Y-DNA of Arbereshe vs Albanians vs Southern Italians

[Hauteville]

Y-DNA distribution in the Table S4:

Arbereshe Calabresi 106 samples
E-V12 2.83
E-V13 16.98
E-V22 0.94
E-M123 7.55
G-P15 6.60
G-P15* 4.72
G-U8 1.89
I-M253 5.66
I-M253* 1.89
I-L22 3.77
I-P215 5.66
I-M26 1.89
I-M223 14.15
J-M267 2.83
J-M172 2.83
J-M410 1.89
J-L27 1.89
J-M67 0.94
J-M92 0.94
J-M12 3.77
K-M9 0.94
R-SRY10831.2 9.43
R-M17 9.43
R-M269 8.49
R-M269* 8.49
R-P312 0.94
R-U152 0.94
R-U152* 0.94
R-L2 3.77


Arbereshe Siciliani 44 samples
E-V13 4.55
E-M81 2.27
E-M123 18.18
G-P15 2.27
G-P15 2.27
I-M253 4.55
I-M253* 4.55
I-P215 20.45
I-M26 2.27
J-M410 4.55
J-L27 4.55
J-M67 9.09
K-M9 2.27

 

[Angela]

If someone is to go by the Anatolian hypothesis, then all IE languages have origin somewhere in Anatolia.

The Kurgan hypothesis has shown that is the more accepted one now, even ancient dna supports this, but lets assume that the Anatolian hypothesis is the correct one (the one you're blabbering about). It looks like you havent done your research on this either, but let me school you again.

This hypothesis states that languages spread with farming starting 9000 ybp from Anatolia. So who were these farmers who stayed in the Balkans? We know it is E-V13 and J2b because we actually have ancient DNA of these from ~7000 ybp. According to the Anatolian hypothesis, Albanian is the first language to emerge in the southern Balkans around 5000 ybp, even before Greek look closely at this model of this hypothesis and you will see for yourself:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KdQwalCPNAs

As for E-V13 goes I was the one who gave you that link and somehow your mind cannot comprehend how those TMRCAs are calculated. I already explained this to you here:


BTW, I will not respond to you or anyone else if you keep bringing the same nonsense (cherry picking things to support your propaganda)...

I think that may be the best option. One can only reason with the reasonable.

 

[Garrick]

LOL, this is gennig ridiculous. And I thought that there were some serious people here. Damn...

Ike, you can be right, but what is important here is hard evidence.

Surely, I argue based in facts. I can't give all scientific studies here because reasons which I explain.

But it is proved that E-V13 had bottleneck and present day clades and subclades are young.

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2011-11/1321209732

There are 4 mutations between them, which (for the mutation rate constant for this 13 marker haplotype of 0.0305 mutation/haplotype/25 years) separates the 7,000 ybp fellow and the common ancestor of the current V13 by 3750 years. Since a common ancestor of the current V13 lived 3200-3500 years ago, this separation is just about right (3200/3500 + 3750 = 6950-7250 years).


Four important conclusions follow from it:


1) The 7,000 ybp excavated fellow was NOT a common ancestor of our contemporary V13 folks. It has a 4-mutation-off haplotype, it is distant by 3750 years, and our contemporary V13 are NOT his descendants.


2) However, the time is right, and calculations confirm the 7,000 years haplotype in terms that can be 7,000 year old.


3) Our calculations support the excavated haplotype.


4) E-V13 went through a population bottleneck before 3500 ybp, therefore our contemporary E-V13 descended from a man who survived that bottleneck and continued the chain of V13 generations from ~ 3500 ybp to the prsent time.

 

[Angela]

@Angela

I would expand my question,

Minoan culture is full of J2a,
we determing it as a Greco-Anatolian gene
we connect expand of J2a with Greek-colonization
but is it Greek? or is it Pelasgian?
so if I say that J2a is Greek means IE means that spoke IE at 3500 BC
and homeland of IE is somewhere in West asia from minor Asia to middle East
but if I say Pelasgian, means not IE

so in such case
if I say E-V13 is Albanian marker then
E-V13 spoke IE before 3500 BC and is IE Hg
cause Albanian lang is IE so Albanians came from either Yamnaa, either Zagros mountains and souroundings,
so how come we can connect pre IE hg with IE Hg?
it is like we admit Otzi spoke IE cause he lived in Swiss and G2a3b as mark of IE entered before Yamnaa in Alps,
in such case all Kurgan hypothesis connection with IE is wrong

Yetos, I'm going to give this one more try with you. A lot of the details will be missing, but this is just very broad parameters.

Y Dna doesn't have a nationality attached to it, nor a language, or, let's say, those associations can change with time. E-V13 is NOT an Albanian marker. It is a marker for a group of farmers who, we now know, were present in the Balkans at the LATEST 7,000 years ago. (If Maciamo is right, its father E-M78 might have been in Greece or the Balkans since the Mesolithic thousands of years earlier.)

It's irrelevant what language they spoke.

Everyone in the Balkans today, no matter whether they are Albanian or Serbian or Greek or Bulgarian is partly descended from those people. Now, there were other yDna lineages present before them, and others after them, like R1b and R1a, for example. All these people mixed, but some lineages are higher in certain groups than in others, maybe just because of founder effect.

So, no one group OWNS E-V13. It was a farmer haplogroup in Greece and the Balkans. That's it. Serbians who carry E-V13, and Greeks who carry E-V13, and anyone else in the Balkans who carries E-13 can claim descent from those people. In fact, even Greeks and Serbs and others who don't carry E-V13 are descended from them. Let's take as an example a Greek who carries yDna J2a. What was his mother's father's y line? Could it have been E-V13? What about all the y lines on that whole side of his family. Or, what about the y line of the father's mother's father? Do you see? Their y chromosome didn't get passed on, but their autosomal dna did get passed on to some degree.

Now, as to TMRCA. Let's imagine that a man lives in the Balkans 5000 BC or 7,000 years ago. Let's assume he carried "original" E-V13. He had, to just pick a number, 8 sons. In the first generation, they all had sons. In the next generation, one son's line "daughtered out". Then more line's "daughtered out" just by chance in succeeding generations. The y lines that survived had accumulated some additional mutations. What we wind up with is a situation where all the E-V13 that's in the Balkans today descends from the one line that survived to 4400 years ago. That line is still descended from the 7,000 year old line. New people didn't suddenly parachute in. The line remaining is still descended from the prior group.

Mathbionerd usually explains things pretty clearly. Give his site a try...
http://mathbionerd.blogspot.com/2013/08/y-and-mtdna-are-not-adam-and-eve-part-2.html

 

[Trojet]

There are 4 mutations between them, which (for the mutation rate constant for this 13 marker haplotype of 0.0305 mutation/haplotype/25 years) separates the 7,000 ybp fellow and the common ancestor of the current V13 by 3750 years. Since a common ancestor of the current V13 lived 3200-3500 years ago, this separation is just about right (3200/3500 + 3750 = 6950-7250 years).

Again, you are cherry picking things to support your anti Albanian propaganda.

You are jumping way off topic and turning this thread into an E-V13 debate, but I need to correct you on this one too.

That discussion is about the Spain E-V13 sample that was 7000 ybp. Look at the date, November 2011.

Date: Saturday, November 12, 2011, 7:11 PM

It has nothing to do with the two recently found samples in western Hungary from ~6800 years ago. Again their TMRCAs are based on only 13 marker Y STRs of the Spain E-V13 sample, which I explained to you that the method is very misleading. For better TMRCAs you need at least 37 markers, or better yet NGS samples such as BigY that yfull implements on their tree (btw. no Albanian samples on yfull yet, $500 test).

 

[Angela]

Ike, you can be right, but what is important here is hard evidence.

Surely, I argue based in facts. I can't give all scientific studies here because reasons which I explain.

But it is proved that E-V13 had bottleneck and present day clades and subclades are young.

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2011-11/1321209732

There are 4 mutations between them, which (for the mutation rate constant for this 13 marker haplotype of 0.0305 mutation/haplotype/25 years) separates the 7,000 ybp fellow and the common ancestor of the current V13 by 3750 years. Since a common ancestor of the current V13 lived 3200-3500 years ago, this separation is just about right (3200/3500 + 3750 = 6950-7250 years).


Four important conclusions follow from it:


1) The 7,000 ybp excavated fellow was NOT a common ancestor of our contemporary V13 folks. It has a 4-mutation-off haplotype, it is distant by 3750 years, and our contemporary V13 are NOT his descendants.


2) However, the time is right, and calculations confirm the 7,000 years haplotype in terms that can be 7,000 year old.


3) Our calculations support the excavated haplotype.


4) E-V13 went through a population bottleneck before 3500 ybp, therefore our contemporary E-V13 descended from a man who survived that bottleneck and continued the chain of V13 generations from ~ 3500 ybp to the prsent time.

So? It's irrelevant. I'm afraid you're very confused as to what TMRCA means. See post #64.

 

[Trojet]

So, no one group OWNS E-V13. It was a farmer haplogroup in Greece and the Balkans. That's it. Serbians who carry E-V13, and Greeks who carry E-V13, and anyone else in the Balkans who carries E-13 can claim descent from those people. In fact, even Greeks and Serbs and others who don't carry E-V13 are descended from them. Let's take as an example a Greek who carries yDna J2a. What was his mother's father's y line? Could it have been E-V13? What about all the y lines on that whole side of his family. Or, what about the y line of the father's mother's father? Do you see? Their y chromosome didn't get passed on, but their autosomal dna did get passed on to some degree.

Now, as to TMRCA. Let's imagine that a man lives in the Balkans 5000 BC or 7,000 years ago. Let's assume he carried "original" E-V13. He had, to just pick a number, 8 sons. In the first generation, they all had sons. In the next generation, one son's line "daughtered out". Then more line's "daughtered out" just by chance in succeeding generations. The y lines that survived had accumulated some additional mutations. What we wind up with is a situation where all the E-V13 that's in the Balkans today descends from the one line that survived to 4400 years ago. That line is still descended from the 7,000 year old line. New people didn't suddenly parachute in. The line remaining is still descended from the prior group.

Thank you Spot on. I wonder what else they will cherry pick to support their anti Albanian propaganda.

 

[Fluffy]

Thank you Spot on. I wonder what else they will cherry pick to support their anti Albanian propaganda.

There is no anti-Albanian propaganda.....

 

[Trojet]

There is no anti-Albanian propaganda.....

You must have not read the whole thread. One example:

We still don't have a prof of a single Albanians person on Balkan just 1000 years ago. Why do we tolerate this nonsense?

 

[Ike]

So, no one group OWNS E-V13. It was a farmer haplogroup in Greece and the Balkans. That's it. Serbians who carry E-V13, and Greeks who carry E-V13, and anyone else in the Balkans who carries E-13 can claim descent from those people. In fact, even Greeks and Serbs and others who don't carry E-V13 are descended from them.

Wrong. It was proven a page ago that they all spoke Albanian before Greeks and Slavs came...

 

[Милан М.]

To which language Albanian is akin the most?I heard Lithuanian,joke aside I think Balto-Slavic-Albanian long ago split and now we have this languages.

 

[Trojet]

To which language Albanian is akin the most?I heard Lithuanian,joke aside I think Balto-Slavic-Albanian long ago split and now we have this languages.

Good question. No proven "current language" relative. It has been tried to be linked with Balto-Slavic, Germanic, Greek, Indic, etc in the past, but without much success. Obviously it is an Indo European language just like all those mentioned, so there is some connection. However, it is simply listed as a separate branch on the IE language tree with no relative.

 

[Милан М.]

Good question. No proven "current language" relative. It has been tried to be linked with Balto-Slavic, Germanic, Greek, Indic, etc in the past, but without much success. Obviously it is an Indo European language just like all those mentioned, so there is some connection. However, it is simply listed as a separate branch on the IE language tree with no relative.

 

[Ike]

You must have not read the whole thread. One example:

OK, so how many times do we have to ask for proofs?

 

[Ike]

Ike, you can be right, but what is important here is hard evidence.

Surely, I argue based in facts. I can't give all scientific studies here because reasons which I explain.

But it is proved that E-V13 had bottleneck and present day clades and subclades are young.

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2011-11/1321209732

There are 4 mutations between them, which (for the mutation rate constant for this 13 marker haplotype of 0.0305 mutation/haplotype/25 years) separates the 7,000 ybp fellow and the common ancestor of the current V13 by 3750 years. Since a common ancestor of the current V13 lived 3200-3500 years ago, this separation is just about right (3200/3500 + 3750 = 6950-7250 years).


Four important conclusions follow from it:


1) The 7,000 ybp excavated fellow was NOT a common ancestor of our contemporary V13 folks. It has a 4-mutation-off haplotype, it is distant by 3750 years, and our contemporary V13 are NOT his descendants.


2) However, the time is right, and calculations confirm the 7,000 years haplotype in terms that can be 7,000 year old.


3) Our calculations support the excavated haplotype.


4) E-V13 went through a population bottleneck before 3500 ybp, therefore our contemporary E-V13 descended from a man who survived that bottleneck and continued the chain of V13 generations from ~ 3500 ybp to the prsent time.

Disregarding all calculation times, do we have a single ancient E-V13 sample from Balkans or Anatolia?

 

[Trojet]

We still don't have a prof of a single Albanians person on Balkan just 1000 years ago. Why do we tolerate this nonsense?

"The name Illyria gradually gave way to the name, first mentioned in the 2nd century ce by the geographer Ptolemy of Alexandria, the Albanoi tribe, which inhabited what is now central Albania. From a single tribe the name spread to include the rest of the country as Arbëri and, finally, Albania.
http://www.britannica.com/topic/Albanoi

 

[Ike]

"The name Illyria gradually gave way to the name, first mentioned in the 2nd century ce by the geographer Ptolemy of Alexandria, the Albanoi tribe, which inhabited what is now central Albania. From a single tribe the name spread to include the rest of the country as Arbëri and, finally, Albania."
http://www.britannica.com/topic/Albanoi

How is that proof of anything? That is just 1 of at least 100 tribal names in the area. It means nothing in Albanian language. It is believed to be of Celtic origin, and there is no proof of continuity. Which one of these are supposed to be speaking Proto-Albanian?

 

[Sile]

"The name Illyria gradually gave way to the name, first mentioned in the 2nd century ce by the geographer Ptolemy of Alexandria, the Albanoi tribe, which inhabited what is now central Albania. From a single tribe the name spread to include the rest of the country as Arbëri and, finally, Albania."
http://www.britannica.com/topic/Albanoi

here we go again, fabrication of other areas indigenous people and claiming as one own. the albanoi was FIRST used in Roman literature in 150AD

below is the biggest group of indigenous illyrians, and they are from what I already stated, modern croatia and Bosnia
Daesitiates or Daezitiates were an Illyrian tribe that lived in what is today Bosnia and Herzegovina during the time of the Roman Republic. Along with the Maezaei, the Daesitiates belonged to the Pannonians.^[88] They were prominent from the end of the 4th century BC up until the beginning of the 3rd century AD. Evidence of their daily activities can be found in literary sources, as well as in the rich material finds that belong to the autochthonous Middle-Bosnian cultural group. Because the Daesitiates were present during Roman rule in the western Balkans, their name can be found in many inscriptions and historical works of ancient writers. During the 19th century, scientific interest in the Daesitiates materialized whereby research was focused in parts of Upper Bosnia. However, all research efforts have yet to provide a complete analysis of the Daesitiates. The Daesitiates were unquestionably one of the main components of the Illyrian ethno-cultural complex that stretched from the southern Adriatic to the Danube in the north. They specifically lived in the centre of the Illyrian West-Balkan and Pannonian world. The capital of the tribe was the modern day town of Breza located in Bosnia.

They last 700 years and the remnants of the 4 year illyrian revolt against Rome saw them flee into southern albania ( apollonia to be exact )

next the dalmatians
Archaeology and onomastic shows that the Delmatae were akin to eastern Illyrians and northern Pannonii.^[5] The tribe was subject to Celtic influences.^[6][7]


The Liburnians are one of the oldest Illyrian group IF they are still classified Illyrian, they lived in the northern adriatic coast
In the early historical sources from the 8th century BC, the Liburnians were recorded by name or as separate ethnic groups; and as early as the 6th century BC, Hecateus noted that the Liburnians were also composed of Caulici, Mentores, Syopii and Hythmitae, probably narrow tribal communities.

to conclude the longest reign of any Illyrian group where the ones I mentioned above Daesitiates, they fought in the great illyrain revolt against Rome which lastest 4 years, their lands where found the bulk of the illyrian archeology and they where always mentioned in Roman literature for this or that

 

[Trojet]

here we go again, fabrication of other areas indigenous people and claiming as one own. the albanoi was FIRST used in Roman literature in 150AD

below is the biggest group of indigenous illyrians, and they are from what I already stated, modern croatia and Bosnia

Look who joined the recycling of the same old anti Albanian propaganda over and over, VETTOR. Oops my bad you are known as Sile on this forum.

The real facts are in front of your eyes, on the quotation and the link on the bottom where you quoted me. All that comes from BRITTANICA ENCYCLOPEDIA, not from me. Obviously, you didn't even bother to read.

BTW, here is you VETTOR, or as you are known here SILE recycling the same propaganda on a different forum where I schooled you (BTW, I have the same user name there TROJET). Will not waste my time to school you here too:

Albanians as per Roman scribes and surveyors where not around modern Albania until probably first mentioned by Romans in 150AD. The huge numbers 68% means a one off migration IMO ( especially since they where never recorded)

I can only see the indigenous pre- Bosnian populace has the major I2a ( ydna ) marker

And the link:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3821-Albanian-DNA-Project/page2

 

[Ike]

So we should trust it just because it says Encyclopedia Britannica?! This is just a same old British political crap...
For the 5th time - restrain yourself from various interpretations but link us the facts. Are you aware of that concept?