Lack of G2a in Basque

Regarding the Iberians, I'd also like to reiterate what I did say earlier in this thread: the case that the Iberians were native to the Iberian penninsula (and didn't arrive from the north) can be also supported by Iberian name evidence: Iberian town names are found in a wide arc from the central Pyrenees and the Roussillon in the north towards Andalusia in the south, as far west as the Guadalquivir river.

I have personally speculated if the Iberians have their origin in the Bronze Age El-Argar Culture.
 
Results are available. Check DOD818.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...owN3M3UWRyNnc&hl=en_US&authkey=COCa89AJ#gid=3

Also, he has sent to Eurogenes too, and Davidski was quite surprised with him. Probably he will be included in the next run.

It's a very interesting one. He clusters with the HGDP French-Basques almost neatly.

I expected Spanish and French Basques to be close. It's interesting that even Spanish Basques are closer to the overall French population than the Spanish one, and that they have over 50% of West European. This means that R1b invaders also brought some women with them, otherwise the proportion of East+West European probably wouldn't reach 50%. I assume that the small fraction of West Asian and Northwest African in the Basques came from intermarriages with neighbours (notably Cantabrians).
 
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 .

Each new mutation in the Y-chromosome can potentially influence the sperm count in its carrier. Therefore not all R1b subclades are equal. Older haplogroups (think about F, G*, IJ, I*, K*...) disappear because new mutations occurring in a few individuals increase their sperm count and therefore their chance of having children but also of having boys rather than girls. The big population explosion of R1b happened with R1b-L11 and its subclades. It could mean that this L11 mutation, or another one close in the phylogenic tree, did considerably increase sperm count compared to other haplogroups. If it is the case, then older subclades of R1b like those found in the Balkans, Anatolia and the Middle East wouldn't have any advantage compared to other haplogroups, and may actually be at a disadvantage if new mutations in, say J1c3 or J2a people made them more fertile.
 
If I have to give my opinion, I say that for the Basques this kind of analysis are not reliable for an obvious reason: they are simply Basques.

Of course they show an homogeneity pattern with the European categories available (DOD818 is almost the same as the HGDP French Basques; he's from Guipuzkoa), but they cluster very far from all people, althought French and Iberians are closer references if we compare with others. The best way to fit this population is introducing a Basque cluster, and I think results would be more accurate for Iberians and specially Southern French doing so too, since both have substantial Basque ancestry (even if it's ancient).

You have another curious example here at Dodecad comparing DOD133 and DOD725 using k=12 v3 data:

DOD 133 Gascon/Béarn: W.E (40.7) + E.E (7.6) + Medit. (50.9) = 99.2 %

DOD 725 Catalan: W.E (38.2) + E.E (4.1) + Medit. (54.4) = 96.7 %


38.2 + 4.1 + 50.9 = 93.2%

The first one is from Gascony, and he reported 58% Basque in the other K=12 (the highest Dodecad participant). The Catalan did not participate in these analysis, it was too late. However, both are more similar to each other in the European score than to any other individual of their own population. I mean, we must consider that deviations like this in both sides, can occur quite frequently, and not necesarily focussing in the Spanish Basques, since the example is rather some kind of a French Basque one knowing it belongs to the French side.

Also, would be interesting to see if the Catalan one reaches 40% Basque or more in the other k=12 analysis, reminding the conversation we had yesterday.
 
Last edited:
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.
What do you mean G2a came by sea - they are probably spreaded from Caucasus by land - Neolithic findings in Germany and France show they significant presence .
Also most of today G2a is concentrated on high mountains - Alps , Apenini ,Caucasus ,... You could say that they were pushed there by later invaders , but early Neolithic "farmers " use crops just like aditional food suply , they were mainly catlebriders , and use to hunt , fish and gather prety much
 
Each new mutation in the Y-chromosome can potentially influence the sperm count in its carrier. Therefore not all R1b subclades are equal. Older haplogroups (think about F, G*, IJ, I*, K*...) disappear because new mutations occurring in a few individuals increase their sperm count and therefore their chance of having children but also of having boys rather than girls. The big population explosion of R1b happened with R1b-L11 and its subclades. It could mean that this L11 mutation, or another one close in the phylogenic tree, did considerably increase sperm count compared to other haplogroups. If it is the case, then older subclades of R1b like those found in the Balkans, Anatolia and the Middle East wouldn't have any advantage compared to other haplogroups, and may actually be at a disadvantage if new mutations in, say J1c3 or J2a people made them more fertile.
Or R1b-L11 simply killed most of old male population , and replaced it . There is no evidence that R1b (west Europeans) ever have had more childs then "easteners" - E1b1b1, G2a or J , and its oposite case today ( but it could be because cultural reasons). And eb1b1 , J and G2a was in West Europe before R1b.
If we speack about reproductive disadvantage , I would say that is case with mthDNA I and W , but not with old European yDNA I2a1 or G2a .
 
What do you mean G2a came by sea - they are probably spreaded from Caucasus by land - Neolithic findings in Germany and France show they significant presence .
Also most of today G2a is concentrated on high mountains - Alps , Apenini ,Caucasus ,... You could say that they were pushed there by later invaders , but early Neolithic "farmers " use crops just like aditional food suply , they were mainly catlebriders , and use to hunt , fish and gather prety much

How would they reach the Aegean Islands, jump from Greece to Italy, get to Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica and to North Africa, if not by sea ? Agriculture didn't spread first to the Danube and Alps, then down to Italy and Spain. Agriculture reached southern Spain before it reached the Alps. Just check the map of the diffusion of agriculture.

Europe-diffusion-farming.gif


Travel by sea 9000 years ago wasn't such a big feat. Humans reached Australia by boat 45000 years ago !
 
There is no evidence that R1b (west Europeans) ever have had more childs then "easteners" - E1b1b1, G2a or J , and its oposite case today ( but it could be because cultural reasons). And eb1b1 , J and G2a was in West Europe before R1b.

It doesn't matter the number of children. Higher sperm count give a slightly higher ratio of boys to girls, not more children.
 
How would they reach the Aegean Islands, jump from Greece to Italy, get to Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica and to North Africa, if not by sea ? Agriculture didn't spread first to the Danube and Alps, then down to Italy and Spain. Agriculture reached southern Spain before it reached the Alps. Just check the map of the diffusion of agriculture.

Europe-diffusion-farming.gif


Travel by sea 9000 years ago wasn't such a big feat. Humans reached Australia by boat 45000 years ago !
Yes I know they have boats , but France and Germany Neolithic findings dont show any E1b1b or J - only posible place that I could remember they could come from is Caucasus .
G2a is not only haplogroup that spreaded agriculture , there is also E1b1b and J , so earlier agriculture on Balkans and South Spain could be from them . G2a could be pushed over sea ( Mediteranian islands and North Africa ) by incoming invaders , or it could get there from Asia?
 
It doesn't matter the number of children. Higher sperm count give a slightly higher ratio of boys to girls, not more children.
There is no diference in ratio boys-girls for R1b-L11 than in the rest of the world , that ratio is 1005 boys to 1000 girls all over the world , only boys die more during first years of life , and have shorter life . If West Europe would be diferent there would be lack of womans , and there is like everywhere more womans than mans
 
Yes I know they have boats , but France and Germany Neolithic findings dont show any E1b1b or J - only posible place that I could remember they could come from is Caucasus .
G2a is not only haplogroup that spreaded agriculture , there is also E1b1b and J , so earlier agriculture on Balkans and South Spain could be from them . G2a could be pushed over sea ( Mediteranian islands and North Africa ) by incoming invaders , or it could get there from Asia?
And maybe moving of agriculture from Asia Minor via Balkans toward North represent moving of R1b in to Central Europe , from Asia Minor , where it originated ( maybe becouse of Black sea floding ) . On Balkans they could be represented by Vinča culture , that invented bronze , and have population boom with bigest settlements in Europe of that time . Later they could be pushed by incoming E1b1b and J from Asia Minor ( took place of R1b after sea withdraw ) in Central Europe , there they are acepting IE languague from first waves of R1a , and then pushed to West Europe by later waves from stepes. is this posible scenario ?
 
I have collected more Y-DNA data on the Basques, and it turns out that they do not completely lack G2a. I found 1.5% of G2a in 597 samples.
 
In that case theory is wrong , because data was wrong .
 
In that case theory is wrong , because data was wrong .

You should never jump to conclusions based on Y-DNA data for one region, especially if the sample size is small. You should look at the bigger picture and foresee possible sampling biases.

Incidentally, the data wasn't wrong before. Every sample tested was correct, and there were already over 200 Basque samples. But you can never expect 200 samples to be as accurate as 500 or 1000 samples. I think that any sample size under 500 is bound to mislead us. That's why I have added confidence rating (stars) next to the Y-DNA tables. You should be very careful with any data that doesn't have at least 3 stars.

I wouldn't bother discussing data with less than 150 samples at all, even for regional comparisons. For example, I found two studies with about 100 samples for the Ile-de-France region (Paris), but the results were completely different. I merged them in the Y-DNA tables, but it still looks somewhat odd (too high R1a and J2, too low R1b).
 
. I wouldn't bother discussing data with less than 150 samples at all, even for regional comparisons. For example, I found two studies with about 100 samples for the Ile-de-France region (Paris), but the results were completely different. I merged them in the Y-DNA tables, but it still looks somewhat odd (too high R1a and J2, too low R1b).


What were the two frequencies of R1b in the studies of Ile-de-France?
 
You should never jump to conclusions based on Y-DNA data for one region, especially if the sample size is small. You should look at the bigger picture and foresee possible sampling biases.

Incidentally, the data wasn't wrong before. Every sample tested was correct, and there were already over 200 Basque samples. But you can never expect 200 samples to be as accurate as 500 or 1000 samples. I think that any sample size under 500 is bound to mislead us. That's why I have added confidence rating (stars) next to the Y-DNA tables. You should be very careful with any data that doesn't have at least 3 stars.

I wouldn't bother discussing data with less than 150 samples at all, even for regional comparisons. For example, I found two studies with about 100 samples for the Ile-de-France region (Paris), but the results were completely different. I merged them in the Y-DNA tables, but it still looks somewhat odd (too high R1a and J2, too low R1b).

Yes, I already stumbled across this an issue in regard for the (apparent) lack of R1b-U152 in Austria. 18 samples?!
But yes, I jumped on false conclusions there too in the past (R1a in France, in particular).
 
You should never jump to conclusions based on Y-DNA data for one region, especially if the sample size is small. You should look at the bigger picture and foresee possible sampling biases.

Incidentally, the data wasn't wrong before. Every sample tested was correct, and there were already over 200 Basque samples. But you can never expect 200 samples to be as accurate as 500 or 1000 samples. I think that any sample size under 500 is bound to mislead us. That's why I have added confidence rating (stars) next to the Y-DNA tables. You should be very careful with any data that doesn't have at least 3 stars.

I wouldn't bother discussing data with less than 150 samples at all, even for regional comparisons. For example, I found two studies with about 100 samples for the Ile-de-France region (Paris), but the results were completely different. I merged them in the Y-DNA tables, but it still looks somewhat odd (too high R1a and J2, too low R1b).
Well I believed 200 samples were enough ,because parts shows picture of whole . Could it be G in Basque is concentrated in some pleces - did first genetic testing (( that show no G ) was done evenly over all Basque ? 200 is realy god size number . Aldo dealing with small percentage groups in certain aeria , they can fluctuate as number of samples grow - but again jump of 1,5% is realy big . How big was sample for second testing ( one that shown 1,5% G)?
 
About that sampling in Ill-de -France , were samples from same aeria ? Because some villages and geografical isolated aerias could show totaly diferent DNA than major population - egzample - Croatian islands of Krk, Pag and Hvar( probably strong Avar influence ) . So there is need for researchers to take samples evenly from ass much diferent aerias as he can .In Serbia there is also village Tatomir , and by legend it is settled by Mongols ( Tatars ) in raid from 1241 . His population shows Asiatic charachteristics - they are shorter , have dark eyes and hairs , mongol eyes,... And when somebody try to date girl from this village boys gathers and beat him up. Also they tend not to marry outside of village . I would expect them to have very diferent DNA than rest of Serbia
 
One thing. People speak "mother languages" not paternal langaguages. So Basque language is not the product of Y.Chr but of mtDNA
 
One thing. People speak "mother languages" not paternal langaguages. So Basque language is not the product of Y.Chr but of mtDNA

Welcome to the forum. :)

And yes, I agree (and others on this forum mentioned it before), that this is an idea that has been suggested in respect for explaining the discrepancies/differences between Basque Y-DNA, mitochondrial/autosomal DNA and the language.
 

This thread has been viewed 142365 times.

Back
Top