PDA

View Full Version : Haplogroup J2 and the indo-european languages



ernekar
02-09-2018, 07:25 PM
I stumbled upon this article on BBC's website:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34832781

These are some paragraphs from the article:

"The question of where the Yamnaya come from has been something of a mystery up to now," said co-author Dr Andrea Manica, from the University of Cambridge.

"We can now answer that as we've found that their genetic make-up is a mix of Eastern European hunter-gatherers and a population from this pocket of Caucasus hunter-gatherers who weathered much of the last Ice Age in apparent isolation."

The researchers also suggest that the Caucasus hunter-gatherers influenced populations further east, particularly in South Asia.

They suggest that this strand of ancestry may also have been associated with the spread of Indo-European languages to the region.

If this is true, that CHG were some of the founders of IE languages, then some subclades of haplogroup J could easily be the original IE speakers(along with other lines like r1b, r1a etc.).
The fact that the early albanian IE speakers ancient DNA turned out J-m241, early greek IE speakers ancient DNA turned out J-m410, and early armenian speakers ancient DNA turned out j-m241 supports this too. (the three oldest surviving IE languages)

And if i am not wrong, you have to work very hard to find an indo-european speaking country which doesnt have some J-M410 or J-m241.

Feel welcomed to post your opinions :)

ernekar
02-09-2018, 07:39 PM
R1b-z2103 could also have accompanied the J2's as part of the initial IE speaking groups, as this subclade of R1b is again most common in modern albanian, armenian, and greeks. (again, three oldest surviving IE branches).

And about J-M410, i dont know the subclades within it that well. So if anyone could tell me which subclade(s) of J-m410 would fit my hypothetical scenario above the best, it would be great :)

Pribislav
02-09-2018, 08:18 PM
If this is true, that CHG were some of the founders of IE languages, then some subclades of haplogroup J could easily be the original IE speakers.
The fact that the early albanian IE speakers ancient DNA turned out J-m241, early greek IE speakers ancient DNA turned out J-m410, and early armenian speakers ancient DNA turned out j-m241 supports this too. (the three oldest surviving IE languages)

I think you are getting confused about the meaning of a word fact. Maybe this example will help:

Bronze age individual from Veliki Vanik, Croatia, belonged to Y-haplogroup J2b2a-M241>L283. Fact

Bronze age individual from Veliki Vanik, Croatia, was an early albanian IE speaker. Not an actual fact

Principe
02-09-2018, 08:43 PM
Ernekar, I made a thread about the history of J2, I think you should check it out.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?12858-The-History-of-J2

ernekar
02-09-2018, 08:58 PM
I think you are getting confused about the meaning of a word fact. Maybe this example will help:

Bronze age individual from Veliki Vanik, Croatia, belonged to Y-haplogroup J2b2a-M241>L283. Fact

Bronze age individual from Veliki Vanik, Croatia, was an early albanian IE speaker. Not an actual fact

Of course it is not a fact. Did you think i had spoken personally with the bronze age individual?
Did any of you guys speak to some yamnayans or EEF lately, since you all seem to attribute IE languages to haplogroups?
Thats why these things we formulate here are called theories:)

And in my opinion the most probable theory about what the bronze age croatian individual spoke, it would be some form of early albanian. I say that because modern albanians live a few hundred kilometers south of the actual kurgan in croatia, and that albanians bear up to 20-30% J-m241. And the frequency of J-m241 falls the further you move away from northern albania(which also happens to have been the most isolated part of albania. It doesn't fall slowly, its falls drastically as soon as you exit albanian-speaking lands.

I understand that you dont think the valiki vanik person spoke what i think he spoke.
It is your right to have an opinion. But we must just agree to disagree, and get back on topic.

ernekar
02-09-2018, 09:15 PM
Ernekar, I made a thread about the history of J2, I think you should check it out.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?12858-The-History-of-J2

Yea i have seen some of the posts in it. The hypothesis i have posted above is basically saying the same things, except for the assimilation thing.
I dont think there neccessarily need to have been any assimilation. If you look at it a bit more proccessually it can easily be interpreted as small groups of different languages interacting through trade, wars etc. To slowly form a "sprachbund" with similar languages, but genetically different groups within it.
Those groups could later expand their seperate ways.
For example if an group/tribe with more r1a moves to central europe/baltics,
the group/tribe with more j-m241 and z2103 moves to northern balkans(and later maybe armenia),
the groups with more j-m410 move to southern balkans, crete italy etc.,
etc. etc.

Sure, there could have been more haplogroups involved in the genesis and spread of the first IE languages than those i propose. But i dont know that much about their subclades, do i dont mention them.

Pribislav
02-09-2018, 09:17 PM
Of course it is not a fact. Did you think i had spoken personally with the bronze age individual?
Did any of you guys speak to some yamnayans or EEF lately, since you all seem to attribute IE languages to haplogroups?
Thats why these things we formulate here are called theories:)

And in my opinion the most probable theory about what the bronze age croatian individual spoke, it would be some form of early albanian. I say that because modern albanians live a few hundred kilometers south of the actual kurgan in croatia, and that albanians bear up to 20-30% J-m241. And the frequency of J-m241 falls the further you move away from northern albania(which also happens to have been the most isolated part of albania. It doesn't fall slowly, its falls drastically as soon as you exit albanian-speaking lands.

I understand that you dont think the valiki vanik person spoke what i think he spoke.
It is your right to have an opinion. But we must just agree to disagree, and get back on topic.

I get your logic, but L283 is quite old and isn't exclusively Albanian. Anyway, what I wanted to say is it's not a matter of opinion, and it is pointless to argue what language some ancient individual spoke when there isn't and never will be a way to know for sure.

J Man
02-09-2018, 09:24 PM
Of course more ancient DNA would be great to have but it seems pretty clear now that the earliest Indo-European speakers were R1a and R1b when it comes to Y-DNA. Their CHG ancestry seems to have come mostly from females.
Y-DNA haplogroup J2 men originally probably spoke non-Indo-European languages.

ernekar
02-09-2018, 09:36 PM
I get your logic, but L283 is quite old and isn't exclusively Albanian. Anyway, what I wanted to say is it's not a matter of opinion, and it is pointless to argue what language some ancient individual spoke when there isn't and never will be a way to know for sure.
Yea i know, there are subclades of L283 all over europe, but the percentage is always at a minimum compared to albania.
This could suggest that the IE groups who went more north had only a few J-L283 individuals but many R1a individuals, while the IE group that went to albania had more j-l283 and less R1a, j2a, etc.
All the migrating groups could have had different haplogroups.

And you are right that we can never know what language a skeleton at an archeological site spoke.
But we wonder and theorize anyways. That is human nature :)

ernekar
02-09-2018, 09:41 PM
Of course more ancient DNA would be great to have but it seems pretty clear now that the earliest Indo-European speakers were R1a and R1b when it comes to Y-DNA. Their CHG ancestry seems to have come mostly from females.
Y-DNA haplogroup J2 men originally probably spoke non-Indo-European languages.

But it an oldfashioned way of thinking that everything is caused by assimilation or migrations. Prehistoric groups should not be considered in isolation. They almost always interact and borrow technology, words, instritutions from each other.
There is no reason to think that the R1a and R1b kept their language unchanged upon getting 50% genes from the CHG, while the langauge of the caucasus people didnt have any impact at all at the genesis of the early form of IE.

Principe
02-09-2018, 09:43 PM
Yea i have seen some of the posts in it. The hypothesis i have posted above is basically saying the same things, except for the assimilation thing.
I dont think there neccessarily need to have been any assimilation. If you look at it a bit more proccessually it can easily be interpreted as small groups of different languages interacting through trade, wars etc. To slowly form a "sprachbund" with similar languages, but genetically different groups within it.
Those groups could later expand their seperate ways.
For example if an group/tribe with more r1a moves to central europe/baltics,
the group/tribe with more j-m241 and z2103 moves to northern balkans(and later maybe armenia),
the groups with more j-m410 move to southern balkans, crete italy etc.,
etc. etc.

Sure, there could have been more haplogroups involved in the genesis and spread of the first IE languages than those i propose. But i dont know that much about their subclades, do i dont mention them.

They are technically not the same, but it doesn’t matter. What your saying in general makes sense. There is some key things you need to consider, J-M410 (J2a) is highly diversed what might be the case in one subclade will not be the same in another. The same can be applied for J2b, while J2b-M205 has been found in Bronze Age Levant and Egypt and is a clear marker of Semitic speakers, J2b-L283 has an entirely different history, as attested to the ancient samples, J2b-L283 expanded with I.E. speakers, this is even evident with the expansion of L283 lineages matching when I.E. speaking peoples migrated South into the Balkans. Overall J2 is a non I.E. marker, with of course some exceptions.

Pribislav
02-09-2018, 09:44 PM
Of course more ancient DNA would be great to have but it seems pretty clear now that the earliest Indo-European speakers were R1a and R1b when it comes to Y-DNA. Their CHG ancestry seems to have come mostly from females.
Y-DNA haplogroup J2 men originally probably spoke non-Indo-European languages.

I think it's safe to include I2a2a-M223>L701>L699 in that group:

I1738 5473-5326 BC Vovnigi Ukraine_Neolithic I2a2a1b1b M223>CTS616>CTS10057>L701>L699

I3715 5500-4800 BC Volniensky Ukraine_Neolithic I2a2a1b1 M223>CTS616>CTS10057>L701

I3717 5500-4800 BC Dereivka Ukraine_Neolithic I2a2a1b1 M223>CTS616>CTS10057>L701

I2175 3328-3015 BC Smyadovo Bulgaria_EBA I2a2a1b1 M223>CTS616>CTS10057>L701

I2165 3020-2895 BC Merichleri Bulgaria_EBA I2a2a1b1b M223>CTS616>CTS10057>L701>L699

Bul4 3012-2900 BC Mednikarovo Yamnaya_Bulgaria I2a2a1b1b M223>CTS616>CTS10057>L701>L699

RISE552 2849-2143 BC Ulan Yamnaya_Kalmykia I2a2a1b1b2 M223>CTS616>CTS10057>L701>L699>Y5669

ernekar
02-09-2018, 09:51 PM
And there are a lot of non-IE j2a, jb2, r1a and r1b around the world today. That can be because not all j2 and r1 were at the "frontier", the contact zone where the IE language could have risen for the first time. As a mix of two or more languages, which slowly became several dialects of the same language. While genetically the groups still remained different from each other.

ernekar
02-09-2018, 10:02 PM
They are technically not the same, but it doesn’t matter. What your saying in general makes sense. There is some key things you need to consider, J-M410 (J2a) is highly diversed what might be the case in one subclade will not be the same in another. The same can be applied for J2b, while J2b-M205 has been found in Bronze Age Levant and Egypt and is a clear marker of Semitic speakers, J2b-L283 has an entirely different history, as attested to the ancient samples, J2b-L283 expanded with I.E. speakers, this is even evident with the expansion of L283 lineages matching when I.E. speaking peoples migrated South into the Balkans. Overall J2 is a non I.E. marker, with of course some exceptions.
My mistake, i wrote m241, i meant L283 for europe.

About J2a i dont really know its subclades that well, so i just wrote J2a. But i guess i am thinking of the ones which showed up on myceneans and minoans acnient dna. That subclade of j2a alongside R-z2103 could be good contenders for a spread of greek languages.

Principe
02-09-2018, 10:17 PM
My mistake, i wrote m241, i meant L283 for europe.

About J2a i dont really know its subclades that well, so i just wrote J2a. But i guess i am thinking of the ones which showed up on myceneans and minoans acnient dna. That subclade of j2a alongside R-z2103 could be good contenders for a spread of greek languages.

No worries man :)

Minoans were non Indo-European speakers and no Steppe dna was found in the Minoans, the J2a in the Minoans (M319) came with the Iran Neo/Chalco like ancestry, the J2a found in Mycenaeans is probably from an earlier migration, pre Greek speakers.

ernekar
02-09-2018, 10:17 PM
Maybe it sounds confusing when i speak of small groups affecting each other slowly, rather than the hack'n'slash theories that usually float these genetic forums.
So i would recommend everyone to read this very basic text: "Peer Polity Interaction" by C. Renfrew
It is a theoretical text where he explains how groups can affect each other when living in close proximity.
It is a short, good read. And it should be online somewhere.

FIREYWOTAN
02-09-2018, 10:20 PM
Starting with a blank slate allows my opinions to need work. Yet the passion of the ICE Age and my recent opportunity to read the article you shared makes me feel that i have a point of entry.

ernekar
02-09-2018, 10:24 PM
No worries man :)

Minoans were non Indo-European speakers and no Steppe dna was found in the Minoans, the J2a in the Minoans (M319) came with the Iran Neo/Chalco like ancestry, the J2a found in Mycenaeans is probably from an earlier migration, pre Greek speakers.

We dont know if the minoans spoke IE or not. As far as i know their scripts are undeciphered. :)
So we dont know what language it is.

And the IE group which came with J2a didnt need any steppe dna. As i said, in my theory there are many groups(tribes) interacting in the steppe(and caucasus). Not all of them need nessecarrily to have intermixed with ALL of the other groups. But they could still wage war, trade and learn from each other. So some groups which had mixed with r1's would have gotten steppe dna, while the ones that didnt have direct contact with r1's could still speak IE, but didnt have steppe genes, as they had not interbred.

FIREYWOTAN
02-09-2018, 10:30 PM
Surprise I just looked through the first few pages and it's one I know I want to read. the impact of change when motivated by a commonality that fuses the focus of a gang like mentality is very powerful.
Thanks for sharing.

ernekar
02-09-2018, 10:32 PM
There is probably many holes in my proposed scenario. But so far, i find most of the theories in here too simple.
I think the kind of thinking above resembles reality more.

Principe
02-09-2018, 10:57 PM
We dont know if the minoans spoke IE or not. As far as i know their scripts are undeciphered. :)
So we dont know what language it is.

And the IE group which came with J2a didnt need any steppe dna. As i said, in my theory there are many groups(tribes) interacting in the steppe(and caucasus). Not all of them need nessecarrily to have intermixed with ALL of the other groups. But they could still wage war, trade and learn from each other. So some groups which had mixed with r1's would have gotten steppe dna, while the ones that didnt have direct contact with r1's could still speak IE, but didnt have steppe genes, as they had not interbred.

Well its almost certain Minoans didn’t speak an Indo-European language, there is a Minoan healing ritual written in an Egyptian tomb, and the language sounds much closer to Hurrian or Hattic, there is nothing that would suggest its I.E. also I.E. language speakers (Mycenaeans) only entered Mainland Greece during the Late Bronze Age, even to this day the Greek language contains elements of an extinct non Indo European language.

Your entitled to your opinion, so I wish you luck.

Awale
02-09-2018, 10:57 PM
We dont know if the minoans spoke IE or not. As far as i know their scripts are undeciphered. :)
So we dont know what language it is.

Agamemnon, our resident linguist, could explain things a lot better, and in more detail, than I can but we can basically tell from their writing script... Just from looking at Linear-B (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_B) which was used for Mycenaean-Greek, we can tell it and its predecessor were not made for a Hellenic language, let alone Mycenaean-Greek. So what Indo-European language subgroup was around before Hellenic and why did the speakers of this group leave no steppe ancestry behind in Minoans when the Hellenic speakers certainly didn't fail to leave some behind in the Mycenaeans?

ernekar
02-09-2018, 11:13 PM
Agamemnon, our resident linguist, could explain things a lot better, and in more detail, than I can but we can basically tell from their writing script... Just from looking at Linear-B (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_B) which was used for Mycenaean-Greek, we can tell it and its predecessor were not made for a Hellenic language, let alone Mycenaean-Greek. So what Indo-European language subgroup was around before Hellenic and why did the speakers of this group leave no steppe ancestry behind in Minoans when the Hellenic speakers certainly didn't fail to leave some behind in the Mycenaeans?

Because the steppe admixture is not a nessesity just to be IE speaking. It is just a necessity that a group was a part the early IE sprachbund to get a language which resembles its neighbours' languages. It doesnt mean that all the tribes within the sprachbund interbred with ALL the other tribes in the sprachbund. That means that the "minoans" maybe didnt get to interbreed directly with the ANE bearing R1a's or R1b's tribes, but still got to understand the common language of all the different tribes which had interacted with each other over long time.

I dont know about the minoans being non-IE.
But if someone could explain the arguments for me as to why they are not IE, i am of course willing to admit i am wrong.
After all, some good studies or arguments on the minoan language could have passed me by unnoticed.

Awale
02-09-2018, 11:28 PM
Because the steppe admixture is not a nessesity just to be IE speaking. It is just a necessity that a group was a part the early IE sprachbund to get a language which resembles its neighbours' languages. It doesnt mean that all the tribes within the sprachbund interbred with ALL the other tribes in the sprachbund. That means that the "minoans" maybe didnt get to interbreed directly with the ANE bearing R1a's or R1b's tribes, but still got to understand the common language of all the different tribes which had interacted with each other over long time.

I dont know about the minoans being non-IE.
But if someone could explain the arguments for me as to why they are not IE, i am of course willing to admit i am wrong.
After all, some good studies or arguments on the minoan language could have passed me by unnoticed.

Hmm, well languages weren't historically passed on so easily in my experience from reading over the years. Usually, unless something like elite-dominance, a full-scale migration and subsequent intermixture or significant economic and/or political dominance didn't occur; there'd not be much reason for people to do something as drastic as abandon their prior language for a new one on a wide-scale (as in, more than just the elites doing so). Is there any proof of anything like that happening with the Minoans or, more precisely, their predecessors from a culture we know looked Indo-European speaking?

But I've invited Agamemnon to join us. He knows all of this far better than I do and I'm interested to see his points myself.

ernekar
02-09-2018, 11:34 PM
Well its almost certain Minoans didn’t speak an Indo-European language, there is a Minoan healing ritual written in an Egyptian tomb, and the language sounds much closer to Hurrian or Hattic, there is nothing that would suggest its I.E. also I.E. language speakers (Mycenaeans) only entered Mainland Greece during the Late Bronze Age, even to this day the Greek language contains elements of an extinct non Indo European language.

Your entitled to your opinion, so I wish you luck.
It is not my opinion. It is just one theory. I have many theories as to what happened. I dont claim it is more correct or uncorrect than any of the other theories that are here.
But i think it is a good thing when people come with different theories. It leads the way to refinement of arguments on both sides.

And there is not really much else to do than theorize. Except to wait for ancient DNa of course. And after that theorize again from the beginning.

As far as i know your theory could be just as right or wrong as mine.
And if i know ancent dna well, we both will be wrong when it comes out :P

J Man
02-09-2018, 11:50 PM
I think it's safe to include I2a2a-M223>L701>L699 in that group:

I1738 5473-5326 BC Vovnigi Ukraine_Neolithic I2a2a1b1b M223>CTS616>CTS10057>L701>L699

I3715 5500-4800 BC Volniensky Ukraine_Neolithic I2a2a1b1 M223>CTS616>CTS10057>L701

I3717 5500-4800 BC Dereivka Ukraine_Neolithic I2a2a1b1 M223>CTS616>CTS10057>L701

I2175 3328-3015 BC Smyadovo Bulgaria_EBA I2a2a1b1 M223>CTS616>CTS10057>L701

I2165 3020-2895 BC Merichleri Bulgaria_EBA I2a2a1b1b M223>CTS616>CTS10057>L701>L699

Bul4 3012-2900 BC Mednikarovo Yamnaya_Bulgaria I2a2a1b1b M223>CTS616>CTS10057>L701>L699

RISE552 2849-2143 BC Ulan Yamnaya_Kalmykia I2a2a1b1b2 M223>CTS616>CTS10057>L701>L699>Y5669

Good catch and yes that is correct I think...I thought that after my post as well actually but I am currently at work and I did not have time to update my post earlier haha.

ernekar
02-09-2018, 11:54 PM
Hmm, well languages weren't historically passed on so easily in my experience from reading over the years. Usually, unless something like elite-dominance, a full-scale migration and subsequent intermixture or significant economic and/or political dominance didn't occur; there'd not be much reason for people to do something as drastic as abandon their prior language for a new one on a wide-scale (as in, more than just the elites doing so). Is there any proof of anything like that happening with the Minoans or, more precisely, their predecessors from a culture we know looked Indo-European speaking?

But I've invited Agamemnon to join us. He knows all of this far better than I do and I'm interested to see his points myself.
The point is that the minoans didnt have to adapt the language from anyone. At first when j2's and r1's met for the first time somewhere near the northern caucasus and the steppe. The j'2 tribes would probably already have been several dialects or languages. But in essence they would understand eachother. The r1's maybe also had some languages that were kind of alike and would understand each other. Then in the contact zones between the r1's and j2's there would be trading, copying of inventions, wars, daughters given for alliances and the such. Some of the tribes would borrow words, technology etc. from other tribes, and in time most of the tribes would be able to understand most of its neighbours' languages. the tribes could also interbreed sometimes, but that does not mean that all tribes mixed with all other tribes. So a tribe or two could easily be within the sprachbund without getting ANE.
I think the only difference in what i am saying and what others are saying, is that early IE was a mix of some sort of caucasus languages, and some steppe languages. So some of the caucassus groups could easily have had a language that contributed to early IE without taking any of the ANE part of the words, and likewise there could have been some R1a or r1b's more north of the steppe which didnt get any of the caucasus words.

J Man
02-10-2018, 03:17 AM
But it an oldfashioned way of thinking that everything is caused by assimilation or migrations. Prehistoric groups should not be considered in isolation. They almost always interact and borrow technology, words, instritutions from each other.
There is no reason to think that the R1a and R1b kept their language unchanged upon getting 50% genes from the CHG, while the langauge of the caucasus people didnt have any impact at all at the genesis of the early form of IE.

The thing is though that most academics now seem to think that the Yamnaya people and their close relatives were the original Indo-European speakers. You would expect Y-DNA haplogroup J2 to show up among them if it was part of the earliest Indo-European speaking groups but so far it has not and there have been quite a few Yamnaya samples tested. They are all R1 and some I2a2.

ernekar
02-10-2018, 07:49 AM
The thing is though that most academics now seem to think that the Yamnaya people and their close relatives were the original Indo-European speakers. You would expect Y-DNA haplogroup J2 to show up among them if it was part of the earliest Indo-European speaking groups but so far it has not and there have been quite a few Yamnaya samples tested. They are all R1 and some I2a2.

The thing is that i dont go with most academics. Most academics often seem to follow the latest paradigm. There is absolutely no evidence that yamnaya spoke IE. I am not saying that i think they didnt. But i dont think they were the first. IE was a mix beween the langauges of some caucasus people, and steppe people. None of them spoke if first.

Please, come with some other argruments than "Everyone thinks one thing, so you are wrong if you dont think the same"

ernekar
02-10-2018, 07:54 AM
The thing is though that most academics now seem to think that the Yamnaya people and their close relatives were the original Indo-European speakers. You would expect Y-DNA haplogroup J2 to show up among them if it was part of the earliest Indo-European speaking groups but so far it has not and there have been quite a few Yamnaya samples tested. They are all R1 and some I2a2.
And remember, we dont even know if yamnaya was one tribe or several. As far as i know Yamnaya is just a modern contruct made up to describe a complex of similar material cultures.
No one knows if they even spoke the same language, or what languages they spoke.
Everything is just specualation.

So my theory is just as plausible as everyones else' simplistic "IE languages started with only one haplogroup, all others are just assimilated"-theory.
Imo, mine is even more realistic.

Please show me the evidence that yamnaya were the first IE speakers. I study archeology, and people at my school still discuss where IE came from. For example my teacher who is an expert on anthropological and archeological theory still thinks agriculture brought IE. NOTHING iS SETTLED regarding the Indo europeans. I know a lot of studies on these matters, and i am pretty sure there doesnt exist any evidence that yamnaya spoke IE :)
In the real world people still discuss. Its only on these forums that people get thrown eggs at them if they say that the yamnayans were not the first IE speakers :)

Kanenas
02-10-2018, 08:47 AM
They are technically not the same, but it doesn’t matter. What your saying in general makes sense. There is some key things you need to consider, J-M410 (J2a) is highly diversed what might be the case in one subclade will not be the same in another. The same can be applied for J2b, while J2b-M205 has been found in Bronze Age Levant and Egypt and is a clear marker of Semitic speakers, J2b-L283 has an entirely different history, as attested to the ancient samples, J2b-L283 expanded with I.E. speakers, this is even evident with the expansion of L283 lineages matching when I.E. speaking peoples migrated South into the Balkans. Overall J2 is a non I.E. marker, with of course some exceptions.

Neolithic Levant was 1/3 EEF. How do you know where J2b-M205 originated? State all the premises.

Kanenas
02-10-2018, 08:50 AM
No worries man :)

Minoans were non Indo-European speakers and no Steppe dna was found in the Minoans, the J2a in the Minoans (M319) came with the Iran Neo/Chalco like ancestry, the J2a found in Mycenaeans is probably from an earlier migration, pre Greek speakers.

Can you make an argument to support that M319 'came with Iran Neo/Chalco like ancestry' ?

J Man
02-10-2018, 03:02 PM
The thing is that i dont go with most academics. Most academics often seem to follow the latest paradigm. There is absolutely no evidence that yamnaya spoke IE. I am not saying that i think they didnt. But i dont think they were the first. IE was a mix beween the langauges of some caucasus people, and steppe people. None of them spoke if first.

Please, come with some other argruments than "Everyone thinks one thing, so you are wrong if you dont think the same"

Right IE was likely a mix between the languages of some Caucasus and Steppe peoples which are exactly what the Yamnaya people are. They fit the bill for the first IE speakers better than any other group. This unique mix may have created the IE language group. That mix seems to have happened on the Steppe not south of it. We have Y-DNA from this type of people (Yamnaya and their close relatives) and it is all pretty much R1 and some I which seems to point to the Caucasus ancestry side being mostly if not all female mediated. What you say above really does not change much of anything.

J Man
02-10-2018, 03:05 PM
And remember, we dont even know if yamnaya was one tribe or several. As far as i know Yamnaya is just a modern contruct made up to describe a complex of similar material cultures.
No one knows if they even spoke the same language, or what languages they spoke.
Everything is just specualation.

So my theory is just as plausible as everyones else' simplistic "IE languages started with only one haplogroup, all others are just assimilated"-theory.
Imo, mine is even more realistic.

Please show me the evidence that yamnaya were the first IE speakers. I study archeology, and people at my school still discuss where IE came from. For example my teacher who is an expert on anthropological and archeological theory still thinks agriculture brought IE. NOTHING iS SETTLED regarding the Indo europeans. I know a lot of studies on these matters, and i am pretty sure there doesnt exist any evidence that yamnaya spoke IE :)
In the real world people still discuss. Its only on these forums that people get thrown eggs at them if they say that the yamnayans were not the first IE speakers :)

And I can say the same thing to you in the reverse. Show me evidence that the Yamnaya people were not the first IE speakers. Show me evidence that agriculturalists from the Caucasus spoke the first IE languages.

ernekar
02-10-2018, 03:34 PM
@jMan
I am not saying caucasus agriculturalists were the first IE speakers. My whole point is that neither the caucasians or the steppe people spoke IE at first.
IE is a mix between the two.
So only those groups within the 'interaction core' would develop IE.
And so far we have aDNA from a very limited area of the steppe.
There is a lot of space there for other tribes to be discovered in aDna.
Maybe the next tribe we will find will be J-m241 or some j-m410 subclades mixed with steppe women just South, West or east of yamna.

I dont have to prove to you that yamna were not the first IE speakers. Because the difference between us is that you are saying that you are nearly certain that yamna were the first IE speakers, i on the other hand am just saying that there are multiple possibilities and those possibilities deserve to be presented. And that this scenario has just as much "evidence" as your proposed scenario.

So i am not acting like i am a hundred percent sure about my case. But many of you folks seem so very sure and settled about your beliefs.
So i ask for evidence in the hope that maybe someone can enlighten me with some facts that can make me feel as sure about this case, as you seem to be.

Pribislav
02-10-2018, 04:28 PM
Neolithic Levant was 1/3 EEF. How do you know where J2b-M205 originated? State all the premises.

M205 probably originated somewhere around modern Iran (AH2, Tepe Abdul Hosein, Iran_PPN, 8205-7756 BC, J2b-M102*), but most likely expanded as a part of Proto-Semitic tribes. All three J2b1 samples from three different locations were found together with J1-Z2324, which is quite telling:

I1730 2489-2299 BC 'Ain Ghazal Jordan Levant_EBA J2b1-M205
I1705 2198-1966 BC 'Ain Ghazal Jordan Levant_EBA J1-P58>Z2324

ERS1790733 1650 BC Sidon Lebanon Levant_MBA J1-P58>Z2324>YSC234>L858>FGC11
ERS1790732 1600 BC Sidon Lebanon Levant_MBA J2b1-M205*

JK2134 776-569 BC Abusir el-Meleq Egypt Pre-Ptolemaic J1-P58>Z2324>YSC234
JK2911 769-560 BC Abusir el-Meleq Egypt Pre-Ptolemaic J2b1-M205

J Man
02-10-2018, 04:41 PM
@jMan
I am not saying caucasus agriculturalists were the first IE speakers. My whole point is that neither the caucasians or the steppe people spoke IE at first.
IE is a mix between the two.
So only those groups within the 'interaction core' would develop IE.
And so far we have aDNA from a very limited area of the steppe.
There is a lot of space there for other tribes to be discovered in aDna.
Maybe the next tribe we will find will be J-m241 or some j-m410 subclades mixed with steppe women just South, West or east of yamna.

I dont have to prove to you that yamna were not the first IE speakers. Because the difference between us is that you are saying that you are nearly certain that yamna were the first IE speakers, i on the other hand am just saying that there are multiple possibilities and those possibilities deserve to be presented. And that this scenario has just as much "evidence" as your proposed scenario.

So i am not acting like i am a hundred percent sure about my case. But many of you folks seem so very sure and settled about your beliefs.
So i ask for evidence in the hope that maybe someone can enlighten me with some facts that can make me feel as sure about this case, as you seem to be.

Time and more testing of ancient remains will tell.

ernekar
02-10-2018, 05:00 PM
Time and more testing of ancient remains will tell.
Exactly. As far as i know both of us can be equally right or wrong until further testing.

Maybe the aDNA will prove you right, and will keep on showing the yamnayan-like R1/I2 homogeinity in all the individual tribes throughout the the steppe and northern caucasus.
Maybe the aDNA will show patchworks of at least 10-20 subclades from 5-6 different Y haplogroups(example G2, J2, R1, I2, E1.) all in different frequencies, and all spread out on an area of less than a few hundred kilometers in diameter, somewhere in the contact zone between northern caucasus and the steppe.
We just dont know what is going to show up yet.

I guess if someone tested some aDNA of the 'maykop' and other material cultures around that area, we would get a much clearer picture as to what happened.

Pribislav
02-10-2018, 05:05 PM
Yea i know, there are subclades of L283 all over europe, but the percentage is always at a minimum compared to albania.
This could suggest that the IE groups who went more north had only a few J-L283 individuals but many R1a individuals, while the IE group that went to albania had more j-l283 and less R1a, j2a, etc.
All the migrating groups could have had different haplogroups.

And you are right that we can never know what language a skeleton at an archeological site spoke.
But we wonder and theorize anyways. That is human nature :)

J2b2a frequency among modern Albanians doesn't tell us anything about what language spoke some J2b2a individual ~3600 years ago. High frequency of J2b2a (and E-V13 & R1b) among modern Albanians is the result of founder effect(s) in the last ~1000 years, it is obvious from looking at haplotype variance (very low). But I generally agree J2b2a could've been present among early IE speakers. It is hard to believe that CHG part of steppe admixture was female-mediated only, and IMO J2b2a looks like a strongest candidate for a male counterpart.

ernekar
02-10-2018, 05:44 PM
@prabislav,
A small detail we disagree on is that you would rather call the language of the bronze age J2b-l283 individual "an early branch of IE"(if i understood correctly),
while i would go a bit further and call it "an early branch of IE, which seems to be the best contender for being the branch which would later contribute most to the language we know today as Albanian".

But that small disagreement doesnt really matter in this context, as the focus here is not to find out how haplogroup frequencies changed after the dispersals throughout eurasia, but which lines could have been present while still in the steppe and northern caucasus, and how much those people(J2, I2, R1 etc.) could have contributed to the earliest IE languages.
And we are basically saying the same thing. That there were other haplogroups present in the genesis of the early IE languages than just the ones we have found in aDNA so far.

If you should guess about who contributed to early IE, who would it be?
Do you think that only R1a's contributed to the early language?
Or do you think the R1b, I2, J2 etc.(if J2's were there of course) also had a say in how the constantly evolving languages would turn out?

Principe
02-10-2018, 07:40 PM
It is not my opinion. It is just one theory. I have many theories as to what happened. I dont claim it is more correct or uncorrect than any of the other theories that are here.
But i think it is a good thing when people come with different theories. It leads the way to refinement of arguments on both sides.

And there is not really much else to do than theorize. Except to wait for ancient DNa of course. And after that theorize again from the beginning.


As far as i know your theory could be just as right or wrong as mine.
And if i know ancent dna well, we both will be wrong when it comes out :P

I agree it is good for different theories to exist, don't get me wrong. Though for certain topics there is no debate like Yamnaya and Corded Ware we have already numerous samples and know what their Y, Mt, and autosomal structure was like, as Awale, JMan and Pribislav stated. Where we could have theories and debates is on Catacomb Culture and Maykop, we're missing Y dna from both cultures, based on ancient samples J2b-L283 was involved also but has yet to be found in the Steppe Cultures that is why Catacomb and Maykop are good candidates for its origin. The 2 ancient J2b-L283's the Proto-Illyrian and Late Bronze Age Armenian carried over 30% Steppe ancestry and had mtdna that has already been found in other tested Steppe cultures that means they came from somewhere near or directly from one of these other Steppe Cultures.

When it comes to Minoans it is not debatable either they were clearly a non Indo-European people or Culture, their dna does not match nor their culture. I am going into a little bit more detail now for their culture, first off the Minoans were a seafaring and mass goods producing culture, essentially an ancient trading culture, they're goods were demanded throughout the entire Mediterranean (the East) and they had good relations with everyone. Second point if they would have been a I.E. culture or influenced we would have seen horse husbandry and emphasis on Chariots, instead we see importance in Bull Worship. Also continuing on this point I.E. cultures were much more aggressive and militaristic, Minoans did not have a standing a army, the Minoan palaces contained no fortifications where as the Mycenaean palaces were constructed within fortifications. You see what I am saying? If anything Minoan civilization would have been influenced entirely by the ancient Near East, as they were one of the members of the Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean trading system.

There are many factors to consider when dealing with specific topics.

Principe
02-10-2018, 07:58 PM
Neolithic Levant was 1/3 EEF. How do you know where J2b-M205 originated? State all the premises.

I am going to post exactly what I wrote in my J2 history page and expand on it. J2b-M205 was found in Ain Ghazal Bronze Age Jordan, J2b-M205 was found in Bronze Age Sidon Lebanon, J2b-M205 was found in 1st Millennium BC Egypt, J2b-M205 was found in Roman Gladiator and was of Middle Eastern origin (either Levantine or Egyptian, with Egyptian being more likely based on his autosomal). J2b-M205 has been found alongside J1-P58 lineages in all three Middle Eastern locations, in Ain Ghazal and Bronze Age Sidon there is an increase of Iran Neo/Chalcolithic like ancestry not an increase of Neolithic Farmer ancestry, also J2b-M205 has not been found in any Neolithic Farmer remains which there is hundreds of samples across the ancient neolithic papers we have. Suggesting J2b-M205 is a Neolithic Farmer lineage would also suggest that J1-P58 is also a Neolithic farmer lineage, this is not a debatable, J2b-M205 is a lineage that came with Iran Neo/Chalcolithic like ancestry, that is a fact.

ernekar
02-10-2018, 08:07 PM
Lets not get off topic guys. Please create a J2b1-M205 thread instead.

Principe
02-10-2018, 08:17 PM
Can you make an argument to support that M319 'came with Iran Neo/Chalco like ancestry' ?

Yes absolutely I can, first off again referring to all the Neolithic Farmers not one carried J-M319, so the J-M319 being a farmer lineage is dismissed, 100's of samples and not 1 M319, there was 2 J2's found in Neolithic Farmer remains and they belong to J2a-Z6048 and J2a-Z6055 which btw have unique branch expansions than the rest of other J2 branches, this is visible when looking at Yfull's J2 tree, both these J2's match the G farmer clades. But now getting back to J-M319, let's look at what is happening in Crete's Neolithic-Chalcolithic transition to the Bronze Age, there is immigration to Crete, the new population was expanding as the old Neolithic population was abandoning its sites and building on top of mountain tops like the Katalimita village built on top of the Ha Gorge. So we have a new group of immigrants who came to Crete and they introduced Copper and Bronze, now the ancient Minoan samples showed ancestry from an Iran Neo/Chalco like population and we have J-M319 appear for the first time in any ancient samples. The evidence is clear.

ernekar
02-10-2018, 08:58 PM
I agree it is good for different theories to exist, don't get me wrong. Though for certain topics there is no debate like Yamnaya and Corded Ware we have already numerous samples and know what their Y, Mt, and autosomal structure was like, as Awale, JMan and Pribislav stated. Where we could have theories and debates is on Catacomb Culture and Maykop, we're missing Y dna from both cultures, based on ancient samples J2b-L283 was involved also but has yet to be found in the Steppe Cultures that is why Catacomb and Maykop are good candidates for its origin. The 2 ancient J2b-L283's the Proto-Illyrian and Late Bronze Age Armenian carried over 30% Steppe ancestry and had mtdna that has already been found in other tested Steppe cultures that means they came from somewhere near or directly from one of these other Steppe Cultures.

When it comes to Minoans it is not debatable either they were clearly a non Indo-European people or Culture, their dna does not match nor their culture. I am going into a little bit more detail now for their culture, first off the Minoans were a seafaring and mass goods producing culture, essentially an ancient trading culture, they're goods were demanded throughout the entire Mediterranean (the East) and they had good relations with everyone. Second point if they would have been a I.E. culture or influenced we would have seen horse husbandry and emphasis on Chariots, instead we see importance in Bull Worship. Also continuing on this point I.E. cultures were much more aggressive and militaristic, Minoans did not have a standing a army, the Minoan palaces contained no fortifications where as the Mycenaean palaces were constructed within fortifications. You see what I am saying? If anything Minoan civilization would have been influenced entirely by the ancient Near East, as they were one of the members of the Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean trading system.

There are many factors to consider when dealing with specific topics.
The problem with what you are saying, is that in your world IE just HAS to have started in a material culture which we have defined in modern times. You know, yamnaya, maykop etc. etc.
I am arguing those werent even cultures. Just material expressions. The linguistic borders of that time did not have to correlate with the borders we have constructed in modern times. That means that IE could have started in any of the places. It could have started in maykop at a contact zone between J2 and R1b, or it could have starten in the yamanaya zone in a contact zone between r1b and r1a, or it could have started "catacomb culture" areas in a contact zone between R1a and J2.

Why exactly do you choose yamnaya areas as the best candidate for the geographical starting point of IE, instead of some of the other material cultures of the area?

About the minoans,
It doesnt matter how their lifrestyle was. It tells us nothing about their language.
Lets take the example of illyrians. The ones that lived closer to the sea depended more on trade, fishing, piracy etc., they were richer, had more mediterranean contacts and had to cope with much milder climates. So they were well off. But the illyrians who lived in the mountains and farther inland, were another story. They had harsher winters, more competition and were generally poorer. That also showed in their more warlike behaviours. The inland illyrians were known to sacrifice humans to the gods(which in itself testifies of harsh times), the coastal illyrians did not do such things(probably because they were to well off).
Point is, that doesnt mean that they werent both illyrians. They just had to adapt to different environments. So we cant tell peoples language by looking at how warlike the material expression of the culture is. So both the minoans and myceneans could have spoken languages which were related, inspite their cultures not being equally warlike.

Kanenas
02-10-2018, 10:15 PM
M205 probably originated somewhere around modern Iran (AH2, Tepe Abdul Hosein, Iran_PPN, 8205-7756 BC, J2b-M102*), but most likely expanded as a part of Proto-Semitic tribes. All three J2b1 samples from three different locations were found together with J1-Z2324, which is quite telling:

I1730 2489-2299 BC 'Ain Ghazal Jordan Levant_EBA J2b1-M205
I1705 2198-1966 BC 'Ain Ghazal Jordan Levant_EBA J1-P58>Z2324

ERS1790733 1650 BC Sidon Lebanon Levant_MBA J1-P58>Z2324>YSC234>L858>FGC11
ERS1790732 1600 BC Sidon Lebanon Levant_MBA J2b1-M205*

JK2134 776-569 BC Abusir el-Meleq Egypt Pre-Ptolemaic J1-P58>Z2324>YSC234
JK2911 769-560 BC Abusir el-Meleq Egypt Pre-Ptolemaic J2b1-M205

That is not an argument. Off course those samples are important, especially the first one. If you try to make an argument you will see that it doesn't work that well. You will need to use words like 'possibly' at least.

Bronze Age Levant had admixture from the following groups:
Natufian Hunter Gatherers
Anatolian Farmers
Caucasus Hunter Gatherers
Iran Neolithic Farmers

So, the haplogroups that we find in Bronze Age Levant may have something to do with some of those groups. But it should be clear when something is an assumption based on probability.

Kanenas
02-10-2018, 10:37 PM
Yes absolutely I can, first off again referring to all the Neolithic Farmers not one carried J-M319, so the J-M319 being a farmer lineage is dismissed, 100's of samples and not 1 M319, there was 2 J2's found in Neolithic Farmer remains and they belong to J2a-Z6048 and J2a-Z6055 which btw have unique branch expansions than the rest of other J2 branches, this is visible when looking at Yfull's J2 tree, both these J2's match the G farmer clades. But now getting back to J-M319, let's look at what is happening in Crete's Neolithic-Chalcolithic transition to the Bronze Age, there is immigration to Crete, the new population was expanding as the old Neolithic population was abandoning its sites and building on top of mountain tops like the Katalimita village built on top of the Ha Gorge. So we have a new group of immigrants who came to Crete and they introduced Copper and Bronze, now the ancient Minoan samples showed ancestry from an Iran Neo/Chalco like population and we have J-M319 appear for the first time in any ancient samples. The evidence is clear.

You don't know what an argument is. Not A doesn't equal B, so not EEF/Anatolian Neolithic doesn't mean 'Iran Neo/Chalco like'
But the only fact about M319 is that it was found in a population that was predominately Anatolian-Neolithic like, with CHG admixture.
That is the only fact, at least when it comes to ancient Y-DNA samples.

Principe
02-10-2018, 11:22 PM
You don't know what an argument is. Not A doesn't equal B, so not EEF/Anatolian Neolithic doesn't mean 'Iran Neo/Chalco like'
But the only fact about M319 is that it was found in a population that was predominately Anatolian-Neolithic like, with CHG admixture.
That is the only fact, at least when it comes to ancient Y-DNA samples.

Yeah sure whatever you say, you choose not to understand what I wrote it’s your problem.

Principe
02-10-2018, 11:25 PM
The problem with what you are saying, is that in your world IE just HAS to have started in a material culture which we have defined in modern times. You know, yamnaya, maykop etc. etc.
I am arguing those werent even cultures. Just material expressions. The linguistic borders of that time did not have to correlate with the borders we have constructed in modern times. That means that IE could have started in any of the places. It could have started in maykop at a contact zone between J2 and R1b, or it could have starten in the yamanaya zone in a contact zone between r1b and r1a, or it could have started "catacomb culture" areas in a contact zone between R1a and J2.

Why exactly do you choose yamnaya areas as the best candidate for the geographical starting point of IE, instead of some of the other material cultures of the area?

About the minoans,
It doesnt matter how their lifrestyle was. It tells us nothing about their language.
Lets take the example of illyrians. The ones that lived closer to the sea depended more on trade, fishing, piracy etc., they were richer, had more mediterranean contacts and had to cope with much milder climates. So they were well off. But the illyrians who lived in the mountains and farther inland, were another story. They had harsher winters, more competition and were generally poorer. That also showed in their more warlike behaviours. The inland illyrians were known to sacrifice humans to the gods(which in itself testifies of harsh times), the coastal illyrians did not do such things(probably because they were to well off).
Point is, that doesnt mean that they werent both illyrians. They just had to adapt to different environments. So we cant tell peoples language by looking at how warlike the material expression of the culture is. So both the minoans and myceneans could have spoken languages which were related, inspite their cultures not being equally warlike.

Ernekar, I done with this conversation, I mean this sincerely I wish you the best.

bmoney
02-11-2018, 01:16 AM
I stumbled upon this article on BBC's website:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34832781

These are some paragraphs from the article:


If this is true, that CHG were some of the founders of IE languages, then some subclades of haplogroup J could easily be the original IE speakers(along with other lines like r1b, r1a etc.).
The fact that the early albanian IE speakers ancient DNA turned out J-m241, early greek IE speakers ancient DNA turned out J-m410, and early armenian speakers ancient DNA turned out j-m241 supports this too. (the three oldest surviving IE languages)

And if i am not wrong, you have to work very hard to find an indo-european speaking country which doesnt have some J-M410 or J-m241.

Feel welcomed to post your opinions :)

In South Asia, I think J2 is more likely to come via Dravidian Iran Neolithic pops along with L. The distribution of J2 in Indo-Europeans only supports J2 spreading out from Iran and the Caucasus in all directions, so geographic rather than a language family IMO

J2-M172 was found to be significantly higher among Dravidian castes at 19% than among Indo-European castes at 11%. J2-M172 and J-M410 is found 21% among Dravidian middle castes, followed by upper castes, 18.6%, and lower castes 14%.[21] Among caste groups, the highest frequency of J2-M172 was observed among Tamil Vellalar's of South India, at 38.7%.[22] J2 is present in Indian tribals too and has a frequency of 11% in Austro-Asiatic tribals. Among the Austro-Asiatic tribals, the predominant J2 occurs in the Lodha(35%) of West Bengal.[23] J2 is also present in the South Indian hill tribe Toda at 38.46% albeit with a sample size of only 26[24], in the Andh tribe of Telangana at 35.19%[25] and in the Kol tribe of Uttar Pradesh at a frequency of 33.34%.[26] Haplogroup J-P209 was found to be more common in India's Shia Muslims, of which 28.7% belong to haplogroup J, with 13.7% in J-M410, 10.6% in J-M267 and 4.4% in J2b (Eaaswarkhanth 2009).

The Toda for example are an ancient isolated tribe, and are in no way shape or form IE or had contact with IE. They also do not follow IE mediated-religion, ie Hinduism which is very rare in predominantly Hindu South India. You'd have to pretty isolated to not fall under the elite-dominance Hinduism model

CHG though is quite high in SA pops and could correlate with J, however the IE languages are more correlated with the EHG part of Yamnaya not so much the CHG

Gravetto-Danubian
02-11-2018, 01:48 AM
The problem with the PIE question is twofold, especially with blog / fora like this

(1) the majority of users don't understand the data they're looking at.

(2) The majority of users are steppist ideologues, who look to a few "resident experts" who sometimes act more like politicians than academics.

It's rather surprising how, given the data which has so far accrued, people still act like the proverbial ostrich, as they clearly ignore data which does not conform to their preconceived narrative.
At least from the population-genetic point of view the picture is more complex than some wish. Even one person who i somewhat respect still claims "all other theories dead". Clearly, they're not looking at the data very well, and worse, they try to brandish anything which challenges the accepted narrative as "OIT" or "Anatolian" in a kind of false equivalency that reminds one of those nice ANTIFA people calling anyone they disagree with a "Nazi".

These "experts' treat the steppe is a sacred well spring, a kind of "steppe Atlantis' theory. They ignore the near-simultaenous migration from the Carpatho-Balkan region c. 5000 BC and Caucasus c. 5000/ 4500 BC, and the profound societal transformations they impacted on the region, which without a doubt had linguistic effects.

And they also desperately grasp the 10-15 % steppe admixture Myceneans possess, whilst ignoring the 50% CHG admixture in the steppe, not to mention the 30-50% EEF admixture groups like Sintashta and BB possess. To explain away these facts, they create 'elite dominance' theories which are easily shot down.

The reality is that the events which catalysed the Copper Age processes began elsewhere, and continued onto the steppe in earnest, propagating all the way to the Urals.
Now, if they want to argue on linguistic grounds that PIE must have originated specifically in the steppe link of this large chain, that's fine. But none of that kind of definitive exists, even though some 'experts' here have claim so; but that does not reflect the opinion of the tenured, published linguists that I have personally discussed with .

bmoney
02-11-2018, 01:54 AM
I agree it is good for different theories to exist, don't get me wrong. Though for certain topics there is no debate like Yamnaya and Corded Ware we have already numerous samples and know what their Y, Mt, and autosomal structure was like, as Awale, JMan and Pribislav stated. Where we could have theories and debates is on Catacomb Culture and Maykop, we're missing Y dna from both cultures, based on ancient samples J2b-L283 was involved also but has yet to be found in the Steppe Cultures that is why Catacomb and Maykop are good candidates for its origin. The 2 ancient J2b-L283's the Proto-Illyrian and Late Bronze Age Armenian carried over 30% Steppe ancestry and had mtdna that has already been found in other tested Steppe cultures that means they came from somewhere near or directly from one of these other Steppe Cultures.

When it comes to Minoans it is not debatable either they were clearly a non Indo-European people or Culture, their dna does not match nor their culture. I am going into a little bit more detail now for their culture, first off the Minoans were a seafaring and mass goods producing culture, essentially an ancient trading culture, they're goods were demanded throughout the entire Mediterranean (the East) and they had good relations with everyone. Second point if they would have been a I.E. culture or influenced we would have seen horse husbandry and emphasis on Chariots, instead we see importance in Bull Worship. Also continuing on this point I.E. cultures were much more aggressive and militaristic, Minoans did not have a standing a army, the Minoan palaces contained no fortifications where as the Mycenaean palaces were constructed within fortifications. You see what I am saying? If anything Minoan civilization would have been influenced entirely by the ancient Near East, as they were one of the members of the Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean trading system.

There are many factors to consider when dealing with specific topics.

"Toda religion features the sacred buffalo; consequently, rituals are performed for all dairy activities as well as for the ordination of dairymen-priests. The religious and funerary rites provide the social context in which complex poetic songs about the cult of the buffalo are composed and chanted."

From Britannica:

Bull cult, prehistoric religious practice that originated in the eastern Aegean Sea and extended from the Indus Valley of Pakistan to the Danube River in eastern Europe. The bull god’s symbol was the phallus, and in the east the bull often was depicted as the partner of the great goddess of fertility and thereby represented the virile principle of generation and invincible force. Numerous pictorial and plastic representations of the bull have been uncovered, many designed to be worn as a charm or amulet; these representations were probably copies of larger statues constructed in tribal sanctuaries. The bull cult continued into historic times and was particularly important in the Indus Valley and on the Grecian island of Crete. In both places the bull’s “horns of consecration” were an important religious symbol.

ernekar
02-11-2018, 08:49 AM
Modern distribution in dravidians doesn't tell us anything. As far as i know some of the high frequencies of J2 there can be a result of some late muslim(semitic) migrations,
mixed with founder effects and later dravidian expansions.

Now, just because the tatars of russia have more J-L283 than the IE speaking slavs, does not mean that J-l283 is a remnant of some "non-IE language". Because if we look at the very short TMRC, we well quickly discover that they are the result of an founder effect which probably came from the balkans or central europe sometime in the last 1000 years.
I think you should check such details in the dravidians first, before concluding anything.

And besides, J2-m172 isnt telling us much. Many of those could be subclades which were not present at the early IE interaction core.
And therefore, those subclades arent really relevant in this case.

ernekar
02-11-2018, 08:51 AM
In other words, CHG and haplogroup J are very old. So it wouldnt surprise me if some of them had already moved to other places, before the genesis of the early IE langauges happened.

ernekar
02-11-2018, 09:13 AM
deleted

bmoney
02-11-2018, 10:39 AM
Modern distribution in dravidians doesn't tell us anything. As far as i know some of the high frequencies of J2 there can be a result of some late muslim(semitic) migrations,
mixed with founder effects and later dravidian expansions.

Now, just because the tatars of russia have more J-m283 than the IE speaking slavs, does not mean that J-l283 is a remnant of some "non-IE language". Because if we look at the very short TMRC, we well quickly discover that they are the result of an founder effect which probably came from the balkans or central europe sometime in the last 1000 years.
I think you should check such details in the dravidians first, before concluding anything.

And besides, J2-m172 isnt telling us much. Many of those could be subclades which were not present at the early IE interaction core.
And therefore, those subclades arent really relevant in this case.

It might be the case that language does not have a 1:1 relationship with y-dna, however I have used simple deduction to isolate the source pop

I've just used the isolated Toda tribe as an example, there is a 0% chance that a Muslim or Semitic founder founded the Toda and every chance its related to documented Iran_Neolithic admixture in Dravidian pops. Iran_Neolithic far predates Indo-Aryan migration and therefore J2-M172 is not an IE marker

J2s presence in Dravidian pops is far more than the miniscule Semitic admixture only seen in select small pops like Cochin Jews

Silva et al 2017:

Altogether, therefore, the recently refined Y-chromosome
tree strongly suggests that R1a is indeed a highly plausible
marker for the long-contested Bronze Age spread of Indo-
Aryan speakers into South Asia, although dated aDNA
evidence will be needed for a precise estimate of its arrival
in various parts of the Subcontinent

a sizeable fraction of the non-R1a West Eurasian Y-
chromosome lineages (e.g. R2a-M124, J2-M241, L1a-M27,
L1c-M357) were most likely associated with the spread of
agriculture or even earlier expansions from Southwest
Asia, as with the mtDNA lineages

ernekar
02-11-2018, 10:47 AM
It might be the case that language does not have a 1:1 relationship with y-dna, however I have used simple deduction to isolate the source pop

I've just used the isolated Toda tribe as an example, there is a 0% chance that a Muslim or Semitic founder founded the Toda and every chance its related to documented Iran_Neolithic admixture in Dravidian pops. Iran_Neolithic far predates Indo-Aryan migration and therefore J2-M172 is not an IE marker

J2s presence in Dravidian pops is far more than the miniscule Semitic admixture only seen in select small pops like Cochin Jews
It seems like you dont quite understand my theory.
I am NOT saying that all J2 subclades were IE. Neither were all R1 subclades.
Only the few subclades of J2 and R1 which got to be at the interaction core between the two, got to develop IE languages.
That means than many J2's could have migrated to india BEFORE IE languages even existed. While the later waves of J2 to india were IE speaking.

Do you understand the concept now?

ernekar
02-11-2018, 10:55 AM
therefore J2-M172 is not an IE marker

Point out to me where on this thread i claimed that J-m172 were all IE, please.
No one said that the whole of M172 were IE. The haplogroup is many times older than IE languages. It would be like saying that R1 was IE.
Both R1 and J2 are 3-6 times older than IE languages, so off course a lot of subclades are gonna show up as non-IE.
The discussion here is about which J2 subclades were there in the genesis of IE languages.
No one is arguing that all subclades of R1 and J2 were there, and that they all spoke IE.

And so far your dravidian stuff is kind of off topic, as no one is claiming that all subclades of any haplogroup were purely IE. So the fact that dravidians have some J2 doesnt tell us anything useful.

bmoney
02-11-2018, 11:11 AM
It seems like you dont quite understand my theory.
I am NOT saying that all J2 subclades were IE. Neither were all R1 subclades.
Only the few subclades of J2 and R1 which got to be at the interaction core between the two, got to develop IE languages.
That means than many J2's could have migrated to india BEFORE IE languages even existed. While the later waves of J2 to india were IE speaking.

Do you understand the concept now?

I get you, and the last sentence works for me - for example the Shia Js in India are likely Iranic (IE) migrations

please continue

ernekar
02-11-2018, 11:12 AM
strongly suggests that R1a is indeed a highly plausible
marker
Yes, and no one is saying that R1a wasnt there during the genesis of the early IE.
I believe it was too.
But it is just as plausible that there were some subclades of J2 there too.

ernekar
02-11-2018, 11:23 AM
I get you, and the last sentence works for me - for example the Shia Js in India are likely Iranic (IE) migrations

please continue
Can you remember which subclades those shias have?

And the idea that some J2 could migrate to india before IE, and not bring with them the IE language, in my view, is not a sign that the later IE J2s had been assimilated by R1a. But rather that hundreds(or thousands) of years of intermixing between R1, j2 and I2 subclades slowly formed early IE.
and only those subclades of J2 and R1 which were present in this propossed core zone would later spread the early IE languages to other places.
But by that time, some R1 and J2 lines had already spread so far away that they would never get a share of the newly mixed early IE language(s). (like the J2 dravidians or like non IE subclades of R1, like R1a2 or R1b-V88).

bmoney
02-11-2018, 11:45 PM
Can you remember which subclades those shias have?

And the idea that some J2 could migrate to india before IE, and not bring with them the IE language, in my view, is not a sign that the later IE J2s had been assimilated by R1a. But rather that hundreds(or thousands) of years of intermixing between R1, j2 and I2 subclades slowly formed early IE.
and only those subclades of J2 and R1 which were present in this propossed core zone would later spread the early IE languages to other places.
But by that time, some R1 and J2 lines had already spread so far away that they would never get a share of the newly mixed early IE language(s). (like the J2 dravidians or like non IE subclades of R1, like R1a2 or R1b-V88).

For Shi'as it just says M172 mutation:

The Middle Eastern populations might have contributed differentially to the South Asian gene pool during the last 8000–10 000 years (Lahr and Foley 1998). The Y-lineages observed in the present study may suggest two major episodes of migrations: One carried J2 and to some extent L and G with the Neolithic farmers (Underhill et al. 2001) and the other arrived with the Muslims carrying E1b1b1 and a few more haplogroups such as J2★ and G★. Kivisild et al. (2003) also reported the presence of a J2 clade and postulated that the origin of the J2 clade in India was probably Central Asia.

There were two putative mutations found in the Middle Eastern populations: YAP/PN2/ M35 and 12f2/M172 (Semino et al. 2000; Underhill et al. 2001). The first mutation creates haplogroup E1b1b1 while the other mutation defines haplogroup J2★

J Man
02-12-2018, 03:12 AM
I think that there certainly is a chance that some of the J2a and even some of the J2b present in India today came with the Indo-Aryans.

Sorcelow
02-12-2018, 04:38 AM
Hello all, I am J2a-M319 from Sparta, Greece. It seems to peak in western Crete (Sfakia), and probably arrived to Crete with people rich in CHG admixture

ernekar
02-12-2018, 09:08 AM
Hello all, I am J2a-M319 from Sparta, Greece. It seems to peak in western Crete (Sfakia), and probably arrived to Crete with people rich in CHG admixture
Hello Sorcelow,
great to see some fellow J's here :)

Yes, J2a was probably one of the major bringers of CHG admixture to the balkans

Generalissimo
02-12-2018, 09:15 AM
But rather that hundreds(or thousands) of years of intermixing between R1, j2 and I2 subclades slowly formed early IE.

This doesn't make much sense, because there's no J2 on the Eneolithic/Bronze Age steppe. Not even one.

And no J2 in Corded Ware or Bell Beaker.

There's a J2 in a Mycenaean commoner, but there was J2 in Minoans too, so it looks like J2 arrived in Greece in a CHG-rich non-Indo-European population.

ernekar
02-12-2018, 09:44 AM
This doesn't make much sense, because there's no J2 on the Eneolithic/Bronze Age steppe. Not even one.

And no J2 in Corded Ware or Bell Beaker.

There's a J2 in a Mycenaean commoner, but there was J2 in Minoans too, so it looks like J2 arrived in Greece in a CHG-rich non-Indo-European population.
If you had read my earlier posts, you would have seen that i proposed that there were different groups/tribes. Which could have moved in different directions.
Absence of J2 in corded ware and Bell beaker does not mean that it wont show up later.
Because as we know, J2b-L283 is present in the whole of europe. And it seems there was a bronze age spread.
So we cant rule out they had J2 too.
Though i will agree that J2 was a minority in those IE groups who moved to central and northern Europe.
But when it comes to the IE groups that went to the Balkans, greece and armenia, J2 outnumbered R1 clades. That is reflected both in ancient DNA from balkan, and the modern distributions of J2b-l283.

Do you understand the concept of different groups, having different Y-dna, but speaking the same language due to living in close proximity to each other in the past?
Or would it be better if i made a sketch on a piece of paper and send it in a photo?

And no we havent found J2 on the steppe yet. But how many ancient human remains have been tested on the steppe? 5? 15? 50?
Now that is not much.
Point is, there was probably tens/hundreds of thousands of people living in the area. Now just because we only found some of the majority haplogroups, and not the minority ones, does not mean that there didnt exist minorities in the steppe. Maybe yamna was something like 80% R1, 10% I2, 10% J2. While another culture living nearby with the same language could easily be 80% J2, 20% r1b.
We just dont know what we are going to find on the steppe yet. Catacomb culture and maykop will surely show some J2.
And if you dont agree that is fine, we are both entitled to our opinions. There is no need for us to try and convert each other.

Lets just wait and see the what future ancient DNA from the steppe is going to show. As we have far to few samples at the moment to know anything.

Generalissimo
02-12-2018, 10:42 AM
If you had read my earlier posts, you would have seen that i proposed that there were different groups/tribes. Which could have moved in different directions.
Absence of J2 in corded ware and Bell beaker does not mean that it wont show up later.
Because as we know, J2b-L283 is present in the whole of europe. And it seems there was a bronze age spread.
So we cant rule out they had J2 too.
Though i will agree that J2 was a minority in those IE groups who moved to central and northern Europe.
But when it comes to the IE groups that went to the Balkans, greece and armenia, J2 outnumbered R1 clades. That is reflected both in ancient DNA from balkan, and the modern distributions of J2b-l283.

Do you understand the concept of different groups, having different Y-dna, but speaking the same language due to living in close proximity to each other in the past?
Or would it be better if i made a sketch on a piece of paper and send it in a photo?

And no we havent found J2 on the steppe yet. But how many ancient human remains have been tested on the steppe? 5? 15? 50?
Now that is not much.
Point is, there was probably tens/hundreds of thousands of people living in the area. Now just because we only found some of the majority haplogroups, and not the minority ones, does not mean that there didnt exist minorities in the steppe. Maybe yamna was something like 80% R1, 10% I2, 10% J2. While another culture living nearby with the same language could easily be 80% J2, 20% r1b.
We just dont know what we are going to find on the steppe yet. Catacomb culture and maykop will surely show some J2.
And if you dont agree that is fine, we are both entitled to our opinions. There is no need for us to try and convert each other.

Lets just wait and see the what future ancient DNA from the steppe is going to show. As we have far to few samples at the moment to know anything.

Your only hope really is that the Minoans and related CHG-rich groups, like the people who spread J2 to ancient Egypt, were Indo-Europeans.

Good luck with that. You'll need it.

ernekar
02-12-2018, 11:12 AM
Your only hope really is that the Minoans and related CHG-rich groups, like the people who spread J2 to ancient Egypt, were Indo-Europeans.

Good luck with that. You'll need it.
I won't need luck. Just time ;)

No one ever said that CHG = IE languages. You are twisting my words like a child would do to get his way.
Only the CHG's and EHG who were at the core zone of early IE would later spread IE languages.
So the R1's and J2's who had already gone too far away geographically, would never get to speak the newly founded hybrid-languages we today call IE languages.

And i do not need to prove that the minoans or the J2's who went to egypt were IE. Because in my hypothesis, not all J2 and R1 need to be IE.

Now do you have any real argumentation, or are you just going to keep on bending and twisting my words around?

Generalissimo
02-12-2018, 11:28 AM
I won't need luck. Just time ;)

No one ever said that CHG = IE languages. You are twisting my words like a child would do to get his way.
Only the CHG's and EHG who were at the core zone of early IE would later spread IE languages.
So the R1's and J2's who had already gone too far away geographically, would never get to speak the newly founded hybrid-languages we today call IE languages.

And i do not need to prove that the minoans or the J2's who went to egypt were IE. Because in my hypothesis, not all J2 and R1 need to be IE.

Now do you have any real argumentation, or are you just going to keep on bending and twisting my words around?

You're still not making any sense.

There were population movements into Southeast Europe, the Levant and North Africa during the Bronze Age by groups rich in CHG and J, especially J2.

Why would some of these groups be Indo-Europeans and somehow closely related to the R1-rich groups on the steppe, and others not Indo-Europeans, and instead closely related to Minoans and Egyptians?

They all have to be Indo-Europeans, or none of them are. And that's the argument also for the R1-rich Bronze Age steppe groups: either all Indo-Europeans, or none.

So you've got a problem don't you, because if all of the CHG and J-rich groups moving around during the Bronze Age are Indo-Europeans, then Minoans have to be Indo-Europeans, and even ancient Egyptians to some extent. On the other hand, it's totally fine if all of the Bronze Age steppe groups are Indo-Europeans, because that explains Balts, Slavs, Germanics, Celts, Indo-Aryans, Tocharians, etc.

ernekar
02-12-2018, 11:29 AM
@generalissimo, And besides. There is no need for me to persuade you about anything.
I am sharing this hypothesis, so that open-minded people can see some alternatives to the theories that fill these forums.

People can believe what they want. I dont get paid to convert you.
I am only here to share my hypothesis, to strenghten my skills in argumentation and to see what arguments other people have.

ernekar
02-12-2018, 11:34 AM
They all have to be Indo-Europeans, or none of them are.
No, all J2's did not have to be IE speaking.
the subclades of J2 are way older that IE languages. Therefore some of those J2 in the minoans and egyptians could have come from another part of the caucasus which was not yet IE speaking.

In other words, no one is saying that all the J2's who spread during the bronze age, came from the same copper/bronze age source population.

ernekar
02-12-2018, 11:37 AM
And dont forget that even the IE language tree is a modern contruct based on theoretical premises which may be filled with errors.
That means that even the minoans could have been some sort of early IE(maybe anatolian-like IE branch) which was not as succesful as the later steppe IE, and which by modern standards wouldnt even qualify as an IE language(due to its archaic and undeciphered nature).
The later steppe IE migrations also brought J2, but with a whole different category of IE languages, which resemble the modern IE languages more.
And as far as i know, those archaic minoan IE languages could have mixed with the newer ones coming with J2b-l283, to slowly form greek languages. While the J2b-l283 ones in the north didn't get as much input from the minoans, and therefore ended up as "illyrians, dacians, etc.

That said, it doesnt mean that i am claiming that the minoans were really IE. But i am just pointing out that the chance is there.
And even if they were not IE, it doesnt matter. Because IE speaking minoans are not a MUST-HAVE for my theory to work.

Even albanian was thought to be NON-IE up until recently. Because of its archaic nature, and very different structure(compared to other IE languages).
So if linguists made such a huge classification mistake on a modern language which still survives, how many mistakes can we expect linguists to make about a 3-4000 year old language which we havent even deciphered yet? We know practically nothing about which language tree minoan would fit into.

Trojet
02-12-2018, 12:31 PM
What do you expect out of Generalissimo. He admits there was CHG in the Steppe area, but claims it could've only been "female mediated" and there could not have been any J2 men. As if people at the time made a border running between the Black and Caspian Seas, and turned away any J2 men, lol.

On the other hand, I think the best J2 candidate that could've been part of Bronze Age Indo-European expansion is J2b2-L283. Ancient DNA is pointing towards this direction. This haplogroup has now appeared in Bronze Age Croatia and Late Bronze Age Armenia (and nowhere in Neolithic Europe). These ancient samples show a decent amount of Steppe admixture and mtDNA that has been found in the Steppe. Obviously, J2b2-L283 itself has not been found in the Steppe yet, to truly make the connection. But the sample size is still too small, with some cultures like Maykop having zero ancient DNA.

J Man
02-12-2018, 01:34 PM
I think that it is possible that if some of the J2a and J2b in India came with the Indo-Aryans that it was picked up by R1a rich speaking IE groups as they spread southeast from Eastern Europe through Central Asia on their way to South Asia.

ernekar
02-12-2018, 01:44 PM
Exactly Trojet, there was not such a border. And if we see steppe mtDNA in in these bronze age J2b-L283, and at the same time CHG ancestry in the steppe, we can be sure mixing was going on. And within a couple of generations, the tribes in the contact-zones would start looking alike.

That means we could have a cluster of settlements with more J2b-L283, another cluster of settlements with more R1b, one R1a, and so on. But where the phenotypes and language is alike in all the clusters, due to many generations of interbreeding between all the villages which now had shared mtDNA. And in these settlements, young men would now be able to move more or less freely and settle in the different settlements. They could do that, because they didnt walk around with a t-shirt which said "I am J2b" or "I am R1a". They understood each other, they looked alike, so unless it was in a time of war, nothing held them back from migrating freely to other villages and create small founder effects.
We still see the results of those small founder effects today: For example we find J2b-l283 from Oslo to Madrid, and from Moscow to Athens. Practically everywhere in europe where IE is spoken.
And the subclade indeed seems to have expanded during the bronze age.

Ral
02-12-2018, 02:42 PM
What about elite dominance of J among R as a source of IE lang. ?

Trojet
02-12-2018, 02:48 PM
they didnt walk around with a t-shirt which said "I am J2b" or "I am R1a".

Exactly! And they surely didn't perform any DNA tests on these people :lol:

Trojet
02-12-2018, 03:21 PM
J2b2a frequency among modern Albanians doesn't tell us anything about what language spoke some J2b2a individual ~3600 years ago. High frequency of J2b2a (and E-V13 & R1b) among modern Albanians is the result of founder effect(s) in the last ~1000 years, it is obvious from looking at haplotype variance (very low). But I generally agree J2b2a could've been present among early IE speakers. It is hard to believe that CHG part of steppe admixture was female-mediated only, and IMO J2b2a looks like a strongest candidate for a male counterpart.

Over 80% of samples in our project come from Gheg (northern) Albanians, so our results are not representative of the whole Albanian population, which you seem to imply. Anyways, what the data you point suggests is that a population ancestral to (Gheg) Albanians survived in a rather isolated area.

Besides, we already have a J2b-L283 cluster in Z1296>Y20899 that has a higher TMRCA than I-S17250, which is spread throughout the Slavic world.

ernekar
02-12-2018, 03:45 PM
What about elite dominance of J among R as a source of IE lang. ?
I wouldn't know. But in my opinion the dominating haplogroups would be rather random.
If we imagine the core of early IE languages as comprised of hundreds of temporary settlements which move, shrink and expand according to each other. Then sometimes if for example settlement 346 would expand and dominate settlement 344, 345 and 347. Then those people would slowly start to become genetically more homogenuos across the 4 settlements. So say settlement 346 were mostly R1a, then the 3 other settlements will get more R1a too.

50 years later, settlement 317 could expand and dominate all the three settlements which were earlier dominated by settlement 346(50 years earlier).
If we say settlement 317 was mainly J2b-L283, then all the newly dominated settlements would now get a small injection of J2b-L283.
And it could basically have had gone on like that, with movements and founder effects going on in the steppe for hundreds or thousands of years, before they eventually went to settle a huge part of eurasia in the bronze age.

People are always arguing about what happened in the beginning of the genesis of IE.
Some say IE was an EHG language which was forced upon the CHG.
Others say CHG forced the IE languages upon the EHG.
But in my opinion, neither of those were IE. IE rather emerged as a the result of the heavy mixing that happened between those "two" groups for a very long period of time.

J Man
02-12-2018, 04:36 PM
Over 80% of samples in our project come from Gheg (northern) Albanians, so our results are not representative of the whole Albanian population, which you seem to imply. Anyways, what the data you point suggests is that a population ancestral to (Gheg) Albanians survived in a rather isolated area.

Besides, we already have a J2b-L283 cluster in Z1296>Y20899 that has a higher TMRCA than I-S17250, which is spread throughout the Slavic world.

Yes it does look like a lot if not most of the I2a in the Balkans today likely arrived there with the Slavic migrations while haplogroups such as E-V13, J2a, J2b1 and J2b2 were likely there before the Slavs arrived in large numbers. R1a likely also came mainly with the Slavs. R1b was likely present among pre-Slavic Balkan peoples but some may have also arrived with the Slavs. Actually we have some Mesolithic R1b from Serbia already.

Pribislav
02-12-2018, 05:31 PM
Over 80% of samples in our project come from Gheg (northern) Albanians, so our results are not representative of the whole Albanian population, which you seem to imply. Anyways, what the data you point suggests is that a population ancestral to (Gheg) Albanians survived in a rather isolated area.

Besides, we already have a J2b-L283 cluster in Z1296>Y20899 that has a higher TMRCA than I-S17250, which is spread throughout the Slavic world.

I'm aware of that, but I spoke primarily about anonymous haplotypes from scientific papers. All I said was that high frequency of L283 among Albanians (Gheg) is the result of relatively recent founder effect, which can be seen from low overall haplotype variance. That was in response to ernekar's post in which he implied that high modern frequency of L283 among Albanians somehow tells us about ethnic/linguistic affinity of ancient individual that lived ~3600 years ago.

Trojet
02-12-2018, 05:43 PM
I'm aware of that, but I spoke primarily about anonymous haplotypes from scientific papers. All I said was that high frequency of L283 among Albanians (Gheg) is the result of relatively recent founder effect, which can be seen from low overall haplotype variance. That was in response to ernekar's post in which he implied that high modern frequency of L283 among Albanians somehow tells us about ethnic/linguistic affinity of ancient individual that lived ~3600 years ago.

Low-res haplotypes from scientific papers?! :lol: I cannot agree with this, as we already have several subclades downstream of J-Z1296. If you knew anything about this haplogroup you wouldn't pay attention to STRs especially at low resolution, as there is too much convergence specifically downstream J-Z1296. However, no doubt that some of our clusters have expanded during the Middle Ages.

Besides, I don't understand why we should assume that these "founders" could not have spoken a similar language to the Bronze Age Dalmatian J2b-L283, or some Illyrian culture. It seems after all the failures to tie us Albanians outside the Balkans, you Poreklo guys have now settled that we could not have been anything else other than Thracians, lol.

ernekar
02-12-2018, 05:46 PM
I'm aware of that, but I spoke primarily about anonymous haplotypes from scientific papers. All I said was that high frequency of L283 among Albanians (Gheg) is the result of relatively recent founder effect, which can be seen from low overall haplotype variance. That was in response to ernekar's post in which he implied that high modern frequency of L283 among Albanians somehow tells us about ethnic/linguistic affinity of ancient individual that lived ~3600 years ago.
I did not imply anything. I said pretty directly, that i think the ancient J2b-L283 sample probably spoke an IE language, which would be the best contender for an ancient IE language which later would result in the language we know today as Albanian.
It is just like you are saying that the yamnaya spoke an IE language which would be the best contender for a language which in turn would result in some european IE branches.
Same concept.

Pribislav
02-12-2018, 06:33 PM
I cannot agree with this, as we already have several subclades downstream of J-Z1296. If you knew anything about this haplogroup you wouldn't pay attention to STRs, as there is two much convergence, especially downstream Z1296. However, no doubt that some of these clusters have expanded in the Middle Ages.

Besides, I don't understand why we should assume that these "founders" could not have spoken a similar language to the Bronze Age Dalmatian J2b-L283, or some Illyrian culture. It seems after all the failure to tie us Albanians outside the Balkans, you Poreklo guys have now settled that we could not have been anything else other than Thracians.

Well, read more carefully, I didn't say Albanians belong to only one subclade under L283, but that overall L283 variance is low. You can assume whatever you want, problem is you can't prove it, and that is the only thing that matters. Please don't put words in my mouth, I never said anything about Albanians originating anywhere outside the Balkans. Nobody is denying Albanians have some Y-lineages that were probably present among Illyrians, but same lineages are also present among other nations on West Balkans. The problem is you're trying to present yourselves as exclusive descendants of Illyrians, and Albanian as a direct descendant of Illyrian, and there is simply no hard evidence to back those claims, not by a long shot. I'm sure you are familiar with numerous linguistic arguments that go against such claims, such as lack of original maritime terminology in Albanian (quite odd for a supposed descendants of seafaring Illyrians), or numerous cognates in Albanian and Romanian, and lack of those cognates in Dalmatian Romance, which was the language of Romanised population of Dalmatian coast.

J Man
02-12-2018, 06:41 PM
Well, read more carefully, I didn't say Albanians belong to only one subclade under L283, but that overall L283 variance is low. You can assume whatever you want, problem is you can't prove it, and that is the only thing that matters. Please don't put words in my mouth, I never said anything about Albanians originating anywhere outside the Balkans. Nobody is denying Albanians have some Y-lineages that were probably present among Illyrians, but same lineages are also present among other nations on West Balkans. The problem is you're trying to present yourselves as exclusive descendants of Illyrians, and Albanian as a direct descendant of Illyrian, and there is simply no hard evidence to back those claims, not by a long shot. I'm sure you are familiar with numerous linguistic arguments that go against such claims, such as lack of original maritime terminology in Albanian (quite odd for a supposed descendants of seafaring Illyrians), or numerous cognates in Albanian and Romanian, and lack of those cognates in Dalmatian Romance, which was the language of Romanised population of Dalmatian coast.

There is probably a decent chance that at least some of the E-V13, J2b2 and R1b among Albanians today comes from the ancient Illyrians. Some may also come from other ancient non-Slavic Balkan peoples. Same goes for the E-V13 found among Montenegrins and Serbs.

ernekar
02-12-2018, 06:43 PM
This thread is going off topic now.

J Man
02-12-2018, 06:53 PM
This thread is going off topic now.

True time to return to the original topic.

Pribislav
02-12-2018, 06:54 PM
There is probably a decent chance that at least some of the E-V13, J2b2 and R1b among Albanians today comes from the ancient Illyrians. Some may also come from other ancient non-Slavic Balkan peoples. Same goes for the E-V13 found among Montenegrins and Serbs.

That's exactly what I was saying, I have no doubts E-V13 and J2b2-L283 will be found among Illyrian samples once we get them. Genetic descendants of Illyrians are present among all populations on the Western Balkans, and I have no problem whatsoever admitting Albanians have the highest frequency of those haplogroups today, but that doesn't make them exclusive descendants of Illyrians.

J Man
02-12-2018, 06:57 PM
That's exactly what I was saying, I have no doubts E-V13 and J2b2-L283 will be found among Illyrian samples once we get them, and that genetic descendants of Illyrians are present among all populations on the Western Balkans. I have no problem whatsoever admitting Albanians have the highest frequency of those haplogroups today, but that doesn't make them exclusive descendants of Illyrians.

Yes I agree completely. Pretty much all peoples in the Balkans today both Slavic and non-Slavic are descended in varying degrees from the pre-Slavic inhabitants.

ernekar
02-12-2018, 07:34 PM
I am not saying that the albanians are the exclusive descendants either.
But i would say that albanians inherited most of the linguistic and genetic stock of the people which inhabited the pre-slavic western balkans(illyrians).
And i do not deny that south-slavs, greeks and romanians also got a small share of that stock.

Here is a quote from a book on slavic languages by C. Y. Bethin:
"At this point, the intense and intimate multilingualism among speakers of Slavic, Romance, Greek and Albanian that was characteristic of Macedonia began to have its effect, such that general Balkan rhythmic prosodic patterns crystallized numerous of these phonetic/morphophonetic mixes as phrases with double accent. . . The final impectus wich led to the fixing of stress on the ante-penultimate syllable was again probably Balkan – most likely a generalization of the Greek/Latin system in which accent was limited to the last three syllables of the word"

So intense intermingling took place. And with no sustainable central power, things were dynamic and changed all the time. Especially in the lowlands.
That is also why we see mountain ghegs having such an archaic language, and so few haplogroups (basically 33% j2b-L283, 33% E-V13 and 33% R1b-z2103. of course with some exceptions)

Trojet
02-12-2018, 07:34 PM
Well, read more carefully, I didn't say Albanians belong to only one subclade under L283, but that overall L283 variance is low. You can assume whatever you want, problem is you can't prove it, and that is the only thing that matters. Please don't put words in my mouth, I never said anything about Albanians originating anywhere outside the Balkans. Nobody is denying Albanians have some Y-lineages that were probably present among Illyrians, but same lineages are also present among other nations on West Balkans. The problem is you're trying to present yourselves as exclusive descendants of Illyrians, and Albanian as a direct descendant of Illyrian, and there is simply no hard evidence to back those claims, not by a long shot. I'm sure you are familiar with numerous linguistic arguments that go against such claims, such as lack of original maritime terminology in Albanian (quite odd for a supposed descendants of seafaring Illyrians), or numerous cognates in Albanian and Romanian, and lack of those cognates in Dalmatian Romance, which was the language of Romanised population of Dalmatian coast.

I did not put words in your mouth, just pointed out the general discussion regarding Albanian ethnogenesis in a forum that you're a participant of.

I don't want to go off topic, but since you brought it up, the general consensus among serious linguists is that Albanian stems from a Paleo-Balkan language (Illyrian, Thracian, etc). Due to the scarsity of data, no consensus can be reached. However, from that's known about these languages, Albanian appears to be more akin to Illyrian.

I never said we are pure Illyrians, nor am I assuming anything, just that according to available data (linguistics, genetics, no known migration of Albanians to present day Albania), we are most likely in large part descendant of Illyrians. Now, if you have arguments to disprove this, you are more then welcome to present them. Also, the fact that you seem to rule out the possibility that the J2b-L283 Bronze Age Dalmatian could've spoken a language similar or ancestral to Albanian, is quite telling...

Principe
02-12-2018, 07:38 PM
Okay just to get back at the original topic, I want to just discuss J2b-L283's origins, I already wrote it in this thread, but I am going to rewrite it anyways, J2b-L283's origins lie in the I.E. migrations not only to the Balkans but also to Armenia (Maybe Turkey as well). The J2b-L283 late Bronze Age Armenian carried over 30% Steppe like ancestry and his closest population that resembles LBA Armenian J2b-L283>Z600 is Abkhasian and Adygei which is roughly the 2 populations that inhabit the areas that was the Maykop culture. It does not get any clearer than that. The J2b-L283 found in Croatia is roughly 650-800 years older and is somewhat autosomal close to him, how can this be? I think it suggests that a population living near and around the Steppe was rich with J2b-L283, it was probably born in the Maykop culture and started expanding in the Catacomb culture, this could explain how J2b-L283 ended up in Bronze Age Croatia and Bronze Age Armenia. Another line that very likely had the same origins as J2b-L283 was G-L13 under G-U1, and if you take a look at all the other branches under G-U1 they are almost exclusively Caucasian and probably had nothing to do with I.E.

Ernekar, Maykop is the likely place where CHG and EHG fused together or the interactions between the two that formed P.I.E., now most of your questions will probably be answered when the Maykop paper comes out, the samples have already been sequenced but not released, so look forward to that.

ernekar
02-12-2018, 07:44 PM
Ernekar, Maykop is the likely place where CHG and EHG fused together or the interactions between the two that formed P.I.E., now most of your questions will probably be answered when the Maykop paper comes out, the samples have already been sequenced but not released, so look forward to that.
I agree with what you are saying.
I cannot wait to see what will pop up in Maykop and Catacomb.
If no J2b-L283 shows up, i will be really confused though. But it must be there somewhere.

Gravetto-Danubian
02-12-2018, 07:57 PM
(Albanians might be a fusion of provincials of Epirus Vetus and those evacuated from Dacia Ripensis, Dardania etc in the 600s; as well exotics from the Avar empire who were possibly military elites
This fusion is manifest as the Konami Kruje culture. These were inland oriented people , protecting forts and the Via Egnatia, and they were supplied directly by the Byzantine state maritime apparatus))


I did not put words in your mouth, just pointed out the general discussion regarding Albanian ethnogenesis in a forum that you're a participant of.

I don't want to go off topic, but since you brought it up, the general consensus among serious linguists is that Albanian stems from a Paleo-Balkan language (Illyrian, Thracian, etc). Due to the scarsity of data, no consensus can be reached. However, from that's known about these languages, Albanian appears to be more akin to Illyrian.

I never said we are pure Illyrians, nor am I assuming anything, just that according to available data (linguistics, genetics, no known migration of Albanians to present day Albania), we are most likely in large part descendant of Illyrians. Now, if you have arguments to disprove this, you are more then welcome to present them. Also, the fact that you seem to rule out the possibility that the J2b-L283 Bronze Age Dalmatian could've spoken a language similar or ancestral to Albanian, is quite telling...

Principe
02-12-2018, 07:58 PM
I agree with what you are saying.
I cannot wait to see what will pop up in Maykop and Catacomb.
If no J2b-L283 shows up, i will be really confused though. But it must be there somewhere.

If it helps, both Mtdna carried by J2b-L283 in both Croatia and Armenia were under mtdna I which has been found in other I.E. cultures, the late Bronze Age Armenian carried the exact same I5c mtdna that was found in Mezhovskava in the Kapova cave dating 200 years older.

Pribislav
02-12-2018, 08:16 PM
I don't want to go off topic, but since you brought it up, the general consensus among serious linguists is that Albanian stems from a Paleo-Balkan language (Illyrian, Thracian, etc). Due to the scarsity of data, no consensus can be reached. However, from that's known about these languages, Albanian appears to be more akin to Illyrian.

I never said we are pure Illyrians, nor am I assuming anything, just that according to available data (linguistics, genetics, no known migration of Albanians to present day Albania), we are most likely in large part descendant of Illyrians. Now, if you have arguments to disprove this, you are more then welcome to present them. Also, the fact that you seem to rule out the possibility that the J2b-L283 Bronze Age Dalmatian could've spoken a language similar or ancestral to Albanian, is quite telling...

Wrong, I never ruled out any possibility about said BA individual, I merely pointed out there isn't and never will be a way to know for sure, so why even speculate? I also brought up a question about lack of original maritime terminology in Albanian in the previous post, which you so conveniently ignored.

There is a possibility that Albanian stems from some Paleo-Balkan language, but there is no general consensus that Albanian stems from Illyrian language specifically. Fortunatelly, I think this question could be pretty confidently resolved with aDNA. If R1b-U152 is to be found to dominate in Illyrian remains, it would almost certainly mean Illyrians spoke centum language, i.e. language not ancestral to Albanian. If R1b-BY611 is to be found to dominate your view would be much more likely.

Trojet
02-12-2018, 08:49 PM
Wrong, I never ruled out any possibility about said BA individual, I merely pointed out there isn't and never will be a way to know for sure, so why even speculate? I also brought up a question about lack of original maritime terminology in Albanian in the previous post, which you so conveniently ignored.

There you go, you just proved my point, let's just say you are sensitive about raising that possibility :)
The lack of maritime terminology in Albanian doesn't not rule out that Albanian cannot be descendant of Illyrian. That vocabulary could've easily been lost, as this population fled to the mountains. Or the Illyrians who lived further inland did not have much of that terminology.



There is a possibility that Albanian stems from some Paleo-Balkan language, but there is no general consensus that Albanian stems from Illyrian language specifically. Fortunatelly, I think this question could be pretty confidently resolved with aDNA. If R1b-U152 is to be found to dominate in Illyrian remains, it would almost certainly mean Illyrians spoke centum language, i.e. language not ancestral to Albanian. If R1b-BY611 is to be found to dominate your view would be much more likely.

Who is to say that Iron Age Illyrians belonged exclusively to one haplogroup or the other, or that Iron Age Illyrians had the same haplogroups in all the areas they inhabited. Again, so far from the territory that Illyrians lived (Dalmatia, which was the center of Illyrians) we have a J2b-L283 in a Bronze Age context. This haplogroup today is carried by ethnic Albanians at roughly 15-25%, specifically peaking in frequency in the historically isolated areas of North Albanian mountains, which happens to be just SE of Dalmatia.

Pribislav
02-12-2018, 09:05 PM
There you go, you just proved my point, let's just say you are sensitive about raising that possibility :)
The lack of maritime terminology in Albanian doesn't not rule out that Albanian cannot be descendant of Illyrian. That vocabulary could've easily been lost, as this population fled to the mountains. Or the Illyrians who lived further inland, may have not had such terminology.




Who is to say that Iron Age Illyrians belonged exclusively to one haplogroup or the other, or that Iron Age Illyrians had the same haplogroups in all the areas they inhabited. That's just speculation which at the moment you have no proof. Again, so far from the territory that Illyrians lived (Dalmatia, which was the center of Illyrians) we have a J2b-L283 in a Bronze Age context. This haplogroup today is carried by ethnic Albanians at roughly 15-20%, peaking in frequency in the historically isolated areas of North Albanian mountains, which happens to be just SE of Dalmatia.

You're right, I'm always sensitive to any theory that is not backed with hard evidence, like this one you're going with. And yes, J2b2 frequency today peaks in Northern Albanians, so how that proves Albanian descends from Illyrian?

Principe
02-12-2018, 09:07 PM
The Albanian-Illyrian connection looks pretty solid, a lot of people forget that there was an Illyrian tribe called Albanoi the same tribe that founded the city Albanopolis which happens to be located in modern Albania. Of course not the only Illyrian tribe to inhabit Albania, there was also Taulantii, Enchele, Arbi, Ardiaei, and Amantini.

It can probably be argued that there is a connection with name Arbi and Arbėrshe.

J Man
02-12-2018, 09:14 PM
It is quite likely that modern Albanians genetically descend mainly from Illyrians and other pre-Slavic Balkan peoples as has already been mentioned. I am far from a linguistics expert but maybe the Albanian language is mainly a fusion of a number of pre-Slavic Balkan languages of which Illyrian makes up a substantial component?

Gravetto-Danubian
02-12-2018, 09:15 PM
The Albanian-Illyrian connection looks pretty solid, a lot of people forget that there was an Illyrian tribe called Albanoi the same tribe that founded the city Albanopolis which happens to be located in modern Albania. Of course not the only Illyrian tribe to inhabit Albania, there was also Taulantii, Enchele, Arbi, Ardiaei, and Amantini.

It can probably be argued that there is a connection with name Arbi and Arbėrshe.

The city was founded by Romans in the 2nd Century AD
Tracing ethonyms isn’t so simple as you suggest- due to archaisms and ethonymic transfers. Medieval Balkan peoples were often called Triballi, Mysians etc by the Byzantines
But I have no issue with Albanians being largely or partly Illyrian stock, but their ultimate ethnogenesis is as I already described above .
We’ll have much better idea soon I hope of pre Slavic balkans

ernekar
02-12-2018, 09:17 PM
The Albanian-Illyrian connection looks pretty solid, a lot of people forget that there was an Illyrian tribe called Albanoi the same tribe that founded the city Albanopolis which happens to be located in modern Albania. Of course not the only Illyrian tribe to inhabit Albania, there was also Taulantii, Enchele, Arbi, Ardiaei, and Amantini.

It can probably be argued that there is a connection with name Arbi and Arbėrshe.

If i remember correctly, we albanians used to call ourselves Arbėr up until the middle ages, so maybe there could also be a connection with "Arbi" there.
I dont know if the modern "Shqiptar" replaced "Arbėr" naturally, or if both were in use simultaneously.

ernekar
02-12-2018, 09:23 PM
@Principe,
About that Maykop paper, did they tell any dates as to when the data is going to be released?
Or do you know how long they have been working on it?

Johane Derite
02-12-2018, 09:28 PM
If i remember correctly, we albanians used to call ourselves Arbėr up until the middle ages, so maybe there could also be a connection with "Arbi" there.
I dont know if the modern "Shqiptar" replaced "Arbėr" naturally, or if both were in use simultaneously.

Shqiptar means albanian speaker (me shqiptu = to speak) and came to be used under ottoman occupation to signify the mother tongue uniting the people.

Before that all albanians refferred to themselves as a variation of "arbėr." Alban, Arben, Arvan, etc. Laberia comes from Arberia.

In their documents Turks refer to Albanians as Arvanid, Arnavud or Arnaut.

Trojet
02-12-2018, 09:29 PM
It is quite likely that modern Albanians genetically descend mainly from Illyrians and other pre-Slavic Balkan peoples as has already been mentioned. I am far from a linguistics expert but maybe the Albanian language is mainly a fusion of a number of pre-Slavic Balkan languages of which Illyrian makes up a substantial component?

This is basically all I'm saying based on the data and evidence we have so far. But my friend here Pribislav can get sensitive if he sees Albanian and Illyrian in the same sentence :)

Principe
02-12-2018, 09:35 PM
@Principe,
About that Maykop paper, did they tell any dates as to when the data is going to be released?
Or do you know how long they have been working on it?

No I don’t have that information, the best person to ask for that would be Generalissimo, he has usually the most up to date information regarding Ancient Papers.

Principe
02-12-2018, 09:39 PM
The city was founded by Romans in the 2nd Century AD
Tracing ethonyms isn’t so simple as you suggest- due to archaisms and ethonymic transfers. Medieval Balkan peoples were often called Triballi, Mysians etc by the Byzantines
But I have no issue with Albanians being largely or partly Illyrian stock, but their ultimate ethnogenesis is as I already described above .
We’ll have much better idea soon I hope of pre Slavic balkans

How do you explain Albanians using similar names to the Illyrian tribes that inhabited the area of Albania 2000 years ago. Another point to consider is that based on Uniparental markers Albanians have the least Slavic admixture in the Balkans, making them the best representatives of pre Slavic Balkans.

Gravetto-Danubian
02-12-2018, 09:48 PM
How do you explain Albanians using similar names to the Illyrian tribes that inhabited the area of Albania 2000 years ago.

there are no epigraphic records of self-identifying Albanians before the Middle Ages
What we instead have is ethnographic traditions of exo-ethonyms : Romans and Greeks categorising peoples according to their own criteria which can be then internalised by the groups they refer to. Eg refer to the Alemanni, etc. numerous examples


Another point to consider is that based on Uniparental markers Albanians have the least Slavic admixture in the Balkans, making them the best representatives of pre Slavic Balkans.
Yes I agree. But what’s that got to do with it?
You’re confusing ethno-genesis - a social praxis- with population genetics.

J Man
02-12-2018, 09:48 PM
This is basically all I'm saying based on the data and evidence we have so far. But my friend here Pribislav can get sensitive if he sees Albanian and Illyrian in the same sentence :)

Ancient DNA from the pre-Slavic peoples of the Balkans would be great to have for topics like this. Hopefully some will be tested at some point. It would also be great if some ancient DNA from the early Slavs of the Balkans is tested.

Trojet
02-12-2018, 09:58 PM
there are no epigraphic records of self-identifying Albanians before the Middle Ages
What we instead have is ethnographic traditions of exo-ethonyms : Romans and Greeks categorising peoples according to their own criteria which can be then internalised by the groups they refer to. Eg refer to the Alemanni, etc. numerous examples

Of course, all of a sudden we just parachuted in the Western Balkans in the Middle Ages :lol:

Johane Derite
02-12-2018, 10:04 PM
there are no epigraphic records of self-identifying Albanians before the Middle Ages

An old Bulgarian text (1000 — 1018 AD) compiled around the beginning of the eleventh century refers to languages of the "world":

"It can be seen that there are various languages on earth. Of them, there are five Orthodox languages: Bulgarian, Greek, Syrian, Iberian (Georgian) and Russian. Three of these have Orthodox alphabets: Greek, Bulgarian and Iberian. There are twelve languages of half-believers: Alamanians, Franks, Magyars (Hungarians), Indians, Jacobites, Armenians, Saxons, Lechs (Poles), Arbanasi (Albanians), Croatians, Hizi, Germans. "

It should be noted that the Albanian community of Croatia that lives in Zadar still self refer to themselves as Arbanasi.

ernekar
02-12-2018, 10:12 PM
An old Bulgarian text (1000 — 1018 AD) compiled around the beginning of the eleventh century refers to languages of the "world":

"It can be seen that there are various languages on earth. Of them, there are five Orthodox languages: Bulgarian, Greek, Syrian, Iberian (Georgian) and Russian. Three of these have Orthodox alphabets: Greek, Bulgarian and Iberian. There are twelve languages of half-believers: Alamanians, Franks, Magyars (Hungarians), Indians, Jacobites, Armenians, Saxons, Lechs (Poles), Arbanasi (Albanians), Croatians, Hizi, Germans. "

It should be noted that the Albanian community of Croatia that lives in Zadar still self refer to themselves as Arbanasi.
Very interesting information, i was not aware of this document. Im glad you joined the thread :)

Gravetto-Danubian
02-12-2018, 10:17 PM
Of course, all of a sudden we just parachuted in the Western Balkans in the Middle Ages :lol:

Don’t be silly
Do try to understand the nuances of ethnogenesis, it’s meaning or implications

J Man
02-12-2018, 10:39 PM
Yeah modern day Albanians are a fusion of older peoples of the Balkans of course. They are the results of ethnogenesis just like all other modern day ethnic groups. All modern day ethnic groups have their own unique processes which happened during their ethnogenesis which make them unique today. Modern day Albanian ethnogenesis may have started during the Middle Ages as a unique fusion of Balkan peoples some of which were older and some newer in the Balkans during that time. The core was likely Illyrians with other pre-Slavic groups making substantial contributions.

Trojet
02-12-2018, 11:55 PM
Okay just to get back at the original topic, I want to just discuss J2b-L283's origins, I already wrote it in this thread, but I am going to rewrite it anyways, J2b-L283's origins lie in the I.E. migrations not only to the Balkans but also to Armenia (Maybe Turkey as well). The J2b-L283 late Bronze Age Armenian carried over 30% Steppe like ancestry and his closest population that resembles LBA Armenian J2b-L283>Z600 is Abkhasian and Adygei which is roughly the 2 populations that inhabit the areas that was the Maykop culture. It does not get any clearer than that. The J2b-L283 found in Croatia is roughly 650-800 years older and is somewhat autosomal close to him, how can this be? I think it suggests that a population living near and around the Steppe was rich with J2b-L283, it was probably born in the Maykop culture and started expanding in the Catacomb culture, this could explain how J2b-L283 ended up in Bronze Age Croatia and Bronze Age Armenia. Another line that very likely had the same origins as J2b-L283 was G-L13 under G-U1, and if you take a look at all the other branches under G-U1 they are almost exclusively Caucasian and probably had nothing to do with I.E.

Ernekar, Maykop is the likely place where CHG and EHG fused together or the interactions between the two that formed P.I.E., now most of your questions will probably be answered when the Maykop paper comes out, the samples have already been sequenced but not released, so look forward to that.

Interesting. That may be the case Principe! This is what an article on Wikipedia theorizes about the languages on Catacomb culture:

Within the context of the Kurgan hypothesis expounded by Marija Gimbutas, an Indo-European component is speculated about, particularly in the later stages. Placing the ancestors of the Greek, Albanian and Armenian (perhaps Paleo-Balkan) dialects here is tempting, as it would neatly explain certain shared features.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catacomb_culture

Principe
02-13-2018, 12:21 AM
Interesting. That may be the case Principe! This is what an article on Wikipedia theorizes about the languages on Catacomb culture:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catacomb_culture

Thanks for the link Trojet, this could easily explain what we’re seeing with the 2 ancient J2b-L283, it makes too much sense, it even looks like R-Z2103>L584 lineages were expanding with Catacomb culture as well.

Take a look at this line

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-A12332/

We have an Armenian, Albanian and Turk having a TMRCA of 4400 ybp which coincides exactly with J2b-L283’s expansion, J-Z597 (the largest branch) is born and starts to spread exactly at 4400 ybp.

J Man
02-13-2018, 12:39 AM
Thanks for the link Trojet, this could easily explain what we’re seeing with the 2 ancient J2b-L283, it makes too much sense, it even looks like R-Z2103>L584 lineages were expanding with Catacomb culture as well.

Take a look at this line

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-A12332/

We have an Armenian, Albanian and Turk having a TMRCA of 4400 ybp which coincides exactly with J2b-L283’s expansion, J-Z597 (the largest branch) is born and starts to spread exactly at 4400 ybp.

Interesting indeed.

J Man
02-13-2018, 04:28 AM
I am looking forward to a Maykop paper coming out...Hopefully that happens relatively soon. I am predicting Y-DNA haplogroups J2a, J2b, J1, G2a and possibly some R1b to show up among Maykop males.

Principe
02-13-2018, 05:03 AM
I am looking forward to a Maykop paper coming out...Hopefully that happens relatively soon. I am predicting Y-DNA haplogroups J2a, J2b, J1, G2a and possibly some R1b to show up among Maykop males.

It will be an interesting paper that’s for sure, I hope there will be quite a few samples, over 15 Y dna samples, so a better picture over what lines they carried.

I expect J2b-L283 and G-U1 with probably R1b-PF7562 showing up, everything else I am curious to see.

Trojet
02-13-2018, 01:26 PM
Great thread, Ernekar. I appreciate you bringing a fresh and plausible approach regarding PIE ethnogenesis, besides the mainstream theory that I-E men could've only been been R1, I2, and not any J2.

For example, as you can see below, Generalissimo mentions the two J2a's found in Minoans and Mycenaeans (because in his view the Minoans likely speaking a non I-E language, would disqualify the J2a samples found in Greece as having anything to do with I-E), but completely ignores the two J2b-L283 samples found in Bronze Age Croatia and Bronze Age Armenia.


This doesn't make much sense, because there's no J2 on the Eneolithic/Bronze Age steppe. Not even one.

And no J2 in Corded Ware or Bell Beaker.

There's a J2 in a Mycenaean commoner, but there was J2 in Minoans too, so it looks like J2 arrived in Greece in a CHG-rich non-Indo-European population.

Agamemnon
02-13-2018, 11:27 PM
Because the steppe admixture is not a nessesity just to be IE speaking. It is just a necessity that a group was a part the early IE sprachbund to get a language which resembles its neighbours' languages. It doesnt mean that all the tribes within the sprachbund interbred with ALL the other tribes in the sprachbund. That means that the "minoans" maybe didnt get to interbreed directly with the ANE bearing R1a's or R1b's tribes, but still got to understand the common language of all the different tribes which had interacted with each other over long time.

I dont know about the minoans being non-IE.
But if someone could explain the arguments for me as to why they are not IE, i am of course willing to admit i am wrong.
After all, some good studies or arguments on the minoan language could have passed me by unnoticed.

There are many problems with what you're saying here. The first one is that you're talking about an "early IE sprachbund", the problem here is that the pattern we see during the early IE dispersals is one of divergence, not one of convergence (that happened only after the dissolution of the Late PIE dialect continuum). Also, steppe admixture closely tracks the aforementioned dispersals, so while steppe admixture is not an absolute necessity to speak an IE language, it stands to reason that the more we go back in time the more closely intertwined IE-speaking groups and steppe ancestry are (especially considering the nature of PIE society). This is even clearer when we're dealing with prehistorical migrations.

The Minoans are actually a very good example of that. As Awale already told you, Mycenaean Greek was written down in a syllabic script called Linear B, this script is quite obviously derived from Linear A (the Minoan palatial civilisation's script). The peculiar thing about this script is that it is ill-suited to Greek phonology, and to IE phonology in general (I went into some detail about this here (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11538-Genetic-origins-of-the-Minoans-and-Mycenaeans&p=268840&viewfull=1#post268840)). This is similar to what we see with the cuneiform script, ill-suited to Akkadian phonology because it was initially designed to transcribe Sumerian. It's a bit as if you tried writing English using the Katakana syllabary or the Ethiopic abugida (though the comparison is far from perfect). Furthermore, we know of other languages in the Aegean that weren't IE, such as Lemnian or Eteocretan (in Crete), languages that were spoken until the end of the 1st millennium BCE (this means that pockets of non-IE speakers still existed in the Aegean during Classical Antiquity) the pervasive non-IE substratum in Greek also strongly suggests that non-IE languages were spoken in Greece, the relationship between these languages and the language of the as yet undeciphered Linear A is unclear (IMO we are probably dealing with at least two different language families, neither of which is IE). So it's quite clear that the Minoans did not speak an IE language. The main difference between them and the IE-speaking Mycenaeans is the presence of Europe_LNBA/Steppe_MLBA admixture in the latter, this is very significant.

Finally, regarding J2 and IE languages, it's important to keep in mind that J2 is around 30,000 years old, so we need to be more precise when it comes to associating this haplogroup with the break up and spread of a language family that roughly dates back to the Chalcolithic period. Most branches of J2a for instance don't seem to have much to do with early IE dispersals, two of the Minoan samples we have were J2a-M319 for example (which admittedly makes this branch of J2a a very poor candidate for the dissemination of early IE speech). J2b1 seems to be involved in the spread of early Semitic speakers. J2b2-L283 on the other hand might well have participated in early IE dispersals, as it was found in a Bronze Age samples from Croatia that had quite a bit of steppe admixture, this lineage's TMRCA is also congruent with the break up of Common IE. Since J2b was found in one of the Iran_N samples, an arrival on the steppe with agriculturalists from the Iranian plateau is possible (probably in an anticlockwise migration around the Caspian sea), alternatively it might have arrived with CHG migrants (while that admixture event is likely to have involved sexual bias, that is to say EHG males and CHG females, some CHG males probably did make their way to the Pontic-Caspian steppe).

Gravetto-Danubian
02-14-2018, 02:58 AM
If PIE is Linked to EHG, then we can only wonder why they patiently waited for 7000 years before beginning to expand, coincidental with the arrival of new groups onto the steppe from the southwest and southeast carrying novel cultural packages spreading via the steppe, and beyond
Not saying it’s impossible, but the timing of events stands out

J Man
02-14-2018, 03:06 AM
Nah, this is false, no proof that CHG in Yamnaya is from "mostly females". To early to say. R1a could have come from further southeast originally.

You say that it is false and then you say that it is to early to say? Time and more testing will likely prove what I already said is right.

ernekar
02-14-2018, 07:49 AM
There are many problems with what you're saying here. The first one is that you're talking about an "early IE sprachbund", the problem here is that the pattern we see during the early IE dispersals is one of divergence, not one of convergence (that happened only after the dissolution of the Late PIE dialect continuum). Also, steppe admixture closely tracks the aforementioned dispersals, so while steppe admixture is not an absolute necessity to speak an IE language, it stands to reason that the more we go back in time the more closely intertwined IE-speaking groups and steppe ancestry are (especially considering the nature of PIE society). This is even clearer when we're dealing with prehistorical migrations.

The Minoans are actually a very good example of that. As Awale already told you, Mycenaean Greek was written down in a syllabic script called Linear B, this script is quite obviously derived from Linear A (the Minoan palatial civilisation's script). The peculiar thing about this script is that it is ill-suited to Greek phonology, and to IE phonology in general (I went into some detail about this here (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11538-Genetic-origins-of-the-Minoans-and-Mycenaeans&p=268840&viewfull=1#post268840)). This is similar to what we see with the cuneiform script, ill-suited to Akkadian phonology because it was initially designed to transcribe Sumerian. It's a bit as if you tried writing English using the Katakana syllabary or the Ethiopic abugida (though the comparison is far from perfect). Furthermore, we know of other languages in the Aegean that weren't IE, such as Lemnian or Eteocretan (in Crete), languages that were spoken until the end of the 1st millennium BCE (this means that pockets of non-IE speakers still existed in the Aegean during Classical Antiquity) the pervasive non-IE substratum in Greek also strongly suggests that non-IE languages were spoken in Greece, the relationship between these languages and the language of the as yet undeciphered Linear A is unclear (IMO we are probably dealing with at least two different language families, neither of which is IE). So it's quite clear that the Minoans did not speak an IE language. The main difference between them and the IE-speaking Mycenaeans is the presence of Europe_LNBA/Steppe_MLBA admixture in the latter, this is very significant.

Finally, regarding J2 and IE languages, it's important to keep in mind that J2 is around 30,000 years old, so we need to be more precise when it comes to associating this haplogroup with the break up and spread of a language family that roughly dates back to the Chalcolithic period. Most branches of J2a for instance don't seem to have much to do with early IE dispersals, two of the Minoan samples we have were J2a-M319 for example (which admittedly makes this branch of J2a a very poor candidate for the dissemination of early IE speech). J2b1 seems to be involved in the spread of early Semitic speakers. J2b2-L283 on the other hand might well have participated in early IE dispersals, as it was found in a Bronze Age samples from Croatia that had quite a bit of steppe admixture, this lineage's TMRCA is also congruent with the break up of Common IE. Since J2b was found in one of the Iran_N samples, an arrival on the steppe with agriculturalists from the Iranian plateau is possible (probably in an anticlockwise migration around the Caspian sea), alternatively it might have arrived with CHG migrants (while that admixture event is likely to have involved sexual bias, that is to say EHG males and CHG females, some CHG males probably did make their way to the Pontic-Caspian steppe).

About the minoans. I am not going to claim anything further about them. As i really dont know if they were IE or not(im something like 50/50 on the minoan matter). So maybe i was to quick to include them in the beginning of the thread.

But lets forget the minoans for now, as they are not important for my hypothesis. And instead focus on how come J2b-L283 is present i virtually all IE speakers of Europe, while being too young for a neolithic expansion.

When i speak of the early IE sprachbund, then i am not speaking of the early dispersals. I am talking about the period when the early dialects developed.
I think the major difference in the way you and i think, is that you think there was only one original IE language, which later seperated into dialects.
I dont see it like that. I think there was convergence in the beginning(between EHG and CHG). Then, when several dialects were finally established in the steppe as a mix of EHG and CHG languages, divergence finally started happening after that, and IE spread far and wide.
But during that initial convergence period, J2b-L283 seems to have penetrated all the tribes which would later form the western branches of IE languages while they were still in their steppe homeland.

Power77
02-14-2018, 11:40 AM
For example, we find J2b-L283 from Oslo to Madrid, and from Moscow to Athens. Practically everywhere in Europe where IE is spoken.

I doubt that J2b2 has (or rather had) anything to do with Slavic and Germanic.

ernekar
02-14-2018, 12:54 PM
I doubt that J2b2 has (or rather had) anything to do with Slavic and Germanic.
Neither farmers nor romans reached those places. When do you propose it reached those places then?
Keep in mind that TMRC is a couple thousands years, so its not a recent expansion. Yet its not older than Cooper/bronze age either.

The IE languages which left the steppe probably already were divided into dialects when they entered Europe. And it seems J2b-L283 were present in all westwards-migrating groups. Or at least the ones that ended up in central europe and the balkans.
Of course the Nordic neolithics would affect how germanic would turn out later too.
But that does not mean L283 didnt influence the branch early on in the steppe.

We even see similarities in germanic and albanian language, which we do not see in other IE branches:
Like this suffix:
German: lang-sam
Danish: lang-som
Albanian: ngadal-shėm
English: slow

Yet R1a, which is a major contributor to germanic languages, is basically absent in Albanians.
J2b-L283 or z2103 would be much better candidates for similarities like this.

Baltic and slavic on the other hand, have less chance to have been influenced directly by J2b-l283.
But then again, they werent on germanic and Balkan lands during the bronze age, where steppe lineages were expanding in different directions, and therefore had a higher chance of surviving somewhere in europe. While the j2b-l283 of balts and slavs had plenty of time to get diluted in the r1a Rich eastern europe, or experience bottlenecks which got rid of their j2b-l283, before they finally expanded later on with only a few lineages lineages remaining.

Agamemnon
02-14-2018, 02:13 PM
About the minoans. I am not going to claim anything further about them. As i really dont know if they were IE or not(im something like 50/50 on the minoan matter). So maybe i was to quick to include them in the beginning of the thread.

But lets forget the minoans for now, as they are not important for my hypothesis. And instead focus on how come J2b-L283 is present i virtually all IE speakers of Europe, while being too young for a neolithic expansion.

When i speak of the early IE sprachbund, then i am not speaking of the early dispersals. I am talking about the period when the early dialects developed. I think the major difference in the way you and i think, is that you think there was only one original IE language, which later seperated into dialects. I dont see it like that. I think there was convergence in the beginning(between EHG and CHG). Then, when several dialects were finally established in the steppe as a mix of EHG and CHG languages, divergence finally started happening after that, and IE spread far and wide. But during that initial convergence period, J2b-L283 seems to have penetrated all the tribes which would later form the western branches of IE languages while they were still in their steppe homeland.

The fact that the Minoans did not speak an IE language isn't up for debate really. At the very least, all the evidence we have strongly suggests that they were not IE-speaking. They are useful in the sense that they provide a good example of how closely IE speech and steppe admixture are intertwined.

I have very little doubt that J2b2-L283 was present among the Proto-Indo-Europeans, outside the Balkans however it obviously did not experience the same major founder effects that characterise lineages such as R1b or R1a. So from a more general viewpoint, its expansion seems to be rather restricted so well that it could be described as a minor IE lineage.

That being said you're quite wrong in asserting that the PIE language is some sort of mixed language that perfectly mirrors the genetic makeup of the PIE speech community. While we can be sure that PIE quickly gave rise to a dialect continuum, we can also be sure that it wasn't a creole. Even though there might have been some influence from the (presumably North Caucasian-like) languages spoken by the CHG ancestors of PIEs, at best this would be similar to Bomhard's theory that PIE was "the result of the imposition of a Eurasiatic language [...] on a population speaking one or more primordial Northwest Caucasian languages", which in my opinion remains unproven (the fact that his theory relies heavily on Nostratic literature is very problematic). The most likely genetic relationship as far as PIE is of concern is with Proto-Uralic, and so if we're going to picture the genesis of PIE we cannot do so without taking the Indo-Uralic links into consideration (regardless of whether they are the result of a genetic relationship or induced by prolonged prehistorical contact). So the theory according to which PIE is the result of convergence between an EHG language and a CHG language is too simplistic, it overlooks the fact that linguistic and genetic phylogenies do not work in the same way.

ernekar
02-14-2018, 02:44 PM
@agamemnon,

The good thing about this hypothesis is, that i stay on the safe side. With that i mean, that i dont mention the language trees of those people who merged into early IE(CHG & EHG people).
Simply because we do not know which language trees existed back then. A lot of them are probably extinct today.

But early IE people were mixed. Something like 50/50 EHG/CHG.
Then why do you believe their language to be purely EHG derived?

And if i am understanding the essence of what you are saying correctly, aren't you saying that early IE were just branches on some sort of indo-uralic language tree?(or at least thats your suspicion?)
And that there was limited input from the CHG languages?
Why do you expect that?

We should also have in mind that EHG and CHG had been isolated from each other during most of the ice age. So they definitively spoke different languages until they met.

My point is that the both(or more) of those languages formed early IE.
CHG were not mute people, and there were no centralized powers in the mesolithic/neolithic to force a shared language upon huge areas such as eastern europe and the steppe. So it would be rather random who influenced who when. Things happened at a more local plan. Like settlements influencing their surroundings differently in different places. Especially before horseriding began in the steppe(which was rather late, and by then CHG and EHG would already have been well mixed)

RCO
02-14-2018, 03:53 PM
The problem with the association between language and haplogroups is that we don't know when the language was invented, how they changed, how new speakers were brought to the language and how the haplogroups invaded new distant lands with the language. I can easily say that my own J1-FGC6064 has always been related to Indo-european languages since the beginning, what is a hypothesis as good as any other and also not possible to be falsified or entirely proved just like any other hypotheses.

ernekar
02-14-2018, 04:15 PM
The problem with the association between language and haplogroups is that we don't know when the language was invented, how they changed, how new speakers were brought to the language and how the haplogroups invaded new distant lands with the language. I can easily say that my own J1-FGC6064 has always been related to Indo-european languages since the beginning, what is a hypothesis as good as any other and also not possible to be falsified or entirely proved just like any other hypotheses.

I know. But i am not saying any Y-haplogroup alone was responsible.
I am pointing out that J2b-L283 was probably in or near the IE homeland. And that it(together with CHG mt-haplogroups and CHG ancenstry of course) helped shape some of the early IE dialects.
And yes, soon well be able to prove if they were there or not, if the haplogroups show up in ancient DNA in the places we think of as the cradle of IE.

Of course, we can never prove who, of the R1a men, R1b men, J2b men, G2a men, etc. shaped the language the most.
But in my opinion everyone who was there in large enough numbers, would have a say in how the new languages would take shape.
And as far as we can see, CHG had a HUGE genetic impact on the steppe cultures, so CHG's must have been in relatively big numbers.
So if we were to find J2b-L283 in steppe ancient DNA, and one still tries to rule out that J2b-L283 and the corresponding CHG mtDNA lines did help shape IE languages, it would be plain blind.

ADW_1981
02-14-2018, 04:43 PM
There seems to be a Bronze age spread of Iran_N ancestry into the Balkans from the east, based on other data, from the direction of Anatolia, and also linked with J2. It's more convincing to try to link PIE or IE with these groups than the Copper or Bronze Age steppes.

In terms of your Illyrian ancestors, a southern, pre-Slavic Croatian homeland seems likely. A mix between J2b2, E-V13, and R1b seems like the strongest candidates. They are recorded very late in history and to determine who actually brought the language is an entirely different matter.

ernekar
02-14-2018, 05:27 PM
There seems to be a Bronze age spread of Iran_N ancestry into the Balkans from the east, based on other data, from the direction of Anatolia, and also linked with J2. It's more convincing to try to link PIE or IE with these groups than the Copper or Bronze Age steppes.

In terms of your Illyrian ancestors, a southern, pre-Slavic Croatian homeland seems likely. A mix between J2b2, E-V13, and R1b seems like the strongest candidates. They are recorded very late in history and to determine who actually brought the language is an entirely different matter.
Yes i also think those three haplogroups were present. Maybe also some G2, but they could have gotten diluted at some point.

CHG/IranChl-like seems like it came from both along the northern, and the sourthern coasts of the black sea in multiple separate waves.
The CHG found in the minoans(J2a) probably came with the anatolian southern wave, while CHG found in the croatian bronze age sample(J2b) probably came with the northern steppe wave. Looking at the ancient DNA, the southern wave looks the earliest.

And yes you are right, it is hard to know which Y-dna were in the IE-bringing populations. It depends on which group we see as the bringers of IE.
If the EEF brought IE, then y-dna-wise, it would probably be something like E-V13, G2a etc. who could be some of the bringers.
If the anatolian southern wave of CHG brought IE, then y-dna-wise, J2a could be some of the bringers.
If the steppe northern wave of EHG/CHG brought IE, then y-dna-wise, J-L283, R-Z2103 and some R1a clade could be some of the bringers.
Of course mtDNA must also have played a big role. We must not forget that children probably learned mostly from their mothers, while fathers were out to battle or work.

And regardless of what one chooses as the theory to believe in(as to who initially brought IE), all of the waves probably had a say in the final genesis of the languages around the balkans. Same thing probably also goes for the rest of IE languages, both neolithics and steppe folk would get some of their glossary and phonology crystalized in the new dialects, regardless of who brought IE.

J Man
02-15-2018, 04:51 AM
There seems to be a Bronze age spread of Iran_N ancestry into the Balkans from the east, based on other data, from the direction of Anatolia, and also linked with J2. It's more convincing to try to link PIE or IE with these groups than the Copper or Bronze Age steppes.

In terms of your Illyrian ancestors, a southern, pre-Slavic Croatian homeland seems likely. A mix between J2b2, E-V13, and R1b seems like the strongest candidates. They are recorded very late in history and to determine who actually brought the language is an entirely different matter.

Yes I am quite confident that if ancient Illyrian remains from the Balkans are ever tested E-V13, J2b2 and R1b will very likely all show up.

Kale
02-15-2018, 05:52 AM
Nah, this is false, no proof that CHG in Yamnaya is from "mostly females". To early to say. R1a could have come from further southeast originally.

I must concur to some degree. I don't think there is anything exempting the R1a+R1b that dominated Eastern Europe in the mesolithic + neolithic from leaking into the Caucasus and then rebounding from there in the formation of Yamnaya-like groups. Is it the most likely scenario, probably not, but until we get some more samples from early Caucasus I don't think there is anything ruling it out.

Gravetto-Danubian
02-15-2018, 06:16 AM
I must concur to some degree. I don't think there is anything exempting the R1a+R1b that dominated Eastern Europe in the mesolithic + neolithic from leaking into the Caucasus and then rebounding from there in the formation of Yamnaya-like groups. Is it the most likely scenario, probably not, but until we get some more samples from early Caucasus I don't think there is anything ruling it out.

There is an analogy to draw on -from further west. All British Neolithics have so far been I2
Does that mean that EEF was Brought in only by females or that agriculture developed in Western Europe ? Of course not.

Generalissimo
02-15-2018, 10:17 AM
Nah, this is false, no proof that CHG in Yamnaya is from "mostly females". To early to say. R1a could have come from further southeast originally.

Weak and desperate argument, considering that ancient R1a shows a very strong correlation with Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer (EHG) ancestry, while early Near Eastern admixture on the steppe is correlated with Caucasus/Near Eastern mtDNA lineages.

Ukraine_Eneolithic I6561 Y-DNA R1a mtDNA H2a1a
Ukraine_Eneolithic I4110 Y-DNA - mtDNA J2b1

Samara_Eneolithic I0122 Y-DNA R1b mtDNA H2a1

So there's the Near Eastern mtDNA. How'd it get to the steppe if not with females? The R1a and R1b were already there...

Ukraine_Mesolithic I1819 (>10,000 years BP) Y-DNA R1a mtDNA U5b2

Where's the Near Eastern admixture in this one? There is none.

Ral
02-15-2018, 05:31 PM
The steppe hypothesis has one big drawback : the weakness of linguistic arguments. But IE is primarily a linguistic community, not a genetic . What do we have according to the Steppe hypothesis? A part of recent Indo-Europeans have a notable share of the genetic influence of the Steppe. That's all.
For example, some linguistic arguments, such as "early IE had a plow farming", kills the Steppe hypothesis on the spot, since,probably, the main part of the steppe did not know the plowed land until Late Bronze/ Iron Age. Andronovans did not practice plow farming too. But the Rigveda describes bulls harnessed to a plow.

ernekar
02-15-2018, 06:52 PM
The steppe hypothesis has one big drawback : the weakness of linguistic arguments. But IE is primarily a linguistic community, not a genetic . What do we have according to the Steppe hypothesis? A part of recent Indo-Europeans have a notable share of the genetic influence of the Steppe. That's all.
For example, some linguistic arguments, such as "early IE had a plow farming", kills the Steppe hypothesis on the spot, since,probably, the main part of the steppe did not know the plowed land until the Iron Age. Andronovans did not practice plow farming too. But the Rigveda describes bulls harnessed to a plow.

Interesting. I had not noticed this lack of plows in the steppe.
Can you remember if there are plows in the archeological record in any of the southern steppe or caucasus material cultures? (catacomb, yamnaya, maykop, shulaveri-shomu, kura-araxes etc.)

I have read some articles and books on the archaeology of southern caucasus, eastern anatolia and the southern caspian, but i cannot remember who had plows, and who did not have them. It would be interesting to examine the matter further.

Ral
02-15-2018, 07:42 PM
Interesting. I had not heard of this plow thing.
Can you remember if there are plows in the archeological record in any of the southern steppe or caucasus material cultures? (catacomb, yamnaya, maykop, shulaveri-shomu, kura-araxes etc.)
There are contradictory data about Yamnaya. Probably West Yamnaya had plow farming.Maykop, as i know, had no it. Srubnaya had it. Probably the plow spreads widely in the steppe with the Srubnaya culture. Plow came to the Steppe from the West.

Agamemnon
02-15-2018, 09:53 PM
The steppe hypothesis has one big drawback : the weakness of linguistic arguments.

Nonsense, the Pontic-Caspian steppe homeland has achieved consensus among linguists precisely because the linguistic evidence so strongly supports it. The genetic data is merely vindicating this long-standing consensus.

Skerdilaidas
02-15-2018, 11:35 PM
(Albanians might be a fusion of provincials of Epirus Vetus and those evacuated from Dacia Ripensis, Dardania etc in the 600s; as well exotics from the Avar empire who were possibly military elites
This fusion is manifest as the Konami Kruje culture. These were inland oriented people , protecting forts and the Via Egnatia, and they were supplied directly by the Byzantine state maritime apparatus))

Damn, you can’t even spell properly the culture you’re so knowledgeable about. Exotics, Avars, really? Who might they be genetically speaking?

Gravetto-Danubian
02-16-2018, 12:12 AM
Damn, you can’t even spell proprerly the culture you’re so knowledgeable about. Exotics, Avars? Really, who might they be genetically speaking?



Haha what a tangential short-fusion over a phone auto-correct typo of someon e showing good faith interest in your people.
I guess the evidence doesn’t suit your romantic essentialist mythology ?

Here’s good recent paper on it

“The undeniable northern elite incidence is manifested by strong connections with Carpathian and north Balkans areas, as well as byzantine Greek lands.”
-Early Medieval North Albania: New Discoveries, Remodeling Connections: The Case of Medieval Komani

I’m not sure who they were, but perhaps some belong to the northern haplogroups you hide from your ftdna project.

Skerdilaidas
02-16-2018, 12:19 AM
J2b2a frequency among modern Albanians doesn't tell us anything about what language spoke some J2b2a individual ~3600 years ago. High frequency of J2b2a (and E-V13 & R1b) among modern Albanians is the result of founder effect(s) in the last ~1000 years, it is obvious from looking at haplotype variance (very low). But I generally agree J2b2a could've been present among early IE speakers. It is hard to believe that CHG part of steppe admixture was female-mediated only, and IMO J2b2a looks like a strongest candidate for a male counterpart.
True, regarding the language but you’re way off as far as L283 diversity goes. Branches like Z1297, Z1296 and Z1295 diversified during Bronze age/Early Iron Age, all three branches and their subclades to be found among Albanians. Only in a small and isolated region such as north Albania to boot, so certainly not a coincidence and shouldn’t be overlooked just because few subclades downstream expanded much later. So all in all, a hell lot more divers just in Malesia region than CTS10228 is among all Slavs. Make of that what you will ;)

Skerdilaidas
02-16-2018, 12:21 AM
Haha what a tangential short-fusion over a phone auto-correct typo.
I guess the evidence doesn’t suit your romantic essentialist mythology

Here’s good recent paper on it

“The undeniable northern elite incidence is manifested by strong connections with Carpathian and north Balkans areas, as well as byzantine Greek lands.”
-Early Medieval North Albania: New Discoveries, Remodeling Connections: The Case of Medieval Komani

I’m not sure who they were, but perhaps belong to the northern haplogroups you hide from your ftdna project.
Now maybe you go take your nap cupcake

Hide from our project? Take a nap bro, really.

J Man
02-16-2018, 12:35 AM
Its most likely false. Im almost certain you will be proven wrong.

We shall see.

Gravetto-Danubian
02-16-2018, 12:44 AM
Hide from our project? Take a nap bro, really.

Ok cuz I’ll take a hectic nap.
And do check out that article

Skerdilaidas
02-16-2018, 01:17 AM
Ok cuz I’ll take a hectic nap.
And do check out that article

Good! Read all their is to read about it, nothing exiting there and most importantly no genetic evidence to back it up. But of course, that's because we're hiding it. If any one is to speak of Huns and Avars and their influence, south slavs should be the last considering they were to a large extent for a period their slaves. Anywho, off to your nap :P

Trojet
02-16-2018, 01:31 AM
True, regarding the language but you’re way off as far as L283 diversity goes. Branches like Z1297, Z1296 and Z1295 diversified during Bronze/Early Iron Age, all three branches and their subclades to be found among Albanians. Only in a small and isolated region such as north Albanian to boot, so certainly not a coincidence and shouldn’t be dismissed just because few subclades downstream had a later expansion. So all in all, a hell lot more divers just in Malesia region than CTS10228 is among all Slavs. Make of it what you wish ;)

Give him a break bro. The guy said he was looking at (low-res) haploypes from scientific papers. You know these guys are pretty good at cherry-picking analysis, just to suit their theories, haha.


I'm aware of that, but I spoke primarily about anonymous haplotypes from scientific papers.

Skerdilaidas
02-16-2018, 01:58 AM
Give him a break bro. The guy said he was looking at (low-res) haploypes from scientific papers. You know these guys are pretty good at cherry-picking analysis, just to suit their theories, haha.

Cherry-picking and half baked theories seems like all they are good at currently, these lovely neighbors of ours. And even accusing us of 'hiding' evidence when all is public, even scientific studies which we have no control over, when it doesn't go their way. Very interesting to say the least.

bmoney
02-16-2018, 02:42 AM
Ok cuz I’ll take a hectic nap.
And do check out that article

Loll youre talking like me now

Pribislav
02-16-2018, 03:46 AM
Besides, I don't understand why we should assume that these "founders" could not have spoken a similar language to the Bronze Age Dalmatian J2b-L283, or some Illyrian culture. It seems after all the failures to tie us Albanians outside the Balkans, you Poreklo guys have now settled that we could not have been anything else other than Thracians, lol.

Well, not that you would know, but there is a ton of material concerning relations of Albanian and Thracian. Some of the authors who were advocating this hypothesis: Carl Pauli (1891.), Wilhelm Tomaschek (1893.), Hermann Hirt (1898.), Max Vasmer (1921.), Gustaw Weigand (1927.), Julius Pokorny (1938.), Henrik Barić (1954.), Dimitar Dečev (1957.), Ivan Popović (1960.), Vladimir Georgiev (1960.), Gottfried Schramm (1994.) etc. But you can by all means keep telling yourself it's the work of some evil Poreklo guys. :doh:


Give him a break bro. The guy said he was looking at (low-res) haploypes from scientific papers. You know these guys are pretty good at cherry-picking analysis, just to suit their theories, haha.

Speaking of cherry-picking:


The lack of maritime terminology in Albanian doesn't not rule out that Albanian cannot be descendant of Illyrian. That vocabulary could've easily been lost, as this population fled to the mountains. Or the Illyrians who lived further inland did not have much of that terminology.

...Or maybe Albanian is not Illyrian? How come that thought never crossed your mind? Anyhow, I guess I'll let you and your compatriots keep assuming some BA individual spoke Albanian ~3600 years ago, good luck with anyone else believing in that fairytale. :lol:

ernekar
02-16-2018, 05:07 AM
"The ancient writers often mention the Illyrians as a great nation occupying the West Balkan highlands and parts of the Danube valley. The modern Albanians are the sole survivors of this linguistic stock. The greater part of the Illyrian territory was occupied until the Roman conquest by tumulus builders directly descended from the Late Bronze Age group who had settled at Glasinac in Bosnia. A group of tumuli in Southern Italy can equally be identified safely with the Illyrian Iapyges"
- Gordon Childe

vettor
02-16-2018, 05:32 AM
"The ancient writers often mention the Illyrians as a great nation occupying the West Balkan highlands and parts of the Danube valley. The modern Albanians are the sole survivors of this linguistic stock. The greater part of the Illyrian territory was occupied until the Roman conquest by tumulus builders directly descended from the Late Bronze Age group who had settled at Glasinac in Bosnia. A group of tumuli in Southern Italy can equally be identified safely with the Illyrian Iapyges"
- Gordon Childe

I made a map of illyrians based on Roman writers Strabo and Levy ...........see below
They firstly occupied the eastern alps and that is why they are part of halstatt culture mix with the celts in Austria
- I plotted the tribal names based on Strabo and levy ...........the Nori seem to be the biggest tribe , being called Norici once they became celtinized .........the territory of Noricum is named after them.

https://s20.postimg.org/3pcoqouf1/illy_nori.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

One needs to consider where the Dorians lived in the bronze-age prior to their invasion of Greece............IMO, they where in modern Albania, Kosovo and Montenegro

Pribislav
02-16-2018, 05:34 AM
Can you actually prove it that it’s not Illyrian? Obviously you can’t, and neither can your papers you cited recycled from the past centuries - they simply argue back and forth on limited resources.

What is it to you anyway if it’s Illyrian or not? You don’t speak or understand it and actually have nothing to do with it or the ancients from these regions. Yet you come here argue against it because you read few flimsily articles online and pretend to be the expert...The indoctrination is hard to beat I guess - you’re hardwired to oppose it no matter what. So I guess I can understand your drive it to an extent from that prospective.

Anyway, there many cultural aspects and even linguistics to an extent that place or tie us to the western Balkans. Now genetics are placing the last nail on the coffin.

You got it wrong bud, that's not how the science works. You are the ones who should prove that it is Illyrian, not the other way around. And you obviously can't, so you think that by repeating it million times, and suppressing any different opinion, it will somehow become true.

ernekar
02-16-2018, 05:50 AM
I made a map of illyrians based on Roman writers Strabo and Levy ...........see below
They firstly occupied the eastern alps and that is why they are part of halstatt culture mix with the celts in Austria
- I plotted the tribal names based on Strabo and levy ...........the Nori seem to be the biggest tribe , being called Norici once they became celtinized .........the territory of Noricum is named after them.

One needs to consider where the Dorians lived in the bronze-age prior to their invasion of Greece............IMO, they where in modern Albania, Kosovo and Montenegro
During strabo and levys time, dorians had moved south centuries ago. Probably pushed southwards by Illyrians or someone else. So by that time, Illyrians had already inhabited Kosova, Albania and montenegro at least since the greek dark ages, probably even earlier.

Pribislav
02-16-2018, 06:13 AM
I don't have to prove anything to anyone and especially you for that matter; we inhabit their territories, practice their culture, descend to a large extent from them genetically and lastly speak a variation of their language. If you come against it, it's you who has to prove the contrary; that our language doesn't derive from Illyrian, that we migrate to this territory from other regions, and that we don't descent from them genetically. And actually provide concrete evidence so I can even begin to take you seriously.

And what culture would that be? :lol: You are right about inhabiting part of their former territories though. So will you please state your evidence that Albanian is a variation of Illyrian language? Or should we all take your word for it? ;)

Skerdilaidas
02-16-2018, 06:21 AM
And what culture would that be? :lol: You are right about inhabiting part of their former territories though. So will you please state your evidence that Albanian is a variation of Illyrian language? Or should we all take your word for it? ;)

What do you know about our culture and the culture of the ancient balkans? Study it before you waste my time and get off topic here. Let me re-word it for you; Albanians are fully within their territory.

vettor
02-16-2018, 06:21 AM
During strabo and levys time, dorians had moved south centuries ago. Probably pushed southwards by Illyrians or someone else. So by that time, Illyrians had already inhabited Kosova, Albania and montenegro at least since the greek dark ages, probably even earlier.

Strabo and levy descriptions are taken and used in my map from late bronze-age and early iron age ............and not when the celts started adsorbing and pushing the illyrians south into the balkans......plus the illyrians where already fully celtinized by 200BC

ernekar
02-16-2018, 06:31 AM
Strabo and levy descriptions are taken and used in my map from late bronze-age and early iron age ............and not when the celts started adsorbing and pushing the illyrians south into the balkans......plus the illyrians where already fully celtinized by 200BC

You clearly haven't read much, if anything, about the Illyrians.

Where did you get the information? eupedia?

Pribislav
02-16-2018, 06:51 AM
What do you know about our culture of the culture of the ancient balkans? Study it before you waste my time and get off topic here. Let me re-word it for you; Albanians are fully within their territory.

So no evidence whatsoever about Albanian being a variation of Illyrian? That is sad indeed. I won't waste your time anymore, so you can go back to your delusions of being 100% Illyrian.

Skerdilaidas
02-16-2018, 06:58 AM
So no evidence whatsoever about Albanian being a variation of Illyrian? That is sad indeed. I won't waste your time anymore, so you can go back to your delusions of being 100% Illyrian.

What evidence do you want, send you a video of me speaking it? I can do that, if that's what you wish. Sad is your ass busting our balls here with nonsense.

Pribislav
02-16-2018, 07:11 AM
What evidence do you want, send you a video of me speaking it? I can do that, if that's what you wish. Sad is your ass busting our balls here with nonsense.

Well the video would be nice, but you would surely understand my suspicion of you speaking a language that has been dead for almost 2000 years.

Ral
02-16-2018, 09:24 AM
Nonsense, the Pontic-Caspian steppe homeland has achieved consensus among linguists precisely because the linguistic evidence so strongly supports it. The genetic data is merely vindicating this long-standing consensus.
As i know, Gimbutas did not pay much attention to linguistics, was focusing on archeology.
Genetics confirmed the movement from the steppe. There was almost no linguistics.
linguistic interpretations of this theory appeared later. I'm not much mistaken in the chronology?

Trojet
02-16-2018, 12:39 PM
Speaking of cherry-picking:

That was a response to your desperate suggestion that the lack of maritime terminology would somehow automatically disqualify Albanian as having anything to do with Illyrian, which I disproved in a single sentence


...Or maybe Albanian is not Illyrian? How come that thought never crossed your mind? Anyhow, I guess I'll let you and your compatriots keep assuming some BA individual spoke Albanian ~3600 years ago, good luck with anyone else believing in that fairytale. :lol:

Did I ever say anything like that? Simply, the Bronze Age Dalmatian J2b-L283 further strengthens the Illyrian hypothesis. As we know this is one of the major Y-DNA haplogroups found among Albanians. We have a J2b-L283 in Bronze Age Dalmatia, right in the heartland of Illyrian territory, and a R1b-Z2103 in Bronze Age Vucedol, yet you keep fantasizing about R1b-U152 :lol:

You are proving true to what I said earlier, that in your mind Albanians could not be anything else other than Thracians, so no need to waste my time with you anymore. It's clear you're on the losing side. Users Principe, ADW_1981, J Man, are echoing the same thing I'm saying.

Skerdilaidas
02-16-2018, 01:41 PM
Well the video would be nice, but you would surely understand my suspicion of you speaking a language that has been dead for almost 2000 years.

Dead for almost 2000 years, pretty specific...Babaroga whispered that into your ear?

Johane Derite
02-16-2018, 01:43 PM
That was a response to your desperate suggestion that the lack of maritime terminology would somehow automatically disqualify Albanian as having anything to do with Illyrian, which I disproved in a single sentence



Did I ever say anything like that? Simply, the Bronze Age Dalmatian J2b-L283 further strengthens the Illyrian hypothesis. As we know this is one of the major Y-DNA haplogroups found among Albanians. We have a J2b-L283 in Bronze Age Dalmatia, right in the heartland of Illyrian territory, and a R1b-Z2103 in Bronze Age Vucedol, yet you keep fantasizing about R1b-U152 :lol:

You are proving true to what I said earlier, that in your mind Albanians could not be anything else other than Thracians, so no need to waste my time with you anymore. It's clear you're on the losing side. Users Principe, ADW_1981, J Man, are echoing the same thing I'm saying.

Let it also be known that there is no "universal consensus" among linguists that albanian has no maritime terminology. This is commonly espoused and spread (hamp, orel) but that means nothing in the case of Albanians considering just how NON-credible ethnography and other research about us in the last hundred years has been. Also, linguists like Cabej countered this claim and produced many Albanian maritime words.

The well of Balkan studies has been poisoned by disinformation of the neighbouring regimes. Atanasje Urosevic is one of serbias most esteemed "scientists" and he taught that Albanians were arabs. Lets not even get jnto the more popular serbian regime pushed theory about Albanians being 15th century caucaus immigrants.

The incessant barrage of non facts and hearsay that serbian nationalists propagate on these forums is truly beyond pathological, it is perverse. Until very recently they have hyper aggressively propagated Albanian non-indigeneity to the region. Now that autosomal dna plots them next to tuscans and greeks, and Ydna plots them in Croatia since at least 7500 (E618) and 3000(l283) they have abandoned this effort quietly and moved on to maximum efforts at damage control.

There has been no public concession from any of these "scientists" or serbian "academics" about how gravely wrong their instituions and themselves have been over and over again. No, they just quietly move on to the next most politically pragmatic theory that suits them.

Othet european members should take note that we know have documented an at least hundred year time frame of serbian academics lying and misinforming western european academia. They should reflect about what this means in the context of a pursuit of universal and objective historical record.

Principe
02-16-2018, 02:49 PM
That was a response to your desperate suggestion that the lack of maritime terminology would somehow automatically disqualify Albanian as having anything to do with Illyrian, which I disproved in a single sentence



Did I ever say anything like that? Simply, the Bronze Age Dalmatian J2b-L283 further strengthens the Illyrian hypothesis. As we know this is one of the major Y-DNA haplogroups found among Albanians. We have a J2b-L283 in Bronze Age Dalmatia, right in the heartland of Illyrian territory, and a R1b-Z2103 in Bronze Age Vucedol, yet you keep fantasizing about R1b-U152 :lol:

You are proving true to what I said earlier, that in your mind Albanians could not be anything else other than Thracians, so no need to waste my time with you anymore. It's clear you're on the losing side. Users Principe, ADW_1981, J Man, are echoing the same thing I'm saying.

J2b-L283 and R1b-Z2103 being found in Bronze Age Illyrian territory definately furthers the Albanian-Illyrian hypothesis. In terms of I.E. markers found in Bronze Age Bulgaria would be R1a-Z93 and I2-L699. I’m not a linguist, though this would suggest the Thracian language was Indo-Iranian in origin probably being related to Srubna and Poltavka Cultures, though only 2 samples is not enough to conclude on this topic.

Skerdilaidas
02-16-2018, 04:14 PM
Let it also be known that there is no "universal consensus" among linguists that albanian has no maritime terminology. This is commonly espoused and spread (hamp, orel) but that means nothing in the case of Albanians considering just how NON-credible ethnography and other research about us in the last hundred years has been. Also, linguists like Cabej countered this claim and produced many Albanian maritime words.

The well of Balkan studies has been poisoned by disinformation of the neighbouring regimes. Atanasje Urosevic is one of serbias most esteemed "scientists" and he taught that Albanians were arabs. Lets not even get jnto the more popular serbian regime pushed theory about Albanians being 15th century caucaus immigrants.

The incessant barrage of non facts and hearsay that serbian nationalists propagate on these forums is truly beyond pathological, it is perverse. Until very recently they have hyper aggressively propagated Albanian non-indigeneity to the region. Now that autosomal dna plots them next to tuscans and greeks, and Ydna plots them in Croatia since at least 7500 (E618) and 3000(l283) they have abandoned this effort quietly and moved on to maximum efforts at damage control.

There has been no public concession from any of these "scientists" or serbian "academics" about how gravely wrong their instituions and themselves have been over and over again. No, they just quietly move on to the next most politically pragmatic theory that suits them.

Othet european members should take note that we know have documented an at least hundred year time frame of serbian academics lying and misinforming western european academia. They should reflect about what this means in the context of a pursuit of universal and objective historical record.

No shame and they lack capacity.


Northerners he says right of the bat, Slavs and Avars were the elites. Really? But so were the the marauding tribes that triggered and created these settlements to begin with, one might ask. Well, he must be right, I am sure the war hardened Illyrians of that region, who were reputed for their warlikle character throughout the Mediterranean during antiquity, organized in clans, and fuelled Roman legions were eager and supper excited to accept Avars ridding their ponies and Slavic plowmen from the pripet marshes as their commanding lords hohoho


(Trade, war bounty etc are out of the question)

Pribislav
02-16-2018, 04:55 PM
I’m not a linguist, though this would suggest the Thracian language was Indo-Iranian in origin probably being related to Srubna and Poltavka Cultures, though only 2 samples is not enough to conclude on this topic.

Well, for someone who's not a linguist, you sure have made pretty bold statement. But you couldn't possibly be more wrong. And by thanking you on your post, Trojet and bpr disqualified themselves from any serious discussion about comparative linguistics.

Johane Derite
02-16-2018, 05:24 PM
Well, for someone who's not a linguist, you sure have made pretty bold statement. But you couldn't possibly be more wrong. And by thanking you on your post, Trojet and bpr disqualified themselves from any serious discussion about comparative linguistics.

He explicitly said "though only 2 samples is not enough to conclude on this topic."

He explicitly states that he is open to the idea being wrong. You off the bat state that it is impossible.

Based on those samples that possibility arises and he says it. This is how things get moving in all fields of science.

Whereas your entire approach is based on dogmatic appeal to historically conditioned "facts" which are nothing but the folly of the times.

Ever heard of a paradigm shift in the theory of science? So much of what is considered science in a field like linguistics
doesn't even compare to more hard approaches like genetics. There are all types of evidence that emerge that give previous "evidence" entirely new connotations.

Thank god for Dna or else we would still be hearing you tell us about how impossible it is that albanians are indigenous based on folkloric costume, engravings on pots or "vocabulary".

vettor
02-16-2018, 05:38 PM
Its amazes me that people start their history wherever they feel like while ignoring what was already known.

Until someone acknowledges where and who the Dorians where in the balkans before their Greek invasion all other scenarios are fantasy to a degree.

IMO, the Dorians prior to the Greek invasion where a sub-branch of the populace Thracians, similar to Dacians being a sub-branch of Thracians. These Dorians occupied the western balkans between the greeks and the Illyrians ( in northern Croatia and the eastern alps ), their numbers ( Dorians ) would have had to be numerous to undertake a massive invasion of Greece + crete + rhodes etc. ...........note Crete , Rhodes and other islands indicate they had a fleet

When the Dorians have been cleared is when we get a clearer picture of the balkans

Greek historians have always said that the thracians where the most numerous in the balkans , being first recorded in 3200BC

ernekar
02-16-2018, 05:53 PM
@vettor,
So in your opinion all history is fantasy, until we know all details about all periods?
Or does this logic of yours only apply in an albanian context?

J Man
02-16-2018, 06:10 PM
Hopefully they test more or re-test the ancient Thracian samples. I remember people mentioning that the Thracian samples tested so far may be contaminated.

Dibran
02-16-2018, 06:16 PM
Hopefully they test more or re-test the ancient Thracian samples. I remember people mentioning that the Thracian samples tested so far may be contaminated.

I think thats autosomal contamination. Then again, Idk if it contaminated YDNA?

Kind of on topic but off topic. Are there any major periodical sites that publish new aDNA finds?

What are the main source sites/links for these scientific papers/research?

Trojet
02-16-2018, 06:25 PM
Hopefully they test more or re-test the ancient Thracian samples. I remember people mentioning that the Thracian samples tested so far may be contaminated.

As far as I remember, the ones who might have been contaminated are from a different study. I believe they found J2a and E-Z1919. Probably this study: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/09/19/135616

The ones that Principe mentioned (R1a-Z93, I2a2-L699) are from the more recent study: The Genomic History of Southeastern Europe. (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/09/19/135616)

J Man
02-16-2018, 06:30 PM
As far as I remember, the ones who might have been contaminated are from a different study. I believe they found J2a and E-Z1919. Probably this study: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/09/19/135616

The ones that Principe mentioned (R1a-Z93, I2-L688) are from the more recent study, The Genomic History of Southeastern Europe. (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/09/19/135616)

Yes I was thinking of the ones from the first study you linked above...The Y-DNA J2a and E-Z1919 ones. I didn't even know that they tested other Thracians like the ones you and Principe have now mentioned. Good to know thanks for that.

vettor
02-16-2018, 06:32 PM
Hopefully they test more or re-test the ancient Thracian samples. I remember people mentioning that the Thracian samples tested so far may be contaminated.

The mathieson paper of 2017 states 19 samples of which 10 are tested so far .........check malak site of the paper

J Man
02-16-2018, 06:33 PM
I think thats autosomal contamination. Then again, Idk if it contaminated YDNA?

Kind of on topic but off topic. Are there any major periodical sites that publish new aDNA finds?

What are the main source sites/links for these scientific papers/research?

Yeah hopefully they they get some un-contaminated DNA and re-test those samples some day.

vettor
02-16-2018, 07:05 PM
Yeah hopefully they they get some un-contaminated DNA and re-test those samples some day.

thracian site malak.............wallacian plain Bulgaria north

T2e T1a1a
T2e T1a1
J2b1 ..
U5a1c ..
J1c G2a2b2a
U5a2 C
H5b ..
T2b ..
J2b1 ..
H G2a2b2a

central bulgaria
.. I2a2
.. I
T2b ..
K1a4b C
K1a2 ..
H4a1 G2a2a1a2
U5b2a1a ..
H H2
H G2a2b2b1a
H ..
N1b2 G2a2b2a1a1c1a

other Thracian site
.. CT
.. R1
.. G2a2b2b
.. G2
.. ..
H G2a2a1a2a
T1a I2a2

All neolithic to bronze-age

............................
if I include only croatia neolitic
U8b1b1 C
T2e R1b1a1a2a2
U5b2b I
N1a1 ..
H5a ..
H7c G2a2a1
U5a1a2 G2a2a1
H10 J2a1
J1c2 ..
U5b2b ..
T2c2 G2a2a1a2a
U4a ..
H1 ..
K1b1a C1a2

we see the same people except for J2a1

Pribislav
02-16-2018, 08:08 PM
He explicitly said "though only 2 samples is not enough to conclude on this topic."

He explicitly states that he is open to the idea being wrong. You off the bat state that it is impossible.

Based on those samples that possibility arises and he says it. This is how things get moving in all fields of science.

Whereas your entire approach is based on dogmatic appeal to historically conditioned "facts" which are nothing but the folly of the times.

Ever heard of a paradigm shift in the theory of science? So much of what is considered science in a field like linguistics
doesn't even compare to more hard approaches like genetics. There are all types of evidence that emerge that give previous "evidence" entirely new connotations.

Thank god for Dna or else we would still be hearing you tell us about how impossible it is that albanians are indigenous based on folkloric costume, engravings on pots or "vocabulary".

I'm sorry, but Thracian being Indo-Iranian in origin is plain wrong, and not really debatable, and it has nothing to do with number of ancient samples. While I agree genetics can and will help clarifying some things to certain extent, it will never overpower linguistics in talks about language. But I can see why you would want that, as there is a number of Albanian-Thracian common characteristics you and your compatriots deliberately ignore (for example, separate treatment of all three guttural consonant rows is a common Albanian-Thracian-Armenian conservative characteristic, and labiovelar palatalization is one of many Albanian-Thracian common innovations), while your entire connection to Illyrian is based on several relict words of possible Illyrian origin. It's as if someone claimed French is not a Romance language, but a descendant of Gaulish, based on number of words of Gaulish origin in modern French (which is by the way far greater than number of supposed words of Illyrian origin in modern Albanian).

Due to the scarcity of data there is still no general consesus about precise placement of Illyrian language within IE, but some things are known. For example, in Illyrian PIE palatovelars are replaced with velars, just like in Greek, Latin and Celtic, so Illyrian was most likely also centum language. On the other hand, both in Albanian and Thracian PIE palatovelars are replaced with sibilants, just like in all other satem languages. So I sincerely hope you can see the problem with Albanian (satem language) descending from Illyrian (centum language).

And lastly, I've never claimed it's impossible Albanians (at least part of them) are indigenous to some parts of former Illyrian territory, in fact I said one good portion of Albanians could very well be descended from Illyrians, but there is no evidence Albanian language is a descendant of Illyrian, I hope you can understand the difference.

J Man
02-16-2018, 08:15 PM
thracian site malak.............wallacian plain Bulgaria north

T2e T1a1a
T2e T1a1
J2b1 ..
U5a1c ..
J1c G2a2b2a
U5a2 C
H5b ..
T2b ..
J2b1 ..
H G2a2b2a

central bulgaria
.. I2a2
.. I
T2b ..
K1a4b C
K1a2 ..
H4a1 G2a2a1a2
U5b2a1a ..
H H2
H G2a2b2b1a
H ..
N1b2 G2a2b2a1a1c1a

other Thracian site
.. CT
.. R1
.. G2a2b2b
.. G2
.. ..
H G2a2a1a2a
T1a I2a2

All neolithic to bronze-age

............................
if I include only croatia neolitic
U8b1b1 C
T2e R1b1a1a2a2
U5b2b I
N1a1 ..
H5a ..
H7c G2a2a1
U5a1a2 G2a2a1
H10 J2a1
J1c2 ..
U5b2b ..
T2c2 G2a2a1a2a
U4a ..
H1 ..
K1b1a C1a2

we see the same people except for J2a1

I should have been clearer...I.meant the Indo-European speaking Thracians that seem to have originated sometime between 1500-1000 B.C....Maybe some of the samples you listed fall in that time period.

vettor
02-16-2018, 08:23 PM
I should have been clearer...I.meant the Indo-European speaking Thracians that seem to have originated sometime between 1500-1000 B.C....Maybe some of the samples you listed fall in that time period.

well after PIE the first split is noted as in Anatolian 4000BC , do you think these anatolians could have entered Europe from that time?

J Man
02-16-2018, 08:30 PM
well after PIE the first split is noted as in Anatolian 4000BC , do you think these anatolians could have entered Europe from that time?

I don't know...4000 BCE is way before the IE speaking Thracians proper originated.

Gravetto-Danubian
02-16-2018, 08:47 PM
No shame and they lack capacity.



Northerners he says right of the bat, Slavs and Avars were the elites. Really? But so were the the marauding tribes that triggered and created these settlements to begin with, one might ask. Well, he must be right, I am sure the war hardened Illyrians of that region, who were reputed for their warlikle character throughout the Mediterranean during antiquity, organized in clans, and fuelled Roman legions were eager and supper excited to accept Avars ridding their ponies and Slavic plowmen from the pripet marshes as their commanding lords hohoho


(Trade, war bounty etc are out of the question)


I did not suggest the K-K culture was created by Avars & Slavs or that they ruled anyone. (Btw Slavs aren't from Pripet marshes, you should know that was a communist era invention) so you're clearly creating a false equivalency that only undermines your capacity.
Quite clearly it is a reaction to uncertain times, Byzantine waning, Avar raids. So as I originally said, this period is crucial for ALbanian ethnogenesis.
"supper excited to accept Avars ridding & Slavs..." And why not ? (nice spelling btw!) 7th- 9th century were time of social flux & Roman withdrawal, so any warrior is a good warrior. Perhaps your ancestors weren't so indoctrinated as you to hate all Slavs.

But it seems you find that impossible - so how is it 20% of some Albananians have R1a and I2a ?
Your 'mere trade' idea is against what aDNA has shown - i suppose CWC spread by mere trade too ?
Males from Komani culture wore the military accoutrement of the Carpathian Avar-Slav region, such as Belts on their waste. This was a central aspect of their male warrior identity . Why would they 'trade' and 'adopt' the dress of their "enemies" ?


On the other hand, you fabricate an essentialist fantasy of uninterrupted Illyrian- Albanian continuity, that even westerners deny (John Wilkes, and William Bowden).

You said it right - you have no shame and capacity, but merely create conflict to drag down the thread. And I'm not even Serbian, so I'm not sure why your fixation here. You must have a crush or something bro.

Johane Derite
02-16-2018, 09:21 PM
I'm sorry, but Thracian being Indo-Iranian in origin is plain wrong, and not really debatable, and it has nothing to do with number of ancient samples. While I agree genetics can and will help clarifying some things to certain extent, it will never overpower linguistics in talks about language. But I can see why you would want that, as there is a number of Albanian-Thracian common characteristics you and your compatriots deliberately ignore (for example, separate treatment of all three guttural consonant rows is a common Albanian-Thracian-Armenian conservative characteristic, and labiovelar palatalization is one of many Albanian-Thracian common innovations), while your entire connection to Illyrian is based on several relict words of possible Illyrian origin. It's as if someone claimed French is not a Romance language, but a descendant of Gaulish, based on number of words of Gaulish origin in modern French (which is by the way far greater than number of supposed words of Illyrian origin in modern Albanian).

Due to the scarcity of data there is still no general consesus about precise placement of Illyrian language within IE, but some things are known. For example, in Illyrian PIE palatovelars are replaced with velars, just like in Greek, Latin and Celtic, so Illyrian was most likely also centum language. On the other hand, both in Albanian and Thracian PIE palatovelars are replaced with sibilants, just like in all other satem languages. So I sincerely hope you can see the problem with Albanian (satem language) descending from Illyrian (centum language).

And lastly, I've never claimed it's impossible Albanians (at least part of them) are indigenous to some parts of former Illyrian territory, in fact I said one good portion of Albanians could very well be descended from Illyrians, but there is no evidence Albanian language is a descendant of Illyrian, I hope you can understand the difference.

1. I have no investment in the theory of thracian being Indo Iranian either way. I dont care what it shows up as. I gave principe thanks not because its suits an agenda of mine but because i like
the speculative approach with theories where people see an opening with new data and propose. Thats it.

2. There exists not a single text of the Illyrian language. Any linguistic theories on Illyrian itself based only on dubiously recorded toponyms are overstated and hubristic if not taken with a grain of salt.
There are credible theorists that surmise that Illyrian is a satem language anyway. A big push for the idea of Illyrian being centum was that people thought it was related to the Venetic language which
they later found not feasible.

3. Albanian is not simply a "satem" language like other satem languages. There is serious debate among linguists about if satem makes sense for albanian, so overstating this as if its a
clearly resolved matter is not an accurate issue. I'm not saying that many known linguists dont think it is satem, because there are enough. It is not a clean and cut thing and there are
enough linguists that say Albanian is not a satem language to have grounds for argument.

4. I have no fetish for the Illyrian theory, I dont worship or think they are gods. The reason I think its most likely that we come from them is because it just seems like the path of least resistance
bearing in mind the mountain of evidence. I am not driven to it out of desire, its just Occam's razor in my view. Here we disagree and thats that. Time and dna research will tell.

I am optimistic.

vettor
02-16-2018, 10:19 PM
1. I have no investment in the theory of thracian being Indo Iranian either way. I dont care what it shows up as. I gave principe thanks not because its suits an agenda of mine but because i like
the speculative approach with theories where people see an opening with new data and propose. Thats it.

2. There exists not a single text of the Illyrian language. Any linguistic theories on Illyrian itself based only on dubiously recorded toponyms are overstated and hubristic if not taken with a grain of salt.
There are credible theorists that surmise that Illyrian is a satem language anyway. A big push for the idea of Illyrian being centum was that people thought it was related to the Venetic language which
they later found not feasible.

3. Albanian is not simply a "satem" language like other satem languages. There is serious debate among linguists about if satem makes sense for albanian, so overstating this as if its a
clearly resolved matter is not an accurate issue. I'm not saying that many known linguists dont think it is satem, because there are enough. It is not a clean and cut thing and there are
enough linguists that say Albanian is not a satem language to have grounds for argument.

4. I have no fetish for the Illyrian theory, I dont worship or think they are gods. The reason I think its most likely that we come from them is because it just seems like the path of least resistance
bearing in mind the mountain of evidence. I am not driven to it out of desire, its just Occam's razor in my view. Here we disagree and thats that. Time and dna research will tell.

I am optimistic.

while I agree with lack of Illyrian texts, Illyrian names appear in Noricum , see below one of 3 pages

https://s20.postimg.org/eaop3uc8t/nori_names.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

I find it very odd that the Histri ( illyrians) living in Friuli where neighbours of Venetic and could not converse especially when they shared the trade/market town of Oderzo ........who was satem and who was centrum
Another striking case is that of the Illyrian word for 'trade, market', contained in the place names Tergeste 'Trieste', Tergolape, in Noricum, as well as Opitergium 'Oderzo', in Venezia.

Johane Derite
02-16-2018, 10:25 PM
I find it very odd that the Histri ( illyrians) living in Friuli where neighbours of Venetic and could not converse especially when they shared the trade/market town of Oderzo ........who was satem and who was centrum
Another striking case is that of the Illyrian word for 'trade, market', contained in the place names Tergeste 'Trieste', Tergolape, in Noricum, as well as Opitergium 'Oderzo', in Venezia.

The albanian word for market is Treg

Moderator
02-16-2018, 10:31 PM
This thread contains far too many posts which violate Anthogenica's Terms of Service.

Infractions have been given and suspensions or permanent bans are under consideration where there has been a record of unacceptable behavior.

And, any more of this behavior by any member will lead to the thread being closed.

Pribislav
02-16-2018, 10:47 PM
3. Albanian is not simply a "satem" language like other satem languages. There is serious debate among linguists about if satem makes sense for albanian, so overstating this as if its a clearly resolved matter is not an accurate issue. I'm not saying that many known linguists dont think it is satem, because there are enough. It is not a clean and cut thing and there are enough linguists that say Albanian is not a satem language to have grounds for argument.

I'm aware there are some linguists who think Albanian is not "true" satem, but rather satemised, but even if that was the case the same goes for Thracian, and those Albanian-Thracian connections I've mentioned still stand. I certainly respect your opinion, you at least offered some arguments.

The way I see it, after the ancestors of Germanic, Italo-Celtic, Greek and Tocharian speakers left during the early Yamna/Catacomb period, the "core" that remained in the Pontic Steppes (Babyno Culture) comprised of speakers of several closely related dialects, ancestors of Thracian, Albanian, Phrygian and Armenian. They might not have originally spoken satem language, but became satemised due to closeness and possible mixing with Proto-Iranian tribes, and maybe even with some Proto-Balto-Slavic tribes.


KMK (Babyno Culture) succeeded the western Catacomb culture. It was increasingly influenced, assimilated and eventually displaced by the Timber grave or Srubna/Srubnaya culture.[2][3][4][5] In c. 2000 – 1800 BCE bearers of KMK migrated southward into the Balkans.
...........
Circumstantial evidence links KMK to the spread of one or more Indo-European languages. Leo Klejn identifies its bearers with the early Thracians. Other scholars suggest that KMK may have been connected to the Bryges and/or Phrygians.

Dalmatian coast, and most of the territory of Glasinac Culture in general had completely different history, with strongest influences coming from Central Europe, begining with Vučedol and Bell Beaker periods, and continuing during Tumulus, Urnfield and Hallstatt periods. That's the reason I said the presence of U152 among Illyrian remains wouldn't surprise me at all.

Skerdilaidas
02-17-2018, 02:04 AM
I see you got banned but I will reply to you anyway. You were the one stating that the elite were northerners, Slavs and Avars - your own words​, so I​ asked you​ to​ elaborate on it with evidence, not hot air as you usually ​tend​ to respond. But of course with the limited knowledge you have regarding region's history, population and genetics you couldn't respond.


Anyway, why would a retreating community treat as ‘elites’ those who in fact they retreat from? Doesn’t make any sense. Only few had such belts, so most likely war bounty. ‘Elites’, ‘Lords’ and other such absurdities were never part of our culture. Local Clans and chiefs ruled and governed their territory​, there were economic incentives placed by the foreign powers too for them to do so, to protect their trading routes, stability etc..

Not a single R1a or I2a sample from the Drin valley thus far. Perhaps you’re thinking of southern Albania where those two groups are more elevated. ​All clans tested from there are V13, L283 and R1b (PF7563 & BY611) - the most compact region thus far. If such were the case we would see some evidence. It's also important to note that this region has always been tribal land, ever since Illyrian times and all the way up to a century ago. Plus was densely populated too, especially during the 5th and 7th century as​ was noted​ ​on ​the paper​ that the French team worked on​.

I haven’t fabricated anything, I am simply putting 2+2 together. Region was heavy populated as was noted during the 5th and 7th century. Few centuries later, between 10th and 12th century, we see Albanian clans exploding out of there and reaching as far as Thessaly. In the period between there is no sign of population replacement, devastation or any of that sort of business that would lead us to believe that there was a massive invasion. Some of those settlements actually continued to be inhabited all the way up to middle ages. So what gives, what part of the puzzle am I missing here??

Dibran
02-17-2018, 03:58 AM
I see you got banned but I will reply to you anyway. You were the one stating that the elite were northerners, Slavs and Avars - your own words​, so I​ asked you​ to​ elaborate on it with evidence, not hot air as you usually ​tend​ to respond. But of course with the limited knowledge you have regarding region's history, population and genetics you couldn't respond.


Anyway, why would a retreating community treat as ‘elites’ those who in fact they retreat from? Doesn’t make any sense. Only few had such belts, so most likely war bounty. ‘Elites’, ‘Lords’ and other such absurdities were never part of our culture. Local Clans and chiefs ruled and governed their territory​, there were economic incentives placed by the foreign powers too for them to do so, to protect their trading routes, stability etc..

Not a single R1a or I2a sample from the Drin valley thus far. Perhaps you’re thinking of southern Albania where those two groups are more elevated. ​All clans tested from there are V13, L283 and R1b (PF7563 & BY611) - the most compact region thus far. If such were the case we would see some evidence. It's also important to note that this region has always been tribal land, ever since Illyrian times and all the way up to a century ago. Plus was densely populated too, especially during the 5th and 7th century as​ was noted​ ​on ​the paper​ that the French team worked on​.

I haven’t fabricated anything, I am simply putting 2+2 together. Region was heavy populated as was noted during the 5th and 7th century. Few centuries later, between 10th and 12th century, we see Albanian clans exploding out of there and reaching as far as Thessaly. In the period between there is no sign of population replacement, devastation or any of that sort of business that would lead us to believe that there was a massive invasion. Some of those settlements actually continued to be inhabited all the way up to middle ages. So what gives, what part of the puzzle am I missing here??

Isn't Diber part of a section of Drin valley in the border region? unless my geography is off. If so, you would be wrong, as I am from Diber(predominantly Vogel) and am M458(and a member of the project). And while I am the only one tested, many of my family are still there.

J Man
02-17-2018, 05:33 AM
I'm aware there are some linguists who think Albanian is not "true" satem, but rather satemised, but even if that was the case the same goes for Thracian, and those Albanian-Thracian connections I've mentioned still stand. I certainly respect your opinion, you at least offered some arguments.

The way I see it, after the ancestors of Germanic, Italo-Celtic, Greek and Tocharian speakers left during the early Yamna/Catacomb period, the "core" that remained in the Pontic Steppes (Babyno Culture) comprised of speakers of several closely related dialects, ancestors of Thracian, Albanian, Phrygian and Armenian. They might not have originally spoken satem language, but became satemised due to closeness and possible mixing with Proto-Iranian tribes, and maybe even with some Proto-Balto-Slavic tribes.



Dalmatian coast, and most of the territory of Glasinac Culture in general had completely different history, with strongest influences coming from Central Europe, begining with Vučedol and Bell Beaker periods, and continuing during Tumulus, Urnfield and Hallstatt periods. That's the reason I said the presence of U152 among Illyrian remains wouldn't surprise me at all.

Indeed a number of things are possible when it comes to ancient remains. Usually modern day populations are a subset of ancient peoples melded together. I doubt that there are many if any examples of modern day ethnic groups especially in West Eurasia that are genetically exactly the same as their pre-Medieval era ancestors.

Skerdilaidas
02-17-2018, 05:49 AM
Isn't Diber part of a section of Drin valley in the border region? unless my geography is off. If so, you would be wrong, as I am from Diber(predominantly Vogel) and am M458(and a member of the project). And while I am the only one tested, many of my family are still there.

No, we were talking about Malesia e Gjakoves, Puke, part of Mirdite to Kruje.

Volat
02-17-2018, 06:29 AM
Avars ridding their ponies and Slavic plowmen from the pripet marshes as their commanding lords hohoho

There weren't many plowmen living in Pripet Marshes . Pripet marshes is a wetland with little fertile soil. There isn't much point in plowing the marshes. It's also a forestry region. See the picture below.

Pripet marshes being a homeland of proto-Slavs is an old hypothesis first presented by Polish botanist Joseph Rostafinski (1850-1928). Back then no significant research was done on the origins of proto-Slavs by archaeologists, linguists, anthropologists, historians.

There were two popular competing hypotheses from two groups of historians in USSR in the 70-90s . Hypothesis of Valentin Sedov who suggested the homeland of proto-Slavs was in the eastern fringe of the Przeworsk culture (south-eastern Poland and western Ukraine) and that of Mark Schukin. There's an excellent account of early Slavic history by Mark Shchukin called The births of the Slavs. Archaelogist Valentin Sedov published around 400-500 articles and books on the subject.

Soviet and Russian/Ukrainian scholars didn't place home-land of proto-Slavs in Pripet Marshes, as they found little archaeological and linguistic evidence. It does not make sense to put proto-Slavic home-land in Pripet marshes. Terrain of the region is such that it could support a large population of Slavs that expanded into what's today eastern Germany and the Balkans. If Slavs lived in Pripet Marshes, they could not meet nomadic Avars passing through the steppes and forest-steppe zones of Ukraine. Many modern day scholars in Slavic countries suggest that the home-land of proto-Slavs was between middle Dniepr river and south-eastern Poland.

---


Western Paliessie in south-western Belarus (this is what is referred to as Pripet Marshes in English literature)




https://wildlife.by/upload/medialibrary/262/262cc7003ec2284376a351c73b93ebbb.jpg

Volat
02-17-2018, 07:57 AM
Please show me the evidence that yamnaya were the first IE speakers. I study archeology, and people at my school still discuss where IE came from. For example my teacher who is an expert on anthropological and archeological theory still thinks agriculture brought IE. NOTHING iS SETTLED regarding the Indo europeans. I know a lot of studies on these matters, and i am pretty sure there doesnt exist any evidence that yamnaya spoke IE :)

That can be said of people of most bronze age archaeological cultures, as we don't know the languages they spokes. Scholars present their arguments to support their hypotheses. It's for you to evaluate the validity of their arguments. PS And don't let your studies interfere with your education (c).

Volat
02-17-2018, 08:50 AM
Linguist Don Ringe discusses PIE language in Pontic-Caspian steppes during Bronze age.


The Indo-European Homeland from Linguistic and Archaeological Perspectives // Annual Review of Linguistics, Vol. 1: 199-219 (Volume publication date January 2015) by David W. Anthony and Don Ringe

Archaeological evidence and linguistic evidence converge in support of an origin of Indo-European languages on the Pontic-Caspian steppes around 4,000 years BCE. The evidence is so strong that arguments in support of other hypotheses should be reexamined.
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124812

In the same year Haak et al (2015) having analysed 69 ancient genomes published an article in Nature on a mass migration in Europe from the steppes.

ernekar
02-17-2018, 08:50 AM
Edit double post

ernekar
02-17-2018, 08:52 AM
That can be said of people of most bronze age archaeological cultures, as we don't know the languages they spokes. Scholars present their arguments to support their hypotheses. It's for you to evaluate the validity of their arguments. PS And don't let your studies interfere with your education (c).
I know. And i also think some of the steppe people spoke IE.
But people kept dismissing my hypothesis, based on their assumption that "yamna were the first IE speakers, and all later non-R1 indo-europeans are just assimilated".
There is just no foundation for such claims. I2, J2 and other haplogroups could just as well have been in the early IE genesis.
The ancient Dna record is way to scarce to jump to any definitive conclusions, as we dont know exactly where IE languages emerged.
A fuller aDNA record would show us which areas could be the Best contenders for the genesis.
Right now we only have the aDNA of a very limited number of individuals, in a very limited number of tribes, in an area almost half the size of russia. Not to mention its the most densely populated part of russia.

olive picker
02-17-2018, 02:48 PM
I haven’t fabricated anything, I am simply putting 2+2 together. Region was heavy populated as was noted during the 5th and 7th century. Few centuries later, between 10th and 12th century, we see Albanian clans exploding out of there and reaching as far as Thessaly. In the period between there is no sign of population replacement, devastation or any of that sort of business that would lead us to believe that there was a massive invasion. Some of those settlements actually continued to be inhabited all the way up to middle ages. So what gives, what part of the puzzle am I missing here??

Is there any reason these clans had this massive expansion? Also how come the clans didn't survive in the south, I'm aware they had their own but it would be funny to see Hoti and Kelmendi survive as far as Thessaly up to the 18th century lol

Johane Derite
02-17-2018, 03:01 PM
But people kept dismissing my hypothesis, based on their assumption that "yamna were the first IE speakers, and all later non-R1 indo-europeans are just assimilated".
There is just no foundation for such claims. I2, J2 and other haplogroups could just as well have been in the early IE genesis.
The ancient Dna record is way to scarce to jump to any definitive conclusions, as we dont know exactly where IE languages emerged.
A fuller aDNA record would show us which areas could be the Best contenders for the genesis.
Right now we only have the aDNA of a very limited number of individuals, in a very limited number of tribes, in an area almost half the size of russia. Not to mention its the most densely populated part of russia.



Also, I don't know if you saw this new paper on the new "DYSTRUCT" alternative to ADMIXTURE analysis.


ADMIXTURE estimates ancestry of ancient samples as combinations of modern populations
whereas this new DYSTRUCT method does the opposite, it estimates ancestry of modern
populations based on ancient samples.

The discrepancy in results is quite massive. And what is especially interesting is that with the DYSTRUCT
method it seems that the Caucuas has the most Yamnaya/Steppe adna of all contemporary populations, further
strengthening your hypothesis that we should eventually come across some caucaus haplogroups in the indo-european
expansions.

Since I am new to this page I am not yet able to post links but if you follow this link you will see the image of the Admixture VS Dystruct results:

imgur . com/DrgGrVO . png

ernekar
02-17-2018, 04:08 PM
Also, I don't know if you saw this new paper on the new "DYSTRUCT" alternative to ADMIXTURE analysis.


ADMIXTURE estimates ancestry of ancient samples as combinations of modern populations
whereas this new DYSTRUCT method does the opposite, it estimates ancestry of modern
populations based on ancient samples.

The discrepancy in results is quite massive. And what is especially interesting is that with the DYSTRUCT
method it seems that the Caucuas has the most Yamnaya/Steppe adna of all contemporary populations, further
strengthening your hypothesis that we should eventually come across some caucaus haplogroups in the indo-european
expansions.

Since I am new to this page I am not yet able to post links but if you follow this link you will see the image of the Admixture VS Dystruct results:

imgur . com/DrgGrVO . png
Interesting, i had not heard of this DYSTRUCT. Ill read it today.
So far, it definitely sounds as a good approach.
It doesnt seem like they have included the CHG samples though. It could be interesting to add the Kotias Klde sample and see what happens with the steppe samples

Skerdilaidas
02-17-2018, 04:48 PM
Is there any reason these clans had this massive expansion? Also how come the clans didn't survive in the south, I'm aware they had their own but it would be funny to see Hoti and Kelmendi survive as far as Thessaly up to the 18th century lol

Havoc. Romans were not there anymore to benefit them economically nor to control them so they set forth in search for greener postures. Not as isolated as north geographically, in some parts like Laberia they survived to an extent.

Generalissimo
02-17-2018, 06:07 PM
Also, I don't know if you saw this new paper on the new "DYSTRUCT" alternative to ADMIXTURE analysis.


ADMIXTURE estimates ancestry of ancient samples as combinations of modern populations
whereas this new DYSTRUCT method does the opposite, it estimates ancestry of modern
populations based on ancient samples.

The discrepancy in results is quite massive. And what is especially interesting is that with the DYSTRUCT
method it seems that the Caucuas has the most Yamnaya/Steppe adna of all contemporary populations, further
strengthening your hypothesis that we should eventually come across some caucaus haplogroups in the indo-european
expansions.

Since I am new to this page I am not yet able to post links but if you follow this link you will see the image of the Admixture VS Dystruct results:

imgur . com/DrgGrVO . png

Nonsense.

These results don't match mixture estimates based on formal statistics, so there's obviously something wrong with them.

Dystruct is an experimental software, and looks to be producing very shaky output at this stage.

Johane Derite
02-17-2018, 06:23 PM
Nonsense.

These results don't match mixture estimates based on formal statistics, so there's obviously something wrong with them.

Dystruct is an experimental software, and looks to be producing very shaky output at this stage.

Its a new method and the paper came out a couple of days ago.

It's relevant to the subject at hand and so I mention it.

If you have conclusive evidence of it being wrong then you can simply prove it.

Admixture has been used since now because we had scarcity of ancient samples. However with more and more ancient samples being found and extraction being made easier
this changes the game

The method of Dystruct, which is to use ancient samples to estimate ancestry of modern populations is actually much more intuitive if you are trying to infer which modern population
inherited more of an ancient one.

Nothing about this approaches "nonsense." It is entirely reasonable, relevant, and within the frame of healthy speculation.

Calling this nonsense alludes to some sort of oversensitivity to the subject at hand.

Dibran
02-17-2018, 06:39 PM
No, we were talking about Malesia e Gjakoves, Puke, part of Mirdite to Kruje.

Ahh. Ok. My mom is from Puke. Haven't tested my uncle yet. When they visit from Sweden I plan to do at least y37.

Dibran
02-17-2018, 06:45 PM
There weren't many plowmen living in Pripet Marshes . Pripet marshes is a wetland with little fertile soil. There isn't much point in plowing the marshes. It's also a forestry region. See the picture below.

Pripet marshes being a homeland of proto-Slavs is an old hypothesis first presented by Polish botanist Joseph Rostafinski (1850-1928). Back then no significant research was done on the origins of proto-Slavs by archaeologists, linguists, anthropologists, historians.

There were two popular competing hypotheses from two groups of historians in USSR in the 70-90s . Hypothesis of Valentin Sedov who suggested the homeland of proto-Slavs was in the eastern fringe of the Przeworsk culture (south-eastern Poland and western Ukraine) and that of Mark Schukin. There's an excellent account of early Slavic history by Mark Shchukin called The births of the Slavs. Archaelogist Valentin Sedov published around 400-500 articles and books on the subject.

Soviet and Russian/Ukrainian scholars didn't place home-land of proto-Slavs in Pripet Marshes, as they found little archaeological and linguistic evidence. It does not make sense to put proto-Slavic home-land in Pripet marshes. Terrain of the region is such that it could support a large population of Slavs that expanded into what's today eastern Germany and the Balkans. If Slavs lived in Pripet Marshes, they could not meet nomadic Avars passing through the steppes and forest-steppe zones of Ukraine. Many modern day scholars in Slavic countries suggest that the home-land of proto-Slavs was between middle Dniepr river and south-eastern Poland.

---


Western Paliessie in south-western Belarus (this is what is referred to as Pripet Marshes in English literature)




https://wildlife.by/upload/medialibrary/262/262cc7003ec2284376a351c73b93ebbb.jpg

If that is the case then were the East Germanic tribes Slavs in your opinion? To my understanding, East Germanics occupied most of Poland before the Huns pushed them west no? I am not disagreeing with you. Just, trying to make sense of the narrative given what we know of history.

Volat
02-17-2018, 06:54 PM
If that is the case then were the East Germanic tribes Slavs in your opinion? To my understanding, East Germanics occupied most of Poland before the Huns pushed them west no? I am not disagreeing with you. Just, trying to make sense of the narrative given what we know of history.

I was writing about the eastern part of the Przeworsk culture (south-eastern Poland and western Ukraine) that was not settled by Germanic people at the time. Germanic lived to the west of Vistula river according to Strabo and Tacitus.

Skerdilaidas
02-18-2018, 02:23 AM
Ahh. Ok. My mom is from Puke. Haven't tested my uncle yet. When they visit from Sweden I plan to do at least y37.

What village and do you know their clan?

ernekar
02-18-2018, 11:44 AM
@bpr,
I read the DYSTRUCT paper. It seems very promising.
I see that a lot of geneticists, including Iosif Lazaridis from the mycenean paper, have re-posted the DYSTRUCT paper on Twitter.

Messier 67
04-25-2018, 10:17 PM
What about elite dominance of J among R as a source of IE lang. ?

What about the Rs taking the Indo-European language of the captured women they had north and south of the Caucuses.

The Bell and Beaker was according to a science article brought to England by R1bs. But on the mainland, it was a an I phenomenon. What most likely happened was the Rs took the women from the mainland who knew how to do the pottery and brought the captive women to the male desolated Britain. Bell and Beaker was not brought with the proto-Celts from the Balkans. So the proto-Celts adopted this pottery from captured women, perhaps like they may have adopted the Indo-European languages from their captured women.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/20/dutch-invaders-stonehenge-ancient-britons

The article fails to mention the female lines of Britain survived. The mtDNA that existed prior to the invasion, exist to this very day in Britain. So once again the women survived, the men vanished.

tipirneni
04-25-2018, 11:05 PM
What about the Rs taking the Indo-European language of the captured women they had north and south of the Caucuses.

The Bell and Beaker was according to a science article brought to England by R1bs. But on the mainland, it was a an I phenomenon. What most likely happened was the Rs took the women from the mainland who knew how to do the pottery and brought the captive women to the male desolated Britain. Bell and Beaker was not brought with the proto-Celts from the Balkans. So the proto-Celts adopted this pottery from captured women, perhaps like they may have adopted the Indo-European languages from their captured women.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/20/dutch-invaders-stonehenge-ancient-britons

The article fails to mention the female lines of Britain survived. The mtDNA that existed prior to the invasion, exist to this very day in Britain. So once again the women survived, the men vanished.

Yes, Cheddar Man, Britain's oldest complete skeleton, belonged to this group. He lived around 10,000 years ago. But by the time the Beaker folk came to Britain 4,400 years ago, the hunter-gatherers had long since gone.

In fact, farmers with brown eyes and lighter skin than Cheddar Man's migrated to Britain 6,000 years ago. They were the ones to replace the hunter-gatherers, and were in turn replaced by the Beaker folk's own migration wave, roughly 1,600 years later.

If you look at the distribution of the J vs R it is only around 1%. The haplogroup is carried mostly of semitic people ancestry including Jewish. It is not widespread in the R rather present in few pockets like Wales, Scotland etc... The R1b seems to be very highly warlike so other than I none of the other Y groups able to sustain during Bronze age.
22789

Patarames
05-23-2018, 08:40 PM
Much happened since this topic was stared in February.

There is much disinformation about Y Haplogroup J2, so let me summarize the recent findings and correct common misunderstandings in 10 points:

1: J2 is very different to J1 in geographical distribution. J1 could be called Semitic for the majority of its distribution, J2 absolutely not. Let me put it this way for layman:
R1 makes up the majority of European Y-DNA linage, R2 is almost absent in Europe and can mainly be found in west Asia.

2: J2 in the neolithic is a negligible Y-DNA linage. Set in relation with the number of Neolithic samples which are majority Y-DNA haplogroup G, J2 gets something like < 10% of the share. Given that G (Anatolia) was at the contact zone to J2 (Caucasus, Iran), this neighborhood is a natural reason for a negligible (< 10%) contribution to the Neolithic.

3: Chalcolithic and more so Bronze age expansions brought J2 out of its Caucasus/Iran homeland.

4: Max Planck, Copenhagen geogenetics and Harvard Reich Labs are now convinced that the PIE origin was south of the Caucasus. The Caucasus was home to following Y Haplogroups: G (primary Neolithic), J1, J2 and as recently found out L.
-J1 expanded pretty early to become the primary Semitic marker, all later expansions of it had negligible impact.
-G was probably expanding into the Caucasus with the Neolithic from its east Anatolian starting point.
-L was a apparently latecomer to the Caucasus arriving from Iran and potentially originally from the area around the IVC.
-R2 should have been present too but its effect was negligible and the South Caucasus presence of R1b is still a possibility, but pending aDNA findings.
This leaves only J2 left as the main "South Caucasus" expanding Y Haplogroup at the relevant time.

5: With J2 being in the right region and expanding at the right time, plus a previously negligible geographic footprint, we have a ideal PIE Y-DNA candidate. The expansion would have its first displacement impact on the periphery. Tribes that were at contact zones with people speaking different languages would be the first to expand out of the Caucasus. This periphery tribes would benefit from technological advancements of PIEians and their language could be different than other J2 people (such as the J2 heavy Chechens today). We know since antiquity (Herodotus), that the Caucasus was described as densest region in term of language variety. Hence it could well be that non-IE J2 tribes formed the first wave, such as Hattians/Hurrians or Minoans (unknown origin).

We have J2 in Minoans (unknown), not in non-IE Hattians/Hurrians or even Etruscans (a common mistake due to J2 mtDNA) up until now.

6: To this date we have following aDNA on IE-J2, which no other Y-DNA haplogroup can offer in terms of age and relatedness to PIE:
- IE Mycenaeans
- IE Hittites (according to the paper)
- Maikop elite Kurgan burial north of the Caucasus, looking very much like IE
- BMAC, which is described as Iranic (IE) or influenced, at least in its later phase. This while it is not showing any kind of intrusive steppe auDNA or Y-DNA till its latest phase (Chalcolithic, minor hunter gatherer EHG admixture excluded).

7: The mentioned Novosvobodnaya Maikop elite Kurgan probably had the most advanced metallurgy of that time, worldwide:
- The first sword in the world was found there.
- Earliest Kurgan burials were found in Maikop (according to the paper)
- Use of wagon/carts
- Pastorial lifestyle (beside agriculture)
- Contacts (auDNA) to steppe Botai people which may have brought domesticated horses.

The technological aspects of these would result in a edge in warfare. We know that there was next to no admixture events between Yamnaya and non-steppe Maikop, otherwise we would observe some ANF auDNA admixture in the steppe people. The lack of this signature means that Maikop was probably militarily strong enough not to be victim of steppe raids. The often stated theory of "Caucasian brides" would have a ANF signature as effect.

8:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/J2%28Y-DNA%29.png

The worldwide distribution of J2 today covers much of the IE lands with two major anomalies:
- While in Europe it provides a coverage for Greek, Illyrian, Italic IE people, its presence for Northern origin IE people is too low to have been the main IE Y-DNA linage there. This requires a multi-stage explanation involving R1b and later R1a.
- Its presence in Semitic speaking Levant and regions related to Phoenician colonies would appear to hint to a non-IE relation. However, this is a false impression because the Levant was heavily influenced by IE people. In north Mesopotamia, the IE Kurds were successful to suppresses Semitic presence.
In the Levant or Egypt on the other hand they were not successful but left their genetic footprint. We have potential early IE influence by Hyksos, Sea people and others as well as confirmed IE influence by Hittite and Mitanni, up to historical influence like IE Persians on Phoenicians.

Other minor anomalies like presence in Yemen can be easily explained by historical events, such as the Sassanid expedition to Yemen.

In exchange for those anomalies we have confirming details, such as:
- Eastern Steppe presence up to the Altai (e.g IE Saka, Tocharians)
- Presence in most conservative IE people, Indian Brahmins

Other IE Y-DNA candidates have problems to such as: R1b lack for Indian coverage. R1a lack of western-Iranic/south-Europe coverage. Hence a multi stage/Y-DNA linage explanation is necessary anyway.


9: The expansion of CHG/Iran auDNA admixture again fits time and space for IE expansion. This admixture can be directly associated with J2. Of course J1 also had its share in the spread of this admixture as well as minor linage like R2. The relation of R1b or R1a and CHG/Iran admixture is unclear as of now.
Hence correlation of J2 and CHG/Iran admixture can be helpful in IE context.

10: The very patriarchal, warlike nature of IE people is reflected in some of today's J2 populations such as Albanians, Iranians and even non-IE but "Caucasus PIE homeland" J2 people such as Chechens.

ernekar
05-24-2018, 08:15 AM
https://www.academia.edu/36689289/Invasion_aus_der_Steppe
23383

Interview with Kristian Kristiansen from the Denmark team.

Normally he is a big supporter of the steppe hypothesis, but he seems to think the Caucasus is likely the place where the linguistic/cultural precursors of the yamnaya lived earlier.

Johane Derite
05-24-2018, 09:07 AM
"A finely resolved phylogeny of Y chromosome Hg J illuminates the processes of Phoenician and Greek colonizations in the Mediterranean"

LINK: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-25912-9

"We observed a stasis in the 15-5 kya time window in the whole tree (J), followed by a sudden increase at 5 kya, in line with most European populations.

Of the internal clades, only J1-M267 and J2b-M12 displayed the same growth phase at approximately 5 kya. In the context of the recent explosive increase in world population size "

Thread here: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?14305-quot-Y-haplo-J-illuminates-the-processes-of-Phoenician-and-Greek-colonizations-quot&p=397152#post397152

Beast
02-25-2019, 12:25 AM
Interview with Kristian Kristiansen from the Denmark team.

Normally he is a big supporter of the steppe hypothesis, but he seems to think the Caucasus is likely the place where the linguistic/cultural precursors of the yamnaya lived earlier.

I believe so too.