Basque people DNA from ancient cave skeletons proves....

For years I've been hearing that the Basque people were the first arriving modern humans in Europe and that they deliberately isolated themselves from outsiders, to keep their lineage pure. New irrefutable scientific evidence has proved all that fallacious.

“Our results show that the Basques trace their ancestry to early farming groups from Iberia, which contradicts previous views of them being a remnant population that trace their ancestry to Mesolithic hunter-gatherer groups,” says Prof. Mattias Jakobsson of Uppsala University, who headed the study.

“The difference between Basques and other Iberian groups is these latter ones show distinct features of admixture from the east and from north Africa.”

The findings contradict existing theories that Basques – because of their distinct culture and language, Euskera, which is unrelated to indo-European langauges – had existed for more than 10,000 years.

Dr Torsten Günther, another author, said: “One of the great things about working with ancient DNA is that the data obtained is like opening a time capsule. Seeing the similarities between modern Basques and these early farmers directly tells us that Basques remained relatively isolated for the last 5,000 years but not much longer.”

www.telegraph.co.uk...

So finally we can put the pseudo history to bed here. Not survivors from Atlantis, not indigenous and not Alien.

a reply to: Marduk

Any creditable archaeologist or anyone who has read a book or two on the subject of physical anthropology knows that ancient aliens, Atlantis, etc are all myths. When I was in university taking archaeology we spent a good two lectures talking about 'forbidden' zones, and pseudo science, mainly Atlantis.
But we were also taught not to discredit them entirely, there is usually some sort of truth to these claims, you have to remember that archaeologists are investigators of the past, and need to take in all sorts of information, including talking to the weirdos.
I just hope these findings finally put an end to the people who are extremely biased and completely ignore the actual evidence. You know, the people who aren't the leading archaeologists in the world right now.

a reply to: strongfp

The problem with the Basque culture previously though, was that with their language and culture isolate from outsiders and without any evidence to explain it from science, the woos were able to drive their bus through the gap.
en.wikipedia.org...
One suggestion I saw 30 years ago for instance claimed they were descended from our Lizard alien overlords which explained why they all had RH negative blood..

a reply to: Marduk

Do you think the Basques have ties to the Berbers? Don't the both carry the RH negative trait?

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Marduk

Do you think the Basques have ties to the Berbers? Don't the both carry the RH negative trait?

Not really, the Berbers as a cultural identity didn't exist until 5000bce, by which point the Basques had been in Europe for 5000 years

There's a chart here on wiki
en.wikipedia.org...
which is quite revealing as it states that the frequency of RH negative amongst the Basque is 21–36%. So only about a third carry it. So trying to force a connection with another ethnic group which carries even less is a bit pointless.

doesn't the Basque region have the highest incidence of 'green' eyes?

which i find interesting since my observations while visiting spain & portugal was that the people (spaniard, portuguese) are generally very dark-eyed and dark-haired.

My bet on blond genes are from Scandinavia and Heruli tribe which moved from Scandinavia to black sea area and forward in about 3AD. This tribe made raids in all over Mediterranean area and had Rome on its knees.
Later on Heruli Tribe was called Visigoths and they were active in warfare specially in Spain.
Heruli

a reply to: Marduk

S&F for such an interesting topic. I have always wondered about the spin on the Basques and dna has stepped up to fill in.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Marduk

Any creditable archaeologist or anyone who has read a book or two on the subject of physical anthropology knows that ancient aliens, Atlantis, etc are all myths. When I was in university taking archaeology we spent a good two lectures talking about 'forbidden' zones, and pseudo science, mainly Atlantis.
But we were also taught not to discredit them entirely, there is usually some sort of truth to these claims, you have to remember that archaeologists are investigators of the past, and need to take in all sorts of information, including talking to the weirdos.
I just hope these findings finally put an end to the people who are extremely biased and completely ignore the actual evidence. You know, the people who aren't the leading archaeologists in the world right now.

That would be true except that he anthro and arch "leading" scientists have been wrong so many times and theories have been thrown out. Hell neither subject was even science until about 75 years ago. Previous to that it was just a way to advance and classify the coffers of emperialism. Magret meade was really the first unbiased anthro writer. The dates of civilization have been drastically changed as have physical anthros date of modern mans origons since i studied the subjects 20 years ago. The "leaders" in the field you speak are just the ones who are awarded large research grants. They are not always the best scientists by any means but rather the most well connected politically. I dont have any beliefs on ancient aliens or or that stuff but, anthro and arch are very often wrong just a few years later. We have discovered and understand very little of the ancient past. The proof is all still waiting to be found. The good side of anthro and arch is they are peer reviewed. So you cant just print unfounded theories. However they are just barely scratching the surface new discoveries often diaprove old theories. The same theories everyone used to spout off as the only truth.
So be careful being so bold about what arch and anthro "knows". Its actually very little.

a reply to: luthier

That would be true except that this isn't anthropology, its genetic science...

originally posted by: Marduk
a reply to: luthier

That would be true except that this isn't anthropology, its genetic science...

I was responding to a specific post, but as far as genetic decay and some earlier physical anthro there are some problems with for instnace the first theories of mitochondrial eve and the understanding of what genes do over extremely long periods of exposure and time. You have to understand that the interpretation of the data is often the problem and science is oftwn wrong. My post was to tell people to check your egos even physical science is wrong often.

Do we know what caused the migrations? Do we know that the out of africa 2 theory is true? Do we know when or how man went from archaic humans to modern man? Not even close. We have a tiny amount of evidence yet most believe these theories are true if you dont study the subject.

originally posted by: luthier

but as far as genetic decay and some earlier physical anthro there are some problems with for instnace the first theories of mitochondrial eve and the understanding of what genes do over extremely long periods of exposure and time. You have to understand that the interpretation of the data is often the problem and science is oftwn wrong. My post was to tell people to check your egos even physical science is wrong often.

This isn't physical science, its life science and research on mitochondrial eve is still ongoing, which is the nature of scientific study itself. Alan Templeton aside, there has been very little criticism of the hypothesis and more supporting evidence has been delivered recently by the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and the Stanford University School of Medicine. Feel free to criticise, but from my perspective your understanding of this subject appears to be years if not decades out of date.

Do we know what caused the migrations? Do we know that the out of africa 2 theory is true? Do we know when or how man went from archaic humans to modern man? Not even close. We have a tiny amount of evidence yet most believe these theories are true if you dont study the subject.

I do study the subject and all the things you just mentioned have an overwhelming amount of supporting scientific empirical evidence, most of it very recently from the study of genetics, you appear to have a personal bias. Please leave It at the door...

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: luthier

but as far as genetic decay and some earlier physical anthro there are some problems with for instnace the first theories of mitochondrial eve and the understanding of what genes do over extremely long periods of exposure and time. You have to understand that the interpretation of the data is often the problem and science is oftwn wrong. My post was to tell people to check your egos even physical science is wrong often.

This isn't physical science, its life science and research on mitochondrial eve is still ongoing, which is the nature of scientific study itself. Alan Templeton aside, there has been very little criticism of the hypothesis and more supporting evidence has been delivered recently by the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and the Stanford University School of Medicine. Feel free to criticise, but from my perspective your understanding of this subject appears to be years if not decades out of date.

Do we know what caused the migrations? Do we know that the out of africa 2 theory is true? Do we know when or how man went from archaic humans to modern man? Not even close. We have a tiny amount of evidence yet most believe these theories are true if you dont study the subject.

I do study the subject and all the things you just mentioned have an overwhelming amount of supporting scientific empirical evidence, most of it very recently from the study of genetics, you appear to have a personal bias. Please leave It at the door...

Oh please.. First off. Look into ancient dna study. People claimed all kinds of stuff about dna until it was disproven and shown to decay significantly. It was also found that ancient dna is a very flawed study subject.


Ans there are many anthropologists who and even more genetic scientists who have very cautious claims about how much can be intepreted by researching ancient dna.

If you think we have a large amount of evidence about ancient man including dna evidence you dont read much anthropology. We have a miniscule amount of evidence and in any other other science would be too small a study group to say anything remotely conclusive. We have some evidence from the dry regions near israel. We found some denisovan remains in siberia and it threw everyone for a loop. We have some current (2014) from australia that changed how and when humans (possibly) left africa.

There is almost zero evidence on human origons if you compare it to a physical science requirement for a theory to be accepted.

Bones dont hold up anywhere thay isnt dry. We have poor samples and a poor sample size.

Also your take on the three theories of human origon is out dated. The out of africa 2 theory (you know why its called that right?) has been seriously questioned by anthropologists in the last 10 years. Just because you havent read about it doesnt make it not true. Most research on antho has to be done through university databases. The public doesnt care and you will find mostly lay person fliff on the internet
.

To me out of africa 2 is a way to placate people who believe in the bible. It doeant make sense to me and there is no explanation of how archaic humans were all over the world but modern man came out of africa. What caused this mutation? Why only in Africa. What is genetic bottlenecking?

Anthro is like a kid that grows up in a white suburb and has never been told any other skin color exists. Then they find that what they knew through anectdotal evidence isnt true at all. I would be a cautious observer on anything that has to do with man past 5,000 years old that is a genetic discovery. Its no the same thing as modern genetics at all and is not a sure thing.

What is the half life of dna?

How fast does it decay when exposed to air and water. How much local dna bleeds in over time?

Anthro and arch should not be so sure about their interpretations they have a poor and small sample base.

originally posted by: Marduk
I do study the subject and all the things you just mentioned have an overwhelming amount of supporting scientific empirical evidence, most of it very recently from the study of genetics, you appear to have a personal bias. Please leave It at the door...

This right here... the massive leaps and bounds that we've made in just the last decade with new testing techniques and the ability to do advanced genomic coverage when testing samples is really humbling. Particularly so when the genetics are proving things that some of us were getting laughed at just 17-18 years ago. Things that were fringe hypothesis in the late 90's are now fact. Trying to get grants in 98 or 99 to test HN samples was just out of the question so any work that involved hybridization between HN and HSS, unless you were Svante Paabo or João Zilhão was going to make you the butt of jokes and even then, there was a lot of incredulousness and everything was based on morphology and strata. With the level of coverage that can be done now when sequencing there's absolutely no question that we were successfully mating with our European cousins. Every year we're making massive strides in adding to our knowledge base of migration patterns, the where and the when the who... In similar fashion and the same period of time in the late 90's, Clovis First was still the prevailing force in New World colonization and today we're getting reams of data from genetics that are pushing back the dates by millennia and filling in the blanks of who it was and where those movements originated. This is the most exciting time in Anthropology since 1859 and it only gets more interesting every year. I mean hell, we know that there's another as yet undiscovered hominid from West Africa that we have no physical remains from but the genetic data says they were there... Homo Altaiensis, Floresiensis, the close relationship between Australian Aborigines and the first wave of HSS to leave Africa and on and on. For people to say that what we know is just the tip of the iceburg...I can agree with that. But to say that we don't have a clue is utter BS because the genetics are definitively proving things we could only hypothesize about a decade and a half ago.

originally posted by: luthier

Anthro and arch should not be so sure about their interpretations they have a poor and small sample base.

For the second time, this thread is about the recent discovery surrounding Basque DNA. Its about a discovery made by genetic scientists, archaeologists found the bones, but that is all.
Its not your personal platform to air your grievances about your misunderstanding of modern genetics...or 20 year old anthropology
Feel free to start your own thread. I'm sure it will be popular...
from now on, I will ask the moderators to start deleting posts which aren't on topic

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: Marduk
I do study the subject and all the things you just mentioned have an overwhelming amount of supporting scientific empirical evidence, most of it very recently from the study of genetics, you appear to have a personal bias. Please leave It at the door...

This right here... the massive leaps and bounds that we've made in just the last decade with new testing techniques and the ability to do advanced genomic coverage when testing samples is really humbling. Particularly so when the genetics are proving things that some of us were getting laughed at just 17-18 years ago. Things that were fringe hypothesis in the late 90's are now fact. Trying to get grants in 98 or 99 to test HN samples was just out of the question so any work that involved hybridization between HN and HSS, unless you were Svante Paabo or João Zilhão was going to make you the butt of jokes and even then, there was a lot of incredulousness and everything was based on morphology and strata. With the level of coverage that can be done now when sequencing there's absolutely no question that we were successfully mating with our European cousins. Every year we're making massive strides in adding to our knowledge base of migration patterns, the where and the when the who... In similar fashion and the same period of time in the late 90's, Clovis First was still the prevailing force in New World colonization and today we're getting reams of data from genetics that are pushing back the dates by millennia and filling in the blanks of who it was and where those movements originated. This is the most exciting time in Anthropology since 1859 and it only gets more interesting every year. I mean hell, we know that there's another as yet undiscovered hominid from West Africa that we have no physical remains from but the genetic data says they were there... Homo Altaiensis, Floresiensis, the close relationship between Australian Aborigines and the first wave of HSS to leave Africa and on and on. For people to say that what we know is just the tip of the iceburg...I can agree with that. But to say that we don't have a clue is utter BS because the genetics are definitively proving things we could only hypothesize about a decade and a half ago.

Thats all nice and fine but how big is your sample size? What samples do you actually have to go on?

You have a tiny same size from a few dry places in the world. It took how long to decode mungo man? Does everyone agree on the data interpretation? What about the skull in petronolla? I went to a lecture from christopher stringer and it opened my eyes quite a bit to how much is unknown.

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: luthier

Anthro and arch should not be so sure about their interpretations they have a poor and small sample base.

For the second time, this thread is about the recent discovery surrounding Basque DNA. Its about a discovery made by genetic scientists, archaeologists found the bones, but that is all.
Its not your personal platform to air your grievances about your misunderstanding of modern genetics...or 20 year old anthropology
Feel free to start your own thread. I'm sure it will be popular...
from now on, I will ask the moderators to start deleting posts which aren't on topic

Ok so start with post i replied to or is that one ok because it fits your beliefs?

My point is even modern genetics gets stuff wrong and its not a sure thing when examining bones from thousands of years ago. You specifically trashed other peoples theories. I am playing the devils advocate to that. You have an agenda to disprove some radical theories. I have an agenda to say there is a limit to claims made by geneticists and anthropologists.

originally posted by: luthier

Ok so start with post i replied to or is that one ok because it fits your beliefs?

I have stopped responding to your nonsense and instead am reporting your off topic posts to the mod team.

Here's a clue where you're going wrong, the title of this thread is "Basque people DNA from ancient cave skeletons proves...."

Not a single one of your posts has the name "Basque" in it...not one.

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: luthier

Ok so start with post i replied to or is that one ok because it fits your beliefs?

I have stopped responding to your nonsense and instead am reporting your off topic posts to the mod team.

Here's a clue where you're going wrong, the title of this thread is "Basque people DNA from ancient cave skeletons proves...."

Not a single one of your posts has the name "Basque" in it...not one.

Ok good luck.

I think its good to read the problems and prospects of ancient dna research. Its pretty informative. Your post also had a purpose of disproving other peoples theories on the basque region. I was merely asking how thid was done. Is it definitive? How big was the sample size? Has the paper been peer reviewed?

Do you know how often studies are misquoted and not looked into? I know peter has the backround to interpret the data but do you? I hope so if you make such bold claims about other peoples beliefs and what they dont know. I think this is facinating information I read about it earlier. I do believe in genetic research and its benefits. I also know that more than half the samples used come up inconlusive and even today with all our advancements it is still extremely difficult to study ancient dna.

a reply to: Marduk

For years I've been hearing that the Basque people were the first arriving modern humans in Europe and that they deliberately isolated themselves from outsiders, to keep their lineage pure. New irrefutable scientific evidence has proved all that fallacious.

This evidence is irrefutable?

An international team of geneticists may now have solved the riddle, delving deep into DNA history to find they descended from early farmers who mixed with local hunter-gatherers before becoming separated.

Take notice of the language here and here.


Our results show.....

The study was not linked in your post or the telegraph article but here is the university website.

www.uu.se...

Its a very cool study and has interesting results. My problem is the op and its presumption. Its not irrefutable evidence. It is evidence that will now be studied and tested further however, the actual study was not cited. You cant just read an article from the media and make bold claims its a complex subject dumbed down for the masses.