels of Neanderthal admixture in Europe.
 

This thread has been viewed 41827 times.

Back
Top