# Population Genetics > Y-DNA Haplogroups >  Looking at European genes : Paleolithic vs Neolithic

## Maciamo

The peopling of Europe has happened in successive waves of migrations from East to West. Homo Sapiens left Africa to settle in the Middle East, then advanced into Europe around 40,000 years ago (probably intermingling with the indigenous Neanderthals). These early Paleolithic Europeans, known as Cro-Magnons, have left their genes in the modern population. Their Y-chromosomal DNA was almost certainly haplogroup I (and perhaps also to the older haplogroup F).

The advent of agriculture in the Fertile Crescent and the domestication of cows, goats, and pigs in the South Caucasus and North Mesopotamia region prompted a new sedentary lifestyle. These early farmers expanded east towards modern Iran and Afghanistan, and west towards Europe. Based on the current knowledge, notably the recent ancient DNA tests from Neolithic France and Germany, it seems that at least two distinct groups of people left the Middle East for Europe. 

The first wave of agriculturalists most likely originated in the Caucasus region and made its way through Anatolia, northern Greece, then expanded north along to Danube basin, and south along the coasts of Italy, Sardinia, North Africa, southern France and Iberia. These people belonged almost exclusively to haplogroup G2a.

The second wave might have happened in the late Neolithic/Chalcolithic or in the Bronze Age. Based on the haplogroups it brought to Europe, J2, J1, E1b1b and T, chances are that this group came from the Levant and/or Mesopotamia. Perhaps two groups merged in Anatolia, Greece and Italy giving rise to the ancient classical civilizations of Greece, Etruria and Rome.

Modern Europe is dominated by two paternal haplogroups, R1a and R1b, which are associated with the Bronze Age conquest of Europe and South Asia by horse-riding pastoralists from the Pontic-Caspian steppes. They are thought to be the original speakers of modern Indo-European languages, from English, French and Greek to Russian, Iranian and Hindi.

*The haplogroup R bias*

As I have explained here, the exceptionally fast replacement of all paternal lineages by R1a and R1b lineages in Europe, Central Asia and South Asia, is probably due to several factors (heavy losses in battles among males in conquered populations, polygamy among Indo-European rulers, higher genetic predisposition of haplogroup R to conceive boys, etc.). 

Unfortunately, this unfair bias in favour of haplogroup R makes it much more difficult to estimate the percentage of native Paleolithic vs Middle-Eastern Neolithic blood among modern Europeans. What is sure is that haplogroup R1a and R1b both have disproportionately high percentages compared to their real genetic contributions on other chromosomes than Y. So much is obvious from mtDNA studies, which do not show an obvious surplus of Indo-European genes, and indeed indicate a strong continuity from the Paleolithic and Neolithic.

This is why I have worked on re-calculating the percentages of Y-DNA after removing haplogroups R1a and R1b. The results are startlingly in line with autosomal studies separating northern and southern Europeans.

I have added the new percentages of I1, I2a and I2b together to obtain a percentage of Paleolithic admixture. Likewise, I have made the total for the Middle Eastern admixture (G2a, J1, J2, E1b1b and T). 

Here are some selected results classified from the most Palaeolithic to the most Middle Eastern : 

*Over 2/3 Paleolithic European*

- *Iceland* : 94.5% Paleolithic vs 0% Middle Eastern (+ 5.5% Mongoloid)
- *Norway* : 84% Paleolithic vs 7% Middle Eastern (+ 9% Mongoloid)
- *Denmark* : 83.5% Paleolithic vs 15.5% Middle Eastern (+ 3.5% Mongoloid)
- *Croatia* : 81% Paleolithic vs 19% Middle Eastern
- *Ireland* 74.5% Paleolithic vs 25% Middle Eastern (+ 0.5% Mongoloid)
- *Scotland* 74% Paleolithic vs 23.5% Middle Eastern (+ 2.5% Mongoloid)
- *England* : 73.5% Paleolithic vs 26% Middle Eastern (+ 1.5% Mongoloid)
- *Sweden* : 69.5% Paleolithic vs 10% Middle Eastern (+ 19.5% Mongoloid)
(- *Brittany* : 69% Paleolithic vs 31% Middle Eastern)

*From 1/2 to 2/3 Paleolithic European*

(- *Basque country* : 64% Paleolithic vs 36% Middle Eastern)
- *Netherlands* : 63% Paleolithic vs 34.5% Middle Eastern (+ 2% Mongoloid)
- *Wales* : 59% Paleolithic vs 41% Middle Eastern
- *Poland* : 59% Paleolithic vs 41% Middle Eastern
- *Belgium* : 57.5% Paleolithic vs 42% Middle Eastern (+ 0.5% Mongoloid)
- *Germany* : 56% Paleolithic vs 41% Middle Eastern (+ 3.5% Mongoloid)
- *Czech Republic* : 54.5% Paleolithic vs 41% Middle Eastern (+ 4.5% Mongoloid)

*From 1/3 to 1/2 Paleolithic European*

(- *Sardinia* : 47.5% Paleolithic vs 52.5% Middle Eastern)
- *France* : 45% Paleolithic vs 54.5% Middle Eastern
- *Switzerland* : 40.5% Paleolithic vs 56% Middle Eastern
- *Austria* : 40% Paleolithic vs 58% Middle Eastern (+ 2% Mongoloid)

*Less than 1/3 Paleolithic European*

(- *North Italy* : 26.5% Paleolithic vs 73.5% Middle Eastern)
- *Spain* : 24.5% Paleolithic vs 75.5% Middle Eastern
(- *Alsace* : 23.5% Paleolithic vs 76.5% Middle Eastern)
- *Greece* : 20% Paleolithic vs 80% Middle Eastern
(- *Galicia* : 19% Paleolithic vs 81% Middle Eastern)
- *Portugal* : 15.5% Paleolithic vs 83.5% Middle Eastern
- *Italy* : 13% Paleolithic vs 87% Middle Eastern
(- *Crete* : 12.5% Paleolithic vs 87.5% Middle Eastern)
(- *Auvergne* : 10.5% Paleolithic vs 89.5% Middle Eastern)
- *Cyprus* : 10% Paleolithic vs 90% Middle Eastern
(- *Sicily*: 7.5% Paleolithic vs 92.5% Middle Eastern)

Mongoloid haplogroups here are N and Q, both of Siberian origin and present mostly in Germanic or Slavic populations. The Q is Mediterranean populations being of Near-Eastern origin (Phoenician or Jewish ?), it is counted as Middle Eastern.

This way of calculating doesn't work well for Russia or Ukraine because the original population was R1a and R1b. Removing them gives very odd results (Russia = 32% Paleolithic + 25% Middle Eastern + 43% Mongoloid ; Ukraine = 32.5% Paleolithic + 52% Middle Eastern + 15.5% Mongoloid). If we keep haplogroup R it fits much better with the look of white Russians (67.5% Paleolithic + 8% Middle Eastern + 24% Mongoloid) and Ukrainians (69% Paleolithic + 24% Middle Eastern + 7% Mongoloid). This is another reason to believe that the Bronze-Age steppe people were indeed R1a and R1b. Likewise it makes more sense to keep R1a in Finland and Baltic countries to avoid excessive Mongoloid admixture that does not reflect the reality.

Note that all Scandinavia and the British Isles (except Wales) are over 2/3 Paleolithic European. All these countries are also overwhelmingly long-headed (dolichocephalic) and long-faced, just like Paleolithic skulls from northern Europe. If the Irish, for instance, who are 80% R1b, really had 80% of Pontic steppe Indo-European DNA, they would be much more brachycephalic and look very different. The R1b Y-chromosome spread in a very imbalanced way, quickly replacing most other lineages. But the core genetic pool of northern Europeans is to be found among the pre-R1b population, mostly among members of haplogroup I. 

This also explains why the Frisians, from the northern Netherlands, who are over 70% R1b, don't look so different from the Swedes, who are only 20% R1b. Once R1b and R1a are removed, the core is similar : mostly I1 with some I2b, G2a, J2 and E1b1b. 

The Welsh and Poles appear similar, both at 59% Paleolithic and 41% Middle Eastern. It's obvious that they look quite different, and if one looks at the haplogroups besides R1a and R1b, they are indeed very different. Wales has mostly I1 (42%) and G2a (17%), while Polish substrata is composed primarily of I2a2 (33.5%) and E1b1b (18.5%).

----------


## edao

> Here are some selected results classified from the most Palaeolithic to the most Middle Eastern : 
> 
> - Iceland : 94.5% Paleolithic vs 0% Middle Eastern (+ 5.5% Mongoloid)
> - Denmark : 83.5% Paleolithic vs 15.5% Middle Eastern (+ 3.5% Mongoloid)
> - *Scotland 74% Paleolithic vs 23.5% Middle Eastern*  (+ 2.5% Mongoloid)
> - Ireland 74% Paleolithic vs 25% Middle Eastern
> - *England : 73.5% Paleolithic vs 26% Middle Eastern* (+ 1.5% Mongoloid)
> 
> - Sweden 69.5% Paleolithic vs 10% Middle Eastern (+ 19.5% Mongoloid)
> ...


The Welsh middle eastern percentage is quite high for British populations, does that mean there was a significant southern european influence at some point?

----------


## Maciamo

> The Welsh middle eastern percentage is quite high for British populations, does that mean there was a significant southern european influence at some point?


Yes. *Once R1a and R1b subtracted, the percentage of G2a in Wales (17%) in the highest in Europe along with the Switzerland (18%) and Austria (15.5%). Other regions, also remote and mountainous, have higher percentages still, like Auvergne (21.5%) in central France and Cantabria (22.5%) in northern Spain.* I think that the reason is that Neolithic populations sought refuge into the mountains when later invaders arrived. Wales also served as a refuge for the population of Roman Britain when the Anglo-Saxons invaded England (and the Lowlands of Scotland). Roman Britain was probably much closer to Gaul ethnically than to Germanic countries or even Ireland. Since the Neolithic (e.g. Megalithic period) and throughout the Bronze Age (Celtic period, like La Tène) there were strong ties between Britain and Gaul, and surely lots of intermarriages and migrations in both directions. 

England and Scotland only owe their higher percentage of Paleolithic ancestry to the Anglo-Saxon, Jutlandic, Danish and Norwegian people who settled there. Ireland probably has little Middle Eastern admixture because it was distant and isolated enough, because its land was never appropriate for agriculture, and because the Irish also have some Scandinavian and English ancestry. 

*Once R1a/R1b cut out, Ireland and Scotland have the highest percentage of I2b in Europe (22% and 21% respectively). Ireland also has the highest percentage of I2a (11%) in Western Europe after Spain (14%).*

----------


## Haganus

Many thanks for these interesting information. Is it possible to say what hair- and
eyescolour the Upperpalaeolithic men (haplogroup I) had? Fair/red hair and blue-eyes?
I really did not understand why Denmark and the Netherlands have 2 till 3 mongoloide
genes. Mongoloide types is totally absent in Denmark and the Netherlands. Why not in Italy or Spain? I suppose that the most mongoloides can be found in Russia and Hungary.

----------


## Maciamo

> Many thanks for these interesting information. Is it possible to say what hair- and
> eyescolour the Upperpalaeolithic men (haplogroup I) had? Fair/red hair and blue-eyes?
> I really did not understand why Denmark and the Netherlands have 2 till 3 mongoloide
> genes. Mongoloide types is totally absent in Denmark and the Netherlands. Why not in Italy or Spain? I suppose that the most mongoloides can be found in Russia and Hungary.


2-3% is nothing. Most of the features would be lost after 3 generations of intermarriage with Europeans, and that still leaves 12.5%. Besides, slightly Mongoloid type is far from absent from Denmark. I have seen many people with minor features, like high cheek bones or narrow eyes. Very straight hair may also be a Mongoloid feature, even if the hair is blond. The straightest hair in Europe are found among Nordic and Slavic people (as well as among the Basque but for unrelated reasons). I also know people with slight Mongoloid features in Belgium and France where there are less than 1% of Mongoloid DNA.

----------


## Anton, Bear's den

I am not big specialist in all that DNA and genes theme, but is Finno-Ugric = Mongoloid?

----------


## zanipolo

> I am not big specialist in all that DNA and genes theme, but is Finno-Ugric = Mongoloid?


I had a linguistic debate on this a year ago , so if linguistics means anthing, well!

Finnic is not mongolid, but ugric ( from the urals) is 

Ugric is also from hunnic invasion of europe.

so in true "modern" terms , finnic is finland areas and ugric is hungarian ( magyar) 

now the point is , is finno-ugric only a term for the mixing of finnic people with the people from the urals. This is the problem. Modern people love to mix ...... italo-franco, anglo-saxon, finno-baltic, thraco-bulgarian etc etc

----------


## Alan

Finns are only linguistically different.

----------


## Dagne

The Mongoloid Y haplogroup N1c1 has been in the Northern Eastern Europe since the very end of the ice age - the first ones to inhabit the land so to say. Then they must be hold native for these part of Europe, right?

----------


## zanipolo

> The Mongoloid Y haplogroup N1c1 has been in the Northern Eastern Europe since the very end of the ice age - the first ones to inhabit the land so to say. Then they must be hold native for these part of Europe, right?


you could be right, but I just did a quick check on the genetics for uralic and they are N1b, while finns, latvians and lituanians are N1c1, actually finns are over 60%, others 40% ..............so there is a difference

----------


## Maciamo

Please keep in mind that haplogroups do not have phenotypical characteristics. Somebody belonging to haplogroup Q could just as well be 100% European, 100% Siberian Mongoloid, 100% Amerindian (from any tribe) or 100% Middle Eastern. But haplogroups N and Q are usually referred to as Mongoloid because the vast majority of their carriers are Mongoloid people. In the same way, there are Mongols and Siberians who are R1a and Africans who are R1b, but these haplogroups are called Caucasoid or European.

Notwithstanding, it is undeniable that there is a fair amount of Mongoloid genes among among Finno-Ugric and Scandinavian people, even if it is less than the percentage of haplogroup N suggests in the case of the Finns. I know some people who are 1/4 East Asian and 3/4 European and who look less Mongoloid than some Finns or Swedes. It's actually surprising that Mongoloid traits survived so well among Finns and Swedes, as the most distinctive physical feature, the epicanthic fold (the single eyelid of Mongoloid people) is a recessive trait.

----------


## zanipolo

> Please keep in mind that haplogroups do not have phenotypical characteristics. Somebody belonging to haplogroup Q could just as well be 100% European, 100% Siberian Mongoloid, 100% Amerindian (from any tribe) or 100% Middle Eastern. But haplogroups N and Q are usually referred to as Mongoloid because the vast majority of their carriers are Mongoloid people. In the same way, there are Mongols and Siberians who are R1a and Africans who are R1b, but these haplogroups are called Caucasoid or European.
> 
> Notwithstanding, it is undeniable that there is a fair amount of Mongoloid genes among among Finno-Ugric and Scandinavian people, even if it is less than the percentage of haplogroup N suggests in the case of the Finns. I know some people who are 1/4 East Asian and 3/4 European and who look less Mongoloid than some Finns or Swedes. It's actually surprising that Mongoloid traits survived so well among Finns and Swedes, as the most distinctive physical feature, the epicanthic fold (the single eyelid of Mongoloid people) is a recessive trait.


would these people who have a small % of mongolid be considered mongolid?. This seems wrong in placing these people in this group when the % of mongolid is minimum..........
To me, if the % is low , then its only due to small migration and not by a "mixing" of genes.

What you are basically saying is that we should neither seperate R1a from R1b as well , .........whats the point of the discussion then?

----------


## Dagne

Would the European people with the epicanthic fold look like Rene Zellweger, or Tarja Halonen?

----------


## Maciamo

> would these people who have a small % of mongolid be considered mongolid?.


Of course not. Why this question ? 

In the world of genetics we are all hybrids. I showed in this thread three genetic components that make up modern Europeans, but it could be subdivided much deeper. If we could go back 10,000 years ago, ethnic groups would be much more clear-cut. There would be a fairly pure I1 ethnicity, an I2a ethnicity, an I2b ethnicity, an R1a ethnicity, a G2a ethnicity, a J2 ethnicity, and so on. Now we are all mixed up. So in a sense saying European or Caucasoid doesn't really mean anything, as it can refer to many completely different admixture.

----------


## Haganus

But please I cannot believe that there are real Danes and autochnous Dutchmen 
who have mongoloid features. For example the Jutlanders are fairest haired men
in the world. Dark hair and dark eyes are lacking, in Sweden too. I cannot imagine
that there exist Scandinavians and Germans with mongoloid features (excepted men
with Finnish or Russian ancestors).

----------


## Taranis

> But please I cannot believe that there are real Danes and autochnous Dutchmen 
> who have mongoloid features. For example the Jutlanders are fairest haired men
> in the world. Dark hair and dark eyes are lacking, in Sweden too. I cannot imagine
> that there exist Scandinavians and Germans with mongoloid features (excepted men
> with Finnish or Russian ancestors).


I'm sorry to say this, but you may be subject to certain stereotypes there. For one, think about Hunnic influence, that might be the most likeliest source.

----------


## Haganus

But the Huns did not go to the north to countries such as the Netherlands and
Denmark. It is impossible to find descendants of the Huns on the coast of
northwest Germany and Jutland.

----------


## mygger

I don't think that most on finns originally had mongoloid features. Finns are the most blonde people, and 60% of them are N1c1.They are among most indigenous people in Europe.

----------


## Dagne

Other Uralids also look quite Europeans too. For instance, these are Kuomi people (photo from Wiki)

----------


## Maciamo

> Other Uralids also look quite Europeans too. For instance, these are Kuomi people (photo from Wiki)


In my eyes, most of them look typically Eurasian (hybrid Caucasian-Mongoloid). Don't be deceived by the fair hair and eyes. Many half-European half-Mongoloid children have fair hair, and yet are exactly 50% Mongoloid. About 10-15% of people in Mongolia itself have fair (sometimes very blond) hair and blue eyes, due to ancient admixture with Europeans (although it is not obvious from Y-DNA percentages).

----------


## Haganus

A strange thing! Never I heart that there are in Mongolia people with fair
hair and light eyes. Blue eyes seem me impossible. You only can find
really blue eyed men in Scandinavia, north of Germany and the Netherlands.
In East-Europa light eyes are mixed green/grey eyes. Real blue eyes are
there very rare.

----------


## iapetoc

> Other Uralids also look quite Europeans too. For instance, these are Kuomi people (photo from Wiki)



hmm yes fair colours, but just look the face of the woman in middle,

the face lloks like more European or Asian, 
just compare from right the 1rst and the 3rd woman in face characteristics.

it is obvious the difference.

----------


## zanipolo

as i stated previously, just because a race has 1% mongolid, does not make that race mongolid. its an irrevelant %.
We might as well say we are east african, because thats where humans originated.

----------


## Dagne

For comparison - Sami and Russians

----------


## Dagne

I have been wondering about this chart - 

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p.../NE_Europe.png

All Europeans make up one diagonal from South Italians at one end to Latvians on the other end, while the Finnish move to different direction. They are also followed to some extent by Swedes and Estonians. This "other" direction could be easily explained by mongoloid influx, only then Lithuanians and Latvians should be placed somewhere on that "other" direction, too because they have a lot of N1c1. Besides, why would Latvians rather than Lithuanian be set at the far end of the diagonal, this is somewhat contradicts Y-haplogroup make up as Lithuanians have more of N1c1 and Latvians more of R1b.

----------


## Maciamo

> A strange thing! Never I heart that there are in Mongolia people with fair
> hair and light eyes. Blue eyes seem me impossible. You only can find
> really blue eyed men in Scandinavia, north of Germany and the Netherlands.
> In East-Europa light eyes are mixed green/grey eyes. Real blue eyes are
> there very rare.


It's normal, you are not an anthropologist, and I doubt that you have travelled extensively around northern Asia. Here are a few examples of blond and/or blue-eyed Mongols.







Fair hair and eyes are also common in Central Asia, especially among the Uighurs, Tajiks and some tribes of Afghanistan and northern Pakistan.

----------


## Taranis

> It's normal, you are not an anthropologist, and I doubt that you have travelled extensively around northern Asia. Here are a few examples of blond and/or blue-eyed Mongols.
> 
> http://pastmist.files.wordpress.com/...ongol-girl.jpg
> 
> http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...GBsz0DmNbD&t=1
> 
> http://www.articlesafari.com/wp-cont.../blue-eyes.jpg
> 
> Fair hair and eyes are also common in Central Asia, especially among the Uighurs, Tajiks and some tribes of Afghanistan and northern Pakistan.


With the Uighurs, AFAIK blond hair is generally thought to be a legacy of the Tocharians, who were absorbed by the Uighurs when these invaded the Tarim Basin in the 9th century.

----------


## Maciamo

> With the Uighurs, AFAIK blond hair is generally thought to be a legacy of the Tocharians, who were absorbed by the Uighurs when these invaded the Tarim Basin in the 9th century.


I know that. Everywhere in Central and Northern Asia blond hair and blue eyes were brought by Indo-European speakers from the Pontic-Caspian steppes (including the Tocharians). This is actually one of the strongest argument in favour of the Pontic-Caspian stepped homeland for the Indo-Europeans (as opposed to Anatolia or the Caucasus where blond hair and blue eyes are rare).

----------


## Taranis

> I know that. Everywhere in Central and Northern Asia blond hair and blue eyes were brought by Indo-European speakers from the Pontic-Caspian steppes (including the Tocharians). This is actually one of the strongest argument in favour of the Pontic-Caspian stepped homeland for the Indo-Europeans (as opposed to Anatolia or the Caucasus where blond hair and blue eyes are rare).


Oh, I absolutely agree! What also speaks against Anatolia or the Caucasus is the diversity of non-IE languages in these regions.

Otherwise, what I would also like to bring up in regard for blond hair and blue eyes are the Nuristanis of Afghanistan, which also have frequently-occuring blond hair and blue eyes. They are also a peculiar lot in another aspect: linguistically, the Nuristani languages represent *their own third branch* of Indo-Iranic (the two main branches are Indic such as Sanskrit, Singhalese, Hindi or Urdu - and Iranic such as Persian, Kurdish and Pashto).

----------


## iapetoc

well can someone responsibly categorize 

I mean the differences

among 

1 Ugric 
2 Finnic Suomi
3 skandinayians
4 estonia-latvia
5 Moggolia
6 yugurs (turks of china)

I mean as I read the more the people are confused,

especially what is the difference in YDNA, mtDNA and some anthropometrical parameters.

how many sub-trbes we have etc,

----------


## Dagne

Yes, by the looks and genetics also  :Smile: 

For insntace, I was reading about branches of N1c1 - there is Finnish, South Baltic (Prussians, Lithuanians, Latvians), and other branches for Uralids, Northern Russians, etc. 
http://dna-forums.org/index.php?/top...h-baltic-n1c1/

----------


## Dagne

> well can someone responsibly categorize 
> 
> I mean the differences
> 
> among 
> 
> 1 Ugric 
> 2 Finnic Suomi
> 3 skandinayians
> ...


Yes, by the looks and genetics also  :Smile: 

For instace, I was reading about branches of N1c1 - there is Finnish, South Baltic (Prussians, Lithuanians, Latvians), and other branches for Uralids, Northern Russians, etc. 
http://dna-forums.org/index.php?/top...h-baltic-n1c1/

----------


## archaiocapilos

> Oh, I absolutely agree! What also speaks against Anatolia or the Caucasus is the diversity of non-IE languages in these regions.
> 
> Otherwise, what I would also like to bring up in regard for blond hair and blue eyes are the Nuristanis of Afghanistan, which also have frequently-occuring blond hair and blue eyes. They are also a peculiar lot in another aspect: linguistically, the Nuristani languages represent *their own third branch* of Indo-Iranic (the two main branches are Indic such as Sanskrit, Singhalese, Hindi or Urdu - and Iranic such as Persian, Kurdish and Pashto).


Exactly! And what speaks about the IE homeland being in the Balkans is the extreme diversity of IE languages there :Wary:  In fact there is not any known pre-Indo-European language in the Balkans

----------


## Taranis

> Exactly! And what speaks about the IE homeland being in the Balkans is the extreme diversity of IE languages there In fact there is not any known pre-Indo-European language in the Balkans


I think one major problem there is the fact that the Paleo-Balkan languages are all rather scarcely attested. It would be easier to say what their relationship towards each other was, as well towards the other branches of IE. It also help greatly identifying the actual ancestor language of Albanian.

----------


## Maciamo

> Exactly! And what speaks about the IE homeland being in the Balkans is the extreme diversity of IE languages there In fact there is not any known pre-Indo-European language in the Balkans


Albanian obviously evolved from a non-IE language and later became hybridised with IE terms.

The Minoan language was also not IE.

----------


## Taranis

> Albanian obviously evolved from a non-IE language and later became hybridised with IE terms.
> 
> The Minoan language was also not IE.


I disagree on your assessment regarding Albanian: Albanian is weird and unique in many respects, but it's clearly possible to derive Albanian words from PIE via sound correspondence. There's nothing non-Indo-European about it, in my opinion.

Minoan is unclassified (due to the small corpus, and the fact that we cannot read a large part of the script), but I'm inclined to agree that it was non-IE.

----------


## archaiocapilos

> Albanian obviously evolved from a non-IE language and later became hybridised with IE terms.
> 
> The Minoan language was also not IE.


 The Minoan language was spoken in Crete not in the Balkans. As for Albanian I really don't know. Do you think they are Pelasgians (pre-Indo-Europeans)?

----------


## Taranis

> The Minoan language was spoken in Crete not in the Balkans. As for Albanian I really don't know. Do you think they are Pelasgians (pre-Indo-Europeans)?


In my opinion, Albanian is _most probably_ descended from Dacian, but it received input from other languages (including Latin, to a considerable degree), ancient Greek, and probably Paleo-Balkan languages other than Dacian.

----------


## archaiocapilos

That seems reasonable, I had once speculated about a close relationship of Romanians and Albanians because of their common looks. I also came up with a study that identified Albanians with ancient Thracians in anthropolical charachteristics. Maybe they are a hybrid of Daco-Thracians who mixxed with Illyrians and Epirotans later.

----------


## Taranis

> That seems reasonable, I had once speculated about a close relationship of Romanians and Albanians because of their common looks. I also came up with a study that identified Albanians with ancient Thracians in anthropolical charachteristics. Maybe they are a hybrid of Daco-Thracians who mixxed with Illyrians and Epirotans later.


That Albanian/Romanian similarity is actually not a coincidence. Although a Romance language, Romanian also has a considerable share of words ostensibly of Dacian origin - and in fact Albanian and Romanian share also a considerable number of these words. I was actually going to compose something on Albanian, but I really didn't get around to that yet.

----------


## Dagne

> In my opinion, Albanian is _most probably_ descended from Dacian, but it received input from other languages (including Latin, to a considerable degree), ancient Greek, and probably Paleo-Balkan languages other than Dacian.


regarding Dacian - quite a number of Dacian words are very close to modern Lithuanian, too. The connections however aren't easy to explain.

----------


## Goga

> I know that. Everywhere in Central and Northern Asia blond hair and blue eyes were brought by Indo-European speakers from the Pontic-Caspian steppes (including the Tocharians). This is actually one of the strongest argument in favour of the Pontic-Caspian stepped homeland for the Indo-Europeans (as opposed to Anatolia or the Caucasus where blond hair and blue eyes are rare).


 Maybe proto Indo-European were not as light as the native European population.
Maybe Indo-European became lighter, like Jews from Israel after they observerd natve EU population.

Turks in Anatolia changed their appearance too after they came to Turkey. Jews changed their appearance when the came to Europe. So it is possible that the Indo-Europeans changed their appearance after they appeared in Europe!

----------


## iapetoc

> The Minoan language was spoken in Crete not in the Balkans. As for Albanian I really don't know. Do you think they are Pelasgians (pre-Indo-Europeans)?


well the minoan language was not only spoken in Crete,
but also in Palaistine south west minor asia, Egypt Syria etc,
the minoans are connected with Cyclades civilization Thera civilization,
the myth of theseus and story of Thoukidides tell us about almost same language and people with Athens Before IE,
until times of Kodros Athens was considered Pelasgian
By Pelasgian we speak about a non IE language more towards to Ugarit 
the lingustic relics from Pelasgian that pass to Homer and Hesiodos give same with Etruscan and Hebrew or Palaistinian,
it looks like Pelasgians are not connecetd with Hettits but with Hattians, 
the Pelasgian that remain in Albanian language are many,
remember that Pelasgians reach North of Elimians to lake Lychnitis (Ochrid) as we are told By Makedonians,

Now about Y-Dna in tombs in Italy they found G which is enough in Greek Thessaly and Makedonia around Olymp

Besides in my last visit to a friend we finally realize what Ematheia Means
Mat in Hattians and many modern languages in middle east means Area, Land
Theia is the Vrugian Tios Greek Dios
So Ematheia means holy land, Land of Gods, and Not after king Emathos, or Sandy,

Now about Vrygians 
IN IE Greek god is Dios Di+ieus ->Zeus 
in Vrygian the god was Tios,
But in Vrygian God's name Bakchos 
Bakchos is simmilar Greek spelling and Greek isotones, but the root of word is Thracian,
Today exist in South Slavic as BOG Bakch->Bokch->Bog

Now about Albanians, many times I connect them with History of tribe Albocense in Moesia,
That means Daci 
The case of Daci being Thracians, or South Slavic being Thracian is still under debate,
Besides in Greek Thracian vocabulary exists many words that are found in South Slavic or Daci,
Many linguists also connect ancient Greek with Thracian and Armenian to the first family 
that means Thracian is still a mystery language, or we do not know much, 
for example the word χτισται (κτιστες-Builders) is Thracian but found only in Greek not in South Slavic or Daci, etc many words
Now about pelasgian since Archaiocapilos knows,
understand the Greek word for No is Ουκ compare it with Turkish yok,
the Greek word for Ocean is Ωκεα-νος compare with Etruscan Aqua -Ακουα οκεα->ακουα and compare it with Turkish sou su σου also compare with aqwa ans Aswan in Egypt
Οκεα Ακουα and k->s in Satemization σου 
want more connection to understand Pelasgian
Greek healing Ιασω (γιασoo)
Semitic Yeshu (γιεσου)
Greek Γαληνη
Semitic Salem-Salom satemization of K->s
According Mayer's analysis of Albanian Language, we find many elements of that Language,
that means either imported by Greeks to ancient Illyrians at Makedonian and after time, or By Pelasgians before Myceneans.
the Albanian that is spoken today first mention in 1040,
the analysis of Mayer gives Roman enough and mostly to Roman languages, but also gives IE, and many unknown that means that Albanian is language undiscovered, but surely is not pure, by pure I mean that is full of influences and mix,
for example if word Erevet etc in Albanian is from Daci that means Thracians spoke Semitic also.
But is that correct? I don't think so,
I mostly believe that in times of Slavic invasions and after, and at times of religion schisma and Maniakis times many Daci from tribe albocense moved to Illyria and mixed with ancient Illyrians creating a new culture and Nation,
Besides Albania has changed 3 cultures from 1000 Ad,
the Byzantine Maniakis culture,
the Serbs, Montenegrin and Normands culture (times before and after Anju)
the epic Kastrioti culture
the Vallavan passa culture and the ottoman's culture 
to become the today Albania

Personally I believe that Albanian language is connected with Daci Thracian Language but with big Influence of Roman-Latin

Now about the Minoan language were it was spoken?
just think and read 
Minoan ko+νo+σo = κνωσσος
Mycenean Μου +κο+νο = Μυκηναι
Doric λα+κο+νο = Λακωνια 
remember the Greek word for pyramid is Κωνος, and for big village is Κωμη -Κωμοπολις
while the Hettit form and probably IE Greek is -is -issa -intha 
example of mixed language Greek and Pelasgian
Λαρισσα Λα+ρεω+ισσα fortified by stones walls or miners
Λαυριο Λα+ρεω conflux of stones -> miners
Λαβυρινθος ΛΑ+ρεω +ινθα (-intha)

FOR YOUR INFORMATION 
ATTIKH 
Hattica <-> Hatussa 

God Light in Hattians Iluyanka (lighting God) -> Latin Ilum 

Etruscans either from Greek en+Turcis = in towers
either from Hatt-Rasians (they keep their tradition of Hatt- before their tribe rasena)


to understand more 
Greek language is IE but has many Hattians non IE from the pre-Hettit or Driopes invasion

Just think that before Troyan war 
Hettits IE attacked Arzawa (ephesus) Millawanda (Milletus) which was an ahhiyawa (achaians) city

*Aegean civilizations*


*The Early Bronze Age (c. 3000–2200)*

&lt;script src="http://adserver.adtechus.com/addyn/3.0/5308.1/1371356/0/170/ADTECH;target=_blank;grp=256;key=false;kvqsegs=D;k vtopicid=6965;kvchannel=HISTORY;misc=1307821411399 "&gt;&lt;/script&gt; The transition from Neolithic to Bronze Age in the Aegean was marked by changes in pottery and other aspects of material culture. These changes may reflect the arrival in Crete and the Cyclades of new people from lands farther east bringing knowledge of metalworking with them. In Crete and the islands, the changes that inaugurated the Bronze Age were more or less contemporary with the beginning of dynastic times in Egypt. The Bronze Age in the Peloponnese appears to have begun later under the influence of settlers from the islands. The Bronze Age ... 

just look

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...chor=ref276446

the story according sesklo/dimini excavations is before 3000,

Greece was inhabited BY I people? and G and J came, 
and much later R1b and R1a

Minoan language was spoken in Greece and Balkans,
to understand that,
search for *Bottiaeans*
*According to Strabo, Bottiaeans were Cretan* immigrants from Iapygia,[1] named so after their leader Βόττων, Botton,[2] in pre-Argead Macedonia (Emathia), most of which, as Strabo says, was held by Bottiaeans and Thracians

That means that Minoan was known in Makedonia and probably Ematheia could be Cretan(pelasgic)-Vrygian word

the first purely Greeks with today meaning (sonsof Γραικος)is not the Myceneans But The Thessalians.


http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...chor=ref599931


The Pelasgians after Thera volcano broke to many,
south Pelasgians (Minoans) manage to invade and colonise Egypt and Palestine and had the up hand uppon North Pelasgians (Athens) until Theseus

the invasion of IE Greeks is much later than Pelasgians 

*to understand 

Theory No 1*

The first widespread use of the term "Dorian invasion" appears to date to the 1830s. A popular alternative was the "Dorian migration." For example, in 1831 Thomas Keightly was using Dorian migration in _Outline of History_; by 1838 in _The Mythology of Ancient Greece and Italy_ he was using Dorian invasion.
Neither of those two words exactly fit the return, as they imply an incursion from outside a society to within, but they do not clear where did the Dorians fit, if outside or inside the society. William Mitford's _History of Greece_ (1784–1810)[4] described a "Dorian revolution" and Grote's first two volumes did not appear until 1846, although he was working on them since 1822.
In 1824 Karl Otfried Müller's _Die Dorier_ was published.[5] The English translators used such terms as "the Doric invasion" and "the invasion of the Dorians" to translate Müller's "Die Einwanderung von den Doriern", (literally: "the migration of the Dorians") which was quite a different concept; presumably "invasion" was already current in English.
On one level the _Einwanderung_ meant no more than the _Heraklidenzug_, the return of the Heracleidae. However, Müller was also applying the sense of Völkerwanderung to it, which was being used of the Germanic migrations. Müller's approach was philological. In trying to explain the distribution of tribes and dialects he hypothesized that the aboriginal or Pelasgian population was Hellenic. His famous first paragraph of the _Introduction_ asserts: The Dorians derived their origin [_der Ursprung des dorischen Stammes_] from those districts in which the Grecian nation bordered toward the north upon numerous and dissimilar races of barbarians. As to the tribes which dwelt beyond these borders we are indeed wholly destitute of information; nor is there the slightest trace of any memorial or tradition that the Greeks originally came from those quarters.Müller goes on to propose that the original Pelasgian language was the common ancestor of Greek and Latin, that it evolved into Proto-Greek and was corrupted in Macedon and Thessaly by invasions of the Bryges


*Theory No 2*

Toward the end of the 19th century the philologist Paul Kretschmer made a strong case that Pelasgian was a pre-Greek substrate, perhaps Anatolian,[6] taking up a classical theme of remnant populations existing in pockets among the Greek speakers, in mountainous and rural Arcadia and in inaccessible coasts of the far south. This view left Müller's proto-Greeks without a place to be, but Kretschmer did not return the Heracleidae or their Dorian allies from Macedon and Thessaly. Instead he removed the earliest Greeks to the trail leading from the plains of Asia, where he viewed the Proto-Indo-European language as having broken up about 2500 BC. Somewhere between Greece and there a new cradle of the Greek tribes developed, from which Proto-Ionians at about 2000 BC, Proto-Achaeans at about 1600 BC and Dorians at about 1200 BC exited to swoop down on an increasingly less aboriginal Greece as the three waves of external Greeks.[7]
Kretschmer was confident that if the unknown homeland of the Greeks was not then known, archaeology would find it. The handbooks of Greek history from then on spoke of Greeks entering Greece. As late as 1956 J.B. Bury's _History of Greece_ (3rd edition) wrote of an "...invasion which brought the Greek language into Greece." Over that half-century Greek and Balkan archaeology united in an effort to locate the Dorians further north than Greece. The idea was combined with a view that the sea peoples were part of the same north-south migration at about 1200 BC.
The weakness in this theory[8] is that it requires an invaded Greece and its mirror image where Greek evolved and continued to evolve into dialects contemporaneously with the invaded Greece. However, although the invaded Greece was amply represented by evidence of all sorts, there was no evidence at all of its hidden mirror. Similarly, the sea peoples failed to show anywhere except in the sea for which the Egyptians named them. Retaining Müller's three waves and Kretschmer's Pelasgian pockets the scholars continued to search for the Dorians in other quarters. Müller's common ancestor of Greek and Latin had vanished by 1950, breaking that link, and by 1960 although given lip service still the concept of Greek developing outside of Greece had seen its best days


*Τηεορυ Νο 3*

Additional progress in the search for the Dorian invasion came about as a result of the decipherment of Linear B, an early form of Greek written in a syllabary. It became known as Mycenaean Greek. Comparing it with the later Greek dialects scholars could see that a development had taken place. For example, classical Greek _anak-s_, "king", came from a reconstructed _*wanak-_ and a glance at Linear B turned up wa-na-ka.
Ernst Risch lost no time in proposing that there was never any more than one migration, which brought proto-Greek into Greece, and it dissimilated into dialects in Greece.[10] Meanwhile the linguists closest to the decipherment were having doubts about the classification of proto-Greek. John Chadwick summarizing in 1976 wrote:[11] Let us therefore explore the alternative view. This hypothesis is that the Greek language did not exist before the twentieth century B.C., but was formed in Greece by the mixture of an indigenous population with invaders who spoke another language .... What this language was is a difficult question ... the exact stage reached in development at the time of the arrival is difficult to predict.In another ten years the "alternative view" was becoming the standard one. JP Mallory wrote in 1989 concerning the various hypotheses of proto-Greek that had been put forward since the decipherment:[12] Reconciliation of all these different theories seems out of the question ... the current state of our knowledge of the Greek dialects can accommodate Indo-Europeans entering Greece at any time between 2200 and 1600 BC to emerge later as Greek speakers.By the end of the 20th century the concept of an invasion by external Greek speakers had ceased to be the mainsteam view, (although still asserted by a minority), thus Geoffrey Horrocks writes: [13] Greek is now widely believed to be the product of contact between Indo-European immigrants and the speakers of the indigenous languages of the Balkan peninsula beginning c. 2,000 B.C.Although the linguists had failed to return the Heracleidae, they had after a long Wanderung at last returned the Dorian invasion to Greece as an internal event.




choose what you like,


Simply words like 

ARGOS is Pelasgian not IE and exist only in Greek and and in Latin-Etruscan
ΘΥΜΟΣ ισ Πελασγιαν while IE is μηνις etc. Θυμοετης βασιλευς Αθηνων

και εαν το θελεις ακομα πιο πολυ Λυκος Αλωπηξ (αλεπου) Lat Lupus.

----------


## zanipolo

> Personally I believe that Albanian language is connected with Daci Thracian Language but with big Influence of Roman-Latin


I agree with nearly all you said except that Albanian "borrowed" latin words against its wishes. It was not an illyric language which was closer to italic-Latin as we see with north picene, messapic, venetic , lubarni in ancient times and also Dalmatian/Ragusan language from the dark ages to the 16th century. These languages where quickly latinized. You can even find this in the many illyrian emperors that Rome had.

----------


## zanipolo

> Yes, by the looks and genetics also 
> 
> For insntace, I was reading about branches of N1c1 - there is Finnish, South Baltic (Prussians, Lithuanians, Latvians), and other branches for Uralids, Northern Russians, etc. 
> http://dna-forums.org/index.php?/top...h-baltic-n1c1/


In the ancient times, the seperation of nordic, finnic, baltic peoples was the h16 marker. 
While they where all I1b , the nordic/danes did not have the H16. This applies to the eastern alpine areas as well, but the dinaric areas do have the H16.

----------


## iapetoc

> I agree with nearly all you said except that Albanian "borrowed" latin words against its wishes. It was not an illyric language which was closer to italic-Latin as we see with north picene, messapic, venetic , lubarni in ancient times and also Dalmatian/Ragusan language from the dark ages to the 16th century. These languages where quickly latinized. You can even find this in the many illyrian emperors that Rome had.


hmm that means that ancient Illyric were more Pelasgian (pre-latin -> towards etruscan) before they adopted Messapic? or more IE -> Celtic or Thracian(Vrygian)?

cause Messapic are considered the language of Illyria in times after 4th BC

----------


## Knovas

Haganus

You forget Southern Europe too. Real blue eyes are not rare in Iberia, and you can also find them in Italy or Greece at lower frequencies, sure.

----------


## Jotuni

> I had a linguistic debate on this a year ago , so if linguistics means anthing, well!
> 
> Finnic is not mongolid, but ugric ( from the urals) is 
> 
> Ugric is also from hunnic invasion of europe.
> 
> so in true "modern" terms , finnic is finland areas and ugric is hungarian ( magyar) 
> 
> now the point is , is finno-ugric only a term for the mixing of finnic people with the people from the urals. This is the problem. Modern people love to mix ...... italo-franco, anglo-saxon, finno-baltic, thraco-bulgarian etc etc


Not correct.

Finno-ugric is a language group comprising finnic subgroup and ugric subgroup.

Finno-Ugric group is sometimes called uralic languages which is similar notion to indo-european language group denoting possible location instead of reference to certain languages such as Finnish (finno) and Hungarian (ugric).

----------


## Jotuni

> I have been wondering about this chart - 
> 
> http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p.../NE_Europe.png
> 
> All Europeans make up one diagonal from South Italians at one end to Latvians on the other end, while the Finnish move to different direction. They are also followed to some extent by Swedes and Estonians. This "other" direction could be easily explained by mongoloid influx, only then Lithuanians and Latvians should be placed somewhere on that "other" direction, too because they have a lot of N1c1. Besides, why would Latvians rather than Lithuanian be set at the far end of the diagonal, this is somewhat contradicts Y-haplogroup make up as Lithuanians have more of N1c1 and Latvians more of R1b.


The chart is made with a mathematical method called principal component analysis. It finds the two greatest differences shown as the charts axis. Removing populations and entering new ones will alter the chart. It is typical that populations at remote areas will show greatest distances from others. Explanations include less mixture with other populations due to conqer, population movement, bottle necks in small populations.

A way to look the chart above is to consider that Southern populations are closer to African and Near Eastern populations than Northern populations. That would propably show clearly if African and Near Eastern populations would be included in the study.

----------


## Jotuni

> Maybe proto Indo-European were not as light as the native European population.
> Maybe Indo-European became lighter, like Jews from Israel after they observerd natve EU population.
> 
> Turks in Anatolia changed their appearance too after they came to Turkey. Jews changed their appearance when the came to Europe. So it is possible that the Indo-Europeans changed their appearance after they appeared in Europe!


A map showing percentage of light hear:


and another one showing percentage of light eyes:

----------


## Jotuni

Here is a correct map showing percentage of light hear:

----------


## Dagne

> The chart is made with a mathematical method called principal component analysis. It finds the two greatest differences shown as the charts axis. Removing populations and entering new ones will alter the chart. It is typical that populations at remote areas will show greatest distances from others. Explanations include less mixture with other populations due to conqer, population movement, bottle necks in small populations.
> 
> A way to look the chart above is to consider that Southern populations are closer to African and Near Eastern populations than Northern populations. That would propably show clearly if African and Near Eastern populations would be included in the study.


Is there a meaning if peoples from South Italians to Latvians appear on one diagonal, whereas Finns (and to some extent Swedes and Estonians) spread to the another direction?

Visually it seams that those who are on the same diagonal are somehow more related, or that is wrong and it is only the distances that matter?

----------


## Jotuni

> Is there a meaning if peoples from South Italians to Latvians appear on one diagonal, whereas Finns (and to some extent Swedes and Estonians) spread to the another direction?
> 
> Visually it seams that those who are on the same diagonal are somehow more related, or that is wrong and it is only the distances that matter?


The chart shows two principal components. One is shown on vertical axis and the other one on horizontal axis.

On horizontal axis Finns are next right to Latvians, Estonians and Lithuanians.

On vertical axis Finns are next above to Italians and Swedes.

The chart includes Kuusamo population, which is only few thousand people. They are, however, compared to populations of tens of millions obviously with the same number of samples. Remove Kuusamo population and the chart will change a bit. Or add a remote population from France, such as Corsica, or from Italy, such as Sardinia, and the chart will change again.

----------


## Templar

> A strange thing! Never I heart that there are in Mongolia people with fair
> hair and light eyes.


Actually according to some historians (such as the Persian historian Rashid-al-Din) Genghis Khan himself had a red beard and green eyes.

----------


## Vallicanus

> Here is a correct map showing percentage of light hear:


No surveys from Italy show such high blondism for south-east Italy (Puglia) though north-east Italy is correctly shown as relatively light.

----------


## Mmiikkii

> The exceptionally fast replacement of all paternal lineages by R1a and R1b lineages in Europe, Central Asia and South Asia, is probably due to several factors (heavy losses in battles among males in conquered populations, polygamy among Indo-European rulers, higher genetic predisposition of haplogroup R to conceive boys, etc.).


Don't forget epidemics... We don't really know how you can crush a population so fast.
The only thing we have to compare the IE peopling, is the conquest of the Americas.
Also we don't have to rule out the role of religion in gaining the locals approval, mainly women. The appearence of organized, military effective, and cattle owner and producer. You know, being able to get goods.

----------


## Maciamo

> Don't forget epidemics... We don't really know how you can crush a population so fast.
> The only thing we have to compare the IE peopling, is the conquest of the Americas.
> Also we don't have to rule out the role of religion in gaining the locals approval, mainly women. The appearence of organized, military effective, and cattle owner and producer. You know, being able to get goods.


Of course, I thought about epidemics too. But there are two elements that argue against that:

1) Contrarily to the arrival of the Europeans in the Americas, there was no physical barrier between Eastern, Central and Western Europe. Germs would have travelled freely with people ever since the Palaeolithic. And Indo-European migrations advanced very slowly. Roughly 2000 years elapsed between the first Steppe incursions into the Balkans (4200 BCE) and the arrival of R1b Steppe people in Western Europe (2500-1800 CE). Epidemics are very fast and last only a few months or years.

2) Looking at paternal and maternal lineages it is clear that the Steppe replacement was disproportionately higher for paternal lineages (R1b replacing most Neolithic lineages). Maternal lineages were mostly preserved, with only 10-30% of new Steppe mtDNA arriving in Central and Western Europe, depending on the region.

----------

