Origin of the Basques

@Moesan said "OK Gaska. Have you the auDNA making of these two men? (apparently BB's). And do you find 2 examples are a demonstration? That said Ciempozuelos vessel as it seems were not older than 1900 BC. Are these datations so safe?

That question is amusing, considering that the whole steppe theory as formulated by Haak and colleagues in 2015 was done using 3 samples in Khvalynsk and a few more in the steppes. With those data, the geniuses at Harvard were able to convince the international scientific community and a large number of geneticists that the mass migrations of R1b and R1a were able to bring IE to mainland Europe. Don't you think that it is at least risky to claim such a thing?

Regarding those two men, they are perfectly dated (2.434 and 2.413 BC) if you want I will give you the link to consult the archaeological excavation, but it is in Spanish, and of course they are typical Iberian BBs with all the typical package of the peninsula (palmela points, ciempozuelos ceramic, wristguards, V perforated buttons).

The Ciempozuelos style is very old in Iberia, its origin is in the cave of La Mora (Somaén Soria, Castilian Plateau dated in 2.650 BC (excavation without stratigraphic alterations). I don't know where you got these dates of 1,900 BC. And evidently it is exclusive of Iberia and southern France (like the Palmela type spearheads, and certain types of perforated buttons).
 
@Moesan

Helladic streams since 2.500 BC? I have no idea what you are talking about, Greek colonies appear in the Iron Age.
And evidently genetic homogeneity, there are a lot of papers that speak of genetic continuity in Iberia with respect to its uniparental markers (the males since the Chalcolithic, the females some since the Paleolithic and the rest since the Neolithic). Iberia is a very boring region genetically speaking (at least until the arrival of the Celts, Greeks and Romans).
 
@Moesan

Regarding the linguistic issue, Basque is not the solution to the problem because we obviously do not have writings from the Iron Age. The key is in the Iberian and Tartessian languages. we have hundreds of inscriptions in these languages, we know where it was spoken and the time range. Some sentences have even been translated and the meaning of many words is known. We also know that the sites where these writings have been found and now thanks to the Olalde’s paper (2.019) we know that the Iberian peoples who wrote those words (Ilerkavones, Layetanos, Edetanos) were overwhelmingly R1b-P312-Df27. Since these same lineages have been documented in the Chalcolithic (BB culture) throughout the Iberian Peninsula, the genetic and cultural continuity is evident. Common sense tells us that these men never changed their language ergo the BB culture did not speak an IE language.

Actually, in Spain we only need to check the genetics of the western Iberian peoples who supposedly spoke IE languages ​​(Lusitanians, Vettones, Vacceos, Galaicos, Astures….). So far we know that the Cogotas culture (1,800-1,000 BC) which is what gave rise to these peoples of the Iron Age was also overwhelmingly R1b-P312 / Df27, but we do not have genetic data for those peoples. If it is confirmed that they are also Df27 then we would come to the absurd conclusion that genetically equal men spoke different languages. At the moment the only genome of a Celtiberian that we have is I2a, that is why even Olalde made it clear that the linguistic issue is not much resolved.
 
I don't know who's wrong or right but I find it generally interesting reading people's (argumented) opinions. Even if they could be wrong. Or not...

No different opinions - no discussions...simple as that. Is this the purpose of this or any other "forum"? Should it be a like-minded club instead?

I'll just comment the tone of the discussions that I'm witnessing for the last few years, when I'm occasionally (still) visiting this forum. It seems to become a closed society where a certain administrator always has right and the others almost certainly get a "lecture", before they very soon lose the "honour to be addressed at all". I was a victim too, even if I barely post anything. I was hit in a "I shoot first and then I ask manner", cause "there are so many people with nationalistic agendas" on this forum. Conspiracies left and right. Sure, we cleared it up, I had no hard feelings. But I see this over and over again.

I can't say anything about the content. There is a lot of good inputs and very interesting links I'm really thankful for. But the tone that's been opposed is nothing close to normal.

Please, allow us to be dumb and uneducated but to still participate. This is a "forum", for Christ's sake. What are we supposed to do, to pass an entry exam first?

A smart man can learn even from a fool. Why chase the fool away?
 
@Moesan

Yeah the BB question is not simple and Yeah we all see an autosomal change in mainland Europe with the arrival of the CWC and then the extension of this autosomal component thanks to the BBC. We also see different proportions of steppe ancestry and a great heterogeneity in the uniparental markers in those two cultures.

But what is important is that these changes

1-Were not male mediated, because there are dozens of female steppe markers in both CWC and BBC. This means that Harvard's conclusions that R1b-M269 and R1a-M417 were solely responsible for the introduction of this signal in Europe are simply a big mistake (or a big lie).

2. The genetic change was not immediate, nor a consequence of conquests or massive migrations, but a consequence of small migrations of family groups and exogamy between different cultures. The process did not last years but centuries

You have to take into account several data-

1-Bb culture lasted in Iberia more than 1,000 years (Estuario del Tajo-2,800 BC, dating of Joao Cardoso 2,014-Cultura de las Cogotas, Castilla, 1,800 BC)- However in other BBs regions, the phenomenon can be considered almost sporadic (Sicily, Poland, North Italy, North Africa, Holland, Czech Republic, Hungary).

2-Evidently the BB culture was characterized by small migratory movements of family groups that following the course of the rivers and the neolithic trade routes managed to colonize some regions of Europe. This culture could be defined as a true thalassocracy because they controlled the maritime trade of Asian African and European products (ivory, ostrich eggs, amber, salt etc.).

3-I have already said that in its first phase, the BB culture was very heterogeneous in terms of its uniparental markers and autosomal composition. Not only Iberia and Hungary, Sicilian and Northern Italian BBs have hardly any steppe ancestry, there are men with steppe ancestry (male Hap G2a) in France and Germany. There are also cases of I2a in Iberia, England and cases of H2 in Hungary, all of them buried in BB tombs with grave goods typical of that culture. After 2,500 BC things changed radically because R1b-P312 was imposed to the rest of markers. It is evident that there was a founding effect of P312 in the West (Germany, Switzerland, France and Spain), L21 in the British Isles, U152 in Central Europe (Germany, Switzerland, Czech Republic) and Df27 in Iberia. . But this process lasted hundreds of years until all the Bronze Age cultures at least in Iberia and France (from Italy we hardly have any data) were overwhelmingly R1b-P312. And when I say all, I mean all, that is, Las Cogotas culture, El Argar culture (this year a very interesting work will be published with more than 65 analyzed skeletons), Las Motillas culture, etc.

4-In a second stage (after 2,400 BC) migrations of Df27 Iberian males have already been demonstrated in Sicily (Fernandes et al), and small migrations and exogamy of Iberian females have also been demonstrated in Germany, Czechia, Hungary and Poland. That is to say, on the one hand, factories and colonies were exploited to obtain valuable and prestigious products, and on the other hand, migratory movements took place. The BB culture reached its maximum expansion in Csepel island in its eastern domain, there they stopped the Indo-European expansion.


I have no time just now, I take some rest.
But I agree with some of your statements, not all of them. So, read you and me again.
 
@Moesan said "OK Gaska. Have you the auDNA making of these two men? (apparently BB's). And do you find 2 examples are a demonstration? That said Ciempozuelos vessel as it seems were not older than 1900 BC. Are these datations so safe?

That question is amusing, considering that the whole steppe theory as formulated by Haak and colleagues in 2015 was done using 3 samples in Khvalynsk and a few more in the steppes. With those data, the geniuses at Harvard were able to convince the international scientific community and a large number of geneticists that the mass migrations of R1b and R1a were able to bring IE to mainland Europe. Don't you think that it is at least risky to claim such a thing?

Regarding those two men, they are perfectly dated (2.434 and 2.413 BC) if you want I will give you the link to consult the archaeological excavation, but it is in Spanish, and of course they are typical Iberian BBs with all the typical package of the peninsula (palmela points, ciempozuelos ceramic, wristguards, V perforated buttons).

The Ciempozuelos style is very old in Iberia, its origin is in the cave of La Mora (Somaén Soria, Castilian Plateau dated in 2.650 BC (excavation without stratigraphic alterations). I don't know where you got these dates of 1,900 BC. And evidently it is exclusive of Iberia and southern France (like the Palmela type spearheads, and certain types of perforated buttons).

I can read spanish, if I hardly speak it. OK for the link you propose, over all if they speak too of anDNA and not only of archeology.
THanks beforehand
 
@Moesan

Regarding the linguistic issue, Basque is not the solution to the problem because we obviously do not have writings from the Iron Age. The key is in the Iberian and Tartessian languages. we have hundreds of inscriptions in these languages, we know where it was spoken and the time range. Some sentences have even been translated and the meaning of many words is known. We also know that the sites where these writings have been found and now thanks to the Olalde’s paper (2.019) we know that the Iberian peoples who wrote those words (Ilerkavones, Layetanos, Edetanos) were overwhelmingly R1b-P312-Df27. Since these same lineages have been documented in the Chalcolithic (BB culture) throughout the Iberian Peninsula, the genetic and cultural continuity is evident. Common sense tells us that these men never changed their language ergo the BB culture did not speak an IE language.

Actually, in Spain we only need to check the genetics of the western Iberian peoples who supposedly spoke IE languages ​​(Lusitanians, Vettones, Vacceos, Galaicos, Astures….). So far we know that the Cogotas culture (1,800-1,000 BC) which is what gave rise to these peoples of the Iron Age was also overwhelmingly R1b-P312 / Df27, but we do not have genetic data for those peoples. If it is confirmed that they are also Df27 then we would come to the absurd conclusion that genetically equal men spoke different languages. At the moment the only genome of a Celtiberian that we have is I2a, that is why even Olalde made it clear that the linguistic issue is not much resolved.

You don't read acutely my posts, sometimes.
concerning Olalde and R1b in Iberia
iberia-admixture-y-dna.jpg
 
I wonder why Gaska has not been banned yet? You banned me and several other ones just because we say some things that you don't like, so by this rule, Gaska should be banned too, unfortunately a good forum has been destroyed by some dictators who never tolerate different opinions.
 
I can read spanish, if I hardly speak it. OK for the link you propose, over all if they speak too of anDNA and not only of archeology.
THanks beforehand

Ok here you go

http://tp.revistas.csic.es/index.php/tp/article/view/693

https://www.academia.edu/13806511/L...aeological_site_Monasterio_de_Rodilla_Burgos_

The first paper refers only to the collective tomb (dolmen). the second paper to the BB burials found at the entrance of the dolmen (only is the archaeological description of the site). There is nothing regarding genetics, just an anthropological description of the remains (brachycephaly, height, etc.) and their dating.
 
@Moesan

Concerning Olalde and Iberia, this image was used by Reich to explain his theory of the conquest of mainland Europe by the horsemen of the steppes and the extermination of all the male Iberian lineages of Neolithic origin. The most surprising thing is that at least one red point is missing, which is ATP3 (El Portalon, Atapuerca Burgos, Gunther et Valdiosera 2.015,)-R1b-M269

They did not include it because it evidently hindered their theory that R1b-M269 did not exist in Western Europe before the arrival of the Indo-Europeans. however, three years later Harvard lab publishes

Reich Lab-Harvard (2.021)-ATP3 5397 44 Spain_C.SG El Portalon Cave, Sierra de Atapuerca-

!!!!!!!!!!! R1b1a1-R-M343>L754>L389>P297 !!!!!!!!!!!

They knew they had this lineage in Iberia (3,389 BC) but they could not admit it so they simply ignored the sample until they published their paper on the Bell Beaker in Europe and the genetic history of Iberia. ATP 3 has no steppe ancestry, but is autosomically close to the Balkans and another r1b-M269 has been found there (Smyadovo, Bulgaria-4,500 BC). It may be that these genetic lines were lost because this lineage has suffered bottlenecks throughout its history, but we will never know unless we continue to analyze Iberian sites from the late Neolithic and early Chalcolithic (3.500-2.500 BC). And believe me, there are dozens of sites and hundreds of skeletons to analyze (Los Millares, La Pijotilla, Cueva de las Higueras, Marroquies Bajos etc etc...)
 
We have the whole Iberia with exactly the same people in genetic terms during Iron Age (same as actual Basques), but ones speaking non-IE languages in the south and the east and ones speaking IE languages (celtic and perhaps italic) in the center, north and west.
Actual Basque Country was inhabitated by people speaking IE languages. Navarra country was inhabitated by people speaking IE, Iberic and Vasconic languages. Surely Basque homeland was Aquitanie in southeast France and along Pirineos mountains.
Please hear spanish archeologists about languages in ancient Iberia, nobody better than them about what they are speaking about:
The end of the paleohispanic languages: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1wMFrV7meg
Lusitanian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AkwcJTJGLI&t=1602s
Iberic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAtv97ufFBE
Celticiberic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBev9-XjLPs
Tartessian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlAW_jZ868I

More than 7 hours speaking about languages in ancient Iberia, based on texts written on stone or bronze. And almost nothing about languages from Kallaikoi in the northwestern, Astures and Cantabrians, surely some kind of old Celtic or at least, some kind of IE.
 
We have the whole Iberia with exactly the same people in genetic terms during Iron Age (same as actual Basques), but ones speaking non-IE languages in the south and the east and ones speaking IE languages (celtic and perhaps italic) in the center, north and west.
Actual Basque Country was inhabitated by people speaking IE languages. Navarra country was inhabitated by people speaking IE, Iberic and Vasconic languages. Surely Basque homeland was Aquitanie in southeast France and along Pirineos mountains.
Please hear spanish archeologists about languages in ancient Iberia, nobody better than them about what they are speaking about:
The end of the paleohispanic languages: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1wMFrV7meg
Lusitanian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AkwcJTJGLI&t=1602s
Iberic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAtv97ufFBE
Celticiberic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBev9-XjLPs
Tartessian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlAW_jZ868I

More than 7 hours speaking about languages in ancient Iberia, based on texts written on stone or bronze. And almost nothing about languages from Kallaikoi in the northwestern, Astures and Cantabrians, surely some kind of old Celtic or at least, some kind of IE.


We have to wait for the results of vettones, vacceos and astures. Although they practiced cremation, there are many remains of newborn children buried in the ground of the houses- Then we will know if they are also Qf27. I think so because the culture of Las Cogotas is overwhelmingly Df27. and there is an evident cultural continuity between Cogotas> Soto culture> Vacceos, vettones and astures. I don't know if there are similar research projects for Galicians and Lusitanians. If all these peoples turn out to be P312> Df27 then it will be necessary to think that the introduction of IE languages ​​in Iberia is a matter of the Iron Age (Celtiberians) and that the cultural contacts of these peoples with the Celts who crossed the Pyrenees made that those peoples of the western half of the peninsula will abandon their native Iberian languages.
 
Never said that Basques and Sardinians are the same. Why are you bringing it up?

Basques and "Iberians" are different; not grossly different, but different. The difference has to be post Iron Age.

As for Indo-Europeans, I'm not going to re-debate Olalde et al. Indo-European speaking Beakers invaded Iberia, leaving their R1b lineage behind them and their autosomes as well. That R1b is thousands of years younger than the R1b you're discussing, and came from the East. The Basques, like the Etruscans, are an example of Indo-European men adopting the language of their EEF wives.

You’ve got that backwards. The Sardinian population is the one that absorbed significant levels of foreign (primarily Punic/Berber and Near Eastern in origin) admixture in the post-Iron Age epochs. Such introgressions occurred on a scale that was far more consequential/transformative in Sardinia than anything that took place in Iberia over the course of the same period. This fact is fairly common knowledge and easy to look up/verify (virtually every PCA modeling reflects this).

Sardinia clearly retained the highest levels of EEF ancestry in Europe, but that is only one of several variables that account for their unique ‘cluster.’ Were the inverse the case, modern Iberians would not consistently show far greater levels of genetic affinity with Central and Western European populations than modern Sardinians do.
 
You’ve got that backwards. The Sardinian population is the one that absorbed significant levels of foreign (primarily Punic/Berber and Near Eastern in origin) admixture in the post-Iron Age epochs. Such introgressions occurred on a scale that was far more consequential/transformative in Sardinia than anything that took place in Iberia over the course of the same period. This fact is fairly common knowledge and easy to look up/verify (virtually every PCA modeling reflects this).

Sardinia clearly retained the highest levels of EEF ancestry in Europe, but that is only one of several variables that account for their unique ‘cluster.’ Were the inverse the case, modern Iberians would not consistently show far greater levels of genetic affinity with Central and Western European populations than modern Sardinians do.

Angela is right, please see the following study:

We assembled genome-wide data from 271 ancient Iberians, of whom 176 are from the largely unsampled period after 2000 BCE, thereby providing a high-resolution time transect of the Iberian Peninsula. We document high genetic substructure between northwestern and southeastern hunter-gatherers before the spread of farming. We reveal sporadic contacts between Iberia and North Africa by ~2500 BCE and, by ~2000 BCE, the replacement of 40% of Iberia’s ancestry and nearly 100% of its Y-chromosomes by people with Steppe ancestry. We show that, in the Iron Age, Steppe ancestry had spread not only into Indo-European–speaking regions but also into non-Indo-European–speaking ones, and we reveal that present-day Basques are best described as a typical Iron Age population without the admixture events that later affected the rest of Iberia. Additionally, we document how, beginning at least in the Roman period, the ancestry of the peninsula was transformed by gene flow from North Africa and the eastern Mediterranean.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6432/1230
 
You’ve got that backwards. The Sardinian population is the one that absorbed significant levels of foreign (primarily Punic/Berber and Near Eastern in origin) admixture in the post-Iron Age epochs. Such introgressions occurred on a scale that was far more consequential/transformative in Sardinia than anything that took place in Iberia over the course of the same period. This fact is fairly common knowledge and easy to look up/verify (virtually every PCA modeling reflects this).

Sardinia clearly retained the highest levels of EEF ancestry in Europe, but that is only one of several variables that account for their unique ‘cluster.’ Were the inverse the case, modern Iberians would not consistently show far greater levels of genetic affinity with Central and Western European populations than modern Sardinians do.
Primarily North Mediterranean aka Italic admixture not Berber

https://i.imgur.com/TViGpl0.jpg

Inviato dal mio POT-LX1T utilizzando Tapatalk
 
Angela is right, please see the following study:

You already know that geneticists like to make discoveries that may seem surprising or novel, so that their papers have a greater impact on public opinion. Harvardians-Prof Reich are specialists in this matter and Olalde is certainly one of them. When in that paragraph, he speaks of sporadic contacts with North Africa, he refers to this sample.

*I4246/RISE697, sample #7, Fondo 5 UE05 Muerto 1: 2473–2030 cal BCE [2473–2299 cal BCE (3910±30 BP, PSUAMS-2119), 2280–2030 cal BCE (3650±40 BP, Beta-184837)- (2.155 AC)-Haplogrupo Y-E1b1b/1a (x E1b1b/1a1)- Mit- M1a1/b1

However, it is not so surprising to find Africans in European BB sites, because I have already explained that it was a true thalassocracy with factories throughout the western Mediterranean. In this case, the surprising thing is that the African was a giant of two meters in height and that he did not travel alone just because in Sardinia we have

*I15940 (2.245 AC)-TombE-Anghelu Ruju, Sardinia-HapY-E1b1b/1a-Hap Mit-M1a1/b1

Exact uniparental markers. These cases show that the Iberian BBs traded with Sardinia and that some Africans participated in these activities. But these sporadic African contacts also occurred in Britain and Poland.

+ Archaeogenetics and Palaeogenetics of the British Isles- Doctoral Thesis Katharina Dulias (3 , march 2021)- “My project highlights population turnover during the Neolithic to Bronze Age transition in the Scottish Isles, identifies possible Near Eastern/North African ancestry in a Bell Beaker individual from Northeastern England”

+Corded Ware cultural complexity uncovered using genomic and isotopic analysis from southeastern Poland-Anna Linderholm (2.020)-

*Pcw420 (3830 ± 35 BP)-Proszowice-HapY-R1a-M417 (xZ645)-Mit Hap-L3c’d

Regarding the Basques, everyone knows that genetically we are like the Iberians of the Iron Age, I think Asturcantabri was not referring to that, but to the statement that all Southern Europeans are slightly modified Sardinians, which is simply not true, despite sharing high percentages of EEF, and the obvious cultural relations between Iberia and Sardinia since the Neolithic.

The Proboscidian ivory adorments from the hypogeum of Padru Jossu (Sanluri, Sardinia, Italy) and the Mediterranean Bell Beaker-Jose Miguel Morillo, Claudia Pau, Jean Guileine (2.018)-
 
Last edited:
Angela is right, please see the following study:

It won't matter what the data shows.

Some Iberians just still refuse to accept that there was some impact on their genomes from the years of the Muslim invasion and rule. The only ones who got barely any are the Spanish Basques, language probably being the determining factor.

Science always loses when confronted by centuries of "official" history as pronounced by the victors. It happens all over the world. Iberians aren't the only ones.

Btw, as I'm sure you know, but some people do not or have forgotten. The biggest reason for Sardinia's position on PCAs is DRIFT. To some extent that applies to the Basques too.
 
Ok here you go

http://tp.revistas.csic.es/index.php/tp/article/view/693

https://www.academia.edu/13806511/L...aeological_site_Monasterio_de_Rodilla_Burgos_

The first paper refers only to the collective tomb (dolmen). the second paper to the BB burials found at the entrance of the dolmen (only is the archaeological description of the site). There is nothing regarding genetics, just an anthropological description of the remains (brachycephaly, height, etc.) and their dating.

Gracias.
Later I 'll come back about the Basque question and the concept of homogeneity in Iberian Chalco.
 
Angela said: "Some Iberians just still refuse to accept that there was some impact on their genomes from the years of the Muslim invasion and rule. The only ones who got barely any are the Spanish Basques, language probably being the determining factor.

Science always loses when confronted by centuries of "official" history as pronounced by the victors. It happens all over the world. Iberians aren't the only ones."

Well, this is not right. Certainly in Spain everybody believes exactly the opposite... common people believe Spaniards, specially in the center and south are a real melting pot of different peoples: Iberics, Celts, Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Germanics, Berbers and Arabics... when you explain the results of genetic studies and present Iberians as a boring very uniform people with little foreing influence since 2.500 BC, they simply don?t believe you, and say it?s impossible: Romans ruled the whole Iberia al least 500 years!! Muslims ruled in part of the south 800 years!!! but the real fact is just the opposite... all that foreing people left a little genetic track in Iberia, and the most incredible part is the Berber one... the mixing only happened between 860 and 1160 and almost only in the west third part of Iberia, the one from where Muslims were firstly expelled, with actual maximuns of 10%... perhaps in the very first times of Reconquista muslims were not deported just stayed and became christians again. The genetic influence is from present West Sahara berbers, not actual population of North Marocco. It?s just amazing and I wish someday we could know how it could happened in South Galicia, North Portugal, Leon, Zamora, Salamanca or Extremadura.

About differences between Iberian populations, if I remind in the right way, the most different population in the whole Iberia is the people around the valley where the ancient city of Tui is placed, in Pontevedra (Galicia). As a real surprise, the galician population is very clustered by river valleys, seems that galicians only married with galicians from very near their own home (10km around) for centuries, and I am in that way, in the last 250 years, all my ancestors are around 5-6 km my home except two from Asturias and one from Central Europe.
The last genetic study about basques speaks about a similar way of genetic structure, very clustered by respective basque dialect.

So Angela, I don?t think Iberians refuse the idea of some genetic impact of Muslim rule because all of us expected this impact was much more important than Science has found out, and only the ones who are from the far northwest (as me) where the Muslims only ruled 30 years between 715 and 739 were surprised because we have much more berber genetic impact than the ones who live in Granada, where muslims ruled from 711 to 1492.

Also: official history (expecting much more berber genetic general impact in Iberia, but mainly in center, east and south Iberia) has been completely refused by science findings, but just in the opposite way you are saying.
 

This thread has been viewed 43402 times.

Back
Top