Where does the Albanian language come from? [VIDEO]

[Hawk]

I13834 shows greater affinity to MKD_BA, but another MA sample shows as well, some less Slavic influenced Albanians from PostMDV and modern samples have some affinity toward MKD_BA as well, i mean less distance than others, IMO, the Slavic admixture have pulled Albanians to show less distance toward Hungarian samples, which gives an illusion of closeness.

 

[torzio]

What is disjointed is your attempt to place it along the Liburnian coastline where it isn't. It being in Albania is much more likely than it being that close to pro-Roman territory and there are real sources which exclude the northern island.

T. J. Winnifrith, Nobody's Kingdom: A History of Northern Albania:

Are you being so silly to say that the Liburnians did not exist ?

It is clearly a Liburnian island

The island of Rab was first mentioned in a Greek source Periplus of Pseudo-Scylax (360 BC) and then by other Greek and Roman geographists by the name Arba. That name belonged to the Liburnians, so far the oldest known inhabitants of the island. Arba was also the name of the Liburnian settlement in the modern city of Rab.

 

[torzio]

Perhaps, it's wiser to further split the Dardano-Thracian, into something more like Central Balkans and Eastern Balkans.

I think from some Croatian G25 results i have seen, they require more Illyrian-like input than Thracian-like. But for certain, Croatians and Bosnians have quite a lot of Slavic autosomal.

maybe Northern, Southern , Eastern , Western and Central Balkans would be ideal .................but then , the Greeks do not refer themselves as Balkan, so South-Balkan would end at?

 

[PaleoRevenge]

Albanians...because all these tumuli were reused during the medieval period. Do the reading, before you comment on stuff that you know nothing about.

https://archeorient.hypotheses.org/8247
Tumuli have been equally characteristic of the Epirote highlands already since the Bronze Age, and their use continues deep into the Iron Age, not to mention the Medieval graves found in some of the mounds, as in Albania just across the border.




Yes, a part Albanians can have intact profiles since the LBA/EIA which is exactly what Lazaridis and Reich showed

I know that you really don't like it, but radiocarbon dating isn't wrong. You certainly are wrong, so stop creating such arguments. Radiocarbon dating can't post-date samples by thousands of years because just because you don't like that medieval Albanians don't have high Slavic or East Med admixture.

This is before I had a working model.

I3834 is clearly ancient genome. It has no relation to the other mdv samples. You're a just plain illiterate. Someone mislabled or some low IQ individual such as yourself got employed by the Albanian state. The results are dead obvious.

It's not a "hodge podge" of anything and it's not Slavic or Levantine. You arbitrarily deciding that someone from medieval Albania is definitely Greek-speaking just shows your extreme bias and propaganda motive. Nobody with this profile was Greek in the early medieval era and she definitely didn't have Slavic origins:

Target: ALB_Mdv:I13839
Distance: 2.5834% / 0.02583367
67.2 TUR_Barcin_N
26.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
2.4 SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
2.0 GEO_CHG
2.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.4 Han

There are no Slavs with 65%+ Anatolian Farmer ancestry.

The individual picks up some Baltic, it is about 10% Slavic. I already explained what this individual is, you keep talking about ancient or modern Greeks. You got some serious IQ deficiency.

Paleo-Revenge is simply lying to everyone in this thread. I13834 isn't from the LBA but from medieval Albania just like the radiocarbon dating shows and Alb_PostMdv

You can't model this person as a Albanian.The problem is you're basically illeterate.

samples from Kukes don't have ... 34% MENA admixture or any other significant such admixture.

Compare Albanian early medieval and post-medieval averages with Levant_IA1 which supposedly gives 30% ancestry to ... Kukes!

Target: ALB_Mdv
Distance: 2.2292% / 0.02229232
63.6 TUR_Barcin_N
31.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
2.0 GEO_CHG
2.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
1.4 SRB_Iron_Gates_HG

Target: ALB_PostMdv
Distance: 2.2301% / 0.02230064
62.8 TUR_Barcin_N
33.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
2.0 SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
1.8 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.2 GEO_CHG

Target: Levant_Ashkelon_IA1
Distance: 2.3590% / 0.02359021
61.4 TUR_Barcin_N
15.4 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
11.4 GEO_CHG
10.2 Israel_Natufian
1.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara

Nobody in medieval or post-medieval Albania had any statistically significant, let 20-30% ancestry ... from MENA sources.

Look at my model, the fit is not very tight for the Kukes samples, because what's being picked up as Ashkelon is not the true source of this MENA admixture. But it clearly is there.

Target: ALB_Mdv
Distance: 2.2292% / 0.02229232
63.6 TUR_Barcin_N
31.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
2.0 GEO_CHG
2.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
1.4 SRB_Iron_Gates_HG

You should disclose your Alb mdv, because all three individuals are widly different from one another.

 

[Hawk]

maybe Northern, Southern , Eastern , Western and Central Balkans would be ideal .................but then , the Greeks do not refer themselves as Balkan, so South-Balkan would end at?

I see no reason why Greeks should not be included in Balkans, they are Southern Balkans.

 

[Archetype0ne]

People talking about dressing autosomal makeups like they are making a salad...

There was a time when I had patience to deal with this bull, but after a while I realized that the only thing these discussions have in common with genetics is how poorly endowed some people are, to leave their inferiority complexes unresolved for years.

So what now? People formulated viable hypotheses 10 years ago, haters hated. Five years ago people made viable G25 models, haters hated. Samples showed up last two years vindicating both hypotheses and G25 models, haters kept hating. Formal methods built in line with the initial G25 models and ancient samples, guess what, haters still hating. But most ridiculous of all, Lazaridis puts the matter to the sword(scrutinity), and haters still can't fathom it.

So what now? What is left to argue? How to dress our salads, Thracian or Illyrian? Nah, my Thracian salad has bigger olives (while secretly being insecure IRL). Whatever gets people through the day I guess.

 

[PaleoRevenge]

This sample is Germanic-Sarmatian, it's not Moesian and it's not even remotely close to Naissus as you claimed.

Maybe you are right about being entirely unrelated. However, all it's close matches are with EIA, IA and Roman Hungarian samples. It probably has some Dacian mixture, otherwise it would not hover around Hungarian matches.

The model doesn't work, all samples overlap each other so it creates overfitting. Your supposed "Dardano-Thracian" covers countless ethnic groups from all over Europe because it literally spans much of Europe. That's what produces the supposed "fit" and nothing more than that. If a model covers all of Europe, it's going to cover Albanians too.

All models with fits below 2% can be seen as largely equivalent and many of us here have posted plenty of them. Then you have to compare them with base components and see if they make sense. Your model with Kukes as 34% MENA makes 0 sense and it's absolutely false. You think that I can't post a model with around 1% distance/fit?

It's much more elegant model which is rooted in reality and the fact that ALB_Cinamak (used in the model) has yielded more than 1/3 of the haplogroups of all Albanian males. There's no room for propaganda and straight up lying like you're trying to do. It really won't work and in your case I would just stop because it's only going to get worse for you in newer studies.

Reveal your samples used, so I can replicate it.

A little irony in your comment, since you lump Dalmatians together as if they are all one, many of which carry MENA ancestry, while claiming I am doing all encompassing overlaps.

 

[PaleoRevenge]

People talking about dressing autosomal makeups like they are making a salad...

There was a time when I had patience to deal with this bull, but after a while I realized that the only thing these discussions have in common with genetics is how poorly endowed some people are, to leave their inferiority complexes unresolved for years.

So what now? People formulated viable hypotheses 10 years ago, haters hated. Five years ago people made viable G25 models, haters hated. Samples showed up last two years vindicating both hypotheses and G25 models, haters kept hating. Formal methods built in line with the initial G25 models and ancient samples, guess what, haters still hating. But most ridiculous of all, Lazaridis puts the matter to the sword(scrutinity), and haters still can't fathom it.

So what now? What is left to argue? How to dress our salads, Thracian or Illyrian? Nah, my Thracian salad has bigger olives (while secretly being insecure IRL). Whatever gets people through the day I guess.

Do you use Greek or Bulgarian feta cheese in your salad?

 

[Excine]

What do you think, does Himara have Bell Beaker ancestry while Macedonian Slavs and the real Alb averages do not?

Nobody has Bell Beaker ancestry ,stop creating models with sources which overlap each other and understand that averages work differently than individual samples! The Reich dataset of Alb_PostMdv itself doesn't get more than ~10% BGR:


Target: ALB_PostMdv
Distance: 1.4347% / 0.01434722
43.0 Albania_IA/early_medieval
31.8 Dalmatia_early_medieval
13.8 TUR_Marmara_Ilıpınar_Byz3
11.4 BGR_RomByz


Also, stop lying about stuff you have never read anything about. MNE_IA isn't even carbon dated, so stop comparing it to medieval Albanians to claim that the dates are wrong.

 

[PaleoRevenge]

Perhaps, it's wiser to further split the Dardano-Thracian, into something more like Central Balkans and Eastern Balkans.

I think from some Croatian G25 results i have seen, they require more Illyrian-like input than Thracian-like. But for certain, Croatians and Bosnians have quite a lot of Slavic autosomal.

You're right.

 

[Excine]

Maybe you are right about being entirely unrelated. However, all it's close matches are with EIA, IA and Roman Hungarian samples. It probably has some Dacian mixture, otherwise it would not hover around Hungarian matches.




Reveal your samples used, so I can replicate it.

A little irony in your comment, since you lump Dalmatians together as if they are all one, many of which carry MENA ancestry, while claiming I am doing all encompassing overlaps.

isn't it obvious from the names of the samples? If you want an accurate model, you can't separate east Med admixture from IA one because there can't be any model which treats IA + Roman + Slavic as contemporaneous sources.


Albania_IA/Early_Medieval:ALB_Çinamak_Anc,0.123904,0.153200,0.028823,-0.012459,0.029148,-0.005379,0.001175,0.000396,-0.000292,0.024107,0.002598,0.006573,-0.018307,-0.007648,-0.009190,-0.002462,0.010989,0.001412,0.004741,-0.008665,-0.005633,0.001767,-0.003363,0.006593,-0.005474
Albania_IA/Early_Medieval:ALB_Mdv,0.120273,0.150298,0.015839,-0.027993,0.019696,-0.007251,-0.001410,-0.003154,0.002591,0.022355,0.000487,0.005296,-0.014519,0.000092,-0.015246,-0.010077,0.009257,0.000718,0.008506,-0.013256,-0.010856,0.005276,-0.001356,-0.003896,-0.003393
BGR_RomByz,0.114961,0.180764,0.000754,-0.055556,0.023081,-0.020080,-0.006110,0.000462,0.017998,0.043737,-0.008607,0.001649,-0.024678,-0.017616,-0.021444,-0.007160,0.020079,-0.013302,-0.006913,-0.004752,-0.013227,0.016075,-0.006655,0.023377,-0.008981
Dalmatia_early_medieval:HRV_Trogir_Byz,0.115872,0.146033,0.004827,-0.027261,0.021604,-0.012550,0.000047,0.002031,0.001145,0.017057,-0.000357,0.006564,-0.010466,-0.003468,-0.008062,0.012092,0.017732,-0.001140,0.001333,-0.002676,-0.003344,0.001212,-0.000887,0.000530,-0.000120
KAZ_Hun-Sarmatian,0.0387,-0.3879325,0.0771215,-0.0224485,-0.062781,-0.038766,0.017861,0.018922,0.003988,0.007472,-0.0261445,-7.5e-05,-0.0052035,-0.001789,-0.0012215,-0.000862,-0.004498,-0.0022805,-0.002074,0.0047525,-0.016533,0.005317,-0.0146665,-0.0028915,0.003892
TUR_Marmara_Ilıpınar_Byz3,0.130897,0.133034,0.065242,0.037791,0.043085,0.008646,0.008225,0.019615,-0.005931,-0.016401,0.000650,-0.007343,0.008771,0.019955,-0.008143,0.003447,0.009257,-0.004434,-0.004651,-0.002626,-0.007736,-0.005193,0.011216,-0.007712,-0.007664


Check how the individual range is always much bigger than the average:


Target: ALB_PostMdv:I14687
Distance: 3.3526% / 0.03352616
42.0 Dalmatia_early_medieval
32.2 BGR_RomByz
13.4 TUR_Marmara_Ilıpınar_Byz3
12.4 Albania_IA/Early_Medieval


Target: ALB_PostMdv:I15707
Distance: 2.8572% / 0.02857242
67.2 Albania_IA/Early_Medieval
20.2 Dalmatia_early_medieval
12.2 BGR_RomByz
0.4 TUR_Marmara_Ilıpınar_Byz3


Target: ALB_PostMdv:I14685
Distance: 2.4024% / 0.02402450
48.0 Albania_IA/Early_Medieval
26.6 TUR_Marmara_Ilıpınar_Byz3
19.4 Dalmatia_early_medieval
6.0 BGR_RomByz


In averages, individual variability is lost and because over a large number of samples many more samples will score very low or no BGR_RomByz you get no RomByz ancestry. Still, 0% or 10% it doesn't matter at all in any model.

Target: ALB_PostMdv:I15707
Distance: 2.9086% / 0.02908619
59.2 MKD_BA
38.6 ALB_Cinamak_Anc
2.2 ARM_Noratus_Anc


I15707 in your model doesn't pick G25 Albanians at all but ancient sources. That's because of the very low admixture and in fact this happens with many samples. It's ludicrous that you even suggest that because you can't model a sample on G25 with an average that it's not part of, the radiocarbon dating is wrong. It's utterly ludicrous.

 

[PaleoRevenge]

Nobody has Bell Beaker ancestry ,stop creating models with sources which overlap each other and understand that averages work differently than individual samples! The Reich dataset of Alb_PostMdv itself doesn't get more than ~10% BGR:


Target: ALB_PostMdv
Distance: 1.4347% / 0.01434722
43.0 Albania_IA/early_medieval
31.8 Dalmatia_early_medieval
13.8 TUR_Marmara_Ilıpınar_Byz3
11.4 BGR_RomByz


Also, stop lying about stuff you have never read anything about. MNE_IA isn't even carbon dated, so stop comparing it to medieval Albanians to claim that the dates are wrong.

I averaged the Alb samples that are not from Brumi, they don't behave like Brumis set. They keep the same pattern, they show affinity to BGR:Thracian, while Brumis set ignore it like the plague.

 

[Hawk]

You're right.

Split it further, instead of just Croat source for Romanized Illyrian put an additional more Southern variant, the Middle Age Albanian sample, that should normalize the things further for Albanians especially. Also, i want to see how BGR_IA component you put reacts when you put a Greek proxy as well, somewhat from Epirus, do we have any Middle Age sample from Greece, or perhaps an Iron Age sample should be fine anyway?

 

[PaleoRevenge]

isn't it obvious from the names of the samples? If you want an accurate model, you can't separate east Med admixture from IA one because there can't be any model which treats IA + Roman + Slavic as contemporaneous sources.


Albania_IA/Early_Medieval:ALB_Çinamak_Anc,0.123904,0.153200,0.028823,-0.012459,0.029148,-0.005379,0.001175,0.000396,-0.000292,0.024107,0.002598,0.006573,-0.018307,-0.007648,-0.009190,-0.002462,0.010989,0.001412,0.004741,-0.008665,-0.005633,0.001767,-0.003363,0.006593,-0.005474
Albania_IA/Early_Medieval:ALB_Mdv,0.120273,0.150298,0.015839,-0.027993,0.019696,-0.007251,-0.001410,-0.003154,0.002591,0.022355,0.000487,0.005296,-0.014519,0.000092,-0.015246,-0.010077,0.009257,0.000718,0.008506,-0.013256,-0.010856,0.005276,-0.001356,-0.003896,-0.003393
BGR_RomByz,0.114961,0.180764,0.000754,-0.055556,0.023081,-0.020080,-0.006110,0.000462,0.017998,0.043737,-0.008607,0.001649,-0.024678,-0.017616,-0.021444,-0.007160,0.020079,-0.013302,-0.006913,-0.004752,-0.013227,0.016075,-0.006655,0.023377,-0.008981
Dalmatia_early_medieval:HRV_Trogir_Byz,0.115872,0.146033,0.004827,-0.027261,0.021604,-0.012550,0.000047,0.002031,0.001145,0.017057,-0.000357,0.006564,-0.010466,-0.003468,-0.008062,0.012092,0.017732,-0.001140,0.001333,-0.002676,-0.003344,0.001212,-0.000887,0.000530,-0.000120
KAZ_Hun-Sarmatian,0.0387,-0.3879325,0.0771215,-0.0224485,-0.062781,-0.038766,0.017861,0.018922,0.003988,0.007472,-0.0261445,-7.5e-05,-0.0052035,-0.001789,-0.0012215,-0.000862,-0.004498,-0.0022805,-0.002074,0.0047525,-0.016533,0.005317,-0.0146665,-0.0028915,0.003892
TUR_Marmara_Ilıpınar_Byz3,0.130897,0.133034,0.065242,0.037791,0.043085,0.008646,0.008225,0.019615,-0.005931,-0.016401,0.000650,-0.007343,0.008771,0.019955,-0.008143,0.003447,0.009257,-0.004434,-0.004651,-0.002626,-0.007736,-0.005193,0.011216,-0.007712,-0.007664


Check how the individual range is always much bigger than the average:


Target: ALB_PostMdv:I14687
Distance: 3.3526% / 0.03352616
42.0 Dalmatia_early_medieval
32.2 BGR_RomByz
13.4 TUR_Marmara_Ilıpınar_Byz3
12.4 Albania_IA/Early_Medieval


Target: ALB_PostMdv:I15707
Distance: 2.8572% / 0.02857242
67.2 Albania_IA/Early_Medieval
20.2 Dalmatia_early_medieval
12.2 BGR_RomByz
0.4 TUR_Marmara_Ilıpınar_Byz3


Target: ALB_PostMdv:I14685
Distance: 2.4024% / 0.02402450
48.0 Albania_IA/Early_Medieval
26.6 TUR_Marmara_Ilıpınar_Byz3
19.4 Dalmatia_early_medieval
6.0 BGR_RomByz


In averages, individual variability is lost and because over a large number of samples many more samples will score very low or no BGR_RomByz you get no RomByz ancestry. Still, 0% or 10% it doesn't matter at all in any model.

Target: ALB_PostMdv:I15707
Distance: 2.9086% / 0.02908619
59.2 MKD_BA
38.6 ALB_Cinamak_Anc
2.2 ARM_Noratus_Anc


I15707 in your model doesn't pick G25 Albanians at all but ancient sources. That's because of the very low admixture and in fact this happens with many samples. It's ludicrous that you even suggest that because you can't model a sample on G25 with an average that it's not part of, the radiocarbon dating is wrong. It's utterly ludicrous.

Individual or not, I3834 is not a modern genome. His closest match individually from memory was a Ohrid MKD sample, and pattern wise as I demonstrated, he is IA or LBA. Ohrid and Korca btw are right next to eachother. I'm certain I3834 is similar ancestry to the MKD group in Ohrid.

Your model.

Not a great fit. And you are hiding a lot of MENA admixture under the rug by combining I4622, I3839 and Byz Dalmatians into one big mixed soup.

 

[Archetype0ne]

I averaged the Alb samples that are not from Brumi, they don't behave like Brumis set. They keep the same pattern, they show affinity to BGR:Thracian, while Brumis set ignore it like the plague.

Target: Albanian
Distance: 1.4868% / 0.01486775
57.8 Albania_IA/Early_Medieval
26.6 Dalmatia_early_medieval
14.8 TUR_Marmara_Ilıpınar_Byz3
0.8 KAZ_Hun-Sarmatian

and also, take your meds after eating your salad (with Greek or Bulgarian feta, maybe both)

 

[enter_tain]

I don't understand why these people are so desperate to prove that Albanians are "Thracian". It's like a mental illness at this point.

The paper's authors pretty much stated Albanians have shifted very little autosomally since MBA. We have Bronze Age, Iron Age, Medieval, Post-Medieval, Modern samples. They plot very close to Southern Illyrians and far away from Thracians.

The only "missing" part is E-V13, which spread during the Roman Empire all over Europe, not just Albania. All the Balkans: Slavic, Greek, Latin speaking etc... have high amounts of E-V13. By numbers alone, there are millions of Italians, German, French men that have E-V13 too.

 

[PaleoRevenge]

Split it further, instead of just Croat source for Romanized Illyrian put an additional more Southern variant, the Middle Age Albanian sample, that should normalize the things further for Albanians especially. Also, i want to see how BGR_IA component you put reacts when you put a Greek proxy as well, somewhat from Epirus, do we have any Middle Age sample from Greece, or perhaps an Iron Age sample should be fine anyway?

Alb mdv sets are not relateble to one another. I4622 is heavy MENA, while I3839 will overlap with Thracian and MKD, plus carries MENA as well. And you already know my opinion of I3834. Combining all these 3, you are combining different populations into one set.

If the Alb mdv are truly as Exine believes, than all you need is Alb mdv and a Slavic source to model modern Albanians, you know continuity at all cost.

With I3834(which is really ancient)

Without I3834

Without I3834

Roman era Croatian act as better proxy for Illyrian.

 

[ihype02]

I find this whole idea that the dominance of E-V13 in Albanians as a founder effect matter not convincing at all. It can be true but the chances are slim.
There was a Thessalian-like outlier among the Illyrian samples and a Marche-like outlier. I recommend to not use those when modelling.

I think Bruzmi uses outliers to make E-V13 seem as a founder.

 

[PaleoRevenge]

When you remove Thracian.

 

[enter_tain]

I find this whole idea that the dominance of E-V13 in Albanians as a founder effect matter not convincing at all. It can be true but the chances are slim.
There was a Thessalian-like outlier among the Illyrian sample and an Marche-like outlier. I recommend to not use those when modelling.

Mate, there are like 6 Balkan countries with >= 20% E-V13. This is not an Albanian phenomenon.

Consider sheer population size for a second, and realize there are more Germans, Frenchmen and Italian with E-V13 than there are Albanians. This has nothing to do with "Thracians".

I made an entire thread showing that the "East Med" component that was spread with the Romans was largely carried by E-V13 people. We have 4 "East Med" E-V13s, 2 in Serbia, 2 in Turkey, during Byzantine times.

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/42852-E-V13-men-as-carriers-of-Roman-Imperial-Admixture

Literally all those E-V13s in Serbia are either half "East Med"/Aegean, or fully "Near Eastern".