Iberian Ancient DNA on the works

[Ruderico]

Then I suppose you do not know exactly where the Basque Iberian Tartessian and the Aquitanian was born.

You might have missed this

I do not need to be an expert to know there are no certainties on the origin of the old iberian language, its connections to basque, nor when it arrived to the peninsula.

But then again neither do you. The difference is that I don't care, whereas you very clearly do

[rms2]

Tartessian celtic? I did not know that the Celts were 6,000 years old.

You'll have to take that up with John Koch, who is a preeminent Celticist.

How can you pretend that the Yamnaya culture brought brachycephaly to Europe if they were dolichocephalic.

Try reading my posts. I told you some scholars think brachycephaly among Kurgan BBs was due to cradle boarding. Even if it wasn't, brachycephaly wasn't universal among KBBs, and they could have picked it up because some of their ancestors married GAC females, since brachycephaly has been observed in GAC remains.

It is incredible, and yet you consider it one of the distinctive signs with respect to Iberian BBs when I have already told you that brachycephaly is documented in the Alps and Western Europe since the Neolithic (also in Spain).

I was aware that brachycephaly was present among Dinaric types in Europe. However, it is another point that distinguishes some Kurgan Bell Beaker people from the longheaded Mediterranean types prevalent in Iberia.

Remember that the higher the greater the dolichocephaly, it is one of the sacred rules of anthropology.

I am not interested in old notions of racial superiority, only in facts.

At this point in the debate I no longer know what you think is a collective burial. Obviously an individual burial is one in which only an individual is buried.

That's because you don't really know what you're talking about because you're not that familiar with the literature. Even Yamnaya mounds often contain more than one body, yet they are considered single graves.

. . .

For your theory to be true, it is not necessary for you to make that distinction between Iberia and the rest of Europe.

I didn't distinguish between Iberia and the rest of Europe but between early Iberian BB and Kurgan BB. Those differences are clear, and they are reflected in the results of ancient dna testing, which show that early Iberian BB people were not the same people as the later, non-Iberian, Kurgan BB people.

[GASKA]

Olalde- "During the later Iron Age, the first genome-wide data from ancient non-Indo-European speakers showed that they were similar to contemporaneous Indo-European speakers and derived most of their ancestry from the earlier Bronze Age substratum".

According to Olalde, of course we have DNA from Iberians, Tartessians, Celtiberians and Basques of the Iron and Bronze Ages, and also are INDISTINGUISHABLE. This means that a population almost absolutely R1b-P312 spoke Indo-European languages ​​and non-Indo-European languages. This is precisely what we are trying to discuss in this thread. How is it possible ?

And besides unless Reich or some other Kurganist has a great idea about it, this is totally incompatible with the theory of the invasions of the steppes. How do you explain it?

[jdean]

Nor are there any certainties regarding the origin of the Indo-European and yet you seem to have it very clear. Some think that it originated in the steppes, others in Anatolia, others in the north of India ...And everyone wants to be right

There has been a consensus between the majority of academic linguists for the PIE urheimat for quite some time now, the Anatolian hypothesis was conceived by an archaeologist who recently conceded to Marija Gimbutas for her Kurgan hypothesis, there are still a few Anatolian hypothesis supporters but nos. amongst linguists are very small. Reich appeared to have been a supporter of Anatolia mark two (where it spread to the Steppes from Anatolia, and then from there everywhere else) but recently climbed down after they got aDNA from Ancient North & South Indians which not only put the kibosh on the Anatolian hypothesis but also completely annihilated the Out of India theory not that there was any need for affirmation of how bad that idea was and only really had support amongst Hindu nationalist anyway.

[GASKA]

You'll have to take that up with John Koch, who is a preeminent Celticist.



Try reading my posts. I told you some scholars think brachycephaly among Kurgan BBs was due to cradle boarding. Even if it wasn't, brachycephaly wasn't universal among KBBs, and they could have picked it up because some of their ancestors married GAC females, since brachycephaly has been observed in GAC remains.



I was aware that brachycephaly was present among Dinaric types in Europe. However, it is another point that distinguishes some Kurgan Bell Beaker people from the longheaded Mediterranean types prevalent in Iberia.



I am not interested in old notions of racial superiority, only in facts.



That's because you don't really know what you're talking about because you're not that familiar with the literature. Even Yamnaya mounds often contain more than one body, yet they are considered single graves.



I didn't distinguish between Iberia and the rest of Europe but between early Iberian BB and Kurgan BB. Those differences are clear, and they are reflected in the results of ancient dna testing, which show that early Iberian BB people were not the same people as the later, non-Iberian, Kurgan BB people.

There are collective graves related to BB culture in Africa (Morocco) and Europe (Spain, Portugal, Sicily, Liguria, France, Germany, Holland, England, Scotland, Ireland). Believe me that is not a distinguishing factor between Iberia and the rest of Europe, because many of those collective graves have very recent dating Sicilia (2,200 BC), north of Italy (2,065 BC), England (2,350 BC), Germany (2,400-2,200) BC) etc etc ...

[GASKA]

You might have missed this




But then again neither do you. The difference is that I don't care, whereas you very clearly do

Of course I care to know what is the origin of Basque and Spanish because they are my languages. I have no interest in knowing where Chinese Quechua or Turkish was born. The fact that you do not care does not bother me, because I suppose you'll be more interested in the Portuguese.

Regarding the Indo-European, I'm just curious. I suppose there are Indian nationalists who will say that it originated there, Turks who will say that he was born in Anatolia and Russians who will say that he was born in Russia.

Regarding Basque, there are many genetic studies focused on mitochondrial halogroups that show that there is a continuity of the population in northern Spain since the Paleolithic. How can you know that Basque has no origin in the Magdalenian? If you are also a supporter of the theory of the Kurgans who think that in Iberia the Basque language has been maintained because it was transmitted by the female line? Interestingly, the first words written in Basque appear as annotations in a text written in old Castilian. I sincerely believe that linguists will never be able to establish their age exactly

[Shadogowah]

Basques were thought relevant because of the old, cobwebbed, erroneous, 19th century idea that, because their language is not Indo-European, the Basques must be some kind of Paleolithic relic population. Before ancient dna testing became practical, scientists thought that by studying the Basques we could get an idea what the aboriginal population of Europe was like. That was the thinking back in early 2006 when I ordered my first 37-marker y-dna STR test from FTDNA.

Now we know better, and the Basques have lost much of their antique luster.

Could you be more specific? I mean: Is there any evidence found among the ancient DNA that denies a closer relationship between basques and palaeolithic Europeans? Because they have been indeed a bit of a pain in the a** insisting on such a thing and their peculiarities due to isolation since I have use of memory.

[Shadogowah]

What ancient y-dna do we have from those peoples? None that I know of. John Koch, as I recall, believes the language of Tartessos was Celtic.

What!?

[Ruderico]

I don't think many linguists support that claim, though

[rms2]

What!?

I'm not at home, so I can't look up the reference right now, but I remember that John Koch said that Celtic was spoken in Tartessos.