Basque, Iberian, Etruscan, Rhaetian,... Y-DNA haplogroup

Cyrus

Banned
Messages
545
Reaction score
27
Points
0
We know from at least the 1st millennium BC these non-Indo-European people lived in different parts of Europe, what was the main haplogroup among them?
 
It is not known, there have not yet been studies that have revealed their Y-DNA.


For the Etruscans we have instead their mtDNA: mtDNA U5a, mtDNA JT (of course the subclades of JT) and mtDNA H1b. So Neolithic and even Mesolithic lines.

Etruscan+Table.png
 
It is not known, there have not yet been studies that have revealed their Y-DNA.


For the Etruscans we have instead their mtDNA: mtDNA U5a, mtDNA JT (of course the subclades of JT) and mtDNA H1b. So Neolithic and even Mesolithic lines.

Etruscan+Table.png

These mtDNA haplogroups differ from Indo-European ones or not? I actually want to know how we can distinguish between IE and non-IE people in Europe.
 
These mtDNA haplogroups differ from Indo-European ones or not? I actually want to know how we can distinguish between IE and non-IE people in Europe.

It would be necessary to check in the studies that have been published so far on ancient samples. In some cases they're distinct, in others they're not. For example, according to Maciamo, U5a is most common today in north-east Europe and have been found so far in Mesolithic Russia (U5a1) and Sweden (U5a1 and U5a2). U5a1b1 has been found in Chalcolithic Germany (Bell Beaker) and in the Unetice culture. Among the Etruscans it could have come with the Bell Beaker and not with a Neolithic culture.

In general, if EEF and Yamnaya's proto-Indoeuropeans were probably more distinct not only in autosomal DNA, but also in Y-DNA and mtDNA, but in the formation of Indo-Europeans there are also Neolithic populations that are absorbed by the previous ones.

The other mistake is to believe that from the end of the Bronze Age - the beginning of the Iron Age - a language (whether IE or not) in Europe corresponds always to a genetic profile. Modern Basques are an excellent example: they still speak a non IE language today, but their DNA also contains steppe DNA. Even the Etruscans, on the two avalaible PCAs (one academic, and the other of unclear origin) according to their genetic position in the PCA may have had a percentage of steppe DNA, even if they continued to speak a non-IE language during the Iron Age.
 
It would be necessary to check in the studies that have been published so far on ancient samples. In some cases they're distinct, in others they're not. For example, according to Maciamo, U5a is most common today in north-east Europe and have been found so far in Mesolithic Russia (U5a1) and Sweden (U5a1 and U5a2). U5a1b1 has been found in Chalcolithic Germany (Bell Beaker) and in the Unetice culture. Among the Etruscans it could have come with the Bell Beaker and not with a Neolithic culture.

In general, if EEF and Yamnaya's proto-Indoeuropeans were probably more distinct not only in autosomal DNA, but also in Y-DNA and mtDNA, but in the formation of Indo-Europeans there are also Neolithic populations that are absorbed by the previous ones.

The other mistake is to believe that from the end of the Bronze Age - the beginning of the Iron Age - a language (whether IE or not) in Europe corresponds always to a genetic profile. Modern Basques are an excellent example: they still speak a non IE language today, but their DNA also contains steppe DNA. Even the Etruscans, on the two avalaible PCAs (one academic, and the other of unclear origin) according to their genetic position in the PCA may have had a percentage of steppe DNA, even if they continued to speak a non-IE language during the Iron Age.

I think it actually shows that Indo-European migrations had an insignificant effect on DNA of Europeans, it is also possible that the majority of steppe people spoke non-IE languages too.
What do you think about haplogroup E-V13 or J2:
Haplogroup-E-V13.gif

Haplogroup-J2.jpg


It seems to be clear that at least among Basques, these haplogroups have always had a low frequency.
 
I find the slight increase of E-V13 in Spain quite interesting; could it be the Visigoths? They spent some time in the Balkans and V13 and it has been found in remains linked to Visigoths.
 
I find the slight increase of E-V13 in Spain quite interesting; could it be the Visigoths? They spent some time in the Balkans and V13 and it has been found in remains linked to Visigoths.

Conquest and migration are two different issues, about conquests even in some cases that we see strong cultural influences, like the conquest of Anatolia by the Turks, we don't see any major genetic influence.
 
The other mistake is to believe that from the end of the Bronze Age - the beginning of the Iron Age - a language (whether IE or not) in Europe corresponds always to a genetic profile. Modern Basques are an excellent example: they still speak a non IE language today, but their DNA also contains steppe DNA.
Yes, although Basque-speaking does correspond to a genetic profile. It is strongly associated with (i) yDNA R1b-DF27, and (ii) aDNA Atapuerca. Basques still speak an evolved version of a language brought by an early (4th millennium BC) group of Eastern people whose descendants have been less affected by admixture with later IE-speaking arrivals.
 
No one knows whether the language came from the east or is one of many European Neolithic languages.
 
Yes, although Basque-speaking does correspond to a genetic profile. It is strongly associated with (i) yDNA R1b-DF27, and (ii) aDNA Atapuerca. Basques still speak an evolved version of a language brought by an early (4th millennium BC) group of Eastern people whose descendants have been less affected by admixture with later IE-speaking arrivals.

The Basques are exactly the opposite of what you claim, since they speak a non-IE language and instead also have steppe DNA.

The rest is just speculation. There is no evidence that the Basque language is an evolved version of a language brought by an early (4th millennium BC) group of Eastern people whose descendants have been less affected by admixture with later IE-speaking arrivals.
 
The Basques are exactly the opposite of what you claim, since they speak a non-IE language and instead also have steppe DNA.
What you say I claim is exactly the opposite of what I do claim. I said Basques still speak an evolved version of a language brought by an early (4th millennium BC) group of Eastern people whose descendants have been less affected by admixture with later IE-speaking arrivals. In other words, neither they nor their main steppe DNA-bearing ancestors were IE speakers.

The rest is just speculation. There is no evidence that the Basque language is an evolved version of a language brought by an early (4th millennium BC) group of Eastern people whose descendants have been less affected by admixture with later IE-speaking arrivals.
There is evidence that Basque-speaking, yDNA DF27 and aDNA Atapuerca-best-fit percentages are all associated with each other; and the earliest Atapuerca aDNA is clearly Eastern in origin, fitting much better with steppe-infused Balkan samples than with Iberian ones.
 
I believe that if they sample prehistoric pile dwellings (stilt houses) around the Alps they would find L51 and if they sample Terramare they would find U152.

Many ancient samples with so called 'steppe' admixture do not have any real recent admixture from the steppes proper.

Their autosomal profile and phenotypes could have been most similar to Central European Bell Beakers, but ultimately they may descend from a Villabruna related population (but influenced by other movements too)
 
Yes, although Basque-speaking does correspond to a genetic profile. It is strongly associated with (i) yDNA R1b-DF27, and (ii) aDNA Atapuerca. Basques still speak an evolved version of a language brought by an early (4th millennium BC) group of Eastern people whose descendants have been less affected by admixture with later IE-speaking arrivals.

Name of Basque is very similar to Bashkir (Baskara), R1b has a high frequency among Bashkirs too.
 
Irrelevant. Bashkir are filled, I mean filled with R1a, depending on your sample.

I think you are wrong.

BashkortY_DNA.gif


It is interesting to know that Andalusian historian Ibn Khaldun called Basque as Bashkir too. (Muqaddimah)
 
To make things even more puzzling there's district called Edreskan in Western Afghanistan so could they have some relation with Etruscans too I have heared Etruscans were originally from Asia minor.
 
To make things even more puzzling there's district called Edreskan in Western Afghanistan so could they have some relation with Etruscans too I have heared Etruscans were originally from Asia minor.

Etruscans were said to be of Lydian origin in Asia Minor, Lydians who spoke an Indo-European language, or from Thessaly in Greece or autochthonous from Italy. Today there is more consensus that the Etruscans were completely indigenous from Italy, also Etruscan DNA proves it. In any case, the Etruscans had nothing to do with Western Afghanistan.

Edreskan doesn't sound at all like Etruria.
 
To make things even more puzzling there's district called Edreskan in Western Afghanistan so could they have some relation with Etruscans too I have heared Etruscans were originally from Asia minor.

Etruscans were calling themselves Rasna.
Dionysius says 'Rasenna'.

The movement from Asia Minor was rejected during the antiquity already by Dionysius who considered them native (though he mention other people in the wider region before them Siculi, Umbrians, he also mentions a movement of Pelasgians from Thessaly a little before the 'Trojan War' (He considers them to have been Hellenes). Movements of Ligurians are also consistent with what he writes.

He clearly says that the Lydians had a different language but also different laws and customs.

There was one cultural similarity with a population in Asia , those called by the Greeks 'Mossynoeci' (that is a Greek exonym but the mossyn-/mossun part could have been a native word). He says that he Tyrrhenians (Etruscans/Rasna) were the first in the region to build 'high wooden palisades resembling towers' and that the Mossynoeci were doing something similar. (Even if that points to movement, which it does not, the direction could have been opposite).

The interesting thing about the Mossynoeci is the following:
According to Xenophon's Anabasis (5.4.26-34), the Mossynoeci were "fair-complexioned and white-skinned", "with their backs variegated and their breasts tattooed with patterns of all sorts of flowers".
 
Etruscans were calling themselves Rasna.
Dionysius says 'Rasenna'.

The movement from Asia Minor was rejected during the antiquity already by Dionysius who considered them native (though he mention other people in the wider region before them Siculi, Umbrians, he also mentions a movement of Pelasgians from Thessaly a little before the 'Trojan War' (He considers them to have been Hellenes). Movements of Ligurians are also consistent with what he writes.

He clearly says that the Lydians had a different language but also different laws and customs.

There was one cultural similarity with a population in Asia , those called by the Greeks 'Mossynoeci' (that is a Greek exonym but the mossyn-/mossun part could have been a native word). He says that he Tyrrhenians (Etruscans/Rasna) were the first in the region to build 'high wooden palisades resembling towers' and that the Mossynoeci were doing something similar. (Even if that points to movement, which it does not, the direction could have been opposite).

The interesting thing about the Mossynoeci is the following:
According to Xenophon's Anabasis (5.4.26-34), the Mossynoeci were "fair-complexioned and white-skinned", "with their backs variegated and their breasts tattooed with patterns of all sorts of flowers".

Rasna sounds like the names of some ancient Iranian and Slavic people in the East of Europe, like Ruthenia and Roxolani/Rosomoni, there are many places with the names of Rasna/Rosna/Rasina in Croatia, Macedonia, Czechia, Romania, Serbia, Greece, ... it seems to be really possible that some Etruscan tribes lived in the east of Europe before the arrival of Iranian and Slavic tribes.
 
Rasna sounds like the names of some ancient Iranian and Slavic people in the East of Europe, like Ruthenia and Roxolani/Rosomoni, there are many places with the names of Rasna/Rosna/Rasina in Croatia, Macedonia, Czechia, Romania, Serbia, Greece, ... it seems to be really possible that some Etruscan tribes lived in the east of Europe before the arrival of Iranian and Slavic tribes.


Rasna is indeed spread in many Slavic countries as a toponym, but they're most likely homonyms with the Etruscan Rasna.

The Etruscan Rasenna is thought by some scholars to be a name based on an eponym, instead for other scholars Rasna in Etruscan means the "people". At the moment we don't know, they're just hypotheses. Generally speaking it cannot be ruled out that the eponym shares some ancient Indo-European roots, which is still found today in Slavic or Iranic languages, as it cannot be ruled out that it is only homophony or homonymy.

The Etruscan language is pre-Indo-European but shows two types of contacts with Indo-European languages. A very ancient one that dates back to the Bronze Age when Indo-European migrations arrived in Italy and in Etruria most likely from north-east, and a second one more recent due to contacts with Italic languages ​​mainly.

Then there is the question of why the Greeks called them Tyrrhenians and whether Tyrrhenians or Tyrsenians (attic Greek Τυρρηνοί Turrhēnoi, Ionic Τυρσηνοί Tursēnoi, Doric Τυρσανοί Tursānoi) and Tusci (from Latin Tuscus, Umbrian Turskum, later Umbria Tuscom, as they were called by the Italics) are connected.

Here is the hypothesis that more anciently the Etruscans might have called themselves Tursa. But there is no inscription reporting it to over 13,000 Etruscan inscriptions, there is only one family name which vaguely resembles this possible endonym found at the border between the Etruscan and Umbrian world.

This is also likely a homonymy, but the word Tursa is attested in Scottish Gaelic with a meaning similar to the word "tower" which is the meaning that is usually attributed to the word Tyrrhenian. Is Tursa in Scottish Gaelic a pre-Indoeuropean word? Unfortunately I can't find anything, but it's the name of a Neolithic site in Scotland.


* tursa (Scottish Gaelic) m (genitive singular tursa, plural tursachan) standing stone, megalith, monolith, menhir

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tursa#Scottish_Gaelic


"Tursachan means standing stones in Gaelic. It takes its name from the large Neolithic stone circle located near the village of Callanish (Gaelic: Calanais) on the west coast of Lewis in the Outer Hebrides, Scotland."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callanish_Stones
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 28061 times.

Back
Top