Who were and are the Albanians and their DNA

[Rethel]

The best bet would be to focus the research in the parts of Albanian vocabulary that has no proven ancestry in surrounding languages.

Do you have Ike, some statistics about vocabulary?
How many words come from slavic, romanic, hellenic, aso languages?
How many are original or of unknown origin?

[Melancon]

Pelazgians were not Indo-European in speech. They probably spoke a language derived from Neolithic farmers similar to Etruscans, and maybe even Basques. E-V13 got absorbed by proto Albanians that brought the Indo-European language that we speak today, similar to how they got also absorbed by Greeks in Greece.

I have always thought that E-V13 individuals spoke dialects similar to Etruscan as well. Interesting analysis.

Maybe some of the Albanians were related to these Etruscan speaking people; but were later assimilated into an Indo-European culture. Which may explain why almost half of the Albanian Y-DNA is dominated by Bronze Age DNA (R1b, J2) while the other half is mostly Neolithic. (E-V13)

[Ike]

Do you have Ike, some statistics about vocabulary?
How many words come from slavic, romanic, hellenic, aso languages?
How many are original or of unknown origin?

"In Meyer’s Etymological dictionary of Albanian, of 5140 “keywords” 1420 are Romance, 540 Slavonic, 1180 Turkish, 840 Modern Greek, and only 400 have a more or less reliable IE etymology. 730 words have no etymology whatsoever. During the past century, I would say that the number of words with IE etymology has risen, while some of Meyer’s Romance etymologies have been rejected, but the number of loan-words in Albanian is still disproportionately high." (Source)

That would mean:
Romance - 28%
Slavonic - 10%
Turkish - 23%
Greek - 16%
IE - 8 %
unknown - 14 %

Gustav Meyer was XIX century German linguist. Number of Turkish loanwords is high which correlates with period of pinnacle of Turkish influence.

1. Pre-Proto-Albanian (? -1st century B.C.). This is the period before the earliest contacts of Latin and Albanian.
2. Early Proto-Albanian (1st century B.C. -6th century). This is the period of intensive borrowing from Latin into Albanian, before the earliest contacts with the Slavs.
3. (Late) Proto-Albanian (6th century - 15th century). This is the period of intensive contacts of Albanians and Slavs.
4. Early Albanian (15th century - 1800). Roughly, this is the period of the earliest Albanian writings, as well as the period during which most of the Turkish loan-words entered the language.
5. (Modern) Albanian (1800 - present).

---

Other research summarizes that (source):

Based on a survey of a large number of international and Albanian linguists, on etymological origin of the word of the Albanian language, we derived the following approximate statistical conclusion:


(1) over 2000 Albanian word derives from the proto-Indo-European root, according Albanian linguists Bahri Beci;
(2) about 50 words comes from Pre-IE period;
(3) about 40 words comes from Greek, mostly from the Doric dialect, of which certain number preserved the old form which does not exist in the modern Greek language;
(4) about 30 words Illyrian origin, out of 1000 surviving Illyrian words and toponyms;
(5) about 15 words Thracian origin;
(6) about 30 words can be related to the languages ​​Mesops, Veneta and Etruscans;
(7) about 600 words of Latin origin, from which 60 of the old Latin (before IV century), and 82 words can be said to have adopted only the Albanian language and not the other Romance languages;
(8) about 60 words comes from the Old Slavic languages ​​(before the XII century);
(9) that is 540 words on loan from the Slavic languages (Slavonic, Serbian, Bulgarian, Macedonian), how much is included Gustav Meier;
(10) about 840 Modern Greek origin, as far as included Gustav Meier;
(11) there is is 1180 words of Turkish origin, as far as included Gustav Meier;



In a survey conducted during the 60s of the last century, from 1424 words that are commonly used in the Albanian language, 667 are considered to be indigenous, folk Albanian words, and 757 are among the loanwords. Depending on the topic, varies odds between indigenous and borrowed words.


The local lexicon dominates over loanwords in the following thematic areas:

ambient	34: 17	(51)
atmospheric phenomena	30: 14	(44)
folk astronomy	9: 4	(13)
time (duration), the numbers and names of colors	50:28	(78)
flora	66: 47	(113)
livestock terms	63: 45	(108)
parts of the human body and their functions	90: 67	(157)

The adoptions dominate in the following areas:

wildlife	70: 75	(145)
everyday life	48: 50	(98)
clothing, toilets, food,	74: 100	(174)
housing and household	43: 115	(158)
agricultural terms	34: 47	(81)
crop plants	6: 40	(46)
artisanal terms	34: 66	(100)
sea, sailing and fishing	12: 22	(34)
folk belief	4: 20	(24)

There is no native Albanian name for metals.

---

Some of Balkan speakers of Vlach (Aromanian) language claim that many of the words of "alleged" Albanian origin are in fact of Aromanian origin. I have been presented a similarity between some of the words, which indicates a common root, but are those words loans from Vlach> Albanian or the other way around, I can't tell since I'm no expert in that area.

[Rethel]

That would mean:
Romance - 28%
Slavonic - 10%
Turkish - 23%
Greek - 16%
IE - 8 %
unknown - 14 %

So 1/5 have albabnian origin.

When I was hearing albanian I was amazed how
many slavic-like and romanic-like words I hear.

And do exist albanian by origin names or not?

[Finalise]

I don't know who Gustav Meyer is, but 5,000 words is hardly a sample, and Ike's math is wrong. The Romance % in Albanian is about 40%. Slavic[1] and Turkish[2] words only comprise about 1,000 and 3-5000 words each, respectively, out of a total of 60,000+. Turkish words are exclusively social vocabulary (social positions, cuss words) and miscellaneous household terminology like cooking. Slavic terms are more related to lowland farming. I'm not sure about Greek, but I do know that Ancient Greek words are very scarce, and only modern ones appear. Direct Germanic borrowings are only a small select few due to Gothic raids, but otherwise non-existent. The pre-IE substratum is fairly small compared to Greek. Since we lack a relative of Albanian, it is more difficult to use comparative linguistics and close the gap to PIE. At least 30-50% of the words in Albanian are non-Latin, non-Greek, non-Slavic, PIE-derived.Overall, the Albanian language was spoken north of the Jirecek line, which accounts for the high borrowings from Latin, and low from Greek. The lack of maritime vocabulary coincides with the fact that the Albanian coastline was dominated until 1400 AD by Latin, Venetian and Greek colonists, and Albanians were tribal, mountainous tribes, living on the central and eastern fringes of the country, which coincides with the location of the Illyrian tribe of Albanoi.


[1] https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_f...osition=inline
[2] http://www.mcser.org/journal/index.p...File/2184/2171

[Ike]

I don't know who Gustav Meyer is,

Damn, dude. You talk about Albanians and don't know who is Gustav Meyer?! :) Austrian University professor, and one of the first Albanologists in the world. He wrote the first etymological dictionary of Albanian language.

but 5,000 words is hardly a sample,

Agree. He was a pioneer from 19th century. I would like to see more detailed recent statistics.

and Ike's math is wrong.

Math part is perfect. I agree that specimen was not representative.

The Romance % in Albanian is about 40%.

Yes, that could be about true.

Slavic and Turkish words only comprise about 2,000 words each out of a total of 60,000.

All research point out more Slavic than you say.

Turkish words are exclusively social vocabulary (social positions, cuss words) and miscellaneous household terminology like cooking.

As said, Turkish words entered vocabulary from 15-18th century, so probably plain social interaction. Around 2000 sounds like a reasonable number for Turkish.

Slavic terms are more related to lowland farming. I'm not sure about Greek, but I do know that Ancient Greek words are very scarce, and only modern ones appear. Direct Germanic borrowings are only a small select few due to Gothic raids, but otherwise non-existent. The pre-IE substratum is fairly small compared to Greek. Since we lack a relative of Albanian, it is more difficult to use comparative linguistics and close the gap to PIE.

All sound logical.

At least 30-50% of the words in Albanian are non-Latin, non-Greek, non-Slavic, PIE-derived.Overall, the Albanian language was spoken north of the Jirecek line, which accounts for the high borrowings from Latin, and low from Greek. The lack of maritime vocabulary coincides with the fact that the Albanian coastline was dominated until 1400 AD by Latin, Venetian and Greek colonists, and Albanians were tribal, mountainous tribes, living on the central and eastern fringes of the country, which coincides with the location of the Illyrian tribe of Albanoi.

Yes, north of Jiricek line, but according to Georgiev, Latin loanwords into Albanian show East Balkan Latin (Proto-Romanian) phonetics, rather than West Balkan (Dalmatian) phonetics. That;s why the proposed homeland of Albanians is Romania and Carpates. Since the complexity of the vocabulaty is great, there is a posibility that Albanians had incorporated some other "indigenous" Balkan lanaguge when the settled here. Vlachs would be the first on my mind, but their origin is obscure just as same.

[Finalise]

I think trying to determine the position of the language through Latin loanwords is a bit far fetched. Albanian also displays some pre 0 AD Latin borrowings, that would otherwise be non-existent in Dacian and Thracian populations. The language displays affinities to both Western and Balkan Latin, and the difference between the two variants is not great to begin with. Daco-Thracian is usually presented as an alternative to Illyrian, not as a main theory. I think for now it's fair that the latter remains the default. Georgiev's Daco-Thracian theory picked up some momentum when linguists thought Illyrian was a centum language because of its affinity with Venetic. Then it turned out Venetic is very closely related to Latin. So far, we do have some Thracian inscriptions and one Dacian inscription. Nothing shows any relation to Albanian, especially Thracian.We also have no records of any significant migrations into Albania. The Byzantines recorded all Slavic, Gothic, and Avar incursions into the Balkans, so again it would be far fetched to consider Daco-Thracian as a main theory. However, since we lack Illyrian recordings, we can't make any definite statements yet. Illyrian might have even referred to different languages. The existence of Liburnian attests to this.

[Skerdilaidas]

Do you have Ike, some statistics about vocabulary?
How many words come from slavic, romanic, hellenic, aso languages?
How many are original or of unknown origin?

Read Vladimir Orel for starters. He is far from being accurate, but he is a serious linguist, and much better read then what you would find in forums such as this.

[Ike]

Read Vladimir Orel for starters. He is far from being accurate, but he is a serious linguist, and much better read then what you would find in forums such as this.

It is just an extension of the work of Gustav Mayer and Eqrem Cabej, that goes on for 500 pages. If you have already read the book, present the data. It's not like we all have the time to read thousands of pages of Albanology every year.

[Ike]

I think trying to determine the position of the language through Latin loanwords is a bit far fetched. Albanian also displays some pre 0 AD Latin borrowings, that would otherwise be non-existent in Dacian and Thracian populations. The language displays affinities to both Western and Balkan Latin, and the difference between the two variants is not great to begin with. Daco-Thracian is usually presented as an alternative to Illyrian, not as a main theory. I think for now it's fair that the latter remains the default. Georgiev's Daco-Thracian theory picked up some momentum when linguists thought Illyrian was a centum language because of its affinity with Venetic. Then it turned out Venetic is very closely related to Latin. So far, we do have some Thracian inscriptions and one Dacian inscription. Nothing shows any relation to Albanian, especially Thracian.We also have no records of any significant migrations into Albania. The Byzantines recorded all Slavic, Gothic, and Avar incursions into the Balkans, so again it would be far fetched to consider Daco-Thracian as a main theory. However, since we lack Illyrian recordings, we can't make any definite statements yet. Illyrian might have even referred to different languages. The existence of Liburnian attests to this.

We don't know if these borrowing went to Albanians to start with. They may have been spoken by the Vlach population in the highlands until the time Albanians came and picked them up from the remnants of "indigenous" population. It is obvious that Albanians language has loanwords from different areas and different time-spans that cannot be covered just by one people that would go unnoticed in the history. Those ethnic groups could have formed a conglomerate language somewhere in the highlands where they hid...

Not only that, but there are there are numerous sources confirming vagabond nature of Albanians, as in:
"Then, sometime between the death of the Despot Manuel Cantacuzenus on 10 April 1380 and May 1381, when the civil war ended, Theodore was named governor of the Morea, arriving there probably in the fall of 1382. The situation facing him there on his arrival may best be described as chaotic. Shifty Greek and Latin barons warred against one another and acted in almost complete independence of any central authority. Pirates of various nationalities and mercenary bands of Navarrese and Turks spread terror and devastation throughout the land. Theodore's political and military attempts to assert his authority over the troubled region are too complicated to detail here. In general, though, his successes were almost evenly balanced by his mistakes and failures. Yet, despite some notable miscalculations, he showed himself to be a skillful diplomat, extended his territory, established his authority over his subjects to a limited degree, and repopulated deserted areas with Albanian nomads. While it is true that he was faced with an extremely difficult situation and was very short on resources, one has the impression that, although intelligent and clever, he really did not measure up to his mission. In 1383-84 he had married Bartolomea, the daughter of Nerio Acciajuoli, lord of Corinth, but they had no son to succeed to the despotate."
(Letters of Manuel II Palaeologus)



Next thing, there is indisputable connection with Proto-Romanian.
"The similarities between the Albanian and Romanian languages are acknowledged by all researchers focusing on this topic. The ethnogenesis of the Albanian language cannot be completely clarified without having a close approach to the same problem in Romanian." PDF download link (250 KB)

[Skerdilaidas]

It is just an extension of the work of Gustav Mayer and Eqrem Cabej, that goes on for 500 pages. If you have already read the book, present the data. It's not like we all have the time to read thousands of pages of Albanology every year.

Since you have no time to read linguist on regards to Albanian language, then you shouldn't give your opinion on it either, especially when you are illiterate in it.

[Ike]

Since you have no time to read linguist on regards to Albanian language, then you shouldn't give your opinion on it either, especially when you are illiterate in it.

Rethel asked for the data a month ago. If you claim to have it, present it.

[noUseForAname]

More facts are coming.....

• Originally Posted by Maciamo
  Norwegians have a higher combined percentage of R1a + R1b than Belarussians and Ukrainians. Plenty of Central Asians invaded eastern Europe over the last 5000 years, almost completely eliminating R1b in the region. I explained 5 years ago that this was why R1b was so low today in its original homeland.
  
  The huge Neolithic population of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture didn't just vanish in thin air. They were gradually absorbed by PIE people (probably already since the Globular Amphora culture). Don't forget that Cucuteni-Trypillian towns were the largest in the world at the time. That explains the very significant percentage of both male and female Near Eastern lineages in western Ukraine and southern Belarus today.
  
  Additionally, Ukrainians also have partial Greek ancestry in the south (lots of J2a).
  
  It is especially northern Belarus and eastern Ukraine that are very high in R1a, and that is just a sign of higher recent Slavic ancestry, not a sign of more surviving Yamna ancestry. The Slavic branch descends from the Corded Ware and Abashevo cultures, not from Yamna.
  
  
  
  Are you saying that most of Greeks are descends of J2a?....if so any more info related to this?....i would gladly appreciate it....
  
• 
  
  Originally Posted by Alan
  I see ~30% WHG (blue) in this chart.
  
  
  
  Would this table had an explanation as the following below?
  
  1: Most of Early Neolithic (9,000 years) - were already populated and lived (majority) at the current modern populations (and locations) such as: Sardinian, Tuscan, Greek, Albanian, Bergamo, Spanish, South French, Basque. it looks like, more south is more ancient. Doesn't that explain that all the R1b or R1a expansion came much later to Europe?..then it would look like the R lineage came from central Asia above the baltic and through steppe as Maciamo noted (and not through Asia minor). and J2 migrated even much later towards Europe?
  
  Then would anyone argue which is the major Y Dna in these south regions already within early Neolithic?
  
  2. There are 2 hypothesis for the roots of indoEuropean language (9,000 years): north of Black sea and south west Anatolia....recent study is pretty conclusive about the south west Anatolia. This might correlate with migrations and Cultures spreading from south west Anatolia to east forming Mesopotamia (6,000 years) and west possibly forming Vinca Culture (7,500 years).
  
  I suppose after migration to Mesopotamia, at the same time another big migration went through Caucus above Black Sea and through the Steppe around 6,000 years ago (Maciamo noted 4,000 years ago) (probably majority of R1b and R1a)
  
  On the other side migration from south west Anatolia through south east balkans 7,500 years ago forming Vinca culture, although there is no evidence yet that they spoke indo european. Might this group be E-V13?.... as we know so far it is 10,000 years old and its roots are the far south east balkans.
  
  
  http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/ite...kaert_2012.pdf
  https://theoreticalecology.wordpress...nguage-family/
  

Originally Posted by Angela
If you look at the chart on page 25, the division is very clear. The orange is Neolithic Farmer, although I don't know if it's exactly the same as the component in the prior Lazardis paper. Here, the standard is Starcevo and LBKT, and thus Stuttgart shows a little WHG, as does the Spanish early Neolithic. Still, it's Early Neolithic Farmer in Europe and EEF is the closest term, as Alan pointed out above. The blue is, of course, WHG, based on Loschbour. The green is Yamnaya. That component is not based on the R1b1 hunter gatherer who was so similar to the R1a1 hunter gatherer but who was, indeed, found in the Samara Valley. The green Yamnaya component is based on the later and downstream R1b samples from Yamnaya, and thus autosomally are half Eastern Hunter Gatherer and half "Near Eastern". I agree with Alan that this is the "West Asian" component that Dienekes has been chasing all these years. In my opinion, however, it should not be seen as some totally foreign component. I think they could have extracted the majority EEF like component.


(Alan is also right that ENF has no place in the discussion. That is a component found through modeling by Eurogenes. It is not, unlike these components, based on an ancient set of genomes.)

It's interesting that a little sliver of Yamnaya made it into the Gamba samples. You can also see how the blue WHG component made something of a comeback in the MN of Germany. Obviously, that didn't happen in other areas. Then there's the big explosion of it with Corded Ware, and lower levels in Bell Beaker.

There are all sorts of questions that arise as to why individual groups have their own particular set of percentages, as well. The Greeks (I believe the samples were taken in a northern part of the mainland) and the Albanians, for instance, why do they have less Yamnaya, when in addition to what might have come originally, they were invaded by Slavic speaking tribes who would have carried some with them? Also, why do they have more WHG than their immediate neighbors? The PCA is also interesting:

The PCA is also interesting:
Attachment 7074
You can see how the later Yamnaya samples cluster right between the EHGs and the Near Easterners.
Does anyone know, by the way, where the authors talk about the percentage of population replacement in the south?


noUseForAname

Great point Angela...
Greeks and Albanians have less later Yamna maybe cause (if we can suppose this way) as the predominant % of their dna is E-V13 (over 40%), if we add another Ie2 by 15% then we have over 65% EEF and WHG.
Yamna is only 15% (graph above) and it could be mainly through R1b and R1a, however it tops 25% (Greek and Albanian), we miss the 10%, maybe the 10% (R1b or R1a) was already at those regions before Yamna?
Then how about J2 which has 18%?...i don't have any comments here for now...

Albanians have mostly E-V13 (39%) Modern Greeks (19%), then R1b (18.6%) Modern Greeks (11.7%) migrated from steppe, then J2 (18.6%) Modern Greeks (17%) from middle east and in the end slavic tribes R1a (5%) Modern Greeks (16%)
now historically speaking modern greeks were slavinized (R1a) much more than the Albanians


Originally Posted by Sile
in summary , the paper states that there was one set of haplogroups in central Europe prior to 4500BC and then another different set came in....the older set comprises of I2 , G2 and T1, C and others from what I recall .............corded ware was the others .............R1 came in the younger set of migrations

Culture	Country	YBP	Hg	Simple hg	N
Mesolithic_HG	Luxembourg	8'000	I2a1b-L178	I2	1
Early_Neolithic	Hungary	7'700	I2a-L460	I2	1
Hunter_Gatherer	Sweden	7'700	I2a1-P37.2	I2	1
Hunter_Gatherer	Sweden	7'700	I2a1a1a-L672	I2	1
Hunter_Gatherer	Sweden	7'700	I2a1b-M423	I2	1
Hunter_Gatherer	Sweden	7'700	I2a1b2a1-L147.2	I2	1
Hunter_Gatherer	Sweden	7'700	I2c2-PF3827	I2	5
Early_Neolithic	Hungary	7'600	H2-L281	H2	1
Early_Neolithic	Spain	7'300	F*-P135	F*	1
Early_Neolithic	Spain	7'300	I2a1b1-L161.1	I2	1
Early_Neolithic	Germany	7'200	T1a-PF5604	T	1
Early_Neolithic	Germany	7'100	G2a2a-PF3147	G2a	1
Early_Neolithic	Germany	7'100	G2a2a-PF3185	G2a	1
Early_Neolithic	Germany	7'100	G2a2a1-PF3170	G2a	1
Early_Neolithic	Hungary	7'100	C1a2-V20/V184	C1	2
Early_Neolithic	Spain	7'100	R1b1-M415	R1b1	1
Early_Neolithic	Germany	7'000	G2a2a1-PF3155	G2a	1
Early_Neolithic	Spain	7'000	E1b1b1a1b1a-V13	E1b1b	1
Early_Neolithic	Spain	7'000	G2a-P15	G2a	5
Early_Neolithic	Spain	6'900	C1a2-V20	C1	1
Early_Neolithic	Hungary	6'400	I2a-L460	I2	1
Early_Neolithic	Germany	6'300	F-M89	F*	2
Early_Neolithic	Germany	6'200	G2a2b-S126	G2a	1

noUseForAname

So if Maciamo haplogroup timeline is correct, and according to early neolithic skeletons found:

1: Can we say that the early Neolithic people indigenous natives of Europe (at least as per ybp noted) are E-V13 (10,000 ybp) G2a2(9,000) and I2a1 (8.000 ybp) ?
Current populations with highest I2a are:

Bosnian Croats 71%
Bosnians 56%
Sardinians 42.3%
Norwegians 40.2%
Swedes 40%
Danes 38.7%
Slovenians 38.7%
Croats 37%
Serbians 33%
Bosnians Serbs 31%
Icelanders 34%
Dutch 32.9%
Sami 31%
Peak or roots of I2a1 seems to be current Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro and south west Serbia
However no ancient I2a1 is found yet at these areas except the 5 of them in Sweeden.

Current Populations with highest G2a2 are:
Osetians 60%
Georgians 32%
Although G2a2 already in Europe at the early Neolithic its roots looks like its current Georgia and Osetia (caucasus mountains)
And it has much lower numbers with that of E-V13 and !2a1

Current populations with highest E-V13 are:
Albanians in Kosovo 47.3%
Albanians in Macedonia 39%
Albanians in Kosovo, Macedonia and Albania 39%
Greeks in Greece 31%
Italians in Sicily 27.3%
Peak or roots of E-V13 seems to be current borders of Kosovo, west Macedonia, Albania, Greece (especially Peloponnese and south Greece with higher %)
However no ancient E-V13 is found yet at these areas except the one in Spain


2: Then came the migrations at early 5,000 ybp with R1 across black sea through Yamna

3: Then looks like J2 migrated the latest from middle east to Europe


for more quality info please go below..

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...-Europe/page22


Originally Posted by LeBrok
In order to make such maps we need a lot of data from all over the Europe. By the nature of this data collection it will be a self reporting project. It is not the best way, but it might be the only way to gather data for these maps. Please post your EEF, WHG, EEF numbers with place of birth, or place of birth of your parents if they came from different region than you were born in.

Little explanation of these admixtures:

These admixtures can roughly tell you about your origin.
WHG - West Hunter Gatherers, were the Mesolithic Europeans spread pretty much all over the Europe around 10 to 5 thousand BCE.
EEF - Early European Farmers, were the Neolithic inhabitants of Europe, the first farmers who came 10 thousand years ago from Near East and first settled in Balkans and the rest of South Europe. In next 5 thousand years they've spread to every corner of Europe.
ANE - Ancient North Eurasians, the hunter-gatherers and nomads from far East Europe and Central Asia. Latest research papers point to Indo-Europeans bringing ANE to every place in Europe.

Example:
Poland, Siedlce (country, city or region)
EEF - 45
WHG - 39
ANE - 16

One can say that I'm 39% very ancient European, 45% farmer from Near East, and 16% Indo-European. Or that I'm 55% Hunter-Gatherer and 45% Farmer.

More information:
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/201...est-three.html

Some data from the paper by Lazaridis:
EEF WHG ANE
0.781 0.092 0.127 -- Albanian
0.931 0 0.069 -- Ashkenazi_Jew
0.593 0.293 0.114 -- Basque
0.418 0.431 0.151 -- Belorussian
0.715 0.177 0.108 -- Bergamo
0.712 0.147 0.141 -- Bulgarian
0.561 0.293 0.145 -- Croatian
0.495 0.338 0.167 -- Czech
0.495 0.364 0.141 -- English
0.322 0.495 0.183 -- Estonian
0.554 0.311 0.135 -- French
0.675 0.195 0.13 -- French_South
0.792 0.058 0.151 -- Greek
0.558 0.264 0.179 -- Hungarian
0.394 0.456 0.15 -- Icelandic
0.364 0.464 0.172 -- Lithuanian
0.932 0 0.068 -- Maltese
0.411 0.428 0.161 -- Norwegian
0.457 0.385 0.158 -- Orcadian
0.713 0.125 0.163 -- Pais_Vasco
0.817 0.175 0.008 -- Sardinian
0.39 0.428 0.182 -- Scottish
0.903 0 0.097 -- Sicilian
0.809 0.068 0.123 -- Spanish
0.746 0.136 0.118 -- Tuscan
0.462 0.387 0.151 -- Ukrainian
Here is the explanation how you can calculate your admixtures:
http://bga101.blogspot.com.au/2013/1...europeans.html



noUseForAname
On EEF the paper states: Early European Farmer (EEF): apparently this is a hybrid component, the result of mixture between "Basal Eurasians" and a WHG-like population possibly from the Balkans. (possibly from Balkans) how do you know it came from near east (does it say on a paper?).

This might correlates with Maciamo arguing about E-V13 (10,000 ybp), as its peak or roots is south east balkans. And before that its a subclade of M-78 (south east Africa). And M-78 might have crossed (before 10,000 ybp) straight to south east balkans (or even Iberia) and not through Levant and Anatolia.
It also correlates with I2a1...So only possible early Neolithic in Europe I2a1 and E-V13?....Then I2a1 and E-V13 has nothing to do with near east farmers nor even migrating from the near east

Haplogroup E-V13 is the only lineage that reaches the highest frequencies out of Africa. In fact, it represents about 85% of the European E-M78 chromosomes with a clinal pattern of frequency distribution from the southern Balkan peninsula (19.6%) to western Europe (2.5%). The same haplogroup is also present at lower frequencies in Anatolia (3.8%), the Near East (2.0%), and the Caucasus (1.8%). In Africa, haplogroup E-V13 is rare, being observed only in northern Africa at a low frequency (0.9%).
—Cruciani et al. (2007)

On the other side looks like its pretty complicated, if we can say the more Yanmaya R* (4,500) from the graph the less Mesolithic or Neolthic, and more the WHG and EEF then more Mesolithic and early Neolithic. Credit goes to Sardinains and Bulgarians with pretty high I2a1 and Albanians and Greeks with E-V13
How come then Spain, tuscany, basques, Bergamo has one of the highest EEF and its very very high in R1b?....


Originally Posted by LeBrok
To be exact EEF is European hybrid, and it was found in Stuttgart. However it has over 80% component which came with first farmers. It is called Early Neolithic Farmer admixture. From archaeology we know that first farmers happened in Near East, and then farming spread to Europe through Balkans. We are yet to physically find and sequence this supposed ENF genome. Though it is pretty sure thing that we will find it there.

If E-V13 came with farmers to Balkans, it most likely started in Near East and walked from there to Europe with other farmers of G2a type, as minority clade. If it came to Europe in Mesolithic, then it came as hunter-gatherer. It could have originated in Saharan Africa, then came to Iberia, bringing North African admixture, which was found in some WHGs. When farmers came and acquired V13 from hunter gatherers it could spread around in bigger numbers throughout Europe with farmers.

Looking at E-V13 map, it looks wide spread in every part of Europe, therefore very ancient. It started expansion in Mid Neolithic to my guess, and in direction from South to North.


noUseForAname
Recent discoveries in Europe, such as Cyprus and mainland Greece has shown that farming started early in south east Europe. In Franchthi Cavein Greece there are no certain gathering of plant foods attested before c. 11,000 bc, although large numbers of seeds of the Boraginaceae family may come from plants gathered to furnish soft bedding or for the dye which their roots may have supplied. First appearing at c. 11,000bc are lentils, vetch, pistachios, and almonds. Then c. 10,500bcappear a few very rare seeds of wild oats and wild barley. Neither wild oats nor wild barley become at all common until c. 7000bc^[19][20] in Cyprus. The oldest agricultural settlement ever found on a Mediterranean island has been discovered in Klimonas. between 9100 and 8600 bc

Anthropological and archaeological evidence from sites across Southwest Asia and North Africaindicate use of wild grain (e.g., from the c. 20,000bc site ofOhalo II in Israel, many Natufian sites in theLevant and from sites along the Nile in the 10th millennium bc).
It was not until after 9500 bc that the eight so-called founder crops of agriculture appear: first emmer andeinkorn wheat, then hulled barley, peas,lentils, bitter vetch, chick peas and flax. These eight crops occur more or less simultaneously on Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) sites in the Levant
By 7000 bc, sowing and harvesting reached Mesopotamia.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_agriculture

What i understand is not the near East (considering Syria, Anatolia, Mesopotamia) but the far north east Africa (M-78 peak) and the very south west Levant like Ohalo.
So that might mean that by 10,000 BC there was already farming in the far south east Balkans that came from north east Africa and the far south west Levant.
It looks like the peak was south east Africa which at the same time spread in one direction at Crete and then Peloponnese and the other spread through Levant Syria and reached Mesopotamia by 7,000 BC.

It also correlates with M-78 and E-V13 link through north east Africa and not the other way around through north Levant and Anatolia.

Maybe not as a minority as you mention because who else was there before G2a I2a1 and E-V13 and with higher numbers?, i Would suppose (atearly Neolithic through mid Neolithic) the Majority in Europe was:
1: I2a1 & I1
2: E-V13
3: G2a1 (dont know why or how by today is still low)
4: R1b (became a majority after 4,000 ybp)
5: R1a (pushed more south to current Europe from Today Russia after around 4,500 ybp)
J2 not much info, (probably came in more numbers after the bronze age






Here is the E-V13 percentage for specific populations and specific locations.

Very interesting percentage by a specific location

Population -------------------------- Albanians(Kosovar)	Language ------------ IE (Albanian)	N ------ 114	R1b ------- 21.10	R1a ------- 4.42	I ----------- I1=5.31 I2a2=2.65	E-V13 --------- 47.37	J --------- J2=16.7	G ----- 0	N --- 0	T --- 0	Others ---------------- P[xQ,R1]=1.77	Reference ---------------------- Pericic2005[3]
Greeks (Peloponnese)	IE (Greek)	36	—	—	—	47	—	—	—	—	—	Semino2004[8]
Greeks (South)	IE (Greek)	46	19.6	2.2	23.9	43.5	—	6.5	—	2.2	—	Zalloua2008[31]
Cantabrians(Pasiegos)	IE (Italic)	56	—	—	—	42.9	—	—	—	—	—	Cruciani2004[20]
Albanians(Macedonia)	IE (Albanian)	64	18.8	1.6	I1=4.5 I2a=12.5	39.1	J1=6.3 J2=15.6	1.6	0.0	0.0	—	Battaglia2008[5]
Greeks (North)	IE (Greek)	96	14.6	18.8	12.5	35.4	—	5.2	—	2.1	L=1	Zalloua2008[31]
Italians (East Sicily)	IE (Italic)	87	20.0	2.3	5.0	29.0	—	5.0	—	5.0	—	Zalloua2008[31]
Italians (Sicily)	IE (Italic)		—	—	8.8	27.3	23.8	—	—	—	—	Semino2004[8]
Cypriots	IE (Greek)	45	9.0	2.0	—	27.0	—	—	—	—	—	Rosser2000[13]
Italians (South)	IE (Italic)	68	25.0	3.0	6.0	26.0	—	15.0	—	3.0	—	Zalloua2008[31]
Albanians	IE (Albanian)	55	18.2	9.1	I1=3.6 I2a=14.5 I2b=3.6	27.5	J1=3.6 J2=20.0	1.8	0.0	0.0	—	Battaglia2008[5]
Greeks	IE (Greek)	84/92	—	—	—	21.0	6.5	—	—	—	—	Semino2004[8]
Greeks (Macedonia)	IE (Greek)	57	14.0	12.3	I1=8.8 I2a=21.0	22.9	J1=1.8 J2=14.1	1.8	—	1.8	—	Battaglia 2008[5]
Ashkenazi Jews	IE (Germanic, West)	79	—	12.7	—	22.8	43.0	—	—	—	—	Nebel2001[9]
Serbs (Bosnia)	IE (Slavic, South)	81	6.2	13.6	40.7	22.2	9.9	1.2	6.2	0.0	—	Battaglia2008[5]
Aromuns(Kruševo, Macedonia)	IE (Italic)	43	27.9	11.6	20.9	20.9	11.6	7.0	0.0	0.0	—	Bosch2006[4]
Bulgarians	IE (Slavic, South)	127	11.0	17.3	27.5	19.7	18.1	1.6	—	0.8	—	Karachanak2009[17]
Greeks (Thrace)	IE (Greek)	41	12.2	22.0	19.5	19.5	19.5	4.9	—	—	—	Bosch2006[4]
Sephardic Jews	Afro-Asiatic (Semitic)	78	29.5	3.9	11.5	19.2	28.2	—	—	—	—	Nebel2001[9]
Italians (West Sicily)	IE (Italic)	125	27.0	2.4	11.0	19.0	—	13.0	—	3.0	—	Zalloua2008[31]
Minorca islanders	IE (Italic)	37	73.0	2.7	2.7	18.9	—	0.0	—	0.0	—	Zalloua2008[31]
Aromuns (Štip, Macedonia)	IE (Italic)	65	23.1	21.5	16.9	18.5	20.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	Bosch2006[4]
ethnic Macedonians	IE (Slavic, South)	211	11.4	14.2	31.3	18.0	16.0	3.8	0.5	1.9	L=0.5	Noveski2010[34]
Aromuns(Dukasi, Albania)	IE (Italic)	39	2.6	2.6	17.9	17.9	48.7	10.3	0.0	0.0	—	Bosch2006[4]
Serbs	IE (Slavic, South)	179	4.5	14.5	48	17.3	5.6	2.2	3.3	—	L=0.6	Mirabal,V.2010[39]
Portuguese (South)	IE (Italic)	57	56.0	2.0	—	17.0	—	—	—	—	—	Rosser2000[13]
Romanians(Ploieşti)	IE (Italic)	36	8.3	5.6	38.9	16.7	19.4	8.3	0.0	0.0	—	Bosch2006[4]
Gagauz(Kongaz)	Altaic (Turkic)	48	10.4	12.5	31.3	16.7	8.3	10.4	4.2	6.3	—	Varzari2006[27]
Italians (Calabria)	IE (Italic)		32.4[2]	—	5.4[6]	16.3[3]	24.6[8]	—	—	—	—
Aromuns(Andon Poci, Albania)	IE (Italic)	19	36.8	0.0	42.1	15.8	5.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	Bosch2006[4]
Italians (Apulia)	IE (Italic)		—	—	2.6[6]	13.9[8]	31.4[8]	—	—	—	—
Italians	IE (Italic)		—	2.7[16]	—	13.0[13]	—	—	—	—	—

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_h...an_populations

[noUseForAname]

..............

[noUseForAname]

As for the Language and recent scientific papers


The french scholar (see minute 31) states Eastern Branch of PEI closely related with Armenian-Phrygian-Greek, while Albanian is of a Western branch Balkanic and unrelated to the eastern branch, therefore it is not a brach of an Indic/Iranian language.

<strong><strong>





So we have Ancient Greek and Albanian language Split at 5,000 years ago, Ancient Greek 3,500 - Modern Albanian 1,000 - Modern Greek 500 years old.
This is from the written texts found, it might be much older.

It looks like the roots of modern Albanian language is Epirus - Roots of Ancient Greek Thessaly and Lydia.


http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/ite...kaert_2012.pdf
https://theoreticalecology.wordpress...nguage-family/






http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...=fb-share&_r=0
http://www.linguatics.com/indoeuropean_languages.htmhttp:/
pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/ite...kaert_2012.pdf
https://theoreticalecology.wordpress...nguage-family/


Some User stated
New Zealand scientists used new computational-modeling method. Their result is that Albanian has same root as Indic and Iranic language.


noUseForAname
I have found your source (although i asked 3 times to send the source and not just the picture)
You have misrepresented this source (see below) from (Russell D. Gray 2003 year) for the following reasons. I will interpret this study (although more recent studies of 2012 and 2015 show more details)

1: Albanian language is not a subgroup of indic/Iranian (see table below). If it would have been a subgroup then it would fall inside Indic/Iranic
2: Indic/Iranic split 4,600 years ago (own separate branch), Albanian split 6,000 years ago (own separate branch). Colours show separate branches (read the whole source in details please)
3: On the other side Greek and Armenian split 6,800 years ago (therefore own Branch), although it mentions Greek only 800 years old (probably this is only for the modern Greek and not ancient Greek). And Albanian 600 years old (probably this is only for a modern Albanian)
4: The main language groupings are colourcoded. Branch lengths are proportional to the inferred maximum-likelihood estimates ofevolutionary change per cognate....
5: For example *Italic also includes the French/Iberian subgroup, So Italic main branch and subgroups are French/Iberian.
6: So the main groups branches (from older to recent) are: Anatolian, Tocharian, Armenian, Greek, Albanian, Iranian (Indo-Iranian), Indic (indo-Iranian), Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, Italic.....

Now my question to you is: Why the study then shows Albanian as its own Main branch?








Some User stated
My assumption is that Albanian originated somewhere in between (today's) Caucasus, northern Iran and eastern Turkey. I suppose that carriers of R1b ht35 (Armenian haplotype), J2 and probably R1a created this language. Albanian is Indo-European, Satem.


noUseForAname
1:Majority of current Albanians descend from E-V13 (over 40%) how can they originate from Caucus area? (we are not talking about the language here)
2:It is a possibility that Yamna R1b majority 4,000 years ago spread PEI to those regions, as Albanians currently have 18.6% R1b and R1a only 5%
3:It is also a possibility that J2 through Yamna 4,000 ago spread PEI, however this is not supported with the recent (major scale dna study) because Yamna were mostly R1b.
4: Maciamo notes that current Ukrainians have J2a from Greek ancestry, therefore it came to Greek regions much later then E-V13 and R1b because J2a never moved across Yamna (only Yamns brought PEI). J2a must have crossed through current Turkey but definitely didnt brought PEI with them. If J2 moved there at earlier say around 3,000 years ago it should have already found E-V113 and R1b, that is why E-V13 and R1b at Albanians have over 60% together. Currently J2 is 18%.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...-Europe/page22

So once again how can Albanians Originate from Caucus when altogether E-V13 R1b and I2 = 77.5%




https://www.webdepot.umontreal.ca/Us...ayAtkinson.pdf

[noUseForAname]

It is here the most recent and comprehensive scientific research:


According to the source we can conclude that the most Ancient indigenous current populations of Europe are:
(Considering Early Neolithic to mid Neolithic ONLY, because if we go more back they should have came from somewhere else like everyone descend from Africa)


1: Sardinian
2: Albanian
3: Greek
4: Spanish
5: Bergamo
6: Basque
7: Tuscan
8: Bulgarian
9: French
10: Croatian
11: Arcadian
12: English
13: Ukrainian
14: Hungarian
15: Belarusian
16: Czech
17: Scottish
18: Icelandic
19: Estonian
20: Lithuanian
21: Norwegian




So obviously the more EEF and WHG the more Ancient European, the more ANE Yamna the later in Europe.

This might also correlate with my suppositions (from the start of this thread) that before ancient Greek inhabitants they were native inhabitants of the so called Pelazgian.

And it might mean that the only possible major group of Pelazgians are E-V13 (which i support) or !2e.



Here are more details....

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/e...13433.full.pdf

[Sile]

It is here the most recent and comprehensive scientific research:


According to the source we can conclude that the most Ancient indigenous current populations of Europe are:
(Considering Early Neolithic to mid Neolithic ONLY, because if we go more back they should have came from somewhere else like everyone descend from Africa)


1: Sardinian
2: Albanian
3: Greek
4: Spanish
5: Bergamo
6: Basque
7: Tuscan
8: Bulgarian
9: French
10: Croatian
11: Arcadian
12: English
13: Ukrainian
14: Hungarian
15: Belarusian
16: Czech
17: Scottish
18: Icelandic
19: Estonian
20: Lithuanian
21: Norwegian




So obviously the more EEF and WHG the more Ancient European, the more ANE Yamna the later in Europe.

This might also correlate with my suppositions (from the start of this thread) that before ancient Greek inhabitants they were native inhabitants of the so called Pelazgian.

And it might mean that the only possible major group of Pelazgians are E-V13 (which i support) or !2e.



Here are more details....

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/e...13433.full.pdf

You are confused

in the link you provided has on pages 23, 24 and 25 , the chart and ydna markers. Of the 69 ancients tested, zero are from the E haplogroup

so in the chart on your post, the ancient bracket comprises of these 69 ancient findings ................again none are E

LBK_EN is only G2 and T1 as an example

[Yetos]

It is here the most recent and comprehensive scientific research:


According to the source we can conclude that the most Ancient indigenous current populations of Europe are:
(Considering Early Neolithic to mid Neolithic ONLY, because if we go more back they should have came from somewhere else like everyone descend from Africa)


1: Sardinian
2: Albanian
3: Greek
4: Spanish
5: Bergamo
6: Basque
7: Tuscan
8: Bulgarian
9: French
10: Croatian
11: Arcadian
12: English
13: Ukrainian
14: Hungarian
15: Belarusian
16: Czech
17: Scottish
18: Icelandic
19: Estonian
20: Lithuanian
21: Norwegian




So obviously the more EEF and WHG the more Ancient European, the more ANE Yamna the later in Europe.

This might also correlate with my suppositions (from the start of this thread) that before ancient Greek inhabitants they were native inhabitants of the so called Pelazgian.

And it might mean that the only possible major group of Pelazgians are E-V13 (which i support) or !2e.



Here are more details....

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/e...13433.full.pdf

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU

your source

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/e...13433.full.pdf


page 40

table S4.2

where do you see E-V13 and you extract

<<""So obviously the more EEF and WHG the more Ancient European, the more ANE Yamna the later in Europe.

This might also correlate with my suppositions (from the start of this thread) that before ancient Greek inhabitants they were native inhabitants of the so called Pelazgian.

And it might mean that the only possible major group of Pelazgians are E-V13 (which i support) or !2e. >>

PLZ CAN SOMEONE SHOW WHERE IS THIS? OR HOW IT CAN BE EXTRACTED?

I claim Ignorant, but am I blind also?

noUseForAname THANK YOU AGAIN

[noUseForAname]

You are confused

in the link you provided has on pages 23, 24 and 25 , the chart and ydna markers. Of the 69 ancients tested, zero are from the E haplogroup

so in the chart on your post, the ancient bracket comprises of these 69 ancient findings ................again none are E

LBK_EN is only G2 and T1 as an example

There is 1 Early Neolithic of Spain E-V13....have a closer look (pg 49)

First author Year N Country Period HaplogroupEUROPESeguin-Orlando25 2014 1 Russia Upper Paleolithic H/G C1- F3393Haak3,+ 2008 1 Germany Late Neolithic R1a1-SRY10831.2Haak10 2010 1 Germany Early Neolithic G2a2b-S1262 Germany Early Neolithic F-M89Lacan12,* 2011 5 Spain Early Neolithic G2a-P151 Spain Early Neolithic E1b1b1a1b1a-V13

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/e...13433.full.pdf


So from 69 samples there are only around 30 from Early Neolithic (including E-V13) to Mid Neolithic (all the Yamnays and R1a are after mid Neolithic Bronze Age In Europe excluding Russia)

And those around 30 samples from Early Neolithic to Mid Neolithic (10,000 to 5,000 ybp) are mostly outside Europe (Current Russia)
Therefore it makes sense from those small samples (Early Neolithic in Europe) to find the most current native indigenous populations of Europe.

in other words why would the scientist then came upon conclusion that Albanian 2nd and Greek 3rd (are most indigenous in Europe)?

It makes sense because as per Albanians they have E-V13 (over 40%) and another Ie2 by 15% then we have over 65% (Which might mean EEF) which is pretty high percentage


I mean we can interpret the study but who are Me and YOU to know better than the scientists (this is a major study, 45 scientist in one study, one of the biggest one), therefore they havent placed by chance Albanian 2nd and Greek 3rd.

[Sile]

There is 1 Early Neolithic of Spain E-V13....have a closer look (pg 49)

First author Year N Country Period HaplogroupEUROPESeguin-Orlando25 2014 1 Russia Upper Paleolithic H/G C1- F3393Haak3,+ 2008 1 Germany Late Neolithic R1a1-SRY10831.2Haak10 2010 1 Germany Early Neolithic G2a2b-S1262 Germany Early Neolithic F-M89Lacan12,* 2011 5 Spain Early Neolithic G2a-P151 Spain Early Neolithic E1b1b1a1b1a-V13

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/e...13433.full.pdf


So from 69 samples there are only around 30 from Early Neolithic (including E-V13) to Mid Neolithic (all the Yamnays and R1a are after mid Neolithic Bronze Age In Europe excluding Russia)

And those around 30 samples from Early Neolithic to Mid Neolithic (10,000 to 5,000 ybp) are mostly outside Europe (Current Russia)
Therefore it makes sense from those small samples (Early Neolithic in Europe) to find the most current native indigenous populations of Europe.

in other words why would the scientist then came upon conclusion that Albanian 2nd and Greek 3rd (are most indigenous in Europe)?

It makes sense because as per Albanians they have E-V13 (over 40%) and another Ie2 by 15% then we have over 65% (Which might mean EEF) which is pretty high percentage


I mean we can interpret the study but who are Me and YOU to know better than the scientists (this is a major study, 45 scientist in one study, one of the biggest one), therefore they are not stupid that they put Albanian 2nd and Greek 3rd.

the 69 ancient samples from page 25 does not contain any E haplogroup. the chart is only for these 69 samples.

Your E sample on page 49 is from a previous study by Lacan in 2011

just use page 23 with page 25 and you will be ok

[Yetos]

There is 1 Early Neolithic of Spain E-V13....have a closer look (pg 49)

First author Year N Country Period HaplogroupEUROPESeguin-Orlando25 2014 1 Russia Upper Paleolithic H/G C1- F3393Haak3,+ 2008 1 Germany Late Neolithic R1a1-SRY10831.2Haak10 2010 1 Germany Early Neolithic G2a2b-S1262 Germany Early Neolithic F-M89Lacan12,* 2011 5 Spain Early Neolithic G2a-P151 Spain Early Neolithic E1b1b1a1b1a-V13

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/e...13433.full.pdf


So from 69 samples there are only around 30 from Early Neolithic (including E-V13) to Mid Neolithic (all the Yamnays and R1a are after mid Neolithic Bronze Age In Europe excluding Russia)

And those around 30 samples from Early Neolithic to Mid Neolithic (10,000 to 5,000 ybp) are mostly outside Europe (Current Russia)
Therefore it makes sense from those small samples (Early Neolithic in Europe) to find the most current native indigenous populations of Europe.

in other words why would the scientist then came upon conclusion that Albanian 2nd and Greek 3rd (are most indigenous in Europe)?

It makes sense because as per Albanians they have E-V13 (over 40%) and another Ie2 by 15% then we have over 65% (Which might mean EEF) which is pretty high percentage


I mean we can interpret the study but who are Me and YOU to know better than the scientists (this is a major study, 45 scientist in one study, one of the biggest one), therefore they are not stupid that they put Albanian 2nd and Greek 3rd.

Because of

G2a2a
G2a2a1
T1a

and not of E-v13


THERE IS NO Hg E in page 40 table 4,2

LBK_EN are G2a2a and T1a not E


table 4.2 is the source for Figure 3

[Garrick]

There is 1 Early Neolithic of Spain E-V13....have a closer look (pg 49)

First author Year N Country Period HaplogroupEUROPESeguin-Orlando25 2014 1 Russia Upper Paleolithic H/G C1- F3393Haak3,+ 2008 1 Germany Late Neolithic R1a1-SRY10831.2Haak10 2010 1 Germany Early Neolithic G2a2b-S1262 Germany Early Neolithic F-M89Lacan12,* 2011 5 Spain Early Neolithic G2a-P151 Spain Early Neolithic E1b1b1a1b1a-V13

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/e...13433.full.pdf


So from 69 samples there are only around 30 from Early Neolithic (including E-V13) to Mid Neolithic (all the Yamnays and R1a are after mid Neolithic Bronze Age In Europe excluding Russia)

And those around 30 samples from Early Neolithic to Mid Neolithic (10,000 to 5,000 ybp) are mostly outside Europe (Current Russia)
Therefore it makes sense from those small samples (Early Neolithic in Europe) to find the most current native indigenous populations of Europe.

in other words why would the scientist then came upon conclusion that Albanian 2nd and Greek 3rd (are most indigenous in Europe)?

It makes sense because as per Albanians they have E-V13 (over 40%) and another Ie2 by 15% then we have over 65% (Which might mean EEF) which is pretty high percentage


I mean we can interpret the study but who are Me and YOU to know better than the scientists (this is a major study, 45 scientist in one study, one of the biggest one), therefore they are not stupid that they put Albanian 2nd and Greek 3rd.

Why do you give same messages in the different themes?

Do you think more time repeatedly something, though wrongly, has effects?

No.

And probably in this case you can see same answers.

Very confused, as said previous interlocutors.

You mixed ANE, WHG and EEF with uni-parental markers E-V13, R1a, I2a what is nonsense.

Albanian 2nd is not mean Albanian in the Balkan origin is 2nd, it is big difference, geographical area of origin could be Anatolia, the Caucasus, Moldavia etc.

In the base, you can not come to terms with the fact that no found E samples, only one, but in Spain!

But G2 = 41 & I2 = 18, you probably sow these data.

[Garrick]

Because of

G2a2a
G2a2a1
T1a

and not of E-v13


THERE IS NO Hg E in page 40 table 4,2

LBK_EN are G2a2a and T1a not E


table 4.2 is the source for Figure 3

Short but very clever, reputation.

Unfortunately, he is confused and mixed the different things.

[Maleth]

Isnt this thread on who are the Albanians and their DNA?. We know they have high percentages of I's and R1b's besides E-V13. We have no studies from Neolithic sites in the Balkans and the 1 E-V13 found in a Neolithic site in Spain proves that it has been around in Europe since the Neolithic, so Im doing my best to figure out what is trying to be proved in regards to the Albanians and their DNA. We know one thing for sure, Albanians are not close to current Turkish populations. I remember first time i joined the forums I used to see all over the place that Albanians are descendants of Turks. DNA busted that is a myth.

Do we have DNA samples on the huge amount of Bones found in regions that probably were more populated due to the climatic conditions in the neolithic period? The answer is NO. The probability is that Neolithic sites were extremely sparsely populated anyway and life was more populous to the south (because of climatic conditions we all know of).

[Garrick]

Isnt this thread on who are the Albanians and their DNA?. We know they have high percentages of I's and R1b's besides E-V13. We have no studies from Neolithic sites in the Balkans and the 1 E-V13 found in a Neolithic site in Spain proves that it has been around in Europe since the Neolithic, so Im doing my best to figure out what is trying to be proved in regards to the Albanians and their DNA. We know one thing for sure, Albanians are not close to current Turkish populations. I remember first time i joined the forums I used to see all over the place that Albanians are descendants of Turks. DNA busted that is a myth.

Do we have DNA samples on the huge amount of Bones found in regions that probably were more populated due to the climatic conditions in the neolithic period? The answer is NO. The probability is that Neolithic sites were extremely sparsely populated anyway and life was more populous to the south (because of climatic conditions we all know of).

Of course, Albanians are not close to current Turkish population.

But you can see, today's Turks mostly have no Y-DNK of original Turks, but they speak Turkish not any Anatolian language.

E-V13 is haplogroup which widespread all over the Europe.

Carriers of E-V13 are not creators of Albanian language, as carriers of majority haplogroups in today's Turkey are not creators of Turkish language.

You know, Albanian is Indo European language.

(E-V13 carriers in Europe, Anatolia and Middle East surely once had their own languages, and these languages probably were Afro Asiatics, but these languages are extinct).

Linguists for several centuries give effort where to classify Albanian because it does not much any existing group of Indo European language.

Generally considered Albanian to be the closest to Armenian.

Armenian is on of many language of Caucasus and Asia Minor, and of course, Armenian is Indo European.

Armenian is probably created of carriers of R1b ht35 (Armenian haplotype), and it is interesting this haplogroup is represented among Albanians.

Probably original Albanian originated somewhere in Caucasus, or near (East Turkey, Northern Iran, somewhere near to Caspian Sea).

Two New Zealand scientists, with new computational methods found that Albanian has same root as Indic and Iranian languages!

Of course Albanian has long disappeared with Caucasus and neighboring regions (and a lot of languages in Caucasus disappeared), difference is about 6000 years.

If they are right Iranian languages in the Caucasus and near are perhaps good for comparing bearing in mind time distance of 6000 years.

It means, between Iranian languages (Caucasus, East Turkey, Northern Iran and Region about Caspian sea) and Armenian language, which are Indo European languages, we can search roots of Albanian (and close relative languages to Albanian, knowing these languages are no longer in use).

Probably carriers of haplogroup R1b ht35 and maybe carriers of R1a, etc. are creators of forerunner of Albanian somewhere in Caucasus and near.

It is true that in modern Albanian we have Afro Asiatic words but from this perspective it is hard to tell if it is the effect from E-V13 carriers or these are some much later influences.