Palasgians, pre Ancient Greeks...would their DNA be E-V13?

This is misinterpretation. Mixing two different entities. Therefore conclusions are completely wrong.


So you think you are smarter than 45 scientist of this study and coming up with your one worded conclusions as of completely wrong?....Give me a break please.


So from 69 samples there are only around 30 from Early Neolithic (including 1 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.
 
So you think you are smarter than 45 scientist of this study and coming up with your one worded conclusions as of completely wrong?....Give me a break please.


So from 69 samples there are only around 30 from Early Neolithic (including 1 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.

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.

Y_DNA_8_do_5_kya.png
 
Last edited:
This thread is about Palasgians and the possibility if they might had E-V13 Haplogroup. Do we have any dna samples from ancient burial sites in the Balkan area? No. So who can say? theories assumptions hypothesis. I read that the theory of Johann George that Albanians are descendants of Palasgians on the base of language has been generally scrapped by scholars, but had nothing to do with DNA and haplogroups as no science was around at that time. Some people need to get used to the idea that E-V13 has been around BEFORE slavery, gypsies the Ottoman empire and North African Berbers. I augur Courage :)
 
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


Study argues, as i am only representing this Study.

Don't you understand EEF means (Early European Farmers, early Neolithic) the orange color Albanians = 65%
WHG means (Wester European huntergathers) blue color Albanians = 17 %

So only one question i have, how this is not European?...... EEF + WHG = Albanians 82%

ANE means (Yamnaya) green color Albanians = 18%


Of course this means that Albanians are descend from south east Europe since the early Neolithic Period 10,000 years ago.


2nd Question is how could origin be Anatolia or Caucus when we are talking (indigenous inhabitants) from the early European Neolithic (10,000 ybp)?
 
Last edited:
Of course this means that Albanians are descend from south east Europe since the early Neolithic Period 10,000 years ago.

No, it doesn't mean. You didn't understand the text. You can read again posts above.
 
Study argues, as i am only representing this Study.

Don't you understand EEF means (Early European Neolithic) the orange color Albanians = 65%
WHG means (Wester European huntergathers) blue color Albanians = 17 %

So only one question i have, how this is not European?...... EEF + WHG = Albanians 82%

ANE means (Yamnaya) green color Albanians = 18%


Of course this means that Albanians are descend from south east Europe since the early Neolithic Period 10,000 years ago.


2nd Question is how could origin be Anatolia or Caucus when we are talking (indigenous inhabitants) from the early European Neolithic (10,000 ybp)?
All Europeans, except new immigrants, descend from these three genetic groups, only in different proportions.
 
If you say so, can you answer the 2 questions above then?

You pull one piece of the puzzle and say: Eureka. But things don't operate so. Whole puzzle is important.

EEF is complex. This contains ENF and WHG. (EEF = ENF + WHG). But much more ENF than WHG.

Do you know what is ENF?

ENF = Early Neolithic Farmers

It is component from the ancient Near East (including Anatolia, Caucasus, near).

If someone found 82% for Albanians it means:

ENF + WHG = 82%

We have no knowledge how much in ENF is from the Near East/Anatolia/Caucasus/Balkans/South Western Europe etc.

It needs a lot of researches in different epochs to know more.

Do you understand, EEF is hybrid component.
 
We have no knowledge how much in ENF is from the Near East/Anatolia/Caucasus/Balkans/South Western Europe etc.
Do you understand, EEF is hybrid component.


Thats why i mentioned Early Neolithic through mid Neolithic (10,000 - 5,000 ybp) because through that period we have early Neolithic Farmers from south east Europe.
Now we are not talking here before 10,000 (please pay attention to wording)

Therefore, Albanians and Greeks are descendants from early European Farmers from south east Europe since the early Neolithic Period 10,000 years ago.


Thats why I also placed a 2nd Question like below (scientist didn't go deeper as of where did those inhabitants Sardinians Albanians Greeks came from before early Neolithic and Mesolithic)
2nd Question is how could origin be Anatolia or Caucus when we are talking (indigenous inhabitants) from the early European Neolithic (10,000 ybp)?....so we are not talking where did those early Neolithic European farmers came from.


Havent read the whole paper but it looks like they have found those populations which have admixure with near east...

Fig. S9.24 shows that when WHG admixture is added to EN, residuals for most European populations are reduced, consistent with most Europeans not being descended from EN farmers of Europe. Four populations indicate no change in residuals:
Sardinians are the population that is closest to early European farmers2,7-9,12 with an estimated ~90% descent from them
(ref. 2 and Fig. S9.23b), while Maltese, Ashkenazi Jews, and Sicilians may have Near Eastern admixture not mediated via early European farmers2.
 
Last edited:
All Europeans, except new immigrants, descend from these three genetic groups, only in different proportions.

Correct, so it looks like the proportion of Sardinians Albanians and Greek have the highest percentage as per descendents from the early Neolithic European Farmers


Fig. S9.24 shows that when WHG admixture is added to EN, residuals for most European populations are reduced, consistent with most Europeans not being descended from EN farmers of Europe. Four populations indicate no change in residuals: Sardinians are the population that is closest to early European farmers2,7-9,12 with an estimated ~90% descent from them
(ref. 2 and Fig. S9.23b), while Maltese, Ashkenazi Jews, and Sicilians may have Near Eastern admixture not mediated via early European farmers2.
 
Thats why i mentioned Early Neolithic through mid Neolithic (10,000 - 5,000 ybp) because through that period we have early Neolithic Farmers from south east Europe.
Now we are not talking here before 10,000 (please pay attention to wording)

Therefore, Albanians and Greeks are descend from south east Europe since the early Neolithic Period 10,000 years ago.


Thats why I also placed a 2nd Question like below (scientist didn't go deeper as of where did those inhabitants Sardinians Albanians Greeks came from before early Neolithic and Mesolithic)
2nd Question is how could origin be Anatolia or Caucus when we are talking (indigenous inhabitants) from the early European Neolithic (10,000 ybp)?....so we are not talking where did those early Neolithic European farmers came from.


Havent read the whole paper but it looks like they have found those populations which have admixure with near east...

Fig. S9.24 shows that when WHG admixture is added to EN, residuals for most European populations are reduced, consistent with most Europeans not being descended from EN farmers of Europe. Four populations indicate no change in residuals:
Sardinians are the population that is closest to early European farmers2,7-9,12 with an estimated ~90% descent from them
(ref. 2 and Fig. S9.23b), while Maltese, Ashkenazi Jews, and Sicilians may have Near Eastern admixture not mediated via early European farmers2.

there many varriants you need to search,
for example PC1 shows much back in time possibilities, like possible palaiolithic

do not mix Shardinians with Balkans,
Shardinians seem so old due to other varriants, not the one that are in Balkans,

in Balkans there is a group, that might (possible) is palaiolithic, but is not connected with Shardinians,
 
It would appear from this incoming paper that what has been apparent for quite a while is true, to wit, that the "Slavs" and whatever dna they brought, which would have included EEF/ANE/an WHG, just in different proportions from that of the prior inhabitants, are newcomers to the Balkans, arriving in the last 1200 years or so.

http://www.isabs.hr/registration201...iew&id_program=16&id_topic=53&id_abstract=417
 

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.

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

Thats why i mentioned Early Neolithic through mid Neolithic (10,000 - 5,000 ybp) because through that period we have early Neolithic Farmers from south east Europe.
Now we are not talking here before 10,000 (please pay attention to wording)

Therefore, Albanians and Greeks are descend from south east Europe since the early Neolithic Period 10,000 years ago.

You mix grandmothers and frogs. And, of course, conclusions are wrong.

First
You mix EEF, ANE and WHG with uniparental markers E-V13, I2a, R1a etc.
Are you confused?
Conclusion: Wrong

Second
You speak about E1b
You speak about 69 samples but you can see: G2 = 41, I2a = 18.
How many E1b do you see?
E1b = 1
Where?
In Spain!
It didn't find in Balkans.
Confused?
Conclusion: Wrong

Third
You don't understand what is EEF.
And scientists can be imprecise, what makes confusion at you.

Because EEF (differently from WHG and ANE) is hybrid component:

EEF = ENF + WHG,
whereby ENF is much larger than WHG in EEF.

ENF: Early Neolithic Farmers

ENF is componet from Near East including Anatolia, Caucasus and near.

ENF is appropriate not EEF (and term EEF is not in use).
Confused?
Conclusion: Wrong

Fourth
And where you are confused you try to project on today's nations.
It is nonsense.
For example.
Can you imagine someone who is carrier of haplogroup E-V13, and he lived in Anatolia, or Causacus, or Near East, in XIX century, and with Turkish army he came to the Albania. (I don't generalize, only I give example).
And his descendants had Y-DNA testing.
The results are that they are E-V13 carriers.
Someone sees these results and thinks that they are 10000 years in the Balkans.
Confused?
Conclusion: Wrong

...
Plus: nations are result XIX and XX centuries, not 10000 before, and they are social constructions, not genetical.

...
Your conclusions that Albanians are 10000 years in the Balkans is completely wrong.
It is childish.
...

In the base we are in old debate. This paper (Lazaridis et al) changed nothing, and it was not its purpose.

It will be clearer when much more DNA samples be tested, from different epochs. Also it will be clearer when new discoveries in different science: history, archeology, linguistics, philology, anthropology etc. lead to new knowledge.
 
Hahaha. Saying, Albanians came with ottomans is so childish. Still people around using this kind of arguments, so boring . One is trying to learn new stuff on forums but people came up over and over with these kind of things. E- V13 and I2 are the indigenous DNA lineages throughout Balkans. Keep calm and sup it. ....
 
The mass of E-V13 in the Balkans has nothing to do with some stray Turk who arrived during the Ottoman occupation. It has an expansion date in The Bronze Age. It has a start burst expansion from right around the area where it is currently the most frequent in the Balkans. It spread from there into Italy, much of it perhaps during the first millennium BC, as we know from Boattini et al's relative dating of the arrival of different haplogroups into Italy. The most parsimonious and scientific explanation is that it has been in that area since at least the Bronze Age. Anything else is just more Balkan obfuscation for ethnic partisanship and an attempt to make the Albanians and anyone else who carries it "foreign" to the area when in fact it is the "Slavs" and whatever yDna they carried who are the most recent arrivals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E-V68#E-V13

Ed. I should add that neither can one say that all the EEF in modern Balkan peoples has been in situ since the Neolithic. Slavs also carry EEF, along with WHG and ANE, as did the Thracians and other Indo-European peoples. However, ANE was definitely not present in the Neolithic so it is the latest of the major ancient population groups to arrive.
 
It would appear from this incoming paper that what has been apparent for quite a while is true, to wit, that the "Slavs" and whatever dna they brought, which would have included EEF/ANE/an WHG, just in different proportions from that of the prior inhabitants, are newcomers to the Balkans, arriving in the last 1200 years or so.

http://www.isabs.hr/registration201...iew&id_program=16&id_topic=53&id_abstract=417

Good finding, reputation, it would be very interesting, but it depends if authors used old studies or they have new data.

Because some old studies in the Balkans are not quite correct.

Scientists are probably from Estonia, Bosnia, Croatia, etc., but not to comment now, for the first to wait the article.
 
Hahaha. Saying, Albanians came with ottomans is so childish. Still people around using this kind of arguments, so boring . One is trying to learn new stuff on forums but people came up over and over with these kind of things. E- V13 and I2 are the indigenous DNA lineages throughout Balkans. Keep calm and sup it. ....

You didn't understand.

You just confirmed what I said.

I don't generalize, only I give example.

Someone will have wrong conclusion if he or she interpret data mistakenly.
 
Serbia and Croatia are pretty countries, with reach cultures and much other things.

And as to the origin, everyone can see that Serbs and Croats have a similar haplogroups, differences are small.

But the conflict between them, most irrational by its nature, is difficult for someone from the outside to understand, which is a shame because cooperation is much better.

There are some historical reasons, when modern nations formed in XIX century, ethnicity in the Balkans is determined by religion, religion brings people together but different religions can divide people.

But there are good role models, the Serbs and Croats can learn how Scandinavian nations know how to cooperate with each other
In Albanian population are three important religions: orthodox, Catholic, Sunni, bektashi. But even a little percentage of Protestants also. Their national hero is called Gjergj Kastrioti (George kastriota). Is the only place in Balkans where you can see a church and a mosque on front to each other. [emoji4]




[emoji562]
 
In Albanian population are three important religions: orthodox, Catholic, Sunni, bektashi. But even a little percentage of Protestants also. Their national hero is called Gjergj Kastrioti (George kastriota). Is the only place in Balkans where you can see a church and a mosque on front to each other.

Why you comment this, nobody spoke about Albanians.

When formed modern Serbian, Croatian and Bosniac nation, religion played main role, Eastern Orthodoxs and some Protestants become Serbs, Roman Catholics become Croats, and Muslim become Bosniacs.

Josip Broz Tito wanted to create brotherhood and unity between Yugoslav nations, especially between Serbs, Croats and Bosniacs.

He could have success, number of people who declared themselves as Yugoslavs grew.

If Yugoslavia is now it would be a million people who would declared as Yugoslavs, and in 2050 probably all Serbs, Croats and Bosniacs would be Yugoslavs.

...
And please, thread is Pelasgian, we can discuss about other things in the other threads.
 
In Albanian population are three important religions: orthodox, Catholic, Sunni, bektashi. But even a little percentage of Protestants also. Their national hero is called Gjergj Kastrioti (George kastriota). Is the only place in Balkans where you can see a church and a mosque on front to each other. [emoji4]




[emoji562]

Not Again, it is boring
 

This thread has been viewed 326036 times.

Back
Top