# Population Genetics > Autosomal Genetics >  Basques not indoeuropeans?

## Akklaf

I have been reading that R1b haplogroup and proto-indoeuropean languages came at the same time to west-Europe. Today, one of the highest levels of R1b is found in Basque country, however Basque language is the unique non-indoeuropean language still living in west-europe.

Does it means that R1b came to iberian peninsule (during Paleo-Mesolithic) several centuries before a second wave that finally brought indoeuropean lenguages and Bronze culture?

Thanks you!

----------


## Akklaf

ups, sorry... This question shouldn´t be here.

----------


## Fire Haired

> I have been reading that R1b haplogroup and proto-indoeuropean languages came at the same time to west-Europe. Today, one of the highest levels of R1b is found in Basque country, however Basque language is the unique non-indoeuropean language still living in west-europe.
> 
> Does it means that R1b came to iberian peninsule (during Paleo-Mesolithic) several centuries before a second wave that finally brought indoeuropean lenguages and Bronze culture?
> 
> Thanks you!


It is alot more complicated than that. proto Germanic Italo Celtic languages which are a branch of Indo European languages arrived in central Germany about 5,000ybp with Y DNa R1b1a2a1 L51 and R1b1a2a1a L11. U should click on this Germanic Italo Celts. It explains alot also u should look at Eupedia's R1b page. The language family that Basque are apart of used to be alot more spread out in western coast of France. Aquitanian language

Here is a quote from Julies Caesar where he talks about Aquitania



> All Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which the Belgae inhabit, the Aquitani another, those who in their own language are called Celts, in ours Gauls, the third.All these differ from each other in language, customs and laws.
> The Garonne River separates the Gauls from the Aquitani; the River Marne and the River Seine separate them from the Belgae.
> Of all these, the Belgae are the bravest, because they are furthest from the civilisation and refinement of (our) Province, and merchants least frequently resort to them, and import those things which tend to effeminate the mind; and they are the nearest to the Germani, who dwell beyond the Rhine, with whom they are continually waging war; for which reason the Helvetii also surpass the rest of the Gauls in valour, as they contend with the Germani in almost daily battles, when they either repel them from their own territories, or themselves wage war on their frontiers. One part of these, which it has been said that the Gauls occupy, takes its beginning at the River Rhone; it is bounded by the Garonne River, the Atlantic Ocean, and the territories of the Belgae; it borders, too, on the side of the Sequani and the Helvetii, upon the River Rhine, and stretches toward the north.
> The Belgae rises from the extreme frontier of Gaul, extend to the lower part of the River Rhine; and look toward the north and the rising sun.
> Aquitania extends from the Garonne to the Pyrenees and to that part of the Atlantic (Bay of Biscay) which is near Spain: it looks between the setting of the sun, and the north star.
> 
> *“*
> *”*
> 
> Julius Caesar, Commentarii de Bello Gallico, Book I, chapter 1


Since everyone else around the Aquitenni were Celts it should not be a surprise basque have so much Italo Celtic R1b1a2a1a1 P312/S116. The Celts probably just adopted the native language not that big of a deal or surprise. They didn't know about Y DNa or Indo European languages they did not intentionally spread their language or y dna they would be fine with adopting a native language and after a few generations would have no idea they adopted a native language they would think it was their own. It gets annoying how people over react about Basque having so much R1b and not speaking a indo European language they are a little little ethnic group surrounded by Indo Europeans.

----------


## matbir

> _It is alot more complicated than that. proto Germanic Italo Celtic languages which are a branch of Indo European languages arrived in central Germany about 5,000ybp with Y DNa R1b1a2a1 L51 and R1b1a2a1a L11. U should click on this Germanic Italo Celts. It explains alot also u should look at Eupedia's R1b page. The language family that Basque are apart of used to be alot more spread out in western coast of France._


 What kind of classification of indoeuropean languages are you using? I have never saw such group like germano-italo-celtic. As far as I know, sub families of Indo-European languages are: Italo-Celtic, Graeco-Aryan, northern (Baltic, Germanic and Slavic).
If this branch of IE language arrived in CE where did it emerge?



> _Since everyone else around the Aquitenni were Celts it should not be a surprise basque have so much Italo Celtic R1b1a2a1a1 P312/S116. The Celts probably just adopted the native language not that big of a deal or surprise. They didn't know about Y DNa or Indo European languages they did not intentionally spread their language or y dna they would be fine with adopting a native language and after a few generations would have no idea they adopted a native language they would think it was their own. It gets annoying how people over react about Basque having so much R1b and not speaking a indo European language they are a little little ethnic group surrounded by Indo Europeans._


 Not everyone around Aquitaine were Celts, there also were Iberians leaving from Pyrenees to southern cost of peninsula. And interesting thing is that in today Catalonia R1b has higher frequency than in central and west part of region where IE lived. One more interesting fact is that Etruscans and Raeti were not IE and they lived in areas with R1b reaching local maximum. Supporting theory that has huge gaps and needs some complicated explanation which is unprovable gets to be annoying. So I remind you about ockham's razor.

----------


## Fire Haired

> What kind of classification of indoeuropean languages are you using? I have never saw such group like germano-italo-celtic. As far as I know, sub families of Indo-European languages are: Italo-Celtic, Graeco-Aryan, northern (Baltic, Germanic and Slavic).
> If this branch of IE language arrived in CE where did it emerge?


There is no such thing as Greco Aryan those were just hypothesis. Actulley Y DNa and archaeology points Balto Slavic and Indo Iranian language being the most related. So if anything it breaks down into Balto Slavic Indo Iranian. What i am saying is GErmanic and Italo Celtic languages have been seperate for so long over 4,000 years tht it is hard to find the linguistic evidence they form the same family. But archaeology and Y DNa points to them being connected also in language.




> Not everyone around Aquitaine were Celts, there also were Iberians leaving from Pyrenees to southern cost of peninsula. And interesting thing is that in today Catalonia R1b has higher frequency than in central and west part of region where IE lived. One more interesting fact is that Etruscans and Raeti were not IE and they lived in areas with R1b reaching local maximum. Supporting theory that has huge gaps and needs some complicated explanation which is unprovable gets to be annoying. So I remind you about ockham's razor.


The Iberian speakers lived far south from Aquitaine everyone surrounding them was Celtic. We don't need a long explanation people adopt diff languages. They were surrounded by italic speakers that's why and were eventulley conquered and resettled by Italic speakers. People are so stubborn with connecting Y DNA and Indo Europeans when sometimes it is so obvious. The R1b in Bell Beaker totally matches up with what people with my opinon say. Bell Beaker was conquered and adopted by Germanic Italo Celts. Which is why Unetice culture ancestral to Italic and Celtic tribes offically is decended from bell BEaker same with NOrdic bronze age culture nacestral to Germanic tribes. Also 31 Y DNa samples from Neolithic west Europe not one had R1b even 22 5,000 year old ones from southwestern france were it is 80% today. R1b more specifally R1b1a2a1 L51 and R1b1a2a1a L11 arrived in west Europe in the bronze age 5,000ybp it is not Neloithic.

----------


## MOESAN

> . ...It gets annoying how people over react about Basque having so much R1b and not speaking a indo European language they are a little little ethnic group surrounded by Indo Europeans.


_sorry, but it is the very question: how did Basques manage to keep their language when surrounded by IEans and incorporating "dominant" males, or why did IEans learn a new insignifiant nonIE language when they were the huge majority???_
_the answer COULD be a first wave of y-R1b come from East met a numerous population of basquic speakers and were assimilated, and only after that came a new wave of Y-R1b IE or IEnized that progressively gained ground on the cost of Basques?... OR the first wave of Y-R1b WAS THE Basques and their more eastern remnants were IEnized!!!_

----------


## Angela

> _sorry, but it is the very question: how did Basques manage to keep their language when surrounded by IEans and incorporating "dominant" males, or why did IEans learn a new insignifiant nonIE language when they were the huge majority???_
> _the answer COULD be a first wave of y-R1b come from East met a numerous population of basquic speakers and were assimilated, and only after that came a new wave of Y-R1b IE or IEnized that progressively gained ground on the cost of Basques?... OR the first wave of Y-R1b WAS THE Basques and their more eastern remnants were IEnized!!!_


Doesn't the fact that the Basque R1b clades are so "young", or downstream, make the latter possibility, or even the first , less likely?

The other thing I've wondered about is whether there are matriarchal elements to Basque culture sufficient to explain the adoption of the language by surrounding males who might be incorporated into the community.

----------


## LeBrok

> The other thing I've wondered about is whether there are matriarchal elements to Basque culture sufficient to explain the adoption of the language by surrounding males who might be incorporated into the community.


Exactly my thoughts too. Let me prove same point based on my linguistic observation.
For the person who doesn't speak either Basque or Spanish, they both sound rather similar, pronunciation of sound, melody and rhythm wise. I'm not saying identical, but very similar to non-speakers. It makes me conclude that the substratum population of both languages was the same, pre IE, possibly Basque/Aquitanian family.
Also the complicated Basque grammar denotes being the original mother tongue langue. In contrast Modern Spanish is simplified Latin language. When a person learns a second language from strangers, with limited contact to original speakers and not in school environment, the grammar will always get simplified and this person will pronounce words with "funny accent" (mother tongue accent).
What I mean is that Basque always was an original mother tongue. Spanish is learned language from Romans with local pronunciation and simplifications.

Edited:
In this case proto-Basque language might have been original Iberian language of mt haplogroup H (H1 and H3) and U women and their I2a men.

----------


## Sile

> There is no such thing as Greco Aryan those were just hypothesis. Actulley Y DNa and archaeology points Balto Slavic and Indo Iranian language being the most related. So if anything it breaks down into Balto Slavic Indo Iranian. What i am saying is GErmanic and Italo Celtic languages have been seperate for so long over 4,000 years tht it is hard to find the linguistic evidence they form the same family. But archaeology and Y DNa points to them being connected also in language.
> 
> 
> 
> The Iberian speakers lived far south from Aquitaine everyone surrounding them was Celtic. We don't need a long explanation people adopt diff languages. They were surrounded by italic speakers that's why and were eventulley conquered and resettled by Italic speakers. People are so stubborn with connecting Y DNA and Indo Europeans when sometimes it is so obvious. The R1b in Bell Beaker totally matches up with what people with my opinon say. Bell Beaker was conquered and adopted by Germanic Italo Celts. Which is why Unetice culture ancestral to Italic and Celtic tribes offically is decended from bell BEaker same with NOrdic bronze age culture nacestral to Germanic tribes. Also 31 Y DNa samples from Neolithic west Europe not one had R1b even 22 5,000 year old ones from southwestern france were it is 80% today. R1b more specifally R1b1a2a1 L51 and R1b1a2a1a L11 arrived in west Europe in the bronze age 5,000ybp it is not Neloithic.


Aquitaine is modern gascony area. And gascon language is associated with ancient basque dialect.
Gascon is also a branch of occitan, which derives from ancient gallic ( southern france ) and not celtic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gascon_dialect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquitanian_language

So, logically the Aquitainians where celtinized late in their history

----------


## adamo

Linguistically no; the basque do not speak an indo-European tongue, which is odd, because they fit the genetic profile.

----------


## nordicwarrior

> Doesn't the fact that the Basque R1b clades are so "young", or downstream, make the latter possibility, or even the first , less likely?
> 
> The other thing I've wondered about is whether there are matriarchal elements to Basque culture sufficient to explain the adoption of the language by surrounding males who might be incorporated into the community.


 YES. This explanation is so simple, so obvious... I'm not sure why mainstream experts avoid this conclusion. The Basque language was introduced by the maternal sides (we've all heard the phrase "mother tongue") and the paternal sides brought the DNA, specifically the younger branches of R1b.

----------


## nordicwarrior

Oops, I didn't mean to step on your idea, Lebrok. I hadn't read your response when I wrote mine. Sorry about that... by the way when is the last time we both agreed on something? You know it must be true based on this rare event alone. :)

----------


## Tone

The simplest answer is that the folks who introduced R1B into Europe, *circa 3,000 bc*, were not speakers of an Indo-European language.

*2,000 years later* (around 1,000 bc), the R1B carrying Western Indo-Europeans (Germans/Celts/Italians) burst onto the scene. They were probably "born" in Central Europe, adopting an Indo-European language from mixing with IE Corded Ware folk to the East. These R1B heavy IE-speaking peoples exploded from Central Europe and conquered the West, South, and North. The process was still not complete during historical times. When the Romans entered Iberia, half the peninsula was IE speaking (Celts) while half was speaking something other (Basque, Iberian, etc.) And to show how language can shift, the Iberian Peninsula ended up adopting neither of these languages, instead they speak an Italic dialect today (obviously).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Indo-Europeanization of Western Europe might have been a very recent phenomenon, beginning sometime around 800 bc and ending in modern times. The Basques are a remnant of an earlier language strata. As for their R1B being a newer downstream clad, I think this is a given, considering peoples are always evolving. All it takes is one conquering clad to go through a language shift (R1b males adopting IE in Central Europe) and it could seem like all R1B must have been IE from the beginning. But it might not be the case, if that makes sense. 

Of course this is all assumption, but that's what discussion on a forum is all about, right?  :Grin:

----------


## Fire Haired

Do u have any real sources to say Basque culture is matriarchal. because i doubt they have many traditions going back 3,000 years almost no one in Europe does. Culture changes so much and Rome and civilization all that stuff completely changed culture acroos Europe. I doubt the way basque live is that much different from Spanish and French near them. So if they are matriarchal that is not evidence for why they don't speak a Celtic language. I doubt them being matrchial would effect what language they speak that much do u have any reasons I think it was random the same happened in southern Iberia and languages relate dto Basque used to be spoken in most of the western coast of France.

----------


## Fire Haired

> The simplest answer is that the folks who introduced R1B into Europe, *circa 3,000 bc*, were not speakers of an Indo-European language.
> 
> *2,000 years later* (around 1,000 bc), the R1B carrying Western Indo-Europeans (Germans/Celts/Italians) burst onto the scene. They were probably "born" in Central Europe, adopting an Indo-European language from mixing with IE Corded Ware folk to the East. These R1B heavy IE-speaking peoples exploded from Central Europe and conquered the West, South, and North. The process was still not complete during historical times. When the Romans entered Iberia, half the peninsula was IE speaking (Celts) while half was speaking something other (Basque, Iberian, etc.) And to show how language can shift, the Iberian Peninsula ended up adopting neither of these languages, instead they speak an Italic dialect today (obviously).
> 
> Of course this is all assumption, but that's what discussion on a forum is all about, right?


I strongly dis agree u are making many big assumptions. please click on The spread of R1b1a2a1a L11 Germanic Italo Celts. And look at FTDNA R1b page. Besides Corded ware almost deifntley spoke proto Balto Slavic if it came from Corded ware which is hard to explain why aren't they in the same family.

----------


## matbir

> There is no such thing as Greco Aryan those were just hypothesis. Actulley Y DNa and archaeology points Balto Slavic and Indo Iranian language being the most related. So if anything it breaks down into Balto Slavic Indo Iranian. What i am saying is GErmanic and Italo Celtic languages have been seperate for so long over 4,000 years tht it is hard to find the linguistic evidence they form the same family. But archaeology and Y DNa points to them being connected also in language.


 1. Do you have any scientific paper refuting Graeco-Aryan branch of IE?
1. How Y DNA is able to make distinction between language groups? Insane, isn’t it?
2. Archeology shows that Corded Ware culture is the best candidate for spreading IE languages. 
3. How Celtic and Germanic could have been separate for 4 millennia, while they had contact from IV/V century BC on, while IE languages probably are driven from Yamna culture(3600-2300)?
4. All linguistic theories are about similarities. If Germanic languages have more in common with Slavic and Baltic then with Celtic it is likely that Baltic Germanic and Slavic are descendants of the same branch of IE. Satem innovation which was late one has clinal distribution, covering Indo-Iranian languages, Baltic and Slavic to lesser extent but independently, and left traces in proto-Germanic language. Of course this suggest that at the time of spreading satem innovation IE languages still had dialect continuity from central Asia to Scandinavia, what is next evidence of Northern IE group.




> The Iberian speakers lived far south from Aquitaine everyone surrounding them was Celtic. We don't need a long explanation people adopt diff languages. They were surrounded by italic speakers that's why and were eventulley conquered and resettled by Italic speakers. People are so stubborn with connecting Y DNA and Indo Europeans when sometimes it is so obvious. The R1b in Bell Beaker totally matches up with what people with my opinon say. Bell Beaker was conquered and adopted by Germanic Italo Celts. Which is why Unetice culture ancestral to Italic and Celtic tribes offically is decended from bell BEaker same with NOrdic bronze age culture nacestral to Germanic tribes. Also 31 Y DNa samples from Neolithic west Europe not one had R1b even 22 5,000 year old ones from southwestern france were it is 80% today. R1b more specifally R1b1a2a1 L51 and R1b1a2a1a L11 arrived in west Europe in the bronze age 5,000ybp it is not Neloithic.


5. Languages of Iberian peninsula: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...eria_300BC.svg - surrounded? I don’t think so.
6. First of all, R1b has very week connection to IE languages. It only correlates with historical Celtic expansions and in lesser extent with modern Germanic nations. There theory that explains non-IE R1b phenomenon, it was presented by Tone in this topic.
7. Why people are so stubborn? I advise you to listen Professor James Mallory abut “Indo-European Dispersals and the Eurasian Steppe” - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0HCs6PVnzI




> Doesn't the fact that the Basque R1b clades are so "young", or downstream, make the latter possibility, or even the first , less likely?


 How old is P312 and its main subclades ( L21, U152)?





> Linguistically no; the basque do not speak an indo-European tongue, which is odd, because they fit the genetic profile.


 But Gascon dialect have Basque substrate. Asking in that way, I could say - why surrounding population is IE while they fit genetic profile of Basque?





> YES. This explanation is so simple, so obvious... I'm not sure why mainstream experts avoid this conclusion. The Basque language was introduced by the maternal sides (we've all heard the phrase "mother tongue") and the paternal sides brought the DNA, specifically the younger branches of R1b.


 It is not simple, because More advanced culture introduce no genetic substrate without cultural domination. This scenario contradicts obvious rules. When developed culture is spreading around it is reasonable to expect cultural assimilation without genetic influence or population movement with genetic and cultural assimilation. Genetic contribution without cultural assimilation needs many conditions to be fulfilled, while Basques are not the only one non-IE in Western Europe( Iberians, Etruscans, Raeti).

If you would like to know what kind of problems do experts have click on link posted above. 




> I strongly dis agree u are making many big assumptions. please click on The spread of R1b1a2a1a L11 Germanic Italo Celts. And look at FTDNA R1b page. Besides Corded ware almost deifntley spoke proto Balto Slavic if it came from Corded ware which is hard to explain why aren't they in the same family.


 I have problem with understanding your last sentence, who is not in the same family?

Don’t be too quick in making conclusions, at the time of Corded Ware (2900 – 2350 BC) we rather have IE dialect continuum then groups as nowadays.
Celts are descendants of Hallstatt and La Tene culture, before spread of this cultures R1b in Western Europe could have been non-IE.

----------


## MOESAN

> Exactly my thoughts too. Let me prove same point based on my linguistic observation.
> For the person who doesn't speak either Basque or Spanish, they both sound rather similar, pronunciation of sound, melody and rhythm wise. I'm not saying identical, but very similar to non-speakers. It makes me conclude that the substratum population of both languages was the same, pre IE, possibly Basque/Aquitanian family.
> Also the complicated Basque grammar denotes being the original mother tongue langue. In contrast Modern Spanish is simplified Latin language. When a person learns a second language from strangers, with limited contact to original speakers and not in school environment, the grammar will always get simplified and this person will pronounce words with "funny accent" (mother tongue accent).
> What I mean is that Basque always was an original mother tongue. Spanish is learned language from Romans with local pronunciation and simplifications.
> 
> Edited:
> In this case proto-Basque language might have been original Iberian language of mt haplogroup H (H1 and H3) and U women and their I2a men.


I agree "spanish" language (to be more precise 'castillan') has a basque "footprint" phonetically, different from other romance iberic languages (Portuguese, galician , catalan and surely even 'mozarabic" languages are different concerning more than a phoentic trait -

----------


## MOESAN

> Doesn't the fact that the Basque R1b clades are so "young", or downstream, make the latter possibility, or even the first , less likely?
> 
> The other thing I've wondered about is whether there are matriarchal elements to Basque culture sufficient to explain the adoption of the language by surrounding males who might be incorporated into the community.


_I agree it is confusing- but what proves us Basque language ("basquic"!)_ _is so old in W-Europe?
I confess my trouble here: but I have some difficulties to think basque women "absorbed" and "educated" I-E males (husbands) coming from a ruling and triumphing caste, you see? - a >> 85% of foreign males Y-R1b is very hard to swallow down, for I think_,_ even with drift_ -_ and how old is R1b in W-Europe? only Bronze Ages??? I' m not so sure at this stage... was Bronze Age so prolific demographically speaking? I wait more proofs_
_your remark is full of sense nevertheless -_
_by the way, basque R1B's come from P310 if I don't mistake: how old is P310_ ? I don't know...

----------


## nordicwarrior

We are applying modern day population dynamics to the situation that existed thousands of years ago on land that was populated with a tiny fraction of inhabitants. This maternal language contribution could have occurred over a couple of families out in the boonies. When you refer to "ruling castes" it does seem unlikely to have the women take over speech patterns, nevertheless the Basque language is there and it's not related to I.E. Mother tongue makes the most sense.

----------


## Nobody1

Neither was the Basque *father* tongue Indo-European; Indo-European societies were patriarchal societies; 
Therefor: Basque (and ancient Aquitani and Iberian) being non-Indo-European suggests that their fathers were also non-Indo-Europeans;

----------


## LeBrok

> Neither was the Basque *father* tongue Indo-European; Indo-European societies were patriarchal societies; 
> Therefor: Basque (and ancient Aquitani and Iberian) being non-Indo-European suggests that their fathers were also non-Indo-Europeans;


Granted. The only question is which of new Basque R1b fathers where IE. All of them or just the last Celtic wave?

----------


## Tabaccus Maximus

I think it is highly doubtful that _either uniparental marker_ commonly held by Basques today reflect a pre-Chalcolithic relict population. Let me say it bluntly, Basque people are genetically mostly Indo-European or at least appear so when looking exclusively at uniparental markers. 

So the question I would ask is if the autosomal ancestry of Basque people mismatches that of the uniparental ancestry. It's not a question of whether this happens in nature, because it does happen and often, but to what degree has it happened in Basques and is there a hidden component in Basques that make them racially unique.

----------


## Nobody1

> The only question is which of new Basque R1b fathers where IE.


None of them;




> All of them or just the last Celtic wave?


I do not know of a Keltic wave that ever reached the basques;

----------


## Fire Haired

i dont get what is hard to understand Celts probablly 3,500-4,500ybp conquered west europe with mainly R1b Df27 majority in France and Iberia with minority R1b L21 while in British isles those Celts had majority R1b L21 and minority R1b Df27. Some Celts in France Iberia area adopted the native language for whatever reason. So modern Basque paternal lines are vast majority under Italo Celtic R1b S116 around 80% like Celts of the British isles and western coast of France. I have just learned even though my surname is British probably Scotland or England i most likley had R1b Df27. And that it is probably about 40% in western France and 10-20% in Scotland and Ireland(R1b Df27 not just in Iberia)

Basque in aust dna tests show to be most similar to Neolithic farmer samples Otzie (Alps Italy 5,300ybp) and Gok4(south Swedan 5,000ybp).Because of their very high amount of med in whatever test like globe13 while they hav very little west asian and southwest asian(which also came in Neloithic) and below average for north Euro(pre Neloithic Europe) compared to Spain and France. I guess that would mean in ancestry overall they are very Neloithic. BAsque do seem to be kind of unique in aust dna, mtdna(high amount of H1, H3, and V), and Y DNA very low G2a, E1b1b, and J1 compared to surrounding FRench and Spainish. And highest or close to hiighest amount of I2a1a M26 besides Sardine.

----------


## Nobody1

DF27 is higher (much higher, the highest) in the Iberian [non-Indo-European] areas than in the Celt-Iberian [Indo-European Keltic mix] areas; Looks like the non-Indo-European Bell-Beaker culture zone; but thats prob. just me;

Basques are not Neolithic; why would they be?
They have nothing to do with GÖK4 and ÖTZI; they are not like the Sardines; 
And *pre*-Indo-European in the Western (Atlantic Fringe) Europe does not equal Neolithic; Bell Beaker (*Chalcolithic*) is just fine for *pre*-Indo-European and thats also the first time R1b pops up - *not* U106 of course; 

I view R1b to be both non-Indo-European as well as Indo-European depending on the sub-clade (lineage) just like R1a; with U106 and U152 def. Indo-European;

----------


## Petter

> i dont get what is hard to understand Celts probablly 3,500-4,500ybp conquered west europe with mainly R1b Df27 majority in France and Iberia with minority R1b L21 while in British isles those Celts had majority R1b L21 and minority R1b Df27.


It is hard to understand because it requires us to dismiss the most widely held theories on Indo-European linguistics. As far as I've seen there are no evidence that the R1B expansion to Western Europe was by Indo-Europeans in the first place. It is considered proven in itself, and when asked for linguistic evidence, the proponents point back to the genetic results. Genetics is used to prove a theory, then genetics proves linguistics, and linguistics proves the theory. That is a circular reasoning. 




> The simplest answer is that the folks who introduced R1B into Europe, *circa 3,000 bc*, were not speakers of an Indo-European language.
> 
> *2,000 years later* (around 1,000 bc), the R1B carrying Western Indo-Europeans (Germans/Celts/Italians) burst onto the scene. They were probably "born" in Central Europe, adopting an Indo-European language from mixing with IE Corded Ware folk to the East. These R1B heavy IE-speaking peoples exploded from Central Europe and conquered the West, South, and North. The process was still not complete during historical times. When the Romans entered Iberia, half the peninsula was IE speaking (Celts) while half was speaking something other (Basque, Iberian, etc.) And to show how language can shift, the Iberian Peninsula ended up adopting neither of these languages, instead they speak an Italic dialect today (obviously).
> 
> I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Indo-Europeanization of Western Europe might have been a very recent phenomenon, beginning sometime around 800 bc and ending in modern times. The Basques are a remnant of an earlier language strata. As for their R1B being a newer downstream clad, I think this is a given, considering peoples are always evolving. All it takes is one conquering clad to go through a language shift (R1b males adopting IE in Central Europe) and it could seem like all R1B must have been IE from the beginning. But it might not be the case, if that makes sense. 
> 
> Of course this is all assumption, but that's what discussion on a forum is all about, right?





> I strongly dis agree u are making many big assumptions. please click on The spread of R1b1a2a1a L11 Germanic Italo Celts. And look at FTDNA R1b page. Besides Corded ware almost deifntley spoke proto Balto Slavic if it came from Corded ware which is hard to explain why aren't they in the same family.


I strongly agree with Tone here - a recent spread of the current Indo-European language families to Western Europe is still the prevailing theory. For example, Celtic did not reach Ireland before the iron age, around 600 BC. That requires that R1B was given its large distribution by a previous expansion, a people which might have spoken an extinct Indo-European language, or a Paleo-European language such as Basque. So Tone's theory requires far less assumptions than Fire Haired's. Fire Haired has to revision widely held linguistic theories and assume a very early spread of Celtic languages.

Might I again point out that the FTDNA page clearly states that genetics cannot prove spread of languages. And as I point out above, genetics cannot be used to prove linguistics, if assumptions on linguistics are based on genetics in the first place.

----------


## Sile

mtdna of Basques in ancient times also Germany and Portugal

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot...n-origins.html

----------


## Tabaccus Maximus

> mtdna of Basques in ancient times also Germany and Portugal
> 
> http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot...n-origins.html



Sorry, but Maju's charts are misleading. The first 'proven' samples of Haplogroup H in Europe are in the Late Neolithic "Rossen Culture" in Central Europe only. And the Rossen Culture shows clear signs of early "Indo-Europeanesque" ingression it their burial habits and agricultural package.
Not saying they were Indo-European, but a diffusion of IE people or pre-IE people and ideas were making their way into Europe at that time.

H1 has its highest diversity, basically everywhere but Spain and France. H3 has its highest diversity in North Africa and the Middle East. 

Maju's contention that R* samples in the Magdalenian are actually H just doesn't work given the divesity and age of H - _from another place.

_

----------


## Tabaccus Maximus

> It is hard to understand because it requires us to dismiss the most widely held theories on Indo-European linguistics. As far as I've seen there are no evidence that the R1B expansion to Western Europe was by Indo-Europeans in the first place. It is considered proven in itself, and when asked for linguistic evidence, the proponents point back to the genetic results. Genetics is used to prove a theory, then genetics proves linguistics, and linguistics proves the theory. That is a circular reasoning. 
> 
> I strongly agree with Tone here - a recent spread of the current Indo-European language families to Western Europe is still the prevailing theory. For example, Celtic did not reach Ireland before the iron age, around 600 BC.


Ok, I am going to defend F.H. but not his total lack of spelling and grammer.

First, the _"recent spread of the current Indo-European language families to WEstern Europe is still the prevailing theory"
_Well, it may be the prevailing theory, but it is not an intelligent theory. You also say that _"Celtic did not reach Ireland before the Iron age, around 600 B.C."_ This is false. The La Tene expansion never made it to Ireland and never made it to most of Britain. The only theory that pretends to account for the total distribution of Celtic languages is the Atlantic hypothesis. 

Secondly, it is not circular reasoning for various disciplines to corroborate each other. For example, the presence of the English language in Alaska was accompanied by genetics that I promise will almost 1:1 corroborate in the archaelogical/archaeogentic record. It's never as simple as this and in many cases won't hold true. But many times it does and will.

----------


## nordicwarrior

> Ok, I am going to defend F.H. but not his total lack of spelling and grammer...


 I think you may mean grammar? The answer to the Basque language is obvious and is spelled out (pun intended-- so sorry) in their ample collection of myths and legends. R1b replaced the long dwelling hg. I males almost completely... the autosomal genetic holdover admixture is clearly able to be identified. The collective "mother tongue" made the jump via the caring cradle of maternal love.

----------


## nordicwarrior

Any other ponderific (totally made up that word) questions in need of answering? I fear I may be moving on to the lost science (or art really) of phrenology, so ask away while you have the chance...

----------


## LeBrok

> mtdna of Basques in ancient times also Germany and Portugal
> 
> http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot...n-origins.html


This is great stuff, although I think that we need more samples to be sure, and I would like to see H1 separately from all H, as this is very telling in Basque case.

From Basque chart we can see some mtDNA changes in Neolithic which came with first farmers (mt JT and K) probably together with J and E for men. 
The biggest change though comes in Chalcolithic, when 50% of mt genome is replaced. This change probably came with J2 man and maybe first none IE R1b.
But if Basque language is copper age then why we can't see any related language in Europe and Middle East, even more if it was bronze age?
There is a big chance that Basque language is Paleolithic with some borrowings from later cultures.

Check this great analyses by Taranis.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...asque-language

----------


## Wilhelm

> i dont get what is hard to understand Celts probablly 3,500-4,500ybp conquered west europe with mainly R1b Df27 majority in France and Iberia with minority R1b L21 while in British isles those Celts had majority R1b L21 and minority R1b Df27. Some Celts in France Iberia area adopted the native language for whatever reason. So modern Basque paternal lines are vast majority under Italo Celtic R1b S116 around 80% like Celts of the British isles and western coast of France. I have just learned even though my surname is British probably Scotland or England i most likley had R1b Df27. And that it is probably about 40% in western France and 10-20% in Scotland and Ireland(R1b Df27 not just in Iberia)
> 
> Basque in aust dna tests show to be most similar to Neolithic farmer samples Otzie (Alps Italy 5,300ybp) and Gok4(south Swedan 5,000ybp).Because of their very high amount of med in whatever test like globe13 while they hav very little west asian and southwest asian(which also came in Neloithic) and below average for north Euro(pre Neloithic Europe) compared to Spain and France. I guess that would mean in ancestry overall they are very Neloithic. BAsque do seem to be kind of unique in aust dna, mtdna(high amount of H1, H3, and V), and Y DNA very low G2a, E1b1b, and J1 compared to surrounding FRench and Spainish. And highest or close to hiighest amount of I2a1a M26 besides Sardine.


Basques are far from being pure Neolithic, in fact they would be one of the least neolithic of Southern Europe and many other parts of Europe. First of all, they are not like Sardinians, they have much more Northern-Euro influences. Second, they have one of the highest concentrations of Paloelithic mtDNA (basically U5) in Europe, after Saamis and Finns.

----------


## Fire Haired

> Basques are far from being pure Neolithic, in fact they would be one of the least neolithic of Southern Europe and many other parts of Europe. First of all, they are not like Sardinians, they have much more Northern-Euro influences. Second, they have one of the highest concentrations of Paloelithic mtDNA (basically U5) in Europe, after Saamis and Finns.


That's not good evidence the fact is that in globe13 and other tests I have seen they are very very very high in med second to Sardine and Neolithic farmer samples. Sure they may have a lot of U5 I think U5b1 but probably not that much look at Eupedia mtDNA charts that is just direct female line no big deal. We don't know exactly how popular U5 ws just so far in Mesloithic samples and hunter gathers in the Neolithic U5 is the majority of all mtDNA mainly U5b. Most mtDNA H in modern Europeans is probably pre Neloithic the H1 and H3 is deifntley pre Neolithic and is very popular os we cant just assume pre Neolithic Europeans equals U and U5.

----------


## Wilhelm

> That's not good evidence the fact is that in globe13 and other tests I have seen they are very very very high in med second to Sardine and Neolithic farmer samples. Sure they may have a lot of U5 I think U5b1 but probably not that much look at Eupedia mtDNA charts that is just direct female line no big deal. We don't know exactly how popular U5 ws just so far in Mesloithic samples and hunter gathers in the Neolithic U5 is the majority of all mtDNA mainly U5b. Most mtDNA H in modern Europeans is probably pre Neloithic the H1 and H3 is deifntley pre Neolithic and is very popular os we cant just assume pre Neolithic Europeans equals U and U5.


They are 73% Atlanto-Baltic on K7b whereas Sardinians are around 50%, that's a huge difference. The atlanto-med also includes a good deal of mesolithic alelles on it. As for the mtDNA, the U5 samples are not just neolithic, but also been found in Paleolithic Iberia, even haplogrup H.

----------


## Fire Haired

> They are 73% Atlanto-Baltic on K7b whereas Sardinians are around 50%, that's a huge difference. The atlanto-med also includes a good deal of mesolithic alelles on it. As for the mtDNA, the U5 samples are not just neolithic, but also been found in Paleolithic Iberia, even haplogrup H.


I agree BAsque overall results are very diff from sardine. But their similarity is they have the most med I cant speak for all tests though and it is suppose to have come in the neloithic and is dominate in Neolithic farmer samples like otzie. That's all I am not saying their extremely close overall. I have seen some tests I cant remember their names their from dodecad and they have two groups one being north euro and another I forgot the name but it is rare in mid easterns. And other tests were all Europeans have majority specfic European groups which makes sense since it shockes me that according to tests like globe13 the average European is 50% European.

----------


## Nobody1

> They are 73% Atlanto-Baltic on K7b whereas Sardinians are around 50%, that's a huge difference. The atlanto-med also includes a good deal of mesolithic alelles on it. As for the mtDNA, the U5 samples are not just neolithic, but also been found in Paleolithic Iberia, even haplogrup H.


Exactly;
This notion that the basques are a Paleolithic or Neolithic remnant Population (_which i also used to believe_) is actually nowhere (Genetics / Linguistics) factually proven; The Hg's [Y & mt] that exist amongst modern-day basques also exist in other European regions and populations so that aspect is far from exclusive only to the basques;
The modern-day basques are Genetically not that diff. than other modern-day European populations (the French basques even cluster closer with Iberians than to France); They have no special Genetic ancestry link to GÖK4 or ÖTZI or the Hunter-gatherers that were tested and no Neolithic corpse ever had R1b-DF27 or R1b (their major Y-DNA lineage);

This aspect also becomes obvious when compared to the Sardinians; The Sardinians are Genetically isolated to other modern-day European populations and cluster closest and only with Neolithic Europeans - that in the broadest sense can be attributed to the Sardinians to be from "Old Europe" stock - however the basques do not cluster with the Sardinians as one would expect if they were Neolithic or Old Europe;

The basques just speak an isolated language that is non-Indo-European and pre-Indo-European in the sense that it was present in Western Europe before the Indo-Europeans reached Iberia and Atlantic-fringe in the 1st mil BC; Not in the sense that it is pre-Indo-European that it stems from the Paleolithic or Neolithic; Unless they actually unearth a basque inscription from the Neolithic the language placement can be anywhere before the 1st mil BC;

----------


## Tabaccus Maximus

> I think you may mean grammar? The answer to the Basque language is obvious and is spelled out (pun intended-- so sorry) in their ample collection of myths and legends. R1b replaced the long dwelling hg. I males almost completely... the autosomal genetic holdover admixture is clearly able to be identified. The collective "mother tongue" made the jump via the caring cradle of maternal love.



Ha ha  :Laughing:  you got me. Grammar it is. I own that one and probably a few others.

N.W., I agree with you as far as hg replacement, but I'm not so sure about haplogroup I being the relict it's assumed to be. I think the bizarre distribution of haplogroup I could be due in part to it being culturally part of the water based founding events of R1b from the near east and the spread of the urnfield culture from the SW Balkans, or the much early Yamnaya and pre-Yamnaya spread into Euroe, but that's just me.

I don't buy all the Franco-Cantabrian refuge stuff "thousands of people hunkered down in caves watching the snow flakes blow buy the cave door" I think the population of Western Europe was mostly replaced.

----------


## Angela

Every population in Europe has a Neolithic component, in my opinion. Dienekes has not opined about it recently, but he initially stated that even the North Europe component masks a Neolithic element. People see results that show that the Swedish hunter-gatherers are more similar to North Europeans and forget that they are outside the range of modern variation, unlike Oetzi and Gok 4.
See: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/06...-arintero.html

They also forget all those Dodecad analyses that show that all Europeans are a mixture of Sardinian and Karaitana to one degree or another. 

As to the Basques in particular, as is clear from the above analysis, the Basques are not the direct descendents of the La Brana mesolithic peoples. 

Also, as was posted above, the "Mediterranean" component is the most appropriate autosomal component, in my opinion, for tracking the Neolithic. That's clear from the analysis of both Oetzi and Gok 4, our only ancient Neolithic samples. 

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/10...-dna-with.html

The French Basque score of 59.5 for Mediterranean is exactly the same as for Oetzi for the same component. Pais Vasco is only a few percentage points lower. The difference is that the Basques have about 40-41% North European, versus 14% for Oetzi and 28% for Gok 4. (By the way, the French, or at least the Lyon academic sample for the French, only have 40% Mediterranean. They now have a combination of 12% West and South West Asian and an additional 5% in Northern European. )

These are some interesting graphics:

Modern European populations closest to the Gok 4 Neolithic farmer:
http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2012/04/...-ancestry.html
The above table is from Skoglund et al

Another graphic:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/04...ic-sweden.html

----------


## martiko

It's a pity that there is not here Basque, I am Basque by my parent and French by my culture.

But first I say that Basque eushkara:

1_ It is not a PIE language

2_ Basque is a not classified language and its apparteance in the group IE discusses but not excluded.
Basque does not belong to the group of the centum nor the zatem and it even though it introduces of numerous likeness with satem.

3_ You should not merge the eushkara with the iberian/aquitanian (PIE language)

4_ You should not merge the eushkara with the iberian Celtic (language IE)

5_Les Basque or their forefathers vascons to back in Spain where at about 8th century after their win on Wisigoths in Pyrenees in Pampelune.(For a subsequent date of their arrival nothing was found)

5-les basques have a contour autosomale and phnotype Bretons of France a bit similar in. They are that some people call of ' Alpine ".

Iberian and celtic :
https://www.google.fr/search?q=%C3%A...w=1250&bih=874

Basque today :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqgpX6Zz02Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlxywQjkHeo

----------


## martiko

My proposal of invention is:
_Imagine that all amrindians of North America disappears or is crossed, and then they find strange people who does not speak English, with a strange physical appearance, and their name also is strange, it is the Scotsmen.
Therefore savant a little more brilliant than the others, decrees that they are the amrindiens true, and that their language is the genuine Paleolithic language._

the 19th century was an epoch when they had classified of language under IE the name of and it was the running for whom will discover the first, the Paleolithic population, and a language which did not belong to the latin or Slavonic.....*but in reality nobody indeed knows IE* and nobody speaks it and has ever intended it to speak.

----------


## MOESAN

> Sorry, but Maju's charts are misleading. The first 'proven' samples of Haplogroup H in Europe are in the Late Neolithic "Rossen Culture" in Central Europe only. And the Rossen Culture shows clear signs of early "Indo-Europeanesque" ingression it their burial habits and agricultural package.
> Not saying they were Indo-European, but a diffusion of IE people or pre-IE people and ideas were making their way into Europe at that time.
> 
> H1 has its highest diversity, basically everywhere but Spain and France. H3 has its highest diversity in North Africa and the Middle East. 
> 
> Maju's contention that R* samples in the Magdalenian are actually H just doesn't work given the divesity and age of H - _from another place.
> 
> _


If a red well recently on a forum that were found 1 mt-U _BUT ALSO_ 2 mt-H in madgalenian Spain! 
as a whole, 50% of last paleolithical Iberia would have been mt-H, giving a 44% at neolithical time... could someone confirm it?

----------


## martiko

> If a red well recently on a forum that were found 1 mt-U _BUT ALSO_ 2 mt-H in madgalenian Spain! 
> as a whole, 50% of last paleolithical Iberia would have been mt-H, giving a 44% at neolithical time... could someone confirm it?


No !
and I find nothing in the sense of it or what pretends Maju.mtDNA-H1-H3-map.jpg

H1 and H3 never was found in the msolithique either Paleolithic, but on earlier at the end of neolithique, or then I missed a lot of information.
mtDNA-L-map.jpg
being can he blends with MtDNA L ?

----------


## MOESAN

> My proposal of invention is:
> _Imagine that all am�rindians of North America disappears or is crossed, and then they find strange people who does not speak English, with a strange physical appearance, and their name also is strange, it is the Scotsmen.
> Therefore savant a little more brilliant than the others, decrees that they are the am�rindiens true, and that their language is the genuine Paleolithic language._
> 
> the 19th century was an epoch when they had classified of language under IE the name of and it was the running for whom will discover the first, the Paleolithic population, and a language which did not belong to the latin or Slavonic.....*but in reality nobody indeed knows IE* and nobody speaks it and has ever intended it to speak.


_I am not sure of what you mean here about I-E, P-I-E or ...?
What I'm sure of is all the classified I-Ean languages share or had shared a lot of basic words, syntax, morphologic traits - there is no "complot" here I think -
basque language is very very different, as for basic words as for syntax, showing just some peculiarities that could have survived as substrata heritage among new celtic languages (a few traits) - but we find more syntaxic affinities I think between semitic or hamitic languages with new celtic ones, whatever the caution we have to take concerning some possible covergences - 
I made the hypothesis (a try, no more) of proto-basque speaking tribes coming along with early I-Eans through Northeast Europe and then central Europe, and sharing by geographical origin a lot of common genetic traits - only one of several possibilities - maybe they spoke a language that participated to the proto-I-E language formation, along with a more southern group of languages from S-E Caspian???
I think we lack yet more data to be sure of our judgment and to be more precise
I 'm amazed by the self security of some opinions concerning this interesting but confusing problem of opposed languages with akin genetic basis

_

----------


## MOESAN

I put here some thoughts about autosomals poolings - it concerns in some part the Basques and the Celts and others peope and aspects...because as we know whatever the angle of analysis we choose all our threads concern mankind History or are linked to it - so I hope I shall be excused!

Sometimes I am surprised by some analysis of countries autosomals distributions, from one way of pooling to another – I know (or I believe I know) these poolings are in a big part arbitrary – but I would have prefered, as the subpopulations numbers were increasing, that the previous groupings (unless they were proved to be very inadapted) were kept and just broken down, without remove too much their first borders with other groupings – but it is not the way things are running (I speak for the most about Dodecad, I have red very little about details of other poolings as made by Britains DNA (spite I am client), by Eurognes...
by instance, I made (and others also did) some speculations about the 'gedrosia' component in Dodecad, but the poor component disappeared from later more detailed analysis of Dodecad, or appeared very lowered down – all that could question the worth of this kind of analysis even if we can take some valuable conclusions from it - 
I was astonished by the Dodecad K9 or 10 (I don't find my notes) where we found 'basque' and 'sardinian' almost «pure» components: is that possible? Surely not – sometimes the new «components» formed upon a greater ancient one can be finer grained, sometimes they seem a new mixture without any homogeneity – When we find a 'basque' population (not component) firstable broken into 'north-european' and 'south-european' and after the same population with only 1 component (almost) and we look at the distribution of this «pure» basque component among other populations, we see some interesting results; the question is: these 'basque' %s we see by instance in the Isles or Scandinavia are they genuine basque component or an undetermined component common to 'basque' population and northwestern populations??? the same reasoning with 'sardinian' or other typical population where «population» is almost equal to «component»... - 
when I put the distributions of 'mediterranean' opposed to 'west-asian' I see a western + northern geographic distribution for the former, being Sard people on this side - 
when I put the distributions of 'basque' opposed to 'sardinian', it is 'basque' which takes this western and northern place but here the population of Sardinia is «centered» with South-East - 
when 'gedrosia' component is in the game (but I recall it varies according to K...') its distribution as opposed to 'caucasian' is less simple: we see high %s in Basque country, Norway, Sweden, Cornwall, Ireland, Western Scotland and Orcades, but the opposed is not exactly in South-East (comprised into it Iran, Near-Eastern, Caucasus and Anatolia populations) but in Sardinia, Greece, Bulgaria and more surprising Lithuania, Russia, Belarus and Poland: as if (at first sight and speculation) 'gedrosia' would be more akin to 'basque' than to 'sardinian' and as if a wave from the Steppes would have erased 'gedrosia' in Eastern Europe, North and South... - even putting 'mediterranean' along with 'gedrosia' and 'caucasian' does not change the order of things, only 'gedrosia' has lower %s - 


I think we can imagine something as:
a small component, we can find very far in North and North-East of Europe lands, is common to Basques, Scandinavians and Finnic people: I think in a paleolithical population that went northwards after LGL, surely of 'cromagnon' affiliation – evidently, other surrounding close regions have this old component, but less visible – the basque population has too an other northern component found among the 'north-europe' or 'northwestern european', at low level, as have almsost all the countries of Europe and even countries from Western Asia or Caucasus – the principal component among Basques is a western 'mediterranean' one, maybe there before Neolithic (we could thing in a Brünn-Capellid direct phylum, but it is very unsure and would be scarce; maybe a first wave of same phylum as 'sardinian' but isolated there little time before, gracilized descendants of an 'eurafrican' type of Eastern Mediterranea, of a more remote same origin as 'brünn-combe-capelle' but came there through South and not through North, and very distinct from 'cromagnon' concerning bones - 
Sardinians have it, at very lower levels – the 'sardinian' component contains an other sub-component I would name 'central-mediterranean', but that was rather 'pan-mediterranean' at some stage of history – maybe more evolved lower statured form of the «basque mediterranean» I spoke about just before. - 
&: the 'chancelade' type played surely a big role in the formation of western 'mediterraneans' of variable statures (1m65 to 1m72 I think) but all of them with common features: high narrow faces spite broad enough cheekbones (bizygoma), very narrow jaws, the height been linked to the upper facial part for the most, high narrow skulls, high and large enough orbits (higher and narrower than the «cousins» of 'capelle-brünn' phylum) and a forehead (frontal) a bit steeper than these last «cousins» too, as well as for the brows ridges: in short, more «evolved» or «gentler»: the descendants of this 'chancelade' (partly mixed with previous people more cromagnoïd) could be linked to Tardenoisian spread, and coming from East Mediterranea (I reserve my opinion concerning possible Y-HG link) – the same type, mixed with more 'arabian'-like types same of remote origin but more gracilized) came again during early Neolithic, I think – It seems having reached Basque country at maritime Megalithics times? I have some difficulty to «analyse» the La Braña crania 1 (7000 BC in Leon, NW Spain) because I have only a picture, almost taken from face but not totally, and from the top: at first sight, and I believe it presents a strong 'cromagnon' network of features and maybe something else akin to the 'c-capelle-brünn' phylum or to the 'chancelade-like' tardenoisian people, hard to say, but very different as a whole from the Loosbourg mesolithical skull... were all of them Y-I people? I have some doubt... the autosomals mixture I can read give a 71,9% 'north-european', a 24,8% 'mediterranean' and a 3,2% 'paleo-african' components for La Braña 1: which could be the 'cromagnon' aspect linked to? 'N-Euro' or 'Med'??? I choose 'N-Euro' - all the way _if this 'Med' is not the 'basque' component,_ the 'Med' admixture proves very well gene flow from South or South-East was already efficient at Mesolithic times unless there had been some exchanges of females with agricultors? - the 'paleo-african' seems to me linked to 'Med'... (but it recalls me also the «negroid» modification upon a 'cromagnoid' basis among the 'grimaldi' types who still had descendants in Mediterranea at Eneolithic-Chalcolithic times: when came first this negroid features? I do not know for now)


concerning 'gedrosia', left aside a slight element of 'south-asian', it could be a more archaïc and extended wave of 'westasian' before a «sister» branch knew some new mutations and selection around Caucasus-Zagros, this late version coming maybe with some agriculturalists but maybe more peri-Black Sea people with some kind of Bronze Age Indo-Europeans?; so we could economize a special northern route for Y-R1b+'gedrosia'?!? (I confess this explanation by an archaïc unchanged form is very dubtful)... - at first sight 'gedrosia' in northern and western Europe seems independant from the neolithical revolution, and the question is «when?» - its paucity in northeastern Europe (even very more striking when compared to 'caucasian') seems showing an erasing by Steppic people from East – but Finns have no 'gedrosia', then??? Either a maritime megalithic introgression or an early introgression with the first Indo-Europeans (+ some indo-europeanized tribes? Y-R1b?), came from lands closer to Caspian??? all of them achieved their long travel in north-atlantic Europe!
The first scenario could confirm 'gedrosia' was maybe more largely spred in ancient time around South-Caspian, South-Caucasus, before demic introgressions came from the very Caucasus region, spreading or reinforcing an akin but yet differenciated component ('caucasian' << drift in mountains) southwards – History tell us about these colonizations from North in Near-Eastern after Neolithic – why not a 'gedrosia' taste among Elamits and even Sumerians?
I confess I prefer the northern route!

have a good evening all of you - I'm sorry, it is my aperitive time!

----------


## martiko

*MOESAN* you have good one ideas there!
And I top up in your idea that all DF27 group can be language IE was speaker of a prototype language of Basque, and as forms around Kuban (maikopka), then according to your idea they could think that a part of the group migrant R1b would be crossed out of this zone of influence. and this group shall then have become DF27. Therefore this language which is also with form ouralic as language IE avoids the indo-Europeanization and rest in its initial form or has evolve in another way; while other personness are subjected influence and harmonization and goes towards a different evolution. Why not?
And even if we seem ridiculous, I find very interesting and credible idea.

Chance! it was found tzi (the homo-findus) and he is an old Sardinian of 3500 years or 3000 years (I forgot) and here is of the poor for theory of basco-Sardinian, and therefore since this theory take water gravely, further to analyses genetics: Nonexistent G2a1b and K1 of markers as much to the basques (see basques ancient, Aldaita necropole) as to Finnish, who have nothing commune there also!
Very as you I am unseated when Eutest de Eurogens classifies basques customer genetic analyzes: half German/ Basque half. They can wonder where they took their reference Basque, Basque standard.

I think that there is confusion between Basque and iberian and if it arrives within the same business company of statistics then c " a suffering is for us the customers.
Iberian is I2a1 as 30 % of Sardinian are I2a1 and 30 % still of Sardinian are G2a3.

----------


## vandalorum

There is a difference between Slavs and Slavic language. In Mozambique they speak portuguese for example. Russians only speak slavic, or only they are real Slavic (i do not know). Now some new for You, old for date of birth article: type on searcher engine: "LINGUISTIC CONNECTIONS BETWEEN BASQUES AND SLAVS (VENETI) IN ANTIQUITY " I am not allowed to post links.
btw. I don't speak english, I just can read it.

----------


## MOESAN

> There is a difference between Slavs and Slavic language. In Mozambique they speak portuguese for example. Russians only speak slavic, or only they are real Slavic (i do not know). Now some new for You, old for date of birth article: type on searcher engine: "LINGUISTIC CONNECTIONS BETWEEN BASQUES AND SLAVS (VENETI) IN ANTIQUITY " I am not allowed to post links.
> btw. I don't speak english, I just can read it.


*Basque, I-E Veneti, Slavs*


_Vandalorum: There is a difference between Slavs and Slavic language. In Mozambique they speak portuguese for example. Russians only speak slavic, or only they are real Slavic (i do not know). Now some new for You, old for date of birth article: type on searcher engine: "LINGUISTIC CONNECTIONS BETWEEN BASQUES AND SLAVS (VENETI) IN ANTIQUITY " I am not allowed to post links.
btw. I don't speak english, I just can read it._  


_Thanks for the title: I found the text and red it – interesting but full approximations -_

_It has been written by Petr Jandàček about a book «Veneti, naši davni predniki»  by Bor, Šavli, Tomažik (I did not red it!) -_  




_the short text's author wrote he made a list of basque, czech and slovenian modern words, avowing it lacks ancient forms of these languages -_  
_I respect the effort made to understand history of languages and every try deserves respect but we have to be very cautious in our tries -_  
_I glanced at this list, where words of every language (almost) are supposed to illustrate common roots, whatever the phonetic evolution; as very often in this kind of «work» where a person tries to prove a prejudicated thing I find a lot of incoherences -_  
_first remark, some basque signs (letters) are compared to numerous different signs in this two slavic languages, without explanation about the phonetic apparent discrepancies – I tried to find out the parts of the words which were to be compared because it was not explained by the author - for instance, basque_ *z* _«corresponds» here to_ *k / d / s /* *ž / z / h < g* _(czech-)_* –*  
_basque_ *x* _corresponds here to_ *z / č / s -*
_Do not forget words have very often prefixes and suffixes which can abuse us very easily...SO it is useful to do with some «???» when comparisons are only intuitive so unsure -_  
_I shall put here some «correspondances» I find very dubious, sorry for the boring aspect of my amateur «intervention»:_
_ &: the underlinings are of my own! (trying to understand the links)_


° belly, Cz = Slov *život* –Bsq *zi**l**bot* : _no explanation for the basque__'L'_ ._.. the slavic__Ž__comes from *G, what about the basque Z ???_
° knee, Cz = Slov *koleno* – Bsq *belaunue*_: no explanation, I suppose the_ _L-N_ _part is in play here for him – but the slavic words came surely for the root_ _KoL-_ _germ-_ _*KhwiL__: wheel (rotule: *RoT-, fr- «roue») - so, for me, NO link with basque_
° back, Cz *zad**a*, Slov *od**zad**aj -* Bsq *atzealde*_: what kind of phonetic link, whatever the word part?_
° limb, Cz *hnata << gnat-,* Slov *ud -* Bsq *hanka* _: what link?- the basque word could be a romance << germanic loan, fr-_ _hanche__,__haunch – all the way, no link between the words provided here -_  
° leg, foot,Cz *noh**a*, Slov *nog**a -* Bsq *za**ng**a* : _possible? Have we traces in ancient basque of a reduction_ _*nog-/nag-/neg- (?) >> *-ng-_ _or an inversion_ _*nag- >> *ang-__:very acrobatic indeed -_
° elbow, Cz *loket* – Slov *komolec (laket)* – Bsq *ukondo*_ : what link???_
° blackbird, Cz = Slov *kos* – Bsq *zozo* _: what link???_
° to dig a hole, Cz *dol**ovati –* Slov *kopati (zajcmati?)* - Bsq *zul**ato* _:_ _dol = zol_ _???_
_°_ hole, Cz *dol, dul* – Slov *jama (luknja) –* Bsq *zulo*_ : same ???_
° toad (frog), Cz = Slov *žaba* – Bsq *zapo* _: the slavic words come surely from *__gab-_ _/ Bsq_ _zapo_ _could have some link with spanish_ _sapo_ _(toad)..._
° saddle, Cz = Slov *sedlo* – Bsq *zela* _: spanish_ _silla__, an I-E root? the root_ _*sed- i__s very common among I-E languages with derivated meanings as «seat», «to sit», «sleep» fr-_ _sedatif__, «peace» (welsh_ _hedd__)... the basque word could very well be a new enough loanword?_
° fat, grease, tallow, Cz *sadlo* – Slov *salo –* Bsq *ziho*_ : what link???_
° sign, Cz = Slov *znak* – Bsq *zeinu*_: the spanish (castillan) has_ _seña / señal__ from whom the basque could be a loan – the slavic forms seems based upon I-E_ _*g-n_ _(to_ _kn__ow,_ _kn__owledge: kennen...)_
° stool, Cz = Slov *stol* – Bsq *taula* _: the slavic words are loans from germanic, and the basque one seems a loan to a romance dialectal form of_ _tabla << tabula_ _(Fr-_ _table, taule, tôle__)..._
° aspect, appearance, Cz *tvar –* Slov *način* – Bsq *taxu* _: what link???_
° shot, Cz* s**tr**ela –* Slov *s**tr**el –* Bsq *tir**o* _: ? the basque is surely a loan from spanish_ _tiro_ _-_
°to pull, to yank, to tug, Cz *tahati (<< tagati)* – Slov *tirati –* Bsq *tiratu* _: basque and slovene seems loanwords, the czech one could be (perhaps) a loan to some germanic root_ _(to take, tag)__-_
° small boat, Cz *člun* - Slov* čoln* – Bsq *txalupa* : the basque is very close to Fr-_ chaloupe__, the slavic forms could be from an I-E_ _*k-l-_ _(a lot of derivated meanings!)_
° old, Cz = Slov *star –* Bsq *xahar* _: the slavic forms could be from ?**__k-t--r_ _(Celt-Britt-_ _coth, kozh__) or from a ???_ _*s-t (s-d) :_ _see breton_ _dia__sez__et_ _= Fr-_ _ras__sis__ speaking about old bread ...?_  


_I shall° keep on if necessary this answer of mine which is a bit destructive I avow, but sometimes we need some «fixings», do we not?_


_Here under, some explanation of the author where he seems a bit naive:_
[«Allowing ourselves one more bit of speculation regarding Roman writings, we lool at the words Druids, or the wood people who worshiped tree on the British Isles_._ Since the Romans generally used the printed letter V wheneever a U is called for, it is very likely that they wrote DRVIDES for Druides. But might it not be so that in this particular case they really wanted to use the letter V? In that case we are talking about Dr*v*ides, which immediately suggests the word *drva* or *drevo*. The connection between the name Druids and the tree worship then becomes much more logical. Granted this is stretching things a bit, but it is food for thought.] _here the writer conceeds some «stretching»: it is true that I before thought this link 'druid' <> 'tree', 'drvo' (same I-E root) was evident (in celtic languages the comparison was even closer: 'derw', 'doiri' (?'doirbhi') = 'oak'), but 'druid' seems rather derivated from *__dru-wid__: 'wid' is the well known «idea»/ «video»/ «visu»/ «wise» (to see/to know and 'dru-' could be an intensive prefix according to some scholars; it is true we cannot exclude a 'dr°w' = «tree» («oak» among Celts)...but the 'V' is not the slavic ending for 'drvo' ..._
[... Most of the comparisons in the appendix are self-explanatory. One could write a story about many of the words but it is not our intent to belabor these. We xould include one, howevern namely the word for knee _(be__launue__)_ whic*h bears only a
slight resemblance to the Slovenian word *ko**leno*_(underlined by author)_. The interesting fact is that in both Basque _(be__launaldi__)_ and in Slavic _poko__lenje_ the word for generation stems from the root word for knee. While this occurs in Latin as well where _genu_ (knee) and _genus_ (ancestry) are related, one must ask just who borrowed what from whom. Ancient pre-Roman Venetic inscriptions clearly indicate that the word for wife (or woman) is *gena* later softened into the Slovenian word *ž**ena*(a clear reference to ancestry)...] -
_Here we see the result of false-cuts in etymology: the root in slavic languages is kol- and not -len see germanic *hwîl- «wheel», «wiel» for the phonetic cognate and french rotule, castillan spanish rodilla «keecap», «patella» («small wheel») for the meaning... a digest of the two I-E words for wheel, by the fact - so there is NO link here between basque and slavi languages!_


_My debuking job is not finished and I shall keep on, maybe – but I avow some comparisons are more amazing like the ones comprised in the text under:_
[... «Our initial attention was particularly focused on the word _gori_ and its combinations, which in Basque describe many items dealing with heat of burning, as well as items dealing with elevation, highest praise, high passion, and higher authority. Strangely enough, or perhaps not so strangely, this is identical to what is used in the Slovenian language? The idenfinite verb «to burn» is in Basque actually_erraustu_, while words derived form_gori_ refer perhaps more to heat. Nonetheless, the similarity is stunning. The word for flame is *gar*, which in Slovenian has been softened to *ž**ar* _(not found in any dictionary by myself)_. While _gori_ is an adjective describing a burning item more correctly called *gore**č**i* in Slovenian, the adjective _goren_ has the Slovenian equivalent of *najgorj**š**i* (supreme, exalted, most high), the iindefinite verb _goritu_ = *ogreti* (to heat)...][... In Slavic languages the word *gora* also refers to mountain which, like a fire, rises upward to the sky...]
_ &: it derserves more attention: some loanwords could have travelled between ancient languages, we know that; a pre-I-E *gar-/*kar seems present among a lot of languages roots in the whole Europe and outside it – Celt-britt- carreg/karreg «rock», «stone»! + karn/cairn?(I don't go farther to I-E *k-r >> krugell : «tumulus», «barrow» where the meaning of «circle», see hring/ring seems more evident than the one of «stone» (even if a stones circles could very well be figured out!) - maybe it will remain some positive founds in these comparisons even if a rapid glance to the remnants of the list did not secure me at all..._


_just for the fun_

----------


## MOESAN

this answer could be transferred to a linguistic thread?

----------


## ElHorsto

> I put here some thoughts about autosomals poolings


An additional piece to the Gedrosia puzzle:

The ANE component further suggests the young age of Gedrosia in West Europe.
ANE is a true component defined by ancient sample (Lazaridis et. al). There was no ANE in Bra1, Loschbourg or Stuttgart, neither was Gedrosia nor any other west-asian sister autosomals detected in ancient west european samples before. So we can be very sure that there was no Gedrosia in West europe at least before Bronze-age (maybe Megalithic, but I think it is probably too old already).
But contemporary Scotland and French Basque show high ANE. Scotland has even a peak next after Estonia and French Basque represent a peak compared to their surrounding populations. ANE in Scotland and Basque can not be very old (as opposed to ANE in NE-Europe and Scandinavia). ANE is also absent in Sardinia just like Gedrosia is.
Therefore it is tempting to conclude a stong link between Atlantic-European ANE and Atlantic-European Gedrosia. Of course ANE is even stronger further east in Finns and Balts, but this is because ANE is much more ancient there (Motala) and because EEF is very sparse there.
The Gedrosia at least in NW-Europe is very likely real. Probably also the Basque one is very real, although possibly with slightly different history than in Britain and less consistent.

----------


## Angela

> An additional piece to the Gedrosia puzzle:
> 
> The ANE component further suggests the young age of Gedrosia in West Europe.
> ANE is a true component defined by ancient sample (Lazaridis et. al). There was no ANE in Bra1, Loschbourg or Stuttgart, neither was Gedrosia nor any other west-asian sister autosomals detected in ancient west european samples before. So we can be very sure that there was no Gedrosia in West europe at least before Bronze-age (maybe Megalithic, but I think it is probably too old already).
> But contemporary Scotland and French Basque show high ANE. Scotland has even a peak next after Estonia and French Basque represent a peak compared to their surrounding populations. ANE in Scotland and Basque can not be very old (as opposed to ANE in NE-Europe and Scandinavia). ANE is also absent in Sardinia just like Gedrosia is.
> Therefore it is tempting to conclude a stong link between Atlantic-European ANE and Atlantic-European Gedrosia. Of course ANE is even stronger further east in Finns and Balts, but this is because ANE is much more ancient there (Motala) and because EEF is very sparse there.
> The Gedrosia at least in NW-Europe is very likely real. Probably also the Basque one is very real, although possibly with slightly different history than in Britain and less consistent.


Really good summary.

----------


## MOESAN

after a copy-paste I don't find any more the original thread: I put this here because it concerns Basques even if only on the male side -aside this, I AGREE THE ANSWER OF EL HORSTO IS VERY INTERESTING (gedrosia: late evolved stem of partly ANE descendants?)

_




 Originally Posted by Angela


Doesn't the fact that the Basque R1b clades are so "young", or downstream, make the latter possibility, or even the first , less likely?

The other thing I've wondered about is whether there are matriarchal elements to Basque culture sufficient to explain the adoption of the language by surrounding males who might be incorporated into the community.


__Sorry, my poor slow brain needs time to read and understand all what is written in our threads - if late, my way of thinking can help (either received or criticized), maybe, for its general implications concerning downstreams of HGs: the "young" downstreams (true concerning absolute chronology) can be as "old" as older ones concerning the branching (by their form: it's to say, there are not always "daughters" of close upstream HGs, rather their_ _younger__ "sisters", so not flooding from them - so they can be born by NEW local mutations when the number of older (upstream, common in this case to Celts or Italics or Basques, P312, by example) became high enough in certain region - as you know I have still some doubts about reality of precise datations so ...
a few Y-R1b-P312 bearers, an already long time ago, can have occupied southern lands before gaining number (why? I lost again my cristal bowl) and seeing for that some new branchings - I avow a new SNP has more chances to prosper when conquiring new territories on a border or wave of advance; but also a recent mutation can profit on the cost of precedent ones when a small portion of the group is at play (the "great number law", as everyone knows, is a «no-law» for small numbers)- 
&: it seems to me that among Basques, special SNPs %s (the "basque" one and the "catalan one") are denser in front of P312 %s when compared to other Iberic regions: possible implication that only a small number of "foreign" males took foot in today Basque country, being THE Basques or visitors of the Basques ?_  
_All that is dynamics, but not always in the «long steady river» way -_ 


a-) a small number (males only or not) of Y-R-P312, I-Ean speaking, penetrate a far borderline region, and learn the colonized region language (Basque), being not numerous enough to dominate or impose its language to autochtonous people -
a1) the mutation by time (new downstream) SNP occurs before fusion, but with delay caused by the small previous number – drift (small number too)- but if no differential selective advantage for Y-R-P312 or descendants we cannot explain, as in 'a2' the domination of today Y-R1b in Basque country 
a2) the mutation occurs after fusion, by time or favorized by the increasing in number: the problem here is that in this case too if no differential selective advantage for Y-R-P312 or descendants, we cannot explain the overwhelming domination of today Y-R1b in Basque country, if autochtonous Y-HGs increased too, in parallelic way (global demographic increase) ...
b) a borderline subgroup (say P312 proto-Basques) with a language different from the larger group (P312 also but I-Eans -the material culture can be close enough, nevertheless - colonizes a new bordering region, keeping its own language, and, being small at first, knows with delay some mutation (neutral or not) which, occurred in a small starting population, undergoes a drift too – the demic growing comes after - 
& the refining of these possible interpretations requires a better knowledge of the respective downstream SNPs of Y-R1b in southern France – Iberia – I'll try to have precise data - 
&&: the explanation of dominant already numerous males (Celts I-Eans) adopting the languages of a conquered female population (Basques) is strange to my mind... even if every hypothesis deserves to be taken in account – the famous «maternal language» theory does not hold against historic evidences – other parameters (several) are in play - 
sometimes we consider a SNP bearers group as being an homogenous group geographically, but in fact we can have several groups with the same SNP which know different stories, when the iniitial group has known a demographic increase...

----------


## Aristocephalic

> _sorry, but it is the very question: how did Basques manage to keep their language when surrounded by IEans and incorporating "dominant" males, or why did IEans learn a new insignifiant nonIE language when they were the huge majority???_
> _the answer COULD be a first wave of y-R1b come from East met a numerous population of basquic speakers and were assimilated, and only after that came a new wave of Y-R1b IE or IEnized that progressively gained ground on the cost of Basques?... OR the first wave of Y-R1b WAS THE Basques and their more eastern remnants were IEnized!!!_


Language changes a lot faster than genes. Basques lack the beduoin component entirely, which may have come with IEs.

In short I don't think that this hypothesis is really true, IE people had the impact of a fart in the wind, and were much more likely to have r1a than r1b anyway. 

Until we actually find ancient r1b majority tribe or area in ancient DNA we won't really know of its origins, it's pure speculation. But for every other group they try hard to argue it formed where it currently lies, except the biggest european y-dna group. The bias here is obvious.

They also mark out clades like j1 and j2 and e1b as farmer clades, when clearly they are not. I2a is the biggest early farmer clade, but it is called a hunter gatherer clade. It's obvious that politics are the biggest factor in most anthropological theories.

----------


## martiko

> I have been reading that R1b haplogroup and proto-indoeuropean languages came at the same time to west-Europe. Today, one of the highest levels of R1b is found in Basque country, however Basque language is the unique non-indoeuropean language still living in west-europe.
> 
> Does it means that R1b came to iberian peninsule (during Paleo-Mesolithic) several centuries before a second wave that finally brought indoeuropean lenguages and Bronze culture?
> 
> Thanks you!


 the answer lies in the question.
But who decreted the Basque or Euskara is not isa language or IE, in fact a rumor became truth in stone.
The greatest linguist of the 19th century had given rating Basque, concluding that this language was an impossible mess; and thus he left the field open to fanciful.
No serious linguist ventures to classify definitively.
Made it clear that this is not an isolated language, or a genetically isolated people.
The real difference Basque or Euskara with IE in its declination with the excessive use of the ergative, and if one day it turned out that the old IE languages ​​commonly used in ergative then the debate would end .
It is interesting to note that there are common elements between Basque and Tocharian are thousands of miles apart but that is not common linguistic device items between Basque and presue Iberians who live in the same territory

----------


## martiko

> Doesn't the fact that the Basque R1b clades are so "young", or downstream, make the latter possibility, or even the first , less likely?
> 
> The other thing I've wondered about is whether there are matriarchal elements to Basque culture sufficient to explain the adoption of the language by surrounding males who might be incorporated into the community.


No, there is no matriarchal element to justify the contrary; Basque women are concerned and also the feminine elements pose the "mystery". 
Basque is unique because it is the only language we could say that it is IE or not IE. Instead the iberian proved not IE but not Basque.

How could anyone believe that a taverse people throughout Europe and cla for many generations and without women, so without reproducing? in this case is that they came with the planes of the U.S. Air Force or charter leaving women and children in an unknown place ... Hahahah ...

----------


## martiko

> Oops, I didn't mean to step on your idea, Lebrok. I hadn't read your response when I wrote mine. Sorry about that... by the way when is the last time we both agreed on something? You know it must be true based on this rare event alone. :)


but then why the English, French, German and Scandinavian, do not speak Basque?

----------


## motzart

> Do u have any real sources to say Basque culture is matriarchal.


Basque culture is derived from Celt culture and we know Celt culture is matriarchal, all you have to do is read the Celt wikipedia page :)

*Gender and sexual norms*

 
Reconstruction of a German Iron Age Celtic warrior's garments


According to Aristotle, most "belligerent nations" were strongly influenced by their women, but the Celts were unusual because their men openly preferred male lovers (_Politics_ II 1269b).[78] H. D. Rankin in _Celts and the Classical World_ notes that "Athenaeus echoes this comment (603a) and so does Ammianus (30.9). It seems to be the general opinion of antiquity."[79] In book XIII of his _Deipnosophists_, the Roman Greek rhetorician and grammarian Athenaeus, repeating assertions made by Diodorus Siculus in the 1st century BC (Bibliotheca historica 5:32), wrote that Celtic women were beautiful but that the men preferred to sleep together. Diodorus went further, stating that "the young men will offer themselves to strangers and are insulted if the offer is refused". Rankin argues that the ultimate source of these assertions is likely to be Poseidonius and speculates that these authors may be recording male "bonding rituals".[80]
The sexual freedom of women in Britain was noted by Cassius Dio:[81] ... a very witty remark is reported to have been made by the wife of Argentocoxus, a Caledonian, to Julia Augusta. When the empress was jesting with her, after the treaty, about the free intercourse of her sex with men in Britain, she replied: "We fulfill the demands of nature in a much better way than do you Roman women; for we consort openly with the best men, whereas you let yourselves be debauched in secret by the vilest." Such was the retort of the British woman.
—Cassius DioThere are instances recorded where women participated both in warfare and in kingship, although they were in the minority in these areas. Plutarch reports that Celtic women acted as ambassadors to avoid a war among Celts chiefdoms in the Po valley during the 4th century BC.[82]
Very few reliable sources exist regarding Celtic views towards gender divisions and societal status, though some archaeological evidence does suggest that their views towards gender roles may differ from contemporary and less egalitarian classical counterparts of the Roman era.[83][84]
There are some general indications from Iron Age burial sites in the Champagne and Bourgogne regions of Northeastern France suggesting that women may have had roles in combat during the earlier _La Tène_ period. However, the evidence is far from conclusive.[85] Examples of individuals buried with both female jewellery and weaponry have been identified, such as the Vix Grave, and there are questions about the gender of some skeletons that were buried with warrior assemblages. However, it has been suggested that "the weapons may indicate rank instead of masculinity".[86]
Among the insular Celts, there is a greater amount of historic documentation to suggest warrior roles for women. In addition to commentary by Tacitus about Boudica, there are indications from later period histories that also suggest a more substantial role for "women as warriors", in symbolic if not actual roles. Posidonius and Strabo described an island of women where men could not venture for fear of death, and where the women ripped each other apart.[87] Other writers, such as Ammianus Marcellinus and Tacitus, mentioned Celtic women inciting, participating in, and leading battles.[88] Poseidonius' anthropological comments on the Celts had common themes, primarily primitivism, extreme ferocity, cruel sacrificial practices, and the strength and courage of their women.[89]
Under Brehon Law, which was written down in early Medieval Ireland after conversion to Christianity, a woman had the right to divorce her husband and gain his property if he was unable to perform his marital duties due to impotence, obesity, homosexual inclination or preference for other women.[90]



*The obvious truth here is that R1b has nothing to do with the spread of Indo-European languages.* Indo-European languages were spread by R1a, which is why we see Indo European in India, along with R1a, but not R1b. No scholar anywhere associates R1b with Indo Europeans, but there is a standing theory linking it to R1a. The whole R1b=Indo European thing is just a bullshit fantasy existing only on this site. Its unfortunate as the maps are pretty good otherwise.

----------

