They carry the R1b-clade not associated with Indo-Europeans/Yamnaya.
 
offtopic

I don't have this conflict, simply because I do not believe the consensus of the linguists, that there was only one principal proto-IE language. My thinking is lazy and simple, so I dislike a top down proto language, which can't even produce a proper tree; can't answer the pre-Big Bang question; gets a ridiculous accumulation of linguistic components (and therefore is almost impossible to learn),when converged back in time; and only tongue acrobats can form even simple sentences out of these hmpf-grmbl-mrks PIE constructs; and has no explanation why some base vocabulary is almost strictly conserved and others is not, without any understandable pattern; and best of all needs to dig Missis Gimbutas out of her grave, shove her in a time-capsule and send her to the folks, which separated before the building of the protoIE language (but today speak IE despite their great separation to the other IE-speakers), throw an IE-dictionary onto them and tell them "From now on you speak IE! Basta!"

So in my view it didn't need R1a and R1b clashing together, founding PIE and then off they go. For me IE was an oligocentric language group from the beginning, never a single language.
/offtopic

Your disdain about reconstruction is maybe not well based? Someones are a bit acrobatic, not all of them; and the greater orbustess of consonnants/stops in front of vowels is still the rality today amog I-E sons languages; length of vowells acting upon aperture is linked to stress place and phonetic environment; some vowels purely disappear by syllabic stress change linked to diverse causes, some epenthetic vowels can find birth for same reasons; It deserves more study than disregard -
the up-to-down tree can very well cohabit with some repeated new contacts between "sons" languages of same proto-origin, I think, opening way to some apparent exceptions in phonetic rules, knowing sometimes the I-E 'son has been adopted by speakers of other languages families. IMO.
my "experience" of languages convergences and loans does not confirm it results in the hyerarchy we find among cognates for the I-E which rather supposes an unique common proto-language. Maybe I'm wrong...
 
as old as Nessie. One other hypothesis is a the R1B-P312<<L51 not speaking I-E at first, the first indoeuropeanized of them IEized in their most eastern territories (Central-East Europe?) by another Y-haplo (if only ONE) when the first ones were keeping on with their first aquitanic-basquic language; very hypothetic and already said; but I avow the Celtic male small elite changing language as Franks did after but in another context (Maciamo was the first to say this I think) is not as bad as I thought at first sight. Mea culpa?
 
Origin of Basque and Albanian people was always big mystery for me. Many years ago I heard theories that Basque people are direct offspring of Cro-magnon people. Now that theory is no longer valid since it is proved that haplogroup I people are direct descendants of Cro-magnons. Somewhere I read articles that Basque language is most similar with Armenian language. Since Armenians are also R1b people most logical conclusion that both nations speak languages which derived from original language of R1b peoples, and that Basque language is preserved by escaping romanization due to remoteness and isolation of Basque land.
 
The fact is that Basque was spoken not only in nowadays Basque country but all of the Pyrinees and Catalonia mainland, at least, where you can still find places with Basque names or the influence on Occitan/Gascon phonotactics (where, as in Basque, no word can begin by R sound) You will also find some toponymic similarities with names of mountains in Germany with the Eib- root, which may have easily kept a pre-IE name.


Also an interesting exercise is to google “strawberry”, closely linked to the land, found in the wild -thus disconnected from farming-, an ideal word to find substrates...
- Fresa, fraise, fragola in most Latin languages, different forms of -berries in Germanic languages...
- Marrubi/a in Basque,
- Maduixa in Catalan, majuixa in Occitan,


maybe even...
- Maasikas in Estonian,
- Mansikkaa in Finnish
- Martsqvis in Georgian...?


If you combine that with the fact that R1b seems to be more concentrated on the western coast of Europe -with the exception of Catalonia (at least for subclade DF27) which is the other end of the Ebro river “highway”- it looks as if R1b were gradually pushed to the edges in the same way that Gaellic were pushed to Cornwall and current Wales in Britain.

Could it be that R1b and IE languages are not related indeed? Might it be the origin was just the same IE population but with a different culture? What if, instead of having Basques resist IE influence, the last IE population waves had been lately influenced by what we know as IE languages, by the same means that have been used to explain the influence on Basque populations...In fact, Catalan population, sharing many traits with Basque one and being Iberian seemingly related to Euskara, adopted Latin easily.
 
First post here, after having lurked for a good while, and read most of the thread (although skipping a couple clearly speaking nonsense). Following are some of my thoughts (an attempt to develop an overall picture and frame, without getting too deep into the genetic "weeds") that have been stimulated by the discussion and other Internet browsings - feel free to correct or amend them.

It seems to me that we have three major migrations into Europe:

1. Hunter-gatherers (Cro-Magnons) replacing the Neanderthals.

2. Agriculturalists (R1b?) displacing hunter-gatherers.

3. Pastoralists (R1a?) replacing agricultural ruling elites with warrior-aristocracies, but leaving the remainder of the population in place (as thralls).

R1b becoming stronger the further west might be explained by small groups of pioneer agriculturalists migrating from the "fertile crescent" seeking suitable land/soil (river valleys/deltas), with their populations then rapidly expanding locally, displacing the much lower-density hunter-gatherer populations.

The R1b incidence map shows a "wave" pattern that grows stronger the further west it goes - this can possibly be explained by 1) progressive migrations, as soil exhaustion and/or overpopulation spur further westward colonization, meaning that migration is amplified the further west it goes; 2) higher-density/growth agricultural populations displacing/dispersing lower-density/growth hunter-gatherer populations, with the latter minimally impacting the latter's genetics; 3) founder effects from initially small groups of R1b-carrying colonizers.

The R1a incidence map, on the other hand shows the exact opposite: R1a grows weaker the further west one goes. These were likely smaller group pastoral migrations that encountered settled higher-density agricultural populations, replacing ruling elites with warrior-aristocracies, while taking wives from the indigenous population, but otherwise leaving it in place. This would lead to genetic assimilation, with the incidence of R1a being weakened and diluted the further west one goes, even though they were able to successfully impose their language.

Because the R1b migration was possibly initially in a few small groups, it need not be genetically representative of the population/area it migrated from. Note, however, the concentration of R1b in the area of the Caucusus and northwest Iran.

A marine route via Cyprus and Crete could have been faster than the overland route, allowing R1b-carrying mariners to beat the overlanders (with or without R1b) to Iberia, from which they (Bell Beakers?) later spread to the rest of Western Europe. By the time the landlubbers made it to the Atlantic, they found the marine migrators already well established.
 
fig01_600.jpg
The fact is that Basque was spoken not only in nowadays Basque country but all of the Pyrinees and Catalonia mainland, at least, where you can still find places with Basque names or the influence on Occitan/Gascon phonotactics (where, as in Basque, no word can begin by R sound) You will also find some toponymic similarities with names of mountains in Germany with the Eib- root, which may have easily kept a pre-IE name.


Also an interesting exercise is to google “strawberry”, closely linked to the land, found in the wild -thus disconnected from farming-, an ideal word to find substrates...
- Fresa, fraise, fragola in most Latin languages, different forms of -berries in Germanic languages...
- Marrubi/a in Basque,
- Maduixa in Catalan, majuixa in Occitan,


maybe even...
- Maasikas in Estonian,
- Mansikkaa in Finnish
- Martsqvis in Georgian...?


If you combine that with the fact that R1b seems to be more concentrated on the western coast of Europe -with the exception of Catalonia (at least for subclade DF27) which is the other end of the Ebro river “highway”- it looks as if R1b were gradually pushed to the edges in the same way that Gaellic were pushed to Cornwall and current Wales in Britain.

Could it be that R1b and IE languages are not related indeed? Might it be the origin was just the same IE population but with a different culture? What if, instead of having Basques resist IE influence, the last IE population waves had been lately influenced by what we know as IE languages, by the same means that have been used to explain the influence on Basque populations...In fact, Catalan population, sharing many traits with Basque one and being Iberian seemingly related to Euskara, adopted Latin easily.

Not only the Catalans, the entire Turdetana_Iberica area adopted Latin very easily.



It could be that in the Iberico_tartesica zone some of the Indo-European languages of the peninsula were spoken at the popular level, being the Iberian a cult and Mediterranean language of the elites, that having its own writing with origin seems to be Phoenician is what has been transmitted?



If it is true that Tartesica_Iberica_Vasco_Aquitana pre-Roman toponymy have quite similar.
 
Last edited:
View attachment 9607

Not only the Catalans, the entire Turdetana_Iberica area adopted Latin very easily.



It could be that in the Iberico_tartesica zone some of the Indo-European languages of the peninsula were spoken at the popular level, being the Iberian a cult and Mediterranean language of the elites, that having its own writing with origin seems to be Phoenician is what has been transmitted?



If it is true that Tartesica_Iberica_Vasco_Aquitana pre-Roman toponymy have quite similar.

Hi, By the way. Catalans (as well as basques and all rest of spain) is DF27- Z195. So basicly all have the same subclades, all descend from the same pop. Sometimes it looks like there are attempts to make some differentiation.

Z195 is almost as old as DF27 (+- 4400bp). So Z195 could even have meet the old man DF27.
However the Portuguese, being high on DF27, have "no" Z195. Actually being 60% M269 true is that the high amount of M269 without P312 sets them "apart" from iberia and someone needs to test for other subclades (like L51...). Or at least It really makes the east to west migration of r1b not that clean and neat. On a east to west all Portuguese should have Z195. They do not have it.
 
I also think that the seafaring abilities of people 5000 years ago would have been sufficient for them to travel long distances across the Black Sea and Mediterranean. However the size of the ships would have been small and they could never have launched a massive migration or invasion by sea. Neolithic farmers certainly used ships to colonise the Mediterranean coast and islands, but I seriously doubt that the Indo-Europeans from the Pontic Steppe did, apart maybe for moving along the Black Sea coast. A small contingent of immigrants landing in France or Iberia would never have been able to take over the whole of Western Europe in a few centuries. That is just not possible. Additionally the archaeological record doesn't show any new Bronze Age or steppe culture springing out of nowhere in France or Iberia, but clearly shows a slow progression from Ukraine and Romania along the Danube, then from Germany to all Western Europe. There is not the slightest doubt about that in my mind.

can we see ht35 hotspots as earlier spread i.e. spread before L51 subbranches like u106 ,L21, s116 u152 and DF27 developed?
if that is the case then we can see hotspots of ht35 as original settlement points of R1b in Europe?

Haplogroup-R1b-Z2103.png


sea route was from Asia minor to south Greece and Albania then to south Italy, and sea coasts of France and Iberia as well as in celtic Iberia in Spain
land route was dwelling in Dacia before spreading via Danube route to west Europe

Basques are not hotspot in this original spread. So it is either that Basques were separate wave e.g. DF27 or they were subjugated or infiltretated later in more peacful times which enabled them to keep the language

Linguistic_map_Southwestern_Europe.gif


Haplogroup-R1b-DF27.png

If DF27 is original Basque marker, Basques could have originally been spread over all Spain (losing first Celtic Iberia to IE invaders) and France with their teritory shrinking in time due to IE speaking R1b arrivals same as we withness Basque language area shrinking in modern times. This would imply that some branches of R1b spoke non IE language. Etruscans also were non IE speakers and came from R1b rich area of Asia minor. So Asia minor must have had both non IE and IE speaking R1b branches. However DF27 not being present in Asia minor but being already there in south Greece and Sicily implies that the DF27 branch emerged after R1b moved from Asia minor to Europe. So it could be that indoeuropeastion of R1b happened in Asia minor, while DF27 escaped indoeuropisation while being settled in south Greece and Sicily. It would be interesting to investigate links between Basque language and Etruscan.
 
Autosomally,
Basques = WHG + ENF (fairly restrictively). So, as their language is not IE, it must have been the language of one of those two.
Steppe = WHG +CHG

When the Steppe men settled in Hungary, they got admixed with Farmers - themselves ENF + WHG. Their CHG percentage shrank. The WHG element was reinforced. The ENF element came in. The same thing happened again when they moved North West to southern Poland and Czechia (Unetice). And again when they expanded further westwards (Halstatt), with always more ENF, more WHG, less CHG.

R1b expansion from the steppe to the Atlantic took 2000 years. Think of what can happen in 10 years (Caesar conquering Gaul, the Cimbri leaving Jutland, vanquishing, then disappearing), or in 10 hours (Hastings). There may have been multiple raids, or exploration incursions, or trading expeditions, of varying importance and impact, into western Europe while the Proto-Celtic culture was emerging in Central Europe. There was that "ver sacrum" thing, groups of young men sent away or ahead to raid and explore. Some early groups or tribes may have tried their luck into yet unexplored territories.

And there is also that Q-Celtic / P-Celtic partiton, with Q-Celtic being apparently the older original form. L21 and DF27 people are/were essentially Q-Celtic. U152, P-Celtic (essentially). Therefore, Q-Celtic people probably left Central Europe quite a while before the P-Celtic guys moved.

Nobody can tell for sure whether or not the Ligures south of the Alps France spoke a Celtic language before the La Tene people arrived. Their language is suspected to have been IE, akin to Celtic, with many pre-IE elements. Similarly, the Lusitanians spoke a non-Celtic IE language. My point is : the first IE people who arrived in western Europe may have been Q-Celtic adventurers, not necessarily numerous, and not all of them equally successful. Those already largely admixed people mixed with the inhabitants they found in the British Isles (L21) in France (DF27, L21), in Iberia (DF27, L21 in Galicia and thereabouts). Lusitanians and Goidels retained their languages, Ligures mixed theirs with the local lingo, and the R1b boys who ended up in the Basque country lost theirs, maybe over more than one generation. They may have been very brutal, but few in numbers, and strongly admixed, so over time all they left was their Y-dna, and just enough autosomal change for Basques to slightly differ from Iberians.

The Vikings who were granted ownership of Normandy in 911 spoke Norse. When William conquered England in 1066, he and his men all spoke French. They had lost their own language in just 150 years. It just goes to show that sometimes, the winners too can be culturally assimilated.
 
Then how come their percentage of rh negatives is so much higher than both?

Honestly ? I don't have a clue. Maybe some form of adaptation or natural selection ? Isolation ? Endogamy ? Why did some Europeans suddenly decide to grow red hair ? Or turn white ?

I can only go by what I read - namely that they are whg + enf + that tinge of something else.
 
1. The iberoceltic migrants never conquered the Basque country. No conquest, no 'occupation' of the language.
2. The Basques in their Pyreneaen valleys had some hard time living there with lots of disasters - illness, avalanches, floods, hunger , you name it. Regular bottlenecks will be the consequences.
3. Regularly the peopling of the valleys went down and people from the surrouding lowlands migrated into the mountain valleys. This is the way some R1b-farmers came into the Basque country.
4. The isolation of the people there lead to genetic degeneration. Genetic diseases, infertility, you know. The newcomers, (maybe even carrying diseases, with which the indigenous people had some distress) with better genes were certainly procreating more successfully and therefore gradually increase in size, got assimilated within 3-4 generations, and despite their different haplogroup they became Basques, culturally and languagewise. Continued repetition of this lets the percentage of R1b grow until they are by far the most frequent haplogroup. The language is kept intact, but it will be enhanced with a lot of foreign vocabulary imported by the migrants, which obviously is the case with the Basque language.

According to our linguists, S.A. Starostin and I. Garshin, http://www.garshin.ru/linguistics/languages/dene-caucasian/index.html Basque language belongs to the Dene-Caucasian language group, alongside with other languages noted in the discussion (believe me, I read all 8 pages!), most of speakers of them belongs to the Y-DNA haplogroup C.

On the pictures:
1. Dene-Caucasian languages according to the "glosso-chronological" research,
2. Today's distribution of the C Y-DNA Haplogroup,
3. Modern people who has C Y-DNA Haplogroup,
4. A hunter from La Brania-Arintero (pre-historic Spain),
5. A hunter from Sunghir (pre-historic Russia).

01-Dene-Caucasian_langauges.png02-Distribution_of_Haplogroup_C-M217_Y-DNA.jpg03-C-Haplogroup_People.jpg04-C-Haplogroup_hunter_from_La_Brania-Arintero_(Spain).jpg05-C-Haplogroup_man_from_Sunghir_(Russia).jpg
 
Autosomally,
Basques = WHG + ENF (fairly restrictively). So, as their language is not IE, it must have been the language of one of those two.
Steppe = WHG +CHG

I understand your point, but that is not very accurate. Steppe is mainly EHG + CHG, and EHG by its turn ia mix of a source very similar - not necessarily identical - to WHG with a relevant contribution of ANE ancestry. Many milennia after that WHG+ANE mix, especially in linguistic and cultural terms, but even genetically, my guess is that EHG weren't very WHG-like at all any longer.
 
I understand your point, but that is not very accurate. Steppe is mainly EHG + CHG, and EHG by its turn ia mix of a source very similar - not necessarily identical - to WHG with a relevant contribution of ANE ancestry. Many milennia after that WHG+ANE mix, especially in linguistic and cultural terms, but even genetically, my guess is that EHG weren't very WHG-like at all any longer.

Yes... I realized afterwards that, in my haste to get to the point, I had oversimplified things a bit. And I also agree that it is the element of EHG in Basque genetics that makes Basques what they are - distinct from their closest neighbours, particularly to the west.

Still, I feel tempted to stick to my "multiple inroads" hypothesis. Some linguists have suggested that Lusitanian was in some ways closer to Italic languages than to Celtic. So it could date back to very early times, when Proto-Celtic and Proto-Italic were still undifferentiated. I'd say Unetice, since CWC, though more contemporaneous with Bell-Beaker, is far too R1a to be a candidate. This would also explain why, as someone pointed out in an earlier post, the Portuguese have high levels of "old" R1b clades. To make matters more personal, my own son-in-law, who was born on the Minho-Galicia border, is R-P310*.

The "Basque" R1b, and Ligures, in my scenario, would have been early DF27 proto-Celts or Q-Celts stepping into Bell-Beaker territories. L21 Q-Celts would have moved, simultaneously or not, mostly to the British Isles, but also to Galicia, with possibly, if we take old Irish myths into account, later contacts between Galicia and Ireland. After those people had left, the P/Q shift occurred somewhere north of the Alps, among Celtic-speakers, but also among Italic-speakers ( Osco-Umbrians). These would have been U152.

I haven't got much to prove all this. Yet, this is where the evidence seems to point...
 
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.

Despite the Olalde paper, I honestly can believe this. I just can’t think of a good way L51 could have come from the Steppe, given the invasion in the Balkans just had to have been Z2103. I really, really don’t understand how people can’t see that the lack of L51 in the Balkans isn’t a HUGE giveaway. There’s also other clues too, such as just how different the B.B. autosomal component profile is to CW and Yamnaya (as one example: way more EEF, way less CHG). Higher Steppe mtDNA in Unetice is from this blending with Corded Ware women.

I will absolutely never believe in the Danube-route for R1b-L51, but it’s possible this R1b-L51 came from the Steppe to East-Central Europe (or, another idea, L23 originating in the Balkans (but way before Yamnaya, more around the Chalcolithic)) and splitting into two groups - Z2103 to the South in Anatolia, and L51 to the North.

I really have no clue to be honest, except I see any origin of L51 from the Yamnaya expansion into the Balkans as ludicrous.

EDIT: Actually none of what I said about an Iberian or Balkan origin makes sense linguistically. I’ll go for the Steppe-to-East-Central Europe option then. Perhaps not even Yamnaya though.

Second EDIT: The more I think, the more I get confused. Thinking about it, the languages of Western Europeans could just be from the Corded Ware culture, as these R1b prolific "bullies" probably wouldn’t have replaced the language of the people they imposed themselves on - this is different to the Indo-Aryan expansion where this was the case, in my opinion, because it wouldn’t be nearly as big of a population flow - just a lot of *******, which can also be seen by the huge explosion of variety in L51.

Phenotypically, a Beaker-Corded mix makes perfect sense - Coon predicted this by noticing the Dinaroid features of North Atlantids. Baskids also show stronger Beaker influence than the other Mediterranids around them.
 
Actually what I just said isn’t tightly-knit at all, ignore it for now.

I am very confident on the Beaker-Corded mix though, rather than Beaker being a derivative of Yamnaya.
 
3.2: The Y chromosome haplogroup has changed without a considerable alteration of the autosomic admixture and mitochondrial haplogroups. This is too difficult to accept because 90% of basques are R1b-P312, which is a too big proportion, but could be explained, for example, by a poligamous celtic ruling class.
Most of Europe became light-skinned without a considerable alteration of the autosomic admixture. The Basques demonstrate that R1b was positively selected for.

As for the origin of IE, R1b expanded before R1a, just like it expanded before I1. Once you take that into account the mystery is pretty much solved.
 
can we see ht35 hotspots as earlier spread i.e. spread before L51 subbranches like u106 ,L21, s116 u152 and DF27 developed?
if that is the case then we can see hotspots of ht35 as original settlement points of R1b in Europe?

[...]

sea route was from Asia minor to south Greece and Albania then to south Italy, and sea coasts of France and Iberia as well as in celtic Iberia in Spain
land route was dwelling in Dacia before spreading via Danube route to west Europe

Basques are not hotspot in this original spread. So it is either that Basques were separate wave e.g. DF27 or they were subjugated or infiltretated later in more peacful times which enabled them to keep the language

[...]

If DF27 is original Basque marker, Basques could have originally been spread over all Spain (losing first Celtic Iberia to IE invaders) and France with their teritory shrinking in time due to IE speaking R1b arrivals same as we withness Basque language area shrinking in modern times. This would imply that some branches of R1b spoke non IE language. Etruscans also were non IE speakers and came from R1b rich area of Asia minor. So Asia minor must have had both non IE and IE speaking R1b branches. However DF27 not being present in Asia minor but being already there in south Greece and Sicily implies that the DF27 branch emerged after R1b moved from Asia minor to Europe. So it could be that indoeuropeastion of R1b happened in Asia minor, while DF27 escaped indoeuropisation while being settled in south Greece and Sicily. It would be interesting to investigate links between Basque language and Etruscan.

DF27 arrived in Greece probably after 1204 AD with Catalans, search Duchy of Athens.

Assuming that this map is correct, that haplogroup seems more likely to have originated in Iberia than anywhere else. I would like to test the hypothesis that it originated in N. Italy or Central Europe though. It seems theoretically possible to me.

[Those who consider possible a maritime route for the expansion of certain R1b subclades, should consider movements that involve parts of N. Africa]
 

This thread has been viewed 261673 times.

Back
Top