Basques not indoeuropeans?

Neither was the Basque father tongue Indo-European; Indo-European societies were patriarchal societies;
Therefor: Basque (and ancient Aquitani and Iberian) being non-Indo-European suggests that their fathers were also non-Indo-Europeans;
Granted. The only question is which of new Basque R1b fathers where IE. All of them or just the last Celtic wave?
 
I think it is highly doubtful that either uniparental marker commonly held by Basques today reflect a pre-Chalcolithic relict population. Let me say it bluntly, Basque people are genetically mostly Indo-European or at least appear so when looking exclusively at uniparental markers.

So the question I would ask is if the autosomal ancestry of Basque people mismatches that of the uniparental ancestry. It's not a question of whether this happens in nature, because it does happen and often, but to what degree has it happened in Basques and is there a hidden component in Basques that make them racially unique.
 
i dont get what is hard to understand Celts probablly 3,500-4,500ybp conquered west europe with mainly R1b Df27 majority in France and Iberia with minority R1b L21 while in British isles those Celts had majority R1b L21 and minority R1b Df27. Some Celts in France Iberia area adopted the native language for whatever reason. So modern Basque paternal lines are vast majority under Italo Celtic R1b S116 around 80% like Celts of the British isles and western coast of France. I have just learned even though my surname is British probably Scotland or England i most likley had R1b Df27. And that it is probably about 40% in western France and 10-20% in Scotland and Ireland(R1b Df27 not just in Iberia)

Basque in aust dna tests show to be most similar to Neolithic farmer samples Otzie (Alps Italy 5,300ybp) and Gok4(south Swedan 5,000ybp).Because of their very high amount of med in whatever test like globe13 while they hav very little west asian and southwest asian(which also came in Neloithic) and below average for north Euro(pre Neloithic Europe) compared to Spain and France. I guess that would mean in ancestry overall they are very Neloithic. BAsque do seem to be kind of unique in aust dna, mtdna(high amount of H1, H3, and V), and Y DNA very low G2a, E1b1b, and J1 compared to surrounding FRench and Spainish. And highest or close to hiighest amount of I2a1a M26 besides Sardine.
 
DF27 is higher (much higher, the highest) in the Iberian [non-Indo-European] areas than in the Celt-Iberian [Indo-European Keltic mix] areas; Looks like the non-Indo-European Bell-Beaker culture zone; but thats prob. just me;

Basques are not Neolithic; why would they be?
They have nothing to do with GÖK4 and ÖTZI; they are not like the Sardines;
And pre-Indo-European in the Western (Atlantic Fringe) Europe does not equal Neolithic; Bell Beaker (Chalcolithic) is just fine for pre-Indo-European and thats also the first time R1b pops up - not U106 of course;

I view R1b to be both non-Indo-European as well as Indo-European depending on the sub-clade (lineage) just like R1a; with U106 and U152 def. Indo-European;
 
i dont get what is hard to understand Celts probablly 3,500-4,500ybp conquered west europe with mainly R1b Df27 majority in France and Iberia with minority R1b L21 while in British isles those Celts had majority R1b L21 and minority R1b Df27.

It is hard to understand because it requires us to dismiss the most widely held theories on Indo-European linguistics. As far as I've seen there are no evidence that the R1B expansion to Western Europe was by Indo-Europeans in the first place. It is considered proven in itself, and when asked for linguistic evidence, the proponents point back to the genetic results. Genetics is used to prove a theory, then genetics proves linguistics, and linguistics proves the theory. That is a circular reasoning.

The simplest answer is that the folks who introduced R1B into Europe, circa 3,000 bc, were not speakers of an Indo-European language.

2,000 years later (around 1,000 bc), the R1B carrying Western Indo-Europeans (Germans/Celts/Italians) burst onto the scene. They were probably "born" in Central Europe, adopting an Indo-European language from mixing with IE Corded Ware folk to the East. These R1B heavy IE-speaking peoples exploded from Central Europe and conquered the West, South, and North. The process was still not complete during historical times. When the Romans entered Iberia, half the peninsula was IE speaking (Celts) while half was speaking something other (Basque, Iberian, etc.) And to show how language can shift, the Iberian Peninsula ended up adopting neither of these languages, instead they speak an Italic dialect today (obviously).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Indo-Europeanization of Western Europe might have been a very recent phenomenon, beginning sometime around 800 bc and ending in modern times. The Basques are a remnant of an earlier language strata. As for their R1B being a newer downstream clad, I think this is a given, considering peoples are always evolving. All it takes is one conquering clad to go through a language shift (R1b males adopting IE in Central Europe) and it could seem like all R1B must have been IE from the beginning. But it might not be the case, if that makes sense.

Of course this is all assumption, but that's what discussion on a forum is all about, right? :grin:

I strongly dis agree u are making many big assumptions. please click on The spread of R1b1a2a1a L11 Germanic Italo Celts. And look at FTDNA R1b page. Besides Corded ware almost deifntley spoke proto Balto Slavic if it came from Corded ware which is hard to explain why aren't they in the same family.

I strongly agree with Tone here - a recent spread of the current Indo-European language families to Western Europe is still the prevailing theory. For example, Celtic did not reach Ireland before the iron age, around 600 BC. That requires that R1B was given its large distribution by a previous expansion, a people which might have spoken an extinct Indo-European language, or a Paleo-European language such as Basque. So Tone's theory requires far less assumptions than Fire Haired's. Fire Haired has to revision widely held linguistic theories and assume a very early spread of Celtic languages.

Might I again point out that the FTDNA page clearly states that genetics cannot prove spread of languages. And as I point out above, genetics cannot be used to prove linguistics, if assumptions on linguistics are based on genetics in the first place.
 


Sorry, but Maju's charts are misleading. The first 'proven' samples of Haplogroup H in Europe are in the Late Neolithic "Rossen Culture" in Central Europe only. And the Rossen Culture shows clear signs of early "Indo-Europeanesque" ingression it their burial habits and agricultural package.
Not saying they were Indo-European, but a diffusion of IE people or pre-IE people and ideas were making their way into Europe at that time.

H1 has its highest diversity, basically everywhere but Spain and France. H3 has its highest diversity in North Africa and the Middle East.

Maju's contention that R* samples in the Magdalenian are actually H just doesn't work given the divesity and age of H - from another place.

 
It is hard to understand because it requires us to dismiss the most widely held theories on Indo-European linguistics. As far as I've seen there are no evidence that the R1B expansion to Western Europe was by Indo-Europeans in the first place. It is considered proven in itself, and when asked for linguistic evidence, the proponents point back to the genetic results. Genetics is used to prove a theory, then genetics proves linguistics, and linguistics proves the theory. That is a circular reasoning.

I strongly agree with Tone here - a recent spread of the current Indo-European language families to Western Europe is still the prevailing theory. For example, Celtic did not reach Ireland before the iron age, around 600 BC.

Ok, I am going to defend F.H. but not his total lack of spelling and grammer.

First, the "recent spread of the current Indo-European language families to WEstern Europe is still the prevailing theory"
Well, it may be the prevailing theory, but it is not an intelligent theory. You also say that "Celtic did not reach Ireland before the Iron age, around 600 B.C." This is false. The La Tene expansion never made it to Ireland and never made it to most of Britain. The only theory that pretends to account for the total distribution of Celtic languages is the Atlantic hypothesis.

Secondly, it is not circular reasoning for various disciplines to corroborate each other. For example, the presence of the English language in Alaska was accompanied by genetics that I promise will almost 1:1 corroborate in the archaelogical/archaeogentic record. It's never as simple as this and in many cases won't hold true. But many times it does and will.
 
Ok, I am going to defend F.H. but not his total lack of spelling and grammer...
I think you may mean grammar? The answer to the Basque language is obvious and is spelled out (pun intended-- so sorry) in their ample collection of myths and legends. R1b replaced the long dwelling hg. I males almost completely... the autosomal genetic holdover admixture is clearly able to be identified. The collective "mother tongue" made the jump via the caring cradle of maternal love.
 
Any other ponderific (totally made up that word) questions in need of answering? I fear I may be moving on to the lost science (or art really) of phrenology, so ask away while you have the chance...
 

This is great stuff, although I think that we need more samples to be sure, and I would like to see H1 separately from all H, as this is very telling in Basque case.

From Basque chart we can see some mtDNA changes in Neolithic which came with first farmers (mt JT and K) probably together with J and E for men.
The biggest change though comes in Chalcolithic, when 50% of mt genome is replaced. This change probably came with J2 man and maybe first none IE R1b.
But if Basque language is copper age then why we can't see any related language in Europe and Middle East, even more if it was bronze age?
There is a big chance that Basque language is Paleolithic with some borrowings from later cultures.

Check this great analyses by Taranis.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/27634-Origin-of-the-Basques-Basque-language
 
i dont get what is hard to understand Celts probablly 3,500-4,500ybp conquered west europe with mainly R1b Df27 majority in France and Iberia with minority R1b L21 while in British isles those Celts had majority R1b L21 and minority R1b Df27. Some Celts in France Iberia area adopted the native language for whatever reason. So modern Basque paternal lines are vast majority under Italo Celtic R1b S116 around 80% like Celts of the British isles and western coast of France. I have just learned even though my surname is British probably Scotland or England i most likley had R1b Df27. And that it is probably about 40% in western France and 10-20% in Scotland and Ireland(R1b Df27 not just in Iberia)

Basque in aust dna tests show to be most similar to Neolithic farmer samples Otzie (Alps Italy 5,300ybp) and Gok4(south Swedan 5,000ybp).Because of their very high amount of med in whatever test like globe13 while they hav very little west asian and southwest asian(which also came in Neloithic) and below average for north Euro(pre Neloithic Europe) compared to Spain and France. I guess that would mean in ancestry overall they are very Neloithic. BAsque do seem to be kind of unique in aust dna, mtdna(high amount of H1, H3, and V), and Y DNA very low G2a, E1b1b, and J1 compared to surrounding FRench and Spainish. And highest or close to hiighest amount of I2a1a M26 besides Sardine.
Basques are far from being pure Neolithic, in fact they would be one of the least neolithic of Southern Europe and many other parts of Europe. First of all, they are not like Sardinians, they have much more Northern-Euro influences. Second, they have one of the highest concentrations of Paloelithic mtDNA (basically U5) in Europe, after Saamis and Finns.
 
Basques are far from being pure Neolithic, in fact they would be one of the least neolithic of Southern Europe and many other parts of Europe. First of all, they are not like Sardinians, they have much more Northern-Euro influences. Second, they have one of the highest concentrations of Paloelithic mtDNA (basically U5) in Europe, after Saamis and Finns.
That's not good evidence the fact is that in globe13 and other tests I have seen they are very very very high in med second to Sardine and Neolithic farmer samples. Sure they may have a lot of U5 I think U5b1 but probably not that much look at Eupedia mtDNA charts that is just direct female line no big deal. We don't know exactly how popular U5 ws just so far in Mesloithic samples and hunter gathers in the Neolithic U5 is the majority of all mtDNA mainly U5b. Most mtDNA H in modern Europeans is probably pre Neloithic the H1 and H3 is deifntley pre Neolithic and is very popular os we cant just assume pre Neolithic Europeans equals U and U5.
 
That's not good evidence the fact is that in globe13 and other tests I have seen they are very very very high in med second to Sardine and Neolithic farmer samples. Sure they may have a lot of U5 I think U5b1 but probably not that much look at Eupedia mtDNA charts that is just direct female line no big deal. We don't know exactly how popular U5 ws just so far in Mesloithic samples and hunter gathers in the Neolithic U5 is the majority of all mtDNA mainly U5b. Most mtDNA H in modern Europeans is probably pre Neloithic the H1 and H3 is deifntley pre Neolithic and is very popular os we cant just assume pre Neolithic Europeans equals U and U5.
They are 73% Atlanto-Baltic on K7b whereas Sardinians are around 50%, that's a huge difference. The atlanto-med also includes a good deal of mesolithic alelles on it. As for the mtDNA, the U5 samples are not just neolithic, but also been found in Paleolithic Iberia, even haplogrup H.
 
They are 73% Atlanto-Baltic on K7b whereas Sardinians are around 50%, that's a huge difference. The atlanto-med also includes a good deal of mesolithic alelles on it. As for the mtDNA, the U5 samples are not just neolithic, but also been found in Paleolithic Iberia, even haplogrup H.

I agree BAsque overall results are very diff from sardine. But their similarity is they have the most med I cant speak for all tests though and it is suppose to have come in the neloithic and is dominate in Neolithic farmer samples like otzie. That's all I am not saying their extremely close overall. I have seen some tests I cant remember their names their from dodecad and they have two groups one being north euro and another I forgot the name but it is rare in mid easterns. And other tests were all Europeans have majority specfic European groups which makes sense since it shockes me that according to tests like globe13 the average European is 50% European.
 
They are 73% Atlanto-Baltic on K7b whereas Sardinians are around 50%, that's a huge difference. The atlanto-med also includes a good deal of mesolithic alelles on it. As for the mtDNA, the U5 samples are not just neolithic, but also been found in Paleolithic Iberia, even haplogrup H.

Exactly;
This notion that the basques are a Paleolithic or Neolithic remnant Population (which i also used to believe) is actually nowhere (Genetics / Linguistics) factually proven; The Hg's [Y & mt] that exist amongst modern-day basques also exist in other European regions and populations so that aspect is far from exclusive only to the basques;
The modern-day basques are Genetically not that diff. than other modern-day European populations (the French basques even cluster closer with Iberians than to France); They have no special Genetic ancestry link to GÖK4 or ÖTZI or the Hunter-gatherers that were tested and no Neolithic corpse ever had R1b-DF27 or R1b (their major Y-DNA lineage);

This aspect also becomes obvious when compared to the Sardinians; The Sardinians are Genetically isolated to other modern-day European populations and cluster closest and only with Neolithic Europeans - that in the broadest sense can be attributed to the Sardinians to be from "Old Europe" stock - however the basques do not cluster with the Sardinians as one would expect if they were Neolithic or Old Europe;

The basques just speak an isolated language that is non-Indo-European and pre-Indo-European in the sense that it was present in Western Europe before the Indo-Europeans reached Iberia and Atlantic-fringe in the 1st mil BC; Not in the sense that it is pre-Indo-European that it stems from the Paleolithic or Neolithic; Unless they actually unearth a basque inscription from the Neolithic the language placement can be anywhere before the 1st mil BC;
 
I think you may mean grammar? The answer to the Basque language is obvious and is spelled out (pun intended-- so sorry) in their ample collection of myths and legends. R1b replaced the long dwelling hg. I males almost completely... the autosomal genetic holdover admixture is clearly able to be identified. The collective "mother tongue" made the jump via the caring cradle of maternal love.


Ha ha :LOL: you got me. Grammar it is. I own that one and probably a few others.

N.W., I agree with you as far as hg replacement, but I'm not so sure about haplogroup I being the relict it's assumed to be. I think the bizarre distribution of haplogroup I could be due in part to it being culturally part of the water based founding events of R1b from the near east and the spread of the urnfield culture from the SW Balkans, or the much early Yamnaya and pre-Yamnaya spread into Euroe, but that's just me.

I don't buy all the Franco-Cantabrian refuge stuff "thousands of people hunkered down in caves watching the snow flakes blow buy the cave door" I think the population of Western Europe was mostly replaced.
 
Every population in Europe has a Neolithic component, in my opinion. Dienekes has not opined about it recently, but he initially stated that even the North Europe component masks a Neolithic element. People see results that show that the Swedish hunter-gatherers are more similar to North Europeans and forget that they are outside the range of modern variation, unlike Oetzi and Gok 4.
See: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/06/mesolithic-iberians-la-brana-arintero.html

They also forget all those Dodecad analyses that show that all Europeans are a mixture of Sardinian and Karaitana to one degree or another.

As to the Basques in particular, as is clear from the above analysis, the Basques are not the direct descendents of the La Brana mesolithic peoples.

Also, as was posted above, the "Mediterranean" component is the most appropriate autosomal component, in my opinion, for tracking the Neolithic. That's clear from the analysis of both Oetzi and Gok 4, our only ancient Neolithic samples.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/10/assessment-of-ancient-european-dna-with.html

The French Basque score of 59.5 for Mediterranean is exactly the same as for Oetzi for the same component. Pais Vasco is only a few percentage points lower. The difference is that the Basques have about 40-41% North European, versus 14% for Oetzi and 28% for Gok 4. (By the way, the French, or at least the Lyon academic sample for the French, only have 40% Mediterranean. They now have a combination of 12% West and South West Asian and an additional 5% in Northern European. )

These are some interesting graphics:

Modern European populations closest to the Gok 4 Neolithic farmer:
http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2012/04/estimating-your-gok4-related-ancestry.html
The above table is from Skoglund et al

Another graphic:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/04/ancient-dna-from-neolithic-sweden.html
 
It's a pity that there is not here Basque, I am Basque by my parent and French by my culture.

But first I say that Basque eushkara:

1_ It is not a PIE language

2_ Basque is a not classified language and its apparteance in the group IE discusses but not excluded.
Basque does not belong to the group of the centum nor the zatem and it even though it introduces of numerous likeness with satem.

3_ You should not merge the eushkara with the iberian/aquitanian (PIE language)

4_ You should not merge the eushkara with the iberian Celtic (language IE)

5_Les Basque or their forefathers vascons to back in Spain where at about 8th century after their win on Wisigoths in Pyrenees in Pampelune.(For a subsequent date of their arrival nothing was found)

5-les basques have a contour autosomale and ph?notype Bretons of France a bit similar in. They are that some people call of ' Alpine ".

Iberian and celtic :
https://www.google.fr/search?q=écri...4M9Gn0wW2j4G4CQ&ved=0CF4QsAQ&biw=1250&bih=874

Basque today :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqgpX6Zz02Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlxywQjkHeo
 

This thread has been viewed 39311 times.

Back
Top