"Ancient DNA reveals the origins of the Albanians" paper

[eupator]

Actually, this is a huge problem. Many of you follow genetics studies thinking that genetics has a magic wand. But it does not. There is also an almost religious fanaticism towards genetics in the comments here. Because maybe one likes or dislikes the conclusions of a paper.

Believing that it is enough to handle the latest methods and know the context, rather than having a standardised education, is a sign of great naivety. Because it cuts through the disscussion, the conclusions must also be discussed and accepted by scholars of other disciplines. At the heart of pseudoscience is precisely that kind of approach you describe.

The problem is that these subjects are interdisciplinary and involve, willy-nilly, disciplines such as history, anthropology, archaeology, linguistics. If even geneticists who only daily deal with genetics show little knowledge of history, anthropology, archaeology, linguistics, let alone the rest of company who only sometimes deal with genetics.

Good post.

My personal comment would be that this fixation of the genetics field on BA/IA is becoming a bit highly tiresome if not suspicious.

Why is the Medieval period so neglected in comparison? What is so important about 2000 BC in contrast to 1000 AD, for example (random pick)?

Are people trying to make a point, if, yes, what would be that point? That there is some sort of continuation of peoples that jump over 2000-3000 years to today, and if, yes, what is the significance of such a thing?

For Greece, I can safely answer what the reasoning behind my country's neglect for the Medieval period, but I won't digress unless someone wants to discuss it.

 

[Riverman]

Good post.

My personal comment would be that this fixation of the genetics field on BA/IA is becoming a bit highly tiresome if not suspicious.

Why is the Medieval period so neglected in comparison? What is so important about 2000 BC in contrast to 1000 AD, for example (random pick)?

Are people trying to make a point, if, yes, what would be that point? That there is some sort of continuation of peoples that jump over 2000-3000 years to today, and if, yes, what is the significance of such a thing?

For Greece, I can safely answer what the reasoning behind my country's neglect for the Medieval period, but I won't digress unless someone wants to discuss it.

The written sources for later periods are much better, whereas for the Bronze Age, a time in which much bigger genetic shifts took place, remains largely in the dark. You simply get the most out of it. But its not like Medieval samples aren't processed, they are coming out too.

 

[real expert]

The only people who dislike conclusions of many genetic papers are the Nationalistic people and their will to prevent anything that can "hurt" their current nation

That is a highly oversimplified and generalized claim and reasoning.

Many genetic study conclusions were found to be flawed, misleading, or incorrect, but in your opinion, geneticists can never be wrong, and anyone who disagrees with their interpretation of data is a nationalist or whatnot. Only in a cult is it forbidden to question or argue with the leader or guru. Science does not operate in this manner. The point is that scientists ought not to be clutching to the cloak of religious authority.

Here's the thing: even if I can't directly interpret someone else's raw data, I can assess how that data is used to support or disprove arguments. I can identify logical fallacies and distinguish them from valid thinking. Furthermore, this is the type of thing that a non-scientist with high critical thinking skills might analyze as well. One technique to assess scientific credibility (or lack thereof) is to examine the logical structure of the arguments presented by a scientist. It is possible to determine if arguments have the appropriate link to empirical facts without immersing oneself in it.

In fact, challenging science or research is the most scientific approach to information and should never be stigmatized.

That said, being scientific literate and, thus, approaching scientific conclusions with critical thinking and a healthy dose of skepticism are not to be conflated with outright science denial or flat earth crankiness.

 

[real expert]

The problem with the other fields is that they are much more prone to ideological distortion. Think about what political Christians, Communists, National Socialists, Liberals and now the Woke-Marxist movements do, they completely distort and re-interpret the factual evidence. Therefore its good to have, especially for some very basic conclusions, fairly straightforward, pretty much unequivocal factual evidence to prove or disprove a given hypothesis.

Like the whole "pots not people" and "migrating ideas" nonsense was so entrenched in post-1960's archaeological circles, that only strong new evidence could prove the correct interpretation, still hold up by the more reasonable and courageous scholars, right.

The latest fashion of in some archaeological institutes doesn't serve us a lot. And it doesn't matter how prestigious a scholar or institution is, if what they tell the people is just utter nonsense. And the great think about the genetic data is, that unless they fake and falsify it, we can just read it. Like if they say there was no migration, but the paternal lineages of a given people got just annihilated and completely replaced by another, of which we new it wasn't there before, they can tell whatever they want, they are just wrong and being proven wrong by the data.

Especially uniparentals are the strongest and clearest evidence available if its about migrations and replacement events. It really doesn't matter what any discipline or ideologist has to say, if he can't accept and properly explain the observable pattern, produced by genetic data, his conclusions are false and worthless.

Point taken. However, the issue is that the majority of geneticists are also on the woke liberal Marxist bandwagon. Their woke perspective, in my opinion, will or already does influence how they understand the evidence to some extent. Besides, there was a New York Times article that was harshly critical of the current state of aDNA, particularly the Reichlab.

 

[Riverman]

Point taken. However, the issue is that the majority of geneticists are also on the woke liberal Marxist bandwagon. Their woke perspective, in my opinion, will or already does influence how they understand the evidence to some extent. Besides, there was a New York Times article that was harshly critical of the current state of aDNA, particularly the Reichlab.

They are critical because they are still too much fact based in comparison to many other disciplines and scholars, that's the problem the agenda driven NYT has. Besides, it is better to have a discipline which results can be critically analysed and a given hypothesis can be proven or disproven with actual data than what e.g. the linguists and archaeologists provide. In archaeology the main problem is of course that it doesn't matter how much data and evidence you provide, people can still claim the opposite in many cases.
Like the pots, weapons and burial rite, the physical appearance and architecture, all can change in a couple of generations and there can be still scholars out there which claim that it was all "an exchange of goods and ideas".

Take the debate I had about the relationship of G?va with Belegis II-G?va and Knobbed Ware/Fluted Ware horizon in Bulgaria: Minor differences and local influences can be interpreted many ways, like there could have been foreign male-dominated conquereors or just some preachers and specialists which spread the new ways. With the archaeological data, you can only deem one interpretation more likely, but you won't prove or disprove it that easily 100 %. If ancient DNA allows us to prove the influx of a new genetic component and uniparentals, it is a clear cut case, because this kind of change can't happen without migration.

There are so many cases in the past and present which prove how wrong on discipline could be, like the interpretation of the Maya civilisation before the scripture was decoded and new archaeologcial evidence was found - "the peaceful anti-occidental counterpart" and what not. Ancient DNA is just what it is, a new tool and new sort of evidence which is not as easy to manipulate. It can be manipulated, sure, but its harder to do actually than with most other sources of data for the questions we mostly discuss on this board.
Its for a reason ancient DNA will end many debates for prehistory/archaeology which lasted for centuries.

That is a highly oversimplified and generalized claim and reasoning.

Many genetic study conclusions were found to be flawed, misleading, or incorrect, but in your opinion, geneticists can never be wrong, and anyone who disagrees with their interpretation of data is a nationalist or whatnot. Only in a cult is it forbidden to question or argue with the leader or guru. Science does not operate in this manner. The point is that scientists ought not to be clutching to the cloak of religious authority.

Here's the thing: even if I can't directly interpret someone else's raw data, I can assess how that data is used to support or disprove arguments. I can identify logical fallacies and distinguish them from valid thinking. Furthermore, this is the type of thing that a non-scientist with high critical thinking skills might analyze as well. One technique to assess scientific credibility (or lack thereof) is to examine the logical structure of the arguments presented by a scientist. It is possible to determine if arguments have the appropriate link to empirical facts without immersing oneself in it.

In fact, challenging science or research is the most scientific approach to information and should never be stigmatized.

That said, being scientific literate and, thus, approaching scientific conclusions with critical thinking and a healthy dose of skepticism are not to be conflated with outright science denial or flat earth crankiness.

Completely agree on that one.

 

[Hawk]

Despite Davidski being known, i think the other one Dr. Leonidas should be that Greek poster with Albanian subclade R1b-Z2705. IDK, he looks like the same person to me.

 

[eupator]

Despite Davidski being known, i think the other one Dr. Leonidas should be that Greek poster with Albanian subclade R1b-Z2705. IDK, he looks like the same person to me.

Yes, it's him, XXD or something.

 

[Jovialis]

Is there a correlation with how the algorithm may interpret the results? Because of shared ancestry among Albanians, and people from south-central-eastern Italy (Mostly Abruzzo, Molise, Bari)?




In my case, it would add more to Italian to me, which would make sense.

 

[Riverman]

Is there a correlation with how the algorithm may interpret the results? Because of shared ancestry among Albanians, and people from south-central-eastern Italy (Mostly Abruzzo, Molise, Bari)?




In my case, it would add more to Italian to me, which would make sense.

It doesn't have to be recent South Balkan ancestry, but ancient ancestry in common, to put it that way. For checking how close the relationship might be, you have to look at the uniparentals. There is some more recent overlap with e.g. specific subclades of E-V13 and J-L283 from around Albania. Like this subclade, with a migrant from the last 500 years:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Y47962/

At the same time there are many J-L283 subclades in Southern Italy which date back much further back, to Cetina or the Illyrians.

 

[Jovialis]

It doesn't have to be recent South Balkan ancestry, but ancient ancestry in common, to put it that way. For checking how close the relationship might be, you have to look at the uniparentals. There is some more recent overlap with e.g. specific subclades of E-V13 and J-L283 from around Albania. Like this subclade, with a migrant from the last 500 years:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Y47962/

At the same time there are many J-L283 subclades in Southern Italy which date back much further back, to Cetina or the Illyrians.

Interestingly, many people who have my haplogroup are also Albanian.

This is what yfull.com gave me:

Y-Haplogroup: R-Y227216*
Terminal SNPs: MF161713 • PF7569 • PH160 • PH1725 • PH2551 • PH3222 • PH3716 • PH678 • Y227207 • Y227216 • Y227276 • Y227325 • Y227358 • Y227363 • Y227374 • Y227402 • Y227441 • Y227508 • Y227783 • Y227834 • Y227836 • Y227951 • Y227961 • Y228059 • Y228122 • Y262506 • Y262507 • Y262508

 

[eupator]

Interestingly, many people who have my haplogroup are also Albanian.

This is what yfull.com gave me:

Y-Haplogroup: R-Y227216*
Terminal SNPs: MF161713 • PF7569 • PH160 • PH1725 • PH2551 • PH3222 • PH3716 • PH678 • Y227207 • Y227216 • Y227276 • Y227325 • Y227358 • Y227363 • Y227374 • Y227402 • Y227441 • Y227508 • Y227783 • Y227834 • Y227836 • Y227951 • Y227961 • Y228059 • Y228122 • Y262506 • Y262507 • Y262508

That could be the proto-Greek R1b clade (PF7562/63).

 

[Jovialis]

That could be the proto-Greek R1b clade (PF7562/63).

That would be absolutely amazing!

 

[Hawk]

If E-V13 subclades which affected Albanians were similar to Himera E-V13 autosomally, then Vatin Culture from Central-Western Balkans might be a good candidate for the unsampled region that the authors mention.

Of course, they were heavy cremation users, it's almost impossible to get samples from them (Vatin), but remains as a hypothesis to connect the dots.

 

[Riverman]

Interestingly, many people who have my haplogroup are also Albanian.

This is what yfull.com gave me:

Y-Haplogroup: R-Y227216*
Terminal SNPs: MF161713 • PF7569 • PH160 • PH1725 • PH2551 • PH3222 • PH3716 • PH678 • Y227207 • Y227216 • Y227276 • Y227325 • Y227358 • Y227363 • Y227374 • Y227402 • Y227441 • Y227508 • Y227783 • Y227834 • Y227836 • Y227951 • Y227961 • Y228059 • Y228122 • Y262506 • Y262507 • Y262508

You have a pretty close TMRCA with the Albanians and I'm not aware of a lot of movement in the direction of Albania, so I guess it came with Albanian-related settlers in the Byzantine era. Going further back in time I guess there will be an association with a Paleo-Balkan group and people, like the Paeonians or Brygi, possibly incorporated at some point into the Illyrian people. The single Medieval sample from Hungary doesn't really help, I don't know whether there are others?

Upstream the branch has interesting subclades. https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z29758/

That would be a candidate for a spread by the Sea People into the Levante/Near East, just like there are a couple of E-V13 subclades which look the same, like if they arrived in the LBA from Europe:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-FGC42003/

The Sardinian branch is also interesting, with a Greek member and a diversification which starts 600 BC:
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-PF7566/tree

Will be interesting to see whether it pops up in early Greeks, Paeonians or Brygi, which would be my tip.

Check upstream, interesting that the "Sea People branch" from the Levante has a parallel one on Sardinia: https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-Z29764/tree

 

[Riverman]

If E-V13 subclades which affected Albanians were similar to Himera E-V13 autosomally, then Vatin Culture from Central-Western Balkans might be a good candidate for the unsampled region that the authors mention.

Of course, they were heavy cremation users, it's almost impossible to get samples from them (Vatin), but remains as a hypothesis to connect the dots.

Vatin was long gone by that time, but Belegis II-G?va into Kalakacza into Basarabi was real. The Gomolava samples might help a lot, because regardless of which of these three they are coming from, they are relevant in some way for the debate.
And I expect Belegis II-G?va to have, even if the paternal side would have been heavily influenced by Northern G?va, even if (!), to be very much North-Central Balkan shifted. Later they mixed with people from down the Danube even more, so the later Basarabi should fit the bill of the Himerans as central Northern Thracian group, between the Late G?va North/Mezocsat and the post-Psenichevo/South Thracian South, which is basically were they plot.

 

[mount123]

Vatin was long gone by that time, but Belegis II-G�va into Kalakacza into Basarabi was real. The Gomolava samples might help a lot, because regardless of which of these three they are coming from, they are relevant in some way for the debate.
And I expect Belegis II-G�va to have, even if the paternal side would have been heavily influenced by Northern G�va, even if (!), to be very much North-Central Balkan shifted. Later they mixed with people from down the Danube even more, so the later Basarabi should fit the bill of the Himerans as central Northern Thracian group, between the Late G�va North/Mezocsat and the post-Psenichevo/South Thracian South, which is basically were they plot.

Besides that it is kind of contradictory what they propose in the paper for E1b-V13 clades. Perhaps they are trying to suggest more than one source of which one might be of the Carpatho-Balkan derived Bloc in the Central Balkans and the other from the Eastern Balkans.

There was always this talk about a "Mycenaean-like" component in Albanians and how even after the migration era input Abanians remain the population with the highest Farmer DNA in the Balkan peninsula. I think that a solid IA BGR-like source component must definitely have played a role and considering the uniparentals of Albanians it would rather have been signficant. More "Western" situated E1b-V13 samples are interesting like the Nish (Naissus) AD sample being somewhere between IA N. Macedonians and Thracians. There needs to be a solid overview of what auDNA E1b-V13 in the western East-Central Balkans carried. A combination of these two components could make sense for Albanian E1b-V13 branches.

 

[eupator]

You have a pretty close TMRCA with the Albanians and I'm not aware of a lot of movement in the direction of Albania, so I guess it came with Albanian-related settlers in the Byzantine era.

Haha, okay.

His upstream is found in ancient Mycenean Greeks, the samples in Palace of Nestor in Pylos, I13518 and 13506, the only R1b Myceneans so far.

 

[mount123]

You have a pretty close TMRCA with the Albanians and I'm not aware of a lot of movement in the direction of Albania, so I guess it came with Albanian-related settlers in the Byzantine era. Going further back in time I guess there will be an association with a Paleo-Balkan group and people, like the Paeonians or Brygi, possibly incorporated at some point into the Illyrian people. The single Medieval sample from Hungary doesn't really help, I don't know whether there are others?

Upstream the branch has interesting subclades. https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z29758/

That would be a candidate for a spread by the Sea People into the Levante/Near East, just like there are a couple of E-V13 subclades which look the same, like if they arrived in the LBA from Europe:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-FGC42003/

The Sardinian branch is also interesting, with a Greek member and a diversification which starts 600 BC:
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-PF7566/tree

Will be interesting to see whether it pops up in early Greeks, Paeonians or Brygi, which would be my tip.

Check upstream, interesting that the "Sea People branch" from the Levante has a parallel one on Sardinia: https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-Z29764/tree

I agree and good overview of possible recent and further ancient origins. Jovialis` and the Albanians' TMRCA is 1050 ybp, that is significantly close.

@Jovialis So you belong to R1b-PF7562>PF7563>Z29758>PF7566>Y227216 (time to most recent common ancestor 1050 ybp). You must be this https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y227216/ sample with origins from Bari then. If so, it is interesting as Z29758 especially PF7566 clades have the highest frequency and diversity among Albanians in Southeast Europe.

 

[Riverman]

Besides that it is kind of contradictory what they propose in the paper for E1b-V13 clades. Perhaps they are trying to suggest more than one source of which one might be of the Carpatho-Balkan derived Bloc in the Central Balkans and the other from the Eastern Balkans.

There was always this talk about a "Mycenaean-like" component in Albanians and how even after the migration era input Abanians remain the population with the highest Farmer DNA in the Balkan peninsula. I think that a solid IA BGR-like source component must definitely have played a role and considering the uniparentals of Albanians it would rather have been signficant. More "Western" situated E1b-V13 samples are interesting like the Nish (Naissus) AD sample being somewhere between IA N. Macedonians and Thracians. There needs to be a solid overview of what auDNA E1b-V13 in the western East-Central Balkans carried. A combination of these two components could make sense for Albanian E1b-V13 branches.

It surely had more than one source for the Roman era, no doubt about that. Like Southern Thracians, Triballi, Northern Dacians etc. I'm really writing about the "ultimate source" in the Bronze Age. That it was later wider spread in the Daco-Thracian sphere and beyond is for sure.

Haha, okay.

His upstream is found in ancient Mycenean Greeks, the samples in Palace of Nestor in Pylos, I13518 and 13506, the only R1b Myceneans so far.

I asked for other samples, because they are not visible on YFull and FTDNA as of yet if I'm not mistaken. That's of course a good argument for an ancient Greek origin, but doesn't contradict my quotation. Because quite obviously lineages which were Thracian and Greek in the EIA became Albanian later.

It answers that quote of mine:

Will be interesting to see whether it pops up in early Greeks, Paeonians or Brygi, which would be my tip.

So early Greeks it is.

 

[Jovialis]

That's cool either way regarding the haplogroup (Medieval Albanian or Ancient Mycenaean), that it could yield such lively debate.