Uniqueness of the Basques

[Grace O'Malley]

Now, an international research team led by UPF has confirmed that the Basques' genetic uniqueness is the result of genetic continuity since the Iron Age, characterized by periods of isolation and scarce gene flow, and not its external origin in respect to other Iberian populations.

The study, led by David Comas, principal investigator at UPF and at the Institute of Evolutionary Biology (IBE: CSIC-UPF), has involved the most comprehensive geographic sampling to date of the Basque population, with over 600,000 genetic markers throughout the genome for each individual.

The result of the multidisciplinary study, which involved a team of linguists and geneticists, reveals in the journal Current Biology that the cultural barrier of the language promoted the isolation of the Basque population from subsequent population contacts, such as the influence of the Roman empire or the Islamic occupation of the peninsula, and even acted as an internal barrier in some cases due to the use of dialects.


David Comas, full professor of Biological Anthropology at the UPF Department of Experimental and Health Sciences (DCEXS), details that "for example, we find no influences from North Africa which are appreciated in most populations of the Iberian Peninsula, and neither do we find traces of other migrations such as the Romans."

https://phys.org/news/2021-03-uniqueness-basque-genetics-revealed.html

Uniqueness of the Basques is due to continuity from the Iron Age with lack of geneflow that the rest of Iberia have had.

Here's the study.

Highlights

- Clear genetic singularity of Basques is observed at wide- and fine-scale levels

- Basque differentiation might lie on the absence of gene flow after the Iron Ages

- Genetic substructure correlated with geography and linguistics is detected


https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdfExtended/S0960-9822(21)00349-3

[Grace O'Malley]

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0960982221003493-gr4.jpg

Figure 4. Modeling potential post-Iron Age gene flow in the Iberian Peninsula
(A) Geographic distribution of the inferred proportions in the map. Shadings for proportions are scaled according to the maximum and minimum proportions of
each source.
(B) Representation of the ADMIXTURE proportions in each target population based on the statistically significant models obtained with qpAdm.
See also Figure S4 and Table S2

[Grace O'Malley]

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0960982221003493-gr5.jpg

Figure 5. Population stratification of the Franco-Cantabrian region
(A) PCA using the samples from the Iberian Peninsula and France. The PCA average and standard deviation values of the different geographic groups were plotted.
(B) ADMIXTURE results from K = 2 to K = 4. The lowest cross-validation error in the analysis was K = 2. The asterisks represent ‘‘Spanish_Pais_Vasco_IBS’’ and‘‘French_Bearn.’’ PB, Peri-Basque.
See also Figures S5–S7.

[Flashball]

Interesting study.

[Defcon2]

What does this mean that non-Basque Spaniards are half Iberian, half Sicilian? :D

And you wonder why we Iberians plot in isolation from other Europeans, Grace. :rolleyes:

[Petalpusher]

I don't know what exactly is their "Roman related" ancestry, it doesn't look like it peaks in Italy, even the contrary, so that's a bit weird. Except that, nothing really new, we know that Basques are a small isolated population without the NA, and similar to a very late LN.

[gixajo]

https://phys.org/news/2021-03-uniqueness-basque-genetics-revealed.html

Uniqueness of the Basques is due to continuity from the Iron Age with lack of geneflow that the rest of Iberia have had.

Here's the study.

Highlights

- Clear genetic singularity of Basques is observed at wide- and fine-scale levels

- Basque differentiation might lie on the absence of gene flow after the Iron Ages

- Genetic substructure correlated with geography and linguistics is detected


https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdfExtended/S0960-9822(21)00349-3

Yes we already knew it, the uniqueness of (those) Basques who still remained "pures" (about 20-25% of all the Basques that lives in the Basque Country+Nabarre+French Basque regions).

It consists of that, not having (apparently) extra contributions since the end of the Iron Age.

But there is also genetic continuity of the rest of the Iberian Peninsula, basically because the rest of the inhabitants are also (or we are) from 70 to 100% composed of peninsular egnetics from the Iron Age, although each one from their respective area , and very similar in composition although not equal to the inhabitants of the Iron Age of the currently Basque area (yes, there are also non-Basques without contributions from after the Iron Age).

And for those who are thinking in it,Levantine, NA and SSA was still present in varying percentages, in different areas of the peninsula in the Iron Age so I don´t know which samples from Iberian Iron Age do they used to compare with modern populations.

I think I don´t forget any about this issue...:confused:

[gixajo]

Ah yes, that paper has a has a veiled political bias, for example, Álava is just represented by 11 samples from Aramayona, a valley with 1500 inhabitants, and they forgot the 99% of Álava population that was not Basque-speaker since at least XVI century, and same for Nabarre, just represented by its Basque-speaker areas population that is about 8% of the total Nabarrese population.

Álava is a mix between "pure" Basque areas and North Burgos, and Nabarre same, but "pure" Basque+North Aragón /Aragón depending areas.

And I laugh a lot when they labelled "West" Biscay from Bilbao to Cantabria (Encartaciones, Carranza, etc...) in a different way than Basques samples.

We have posted G25 individual samples and averages here and Anthrogenica, the last week, and made some models with them.

Basque samples are ok, but we had already 2 averages for point that "pure" Basque component, so I found more interesting the "Bascoid" or "peri-Basques" samples from North Burgos, La Rioja, West-Biscay, Cantabria and South France.

[gixajo]

Here you have the averages of BAsques and Pero-Basques from that paper:


Basque_French_Labourd,0.1317244,0.1515907,0.059070 7,0.0119804,0.0576889,0.0008114,-0.002927,0.0038809,0.0336348,0.0419807,-0.0052258,0.0109811,-0.022583,-0.0170903,0.0165701,0.0012776,-0.0082142,0.0007485,-0.0003657,-0.0076286,0.0084055,-0.0010342,-0.0088738,-0.0080625,0.0034401
Basque_French_Lower_Navarre,0.1296547,0.1482672,0. 0555396,0.0110407,0.0550309,0.0014452,-0.0011536,0.0010908,0.0303997,0.0442501,-0.005034,0.0117168,-0.0227585,-0.0160266,0.0172241,-9.65e-05,-0.0076688,0.0026374,-0.002434,-0.0018646,0.0064885,0.0024506,-0.0078541,-0.0095961,0.002863
Basque_French_Soule,0.1317243,0.1548219,0.0546482, 0.0068124,0.0585285,0.0009128,-0.0019014,0.0012166,0.0309945,0.0432396,-0.0059936,0.0119895,-0.0227449,-0.0167275,0.0124615,-0.0010968,-0.0097314,0.0009675,-4e-04,-0.0032402,0.0092336,0.0020908,-0.0076526,-0.0095193,0.0025909
Basque_Spanish_Alava,0.1275854,0.1485442,0.0590365 ,0.0157976,0.0537723,0.0043864,-0.0024142,0.0040906,0.0254166,0.0380211,-0.0069532,0.0096325,-0.0220693,-0.0149507,0.0158915,-0.0007835,-0.007337,6.91e-05,0.0003998,-0.004036,0.0089726,0.0019447,-0.0048067,-0.006244,-0.0004463
Basque_Spanish_Biscay,0.1301722,0.1502985,0.057116 7,0.0107177,0.0564578,0.0059581,-0.0008973,0.0009441,0.0267555,0.0419806,-0.0075289,0.0147005,-0.0246371,-0.017428,0.0157435,0.0008197,-0.0047056,0.0027871,0.0003085,-0.0022169,0.0100503,0.001675,-0.0068122,-0.0088072,-0.0002177
Basque_Spanish_Gipuzkoa_Central,0.1309999,0.148451 9,0.0538941,0.0111875,0.055199,0.0012676,-0.003995,0.0005454,0.0297675,0.0415664,-0.0054623,0.0126024,-0.0206367,-0.0177406,0.0159533,0.0058461,-0.0030225,0.0014051,-0.0006855,-0.0051503,0.005615,-0.001259,-0.0104089,-0.0103627,0.0014043
Basque_Spanish_Gipuzkoa_Southwest,0.131207,0.14937 51,0.0579394,0.012274,0.05657,0.0019015,-0.0023714,0.0006712,0.0268855,0.0422788,-0.0058606,0.0100411,-0.0223531,-0.0195175,0.0152994,0.0049662,-0.0026907,0.0025337,-0.0018054,-0.001171,0.0102433,0.0023606,-0.010465,-0.0099685,0.0019158
Basque_Spanish_Navarra_Central-West,0.1272748,0.1485443,0.0532426,0.0056085,0.051 6178,0.0005325,-0.0035252,-0.0014895,0.0278152,0.0418315,-0.0034398,0.0098775,-0.0210964,-0.0188043,0.0148182,0.0009764,-0.0041725,0.0023035,-0.004948,-0.0005002,0.0070785,0.0003934,-0.0062744,-0.0079746,2.17e-05
Basque_Spanish_Navarra_Northwest,0.1295514,0.14974 44,0.0564655,0.0105415,0.0575771,0.0006085,-0.0006195,0.0020768,0.0302136,0.0448301,-0.0060674,0.0120848,-0.0243263,-0.0192421,0.0141517,0.0025795,-0.0034966,0.0037662,-0.002057,-0.00274,0.0100505,0.002192,-0.0093445,-0.0109215,0.0025474
Basque_Spanish_Navarra_Roncal,0.1311035,0.1488211, 0.0549566,0.0122153,0.0545555,0.0015973,-0.00141,0.0009441,0.0336347,0.0403903,-0.006835,0.0101227,-0.0204747,-0.0169525,0.0158052,0.0007955,-0.003864,0.0037202,0.0002169,-0.0012505,0.0084623,0.0013375,-0.0054899,-0.0087085,0.0014369
French_Hautes-Pyrenees_Bigorre,0.1280511,0.1473535,0.052269,0.00 53295,0.0522249,-0.0008365,-0.0016685,0.0001617,0.0248088,0.0382695,-0.0030854,0.007883,-0.0214815,-0.0141476,0.0087403,0.0001856,-0.0035596,0.0023691,-0.0008926,-0.0029139,0.0025082,-0.0008902,-0.0032908,-0.0059043,0.0010298
French_Landes_Chalosse,0.1287339,0.1477596,0.05189 17,0.0111758,0.0513326,0.0027611,0.00047,0.0017769 ,0.0252587,0.0396544,-0.0026958,0.008947,-0.0203367,-0.0150834,0.0110884,0.0028241,-0.0054241,0.0016723,-0.0007794,-0.0022384,0.0082731,0.002844,-0.0076906,-0.0076635,-0.0020956
French_Pyrenees-Atlantiques_Bearn,0.1267991,0.1448145,0.0535889,0. 0060078,0.0539486,0.0021754,-0.001692,-0.0020537,0.024461,0.0398913,-0.0088665,0.0102359,-0.0189989,-0.0143265,0.0141693,0.001578,-0.0057238,-0.0008996,-0.0017346,-0.0033017,0.0054653,0.0031407,-0.0066429,-0.0081696,0.0006825
Spanish_Aragon_North,0.1273681,0.1477595,0.0490634 ,0.0057171,0.0498553,0.0010876,-0.000141,-0.0005538,0.0255859,0.0364654,-0.004417,0.0096965,-0.0186272,-0.0150697,0.0143594,0.004296,-0.003038,0.0026858,-0.0031172,-0.0011756,0.004517,0.0005194,-0.0056325,-0.0052896,0.0009341
Spanish_Biscay_West,0.1203111,0.1493845,0.0496292, 0.0097546,0.049086,0.0011714,-0.001927,0.0035996,0.0265268,0.0348616,-0.0055049,0.0108953,-0.0192517,-0.0162946,0.010464,0.0013788,-0.0057631,0.001837,-0.002313,-0.0017634,0.0071,-0.0004698,-0.0056324,-0.004133,0.0019878
Spanish_Cantabria,0.1151889,0.145627,0.0434443,-0.0006783,0.0469933,-0.0032352,-0.000282,0.0023538,0.0254837,0.0319278,-0.0050178,0.0083326,-0.0150593,-0.0134595,0.0104641,0.0009016,-0.001747,-0.0021917,-0.0029664,-0.0026262,0.0035062,-0.0024732,-0.0041165,-0.0047958,-0.000982
Spanish_Castilla_y_Leon_Burgos_North,0.1236117,0.1 476578,0.0497421,0.0020672,0.0495476,-0.0034583,-0.000611,0.000877,0.0240111,0.0378322,-0.0068692,0.0086174,-0.0189989,-0.0126612,0.0114276,0.0019225,-0.0059585,-0.0001141,-0.0034943,-0.0038143,0.0077986,0.0006554,-0.0041904,-0.0021207,-0.0007785
Spanish_La_Rioja,0.121563,0.149689,0.0449904,0.001 6796,0.0474856,-0.0027888,-0.002256,0.001823,0.0247064,0.0370667,-0.001234,0.0084523,-0.0194001,-0.0137622,0.0100977,0.000623,-0.0019949,0.0008615,-0.0038338,-0.0004753,0.0052783,-0.0009521,-0.0063472,-0.0061093,0.0006346

[gixajo]

And more averages and proxies made with those references:


Basque_Spanish:Álava+Vizcaya+Guipúzcoa,0.129991,0. 149167,0.056997,0.012494,0.055500,0.003378,-0.002419,0.001563,0.027206,0.040962,-0.006451,0.011744,-0.022424,-0.017409,0.015722,0.002712,-0.004439,0.001699,-0.000446,-0.003144,0.008720,0.001180,-0.008123,-0.008846,0.000664
Basque_Spanish:NWNavarra+CentralNavarra+Roncal,0.1 29310,0.149037,0.054888,0.009455,0.054583,0.000913 ,-0.001852,0.000510,0.030555,0.042351,-0.005447,0.010695,-0.021966,-0.018333,0.014925,0.001450,-0.003844,0.003263,-0.002263,-0.001497,0.008530,0.001308,-0.007036,-0.009202,0.001335
French_SouthWest:Bigorre+Lands-Chalosse+Bearn,0.127861,0.146643,0.052583,0.007504 ,0.052502,0.001367,-0.000964,-0.000038,0.024843,0.039272,-0.004883,0.009022,-0.020272,-0.014519,0.011333,0.001529,-0.004903,0.001047,-0.001136,-0.002818,0.005416,0.001698,-0.005875,-0.007246,-0.000128
Spanish_Basque:PaísVasco&Navarra,0.129699,0.149111,0.056093,0.011192,0.0551 07,0.002322,-0.002176,0.001112,0.028641,0.041557,-0.006021,0.011295,-0.022228,-0.017805,0.015380,0.002171,-0.004184,0.002369,-0.001224,-0.002438,0.008639,0.001235,-0.007657,-0.008998,0.000952
French_Basque:Labourd+Soule+Basse-Navarre,0.131034,0.151560,0.056420,0.009945,0.0570 83,0.001056,-0.001994,0.002063,0.031676,0.043157,-0.005418,0.011562,-0.022695,-0.016615,0.015419,0.000028,-0.008538,0.001451,-0.001067,-0.004244,0.008043,0.001169,-0.008127,-0.009059,0.002965
Vizcaya,0.12524,0.14984,0.05337,0.01024,0.05277,0. 00356,-0.00141,0.00227,0.02664,0.03842,-0.00652,0.01280,-0.02194,-0.01686,0.01310,0.00110,-0.00523,0.00231,-0.00100,-0.00199,0.00858,0.00060,-0.00622,-0.00647,0.00089
Álava,0.125599,0.148101,0.054389,0.008932,0.051660 ,0.000464,-0.001513,0.002484,0.024714,0.037927,-0.006911,0.009125,-0.020534,-0.013806,0.013660,0.000570,-0.006648,-0.000023,-0.001547,-0.003925,0.008386,0.001300,-0.004499,-0.004182,-0.000612
Guipúzcoa,0.131103,0.148914,0.055917,0.011731,0.05 5885,0.001585,-0.003183,0.000608,0.028327,0.041923,-0.005661,0.011322,-0.021495,-0.018629,0.015626,0.005406,-0.002857,0.001969,-0.001245,-0.003161,0.007929,0.000551,-0.010437,-0.010166,0.001660
Navarra,0.125397,0.147678,0.049400,0.004806,0.0510 55,0.000264,-0.001735,-0.000502,0.027031,0.039170,-0.004948,0.010627,-0.018619,-0.016807,0.014979,0.002858,-0.005206,0.002349,-0.002617,-0.001738,0.005902,0.001461,-0.006537,-0.004817,0.002340

[gixajo]

And more averages and proxies made with those references:


Basque_Spanish:Álava+Vizcaya+Guipúzcoa,0.129991,0. 149167,0.056997,0.012494,0.055500,0.003378,-0.002419,0.001563,0.027206,0.040962,-0.006451,0.011744,-0.022424,-0.017409,0.015722,0.002712,-0.004439,0.001699,-0.000446,-0.003144,0.008720,0.001180,-0.008123,-0.008846,0.000664
Basque_Spanish:NWNavarra+CentralNavarra+Roncal,0.1 29310,0.149037,0.054888,0.009455,0.054583,0.000913 ,-0.001852,0.000510,0.030555,0.042351,-0.005447,0.010695,-0.021966,-0.018333,0.014925,0.001450,-0.003844,0.003263,-0.002263,-0.001497,0.008530,0.001308,-0.007036,-0.009202,0.001335
French_SouthWest:Bigorre+Lands-Chalosse+Bearn,0.127861,0.146643,0.052583,0.007504 ,0.052502,0.001367,-0.000964,-0.000038,0.024843,0.039272,-0.004883,0.009022,-0.020272,-0.014519,0.011333,0.001529,-0.004903,0.001047,-0.001136,-0.002818,0.005416,0.001698,-0.005875,-0.007246,-0.000128
Spanish_Basque:PaísVasco&Navarra,0.129699,0.149111,0.056093,0.011192,0.0551 07,0.002322,-0.002176,0.001112,0.028641,0.041557,-0.006021,0.011295,-0.022228,-0.017805,0.015380,0.002171,-0.004184,0.002369,-0.001224,-0.002438,0.008639,0.001235,-0.007657,-0.008998,0.000952
French_Basque:Labourd+Soule+Basse-Navarre,0.131034,0.151560,0.056420,0.009945,0.0570 83,0.001056,-0.001994,0.002063,0.031676,0.043157,-0.005418,0.011562,-0.022695,-0.016615,0.015419,0.000028,-0.008538,0.001451,-0.001067,-0.004244,0.008043,0.001169,-0.008127,-0.009059,0.002965
Vizcaya,0.12524,0.14984,0.05337,0.01024,0.05277,0. 00356,-0.00141,0.00227,0.02664,0.03842,-0.00652,0.01280,-0.02194,-0.01686,0.01310,0.00110,-0.00523,0.00231,-0.00100,-0.00199,0.00858,0.00060,-0.00622,-0.00647,0.00089
Álava,0.125599,0.148101,0.054389,0.008932,0.051660 ,0.000464,-0.001513,0.002484,0.024714,0.037927,-0.006911,0.009125,-0.020534,-0.013806,0.013660,0.000570,-0.006648,-0.000023,-0.001547,-0.003925,0.008386,0.001300,-0.004499,-0.004182,-0.000612
Guipúzcoa,0.131103,0.148914,0.055917,0.011731,0.05 5885,0.001585,-0.003183,0.000608,0.028327,0.041923,-0.005661,0.011322,-0.021495,-0.018629,0.015626,0.005406,-0.002857,0.001969,-0.001245,-0.003161,0.007929,0.000551,-0.010437,-0.010166,0.001660
Navarra,0.125397,0.147678,0.049400,0.004806,0.0510 55,0.000264,-0.001735,-0.000502,0.027031,0.039170,-0.004948,0.010627,-0.018619,-0.016807,0.014979,0.002858,-0.005206,0.002349,-0.002617,-0.001738,0.005902,0.001461,-0.006537,-0.004817,0.002340

[Mopi The Dire Wolf]

Ah yes, that paper has a has a veiled political bias, for example, Álava is just represented by 11 samples from Aramayona, a valley with 1500 inhabitants, and they forgot the 99% of Álava population that was not Basque-speaker since at least XVI century, and same for Nabarre, just represented by its Basque-speaker areas population that is about 8% of the total Nabarrese population.

Álava is a mix between "pure" Basque areas and North Burgos, and Nabarre same, but "pure" Basque+North Aragón /Aragón depending areas.

And I laugh a lot when they labelled "West" Biscay form Bilbao to Cantabria (Encartaciones, Carranza, etc...) in a different way than Basques samples.

We have posted G25 individual samples and averages here and Anthrogenica, the last week, and made some models with them.

Basque samples are ok, but we had already 2 averages for point that "pure" Basque component, so I found more interesting the "Bascoid" or "pero-Basques" samples from North Burgos, La Rioja, West-Biscay, Cantabria and South France.

how many genetically "pure basques" actually exist in Spain today ?
not many i bet

[gixajo]

how many genetically "pure basques" actually exist in Spain today ?
not many i bet

I would say less than 30% of the total population of the considered Basque regions in Spain and in SouthWest France.

Maybe more, or maybe less.

But it is all very diffuse, it is not even known Basques were originally from the current Basques territories in Spain. It is thought that it could be a contribution of people that when the Romans arrived on the peninsula they were already settled or assimilated in areas of present-day Navarre and the high Aragonese Pyrenees and that entered en masse after the fall of Rome, who were people culturally related to the peninsula and from very Iberian close or similar genetics , peoples coming from SW France.

All those ancestry mix models used 3 Berones samples that were not properly Vascones, we have not yet any Vascones tribe sample to see how they were exactly.:noidea:

Sorry my text I must go and I cannot corrected it just now, maybe it´s somewhat bad wrote.

[Gallop]

@gixajo I could have sworn that you had commented that this study on the Basques had been very scarce and unrepresentative.

[gixajo]

@gixajo I could have sworn that you had commented that this study on the Basques had been very scarce and unrepresentative.




Ah yes, that paper has a has a veiled political bias, for example, Álava is just represented by 11 samples from Aramayona, a valley with 1500 inhabitants, and they forgot the 99% of Álava population that was not Basque-speaker since at least XVI century, and same for Nabarre, just represented by its Basque-speaker areas population that is about 8% of the total Nabarrese population.

Álava is a mix between "pure" Basque areas and North Burgos, and Nabarre same, but "pure" Basque+North Aragón /Aragón depending areas.

And I laugh a lot when they labelled "West" Biscay from Bilbao to Cantabria (Encartaciones, Carranza, etc...) in a different way than Basques samples.

We have posted G25 individual samples and averages here and Anthrogenica, the last week, and made some models with them.

Basque samples are ok, but we had already 2 averages for point that "pure" Basque component, so I found more interesting the "Bascoid" or "peri-Basques" samples from North Burgos, La Rioja, West-Biscay, Cantabria and South France.

So they are representative of that "pure" Basque component, but not representative to use them as provincial references, and not only because the nowadays population is more mixed, but also because some provinces (or region as Nabarre)are not so "Basques" from a genetic point of view.

Edit: But we can understand that the purpose of the paper was not todetermine good provincial references, the paper ismade tolink the pure BAsque component with the areas which have more % of traditional Basque-speakers.

[Ruderico]

All those ancestry mix models used 3 Berones samples that were not properly Vascones, we have not yet any Vascones tribe sample to see how they were exactly.:noidea:

I didn't read the whole study, but they just labelled the source as "Iberian IA" in their models, they don't mean necessarily samples from La Hoya, which would be Iberia_North_IA in the original study. Olalde's had samples from multiple sites, the Berones were just the ones who had the highest amount of steppe-ancestry (edit: and those form Empuries), there were others that had significantly less, but had a lot more WHG ancestry. In fact Olalde's models had the medieval pre-muslim population (non-Basque) as 80% La Hoya and 20% Greek, so why are these models showing values as low as 50% autochthonous and nearly 50% Roman, despite those being very similar to modern non-Basque Iberians? What is the "Roman" component they are using, anyway? They don't tell you that either. Why do Basques, who have less steppe ancestry that non-Basque Spanish/Iberians, score twice as much "Iberia IA" than some of the others, yet there's no reference to compensate the difference? Why is North African virtually non-existant in most of the peninsula? This study's models seem to be lacking, they don't explore options all that well, and don't inform as much as they should.

[gixajo]

They just labelled the source as "Iberian IA" in their models, they don't mean necessarily samples from La Hoya, which would be Iberia_North_IA in the original study. Olalde's had samples from multiple sites, the Berones were just the ones who had the highest amount of steppe-ancestry, there were others that had significantly less, but had a lot more WHG ancestry. In fact Olalde's models had the medieval pre-muslim population (non-Basque) as 80% La Hoya and 20% Greek, so why are these models showing values as low as 50% autochthonous and nearly 50% Roman, despite those being very similar to modern non-Basque Iberians? What is the "Roman" component they are using, anyway? They don't tell you that either. Why do Basques, who have less steppe ancestry that non-Basque Spanish/Iberians, score twice as much "Iberia IA" than some of the others, yet there's no reference to compensate the difference? Why is North African virtually non-existant in most of the peninsula? This study's models seem to be lacking, they don't explore options all that well, and don't inform as much as they should.

I would bet they used the average of La Hoya samples to emulate North Iberian Iron Age, but anyway, we know what that the other IA samples are, (and others IA samples have already NA and others inputs.)

What you say is completelly true, we have not only IA samples with NA and others inputs, but many BA too.

We have the problem we already know, we have not enough IA samples from all the Iberian peninsula, and in the IA.

Although there was probably a common base, in the same way that there is still right now, there were variations between geographic areas and populations that cannot be shown with what we have right now.

Even so, I consider all references to be very valid, knowing what they exactly are, and how to use them.

[Jaromir]

yeah, the best of all Spaniards

[Rethel]

NOOOT AGAAAAIIIIIINNNN!!!!!!!!!!

[gixajo]

I didn't read the whole study, but they just labelled the source as "Iberian IA" in their models, they don't mean necessarily samples from La Hoya, which would be Iberia_North_IA in the original study. Olalde's had samples from multiple sites, the Berones were just the ones who had the highest amount of steppe-ancestry (edit: and those form Empuries), there were others that had significantly less, but had a lot more WHG ancestry. In fact Olalde's models had the medieval pre-muslim population (non-Basque) as 80% La Hoya and 20% Greek, so why are these models showing values as low as 50% autochthonous and nearly 50% Roman, despite those being very similar to modern non-Basque Iberians? What is the "Roman" component they are using, anyway? They don't tell you that either. Why do Basques, who have less steppe ancestry that non-Basque Spanish/Iberians, score twice as much "Iberia IA" than some of the others, yet there's no reference to compensate the difference? Why is North African virtually non-existant in most of the peninsula? This study's models seem to be lacking, they don't explore options all that well, and don't inform as much as they should.

And yes, NA is not present in many other areas of the peninsula in modern populations, and at the same time, was already present in many samples before the arrival of ROmans to the peninsula, and not only in the Mediterranean coast or in Southern areas.

[gixajo]

NOOOT AGAAAAIIIIIINNNN!!!!!!!!!!

What?

[Ruderico]

I would bet they used the average of La Hoya samples to emulate North Iberian Iron Age, but anyway, we know what that the other IA samples are, (and others IA samples have already NA and others inputs.)

What you say is completelly true, we have not only IA samples with NA and others inputs, but many BA too.

We have the problem we already know, we have not enough IA samples from all the Iberian peninsula, and in the IA.

Although there was probably a common base, in the same way that there is still right now, there were variations between geographic areas and populations that cannot be shown with what we have right now.

Even so, I consider all references to be very valid, knowing what they exactly are, and how to use them.

Actually I'd bet they didn't use the La Hoya Celtiberians. While these were naturally closer to Basques than to other Iberians, they not only had more steppe-ancestry, but they plotted further away from the more uniquely-Basque individuals of today who have a greater overlap with ancient non-IE Iberians and even to Iberian BA populations. I circled the La Hoya samples in fuschia so they are easy to read.

https://i.postimg.cc/vbX1jf3s/la-hoya-olalde.png

[Gallop]

So they are representative of that "pure" Basque component, but not representative to use them as provincial references, and not only because the nowadays population is more mixed, but also because some provinces (or region as Nabarre)are not so "Basques" from a genetic point of view.

Edit: But we can understand that the purpose of the paper was not todetermine good provincial references, the paper ismade tolink the pure BAsque component with the areas which have more % of traditional Basque-speakers.

That is, about 10 people. :bump2:

[gixajo]

Actually I'd bet they didn't use the La Hoya Celtiberians. While these were naturally closer to Basques than to other Iberians, they not only had more steppe-ancestry, but they plotted further away from the more uniquely-Basque individuals of today who have a greater overlap with ancient non-IE Iberians and even to Iberian BA populations. I circled the La Hoya samples in fuschia so they are easy to read.

G]

Maybe you are right, I didn´t see in the paper wich ancient references they used to their admixture models and neither where exactly did they get the modern individual samples, except for a brief "from Basque-speaking areas".

Which other different samples are just now avalaibles form Iberian IA with extra non-European considered inputs or Greek&Roman inputs?

[gixajo]

That is, about 10 people. :bump2:

Every "Basque speaker" reference group is made with 11 individual samples, every "non Basque-speaker" labelled as Spanish peri-Basque has 10 individual samples.

190 individual samples in total, if I remember well.maybe I am wrong about the exact number of total samples, but near that.

Edit:i have not any problem with references per se, but with some conclusions and the general tone of the paper.

[Gallop]

It makes me laugh as foreigners surreptitiously and once again try to demean, belittle and belittle the immense and great history of Spain present the Basque factor of iron as if it had more merit not having participated in the general historical events of the rest of Spain. In fact, the Basques who have participated have been diluted with the rest during those events, those who have stayed at home have missed it.

It makes me laugh how foreigners surreptitiously and once again try to demean, belittle and belittle the immense and great history of Spain present the Basque factor of iron as if it had more merit not to have participated in the general historical events of the rest of Spain than to have participated. In fact, the Basques have participated and those who have participated have been diluted with the rest during those events, those who have stayed at home have missed out.

No country in Europe nor any region is a model of anything or the pattern of what should be. This is the world upside down. xd

[gixajo]

Actually I'd bet they didn't use the La Hoya Celtiberians. While these were naturally closer to Basques than to other Iberians, they not only had more steppe-ancestry, but they plotted further away from the more uniquely-Basque individuals of today who have a greater overlap with ancient non-IE Iberians and even to Iberian BA populations. I circled the La Hoya samples in fuschia so they are easy to read.

MG]

I see it now, the others Iberian IA samples are those labelled as Iberia East IA in G25, those from Catalonia and North Valencia, many of them from Roman period, and some of them with slighty extra inputs. :D

[gixajo]

It makes me laugh as foreigners surreptitiously and once again try to demean, belittle and belittle the immense and great history of Spain present the Basque factor of iron as if it had more merit not having participated in the general historical events of the rest of Spain. In fact, the Basques who have participated have been diluted with the rest during those events, those who have stayed at home have missed it.

It makes me laugh how foreigners surreptitiously and once again try to demean, belittle and belittle the immense and great history of Spain present the Basque factor of iron as if it had more merit not to have participated in the general historical events of the rest of Spain than to have participated. In fact, the Basques have participated and those who have participated have been diluted with the rest during those events, those who have stayed at home have missed out.

No country in Europe nor any region is a model of anything or the pattern of what should be. This is the world upside down. xd

Ya sabes que se vende muy bien en ciertos círculos extranjeros lo que los catalanes y vascos ofrecen sobre sí mismos para remarcar su diferencia (real o simulada).

[Ruderico]

I see it now, the others Iberian IA samples are those labelled as Iberia East IA in G25, those from Catalonia and North Valencia, many of them from Roman period, and some of them with slighty extra inputs. :D

Precisely, you can see some non-IE ancient IA/BA individuals would fit pretty well as modern Basques, but using them as a reference would clearly lower the autochthonous output for the rest of the peninsula, which is why Olalde got 80% and this yields less. The result is basically a consequence of sampling/input. However I'm sceptical those samples would fit the rest of the peninsula even back in the day, particularly areas whom we know had different histories and spoke languages of a different branch.
If they actually did fit, then we're clearly missing something with a lot more steppe ancestry that these models aren't showing because Basques, particularly those closer to BA/IA Iberia, have very low amounts of it when compared to the average Spanish, despite the Roman, etc, layers of ancestry that we have and they virtually don't. If this happened then we have an even bigger question on our hands, because it hasn't been explored at all.

Edit: I should add that the biggest question mark remains the "Roman" reference, it's incredibly vague
Edit2: If these are the Olalde samples from the Roman period, then they are essentially autochthonous with a somewhat small East Med influence (likely Roman from Italy) with a layer that is defined as Morocco_LN, which was basically a IBM+Iberian_Farmer population. In the end it wouldn't say much about actual Roman colonisation and its impact, and makes for a poor and potentially misleading reference

[Diego Garcia]

Ya sabes que se vende muy bien en ciertos círculos extranjeros lo que los catalanes y vascos ofrecen sobre sí mismos para remarcar su diferencia (real o simulada).

Resumiendo, un cuento chino / In short, a fairy tale.

[Rethel]

What?

About wrongly understand uniqueness.

[gixajo]

Resumiendo, un cuento chino / In short, a fairy tale.

No, todo no creo que todo sea un cuento chino, ese es el problema, que no podemos saberlo entre tanta política, es difícil discernir muchas veces que es riguroso o que no lo es.

En cosas referidas a la identidad "étnica" o "nacional" o lo que sea, y todos los intereses que hay alrededor de esos fenómenos, es difícil muchas veces saber qué es verdad, qué es mentira o qué es mitad verdad y mitad mentira.

Y no solo me refiero a uno de los lados, aquí manipulan todos.

Pero claro, como para explicar todo esto a un extranjero, que ya tiene un fantástico relato épico ya formado desde hace decenios sobre esto, solo hay que leer comentarios aquí.

[Leto]

What percentage of all ethnic Spaniards are unmixed Basques?

[gixajo]

Precisely, you can see some non-IE ancient IA/BA individuals would fit pretty well as modern Basques, but using them as a reference would clearly lower the autochthonous output for the rest of the peninsula, which is why Olalde got 80% and this yields less. The result is basically a consequence of sampling/input. However I'm sceptical those samples would fit the rest of the peninsula even back in the day, particularly areas whom we know had different histories and spoke languages of a different branch.
If they actually did fit, then we're clearly missing something with a lot more steppe ancestry that these models aren't showing because Basques, particularly those closer to BA/IA Iberia, have very low amounts of it when compared to the average Spanish, despite the Roman, etc, layers of ancestry that we have and they virtually don't. If this happened then we have an even bigger question on our hands, because it hasn't been explored at all.

Edit: I should add that the biggest question mark remains the "Roman" reference, it's incredibly vague
Edit2: If these are the Olalde samples from the Roman period, then they are essentially autochthonous with a somewhat small East Med influence (likely Roman from Italy) with a layer that is defined as Morocco_LN, which was basically a IBM+Iberian_Farmer population. In the end it wouldn't say much about actual Roman colonisation and its impact, and makes for a poor and potentially misleading reference

It is all very complex , so these subsidized studies with such simplistic conclusions, that in reality they do not contribute anything new and that they study a group that should be the most studied in all of Europe or the world ...well, fantastic, they get more references for Basques dividing them in groups from West to East, and new Spanish and French quite specific, as North Aragón or North of the province of Burgos...

But it seems that archaeogenetics is becoming more widespread, so I hope to see a little more light, not about Basques that just now have enough light, but about ancient Iberia, in the near future.

[gixajo]

What percentage of all ethnic Spaniards are unmixed Basques?

We already talked about it, difficult to know exactly genetically , but according to number of people with 2 Basques surnames with data form early 2000´s and with data from 1991 about people born in Basque Country, whit both parents born in the Basque Country, maybe less than 30%.

And considering than have 2 Basque surnames and have been born in Basque country with both parents born here(even with 8 great grandparents), is not any guarantee to be 100% genetically Basque...impossible to knowunless you make a Dna test to the whole population from Basque regions.

[Damião de Góis]

Are there new samples or are they still comparing everyone with the IA basques to see who has more IA?

[gixajo]

Are there new samples or are they still comparing everyone with the IA basques to see who has more IA?

We have talked about it, it seems that they used similar samples as those labelled with North Iberia IA and East Iberia IA in G25, from La Hoya site in South Basque Country and from Catalonia etc...

[Leto]

We already talked about it, difficult to know exactly genetically , but according to number of people with 2 Basques surnames with data form early 2000´s and with data from 1991 about people born in Basque Country, whit both parents born in the Basque Country, maybe less than 30%.

And considering than have 2 Basque surnames and have been born in Basque country with both parents born here(even with 8 great grandparents), is not any guarantee to be 100% genetically Basque...impossible to knowunless you make a Dna test to the whole population from Basque regions.
30% in the Basque County? I bet full Basques are not even 10% of all Spaniards.

[J.S.]

Someone needs to email the authors and ask them a few questions.

[Ruderico]

Someone needs to email the authors and ask them a few questions.

They might not want to answer, considering how simplistic the modelling with ancient populations is. Murcians didn't have any valid models either, which is very odd.

Here's one of the elephants in the room:
Even if we ignore how outdated models with just these 3 pops are, and how Sardinians appear extremely similar to Tuscans, while carrying ~18% Steppe and Spaniards ~40%, they do show Basques as having less Steppe ancestry than Spaniards...then where did it come from, considering Spaniards are only "half" IA Iberia and ancient Romans had less than their Iberian contemporaries? They don't even try to explain it, they just placed those graphs in the body of the text and voilà. It would have helped if they actually said what these Roman samples were like, but again nothing. It's just a poorly made thing.

https://i.postimg.cc/vHh7tnHr/Sem-T-tulo.png

[Flashball]

They might not want to answer, considering how simplistic the modelling with ancient populations is. Murcians didn't have any valid models either, which is very odd.

Here's one of the elephants in the room:
Even if we ignore how outdated models with just these 3 pops are, and how Sardinians appear extremely similar to Tuscans, while carrying ~18% Steppe and Spaniards ~40%, they do show Basques as having less Steppe ancestry than Spaniards...then where did it come from, considering Spaniards are only "half" IA Iberia and ancient Romans had less than their Iberian contemporaries? They don't even try to explain it, they just placed those graphs in the body of the text and voilà. It would have helped if they actually said what these Roman samples were like, but again nothing. It's just a poorly made thing.

https://i.postimg.cc/vHh7tnHr/Sem-T-tulo.png

Incorrect map

Sardinians have more WHG, like nuragh, and less levant neolithic, iran farmer (tuscan have)

>>>
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1035x582q90/r/923/iqw3tf.jpg

pre and post-Nuraghi
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1035x582q90/r/923/sGaEi4.png
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1035x582q90/r/922/3DuYhm.png
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1035x582q90/r/924/KSyofb.png


WHG percentage with the different samples (Sardinians, Northern italians, central and south samples), 8 to 14%:
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1035x582q90/r/924/BiYiYt.png

[Ruderico]

That's the point, that graph was taken from the study itself and the values are clearly off. Their population models are overall quite poor.
That said I don't fully trust G25 to make these sort of models with very ancient populations either

[Petalpusher]

Basque having less steppe than Spain is correct but they should show more WHG than anybody else, beyond what was captured by the ANF. Also Sardinians should score like ten times less Steppe than Tuscans. Even my 10 minutes calculator can show striking differences between Sardinians and Tuscans, and Basque or Spain.



Target: Tuscan
Distance: 0.9106% / 0.91063377
58.1 Anatolian_NeolithicFarmer
34.4 Steppe_EMBA
7.5 Iranian_NeolithicFarmer

Target: Sardinian
Distance: 0.4554% / 0.45538645
73.7 Anatolian_NeolithicFarmer
13.8 Villabruna_WestHunterGatherer
9.4 Iranian_NeolithicFarmer
3.0 Steppe_EMBA
0.1 Taforalt_AncientNorthAfrica

Target: Basque
Distance: 0.4252% / 0.42518955
55.9 Anatolian_NeolithicFarmer
21.8 Steppe_EMBA
20.6 Villabruna_WestHunterGatherer
1.7 Iranian_NeolithicFarmer


Target: Spanish
Distance: 0.5394% / 0.53940900
56.0 Anatolian_NeolithicFarmer
27.7 Steppe_EMBA
11.9 Villabruna_WestHunterGatherer
2.5 Iranian_NeolithicFarmer
1.1 Mota_AncientEastAfrica
0.8 Taforalt_AncientNorthAfrica

[Flashball]

Basque having less steppe than Spain is correct but they should show more WHG than anybody else, beyond what was captured by the ANF. Also Sardinians should score like ten times less Steppe than Tuscans. Even my 10 minutes calculator can show striking differences between Sardinians and Tuscans, and Basque or Spain.



Target: Tuscan
Distance: 0.9106% / 0.91063377
58.1 Anatolian_NeolithicFarmer
34.4 Steppe_EMBA
7.5 Iranian_NeolithicFarmer

Target: Sardinian
Distance: 0.4554% / 0.45538645
73.7 Anatolian_NeolithicFarmer
13.8 Villabruna_WestHunterGatherer
9.4 Iranian_NeolithicFarmer
3.0 Steppe_EMBA
0.1 Taforalt_AncientNorthAfrica

Target: Basque
Distance: 0.4252% / 0.42518955
55.9 Anatolian_NeolithicFarmer
21.8 Steppe_EMBA
20.6 Villabruna_WestHunterGatherer
1.7 Iranian_NeolithicFarmer


Target: Spanish
Distance: 0.5394% / 0.53940900
56.0 Anatolian_NeolithicFarmer
27.7 Steppe_EMBA
11.9 Villabruna_WestHunterGatherer
2.5 Iranian_NeolithicFarmer
1.1 Mota_AncientEastAfrica
0.8 Taforalt_AncientNorthAfrica



Your modelization is not correct, Sardinians (central) don't have this iran thing.

Je ne comprends pas pourquoi tu persistes avec ton truc à la ramasse, même mon père en obtient alors qu'il n'en a pas sur le Global 25 (plus fiable) et aucun sarde n'en a sur le Global 25 avec les populations ancestrales classiques.

Je viendrais toujours corriger les gens ici, c'est un devoir quand les informations sont erronées ou imprécises.

Je vais te la montrer beaucoup de fois cette image, jusqu'à temps que tu imprimes cela dans ton crâne.
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1035x582q90/r/923/iqw3tf.jpg

[Petalpusher]

They should, and they do in academic samples


"We observed clear signals of dynamic periods of contact linking the island to the rest of the Mediterranean, appearing first in individuals from two Phoenician and Punic sites as early as 500 BCE, and then in individuals from the Roman and Medieval periods,"
"We found striking stability in ancestry from the Middle Neolithic through the end of the Nuragic period in Sardinia," said Joe Marcus, a PhD student in the Department of Human Genetics at UChicago and a co-first author on the paper.
Second, the team found evidence of the arrival of different populations across the Mediterranean, first with Phoenicians originating from the Levant (modern-day Lebanon) and Punics, whose culture centered in Carthage (modern-day Tunisia)."
Then, new ancestry continued to appear during the Roman period and further in the Medieval period, as Sardinia became historically influenced by migration of people from modern-day Italy and Spain.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200224131137.htm#:~:text=Ancient%20DNA%20from%20Sa rdinia%20reveals%206%2C000%20years%20of%20genetic% 20history,-Date%3A%20February%2024&text=Summary%3A&text=The%20research%2C%20published%20in%20Nature,N eolithic%20through%20the%20Medieval%20period.
Last to date studies about Sardinians show them with that type of signal in barchart too.

Those people near BCE were highly Iran_N. Not my fault G25 can't sort this out only lumping everything into some 6000BC farmers, when clearly the genesis of the island continued much further in time. Even the K13/K15, which are still reference calculators, show Sardinians as having sizeable "EastMed/Red sea stuff". Also extremely dumb to use many Iran_n samples, some Kura axes and what not, it's never gonna be sorting things properly with all that.

Now this is about Basque, so let's not derail this thread with your Sardinian obession. The real issue here was Tuscan appearing the same as Sardinians, which obviously isn't right and only shows the model is very poor in general.

[gixajo]

FlashBack/Dududud & Petalpusher, if you post the sources of your models, we could try them also.

Avez-vous déjà trouvé le composant français unique avec l´aide des experts d´Anthrogenica Dududud?

Dans une future update (mise à jour?) de 23andME ou MH, ils incluront ce composant, ne souffrez pas pour cela.

Salut une autre fois Petalpusher, I thought you were Polish and not French...:picard1:

[Petalpusher]

Salut une autre fois Petalpusher, I thought you were Polish and not French...:picard1:

Hehe at least, you didn't think it was Indonesia ;) J'ai entendu ca une ou deux fois.


Besides i should clear up that 10% Iran_N with close to no Steppe would actually be very low, likely in the lowest tier for Europe as Steppe is made of something very similar, so it won't show for most of us scoring a lot of Steppe but it exists in most of us. You can only show the excess with a Steppe component, eventually. Yes admixture is complicated.

Sardinia is still very much a good early neo proxy, with some local hunter gatherers and a bit of more recent influences, which shouldn't come as a surprise, being an island in the middle of the mediterranean sea. An interesting combination of both isolation and relative attractiveness for sailors going around the area.

[Flashball]

Hehe at least, you didn't think it was Indonesia ;) J'ai entendu ca une ou deux fois.


Besides i should clear up that 10% Iran_N with close to no Steppe would actually be very low, likely in the lowest tier for Europe as Steppe is made of something very similar, so it won't show for most of us scoring a lot of Steppe but it exists in most of us. You can only show the excess with a Steppe component, eventually. Yes admixture is complicated.

Sardinia is still very much a good early neo proxy, with some local hunter gatherers and a bit of more recent influences, which shouldn't come as a surprise, being an island in the middle of the mediterranean sea. An interesting combination of both isolation and relative attractiveness for sailors going around the area.

La zone centrale est relativement pure.

Je vais modéliser d'autres samples sardes, tu verras bien.

la seule zone "autochtone" est Barbagia, le reste...

[Flashball]

FlashBack/Dududud & Petalpusher, if you post the sources of your models, we could try them also.

Avez-vous déjà trouvé le composant français unique avec l´aide des experts d´Anthrogenica Dududud?

Dans une future update (mise à jour?) de 23andME ou MH, ils incluront ce composant, ne souffrez pas pour cela.

Salut une autre fois Petalpusher, I thought you were Polish and not French...:picard1:

Le composant français, oui.

J'ai énormément de samples français de souche (race française, pur sang, pas andalou).