Origin of the Basques

@Angela said-“Honestly, I don't get the big deal here. If the question is whether the downstream R1b lineages came from the east starting around 3000 BC, the answer is clear; yes, they did. Whether R1b lineages related to far distant V88 were present in western Europe earlier is irrelevant”

Of course the question is relevant, in fact it is so relevant that the promoters of the Kurgan theory as it has been lately elaborated (i.e. that R1a-M417 and R1b-L51 brought the IE language to mainland europe thanks to massive migrations with origin in the Yamnaya culture), have been trying for 6 years to find those lineages in the steppes and to date have been unable to do so. Reich, Patterson, Haak, Mathieson, Lazaridis, Olalde and their colleagues still do not know where to look for M269/L51 and its descendants. They have found them neither in Khvakynsk, nor in Samara, Dnieper-Donets, Sredni-Stog, Repin, Eneolithic Caucasus, Repin, Afanasievo and Yamnaya. But they have not found it in Poltavka, Potapovka, Catacombs, Sinthasta etc. either. That is to say, at the moment this lineage has NOT been found in any culture of the steppes between 7,000 BC and 2,000 BC. Absolutely nothing and yet they claim that M269/L51/P312 is exclusively responsible for the introduction of steppe ancestry into Western Europe. Really?. All we say is that for a theory or hypothesis to be accepted unanimously by the international scientific community it must be irrefutably proven. Give us a single case of L51 in the steppes and we will accept without problems that they were right, but without proof, the only thing they do is to ask us to accept a dogma of faith and honestly, we no longer live in the 16th century.

Nobody here has talked about R1b-V88, but about R1b-M269. We have ATP3 in Iberia (El Portalón, Atapuerca) which, according to Harvard, is R1b-P297 positive for PF6518-downstream M269. This sample has only been recognized by Harvard in 2021, after having published its work on BB culture in Europe and the genetic history of Iberia. Why? simply because it did not fit in their theory of the arrival of this lineage from the steppes with the BB culture. The existence of M269 in Iberia before 3300 BC simply had to be ignored, in the same way that the anthropological, genetic and archaeological evidence of the existence of small Iberian migrations to the rest of the BB regions at an advanced stage of that culture had to be ignored.

SO yes it is a big deal, because we are talking about the origin of the male lineage carried by 100 million European men, who deserve a more scientific and less simplistic explanation of our history.

The Harvardians' explanations about the origin of R1b-L51 are a bit surreal. You can choose the one you like best

1-According to David Anthony, the reason is that R1b-Z2013 was the elite i.e. the dominant male clan who used the Kurgans as burial sites, while R1a-M417 and R1b-L51 were the lower class of Yamnaya society and were never buried in such burial monuments. A lot of imagination, isn't it? To begin with Yamnaya is overwhelmingly Z2013 and there are members of that lineage buried in poor sites and in rich sites, then if they have not found M417 and L51 it is not because they were poor, but because they are not in the Yamnaya culture.

2-Other relevant Kurganists say that the reason for not finding these lineages is that we are talking about a single M417 and a single L51 that gave rise to all European males belonging to these lineages thanks to a founder effect, and therefore finding them is as difficult as finding a needle in a haystack. Ok, it may be very difficult, but without proof your theory is only a working hypothesis that can be easily disproved, so please keep looking.

3-The third favorite argument is to try to convince everyone that these lineages are in an unsampled group belonging to the western Yamnaya culture. Ok, show us that you are a good scientist and find L51, we will all thank you, so far, this is just another working hypothesis.
 
@Angela said-It's also irrelevant to that question whether some admixed groups of locals mixed with steppe arrivals continued to speak the local language. Things were in flux for hundreds of years no doubt.

Here the one who disagrees with you is Iñigo Olalde, who as you well know is one of the main defenders of the Kurgan theory.

“Unlike in Central or Northern Europe, where Steppe ancestry likely marked the introduction of Indo-European languages (12), our results indicate that, in Iberia, increases in Steppe ancestry were not always accompanied by switches to Indo-European languages. This is consistent with the genetic profile of present-day Basques who speak the only non-Indo-European language in Western Europe but overlap genetically with Iron Age populations (Fig. 1D) showing substantial levels of Steppe ancestry”

i.e. steppe ancestry is not linked at least in Iberia with a certain language (in this case IE), that is why it is so important to demonstrate the genetic continuity between the Chalcolithic and the Iron Age.
 
@Angela

Who said that renowned laboratories are hiding evidence? What we are saying is that their interpretations of the available data are WRONG. Everyone knows that to model ancient samples and using the right populations, the results can be very different, i.e., everything can be much more Yamnaya than it really is if we use the right pops. We can model BBs all over Europe without a drop of Yamnaya or steppe blood, it is not that difficult. Autosomal composition is the only argument that the steppe fans can use today, when not even Lazaridis really knows what is CHG-Iran related ancestry found in Yamnaya and when everybody knows that this component reached Greece and Italy independently of steppe migrations.
 
@Angela said-I've let this run on, but my patience comes to an end when discussions go to these looney lengths and libel is being implied.


If you don't agree with the Harvardians, you are committing a crime? That's just what the Holy Inquisition thought.

Demanding proof is a crime?

Do you know how the international scientific community works?

Do you know how many times Reich, Patterson or Lazaridis have been asked where the hell L51 is?

Do you know why the Pontic steppes are the most researched region of the world genetically speaking?

There are many European linguists, archaeologists and geneticists who do not agree with the Harvard theories. But only time will show who is right, meanwhile when we talk about the origin of the Basques and the rest of the Iberians, we will have to think that we can perfectly explain our genetic makeup and our languages without having to resort to the steppes and to the fairy tales of Professor Reich
 
@Angela,
I don’t agree with everything Gaska says, but I’m open to his arguments, and there should be room for very controversial discussions too. In my opinion, it's better to debunk and educate people with crazy and fringe theories with arguments than resorting to banning, unless of course people just want to troll for the sake of trolling. That said, I also understand your point that somewhere the Mods have to draw a line, too. Nevertheless, the debate here didn't turn nasty so far.
 
@Angela,
I don’t agree with everything Gaska says, but I’m open to his arguments, and there should be room for very controversial discussions too. In my opinion, it's better to debunk and educate people with crazy and fringe theories with arguments than resorting to banning, unless of course people just want to troll for the sake of trolling. That said, I also understand your point that somewhere the Mods have to draw a line, too. Nevertheless, the debate here didn't turn nasty so far.

Did I say I was banning him? I've let him ramble on for pages on multiple threads. The holes in his arguments have been shown again and again. If he wants to put his arguments on an endless loop, as he seems to be doing, and people aren't bored with having to answer the same points again and again, fine with me. This isn't anthrogenica.

What I said is that I'm not going to get this site embroiled in defaming world famous researchers. That's a step too far. I'm sure you agree.
 
@Angela
Sometimes I find Gaska a bit obstinate (a quality, too) and sometimes taking lacks of traces as proofs of non-existance (we know it isn't not more a proof of existance!) excluding the possibility to imagine theories opposed to his ones, but the tone between the diverse posters keep on correct, I think. I suppose you 're afraid that threads degenerate as in other cases and you try to limit the risks, but here, by arguing one against another I grasp some data I had not, and it's useful. Just my way to see things.
 
@Angela
Sometimes I find Gaska a bit obstinate (a quality, too) and sometimes taking lacks of traces as proofs of non-existance (we know it isn't not more a proof of existance!) excluding the possibility to imagine theories opposed to his ones, but the tone between the diverse posters keep on correct, I think. I suppose you 're afraid that threads degenerate as in other cases and you try to limit the risks, but here, by arguing one against another I grasp some data I had not, and it's useful. Just my way to see things.

It's fine, Moesan. You have the patience of Job; I know that. :)

I just don't want any accusations against renowned scientists that for some unimaginable reason they're hiding the autosomal make up of ancient Spanish samples. I'm not having the site involved in libel.

Other than that and insults hurled, which hasn't happened, I have no problem with any of it. People have believed more nonsensical things, after all.
 
@Angela,
I don’t agree with everything Gaska says, but I’m open to his arguments, and there should be room for very controversial discussions too. In my opinion, it's better to debunk and educate people with crazy and fringe theories with arguments than resorting to banning, unless of course people just want to troll for the sake of trolling. That said, I also understand your point that somewhere the Mods have to draw a line, too. Nevertheless, the debate here didn't turn nasty so far.

The problem is that the Kurganists do not have convincing arguments, that is, they are not able to find R1b-L51/L151/P312 in any culture of the steppes. Scholars have been searching for ten years and steppe fans limit themselves to banning dissidents because they don't know what to answer. To say that there are no L51 in the steppes is not a crazy or fringe theory, in fact the oldest L51 in mainland europe are three Swiss Neolithic farmers MX304, MX310 and Aesch 25 (Furtwängler, 2.020), buried in Neolithic dolmens.Two of them (Auvernier and Burgaschisee) with hardly any steppe ancestry that have been conveniently ignored because in fact they may be the last nail in the coffin of the Kurgan theory. And don’t worry, the debate will never be nasty because most of us are educated people-
 
@Angela
Sometimes I find Gaska a bit obstinate (a quality, too) and sometimes taking lacks of traces as proofs of non-existance (we know it isn't not more a proof of existance!) excluding the possibility to imagine theories opposed to his ones, but the tone between the diverse posters keep on correct, I think. I suppose you 're afraid that threads degenerate as in other cases and you try to limit the risks, but here, by arguing one against another I grasp some data I had not, and it's useful. Just my way to see things.

Well, Spaniards in general and Gaska in particular, have never liked to be told by others what to do or what to think, we are intelligent enough to draw our own conclusions without having to admit explanations or theories that do not seem right to us. That is to say, Harvard may be a prestigious lab in America, but their lack of knowledge of the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age in Iberia is astounding. There are some doctoral theses and genetic papers published in Spanish, that they don’t know, that have very valuable data on the Paleolithic and Mesolithic and samples that if they were analyzed by foreign laboratories would radically change their opinion about some of the conclusions that now seem definitive. In any case, I see that you are a polite person and if you are interested in Iberia information, do not hesitate to ask for it. We don't have to agree in order to have a civilized discussion.
 
@angela said-"People have believed more nonsensical things, after all"

Yeah, for example W.Haak when he said (2.015) "Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe". Conclusion reached by analyzing 69 (yes 69) genomes in Eurasia, and without knowing that Villabruna, Iboussieres, etc. etc. etc. existed. You and the majority of the public opinion may have been convinced by his arguments, but I was not because I consider it a risky and unscientific hasty conclusion

And regarding the criticism of laboratories or published genetic papers, I believe that this is precisely the way to advance science. Have you never criticized the conclusions reached by certain geneticists? It is true that their papers are always useful in the sense that they give us information on many ancient genomes, and it is true that most of them are available to other professionals and amateurs. Thanks to that, some non-biased guys do good works analyzing Bam files (even in anthrogenica or eurogenes) that give us very interesting information.

And don't worry, the debate will always be polite, because I guess you won't allow ad hominem attacks as they occur in other forums. Bans have to be limited to professional trolls, the rest of the people just want to learn, give their opinion and have fun.
 
@Gaska,

I criticize the analysis in scientific papers all the time. I NEVER, however, imply that for some unknown agenda they are hiding the autosomal analysis of some ancient samples because it would call their conclusions into question.

That is libelous and won't be permitted here. Am I clear enough this time?
 
It seems to me we are starting to see the possibility that the Basque language may be an isolate descended from something very old indeed. We've seen some hints that when the WHG culture on the Atlantic coast encountered the encroaching EEF, there was an elite replacement where the WHG took over the EEF groups they were in contact with. The middle Neolithic resurgence of WHG ancestry seems to have been male-dominated. This overlaps neatly with the spread of the Megalith-building cultures across western Europe and parts of the Mediterranean.

It seems a reasonable guess that the Basque language is descended from this cultural group, if it preceded the Indo-European expansion from the east. So it may be a remnant of the EEF language group, or if the early Megalith builders adopted the elite language, it may be the last descendant of the WHG languages.

In my personal opinion, aspects of Theo Vennemanns Vasconic Substrate Theory actually seems to be a good fit for the areas this cultural group expanded into. The other aspects of the theory still looks like nonsense though.
 
It seems to me we are starting to see the possibility that the
Basque language may be an isolate descended from something very old indeed. We've seen some hints that when the WHG culture on the Atlantic coast encountered the encroaching EEF, there was an elite replacement where the WHG took over the EEF groups they were in contact with. The middle Neolithic resurgence of WHG ancestry seems to have been male-dominated. This overlaps neatly with the spread of the Megalith-building cultures across western Europe and parts of the Mediterranean.

It seems a reasonable guess that the Basque language is descended from this cultural group, if it preceded the Indo-European expansion from the east. So it may be a remnant of the EEF language group, or if the early Megalith builders adopted the elite language, it may be the last descendant of the WHG languages.

In my personal opinion, aspects of Theo Vennemanns Vasconic Substrate Theory actually seems to be a good fit for the areas this cultural group expanded into. The other aspects of the theory still looks like nonsense though.


I don’t know, but the Basque language WOULD originate from East:

“Prehistorically, the Sumerians were not aboriginal to Mesopotamia. Their native hearth is unknown. Speaking an agglutinative tongue showing affinities, on one hand, with the Uralo-Altaic languages (Balto-Finnish, Hungarian, Volgaic, Uralien, Samoyuedic, Turkish, Mongolian, and Eskimo) and, on the other hand, with the Dravidian tounges of India, the Pelasgian of pre-Homeric Greece, Georgian of the Caucasus, and Basque of the Pyrenes, they had arrived apparently c.3500 B.C. to find the river lands already accupied by an advanced Neolithic, farming and cattle-raising population known to science as the Ubaidian (also, Proto-Euphratean), [...].”

150 years ago, american professor Alexander WincheijL said that Indo European appeared as early as 2,000bc. And Basque language has some similarities to american Indian. “Their language, says Whitney, possesses some affinities with those of the American family”

So I think that is all related with WSHG who migrated in IVC, and maybe Sumer.
 
How can any language be "older" than another. Haven't all languages evolved from the same homo sapien source?

True, in the sense that all extant languages have been evolving for the same length of time. In the same way, no living species can be called older than another because all have been evolving for the same length of time from the first living organisms. However, the rate of evolutionary change can be different for different species. Some species are labelled as "living fossils" because the fossil record suggests that they have changed very little in hundreds of millions of years (morphologically at least).

Languages can also evolve at different rates. The trouble with languages is that there is no fossil record for languages prior to literacy. Some might speculate, for example, that the "click" languages of eastern and southern Africa are the equivalent of "living fossils" because they might have changed less than most other languages over the millennia, but it is mere speculation because there is no hard evidence that can be produced to support such a claim. The same goes for any claim that Basque is an "old" language.
 
About Iberic language, it seems it?s related to Basque in some kind of remote level. Spanish linguists can not asevere it, but I believe day by day doubts are less important.

Very good speech Prof. Velaza in National Archeological Museum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAtv97ufFBE&t=25s

Numerals Iberic Basque
1/2 Erdi Erdi
2 Bi(n) Bi
4 Lau(r) Lau(r)
5 Bors(te) Bortz
6 ^Sei Sei
7 Sisbi Zazpi
8 Sorse Zortzi
10 (a)bar^ (h)amar
20 oikei (h)ogei

Another important thing is said in the conference... Writter Iberic seems to be too uniform in all the territory it was spoken, so Prof. Velaza said it?s probable it was a language adopted by different people not very far in time since there are written signs of it. He even speculates with the Urnfield Culture as a possible origin of Iberic language because it?s the unique recorded coming from outside Iberia at the calculated time the Iberic began to spread.
 
True, in the sense that all extant languages have been evolving for the same length of time. In the same way, no living species can be called older than another because all have been evolving for the same length of time from the first living organisms. However, the rate of evolutionary change can be different for different species. Some species are labelled as "living fossils" because the fossil record suggests that they have changed very little in hundreds of millions of years (morphologically at least).

Languages can also evolve at different rates. The trouble with languages is that there is no fossil record for languages prior to literacy. Some might speculate, for example, that the "click" languages of eastern and southern Africa are the equivalent of "living fossils" because they might have changed less than most other languages over the millennia, but it is mere speculation because there is no hard evidence that can be produced to support such a claim. The same goes for any claim that Basque is an "old" language.

This is a good post, I agree with you, no language has to be older than any other. Regarding Iberia, just some have been preserved (Basque) and others have disappeared (Tartessian, Iberian). Proto-Basque is only known from inscriptions in Aquitaine that are dated to the Iron Age, so according to this reasoning we would be talking about a language that is not too old.

However, it is clear that these three Iberian languages (Iberian-Basque, Tartessian) must be related to each other, so that Basque can in a way be considered as the only survivor of a large linguistic family. In fact, when Strabo writes about the Tartessians he says- they are the most cultured of the Iberians and have writings about 6000 years old". Basque-Iberianism is the theory increasingly accepted by many Spanish linguists, the example of the numerals is very clear, but perhaps you can get more information from this doctoral thesis.

Nekia Utortu Tirkoba-El Ibérico:Lengua Uskeika-Substrato del español y patrimonio del Euskera-Luis Ignacio Azcona

1-Iberian is a Paleo-Franco-Hispanic-Portuguese language that was written from the Late Bronze Age onwards.

2-This very ancient language has many phonetic, phonological, morphological, syntactic and lexical affinities with the Basque language, which is why we believe it has a clear relationship of kinship.

3-The first Iberian writings in the South and West of Iberia (Tras os Montes, Basins-Duero, Mondego, Tajo, Guadiana, Algarve, Odiel, Tinto, Guadalquivir) are from the last dolmen period at the end of the 2nd millennium BC.

@DavidTab-Forget the issue of the urnfield culture, in Iberia it only reached the Ebro valley and is commonly accepted as an IE culture. Linguists are not experts in genetics and do not know the genetic continuity in Iberia from the Chalcolithic to the Iron Age. All the genomes we have from Iberia are R1b-P312/Df27, including the Tartessians (La Angorrilla). And that lineage did not enter Iberia with the Urnfield culture but in the Chalcolithic (BBC).
 
The first Iberian writings in the South and West of Iberia (Tras os Montes, Basins-Duero, Mondego, Tajo, Guadiana, Algarve, Odiel, Tinto, Guadalquivir) are from the last dolmen period at the end of the 2nd millennium BC.

Do you have any more information on that? The sources I've seen online say c. 7th century for the earliest writings in Iberia.
 
Do you have any more information on that? The sources I've seen online say c. 7th century for the earliest writings in Iberia.

The information is in this doctoral thesis. It refers to inscriptions in the south and west of Iberia and the author qualifies them as “Dolmenic”. These have been made "in situ" and not later to the use, and it is evident, since the three refer to use: "kenkue: only us", to the subjects: "nune: the children", and to the place: "lukote: fertile land" (Tras os Montes). The new writing develops at the end of the second millennium around the city of Tharshish, "the city of the center, next to the river Betis (ibai Thartshish > Baetis>Betis>Guadalquivir)" Híspalis (Sevilla), the Algarve, and Guadiana. The author also refers to the inscriptions of La Espança

In imitation of the Minoan (Lin-A). the Tartessian are created (1.700-1.350 BC) for the sonic paradig based on the five vowels, drawing them graphically according to the position of the tongue, documented in the dolmens of Tras Os Montes, in a green statite bead with letters (Dolmen-Salamanca) and in Gádor (EL Argar culture)-5 vowels-A, E. I, O, U, occlusive syllabographs: BA, TE, TI, TU, KE, KO, KU-Liquid-N, L, R, S


UTZI-KO NINE HILOUA BA-KIO-KUE- “We will leave the children in a grave if they stink”

“SUES NIRBAKE LUKOTE
“ZUEZ NIR BAKE LUKOTXA” " you are our peace in the fertile land".
 

This thread has been viewed 43722 times.

Back
Top