How did the Basques become R1b

[celtiberian-II]

In a PNAS article of 2015, the authors presented the first genome-wide sequence data from eight individuals associated with archaeological remains from Early European farming cultures in the El Portalón cave (Atapuerca, Spain) and showed the greatest genetic affinity to Basques. The individuals presented y hg H2 and I2a2a and could have spoken a non–Indo-European language.
In 2017 another Nature article published that R1b-DF27 (a Proto-Italo-Celto-Germanic subclade) was originated in NE Iberia about 2200 BC. R1b-DF27 is present in 40% of Iberian population and in 70% of Basques.
This is in agreement with your post, Maciamo.
My question is how a population mostly R1b-DF27 can present a high affinity to H2 and I2a2a individuals? and How is measured this affinity? Obviously, the patrilineal dna is not used in this affinity measure.

[celtiberian-II]

"So Basque never became R1b; Basque always was R1b, just everybody else became IE." Now, take in account Younger Dryas Event and refuges south. Take into account of Agazzis Glacial Lake last outburst c. 6,200 BCE raising sea levels significantly. The Atlantic climatic optimum c. 6,500 BCE needs considering while realizing it changes about 4,000 BCE during which time gardening has became significant in Iberian Peninsula. The Atlantic Maritime Culture ranged from c. 5,500 BCE into the middle Bronze Age. The sites range along the coast of Northern Spain and western French coast, around Ireland and the British Isles and into Scandinavia. I'm suggesting taking into account the weather periods and archaeological sites. I've seen several dates establishing the rise of R1b, several before Younger Dryas Catastrophe. And, archaeology knows about things that should really be considered. R1b just very well might taken refuge in the Iberian from the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) and Younger Dryas while R1a took refuge through the Balkans/Anatolia. Those Asians you mentioned may well have taken refuge form the Steppes through Afghanistan across northern Indian's most "green lands" into Burma/Myanmar. I got a hunch Basque descend from Hunter-gatherers taking refuge in the Iberian Peninsula. After all, the "Ghost Theory" of a unknown population across Eurasia takes in account of the peopling of Native Americans having R1b and the X hablogroups rather it be during optimum climate before the Younger Dryas or after 9,600 BCE. I'm suggesting Basque may very well be considered indigenous LGM hunter-gatherer refugees later with a connection that Maritime Culture so many with little archaeological knowledge know about. Please excuse my "wordy" and digressive nature. Thank you kindly.

Hello Conastoga. Basques show the greatest genetic affinity to early neolithic farmers individuals in the El Portalón cave (Atapuerca, Spain). These farmers mixed with local hunter-gatherers, in any case their y haplogroups were not R1b. In the Bronze Age, 2200 BCE, the R1b-DF27 appeared in the peninsula and now is present in 40% in Iberian populations and up to 70% in Basques.

[Questions]

It was the Romanisation that eventually obliterated Iberian language around the 2nd century.
I think it is very possible that all Iberia and Southwest France, and not just the Basques, kept their original Neolithic languages following the Bronze Age Indo-European invasions.
They would have concentrated on ruling their new land and enjoying their privileges, and left the education of their offspring to the (local) women.
After one, or a few, generation(s) their IE language would have completed disappeared, leaving only the previous Neolithic languages. It is possible, and even expected, that a few loanwords from (Proto-)Celtic entered the non-IE languages of Iberia and Southwest France to fill the gaps in vocabulary for new Bronze Age technologies brought by the Indo-Europeans. This is exactly what we see in the modern Basque vocabulary. I expect that the same happened to all other non-IE languages of the peninsula in the Bronze Age.

"Now, as the legends represent Latiniis, the eponym of the Latini, as king of the Aborigines, it follows that the Latini were Ligurians ... These are the people known to the Roman writers as Ligures, and to the Greeks as Ligyes. As they occupy the same mountainous area as that assigned to the Aborigines by Dionysius, and as Philistus of Syracuse says that the Ligyes were expelled from their homes by the Umbrians, there is no doubt that the Aborigines of Dionysius and Cato are none other than the Ligyes or Ligurians of Philistus and other writers. … Thus according to Roman tradition the Latini were the Aborigines, or, in other words, Ligurians, a tradition of great significance in view of the fact that the populous Romanus spoke not lingua Romana, but lingua Latina. … the language of the Roman empire, was the tongue not of the Sabine conquerers, but of their Plebeian subjects, in other words that Latin is Ligurian. ... Again, although it has hitherto been universally held that the Iberians spoke a non-Aryan tongue, because the Basques who occupy a portion of North-West Spain still continue to do so, yet when we come to examine the evidence it is more probable that the Iberians properly so called, who bordered on the Ligurians in North-Eastem Spain and who are said to have extended at one time as far north as the Loire, did not differ essentially from the Ligurians. For instance, we have just seen that proper names in -sco and -co are beyond all doubt essentially Indo-European suffixes in the Ligurian parts of France and over all Upper and Central Italy. But when we turn to ancient Spain we are confronted with the same suffixes and the closely allied -con- in many of the most famous place-names; e.g. Osca (mod. Huesca) Malaca (Malaga), Tarraco (Tarragona) whilst the same appears in the adjective asturcones, the ancient native name for the horses of Asturia."--Ridgeway, Who Were The Romans?
"Professor Niccolucci described some alleged Ligurian crania, which seemed to show them to have been a round-headed people, and hence, the Professor inferred, of "Turanian" origin. But Professor Sergi insists that the said skulls were only those of modern Modenese, and neither ancient nor Ligurian. His own authentic series of Ligurian skulls proves them, on the contrary, to have been long-headed, with narrow noses, orthognathic"--Ligurians, Iberians, and Siculi; Science, Current Notes on Anthropology, 1892.
"Ligurian tribes, now shorn, in ancient days
First of the long-haired nations, on whose necks.
Once flowed the auburn locks in pride supreme."
--Lucan, Pharsalia
The Sabines seem to have been Celtic people, making the Romans Celtic by race. Which could clear up a whole bunch of questions, yes? The other question is Basque. The Basque are a disharmonious people with Brachycephalic skulls and Dolichocephalic faces, signifying a mixed race. Some of them claim they are the Cro-Magnons... but the C-M had Dolichocephalic skulls and Brachycephalic faces... the opposite of what the Basques have. In both cases, the skull shape had the disharmonic face pasted onto it, so to speak.
Britain first had long-barrows long-skulls. Round skulls came with the Celts. In fact, saying Britain is somehow a Basque plantation, but failing to show any evidence of the Basque language in place-names or inscriptions...
I don't know if you've got threads on Minoan DNA being mtDNA H and I, and YDNA R1b (along with the inevitable overlord-R1a). But if Crete had European DNA, and Ligurians had European DNA... and both DNAs occupy that small slice where the Basques showed up... doesn't it make more sense to assume that H and R1b are indigenous DNA in Spain? Especially since the women never made the trip and therefore never brought H... and would never have taught their children the foreign Basque language... this is how language works. !!!
(The Turanian Basque language must have been imposed upon a small area of indigenous non-Basque people during one of the peninsular draughts? Isn't it really an assumption that the Basque-speakers are originally Basque by race? Languages can be learned.)
Getting back to Britain and its people, we know that inscriptions in Latin were commonplace all over the south of Britain. Some say that the tribal names were just Celtic with Latin endings. I highly doubt that's true. The Cymry traditions tell us they came from the Loire and Armorica. The Loire, as Dawkins pointed out long ago, is the Lloegrians... from whence came the name Lloegrwys to Britain. Since these people had not only the same affinity for writing tombstones in Latin, and had a tribe of the Latin Ligures controlling what is now called England proper, is it really a stretch to think that the original people of Britain were Ligurians?
=======
Now, since the Basques are proven to be Steppe People, not the Cro-Magnons or Semites, or any other fanciful notion their world-conquerering historiography would have them to be... And since R1b came from the steppes... And since the Basque language is Turanian-Steppe Language... this National Geographic article "A study of 8,000 years of genetics from Spain and Portugal yields a surprisingly complex picture of the inhabitants' ancestry," of March 2019, can forever end the mystery of who the Basques are. They are related to the other Steppe people who are called Germans and Slavics.

So much for their indegenous claims. The fact that their famous historian tells us they have no art, just as the Jews don't, in and of itself proves that the Basques are the polar opposites of the Cro-Magnons, in whose lands they are currently squatting. Why is it that it never fails to be what the invaders do? They move in, supposedly murder every man and manchild, steal their women and their homes, and begin to pretend that they are indigenes.

And since the Steppe people are round-heads, they never killed off all the long-headed men, or the type of the women are taking the land back from the invaders. If anything else is true, the Steppe men drove the immigration of long-heads we find in Britain's long-barrows. We see it time after time, in Britain... the Steppe men move in... don't decimate the male population, and the indigenes move into the mountains and onto rocky promontaries overlooking the Ocean.

The Basques became the Jesuits who murdered people that didn't believe Catholic Dogma. These Cathars and Albiginses and Huguenots were not wiped out either. But the Basques who were witches and killed infants and were cannibals seem to have been related to those called Anthrophagi who lived next to Poland, which both Pliny and Herodotus talk about. They dressed like Scythians but spoke a different language. The Irish say they are Scythians. Strabo says the Irish were cannibals. Yes, it is ancient history, and they probably don't do it anymore. But this speaks to the unbroken chain of Steppe people with their Shamanism, etc.

[Questions]

Greek colonists from Phocaea founded the colony of Massalia

According to the legend, the Greeks married into the family of the Ligurian woman who chose that Greek as her husband. For this to have happened, Massalia must already have been in existence. This is especially true since the Nemeton of the Ligurians stood nearby.

[Pi gman]

[QUOTE=Questions;615522]According to the legend, the Greeks married into the family of the Ligurian woman who chose that Greek as her husband. For this to have happened, Massalia must already have been in existence. This is

Thank you for your interest. My extensive research from Wikipedia tells me that:

"Massalia, whose name was probably adapted from an existing language related to Ligurian,^[4] was the first Greek settlement in France.^[5] It was established within modern Marseille around 600 BC by colonists coming from Phocaea (now Foça, in modern Turkey) on the Aegean coast of Asia Minor. The connection between Massalia and the Phoceans is mentioned in Thucydides's Peloponnesian War;^[6] he notes that the Phocaean project was opposed by the Carthaginians, whose fleet was defeated.^[7] The founding of Massalia has also been recorded as a legend. According to the legend, Protis (in Aristotle, Euxenes), a native of Phocae, while exploring for a new trading outpost or emporion to make his fortune, discovered the Mediterranean cove of the Lacydon, fed by a freshwater stream and protected by two rocky promontories.^[8] Protis was invited inland to a banquet held by the chief of the local Ligurian tribe, Nann, for suitors seeking the hand of his daughter Gyptis (in Aristotle, Petta) in marriage. At the end of the banquet, Gyptis presented the ceremonial cup of wine to Protis, indicating her unequivocal choice. Following their marriage, they moved to the hill just to the north of the Lacydon; and from this settlement grew Massalia.^[8] Later, the natives would treacherously lay a plot to destroy the new colony, but the scheme was divulged and Conran, king of the natives, was killed in the ensuing battle.^[9] Robb gives greater weight to the Gyptis story, though he notes that the tradition was to offer water, not wine, to signal the choice of a marriage partner.^[10] A second wave of colonists arrived in about 540, when Phocaea was destroyed by the Persians.^[11]"

"Marseille, France was originally founded circa 600 BC as the Greek colony of Massalia and populated by Greeks from Phocaea (modern Foça, Turkey). It became the preeminent Greek polis in the Hellenized region of southern Gaul.^[1] The city-state allied with the Roman Republic against Carthage during the Second Punic War (218-201 BC), retaining its independence and commercial empire throughout the western Mediterraneaneven as Rome expanded into Western Europe and North Africa. However, the city lost its independence following the Roman Siege of Massilia in 49 BC, during Caesar's Civil War, in which Massalia sided with the exiled faction at war with Julius Caesar."

and

"Humans have inhabited Marseille and its environs for almost 30,000 years: palaeolithic cave paintings in the underwater Cosquer Cave near the calanque of Morgiou date back to between 27,000 and 19,000 BC; and recent excavations near the railway station have unearthed neolithic brick habitations from around 6000 BC.<sup>[2][3]"

I am sure there are volumes of books in ancient libraries somewhere but I will not be reading them.</sup>

[MOESAN]

"Now, as the legends represent Latiniis, the eponym of the Latini, as king of the Aborigines, it follows that the Latini were Ligurians ... These are the people known to the Roman writers as Ligures, and to the Greeks as Ligyes. As they occupy the same mountainous area as that assigned to the Aborigines by Dionysius, and as Philistus of Syracuse says that the Ligyes were expelled from their homes by the Umbrians, there is no doubt that the Aborigines of Dionysius and Cato are none other than the Ligyes or Ligurians of Philistus and other writers. … Thus according to Roman tradition the Latini were the Aborigines, or, in other words, Ligurians, a tradition of great significance in view of the fact that the populous Romanus spoke not lingua Romana, but lingua Latina. … the language of the Roman empire, was the tongue not of the Sabine conquerers, but of their Plebeian subjects, in other words that Latin is Ligurian. ... Again, although it has hitherto been universally held that the Iberians spoke a non-Aryan tongue, because the Basques who occupy a portion of North-West Spain still continue to do so, yet when we come to examine the evidence it is more probable that the Iberians properly so called, who bordered on the Ligurians in North-Eastem Spain and who are said to have extended at one time as far north as the Loire, did not differ essentially from the Ligurians. For instance, we have just seen that proper names in -sco and -co are beyond all doubt essentially Indo-European suffixes in the Ligurian parts of France and over all Upper and Central Italy. But when we turn to ancient Spain we are confronted with the same suffixes and the closely allied -con- in many of the most famous place-names; e.g. Osca (mod. Huesca) Malaca (Malaga), Tarraco (Tarragona) whilst the same appears in the adjective asturcones, the ancient native name for the horses of Asturia."--Ridgeway, Who Were The Romans?
"Professor Niccolucci described some alleged Ligurian crania, which seemed to show them to have been a round-headed people, and hence, the Professor inferred, of "Turanian" origin. But Professor Sergi insists that the said skulls were only those of modern Modenese, and neither ancient nor Ligurian. His own authentic series of Ligurian skulls proves them, on the contrary, to have been long-headed, with narrow noses, orthognathic"--Ligurians, Iberians, and Siculi; Science, Current Notes on Anthropology, 1892.
"Ligurian tribes, now shorn, in ancient days
First of the long-haired nations, on whose necks.
Once flowed the auburn locks in pride supreme."
--Lucan, Pharsalia
The Sabines seem to have been Celtic people, making the Romans Celtic by race. Which could clear up a whole bunch of questions, yes? The other question is Basque. The Basque are a disharmonious people with Brachycephalic skulls and Dolichocephalic faces, signifying a mixed race. Some of them claim they are the Cro-Magnons... but the C-M had Dolichocephalic skulls and Brachycephalic faces... the opposite of what the Basques have. In both cases, the skull shape had the disharmonic face pasted onto it, so to speak.
Britain first had long-barrows long-skulls. Round skulls came with the Celts. In fact, saying Britain is somehow a Basque plantation, but failing to show any evidence of the Basque language in place-names or inscriptions...
I don't know if you've got threads on Minoan DNA being mtDNA H and I, and YDNA R1b (along with the inevitable overlord-R1a). But if Crete had European DNA, and Ligurians had European DNA... and both DNAs occupy that small slice where the Basques showed up... doesn't it make more sense to assume that H and R1b are indigenous DNA in Spain? Especially since the women never made the trip and therefore never brought H... and would never have taught their children the foreign Basque language... this is how language works. !!!
(The Turanian Basque language must have been imposed upon a small area of indigenous non-Basque people during one of the peninsular draughts? Isn't it really an assumption that the Basque-speakers are originally Basque by race? Languages can be learned.)
Getting back to Britain and its people, we know that inscriptions in Latin were commonplace all over the south of Britain. Some say that the tribal names were just Celtic with Latin endings. I highly doubt that's true. The Cymry traditions tell us they came from the Loire and Armorica. The Loire, as Dawkins pointed out long ago, is the Lloegrians... from whence came the name Lloegrwys to Britain. Since these people had not only the same affinity for writing tombstones in Latin, and had a tribe of the Latin Ligures controlling what is now called England proper, is it really a stretch to think that the original people of Britain were Ligurians?

If I read well there is no more doubt that Ligurians spoke an I-E language. As I wrote in another post (to you) their language seems showing ties to both Celtic and Italic; I wonder if it is not of the same temporal wave which brought Lisutanian to Iberia and 'northwest IE' of the today benelux, a wave a bit earlier than the Celtic and Italic one.
I don' t know if 'latin' language is in fact strictly 'latin' by origin but it became quickly the language of Romans and Romanized, and was DISTINCT of Ligurian proper.
Let's not to put too much confidence into the terms 'aborigene' or 'autochtone' in ancient legends: they do'nt cover the same pop's according to diverse legends or authors. Every people is tempted to see itself as 'aborigne', with few exceptions.
The distinction by someones between 'Latin' and 'Roman' is not the proof of a very distinct nature of both languages, Latin and Roman being maybe urban and rural variants of the same Italic language?
Never heard of a Celtic origin of Sabins! And Sabins have not been the winners, because they have been submitted by Romans. The Italic nature of Latin or Rome Language is not debatted for I know.
Concerning foundations myths, don't forget old people were found of "honorable" origins and could have mixed their own half historical legends with other folks ones (previously present on their country, or even come later than them:cf the Scythes "origins" of Celts).

We can leave aside the diverse phenotypic descriptions of people when they are so simplistic and stereotyped. (BTW the CI of Basques were 78 to 80 (Spain) and 83 to 84 (France) in the 1940's, so far from the extreme 73 or 88 of certain European means of the time; and a few divergent features is not enough to distinguish deeply between two pop's.
That said, Basques (the topic) are supposed to have some metals names of their own, or at least not loaned from I-E languages. I don't know if it's true. Maybe their language is not so "autochtnous" as believed by someones.

[Questions]

[QUOTE=Pi gman;615621]

According to the legend, the Greeks married into the family of the Ligurian woman who chose that Greek as her husband. For this to have happened, Massalia must already have been in existence. This is

Thank you for your interest. My extensive research from Wikipedia

I am sure there are volumes of books in ancient libraries somewhere but I will not be reading them.[/SIZE][/SUP]

For the woman to have chosen her husband, she must have been in a matriarchal society. This means that her husband is not the owner of her property. Matriarchy was in existence wherever there was no Steppe-patriarchy imposed at a later date. To call the city a Ligurian name means that the Greeks didn't create it, the Latin-speaking Ligurians did.

Where else do we get our histories of today, if we place no trust upon what the ancients saw with their own eyes? If you won't be reading ancient books, hopefully you can trust the spin the modernists puts on what ancient authors they read. I'm not that trusting: I go to the source.


Your wikipedia says this about Nemeton:

"Pliny and Lucan wrote that druids did not meet in stone temples or other constructions, but in sacred groves of trees. In his Pharsalia Lucan described such a grove near Massilia in dramatic terms more designed to evoke horror among his Roman hearers than meant as proper natural history:

'no bird nested in the nemeton, nor did any animal lurk nearby; the leaves constantly shivered though no breeze stirred. Altars stood in its midst, and the images of the gods. Every tree was stained with sacrificial blood. the very earth groaned, dead yews revived; unconsumed trees were surrounded with flame, and huge serpents twined round the oaks. The people feared to approach the grove, and even the priest would not walk there at midday or midnight lest he should then meet its divine guardian.'"


Unknowing people are tempted to believe that the Druids were Celts. Au contraire!

"so we must pass on to the non-Celtic natives, who had another religion, namely, druidism, which may be surmised to have had its origin among them."--Rhys, Celtic Britain


Cook, "Zeus, Jupiter and the Oak," places the Druid's sacred grove in Pelasgian lands, and Caesar tells us the Druids used the Greek letters. Pelasgians came to partner the Ligurian Aborigines in their fight against the Celts in Italy.

[MOESAN]

[QUOTE=Questions;615715]

For the woman to have chosen her husband, she must have been in a matriarchal society. This means that her husband is not the owner of her property. Matriarchy was in existence wherever there was no Steppe-patriarchy imposed at a later date. To call the city a Ligurian name means that the Greeks didn't create it, the Latin-speaking Ligurians did.
Where else do we get our histories of today, if we place no trust upon what the ancients saw with their own eyes? If you won't be reading ancient books, hopefully you can trust the spin the modernists puts on what ancient authors they read. I'm not that trusting: I go to the source.
Your wikipedia says this about Nemeton:
"Pliny and Lucan wrote that druids did not meet in stone temples or other constructions, but in sacred groves of trees. In his Pharsalia Lucan described such a grove near Massilia in dramatic terms more designed to evoke horror among his Roman hearers than meant as proper natural history:
'no bird nested in the nemeton, nor did any animal lurk nearby; the leaves constantly shivered though no breeze stirred. Altars stood in its midst, and the images of the gods. Every tree was stained with sacrificial blood. the very earth groaned, dead yews revived; unconsumed trees were surrounded with flame, and huge serpents twined round the oaks. The people feared to approach the grove, and even the priest would not walk there at midday or midnight lest he should then meet its divine guardian.'"
Unknowing people are tempted to believe that the Druids were Celts. Au contraire!
"so we must pass on to the non-Celtic natives, who had another religion, namely, druidism, which may be surmised to have had its origin among them."--Rhys, Celtic Britain
Cook, "Zeus, Jupiter and the Oak," places the Druid's sacred grove in Pelasgian lands, and Caesar tells us the Druids used the Greek letters. Pelasgians came to partner the Ligurian Aborigines in their fight against the Celts in Italy.

Because ancients never confused things? Are you believing every ancient story or even "report" is God 's truth? It's moderns who are obliged to sift the contradictory matter gathered in ancient texts.
Concerning the Druids and their role in the society, the ancient authors don't share the same opinions, Greeks either Romans. It seems Julius Caesar made of them an ubiquitous part of the Celtic intellectual elite, forgotting Bards and Vates, in opposition to a lot of ancient Greeks reports. Concerning the term 'druid', it seems Celtic, from *dru-/drew- or *deorw- (two forms of same root meaning "tree" before taking the meaning of "oak", one form more abstract ~= "strong", "solid", "full of life", the other more concrete, + *-wid ("to see" >> "to know"); translation more or less accepted: "very knowledged with a living mighty knowledge".
Nothing prevents us to think that Celts loaned some aspects of the Ligurians religion, Celts are in a big part children of a pop "cousin" to Ligurians. We know also Druids have had many contacts with Greek philosophs. But nothing in that back your strange affirmations.

[MOESAN]

I add that the "religious" role of the Druids and the part taken by them in sacrifices is object of debates.