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

[Garrick]

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.

Of course, Angela, E-V13 carriers arrived earlier, and what is interesting, Ottoman Turks didn't change significantly genetic picture of Balkans.

I gave a example how someone will have wrong conclusion if he or she interpret data mistakenly, wrenches out of context, pulls out a piece of the puzzle.
...

Yes we know when Slavs arrived, but populations of the Balkans have no very significant R1a component. And R1a carriers arrived to the Balkans not only as Slavs, but much before Slavs, there are Y-DNK researches.

If we look R1a we can see in the Balkans (source Eupedia): Albania 9%, Greece 11,5%, Macedonia 13,5%, Serbia 16%, Bulgaria 17%, Romania 17,5%, Croatia 24%.

Except for Croatia, differences between countries are not big.

All nations in the Balkans are mixed, indigenous populations with newly arrived populations.

For example, someone can see Serbs and Romanians are similar but Serbs speak Slavic language and Romanians speak Romance language and there is explanation for this.

Dacians (probably Thracian tribe) spoke Dacian language (maybe close to Balto Slavic) which disappeared in 6th century due to Romanization.

On the other side Southern Slavs are Slavic by language and culture, not by genetic.

 

[Sile]

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]

but they all pray to the same God .................so what's the issue?

 

[Angela]

Of course, Angela, E-V13 carriers arrived earlier, and what is interesting, Ottoman Turks didn't change significantly genetic picture of Balkans.

I gave a example how someone will have wrong conclusion if he or she interpret data mistakenly, wrenches out of context, pulls out a piece of the puzzle.
...

Yes we know when Slavs arrived, but populations of the Balkans have no very significant R1a component. And R1a carriers arrived to the Balkans not only as Slavs, but much before Slavs, there are Y-DNK researches.

If we look R1a we can see in the Balkans (source Eupedia): Albania 9%, Greece 11,5%, Macedonia 13,5%, Serbia 16%, Bulgaria 17%, Romania 17,5%, Croatia 24%.

Except for Croatia, differences between countries are not big.

All nations in the Balkans are mixed, indigenous populations with newly arrived populations.

For example, someone can see Serbs and Romanians are similar but Serbs speak Slavic language and Romanians speak Romance language and there is explanation for this.

Dacians (probably Thracian tribe) spoke Dacian language (maybe close to Balto Slavic) which disappeared in 6th century due to Romanization.

On the other side Southern Slavs are Slavic by language and culture, not by genetic.

We're in agreement. That's why I said "whatever dna the Slavs carried"! I was hedging my bets.

In terms of the I2a controversy that's one that only ancient dna is going to solve, in my opinion.

 

[noUseForAname]

The mass of E-V13 in the Balkans has nothing to do with some stray Turk who arrived during the Ottoman occupation.

There was also a high scale media obscurement by some Balkan Countries that Albanians came with Ottomans as they picked these people from Caucus as slaves and brought them in today Albania, apparently there was a place called Caucasian Albania in Caucus and they made people believe that Albanians came from there. Therefore i don't blame the people but the system and education was so strong that apparently majority of them believed in it.

And Caucus Albania has nothing to do with it, also there is a place called Albania in Scotland...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albania_(placename)
Albanian is just an english word, because they are called Skipetar and before that Arbër, nowadays Shqipetar.

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

Indeed "Slavs" are the most recent rivals to the balkans, I was always so amazed as to how so many balkan countries acquired slavic language fully (and in a very short timeframe) as genetically they have nothing to do with Slavs, say Bulgaria and its inhabitants are so ancient that at that time Slavic people majority (probably R1a) still lived far north of today Russia.

I think all this obscured system came from Russians (as obviously very powerful) and we know historically that they always tried to push as far as south as possible, probably cause they were always dreaming about beaches of Mediterranean LOL.

 

[noUseForAname]

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?

So you are saying that all the 42 scientist of this study are confused?.....They are concluding that the most current (in highest %) populations that descends directly from early Neolithic European inhabitants (early European farmers) and WHG are:
1: Sardinian
2: Albanian
3: Greek
4: Spanish
5: Bergamo
6: Basque

I AM NOT SAYING this, The study is.

So you are saying that scientist are Confused, OK, its your opinion.

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

OK so now 42 scientist are imprecise (according to you)

Study argues that those populations who have near easter component are ashkenazi Jews, Maltese, Sicilians etc
There you go its all here


Table S9.3: Populations that improve resnorm for European outlier populations when added to a model of EN/WHG/EHG admixture as a 4th ancestral population. We show the top 20 populations that reduce resnorm the most when added to the mixture model. For Maltese, Sicilians, and Ashkenazi Jews these populations tend to be from the Middle East and North Africa

Maltese Sicilian Ashkenazi Jew

4th anc. pop. resnorm 4th anc. pop. resnorm 4th anc. pop.resnorm
Moroccan_Jew 0.000006 Turkish_Jew 0.000006 Cypriot 0.000006
Lebanese 0.000010 Cypriot 0.000006 Iraqi_Jew 0.000018
Syrian 0.000010 Moroccan_Jew 0.000009 Turkish_Jew 0.000018
Tunisian_Jew 0.000011 Druze 0.000012 Moroccan_Jew 0.000020
Saudi 0.000014 Iraqi_Jew 0.000012 Druze 0.000025
Turkish_Jew 0.000016 Syrian 0.000014 Lebanese 0.000027
Libyan_Jew 0.000017 Lebanese 0.000016 Syrian 0.000028
Jordanian 0.000017 Tunisian_Jew 0.000019 Tunisian_Jew 0.000037
Palestinian 0.000019 Saudi 0.000021 Saudi 0.000039
Druze 0.000022 Jordanian 0.000022 Iranian_Jew 0.000039
Yemenite_Jew 0.000022 Libyan_Jew0.000025 Jordanian 0.000039
BedouinB 0.000022 Palestinian 0.000026 Palestinian 0.000044
BedouinA 0.000023 BedouinB 0.000027 Libyan_Jew 0.000044
Tunisian 0.000024 Yemenite_Jew 0.000028 Yemenite_Jew 0.000045
Mozabite 0.000024 Tunisian 0.000028 BedouinB 0.000045
Algerian 0.000025 Mozabite 0.000028 BedouinA 0.000046
Egyptian 0.000025 BedouinA 0.000028 Tunisian 0.000046
Saharawi 0.000026 Egyptian 0.000028 Egyptian 0.000046
Yemen 0.000028 Algerian 0.000029 Mozabite 0.000047
Esan 0.000030 Saharawi 0.000029 Algerian 0.000047


Check the Figure S9.27 (pg 124) please, Albanians have:

0% Beduine (Which is of Near Eastern component)
77% EN (Early Neolithic)
2.2% Nagasan
3.3% WHG
17.5% Yanmaya

So Albanians and Greeks actually don't even have a slightest % from the components of Near eastern farmers.

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

You are definitely a funny individual,
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. Albanians are second and Greeks third
(ref. 2 and Fig. S9.23b), while Maltese, Ashkenazi Jews, and Sicilians may have Near Eastern admixture not mediated via early European farmers2.

Therefore according to this study current Albanians are de facto a direct descent from Early Neolithic European farmers (10,000 ybp)


So what is completely wrong your idea or the study that 42 scientist together with myself are confused?

 

[noUseForAname]

If we look R1a we can see in the Balkans (source Eupedia): Albania 9%, Greece 11,5%, Macedonia 13,5%, Serbia 16%, Bulgaria 17%, Romania 17,5%, Croatia 24%.
.

Albanian speaking regions have R1a around 5.8% average.

Albanians in Kosovo (2 mil) 4.4%, Albanians in Macedonia (800,000) 1.6%, Albanians in Albania (4 mil) 9.1%

 

[Angela]

I never said nor meant to imply that there was no movement from the north of actual Slavic speaking peoples into the Balkans. The "South Slavs" are a mixture of these peoples and the prior inhabitants. How much is new admixture from the time of the Slavic migrations, I don't know in precise terms, but there is definitely IBD sharing between these populations and populations like Poles and Russians.

You guys should really be poring over Ralph and Coop as well as the Kovacevik paper, in my opinion, but who asked me, right?

Ralph and Coop: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555

The top row is 0-540 years ago the next row down is 555-1500 years ago, the next is 1515-2535 years ago, and the bottom row is 2550-4335 years ago.

 

[Piro Ilir]

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.

First, you were posting about Balkan people and how was formed their nationality, therefore I said that. Second, you diverted the thread firstly. [emoji4]


[emoji562]

 

[Piro Ilir]

Not Again, it is boring

Boring is the situation of a country in Balkan, were is not permitted the free choice of religion. In this country is permitted only one religion. Even only one ethnicity. You know for sure which is that country [emoji4] [emoji57].
And to be back on the thread, E- V 13 throughout modern Greece is probably spread with Albanian migration during millennia. (Last Greek president was of Albanian origin) . But of course maybe is not true, this is just my theory [emoji1]



[emoji562]

 

[Piro Ilir]

but they all pray to the same God .................so what's the issue?

Did you read the posts above my post, or you just want to tease me.
You are misinterpreting my post, maybe.



[emoji562]

 

[noUseForAname]

I never said nor meant to imply that there was no movement from the north of actual Slavic speaking peoples into the Balkans. The "South Slavs" are a mixture of these peoples and the prior inhabitants. How much is new admixture from the time of the Slavic migrations, I don't know in precise terms, but there is definitely IBD sharing between these populations and populations like Poles and Russians.

You guys should really be poring over Ralph and Coop as well as the Kovacevik paper, in my opinion, but who asked me, right?

Ralph and Coop: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555

View attachment 7277

The top row is 0-540 years ago the next row down is 555-1500 years ago, the next is 1515-2535 years ago, and the bottom row is 2550-4335 years ago.

Thanks for posting this Angela, it looks like the study is pretty consistent with the last one as per Albanians and Greeks although this one goes more into details.


By far the highest rates of IBD within any populations is found between Albanian speakers—around 90 ancestors from 0–500 ya, and around 600 ancestors from 500–1,500 ya (so high that we left them out of Figure 5; see Figure S12). Beyond 1,500 ya, the rates of IBD drop to levels typical for other populations in the eastern grouping.

The highest levels of IBD sharing are found in the Albanian-speaking individuals (from Albania and Kosovo), an increase in common ancestry deriving from the last 1,500 years. This suggests that a reasonable proportion of the ancestors of modern-day Albanian speakers (at least those represented in POPRES) are drawn from a relatively small, cohesive population that has persisted for at least the last 1,500 years. These individuals share similar but slightly higher numbers of common ancestors with nearby populations than do individuals in other parts of Europe (see Figure S3), implying that these Albanian speakers have not been a particularly isolated population so much as a small one. Furthermore, our Greek and Macedonian samples share much higher numbers of common ancestors with Albanian speakers than with other neighbors, possibly a result of historical migrations, or else perhaps smaller effects of the Slavic expansion in these populations. It is also interesting to note that the sampled Italians share nearly as much IBD with Albanian speakers as with each other. The Albanian language is a Indo-European language without other close relatives [53] that persisted through periods when neighboring languages were strongly influenced by Latin or Greek, suggesting an intriguing link between linguistic and genealogical history in this case.

The migration period.
One of the striking patterns we see is the relatively high level of sharing of IBD between pairs of individuals across eastern Europe, as high or higher than that observed within other, much smaller populations. This is consistent with these individuals having a comparatively large proportion of ancestry drawn from a relatively small population that expanded over a large geographic area. The “smooth” estimates of Figure 4 (and more generally Figures 5 and S17) suggest that this increase in ancestry stems from around 1,000–2,000 ya, since during this time pairs of eastern individuals are expected to share a substantial number of common ancestors, while this is only true of pairs of noneastern individuals if they are from the same population. For example, even individuals from widely separated eastern populations share about the same amount of IBD as do two Irish individuals (see Figure S3), suggesting that this ancestral population may have been relatively small.This evidence is consistent with the idea that these populations derive a substantial proportion of their ancestry from various groups that expanded during the “migration period” from the fourth through ninth centuries [51]. This period begins with the Huns moving into eastern Europe towards the end of the fourth century, establishing an empire including modern-day Hungary and Romania, and continues in the fifth century as various Germanic groups moved into and ruled much of the western Roman empire. This was followed by the expansion of the Slavic populations into regions of low population density beginning in the sixth century, reaching their maximum by the 10th century [52]. The eastern populations with high rates of IBD are highly coincident with the modern distribution of Slavic languages, so it is natural to speculate that much of the higher rates were due to this expansion. The inclusion of (non-Slavic speaking) Hungary and Romania in the group of eastern populations sharing high IBD could indicate the effect of other groups (e.g., the Huns) on ancestry in these regions, or because some of the same group of people who elsewhere are known as Slavs adopted different local cultures in those regions. Greece and Albania are also part of this putative signal of expansion, which could be because the Slavs settled in part of these areas (with unknown demographic effect), or because of subsequent population exchange. However, additional work and methods would be needed to verify this hypothesis.


For instance, we could argue that the high degree of shared common ancestry among Albanian speakers was because most of these sampled originated from a small area rather than uniformly across Albania and Kosovo. However, this would not explain the high rate of IBD between Albanian speakers and neighboring populations. Even populations from which we only have one or two samples, which we at first assumed would be unusably noisy, provide generally reliable, consistent patterns, as evidenced by, for example, Figure S3.

 

[Garrick]

Indeed "Slavs" are the most recent rivals to the balkans, I was always so amazed as to how so many balkan countries acquired slavic language fully (and in a very short timeframe) as genetically they have nothing to do with Slavs, say Bulgaria and its inhabitants are so ancient that at that time Slavic people majority (probably R1a) still lived far north of today Russia.

I think all this obscured system came from Russians (as obviously very powerful) and we know historically that they always tried to push as far as south as possible, probably cause they were always dreaming about beaches of Mediterranean LOL.

Don't project today's political affairs with situation before 2000-5000 years before and beyond.All came from Russians? Where do you see the Russians? Are really Thracians, Getae, Dacians, Scythians, Sarmatians and other R1a carriers (among other haplogroup who were carriers) who arrived to the Balkans Russians? Are really unknown tribes with R1a in old times who arrived to the Balkans Russians? Are really Poles, Ukrainians, Serbs, Slovaks, Bulgarian, Czechs, Croats and other Slavic nations, and nonSlavic Hungarians, Romanians etc with significant percent R1a Russians? And all other people with R1a are Russians? Nine percent people in Albania are Russians, hm? People in Iran and India with R1a are Russians? All people with R1a all over the world, in all epochs are Russians. Those Russians, R1a, they're everywhere.

 

[Garrick]

First, you were posting about Balkan people and how was formed their nationality, therefore I said that. Second, you diverted the thread firstly.

You are probably from Bosnia because Bosnians were Illyrians.

We can discuss but in other themes, not here.

 

[Garrick]

Albanian speaking regions have R1a around 5.8% average.

Albanians in Kosovo (2 mil) 4.4%, Albanians in Macedonia (800,000) 1.6%, Albanians in Albania (4 mil) 9.1%

Again you make mistake, not 5.8% but 7.8%.

I used data census, Population in Albania = 2,831,741 (census 2011), of course, there are nonAlbanians, percentage is 12%, (but it doesn't matter, because data are for Albania, and we ignore, and it doesn't change result)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Albania
Albanian population in Macedonia = 509,083 (census 2002). I can agree that today number of Albanians can be larger but these are official data.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanians_in_the_Republic_of_Macedonia
Albanian population in Kosovo = 1,616,869 (census 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Kosovo

You can see: R1a in Albania is 9% (Eupedia). Number of males in Albania = 1.416.000.
R1a among Albanians in Slavic Macedonia (capital Skopje) is 12.6% (link is beneath). Number of Albanian males = 254,000
http://www.bjmg.edu.mk/UploadedImages/pdf/11-18.pdf
R1a among Albanians in Kosovo is 4.42% (link is beneath). Number of Albanian males = 808.000.

(Number of males is calculated as mean, it is not precise by census but it doesn't change the result because in one population approximately 1/2 are males).

Number of R1a of Albanian males = 194,488 (total Albanian males = 2,478,000)

Percentage of Albanian R1a, (total Albania, Macedonia, Kosovo) = 7.8%.

(If we take 9.1% R1a for Albania, result is 7.9%).

 

[Yetos]

Boring is the situation of a country in Balkan, were is not permitted the free choice of religion. In this country is permitted only one religion. Even only one ethnicity. You know for sure which is that country [emoji4] [emoji57].
And to be back on the thread, E- V 13 throughout modern Greece is probably spread with Albanian migration during millennia. (Last Greek president was of Albanian origin) . But of course maybe is not true, this is just my theory [emoji1]



[emoji562]

oh really? why you don't come too? we may make you president,

 

[Garrick]

noUseForAname
You think if you repeat something like a parrot that has more weight (excuse, it is non offensive).

I gave four points, where you made mistakes.
For one, two, and four you don’t try to answer. It is elaborated.

The rest is still point 3, something confused you yet.
But this is last time.

You can see Eurogenes Genetic Ancestry Project:
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/ancient-human-genomes-suggest-three.html

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.


What is EEF?

http://bga101.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/eef-whg-ane-test-for-europeans.html

EEF: mixed European/Near Eastern Neolithic farmers

(Proportion somewhere in Europe can be 5:1 or similar for Neolithic farmers with Near East with regard to WHG, of course it can be different and it depends of location, but it is not point).

You can see example:
Ethnicity: Assyrian
Rounded to the nearest percent.
My Results

EEF 101%
WHG -7.61%
ANE 6.6%

Assyrians live in Syria and Iraq. He has EEF 101%, if it means that his ancestors lived in Europe 10,000 years, or more?

Dude, people in Near East, Anatolia and South Caucasus can have bigger EEF than people in Europe, do you understand it.

...
But to back to fact that EEF is complex (hybrid component)
...
EEF is imprecise

1. Scientific community use term Early Neolithic Farmers, ENF.
2. EEF is hybrid component, ENF is based component, if we want to do with WHG and ANE and we should use ENF.

For example, a simple case.

We analyze three categories pupils in primary school: excellent > 4.5, very good between 3.5 and 4.5 and average between 2.5 and 3.5. It is all right.
But can you imagine that someone takes other rule: excellent, very good and good, whereby good are mix between average and very good.

You can see Eurogenes Genetic Ancestry Project:

However, this is essentially a stop-gap model (for model in paper Lazaridis et al), which will in all likelihood be replaced by a partly revised and more robust model once someone manages to sequence a genome or two from the Neolithic Near East. That's because EEF is clearly a hybrid component, largely made up of ancient Near Eastern ancestry and something very WHG-like, sometimes in very different proportions depending on the location and archeological context of the EEF genomes being analyzed.

So what will this new model look like, you might ask? Probably like this, where EEF is replaced by an Early Neolithic Farmer (ENF) component from the ancient Near East, or something very similar.

...
It is not critics of paper of Lazaridis et al. Only clarification.

...
And how someone can give wrong conclusions if he or she pulls one piece from the puzzle.

...
We'll probably know of more ancient European meta-populations as it will be many more studies and many more genomes are sequenced from across Eurasia. But projections from today’s political situations and nations are completely wrongly. Only for the nationalistic bickering. But for it you can find someone else, not me.

 

[noUseForAname]

Don't project today's political affairs with situation before 2000-5000 years before and beyond.All came from Russians? Where do you see the Russians? Are really Thracians, Getae, Dacians, Scythians, Sarmatians and other R1a carriers (among other haplogroup who were carriers) who arrived to the Balkans Russians? Are really unknown tribes with R1a in old times who arrived to the Balkans Russians? Are really Poles, Ukrainians, Serbs, Slovaks, Bulgarian, Czechs, Croats and other Slavic nations, and nonSlavic Hungarians, Romanians etc with significant percent R1a Russians? And all other people with R1a are Russians? Nine percent people in Albania are Russians, hm? People in Iran and India with R1a are Russians? All people with R1a all over the world, in all epochs are Russians. Those Russians, R1a, they're everywhere.

Seems like you are prejudging everything, of course name as Russian came late (probably 1,000), however proto Slavs would definitely have R1a as a majority (and some of other slight mixtures) according to Maciamo

Also according to the research "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/registration2013...d_abstract=417


This might also be the right time when slavic languages were incorporated to Countries like Serbia Bosnia Croatia (and the language serbo-croatian is around 900 ybp) then slavic Macedonian language (nothing related to Macedonia in Greece) 600 ybp and slavic bulgarian 600 ybp. So these newcomers surely had as a majority R1a and maybe some I2a as Maciamo noted because proto slavs are from today west Russia and Belarus, then pushed south to Poland pretty early like around 4,000 ybp and became a majority there since today.

Thats why i noted before those south countries currently speaking slavic languages have nothing related genetically with proto-slavs, but looks like they incorporated their language fully and their culture at around 1,000 ybp.

 

[Милан М.]

Seems like you are prejudging everything, of course name as Russian came late (probably 1,000), however proto Slavs would definitely have R1a as a majority (and some of other slight mixtures) according to Maciamo

Also according to the research "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/registration2013...d_abstract=417


This might also be the right time when slavic languages were incorporated to Countries like Serbia Bosnia Croatia (and the language serbo-croatian is around 900 ybp) then slavic Macedonian language (nothing related to Macedonia in Greece) 600 ybp and slavic bulgarian 600 ybp. So these newcomers surely had as a majority R1a and maybe some I2a as Maciamo noted because proto slavs are from today west Russia and Belarus, then pushed south to Poland pretty early like around 4,000 ybp and became a majority there since today.

Thats why i noted before those south countries currently speaking slavic languages have nothing related genetically with proto-slavs, but looks like they incorporated their language fully and their culture at around 1,000 ybp.

Not true LOL

 

[Piro Ilir]

Again you make mistake, not 5.8% but 7.8%.

I used data census, Population in Albania = 2,831,741 (census 2011), of course, there are nonAlbanians, percentage is 12%, (but it doesn't matter, because data are for Albania, and we ignore, and it doesn't change result)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Albania
Albanian population in Macedonia = 509,083 (census 2002). I can agree that today number of Albanians can be larger but these are official data.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanians_in_the_Republic_of_Macedonia
Albanian population in Kosovo = 1,616,869 (census 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Kosovo

You can see: R1a in Albania is 9% (Eupedia). Number of males in Albania = 1.416.000.
R1a among Albanians in Slavic Macedonia (capital Skopje) is 12.6% (link is beneath). Number of Albanian males = 254,000
http://www.bjmg.edu.mk/UploadedImages/pdf/11-18.pdf
R1a among Albanians in Kosovo is 4.42% (link is beneath). Number of Albanian males = 808.000.

(Number of males is calculated as mean, it is not precise by census but it doesn't change the result because in one population approximately 1/2 are males).

Number of R1a of Albanian males = 194,488 (total Albanian males = 2,478,000)

Percentage of Albanian R1a, (total Albania, Macedonia, Kosovo) = 7.8%.

(If we take 9.1% R1a for Albania, result is 7.9%).

Most of R 1 and I 2 in Albanian population is of illyrian-thracian origin. Illyrian and thracians were IE people, therefore they had R1 and I2 lineages. Slavs have much more R1 and I 2 because they came after the Albanians and Greeks in Balkans. Slavs are more recent IE migration than Albanians , therefore they have more R 1 and I2 . I2 and E-V13 is pre IE paternal lineage throughout Balkans, probably I think.

 

[Garrick]

Most of R 1 and I 2 in Albanian population is of illyrian-thracian origin. Illyrian and thracians were IE people, therefore they had R1 and I2 lineages. Slavs have much more R1 and I 2 because they came after the Albanians and Greeks in Balkans. Slavs are more recent IE migration than Albanians , therefore they have more R 1 and I2 . I2 and E-V13 is pre IE paternal lineage throughout Balkans, probably I think.

I can't say if Albanians or Slavs came to the Balkans first.

Albanian created between 4 and 6 century in Romania/Moldavia (and maybe part of South Ukraine). Ancestors of Albanians came to todays Albania over Romania/Bulgaria and Slavic Macedonia. Maybe they came before Slavs, maybe no.

But, we know that R1a and I2a existed in the Balkans before Slavs. We know that Serbs and Romanians, and another peoples are similar. We know that Thracians and Dacians were similar, and that Thracians and Dacians are among Romanians, Serbs, Bulgarians. We know that Bosnians and part of Serbs (Western Serbs) have Illyirian component (and part of Croats, too). It is possible and Albanians, especially Tosk Albanians, who have fairly significant I2 haplogroup (Geg Albanians no, the have the lowest I2 in the whole Balkans, and beyond).

Slavs were not drastically change the haplogroups in the Balkans, how someone wrongly thinks. They were most numerous in the North in the Panonian Basin (Plain), todays whole Hungary, Baranja, Slavonia, Medjimurje (Croatia), Srem, Banat, Backa (Serbia), and parts of Slovakia, Slovenia and Romania.

More detailed studies and in different epochs will give better picture. But, one thing we cannot skip. Albanians, Slavic Macedonians, Serbs, Croats and other Balkan people cannot create history which didn't exist. I can understand that myths can be good for national unity but facts are facts.

All Balkan nations to a lesser or greater extent have some jealousy towards the Greeks, and some people are paranoid. We must say Greeks have great history, Greece is the cradle of European democracy and civilization. Any attempt of appropriation of Greek history by others is foolishness.