Its My Phone, Automatically Caps All My Words, Been Too Lazy To Fix It.

Anthro I'm glad you explained that... I had you pegged as having a moderate to serious case of OCD. It's alot of work to cap each word like that! :)

P.S. Thank you for fixing... much easier to follow your line of thinking without cap distraction.
 
migration from Palestine for Etruscans? cultural influences, maybe - or a surprising but possible link to a population of the Greece-Anatolia borders, linked to the so called Phillistins -I believe they were part of the big trouble produced by the "Sea Peoples" at one time - linguistical possible links to anatolian pre-I-E languages could make sense (even if personal names could seam hellenic) -
Y-R1b west european subHGs doesn't seam born in Iberia - but Basques show definitely more links to N-W Europeans (heavy neo-celticremannts) than others Iberians, even if there is no broad genetic canyon separating Spaniards and Basques - and the relatively high level of so called 'gedrosia' component among Basques as in Neo-Celts popul

Very well could be! Sorry we caused so much trouble while we were the sea peoples!
 
edit to add:

Curtis Pigman (French Pigmon/Pimond and Greek Pygmon ([FONT=&quot]n[/FONT][FONT=&quot]EI[/FONT][FONT=&quot]r[/FONT][FONT=&quot]MO)


sorry but I don't know how to type in Greek letters.
[/FONT]
 
I am Iberian, and I also see that it's pretty obvious that R1b did not originate in Iberia. Ziober, you can think what you want, but you're wrong. It's nothing against you, read the threads and look for more research (the forum works for the purpose).

But I must say, I also totally disagree with the people who take modern haplogroup frequencies so dogmatically. Because basically, being for instance R1b or I dominant, doesn't mean anything (o very little) in terms of autosomal. And that's what tells the full story.

Quite right. Haplogroups are only useful in giving us clues about ancient population migrations, nothing more. On the other hand, autosomal DNA provides us with a full heritage picture.
 
Quite right. Haplogroups are only useful in giving us clues about ancient population migrations, nothing more. On the other hand, autosomal DNA provides us with a full heritage picture.

I agree for the most - but every kind of signal or information has to be taken in account to try picturing our past

here, in disorder, some thoughts that show, I confess, more hesitations than affirmations

How Basques became Y-R1b?




Some remarks (someones made yet by bloggers):
celtic or proto-celtic languages were spoken in Iberia before Iron Ages, I think -
Y-R1b, yes, was not born in Western Europe but more surely in E-Caspian, and the R1b downstream SNPs dominent in Iberia are not for the most among the oldest ones; they seam being came there from E-France-C-Europe (maybe a S-Italy first step? – not sure ! I believe two tiny waves of Y-R1b put foot in W-Europe, one (stopped at the L23 stage) from S-E Europe, maybe by sea ways, one, L23 and downstreams, by Donau river and continental Europe (with some «branches» to N-Europe); this last part of Y-R1b only is linked to Basques and indo-Europeans, whatever the true story (initiators or accultured people)
the presence of some autosomals «gedrosian» among Basques and neo-Celts and not in other european today populations, I-Ean speaking or not, is confusing -but we note also the presence of a «atlantic» or «north-western-mediterranean» (sic!) among the same Basques and Neo-Celts, that makes the ressemblance stronger yet! I would enjoy breaking this component into a true N-Western one and S-W-«mediterranean» -
The cumulated «autochtonous mediterranean» autosomals presence among Basques and Sardinians , present too at some degree in other parts of Europe, doesn't conceal the difference between Basques and Sardinians, and the fact that the «basque-NON-sardinian» autosomal component domines too among Neo-Celts, that is not the case, one time more, among other European populations (whether balto-slavic, italic, or finnic, but it's less evident for Finns of Finnland) -
the 'gedrosian' component could be very linked to I-E languages, coming from S-E Caspian lands, and very poor of other 'west-asian' more 'caucasic' components North the Caspian and Black Seas – in Anatolia/Near-Eastern, this 'gedrosian' found surely 'caucasic' variants of 'west-asian' on its westwards progression, which don't oppose clearly there the 'gedrosian' %s to the 'caucasic' %s – these 'gedrosians' coul have indo-europeanized in E-C-Europe some populations rich for 'W-mediter-' and 'N-atlantic' (to find out among the pooling of 'northwestern' and 'basque') and speaking for a long time ago proto-basque dialects (not the modern more or less unified basque) – here again I recall the affirmation of scholars who see a kind of 'proto-basque' (and a proto-satem languages too) in the substrata of Saami's finnic -
What I write here could exclude the 'caucasic' component as important candidate for a primitive P.I-E population – it could exclude too that 'gedrosians' reached W-Europe by Mediterranea Sea... (lack of autosomals 'caucasic' and even if hazardous for obvious reasons, lack of Y-J2/Y-J1/Y-G/Y-E1b)
it 's interesting noticing that the 'mediter' component in Chuvashes is 8-9% and that 'basque' is stronger among them that 'sardinian'! Indicationg an old component among so called 'basque' that could have reached W-Europe at very ancient times, coming from East, perhaps - elements – today as a whole, geographically, 'basque' is more N-W, 'sardinian' more S, S-E and even N-E ! S-W is shared by the two of them – and 'sardinian' «flirts» more with 'caucasic' – the sardinian element in N-E Europe appears to me as the result of the neolithical colonization North & East the Carpathians where it seams send there by balkanic populations (so mixed with 'caucasic west-asians' and some few others) -


B.B.s for me are not a unique homogenous culture at final spread and result, they seam implying a very mobile and intrusive element linked to metals cultures and spreading at one time a model of pottery they perhaps never created themselves or that evolved in one of their places of colonization at some time of their historic evolution (say: SW Iberia?)?!?


I could figure out with my exhuberant imagination: 1- a primitive south-western mediterranean stock / 2 – a northern western nordic stock, remotly linked to 1- and occupying northern Europe after deglaciation / 3 – an old enough south-eastern mediterranean stock, came there in two waves: a mesolithical one, by coasts for some branches and by land for others (Danau and other rivers) plus a neolithical one, principally by mediterranean coasts and mixed then with 'west-asian' elements-


the Basques (Euskad-) and the Celts in that mess??? No answer from me for now – perhaps a first recent enough colonization of W-Europe by proto-basque speakers whose the cousins remained in central Europe were indo-europeanized??? it's true than the 'gedrosian' component is stronger among Neo-Celts than among present days Basques even if historical overlaps seam very possible... I'm yet between two thoughts about the role, the importance and datation of Y-R1b in this cartoon scenario! Sorry...
have a good night full of historical dreams giving you the keys of past!
 
You are biased, that is what I mean. You are automatically assuming that R1b originates in Iberia just because you happen to be Spaniard. That is really egotistic. Read all the threads regarding R1b and you will see that it most likely didn't originate in Europe.

You'd assumed that I have any interest awarding the R1b origin into Iberia... but, can you explain what could be that interest? Maybe I'm open minded and the only interest I can get is to know the true. As spaniard I'm, I can know the Iberian Archeology better than most of foreigns, this is an advantage. As envaironment scientist I have a multidisciplinary formation, They taught us to coordinate the jobs of a team of experts in different areas of study, and I see the things from several points of view. putting together the puzzle's pieces is that I'm trying.
 
I think that the when the Celts came into Iberia and mixed with the Iberians (Celtiberian) the Celts had R1B. But the thing is that the Iberians had I2a. But im guessing the Celts had more R1b then the Iberians with the I2a. Im just guessing on it.
 
Hi adeof. I can agree with you about I2a which I was calling cromagnoids, The genuine european natives before the IE migrations, it is a branch of "I" haplogroup fully originated in Europe. But when you talk about celts and celtiberian you must to notice that these terms were for people whose had lived lots of time after we are talking, I'm talking before Bronze age. Celtiberian is a confusing term, because it is used to call at modern spaniards as an ethnic group, but still is used for the celts which came from central Europe and were mixed with iberians (Example the city of Numancia, near Soria, Castilla León. They were celtiberians). In the peninsula had living together, the celts that never gone out (in the west), and the celts from central Europe (in the north east of Iberia) whose indeed returned to home. I'm proposing That R1b(M343) had originated in the Iberian peninsula from M173.

That you say about I2a have sense, there are a noticiable link in Sardinia, as the Kurgan Stelae people use sardinia as bridge to Iberia. Maybe Stelae People brought M-173 to Iberia?


haplogroup_i2a1_zps628d2a56.gif


StelaePeople_zps24790e03.jpg
 
I think that the when the Celts came into Iberia and mixed with the Iberians (Celtiberian) the Celts had R1B. But the thing is that the Iberians had I2a. But im guessing the Celts had more R1b then the Iberians with the I2a. Im just guessing on it.

Much of Western Iberia appears to already have been (original) Celtic before the invasions from the east. See Cunliff (2005, 2010) Koch (2009, 2010, 2011), Untermann (1987) Wodtko (2010). Atlantic Celticity developed separately from the Central European varieties (La Tene, etc.) via extensive trade networks extending from Southern Portugal to the Shetland Isles.
 
If it means anything I'm Albanian who is R-L150 and my autosomal DNA result came out 80% south east european- tuscan and 20% other parts of europe. I believe R1b came from east to west via the balkans, as you can find older clades there.
 
The original basques/gascons where probably always R1b.
 
The simpliest hypothesis is that the first wave of R1B coming to Europe were not indo-european speaking people. (at least R1B-DF27 ?)

Anthropological point of vew :

1°) the original Basques had not a patriarcal system, and never adopted a pure one after the indo-european wave and the christinization. Traditionnally, the elder inherits, male or female. I insist : even if there is a younger male. If, as Maciamo proposes, the current Basques R1B was the result of a “butchering” of a previous male population by the R1B invaders, the structure will be patriarcal, patrilinear and patrilocal ! Especially if the R1B invaders had a pure patriarchal structure, which is the case of indo-european !

2°) The characteristics of the indo-european people was not only the horse and superior weapons, but also the wheel ! They had charriots. The indo-european came with their wifes and children – which does not exclude some “pure male” rapid expedition.

Genetic/phenotypic point of vew :

1°) Redness is linked exclusivily to the indo-european R1B, and not to the first wave of R1B, which was simply dark-haired. Redness is not frequent among the Basques (and certainly acquired from the celtic and germanic environnement and from the scandinavian raids)
2°) For the rest, all R1B were “rather” brachycephal – i.d. not dolicocephal at all. For the basques, wether their face is oval or not, they are not dolicocephal, and the oldest representation of celts neither.
3°) By the way, blondness did not appear within R1B nor R1A, but within the non indo-european I1, from which it spreads into R1A and R1B during the germanic ethnogenesis and into other lignages for Finnish people and Balts. And the original I1 were “extremely” dolicocephal, whereas the scandinavian result is not, because of the brachycephal admixture.

PS : Maciamo has done a good job. The Eupedia R1B maps mixing all R1B are/were misleading, and he opened the debate on the "mysterious" basques.
 
The simpliest hypothesis is that the first wave of R1B coming to Europe were not indo-european speaking people. (at least R1B-DF27 ?)
This is the difficulty this hypothesis. DF27 is not one of the early branches off of R1b. DF27 is descendant of P312(S116), which is descendant of L11(S127). L11 is the very large clade that holds the mast majority of western and central European R1b. L11 is dominated, at least since historical times, by IE speaking. The Basques are kind of the odd man out in terms of their language.

The Basques do not show the highest diversity among R1b. They are dominated by DF27 people as you have noticed. We have no reason to think R1b was there in Iberia prior to the Chalcolithic and since the Celts were IE speakers you are really down to saying the Bell Beakers must have been the DF27 carriers.

DF27's brothers are U152 and L21 and its cousin is U106. They all exhibit similar diversity as members of the L11 family yet they all have fairly well defined geographical domains. I think it is possible that DF27 was the first significant R1b among pre-Basque populations as spread by Bell Beakers, but that implies that each of the Bell Beaker populations was a different kind of R1b-L11. I agree that is possible but I don't know why they would have had different languages in a closely related expansion.

I don't know the answer on the Basque R1b but its not a simple one. Maciamo has as good an alternative as any.

Anthropological point of vew :

1°) the original Basques had not a patriarcal system, and never adopted a pure one after the indo-european wave and the christinization. Traditionnally, the elder inherits, male or female. I insist : even if there is a younger male. If, as Maciamo proposes, the current Basques R1B was the result of a “butchering” of a previous male population by the R1B invaders, the structure will be patriarcal, patrilinear and patrilocal ! Especially if the R1B invaders had a pure patriarchal structure, which is the case of indo-european !

Your point on the Basques not being patriarchal would seem to lead credence to the point that the language would not be passed down from the father, thereby explaining how R1b non-IE speakers came about. I'm not making any assertions of the potential conflicts but early R1b people in these pre-Basque cultures may have been "absentee" types for reasons we don't know.

2°) The characteristics of the indo-european people was not only the horse and superior weapons, but also the wheel ! They had charriots. The indo-european came with their wifes and children – which does not exclude some “pure male” rapid expedition.
How do we know that all Indo-European men came with their wives and children. You hint towards males only expedition but we don't know the extent of this concept. David Anthony's book points out that the IE people coming down along the Black Sea to the Danube using scouting. IE people may have been adept at using scouts, explorers, traders, prospectors as well as having remote military oriented outposts.

Genetic/phenotypic point of vew :
....
It can and is quite hard to correlate phenotypes to Y DNA.

The digs of ancient bones can tell us if new people were coming in, but with out the ancient DNA testing its hard to tell who was who Y DNA wise, particularly thousands of years later.
 
I think it is possible that DF27 was the first significant R1b among pre-Basque populations as spread by Bell Beakers, but that implies that each of the Bell Beaker populations was a different kind of R1b-L11. I agree that is possible but I don't know why they would have had different languages in a closely related expansion.

I don't know the answer on the Basque R1b but its not a simple one.

Another scenario might be that L11 (or L51) was Bell Beaker. DF27 seems a little too young, but I might be wrong.

Here's my scenario: L11 was Bell Beaker. It spread from Iberia into Central Europe and the British Isles with the Beaker Culture starting in 2900 bc. These people were not Indo-European and might have spoke a language related to Basque. About 2000 bc, DF-27 invades from Central Europe as a "reflux"of R1B back into Iberia. These were the ancestors of the Basque, Iberians, etc. They still did not speak Indo-European. A thousand years later the Celts arrive (with L21 ?). The Celts are obviously Indo-European. They were first r1b group in Iberia to speak in that language and this accounts for the seeming oddities of Basque and Iberian being r1b but non-Indo-european.

To back up my little pet theory I cite "Ancient Admixture in Human History" by Patterson et al 2012. http://www.genetics.org/content/early/2012/09/06/genetics.112.145037


Pg. 40:
"We have detected here a signal of gene flow from northern Europe into Spain around 2000 B.C. We d
iscuss a likely interpretation. At this time there was a characteristic pottery termed ‘bell-beakers’ believed to correspond to a population spread across Iberia and northern Europe. We hypothesize that we are seeing here a genetic signal of the ‘Bell-Beaker culture’ (HARRISON, 1980). Initial cultural flow of the Bell-Beakers appears to have been from South to North, but the full story may be complex. Indeed one hypothesis is that after an initial expansion from Iberia there was a reverse flow back to Iberia (CZEBRESZUK, 2003); this ‘reflux’ model is broadly concordant with our genetic results, and if this is the correct explanation it suggests that this reverse flow may have been accompanied by substantial population movement."


The history of r1b in Iberia is obviously very complex. I think we need to think in terms of movements of r1B people both in and out of the pennisula over thousands of years.
 
My last post on this site.


How about this R1b is a western European hg, and R1a is an eastern European haplogroup.

How about maybe because the celts lived in western europe, you're wrongly assuming a modern nation has monopoly over a y-chromosome.

How about maybe the Slavs lived in Eastern Europe, and you're wrongfully assuming the same thing.

How about the Indo-Europeans were a mixture of R1b, R1a, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, considering they were modern tribes living in the cross roads of humanity in Eurasia.

How about there were different tribes of R1b, some pre-IE, some IE.

Can you explain this to me, since R1b is 18,000 years old, and in Chad/Cameroon this goes up to 90% frequency, and those people are definitely not 90% white, are you saying R1b carriers were black 18,000 thousands years ago?

Assuming you're considering them as Europeans 6000 years ago, are you saying they went from black to white in a little over 10,000 years? Think about that.

Ill say it again, as I made this analogy before.

Haplogroups are like stds. You can spread them around, give them to the next person, make maps out of it, but it doesn't tell you anything about the genetic content of the person. It just says they have an std.

Goodbye to you, good sir, and all the people in this forum.

The funny part to me is before bronze age collapse invasions like this were virtually impossible or anyway incredibly slow, and after it we already know most of what there is to know, all of which says this is all just crap. Aside from this site I have never seen anyone let alone a group of people so sure they know so much about IE origins, and have such an out there whacko impossible theory.

So too bad to see you go, this kind of view is not the norm.
 
Maciamo's explanation on Basques and R1b, while it doesn't strike me as the most convincing idea I've ever heard, is probably as good as any, as others have pointed out. And that because no matter what, some sort of fluke chain of events must have necessarily happened in the Basque land, so any possible explanation is likely to raise eyebrows.

That being said... can we draw any parallel in History with a situation in which conquerors arrive and kill off the local men, rape/espouse the women, and then proceed to utterly neglect these women and their own newborn sons, to the point of leaving it completely up to the mothers to teach their language to the children? Those men wouldn't have minded not being able to communicate AT ALL with their offspring? Not even a few of those men would have attempted to teach their language to the women, so as to create, at worst, a hybrid language? We're talking Indo-European, ridigly patriarcal, bellicose men.

Is there any known historical situation similar to that one? I can't think of any.

Sure, maybe they just passed through the area, killed the men, raped then women and then abandoned the region altogether, leaving all those single mothers by themselves. But how likely is this?
 
Perhaps R1b folk migrated along the Mediterranean to the Iberian Peninsula and expanded out of there as the Beaker Bell culture, with its most easterly components coming under the influence of R1a IE folks, and adopting IE language as well as IE technology that allowed them to back migrate into territory that was already substantially R1b, spreading the IE language and culture as they went, except in some R1b areas where they were never really dominant, such as Basque country. And I believe some linguists have proposed Gaelic is a Celtic language that has a Vasconic (Basque-like) substratum, which would mean a limited number of R1b Celts taking over a Vasconic R1b Ireland. OKay, that scenario may not be very probable, but neither is any other scenario for R1b, IMO.
 
Maciamo's explanation on Basques and R1b, while it doesn't strike me as the most convincing idea I've ever heard, is probably as good as any, as others have pointed out. And that because no matter what, some sort of fluke chain of events must have necessarily happened in the Basque land, so any possible explanation is likely to raise eyebrows.

That being said... can we draw any parallel in History with a situation in which conquerors arrive and kill off the local men, rape/espouse the women, and then proceed to utterly neglect these women and their own newborn sons, to the point of leaving it completely up to the mothers to teach their language to the children? Those men wouldn't have minded not being able to communicate AT ALL with their offspring? Not even a few of those men would have attempted to teach their language to the women, so as to create, at worst, a hybrid language? We're talking Indo-European, ridigly patriarcal, bellicose men.

Is there any known historical situation similar to that one? I can't think of any.

Sure, maybe they just passed through the area, killed the men, raped then women and then abandoned the region altogether, leaving all those single mothers by themselves. But how likely is this?

I give my point very lately - but I agree with your analysis here - so the Maciamo explanation does not statisfy me spite the respect I have for the most of his thoughts... Without being able to find a convincing theory at this stage, I believe yet some Y-R1b's were among non I-E tribes when other ones were among I-E ones - and I repeat for me Y-R1b took more than ONE way towards western Europe (but everybody can mistake)-
 
The basque were not the only non-indo European language in Iberia; the Tartessians were probably Phoenicians and Turdetanians; the basque genetic composition more or less shows they were always heavily R1b; maybe the spoke a conquerer's language; maybe basque is most similar to an ampncientpelasgic or even pre-indo-European tongue; languages shifted a lot with the Latin dominations; maybe basque is a survived tongue of the pre-Latin IberiaIberia
 
But that probably couldn't be because the basque genetic make-up IS indo-European; they may have spoke the tongue of a pre-indo european I2 (maybe I-M26) people or of a Mediterranean Sea faring people; it is a valid hypothesis tilt being of pre-indo-European origin.
 

This thread has been viewed 254212 times.

Back
Top