Uniqueness of the Basques

[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.