"Ancient DNA reveals the origins of the Albanians" paper

Would be interesting to see the DNA. We know J2b made it all the way to Peloponnese so there is a chance.
The absolute curveball if V13 though :LOL:
There is a chance if Bronze age burials.
 
In line with Kamenica. Kamenica and Himara are not far from each other.
That's what I mean. Apart from a shift from pf to z2103, no non-r1b clades were found there either in BA or IA, from what I recall.
If anything BA seemed more homogeneous pf. So I was wondering why you think finding non-r1b clades in this region is more likely in the BA.
 
Here's a different scenario:

What if R-Y227216 is Italian in origin, and the high frequency in Albania comes from Italians fleeing invasions for Byzantium?

It could also come from Albanians fleeing invasions on the other side of the Adriatic too.
It all makes sense now. This seems more plausible.
 
That's what I mean. Apart from a shift from pf to z2103, no non-r1b clades were found there either in BA or IA, from what I recall.
If anything BA seemed more homogeneous pf. So I was wondering why you think finding non-r1b clades in this region is more likely in the BA.
I have to leave an open possibility for the following
 

Attachments

  • D7BE8143-CC4C-4C50-AD5C-AD6E8282D1C9.png
    D7BE8143-CC4C-4C50-AD5C-AD6E8282D1C9.png
    89.5 KB · Views: 63
Here's a different scenario:

What if R-Y227216 is Italian in origin, and the high frequency in Albania comes from Italians fleeing invasions for Byzantium?

It could also come from Albanians fleeing invasions on the other side of the Adriatic too.

No, it is Mycenaean in origin
 
I see Davidski is an author, if I'm not mistaken. Based on his attitude towards academic papers, why do this? What happed to all that bullshit he says about appealing to authority and other garbage?

Also one of the authors (Davidski) believes modern Greeks are Cypriots mixed with Slavs with little to no connections to the Ancient Greeks.
Davidski claims that modern Greeks have Cypriot-like ancestry (so West Asian/Anatolian) given the outliers he has seen but I wouldn't consider Cypriots as the ideal proxy of pre-Slavic Greeks.
For example if you subtract the Slavic admixture from Deep Maniotes you get a population that is similar to modern Dodecanese but with a Western pull which is how I believe pre-Slavic Peloponnesians were.

As for this paper if I see that 40% Slavic in Albanians again I am going out. I have no bias against Slavic ancestry but it just has to be real and I just don't believe it is that high.
 
Davidski claims that modern Greeks have Cypriot-like ancestry (so West Asian/Anatolian) given the outliers he has seen but I wouldn't consider Cypriots as the ideal proxy of pre-Slavic Greeks.
For example if you subtract the Slavic admixture from Deep Maniotes you get a population that is similar to modern Dodecanese but with a Western pull which is how I believe pre-Slavic Peloponnesians were.

As for this paper if I see that 40% Slavic in Albanians again I am going out. I have no bias against Slavic ancestry but it just has to be real and I just don't believe it is that high.

It all depends how much eastern like ancestry Albanians got during Roman Empire.
 
Davidski claims that modern Greeks have Cypriot-like ancestry (so West Asian/Anatolian) given the outliers he has seen but I wouldn't consider Cypriots as the ideal proxy of pre-Slavic Greeks.
For example if you subtract the Slavic admixture from Deep Maniotes you get a population that is similar to modern Dodecanese but with a Western pull which is how I believe pre-Slavic Peloponnesians were.

As for this paper if I see that 40% Slavic in Albanians again I am going out. I have no bias against Slavic ancestry but it just has to be real and I just don't believe it is that high.
Personally i think Deep maniots are better proxy for the mainlanders than Cypriot or dodecanese Greeks for 2 reasons:
1.Ancient samples from the mainland(LBA and later) have on average definitely higher steppe admixture than the Cretan/Dodecanese/Cypriots ones so it's pretty obvious that the steppe cline between Mainlanders and islanders exists long before the medieval times.
2.Islanders(medieval or earlier ones) have minor levantine dna that Mainlanders lack.

PS 40% slavic admixture on albanians is too high estimation,i think is closer to 25-30% on average
 
Last edited:
Personally i think Deep maniots are better proxy for the mainlanders than Cypriot or dodecanese Greeks for 2 reasons:
1.Ancient samples from the mainland(LBA and later) have on average definitely higher steppe admixture than the Cretan/Dodecanese/Cypriots ones so it's pretty obvious that the steppe cline between Mainlanders and islanders exists long before the medieval times.
2.Islanders(medieval or earlier ones) have minor levantine dna that Mainlanders lack.

PS 40% slavic admixture on albanians is too high estimation,i think is closer to 25-30% on average

I think with the exception of Cypriots that Greek islanders (both Bronze age and modern) simply have BA Anatolian and not Levantine ancestry. These are fundamentally rather different types of ancestry. BA anatolian is a combination of Neolithic Anatolian and Caucasian, where as Levantine ancestry seems to include Neolithic anatolian, North African and Iranian influence.

I also agree that 40% Slavic admixture seems far too high. They more likely just need more samples.
 
Personally i think Deep maniots are better proxy for the mainlanders than Cypriot or dodecanese Greeks for 2 reasons:
1.Ancient samples from the mainland(LBA and later) have on average definitely higher steppe admixture than the Cretan/Dodecanese/Cypriots ones so it's pretty obvious that the steppe cline between Mainlanders and islanders exists long before the medieval times.
2.Islanders(medieval or earlier ones) have minor levantine dna that Mainlanders lack.

PS 40% slavic admixture on albanians is too high estimation,i think is closer to 25-30% on average
I would drop it to around 14-18%.Thats what i found by comparing Albanian samples to Bronze-Iron age samples.Is using Bronze and Iron Age samples to calculate someone ancestry accurate?
 
Last edited:
Davidski claims that modern Greeks have Cypriot-like ancestry (so West Asian/Anatolian) given the outliers he has seen but I wouldn't consider Cypriots as the ideal proxy of pre-Slavic Greeks.
For example if you subtract the Slavic admixture from Deep Maniotes you get a population that is similar to modern Dodecanese but with a Western pull which is how I believe pre-Slavic Peloponnesians were.

As for this paper if I see that 40% Slavic in Albanians again I am going out. I have no bias against Slavic ancestry but it just has to be real and I just don't believe it is that high.
There are too many factors, other than the Slavs, to consider when comparing Bronze Age Greeks to modern Greeks.

We still do not know the exact levels of Steppe admixture post BA population movements have brought. The genetic make up of Dorians. The impact of Thracians in Greece. The level of Steppe and Anatolian admixture in North Greece, or indeed the Steppe admixtures in Mountainous areas of mainland Bronze Age Greece. Not to mention the Celts and Romans later on. Then came the Slavs.

The mere fact that Greeks and Cypriots still have clear a biological connection speaks volumes in favour of biological continuation. But in no way Cypriots are a proxy to Classical mainland Greece. The Phoenicians alone should have made a considerable impact on the Cypriot genetic pool. Similarly, the Dodecanese may have had other admixtures since ancient times. It would be great to compare Classical Ionian Greeks from Asia Minor to the modern inhabitants from the Dodecanese.
 
I got initiated into Qpdam admixtools, so I ran my own models to contrast models this paper presented.

My models for Shtike, it is as G25 suggests, South Thracian based profile.

OPedngg.png

MmsglDS.png

almost
QgsIX0N.png


Kenete was the only sample I could not model, in G25 it comes of as mixed, Anatolian Byzantine, Cinamak Illyrian, and even a little Slavic. I could not even get it as a single model run. How did the authors of this paper model it? They didn't, they combined Shtike and Kenete as one value, and it is simply nuts.
One way model of Kenete to Shtike, no pass. Cannot be modeled in any way remotely similar to Shtike, like the models above.
jXJ4oYY.png


Model of a Ottoman era women from Kukes who seems to be a Gorani. Albania_Modern:I14685
RIlRmuZ.png

euisJFJ.png

ekH2rB0.png

adNIlSp.png

31ZEzDY.png
 
Last edited:
Now the other three Kukes post-mdv which are as of today the earliest undoubtedly Albanian samples to date.
Code:
Albania_Modern:I14686_I-Y4884
Albania_Modern:I14687_R-CTS1450
Albania_Modern:I15707_J-Z631

kukes-postmdv represent I14687 and I14686, both are a little shifted from I15707 which has a purer Iron Age profile. Models for kukes-postmdv
ovysISp.png

0xwiaDx.png


These two samples can be modeled as Hungary E-V13 I18832 with a little MENA admixture.
I15707 on the other hand is just plain Bassarabi.
1d1JkRO.png

mCbEZIW.png

iJrzNcT.png



cinamak for comparison

BsaLH3j.png

k1Awgad.png


So is I15707_J-Z631 a missdated ancient? I don't think so, the other two Kukes samples can also be modeled similarly and they can be modeled as each other in one way model quite confidently.
F2DGl5j.png


I do think future ancient samples will be even more suitable for modeling Albanians, as of now, Qpdam is in concert with G25, both pointing to Iron Age profile from central Balkans strongly associated with E-V13 tribes.

Bonus model. Doclea Slavs.
yIA4V8x.png


A modern Alb
p4Ey3WW.png


0mjmlXd.png
 
Also additional supplementary, a Bassarabi semantic model.
EHLxw23.png

712Zglw.png

bFQADfW.png



A G25 model for comparison.
8rpZ553.png

G25 might exaggerate slavic admixture. I will have to check other Alb samples once I upload the larger database from the reichlab, hopefully ancient samples are the same as I spent time building up the best parameters and it can be undone by missing ancient coordinates.
I think 22-25% Slavic admixture is the right ballpark. In the end this will become clear once better ancient proxies get published in the future.
 
What would be the context of Phrygians inside Mycenean archaeology, a palace no less.

Listen, friends, I understand these 2 Mycenean R1bs are pissing everyone off, both the "unofficial Greek dna project" (lol), which I assume it's merely the anthrogenica gang, since modern Greeks are not shown to have a lot of it (or even at all, in contrast Turks seem to pop up instead), and Albanians (who seem to have much more).

But it is what is, regardless of what the future holds, the current data that we have confirm that there is pf7562 in Mycenean remains, the first recorded Greek speakers, and in a prime archeological location no less.
Why are they pissed off ?
 
Using an MENA admixed Bassarabi to model modern Albanian.
1N7WHET.png


WaRImVz.png


It's all pointing to the Bassarabi derived cluster. Kukes post-mdv are the same decent but their MENA admixture is lower which is why they can be modeled with a Iron Age Bassarabi profile and the admixed version, while the modern southern Albanian has more MENA. Qpdam is not great at threeway models when the shifting components go in similar lane/axis, that is take a pure Bassarabi move it left to get more MENA than move it right towards pure Slavs while the Balkan IA component is inbetween.

Whoever wants to try it, you'll need this parameter as a source in the script.
right = c('Cameroon_SMA', 'Czech_Vestonice16', 'Belgium_UP_GoyetQ116_1', 'Russia_West_Siberia_HG', 'Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic', 'Karitiana.DG', 'Papuan.DG', 'Iran_GanjDareh_N', 'Turkey_Epipaleolithic', 'Cyprus_C', 'Russia_Boisman_MN', 'Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur', 'Croatia_MLBA', 'Netherlands_EIA', 'Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya', 'Czech_CordedWare', 'Lithuania_EMN_Narva', 'Turkey_Arslantepe_LateC', 'Israel_C', 'Iraq_PPNA', 'ONG.SG')
 
Wanted to share how the same medevial Avar E-V13 sample that has the Bassarabi derived profile, holds up with the rest of the Albanian samples.

xa4Z8Ay.png

AbDVjbf.png

xihM6qA.png


Personally I think the sample is a little extra Aegean shifted and it exaggerates Slavic admixture in profiles that don't have much MENA like kukes post-mdv. Even in Shtike, the Slavic admixture is a little inflated.

I did decide to experiment by combining Hun LaTene I18832 and the Avar I16750 as one by renaming both samples to have the same name to create a ghost population of 500 AD Albs that carries less MENA than I16750. This ghost profile would represent the "Dardanian cluster" as referred by rrenjet.

VMTdIuF.png

VMTdIuF.png

4Z32GQ9.png

lq8WGSn.png

qY7qouV.png


It fails for the modern Alb(south Albanian I think) because his MENA admixture is too high and needs a Bassarabi like profile with more MENA, which is why I16750 works well directly for this samples.

These models do not work at all for the Kenete sample, the closest I got to Kenete were these.
8uaRyiS.png
F9DkKL0.png
 
The Reich database does not have any of the 2023 paper samples included yet.

There is an additional E-V13 sample that is Bassarabi like that has less MENA and or South Thracian, also from Avar period and on G25 it's a good proxy for modeling Albs. Would be interesting to see how it would hold on qpdam and to combine with the other two samples as a proxy for pre-Arber profile.

dCsiqVJ.png

LyHqeNj.png

cbtUitP.png
 

This thread has been viewed 25802 times.

Back
Top