Talk:Labëria

Sources

I have removed all references to volunteer-led Y-DNA projects. They're not RS in the context of wikipedia.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Side comment: @Demetrios1993: translated In ancient human remains, the oldest J2a was found in the Mesolithic period in northern Iran and another in the Caucasus region in the same period. In Europe, the highest percentage is reached in Greece, especially in the Mediterranean islands, and then in Italy. It is a haplogroup with branches dating back to the Mesolithic era and as a result, each of the J2a branches usually has a different history from the others, so every branch should be investigated individually. However, some branches must have moved to the Balkans and Europe starting from the Neolithic period (as farmers), while another part during the Copper and Bronze Ages, mainly from the direction of Anatolia and the Eastern Mediterranean (although some lineages may have moved later). As seen in the map below, most of our haplotypes fall into the J2a-M67 branch. Some other haplotypes are in the branch J2a-L25, where in the area of Himara, and in a member from Gjirokastra, a special subgroup is noticed with the characteristic value, DYS454 12. as J2a-M410, a haplogroup which is rare among Albanians but within a European context peaks in neighboring Greece, makes a special cluster in the broader subregion of Himara and Gjirokastër. The project has 6 samples from Labëria in total - 4 of them in Himara and they are part of a cluster (J-F3133) which is not near J2a in Greece/Italy and even Europe. If this was a paper, it would fail sampling methodology. But the authors don't claim that it's a paper which can be cited in the context of an encyclopedia. It's a directory of raw data, which was transferred in a very bad way in wikipedia. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem Maleschreiber. By the way, there exist 4 WP:PRIMARY sources as well that weren't added, but indeed the WP:SECONDARY that were added can be deemed unreliable. What surprises me though is that when Alexikoua removed this very same section for WP:RS concerns, 1, no one stepped in to agree with him and instead Çerçok's entry remained for more than one month. By the way, there are 7 samples in total if you include the Gjirokaster sample from "Gjenetika Shqiptare" and the ones shown by "Rrënjët". As for the J-F3133 cluster mentioned by the article, i didn't actually researched it much, simply cited what the article mentioned concisely. By the way, the article used Y-STR terminology when it made a reference to DYS454=12, but SNP-wise the aforementioned cluster seems to pertain to a more downstream clade of J-F3133, namely J-Y143504 > F4049, as you can see in the Y-tree of YFull. If so, J-Y143504 > F4049 includes the Himariote cluster that was discussed by the article, as well as Cypriot and Italian (although not elaborated, probably from the south) members. It's still most likely that it had a Greek background in antiquity since all three regions are associated with Greek presence, even though members from Greece (the country) lack for the moment. Also take note that its TMRCA (time to the most recent common ancestor) is estimated at 3100 BCE (for J-Y143504) and 2500 BCE (for J-F4049). There is also J-Z33862 in J-Y143504 which has a Middle Eastern background, but it obviously diverged early in the Bronze Age. Anyway, not trying to WP:FORUM, just making some points that relate as a sidenote. Demetrios1993 (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

If I had the article on my watchlist, I would remove it. If it is J-F4049, its branching so far doesn't suggest any answers. It could be anything, but further testing may narrow things down.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

No worries. By the way, the fact that we are able to locate its downstream position on the Y-tree means that we have more depth on it, which limits its vagueness, not the opposite. Furthermore, i wouldn't isolate J-F4049 by its own, since it limits contextualization. It's no coincidence that J-F4049 shares the J-Y143504 clade with an undesignated branch (hence the asterisk, meaning that the sample in question didn't match with another sample beyond the specified location on the Y-tree) which happens to have a single Cypriot sample. With that put aside, we do indeed need to wait for additional data in order to draw safer conclusions. One thing is for certain though, and that is J-F3133 doesn't provide much detail by its own, with a TMRCA of 6900 BCE and a very broad distribution from China all the way to the USA. One interesting thing of note though, is that if you look four clades upstream from our clade (J-Y143504), we see that an ancient sample from the recent bibliography is included on the Y-tree, namely the R68 sample (exactly under J-Y13534) which was published in the "Ancient Rome: A genetic crossroads of Europe and the Mediterranean (2019)" paper. It is still pending placement in one of the downstream subclades, and if i had to make a guess, i would say that it is very likely under our J-Y143504. This ancient sample was uncovered during road building along with an additional seven, within a necropolis of a southern suburb (present-day Acilia) in Imperial Rome. All 8 individuals were dated to 100-300 CE. What's interesting about them is that we can also evaluate their autosomal DNA. As the aforementioned paper quotes on the Imperial Roman samples:

During the Imperial period (n - 48 individuals), the most prominent trend is an ancestry shift toward the eastern Mediterranean and with very few individuals of primarily western European ancestry (Fig. 3C). The distribution of Imperial Romans in PCA largely overlaps with modern Mediterranean and Near Eastern populations, such as Greek, Maltese, Cypriot, and Syrian (Figs. 2A and 3C).

Instead, two-thirds of Imperial individuals (31 out of 48) belong to two major clusters (C5 and C6) that overlap in PCA with central and eastern Mediterranean populations, such as those from southern and central Italy, Greece, Cyprus, and Malta (Fig. 4B).

In any case, genetics are surely a very interesting subject that will shed more light by assisting scholars of different fields reach safer conclusions, as they already do. Look for example at the results of the "Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans (2017)" paper and the ramifications it had on Proto-Indo-European hypotheses such as the Anatolian one. Demetrios1993 (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Demetrios1993 (admittedly veering into FORUM) it will remain a challenge to disentangle the nature of the relationship between genetic events with historical events, the time of the expansion of certain clades, etc. Speaking generally, one would expect movement out of the densely populated Near East to less densely populated Europe, and the Indo-European migrations were far from the only major migration of peoples. Regarding this clade, I dont doubt that a substantial chunk of Albanians have significant ancestry from people who at some point in history were Greek, but was there really ever any serious contact with Cyprus? Its not like Cyprus therefore other Greeks works by default-- Cyprus is not quite like Sardinia is to Italy but it is distinct to a degree, especially as compared to Epirus, Thessaly, Morea or Macedonia. The close-ish relatives of the clade pop up in all sorts of places -- Italy (yup that works historically too), Turkey (no need to explain this one), Circassia (called Adygea on your site, Ru-Ad; obv there is a historical explanation for that one too in the 19th century), while its relatives have a pretty wide spread in some faraway places too -- Kazakhstan, Saudi... --Calthinus (talk) 06:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Calthinus, you have some misconceptions about genetics, both as it concerns haplogroups and autosomal DNA. But let me be concise since i am not really trying to expand on this. Cyprus is considered part of what geneticists have designated the "Mediterranean genetic continuum", an autosomal grouping consisting of southern Italy and the Mediterranean Greek-islands. Mainland Greeks as well as the southern Balkanites (including Albanians) are thought of having been part of it as well, but due to the medieval Slavic migrations they were slightly detached from it. You can read more about this in the following paper, "Ancient and recent admixture layers in Sicily and Southern Italy trace multiple migration routes along the Mediterranean (2017)", but a quote that relates:

Population expansions during the Middle Ages, for instance those related to the Slavic migrations, could have affected Albania and Continental Greece at least indirectly as a result of subsequent population contacts. We may therefore hypothesize that present-day mainland Greek and Southern Balkan populations detached from a genetic background originally shared with the ‘Mediterranean genetic continuum’ (i.e. Southern Italy and the Mediterranean Greek-islands) after these recent events which interested the Balkan Peninsula in historical times.

It's no coincidence that Italy has closer affinity to the ancient Balkan samples than mainland Greeks and Albanians. We actually have Mycenaean, Minoan, Moesian, Dalmatian, Philistine, and many other samples that attest to this. Sardinia on the other hand is a very unique case from a pan-European perspective, because it happens to be the population with the greatest affinity to the Early European Farmers. As for haplogroups, there are a number of ways for evaluating and associating them with historical events, such as TMRCA estimation, geographic distribution of samples, and sample frequency and variance within a certain area or among a certain group of people. Such data provides very valuable information, though not every case is the same due to lack of, or limited data some times. But keep in mind that the genetic science and relative databases are in constant progress, especially during the last decade. As for J-F3133, let me say again that it doesn't really provide much detail by its own, with a TMRCA of 6900 BCE and a very broad distribution spanning many different countries. Divergence of it obviously began from the early Neolithic period, and thus you have to focus on more downstream clades which have a younger TMRCA and a more limited geographic distribution in order to begin understanding its relative lines. Anyway, we are indeed veering into WP:FORUM. There is no reason to continue discussing about all these here. Demetrios1993 (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Surnamed "Aslan"

Okay, yes, we love this name too, but isn't it actually Asllani in Albanian? Or was his name actually "Aslan"? --Calthinus (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

If we are talking about Ali Pasha he was an Ottoman official. He was called "Aslan" not only by Turks but also by Greeks.Alexikoua (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Did Greeks actually ever call him "Aslan" though? --Calthinus (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)