Why isn't Basque language indo-European, if vast majority of Basques are R1a and R1b?

[Gota_type_]

What we call "basque country" or basque región is in reality old celtic tribal áreas: várdulos, caristios, etc. So, R1b.

The real original basques were in Alta Navarra and Southwest France (probably close to the Pirineos). So, I don´t know if basques from the Baztan área are R1b also, or they have more variety of older halopgroups, but what it is clear is that today´s basque área Alava, Vizcaya, and most of Guipúzcoa probably were just celtic people that due to proximity with the original basques from Alta Navarra, ended speaking the language. Obviously this is not absolute and there could be pockets of basque speaking non-celtic people in certain places around all that región, but even in Roman times they acknowledged the different celtic tribes that inhabited there.

So, either someone shows what halopgroups normally the people in Alta Navarra (euskaldun places) have and if they are different from today´s basque área, or I just stand to my personal hypothesis that today´s basques are just regular old indoeuropean people that is abundant in the north of Spain ("celtic" or indoeuropean people+Neolithic Farmers), and the real original basques were in the mountains or close to the Pirineos.

And the reason why they had maintained the language after so many centuries is clear. Basques allied with the Romans (Romans were Little interested in the basque área for being too abrupts and mountainous, and that is why there are Little roman remains there) to attack the cantabrians, so they were mostly left alone. So, if this is real (that basques allied with Romans to attack their cousins, the Cantabrians) it changes the mental image of the basques being noble and unique, to being traitor to others. While Cantabrians were fighting against several Roman legions (even maritime legions and the Caesar had to come there), the basques did not give a fu++ about them and allowed the Romans to destroy the Cantabrians.

Also, there are several clear hypothesis about the basque language being related to Iberian language (the language spoken in the East of Spain) since some iberian old phrases had used proto-basque to for being translated. So, while not definitive, it is clear that they are related, as they are also probably related to other pre-indoeuropean languages of Europe.

[Cleitus]

What we call "basque country" or basque región is in reality old celtic tribal áreas: várdulos, caristios, etc. So, R1b.

The real original basques were in Alta Navarra and Southwest France (probably close to the Pirineos). So, I don´t know if basques from the Baztan área are R1b also, or they have more variety of older halopgroups, but what it is clear is that today´s basque área Alava, Vizcaya, and most of Guipúzcoa probably were just celtic people that due to proximity with the original basques from Alta Navarra, ended speaking the language. Obviously this is not absolute and there could be pockets of basque speaking non-celtic people in certain places around all that región, but even in Roman times they acknowledged the different celtic tribes that inhabited there.

So, either someone shows what halopgroups normally the people in Alta Navarra (euskaldun places) have and if they are different from today´s basque área, or I just stand to my personal hypothesis that today´s basques are just regular old indoeuropean people that is abundant in the north of Spain ("celtic" or indoeuropean people+Neolithic Farmers), and the real original basques were in the mountains or close to the Pirineos.

And the reason why they had maintained the language after so many centuries is clear. Basques allied with the Romans (Romans were Little interested in the basque área for being too abrupts and mountainous, and that is why there are Little roman remains there) to attack the cantabrians, so they were mostly left alone. So, if this is real (that basques allied with Romans to attack their cousins, the Cantabrians) it changes the mental image of the basques being noble and unique, to being traitor to others. While Cantabrians were fighting against several Roman legions (even maritime legions and the Caesar had to come there), the basques did not give a fu++ about them and allowed the Romans to destroy the Cantabrians.

Also, there are several clear hypothesis about the basque language being related to Iberian language (the language spoken in the East of Spain) since some iberian old phrases had used proto-basque to for being translated. So, while not definitive, it is clear that they are related, as they are also probably related to other pre-indoeuropean languages of Europe.

The auxiliary verb, which accompanies most main verbs, agrees not only with the subject but with any direct object and the indirect object present. Among European languages, this polypersonal agreement is found only in Basque, some languages of the Caucasus, Mordvinic languages, Hungarian, and Maltese (all non-Indo-European).

[gixajo]

The auxiliary verb, which accompanies most main verbs, agrees not only with the subject but with any direct object and the indirect object present. Among European languages, this polypersonal agreement is found only in Basque, some languages of the Caucasus, Mordvinic languages, Hungarian, and Maltese (all non-Indo-European).

Agrees with the direct objetc in the sense that differentiates if the direct object is singular or plural, adding a particle that indicates that in the auxiliary verb.

Guk zuri eman(main verb) dizugu(transitive auxiliary verb)=we give you 1 thing
Guk zuri eman dizkizugu=we give you several things

Edit:I added subjetc, to see also that the Basque is an ergative language. Guk, the k in this case indicates the subject of the action.Th indirect object (to you) Zuri. and the auxiliary verb that indicates both and point also the "number" of direct objects: di-zki-zu-gu

[Robocop]

Well it's easy... nothin weird, language doesn't always go hand to hand with Y-DNA.

Because of vast invasion of Indoeuropean R1b on Iberian peninsula from ancient times (even before Romans ever came there), like from Ibero-Celtic times, Basque people just became indoeuropeized by R1b, means they became indoeuropeized by genetic BUT NOT BY LANGUAGE.

That is the uniqueness about Basque people, they KEPT their language, even though mixing with IndoEuropeans.

You have the same case with Hungarians who are much younger european people than Basques, Hungarians arrived in 9th century in Europe, from then they're already R1a people by genetic (most dominant genetic in Hungarians), yet hungarians speak non-indoeuropean language.

P.S. But there is somethin much more fascinating about Basque than they're genetic combined with language, it's their BLOOD GROUPS, 40% of Basques are RH negative blood groups.

Having in mind that only 15% of World population (and all of those 15% are in Europe) are RH negative blood group, having in mind that Basques have the highest percentage of that RH negative blood groups, I think I dont need to say anything more.

They are truly unique people.

Oh and yeah, I am RH negative blood group

I wanna add somethin else to my post;

As I've said, this is really not surprising about Basque language and R1b, we have tens and tens of other examples;

Me for example, I mean my Y-DNA is I2a1b, I highly doubt that I2a1b people spoke slavic 2000 years ago, in fact I would bet my life on this they didnt speak slavic, but got slavicized/indoeuropeized by language, so opposite case from Basques but it comes to same thing.

Lets take for example also (maybe the best example) dominant haplogroup of SARDINIAN people; I2a1a ("cousin" haplpgroup to mine), we can tell for sure that haplogroup is totally pre-Indoeuropean on Sardinia, yet, sardinians got indoeuropeized by Latin.

Basque on the other hand kept their language, BUT got indoeuropeized by Y-DNA, opposite from examples I mentioned but it comes to same thing.

I repeat; this is nothin surprising

[vbnetkhio]

title

Basques went through a genetic bottleneck, or more of them. The ancestor of all R1b-Z195 Basques (~40% of Basque men) is estimated to have lived only 3200 years ago. This is more than 1000 years after the initial Bell Beaker invasion. This man was already Basque-like autosomally and probably a Aquitanian speaker, just with a distant Bell Beaker paternal origin.

Without these bottlenecks they would probably be mostly I2.

Autosomally it might seem as a lot of Yamnaya ancestry, but they are one of the least IE Eruopeans, and still very close to neolithic Iberians.
see where they plot on this PCA:
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/...inguistic.html

[Graham]

It is Ironic that the Basque are the closest people to Chalcolithic Iberia or Late Neolithic Atlantic Europe but with the high R1b Bronze age incomers.

Spain is a good case in how you compare the difference in Y-DNA and autosomal Data.

[vbnetkhio]

Basques have decent amount of autosomal ancestry from yamnaya, I think amerinds don't have any.

Spoiler!

Dravidians also have significant Steppe admixture, but not the language. So it seems that when steppe invaders went far enough from the steppe, their warlike culture diluted, and they still spread their DNA but weren't as agressive in imposing their language. In Europe this happened in Italy and Iberia. Etruscans also had a lot of Steppe autosomally.

[Altaylı]

Basques have decent amount of autosomal ancestry from yamnaya, I think amerinds don't have any.

Spoiler!

I think they have some ANE ancestry but i am not sure I dont know their autosomal

[Universe]

I think they have some ANE ancestry but i am not sure I dont know their autosomal

They have lots of ANE. I think they have zero WHG though (which Yamnaya did have)

[NSXD60]

Probably has more to do with lack of aggression in a minority of IE invaders, plus fewer numbers, made to feel welcome, gradual assimilation. They also weren't Romanized, but neither were Brythonics and Goidelics.