Lack of G2a in Basque

Iberia is full of Megalithic buildings, but I don't know if concretely the Basque country has a lot of them. In general terms I agree to atribute those monuments, primarly, to I2a1 peoples.
 
But in Danubian region is one of hotspots of G2a , so they have to carry some of it . And if Artenacians come from Danube( which corelates with archer culture ) , then they couldnt be I2a1 , because it is in Iberian penincula since Paleolithe .Am I missing something ?
Do somebody know region ith high R1b and low or absent G2a which would colerate with Basque ?
 
But in Danubian region is one of hotspots of G2a , so they have to carry some of it . And if Artenacians come from Danube( which corelates with archer culture ) , then they couldnt be I2a1 , because it is in Iberian penincula since Paleolithe .Am I missing something ?
Do somebody know region ith high R1b and low or absent G2a which would colerate with Basque ?
Yes: The Artenacian culture grew as a local reaction to the Danubian Expansion, not as an extension of it.
 
I was able to think only these scenarios :
snip --
3)
snip --
Second posibility is that Basque R1b could come from aerias with no G2a like : central and north Scandinavia or Baltic coast or some other , any sugestions?
Maybe you can find some more scenarios please post :)

You said it. All I meant was that, having left someplace without a G2a population component, if Z196 didn't walk through the European subcontinent but took boats (or a different, mostly land route), there was no requirement of picking up G2a along the way. Also, G2a may have daughtered out in some places that are relevant -- or were, at the time of the Z196 movement. Or there might have been a caste system. That could be at their place of departure; some intermediate stopover (such as Liguria, which btw is not my suggestion but one that has been made by a French colleague); or the Basque country in which the M153 subclade, at least, ended up. What we see in populations today may not reveal much about what these migrants (traders, conquerors, lovers, musicians, guys with high sperm count, or whatever they were) saw, roughly 5,000 years ago.
 
You said it. All I meant was that, having left someplace without a G2a population component, if Z196 didn't walk through the European subcontinent but took boats (or a different, mostly land route), there was no requirement of picking up G2a along the way. Also, G2a may have daughtered out in some places that are relevant -- or were, at the time of the Z196 movement. Or there might have been a caste system. That could be at their place of departure; some intermediate stopover (such as Liguria, which btw is not my suggestion but one that has been made by a French colleague); or the Basque country in which the M153 subclade, at least, ended up. What we see in populations today may not reveal much about what these migrants (traders, conquerors, lovers, musicians, guys with high sperm count, or whatever they were) saw, roughly 5,000 years ago.
You lost me , please say clearly where from did you think they came on boats?
Thanks for answering
 
Also I believe that theory about higher sperm caunt of R yDNA haplogroups is false , there was R1b in Balkans and Anatolia atleast since Neolithe , but untill today they are very small percent of population .
 
Also I believe that theory about higher sperm caunt of R yDNA haplogroups is false , there was R1b in Balkans and Anatolia atleast since Neolithe , but untill today they are very small percent of population .

Anatolia OK, but the Balkans? Do we find R1b L11- in the Balkans? Or do you think that R1b-L11 has been in Europe since the Neolithic and has its most archaic form in the Balkans? I don't think we find a huge amount of diversity of it there... I think that that was one of the takeaway points of Capelli et al.
 
You lost me , please say clearly where from did you think they came on boats?

Gdańsk.

Or somewhere at the eastern end of the Mediterranean, it's not as if I was there and asked them.
 
Last edited:
Anatolia OK, but the Balkans? Do we find R1b L11- in the Balkans? Or do you think that R1b-L11 has been in Europe since the Neolithic and has its most archaic form in the Balkans? I don't think we find a huge amount of diversity of it there... I think that that was one of the takeaway points of Capelli et al.


I didnt mention R1b-P310 I said R1b in general , maybe R1b-P310 developet after move from Balkans . In Balkans there is R1b-V88 ( African ) - which show R1b was on Balkans very long time . I believe that during LGM part of R1 from Europe took refuge in Anatolia ( and maybe Near East and Italy ) , there it developed in R1b (R1b* is found only in Turkey , Jordan , Italy and in China - which clearly shows where it was formed ) . Than larger part of R1b gradualy started to move in Europe during early Neolithe - Balkans and Central Europe . Lesser part of R1b from Anatolia moved across Caucasus and mixed with R1a in steppes forming IE group ( that R1b is found in Tocharians , Armenians ,...) and later moved in Europe . In late Neolithe first group of R1b was pushed from Anatholia and Balkans diper in to Central Europe by incoming E1b1b and J from east . There they formed CordedWare culture( they were probably acepted IE languague hier in excange with IE groups on east , except maybe Basque -who could maybe moved before that?) . But in Bronze Age R1a mixed with second group of R1b started his marsh to west spreading IE languagues and culture , that is the time when most of R1b moved to place where is it now- West Europe ( also it explains why there is not many R1a in west Europe - which would have to be if all R1b comed from steppes).
What do you think about this theory ?
Thanks for answering
 
Gdańsk.

Or somewhere at the eastern end of the Mediterranean, it's not as if I was there and asked them.


Well east end of Mediterranean dont sound realy plausible because there is more G than in Europe , but Gdansk is quite posible ( or somewhere along Baltic coast where there is not G - maybe it didnt reached there because of climatic conditions ) . And it fit realy god with my theory of movements of R1b ( previous tread ). So we concluded Basques were R1b haplogroup peoples which moved by boats from Baltic coast , on land populated by I2a1 peoples which only in Europe managed to stop G invasion in early Neolithe . And I going to go with that theory , untill somebody show it is wrong . Did anybody think there is hole in theory ( I dont see it ) , please post.
Thanks to all for cooperation .
PS I didnt realy think you speack with R1b carriers from before few thousand years ( joke :) ) , I only wanted to hear you oppinion , and it is showed to be realy god one .Thanks(y)
 
If you are happy with Gdańsk, I'm glad. I don't necessarily believe it, but I think it's one possibility among several. The Vistula river met the sea somewhere, in 3,000 BCE -- although that place is presumably farther north, now underwater, and the archaeological record of the modern port does not begin so long ago.

An early Bronze Age seaworthy boat found in Dover, UK was a "sewn boat," an ancient construction technique that has not been entirely lost in the Baltic area. Also, the long distance maritime trade around that time (roughly 5,000 ybp) included amber, presumably of Baltic origin.

I also think it is quite possible that a seafaring culture could have consisted primarily of one Y-DNA haplogroup, regardless of what other groups were found around it, or in the areas with which it traded. That would only require clan-based acceptance into the union, as it were. If that was the case, it may not matter whether the actual Y-DNA source turns out to have been in present Poland, southwestern Turkey, or in some more western Mediterranean coastal zone that now looks like a hotbed of G2a. I have no evidence that R1b included clans specialized in maritime and/or riverine transport; but if it did, Z196 looks like a fairly good candidate.
 
I dont believe Clans however closed they are wouldnt mixed with surounding population ( and G is realy high in Turkey ) . There was allways cheating of husbands ( ofcourse of wifes to , but this is not important for our story , because womans are the ones that would carry foreign DNA in to clan ), some researches claimed that even 1/3 of childs are result of cheating , I believe it is to much , but such childs are not rare .
 
Another curiosity is that I2a1a normally correlates with G2a, indicating that I2a1a joined with expanding farmers in the Neolithic and spread accordingly, with Basque Country's high I2a1a and low G2a being the major exception. I wonder if we're just seeing a case of major genetic drift here.

If I2a, like all of haplogroup I, was in Europe since the Paleolithic, the combined presence of G2a and I2a in Neolithic sites is simply the result of the indigenous people mixing with the newcomers, not necessarily a sign that they migrated together. In that case, it wouldn't be strange at all to find areas with plenty of I2a and no G2a, if Neolithic immigrants never got there. I think that is the case of the Basques, and which is why Basque language doesn't seem to be even remotely related to any ancient Middle Eastern language. It might truly be the last remnant of Paleolithic European language.
 
Yes but we already concluded that I2a1 in Pirrinei stoped G2a , but also incoming R1b wouldnt have G2a ( there is 90% of R1b ) , so we concluded that it could have come from Baltic sea - there is also non G2a
 
European R1b subclade is very old. At least it is not younger than the Neolithic age. The Caucasus range has got the highest mountain tops in Europe. Mount Elbrus is much higher than Mont Blanc. So G2a in the Caucasus had more chance to survive than in the Pyrenees. Due to the isolation.

Maybe before R1b Europe was populated by the I and G2a folks. Maybe in Europe both haplogroups were both equally distributed, but not in Basque land. Maybe there was much more I than G2a in Basque land before R1b arrived at the first place, due to the bottleneck (founder) effect. Maybe the distribution in Basque was more like 80-20 (I-G2a).

How old is PIE?

European R1b is maybe 10.000 years old. So maybe it didn't belong to the PIE but to the Neolithic farmers that were not proto-Indo-European at all.

European R1b, i.e. R1b1b2a1a, is usually estimated to be only 6000 years old. But that could be an overestimation due to the huge size of the European R1b population today, and therefore the larger number of mutations happening every year compared to rarer haplogroups. If R1b is 10x more frequent in a given population than say G2a, then mutations will also happen 10x faster within R1b, making it look older than it really is. That's why I think that if the age of R1b1b2a1 is mistaken, we should think of it as younger, not older. IMHO, the age of R1b1b2a1 looks fine; it is the age of haplogroups that were marginalised after the Bronze Age invasion of R1b, such as G2a, I2a and I2b, that need to be revised towards an older TMRCA.
 
If I2a, like all of haplogroup I, was in Europe since the Paleolithic, the combined presence of G2a and I2a in Neolithic sites is simply the result of the indigenous people mixing with the newcomers, not necessarily a sign that they migrated together. In that case, it wouldn't be strange at all to find areas with plenty of I2a and no G2a, if Neolithic immigrants never got there. I think that is the case of the Basques, and which is why Basque language doesn't seem to be even remotely related to any ancient Middle Eastern language. It might truly be the last remnant of Paleolithic European language.

IIRC I2a1a has highest diversity among the Basques, indicating an eastward spread. That could mean that the G2a people mixed with I2a1a people on the periphery of the I2a1a people's geographic extent, and then the resulting mixed population spread to places like Sardinia later. I think you're right about the fact that the patterns we see are the result of mixing. Either way, we end up with G2a not penetrating into the "original" I2a1a population, whose most direct descendants appear to be the Basques.

The question is, why couldn't they penetrate into the I2a1a population? Was it that the Neolithic farmers weren't really that much more advanced than the hunter-gatherers? Or did the I2a1a people take the G2a people's cultural advances for themselves before the G2a people could reach them?
 
If I2a, like all of haplogroup I, was in Europe since the Paleolithic, the combined presence of G2a and I2a in Neolithic sites is simply the result of the indigenous people mixing with the newcomers, not necessarily a sign that they migrated together. In that case, it wouldn't be strange at all to find areas with plenty of I2a and no G2a, if Neolithic immigrants never got there. I think that is the case of the Basques, and which is why Basque language doesn't seem to be even remotely related to any ancient Middle Eastern language. It might truly be the last remnant of Paleolithic European language.

I absolutely agree that the explanation that the Neolithic farmers never got there is a very likely one.

The problem with linking the Basque language to any other language is that we essentially just have the modern Basque language, and very little else. The ancient Near Eastern languages which have some similarities in grammatical structures (Hurrian, Sumerian) were all spoken thousands of years ago, and we have no way to compare them.

Using internal reconstruction, it is possible to reconstruct a "Proto-Basque". This is achieved by taking a look how various Indo-European loans (mainly Latin, Spanish) were shifted according to Basque sound laws. The problem is that this "Proto-Basque" is essentially the Basque language of approximately 2000-2300 years ago. It has indeed been shown that the reconstructed Proto-Basque words are similar to the few Aquitanian words we have recorded in Roman sources (thereby suggesting that Aquitanian, indeed, is very likely the same as Old Basque). However, it's virtually impossible to reconstruct the Basque language further back. It's also impossible to reconstruct languages like Hurrian or Sumerian further back because there is nothing to compare against and it's hence impossible to say which words are loanwords and which are not. So it's impossible to say if Basque has any relationship with any of the agglutinative languages of the ancient Near East (thereby making Basque a Neolithic language), or if it's indeed the sole survivor of Paleolithic European languages.

What is clear is that the Basques didn't have any contact with Indo-European languages until at least the Copper Age, more probably into the Bronze Age.
 
As Taranis wrote, I wanted to say that aquitanian and iberian languages -clearly non IE- could arrive with the Urnenfelder Kultur, although many scholars associate this culture exclusively to IE peoples. The question is, if basques/iberians came from Europe, where is the linguistic evidence outside France/Spain? Hard work for linguists, but -who knows- maybe these rivers -Ebro, Ibar, Ybbs, Ebrach...- are related to basque Ibai (river)..

That's an interesting observation. The Ebro being so near from the Basque country, the similarity with ibai is certainly not a coincidence. As for the other rivers in southern Germany, Austria and Montenegro, their geographic distribution remind me of the Danubian Neolithic (LBK). If these rivers were named by Neolithic farmers that would mean that Basque could also be descended from an extinct Near Eastern/West Asian (Anatolian or Caucasian) language. But it could just as well be that these rivers were named by the I2a2 Paleolithic inhabitants of the Danube basin, and that their language was distantly related to the language of I2a1 people of Franco-Iberia. I would favour this latter theory since there is little genetic evidence of West Asian admixture among the Basques.
 
IIRC I2a1a has highest diversity among the Basques, indicating an eastward spread. That could mean that the G2a people mixed with I2a1a people on the periphery of the I2a1a people's geographic extent, and then the resulting mixed population spread to places like Sardinia later. I think you're right about the fact that the patterns we see are the result of mixing. Either way, we end up with G2a not penetrating into the "original" I2a1a population, whose most direct descendants appear to be the Basques.

The question is, why couldn't they penetrate into the I2a1a population? Was it that the Neolithic farmers weren't really that much more advanced than the hunter-gatherers? Or did the I2a1a people take the G2a people's cultural advances for themselves before the G2a people could reach them?

I basically agree with that, except that I think that I2a1 (or I2a1a if you will) was already in Sardinia when G2a arrived in the western Mediterranean.

I doubt that the initial contact between two completely different people, the Southwest European I2a1 hunter-gatherers and the Near-Eastern farmers-herders G2a, was a very friendly one. There were probably confrontations for a few centuries, and I imagine the two communities living secluded from each others. With time they may have started trading with each others, exchange spouses, and warmed to each others' presence.

But I cannot conceive a blend of the two populations soon after they ran into each others. I also doubt that either of them was significantly superior to the other militarily. Paleolithic and Neolithic weapons were both made of wood and (flint)stone*. The G2a were surely outnumbered at first, which makes it unlikely that they displaced I2a1 people. The G2a population might have increased faster once their primitive crops started yielding more food and their herds grew in number, but once they had settled down somewhere they couldn't easily move far away without losing their crop.

It's likely that G2a first settled in territories that were less favourable for hunting (so less frequented by I2a1 folks) and better suited to farming and herding. As they apparently travelled by sea, the G2a people would have colonised the coastal areas first, and avoided moving too much inland if there was an important I2a1. As the Basque country is still heavily forested to this day, it was obviously not convenient for farming or herding, but rich in game for hunters. The Pyrenees were obviously not very fertile for crop either, but had enough wild animals for I2a1 people to live there in small densities.


* the real revolution in military technology came with bronze, which could produce sharp and strong weapons like battle axes and swords, instead of wooden arrows and wood-and-flintstone spears and hatchets. Copper alone, like gold, silver or lead, was not very good for weapons as it was too brittle and flaky, although it did improve agricultural tools.
 

This thread has been viewed 142368 times.

Back
Top