PDA

View Full Version : Why R1b is linked to the Neolithic farmers?



Tolan
03-24-2015, 08:56 AM
Because:

1) Patrica Balaresque study in 2010, which shows that the variance is highest in Anatolia or from.
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000285
4146

2) the autosomal:
The distribution of P312:
4142
and
distribution of "EEF" component with the calculator MDLP K23b:
4143
The Basques are P312 more than 85%, it's inevitably that it should be in their autosomal!
Be logical!

R1b L51- distribution:
4144
and
Distribution of the "caucasian" with the calculator MDLP K23b:
4145

Autosomal neolitic:
El Troc (spanish neolitic 5100BC): EEF: 72.37%, Caucasian: 16.63%
LBK (5500 BC): EEF: 53.11%, Caucasian: 32.67%

3) Now, we know that a Spanish Neolithic was R1b, even if it is an ancient branch disappeared, it shows the possibility that R1b was brought to Europe by the Neolithic farmers

The distribution of sub-haplogroup of L51 in Western Europe is probably not related to the Neolithic farmers but by the different cultures that succeeded, (CW, BB, Atlantic Bronze, Indo-european ect ..)
But originally, R1b has certainly been brought to Europe with the farmers of the Neolithic!

Agree or disagree? :biggrin1:

rms2
03-24-2015, 12:04 PM
I disagree very strongly.

If R1b were connected to Neolithic farmers, it would be showing up at Neolithic sites. It isn't. G2a is, along with some I2a, F*, and one E-V13.

Now, before someone counters with the Els Trocs R1b1-M415 Neolithic find in Spain, let me say that I think he actually helps make the case that R1b did not arrive in Europe with Neolithic farmers, or at least not the kind of R1b, R1b-L23, that is prevalent in Europe now.

Els Trocs was very likely V88+ and thus P297-, and we know or are pretty sure that the pre-P297 (P297-) branch of R1b departed the R1b Urheimat in far eastern Europe or in Asia for the Near East and points west prior to the Neolithic Revolution. Among that branch V88 arose and became involved in the Near Eastern Neolithic. Elements of V88 and R1b1xP297 went to Africa and points west in southern Europe, which explains Els Trocs pretty well. So, Els Trocs is not even on the same line as the overwhelming majority of today's European R1b.

After the departure of that pre-P297 line, back home in far eastern Europe or Asia, P297 arose and ultimately spawned its two major branches, M73 and M269. From M269, L23 would arise, and from L23, Z2103 and L51.

Finally, although much more could be said, Europe is overwhelmingly Indo-European speaking. It got that way somehow, and there are many IE-speaking areas of Europe, especially Western Europe, where there is very little R1a. Now R1b has been found in seven out of seven sets of remains from the Yamnaya cultural horizon, considered by a number of scholars as the chief vehicle for the initial spread of Indo-European languages from the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

R.Rocca
03-24-2015, 12:21 PM
Because:

1) Patrica Balaresque study in 2010, which shows that the variance is highest in Anatolia or from.
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000285
4146

2) the autosomal:
The distribution of P312:
4142
and
distribution of "EEF" component with the calculator MDLP K23b:
4143
The Basques are P312 more than 85%, it's inevitably that it should be in their autosomal!
Be logical!

R1b L51- distribution:
4144
and
Distribution of the "caucasian" with the calculator MDLP K23b:
4145

Autosomal neolitic:
El Troc (spanish neolitic 5100BC): EEF: 72.37%, Caucasian: 16.63%
LBK (5500 BC): EEF: 53.11%, Caucasian: 32.67%

3) Now, we know that a Spanish Neolithic was R1b, even if it is an ancient branch disappeared, it shows the possibility that R1b was brought to Europe by the Neolithic farmers

The distribution of sub-haplogroup of L51 in Western Europe is probably not related to the Neolithic farmers but by the different cultures that succeeded, (CW, BB, Atlantic Bronze, Indo-european ect ..)
But originally, R1b has certainly been brought to Europe with the farmers of the Neolithic!

Agree or disagree? :biggrin1:

1. Balaresque used all that she had at the time...variance of modern samples. Since Balaresque's study came out, another study has shown Bulgaria as the highest variance. Either way, we now have ancient DNA to look at, so these older studies are only valuable for their frequency data and nothing more.
2. EEF is a component that may be as high as 40% hunter-gatherer related, and based on the large amounts of EEFs that belong to haplogroup I, there is no reason to refute that hunter-gatherer component within EEF. Also, southern Europe experienced a lot of geneflow from the Eastern Mediterranean and Western Asia after the Copper Age that Northern Eurpe did not, so that's why you see the EEF pattern you see today.
...Regarding the Basques...the Irish are 90% P312 and their EEF is nowhere near what it is in the Basques.
...L51- distribution in that map is really Z2103 which is a brother clade to European L51+, so it is not the ancestor of European L51+
...That Caucasian component is an autosomal component, and given it hardly exists in Basques and the Irish, has no bearing on anything you posted about P312.
...Autosomal Neolithic - as before, there were different levels of EEF because there was different mixtures with hunter-gatherers. Besides, 400 years is a long time between Early Neolithic samples.
3. Yes, it is very likely that V88 was in Europe with the Early Neolithic (or even prior), but like you mentioned, it does not mean it was the ancestor of modern European men.

Jean M
03-24-2015, 12:37 PM
3) Now, we know that a Spanish Neolithic was R1b, even if it is an ancient branch disappeared, it shows the possibility that R1b was brought to Europe by the Neolithic farmers

The distribution of sub-haplogroup of L51 in Western Europe is probably not related to the Neolithic farmers but by the different cultures that succeeded, (CW, BB, Atlantic Bronze, Indo-european ect ..)

But originally, R1b has certainly been brought to Europe with the farmers of the Neolithic!

It has been pretty clear for years that

R1b-V88 was in the Near East in time to participate in the spread of farming to North Africa. So there was always a possibility that V88 or a close relative would crop up in Europe in the Neolithic. This is a separate lineage from the R1b common in Europe today, as you realise.
The rest of R1b did not seem involved in the spread of farming and arrived in Europe later with Indo-European-speakers, as you say. This was the picture from aDNA even for AJ first edition (2013) and is clearer now.

So the story of a haplogroup may not simple. It may not all have spread in one period. Other instances of this have been emerging, for both Y-DNA and mtDNA. As more aDNA is published, we find more and more dead ends - lineages that lived in place X at one time, but left no descendants. For example there was Y-DNA I2 in the Scandinavian Mesolithic. It is not there now. Y-DNA I1 is the common variety there. Most of the mtDNA H among the early Neolithic LBK farmers in Central Europe has no modern descendants. That's messy reality for you. ;)

Isidro
03-24-2015, 12:43 PM
R1b1c-V88, Sardinian-african connection 6,500 BC. More than just R1b sporadic strugglers as more results come out into the open.

Centuries-old DNA helps identify specific origins of slave skeletons found in Caribbean.
http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2015/03/ancient-dna-helps-identify-specific-origins-of-slave-skeletons.html
Page 13 Supplemental:
"Divergence time of the STM1 Y-chromosome lineage
Upon merging STM1 data with related modern Y-chromosome sequences, we estimated a split- time of roughly 8500 years between the STM1 lineage and the closest fully sequenced Y
chromosomes currently in the literature, a cluster of eleven R1b1c3-V35 sequences reported in a sample of 1204 Sardinians (42). To do so, we estimated the length of time between the STM1lineage
divergence and the emergence of R1b, and then we compared this interval to the age of R1b (Fig. S17)."
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pnas.org%2Fcontent%2Fsupp l%2F2015%2F03%2F05%2F1421784112.DCSupplemental%2Fp nas.1421784112.sapp.pdf&h=OAQEfOKsG

Jean M
03-24-2015, 01:27 PM
R1b1c-V88, Sardinian-african connection 6,500 BC. More than just R1b sporadic strugglers as more results come out into the open.

Good point. We knew years ago about R1b-V88 among living Chadic speakers in Africa, but the aDNA from slaves who died in the late 1600s disposes of any idea that the R1b arrived in Chad relatively recently. Must say I never thought it did and was happy with the Cruciani 2010 explanation:

4147

Chadic is an Afro-Asiatic language, related to Ancient Egyptian and the Berber languages of North Africa, so this fitted a Neolithic arrival.

The Sardinian paper cited: Paolo Francalacci et al., European Y-Chromosome Phylogeny Low-Pass DNA Sequencing of 1200 Sardinians Reconstructs European Y-Chromosome Phylogeny, Science 341, 565 (2013). Despite being based on modern DNA only, I thought it was impressive. The Sardinian R1b1c could well be Neolithic.

Now you have pointed that out, I'm going to change my mind again. Looks like there was some R1b-V88 travelling with Cardial Ware. (I first thought the R1b at Els Trocs had probably arrived via the North African route, then I looked at the map and thought that unlikely, but Els Trocs didn't seem 100% Cardial either.)

R.Rocca
03-24-2015, 01:28 PM
R1b1c-V88, Sardinian-african connection 6,500 BC. More than just R1b sporadic strugglers as more results come out into the open.

Centuries-old DNA helps identify specific origins of slave skeletons found in Caribbean.
http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2015/03/ancient-dna-helps-identify-specific-origins-of-slave-skeletons.html
Page 13 Supplemental:
"Divergence time of the STM1 Y-chromosome lineage
Upon merging STM1 data with related modern Y-chromosome sequences, we estimated a split- time of roughly 8500 years between the STM1 lineage and the closest fully sequenced Y
chromosomes currently in the literature, a cluster of eleven R1b1c3-V35 sequences reported in a sample of 1204 Sardinians (42). To do so, we estimated the length of time between the STM1lineage
divergence and the emergence of R1b, and then we compared this interval to the age of R1b (Fig. S17)."
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pnas.org%2Fcontent%2Fsupp l%2F2015%2F03%2F05%2F1421784112.DCSupplemental%2Fp nas.1421784112.sapp.pdf&h=OAQEfOKsG

"Ancient DNA" from the 1600s is no better than modern DNA. That someone calculated the separation of V88 to 6500 BC based on what are basically modern samples is akin to any other variance study of the past 10 years, and certainly not something to get all too excited about. Given the huge differences in age estimates based on the different methods used in different studies, African V88 and Sardinian V88 may have been a part of the same Neolithic event that sent some V88 to Spain. I think it is safe to say we are not going to find L23(xL51,Z2103) in Africa any time soon.

Isidro
03-24-2015, 01:39 PM
"Ancient DNA" from the 1600s is no better than modern DNA. That someone calculated the separation of V88 to 6500 BC based on what are basically modern samples is akin to any other variance study of the past 10 years, and certainly not something to get all too excited about. Given the huge differences in age estimates based on the different methods used in different studies, African V88 and Sardinian V88 may have been a part of the same Neolithic event that sent some V88 to Spain. I think it is safe to say we are not going to find L23(xL51,Z2103) in Africa any time soon.

Yes to all you said although you have been repeating the same mantra for over 10 years and little to show for so far, at least not convincing. I wonder what the threat is reporting new findings that help build the background for a more solid and true history.
There is plenty of literature and PDF in Spanish for those that have genuine interest in the truth.

R.Rocca
03-24-2015, 02:07 PM
Yes to all you said although you have been repeating the same mantra for over 10 years and little to show for so far, at least not convincing. I wonder what the threat is reporting new findings that help build the background for a more solid and true history.
There is plenty of literature and PDF in Spanish for those that have genuine interest in the truth.

I think you are being overly dramatic. The truth can only be had in the form or ancient DNA data, and the ancient DNA to this point has been telling us that the male ancestor of almost the entirety of Western European L23 is found to the East during the Late Neolithic. If your "truth" has ancient DNA in it, no matter the language or the file format it's published in, please let us know as soon as possible.

Jean M
03-24-2015, 02:33 PM
I think you are being overly dramatic. The truth can only be had in the form or ancient DNA data, and the ancient DNA to this point has been telling us that the male ancestor of almost the entirety of Western European L23 is found to the East during the Late Neolithic.

Isidro was simply talking about R1b1c-V88. That is a separate lineage from L23, as we all know. He did not mention L23. None of the evidence about R1b-V88 makes it any more likely that L23 and its descendants travelled over Europe in the Neolithic. This was actually clear from the OP on this thread, which was a bit of a tease, really. :)

Yes - R1b-V88 arrived in the Neolithic. So we must say that there was some R1b in Neolithic Europe. But this actually has nothing to do with the vast majority of R1b carriers today. It doesn't change by one iota the conclusion that the R1b that most Europeans today carry travelled with the Indo-Europeans.

parasar
03-24-2015, 03:04 PM
Isidro was simply talking about R1b1c-V88. That is a separate lineage from L23, as we all know. He did not mention L23. None of the evidence about R1b-V88 makes it any more likely that L23 and its descendants travelled over Europe in the Neolithic. This was actually clear from the OP on this thread, which was a bit of a tease, really. :)

Yes - R1b-V88 arrived in the Neolithic. So we must say that there was some R1b in Neolithic Europe. But this actually has nothing to do with the vast majority of R1b carriers today. It doesn't change by one iota the conclusion that the R1b that most Europeans today carry travelled with the Indo-Europeans.

How about L23's ancestors?
We have to remember that there is no evidence that Els Trocs is V88.

rms2
03-24-2015, 03:33 PM
How about L23's ancestors?
We have to remember that there is no evidence that Els Trocs is V88.

Are you contending that the Els Trocs R1b1-M415 from Spain was the ancestor of L23?

So, did L23 arise in two separate places, eastern Europe/Asia and Iberia?

Or did it arise in Iberia and migrate to the Volga-Ural steppe?

We know or are pretty sure that a pre-P297 (P297-) branch of R1b left the R1b Urheimat in far eastern Europe or Asia for the Near East sometime before the Neolithic. It gave rise to V88, which became involved in the Near Eastern Neolithic and went to Africa and points west in southern Europe. Odds are that is how the Els Trocs R1b1-M415 got to Spain.

After pre-P297 left, P297 arose back in R1b's eastern homeland and spawned its two branches, M73 and M269. M269 gave rise to L23, and L23 to Z2103 and L51.

parasar
03-24-2015, 04:14 PM
Are you contending that the Els Trocs R1b1-M415 from Spain was the ancestor of L23?

So, did L23 arise in two separate places, eastern Europe/Asia and Iberia?

Or did it arise in Iberia and migrate to the Volga-Ural steppe?

...

No to the first one, as I think that that particular sample is too late to be a direct ancestor to M269.

On the second, impossible.

On the third, from the data we have, unlikely but not impossible.

jeanL
03-24-2015, 04:28 PM
According to the Eupedia Y-Haplogroups by country page:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

Ireland which has a sample size of *****(Over 1000 samples) shows a frequency of 81% R1b, not 90% like it was claimed before here. Whereas Spanish Basques which has a sample size of ***(Between 250 and 500 samples) show a frequency of 85% R1b. Wales with a sample size of ***(Between 250 and 500 samples) shows 74% R1b. Now given the lack of references from that page we can actually go to specific studies:

Myres.et.al.2010 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3039512/) Table-S4 shows that the Irish samples vary in R1b-M269 frequency from 76.2 in the North(n=21) to 100% in the West(n=16) however the sample sizes are incredibly small, when combined all the Irish samples add up to 99, and their R1b-M269 frequency is 82.83%.

[url=http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000285]Balaresque.et.al.2010-Figure-1[url] shows Irish(n=796) R1b1b2 85.4%, Spanish Basques(n=116) R1b1b2 87.1%, French Basques(n=61) R1b1b2 75.4%, Wales(n=65) R1b1b2 92.3%.

Busby.et.al.2011(I can't find the online link to the supplementary information) gave the following info for R1b-M269, North Wales(n=120) R1b-M269+ 79.2%, North Ireland(n=72) R1b-M269+ 89.0%, East Ireland(n=149) R1b-M269+ 89.2%, South Ireland(n=89) R1b-M269+ 86.6%, West Ireland(n=67) R1b-M269+ 86.6%. All of Ireland(n=377) R1b-M269+ 88.06%.

All Irish samples Busby+Balaresque+Myres(n=1272) R1b-M269+ 86%. So perhaps there is something wrong with the Eupedia tables. All Welsh samples Balaresque+Busby(n=185) R1b-M269+ 83.78%.

R.Rocca
03-24-2015, 05:31 PM
Isidro was simply talking about R1b1c-V88. That is a separate lineage from L23, as we all know. He did not mention L23. None of the evidence about R1b-V88 makes it any more likely that L23 and its descendants travelled over Europe in the Neolithic. This was actually clear from the OP on this thread, which was a bit of a tease, really. :)

Yes - R1b-V88 arrived in the Neolithic. So we must say that there was some R1b in Neolithic Europe. But this actually has nothing to do with the vast majority of R1b carriers today. It doesn't change by one iota the conclusion that the R1b that most Europeans today carry travelled with the Indo-Europeans.

Thank you Jean, but he said I was pitching something for 10 years...and certainly I have not been posting about V88 for 10 years, so he could only have been mentioning it in the context of L23.

vettor
03-24-2015, 06:29 PM
If R1b-v88 was in North-africa , then surely they would have been farmers.
Roman historians tell us that after Rome took north-africa from the Carthagians ( all up to egypt ) the amount ( % ) of wheat grown in modern algeria suppliod Rome with 60% of its wheat, it kept supplying this amount until Rome annexed Egypt, then Egypt was the main area. Historians also state that wheat cultivation in Algeria went back to the early bronze-age.

R1b-V88 could easily have gone to sicily and beyond via Tunisia or into Europe via morocco


https://books.google.com.au/books?id=OIXrEXl3MuMC&pg=PA675&lpg=PA675&dq=roman+wheat+farms+in+algeria&source=bl&ots=hQUMweXy18&sig=CNpzIB8y39jl1A2dy5dT2rT89h4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8qsRVbfgO-bFmAWpr4LoDg&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=roman%20wheat%20farms%20in%20algeria&f=false

Megalophias
03-24-2015, 09:09 PM
Let's not forget that we don't know whether this guy was V88. It's a plausible hypothesis, but there are other sort of rare R1b, and by now we know better than to assume that aDNA from 7000 years ago must fall into a common modern haplogroup.


"Ancient DNA" from the 1600s is no better than modern DNA. That someone calculated the separation of V88 to 6500 BC based on what are basically modern samples is akin to any other variance study of the past 10 years, and certainly not something to get all too excited about. Given the huge differences in age estimates based on the different methods used in different studies, African V88 and Sardinian V88 may have been a part of the same Neolithic event that sent some V88 to Spain.

The age estimate was based on SNPs, so it is much better than a variance study. The age given here (8500 years) is only for the split between STM1's variety of African R1b-V88 and Sardinian R1b-V35, not all Sardinian V88. There is another Sardinian V88 cluster which splits off earlier, so the age of Sardinian V88 is more like 13 000 years.

This study, although it is not actually about V88, gives the best date estimate that I am aware of. Full sequencing studies of V88 hardly exist, so this is actually quite enlightening.

Tolan
03-24-2015, 09:28 PM
I am very frustrated to not speaking English properly with that complex subject!:(


I disagree very strongly.


I know that! ;)



If R1b were connected to Neolithic farmers, it would be showing up at Neolithic sites. It isn't. G2a is, along with some I2a, F*, and one E-V13.

We have not enough Neolithic sample, especially in the west ... Because I think the haplogroup of Neolithic farmer are different depending on the area where they were found



Now, before someone counters with the Els Trocs R1b1-M415 Neolithic find in Spain, let me say that I think he actually helps make the case that R1b did not arrive in Europe with Neolithic farmers, or at least not the kind of R1b, R1b-L23, that is prevalent in Europe now.


That's true, but the Neolithic farmers have been carrying both L23- and L23 +.
This is not because we found one L23- which all others can not be L23+
During a few thousand years, L51 branch could be born somewhere in Western Europe, leading to L21, DF27 or U152!



Els Trocs was very likely V88+ and thus P297-, and we know or are pretty sure that the pre-P297 (P297-) branch of R1b departed the R1b Urheimat in far eastern Europe or in Asia for the Near East and points west prior to the Neolithic Revolution. Among that branch V88 arose and became involved in the Near Eastern Neolithic. Elements of V88 and R1b1xP297 went to Africa and points west in southern Europe, which explains Els Trocs pretty well. So, Els Trocs is not even on the same line as the overwhelming majority of today's European R1b.

After the departure of that pre-P297 line, back home in far eastern Europe or Asia, P297 arose and ultimately spawned its two major branches, M73 and M269. From M269, L23 would arise, and from L23, Z2103 and L51.

Finally, although much more could be said, Europe is overwhelmingly Indo-European speaking. It got that way somehow, and there are many IE-speaking areas of Europe, especially Western Europe, where there is very little R1a. Now R1b has been found in seven out of seven sets of remains from the Yamnaya cultural horizon, considered by a number of scholars as the chief vehicle for the initial spread of Indo-European languages from the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

The farmers of Neolithic probably come from a close area where the Yamna culture develop later.
It is perhaps not surprising that they have the same haplogroup (around Black Sea)

Of course, all this are only hypotheses ...
But we must explain why the Basques do not speak Indo-European language, are those that have the highest rate of R1b, which are mainly from the Neolithic farmer of western Europe!

rossa
03-24-2015, 09:34 PM
Of course, all this are only hypotheses ...
But we must explain why the Basques do not speak Indo-European language, are those that have the highest rate of R1b, which are mainly from the Neolithic farmer of western Europe!

Isn't M153 the dominant snp in the Basque population, I think it's about 2,000 years old or so. Could it be a case that it may have grown due to the population been driven to the Pyrenees by the invading Romans and a patriarchal society started to develop (similar to Gaelic Ireland)?

Tolan
03-24-2015, 09:54 PM
2. EEF is a component that may be as high as 40% hunter-gatherer related, and based on the large amounts of EEFs that belong to haplogroup I, there is no reason to refute that hunter-gatherer component within EEF. Also, southern Europe experienced a lot of geneflow from the Eastern Mediterranean and Western Asia after the Copper Age that Northern Eurpe did not, so that's why you see the EEF pattern you see today.
Regarding the Basques...the Irish are 90% P312 and their EEF is nowhere near what it is in the Basques.


With MDLP K23b:
WHG: between 10 and 23% EEF
Irish: 32%EEF
Yamnaya: 0% EEF
CW (kit gedmatch: M966366): 10,77% EEF
BBC (Bell beaker) (M117132): 27,55% EEF




...
...L51- distribution in that map is really Z2103 which is a brother clade to European L51+, so it is not the ancestor of European L51+
...That Caucasian component is an autosomal component, and given it hardly exists in Basques and the Irish, has no bearing on anything you posted about P312.


Yes, it is to show that HT35 is related to caucasian component (Central and Eastern european Neolithics) while HT15 is related to the component EEF (Western Neolithic)



...Autosomal Neolithic - as before, there were different levels of EEF because there was different mixtures with hunter-gatherers. Besides, 400 years is a long time between Early Neolithic samples.

With MDLP K23b, El Trocs ( 5000 BC) have 0% EHG, but Gokhem2 (3 000 BC) have 19% EHG.
This younger neolithic is mixed with WHG



3. Yes, it is very likely that V88 was in Europe with the Early Neolithic (or even prior), but like you mentioned, it does not mean it was the ancestor of modern European men.
Not him, but perhaps one of his fellows. ;)
Maybe he was not in Spain

ArmandoR1b
03-24-2015, 10:02 PM
Isn't M153 the dominant snp in the Basque population, I think it's about 2,000 years old or so. Could it be a case that it may have grown due to the population been driven to the Pyrenees by the invading Romans and a patriarchal society started to develop (similar to Gaelic Ireland)?

M153 is a subclade of DF27 which would be the most dominant in the Basque country if Martinez et al had tested for DF27. They did however test for P312, U152 and L21, and the P312xL21,U152 (which would be the DF27) is higher than M153 in all Basque departments and provincias except for Soule.

DF27 is also the most common R1b in all of Spain. There are a lot of SNPs directly below DF27 that Iberians and Latin Americans are positive for such as Z2573, Z2252, DF79 and others. If as many Iberians and Latin Americans as U.S. non-Hispanic whites and non-Iberian western Europeans were to test then Iberians and Latin Americans would be close to half or more of DF27 with the rest being spread everywhere else.

According to YFull DF27 formed 4700 ybp and P312 formed 5000 ybp.

That shows that as soon as R1b-L151 folk made their way into western Europe they also went into Iberia, including the Basque country, apart from all of the other regions of western Europe.

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-DF27/

Martinez et al xls file - http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/03/12/molbev.mss091/suppl/DC1

Tolan
03-24-2015, 10:10 PM
Of course, all this are only hypotheses ...
But we must explain why the Basques do not speak Indo-European language, are those that have the highest rate of R1b, which are mainly from the Neolithic farmer of western Europe!

Isn't M153 the dominant snp in the Basque population, I think it's about 2,000 years old or so. Could it be a case that it may have grown due to the population been driven to the Pyrenees by the invading Romans and a patriarchal society started to develop (similar to Gaelic Ireland)?

M153 is almost exclusively Basque but represents a maximum of 10%.
The vast majority of Basques are not M153

rossa
03-24-2015, 10:13 PM
Thank you both. I mainly keep an eye on L21 developments from an Irish historical perspective, so I'm not too well informed on continental clades.
Regarding Tolan's question, what would cause a high rate of R1b in the Basque region?

Isidro
03-24-2015, 10:53 PM
I think you are being overly dramatic. The truth can only be had in the form or ancient DNA data, and the ancient DNA to this point has been telling us that the male ancestor of almost the entirety of Western European L23 is found to the East during the Late Neolithic. If your "truth" has ancient DNA in it, no matter the language or the file format it's published in, please let us know as soon as possible.

Let's leave the soap opera comments out please.
I am only here to learn and share information . And, also I want to make this clear to you that if you were so sure of your truth you would not be wasting your time discussing it here with me.

Good day to you.

Jean M
03-24-2015, 10:59 PM
what would cause a high rate of R1b in the Basque region?

Irresistibly gorgeous Aquitanian women and a whole lot of ooh la la.

Webb
03-24-2015, 11:04 PM
Irresistibly gorgeous Aquitanian women and a whole lot of ooh la la.

Maybe our Beaker Folk were lovers and not fighters.

Isidro
03-24-2015, 11:07 PM
How about this truth to start:


Thank you Jean, but he said I was pitching something for 10 years...and certainly I have not been posting about V88 for 10 years, so he could only have been mentioning it in the context of L23.

Quote from your Post #7:
Given the huge differences in age estimates based on the different methods used in different studies, African V88 and Sardinian V88 may have been a part of the same Neolithic event that sent some V88 to Spain. I think it is safe to say we are not going to find L23(xL51,Z2103) in Africa any time soon.

Jean M
03-24-2015, 11:08 PM
Maybe our Beaker Folk were lovers and not fighters.

The bardic tradition has a lot to answer for. All those golden voices spilling honey.

R.Rocca
03-24-2015, 11:20 PM
How about this truth to start:



Quote from your Post #7:
Given the huge differences in age estimates based on the different methods used in different studies, African V88 and Sardinian V88 may have been a part of the same Neolithic event that sent some V88 to Spain. I think it is safe to say we are not going to find L23(xL51,Z2103) in Africa any time soon.

So where is the truth then?..and I mean the ancient DNA from 6500 BC that shows the split between V88? Let's have it please.

glentane
03-24-2015, 11:25 PM
The bardic tradition has a lot to answer for. All those golden voices spilling honey.

Could be a lot more basic than that. Talking of honey, what do you think the beakers tested in Britain used to contain (in their final use)?
Bit of a step up from grotty gueuze-flavoured dishwater (and whatever toxic brews the Grooved Ware mob were into).
More like that reconstructed "Midas Touch" meady-aley-grog, or this stuff.
http://www.worldsciencefestival.com/2014/05/resurrecting-ancient-ales-dogfish-head-brews-booze-past/
10% A.B.V.? Oh go on then, twist my arm darling ..
Beaker brewers. The original breaking bad Cartels :beerchug:

Jean M
03-24-2015, 11:29 PM
Not him, but perhaps one of his fellows. ;) Maybe he was not in Spain

That's right. The earliest R1b1* so far discovered is from the Sok River, Samara, Russia 5650-5555 BC (Haak 2015). That's the point really.

Isidro
03-24-2015, 11:42 PM
I don't know how far this is worth going into, but here it is.

My only comment to my post was this:

R1b1c-V88, Sardinian-african connection 6,500 BC. More than just R1b sporadic strugglers as more results come out into the open.

Are we done?.



So where is the truth then?..and I mean the ancient DNA from 6500 BC that shows the split between V88? Let's have it please.

rms2
03-25-2015, 12:07 AM
I am very frustrated to not speaking English properly with that complex subject!:(

Well, I wish I could speak French, so we're even.




. . .

We have not enough Neolithic sample, especially in the west ... Because I think the haplogroup of Neolithic farmer are different depending on the area where they were found

We have quite a few Neolithic samples thus far, and the number is growing. R1b-L23 is conspicuous by its absence, given that it is now the most common y haplogroup in Western Europe.




That's true, but the Neolithic farmers have been carrying both L23- and L23 +.
This is not because we found one L23- which all others can not be L23+
During a few thousand years, L51 branch could be born somewhere in Western Europe, leading to L21, DF27 or U152!

The farmers of Neolithic probably come from a close area where the Yamna culture develop later.
It is perhaps not surprising that they have the same haplogroup (around Black Sea)

Look at the situation when it comes to R1b. The original bifurcation was between pre-P297 (P297-), which went to the Near East, gave rise to V88, and then went to Africa and points west; and the eastern P297+ branch, which spawned M73 and M269. M269 gave rise to L23, which in turn gave rise to Z2103 and L51. It seems likely that this occurred in far eastern Europe or nearby in Asia.

There is no evidence that R1b-L23 was part of the advance of Near Eastern Neolithic farmers into Europe.



Of course, all this are only hypotheses ...
But we must explain why the Basques do not speak Indo-European language, are those that have the highest rate of R1b, which are mainly from the Neolithic farmer of western Europe!

You have things backwards when it comes to the Basques if you are trying to assert that their language says something about all of R1b-L23. One really has to explain how by far most of Europe came to be Indo-European speaking, not how a small, relatively isolated minority clung to its non-IE language.

My own opinion is that the Basques were originally mostly I-M26 and have become more like the surrounding population over the millennia via admixture. I read once that the early Basques had a matrilocal marriage tradition, i.e., the groom went to live with the bride's family. That sort of system is tailor-made for the introduction of outside y-dna while preserving the bride's language.

Which is more likely: that a small minority like the Basques have come to resemble their much more numerous neighbors when it comes to y-dna, or that the rest of Western Europe was once as the Basques are now but came to speak Indo-European via some mysterious process that did not involve the migration of actual speakers of Indo-European? Keep in mind as you think about that question the fact that all seven - all seven! - Yamnaya results were R1b and that near where they were found the body of a 7,600-year-old hunter-gatherer was recovered who was also R1b, the oldest instance of R1b yet known anywhere.

One also has to wonder how ANE was spread to Western Europe if not by men who were R1b.

jeanL
03-25-2015, 04:17 AM
My own opinion is that the Basques were originally mostly I-M26 and have become more like the surrounding population over the millennia via admixture. I read once that the early Basques had a matrilocal marriage tradition, i.e., the groom went to live with the bride's family. That sort of system is tailor-made for the introduction of outside y-dna while preserving the bride's language.

Which is more likely: that a small minority like the Basques have come to resemble their much more numerous neighbors when it comes to y-dna, or that the rest of Western Europe was once as the Basques are now but came to speak Indo-European via some mysterious process that did not involve the migration of actual speakers of Indo-European? Keep in mind as you think about that question the fact that all seven - all seven! - Yamnaya results were R1b and that near where they were found the body of a 7,600-year-old hunter-gatherer was recovered who was also R1b, the oldest instance of R1b yet known anywhere.

One also has to wonder how ANE was spread to Western Europe if not by men who were R1b.

All these(Green+Orange) people spoke non-IndoEuropean languages before the Roman Conquest of Iberia.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Iberia_300BC-en.svg/2000px-Iberia_300BC-en.svg.png

http://z3.ifrm.com/67/29/0/p409874/Balaresque_et_al_2009__Table_1.jpg

Let see Galicia, Spain (n=88) Indo-European speaking since pre-Roman times, R1b1b2 58%.

Andalucía West, Spain (n=72) Tartessian speaking, R1b1b2 55%

Portugal South (n=78) Lusitanian speaking, R1b1b2 46.2%

Andalucía East, Spain (n=95) Non-IndoEuropean speaking pre-Roman times R1b1b2 72%

Catalonia, Spain (n=80) Non-IndoEuropean speaking pre-Roman times R1b1b2 81.3%

Spanish Basques (n=116) Non-IndoEuropean speaking R1b1b2 87.1%

French Basques (n=61) Non-IndoEuropean speaking R1b1b2 75.4%

http://z3.ifrm.com/67/29/0/p396652/Adams_et_al_2008_.jpg

Let see Castile NW, Spain (n=100) Indo-European speaking since pre-Roman times R1b1b2 60%

Portugal North (n=60) Lusitanian/Celtic speaking, R1b1b2 59%

Valencia, Spain (n=73) Non-IndoEuropean speaking, R1b1b2 61%, R1b(xR1b1b2) 3%

Extremadura, Spain (n=52) Indo-European speaking since pre-Roman times, R1b1b2 50%

Even your own map of Busby.et.al frequencies.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zimpEGGHFtrk.kVNIcV7mwmCA

Valencia, Spain (n=168) Non-Indoeuropean speaking pre-Roman R1b1b2 64.2%
Cantabria, Spain (n=177) IndoEuropean? speaking pre-Roman R1b1b2 66.1%
Castilla y Leon, Spain (n=83) IndoEuropean speaking since pre-Roman times R1b1b2 55.5%
Sevilla, Andalucía, Spain (n=127) Tartessian speaking pre-Roman times R1b1b2 54.4%
Lisbon, Portugal (n=100) Lusitanian speaking pre-Roman R1b1b2 57%
Central Portugal (n=121) Lusitanian/Celtic speaking pre-Roman R1b1b2 53.7%
North Portugal (n=148) Lusitanian/Celtic speaking pre-Roman R1b1b2 50%.

Toulouse, SW France (n=83) IndoEuropean speaking pre-Roman R1b1b2 52.9%.

There is also the issue of the extremely low levels of R1b-U152 in Basques whereas their Northerly neighbors show the following:

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/U152-S28-poE-CT.png

There is also the mystery of the rather elevated (15%-23%) levels of R1b-L21, not found in their neighbors.

Motzart
03-25-2015, 04:54 AM
the eupedia maps are a total joke so trying to use them as any sort of "factual evidence" is misguided. He just shades it based on guesses and references to studies where n<100 and doesn't even test for the particular subclades he is even making the map of

jeanL
03-25-2015, 05:58 AM
What do people make of the 1 Q(xQ3) sample found in Basques(n=116), also the 1 Q(xQ3) found in Andalucía West(n=73) alongside an R1(xR1a1, R1b-P25). See here:

http://z3.ifrm.com/67/29/0/p396652/Adams_et_al_2008_.jpg

vettor
03-25-2015, 06:07 AM
What do people make of the 1 Q(xQ3) sample found in Basques(n=116), also the 1 Q(xQ3) found in Andalucía West(n=73) alongside an R1(xR1a1, R1b-P25). See here:

http://z3.ifrm.com/67/29/0/p396652/Adams_et_al_2008_.jpg

I am more curious on the 17% of T or L ...........(.I doubt it means N or O ).........In Ibiza .................with the 13% G ..............maybe T or L travelled together with G to the island of ibiza

Tolan
03-25-2015, 08:53 AM
You have things backwards when it comes to the Basques if you are trying to assert that their language says something about all of R1b-L23. One really has to explain how by far most of Europe came to be Indo-European speaking, not how a small, relatively isolated minority clung to its non-IE language.

My own opinion is that the Basques were originally mostly I-M26 and have become more like the surrounding population over the millennia via admixture. I read once that the early Basques had a matrilocal marriage tradition, i.e., the groom went to live with the bride's family. That sort of system is tailor-made for the introduction of outside y-dna while preserving the bride's language.

Which is more likely: that a small minority like the Basques have come to resemble their much more numerous neighbors when it comes to y-dna, or that the rest of Western Europe was once as the Basques are now but came to speak Indo-European via some mysterious process that did not involve the migration of actual speakers of Indo-European? Keep in mind as you think about that question the fact that all seven - all seven! - Yamnaya results were R1b and that near where they were found the body of a 7,600-year-old hunter-gatherer was recovered who was also R1b, the oldest instance of R1b yet known anywhere.

One also has to wonder how ANE was spread to Western Europe if not by men who were R1b.

Although r1b replaced all Aboriginal men in the first generation, all their children, boys and girls, will have 50% of the autosomal of their father.
The matrilocal marriage tradition, will not change anything, because boys and girls have the same mixture after first generation.
In addition, the Basque country is not an exception. It's all the southwest of Europe (south-France, Iberia, North-Italy), which is mainly EEF and P312

I think the Indo-European languages may have been introduced by L21 or U152 in Western Europe, not because P312 comes from the region of origin of Indo-Europeans, but because they originate in West-central Europe, and they are mixed populations came from the Yamna culture and the local EEF .

BBC has a conséquant EEF: 27.55%

DF27 was too far south to be influenced by CW, and would not speak an Indo-European language. L21 has migrated to Spain bringing a Celtic language in some places in Iberia, but not everywhere

sweuro
03-25-2015, 11:05 AM
Although r1b replaced all Aboriginal men in the first generation, all their children, boys and girls, will have 50% of the autosomal of their father.
The matrilocal marriage tradition, will not change anything, because boys and girls have the same mixture after first generation.
In addition, the Basque country is not an exception. It's all the southwest of Europe (south-France, Iberia, North-Italy), which is mainly EEF and P312

I think the Indo-European languages may have been introduced by L21 or U152 in Western Europe, not because P312 comes from the region of origin of Indo-Europeans, but because they originate in West-central Europe, and they are mixed populations came from the Yamna culture and the local EEF .

BBC has a conséquant EEF: 27.55%

DF27 was too far south to be influenced by CW, and would not speak an Indo-European language. L21 has migrated to Spain bringing a Celtic language in some places in Iberia, but not everywhere
The only population that is mainly EEF is Sardinians. The southwest-Europe is much more northern-european influenced than Sardinians.

rms2
03-25-2015, 11:21 AM
Although r1b replaced all Aboriginal men in the first generation, all their children, boys and girls, will have 50% of the autosomal of their father.

What makes you think R1b replaced the aboriginal y-dna in a single generation?

The process would have taken much longer than that. It would have been incremental. All it would take is time, and a tendency of the fathers with the new y-dna to produce more sons than the aboriginal group.



The matrilocal marriage tradition, will not change anything, because boys and girls have the same mixture after first generation.
In addition, the Basque country is not an exception. It's all the southwest of Europe (south-France, Iberia, North-Italy), which is mainly EEF and P312

The matrilocal marriage tradition would absolutely make a lot of difference, because it enables the introduction of outside y-dna while preserving the mother's language, which is what would be taught to the children. As for autosomal dna, the y-dna change was not complete in a single generation. Each successive generation of R1b sons would have a greater percentage of native autosomal dna while the gradual change in y-dna was taking place.



I think the Indo-European languages may have been introduced by L21 or U152 in Western Europe, not because P312 comes from the region of origin of Indo-Europeans, but because they originate in West-central Europe, and they are mixed populations came from the Yamna culture and the local EEF .

BBC has a conséquant EEF: 27.55%

DF27 was too far south to be influenced by CW, and would not speak an Indo-European language. L21 has migrated to Spain bringing a Celtic language in some places in Iberia, but not everywhere

How did the Basques acquire their ANE? How did ANE get into the rest of the population of Western Europe?

Some scholars believe that Basque is related to Paleo-Sardinian (Nuragic), and Sardinia has the highest frequency of I-M26 anywhere. The Basques also have a relatively high frequency of I-M26, which I believe is what remains of the original Basque y-dna.

Once again, look at that early split in R1b into a pre-P297 (P297-) branch that went to the Near East and an eastern, P297+ branch. The P297+ branch gave rise to M73 and M269. M73 is still largely found in far eastern Europe and Asia, and M269 and its offspring have an east-to-west phylogeography.

Anabasis
03-25-2015, 11:42 AM
European branch of R1b is not related with neolethic. The map of caucasian companent contradict with R1b distrubution. R1b frequency in southern caucasia like wetsern georgia and north east of Anatolia ise around 5-10%. Only the Armenians have significant frequency of R1b which is originated from southern eatern anatolia which links to Iran rather then caucaus. Caucasian distribution corelates with G2a distrubution rather then R1b.

And the R1b in europe is almost proved that related with indo european expansion from steppe. Why do you insist to proceed that "Anatolian Hypothesis" probaganda.

ArmandoR1b
03-25-2015, 12:00 PM
Although r1b replaced all Aboriginal men in the first generation, all their children, boys and girls, will have 50% of the autosomal of their father.
The matrilocal marriage tradition, will not change anything, because boys and girls have the same mixture after first generation.
In addition, the Basque country is not an exception. It's all the southwest of Europe (south-France, Iberia, North-Italy), which is mainly EEF and P312

I think the Indo-European languages may have been introduced by L21 or U152 in Western Europe, not because P312 comes from the region of origin of Indo-Europeans, but because they originate in West-central Europe, and they are mixed populations came from the Yamna culture and the local EEF .

BBC has a conséquant EEF: 27.55%

DF27 was too far south to be influenced by CW, and would not speak an Indo-European language. L21 has migrated to Spain bringing a Celtic language in some places in Iberia, but not everywhere

You aren't making sense. DF27, L21, and U152 have the same age and both come from P312 and are relatives separated by only 300 years at the most and most likely only 100 years. DF27 doesn't exist only in Iberia it also exists in other parts of Europe. DF27, U152, and L21 all populated western Europe at the same time but U152 and DF27 mostly stayed closer to France, Italy, and Iberia than L21. L21 mostly went north but some likely stayed close to Iberia and France. The higher EEF in southwest Europe is not due to R1b because if it were then the Irish would have a lot also.

ArmandoR1b
03-25-2015, 12:10 PM
jeanL, there isn't any ancient DNA tied to what you have posted. Languages aren't proof that R1b-M269 existed in Iberia prior to the Steppe hypothesis. Once R-M269 is found in Iberia from 5,000-8,000 years ago then you can say there is proof that it existed prior to the Steppe hypothesis.

Dubhthach
03-25-2015, 12:47 PM
It should be noted that going off place names in the Basque country that there are signs that alot of what is now the Spanish Basque country was occupied by Celtic speakers before the Roman conquest. Some people have talked about a "late vasocisation" process where the Basque language spread out of a "Pyrenean refugee" in post Roman period, which would match some of the known historic facts with regards to expansion of Basque power during the Dark ages (eg. fighting with the Goths etc.)

In such a scenario it's quite possible that IE speakers (here in form of Celtic or latinised Celts) gradually underwent language shift to Basque.

Jean M
03-25-2015, 12:53 PM
DF27 was too far south to be influenced by CW, and would not speak an Indo-European language. L21 has migrated to Spain bringing a Celtic language in some places in Iberia, but not everywhere

The idea that Corded Ware alone spread Indo-European languages is not feasible. It did not cover the whole territory in which IE languages were found in antiquity in Europe and Asia. Nor does it explain the linguistic differences between those languages. There is a good fit between the archaeological evidence for a number of cultures being descended from Yamnaya and the linguistic evidence for IE language families splitting away from Proto-Indo-European. An account in French: La patrie d'origine des Indo-Européens selon des critères linguistiques et archéologiques: http://secher.bernard.free.fr/blog/index.php?post/2015/02/12/La-patrie-d-origine-des-Indo-Europ%C3%A9ens-selon-des-crit%C3%A8res-linguistiques-et-arch%C3%A9ologiques

We have ancient DNA results for CW as a descendant of Yamnaya from Haak 2015. We also have ancient Y-DNA R1a results indicating the spread east of Indo-European languages across the Asian steppe. This fits the archaeological evidence of Corded Ware and Andronovo as descendants of Yamnaya. But CW had nothing to do with the most archaeologically obvious movements of Yamnaya:


Into Bulgaria south of the Danube, whence there is a trail of anthropomorphic stelae into Thrace and Greece (indicating the start of the Greek language).
Up the Danube to the Carpathian Basin, where some time later Bell Beaker pottery appears. (The latter has a convoluted story, but let's keep it simple.) This trail up the Danube has long been thought to represent the development of Proto-Indo-European, but initially it would just have been a dialect of PIE.


Since the Bell Beaker culture covers roughly the same territory as the region in which we later find Italic and Celtic languages spoken, it is the most logical choice as the vector for those languages. See Patrice Brun, Les Celtes à la lumière de l’archéologie: http://www.inrap.fr/userdata/c_bloc_file/6/6891/6891_fichier_dossier18-brun.pdf

However the spread of IE speakers into Iberia was so early it did not carry any developed daughter of PIE, but a language much closer to PIE itself. This left its mark in place-names which are IE but not Italic or Celtic. The people who carried this early IE seem also to have carried DF27, though we await ancient DNA.

L21 certainly spread into Iberia, partly with the Basques (who presumably absorbed it in SW France, where they lived in Roman times), partly no doubt with people from the British Isles who settled in Galicia (bringing Celtic), and partly with Gauls. But archaeological and linguistic evidence suggests that it was the Celtiberians who did most to spread Celtic within Iberia, and they were not the outcome of Gaulish arrival, but an older one - probably Late Bell Beaker.

Jean M
03-25-2015, 01:03 PM
All these (Green+Orange) people spoke non-IndoEuropean languages before the Roman Conquest of Iberia.

To judge by place-names, the Iberes were interlopers into a region which previously spoke Ligurian. They probably arrived c. 2200 BC with the Argaric culture. The Argaric culture collapsed around 1600 BC, but could have left a remnant of people speaking an eastern Mediterranean language. They do not seem to have spread out of Contestania until about 400 BC, and probably only as an elite, or at least not totally replacing the original inhabitants. We are to get aDNA from La Bastida, I believe, which should help to sort the matter out.

The idea that the Basques were living in which is now the Basque Country in Spain before the Roman conquest is simply not feasible. Place-name evidence shows that the region was Celtic-speaking. The Basques had entered Navarre by Roman times, but were mainly living in Aquitaine in France.

jeanL
03-25-2015, 01:07 PM
jeanL, there isn't any ancient DNA tied to what you have posted. Languages aren't proof that R1b-M269 existed in Iberia prior to the Steppe hypothesis. Once R-M269 is found in Iberia from 5,000-8,000 years ago then you can say there is proof that it existed prior to the Steppe hypothesis.

I'm not sure where in my post I implied or mentioned that R1b-M269 existed in Iberia prior to the "Steppe hypothesis". I was merely showing that the frequency of R1b-M269+ derived clades nowadays in Iberia isn't correlated with a population being Indo-European speaking prior to Roman Conquest, instead those populations that were not Indo-European speaking appear to carry the greatest amount of R1b-M269+. What's more interesting is that we know that Iberia has undergone internal migrations, i.e. Basques migrated to Southern Spain, past post-Reconquista, etc. Granted the other place with high R1b-M269, Catalonia was part of the Urnfield culture. Still, the fact that we see a significant drop of R1b-M269+ clades as we move west and south of the Basque Country to places that were not under any sort of Islamic rule(in the case of Cantabria), while the levels of R1b-M269+ hold steady as we move East, I think is something to think about. I also mentioned the higher than normal values of R1b-L21 found in the core area of the Basque Country which isn't found elsewhere thus far sampled in Iberia.

jeanL
03-25-2015, 01:18 PM
It should be noted that going off place names in the Basque country that there are signs that alot of what is now the Spanish Basque country was occupied by Celtic speakers before the Roman conquest. Some people have talked about a "late vasocisation" process where the Basque language spread out of a "Pyrenean refugee" in post Roman period, which would match some of the known historic facts with regards to expansion of Basque power during the Dark ages (eg. fighting with the Goths etc.)

In such a scenario it's quite possible that IE speakers (here in form of Celtic or latinised Celts) gradually underwent language shift to Basque.

Most of the places with said Indo-European place names(which were Proto-Celtic) are found in the territory of the Autrigones, which is Eastern Bizkaia. There is the whole, issue with Basques dialects matching nearly perfectly the pre-Roman boundaries, see here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Euskalkiak.svg/300px-Euskalkiak.svg.png

Compare to:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/PrerromanosN.png

But if that wasn't enough, the Martinez-Cruz.et.al.2012 study showed that the current Basque subpopulations show pre-Roman structure. i.e:

Evidence of pre-Roman tribal genetic structure in Basques from uniparentally inherited markers (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/03/12/molbev.mss091.abstract)




Basque people have received considerable attention from anthropologists, geneticists and linguists during the last century due to the singularity of their language and to other cultural and biological characteristics. Despite the multidisciplinary efforts performed to address the questions of the origin, uniqueness and heterogeneity of Basques, the genetic studies performed up to now have suffered from a weak study-design where populations are not analyzed in an adequate geographic and population context. To address the former questions and to overcome these design limitations, we have analyzed the uniparentally inherited markers (Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA) of ∼900 individuals from 18 populations, including those where Basque is currently spoken and populations from adjacent regions where Basque might have been spoken in historical times. Our results indicate that Basque-speaking populations fall within the genetic Western European gene pool and they are similar to geographically surrounding non-Basque populations, and also that their genetic uniqueness is based on a lower amount of external influences compared to other Iberians and French populations. Our data suggest that the genetic heterogeneity and structure observed in the Basque region results from pre-Roman tribal structure related to geography and might be linked to the increased complexity of emerging societies during the Bronze Age. The rough overlap of the pre-Roman tribe location and the current dialect limits supports the notion that the environmental diversity in the region has played a recurrent role in cultural differentiation and ethnogenesis at different time periods.

Therefore it is very likely that the tribes that inhabited most of modern day Basque Country(except for Eastern Bizkaia) were Basque speaking since pre-Roman times. Namely, because if I late vasconization had occurred whereby the Vascones replaced their neighbors then we shouldn't see any sort of structure. It's also worth nothing the autosomal similarities between Spanish Basques, French Basques and people from Navarra supports all of them having a common root at some point.

jeanL
03-25-2015, 01:25 PM
The idea that the Basques were living in which is now the Basque Country in Spain before the Roman conquest is simply not feasible. Place-name evidence shows that the region was Celtic-speaking. The Basques had entered Navarre by Roman times, but were mainly living in Aquitaine in France.

What exactly is it not feasible, I just showed above the many reasons why it is feasible. BTW there is a reason why the modern day Basque Country was known as Saltus Vasconum, because there was barely any Roman presence in the area. Heck there is even controversy about the tribes names, with some people putting the Varduli all around the Basque Country and next to the Cantabri, and others placing them next to the Caristii. So there is not real evidence that places like Guipuzcoa, Western Vizcaya which are Basque speaking nowadays had Indo-European names. Plus there is the whole population structure at the y-DNA level which happens to match pre-Roman differentiation. I mean what are the odds??

Jean M
03-25-2015, 01:33 PM
I was merely showing that the frequency of R1b-M269+ derived clades nowadays in Iberia isn't correlated with a population being Indo-European speaking prior to Roman Conquest, instead those populations that were not Indo-European speaking appear to carry the greatest amount of R1b-M269+... Granted the other place with high R1b-M269, Catalonia was part of the Urnfield culture.

The Urnfield culture and related people seem to have brought an Italo-Celtic language into Iberia, initially known as Ligurian. This seems to have spread all along the Mediterranean coast and beyond - along the Atlantic coast and into what is now Portugal, where the language has been labelled Lusitanian. Early Greek travellers therefore knew what is now Spain and Portugal as the Ligurian peninsula. Only after the Iberes spread over so much previously Ligurian territory about 400 BC did the Greeks start calling it the Iberian peninsula.

Jean M
03-25-2015, 01:48 PM
I just showed above the many reasons why it is feasible. BTW there is a reason why the modern day Basque Country was known as Saltus Vasconum, because there was barely any Roman presence in the area. Heck there is even controversy about the tribes names..

This is clutching at straws. The Romans may not have been particularly interested in what is now the Basque Country, but it was nonetheless within the Roman Empire and a known region to Roman geographers. The present Castro Urdiales (derived from Castrum Vardulies) preserves the name of the Varduli.

sweuro
03-25-2015, 01:58 PM
The southwest of Europe (Spaniards, basques, south french) can be modeled as half neolithic (sardinian-like) and half German Bell Beakers (which are similar to Northern Germans). And if these neolithics were mostly I2, G2, then it's obvious that the R1b had to be brought by the latter, a northern-euro like population. And we actually know these german bell-beakers were rich in R1b-P312. It all makes sense. So, even if Bell Beaker culture started in Iberia, then there was a back migration, probably as Celtic speakers already.

Dubhthach
03-25-2015, 02:23 PM
Most of the places with said Indo-European place names(which were Proto-Celtic) are found in the territory of the Autrigones, which is Eastern Bizkaia. There is the whole, issue with Basques dialects matching nearly perfectly the pre-Roman boundaries, see here:

...

Therefore it is very likely that the tribes that inhabited most of modern day Basque Country(except for Eastern Bizkaia) were Basque speaking since pre-Roman times. Namely, because if I late vasconization had occurred whereby the Vascones replaced their neighbors then we shouldn't see any sort of structure. It's also worth nothing the autosomal similarities between Spanish Basques, French Basques and people from Navarra supports all of them having a common root at some point.

People who are actually working with Basque don't regard the various dialects as having a history older than the middle ages, this would actually make sense, if they had spilt in the pre-Roman period you would be looking at distinct languages from one another.

Second the placenames linked to both the Varduli and the Caristii appear to be of Indo-European (specifically Celtic) origin.

ArmandoR1b
03-25-2015, 02:53 PM
I'm not sure where in my post I implied or mentioned that R1b-M269 existed in Iberia prior to the "Steppe hypothesis". I was merely showing that the frequency of R1b-M269+ derived clades nowadays in Iberia isn't correlated with a population being Indo-European speaking prior to Roman Conquest, instead those populations that were not Indo-European speaking appear to carry the greatest amount of R1b-M269+. What's more interesting is that we know that Iberia has undergone internal migrations, i.e. Basques migrated to Southern Spain, past post-Reconquista, etc. Granted the other place with high R1b-M269, Catalonia was part of the Urnfield culture. Still, the fact that we see a significant drop of R1b-M269+ clades as we move west and south of the Basque Country to places that were not under any sort of Islamic rule(in the case of Cantabria), while the levels of R1b-M269+ hold steady as we move East, I think is something to think about. I also mentioned the higher than normal values of R1b-L21 found in the core area of the Basque Country which isn't found elsewhere thus far sampled in Iberia.

The implication is obvious which is that if R1b-M269 is highest in regions in Iberia where non-Indo-European speakers lived prior to the Roman Conquest that R1b-M269 wasn't spread by Indo-European speakers and therefore R1b-M269 existed in those areas prior to the spread of Indo-European. However, as Jean M and Dubhthach pointed out a lot of what is now Basque country was Celtic-speaking. If it wasn't R1b-M269 that spread the Indo-European language which group did? Why do the Irish have Gaelic, an Indo-European language, and high R1b-M269. What Jean M and Dubhthach stated makes more sense.

ArmandoR1b
03-25-2015, 03:08 PM
The southwest of Europe (Spaniards, basques, south french) can be modeled as half neolithic (sardinian-like) and half German Bell Beakers (which are similar to Northern Germans). And if these neolithics were mostly I2, G2, then it's obvious that the R1b had to be brought by the latter, a northern-euro like population. And we actually know these german bell-beakers were rich in R1b-P312. It all makes sense. So, even if Bell Beaker culture started in Iberia, then there was a back migration, probably as Celtic speakers already.

Right, and that is what the Haak admixture points to at k=19 and k=20.

jeanL
03-25-2015, 04:51 PM
This is clutching at straws. The Romans may not have been particularly interested in what is now the Basque Country, but it was nonetheless within the Roman Empire and a known region to Roman geographers. The present Castro Urdiales (derived from Castrum Vardulies) preserves the name of the Varduli.

Exactly my point! Castro Urdiales is in present day Cantabria, not in the Basque Country. As I said before most of the issue arises from the fact that the Romans historians had different versions of the territory of the Varduli.


The Varduli are mentioned for the first time during Roman times, by Strabo, who called them Bardyetai, and placed them in the Basque coast, between the Cantabri and Vascones; they are also mentioned by the geographer Ptolemy, who placed them roughly in present-day Gipuzkoa, and by Roman historians, notably Pliny the Elder in his Naturalis Historia,[6] where he reported that Amanum Portus (Roman name: Flaviobriga), present-day Castro Urdiales, was a Varduli city. The Roman geographer Pomponius Mela located them also in the coast, west of the Vascones and east of the Caristii. This lack of agreement about their exact position may have been caused by the continuous movement of the tribes of the northern Iberian Peninsula during events such as the Cantabrian Wars. The first census of the Varduli population took place under the orders of Augustus.[7]

Or perhaps it was because the region was not to well know to the Romans.

Here is a picture of the geographical limits of the tribes according to Emborujo y Ortíz de Urbina

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Vardulos%2C_Caristios_y_Autrigones.jpg

Here is another one according to J. M Solana

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Vardulos_y_Caristios.jpg

Do you see any Celtic place names in the core regions of the Basque Country, that is Guipuzcoa, Central and Western Bizkaia?

You are taking a highly controversial subject(Late Vasconization) and playing it as if it was something that has been set in stone. Need I remind you that while all these people propose the theory:

2.1 Arnaud Oihenart
2.2 Adolf Schulten
2.3 Manuel Gómez-Moreno
2.4 Ulrich Schmoll
2.5 Sánchez Albornoz
2.6 Stanley G. Payne
2.7 José Antonio Vaca de Osma
2.8 Martín Almagro Gorbea
2.9 Francisco Villar
2.10 Hector Iglesias
2.11 Jon Juaristi
2.12 Javier Velaza

All these people oppose it:

3.1 Arturo Campión
3.2 Julio Caro Baroja
3.3 Koldo Mitxelena
3.4 Joaquín Gorrochategui Churruca
3.5 Juan Plazaola
3.6 Antonio Tovar
3.7 Andrés Mañaricua
3.8 Henrike Knör
3.9 Amalia Embrujo Salgado, E. Ortiz de Urbina y J. Santos
3.10 Pere Bosch i Gimpera
3.11 Barbero y Vigil, Juan José Sayas Abengoechea, Koldo Larrañaga y José María Jimeno Jurío

Moreover the Martinez-Cruz.et.al.2012 study which nobody here has addressed clearly shows that Basque Y-chromosome haplogroups present a structure that matches their pre-Roman tribal distribution. If there was a Late Vasconization why would there be a population structure matching tribal distributions? At the same time how can we explain the autosomal similarities between French and Spanish Basques if they present a Y-chromosome structure.

jeanL
03-25-2015, 04:59 PM
The southwest of Europe (Spaniards, basques, south french) can be modeled as half neolithic (sardinian-like) and half German Bell Beakers (which are similar to Northern Germans). And if these neolithics were mostly I2, G2, then it's obvious that the R1b had to be brought by the latter, a northern-euro like population. And we actually know these german bell-beakers were rich in R1b-P312. It all makes sense. So, even if Bell Beaker culture started in Iberia, then there was a back migration, probably as Celtic speakers already.

I already went over this in another thread see here:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3982-Comparison-of-Spain_MN-to-Modern-day-Iberians



If we assume that the source for ANE in the Basques is external and if we assume that Spain_Haak_MN represents pre-Beaker Basques, it seems whatever brough ANE to the Basque did so at the expense of Near_Eastern lowering the component from ~54% down to 47.5% and increasing the WHG a couple of points.

[...]

Making the same assumptions as before. It seems whatever brought ANE to the other Iberian populations did so at the expense of WHG, lowering 3% or more Near_Eastern only in Aragon, Cantabria and Catalonia, while lowering WHG 3% or less in Aragon, Cantabria and Catalonia. Perhaps a third Near Eastern wave could have further lowered the WHG levels in populations other than Aragon, Cantabria and Catalonia, but why would it leave unchanged the levels of ANE, North African likely brought the Sub-Saharan affinity, though the affinities could be more ancient due to its presence in Spanish_Galicia. In any case Near_Eastern through North Africa would surely result in lower amounts of ANE, we see this in Spanish_Canarias, so perhaps there was a pre-Roman Near Eastern wave into Iberia that affected other regions other than Basques.

http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/K8_Basque_Beaker_Spain_MN_Comparisons_zpsh7puca0v. jpg (http://s1133.photobucket.com/user/jeanlohizun/media/K8_Basque_Beaker_Spain_MN_Comparisons_zpsh7puca0v. jpg.html)


It seems the Hybrid#1 population made up of 38.26% German Beaker and 61.74% Spain_MN is a perfect match for the French Basques in terms of ANE and Near Eastern but they are 45.81% WHG instead of 43.78% so 2% higher WHG, which can happen due to drift or could just be within the variation in the group. Thus if we assume that Spain_MN is akin to the pre-Beaker Basque population, and that ANE was brought upon by an external source, then it appears that Basques could be modeled as ~40% German_Beaker+60% Spain_MN using the K8 averages.

So no most Spaniards are not 50/50 Beaker/Pre-Neolithic, they have extra African and Middle Eastern admixture compared to Spain_MN, which can be seen above. Basques on the other hand can be modeled as ~40% German_Beaker+60% Spain_MN, this is not 50/50. Also it is clear that part of ANE in some Spaniards not only came from the Beaker people but directly from West Asia.

vettor
03-25-2015, 06:04 PM
It should be noted that going off place names in the Basque country that there are signs that alot of what is now the Spanish Basque country was occupied by Celtic speakers before the Roman conquest. Some people have talked about a "late vasocisation" process where the Basque language spread out of a "Pyrenean refugee" in post Roman period, which would match some of the known historic facts with regards to expansion of Basque power during the Dark ages (eg. fighting with the Goths etc.)

In such a scenario it's quite possible that IE speakers (here in form of Celtic or latinised Celts) gradually underwent language shift to Basque.

you do realise there are/where french-basques from history, living in the area of today called gascony. Basques did not entirely live in the hills of the pyrennes

Tolan
03-25-2015, 09:42 PM
You aren't making sense. DF27, L21, and U152 have the same age and both come from P312 and are relatives separated by only 300 years at the most and most likely only 100 years. DF27 doesn't exist only in Iberia it also exists in other parts of Europe. DF27, U152, and L21 all populated western Europe at the same time but U152 and DF27 mostly stayed closer to France, Italy, and Iberia than L21. L21 mostly went north but some likely stayed close to Iberia and France. The higher EEF in southwest Europe is not due to R1b because if it were then the Irish would have a lot also.

Why Iberia, Basque, South-french have a lot EEF?

rms2
03-25-2015, 11:28 PM
Why Iberia, Basque, South-french have a lot EEF?

Because the pre-IE population nearest the Mediterranean was both bigger and had a higher proportion of Near Eastern-derived farmers than farther north in Europe. It was not due to R1b, because, as ArmandoR1b said, if that were the case, the Irish would have a lot of EEF, too.

ArmandoR1b
03-26-2015, 12:53 AM
Moreover the Martinez-Cruz.et.al.2012 study which nobody here has addressed clearly shows that Basque Y-chromosome haplogroups present a structure that matches their pre-Roman tribal distribution. If there was a Late Vasconization why would there be a population structure matching tribal distributions? At the same time how can we explain the autosomal similarities between French and Spanish Basques if they present a Y-chromosome structure.

Martinez Cruz states in the abstract "Our results indicate that Basque-speaking populations fall within the genetic Western European gene pool, that they are similar to geographically surrounding non-Basque populations, and also that their genetic uniqueness is based on a lower amount of external influences compared with other Iberians and French populations."

Basically they are saying that the E-M81, J1, J2, and T are from Roman and post-Roman influx and prior to that the Basque were similar to other Iberian and French populations.

In the introduction they state that there doubts about the Basque language being spoken by all of the following tribes - Aquitani, Vascones, Varduli, Caristi, Autrigones, and Berones

“…there is general agreement that the Aquitani spoke a form of proto-Basque language. Otherwise Trask (1997) suggested that Basque language penetrated south to the Pyrenees in post-Roman times. However, given that Aquitanian onomastic elements have been found in present-day Navarre, small parts of Gipuzkoa and neighboring zones on the East (Gorrochategui 2007) most scholars agree today that Basque was also spoken by Vascones in pre-Roman times. As for the other tribes, there are more doubts whether they spoke Basque at this time because there is no evidence of inscriptions or place names in Basque language.”

That means that there is no proof that the Basque language was spoken in Bizkaia, South Gipuzkoa and Araba which is where Caristi and some Varduli lived.

Then there's the discussion -

"When other Iberian and French samples are compared with our present sample set (figs. 2b and 3b), Basque samples cluster with other surrounding non-Basque-speaking populations, which suggests a genetic distinctiveness, not exclusive to Basque speakers, of the populations inhabiting this geographical area. Moreover, the geographically distant population from the French Bretagne (BRI), which shows no North African haplogroups and very little Neolithic influences, falls within our Basque populations for the Y chromosome data, whereas geographically closer French populations do not. Bretons speak a Celtic language with roots in the British Isles and that has no relation with Basque. This suggests that other geographically and ethnically separated Western European populations might exhibit the genetic composition similar to the Basques and some surrounding populations but that this peculiarity is not linked to the fact of having a Basque culture."

So yet again they state that Basque are similar to surrounding non-Basque populations and to the Bretons which are Celtic speakers.

Now the conclusion -

"The genetic similarity of uniparental genomes of Basque to some surrounding and even distant non-Basque populations suggests that the so-called genetic uniqueness of the Basques is the result of a lesser external influence and low gene flow from recent migrations with respect to other surrounding populations. Still, this lower external genetic influence in Basque populations could make them good candidates to represent the genetic profile of the older European populations, although this might also be the case for other non-Basque populations, such as the French Bretons. Studies based on Y chromosome sequences, entire mtDNA genomes or even whole human genomes may unmask genetic particularities of the Basque population that distinguish them from their Western European neighbors. Interestingly, our genetic results clearly correlated with a pre-Roman tribal genetic structure in this area that may be related to environmental diversity and which is still retrievable in the current population. Some authors think that this structure also correlates with the dialectal structure that subsequently appeared. It has been suggested that ancient patterns of organization around the main rivers and their tributaries could be causing the genetic structure and that the persistence of it may be related to a determined type of organization in small population units (Iriondo et al. 2003). This would suggest that both genetic and dialectal structures might have been driven by the same environmental factors that are still acting at present."

The reason they show a "tribal" genetic structure is because after R1b made it's way into the region and then they ceased to be mobile at some point due to geographical boundaries and that caused a lot of consanguinity meaning it was a smaller founding population as compared to the rest of western Europe. According to the study a common ancestral population to the Basque split 4,520 years ago proceeding in successive splits into the six different tribes described by Romans upon their arrival into the region 2,000 years ago. Those dates are likely off because they used a conservative STR mutation rate and in Table 2 they have P312 as being 10,400 years old +/- 1,800 years. P312 is only 5,000 years old and L21 should be closer to the age of P312 whereas they have it as 7,500 years old.

Now what you haven't addressed is how L21, U152, and U106 populations are Indo-European speakers if, according to what you are implying, the Basque DF27 and L21 were always Basque speakers. There is no evidence of the Basque language outside of France and Spain but there is plenty of L21, U152, DF27, and U106 outside of France and Spain.

Tolan
03-26-2015, 09:31 AM
Because the pre-IE population nearest the Mediterranean was both bigger and had a higher proportion of Near Eastern-derived farmers than farther north in Europe. It was not due to R1b, because, as ArmandoR1b said, if that were the case, the Irish would have a lot of EEF, too.

My objective is not to show that I am right but to discover the truth.
Indeed, The EEF in the pre-Indo-European was very high in the southwest of Europe.
So you need a large population of intake to lower the rate of EEF that we found currently in Spain.
The Basques are apart and have almost similar rate to the Neolithic than El Trocs but have a higher WHG

So maybe,i was wrong but ...
It will take further ancient DNA to confirm that R1b U106/P312, have come directly from the culture of Yamna.
The probability that R1b was already present in central Europe before the arrival of Indo-European is for me not rule!

We know that there was a mixed population in central Europe before the westward expansion

Dubhthach
03-26-2015, 09:49 AM
you do realise there are/where french-basques from history, living in the area of today called gascony. Basques did not entirely live in the hills of the pyrennes

Sure after all Caesar himself as well as Strabo talks about the difference in language in Gallia Aquitania between the Aquitani and those speaking Gaulish.

My point though perhaps clumsy put was about the exapansion of basque power in period 400-600AD in the post roman world and involving interactions between them and the Goths, Suebi and Franks.

Tolan
03-26-2015, 10:28 AM
My objective is not to show that I am right but to discover the truth.
Indeed, The EEF in the pre-Indo-European was very high in the southwest of Europe.
So you need a large population of intake to lower the rate of EEF that we found currently in Spain.
The Basques are apart and have almost similar rate to the Neolithic than El Trocs but have a higher WHG

So maybe,i was wrong but ...
It will take further ancient DNA to confirm that R1b U106/P312, have come directly from the culture of Yamna.
The probability that R1b was already present in central Europe before the arrival of Indo-European is for me not rule!

We know that there was a mixed population in central Europe before the westward expansion

By the way! What happened WHG in Spain type la Braña?
El Trocs date of 5100 BC, the Braña 5000 BC.
What exactly are the rate WHG / EEF just before the arrival of Indo-europeans in Spain?
It is without doubt wrong to say that the Spanish are 40% Bell-Beaker and 60% neolithic if we forget the WHG!

rms2
03-26-2015, 11:04 AM
My objective is not to show that I am right but to discover the truth.
Indeed, The EEF in the pre-Indo-European was very high in the southwest of Europe.
So you need a large population of intake to lower the rate of EEF that we found currently in Spain.
The Basques are apart and have almost similar rate to the Neolithic than El Trocs but have a higher WHG

So maybe,i was wrong but ...
It will take further ancient DNA to confirm that R1b U106/P312, have come directly from the culture of Yamna.
The probability that R1b was already present in central Europe before the arrival of Indo-European is for me not rule!

We know that there was a mixed population in central Europe before the westward expansion

Well, I certainly agree that we need more ancient y-dna. Haak et al was an appetizer; it was nice, but it left one wanting more and raised many more questions than it answered.

They got Yamnaya from out at the eastern end of its range and grabbed some Beaker and Corded Ware (and others) from much farther west but left Yamnaya's migration west untouched. There are thousands of Yamnaya kurgans in eastern Hungary alone. I wish we could get some ancient y-dna from them. It would also be nice if someone did a more extensive y-dna survey of Beaker that would include Iberia, the British Isles, Italy and the Alps, the Czech Republic, and the Csepel Beaker Group in Hungary. Now that would be interesting!

rms2
03-26-2015, 11:37 AM
By the way! What happened WHG in Spain type la Braña?
El Trocs date of 5100 BC, the Braña 5000 BC.
What exactly are the rate WHG / EEF just before the arrival of Indo-europeans in Spain?
It is without doubt wrong to say that the Spanish are 40% Bell-Beaker and 60% neolithic if we forget the WHG!

That Spanish Middle Neolithic sample jeanL was talking about was about 43% WHG, so it wasn't left out.

sweuro
03-26-2015, 12:21 PM
By the way! What happened WHG in Spain type la Braña?
It is without doubt wrong to say that the Spanish are 40% Bell-Beaker and 60% neolithic if we forget the WHG!
What happened ? Well, to start with, neolithic farmers are not pure near-eastern, but they have high dosis of WHG ancestry. Middle-Neolithics increasead it a bit more, probably due to mixing more with the La Braña akins. And then the bell-beaker samples have even more of it, with also some EHG in the mix.

ADW_1981
03-26-2015, 12:55 PM
We also know the single male sample among dozens of Neolithic male remains found to date is R1b(xM269) which is an extreme minority today anywhere in the world. Although the last few studies have shown a little more Y diversity among the farmers, the commonality remains the same. They are all very rare, or minority lineages today.

jeanL
03-26-2015, 01:46 PM
Martinez Cruz states in the abstract "Our results indicate that Basque-speaking populations fall within the genetic Western European gene pool, that they are similar to geographically surrounding non-Basque populations, and also that their genetic uniqueness is based on a lower amount of external influences compared with other Iberians and French populations."

Basically they are saying that the E-M81, J1, J2, and T are from Roman and post-Roman influx and prior to that the Basque were similar to other Iberian and French populations.

In the introduction they state that there doubts about the Basque language being spoken by all of the following tribes - Aquitani, Vascones, Varduli, Caristi, Autrigones, and Berones

“…there is general agreement that the Aquitani spoke a form of proto-Basque language. Otherwise Trask (1997) suggested that Basque language penetrated south to the Pyrenees in post-Roman times. However, given that Aquitanian onomastic elements have been found in present-day Navarre, small parts of Gipuzkoa and neighboring zones on the East (Gorrochategui 2007) most scholars agree today that Basque was also spoken by Vascones in pre-Roman times. As for the other tribes, there are more doubts whether they spoke Basque at this time because there is no evidence of inscriptions or place names in Basque language.”

That means that there is no proof that the Basque language was spoken in Bizkaia, South Gipuzkoa and Araba which is where Caristi and some Varduli lived.

Then there's the discussion -

"When other Iberian and French samples are compared with our present sample set (figs. 2b and 3b), Basque samples cluster with other surrounding non-Basque-speaking populations, which suggests a genetic distinctiveness, not exclusive to Basque speakers, of the populations inhabiting this geographical area. Moreover, the geographically distant population from the French Bretagne (BRI), which shows no North African haplogroups and very little Neolithic influences, falls within our Basque populations for the Y chromosome data, whereas geographically closer French populations do not. Bretons speak a Celtic language with roots in the British Isles and that has no relation with Basque. This suggests that other geographically and ethnically separated Western European populations might exhibit the genetic composition similar to the Basques and some surrounding populations but that this peculiarity is not linked to the fact of having a Basque culture."

So yet again they state that Basque are similar to surrounding non-Basque populations and to the Bretons which are Celtic speakers.

Now the conclusion -

"The genetic similarity of uniparental genomes of Basque to some surrounding and even distant non-Basque populations suggests that the so-called genetic uniqueness of the Basques is the result of a lesser external influence and low gene flow from recent migrations with respect to other surrounding populations. Still, this lower external genetic influence in Basque populations could make them good candidates to represent the genetic profile of the older European populations, although this might also be the case for other non-Basque populations, such as the French Bretons. Studies based on Y chromosome sequences, entire mtDNA genomes or even whole human genomes may unmask genetic particularities of the Basque population that distinguish them from their Western European neighbors. Interestingly, our genetic results clearly correlated with a pre-Roman tribal genetic structure in this area that may be related to environmental diversity and which is still retrievable in the current population. Some authors think that this structure also correlates with the dialectal structure that subsequently appeared. It has been suggested that ancient patterns of organization around the main rivers and their tributaries could be causing the genetic structure and that the persistence of it may be related to a determined type of organization in small population units (Iriondo et al. 2003). This would suggest that both genetic and dialectal structures might have been driven by the same environmental factors that are still acting at present."

The reason they show a "tribal" genetic structure is because after R1b made it's way into the region and then they ceased to be mobile at some point due to geographical boundaries and that caused a lot of consanguinity meaning it was a smaller founding population as compared to the rest of western Europe. According to the study a common ancestral population to the Basque split 4,520 years ago proceeding in successive splits into the six different tribes described by Romans upon their arrival into the region 2,000 years ago. Those dates are likely off because they used a conservative STR mutation rate and in Table 2 they have P312 as being 10,400 years old +/- 1,800 years. P312 is only 5,000 years old and L21 should be closer to the age of P312 whereas they have it as 7,500 years old.

Now what you haven't addressed is how L21, U152, and U106 populations are Indo-European speakers if, according to what you are implying, the Basque DF27 and L21 were always Basque speakers. There is no evidence of the Basque language outside of France and Spain but there is plenty of L21, U152, DF27, and U106 outside of France and Spain.


Yes the conclusions:


"The genetic similarity of uniparental genomes of Basque to some surrounding and even distant non-Basque populations suggests that the so-called genetic uniqueness of the Basques is the result of a lesser external influence and low gene flow from recent migrations with respect to other surrounding populations. Still, this lower external genetic influence in Basque populations could make them good candidates to represent the genetic profile of the older European populations, although this might also be the case for other non-Basque populations, such as the French Bretons. Studies based on Y chromosome sequences, entire mtDNA genomes or even whole human genomes may unmask genetic particularities of the Basque population that distinguish them from their Western European neighbors. Interestingly, our genetic results clearly correlated with a pre-Roman tribal genetic structure in this area that may be related to environmental diversity and which is still retrievable in the current population. Some authors think that this structure also correlates with the dialectal structure that subsequently appeared.It has been suggested that ancient patterns of organization around the main rivers and their tributaries could be causing the genetic structure and that the persistence of it may be related to a determined type of organization in small population units (Iriondo et al. 2003). This would suggest that both genetic and dialectal structures might have been driven by the same environmental factors that are still acting at present."

BTW the is no doubt about the linguistic affiliation of the Berones, they were Celtic speaking.

Here:


Tal es la vida de los habitantes de los montes, me refiero a los que bordean el lado septentrional de Iberia, los Galaicos, Astures y Cántabros hasta los Vascones y el Pirineo, pues el modo de vida de todos éllos es parecido. Renuncio a extenderme en enumeraciones para evitar la deformidad de los nombres, al menos que alguien se complazca en oír hablar de los Pleutauros, Barduitas y Allotriges (¿Autrigones?) y otros nombres peores y más inintelegibles... ESTRABON, III, 3, 7

Translation:


... Such is the life of the inhabitants of the mountains, I mean the ones that border the septentrional side of Iberia, the Gallaeci, Astures, Cantabria and even the Vascones and the Pyrenees, their way of life of them is too similar. Therefore I refuse to extend my annotations to avoid butchering their names, at least to those that would like to hear stories about the Pleutauros, Barduitas y Allotriges(Autrigones?) and even worse and less intelligible names. Estrabon, III, 3, 7

Meaning even the Roman historians had trouble keeping up with the names of the Basque tribes. However, Estrabon had no problem saying the the Berones were Celt.


Al norte de los Celtíberos, lindando con los Kantabroi Koniskoi, habitan los Berones, nacidos también de la emigración céltica, cuya principal ciudad es Ouaria, sobre un puente que cruza el Iber. Confinan también con los Barduitai a los cuales ahora se les llama Barduloi ESTRABON, III, 4, 12

Translation:


To the north of the Celtiberian, sharing a border with the Kantabrou Koniskoi, live the Berones, who were also born out of the Celtic migration, whose main city is Ouaria, which is over by the bridge that crosses the Iber. Next to these are the Barduitai, that have also been called the Barduloi. Estrabon, III, 4, 12

So what are the proof that they spoke Celtic? Places names?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Vardulos_y_Caristios.jpg

There are no Celtic places names in the territories of Guipuzcoa and Central Western Bizkaia. Are Vesperies, Menosca and Morogi Celtic?

What is proof that they could have spoken Basque:

Dialect boundaries coinciding with the tribal boundaries, population structure at the Y-DNA level, etc.

BTW, I'm not falling for the trap of trying to prove that L21, U106, etc are nonIndoEuropean speaking. I was simply saying that the evidence for Celt speakers in the territories of Guipuzcoa and Bizkaia pre-Roman is controversial at best, and completely wrong at worst. I was also saying that the regions with a long history of Indo-European presence in Iberia are the ones with the lowest amounts of R1b, now if this is due to recent gene flow from outside or not, I do not know, I was simply making an observation.

ArmandoR1b
03-26-2015, 02:32 PM
Yes the conclusions:


"The genetic similarity of uniparental genomes of Basque to some surrounding and even distant non-Basque populations suggests that the so-called genetic uniqueness of the Basques is the result of a lesser external influence and low gene flow from recent migrations with respect to other surrounding populations. Still, this lower external genetic influence in Basque populations could make them good candidates to represent the genetic profile of the older European populations, although this might also be the case for other non-Basque populations, such as the French Bretons. Studies based on Y chromosome sequences, entire mtDNA genomes or even whole human genomes may unmask genetic particularities of the Basque population that distinguish them from their Western European neighbors. Interestingly, our genetic results clearly correlated with a pre-Roman tribal genetic structure in this area that may be related to environmental diversity and which is still retrievable in the current population. Some authors think that this structure also correlates with the dialectal structure that subsequently appeared.It has been suggested that ancient patterns of organization around the main rivers and their tributaries could be causing the genetic structure and that the persistence of it may be related to a determined type of organization in small population units (Iriondo et al. 2003). This would suggest that both genetic and dialectal structures might have been driven by the same environmental factors that are still acting at present."

As I had pointed out in my previous post that is from consanguinity in the last 2,000 years or less. That means that is has no bearing on the Tolan's topic of R1b supposedly being linked to Neolithic farmers. Most importantly they didn't use DNA from pre-Roman specimens. They used modern DNA. If they get enough P312 specimens from 0 AD or prior to that date the results will be different. We know that L21, U152 and DF27 are close relatives so any regional genetic structure is from the time of the settlement of R1b in those regions and forward.

You also didn't address the fact that L21, U152, and U106 populations are Indo-European speakers yet, according to what you are implying, the Basque DF27 and L21 were always Basque speakers. There is no evidence of the Basque language outside of France and Spain but there is plenty of L21, U152, DF27, and U106 outside of France and Spain. Why did the L21, U152, DF27, and U106 outside of the Basque country start speaking an Indo-European language? It was because R1b-M269 took a Proto-Indo-European language with them from the Steppe and these are the people that went into western Europe and what is now the Basque country.

sweuro
03-26-2015, 02:53 PM
There is also the possibility, that is getting stronger, that whoever carried R1b to Vasconic speaking territories, adopted the basque language and culture.

Webb
03-26-2015, 03:17 PM
There is also the possibility, that is getting stronger, that whoever carried R1b to Vasconic speaking territories, adopted the basque language and culture.

Just as L21 in Ireland would have been at one time Gaelic speakers, Welsh in Wales, German in Germany, Basque in Basque, and so on and so forth. We know what DF27's density is in the modern era in Spain, however, we do not know what it was in times past. DF27 could have had a trickle effect. Particularly because of the wide array of DF27 snps found in Spain. There are so many varied branches of the DF27 tree found there. It might be different if all types of DF27 clades shared an immediate upstream parent, and you could say there must have been a large scale movement of people. With DF27 in Spain the clades are many and are very distantly related. To me this implies numerous divergent groups entering Spain, possibly at different times.

R.Rocca
03-26-2015, 03:34 PM
Just as L21 in Ireland would have been at one time Gaelic speakers, Welsh in Wales, German in Germany, Basque in Basque, and so on and so forth. We know what DF27's density is in the modern era in Spain, however, we do not know what it was in times past. DF27 could have had a trickle effect. Particularly because of the wide array of DF27 snps found in Spain. There are so many varied branches of the DF27 tree found there. It might be different if all types of DF27 clades shared an immediate upstream parent, and you could say there must have been a large scale movement of people. With DF27 in Spain the clades are many and are very distantly related. To me this implies numerous divergent groups entering Spain, possibly at different times.

One could argue the complete opposite. An area with 20 different, but early DF27 subclades is more likely to have many later and more successful clan chiefs than an area that doesn't. For that reason, L11 and P312 have a lot of diversity in the Rhine, but not in a place like Iberia. If DF27 did trickle in (which I don't think is likely for the majority of it), then there was likely a lot of trickling out as well, at least that's the pattern I'm used to seeing throughout European history...borders move north, south, east and west quite a bit.

rms2
03-26-2015, 03:38 PM
We also know the single male sample among dozens of Neolithic male remains found to date is R1b(xM269) which is an extreme minority today anywhere in the world. Although the last few studies have shown a little more Y diversity among the farmers, the commonality remains the same. They are all very rare, or minority lineages today.

That's what makes it very likely he was part of that P297- branch that left the R1b homeland prior to the Neolithic, went to the Near East and spawned V88, which got caught up in the Near Eastern Neolithic and went to Africa and other points west, including, apparently, Iberia (at least in one case).

Webb
03-26-2015, 03:54 PM
One could argue the complete opposite. An area with 20 different, but early DF27 subclades is more likely to have many later and more successful clan chiefs than an area that doesn't. For that reason, L11 and P312 have a lot of diversity in the Rhine, but not in a place like Iberia. If DF27 did trickle in (which I don't think is likely for the majority of it), then there was likely a lot of trickling out as well, at least that's the pattern I'm used to seeing throughout European history...borders move north, south, east and west quite a bit.

I understand your argument. What you are suggesting would mean that these groups split early and were left unhindered to mutiply successfully. I think, based on the turbulence that probably occured in Western Europe in a time span of 3000 years, which is the TMRCA for most of these DF27 branches, it would be highly unlikely that all of these divergent branches would have survived and prospered. I think it just as likely that these were close to the last layer. The problem with DF27 is that we finally have a bushy tree, however, because most of these clades have just been discovered in the last year, the dates have not quite shaken out yet. M153 is being shown by Yfull as 2000 ybp, DF81, the other almost entirely Basque clade is also being shown as 2000ybp. Three years ago they were around 1600 ybp. However, there is finally a few between DF81 and DF27, so the dates are starting come together. 400 years difference for a clade to be born is huge when trying to place it into historical context. If DF27 did not happen in a trickle effect, then Tolan has a valid argument that DF27 was part of a non-Indo European culture early. Most theories have the DF27 trickle effect explaining why it is present in the Basque population, while not imposing a Indo-European language and culture, which I am sure you are familiar with. As Tolan has stated, DF27 today is found in regions that were once Celtic, once Iberian, and once/currently Basque. How much of that is due to more recent migration?

ArmandoR1b
03-26-2015, 04:19 PM
BTW, I'm not falling for the trap of trying to prove that L21, U106, etc are nonIndoEuropean speaking. I was simply saying that the evidence for Celt speakers in the territories of Guipuzcoa and Bizkaia pre-Roman is controversial at best, and completely wrong at worst.
One of the main points of contention of the OPs post is whether R1b-M269 was the carrier of the Indo-European language into western Europe. Because of the the discrepancy of the Basque being so high in R1b-M269 it causes an discussion of why that is. The obvious answer is that R1b-M269 people in western Europe were Proto-Indo-European speakers and the R1b-M269 in the Basques is intrusive and not autochthonous.


I was also saying that the regions with a long history of Indo-European presence in Iberia are the ones with the lowest amounts of R1b, now if this is due to recent gene flow from outside or not, I do not know, I was simply making an observation.

Observations have implications. There is no question that more recent gene flow in the rest of Spain caused them to be more different from the Basques than they would have through plain endogamy of the Basques over 2,000 years.

R.Rocca
03-26-2015, 04:41 PM
I understand your argument. What you are suggesting would mean that these groups split early and were left unhindered to mutiply successfully. I think, based on the turbulence that probably occured in Western Europe in a time span of 3000 years, which is the TMRCA for most of these DF27 branches, it would be highly unlikely that all of these divergent branches would have survived and prospered. I think it just as likely that these were close to the last layer. The problem with DF27 is that we finally have a bushy tree, however, because most of these clades have just been discovered in the last year, the dates have not quite shaken out yet. M153 is being shown by Yfull as 2000 ybp, DF81, the other almost entirely Basque clade is also being shown as 2000ybp. Three years ago they were around 1600 ybp. However, there is finally a few between DF81 and DF27, so the dates are starting come together. 400 years difference for a clade to be born is huge when trying to place it into historical context. If DF27 did not happen in a trickle effect, then Tolan has a valid argument that DF27 was part of a non-Indo European culture early. Most theories have the DF27 trickle effect explaining why it is present in the Basque population, while not imposing a Indo-European language and culture, which I am sure you are familiar with. As Tolan has stated, DF27 today is found in regions that were once Celtic, once Iberian, and once/currently Basque. How much of that is due to more recent migration?

I am suggesting that both your scenario and the scenario I outlined are likely to have occurred, not one or the other. Also, I'm not if you meant it like you wrote it, but I for one doubt that DF27 is only 3000 years old. We already have a 4300 year old P312+ sample, and we know P312's modal is the same for DF27, U152 and L21, so all three are likely to date back even further to around 2800 BC if Bell Beaker was the catalyst for P312's spread. All "newer" branches are all still descended from men that lived around 2800 BC.

Webb
03-26-2015, 04:47 PM
I am suggesting that both your scenario and the scenario I outlined are likely to have occurred, not one or the other. Also, I'm not if you meant it like you wrote it, but I for one doubt that DF27 is only 3000 years old. We already have a 4300 year old P312+ sample, and we know P312's modal is the same for DF27, U152 and L21, so all three are likely to date back even further to around 2800 BC if Bell Beaker was the catalyst for P312's spread. All "newer" branches are all still descended from men that lived around 2800 BC.

I meant that those newer clades all have a TMRCA of around 3000 ybp. DF27 and Z195 are 4700 ybp. Actually, the newer Z255_ groups are now showing around 4000 ybp on Yfull's version 3.6.

ArmandoR1b
03-26-2015, 04:52 PM
I understand your argument. What you are suggesting would mean that these groups split early and were left unhindered to mutiply successfully. I think, based on the turbulence that probably occured in Western Europe in a time span of 3000 years, which is the TMRCA for most of these DF27 branches, it would be highly unlikely that all of these divergent branches would have survived and prospered. I think it just as likely that these were close to the last layer. The problem with DF27 is that we finally have a bushy tree, however, because most of these clades have just been discovered in the last year, the dates have not quite shaken out yet. M153 is being shown by Yfull as 2000 ybp, DF81, the other almost entirely Basque clade is also being shown as 2000ybp. Three years ago they were around 1600 ybp. However, there is finally a few between DF81 and DF27, so the dates are starting come together. 400 years difference for a clade to be born is huge when trying to place it into historical context. If DF27 did not happen in a trickle effect, then Tolan has a valid argument that DF27 was part of a non-Indo European culture early. Most theories have the DF27 trickle effect explaining why it is present in the Basque population, while not imposing a Indo-European language and culture, which I am sure you are familiar with. As Tolan has stated, DF27 today is found in regions that were once Celtic, once Iberian, and once/currently Basque. How much of that is due to more recent migration?
I don't think DF27 trickled into Iberia. It likely went early. There is a dearth of Iberians and Latin Americans having enough money and/or an interest in DNA testing. Most of the data that we have is from HGDP and/or 1,000 Genomes. Hispanics exist in almost all of the subclades and there would be more subclades and more Hispanics in each subclade if more Hispanics had the money and interest in testing. That points to DF27 having a base close to Iberia and all of the subclades having members that went to Iberia causing the diversity that Richard mentioned. The more recent migrations would have made DF27 more widespread in Iberia but the base was close to the north of Iberia and south of France.

DF81 shows to be formed 4000 ybp at YFull.

Z2552 shows to be from formed 4700 ybp and it has Hispanics.

Z225 shows to be formed 4700 ybp and it has Hispanics.

Z1899 shows to be formed 4700 ybp and it has Hispanics.

Y6951 shows to be formed 4700 ybp and it has an Hispanic.

DF79 has Hispanics.

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-DF27/

Webb
03-26-2015, 05:31 PM
I don't think DF27 trickled into Iberia. It likely went early. There is a dearth of Iberians and Latin Americans having enough money and/or an interest in DNA testing. Most of the data that we have is from HGDP and/or 1,000 Genomes. Hispanics exist in almost all of the subclades and there would be more subclades and more Hispanics in each subclade if more Hispanics had the money and interest in testing. That points to DF27 having a base close to Iberia and all of the subclades having members that went to Iberia causing the diversity that Richard mentioned. The more recent migrations would have made DF27 more widespread in Iberia but the base was close to the north of Iberia and south of France.

DF81 shows to be formed 4000 ybp at YFull.

Z2552 shows to be from formed 4700 ybp and it has Hispanics.

Z225 shows to be formed 4700 ybp and it has Hispanics.

Z1899 shows to be formed 4700 ybp and it has Hispanics.

Y6951 shows to be formed 4700 ybp and it has an Hispanic.

DF79 has Hispanics.

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-DF27/

I see that. DF81's formed date matches the TMRCA date of the parent which is Z2552. The TMRCA date of DF81 is 2300 ybp. So DF81's child, so to speak, Y7350, has a formed date of DF81's TMRCA date which is 2300 ybp. I do not believe the formed date, if differing from the TMRCA date is the one to focus on. I could be wrong, though. If the base of DF27 was close to the North of Iberia, and the South of France, as you stated, then that puts it in and around the Pyrenees. If most experts are leaning to a slow input of Indo-European into the Basque region as a means to explain how DF27 and L21 found its way into the Basque, then I would assume this would also apply to the surrounding areas as well.

ArmandoR1b
03-26-2015, 07:04 PM
I see that. DF81's formed date matches the TMRCA date of the parent which is Z2552. The TMRCA date of DF81 is 2300 ybp. So DF81's child, so to speak, Y7350, has a formed date of DF81's TMRCA date which is 2300 ybp. I do not believe the formed date, if differing from the TMRCA date is the one to focus on. I could be wrong, though.
My understanding is that formed date is when it is estimated to have first appeared in an individual and the TMRCA is how close the most recent common ancestor of more than one person. TMRCA doesn't indicate when an SNP first appeared. You would need an extremely large number of participants from western Europe, the U.S. and Latin America in order to find enough descendants for the TMRCA to be indicative of when it first appeared. Therefore, I disagree that the TMRCA is the one to focus on.


If the base of DF27 was close to the North of Iberia, and the South of France, as you stated, then that puts it in and around the Pyrenees. If most experts are leaning to a slow input of Indo-European into the Basque region as a means to explain how DF27 and L21 found its way into the Basque, then I would assume this would also apply to the surrounding areas as well.
The fact that there is an Hispanic in almost every single subclade, if not all of them, even with so few Hispanic testees, is too important to ignore. Either they all lived close to the Pyrenees or they all traveled to Iberia from farther away. I doubt that it is the latter. Once enough Hispanics get an NGS test the picture will become clearer. A release of a M269 SNP-pack with DF27 at FTDNA would also be helpful.

lgmayka
03-26-2015, 11:03 PM
My understanding is that formed date is when it is estimated to have first appeared in an individual and the TMRCA is how close the most recent common ancestor of more than one person.
Here's the way that I describe the difference to project members:

The "formed" date is when that patrilineal branch diverged from the rest. Initially, that branch (clade) had no distinguishing SNPs at all (or perhaps one), but it slowly accumulated one or more SNPs until...

The TMRCA, when the clade began to expand into divergent sub-branches (subclades). This expansion could be geographic or demographic or both.

ArmandoR1b
03-27-2015, 01:06 AM
Here's the way that I describe the difference to project members:

The "formed" date is when that patrilineal branch diverged from the rest. Initially, that branch (clade) had no distinguishing SNPs at all (or perhaps one), but it slowly accumulated one or more SNPs until...

The TMRCA, when the clade began to expand into divergent sub-branches (subclades).
Right, that really isn't different from what I am saying. The only way a patrilineal branch can be considered as having diverged is with a new SNP which is the formed date which is when it first appeared in an individual. Once there enough people have had NGS testing then the formed date and TMRCA date will be close to each other because where will have been enough divergent sub-branches. There is a new SNP every three generations on average so if a person has 20 great-grandchildren there is a chance for 20 new SNPs 150 years after DF27 formed which means there is a chance of 20 divergent sub-branches after the formation of DF27 and so on. The same goes for DF81. If enough subclades are found under each of the 7 SNPs that are DF81 phylogenetically equivalent then the TMRCA date for DF81 can be pushed back. Right now there aren't enough people identified below DF81 for the formed date and TMRCA date to be close but DF27 does which is why it has the same formed date as the TMRCA date which is 4700 ybp.


This expansion could be geographic or demographic or both.
Right, and if all of the subclades, or almost all of the subclades, includes a single geographic group then the parent clade made an early arrival into the area. So again, that isn't anything different from what I had stated.

lgmayka
03-27-2015, 04:07 AM
The only way a patrilineal branch can be considered as having diverged is with a new SNP which is the formed date which is when it first appeared in an individual.
No, that's not correct. If two brothers of a patriarch go their separate ways and spawn two different modern subclades, the branches diverged at the time of those brothers, even if neither had a new SNP. Divergence (separation into subclades) is fundamentally a genealogical concept.


Once there enough people have had NGS testing then the formed date and TMRCA date will be close to each other because where will have been enough divergent sub-branches.
That's not necessarily true either. Most branches of the Y-DNA haplotree have died out over time, so what's left is a highly pruned tree. The pruning was more drastic during periods of demographic stagnation or slow growth; pruning was less obvious during periods of rapid population growth. Thus, some branches of the Y-DNA haplotree really do have, as far as we know, thousands of years of difference between the "formed" date and the TMRCA.

Webb
03-27-2015, 01:54 PM
I don't think DF27 trickled into Iberia. It likely went early. There is a dearth of Iberians and Latin Americans having enough money and/or an interest in DNA testing. Most of the data that we have is from HGDP and/or 1,000 Genomes. Hispanics exist in almost all of the subclades and there would be more subclades and more Hispanics in each subclade if more Hispanics had the money and interest in testing. That points to DF27 having a base close to Iberia and all of the subclades having members that went to Iberia causing the diversity that Richard mentioned. The more recent migrations would have made DF27 more widespread in Iberia but the base was close to the north of Iberia and south of France.

DF81 shows to be formed 4000 ybp at YFull.

Z2552 shows to be from formed 4700 ybp and it has Hispanics.

Z225 shows to be formed 4700 ybp and it has Hispanics.

Z1899 shows to be formed 4700 ybp and it has Hispanics.

Y6951 shows to be formed 4700 ybp and it has an Hispanic.

DF79 has Hispanics.

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-DF27/

Y11849 shows to be formed 4700 ybp and has no Hispanics.

Y5058 shows to be formed 4700 ybp and has no Hispanics.

L165 shows to be formed 4700 ybp and has no Hispanics.

So I think the argument about where DF27 base was is a moot point while there is evidence to support and to refute it being in the north of Iberia and south of France. I would suspect it would have to have been somewhere very central in order to have fingers found almost exclusively in Spain and fingers almost exclusively in say Scotland. However, what I am really not understanding is your statement of DF27's base being in the north of Iberia and the south of Spain. You stated that you believe DF27's entry into Spain was early and not sporadic, yet the area you are pointing too as DF27's base is the heart of Basque country to the north and the Iberain tribal territory to the south. I have a hard time understanding how groups of DF27 were assimilated into these cultures and ended up speaking these languages if it was a mass entry. Most experts are explaining this heavy R1b in the Basque areas as small incursions that were easy to be absorbed by the Basque people, and as has been mentioned in previous posts. These statements were responses to Tolan's observation that the Basque, a non-IndoEuropean culture is very heavy, maybe one of the heaviest regions in Western Europe with M269. If Indo-European tribes were pressed against the Pyrenees on the French side, then all it would take is one or two decisive incursions in mass into Iberia, and it's done. The end result would be a replacement of existing culture and language. However, this is the case genetically, but not culturally or linguistically.

mcg11
03-27-2015, 02:45 PM
Here's the way that I describe the difference to project members:

The "formed" date is when that patrilineal branch diverged from the rest. Initially, that branch (clade) had no distinguishing SNPs at all (or perhaps one), but it slowly accumulated one or more SNPs until...

The TMRCA, when the clade began to expand into divergent sub-branches (subclades). This expansion could be geographic or demographic or both.



I think I understand your differentiation between "formed" and "TMRCA". But a Tree picture would certainly help? In the case of Clan Gregor, we have a tree trunk with a continuous straight line, we also have "lines" or "sub-chiefs" diverging from the trunk at different times. The time to coalesce back to the tree trunk is the formed date and the TMRCA would utilize as many trunks as possible?

ArmandoR1b
03-27-2015, 03:47 PM
No, that's not correct. If two brothers of a patriarch go their separate ways and spawn two different modern subclades, the branches diverged at the time of those brothers, even if neither had a new SNP. Divergence (separation into subclades) is fundamentally a genealogical concept.
Where are you getting your information from? The only thing that makes sense to me is that divergence is through SNPs only. It is only with recent genealogy that one can determine if two brothers went separate ways because genealogical records can't be used with branches that are 3,000-4,000 years old. You would have to have ancient remains to be able to determine if two brothers went separate ways that far back. Also notice that the formed date of an SNP is also the TMRCA of it's parent. That indicates to me it is because that's when the divergent SNPs are calculated to have happened.


That's not necessarily true either. Most branches of the Y-DNA haplotree have died out over time, so what's left is a highly pruned tree. The pruning was more drastic during periods of demographic stagnation or slow growth; pruning was less obvious during periods of rapid population growth. Thus, some branches of the Y-DNA haplotree really do have, as far as we know, thousands of years of difference between the "formed" date and the TMRCA.
Yes some branches died out but not all branches died out. The branches that lived accumulated SNPs. Even though the accumulated SNPs might be somewhat lower during slow growth they still accumulate. If too many branches die out then the TMRCA won't be pushed back. I can agree with that. So if I had stated "Once there enough people have had NGS testing, and too many branches haven't died out then the formed date and TMRCA date will be close to each other because where will have been enough divergent sub-branches" would now be more technically correct. That should have actually been understood anyway since it is implied that there have to be enough divergent branches found which was really the point.

If there are thousands of years between the formed date and the TMRCA it should be because divergent branches haven't been found which should mean there is an accumulation of SNPs. If I understand the way TMRCA is calculated it is by how many novel variants are shared below the last known SNP.

For instance Y7363 has a formed date of 4,500 ypb because there are no SNPs between it and A431/Y3267 which has a formed date of 4,700 ybp. However, Y7363 has a TMRCA of 1,850 ybp because that is the estimated date that they have a common ancestor and not the estimated date that Y7363, or one of it's phylogenetic equivalents, first appeared in a person.

ArmandoR1b
03-27-2015, 04:27 PM
Y11849 shows to be formed 4700 ybp and has no Hispanics.

Y5058 shows to be formed 4700 ybp and has no Hispanics.

L165 shows to be formed 4700 ybp and has no Hispanics.

Out of all of the kits in those subclades only one is not a BigY kit. I have already shown the evidence of a testing bias by Iberians and Iberia-Americans. If the HGDP and/or 1,000 Genomes kits didn't exist it would look like only a few Iberians are DF27. Once there are enough Iberians and Iberia-Americans some of that information will likely change. Additionally, most of the Scottish in the L165 group have a TMRCA of only 1,050 or less and an accumulation of 28 SNPs at Y5124. We have yet to find out which of those SNPs are from 4,500 ybp and if there are any branches in Iberia from 4,000 ybp. That is why I say the formed date is the important one.


So I think the argument about where DF27 base was is a moot point while there is evidence to support and to refute it being in the north of Iberia and south of France. I would suspect it would have to have been somewhere very central in order to have fingers found almost exclusively in Spain and fingers almost exclusively in say Scotland. However, what I am really not understanding is your statement of DF27's base being in the north of Iberia and the south of Spain. You stated that you believe DF27's entry into Spain was early and not sporadic, yet the area you are pointing too as DF27's base is the heart of Basque country to the north and the Iberain tribal territory to the south. I have a hard time understanding how groups of DF27 were assimilated into these cultures and ended up speaking these languages if it was a mass entry.
You jumped to conclusions. DF27 having a base close to Iberia doesn't mean that it has to be in the heart of the Basque country. Just because that is where DF27 is highest doesn't mean that is where the base is. The base could have been in southern France close to Auch. Either way, that isn't too far from Iberia relatively speaking. We already know that R1b-M269 is assumed to have been mobile and as they grew in numbers they likely went in large numbers to Iberia and not in trickles. France is also under tested.

[QUOTE=Webb;76233]Most experts are explaining this heavy R1b in the Basque areas as small incursions that were easy to be absorbed by the Basque people, and as has been mentioned in previous posts. These statements were responses to Tolan's observation that the Basque, a non-IndoEuropean culture is very heavy, maybe one of the heaviest regions in Western Europe with M269. If Indo-European tribes were pressed against the Pyrenees on the French side, then all it would take is one or two decisive incursions in mass into Iberia, and it's done. The end result would be a replacement of existing culture and language. However, this is the case genetically, but not culturally or linguistically.
It could have trickled in to the Basque. I don't think I have stated anything that would contradict that. You might think that I have stated something that contradicts it, likely due to a misinterpretation. We don't even know which subclades of DF27 are more common in the Basque country other than M153 and SRY2627.

Megalophias
03-27-2015, 05:48 PM
The TMRCA of the parent clade is by definition the "formed" date of the daughter clade. The patriarch with the two (or more) sons *is* the MRCA, and one of the sons must be the first in the lineage of the daughter clade.

It's not possible to tell when the defining SNP actually occurred between the TMRCA of the parent and the TMRCA of the daughter.

ArmandoR1b
03-27-2015, 06:11 PM
The TMRCA of the parent clade is by definition the "formed" date of the daughter clade. The patriarch with the two (or more) sons *is* the MRCA, and one of the sons must be the first in the lineage of the daughter clade.
What is the source of that information?


It's not possible to tell when the defining SNP actually occurred between the TMRCA of the parent and the TMRCA of the daughter.
It seems to me that when they have enough subclades they are able to get the TMRCA and formed date to be close to each other. DF27 has both a formed and a TMRCA of 4700 ybp. A431/Y3267 has formed 4700 ybp, TMRCA 4500 ybp which aren't far off from each other.

Megalophias
03-27-2015, 07:43 PM
What is the source of that information?


It seems to me that when they have enough subclades they are able to get the TMRCA and formed date to be close to each other. DF27 has both a formed and a TMRCA of 4700 ybp. A431/Y3267 has formed 4700 ybp, TMRCA 4500 ybp which aren't far off from each other.

Source? You mean for Y-Full's system? I don't know exactly what they do, but obviously they are using TMRCA of the parent clade. Unless they have an alternative method so accurate that it gets the same answer down to the century for absolutely every lineage.... Yeah no.

The TMRCA can go back if you find more subclades. But that assumes there are more subclades to find. The only way the TMRCA will go back all the way to the formed dates is if the first generation *also* had multiple sons who each began surviving lineages. Obviously this can't happen all the time!

In the upper part of the tree TMRCAs are oftens tens of thousands of years apart. The TMRCA of G is around 20 000 years after its formed date.

ArmandoR1b
03-27-2015, 08:59 PM
Source? You mean for Y-Full's system? I don't know exactly what they do,So your statement is based off your interpretation and not a statement by YFull staff.


but obviously they are using TMRCA of the parent clade. Unless they have an alternative method so accurate that it gets the same answer down to the century for absolutely every lineage.... Yeah no.Maybe I misunderstood you earlier you with "The TMRCA of the parent clade is by definition the "formed" date of the daughter clade." which seemed to state that the TMRCA of the parent clade comes from the formed date of the daughter clade which doesn't seem to be the case because there are a lot of clades with a TMRCA but no formed date for the daughter clade. It looks to me like the formed date of the daughter comes from the TMRCA of the parent. Due to the fact that their is a daughter clade they are able to determine the TMRCA of the parent and the formed of the daughter.


The TMRCA can go back if you find more subclades. But that assumes there are more subclades to find. The only way the TMRCA will go back all the way to the formed dates is if the first generation *also* had multiple sons who each began surviving lineages. Obviously this can't happen all the time!
Right and I stated that in my response to lgmayka that it should have been understood in my previous message that enough surviving lineages would have to be found since it is implied that enough subclades have to be identified for the TMRCA to be pushed back. You'll see where I stated that if you reread my response to him.


In the upper part of the tree TMRCAs are oftens tens of thousands of years apart. The TMRCA of G is around 20 000 years after its formed date.
That's because G has 304 SNPs and they don't know which SNP is older. The TMRCA is all of the descendants of G to the most recent SNP out of the phylogenetically equivalent SNPs of CTS10723/M3612. In the context of YFull we were talking about R1b-DF27 in western Europe which is a lot younger than G and therefore a higher chance of more subclades surviving. I am sure there are some that did not and some lineages that did survive will never get an NGS test so those subclades won't be found allowing for the clade to have a TMRCA close to the formed date.

Megalophias
03-27-2015, 10:40 PM
Yeah, I meant the formed date is based on the TMRCA, not the other way around. Sorry for any confusion.

Jessie
04-01-2015, 07:38 AM
With MDLP K23b:
WHG: between 10 and 23% EEF
Irish: 32%EEF
Yamnaya: 0% EEF
CW (kit gedmatch: M966366): 10,77% EEF
BBC (Bell beaker) (M117132): 27,55% EEF



Yes, it is to show that HT35 is related to caucasian component (Central and Eastern european Neolithics) while HT15 is related to the component EEF (Western Neolithic)


With MDLP K23b, El Trocs ( 5000 BC) have 0% EHG, but Gokhem2 (3 000 BC) have 19% EHG.
This younger neolithic is mixed with WHG


Not him, but perhaps one of his fellows. ;)
Maybe he was not in Spain

I'm Irish and my EEF is 27.46% in MDLP K23b so around the same as the Bell Beakers My mother's is 27.42%. Is there a link for population average somewhere?

Barellalee
11-22-2015, 08:24 PM
OK in my family there is R1b L23 on our South Italian side, from Campania. We were from the Avellino Province, but the surname on this side traces back in the Middle Ages to the Sarno River Valley in the Salerno Province. Is the most probable origin of this L23 in South Italy Neolithic, as with J2 and E1b1, or something else?

Joe B
11-22-2015, 09:22 PM
OK in my family there is R1b L23 on our South Italian side, from Campania. We were from the Avellino Province, but the surname on this side traces back in the Middle Ages to the Sarno River Valley in the Salerno Province. Is the most probable origin of this L23 in South Italy Neolithic, as with J2 and E1b1, or something else?It's looking like L23 originated well over 6000 ybp and much farther to the east than Italy. Although one wouldn't want to rule out Italy, it's unique position in the Mediterranean and history makes it a collection point for a number of different R1b-L23+, L51- clades. Most likely he is R1b-Z2103 of some sort. Could you make sure he is a member of the R1b-M269 (P312- U106-) DNA Project?
https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/ht-3-5new/about/background
http://yfull.com/tree/R-L23/

Barellalee
11-23-2015, 12:40 AM
They are very distant relations, that I found via ancestry.com and gedmatch, who tested, so I can mention it to them. It was my maternal great great great grandfather side which was Sarni, and I found Sarnis on ancestry.com, from the same Avellino Province town, that I match between 7 and 9 cm of autosomal DNA with, depending on the person, as much of the family tested. The Y result for the Sarni males has been R1b L23. If the case is tjhst it is one of the subclades you mentioned, what could that be? Neolithic?