Thanks for clarification!
-
Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.
Where does the Albanian language come from? [VIDEO]
- Thread starter Johane Derite
- Start date
Johane Derite
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,968
- Reaction score
- 1,062
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Albanian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- E-V13>Z5018>FGC33625
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U1a1a
This is a really great way to put it that makes the situation clear even for outsiders.
Something I would add is that you also touched upon something very important for the Proto-Albanian linguistic question by laying out the phylogenetic diversity differential for Albanian paternities.
Namely the stark contrast between R1b-Z2705 and E-V13 and what it points to.
Linguists like Matzinger divide Proto-Albanian into Early Proto-Albanian (~Late Bronze Age - Roman conquest of Balkans) and Late Proto-Albanian (Roman Conquest of Balkans - Tosk/Gheg split).
Some linguists have different naming systems (i.e. the DPEWA calls what Matzinger called "Early Proto-Albanian" Pre-Proto-Albanian, and what he calls "Late Proto-Albanian" simply Proto-Albanian), so it is very important to be mindful of which linguist you are referring to when using which term lest you get things muddled up (the wiki on proto-Albanian is extremely confused because they're mixing different linguists' works into one hodge podge when there isn't any sort of standardised term.
So anyway, back to what I believe Riverman's post gives us insight into.
Namely, that R1b-Z2705 would seem to have no relevance for Albanians for the Early Proto-Albanian stage of its language (or Pre-Proto-Albanian in the DPEWA naming system).
Z2705 seems to have had a very important role in the Late-Proto-Albanian -> Common Albanian stage of the Albanian language, but the evidence among Albanians suggests that before that it wasn't a relevant part of the Albanoid linguistic group at all. This means R1b-CTS1450 entirely can also potentially be disregarded ultimately as not having played any relevant role in Albanoid or Early-Proto-Albanian.
E-V13 is the only genuine contender to be the ancestor group from which the Early-Proto-Albanian language comes from.
The arguments about E-V13's later "patchiness" don't hold up because the diversity is too high.
Once a certain diversity threshold or critical mass is reached for a haplogroup, such "patchiness" can be disregarded, given that since they are all of the same haplogroup anyway, it actually points to a huge diversity and demographic reality that had lost branches in between them, and not multiple sporadic migrations of singleton branches. That is always a possibility to be fair, but the probability of that is very low when taking into account the total lacking in any other contenders to carry an entire language group, namely, Albanian.
There is a strange irony in that J2b-L283, R1b-Z2705, and R1b-PF7563 are treated as if they are one haplogroup, to spoof and pump up their lacking diversity, whereas E-V13 is treated as if it is 19 different haplogroups, to undermine the huge diversity that points to an even bigger diversity and demographic size in antiquity.
I cant find where you did some rough calculation about potential clan sizes or something and you had some numbers like 380 vs 80 vs 20 or something, I would appreciate if you could repost it here.
One thing I personally disagree with is that I think the Dardani are still possible as a source, but this is only in the scenario that the true Dardani were the Belegis-Gava II channelled ware that overtook Brnjica and made it into Albania even in LBA. This scenario might explain also the lack of IBD sharing that is observed between Albs and the Akbari set, despite having E-V13 branches that are very closely related. Dardani as one Belegis-Gava II offshoot in the LBA that was separate from the Dacians proper, but paternally/linguistically related in Late Bronze age.
I made a new post about how the Northern branches of E-V13 are extremely likely to be from Dacians (late): https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...ity-in-transylvania.45010/page-35#post-693710
The timing is just ideal in every respect with this big surge of Northern E-V13 throughout the Empire and especially in the Balkans between 100-200 AD.
Another point which can be made about this is that we have throughout Europe founder branches which likely descend from this resettlement of the Dacians, but for many these branches we have no ancient DNA sample. At the same time even those autosomally nearly identical e.g. E-FGC11451 from Akbari sometimes don't share at all!
It is the same pattern as it is with Kapitan Andreevo samples, probably even more extreme. Many share rather indirectly, which points to them being related, deeply, but not coming from the same clan, likely not even the same tribe. Whenever discussing E-V13 and Albanian IBD matching, that is something we must always keep in mind: The Daco-Thracian population was both huge, old and seem to have practised exogamy and exchange between themselves.
This also means, unless you hit the DIRECT ancestral tribe and group, you don't get any high IBD matches. Even if they had the same PROVEN paternal ancestor say 800 BC. They just weren't endogamous in small groups, or most of them weren't, they can't be compared with Slavs at all.
At the same time we get those homogeneous pure Daco-Thracian profile for the Northern branches in particular over and over and over again. If not, its often wildly mixed, you just see they are a completely different people. Also, where are all the E-S2979 before the later Roman period, before this supposed resettlement program and migration period movements?
If they lived further South than the core of say E-CTS9320, I struggle with the absence in the South.
It really looks to me, at this point, like they all came down after the Dacian defeat. This would really explain, if the Romans did this massive population exchange, why there was this huge surge of E-V13 in many provinces and especially the Balkans.
The timing is just ideal in every respect with this big surge of Northern E-V13 throughout the Empire and especially in the Balkans between 100-200 AD.
Another point which can be made about this is that we have throughout Europe founder branches which likely descend from this resettlement of the Dacians, but for many these branches we have no ancient DNA sample. At the same time even those autosomally nearly identical e.g. E-FGC11451 from Akbari sometimes don't share at all!
It is the same pattern as it is with Kapitan Andreevo samples, probably even more extreme. Many share rather indirectly, which points to them being related, deeply, but not coming from the same clan, likely not even the same tribe. Whenever discussing E-V13 and Albanian IBD matching, that is something we must always keep in mind: The Daco-Thracian population was both huge, old and seem to have practised exogamy and exchange between themselves.
This also means, unless you hit the DIRECT ancestral tribe and group, you don't get any high IBD matches. Even if they had the same PROVEN paternal ancestor say 800 BC. They just weren't endogamous in small groups, or most of them weren't, they can't be compared with Slavs at all.
At the same time we get those homogeneous pure Daco-Thracian profile for the Northern branches in particular over and over and over again. If not, its often wildly mixed, you just see they are a completely different people. Also, where are all the E-S2979 before the later Roman period, before this supposed resettlement program and migration period movements?
If they lived further South than the core of say E-CTS9320, I struggle with the absence in the South.
It really looks to me, at this point, like they all came down after the Dacian defeat. This would really explain, if the Romans did this massive population exchange, why there was this huge surge of E-V13 in many provinces and especially the Balkans.
The issue you run into when you theorize like Riverman, V13 vs L283, let’s say for Z5018 clades, you have to find a compact population that carried most of those clades to prove your theory, because you are missing over 2000 year gap between when those clades started diversifying and expanding with Albs post (700AD). Most actually only started really moving after 800AD. Not to forget that what you are saying overall the whole clade needs to be early Proto Albanian. Add to that the massive diversity they carry outside of the Albanian context.
Johane Derite
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,968
- Reaction score
- 1,062
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Albanian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- E-V13>Z5018>FGC33625
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U1a1a
I'm in agreement that the akbari E-V13s have definitely changed the landscape for sure. There is no going back now on many fronts.
My reasoning so far is as follows:
Belegis-gava II channelled ware spread all over Dardania and into Albania in Late Bronze Age. That's one huge E-v13 impulse candidate.
There is then the secondary impulse of Basarabi into Dardania the Early Iron Age.
I think even according to your model we should expect the early belegis-gava II to have been northern E-V13 branches correct?
Its from this group that the daco-carpic people themselves would have also gotten their Z5018 branches, is this not correct to say?
(My line of thinking is from trying to synthesise these results with linguistic and archaeological data relevant to Albanian specifically.)
So, my speculation is that the LBA Belegis-Gava II that settled Dardania and pushed Brnjica south were more northern Z5018 dominant, and then the second Basarabi impulse had a bit more "central" Z5017, that would have been more present among Triballi, Bessi of Remesiana/Western Stara Planina, than among Dardani proper.
This doesn't mean I think your scenario didn't happen, since resettling of Daco-Carpic peoples is attested epigraphically and historically so it definitely happened, and I think your reasoning with the offshoots in europe is fair enough.
But in the case of Albanian specifically, since E-V13 tends to show sufficient demography, diversity, and with structure(tending towards z5018), I think it is related to the languages history, particulary the Albanoid -> LBA/EIA stages.
This doesn't mean that necessarily every single Albanian ev13 branch is dardani and cannot have been from a daco-carpic migrant, probably they left a trace in us too, maybe the berisha branch, my own, has that origin, but for time being, subject to change with new data, I tend to this scenario.
As for why we dont have z5018 if it was in Dardani, i think if we had any LBA -EIA studies of dardania to track these key moments when channelled ware arrived and pushed brnjica out then we could test my theory to see if it has any merit. I dont think we can say yet for sure without dardanian samples given that they are belegis gava ii derived after all.
The issue here is that the Akbari time transect sample set from somewhere in the Danubian Balkan provinces I would say (likely Northern Serbia) for 1800-1600 BP brought us that population. You find lots of different mainly E-Z5018 branches, but also others, including E-Z5017/CTS9320. Most notably, they share little in general, some even under E-FGC11451 share nothing, but you have a lot of, sometimes even higher, "cross sharing".
Since they seem to have arrived around 100-200 AD, you can assume they brought some of these relationships with them. E.g. there are cross relationships on a higher level between E-FGC11451 and E-L241.
I used all E-V13 from 1800 to 1700 BP and all Thracian-like females from 1800 BP for this run - minimal sharing at 7 cM:
The first thing to note is that this is quite evidently an ethnically related group of people.
Secondly most of the outliers without IBD shairng, are, regardless of haplogroup, also outliers by their position on the PCA. This applies e.g. for an E-FGC11457 individual which appears to have very slight South Thracian-Greek ancestry and is therefore more likely to stem from a lineage which lived in the Romanosphere for longer.
The biggest PCA and IBD outliers (even if enlarging the comparison) are those which are autosomal outliers in a very foreign direction (Northern Europe, steppe, Anatolia-Levante) and belong to non-E-Z5018 branches like E-BY5022 and E-MF179182.
This pattern STRONGLY suggests that these lineages were coming from a very large Northern Thracian-Dacian population, probably different but tribes which were in contact still.
I don't think this is by chance or arbitrary at all. The core of this set is basically pure Daco-Thracian, by around 100-300 AD and only starts to mix with various other groups in situ, presumably also because they were strongly male biased, like the predominantely Daco-Thracian E-V13 group is 18 males vs. just about 5 females. So they took mostly local Sarmatian-Celtic and Celtic wives.
If you look at the sharing network, it is way stronger overall, especially between the core groups like E-FGC11451 and E-L241, than it is among Kapitan Andreevo samples or any other Thracian group. This is therefore the representation of an ethnic Dacian tribal group, whether they are from North or South of the Danube.
And they have all the main branches we see in modern Albanians too. It is just not the EXACT subbranches. Which I think can be largely attributed to this bunch being resettled to the Danubian provinces, rather, than further South. And there is also the fact that even 2-3 centuries after this resettlement, still tends of thousands of Daco-Carpi were resettled in the Balkans in ethnic communities even, tens of thousands of people, like the sources confirm. They also confirm that still by 500 AD they had an ethnic Dacian character. This means we deal with ethnic Dacian communities, in my opinion with a similar profile to those in the Akbari set, up to about 500 AD minimum, if not longer.
Johane Derite
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,968
- Reaction score
- 1,062
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Albanian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- E-V13>Z5018>FGC33625
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U1a1a
Like I said the Akbari Ev13s change everything, and this is a quantum leap in our understanding.The issue here is that the Akbari time transect sample set from somewhere in the Danubian Balkan provinces I would say (likely Northern Serbia) for 1800-1600 BP brought us that population. You find lots of different mainly E-Z5018 branches, but also others, including E-Z5017/CTS9320. Most notably, they share little in general, some even under E-FGC11451 share nothing, but you have a lot of, sometimes even higher, "cross sharing".
Since they seem to have arrived around 100-200 AD, you can assume they brought some of these relationships with them. E.g. there are cross relationships on a higher level between E-FGC11451 and E-L241.
I used all E-V13 from 1800 to 1700 BP and all Thracian-like females from 1800 BP for this run - minimal sharing at 7 cM:
The first thing to note is that this is quite evidently an ethnically related group of people.
Secondly most of the outliers without IBD shairng, are, regardless of haplogroup, also outliers by their position on the PCA. This applies e.g. for an E-FGC11457 individual which appears to have very slight South Thracian-Greek ancestry and is therefore more likely to stem from a lineage which lived in the Romanosphere for longer.
The biggest PCA and IBD outliers (even if enlarging the comparison) are those which are autosomal outliers in a very foreign direction (Northern Europe, steppe, Anatolia-Levante) and belong to non-E-Z5018 branches like E-BY5022 and E-MF179182.
This pattern STRONGLY suggests that these lineages were coming from a very large Northern Thracian-Dacian population, probably different but tribes which were in contact still.
I don't think this is by chance or arbitrary at all. The core of this set is basically pure Daco-Thracian, by around 100-300 AD and only starts to mix with various other groups in situ, presumably also because they were strongly male biased, like the predominantely Daco-Thracian E-V13 group is 18 males vs. just about 5 females. So they took mostly local Sarmatian-Celtic and Celtic wives.
If you look at the sharing network, it is way stronger overall, especially between the core groups like E-FGC11451 and E-L241, than it is among Kapitan Andreevo samples or any other Thracian group. This is therefore the representation of an ethnic Dacian tribal group, whether they are from North or South of the Danube.
And they have all the main branches we see in modern Albanians too. It is just not the EXACT subbranches. Which I think can be largely attributed to this bunch being resettled to the Danubian provinces, rather, than further South. And there is also the fact that even 2-3 centuries after this resettlement, still tends of thousands of Daco-Carpi were resettled in the Balkans in ethnic communities even, tens of thousands of people, like the sources confirm. They also confirm that still by 500 AD they had an ethnic Dacian character. This means we deal with ethnic Dacian communities, in my opinion with a similar profile to those in the Akbari set, up to about 500 AD minimum, if not longer.
The Albanian relationship to these Ev13 samples is undeniable obviously, only reason im not outright just accepting and trying to reason for the dardani route is to synthesise with some linguistic data of Albanian.
There are only two paths for Albanian Ev13->
Belegis Gava II -> Dardani -> Albanian
Belegis Gava II -> Daco-Carpi -> Albanian
Genetically your scenario is more strongly supported by the evidence.
Only reason im skewing for dardani route is to try synthesise linguistic factors and lack of ibd sharing.
If we end up getting ibd sharing akso and your endogamy theory is supported then it will skew even more in your favour that all of Albanian ev13 is daco-carpi derived.
I thought about many of these things too, but think that Belegis into Basarabi was likely dominated by E-Z5017/CTS9320 with little E-Z5018. One of the main reasons I think this is the case is the curious absence of E-Z5018 and especially main E-S2979 branches from the ancient DNA record anywhere South of the Danube before the supposed resettlements.
We have now multiple E-Z5017 samples from the Greco-Mediterreanean sphere, some of which being highly likely from South Pannonia and Central Serbia, explaining e.g. the Encrusted Pottery-related admixture and West Balkan PCA shift in the Himera individuals.
I therefore wouldn't wonder about a non-significant presence of E-Z5017/CTS9320, in or around Dardania, since they obviously made it both to the West (North Italy, Pannonia-Serbia) and the South (Greece) and the East (Ukraine-Black Sea). But note the large scale absence of E-Z5018 main branches, especially from anything South of the Danube.
And again, in this set, the E-Z5017/E-CTS9320 and E-Z5018 are closely intertwined. I think this connection dates not fully but largely back to the Dacian unification, with most E-Z5018 stitting North of the Danube, rather. Therefore the specific pulse migration is later and Dacian.
Johane Derite
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,968
- Reaction score
- 1,062
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Albanian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- E-V13>Z5018>FGC33625
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U1a1a
Which archaeological culture would you tie z5018 with if you dont think its belegis then?
I tend to think that E-Z5018 was expanding with Gáva-Holigrady, rather, whereas E-Z5017 did so with Belegis/Belegis II-Gáva. This would explain why we have a strong bottleneck for E-Z5018, exactly before the post-Otomani/Wietenberg/Balta Sarata horizon with Suciu de Sus/Cehalut, after which it exploded. And it would also explain why despite after this "E-Z5018 explosion" we find practically no E-Z5018 anywhere South of the Danube.
We now have some of the oldest E-Z5018/S2979 from Northern Italy (!) by the way. How that pans out, since some of them are oddly mixed, we'll see, but its again somewhat in favour of this, if they appear in the West earlier than anywhere in the South or East. Of the big E-S2979 three, E-Y3183 appears to be probably a bit more Southern and interestingly, both in the West and South E-Y3183 appears first, before E-FGC11457 or E-L241.
This too supports once more that the bulk of E-FGC11457 and E-L241 was rather isolated in a more Northern region. That it then spread out so fast and so radically with these resettlements speaks for a new pulse of Dacian tribals which had more of these lineages, yet they are connected/intermixed with the E-Z5017 in particular, which I think will turn out to be more typical for the post-Dacian kingdom period. I think some of the branches were likely "more tribal" before, more separated by different North Thracian/Dacian tribes, which explains the different pattern.
Probably I'm reading to much into the limited data we got, but with what we got, it looks like it. The 4 main branches of E-Z5017 and E-Z5018 follow my predicted South to North positions:
- First and more frequent appears E-CTS9320
- Second we have E-Y3183/S2972
- Thirdly we get this wave with lots of E-FGC11457/E-FGC11451 and E-L241 being present too.
And before these, the earliest samples in the South are rare E-Z5017 branches like E-BY4642 and especially E-BY5022. Also other rare branches not associated with Channelled Ware/LBA-EIA founder events as much.
So it really looks like we have a more Northern zone, from which wave after wave comes down and only in the later and latest ones we find the branches that are typical for Albanians also, all of them, like especially E-L241, E-FGC11451 and E-CTS9320.
Last edited:
I've managed to find the article from Matzinger translated in English on Quora and I've read most of it. It's intresting that in the begining part of it, Matzinger makes a separation between Dacian and Thracian and he only says about the Thracian language not being Albanoid or related to Albanian but he doesnt say anything about Dacian. So maybe in his eyes Dacian or some related language to it can still be Albanoid?
Johane Derite
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,968
- Reaction score
- 1,062
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Albanian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- E-V13>Z5018>FGC33625
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U1a1a
In response to the following from Riverman:
To put it crudely: the Daco-Thracian linguistic branch of Indo-European could technically be more diverse than the Hellenic branch, with some dialects within the Daco-Thracian having already been diverged from each other for 2000 years by the time the Romans first entered the Balkans.
Obviously the relevance to Proto-Albanian here is clear, if Proto-Albanian represents a Daco-Thracian branch, then the exact branch needs to be found and not a branch that it was 2000 years diverged from at the Roman era already.
If Dardanian represents a Daco-Thracian branch like this as I believe it does, then it does fit as one potential candidate linguistically.
If Riverman's argument is correct, then there are linguistic implications for this also.
To put it crudely: the Daco-Thracian linguistic branch of Indo-European could technically be more diverse than the Hellenic branch, with some dialects within the Daco-Thracian having already been diverged from each other for 2000 years by the time the Romans first entered the Balkans.
Obviously the relevance to Proto-Albanian here is clear, if Proto-Albanian represents a Daco-Thracian branch, then the exact branch needs to be found and not a branch that it was 2000 years diverged from at the Roman era already.
If Dardanian represents a Daco-Thracian branch like this as I believe it does, then it does fit as one potential candidate linguistically.
I find one problem with Riverman's theory that if Albanians would be of Daco-Thracian origin, they'd be of Dacian descend because it wouldn't explain why Proto-Albanians have Doric loanwords. I still think just as you Johane, that Proto-Albanians would be the descendents of a native Central Balkan D-T population rather than from Dacians/North Danube Thracians.
Lets also not forget abt that archeological culture from Central Balkans during the Roman times that perfectly overlaps with Albanoid toponyms that seemed IIRC to have lasted until the 5th century and that had paralels with other older Eastern and Central Balkans cultures. So we got a Daco-Thracian culture in Central Balkans that was separate from those new Daco-Carpic newcomers during the Roman Rule.
I think such linguistic influences are always hard to pin down, but I might add something interesting on the matter, because most of the J-L283 branches of Albanians are clearly bottlenecked, while some of the biggest E-V13 branches (like E-PH2180) are clearly not and are extremely likley to come from a Dacian source.
But the issue is, I can say that with relative certainty only for those branches which show a typical Daco-Thracian Iron Age diversification. So made a quick check for Albanian E-V13 branches being embedded in Iron Age growing, Daco-Thracian branches vs. bottlnecked ones and also compare them roughly-crudely with the frequencies of Albanian E-V13 on YFull.
This is true for:
E-PH2180 (15 % of Albanian E-V13, together with similar E-L241 about 18-20 %)
E-Y97307 (8 % of Albanian E-V13)
E-BY92885 (3,5 %)
These branches look distinctively more Northern and Dacian overall. They have a strong Iron Age diversification typical for Daco-Thracian branches.
But it is not as much true for:
E-FGC33619 (12,8 %)
E-PH345 (16 %)
E-BY151790 (1,7 %)
Therefore we may conclude that about half of the Albanian E-V13 branches have no clear pattern as of yet. They can go either way, still (local Dardanian or recent Dacian origins).
By comparison, none of the big J-L283 Albanian branches has a significant Iron Age diversification which survived (!), none of them:
J-PH3120 (59,5 %) - note how this single branch of J-L283 dominates everything! One branch from around 100 AD!
J-BY84408 (12 %) - it has one Iron Age branch with moderns from Italy and a split around 1000-900 BC before.
J-FT124757 (6 %) - very long bottleneck, only one Late Antiquity branch for Slovenia-Hungary before.
First thing to note about J-L283 is that it is overall more diverse in Albanians than in other groups (can't be said for E-V13 with the same strength) and that much of its presence goes back to a single clan which started to expand around 100 AD.
But even that is too short sighted, because much of this branches growth comes from a single ancestor/clan which lived much later under J-PH1751: 55 %!!!
That's estimated to have lived around 800-850 AD: https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/J-PH1751/tree
You take away this single clan, and J-L283 goes down by more than 50 %!
That's not that far off from R-PH970 which had an earlier (by 400 years minimum!) diversification for its main branch.
But back to what I said initially: We still have about half the E-V13 branches for which can't tell for sure: Where they part of this decimated J-L283 population or not.
Typically, both these E-V13 branches, plus J-L283 and R-PH970, show a long bottleneck between 1400-900 BC and 0-1000 AD. So basically from the Late Bronze Age to the Albanian formation and expansion.
Half of the E-V13 branches don't have that, they have an Iron Age diversification which points to a more Northern connection and North Thracian/Dacian expansions.
This leaves us with the option, just the option, that these E-V13 which are bottlenecked, lived in the same population like the J-L283 and the R-PH970 with the same kind of bottleneck.
Keep in mind, that's rather unusual for main E-V13 branchs, that they have such a long bottleneck.
Take E-PH2180 as the prototypical Dacian example under E-BY5617: https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-BY5617/tree
A major founder event of E-FGC76265 in the Transitional Period (around 1000 BC), then around 800-700 BC another founder event for E-BY5617 (800-700 BC) and a split from a German branch around 200 BC. Plus E-PH2180 being potentially older, because the new samples predate their assignment (Sarmatian-steppe admixed individuals from 1600 BP could push the whole branch). Also, there are parallel E-L241 branches, making up together about 18-20 % of Albanian E-V13, which show a similar diversification in the Iron Age.
Another exmaple I mentioned is https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-Y97307/tree - absolutely no bottleneck, deeply embedded into Iron Age Daco-Thracian growth. Also, both E-BY5617 and E-Z17107 have ancient DNA samples from the Akbari set which further supports the "newly arriving Dacians" scenario.
Under these circumstances, it is possible to plausible to argue for Dardanians, if these Dardanians were the heavily bottlenecked population - either because they had a lack of growth or because they were drastically, radically contracting in the Roman period. In which case however only half the Albanian E-V13 are more plausible candidates, since the other half looks "Dacian embedded".
It would also suggest, if true, that branches of E-S2979 and E-CTS9320 entered the Dardanian sphere early on (around 1000 BC?).
Just saying that this is a plausible alternative scenario going by the current data.
But for branches like E-PH2180 and E-Y97307 I can strongly favour the Dacian scenario going by the current data base.
Many of the debates concentrate on when the branches start diversifying in Albanians, which is important, sure. But people should also look at how the phylogenetic background of branches look. The bottlenecked IA character of many of the Albanian branches, including J-L283, R-PH970 and some E-V13, is very peculiar. Bottlenecks of 1000 years and longer are rather rare for main E-V13 branches, especially under E-S2979 and E-CTS9320, the main Northern branches. That in Albanians at least about half the branches of E-V13 have that too, might be indicative. Like always we need more data.
Long bottlnecked branches are always a problem, because you have nothing to work with. No ancient DNA, no modern branches, just a long survival under the radar. One of the first questions to ask is of course: Where they truly bottlenecked or secondarily decimated in a phase of contraction (Roman wars? Migration period?).
Last edited:
What if we deal with 3 populations, one J2b Illyrian / Romanized Illyrian, one Central Balkan Thracian native population and the incomming Dacians / North Danube Thracians?
That's possible, sure. From a genetic point of view, that surely happened. But from an ethnocultural point of view: Which elements did still exist in that time frame? E.g. we know that Dacians existed at least up to around 400-500 AD, because we have the records about resettled Daco-Carpic people. They seem to have had the special laeti status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laeti or a similar position as kind of military settlers.
The written evidence is probably stronger for Dardanians and Dacians, than for Southern Illyrians proper, but in the end, all three seem to have still existed and Romanised groups of these people for sure too. That's what makes the debate so difficult. The general paucity of written records and at the same time the genetic and written evidence for all three plus more Southern Thracian groups also.
One of the earliest E-V13 Albanian ancient DNA samples is still this one from around 800 AD:
1150_SE_E-FGC11457:I40938.TW,0.106994,0.152329,0.01961,-0.014212,0.023389,-0.011156,0.00611,0.007154,0.005727,0.015672,0.002598,0.002698,-0.009217,0.012524,-0.013436,-0.004641,0.007953,-0.004941,0.014078,-0.006753,-0.009483,-0.001731,0.007395,0.002771,-0.00479
He lived very close to the origin of his haplogroup:
www.yfull.com
discover.familytreedna.com
Autosomally he is nearly identical to the later Bardhoc samples, with which he shares some larger IBD segments too.
His highest matches (he has some lower Bardhoc samples too):
I40938.TW unknown
I14686.AG 25.83 Albania_Bardhoc_PostMedieval (rare I2 haplogroup https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/I-BY134768/tree)
I41659.TW 18.27 unknown
I41596.TW 16.18 unknown
I42537.TW 11.34 unknown
I41139.TW 10.48 Bulgaria_LAntiquity_Gothic.TW
I47153.TW 10.25 unknown
I found this sample very interesting because he is still fairly close to the early Albanian period and to the TMRCA of this significant Albanian founder branch.
1150_SE_E-FGC11457:I40938.TW,0.106994,0.152329,0.01961,-0.014212,0.023389,-0.011156,0.00611,0.007154,0.005727,0.015672,0.002598,0.002698,-0.009217,0.012524,-0.013436,-0.004641,0.007953,-0.004941,0.014078,-0.006753,-0.009483,-0.001731,0.007395,0.002771,-0.00479
He lived very close to the origin of his haplogroup:
E-Y173822 YTree
Welcome to FamilyTreeDNA Discover
Discover more about your paternal ancestry and join in on the research!
Autosomally he is nearly identical to the later Bardhoc samples, with which he shares some larger IBD segments too.
His highest matches (he has some lower Bardhoc samples too):
I40938.TW unknown
I14686.AG 25.83 Albania_Bardhoc_PostMedieval (rare I2 haplogroup https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/I-BY134768/tree)
I41659.TW 18.27 unknown
I41596.TW 16.18 unknown
I42537.TW 11.34 unknown
I41139.TW 10.48 Bulgaria_LAntiquity_Gothic.TW
I47153.TW 10.25 unknown
I found this sample very interesting because he is still fairly close to the early Albanian period and to the TMRCA of this significant Albanian founder branch.
Johane Derite
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,968
- Reaction score
- 1,062
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Albanian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- E-V13>Z5018>FGC33625
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U1a1a
One of the earliest E-V13 Albanian ancient DNA samples is still this one from around 800 AD:
1150_SE_E-FGC11457:I40938.TW,0.106994,0.152329,0.01961,-0.014212,0.023389,-0.011156,0.00611,0.007154,0.005727,0.015672,0.002598,0.002698,-0.009217,0.012524,-0.013436,-0.004641,0.007953,-0.004941,0.014078,-0.006753,-0.009483,-0.001731,0.007395,0.002771,-0.00479
He lived very close to the origin of his haplogroup:
E-Y173822 YTree
Welcome to FamilyTreeDNA Discover
Discover more about your paternal ancestry and join in on the research!
Autosomally he is nearly identical to the later Bardhoc samples, with which he shares some larger IBD segments too.
His highest matches (he has some lower Bardhoc samples too):
I40938.TW unknown
I14686.AG 25.83 Albania_Bardhoc_PostMedieval (rare I2 haplogroup https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/I-BY134768/tree)
I41659.TW 18.27 unknown
I41596.TW 16.18 unknown
I42537.TW 11.34 unknown
I41139.TW 10.48 Bulgaria_LAntiquity_Gothic.TW
I47153.TW 10.25 unknown
I found this sample very interesting because he is still fairly close to the early Albanian period and to the TMRCA of this significant Albanian founder branch.
Nice find. Any indications where this sample is from in Akbari? Could it be from Albania?
E-Y173822 is more a southern & central Albanian lineage, so this is a particularly interesting sample.
