Basque'Pictish' enclave survives in britain

2004? By the standards of genetics research, that's pretty practically outdated. Furthermore, the article claims how that "DNA origins of the Irish, Scots and Welsh" are in the Iberian penninsula (and that the ancestors of the "Celts" came there at the end of the last ice age, however, there's no mentioning of Haplogroup R1b, let alone of it's sub-clades. I shall de-refer you to this 2010 paper, which shows that Haplogroup R1b originated in Anatolia, and it's spread across Europe can be correlated with Neolothic farmers. Furthermore, if you look at R1b subclades (specifically subclades of RM-269), then you can see clearly that there's a considerable differences between Basques and the population of the Britain, even if they share the basic Haplogroup. Instead, they belong to different sub-clades of R1b.

You prove the OP's thesis nicely here.

According to your more modern and up to date paper (which only reinforces the ancient article I quoted earlier):

"
Other lineages also show evidence of European Neolithic expansion, hgE1b1b1 (E-M35) and hgJ, in particular [12]. Indeed, hgI is the only major lineage for which a Paleolithic origin is generally accepted, but it comprises only 18% of European Y chromosomes [13]. The Basques contain only 8%–20% of this lineage, but 75%–87% hgR1b1b2 (Table S1); our findings therefore challenge their traditional “Mesolithic relict” status, and in particular, their use as a proxy for a Paleolithic parental population in admixture modelling of European Y-chromosomal prehistory [22].
Other lineages also show evidence of European Neolithic expansion, hgE1b1b1 (E-M35) and hgJ, in particular [12]. Indeed, hgI is the only major lineage for which a Paleolithic origin is generally accepted, but it comprises only 18% of European Y chromosomes [13]. The Basques contain only 8%–20% of this lineage, but 75%–87% hgR1b1b2 (Table S1); our findings therefore challenge their traditional “Mesolithic relict” status, and in particular, their use as a proxy for a Paleolithic parental population in admixture modelling of European Y-chromosomal prehistory [22]."

So, according to this data the Basques may not be original Mesolithic dwellers but instead could be comprised mostly of the Neolithic group which started arriving about 10,000 years ago. Spreading into the islands around 6000 years ago. The Celts arrived in the islands 2500 years ago.

Indeed according to this data it seems even more likely the original inhabitants of the islands and the Basque were likely very closely related if not the same people.
 
You prove the OP's thesis nicely here.

According to your more modern and up to date paper (which only reinforces the ancient article I quoted earlier):

So, according to this data the Basques may not be original Mesolithic dwellers but instead could be comprised mostly of the Neolithic group which started arriving about 10,000 years ago. Spreading into the islands around 6000 years ago. The Celts arrived in the islands 2500 years ago.

Indeed according to this data it seems even more likely the original inhabitants of the islands and the Basque were likely very closely related if not the same people.

Not quite. First off, this obviously means that the Basques are not aboriginal to Atlantic Europe, but the part that is quintessential is: you have to ask what Y-chromosomal DNA is associated with the Celts, but you may be making the wrong premise there (what do you think is genetically associated with the Celts?). Specifically, R1b was probably dominant amongst the Neolithic population of most of Europe as a result, and as mentioned earlier, you have to look into the sub-clades of R1b, and the 3500 years between the arrival of the Neolithic farmers in the Atlantic region, and the archaeologically recorded arrival of La-Tene Celts in Britain is a very long time.

EDIT: There's also a terminological problem with the term "Basque". Technically, Basque refers only to the modern people and their language. If you look into antiquity, you have the Aquitanian language. How Basque and Aquitanian are actually related is not wholly known, because Aquitanian is poorly known. Aquitanian could have been the ancestor of modern Basque (making it "Old Basque"), or it could have been a language closely related to Basque. Either way, talking about "Basque" in 200 BC is a tad problematic, talking about "Basque" in 4000 BC is outright wrong.
 
Last edited:
Cowboy, close genetic relationship does not equal the same language and culture.

In general to everyone, don't ignore the Mitochondrial DNA, it is half of someone's ancestry.
 
Cowboy, close genetic relationship does not equal the same language and culture.

In general to everyone, don't ignore the Mitochondrial DNA, it is half of someone's ancestry.

I never said it did. I said its a possibility. Given 6,000 years of intermarriage, rape and pillage I find it comical that anyone would try and use genetics as a cultural reference point to begin with. Throw in the fact that you are discussing an extinct people and language of which practically nothing is known.

I have yet to see a single reason why it wouldn't be feasible for the Picts and Basque to be related. Even the genetic studies are theories. We guess, we theorize, no one KNOWS.

Take a fishing colony of 50 Basques 6,000 years ago on the Scottish Coast. Completely and utterly possible. Then grow and follow that original colony for 3,500 YEARS before the arrival of the Celts. That's nearly the entire span of modern human history. Anything could have happened during that time. Which is the entire point of an AH discussion.

Am I saying that Basques WERE the ancestors of the Picts? No. I'm saying it was possible. If its possible or feasible...then you have an AH discussion. Viola.
 
Even if (and this is a big, big if) they were descended from Basques, they clearly did not resemble them at all around the time they showed up in historical records. They clearly had a great many Celtic customs, greatly resembled the Caledonians who lived in the same lands previously, their language has been identified as having Celtic elements, etc. There is just no real argument beyond WILD conjecture to claim Picts were related to Basques. Looking at the wiki page, it seems the Basque theory came up in 1892 based on undeciphered ogham inscription, and then he changed his mind to non-Indo-European. However, most people involved in the subject overwhelmingly agree they were Brythonic, there is just no reason at all to assume otherwise.
 
In general to everyone, don't ignore the Mitochondrial DNA, it is half of someone's ancestry.

Well, yes and no. The problematic part is that mitochondrial DNA is much smaller than Y-chromosomal DNA, bear in mind that from the evolutionary perspective, mitochondria are descended from bacteria, and have a much (several magnitudes) smaller number of base pairs. This means you have problems comparing mitochondrial DNA in the same way as you compare Y-DNA.

Furthermore, the other part is that men and women have apparently completely different selection patterns. This may come surprising at first, but it isn't so surprising if you think about it, but you have to consider it when comparing the huge differences in the frequencies of aboriginal European DNA: Aboriginal Haplogroups makes up around 50% of the European mitochondrial DNA, but they make up only around 10% of the Y-chromosomal DNA in most European populations. This can be explained by two factors, namely warfare and sexual selection.
 
However, most people involved in the subject overwhelmingly agree they were Brythonic, there is just no reason at all to assume otherwise.

And what reason is there to assume there is?

Also, how DIS similar are the Basque and Celtish cultures? They both dance, play music on squeaky things, wear silly hats and love tossing rocks and carrying logs around.
 
And what reason is there to assume there is?

Also, how DIS similar are the Basque and Celtish cultures? They both dance, play music on squeaky things, wear silly hats and love tossing rocks and carrying logs around.
That describes a lot of people. Congrats, I just lost a lot of respect I may have had for you. I invite you to list specific similarities and proof their language was related to Basque. Until then, I offer you the fact that they, like many other Celts, were quite fond of wearing much blue paint/tattoos, sailed in currachs, had a number of female warriors, carved ogham scripts, had Celtic names, etc. What evidence have you that they were in actuality Basque, besides wild guesses and hearsay from long-dead historians?
 
After doing some more research, I'd also like to re-iterate the idea that the Basques are genetically not exactly close to the various Celtic populations within Haplogroup R1b.

The subclade of R1b which is predominant amongst the Basques is R1b1b2a1a2b, which is defined by the presence of marker M153. Now, M153 is dominant amongst (>50%) Basques, but rarely found outside the Basques. It is also fairly basal amongst the clade M269, which lends itself to the idea that the Basques are indeed descendants of the Neolithic farmers, however at the same time it refutes any idea that Basques and Picts (or Celts, by extension) are closely related. In particular, the marker S28/U152 correlates very strongly with the Celts (and with the expansion of Hallstatt/La-Tene), reaching it's highest distribution in the Alpine region.
 
That describes a lot of people. Congrats, I just lost a lot of respect I may have had for you. I invite you to list specific similarities and proof their language was related to Basque. Until then, I offer you the fact that they, like many other Celts, were quite fond of wearing much blue paint/tattoos, sailed in currachs, had a number of female warriors, carved ogham scripts, had Celtic names, etc. What evidence have you that they were in actuality Basque, besides wild guesses and hearsay from long-dead historians?

Someone is being a grumpy puss ;). Anyone who's ever seen Scottish and Basque games would know what I meant. Anyone with a shred of humor may have gotten a chuckle out of it. Also, genius, since you're being insulting, I never said they WERE Basque I said it was feasible they were related or descended from them.

And hearsay from long-dead historians? Did you really just say that? You attempt to discuss a long extinct people and then toss out the largest source of evidence in your own claims. Nicely done.

Also, since we are talking about an ALTERNATE HISTORY (ie fictional) i'll toss out another Basque related Pict quicky for ya:

Basque types show up in Scotland 6000 years ago. 2500 years ago Celts swarm the place. 900 years later the Romans call a group of people living way up in the north the Picti, noting that while they share many similarities with the Celtic tribes they also have a different lingo. A language difference brought about by over a millenium of cultural exchange, intermarriage and trade with the neighboring Celts.

In that scenario you could easily have a group directly descended from the Basques who's language and ways more mirrored the Celts. Easily. If you think that's a stretch, just look at Gascony and Gascon. Or any of a hundred other places where that happened.
 
1. You assume the Picts were more mysterious than they really were. And extinct longer than they were. They lasted into the early Middle Ages before being assimilated by Scottish invaders. They did not disappear. Also, we have some documented histories on them up to and including lists of kings.

2. You criticize my methods of getting evidence? You have not even posted anything beyond "it's feasible". Which is not evidence.

3. In that little scenario you posted, you just removed any reason to still call them Basque. I have more German blood in me than these Picts have Basque in all likelyhood. Does that mean I can call myself a German despite never having been to Europe and knowing only a little bit of the German language? No! Could a modern Englishman be called a member of the Iceni because he has some Iceni heritage and he might know an old Celtic word or two? Doubt it.

4. Whatever the case, you are still crafting events to prove a theory. That is simply wrong. Most people would craft a theory based on actual evidence or events.
 
Basque types show up in Scotland 6000 years ago.

From the genetic perspective, there were no distinct 'Basques' 6000 years ago. According to some estimates, that is actually older than M269, which is basically the branch of R1b which virtually encompasses all European branches of R1b... :rolleyes:
 
"1. You assume the Picts were more mysterious than they really were. And extinct longer than they were. They lasted into the early Middle Ages before being assimilated by Scottish invaders. They did not disappear. Also, we have some documented histories on them up to and including lists of kings."

Hmmm let me check my math....1400 years ago I still have Picts kicking around. Let's see...that would be rough 610 AD. When exactly was the early Middle Ages? And yes...you have some documented histories on them....written by how did you put it? Oh yes "hearsay from long dead historians."

"2. You criticize my methods of getting evidence? You have not even posted anything beyond "it's feasible". Which is not evidence."

I criticized your hypocrisy of using sources on the one hand to proclaim your own theory while simultaneously discounting anyone attempting to use the same source on the other hand. You've done it twice now.

"3. In that little scenario you posted, you just removed any reason to still call them Basque. I have more German blood in me than these Picts have Basque in all likelyhood. Does that mean I can call myself a German despite never having been to Europe and knowing only a little bit of the German language? No! Could a modern Englishman be called a member of the Iceni because he has some Iceni heritage and he might know an old Celtic word or two? Doubt it."

I never called them Basques. I called them Picts and tossed out possible theories whereby they could be related or descended from an original group of wandering proto-basques (i'll use this from now on to assuage the Emperor and his ever ready to be used emperical geneticry!). Yes, you could indeed say you are of German descent. How many people wear green in the USA during St. Patricks day?

You could say I am an American made from Scottish and Irish parts. Of course you can say you are German. That's your blood. And can a Spaniard be a Basque because he is from San Sebastian and speaks Euskara? Uhhhh yes.
 
When I say "hearsay from long dead historians" I was referring to the fact that the only historian I could find who said the Picts were descended from Basques said so over 100 years ago. Modern historians tend to say otherwise. Even then, the old dude based it on wild guesses and something he could not read. And he later changed his mind anyways.

Also, some people say the Viking Age was the start of the Early Middle Ages. Which started in very late 700's. Picts were still around. In fact, Vikings were one of the reasons the Picts were eventually assimilated by Scots.

Also, for someone who claims to not necessarily believe this, you sure seem to be going to lengths just to argue with me. I'm not even completely sure what you are trying to say anymore, what with ranting about sources and hypocrisy now.
 
When I say "hearsay from long dead historians" I was referring to the fact that the only historian I could find who said the Picts were descended from Basques said so over 100 years ago. Modern historians tend to say otherwise. Even then, the old dude based it on wild guesses and something he could not read. And he later changed his mind anyways.

Also, some people say the Viking Age was the start of the Early Middle Ages. Which started in very late 700's. Picts were still around. In fact, Vikings were one of the reasons the Picts were eventually assimilated by Scots.

Also, for someone who claims to not necessarily believe this, you sure seem to be going to lengths just to argue with me. I'm not even completely sure what you are trying to say anymore, what with ranting about sources and hypocrisy now.

I do love to argue! Particularly when people attempt to put words in my mouth. And I don't believe the Picts were Basque. That doesn't make it impossible for me to theorize about how it MIGHT have been possible. I don't cage myself like that.

And your early middle ages would fit in perfectly with the timeline I set up. I don't know where your argument lies in that regard. If they were still alive as a people in 610 barring some massive extinction event its very likely there were still some kicking around a century later.
 
I do love to argue! Particularly when people attempt to put words in my mouth. And I don't believe the Picts were Basque. That doesn't make it impossible for me to theorize about how it MIGHT have been possible. I don't cage myself like that.

And your early middle ages would fit in perfectly with the timeline I set up. I don't know where your argument lies in that regard. If they were still alive as a people in 610 barring some massive extinction event its very likely there were still some kicking around a century later.
1. Sure... but it is more like 99.9% likely they were Celts of some kind. Big "feasibility" you love to throw around. Especially considering how Emperor Qianlong has frequently made genetics-related posts that seem to show Celts and Basques are not as related as you think.

2. They were still kicking around three centuries later. There are records. They were not as mysterious as some people think.
 
1. Sure... but it is more like 99.9% likely they were Celts of some kind. Big "feasibility" you love to throw around. Especially considering how Emperor Qianlong has frequently made genetics-related posts that seem to show Celts and Basques are not as related as you think.

2. They were still kicking around three centuries later. There are records. They were not as mysterious as some people think.

99.9% likely they were Celts?

ehhh and....I never said CELTS and Basques were closely related :p. I said Welsh and Irish weren't as Celtic as everyone thought they were. Fairly large difference.
 
I am constantly amazed at the breath of Knowledge Some posters can pull out to booster their positions.

For there to be a pre Celt remnant hold out in the British Isles, they have to be;
big enuff to maintain their group Identity,
Isolated on poor territory, that no one else is really willing to Fight to take,
Able and willing to Assimilate any Individual or family that wanders by,
capable of running off Mid size groups, but willing to give lip service summition to very large groups.

From my limited knowledge of British Geography, North Scotland highlands , or some where in Wales.
 
99.9% likely they were Celts?

ehhh and....I never said CELTS and Basques were closely related :p. I said Welsh and Irish weren't as Celtic as everyone thought they were. Fairly large difference.
Uh, now you lost me. Not sure what you mean by "not as Celtic" and also not sure what Welsh and Irish have to do with whether or not Picts are descended from Basques. And yes, they probably are Celts. Seriously, saying something is "feasible" just doesn't cut it for a plausible theory or anything really. There needs to be some sort of evidence. I could say it's feasible that the Picts are Berber or Siberian in origin with the amount of basis you can say they are Basque.

If mimeyo wants the discussion to go back on topic, he has to rephrase the question. Does he want:

1. Pictish enclave survives?
2. Basque immigrant enclave survives?
3. Pre-Celtic enclave survives?
 
Top