Y-DNA haplogroups of ancient civilizations

Wrong thread, sorry!
 
1. Nobody knows for sure what Y-DNA Illyrians carried. R1a and I2a1 would be the least likeliest, since they are not considered Balkan haplogroups and are associated with the Slavic nations. Although some subclades could've been in the Balkans at the time of Illyrians. Adding to that, I2a1 is the least diverse haplogroup in the Balkans, which would suggest a recent "founder effect". I would expect Maciamo has changed his views on this, since he proposed this theory 6 years ago based on present Y-DNA distribution.

2. I expect E-V13 would have been the dominant haplogroup among the Illyrians.

3. Yes. Haplogroup diversity among 3 main Albanian haplogroups (E-V13, R1b Balkan, J2b2) suggests that the ancestors of Albanians have been in the Balkans since even before the Illyrians appeared.

4. The likeliest Y-DNA for Illyrians would be the Balkan haplogroups, such as E-V13, R1b Balkan Cluster, J2b2, and probably some others in smaller percentages. Of course this is all speculation too but indeed the likeliest. We need ancient DNA from the time of Illyrians or prior to them appearing in the Balkans to know for sure, which we lack.

Proto-illyrian is vudecol culture as stated by many papers

the only Illyrian tribes in vudecol area which covers from ancient pannonia to central bosnia is from 3 main illyrian tribes
1 - Delmatae ...........initially in pannonia and finished on the modern dalmatian coast
2- the Japodes from border of modern croatia and bosnia
3- the Autariates from border of modern serbia, hungaria and croatia

rootsi claims the following percent if you combine the 3 main tribes in the area
using the same markers as 2004
I1b-P37 = 26%
R1b-M137 = 23%
R1a = 29%
E- M78 = 8%
J2 - M172 = 11%
G2 = 3%
clearly saying that the illyrians did not appear prior to the late bronze age

it was confirmed in a lecture in the americas by Sujoldzic in 2007
 
That's logical. If Illyrians did really came from the north into Balkans, there was sure less than J+G+E<20%.
 
It's funny to see that you think you know what "Greek" mean when your definition is narrower than Bill Clinton's definition of "sex".

Haha, still reading, but that was good... and I am subscribing.

edit: finished it all... except some of the back and forth about Greece/Macedonia... If I want to read wikipedia (or what have you) I will visit the site, haha.

EDIT

James Carville
James_Carville3.jpg

Found! "Old Man of La Chapelle"

View attachment 7662
 
Last edited:
By definition, the Pelasgians are the autochthonous (native) inhabitants of Mesolithic Greece. They did not speak Greek, but their language may have contributed to a few loan words in ancient Greek.



You are talking about the modern definition of "Greek" as related to the Greek nation. I don't see how this relates to genetic studies on ancient populations. For example, the modern country of Iran is not composed entirely of people descended from Iranian-speaking tribes - far from it. The same is true for Greece. Modern Greece is a melting pot. The Pelasgians were first there (probably haplogroup I2), then came early farmers from the Near East (E1b1b and J2), herders from the Caucasus and Anatolia (G2), then the Mycenaeans (I would think R1a), the Dorians (possibly R1b) and others.

Ancient Greek language and religion is surely an admixture of all this, although the Indo-European component is stronger than the rest. I suppose that this is because the Mycenaeans and Dorians were the last invaders, whose language and culture eventually stuck, after some adaptation to local idiosyncrasies.



Undermine ? How ? Not much is known about the actual origins of Albanian language. Although officially classified as Indo-European, it is obviously a creole with one or several other languages. I would make sense that this was the language spoken by the Neolithic E-V13, J2b and G2a population.



Greek is a religious term ? And what religion would that be ancient Greek polytheism or Greek Orthodox Christianity ? What about the Minoans ? Weren't they Greek at all ?



So what ?



It's funny to see that you think you know what "Greek" mean when your definition is narrower than Bill Clinton's definition of "sex".
As I see sir, you are well informed about DNA studies and have a lot of information. Anyway, you should not introduce yourself into linguistics. Saying that Albanian language it's a Creole, it's completely inaccurate. Where did you had read such a thing. Who is this scholar/ linguist/ historian, who is supporting your claim!!!! Could you post anything?

I think you should stay focused into genetics, as long as you are trained in that well better than in other fields.

According to every serious scholar, the Creole theory about Albanian, it's rejected, since a long time from now.

I have a few questions:
Why the Croats and the bosniaks have more~ I2 than the rest of the Slavic nations, such as Ukrainians and Polish?
 
But I do not understand how it is possible that the Indo-Europeans who moved to West-
Europe, had mongoloid traits. So northwest Europeans also have mongoloid ancestors?
The earlier IE people had probably strong mongoloid traits. Much more than they have now. This is my humble opinion.
 
But you do not see any mongoloid traits with the Netherlands and
Danes. I suppose that they are the purest nordic and falish people.
Really germanic.
If that's true, the Danes and the Dutch are less IE, or are inheriting less old IE genes.
 
I still have difficulties to accept mongoloid traits in real nordic and Germanic
people. I suppose that you find these traits only in the Russians.
I should like to see such mongoloid slits in Swedes or Dutch.
The IE tribes were much more superior than the indigenous people of europe. They wiped out the grand part of them. Seems they took their women and killed and enslaved the males. Thanks to this mixing we don't have today a large mongoloid trait on the IE people.
 
As I see sir, you are well informed about DNA studies and have a lot of information. Anyway, you should not introduce yourself into linguistics. Saying that Albanian language it's a Creole, it's completely inaccurate. Where did you had read such a thing. Who is this scholar/ linguist/ historian, who is supporting your claim!!!! Could you post anything?

I think you should stay focused into genetics, as long as you are trained in that well better than in other fields.

According to every serious scholar, the Creole theory about Albanian, it's rejected, since a long time from now.

I have a few questions:
Why the Croats and the bosniaks have more~ I2 than the rest of the Slavic nations, such as Ukrainians and Polish?

You quoted a post from 2009. That being said, you are right. English is more likely a creole and although it isn't generally accepted there are scientists who have supported that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_English_creole_hypothesis

Also, Celtic languages are very atypical. VSO word order (like Afro-Asiatic), two genders (in insular Celtic only supposedly), inflected prepositions (like Semetic) etc., they lack a simple verb for the imperfect' have' process ('There is a cat to me' instead of 'I have a cat', like Hungarian "nekem van" = to me there is)

He also has said that "Latin and Greek are probably hybrid languages".
 
Do you really believe that you are being serious right now?!
Your country's propaganda doesn't fit in a forum where people have common sense.

As for the black Greeks etc and Greeks not being the same as in the past, DNA studies in skeletons found from Ancient Greece reveal that Greeks have the same DNA since 5000 years now, with 99.5% of it being European. Now if you want to ***** with false data go some place else and continue your propaganda.

I don't know why you slavs are trying so hard to convince other people that you come from ancient Greeks but it would be better to embrace your true identity. After all with the way you act you are being racists against your true nature.

PS Us Greeks are so black I don't really know how we got accepted to the EU... :

http://www.elliniki-grothia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/parelasi_OYK.jpg

http://www.trikalanews.gr/adminpanel/editor/assets/NEWS/IMG_6887_resize.jpg
99.5% !!!!!!!!! Where did you get that! !! It's a bit hazardous claiming that. It looks like nationalist Greek propaganda
 
Marianne, 99.5% ??? I remember one time you posted that populations in villages are more ancient and considered original, than Greeks in cities, where many are darker skin and brown eye and immigrated from other places.
So what if today's Greeks were different than ancient inhabitants. You wouldn't deserve a place to live?

You Slavs? Sorry Marian but this sounds very chauvinistic.
Being on sides of discussions of Greeks, Macedonians, Turks and Balkans in general, I can acknowledge that all of the parties use propaganda in their claims to territories or from what great cultures and warriors they are coming from. I'm sure it's cultural and these are the effects of years of listening to your governments propaganda in schools. I know what I'm talking about I experienced this in my country. Short exercise: make a survey who's countries soldiers were the bravest of all in WW2. You'll get as many answers as nationalities, and all will have stories and arguments to support it. Except French maybe, lol.
Are they all right? Can't be!
That's an eye opener how wrong we all could be, even though we swear we are right!

Unbelievable is that people from same regions, almost brothers and sisters, hate each others so much, can't find a common ground, can't except one another and their point of view.
https://youtu.be/c0mMTwLn3mA


The number 99.5% that it's mentioned in the post above shows the true face of Balkanic nationalism. How may it be 99.5% , in a time when during nineteenth century, the grand part of modern Greece territory was inhabited by ethnic Slavs, Vlachs and Albanians, not mentioning here whether the Turks and the gypsies. A grand part of modern Greece population are descendants of the migrants from West Anatolia, that came due to the exchange population between Turkey and Greece.
 
Yeah I said of course that people in the villages are not mixed but I didn’t mean the others were mixed recently or much. I meant since ancient years the mixing in these areas has been more than in the isolated parts of Greece. They are darker than the rest but that doesn't mean they are dark. They are clearly Europeans and above all Greeks.

Yes according to surveys, Greeks have one of the smallest % of Sub-Saharan DNA.
For example


I didn't say that. The problem is a different one and you can't understand it fully because you have never come to the situation us Greeks are in.

Our civilization, whether this is good or bad, has a huge history, since ancient times. Our ancestors, Plato, Archimedes, Socrates, etc are known worldwide, and our contribution to the Western World has been huge for example the Battle in Marathon, Thermopylae, Democracy etc. For reasons that serve certain political plans, certain groups of people are trying, with their propaganda, to separate us from our ancestors, our history and our civilization. This is insulting to Greeks and believe it or not, it hurts. We have been the same since ancient times. The way we look, the way we speak, certain expressions we use, the way we live, have all been the same since 3000BC. And some people who have no idea about our nation are trying to prove to us that we are not who we are.

Maybe you don't get it cause Canada (by Europeans) doesn't have the history we have, but how would you feel if someone came to you one day and told you that you are not the grandson of your grandfather, that you do not belong in this family, that you don't have the right to use your last name, that you don't deserve a part of your family's property etc, even though you look just like your grandfather, the DNA test you did proves you are his grandson, you have lived in your house from the day you were born and you know for sure that you are who you say you are?

That is how Greeks feel every time someone tells us that we are mixed with Turks for example, even though we know that women raped by Turks would commit suicide, that Greeks and Turks wouldn't marry each other cause of religion issues etc, so the mixing was practically zero

And yes I know that nowadays our country isn't what it used to be, we don't have much to offer to the world at the moment, as we did in the past, but that doesn't mean that we are not original Greeks. If your father is the most successful person in the world it doesn't mean you will also be one.

We were enslaved under turkish rule for 400 years, while the rest of Europe was blooming after the Dark Ages, so we missed that. After that (around 1830) we ended up with loans from European countries in order to rebuild our country and free other parts of Greece, that we paid up around 1980. We were admitted a German king that had no ties with Greeks, our history, and civilization and didn't care for our wellbeing. We had the Balkan Wars, WWI, then dictatorship, then WW2, then civil war, then dictatorship again, and now we are a country with 30 years of democracy and we are trying to figure out how to pay our dept that 5-10 corrupted politicians, who made the people believe they were sent from above to save the country, created around 1980 (right after we paid up the 1830 one). So I think we are doing pretty well if you consider all that.


I agree with you in everything you say here. But I don't know for example, how you can believe that a country who speaks a slavic dialect that resembles Bulgarian so much can claim they speak Macedonian when the Macedonian language as spoken by Great Alexander and his empire was the Greek language. They claim he was their ancestor while it is proven that he was Greek, and not Slav, since he was able to take part in the Olympics (only Greeks could participate and as they used to say: Anyone not Greek is a barbarian) etc.
I don't say their country wasn't a part of the Macedonian empire. It was, because Great Alexander expanded his kingdom, as he did in Asia Minor and all the way down to India. But I never heard an Asian say he is Macedonian... Why should their country be named as Macedonia when they were just a small part of it. That way they cancel the right of inhabitants of the rest of Macedonia (the biggest part of it) to be named Macedonians.

Since you mentioned WW2, Churchill said that Greeks don't fight like heroes, heroes fight like Greeks. We won the Italians and resisted the Germans for such a long time that they had to delay the war with Russia and ended up fighting them with extremely bad weather conditions and lost. The battle in Crete was a massacre for Germany’s strongest soldiers. I don't say we are the best of the best, but even though we are a country 10 times smaller than France for example, our role was a huge one. We are above all patriots and we don't want to relive being enslaved for another 400 years, so when we must defend our country we do it well.
Are you saying that the Greeks are a superior race/ ethnicity! !!!!!

There are now historical rights. The term~ historical right~ means nationalism. Nationalism it's the doctrine of the evil, and as such, it should be wiped out. Modern Greeks has nothing to do with the ancient people of Balkans. Claiming historical rights over them, it's just disgusting nationalism.
 
Marianne, I understand your points, and your feelings. I'm from Poland, which has complicated history with neighbors too. Did you know what we fought Ottoman Empire too? And Tatars, and Germans, and Russians and Ukrainians, and Swedes, and Lithuanians, and Austrians, and Czechs, I'm sure I missed quite few, and there had domestic wars too. We lost independence for hundreds of years too. We have grivances with neighbours, family stories, and our borders were moved big time back and forth. If I want to dwell on stories and horrors of previous years, I can sit round and indulge the pain, the pain, and more pain. At the end I would hate my all neighbours.
Well I moved forward instead. I have German friends, Russians, Belorussians, Ukrainians, you name them.
The problem is the historic heavy balance of wars and crimes. The solution should be finding a common ground, make few compromises, and move forward with your new friends building a great Europe.
I'm sorry Marianne, but you don't bring solutions to the table. You are just acting like your neighbours want to kill you and take Greece away. Not sure what you are waiting for? Next war? I guess, making friends takes much more effort and compromises than sitting around hating neighbors.
Great post LeBrok.
 
I don't hate my neighbors.

I posted where Greece is 5 posts above and then some ethnic FYROMian started posting his propaganda, saying that Greeks are Blacks, Asians etc (I'm surprised he didn't call us Amerindians). What should I do? Not reply? I think my reaction was very civilized. He continued posting his propaganda and I just ignored him.

I have nothing against my neighbors. I had classmates who were immigrants from Albania, last year I had 1 Turkish student and 2 Bulgarians. The problem is that certain people filled with their country's propaganda attack my country and therefore myself. You must have noticed that I have never started such a conversation in this forum without being provoked first.
If I hated my neighbors and wanted to provoke them I would have asked Maciamo for example to edit all posts with the word Macedonia and rename it to FYROM since that is the official name for the moment, or to remove Turkey from the European maps etc. I'm not irrational though and I don't bring up such matters, unless I am provoked.

Your old neighbors for sure aren't as propagandistic as mine. They are civilized people who are more or less rational and believe in cooperation between countries. In this forum I was able to have a decent debate with only one Turk and zero people from FYROM...

I believe in friendship between countries too, I watch Turkish series on tv, I vote for the Albanian song in Eurovision :)grin:) and I am very open to conversations with people who are willing to have a decent chat with me. But friendship includes both sides willing to cooperate. In the Macedonia issue Greece has proposed several names that could please both countries, like Nova Macedonia or North Macedonia etc which don't cancel the right of the rest of Macedonians to be called like that. But they just don't want to cooperate unless the name is Macedonia, or Republic of Macedonia. We are way more rational than them. You should refer to them about being rational and cooperating with your neighbors.
If you want to have normal relationship with your neighbors, just start with calling your northern neighbor, with its true name~ Macedonia~ and not otherwise.
 
The problem with all newly created nations is their megalomania as a a response to a lack of self confidence. So, the Slavs in region of Macedonia usurping the name of antic Macedonia, Muslim Bosniacs usurping name of medieval Bosnian state, Albanians usurping the name of Illyrians and so on. But I find also quite intriguing way the modern Greeks find themselves as direct descendants of ancient Greeks, especially if we talk about Hellenic civilization. I really can not see that direct line which conects Platon with sirtaki and giros. But maybe it is just lack of imagination.
Could you please be correct: Albanians don't call themselves Illyrians and their own country Illyria. Instead they call themselves Shqipetar, and their homeland Shqiperi. The foreigners (including the Greeks) calls them with the name~ Albanian~ ,which is indeed one of the ancient Illyrian tribes of the Roman prefecture of Illyricum.
 
The IE tribes were much more superior than the indigenous people of europe. They wiped out the grand part of them. Seems they took their women and killed and enslaved the males. Thanks to this mixing we don't have today a large mongoloid trait on the IE people.

Where do you find empirical support for that? The steppe people were stone age fisher/hunter foragers until they adopted the advancements of the settled communities that surrounded them. They imported domestic animals and how to raise them from the Balkan "Old Europe" cultures and perhaps from south of the Caucasus and/or from Central Asia agriculturalists with an
"Iranian Neolithic" form of the Neolithic. Their knowledge of agriculture and crops was scanty, but what they had in isolated places came from the same "Old Europe". The wheel and carts are first attested in TRB in Europe or in Anatolia. Even war carts came from the latter. We have very early war carts, pulled by oxen, in Anatolia. Copper metallurgy came from the Balkans, bronze from Maykop from what we know from the most recent papers.

We've discussed all of this, with citations to the appropriate papers, in many threads here. You can check it out for yourself.

I used to think that, in addition to a more war like mentality, their contribution to the final "Indo-European" package was the domestication of the horse, the use of the horse to pull wagons, and the development of the spoked wheel and war chariots.

Well, that's true during a much later period, around 2000 BC, the time of Sintashta. It's not quite true of the migrations into Europe a thousand and more years earlier. There's very few horses found among Corded Ware remains, and not all that many carts either, so most of them must have come by foot. The carts they did use must, in large measure, have been pulled by oxen. There's extremely little bronze in early Corded Ware sites as well. That came much later.
They did have copper, but not in huge amounts, from what I remember.

The other side of the coin is that cultures like Baden and Remedello already had many of the hall marks of what we think of as "Indo-European" culture (not bronze, though), and no steppe admixture. The fact is that this period of West Eurasian history was a time of great flux, with new discoveries traveling very quickly along trade routes. Not all the advancements came to every single area with a large influx of people, nor did the advancements all necessarily come from the same direction. The models pushed over the years were much too simplistic, as I was saying five years ago on dna forums.

That isn't to say that there wasn't a large influx of broadly "steppe" and "forest steppe" peoples into central Europe, because there was such an influx. However, it wasn't by horse riding, bronze sword wielding versions of Arnold Schwartzenegger. Not in those early periods, anyway. Central Europe had experienced repeated population crashes brought on by climate change and the unsuitability of their crops and agricultural technology to those changes. The incoming population also harbored the plague, to which these MN people would have been less immune. It was a perfect storm. The influx was particularly strong in the north east because those areas were sparsely populated, and many of them were still no doubt living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, so for them the steppe people definitely introduced a very different lifestyle. It remains to be seen if they had such a large impact in southern Europe.

It's true that even if the central European MN populations were much reduced, the fact that their mtDna survived more than their yDna indicates that more of the females were incorporated than the males, who must have either been killed or at least suffered a disadvantage in the breeding pool. This is hardly unusual, however, or specific to them, much as I may deplore it. This is the pattern in all of human history.
 
@Piro Ilir

This is not the thread for a discussion of inter-Balkan conflicts. LeBrok created a thread for that nonsense.

If you have to pursue this hyper-nationalistic craziness, do it there.
 
You quoted a post from 2009. That being said, you are right. English is more likely a creole and although it isn't generally accepted there are scientists who have supported that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_English_creole_hypothesis

Also, Celtic languages are very atypical. VSO word order (like Afro-Asiatic), two genders (in insular Celtic only supposedly), inflected prepositions (like Semetic) etc., they lack a simple verb for the imperfect' have' process ('There is a cat to me' instead of 'I have a cat', like Hungarian "nekem van" = to me there is)

He also has said that "Latin and Greek are probably hybrid languages".
What you write about Celtic, seems interesting. Thank you. However, it doesn't mean that Celtic ain't an IE language. Every IE language have some other language features within.

Although, why you saying that Greek and Latin are hybrid languages?
 
Where do you find empirical support for that? The steppe people were stone age fisher/hunter foragers until they adopted the advancements of the settled communities that surrounded them. They imported domestic animals and how to raise them from the Balkan "Old Europe" cultures and perhaps from south of the Caucasus and/or from Central Asia agriculturalists with an
"Iranian Neolithic" form of the Neolithic. Their knowledge of agriculture and crops was scanty, but what they had in isolated places came from the same "Old Europe". The wheel and carts are first attested in TRB in Europe or in Anatolia. Even war carts came from the latter. We have very early war carts, pulled by oxen, in Anatolia. Copper metallurgy came from the Balkans, bronze from Maykop from what we know from the most recent papers.

We've discussed all of this, with citations to the appropriate papers, in many threads here. You can check it out for yourself.

I used to think that, in addition to a more war like mentality, their contribution to the final "Indo-European" package was the domestication of the horse, the use of the horse to pull wagons, and the development of the spoked wheel and war chariots.

Well, that's true during a much later period, around 2000 BC, the time of Sintashta. It's not quite true of the migrations into Europe a thousand and more years earlier. There's very few horses found among Corded Ware remains, and not all that many carts either, so most of them must have come by foot. The carts they did use must, in large measure, have been pulled by oxen. There's extremely little bronze in early Corded Ware sites as well. That came much later.
They did have copper, but not in huge amounts, from what I remember.

The other side of the coin is that cultures like Baden and Remedello already had many of the hall marks of what we think of as "Indo-European" culture (not bronze, though), and no steppe admixture. The fact is that this period of West Eurasian history was a time of great flux, with new discoveries traveling very quickly along trade routes. Not all the advancements came to every single area with a large influx of people, nor did the advancements all necessarily come from the same direction. The models pushed over the years were much too simplistic, as I was saying five years ago on dna forums.

That isn't to say that there wasn't a large influx of broadly "steppe" and "forest steppe" peoples into central Europe, because there was such an influx. However, it wasn't by horse riding, bronze sword wielding versions of Arnold Schwartzenegger. Not in those early periods, anyway. Central Europe had experienced repeated population crashes brought on by climate change and the unsuitability of their crops and agricultural technology to those changes. The incoming population also harbored the plague, to which these MN people would have been less immune. It was a perfect storm. The influx was particularly strong in the north east because those areas were sparsely populated, and many of them were still no doubt living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, so for them the steppe people definitely introduced a very different lifestyle. It remains to be seen if they had such a large impact in southern Europe.

It's true that even if the central European MN populations were much reduced, the fact that their mtDna survived more than their yDna indicates that more of the females were incorporated than the males, who must have either been killed or at least suffered a disadvantage in the breeding pool. This is hardly unusual, however, or specific to them, much as I may deplore it. This is the pattern in all of human history.
1- thank you for your explanation on this matter.

2- anyway, I want to make clear what was my point of view. Considering the large number of R1a and the R1b throughout the Europe, especially in Germanics descendants and Slavic descendants, we should assume that the horse riders (IE people) were superior and they submitted the local people of Europe. One of the archeological proves for this it's recorded in south Greece in archeological sites. Around 2200-2000 bce the native people were conquered by a superior force. The destruction of settlements show this IE invasion. These superior people were carriers of R1. They step by step invaded the whole Europe and almost wiped out the local natives. But they took their women and mingled with them. That's why we have not too much mongoloid traits at the IE people. Please don't underestimate the importance of the horse in wars.

3- As far as I know, the metallurgy it's linked to the IE people. If we combine both, metallurgy and horse, what you need more!

4 - I heard for an afro/ Asiatic influence until the modern Germany prior the IE expansion.
 
@Piro Ilir

This is not the thread for a discussion of inter-Balkan conflicts. LeBrok created a thread for that nonsense.

If you have to pursue this hyper-nationalistic craziness, do it there.
Yes, I know. Could you please quote any of my posts where I did such a thing, pursuing the hiper nationalistic agendas? I would apologize to the forum. Instead I just replied to a post, which in my opinion was completely nonsense. Claiming that modern Greeks are 99.5 % descendants of ancient Hellenes, is the most nationalistic stuff I have ever heard in a forum, I mean in a serious one. That's all.

Anyway, I made a question in one of my posts about the haplogroup I2. I2 it's too present in modern population of Croats and Bosniaks. Why I2 it's higher in those above mentioned nations, and much more less in other descendants of Slavs in central and east europe?

Nice day"
 

This thread has been viewed 700890 times.

Back
Top