PDA

View Full Version : E-V13 entered Greece with Illyrians and Dorian invasions



Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6

Johnny ola
02-20-2021, 08:12 PM
Can i have a link?

"The earliest written evidence is a Linear B clay tablet found in Messenia that dates to between 1450 and 1350 BC, making Greek the world's oldest recorded living language."

It was minoans and mycaneans who created the greek language and culture and both were similar in terms of dna. Whoever came later would have been as an migrant -

"Samples are scarce, and there is only one Y-DNA haplogroup of Mycenaeans, J2a1 (in Galatas Apatheia, ca. 1700-1200"

What you saying now is that J and G folks started to speak an IE language. This dosn't making any sense. You confuse yDNA markers with languages and autosomal DNA. Both G and J arrived in Greece from Anatolia/West Asia. Such lineages can't be responsible for the Greek language. The fact that the Greek samples from the bronze age and classical period are J2a is an other story that i explained very well above.

ShpataEMadhe
02-20-2021, 08:18 PM
What you saying now is that J and G folks started to speak an IE language. This dosn't making any sense. You confuse yDNA markers with languages and autosomal DNA. Both G and J arrived in Greece from Anatolia/West Asia. Such lineages can't be responsible for the Greek language. The fact that the Greek samples from the bronze age and classical period are J2a is an other story that i explained very well above.

Maybe we are talking about the wrong periods. J2a and g2 are the minoan and myceneans - are you saying r1b people from steppe went there and replaced their language and outnumbered them? Do you understand that this does not work. First we dont have ancient y dna to prove such a theory and secondly modern greeks carry far more j2a and g2 than western r1b - so your theory doesnt add up at all.

IE language tree is a theory - not all european languages came from steppe or are linked to r1b people - especially southern european languages

Johnny ola
02-20-2021, 08:24 PM
Maybe we are talking about the wrong periods. J2a and g2 are the minoan and myceneans - are you saying r1b people from steppe went there and replaced their language and outnumbered them? Do you understand that this does not work. First we dont have ancient y dna to prove such a theory and secondly modern greeks carry far more j2a and g2 than western r1b - so your theory doesnt add up at all.

IE language tree is a theory - not all european languages came from steppe or are linked to r1b people - especially southern european languages

Nativist nationalist right? Ok never mind.. :sleep::lol::laugh:

Kelmendasi
02-20-2021, 08:32 PM
See my answer above, proto greeks were unlikely to be r1b - maybe pf7562 but nothing else. Greeks who carry r1b today is usually recent from neighbouring people and it is smaller than those that carry j2a and g2 which are the true haplotypes found in ancient greece.

It makes no sense for ancient greeks to be r1b when almost all ancient r1b in greece is missing yet j2a and g2 (which predate it) remain
Just because modern-day Greek do not have a substantial amount of R1b-M269 clusters, something that I personally am unsure of since Greeks in general are not well tested, does not mean that the Ancient Greeks did not. As a population that likely originated somewhere on the Pontic steppe, the Proto-Greeks without a doubt carried R1b-M269 and maybe even R1a-M417 clusters. This is further supported by the fact that the closest linguistic groups to the Greeks, such as the Armenians, have their own clusters under those haplogroups.

As for the lack of R1 clusters in the Mycenaean samples, it should be remembered that only a handful of remains were tested. It could simply just be that the R1-rich Greek-speaking elite imposed themselves over a dominantly J2a-M410 and G population. Not only this, but the Mycenaeans were not the porgentiors of all the Ancient Greek peoples as has been erroneously claimed by some. They were only one sub-group that migrated southwards, likely speaking a dialect ancestral or related to the Arcadocypriot dialect of the Peloponnese. However, it has been rumoured that R1b-M269 clusters have been found in some unpublished Ancient Greek samples. For example on Carlos Quiles' map (https://indo-european.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=e355625d5fbe46469cfdc85fce6eb04a) the following samples have been added: MycenaeanElite1 (c. 1500 BCE) with R1b-Z2103 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2103/), and AMV-CO_3 (470-430 BCE) with R1b-P297 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-P297/). The latter sample is from the ancient city of Ambracia, near present-day Arta.

peloponnesian
02-20-2021, 08:37 PM
See my answer above, proto greeks were unlikely to be r1b - maybe pf7562 but nothing else. Greeks who carry r1b today is usually recent from neighbouring people and it is smaller than those that carry j2a and g2 which are the true haplotypes found in ancient greece.

It makes no sense for ancient greeks to be r1b when almost all ancient r1b in greece is missing yet j2a and g2 (which predate it) remain

I knew I should've never mentioned R1b on Anthrogenica, nothing good ever comes out of it.. :music: Personally, I don't care about R1b's exact origins and spread and I don't have a stake in the eternal fights taking place here. My argument wasn't about R1b per se, it was about the haplogroups the proto-Greek and related Balkan Bronze Age groups carried, whichever they were. Clearly they mixed with pre-existing populations in Greece and created the Mycenean and later Greek civilisations.

Regarding G2, you're assuming proto-Greeks didn't carry it at all prior to entering Greece but we know it existed in the Balkans since the Neolithic and wasn't totally wiped out. The proto-Greeks didn't travel straight from the steppe, they mixed with other groups even before they entered Greece. Again, personally I don't care if my paternal line came from Greece or from China, I don't have any emotional investment in it.

Aspar
02-20-2021, 08:39 PM
I'm not sure. Somewhere between Albania and Shopluk.
Actually I will be specific. In my opinion R-Z2705 could possibly be related to the Paeonian ancestry.



https://i.imgur.com/xp94B35.png

Very unlikely...

The Paeonians were interacting with the Macedonians extensively and were part of the Macedonian kingdom for quite long. They lived primarily in what is now eastern North Macedonian and western Bulgaria. The archaeological material post Macedonian period of these regions shows that the area was hellenized to great extent. Even if we assume that unassimilated pockets of Paeonians survived and have spoken their native language as the Bessi did, most probably the influence of the Koine would have been tremendous, which is not the case with Albanian.
Secondly, Albanian has a tremendous Latin related superstrate which reasonably points of a language spoken by people in contact with Latin and by all means these people didn't live near Greeks or Greek speakers but almost certainly north of them and very likely pushed south during the early Medieval.
Furthermore, the Latin derived words of Albanian show both Eastern and Western Romance derivation. For example, take the Albanian word for church, al. Kisha from Latin ecclēsia. In Italian is Chiesa, spanish. Iglesia, portuguese. Igreja, french. église, all come from the same root, the Latin word for church ecclēsia. However in Eastern Romance languages the word for church is romanian. biserică, aromanian.*bãsearicã, meglen-vlach. bisearică, all derived from an earlier term for church in Vulgar Latin Basilica.
This point to a placement of proto-Albanian speakers north of the Greeks and west of the Eastern Romance speakers but still south of Danube. This corresponds with the western Balkans and the territory of Serbia, Montenegro, North Albania..

ShpataEMadhe
02-20-2021, 08:40 PM
Just because modern-day Greek do not have a substantial amount of R1b-M269 clusters, something that I personally am unsure of since Greeks in general are not well tested, does not mean that the Ancient Greeks did not. As a population that likely originated somewhere on the Pontic steppe, the Proto-Greeks without a doubt carried R1b-M269 and maybe even R1a-M417 clusters. This is further supported by the fact that the closest linguistic groups to the Greeks, such as the Armenians, have their own clusters under those haplogroups.

As for the lack of R1 clusters in the Mycenaean samples, it should be remembered that only a handful of remains were tested. It could simply just be that the R1-rich Greek-speaking elite imposed themselves over a dominantly J2a-M410 and G population. Not only this, but the Mycenaeans were not the porgentiors of all the Ancient Greek peoples as has been erroneously claimed by some. They were only one sub-group that migrated southwards, likely speaking a dialect ancestral or related to the Arcadocypriot dialect of the Peloponnese. However, it has been rumoured that R1b-M269 clusters have been found in some unpublished Ancient Greek samples. For example on Carlos Quiles' map (https://indo-european.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=e355625d5fbe46469cfdc85fce6eb04a) the following samples have been added: MycenaeanElite1 (c. 1500 BCE) with R1b-Z2103 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2103/), and AMV-CO_3 (470-430 BCE) with R1b-P297 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-P297/).

Not possible to impose a language amongst larger population of locals - ive explained this already there were no public schools back then its a modern thing. Not to mention no texts no books nothing to help impose such a huge change. Most r1b that moved to ancient greece would have been celtic/maybe dorian/illyrian/thracian etc.

When we get some official data to confirm r1b in ancient greece we can talk about them being r1b people. Ancient greek language is not indo european whatever that means - it has had many loan over thousands of years but it was initially built by people who moved from anatolia j2a and g2

ShpataEMadhe
02-20-2021, 08:45 PM
I knew I should've never mentioned R1b on Anthrogenica, nothing good ever comes out of it.. :music: Personally, I don't care about R1b's exact origins and spread and I don't have a stake in the eternal fights taking place here. My argument wasn't about R1b per se, it was about the haplogroups the proto-Greek and related Balkan Bronze Age groups carried, whichever they were. Clearly they mixed with pre-existing populations in Greece and created the Mycenean and later Greek civilisations.

Regarding G2, you're assuming proto-Greeks didn't carry it at all prior to entering Greece but we know it existed in the Balkans since the Neolithic and wasn't totally wiped out. The proto-Greeks didn't travel straight from the steppe, they mixed with other groups even before they entered Greece. Again, personally I don't care if my paternal line came from Greece or from China, I don't have any emotional investment in it.

Why would so called indo european r1b people carry g2 to greece when it is almost non existant across rest of europe where r1b is strong - r1b wiped out g2 not moved it to greece. G2 and j2a moved to greece from anatolia and formed the minoans and myceneans, reason why it is strong in places where greeks travelled - south italy/turkey yet not in other places is because it was one of the lines ancient greeks carried

Kelmendasi
02-20-2021, 08:47 PM
Not possible to impose a language amongst larger population of locals - ive explained this already there were no public schools back then its a modern thing. Not to mention no texts no books nothing to help impose such a huge change. Most r1b that moved to ancient greece would have been celtic/maybe dorian/illyrian/thracian etc.

When we get some official data to confirm r1b in ancient greece we can talk about them being r1b people. Ancient greek language is not indo european whatever that means - it has had many loan over thousands of years but it was initially built by people who moved from anatolia j2a and g2
It certainly was possible, especially if that population had some kind of technological, militaristic, or social advantage over the others. Which we know to have been the case for the Proto-Indo-Europeans as a whole. Even in recorded history minority groups were in some cases able to impose themselves as the elites of a larger indigenous population, take the Mitanni of the Bronze Age for example who's elite had names of Indo-Aryan etymology or morphology.

The Greek language is without a doubt an Indo-European language, this is the almost universal consensus on the subject. The argument that linguistic similarities only arose out of exchange is very weak. It does not explain the vast majority of innovations common across language of the same linguistic family.

Hawk
02-20-2021, 08:49 PM
Not possible to impose a language amongst larger population of locals - ive explained this already there were no public schools back then its a modern thing. Not to mention no texts no books nothing to help impose such a huge change. Most r1b that moved to ancient greece would have been celtic/maybe dorian/illyrian/thracian etc.

When we get some official data to confirm r1b in ancient greece we can talk about them being r1b people. Ancient greek language is not indo european whatever that means - it has had many loan over thousands of years but it was initially built by people who moved from anatolia j2a and g2

No better candidate for Proto-Greek except R1b-Z2103. J2a and G2a was found among non-Greek Minoans, so similar populations in mainland were assimilated by Proto-Greeks.

Johnny ola
02-20-2021, 08:51 PM
Not possible to impose a language amongst larger population of locals - ive explained this already there were no public schools back then its a modern thing. Not to mention no texts no books nothing to help impose such a huge change. Most r1b that moved to ancient greece would have been celtic/maybe dorian/illyrian/thracian etc.

When we get some official data to confirm r1b in ancient greece we can talk about them being r1b people. Ancient greek language is not indo european whatever that means - it has had many loan over thousands of years but it was initially built by people who moved from anatolia j2a and g2

I would suggest you to not write things that you don't know or you are not an expert. The bronze age Greek language of Mycenaeans(Achaeans) is a very IE based dialect and the vast majority of Greek academics and linguistics do not understand a single word comparing it with the modern Greek. The Greek language started to become less IE and more native after the IA and more specific during the Archaic ages with the formation of the first Greek tribes like Ionians, Dorians, Achaeans, Aeolians etc. With exception arcadocypriot the rest of the other languages are indeed a combination of IE with strong native influences. It will change completely and will lose its IE character with the hellenistic and byzantine times forming to Koine Greek. There I have to admit it that the language is not a proper IE language. Not gonna mention about the modern Greek it contains influences from everywhere. But you are 100% wrong about the fist Greek speaking language of the bronze age period that of mycenaeans.

ShpataEMadhe
02-20-2021, 08:53 PM
It certainly was possible, especially if that population had some kind of technological, militaristic, or social advantage over the others. Which we know to have been the case for the Proto-Indo-Europeans as a whole. Even in recorded history minority groups were in some cases able to impose themselves as the elites of a larger indigenous population, take the Mitanni of the Bronze Age for example who's elite had names of Indo-Aryan etymology or morphology.

The Greek language is without a doubt an Indo-European language, this is the almost universal consensus on the subject. The argument that linguistic similarities only arose out of exchange is very weak. It does not explain the vast majority of innovations common across language of the same linguistic family.

It isnt, explain to me a way or a scenario in which a small group of men would keep thousands of people around and manage to change the way the speak without books, schools, internet, nothing - understand that it is already difficult to learn a new language with all of this. Like i said dna tells the truth - theories are just theories. Ancient greeks carried j2a and g2 as proven thus far by ancient dna and not just that but also modern dna where it vastly outnumbers western r1b. European words in greek are loan words

ShpataEMadhe
02-20-2021, 08:56 PM
No better candidate for Proto-Greek except R1b-Z2103. J2a and G2a was found among non-Greek Minoans, so similar populations in mainland were assimilated by Proto-Greeks.

Nothing thus far has been found to link z2103 with ancient greeks - most of it is recent.

Genetic difference between minoans and myceneans was minimal

Bane
02-20-2021, 08:57 PM
Very unlikely...

The Paeonians were interacting with the Macedonians extensively and were part of the Macedonian kingdom for quite long. They lived primarily in what is now eastern North Macedonian and western Bulgaria. The archaeological material post Macedonian period of these regions shows that the area was hellenized to great extent. Even if we assume that unassimilated pockets of Paeonians survived and have spoken their native language as the Bessi did, most probably the influence of the Koine would have been tremendous, which is not the case with Albanian.
Secondly, Albanian has a tremendous Latin related superstrate which reasonably points of a language spoken by people in contact with Latin and by all means these people didn't live near Greeks or Greek speakers but almost certainly north of them and very likely pushed south during the early Medieval.
Furthermore, the Latin derived words of Albanian show both Eastern and Western Romance derivation. For example, take the Albanian word for church, al. Kisha from Latin ecclēsia. In Italian is Chiesa, spanish. Iglesia, portuguese. Igreja, french. église, all come from the same root, the Latin word for church ecclēsia. However in Eastern Romance languages the word for church is romanian. biserică, aromanian.*bãsearicã, meglen-vlach. bisearică, all derived from an earlier term for church in Vulgar Latin Basilica.
This point to a placement of proto-Albanian speakers north of the Greeks and west of the Eastern Romance speakers but still south of Danube. This corresponds with the western Balkans and the territory of Serbia, Montenegro, North Albania..

I'm fine with the most of what you wrote here (excluding Montenegro).
I just don't think it was R-Z2103 (which of course includes Z2705) people which were responsible for the appearance of proto-Albanian. I rather think the speakers of proto-Albanian should be sought among some E-BY3880 subbranches, and it is exactly these E-BY3880 groups which match your thesis.

Johnny ola
02-20-2021, 09:02 PM
Nothing thus far has been found to link z2103 with ancient greeks - most of it is recent

G and J are not the main lineages. EV13 is the boss in modern Greek genetics. And who told you that modern Greeks are exactly the same people genetically with their forefathers? J2a is the major YDNA only in Crete and to some islands..and the people there are mostly Bronze Age Anatolian in their autosomal. How you know what lineages are from the bronze age and what lineages arrived there via Anatolia/West Asia? Have you test them? You know their clades?

Hawk
02-20-2021, 09:05 PM
Without aDNA from Balkans we will go in an infinite loop with guesses.

Kelmendasi
02-20-2021, 09:06 PM
It isnt, explain to me a way or a scenario in which a small group of men would keep thousands of people around and manage to change the way the speak without books, schools, internet, nothing. Like i said dna tells the truth - theories are just theories. Ancient greeks carried j2a and g2 as proven thus far by ancient dna and not just that but also modern dna where it vastly outnumbers western r1b. European words in greek are loan words
I already did, through technological, militaristic, or social advantage. You are also making the assumption that the indigenous population was extremely vast, something which I have not seen you back up with any evidence. An even better example that I forgot of was the Punics or Carthaginians. Initially a colony of the Phoenician city-state of Tyre, the colony expanded to the point where it gained its independence in c. 650 BCE. By this time, the population greatly increased, and the majority was bound to be made up of local North African tribes and population groups. The elite especially maintained some Phoenician ancestry or cultural identity. As to how the Phoenicians were able to impose themselves, it was simply due to their more advanced technology (in particularly maritime) and social structure. On top of other factors.

In regards to the ancient DNA, you are using a small handful of samples from one particular Ancient or early Greek civilization to back up your heavy claims in regards to the Proto-Greeks and all of their descendants.

The "European" words in Greek are not loan words, this is an extremely fringe view that has some nationalistic implications. It would mean that somehow the Ancient Greeks were in constant intense linguistic contacts with the vast majority of European and even West Asian population groups, to the point where the language was completely changed. They are from the same Proto-Indo-European root. Now explain, why is it that Greek is most closely related morphological, phonologically, etc to Indo-European languages? Loanwords by themselves just cannot explain those similarities.

ShpataEMadhe
02-20-2021, 09:06 PM
I'm fine with the most of what you wrote here (excluding Montenegro).
I just don't think it was R-Z2103 (which of course includes Z2705) people which were responsible for the appearance of proto-Albanian. I rather think the speakers of proto-Albanian should be sought among some E-BY3880 subbranches, and it is exactly these E-BY3880 groups which match your thesis.

Absolutely zero chance proto albanians were formed by one branch

Bane
02-20-2021, 09:10 PM
Absolutely zero chance proto albanians were formed by one branch

Ok :)

ShpataEMadhe
02-20-2021, 09:13 PM
G and J are not the main lineages. EV13 is the boss in modern Greek genetics. And who told you that modern Greeks are exactly the same people genetically with their forefathers? J2a is the major YDNA only in Crete and to some islands..and the people there are mostly Bronze Age Anatolian in their autosomal. How you know what lineages are from the bronze age and what lineages arrived there via Anatolia/West Asia? Have you test them? You know their clades?

Youre the one making up theories without adna - i told you only j2a and g2 are found in ancient greece and modern greeks have still have plenty of it. Modern greeks have roughly the same v13 as j2a but v13 is missing in ancient greeks and most lines look recent so do the math

ShpataEMadhe
02-20-2021, 09:15 PM
I already did, through technological, militaristic, or social advantage. You are also making the assumption that the indigenous population was extremely vast, something which I have not seen you back up with any evidence. An even better example that I forgot of was the Punics or Carthaginians. Initially a colony of the Phoenician city-state of Tyre, the colony expanded to the point where it gained its independence in c. 650 BCE. By this time, the population greatly increased, and the majority was bound to be made up of local North African tribes and population groups. The elite especially maintained some Phoenician ancestry or cultural identity. As to how the Phoenicians were able to impose themselves, it was simply due to their more advanced technology (in particularly maritime) and social structure. On top of other factors.

In regards to the ancient DNA, you are using a small handful of samples from one particular Ancient or early Greek civilization to back up your heavy claims in regards to the Proto-Greeks and all of their descendants.

The "European" words in Greek are not loan words, this is an extremely fringe view that has some nationalistic implications. It would mean that somehow the Ancient Greeks were in constant intense linguistic contacts with the vast majority of European and even West Asian population groups, to the point where the language was completely changed. They are from the same Proto-Indo-European root. Now explain, why is it that Greek is most closely related morphological, phonologically, etc to Indo-European languages? Loanwords by themselves just cannot explain those similarities.

Again nothing from you - i said give me some actual examples how a small group of men can change the language of many more.

If me saying greek has many loan words, how is that worse than you suggesting ancient greeks have been wiped out yet somehow modern greeks today still speak the same language

Johnny ola
02-20-2021, 09:20 PM
Youre the one making up theories without adna - i told you only j2a and g2 are found in ancient greece and modern greeks have still have plenty of it. Modern greeks have roughly the same v13 as j2a but v13 is missing in ancient greeks and most looks recent so do the math

LOL. I am tired mentioning again and again the same things. The samples we have from ancient Greeks and their yDNA markers are a few. We need at least 20 more samples to have a better conclusion. I know you are a nativist who wants to prove that IE dialects are of native roots/origins in Balkans and to South Europe... but no1 in here can take such an issue serious...

Kelmendasi
02-20-2021, 09:24 PM
Again nothing from you - i said give me some actual examples how a small group of men can change the language of many more.

If me saying greek has many loan words how is worse than you suggesting ancient greeks have been wiped out yet somehow greeks today still speak the same language
Were the Carthaginians not an example? The Punic language, an off-shoot of Phoenician, was spoken throughout the territories of the Carthaginians and was the official language. Now of course with time there was a decline in the usage of Punic, and the local Berber languages became dominant again (its very possible that they were still dominant in the general population), however this is irrelevant as Punic was still able to dominate for a period of time despite it being the mother tongue of only a small percentage of the general population. Maybe I should also bring up how the Hungarian language belongs to the Uralic language family whilst genetically Hungarians are almost the same as their non-Uralic neighbours.

Anyways, you are willingly going around in circles. It is clear that your opinion on the subject will not change unless more ancient DNA is presented, so just wait and see what future findings show.

Aspar
02-20-2021, 09:44 PM
I'm fine with the most of what you wrote here (excluding Montenegro).
I just don't think it was R-Z2103 (which of course includes Z2705) people which were responsible for the appearance of proto-Albanian. I rather think the speakers of proto-Albanian should be sought among some E-BY3880 subbranches, and it is exactly these E-BY3880 groups which match your thesis.

Ok, I see what you had in mind, I was quick to make a judgement that you might indicate Paeonian origin of the Albanians and their language. Might be an assimilated lineage who knows, we will never know for sure without aDna but even then is not guaranteed.
But didn't you say earlier on that E-BY3880 is more diverse in Eastern Balkan?

Pribislav
02-20-2021, 10:26 PM
Imagine they cite me Govedarica in front of Hammond and Gimbutas regarding Illyrians. I rest my case there.

LOL, dude you don't have a case, just some nonsensical blabbering, supported with zero facts from reliable sources. It is clear you don't even know who professor Govedarica is, nor have you actually read anything he wrote, you're just frustrated with the fact that he is a Serb whose half a century-long academic work smashes your fairytales into pieces. There are hardly any more knowledgable archaeologists in the world when it comes to Illyrians and West Balkans BA/IA in general, and the fact that you think Hammond and Gimbutas are bigger authorities in this field than Govedarica is hilarious.

Trojet
02-20-2021, 10:34 PM
Ok, I see what you had in mind, I was quick to make a judgement that you might indicate Paeonian origin of the Albanians and their language. Might be an assimilated lineage who knows, we will never know for sure without aDna but even then is not guaranteed.
But didn't you say earlier on that E-BY3880 is more diverse in Eastern Balkan?

So when all fails (R-PF7563, R-Z2705, J-L283) it must be some imaginary "E-BY3880" lineage(s) responsible for the Albanian language. It's the usual cherry-picking analysis by some of our neighbors. In their mind, Albanian cannot be native to western Balkans, and must've come from elsewhere (Dacian, Thracian, etc).

gjergj
02-20-2021, 10:34 PM
No thats not how it works. A tribe isnt created by coming to new land and learning the language of the originals - thats assimilation. The illyrians clearly pushed the greeks further south (and some mixed to later become epirotes etc) which is why i believe pf7563 might have something to do with greeks. It looks like it has ancient presence but much stronger in south - i believe illyrians outnumbered these after wiping most of them out - right now it looks like illyrians may have carried 2/3 of these when they moved into the balkans - r1b z2103, j2b l283, v13, (less chance r1a l1029) but without ancient dna from the correct time we cant say which

It is a fact that PF7563 has higher diversity among the Geg Albanian than the Tosk Albanians even though the Tosk have good diversity as well. So your interpretation is based on incorrect facts as far as PF7563 is concerned.

gjergj
02-20-2021, 10:45 PM
I'm not sure. Somewhere between Albania and Shopluk.
Actually I will be specific. In my opinion R-Z2705 could possibly be related to the Paeonian ancestry.



https://i.imgur.com/xp94B35.png

To understand the diversity of Z2705 look at Yfull. There have been new results recently mostly thanks to Rrenjet Project. With the exception of one result at the top that has no flag and I dont know the country of origin all the flagless results are albanian + the one with albania flags you can see very clearly that the highest diversity is not only among albanians specifically but in west balkans overall if you see the rest of the flags.
So you can argue anything you wish regarding its origins, but not where its highest diversity is. That is extremely obvious.

Aspar
02-20-2021, 11:06 PM
So when all fails (R-PF7563, R-Z2705, J-L283) it must be some imaginary "E-BY3880" lineage(s) responsible for the Albanian language. It's the usual cherry-picking analysis by some of our neighbors. In their mind, Albanian cannot be native to western Balkans, and must've come from elsewhere (Dacian, Thracian, etc).

I'm not sure why my post is quoted when there is no direct reply but only a passive aggressive commentary. I'm not even supporting the thesis that Albanians and their language are of or mostly of eastern Balkan derivation.

Trojet
02-20-2021, 11:18 PM
I'm not sure why my post is quoted when there is no direct reply but only a passive aggressive commentary. I'm not even supporting the thesis that Albanians and their language are of or mostly of eastern Balkan derivation.

It wasn't meant for you, but to the other user you had quoted. Sorry for the confusion. I've read where you stand..

Bane
02-20-2021, 11:25 PM
But didn't you say earlier on that E-BY3880 is more diverse in Eastern Balkan?

The thing is, whenever someone talks about Western Balkans he has Dalmatia and Montenegro in mind. So when compared to these region even including Albania I think E-BY3880 should be more diverse in Eastern Balkans.
So maybe it is better to talk about Western, Eastern and Central Balkans.

And the regions which you mentioned in your previous post do correspond to the Central Balkans. And I agree it should be the region where proto-Albanian emerged.
So it should be neither Western (Dalmatia, Montenegro, Albania) nor Eastern Balkans.

ShpataEMadhe
02-21-2021, 12:35 AM
It is a fact that PF7563 has higher diversity among the Geg Albanian than the Tosk Albanians even though the Tosk have good diversity as well. So your interpretation is based on incorrect facts as far as PF7563 is concerned.

South albanians have had much less testing yet still have higher frequency of pf7563. It is likely with more testing they may have more diversity too. Again like i said illyrians and other groups moved to balkans AFTER ancient greeks so still possible for pf7563 to be greek remnants in regions they visited before being pushed back down south. We will hopefully find out with adna

ShpataEMadhe
02-21-2021, 12:38 AM
Were the Carthaginians not an example? The Punic language, an off-shoot of Phoenician, was spoken throughout the territories of the Carthaginians and was the official language. Now of course with time there was a decline in the usage of Punic, and the local Berber languages became dominant again (its very possible that they were still dominant in the general population), however this is irrelevant as Punic was still able to dominate for a period of time despite it being the mother tongue of only a small percentage of the general population. Maybe I should also bring up how the Hungarian language belongs to the Uralic language family whilst genetically Hungarians are almost the same as their non-Uralic neighbours.

Anyways, you are willingly going around in circles. It is clear that your opinion on the subject will not change unless more ancient DNA is presented, so just wait and see what future findings show.

That is completely irrelevant as you dont have figures of how many people spoke what. Just makes my point that numbers back in those times decided the language spoken due to no schools. Just like they spoke a berber language quickly due to the density of berbers - people always spoke the language of their peers

Riverman
02-21-2021, 12:49 AM
That is completely irrelevant as you dont have figures of how many people spoke what. Just makes my point that numbers back in those times decided the language spoken due to no schools. Just like they spoke a berber language quickly due to the density of berbers - people always spoke the language of their peers

There is no rule to that either way, every case needs to be looked at on its own. But more often than not, a conquest resulted in a language shift. And the Proto-Greek migration was no small one, even if the incoming early Greeks were probably always in the minority.

broder
02-21-2021, 12:54 AM
I'm not sure. Somewhere between Albania and Shopluk.
Actually I will be specific. In my opinion R-Z2705 could possibly be related to the Paeonian ancestry.



https://i.imgur.com/xp94B35.png

Shopluk? How many samples have you seen from there and where exactly do they fall in? Please point us to them, because based on two Bulgarian projects, including the samples from the scientific studies, you couldn't be further from the truth.

ShpataEMadhe
02-21-2021, 12:59 AM
There is no rule to that either way, every case needs to be looked at on its own. But more often than not, a conquest resulted in a language shift. And the Proto-Greek migration was no small one, even if the incoming early Greeks were probably always in the minority.

What good is it to try to impose a completely different language to locals that greatly outnumber you, much safer bet to get rid of the locals as they cannot be trusted with lack of communication. Please understand, it would be impossible to impose a language to thousands of people without public schools and books let alone the fact that they dont want to learn it or welcome invaders. Why would they return to their families every night and try speak this new language when so much easier to speak their own and continue their life as they were.

In my opinion greeks have european loan words through being in contact with various groups for thousands of years - original greeks were j2a and g2 until adna proves otherwise. As much as indo european propaganda wants everything to belong to them, it has to be proven with dna, southern european culture is clearly very different to western europe - you will only find greek temples in greek lands you dont find them in western europe - also please explain where all the j2a in south italy came from, no chance it went straight from iran/middle east to south italy bypassing other groups and expanding so greatly.

Kelmendasi
02-21-2021, 01:00 AM
That is completely irrelevant as you dont have figures of how many people spoke what. Just makes my point that numbers back in those times decided the language spoken due to no schools. Just like they spoke a berber language quickly due to the density of berbers - people always spoke the language of their peers
I also provided you with the example of the Hungarians, a population speaking a completely different language from their neighbours but yet still genetically very similar. The only explanation for this is linguistic change due to the arrival of a foreign population that imposed itself on the locals.

ShpataEMadhe
02-21-2021, 01:20 AM
I also provided you with the example of the Hungarians, a population speaking a completely different language from their neighbours but yet still genetically very similar. The only explanation for this is linguistic change due to the arrival of a foreign population that imposed itself on the locals.

Except hungarians also carry y dna that is different to their neighbours and still have plenty of loan words especially slavic ~ 25%

"Another study on Y-Chromosome markers concluded that "modern Hungarian and Székelys (a subgroup of Hungarians living in the Székely Land in modern-day central Romania) are genetically related, and that they share similar components described for other Europeans, except for the presence of the Haplogroup P (M173) in Székely samples, which may reflect a Central Asian connection from the time of the Hungarian migration from the Urals to Europe.[63]

Recent genetic research is in line with the previous archaeological and anthropological assumptions that the original Hungarian conqueror tribes were related to the Onogur-Bulgars.[64] A substantial part of the conquerors show similarities to the Xiongnu and Asian Scythians and presumably this Inner Asian component on their way to Europe mixed with the peoples of the Pontic steppes. According to this study the conqueror Hungarians owed their mostly Europid characteristics to the descendants of the Srubnaya culture."

If you look at what people are saying about greeks - it is too extreme in comparison - suggesting they were completely wiped out and those who did so continued their language

Johnny ola
02-21-2021, 01:21 AM
What good is it to try to impose a completely different language to locals that greatly outnumber you, much safer bet to get rid of the locals as they cannot be trusted with lack of communication. Please understand, it would be impossible to impose a language to thousands of people without public schools and books let alone the fact that they dont want to learn it or welcome invaders. Why would they return to their families every night and try speak this new language when so much easier to speak their own and continue their life as they were.

In my opinion greeks have european loan words through being in contact with various groups for thousands of years - original greeks were j2a and g2 until adna proves otherwise. As much as indo european propaganda wants everything to belong to them, it has to be proven with dna, southern european culture is clearly very different to western europe - you will only find greek temples in greek lands you dont find them in western europe - also please explain where all the j2a in south italy came from, no chance it went straight from iran/middle east to south italy bypassing other groups and expanding so greatly.

Plss tell me where are you from?

ShpataEMadhe
02-21-2021, 01:29 AM
Plss tell me where are you from?

Off topic - but I am currently on Mars thanks to Nasa and their perseverance rover

Kelmendasi
02-21-2021, 01:31 AM
Except hungarians also carry y dna that is different to their neighbours and still have plenty of loan words especially slavic ~ 25%

"Another study on Y-Chromosome markers concluded that "modern Hungarian and Székelys (a subgroup of Hungarians living in the Székely Land in modern-day central Romania) are genetically related, and that they share similar components described for other Europeans, except for the presence of the Haplogroup P (M173) in Székely samples, which may reflect a Central Asian connection from the time of the Hungarian migration from the Urals to Europe.[63]

Recent genetic research is in line with the previous archaeological and anthropological assumptions that the original Hungarian conqueror tribes were related to the Onogur-Bulgars.[64] A substantial part of the conquerors show similarities to the Xiongnu and Asian Scythians and presumably this Inner Asian component on their way to Europe mixed with the peoples of the Pontic steppes. According to this study the conqueror Hungarians owed their mostly Europid characteristics to the descendants of the Srubnaya culture."

If you look at what people are saying about greeks - it is too extreme in comparison - suggesting they were completely wiped out and those who did so continued their language
And Greeks have Y-DNA haplogroups that can be associated with the Indo-European migrations.

Loanwords mean nothing in this case. What matters is that there was complete linguistic replacement.

Johnny ola
02-21-2021, 01:34 AM
Off topic - but I am currently on Mars thanks to Nasa and their perseverance rover

LoL.Imagine how ashamed you are to cover your ethnic background :laugh::lol:;)

ShpataEMadhe
02-21-2021, 01:36 AM
And Greeks have Y-DNA haplogroups that can be associated with the Indo-European migrations.

Loanwords mean nothing in this case. What matters is that there was complete linguistic replacement.

Loanwords are very important in the discussion when at such high figures amongst hungarian

ShpataEMadhe
02-21-2021, 01:38 AM
LoL.Imagine how ashamed you are to cover your ethnic background :laugh::lol:;)

I dont cover anything, my username says it all really. Its just a pointless question that doesnt help understanding the genetics of ancient people in south europe

Johnny ola
02-21-2021, 01:44 AM
I dont cover anything, my username says it all really. Its just a pointless question that doesnt help determine the genetics of ancient people in south europe

No,your name actually says nothing to me.When someones ask you....your ethnic background you should answer immediately.Otherwise you showing complex,low self-esteem,shame etc.A proud man never covers his ethnics.

ShpataEMadhe
02-21-2021, 01:56 AM
No,your name actually says nothing to me.When someones ask you....your ethnic background you should answer immediately.Otherwise you showing complex,low self-esteem,shame etc.A proud man never covers his ethnics.

Seriously haha, ask some users here where im from. Like i said if i had some sort of shame i wouldnt use a username like this - i could simply type something in english since i know it well and most of the world is speaking english now with the internet phenomena

Johnny ola
02-21-2021, 02:19 AM
Seriously haha, ask some users here where im from. Like i said if i had some sort of shame i wouldnt use a username like this - i could simply type something in english since i know it well and most of the world is speaking english now with the internet phenomena

You are a balkan nativist its obvious.The point is no1 is taking serious your theories about native IE dialects in south europe.Such theories have come to an end.If you want to discuss in a proper mood you have to avoid such ridiculous opinions.

ShpataEMadhe
02-21-2021, 02:30 AM
You are a balkan nativist its obvious.The point is no1 is taking serious your theories about native IE dialects in south europe.Such theories have come to an end.If you want to discuss in a proper mood you have to avoid such ridiculous opinions.

Theories are proven/disproven with facts. We dont have enough ancient dna from balkans to prove anything yet - and languages like greek and albanian are still mysterious - greek only has 30% link to indo european. We can talk about IE sure but IE in balkans is not some pure r1b movement - it was other groups that were the true majority and formed at different periods not same as western europe

Hawk
02-21-2021, 02:43 AM
LOL, dude you don't have a case, just some nonsensical blabbering, supported with zero facts from reliable sources. It is clear you don't even know who professor Govedarica is, nor have you actually read anything he wrote, you're just frustrated with the fact that he is a Serb whose half a century-long academic work smashes your fairytales into pieces. There are hardly any more knowledgable archaeologists in the world when it comes to Illyrians and West Balkans BA/IA in general, and the fact that you think Hammond and Gimbutas are bigger authorities in this field than Govedarica is hilarious.

Lol, no shit. I don't have to read him. I doubt he has any authority in the topic. I read Gimbutas and newer findings are more up to date with her opinion.

ShpataEMadhe
02-21-2021, 03:02 AM
More reasons to believe ancient greeks were different to the balkan influenced post ancient greece -

"Three reasons why Greeks fought on the side of the Persians against Alexander

Greek hoplites were very much valued by the Persians. They comprised perhaps their best infantry and were better-suited to stand up to the Macedonian phalanx than most other troops available to the Persians. They played a central role in Persian battle tactics at the Granicus River (334 BCE)

Most Greeks did not consider the Macedonians to be “proper” Greeks. They considered them rather as barbarians.

Most Greeks resented Alexander’s/Macedonian dominance over their city-states. Thebes had already rebelled against Alexander (and been destroyed). His governor, Antipater, put down a Spartan rebellion while Alexander was away in Asia.

So, some Greeks fought against Alexander in order to inflict damage on him and (and perhaps, kill him).

After the battle of the Granicus River (334 BCE), Alexander ordered the Greek mercenaries to be enslaved. Out of the 18,000 Greek mercenaries, half were killed and 8,000 enslaved and sent back to Macedon."

Thebes likely were the myceneans as their settlements have been noted. Their name comes from ancient egypt
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thebes,_Egypt

In the link you also see what looks very similar to greek temples which were built across ancient greece, south italy and turkey - all regions strong in j2a and g2
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thebes,_Egypt#/media/File%3ADecorated_pillars_of_the_temple_at_Karnac%2 C_Thebes%2C_Egypt._Co_Wellcome_V0049316.jpg

Ancient greeks were not indo europeans - they came through anatolia or via the mediterranean sea into crete and rest of greece

rafc
02-21-2021, 07:23 AM
Theories are proven/disproven with facts. We dont have enough ancient dna from balkans to prove anything yet - and languages like greek and albanian are still mysterious - greek only has 30% link to indo european. We can talk about IE sure but IE in balkans is not some pure r1b movement - it was other groups that were the true majority and formed at different periods not same as western europe

DNA is not what proves language, language does. There is no doubt among linguists that Greek is an IE language. Linguists also had a broad concensus that IE originated on the Steppe. So ultimately Greek needs to have roots on the Steppe, even if en route to Greece the proto-Greek speakers picked up other groups.
The contribution of aDNA research has been to identify the Steppe component in autosomal DNA and show it came from the Steppe and started to appear in SE Europe and Greece in the Bronze age.
You talk mainly about modern Y-DNA distribution of very high level groups which is the result of thousands of years of complex changes at a much finer level since the arrival of IE languages. Look at the elegant theory of Riverman using many subgroups to explain why V13 is now so dominant in the Western Balkans and you will see that a simple theory only looking at V13 as a whole would never work.

gjergj
02-21-2021, 08:09 AM
South albanians have had much less testing yet still have higher frequency of pf7563. It is likely with more testing they may have more diversity too. Again like i said illyrians and other groups moved to balkans AFTER ancient greeks so still possible for pf7563 to be greek remnants in regions they visited before being pushed back down south. We will hopefully find out with adna

Wrong again with facts based on which you keep going with interpretations. It is no longer true that south albania is not well tested. It is well tested. Rrenjet.com if you want to compare nr. Of course more would not hurt but this is no reason to speculate on interpretation simply by saying there is not enough testing. Whatever has not been caught by testing thus far will be extremely low/small subclades or an extremely small haplogroup here and there.
Albanians now are well tested and only some minor subregions need specifically more testing.
Regarding PF7563 specifically out of three main branches that you can see Albanian results in Yfull Tosk Albanian are only in one whereas Geg Albanias are in all three. The branch that is common is split between Geg and Tosk and they both have good diversity on this branch but Tosk have more.
Even more importantly PF7563 presence in Greece thus far is only linked to middle age movements of Albanians/Arvanitas and not preroman. One the other hand it has a presence in Bosnia as well that is not post Roman period but much older there even though in Bosnia deeper testing is needed on this. So from Bosnia/Serbia all the way to south Albania you can find PF7563 with great diversity.
So again you start with wrong facts.
In short we have great difficulty even with the current facts to make solid interpretations, whereas by consistently disregarding some basic facts/numbers we end up with added difficulty and further from reaching some clarity.

Hawk
02-21-2021, 08:17 AM
Wrong again with facts based on which you keep going with interpretations. It is no longer true that south albania is not well tested. It is well tested. Rrenjet.com if you want to compare nr. Of course more would not hurt but this is no reason to speculate on interpretation simply by saying there is not enough testing. Whatever has not been caught by testing thus far will be extremely low/small subclades or an extremely small haplogroup here and there.
Albanians now are well tested and only some minor subregions need specifically more testing.
Regarding PF7563 specifically out of three main branches that you can see Albanian results in Yfull Tosk Albanian are only in one whereas Geg Albanias are in all three. The branch that is common is split between Geg and Tosk and they both have good diversity on this branch but Tosk have more.
Even more importantly PF7563 presence in Greece thus far is only linked to middle age movements of Albanians/Arvanitas and not preroman. One the other hand it has a presence in Bosnia as well that is not post Roman period but much older there even though in Bosnia deeper testing is needed on this. So from Bosnia/Serbia all the way to south Albania you can find PF7563 with great diversity.
So again you start with wrong facts.

So, what do u think, is R1b - PF7563 a good candidate for Hittite-Luwian languages?

Johane Derite
02-21-2021, 11:31 AM
Ancient greeks were not indo europeans - they came through anatolia or via the mediterranean sea into crete and rest of greece

With this comment, you should just stop altogether now. Ancient Greek was an indo-european language, and one of the earliest documented at that. If you don't understand this basic fact and why it is a fact then it is not fruitful that you comment here until you go do some basic research on why Ancient Greek not only is an Indo-European language, but was one of the languages which led to the discovery and conception of Indo-European.

ShpataEMadhe
02-21-2021, 11:47 AM
DNA is not what proves language, language does. There is no doubt among linguists that Greek is an IE language. Linguists also had a broad concensus that IE originated on the Steppe. So ultimately Greek needs to have roots on the Steppe, even if en route to Greece the proto-Greek speakers picked up other groups.
The contribution of aDNA research has been to identify the Steppe component in autosomal DNA and show it came from the Steppe and started to appear in SE Europe and Greece in the Bronze age.
You talk mainly about modern Y-DNA distribution of very high level groups which is the result of thousands of years of complex changes at a much finer level since the arrival of IE languages. Look at the elegant theory of Riverman using many subgroups to explain why V13 is now so dominant in the Western Balkans and you will see that a simple theory only looking at V13 as a whole would never work.

Look at my previous post to see where the ancient greeks came from. IE is a theory and like I said Greek only has 30% IE most of it came later from loan words. Most people do not believe that greek is linked to western europe - just some linguists try to force it to suit an agenda. Adna is the truth

ShpataEMadhe
02-21-2021, 11:50 AM
Wrong again with facts based on which you keep going with interpretations. It is no longer true that south albania is not well tested. It is well tested. Rrenjet.com if you want to compare nr. Of course more would not hurt but this is no reason to speculate on interpretation simply by saying there is not enough testing. Whatever has not been caught by testing thus far will be extremely low/small subclades or an extremely small haplogroup here and there.
Albanians now are well tested and only some minor subregions need specifically more testing.
Regarding PF7563 specifically out of three main branches that you can see Albanian results in Yfull Tosk Albanian are only in one whereas Geg Albanias are in all three. The branch that is common is split between Geg and Tosk and they both have good diversity on this branch but Tosk have more.
Even more importantly PF7563 presence in Greece thus far is only linked to middle age movements of Albanians/Arvanitas and not preroman. One the other hand it has a presence in Bosnia as well that is not post Roman period but much older there even though in Bosnia deeper testing is needed on this. So from Bosnia/Serbia all the way to south Albania you can find PF7563 with great diversity.
So again you start with wrong facts.
In short we have great difficulty even with the current facts to make solid interpretations, whereas by consistently disregarding some basic facts/numbers we end up with added difficulty and further from reaching some clarity.

350 tests is far too low to talk about south albanians, north albanians have had almost double - you must wait for the real picture to unfold. Bosnians and south slavs in general have had a lot more testing than albanians so far thats why they tend to have some diversity

Hawk
02-21-2021, 11:51 AM
I have checked some few Sicilian E-V13 subclades and these came out:

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FT7781*/

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y35953/

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY6527/

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY160711/

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-CTS1273/

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z16988/

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FGC11457/

ShpataEMadhe
02-21-2021, 11:54 AM
With this comment, you should just stop altogether now. Ancient Greek was an indo-european language, and one of the earliest documented at that. If you don't understand this basic fact and why it is a fact then it is not fruitful that you comment here until you go do some basic research on why Ancient Greek not only is an Indo-European language, but was one of the languages which led to the discovery and conception of Indo-European.

Basic fact my ass. There are zero facts to back up the claim - ancient greeks had nothing to do with western europe you are mixing them up with romans. Ancient greeks had their own culture clearly distinct from western europe

davit
02-21-2021, 11:57 AM
Basic fact my ass. There are zero facts to back up the claim - ancient greeks had nothing to do with western europe you are mixing them up with romans. Ancient greeks had their own culture clearly distinct from western europe

Nice straw man. He never once said anything about Western Europe. Greek is an IE language and its ancestor came from the Eastern European steppe. You need to get over it.

gjergj
02-21-2021, 11:58 AM
So, what do u think, is R1b - PF7563 a good candidate for Hittite-Luwian languages?

I do not know if they are a good for Hittite-Luwian. Don't feel qualified to have a meaningful opinion on this theory. PF7563 and/or Z2103 could be candidates for that.
But based on its current distribution it seems to be a very early indoeuropean expansion in south east Europe with a focus on the Balkans, 4,500 ybp, and within Balkans a larger presence in the western part of the Balkans. Thus far as a single country/nationality Albanians seem to have the largest diversity, particularly if you consider the small geographical size compare to other countries, as well as % compare to others. Out of the balkans/west balkans two separate movements/directions seem to have taken place between 3,200 to 4,000 ybp. One to lower part of Italic peninsula (southern half but not in sicily) and another one towards the anatolia/levant/middle east.
In Bosnia deep testing is needed as it is likely they will increase the west balkan diversity based on the initial testing there. Some more diversity will be added in Albania as well soon.
So we can say that has an EBA presence in the Balkans and in west balkans seems to cover the core of what we know were the Illyrian territories (from Bosnia to south Albania (Korca) but that is as much as I can say at this point.

Hawk
02-21-2021, 11:58 AM
Basic fact my ass. There are zero facts to back up the claim - ancient greeks had nothing to do with western europe you are mixing them up with romans. Ancient greeks had their own culture clearly distinct from western europe

haha, you are trolling. Each group of people shaped in what became Ancient Greeks, but initially R1b-Z2103 had the upper hand and assimilated the rest, imposed their language. Latter classical Greeks could have had more J2a, G2a on the islands as well as to the south of mainland and more R1b-Z2103 and E-V13 in mainland. Atleast this is how i view.

ShpataEMadhe
02-21-2021, 12:01 PM
haha, you are trolling. Each group of people shaped in what became Ancient Greeks, but initially R1b-Z2103 had the upper hand and assimilated the rest, imposed their language. Latter classical Greeks could have had more J2a, G2a on the islands as well as to the south of mainland and more R1b-Z2103 and E-V13 in mainland. Atleast this is how i view.

I am trolling yet you are making stuff up. Ancient dna doesnt back up your view. Z2103 is recent in greece, j2a and g2 created the civilization and culture after travelling from ancient egypt. It is again backed up by lack of ancient z2103 in south italy where j2a and g2 also existed. You probably know the story of ancient greeks in south italy

gjergj
02-21-2021, 12:11 PM
350 tests is far too low to talk about south albanians, north albanians have had almost double - you must wait for the real picture to unfold. Bosnians and south slavs in general have had a lot more testing than albanians so far thats why they tend to have some diversity

Again you are at best inconsistent with use of the numbers at worst intentionally twisting facts/numbers and wasting time.

Toskeria region geographically speaking is much smaller that Gegeria region and the same with population size. So when you put the current numbers in context and proportion either all Albanians are not well tested or they all are (Geg and Tosk). And any statistician will tell you that sampling size that currently exist is good enough to take the numbers at face value and move ahead with the discussion. Numbers and sampling can be improved without end but current numbers on the above are good enough and cant be used as excuses.

ShpataEMadhe
02-21-2021, 12:22 PM
Again you are at best inconsistent with use of the numbers at worst intentionally twisting facts/numbers and wasting time.

Toskeria region geographically speaking is much smaller that Gegeria region and the same with population size. So when you put the current numbers in context and proportion either all Albanians are not well tested or they all are (Geg and Tosk). And any statistician will tell you that sampling size that currently exist is good enough to take the numbers at face value and move ahead with the discussion. Numbers and sampling can be improved without end but current numbers on the above are good enough and cant be used as excuses.

Like i said 350 is too low for most groups of people - needs to reach 500 range before you can discuss tosks. Gegs could do with more testing too but right now they can be more reliably examined - gegs dont greatly outnumber tosks in albania where most testing has been done. Would also be nice to get more tests exclusively in kosova to see how their picture unfolds - right now it looks like north west albanians instead of (north east) kosovar albanians are the most homogenous

gjergj
02-21-2021, 01:18 PM
Like i said 350 is too low for most groups of people - needs to reach 500 range before you can discuss tosks. Gegs could do with more testing too but right now they can be more reliably examined - gegs dont greatly outnumber tosks in albania where most testing has been done. Would also be nice to get more tests exclusively in kosova to see how their picture unfolds - right now it looks like north west albanians instead of (north east) kosovar albanians are the most homogenous

Division Geg tosk is Shkumbin river in Albania. Geg greatly outnumber the Tosks in numbers.
Tests nr are for alll albanians not just albania. Albanian regions not Albanian Republic. but even if you stick to the albanian republics nr are good enough and well balanced between Geg and Tosk.
Currently sampling for all Albanians is good enough compare to population size. Further testing is needed to calibrate details but does not change the picture at a Macro level for albanians. From the point of view of getting clarity its the ancient dna testing that is needed now not larger sample.
Further testing will and should continue but is needed to clarify details of subclades not proportion of haplogroups, the timelines and their spread among albanian regions.
There is not such thing as too low in itself. 350 could be too low or too much depending on population size. You seem to have a habit of using nr as you wish without putting them in a context.

Adules
02-21-2021, 01:22 PM
I am trolling yet you are making stuff up. Ancient dna doesnt back up your view. Z2103 is recent in greece, j2a and g2 created the civilization and culture after travelling from ancient egypt. It is again backed up by lack of ancient z2103 in south italy where j2a and g2 also existed. You probably know the story of ancient greeks in south italy

This is your brain on petty nationalism.

Lupriac
02-21-2021, 03:09 PM
I am trolling yet you are making stuff up. Ancient dna doesnt back up your view. Z2103 is recent in greece, j2a and g2 created the civilization and culture after travelling from ancient egypt. It is again backed up by lack of ancient z2103 in south italy where j2a and g2 also existed. You probably know the story of ancient greeks in south italy
So the Indo-European language, culture, and Steppe ancestry in Greeks came when exactly, if not from Myceneaens and other R1a and R1b-linked peoples?

Hawk
02-22-2021, 09:17 AM
I have checked some few Sicilian E-V13 subclades and these came out:

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FT7781*/

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y35953/

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY6527/

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY160711/

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-CTS1273/

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z16988/

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FGC11457/

So, from what i see here, most of this subclades are not even from classical times or Iron Age, they are earlier splits than Middle Bronze Age. Cetina sailors maybe?

ShpataEMadhe
02-22-2021, 03:01 PM
So the Indo-European language, culture, and Steppe ancestry in Greeks came when exactly, if not from Myceneaens and other R1a and R1b-linked peoples?

The dna & mixed language (loan words) came from the north in the form of some of these groups - dorians, ilyrians, "barbaric macedonians", celts, maybe thracians. When we get more ancient dna we will understand a lot more about south europe. Ancient greek culture is clearly related to ancient egypt - they were the Thebes/mycaneans and minoans from previously

If you look today at modern greek dna there is strong lack of ancient r1b and r1a - most r1b looks recent and most r1a looks south slavic - so how did they carry the language without a good backbone of ancient greek dna? Surely the answer lies in j2a (and g2 to lesser extent) - these make up about a third of greek y dna today

Rrenjet.
02-22-2021, 03:14 PM
Regarding BY4526,Albanian under E-S10743 is basal in life mode on Yfull, so at least no close connection to Hungary. Though I must admit I really struggle with understandig our path.

It should be noted also that this Albanian is matching a person of Vlach ancestry (different surname) from SE Albania at 9/37, including a couple of double differences. Their MRCA must have lived much earlier than the 14th century, so current results do not support that theory.

Aspar
02-22-2021, 03:23 PM
It should be noted also that this Albanian is matching a person of Vlach ancestry (different surname) from SE Albania at 9/37, including a couple of double differences. Their MRCA must have lived much earlier than the 14th century, so current results do not support that theory.

9 of 37 is a very large distance. They might not even be from a same clade downstream of CTS9320 unless there are peculiar slow mutating markers they share which might be characteristic of this BY4526 although I don't know much about this clade tbh.

rafc
02-22-2021, 05:46 PM
E-V13 this is Calabria haplogroup. Prove me wrong.

Prove you right?

If you write a bold statement like that, you should back it up with arguments.

Rrenjet.
02-22-2021, 06:10 PM
9 of 37 is a very large distance. They might not even be from a same clade downstream of CTS9320 unless there are peculiar slow mutating markers they share which might be characteristic of this BY4526 although I don't know much about this clade tbh.

He has been tested BY4526+, A10953-. They share a few values but as I said there are plenty of differences. They either form an old cluster or belong to two related subclades, this further increasing Albanian and Balkan diversity. Either way, there is no support for the Late Medieval idea with the data we have.

Aspar
02-22-2021, 08:05 PM
He has been tested BY4526+, A10953-. They share a few values but as I said there are plenty of differences. They either form an old cluster or belong to two related subclades, this further increasing Albanian and Balkan diversity. Either way, there is no support for the Late Medieval idea with the data we have.

Thx, interesting to know.
Of course you are right, most of the E-V13 clades in the Balkans do not look like Medieval arrivals. I haven't seen even one Balkan E-V13 clade that shares antiquity or medieval TMRCA with other non-Balkan samples. As E-V13 is a broad group I will take it's downstream clade E-CTS9320 as an example. It's clear that parallells to the Balkan clades downstream of CTS9320 can be found in Hungary, Ukraine, Austria, Poland, etc. The middle point between the Balkan and these non-Balkan clades is Hungary or ancient Pannonia. This might point to an expansion of CTS9320 and various downstream clades from an area around the Carpathians and ancient Pannonia. However none of these non-Balkan clades shares TMRCA with the Balkan clades around the antiquity and the medieval as I said earlier. The TMRCA is mostly around EIA consistent with TMRCA of CTS9320. And even when the MRCA is at a later date, for example late IA as with E-Z38456, this can be explained by the Celtic invasion of the Balkans during the 3rd century BC and the subsequent withdrawal of some Celtic groups back to their home who might have taken some prisoner's of war or other Balkan people who have joined their ranks. That's clear because the diversity downstream of Z17107 is overwhelmingly on the territory between Hungary and Greece.

Although I'm a little reluctant to make assumptions based on modern samples diversity. A clear example is this clade: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y58870/
If we didn't have this medieval Hungarian sample we would have drawn conclusions that the German clade has an older presence in Germany because they lack modern matches. Yet, the ancient sample clearly points to an origin in Pannonia because FGC11450 as a whole looks like a proper Balkan clade. Probably a local who joined the ranks of some Germanic tribe or perhaps spread to Germany with the Slavs who would have assimilated it somewhere around Pannonia.

Huban
02-23-2021, 01:56 AM
Could you post those here or send them to me by PM? I would be very interested!

Well most of Greeks are in the opening post. There are some other new results I also mentioned.

I won't post Romanians here. Did you post your V13 paper on an internet forum first? ;) Many of their results are from FTDNA, just I was able to predict what subclade they belong to. On M35 project you have some people wrongly classified. Kit N52775 is most definitely not FGC11450 but A2192 (dys447, dys19)..

Huban
02-23-2021, 02:40 AM
From the available archaeological material on internet there is absolutely no relationship between Cetina and Glina III Schneckenberg. Cetina seems to be amalgam of the previous cultures in the region such as Vucedol and incoming Bell Beaker groups. Glina III Schneckenberg (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vXljf8JqmkoC&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=monteoru+culture&source=bl&ots=QyshfoFjPp&sig=ACfU3U1hCexmf1OHpK_iS6BnBvEdvi_Lpw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwipiZfd5qnqAhW_aRUIHWjCCS0Q6AEwDHoECAoQA Q#v=onepage&q=schneckenberg&f=false) on the other hand developed on the basis of Gumelnitsa and was influenced by Cernavoda and Foltesti.
The only similarity seems to be the burial rite, cist graves surrounded by stone slabs under tumuli although there aren't many graves from Glina III Schneckenberg found. The 'small' problem however is that this kind of burial was very widespread in the EBA and it's not restricted to Schneckenberg only so doesn't have to indicate Schneckenberg influence on Cetina.
On the other hand, it does seem likely that E-BY14151 or it's ancestor were born around the Carpathians and an earlier migration towards the Western Balkans contributed to it's diversity there. However E-BY14151's age and the aforementioned archaeological context makes me believe that this earlier migration didn't effect Cetina but rather it's ancestor the Vucedol Culture. When it comes to Vucedol, there certainly seem to be observed a migration of Steppe pastoralists, coming from direction of the Carpathians. The single most greatest influence these pastoralists brought was the burial under tumuli. In the last phase of Vucedol a new phenomenon is observed (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=m_mAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=vucedol+burials&source=bl&ots=0x7z1HC-rb&sig=ACfU3U2_66kNHVS9OVZmelU8srs0gK_ccQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjGpYvEl6XqAhU2REEAHZsFCQsQ6AEwBnoECAgQA Q#v=onepage&q=vucedol%20burials&f=false), a central cremation burial under tumuli. These kind of burials appear at the eastern most sphere of the Vucedol Culture, in Batajnica and Vojka in Serbia and Moldova Veche in Romania.

You should read more than wikipedia articles. There is no evidence Vučedol has relation to Cetina. There is no evidence Vučedol population of any sort was present in Cetina areas at any time. This is some 50 year old stuff about Cetina-Vučedol..

There are some parallels with Glina, or more precisely Schneckenberg in other aspects. This burial wasn't that widespread.

Bell Beaker had influence on Cetina, though according to anthropological material there is no BB influence.

The crucial element in its formation was the Adriatic type Ljubljana culture. BB and also "Ezero". This Adriatic Ljubljana culture was some fusion of local Cardials with some 100 % Yamnaya people. Most likely unrelated to most common Balkan Z2103 whose close relative was found in Mokrin. It seems this Yamnaya element has clear Transylvanian, and also indirectly again Schneckenberg links. "Ezero" links also seem to point to the same.

You seem to follow this pattern, Greeks = bad => Greeks Yamnaya related => Yamnaya bad => V13 can't have anything to do with Yamnaya...

Currently even Corded Ware is being derived from Yamnaya, all non-Anatolian IE is Yamnaya derived in some way..

Huban
02-23-2021, 03:26 AM
I looked at evidence again, the Steppe element was atributed to pit-grave but some say in general it wasn't related to Yamnaya.


Well again like I did a year ago, some old views mentioned "Ezero" but the newest views of Steppe element in Ljubljana say surely Yamnaya derived. But interestingly sporting the Corded Ware pottery. As this Yamnaya element is very old, its probably more related to the likes of R-KMS67 than R-CTS11450.

I think it is extremely unlikely V13 is anything other that this Cardial surviving element fusing with these incomers. And only centuries later was Cetina culture formed. Evidence of some EEF's surviving and coexisting with Steppe people is rare or non-existent.

It seems there was some network of related Yamnaya derived peoples roaming around W.Balkan, Bulgaria, Transylvania.. I think this fits into V13 initial spread. Their Corded pottery is interesting, maybe this is some ancient Thracian link with CWC..

Besides, as I've said before the Cardial Neolithic people were somewhat different especially culturally. For them worshipping skulls was the most important thing, and there is some evidence it continued in Cetina culture even. A tell sign E1b1b was there (Natufians, IM's).. Some archeologists mentioned also some Maasai like burial practices. One could imagine these creeps managed to accomplish what other EEF's failed. ;)

Huban
02-23-2021, 03:38 AM
I haven't seen even one Balkan E-V13 clade that shares antiquity or medieval TMRCA with other non-Balkan samples.

There are plenty of those. I know of 15-20 clades at least, just most of them haven't done BigY. But even so there are some with BigY. You focus too much on YFull's tree.

Especially can these close links be monitored in Romania/Moldova.

Huban
02-23-2021, 03:48 AM
He has been tested BY4526+, A10953-. They share a few values but as I said there are plenty of differences. They either form an old cluster or belong to two related subclades, this further increasing Albanian and Balkan diversity. Either way, there is no support for the Late Medieval idea with the data we have.

Well the BY4526+ guy said they looked "close", and I said that can only be possible if they are close. But obviously they are not, as expected. Even Hungarian in that cluster is probably of Ruthenian or the like origin.

There is considerable diversity of CTS9320 especially in Southern Albania. Even some people from the North seem to descend from S.Albania. For example Bjelopavlici tribe. Also Kelmendi have a Vlach relative from the South. Ah even E-BY4459 which is also very common in Tosks. Of Dibrri Elsie said they were "mixed with Tosks". E-FT12534 also. YF80631 also must be a Tosk?

Rrenjet.
02-23-2021, 05:33 AM
There is considerable diversity of CTS9320 especially in Southern Albania. Even some people from the North seem to descend from S.Albania. For example Bjelopavlici tribe. Also Kelmendi have a Vlach relative from the South. Ah even E-BY4459 which is also very common in Tosks. Of Dibrri Elsie said they were "mixed with Tosks".

E-Z17107 is common and diverse in the Eastern part of South Albania and in Central & Eastern parts of North Albania. I don't think Dibrri E-Z17107 can be reduced to mixing with Tosks, because the whole surrounding area (Shllak, Kthelle, Cidhen, etc.) has E-Z17107 results.

Kelmend has one Vlach match from the South, and 3-4 other matching results from the North. Their cluster will be branched out on YFull in the next months.

Hawk
02-23-2021, 07:43 AM
Well again like I did a year ago, some old views mentioned "Ezero" but the newest views of Steppe element in Ljubljana say surely Yamnaya derived. But interestingly sporting the Corded Ware pottery. As this Yamnaya element is very old, its probably more related to the likes of R-KMS67 than R-CTS11450.

I think it is extremely unlikely V13 is anything other that this Cardial surviving element fusing with these incomers. And only centuries later was Cetina culture formed. Evidence of some EEF's surviving and coexisting with Steppe people is rare or non-existent.

It seems there was some network of related Yamnaya derived peoples roaming around W.Balkan, Bulgaria, Transylvania.. I think this fits into V13 initial spread. Their Corded pottery is interesting, maybe this is some ancient Thracian link with CWC..

Besides, as I've said before the Cardial Neolithic people were somewhat different especially culturally. For them worshipping skulls was the most important thing, and there is some evidence it continued in Cetina culture even. A tell sign E1b1b was there (Natufians, IM's).. Some archeologists mentioned also some Maasai like burial practices. One could imagine these creeps managed to accomplish what other EEF's failed. ;)

Maasai are Nilotic people, who originally belonged to Y-DNA A, any kind of resemblance must be from recent Cushitic males (subclades of E-M35) coming from Nile Valley and mingling with original Maasai.

Anyway, regarding the skull worship, i can barely find any kind of interesting articles on Cetina, can you atleast cite the Serbo-Croatian material (i do understand a bit). PPNA/PPNB where i think E-L618 originated from had this obsession with skull cult.

Aspar
02-23-2021, 11:01 AM
You should read more than wikipedia articles. There is no evidence Vučedol has relation to Cetina. There is no evidence Vučedol population of any sort was present in Cetina areas at any time. This is some 50 year old stuff about Cetina-Vučedol..

There are some parallels with Glina, or more precisely Schneckenberg in other aspects. This burial wasn't that widespread.

Bell Beaker had influence on Cetina, though according to anthropological material there is no BB influence.

The crucial element in its formation was the Adriatic type Ljubljana culture. BB and also "Ezero". This Adriatic Ljubljana culture was some fusion of local Cardials with some 100 % Yamnaya people. Most likely unrelated to most common Balkan Z2103 whose close relative was found in Mokrin. It seems this Yamnaya element has clear Transylvanian, and also indirectly again Schneckenberg links. "Ezero" links also seem to point to the same.

You seem to follow this pattern, Greeks = bad => Greeks Yamnaya related => Yamnaya bad => V13 can't have anything to do with Yamnaya...

Currently even Corded Ware is being derived from Yamnaya, all non-Anatolian IE is Yamnaya derived in some way..

Even Wikipedia is a good source for informations especially if it cites academic sources. Unlike you, I've given you some academic sources independent of wiki for Glina III Schneckenberg. For the Cetina Culture, there aren't many materials, however some works of Croatian students can be found on Academia.edu.

https://www.academia.edu/41277238/Cetinska_kultura_prijelaz_iz_eneolitika_u_neolitik _SEMINARSKI_RAD?pls=RHCLMobY8


PRVI STUPANJ – ENEOLITIK

"Problem geneze cetinske kulture svodi se u osnovi na pitanje koji su osnovni etnički slojevi i elementi, u kojem omjeru i kakvim mehanizmima sudjelovali u nastanku njenog ranog, početnog oblika ...definiranog kao njen prvi stupanj".5 Iz riječi Marovićevog i Čovićevog rada možemo zaključiti kako se najveći problem u genezicetinske kulture krije upravo u prvoj fazi njenog razvoja. Marijanović u svome radu objašnjava kako se u ranoj fazi cetinske kulture ne može govoriti o njoj kao cjelovitoj i samostalnoj kulturnoj manifestaciji. S obzirom da nalazi iz tog vremena obiluju odlikama eneolitičkog karaktera, te keramike6 skoro pa i nema, problematično jedefinirati ranu fazu cetinske kulture. Istraživači poput Blagoja Govedarice navode kako ta rana faza cetinske kulture je samostalni kulturni horizont, te kao takav zaseban uodnosu na kasniji njen razvoj7. Ono što karakterizira prvi stupanj faze razvoja cetinske kulture su elementi jadranskog kasnog eneolitika koji se javljaju u različitim obilježjima keramike iz tog vremena. Osim tih oblika, također su nađeni i tipični cetinski oblici, ali u znatno manjoj mjeri.

DRUGI I TREĆI STUPANJ – NEOLITIK

Oni oblici i ukrasi koji zapravo karakteriziraju ovu kulturnu skupinu su nastali uneolitiku. Oblici koji su bili zastupljeni u prvom stupnju, oni eneolitički oblici sada suu puno manjoj mjeri nađeni. Sve više ima nalaza oko rijeke Cetine po kojoj onda i ova kulturna skupina i dobiva ime. U grobnim gomilama oko izvora rijeke pronalazi se sve više posuda tipa Kotorac8, te geometrijski motivi izvedeni kombinacijom urezivanja i utiskivanja. S obzirom na količinu nalazišta na različitim lokalitetima uz rijeku Cetinu i na bogatstvo oblika i ornamenata na keramici drugi se stupanj smatra vrhuncem razvoja cetinske kulture. Što se tiče trećeg stupnja, njegov razvoj pripada kraju neolitika, te je sve manje nalaza iz tog razdoblja. Ono što je karakteristično za treći stupanj je vidljiv utjecaj drugih kulturnih skupina, poput indoeuropskih elemenata koje vežemo uz sahranjivanje u tumulima i vrpčastu keramiku, zatim lasinjske kulturne skupine u keramici i ornamentici. Osim tih kultura utjecaj na cetinsku kulturu imala je i vučedolska kultura, pogotovo u ukrašavanju keramike.

ZAKLJUČAK

Iz prikazanog možemo zaključiti kako postoje nejasnoće u genezi cetinske kulturneskupine, te različiti istraživači imaju različita mišljenja. Prvi i treći stupanj razvoja cetinske kulture je definitivno bio pod utjecajima drugih kultura što je vidlji vo iz različitih nalaza, tako da možemo reći, što zbog količine nalaza, što zbograsprostranjenosti, kako je zapravo samo drugi stupanj „čisti“ primjer cetinskog tipa kulture.

So, from the above cited work, the first period of Cetina Culture is directly connected to the older Eneolithic and Neolithic layer of cultures from the region and as such the development of the Cetina Culture can be traced to Eneolithic period. The second period is the period with the least influence from other cultures and the most independent and recognizible in ornaments period of the Cetina Culture. The third period is the period when the steppe element such as tumuli burials and corded-ware ceramics appear and influences on Cetina can be also seen coming from Balaton-Lasinya and Vučedol cultures. Note that the Indo-European element is accompined by Corded-Ware ceramics! In other words, this Glina III Schneckenberg element you was talking about is nowhere to be seen...

From a work of the Croat professor Brunislav Marijanović: https://www.academia.edu/18976013/Brunislav_Marijanovi%C4%87_Contributions_for_the_P rehistory_of_the_Hinterland_of_the_Adriatic_Coast_ Prilozi_za_prapovijest_u_zale%C4%91u_jadranske_oba le?email_work_card=view-paper

The question also arises of the relationship between Adriatic and Cetina cultures. The author’s view is that the Cetina culture emerged during the Eneolithic. Ivan Marović and Borivoj Čović placed the early Cetina culture at the end of the Eneolithic and at the transition into the Early Bronze Age. In contrast to them, the author believes that the early Cetina culture belongs to the Advanced Eneolithic (pp. 120-121, 131). In a work he wrote subsequently but published before this book, he explained that the Eneolithic phase of the Cetina culture cannot be considered an independent phenomenon; rather is still an integral part of the Advanced Eneolithic on the eastern Adriatic coast and its hinterland. In other words, what is characteristic of the Advanced Eneolithic is also characteristic of the Eneolithic phase of the Cetina culture (Marijanović 1998, 6-7)!

From this one can conclude that the Cetina culture nevertheless emerged at the beginning of the Bronze Age, but also that it grew out of a Eneolithic substratum.

Then how did this region become completely Indo-Europeanised? During the Iron Age eastern Herzegovina was settled by the Illyrians, while western Herzegovina was settled by the Delmatae, and it is known for certain that these ethnic groups were Indo-European. When did the massive settlement of new inhabitants on the eastern Adriatic coast and its hinterland occur? The answer to this question was provided by B. Čović and Frano Prendi. They provided firm evidences that a major watershed in the cultural development of this region occurred at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age, which is confirmed by the appearance and domination of new forms, decorations and even technologies in the production of pottery. This watershed could have been provoked only by the massive immigration of a new, numerous and organizationally superior population. B. Čović tentatively refers to this population as “carriers of coarse-ware ceramics”, thereby designating only one of the archaeologically most easily recognizable elements of the material culture, common to all groups that belonged to this population. This population, undoubtedly livestock herders, spread from the eastern Balkans to other parts of the peninsula during the last centuries of the third millennium BC. The expansion of this population should be viewed as subdued movement of a large number of smaller social groups linked by some distant kinship ties and sometimes, during shorter periods of sedentary existence, in casual mutual contact. Some of these communities halted earlier, others wandered farther. They did not devastate the indigenous inhabitants they came upon, nor did they subjugate them, rather they mingled with them and created new cultural-ethnic communities that were undoubtedly already Indo-European.

In this vein, there is no doubt that the agents of the Posušje culture were Indo-Europeans. As opposed to the Posušje culture, the Cetina culture is genetically tied to the Advanced Eneolithic, which means that its agents were an old Mediterranean population that was certainly partially Indo-Europeanised, but nevertheless not Indo-European.

It seems to me that you yourself interpreted this influx of eastern Balkan migrants Čović and Prendi spoke about as coming from and direct influence from Glina III Schneckenberg however there is nothing of that in these works. In fact, Eastern Balkans is a broad term and it's not clearly defined what they mean by "Eastern Balkans"!

Aspar
02-23-2021, 11:06 AM
There are plenty of those. I know of 15-20 clades at least, just most of them haven't done BigY. But even so there are some with BigY. You focus too much on YFull's tree.

Especially can these close links be monitored in Romania/Moldova.

Then it's clear that there aren't any for now! It becomes clear if they are SNP defined because I'm afraid you can not tell much about TMRCA by observing STR markers. I observe the Block Tree as well! What other sources do you know about? And again, there was a major depopulation of the territory of Romania and Moldova during late antiquity and Early Medieval. Even the Goths run away from there, so what makes you think that the previous populations stayed in place? How do you know that many of these Romanians and Moldovans aren't recent migrants from the south?

rafc
02-23-2021, 11:13 AM
Even Wikipedia is a good source for informations especially if it cites academic sources. Unlike you, I've given you some academic sources independent of wiki for Glina III Schneckenberg. For the Cetina Culture, there aren't many materials, however some works of Croatian students can be found on Academia.edu.

https://www.academia.edu/41277238/Cetinska_kultura_prijelaz_iz_eneolitika_u_neolitik _SEMINARSKI_RAD?pls=RHCLMobY8




So, from the above cited work, the first period of Cetina Culture is directly connected to the older Eneolithic and Neolithic layer of cultures from the region and as such the development of the Cetina Culture can be traced to Eneolithic period. The second period is the period with the least influence from other cultures and the most independent and recognizible in ornaments period of the Cetina Culture. The third period is the period when the steppe element such as tumuli burials and corded-ware ceramics appear and influences on Cetina can be also seen coming from Balaton-Lasinya and Vučedol cultures. Note that the Indo-European element is accompined by Corded-Ware ceramics! In other words, this Glina III Schneckenberg element you was talking about is nowhere to be seen...

Does this article mention anything about the timing of Cetina? From your abstract it seems like the third phase of Cetina is linked to cultures from the fourth and early third millenium BC, while that third phase would be somewhere around 2000BC based on other articles. It seems a bit unlikely they could be a source or influence.

Aspar
02-23-2021, 11:30 AM
Does this article mention anything about the timing of Cetina? From your abstract it seems like the third phase of Cetina is linked to cultures from the fourth and early third millenium BC, while that third phase would be somewhere around 2000BC based on other articles. It seems a bit unlikely they could be a source or influence.

The first article speaks about three phases of Cetina. It says that the roots of Cetina Culture can be traced to the older Eneolithic substrate of the region. This is the first phase. However the beginning of Cetina Culture as an independent culture starts in EBA and this is the second phase. The third phase begins in the last centuries of the third millennium when a steppe related influence came upon however didn't Indo-Europianized Cetina. I didn't encountered anything about when this last phase ends and with that Cetina as well tho.

Hawk
02-23-2021, 11:34 AM
The first article speaks about three phases of Cetina. It says that the roots of Cetina Culture can be traced to the older Eneolithic substrate of the region. This is the first phase. However the beginning of Cetina Culture as an independent culture starts in EBA and this is the second phase. The third phase begins in the last centuries of the third millennium when a steppe related influence came upon however didn't Indo-Europianized Cetina. I didn't encountered anything about when this last phase ends and with that Cetina as well tho.

Yeah, materials are scarce. What do u think, can Cetina explain E-V13 spread or it's not possible considering older subclades appearing in and around Central Europe?

Aspar
02-23-2021, 12:33 PM
Yeah, materials are scarce. What do u think, can Cetina explain E-V13 spread or it's not possible considering older subclades appearing in and around Central Europe?

I was and still am on the conclusion that TMRCA was around and close to the Carpathians before it joined the ranks of some highly mobile groups. From there it spread all over Europe and the West Balkan as well.
I believe the West Balkans and Cetina at that were the home of groups rich in J-L283 and R1b. Of course, there were other haplogroups there very likely such as G2a and even E-L618 however I don't thin this is relevant for the MRCA in EBA.
In fact, from the above materials on Cetina it's evident that the pre-Indo-European element survived better in the Western Balkans. In that regard I have some open suspicions that the Etruscan language has been spoken in the Western Balkans before Etruscan speaking people migrated to Italy. Archaeologically the Etruscans can be linked to proto-Villanovan culture and the proto-Villanovan Culture in turn had some clear Balkan elements in it. Furthermore check these models from Eurogenes blog (https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/11/open-analysis-and-discussion-thread.html?m=1):

The Proto-Villanovan singleton is also a key part of the models. Dating to the Bronze Age/Iron Age transition, she appears to be of western Balkan origin. Moreover, her steppe ancestry is probably derived directly from the Yamnaya horizon.

ITA_Proto-Villanovan
HRV_Vucedol 0.677±0.031
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara 0.323±0.031
chisq 10.397
tail prob 0.661174
Full output


The cluster made up of four early Italic speakers can be modeled with minor Proto-Villanovan-related ancestry, but, perhaps crucially, it doesn't need to be. Indeed, judging by the qpAdm output below, it's possible that almost all of its steppe ancestry came from the Bell Beaker complex, and, thus, the Corded Ware culture complex before that.

ITA_Italic_IA
Bell_Beaker_Mittelelbe-Saale 0.480±0.055
ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA 0.411±0.042
ITA_Proto-Villanovan 0.109±0.084
chisq 10.294
tail prob 0.590205
Full output


Two out of the three available Etruscans look very similar to the Italic speakers in the above PCA plots, and yet they show a lot more Proto-Villanovan-related ancestry in my qpAdm run. The statistical fit is also relatively poor, perhaps suggesting that something important is missing.

ITA_Etruscan
Bell_Beaker_Mittelelbe-Saale 0.186±0.081
ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA 0.283±0.064
ITA_Proto-Villanovan 0.531±0.126
chisq 17.175
tail prob 0.143143
Full output

So while the Italics had more of Chalcolithic Italian and Bell Beaker ancestry in addition of a minor proto-Villanovan, the Etruscans were overwhelmingly derived from proto-Villanovans and very little Bell Beaker and Italian Chalcolithic. While proto-Villanovan clearly had western Balkan origin according to Davidski's model.
Leave aside this, J-L283 was found in both HRV_MBA and in an Etruscan. Also among some Nuragics in Sardinia. Both the Etruscans and the Nuragics were non Indo-European speakers.
This trail makes me think that J-L283 spread across Europe from the Western Balkans and can be much better associated with the western Balkans than E-V13!

Huban
02-23-2021, 01:05 PM
Then it's clear that there aren't any for now! It becomes clear if they are SNP defined because I'm afraid you can not tell much about TMRCA by observing STR markers. I observe the Block Tree as well! What other sources do you know about? And again, there was a major depopulation of the territory of Romania and Moldova during late antiquity and Early Medieval. Even the Goths run away from there, so what makes you think that the previous populations stayed in place?

You can say when someone is very close (in 500-1000 range) even on short haplotypes, if the clade has various unusual values ofc. The problem is for some conclusions to be drawn, people from the entire region must be well profiled and they are not. The only way to fix this is to correctly classify various FTDNA people and those from studies, or otherwise wait for years. Still majority from the studies cannot be classified. The problem with the Romanian project is that Romanians do not have that many emigrants to USA/West. Actually most of Hungarian CTS9320 results are Americans with Hungarian roots.

Of course studies can be useful. You are alone with a Greek at FTDNA, but we know you closely match many Aromanians from 2006 study. Not only that they match two of your important mutations 385b and 389b, these two at least have the age of the TMRCA between you and Greek.

An example of people who did BigY
E-L241>BY5650 A Serb,
E-L241>BY5650>BY125229 Bulgarian and Hungarian sharing 4 more SNP's

This clade has lower TMRCA, Medieval range, and obviously here the Hungarian seems to be migrant from the South.



How do you know that many of these Romanians and Moldovans aren't recent migrants from the south?

Majority of them are definitely migrants from the South. For a minority a good case for the opposite can be made. But majority (of those with close Balkan links ofc) seem to fall in clusters that do seem Balkan in origin.

Huban
02-23-2021, 01:18 PM
Even Wikipedia is a good source for informations especially if it cites academic sources. Unlike you, I've given you some academic sources independent of wiki for Glina III Schneckenberg. For the Cetina Culture, there aren't many materials, however some works of Croatian students can be found on Academia.edu.


And I have alot more material on Glina III. Unlike most of you I speak English, German, French, Russian (all of those wrote about Glina) and I can even read most of Romanian.



So, from the above cited work, the first period of Cetina Culture is directly connected to the older Eneolithic and Neolithic layer of cultures from the region and as such the development of the Cetina Culture can be traced to Eneolithic period. The second period is the period with the least influence from other cultures and the most independent and recognizible in ornaments period of the Cetina Culture. The third period is the period when the steppe element such as tumuli burials and corded-ware ceramics appear and influences on Cetina can be also seen coming from Balaton-Lasinya and Vučedol cultures. Note that the Indo-European element is accompined by Corded-Ware ceramics! In other words, this Glina III Schneckenberg element you was talking about is nowhere to be seen...

I read all of that long ago.. This Corded ware ceramics comes from the East, from Ezero, has nothing to do with Vučedol whatsoever. And actually same kind of ceramics do occur in a Schneckenberg variant.

What he says about Cetina not being IE is contradicted by other (greater) authorities.




It seems to me that you yourself interpreted this influx of eastern Balkan migrants Čović and Prendi spoke about as coming from and direct influence from Glina III Schneckenberg however there is nothing of that in these works. In fact, Eastern Balkans is a broad term and it's not clearly defined what they mean by "Eastern Balkans"!

Part of this influence is this Corded Ware, and it is from Eastern Balkans, yet it does also occur in Glina III groups. When you figure in the view of one authority that Glina III Schneckenberg is mostly of Eastern Balkan origin, things become clearer.

Huban
02-23-2021, 01:46 PM
So while the Italics had more of Chalcolithic Italian and Bell Beaker ancestry in addition of a minor proto-Villanovan, the Etruscans were overwhelmingly derived from proto-Villanovans and very little Bell Beaker and Italian Chalcolithic. While proto-Villanovan clearly had western Balkan origin according to Davidski's model.
Leave aside this, J-L283 was found in both HRV_MBA and in an Etruscan. Also among some Nuragics in Sardinia. Both the Etruscans and the Nuragics were non Indo-European speakers.
This trail makes me think that J-L283 spread across Europe from the Western Balkans and can be much better associated with the western Balkans than E-V13!

The problem is J-L283 was found in a neighbor culture to Cetina. According to all authorities people of these two had completely different origins, unrelated to each other. Therefore Cetina wasn't J-L283. But as Cetina culture waned its remnants were assimilated by the J-L283.

More basal J-L283 was found in Mokrin, Maros culture, so it must have expanded from there around 1900 BC (Early Dinara/Posušje culture), at the time when Cetina had already reached its peak.. There are some clear archeological links of Dinaric culture with Mokrin actually.

I mean I told you already on Eupedia, J-L283 was not Cetina, you even claimed I made this up, I showed you exact evidence from the J-L283 find that it is Posušje/Dinara culture and not Cetina culture. At the time of this find Cetina culture no longer existed..

Also I do not claim E-V13 expanded from the West. I claim it just started out in the West..

Regarding these links with the Villanovan culture. Those Balkan links are rather Western Pannonian, not Dalmatian, for example Girla Mare culture in Romania were the migrants from Western Pannonia so some proto-Etruscans might have been there.

We already know from aDNA E-V13 was very weak/non-existent in W.Pannonia or in Pannonia as a whole..

Huban
02-23-2021, 02:06 PM
Archeologist Aleksandar Bulatović's map. 3rd horizon of the Corded Ware finds in the Balkans, second half of 3rd, and beginning of the 2nd millennium BC.

https://i.ibb.co/nCwmVSF/Corded-Ware-EBA.jpg

This is the E-V13 connection. Same ware was also very present in Jigodin (Schneckenberg B ) variant of Glina III Schneckenberg. You can see in the Western part, it matches the sites of Adriatic variant of Ljubljana culture and early Cetina culture.

Number 19 is Lerna, where Cetina pottery was found, where an invasion from Adriatic caused destruction of the House of the Tiles.
D is Laukada in Greece, known R-graves. B is known site of Piskove in Albania.

This is what Cetina people were politically part of, the Eastern horizon.

rafc
02-23-2021, 02:45 PM
Archeologist Aleksandar Bulatović's map. 3rd horizon of the Corded Ware finds in the Balkans, second half of 3rd, and beginning of the 2nd millennium BC.

This is the E-V13 connection. Same ware was also very present in Jigodin (Schneckenberg B ) variant of Glina III Schneckenberg. You can see in the Western part, it matches the sites of Adriatic variant of Ljubljana culture and early Cetina culture.

Number 19 is Lerna, where Cetina pottery was found, where an invasion from Adriatic caused destruction of the House of the Tiles.
D is Laukada in Greece, known R-graves. B is known site of Piskove in Albania.

This is what Cetina people were politically part of, the Eastern horizon.

This seems very late to be still speaking of Corded Ware. As far as I know CW is from early 3rd millennium BC. Also, finding a Corded Ware shard just means some of the pottery travelled a long way as prestige goods, not that CW-people moved. For that you should look at burial customs and grave goods. Are those finds you show just shards, or are they something more than that?

Aspar
02-23-2021, 03:33 PM
You can say when someone is very close (in 500-1000 range) even on short haplotypes, if the clade has various unusual values ofc. The problem is for some conclusions to be drawn, people from the entire region must be well profiled and they are not. The only way to fix this is to correctly classify various FTDNA people and those from studies, or otherwise wait for years. Still majority from the studies cannot be classified. The problem with the Romanian project is that Romanians do not have that many emigrants to USA/West. Actually most of Hungarian CTS9320 results are Americans with Hungarian roots.

Of course studies can be useful. You are alone with a Greek at FTDNA, but we know you closely match many Aromanians from 2006 study. Not only that they match two of your important mutations 385b and 389b, these two at least have the age of the TMRCA between you and Greek.

An example of people who did BigY
E-L241>BY5650 A Serb,
E-L241>BY5650>BY125229 Bulgarian and Hungarian sharing 4 more SNP's

This clade has lower TMRCA, Medieval range, and obviously here the Hungarian seems to be migrant from the South.




Majority of them are definitely migrants from the South. For a minority a good case for the opposite can be made. But majority (of those with close Balkan links ofc) seem to fall in clusters that do seem Balkan in origin.

Tbh, I don't give much of an importance to STRs, I advise the people to test Big Y straight away or buy an SNP pack. STRs can be confusing quite a lot especially with back mutations and convergence.
You've mentioned my matches and the markers 385b and 389b. These are not slow mutating markers. In fact I match some Englishmen 12/12, 23/25 and these are completely different clade S7461. There is a Serb or Montenegrin guy I match, 11/12 and he is also completely different clade than mine. I also match 12/12 a Hungarian guy downstream of E-Z17107. As you can see, a complete waste of time to give too much of an importance. SNP testing can only tell the difference. Maybe 67 STRs are good enough to make a prediction but 12 or 17 markers which are complete waste of time.

Huban
02-23-2021, 03:40 PM
This seems very late to be still speaking of Corded Ware. As far as I know CW is from early 3rd millennium BC. Also, finding a Corded Ware shard just means some of the pottery travelled a long way as prestige goods, not that CW-people moved. For that you should look at burial customs and grave goods. Are those finds you show just shards, or are they something more than that?

As far as I know the Steppe tumuli of Ljeskova Glavica (A) (actually part of Cetina), Piskove (B ), Laukada (D) are supposed to be related in terms of their features.

We can add the Steppe Pazhok tumulii from Albania whose decorational motifs have closest parallels in Jigodin Schneckenberg.

This Corded Ware may not have anything to do with the CWC proper. As similar Ware was found earlier in Ezero horizon, and even earlier. Some have argued Steppe origin, others origin in some local traditions (Baden etc.). Although they may end up being related to CWC.

Gimbutas considered both Glina III Schneckenberg and Leukada R-graves to belong to Kurgan Wave 2 (as opposed to her Yamnaya Wave 3), that is more related to Ezero and proto-Anatolians.

Some have considered this burial ritual with slab cist graves to be Maikop related (again Wave 2 for Gimbutas).

Examples of this Corded Ware from Schneckenberg culture, Ariușd.
https://i.ibb.co/2NGJBry/Corded-Ware-Schneckenberg.jpg

Newer paper on Yamnaya

https://www.academia.edu/2230109/Immigration_and_transhumance_in_the_Early_Bronze_A ge_Carpathian_Basin_the_occupants_of_a_kurgan


The metal objects found in grave nos. 4 and 7 have much wider connections. The best
comparisons for the precious-metal Lockenringe are from a handful of graves in western
Yamnaya kurgans, such as from Goran-Slatina in Bulgaria (Dani 2011: 32). Related to
these, and probably sharing the same hair fashion, are the gold/electrum Leukas and Mala
Gruda type hair-rings known from some of the most lavishly equipped graves of the Balkans,
but also from the Livezile site of Ampoit¸a in Transylvania (Dani 2011: 32.). The Manyc-ˇ
type dagger from grave 7 has a clear Pontic steppe background in both Yamnaya and
Katakombnaya assemblages (Zimmermann 2003).

Mala Gruda is a major Adriatic Ljubljana find.

If one is to go after this then Mala Gruda, Leukada Steppe people might descend of Apuseni mountain Yamnaya group. Again in terms of origin these are being connected to Schneckenberg (local base + Schenckenberg i.e. Schenckenberg is Yamnaya).

Riverman
02-23-2021, 03:58 PM
Tbh, I don't give much of an importance to STRs, I advise the people to test Big Y straight away or buy an SNP pack. STRs can be confusing quite a lot especially with back mutations and convergence.
You've mentioned my matches and the markers 385b and 389b. These are not slow mutating markers. In fact I match some Englishmen 12/12, 23/25 and these are completely different clade S7461. There is a Serb or Montenegrin guy I match, 11/12 and he is also completely different clade than mine. I also match 12/12 a Hungarian guy downstream of E-Z17107. As you can see, a complete waste of time to give too much of an importance. SNP testing can only tell the difference. Maybe 67 STRs are good enough to make a prediction but 12 or 17 markers which are complete waste of time.

I can just confirm what you are saying. I have STR-higher matches which are totally different clades from different geographical regions and some which have a worse fit with a larger STR-distance, but are still the closest I got so far based on reliable SNP-tests. STR's are beyond the immediately relevant genealogical horizon worthless. And with E-V13 we usually deal with a distance larger than 1.000 years in all major clades distributed throughout Europe. So STR's don't help, unless they can be used to predict an assignment correctly. But the distances are totally worthless.

@Huban: I thought about Glina-Schneckenburg too originally, but the timing is the issue here too. Like when did it spread to the crucial Daco-Thracian sphere in your opinion and why wasn't it found so far in the available record from the Balkans and Pannonia?

rafc
02-23-2021, 04:02 PM
As far as I know the Steppe tumuli of Ljeskova Glavica (A) (actually part of Cetina), Piskove (B ), Laukada (D) are supposed to be related in terms of their features.

We can add the Steppe Pazhok tumulii from Albania whose decorational motifs have closest parallels in Jigodin Schneckenberg.

This Corded Ware may not have anything to do with the CWC proper. As similar Ware was found earlier in Ezero horizon, and even earlier. Some have argued Steppe origin, others origin in some local traditions (Baden etc.). Although they may end up being related to CWC.

Gimbutas considered both Glina III Schneckenberg and Leukada R-graves to belong to Kurgan Wave 2 (as opposed to her Yamnaya Wave 3), that is more related to Ezero and proto-Anatolians.

Some have considered this burial ritual with slab cist graves to be Maikop related (again Wave 2 for Gimbutas).

Examples of this Corded Ware from Schneckenberg culture, Ariușd.
https://i.ibb.co/2NGJBry/Corded-Ware-Schneckenberg.jpg

Newer paper on Yamnaya

https://www.academia.edu/2230109/Immigration_and_transhumance_in_the_Early_Bronze_A ge_Carpathian_Basin_the_occupants_of_a_kurgan


Mala Gruda is a major Adriatic Ljubljana find.

If one is to go after this then Mala Gruda, Leukada Steppe people might descend of Apuseni mountain Yamnaya group. Again in terms of origin these are being connected to Schneckenberg (local base + Schenckenberg i.e. Schenckenberg is Yamnaya).

For Mala gruda I agree that a direct Yamnaya origing is likely, it fits in the Yamnaya burials found in the Balkans in 3000-2700BC. For the Lefkandi burials I don't think Yamnaya origins have been suggested. Your link to Schneckenberg escapes me, you believe that was a Yamnaya group?

Huban
02-23-2021, 04:07 PM
Tbh, I don't give much of an importance to STRs, I advise the people to test Big Y straight away or buy an SNP pack. STRs can be confusing quite a lot especially with back mutations and convergence.
You've mentioned my matches and the markers 385b and 389b. These are not slow mutating markers. In fact I match some Englishmen 12/12, 23/25 and these are completely different clade S7461. There is a Serb or Montenegrin guy I match, 11/12 and he is also completely different clade than mine.

That is "ideal" that people order the BigY. How are you going to ensure more Romanians or Greeks order? So we have to make with what we have. Recently a Jew from Romania ordered Y111 (and BigY it seems). With his Y111 I was able to say that he is 100 % related to 4 Basarabi from Basarab paper. And he is also related to another Romanian at FTDNA who has Y67. And I am able to say where they are even before BigY is complete. Y12 at FTDNA is bad, but some of those extra STR's can be useful (Yfiler, Power plex). If a clade is defined by those STR's and they are present even in a short haplotype then it's clear.

All SNP's are reflected in STR's somewhere and there are clades actually defined by STR's where their SNP has not been yet discovered.
E-Z16988>DYS531=11
I-PH908>DYS561=16



As you can see, a complete waste of time to give too much of an importance. SNP testing can only tell the difference. Maybe 67 STRs are good enough to make a prediction but 12 or 17 markers which are complete waste of time.

Depends on a clade and context.

When you have a E-V13 short haplotype like this, any talk about STR's is useless because it is modal
13 24 13 10 16-18 12 13 11 30 15 14 20 11 17 10 22



I also match 12/12 a Hungarian guy downstream of E-Z17107.

You mean downstream of E-S19928? :)

Huban
02-23-2021, 04:29 PM
@Huban: I thought about Glina-Schneckenburg too originally, but the timing is the issue here too. Like when did it spread to the crucial Daco-Thracian sphere in your opinion and why wasn't it found so far in the available record from the Balkans and Pannonia?

I think if this Corded Ware has a relation to CWC, this "might" be some distant linguistic link of Thracian with the Baltic, Germanic as it was proposed. If the Thracian group is old. If it is young then Thracian would have to be a dialect of Baltic, and I don't think that fits.

There are hardly any aDNA finds from Romania, and Glina III Schneckenberg is from there.. Those Moldavian Scythians are actually not even from the territory of Moldova but Transnistria, and Thraco-Cimmerian from Dobruja is from Ukraine.

Pannonia has a number of finds and no E-V13. Well because I think E-V13 will be find to the East of Pannonia in EBA. Pannonia was not such a crucial part of the Daco-Thracian sphere, though Dacians were in the Eastern part.

Huban
02-23-2021, 04:42 PM
For Mala gruda I agree that a direct Yamnaya origing is likely, it fits in the Yamnaya burials found in the Balkans in 3000-2700BC. For the Lefkandi burials I don't think Yamnaya origins have been suggested. Your link to Schneckenberg escapes me, you believe that was a Yamnaya group?

I think it may have been a Yamnaya group, or even Maykop or even something else (Ezero, Cernavoda related). The views are very conflicting about Schneckenberg.

Huban
02-23-2021, 04:51 PM
@Aspar 385 and 389 are not that fast, they do define plenty of subclades. They aren't the slowest but I wouldn't call them fastest either.

Polska
02-23-2021, 05:14 PM
I think it may have been a Yamnaya group, or even Maykop or even something else (Ezero, Cernavoda related). The views are very conflicting about Schneckenberg.

Any intel out there re: samples from Mala Gruda being tested? I recently came across a blog post that made it sound like they were currently testing samples or waiting to test samples. Sounds like a very important site!

Huban
02-23-2021, 06:05 PM
Any intel out there re: samples from Mala Gruda being tested? I recently came across a blog post that made it sound like they were currently testing samples or waiting to test samples. Sounds like a very important site!

That would be very interesting, haven't seen that. Mala Gruda is Ljubljana proper culture find, there are some related finds in Shkoder area. Before Mokrin finds I thought maybe L283 could be found there.


The use of stone coverings in the tumuli of the Apuseni Mountains,17 but mainly the total absence
of pit-graves shows however a strong native component in the burial customs. This native component is
linked with the development of local elite, which used copper and gold ornaments, and controlled the
rich mineral resources of the area. In the Balkan–Carpathian area there are several extremely rich graves
associated with tumuli with stone coverings and/or slab-cists graves that may be linked with the emerging
EBA local elite. This group includes first of all the ‘Princely’ tumuli from Mala Gruda (Parović-Pesikan–
Trbuhović 1974), Velika Gruda (Primas 1996), Gruda Boljevica (Baković–Govedarica 2009) and
Nin–Privlaka (Govedarica 1989, 113, map 5 and pl. 26/1–3, 8–10), all of them located along the Eastern
Adriatic seashore (Pl. 13/1–5; 12–28). In spite of less spectacular funeral inventory, some other finds such
as grave 1 / tumulus III at Ampoiţa–Peret (Ciugudean 1991, 85, fig. 20/1–6), grave 7–7a in the tumulus from Sárrétudvari–Őrhalom (Dani–Nepper 2006, 33–35, fig. 5), one possible grave from Balkány
(Kulcsár 2009, 168) and the central grave in the tumulus at Neusiedl am See (Ruttkay 2002, 145–149,
fig. 4) might be included in the same group. Part of their grave-goods was recently included in the so called ‘Yamnaya package’ (Harrison–Heyd 2007, 197, fig. 48) but this interpretation is disputable. First of all, the gold hair-rings belong to different types (Leukas and Mala Gruda, according to Primas 2006 76–86) of Balkan–Aegean origin,18 without any parallels in the Yamnaya Pit-Graves inventory.19

https://www.academia.edu/21581506/BRONZE_AGE_RITES_AND_RITUALS_IN_THE_CARPATHIAN_BAS IN_Content

I quoted earlier other paper connecting Mala Gruda with the Apuseni group via gold hair-rings, here it is denied those grave goods are Yamnaya. :)

Aspar
02-23-2021, 07:18 PM
@Aspar 385 and 389 are not that fast, they do define plenty of subclades. They aren't the slowest but I wouldn't call them fastest either.

As I said, these markers aren't slow markers and so, you can't be for sure with them. I suspect you got it wrong on many clades. I've given example how I match several people of different clades on those exact markers. With some of those English matches I'm 29/37 and 7 of these mismatches are fast markers. Only one is a medium-fast(Y-GATA-H4) and this marker has similar mutation rate with 385a and b. Yes you are right about the Hungarian that's the clade.

Huban
02-23-2021, 08:27 PM
I suspect you got it wrong on many clades.

If I get one wrong I will get 9 right..

But no, all of my calls for Romanian haplotypes who haven't done SNP testing are 99-100 % correct, in handful of cases they are in 70-80 % range, and I'd specify them. It's not that I am limited to E-V13. Most of you study your own hg, or some hg important for your ethnicity, you can't swim elsewhere. I did analysis of all Romanian hg's for subclades.

I learned that matches are not of much relevance unless they are quite close. Neither is the speed of STR's of such importance. There is clear evidence that in some hg's nominally slow STR's mutate much faster and vice versa, fast STR's are stable. What matters if knowledge about which STR's define level A, which STR's define level A.1., level A.1.1, level A1.1.1., A.1.1.1.1. ... There are many haplotypes in various haplogroups matching certain clades very well but when you look better they don't have defining STR's for the level above. These are false matches. Also some clades have extremely distinct profile, and in such cases there is a high chance a short haplotype cannot be anything else.

If a haplotype is lucky to have STR's in YFiler you can even predict based on YFiler, some are not that lucky even at Y111.

You also match Wright brothers on Y12. For matches crucial is to focus on STR's that define your branch with the Greek and ofc these STR's should not be modal. Those are 385b, 389b, but also 449, 570, CDYa, 568, 487, 511. So your matches should match on most of these to be viable matches.

vettor
02-23-2021, 08:58 PM
I was and still am on the conclusion that TMRCA was around and close to the Carpathians before it joined the ranks of some highly mobile groups. From there it spread all over Europe and the West Balkan as well.
I believe the West Balkans and Cetina at that were the home of groups rich in J-L283 and R1b. Of course, there were other haplogroups there very likely such as G2a and even E-L618 however I don't thin this is relevant for the MRCA in EBA.
In fact, from the above materials on Cetina it's evident that the pre-Indo-European element survived better in the Western Balkans. In that regard I have some open suspicions that the Etruscan language has been spoken in the Western Balkans before Etruscan speaking people migrated to Italy. Archaeologically the Etruscans can be linked to proto-Villanovan culture and the proto-Villanovan Culture in turn had some clear Balkan elements in it. Furthermore check these models from Eurogenes blog (https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/11/open-analysis-and-discussion-thread.html?m=1):


So while the Italics had more of Chalcolithic Italian and Bell Beaker ancestry in addition of a minor proto-Villanovan, the Etruscans were overwhelmingly derived from proto-Villanovans and very little Bell Beaker and Italian Chalcolithic. While proto-Villanovan clearly had western Balkan origin according to Davidski's model.
Leave aside this, J-L283 was found in both HRV_MBA and in an Etruscan. Also among some Nuragics in Sardinia. Both the Etruscans and the Nuragics were non Indo-European speakers.
This trail makes me think that J-L283 spread across Europe from the Western Balkans and can be much better associated with the western Balkans than E-V13!

I presume your mention of the female ....is sample R1 being ITA_Proto-Villanovan circa 900BC .........................she was born in Nin ( Liburnian lands , modern Croatia ) and died in Picene lands ( Liburnian colony , modern Marche region Italy)

Aspar
02-23-2021, 09:07 PM
You also match Wright brothers on Y12. For matches crucial is to focus on STR's that define your branch with the Greek and ofc these STR's should not be modal. Those are 385b, 389b, but also 449, 570, CDYa, 568, 487, 511. So your matches should match on most of these to be viable matches.

Sure but in order to know the number of alleles on some of these markers you have to test 67 STR markers FTDNA order. And many of the publications barely have 12 markers and on top of that, the markers you've mentioned as important for definition of my clade would hardly be tested. So, yhrd would be of no use for me but somehow you are telling me that it will be for the other clades?

Ok, leave aside that, here is a sample in the database, can be found in the project Rafc is administrator. Matching me on 385b, 389ii, 449, 570, CDYa. He is tested on 37 STR markers only so unfortunately no value known for 568, 487, 511. He is 31/37 with me, however has three mismatches on some medium-fast markers such as 385a(14) and 389i(12). The rest are fast markers. Mind you, the Englishman although 29/37 with me has only one mismatch on a medium-fast marker(Y-GATA-H4) which is still faster than 389i.

What is your conclusion in this case?

Aspar
02-23-2021, 09:59 PM
I presume your mention of the female ....is sample R1 being ITA_Proto-Villanovan circa 900BC .........................she was born in Nin ( Liburnian lands , modern Croatia ) and died in Picene lands ( Liburnian colony , modern Marche region Italy)

How do you know she was born there?

vettor
02-24-2021, 12:32 AM
How do you know she was born there?

A Proto-Villanovan female from Martinsicuro in the Adriatic coast (ca. 890 BC), of mtDNA hg. U5a2b, is the earliest mainland sample available showing foreign ancestry:

Martinsicuro is a coastal site located on the border of Le Marche and Abruzzo on central Italy’s Adriatic coast. It is a proto-Villanovan village, situated on a hill above the Tronto river, dating to the late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (…) finds from the site indicate an affinity with contemporaries in the Balkans, suggesting direct trade contacts and interaction across the Adriatic. In particular, the practice of decorating ceramics with bronze elements was shared between the Nin region in Croatia and Picene region of Italy, including Martinsicuro.
The sample clusters very close to the Early Iron Age sample from Jazinka (ca. 780 BC), from the central Dalmatian onomastic region, on the east Adriatic coast opposite to Marche lands, possibly related to the south-east Dalmatian onomastic region to the south. However, there is no clear boundary between hydrotoponymic regions for the Bronze Age, and the sample is quite close to the Venetic-related Liburnian onomastic region to the north, so the accounts of Martinsicuro belonging to the Liburni in proto-historical times can probably be extrapolated to the Final Bronze Age.

Italian Historians always state that Picene lands where Liburnian colonies

I can link Italian studies, if you can read italian

Huban
02-24-2021, 12:35 AM
Sure but in order to know the number of alleles on some of these markers you have to test 67 STR markers FTDNA order. And many of the publications barely have 12 markers and on top of that, the markers you've mentioned as important for definition of my clade would hardly be tested. So, yhrd would be of no use for me but somehow you are telling me that it will be for the other clades?

Actually most publications have at least 17 STR's. 12 is what FTDNA used to offer as cheapest test, but no more, now Y37 is minimum. And most common in studies was YFiler with 17 STR's, 10 of those are same as in Y12, others selected there were selected for a reason, as having too many very slow STRs is not useful. You have older studies with plenty of those that are useless as most don't mutate there. Newer studies use Power Plex Y23, or Yfiler plus with 27 STR's. There are some higher res studies with around 40 STR's. One of these has samples of Asia Minor Greeks. And again there some Arvanites are seen among the V13.

those Aromanians from Dukasi and Stip all sport 385b=19 + 389b=16 (one has 11-27 so 11-16), and those from Stip are from the same country. So that makes them alot more likely to be also E-Y16729.

Btw I found in an Ottoman defter that Moskopole/Voskopoje was a very large village already in 16th century so its clear Aromanians were majority there already then. Their names were Greek, also Albanian, there were some unique Latin names. Of specific ones for ex. Nusho (Branislav Nusic, same root).

Wikipedia's quote "It was a small settlement until the end of the 17th century" is not true. It was larger than most even in 16th century.



Ok, leave aside that, here is a sample in the database, can be found in the project Rafc is administrator. Matching me on 385b, 389ii, 449, 570, CDYa. He is tested on 37 STR markers only so unfortunately no value known for 568, 487, 511. He is 31/37 with me, however has three mismatches on some medium-fast markers such as 385a(14) and 389i(12). The rest are fast markers. Mind you, the Englishman although 29/37 with me has only one mismatch on a medium-fast marker(Y-GATA-H4) which is still faster than 389i.

What is your conclusion in this case?

if he has dys389=12-29, and you have 13-29, that's a double mismatch. 389b is actually 389b - 389a, so actual 389b of yours is 16 and that is one of defining values for you, he has just usual 17. Some other values u describe point to E-BY95428 385a=14 and (if) H4=10. There is this cluster in French and Spain (not at Yfull).

So he must have 12-28 to match you at 389b.

If he doesn't match you on 389b thats a problem, he may still end up being distantly related (not likely).

389 and 385 are actually faster than other Y37 STR's that define your cluster, and in Y38-Y67 you also have 446 that defines you. I guess Y38-Y67 is more interesting for you as there you have plenty of slow STR's that define your cluster.

vettor
02-24-2021, 12:57 AM
A Proto-Villanovan female from Martinsicuro in the Adriatic coast (ca. 890 BC), of mtDNA hg. U5a2b, is the earliest mainland sample available showing foreign ancestry:

Martinsicuro is a coastal site located on the border of Le Marche and Abruzzo on central Italy’s Adriatic coast. It is a proto-Villanovan village, situated on a hill above the Tronto river, dating to the late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (…) finds from the site indicate an affinity with contemporaries in the Balkans, suggesting direct trade contacts and interaction across the Adriatic. In particular, the practice of decorating ceramics with bronze elements was shared between the Nin region in Croatia and Picene region of Italy, including Martinsicuro.
The sample clusters very close to the Early Iron Age sample from Jazinka (ca. 780 BC), from the central Dalmatian onomastic region, on the east Adriatic coast opposite to Marche lands, possibly related to the south-east Dalmatian onomastic region to the south. However, there is no clear boundary between hydrotoponymic regions for the Bronze Age, and the sample is quite close to the Venetic-related Liburnian onomastic region to the north, so the accounts of Martinsicuro belonging to the Liburni in proto-historical times can probably be extrapolated to the Final Bronze Age.

Italian Historians always state that Picene lands where Liburnian colonies

I can link Italian studies, if you can read italian

https://i.postimg.cc/85ySYHwq/r1.png (https://postimg.cc/gX6QX3CD)

Hawk
02-24-2021, 08:50 AM
A good starting point for E-V13 would be to check archeological connections for Kapitan Andreevo site where all tested individuals belong to E-V13. Except for Bulgarian archaeologists classifying as Proto-Thracian culture, nothing else can be found.

Riverman
02-24-2021, 09:37 AM
A good starting point for E-V13 would be to check archeological connections for Kapitan Andreevo site where all tested individuals belong to E-V13. Except for Bulgarian archaeologists classifying as Proto-Thracian culture, nothing else can be found.

Well, like I already wrote, the pits are interesting:
https://de.calameo.com/read/0042837477150531e933b

I don't think there is an exact parallel, but fields with unknown function pits and rituals being also described for the Gáva-Holigrady culture, as well as burials within the sphere of the house. So this too shows connections to the Urnfield Northern Carpathian sphere in my opinion. There is a direct connection in the pit ritual sphere, question is just where it was coming from and how it was altered over time.

Decisive is however how one explains the Basarabi culture, its origins and different sources. Because that's the last transition which could have changed a lot for this sphere of people.

rafc
02-24-2021, 10:00 AM
A good starting point for E-V13 would be to check archeological connections for Kapitan Andreevo site where all tested individuals belong to E-V13. Except for Bulgarian archaeologists classifying as Proto-Thracian culture, nothing else can be found.

Which study are you referring to for those V13 results?

Hawk
02-24-2021, 10:05 AM
Which study are you referring to for those V13 results?

The Bulgarian leaks by Stamov which is working for David Reich upcoming paper, all members of Kapitan Andreevo archeological culture from Early Iron Age are E-V13, also some Thracians from classical period are E-V13 and some E(very likely all E-V13).

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21442-E-V13-in-Bulgarian-Iron-Age

Then in second leak we saw results from Late Neolithic Bulgaria and all results belonged to Y-DNA G2a and some R1b during Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age.

https://i.imgur.com/ZREWKTh.png

gjergj
02-24-2021, 10:43 AM
Actually most publications have at least 17 STR's. 12 is what FTDNA used to offer as cheapest test, but no more, now Y37 is minimum. And most common in studies was YFiler with 17 STR's, 10 of those are same as in Y12, others selected there were selected for a reason, as having too many very slow STRs is not useful. You have older studies with plenty of those that are useless as most don't mutate there. Newer studies use Power Plex Y23, or Yfiler plus with 27 STR's. There are some higher res studies with around 40 STR's. One of these has samples of Asia Minor Greeks. And again there some Arvanites are seen among the V13.

those Aromanians from Dukasi and Stip all sport 385b=19 + 389b=16 (one has 11-27 so 11-16), and those from Stip are from the same country. So that makes them alot more likely to be also E-Y16729.

Btw I found in an Ottoman defter that Moskopole/Voskopoje was a very large village already in 16th century so its clear Aromanians were majority there already then. Their names were Greek, also Albanian, there were some unique Latin names. Of specific ones for ex. Nusho (Branislav Nusic, same root).

Wikipedia's quote "It was a small settlement until the end of the 17th century" is not true. It was larger than most even in 16th century.



if he has dys389=12-29, and you have 13-29, that's a double mismatch. 389b is actually 389b - 389a, so actual 389b of yours is 16 and that is one of defining values for you, he has just usual 17. Some other values u describe point to E-BY95428 385a=14 and (if) H4=10. There is this cluster in French and Spain (not at Yfull).

So he must have 12-28 to match you at 389b.

If he doesn't match you on 389b thats a problem, he may still end up being distantly related (not likely).

389 and 385 are actually faster than other Y37 STR's that define your cluster, and in Y38-Y67 you also have 446 that defines you. I guess Y38-Y67 is more interesting for you as there you have plenty of slow STR's that define your cluster.

At Rrenjet.com they have tested more people people from Dukasi and other Vleh centers, including Voskopoja. This is on top of the study you refer and deeper testing than the study. Also the population today that is Vleh in Voskopoja is from the rural sorrounding areas that are "vleh" but we have no indication that they were the same people as the one's that created and left the town after its first distruction. Also the people tested thus far that pretend that left Voskopoja in its first disctruction are not the same haplos with the ones that are today. The oldest layers that the Vleh have is more connected with the current Bronze age/Iron age Albanian population and than you have some Kelts, Goths and Slavic lines layered on top of them. Very few Roman lines in there. Surprisingly thus far they only have I dinaric and not R1a. They also have some Z2705 for that matter.

Kelmendasi
02-24-2021, 05:00 PM
Btw I found in an Ottoman defter that Moskopole/Voskopoje was a very large village already in 16th century so its clear Aromanians were majority there already then. Their names were Greek, also Albanian, there were some unique Latin names. Of specific ones for ex. Nusho (Branislav Nusic, same root).
Do you have a link to that defter?

Trojet
02-24-2021, 05:53 PM
There is considerable diversity of CTS9320 especially in Southern Albania. Even some people from the North seem to descend from S.Albania. For example Bjelopavlici tribe. Also Kelmendi have a Vlach relative from the South. Ah even E-BY4459 which is also very common in Tosks. Of Dibrri Elsie said they were "mixed with Tosks". E-FT12534 also. YF80631 also must be a Tosk?

No, YF80631 is Albanian from Kosovë (no clan affiliation). He tested WGS through Albanian Bloodlines - Gjenetika.com

At YFull he is at E-Z16988* but on FTDNA's haplotree he would be at E-BY4197* (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/y-dna-haplotree/E;name=E-BY4197) (Z38664- BY34282-). It seems YFull doesn't use this SNP yet. At FTDNA it connects subclades E-Z38664 and E-BY34282.

gjergj
02-24-2021, 06:29 PM
At Rrenjet.com they have tested more people people from Dukasi and other Vleh centers, including Voskopoja. This is on top of the study you refer and deeper testing than the study. Also the population today that is Vleh in Voskopoja is from the rural sorrounding areas that are "vleh" but we have no indication that they were the same people as the one's that created and left the town after its first distruction. Also the people tested thus far that pretend that left Voskopoja in its first disctruction are not the same haplos with the ones that are today. The oldest layers that the Vleh have is more connected with the current Bronze age/Iron age Albanian population and than you have some Kelts, Goths and Slavic lines layered on top of them. Very few Roman lines in there. Surprisingly thus far they only have I dinaric and not R1a. They also have some Z2705 for that matter.

So you are are basing "ethnicity" on the names? they were all orthodox. How can you tell from the names if they were one or the other?
I also happen to be one of those families that left. We have never spoken Aromanian or remember people in the family in the past to have spoken.

gjergj
02-24-2021, 06:38 PM
Well the BY4526+ guy said they looked "close", and I said that can only be possible if they are close. But obviously they are not, as expected. Even Hungarian in that cluster is probably of Ruthenian or the like origin.

There is considerable diversity of CTS9320 especially in Southern Albania. Even some people from the North seem to descend from S.Albania. For example Bjelopavlici tribe. Also Kelmendi have a Vlach relative from the South. Ah even E-BY4459 which is also very common in Tosks. Of Dibrri Elsie said they were "mixed with Tosks". E-FT12534 also. YF80631 also must be a Tosk?

At www.rrenjet.com that has the largest sample of Albanian Y dna there is no indication that "some people from the North seem to descent from S. Albania'. they also have oral family traditions for all the people tested in that database. In fact the opposite is more likely true regarding direction of the movement.
Where do you base your assessment?

Hawk
02-24-2021, 06:39 PM
So you are are basing "ethnicity" on the names? they were all orthodox. How can you tell from the names if they were one or the other?
I also happen to be one of those families that left. We have never spoken Aromanian or remember people in the family in the past to have spoken.

I think you wrongly quoted yourself. :lol:

Huban
02-25-2021, 12:59 AM
Do you have a link to that defter?

https://books.google.com/books/about/Documents_turcs_sur_l_histoire_du_peuple.html?id=s wJg7mi-hMMC&redir_esc=y

Pasha sancak, 1569, kaza's Gorica (Korca), Bilgishta, Krupishta. Moskopole is on pgs 81-84.

Huban
02-25-2021, 01:28 AM
So you are are basing "ethnicity" on the names? they were all orthodox. How can you tell from the names if they were one or the other?
I also happen to be one of those families that left. We have never spoken Aromanian or remember people in the family in the past to have spoken.

Of course that they matter, otherwise Kuchi tribe having half of their names of Albanian origin in 1485 would be irrelevant and it is not. There are Christian calendar personal names that are adapted phonologically to Greek, Albanian, Slavic etc. of course that personal names matter. Although they don't have to indicate ethnic origins, true. For example, Greek names in Aromanians indicate strong Greek influence. I believe many of them actually spoke Greek as well. And I suppose many knew Albanian too. So their names do make sense.

For example in Voskopoja in 1569 you have plenty of people with the name Yorgi, this a Greek variant of George, Albanian is Gjergj. Albanian names occuring are Pal (Paul), Gon (John), Leka (Alexander).

Other than Yorgi common distinct Greek names were Kiriako, Stamad, Yani (Giannis). These names are obviously Greek. It is well known Aromanians were culturally strongly Greek influenced. They were confused by many as Greeks. Most common Latin name was Urbo. I don't think this name occurred in other settlements around so it betrays their Latin language. It seems also "Goga" was common among them, Gugota occurred in Vlach katuns in 13th century. I see you have one Albanian with similar surname but his hg is not so Albanian.

Moskopole (original term also in defter, Voskopoja is later adapted by Albanian) had 332 households in 1569, only 1 muslim
As other large villages it was divided in quarters (mahalle),
mahalle Kunavutsa, 174 households, 3 pop's/papas (ort. priest)
mahalle Megali Malika, other name Stamlid, 60 households, 8 priests
mahalle Papa Dodish, other name Nika , 29 households
mahalle Mikovic/Miho Bey, 33 households
mahalle Arnaud, 36 households, 1 priest


At www.rrenjet.com that has the largest sample of Albanian Y dna there is no indication that "some people from the North seem to descent from S. Albania'. they also have oral family traditions for all the people tested in that database. In fact the opposite is more likely true regarding direction of the movement.
Where do you base your assessment?

I mentioned Bjelopavlici whose close relative is from S.Albania, similar with Kelmendi. I didn't research in detail but I know in general around the Balkans the migrations Southeast/East->West were far more common than viceversa.

Kelmendasi
02-25-2021, 03:38 AM
I mentioned Bjelopavlici whose close relative is from S.Albania, similar with Kelmendi. I didn't research in detail but I know in general around the Balkans the migrations Southeast/East->West were far more common than viceversa.
In regards to the cluster that dominates the Kelmendi, E-BY105970 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY105970/), it seems that the greatest diversity is found in the north of Albania. Historically, migrational patterns in Albanian-speaking territories usually were the opposite, movements from the north into the south were far more common than vice versa.

gjergj
02-25-2021, 07:15 AM
Of course that they matter, otherwise Kuchi tribe having half of their names of Albanian origin in 1485 would be irrelevant and it is not. There are Christian calendar personal names that are adapted phonologically to Greek, Albanian, Slavic etc. of course that personal names matter. Although they don't have to indicate ethnic origins, true. For example, Greek names in Aromanians indicate strong Greek influence. I believe many of them actually spoke Greek as well. And I suppose many knew Albanian too. So their names do make sense.

For example in Voskopoja in 1569 you have plenty of people with the name Yorgi, this a Greek variant of George, Albanian is Gjergj. Albanian names occuring are Pal (Paul), Gon (John), Leka (Alexander).

Other than Yorgi common distinct Greek names were Kiriako, Stamad, Yani (Giannis). These names are obviously Greek. It is well known Aromanians were culturally strongly Greek influenced. They were confused by many as Greeks. Most common Latin name was Urbo. I don't think this name occurred in other settlements around so it betrays their Latin language. It seems also "Goga" was common among them, Gugota occurred in Vlach katuns in 13th century. I see you have one Albanian with similar surname but his hg is not so Albanian.

Moskopole (original term also in defter, Voskopoja is later adapted by Albanian) had 332 households in 1569, only 1 muslim
As other large villages it was divided in quarters (mahalle),
mahalle Kunavutsa, 174 households, 3 pop's/papas (ort. priest)
mahalle Megali Malika, other name Stamlid, 60 households, 8 priests
mahalle Papa Dodish, other name Nika , 29 households
mahalle Mikovic/Miho Bey, 33 households
mahalle Arnaud, 36 households, 1 priest



I mentioned Bjelopavlici whose close relative is from S.Albania, similar with Kelmendi. I didn't research in detail but I know in general around the Balkans the migrations Southeast/East->West were far more common than viceversa.

The albanian from the south tested at Rrenjet, that is close to Bjelopavlici/Palebardhi, is migration from the north and not vice versa.
Kuci we now know from Y dna is not slavic.
Its easier to distinguish names in the north. Also easier when one is catholic and the other orthodox. Not so much in the south, especially when they are all orthodox. If you can I suggest that you read a book by Pellumb Xhufi on Voskopoja. If might give you an alternative point of view.

gjergj
02-25-2021, 07:22 AM
In regards to the cluster that dominates the Kelmendi, E-BY105970 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY105970/), it seems that the greatest diversity is found in the north of Albania. Historically, migrational patterns in Albanian-speaking territories usually were the opposite, movements from the north into the south were far more common than vice versa.

Fully agree.
And there will be two new WGT results soon that will increase the diversity of this subclade in north Albania.
The guy from the south that was tested is again most likely a "shepherd" migration along mountain ranges to the upper part of the south east Albania. Unfortunately the guy doesn't want to spent money to upgrade:)

Hawk
02-25-2021, 08:55 AM
In yfull the earliest E-V13 split is this: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY6550/

Do we have any additional info where from Germany and Scotland do they come from? Any other new members belonging to this early split?

rafc
02-25-2021, 11:05 AM
In yfull the earliest E-V13 split is this: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY6550/

Do we have any additional info where from Germany and Scotland do they come from? Any other new members belonging to this early split?

I believe that German's ancestor lived in current day Poland. Igmayka should know for sure. The Scottish family comes from the south of Scotland where they are attested since the 12th century. There are stories about descent from a Norman knight, but there is no proof for that. I should also add that the Scottish form a subclade that is a bit younger with another German (from Kassel) who is not on Yfull. In the E-M35 project we also have Czech who we predict to be somewhere in BY6550 based on his STR. I can add that based on STR it does not seem likely any other member of the E-M35 project is full BY6550+.

On a side-note: today I got the Big Y results back from an Italian I tested who was previously CTS5856* in the V13 SNP pack. He remains CTS5856, so together with a Swiss he is now the only kit that is CTS5856+, and negative for S3003, Z16663, FT7781 and BY3880.

Huban
02-25-2021, 01:35 PM
I believe that German's ancestor lived in current day Poland. Igmayka should know for sure. The Scottish family comes from the south of Scotland where they are attested since the 12th century. There are stories about descent from a Norman knight, but there is no proof for that. I should also add that the Scottish form a subclade that is a bit younger with another German (from Kassel) who is not on Yfull. In the E-M35 project we also have Czech who we predict to be somewhere in BY6550 based on his STR. I can add that based on STR it does not seem likely any other member of the E-M35 project is full BY6550+.

On a side-note: today I got the Big Y results back from an Italian I tested who was previously CTS5856* in the V13 SNP pack. He remains CTS5856, so together with a Swiss he is now the only kit that is CTS5856+, and negative for S3003, Z16663, FT7781 and BY3880.

Southern Italian (location San Mango d'Aquino) kit 174886 probably belongs to E-BY6550, and if so he will be the earliest split in the branch.

This, combined with that CTS5856* just underscore some strong old Mediterranean links. You also see a basal FT7781 Sicilian. This hardly fits into Central European story for V13..

Hawk
02-25-2021, 01:59 PM
Southern Italian (location San Mango d'Aquino) kit 174886 probably belongs to E-BY6550, and if so he will be the earliest split in the branch.

This, combined with that CTS5856* just underscore some strong old Mediterranean links. You also see a basal FT7781 Sicilian. This hardly fits into Central European story for V13..

It's exactly somewhere North Italy, Alps and Carpathian triangle where i envision it originates from. I may be wrong of course but it would be weird to be somewhere else considering the earlier splits.

rafc
02-25-2021, 04:18 PM
Southern Italian (location San Mango d'Aquino) kit 174886 probably belongs to E-BY6550, and if so he will be the earliest split in the branch.

This, combined with that CTS5856* just underscore some strong old Mediterranean links. You also see a basal FT7781 Sicilian. This hardly fits into Central European story for V13..

Indeed, that 174886 could possibly be BY6550 (his relative 388194 has more markers tested btw). The CTS5956* is also Sicilian, but it just shows you how all over the place V13 is. Maybe 174886 is BY6550, but so are Germans and Scottish and probably a Czech. Central Europe is still the most likely point to reach all those places, it seems to me.

I would be more inclined to see this CTS5856* together with PH1246 appearing in southern Italy (and the FT7781 if he is indeed Sicilian, he is not in our project) as a result of something like Cetina, but I might be completely wrong.

Riverman
02-25-2021, 04:55 PM
Indeed, that 174886 could possibly be BY6550 (his relative 388194 has more markers tested btw). The CTS5956* is also Sicilian, but it just shows you how all over the place V13 is. Maybe 174886 is BY6550, but so are Germans and Scottish and probably a Czech. Central Europe is still the most likely point to reach all those places, it seems to me.

I would be more inclined to see this CTS5856* together with PH1246 appearing in southern Italy (and the FT7781 if he is indeed Sicilian, he is not in our project) as a result of something like Cetina, but I might be completely wrong.

We should be careful about the modern distribution. Even from my wider relatives I know a lot of migrations and people ending up in different ethnicities on the long run.

Huban
02-25-2021, 06:08 PM
Indeed, that 174886 could possibly be BY6550 (his relative 388194 has more markers tested btw). The CTS5956* is also Sicilian, but it just shows you how all over the place V13 is. Maybe 174886 is BY6550, but so are Germans and Scottish and probably a Czech. Central Europe is still the most likely point to reach all those places, it seems to me.

I would be more inclined to see this CTS5856* together with PH1246 appearing in southern Italy (and the FT7781 if he is indeed Sicilian, he is not in our project) as a result of something like Cetina, but I might be completely wrong.

That 388194 is "hidden". What does he have on DYF406S1, DYS568, DYS643 (if 111)?? You can send me in PM if not here.

Let's take FT7781. I don't know where he is from but he is member of Sicilian project and has an Italian surname.
But this clade has several clades, they all share just FT7781.
- Ossetian cluster, their TMRCA is alot more than 600 ybp, because more distant members haven't done BigY yet.
- Lybian
- Brasilian cluster
- Turkish Jew ERS1789480
- Sicilian, he could still be related to the guy above

How does this resemble C.Europe? Their TMRCA is around 4500 ybp or close to that.

FT7781 is very reliably defined by dys393=12, and based on that we can say FT7781 is extremely rare or non-existent in Greeks. None of the 70+ E-V13 FTDNA Greeks belong to it.

Only what I suggested can make it sensible. Early Cetina being part of the Eastern Balkan Ezero derived complex, where I see many lump Schneckenberg.

The role Ezero connected Steppe element played in Cetina's ethnogenesis is undeniable. And looking at their Corded Ware pattern we see politically Cetina people were aligned with them.

If these are some Anatolian derived group, it might fit into the Philistines. I said long ago your clade is very diverse in both Bulgaria and the Levant and the pre-Thracian name of the river Strymon was Palaistinos.

We see already PF7563 has strong Sea-People links, M269 was found in Philistines. Not sure if they tested for Z2103, if yes these were PF7563. Philistine names that are of IE root are usually being connected to Anatolian group.

If Thracian language is a recent arrival then these older branches without Carpathian links are probably not linked to it.

Huban
02-25-2021, 06:22 PM
It's exactly somewhere North Italy, Alps and Carpathian triangle where i envision it originates from. I may be wrong of course but it would be weird to be somewhere else considering the earlier splits.

Look. I remember you saying that you doubt V13 has a more Northern origin point than S.Albania/Epirus.

Well genetically Illyrians were pretty Northern, alot more Northern than Thracians and more Northern than Moldovan Getae.

Yet becoming aware that J-L283 are ultra Illyrian, you embraced the C.Euro path so that V13 could be connected to C.Euro Urnfield complex that actually formed Illyrians allegedly.

It didn't. Illyrians were an older people that successfully resisted Urnfield, and even managed to expand at their expense later in Iron Age.
Urnfield people were not Illyrian, but proto-Latin, Venetic etc
Urnfield people were mostly R-L51/R-U152
Urnfield people judging by some Urnfield finds were autosomally Northwest Euro. It makes no sense for V13 to arrive en masse and yet arriving without such admixture.
Rather all current aDNA finds imply E-V13 is connected with a more Southeastern profile, i.e. Thracian, Getae.
Only Urnfield E-V13 can possibly connected to is Eastern Urnfield, and only clades such as CTS9320, FGC11450, L241.. L241 is somewhat younger though, and it is far more Balkan than the YFull's tree shows..

Proto-Illyrians were J-L283 and they clustered with modern Northern Italians. Any other hg was a junior partner in Illyrian endeavor.

I think that Southern Albanian Tumulii culture, of whom Messapians seem to descend, had a more Southern genetic profile, because significant part of it was formed by the Central Balkan migrants, pushed by the Urnfielders, and I believe these had a more Thracian-like autosomal profile and had plenty of E-V13.

Hawk
02-25-2021, 06:51 PM
Look. I remember you saying that you doubt V13 has a more Northern origin point than S.Albania/Epirus.

Well genetically Illyrians were pretty Northern, alot more Northern than Thracians and more Northern than Moldovan Getae.

Yet becoming aware that J-L283 are ultra Illyrian, you embraced the C.Euro path so that V13 could be connected to C.Euro Urnfield complex that actually formed Illyrians allegedly.

It didn't. Illyrians were an older people that successfully resisted Urnfield, and even managed to expand at their expense later in Iron Age.
Urnfield people were not Illyrian, but proto-Latin, Venetic etc
Urnfield people were mostly R-L51/R-U152
Urnfield people judging by some Urnfield finds were autosomally Northwest Euro. It makes no sense for V13 to arrive en masse and yet arriving without such admixture.
Rather all current aDNA finds imply E-V13 is connected with a more Southeastern profile, i.e. Thracian, Getae.
Only Urnfield E-V13 can possibly connected to is Eastern Urnfield, and only clades such as CTS9320, FGC11450, L241.. L241 is somewhat younger though, and it is far more Balkan than the YFull's tree shows..

Proto-Illyrians were J-L283 and they clustered with modern Northern Italians. Any other hg was a junior partner in Illyrian endeavor.

I think that Southern Albanian Tumulii culture, of whom Messapians seem to descend, had a more Southern genetic profile, because significant part of it was formed by the Central Balkan migrants, pushed by the Urnfielders, and I believe these had a more Thracian-like autosomal profile and had plenty of E-V13.

I change my mind based on evidence. If new evidences prove you right, i will admit i was totally off. And yes, it looked to me unlikely that it has such northern origin but seeing the complete absence in Late Neolithic Bulgaria, complete absence in Trypillia (only one E-M78 lonely wolf) i support the more Northern/Central than Balkans origin. As for Illyrians, it was always the Illyrians who were connected with Eastern Urnfield and less Thracians.


»THE PROTOURBAN ILLYRIANS IN THE LATE IRON AGE AND THEIR CONTACTS TO THE GREEK WORLD«

Public Lecture: emer.O.Prof. Dr. Andreas Lippert (University of Vienna)
8.11.2018, Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien

In the Southwest of the Balkans the first elements of the later Illyrian Culture turn up rather early. These are burial mounds with central graves, around which further graves of the wider familiy and adherents were placed. The burial custom of tumuli at the Adriatic coast is connected with the advance of steppe-populations from Southern Russia in Late Neolithic. At the same time some amount of nomadic life came into being.

Already in the Early and so more in the Middle amd Late Bronze Aegean ceramics and weapons are imported and imitated. But there is also a strong influrence from the Danubian Urnfield culture. Characteristic for the Late Bronze Age are large hilltop-settlements with wall fortifications. Since that age there is a continuity of the indigene material culture in the Southern Adriatic areas and the new cultural unity has been called Mat-Glasinac-Culture in reference to the North-Albanian river Mat and the tableland of Glasinac in the Herzegovina. In the Early Iron Age (11th - 8th cent. B.C.) the contacts to Greece increase steadily and reach a high level at the end of the Middle Iron Age in the 7th cent. with numerous imports of fine ware, ornaments and offensive as well as defensive arms, just as swords, helmets and greaves.

In the Late Iron Age (6th - 5th cent. B.C.), which is the protourban period of the Illyrians, Greek historians and geographs, just as Hekataios and Herodotos, describe for the first time the Illyrian tribes living in the nowadays countries of Albania, Montenegro, Kosovo and Southern Bosnia. At the same time Greek colonies were founded at the Albanian coast entailing an intensive trade with the Illyrian hinterland. These intensive trade connections are most probably the reason for the emergence of distinct hierarchical structures in the Illyrian society. The ruling caste of the Illyrians evidently have their centers in small, well fortified hilltop-settlements, where also craftsmen and merchants have their forum. Trade amd business relations reach out now also to the North and to the Danube regions.

In the middle of the 4th cent. B.C. the Southern Illyrians having adopted already much of Greek livestyle and urban civilisation founded large towns in the highlands behind the Adriatic coast. The Illyrian rulers are yet buried still in the traditional way in carefully built and furnished graves with rich adornments, arms, fine ceramics and metall ware. Sites of this kind are for example Belsh near Elbasan and Selca e Posthme just west of the Ohrid-Lake. In the 3rd and 2nd cent. B.C. not much is preserved from the old material culture of the Illyrians, only Illyrian prenames on tombstones in Albania or votiv-inscriptions at the sanctuary Grotta della Poesia in Lower Italy, near Otranto, written by Messapian sailors give witness of Illyrians, who now were extensively integrated in Greek and Roman culture.

https://www.oeaw.ac.at/en/oeai/public-relations/events/20181108-symposium-greek-and-roman-albania/20181108-symposium-greek-and-roman-albania/


As you can see, Illyrians were formed in Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age with an influx of Danubian Urnfielders mixing with previous populations, there were also some linguistic evidences based on personal names and river names connecting the Illyrians with Central Europe which was supported by Hammond and Gimbutas. It might be wrong, it might be true, but i lean on the second option. Actually originally, long time ago i thought IE Illyrians were some Western R1b subclades. I trust more Western archeologists than Balkan ones.

As for J2b2, we have one Etruscan, several Nuragics non IE, 1 J2b2 from Middle Bronze Age, 1 from Maros. It doesn't look strictly IE to me, in fact J2b2 set aside from a subset of Northern Albanians is very rare among other populations, more like originally non-IE with some subclades becoming Indo-Europeanized somewhere in Northern Balkans.

I even expect several E-V13 subclades to have spoken non IE language very late during Iron Age.

Kelmendasi
02-25-2021, 06:58 PM
Previously in the thread I have seen some connect the Dardani of present-day Kosovo and the adjacent regions with the Bronze Age Brnjica culture, a culture which had archaeological sites spread across north-eastern Kosovo and into south-eastern Serbia. However from my discussions with a user who is not as active anymore on the forum, who had looked at some of the more recent archaeological data from Kosovo, it seems as if there is more of an association with the wider Glasinac-Mati complex through the Drin variant of the culture.

Associations with the Brnjica seem to be a little more outdated and primarily based on the works of Fanula Papazoglu (1978) and Alojz Benac (1950s-1960s). There has been an exponential increase in archaeological data and excavations in Kosovo since the beginning of the twenty-first century, with around 51 burials or sites being surveyed as of 2020. From my correspondences, 42 of the sites belong to tumuli burials with the remaining nine being non-tumuli burials. From the Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age onwards, the tumuli burials begin to be classified as belonging to the Drin variation of the Glasinac-Mati culture. The Drin variant seems to be an off-shoot of the Mati complex rather than the Glasinac one. Tumuli burials as a whole are concentrated in the western and central regions of the country. Whilst non-tumuli burials are to be found in the east and north-east.

However, I know that it has been suggested that the Brnjica contributed to the non-Illyrian element that is particularly concentrated in the east of Dardanian territory. Which is plausible.

gjergj
02-25-2021, 08:03 PM
I change my mind based on evidence. If new evidences prove you right, i will admit i was totally off. And yes, it looked to me unlikely that it has such northern origin but seeing the complete absence in Late Neolithic Bulgaria, complete absence in Trypillia (only one E-M78 lonely wolf) i support the more Northern/Central than Balkans origin. As for Illyrians, it was always the Illyrians who were connected with Eastern Urnfield and less Thracians.



As you can see, Illyrians were formed in Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age with an influx of Danubian Urnfielders mixing with previous populations, there were also some linguistic evidences based on personal names and river names connecting the Illyrians with Central Europe which was supported by Hammond and Gimbutas. It might be wrong, it might be true, but i lean on the second option. Actually originally, long time ago i thought IE Illyrians were some Western R1b subclades. I trust more Western archeologists than Balkan ones.

As for J2b2, we have one Etruscan, several Nuragics non IE, 1 J2b2 from Middle Bronze Age, 1 from Maros. It doesn't look strictly IE to me, in fact J2b2 set aside from a subset of Northern Albanians is very rare among other populations, more like originally non-IE with some subclades becoming Indo-Europeanized somewhere in Northern Balkans.

I even expect several E-V13 subclades to have spoken non IE language very late during Iron Age.

Do you have a full version of this paper/presentation for the link that you sent? Protourban Illyrians? I have seet it before but it only gives the summary.

Hawk
02-25-2021, 08:10 PM
Do you have a full version of this paper/presentation for the link that you sent? Protourban Illyrians? I have seet it before but it only gives the summary.

No, i don't, but it looks like it's a public lecture. Maybe we can email emer.O.Prof. Dr. Andreas Lippert (University of Vienna).

Kelmendasi
02-25-2021, 08:20 PM
As for J2b2, we have one Etruscan, several Nuragics non IE, 1 J2b2 from Middle Bronze Age, 1 from Maros. It doesn't look strictly IE to me, in fact J2b2 set aside from a subset of Northern Albanians is very rare among other populations, more like originally non-IE with some subclades becoming Indo-Europeanized somewhere in Northern Balkans.
There is also the basal J2b-L283* (Z627-) sample from a Bronze Age site located in the North Caucasian Russian republic of Kabardino-Balkaria which is dated back to ~1800 BCE, and so is the oldest L283+ sample after the Maros sample which is dated to 2100-1800 BCE.

vettor
02-25-2021, 09:22 PM
Look. I remember you saying that you doubt V13 has a more Northern origin point than S.Albania/Epirus.

Well genetically Illyrians were pretty Northern, alot more Northern than Thracians and more Northern than Moldovan Getae.

Yet becoming aware that J-L283 are ultra Illyrian, you embraced the C.Euro path so that V13 could be connected to C.Euro Urnfield complex that actually formed Illyrians allegedly.

It didn't. Illyrians were an older people that successfully resisted Urnfield, and even managed to expand at their expense later in Iron Age.
Urnfield people were not Illyrian, but proto-Latin, Venetic etc
Urnfield people were mostly R-L51/R-U152
Urnfield people judging by some Urnfield finds were autosomally Northwest Euro. It makes no sense for V13 to arrive en masse and yet arriving without such admixture.
Rather all current aDNA finds imply E-V13 is connected with a more Southeastern profile, i.e. Thracian, Getae.
Only Urnfield E-V13 can possibly connected to is Eastern Urnfield, and only clades such as CTS9320, FGC11450, L241.. L241 is somewhat younger though, and it is far more Balkan than the YFull's tree shows..

Proto-Illyrians were J-L283 and they clustered with modern Northern Italians. Any other hg was a junior partner in Illyrian endeavor.

I think that Southern Albanian Tumulii culture, of whom Messapians seem to descend, had a more Southern genetic profile, because significant part of it was formed by the Central Balkan migrants, pushed by the Urnfielders, and I believe these had a more Thracian-like autosomal profile and had plenty of E-V13.

János Harmatta placed Illyrians in South Germany and the Alpine region. Tribes living there would have spoken Illyrian which deferred from Latin, German and Venetic. Around 1300 BC, the people of the Barrow-mound culture, the Illyrians, moved eastwards and then southwards along the Danube (the first Illyr migration) and in 750 BC the people of the Hallstatt C culture expanded toward western Hungary (the second Illyr migration) which gathered Pannonian tribes to itself.[12] 1000 BC is considered the beginning of the historical peoples we call the Illyrians.[13]
Halstatt culture is a mix of Celtic and Illyrian peoples


Hallstatt culture. An archeologically defined culture of the Late Bronze Age and the early Iron Age (ca 10th–5th centuries BC). The name is derived from a burial ground discovered in 1846 near the town of Hallstatt in southwestern Austria, where objects characteristic of the period were first identified. The culture was spread throughout south-central Europe and has been identified with the Celts and Illyrians. These groups were engaged in agriculture, animal husbandry, ceramic production, and the mining of salt, copper, and iron. Their semi-fortified settlements consisted of surface and semi-pit dwellings.


Hallstatt Culture

the archaeological culture of the tribes of the southern part of Central Europe in the period of the Early Iron Age (approximately 900-400 B.C.).

It is named after a burial ground situated near the city of Hallstatt in southwestern Austria. One may distinguish two basic regions where Hallstatt culture spread: an eastern region (present-day Austria, Yugoslavia, Albania, and parts of Czechoslovakia), which coincides with the territory of settlement of the ancient Illyrians, and a western region (the southern parts of the Federal Republic of Germany and of the German Democratic Republic and the Rhenish departments of France), where it is associated with Celtic tribes. Hallstatt culture is also known in the eastern parts of the Po River valley in Italy. In the Oder and Vistula basins, the culture of the late Lusatian tribes belongs to the epoch of Hallstatt culture. Special forms of burial rites are characteristic of each of these local types of Hallstatt culture.



Hallstatt Culture.
Whether lineally descended from it or not, the Hallstatt culture succeeds the bronze age of Central Europe; and, with Austria and South Germany as a centre, radi ates in several directions. Intercourse with the south was by this time active, and there was a close connection with the Bologna area, where early iron age finds are abundant and are grouped un der the name of Villanova (q.v.) (a suburb of Bologna). The con tact with Thrace and the Caucasus is not so clear as with Illyria and the neighbourhood of Venice or with Eastern Germany (the Lausitz or Lusatian area) ; but it was mainly westward that the new culture spread via Switzerland and the Vosges to Eastern France, and later to the Atlantic coast as well as to Spain and Britain. This last movement is attributed to the Celts, a mobile and a conquering people; but most authorities attribute the Hall statt culture of Central Europe to the Illyrians, who may have influenced the Germans on the north-east of what has been called the Celtic cradle. Hut-urns (sepulchral vessels of pottery made in the form of contemporary dwellings) are of frequent occur rence in Mecklenburg and near the mouth of the Vistula, and suggest some connection in the 7th century B.C. with Italy, though the type is also found from time to time in widely separated parts of South-eastern Europe, and in Italy (Alba Longa) is hardly later than 90o B.C.


BTW......La Tene culture which came over 500 years after hallstatt culture does not have Illyrian, but is still celtic

Johane Derite
02-26-2021, 09:54 AM
Previously in the thread I have seen some connect the Dardani of present-day Kosovo and the adjacent regions with the Bronze Age Brnjica culture, a culture which had archaeological sites spread across north-eastern Kosovo and into south-eastern Serbia. However from my discussions with a user who is not as active anymore on the forum, who had looked at some of the more recent archaeological data from Kosovo, it seems as if there is more of an association with the wider Glasinac-Mati complex through the Drin variant of the culture.

Associations with the Brnjica seem to be a little more outdated and primarily based on the works of Fanula Papazoglu (1978) and Alojz Benac (1950s-1960s). There has been an exponential increase in archaeological data and excavations in Kosovo since the beginning of the twenty-first century, with around 51 burials or sites being surveyed as of 2020. From my correspondences, 42 of the sites belong to tumuli burials with the remaining nine being non-tumuli burials. From the Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age onwards, the tumuli burials begin to be classified as belonging to the Drin variation of the Glasinac-Mati culture. The Drin variant seems to be an off-shoot of the Mati complex rather than the Glasinac one. Tumuli burials as a whole are concentrated in the western and central regions of the country. Whilst non-tumuli burials are to be found in the east and north-east.

However, I know that it has been suggested that the Brnjica contributed to the non-Illyrian element that is particularly concentrated in the east of Dardanian territory. Which is plausible.

As a possible cultural correlation to the Dardani possibly being from the Mati complex originally, there is a connection between the Taulantii (around Mat, Durres area) and the Dardani. One of the kings of the Taulantii is called
Galabrus, and obviously one of the most famous Dardani tribes are the Galabrii.

rafc
02-26-2021, 10:08 AM
That 388194 is "hidden". What does he have on DYF406S1, DYS568, DYS643 (if 111)?? You can send me in PM if not here.

Let's take FT7781. I don't know where he is from but he is member of Sicilian project and has an Italian surname.
But this clade has several clades, they all share just FT7781.
- Ossetian cluster, their TMRCA is alot more than 600 ybp, because more distant members haven't done BigY yet.
- Lybian
- Brasilian cluster
- Turkish Jew ERS1789480
- Sicilian, he could still be related to the guy above

How does this resemble C.Europe? Their TMRCA is around 4500 ybp or close to that.

What does it resemble to you?



FT7781 is very reliably defined by dys393=12, and based on that we can say FT7781 is extremely rare or non-existent in Greeks. None of the 70+ E-V13 FTDNA Greeks belong to it.

We do have one Pontic Greek with dys393=12, although it doesn't mean he belongs to FT7781.

Johane Derite
02-26-2021, 10:20 AM
Previously in the thread I have seen some connect the Dardani of present-day Kosovo and the adjacent regions with the Bronze Age Brnjica culture, a culture which had archaeological sites spread across north-eastern Kosovo and into south-eastern Serbia. However from my discussions with a user who is not as active anymore on the forum, who had looked at some of the more recent archaeological data from Kosovo, it seems as if there is more of an association with the wider Glasinac-Mati complex through the Drin variant of the culture.

Associations with the Brnjica seem to be a little more outdated and primarily based on the works of Fanula Papazoglu (1978) and Alojz Benac (1950s-1960s). There has been an exponential increase in archaeological data and excavations in Kosovo since the beginning of the twenty-first century, with around 51 burials or sites being surveyed as of 2020. From my correspondences, 42 of the sites belong to tumuli burials with the remaining nine being non-tumuli burials. From the Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age onwards, the tumuli burials begin to be classified as belonging to the Drin variation of the Glasinac-Mati culture. The Drin variant seems to be an off-shoot of the Mati complex rather than the Glasinac one. Tumuli burials as a whole are concentrated in the western and central regions of the country. Whilst non-tumuli burials are to be found in the east and north-east.

However, I know that it has been suggested that the Brnjica contributed to the non-Illyrian element that is particularly concentrated in the east of Dardanian territory. Which is plausible.

One problem here I don't yet understand though is the connection with Dardanians of Anatolia. I don't think it is a coincidence, and I think that the Mysians, Phrygian, Dardanians of Anatolia are related to the Moesians, Dardani, and Brygians of Balkans. Dardanians of Anatolia must have already been established a couple of generations at the time of Trojan war, so if they hail from Mati/Drin complex, I guess this should be reflected somewhere archaeologically. Also, some myths place Dardanians in Arcadia, and recently some Brnjica finds have been found there, so I don't know what to make of it.

For the Brygians, Heinrich Eichner placed them around Mirdita right in between the Mati/Drin region:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EtPnqILXAAgIiMs?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

Johane Derite
02-26-2021, 11:59 AM
Also, we should really use more specific terms. Since Anatolian Dardanians and Mysians are earliest recorded in egyptian sources from battle of kadesh (1270 BC), we have a chronology with which to line up with archaeological cultures.

The term Illyrian is first used around 400BC by Hecateus.

Johane Derite
02-26-2021, 12:04 PM
If we have Anatolian Dardanians and Mysians appearing as Hittite allies in both egyptian papyri and heiroglyphs, and if we accept the relation to their balkan counterparts, then we need to find sone sort of archaeoligcal connection that goes evem earlier than 1270BC, whether it be the Mati-Drin connection, or Brnjica

gjergj
02-26-2021, 01:28 PM
If we have Anatolian Dardanians and Mysians appearing as Hittite allies in both egyptian papyri and heiroglyphs, and if we accept the relation to their balkan counterparts, then we need to find sone sort of archaeoligcal connection that goes evem earlier than 1270BC, whether it be the Mati-Drin connection, or Brnjica

With this timeline you are practically excluding the original Dardans to have been E-V13 or to have had E-V13 as a main haplo.

Hawk
02-26-2021, 01:29 PM
With this timeline you are practically excluding the original Dardans to have been E-V13 or to have had E-V13 as a main haplo.

Why so? The crucial timeline for all E-V13 is 1500 B.C - 1000 B.C

Johane Derite
02-26-2021, 02:42 PM
With this timeline you are practically excluding the original Dardans to have been E-V13 or to have had E-V13 as a main haplo.

Well, Dardanians and Mysians do appear in papyri and heiropglyphs about the battle of kadesh, from 1270 BC. And I don't think its possible to separate the anatolian-balkan doublets. I'm just trying to get a clear image, not make E-V13 the winner.


For the papyrus example:

https://twitter.com/ilonareg/status/1144329764557250565

The heiroglyphs that mention them are from the Temple of Karnak.



We know that Mysians were probably not Illyric linguistically, but cognate with the Thracian group. Some scholars argued that Dardanians were originally a language on continuum with thracian (as in, cognate, not under Thracian or a dialect of it but adjacent to it, these are two very different things) that then fell under an Illyrian adstrate.

Brygians in myth possibly appear as intrusive into Epirus at the time of Odysseus (Trojan War era), there is a myth that Thesprotians under Odysseus' leadership went to war with the Brygians.

If this is possibly the remnant memory of a migration into which some mysians, dardanians, brygians moved more south into the balkans (maybe sometime a bit earlier than the trojan war) and some into anatolia, then maybe it makes sense.

Kelmendasi
02-26-2021, 04:00 PM
Well if the tumuli burials located within the territory of the Dardani begin to show a Glasinac-Mati character, specifically belonging to the Drin variant, from the transitionary period between the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age, I think it is safe to say that by this point in time they belonged to the wider Illyrian cultural sphere. Even going by onomastics a similar thing can be suggested as Radoslav Katičić states that there initially seems to have been a predominance of anthroponymy typical for the core Illyrian onomastic area especially in the west, although this was replaced to a degree by the Delmato-Pannonian one. In the eastern Dardanian lands however there was a non-Illyrian element which Katičić states was Thracian in origin, however it could also have been related to the Brnjica as has been suggested by some.

Johane Derite
02-26-2021, 04:23 PM
Well if the tumuli burials located within the territory of the Dardani begin to show a Glasinac-Mati character, specifically belonging to the Drin variant, from the transitionary period between the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age, I think it is safe to say that by this point in time they belonged to the wider Illyrian cultural sphere. Even going by onomastics a similar thing can be suggested as Radoslav Katičić states that there initially seems to have been a predominance of anthroponymy typical for the core Illyrian onomastic area especially in the west, although this was replaced to a degree by the Delmato-Pannonian one. In the eastern Dardanian lands however there was a non-Illyrian element which Katičić states was Thracian in origin, however it could also have been related to the Brnjica as has been suggested by some.

Yes my point is that we should then expect that these Glasinac-Mati tumuli of the Drin variant should already be consolidated as Dardani by at least 1274 BC, since that is when one of their common origin groups had already been documented in Anatolia.

One problem here is, if we go by Strabo's account, the possibility of a difference between Dardani proper and Autariatae.

In strabo's account, the Dardani country begins after the river drilo (Drin river):


"Be this as it may, after the seaboard of the Ardiaei and the Pleraei come the Rhisonic Gulf, and the city Rhizo, and other small towns and also the River Drilo, which is navigable inland towards the east as far as the Dardanian country.

This country borders on the Macedonian and the Paeonian tribes on the south, as do also the Autariatae and the Dassaretii — different peoples on different sides being contiguous to one another and to the Autariatae.

To the Dardaniatae belong also the Galabrii, among whom is an ancient city, and the Thunatae, whose country joins that of the Medi, a Thracian tribe on the east."


Strabo
GEOGRAPHY
§ 7.5.7


If the Autariatae were the ones controlling the drin, and if they differed from the Dardani proper, and if the tumuli belonged to them, then it becomes even more confusing and complicated. Here he distinguishes Dardanians from Autariatae, but also from Thracians.

Johane Derite
02-26-2021, 04:27 PM
I am really curious about this ancient city in Dardania, that belonged to the Galabrii. For a city to have been considered ancient by Strabo it must have something of interest in understanding the Dardani.

gjergj
02-26-2021, 07:20 PM
Why so? The crucial timeline for all E-V13 is 1500 B.C - 1000 B.C

Based on the current testing, see Yfull, its not possible to argue that there was any meaningful E-V13 in west balkans before 1,200 BC. Timeline of split between Albanian E-V13 clades and central and northern europe E-V13 clades is between 2,800-3,200 ybp. Its practically imposible that they moved down south before 1,200 BC. Many splits are in fact 800 BC.
So while they might have been in the Pannonian basin before there is no dna prove, current population or ancient to confirm its presence in proper west balkans.

gjergj
02-26-2021, 07:26 PM
Yes my point is that we should then expect that these Glasinac-Mati tumuli of the Drin variant should already be consolidated as Dardani by at least 1274 BC, since that is when one of their common origin groups had already been documented in Anatolia.

One problem here is, if we go by Strabo's account, the possibility of a difference between Dardani proper and Autariatae.

In strabo's account, the Dardani country begins after the river drilo (Drin river):


"Be this as it may, after the seaboard of the Ardiaei and the Pleraei come the Rhisonic Gulf, and the city Rhizo, and other small towns and also the River Drilo, which is navigable inland towards the east as far as the Dardanian country.

This country borders on the Macedonian and the Paeonian tribes on the south, as do also the Autariatae and the Dassaretii — different peoples on different sides being contiguous to one another and to the Autariatae.

To the Dardaniatae belong also the Galabrii, among whom is an ancient city, and the Thunatae, whose country joins that of the Medi, a Thracian tribe on the east."


Strabo
GEOGRAPHY
§ 7.5.7


If the Autariatae were the ones controlling the drin, and if they differed from the Dardani proper, and if the tumuli belonged to them, then it becomes even more confusing and complicated. Here he distinguishes Dardanians from Autariatae, but also from Thracians.

Well we know for sure Strabo was wrong on the "navigable rivers" part and who knows what else as there were never any one to go that deep by vessel. You can go by ship up to Shkodra through Buna river and Lezha with the old Drin riverbed. Albanian rivers are practically not navigable. on all seasons.

Johane Derite
02-26-2021, 07:57 PM
Well we know for sure Strabo was wrong on the "navigable rivers" part and who knows what else as there were never any one to go that deep by vessel. You can go by ship up to Shkodra through Buna river and Lezha with the old Drin riverbed. Albanian rivers are practically not navigable. on all seasons.

Ok that is possible, but most scholars anyway place borders of Dardania east of most of the Drin, usually just the Lumbardhi Prizren part fallin into it.

But that is not the crux of the issue, if Dardani were for sure part of the Mati->Drin variation of the Glasinac-Mati complex, and the anatolian Dardanians are related to them, that means they are the earliest attested Illyrians.

It also could suggest that the Anatolian Dardanians should hail from the Mati-drin complex also, if that is where the Dardani come from.

Kelmendasi
02-26-2021, 08:03 PM
Yes my point is that we should then expect that these Glasinac-Mati tumuli of the Drin variant should already be consolidated as Dardani by at least 1274 BC, since that is when one of their common origin groups had already been documented in Anatolia.

One problem here is, if we go by Strabo's account, the possibility of a difference between Dardani proper and Autariatae.

In strabo's account, the Dardani country begins after the river drilo (Drin river):


"Be this as it may, after the seaboard of the Ardiaei and the Pleraei come the Rhisonic Gulf, and the city Rhizo, and other small towns and also the River Drilo, which is navigable inland towards the east as far as the Dardanian country.

This country borders on the Macedonian and the Paeonian tribes on the south, as do also the Autariatae and the Dassaretii — different peoples on different sides being contiguous to one another and to the Autariatae.

To the Dardaniatae belong also the Galabrii, among whom is an ancient city, and the Thunatae, whose country joins that of the Medi, a Thracian tribe on the east."


Strabo
GEOGRAPHY
§ 7.5.7


If the Autariatae were the ones controlling the drin, and if they differed from the Dardani proper, and if the tumuli belonged to them, then it becomes even more confusing and complicated. Here he distinguishes Dardanians from Autariatae, but also from Thracians.
The first instances of tumuli in Kosovo seem to date back to the Early to Middle Bronze Age with the Lubozhdë I tumulus, located near the town of Istog in western Kosovo, being the earliest out of those surveyed in the study/dissertation (https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-02503916/document) I have seen. This tumulus dates before the transitionary period of the eleventh to ninth centuries BCE.

As for if these tumuli could in fact belong to the Autariatae, I personally do not think so. There seems to be a consensus that the Dardanian territory spanned from the area of Kukës and the beginning of Tropoja in north-eastern Albania to the west, into the surroundings of Niš in south-eastern Serbia to the east. And most of these Glasinac-Mati tumuli are from the western and central regions of Kosovo, so for sure within the boundaries of the Dardanians. The Autariatae seem to have occupied the regions on the Tara River basin in Montenegro (note that the hydronym Tara seems to be etymologically related to Autariatae), and so their territory seems to mainly correspond with much of the present-day Sandžak region extending into south-western Serbia as well.

However, I cannot say for sure if there was or was not a population replacement by peoples coming from the Glasinac-Mati horizon during the transitionary period. The study I linked suggests that there was no such replacement as the sites show continual habitation for the most part, and that the Mati-Drin complex seems to rather be an earlier local thing.

Huban
02-26-2021, 10:14 PM
As you can see, Illyrians were formed in Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age with an influx of Danubian Urnfielders mixing with previous populations, there were also some linguistic evidences based on personal names and river names connecting the Illyrians with Central Europe which was supported by Hammond and Gimbutas. It might be wrong, it might be true, but i lean on the second option. Actually originally, long time ago i thought IE Illyrians were some Western R1b subclades. I trust more Western archeologists than Balkan ones.


Salmedin doesn't approve...

https://media-exp1.licdn.com/dms/image/C5603AQE1Tv6xF5h5ew/profile-displayphoto-shrink_200_200/0/1556971669887?e=1619654400&v=beta&t=aLCC7Z7H_yUHam-HjUi60lYZM6RBDvMQCkOS_VYBLb0


The movement of the “urnfield people” that considerably changed the ethnical and cultural makeup of Podunavlje and one part of the Balkans did not significantly affect the area of Glasinac culture of the late Bronze Age. The overall stabilization that ensued upon embarking on the Old Iron Age triggered rapid ethnical, cultural and political development of the Autariate community.

Huban
02-26-2021, 10:56 PM
Yes my point is that we should then expect that these Glasinac-Mati tumuli of the Drin variant should already be consolidated as Dardani by at least 1274 BC, since that is when one of their common origin groups had already been documented in Anatolia.

One problem here is, if we go by Strabo's account, the possibility of a difference between Dardani proper and Autariatae.

In strabo's account, the Dardani country begins after the river drilo (Drin river):


https://www.dictionary.com/e/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/picard-facepalm.jpg

Glasinac introjection at Drin dates to Glasinac IV, 800-500 BC. Something that happened 800-500 BC cannot predate something that happened in 1274 BC.




It also could suggest that the Anatolian Dardanians should hail from the Mati-drin complex also, if that is where the Dardani come from.

https://i.stack.imgur.com/jiFfM.jpg
Anatolian Late Bronze Age Dardanians from 1274 BC hail from IA Glasinac Mati Drin..




But that is not the crux of the issue, if Dardani were for sure part of the Mati->Drin variation of the Glasinac-Mati complex, and the anatolian Dardanians are related to them, that means they are the earliest attested Illyrians.

It also could suggest that the Anatolian Dardanians should hail from the Mati-drin complex also, if that is where the Dardani come from.

It has been determined in archeological material without any doubt that the original (who may be connected to Anatolia) Dardanians have nothing to do with the Illyrians. Glasinac-Mati Autariatae later expanded into Dardania and conquered them.

Johane Derite
02-26-2021, 11:15 PM
The childish page filling memes are unnecessary. It was clear that the comments were in response to this quote:

"The first instances of tumuli in Kosovo seem to date back to the Early to Middle Bronze Age with the Lubozhdë I tumulus, located near the town of Istog in western Kosovo, being the earliest out of those surveyed in the study/dissertation I have seen."

Johane Derite
02-26-2021, 11:26 PM
Something that happened 800-500 BC cannot predate something that happened in 1274 BC.




Way to state the exact point being made without even understanding it.

If Balkan Dardani are from "Glasinac-Mati" then the Anatolian Dardani must also be from there, and there should be archaeological evidence for it, correct?

And Kelmendasi was referencing fresh new work from recently studied tumuli that suggested older presence and connection with Mati/Drin, so again totally missed the point, and rude and just degenerating the atmosphere for no reason.

Huban
02-26-2021, 11:39 PM
Way to state the exact point being made without even understanding it.

If Balkan Dardani are from "Glasinac-Mati" then the Anatolian Dardani must also be from there, and there should be archaeological evidence for it, correct?

And Kelmendasi was referencing fresh new work from recently studied tumuli that suggested older presence and connection with Mati/Drin, so again totally missed the point, and rude and just degenerating the atmosphere for no reason.

Mid Iron Age Dardani from historical sources are indeed from Glasinac-Mati or presumably from their conqueror elite (probably J-Z631 etc.). But it is quite known what Dardanians were originally. Brnjica culture stems from an earlier culture in turn related to cultures from modern-day Serbia and Romania (it seems they fit plenty of Z5018).

Dardanians were Illyrian, but the original Dardanians were not. Neither were they Thracian.

Interestingly part of them, hit by Urnfield waves in LBA/EIA migrated to Southern Albania where they together with others formed a culture there. And Messapians seem to descend of those. Albanian language can only fit into such Illyrian scenario where proto-Dardanian like language was Illyrianized as we know from the traits of Albanian language that it cannot possibly be closely related to Illyrian of the Glasinac-Mati proper.

Dardani that stayed after the Urnfield waves were conquered by the Glasinac-Mati Illyrians proper.

Huban
02-26-2021, 11:56 PM
What does it resemble to you?

Well Cetina + some movement towards the East/Steppe areas. Maybe even movement into Anatolia if Turkish Jew has some age there. They just share one SNP so their link is pre-Greek, pre-Thracian etc. It might fit into Cetina - Ezero late phase - Schneckenberg..

As I've said Ossetians seem have considerable age in their cluster. When I first saw Libyan I thought he might be even of Alan origin but their link is very distant. There are some Russians with 393=12 so maybe more of that is discovered there.


We do have one Pontic Greek with dys393=12, although it doesn't mean he belongs to FT7781.

I only knew of their E-Z21371 cluster. Interesting unless he is an E-Z21371 with a recent backmutation. I looked at various studies of Greeks and 393=12 among their V13 is extremely rare. And one of those few for ex. belongs to another clade (recent backmutation).

Johane Derite
02-26-2021, 11:57 PM
Mid Iron Age Dardani from historical sources are indeed from Glasinac-Mati or presumably from their conqueror elite (probably J-Z631 etc.). But it is quite known what Dardanians were originally. Brnjica culture stems from an earlier culture in turn related to cultures from modern-day Serbia and Romania (it seems they fit plenty of Z5018).

Dardanians were Illyrian, but the original Dardanians were not. Neither were they Thracian.

Interestingly part of them, hit by Urnfield waves in LBA/EIA migrated to Southern Albania where they together with others formed a culture there. And Messapians seem to descend of those. Albanian language can only fit into such Illyrian scenario where proto-Dardanian like language was Illyrianized as we know from the traits of Albanian language that it cannot possibly be closely related to Illyrian of the Glasinac-Mati proper.

Dardani that stayed after the Urnfield waves were conquered by the Glasinac-Mati Illyrians proper.

I disagree with much here. One of the biggest misunderstandings people have in understanding Albanian history is diglossia, how large communities can be bi-lingual and robust enough to not completely be assimilated. Albanians in the last two thousand years have constantly lived in such situations, with adstrates being replaced, with a core community still surviving, and I do not doubt this was the case in antiquity as well, before romans, maybe before even greeks.

You can not project the situation/logic of communities that are majorly mono-lingual (except for specialist classes like academics, diplomats) and use that to extrapolate about peoples that are majorly bi-lingual among the common folk, and even take foreign names, while still keeping their language, and even discharging the adstrate language for a new one when power struggles change.

Majorly mono-lingual people probably will lose their language quickly once "conquered", but Albanians, who have proven in the last 2000 years many times to have survived many different adstrates, have a more robust cultural logic that seems to survive this sort of thing. I don't doubt it was like that in the past. So those Dardani may well have been "conquered" by some different dialect or something, but the romans came after that, and the north Albania /Dardania region is where Proto-Albanian most likely was at bare minimum since the time of the Romans so my bet is that the Dardani, even if they took foreign names (as in the time of medieval, ottoman empire, etc), they still spoke their own language at home and served their own interests first.

Kelmendasi
02-27-2021, 12:10 AM
Mid Iron Age Dardani from historical sources are indeed from Glasinac-Mati or presumably from their conqueror elite (probably J-Z631 etc.). But it is quite known what Dardanians were originally. Brnjica culture stems from an earlier culture in turn related to cultures from modern-day Serbia and Romania (it seems they fit plenty of Z5018).

Dardanians were Illyrian, but the original Dardanians were not. Neither were they Thracian.

Interestingly part of them, hit by Urnfield waves in LBA/EIA migrated to Southern Albania where they together with others formed a culture there. And Messapians seem to descend of those. Albanian language can only fit into such Illyrian scenario where proto-Dardanian like language was Illyrianized as we know from the traits of Albanian language that it cannot possibly be closely related to Illyrian of the Glasinac-Mati proper.

Dardani that stayed after the Urnfield waves were conquered by the Glasinac-Mati Illyrians proper.
Do you have the links or access to the sources that mention a Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age migration to southern Albania from the territory of present-day Kosovo and the adjacent regions?

Personally I am not all that well-read on the archaeological bibliography, however from the sources that I have seen which specifically deal with the sites in Kosovo (such as the dissertation that was linked) it seems that already by the Early Iron Age at least, the Glasinac-Mati culture dominated the region through the Drin variant - which shows closest parallels with sites from north-east Albania and the Mati complex as a whole. The number of tumuli associated with this increase between the eleventh and ninth centuries BCE, so during the intermediary or transitionary period between the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. I also want to mention that one of the main points of the dissertation I mentioned is that there has been relatively continual habitation in most of the sites.

Hawk
02-27-2021, 12:48 AM
Salmedin doesn't approve...

https://media-exp1.licdn.com/dms/image/C5603AQE1Tv6xF5h5ew/profile-displayphoto-shrink_200_200/0/1556971669887?e=1619654400&v=beta&t=aLCC7Z7H_yUHam-HjUi60lYZM6RBDvMQCkOS_VYBLb0

That's all you got?

I quote you a paper from Austrian University you quote me a puffy faced Bosnian Indiana Jones Illyrian Pyramids guy.

It's the same occassion as other day when you quoted me a dubious Ukrainian website.

vettor
02-27-2021, 01:03 AM
Yes my point is that we should then expect that these Glasinac-Mati tumuli of the Drin variant should already be consolidated as Dardani by at least 1274 BC, since that is when one of their common origin groups had already been documented in Anatolia.

One problem here is, if we go by Strabo's account, the possibility of a difference between Dardani proper and Autariatae.

In strabo's account, the Dardani country begins after the river drilo (Drin river):


"Be this as it may, after the seaboard of the Ardiaei and the Pleraei come the Rhisonic Gulf, and the city Rhizo, and other small towns and also the River Drilo, which is navigable inland towards the east as far as the Dardanian country.

This country borders on the Macedonian and the Paeonian tribes on the south, as do also the Autariatae and the Dassaretii — different peoples on different sides being contiguous to one another and to the Autariatae.

To the Dardaniatae belong also the Galabrii, among whom is an ancient city, and the Thunatae, whose country joins that of the Medi, a Thracian tribe on the east."


Strabo
GEOGRAPHY
§ 7.5.7


If the Autariatae were the ones controlling the drin, and if they differed from the Dardani proper, and if the tumuli belonged to them, then it becomes even more confusing and complicated. Here he distinguishes Dardanians from Autariatae, but also from Thracians.



https://www.academia.edu/489614/Peoples_on_the_northern_fringes_of_the_Greek_world _Illyria_as_seen_by_Strabo

interpretation of strabo in regards illyria.............note:, by the time strabo got his details the celts have pushed south from southern germany and occupied Moesia , settled by Scordisci Celts ( some say a celtic, dardani, thraki mix )

vettor
02-27-2021, 01:10 AM
One problem here I don't yet understand though is the connection with Dardanians of Anatolia. I don't think it is a coincidence, and I think that the Mysians, Phrygian, Dardanians of Anatolia are related to the Moesians, Dardani, and Brygians of Balkans. Dardanians of Anatolia must have already been established a couple of generations at the time of Trojan war, so if they hail from Mati/Drin complex, I guess this should be reflected somewhere archaeologically. Also, some myths place Dardanians in Arcadia, and recently some Brnjica finds have been found there, so I don't know what to make of it.

For the Brygians, Heinrich Eichner placed them around Mirdita right in between the Mati/Drin region:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EtPnqILXAAgIiMs?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

Are you sure some of these are not Epirotes tribes ?

German historian

In 1841 the German historian Karl Friedrich Merleker (1803-1872) compiled a list comprised of 36 subtribes of the three main Epirotan tribes he found in the ancient sources:
“All in all in the ancient Epirus I found thirty six small tribes and and four greater: I. Among Chaones bëjnë pjesë 1) Dexaroi (Δεξάροι), 2) Encheleii (Ἐγχελεῖς), 3) Syliones (Συλίονες). II. To Molossians belong: 4) Atintanes (Ατιντάνες), 5) Athamanes (Άθαμάνες), 6) Aphidantes (Άφείδαντες), 7) Genoai (Γενοαῖοι), 8) Donettini (Δονεττῖνοι), 9) Orestae (Όρέσται), 10) Hypaelokhoi (Ὑπαιλχιοι). II. To Thesprotes belong: 11) Aegestians (Αἰγεσταῖοἰ), 12) Amyntes (Άμύνται), 13) Autariates (Αὐταριάται), 14) Elines (Ἔλινοι), 15) Kelaethians (Κέλαιϑοι), 16) Parauai (Παραύαιοι), 17) Prassaebi (Πράσσαιβοι), 18) Tripolissi (Τριπόλισσοι), 19) Chaunes (Χαῦνοι), 20) Cassopaeans (Κασσοπὶοι). IV. Epirotes also are: 21) Amymni (Ἄμυμνοι), 22) Argyrini (Άργύρινοι), 23) Arktanes (Άρκτᾶνες), 24) Pleraei (Πλαραῖοι). V. Other tribes inhabiting in the region of ancient Epirus are: 25) Helopes (Ἕλοπες), 26) Selles (Σέλλες), 27) Dryopes (Δρύοπες), 28) Aethices (Αἴϑικες), 29) Tymphaei (Τυμφαῖοι) , 30) Amphilochi (Ἀμφίλοχοι), 31) Talari (Ταλαρες), 32) Paroraei (Παρωραῖοί), 33) Threstes (Θρέσται), 34) Pelagones (Πελαγόνες), 35) Elimiotes (Έλιμιῶται), 36) Dolopes (Δόλοπες).” . Missing in this list is the tribes of Peukestes (Πευκέστας), in the territory of Chaonians .


...............................................

Dexaroi, a tribe in Chaonia, neighbors of Enchelei. The name may be derived from the Epirote word daksa (δάξα) for sea 27. Stephanus of Byzantium wrote of a subtribe of Chaonians, Dexaroi (Δέξαροι), who resided in neighborhood of Encheleii, at the foot of the mountain Amyron (Αμυρον)

Huban
02-27-2021, 01:27 AM
That's all you got?

I quote you a paper from Austrian University you quote me a puffy faced Bosnian Indiana Jones Illyrian Pyramids guy.

It's the same occassion as other day when you quoted me a dubious Ukrainian website.

I was joking abit but so so many authorities agree with him on that. And I quoted some here. Urnfield people and Glasinac-Mati people were nothing alike. And two of them could not have been both Illyrian. Glasinac people were actually directly descended of sites of the culture where that J-L283 was found. So they were continuators of J-L283 culture. They were locals. Urnfielders were something completely different.

Today most authorities agree Glasinac and not Urnfielders were Illyrian. I cited one proof. The separation of Illyrian linguistic zones into Illyrian proper and Pannonian. Pannonian zone had Urnfield influences. It seems Illyrian proper zone was "purely" Illyrian. Had Urnfielders been Illyrian Pannonian zone would have been Illyrian proper.

Archeological evidence of 6th, 5th century BC shows Glasinac people expanding into Urnfield areas. And this is how Pannonians were created, by Glasinac Illyrising the Urnfielders.
Glasinac did the same with Dardania, and they even expanded to SW Romania, but over there their language failed to survive in Dacian surroundings. They were the ones who have been active and expanding their influence. Illyrian speaking zone must have almost doubled in size due to that between 1000 BC and 500 BC.

You can see by monitoring J-Z631 the Glasinac-Mati expansion. This clade has two basal clades in South Albania so it looks to have started with Mati probably.

I don't think any groups in Pannonia spoke Illyrian 1000 BC. And also important to note. Hungarian results are being mentioned. Illyrian Pannonian tribes occupied mostly modern day N.Croatia or Slavonia. Only little of modern day Southern Hungary was Pannonian Illyrian. The most Northern Pannonian tribe of Azales were migrants from the way South.

gjergj
02-27-2021, 01:55 AM
https://www.academia.edu/489614/Peoples_on_the_northern_fringes_of_the_Greek_world _Illyria_as_seen_by_Strabo

interpretation of strabo in regards illyria.............note:, by the time strabo got his details the celts have pushed south from southern germany and occupied Moesia , settled by Scordisci Celts ( some say a celtic, dardani, thraki mix )

This is very interesting. So even as late as Roman period, a historian like Strabo considered Epir barbarian/non greek.

Huban
02-27-2021, 01:57 AM
Do you have the links or access to the sources that mention a Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age migration to southern Albania from the territory of present-day Kosovo and the adjacent regions?

Personally I am not all that well-read on the archaeological bibliography, however from the sources that I have seen which specifically deal with the sites in Kosovo (such as the dissertation that was linked) it seems that already by the Early Iron Age at least, the Glasinac-Mati culture dominated the region through the Drin variant - which shows closest parallels with sites from north-east Albania and the Mati complex as a whole. The number of tumuli associated with this increase between the eleventh and ninth centuries BCE, so during the intermediary or transitionary period between the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. I also want to mention that one of the main points of the dissertation I mentioned is that there has been relatively continual habitation in most of the sites.

Important was an article from Serbian archeologist Milutin Garašanin at the 1988 SANU conference titled "The beginning and origin of the Illyrians".

This is the LBA/EIA transition period map of Garašanin.
https://i.ibb.co/j8bW4zj/LBA-EIA-transition-Balkans.jpg

All that is important is laid out here.

White dots border represents the Carpatho-Lower Danubian complex where proto-Dardanian Mediana and Gornja Brnjica and Gornja Stražava are together in a group with Paraćin, Vatina, Žutobrdo groups. These were cremation dominated proto-Daco-Mysian groups. Žutobrdo had some possible Etruscan links.

Black dots represents the border of typically Illyrian exclusively inhumation funerary rite. You se the Western Serbain Vatina variant, which was a branch of Vatina strongly influenced i.e. Illyrianised from Glasinac direction. Although originally in their old layers they practiced cremation like the rest of Vatina.

In Eastern Bosnia Glasinac group. In Northern Albania its relative Mati group. Also Kukes group to the East.

South of Shkumbin river you see the Southern Albanian Tumulii culture. Maliq C-D. You see a migration towards the sites of this culture by the people of G.Brnjica culture. This was due to Urnfield pressure. Maliq, Barç and Kuçi i Zi were most important sites of this culture.

This was the proto-Dardanian migration into S.Albania I was talking about. In addition there is evidence that due to Urnfield pressure Western Vatina people also migrated there.

To the North marked by the spaced vertical lines is the great Urnfield complex. You see it reached into Bosnia. But not Albania. Small Urnfield influence in Albania is marked by the presence of Gava culture elements who seem to have migrated to the South with Brnjica people. They may have actually pushed them to the South as well. And they may have been pushed by another Urnfield wave.

In the West are marked Delmatae, Liburnii and Iapodii archeological cultures.

No. 3, 4 are Varvara and Pod sites who were connected to Glasinac. These two actually had older links with the Posušje culture where J-L283 was found. So you can extrapolate Glasinac must have had lots of J-L283.

This demarcation line of Shkumbin river persisted into the Iron Age, so the Southern Albanian tumulii culture continued its existence parallel and independent of Glasinac-Mati. This culture has not been talked about much but it was important.

It was a melange of various elements including various migrants from the North. One of these were proto-Dardanii of G.Brnjica culture several centuries before Glasinac-Mati people expanded into Dardania.

gjergj
02-27-2021, 02:05 AM
I was joking abit but so so many authorities agree with him on that. And I quoted some here. Urnfield people and Glasinac-Mati people were nothing alike. And two of them could not have been both Illyrian. Glasinac people were actually directly descended of sites of the culture where that J-L283 was found. So they were continuators of J-L283 culture. They were locals. Urnfielders were something completely different.

Today most authorities agree Glasinac and not Urnfielders were Illyrian. I cited one proof. The separation of Illyrian linguistic zones into Illyrian proper and Pannonian. Pannonian zone had Urnfield influences. It seems Illyrian proper zone was "purely" Illyrian. Had Urnfielders been Illyrian Pannonian zone would have been Illyrian proper.

Archeological evidence of 6th, 5th century BC shows Glasinac people expanding into Urnfield areas. And this is how Pannonians were created, by Glasinac Illyrising the Urnfielders.
Glasinac did the same with Dardania, and they even expanded to SW Romania, but over there their language failed to survive in Dacian surroundings. They were the ones who have been active and expanding their influence. Illyrian speaking zone must have almost doubled in size due to that between 1000 BC and 500 BC.

You can see by monitoring J-Z631 the Glasinac-Mati expansion. This clade has two basal clades in South Albania so it looks to have started with Mati probably.

I don't think any groups in Pannonia spoke Illyrian 1000 BC. And also important to note. Hungarian results are being mentioned. Illyrian Pannonian tribes occupied mostly modern day N.Croatia or Slavonia. Only little of modern day Southern Hungary was Pannonian Illyrian. The most Northern Pannonian tribe of Azales were migrants from the way South.

I don't know where you get this idea about Z631. If you look at Yfull it matches Celtic expansion not Illyrian.

Huban
02-27-2021, 02:16 AM
I don't know where you get this idea about Z631. If you look at Yfull it matches Celtic expansion not Illyrian.

I don't think so.

Z1043- so basals
J-Y144394 South Albania
J-Y155546 South Albania

J-Z1043* Albanian
J-Y22894 Greek, Bosnian Croat but also Romanians, Albanians
Vojvodina guy is German so I won't count him
J-FT33373 Bulgaria
J-Y146109 Hungarian
J-FT117099 Macedonian
J-Y98609* Bosniak from Sandzak
J-FGC55768* Greek
J-Y191359 Albanians, Romanian
J-CTS11760>Y53027 Hungary
J-Y155803 Bulgaria

As some Glasinac-Mati expanded to the North a number may have been/were likely assimilated by the Celts, but I don't think Z631 has a Celtic origin point. It has strong Balkan diversity. 5 Albanian clades with no relation to each other. And also some of its Hungarian clades may represent Glasinac expansions into Pannonia.

There is also proof of a Romanian cluster existing there (hasn't been profiled yet).

And many of these Western results could be Roman, as Glasinac-Mati played important role politically, more of them were being recruited into the Legions. They had more influence in rebellions (and therefore in some punitive forced resettlements).

Adules
02-27-2021, 02:35 AM
This is very interesting. So even as late as Roman period, a historian like Strabo considered Epir barbarian/non greek.

Of course he did.

In an era where most inhabitants of a land didn't travel more than about 25 miles from their birthplace, much less encounter anyone who could be considered an "other" such as a seperate megacluster (like say, East Eurasians), you could certainly see how the in-group/out-group understanding was very different then today.

Bruzmi
02-27-2021, 03:11 AM
Mid Iron Age Dardani from historical sources are indeed from Glasinac-Mati or presumably from their conqueror elite (probably J-Z631 etc.). But it is quite known what Dardanians were originally. Brnjica culture stems from an earlier culture in turn related to cultures from modern-day Serbia and Romania (it seems they fit plenty of Z5018).

Dardani that stayed after the Urnfield waves were conquered by the Glasinac-Mati Illyrians proper.

Archaeological cultures cannot be linked to specific lineages unless we have aDNA studies which prove otherwise. There are no aDNa studies for Glasinac-Mati, Brnjica or any Balkan archaeological culture for that matter.

When discussing archaeology, arguments should be made on the basis of the latest field reports, site studies etc. An argument about the historical region of Dardania should start from an overview of the sites which have been found and/or excavated in Dardania.

43576
There have been found a total of 51 burial sites in Kosovo from the Middle Bronze Age to the Iron Age. 42 are tumuli burial sites, 7 are non-tumuli (cremation) sites. 2 sites where urn burials have been found have not yet been confirmed to be part of any burial site.


All non-tumuli burial sites date to the 11th-9th century BC, the transitional phase between the BA-IA. About 1/6 of the tumuli sites date to the Bronze Age (up to the MBA), 5/6 date to the Iron Age. Archaeological conclusion #1: Tumuli-based sites predate all non-tumuli sites. Cremation appears much later than the typical hillfort-tumuli complex.

43577
The grouping of material characteristics into what is called a "material culture" in modern archaeological theory requires different key aspects of the material culture of a population to be relatively similar, but not necessarily homogeneous. It means that no archaeological culture today is defined by grouping together sites based only on observed similarity in one specific material aspect of its population's activity, in this case, burial customs. The concept of a "Brnjica culture" was based on the hypothesis that because there were some cremation sites during the transitional phase in what would become Dardania, these sites were linked to (not yet found at the time) settlements which must have been part of the same archaeological culture, which in turn was hypothesized to have appeared as the result of a migration from the north in the LBA/transitional phase. The key problem with the "Brnjica culture" at the time was that there had been excavated no settlements which could prove or disprove the hypothesis: cremation sites = archaeological culture ("Brnjica") = Urnfield migrants. Today, those settlements sites have been surveyed and are part of several excavation projects. These are (the corresponding necropolis is stated in parenthesis):

*All comments about metallic objects concern the transitional phase (11th-9th centuries BC)

1)Trudë (Bërnicë e Poshtme cremation site): 11th-7th centuries BC. No metallic objects found at Trudë. A sword and few other metallic objects were found at Bërnicë e Poshtme (hence the name Brnjica culture).
2)Gracanicë-Glladnicë (Badovc and Ulpiana cremation sites): Neolithic to Middle Ages (Ulpiana was built on top of the ancient site area). No metallic objects found at the site. This was a settlement which existed long before the transitional phase and used cremation in the 11th-9th centuries.
3)Rixhevë (Gllarevë cremation site/Zabërgjë tumuli): MBA to 4th century BC. No metallic objects found at Rixhevë. The population of Rixhevë practiced tumuli burial but in the transitional phase practiced cremation. This site is unique because it has both a tumuli "necropolis" and a cremation site.
4) No settlement has been conclusively linked yet to the cremation site at Grashticë. No metallic objects found.
5) No settlement has been conclusively linked yet to the cremation site at Karagaç. No metallic objects found.
6) No settlement has been conclusively linked yet to the cremation site at Keqekollë. No metallic objects found.
7) + 8) The urn burials at Lushtë and Varosh have not yet been confirmed to be part of a burial site.

Of the three settlements which have been definitively linked to cremation/urn burial sites, only one appears during the transitional era, the other two predate it. One was a settlement which practiced tumuli burial, but also practiced cremation during the transitional era. Metallic objects appear rarely in tumuli burials in the late bronze age and the transitional era, but they are even rarer in cremation sites and linked settlements. They have been found only once (Bërnicë e Poshtme). This is in stark contrast to the heavy use of metallic objects in many Urnfield sites.

Archaeological conclusion #2: 50 years ago the "Brnjica culture" grouping was an unproven hypothesis. 50+ years of excavations have debunked it. There is no connection between cremation sites and related settlements which differentiates them from tumuli sites and related settlements. There never was a "Brnjica culture".

vettor
02-27-2021, 03:25 AM
Mid Iron Age Dardani from historical sources are indeed from Glasinac-Mati or presumably from their conqueror elite (probably J-Z631 etc.). But it is quite known what Dardanians were originally. Brnjica culture stems from an earlier culture in turn related to cultures from modern-day Serbia and Romania (it seems they fit plenty of Z5018).

Dardanians were Illyrian, but the original Dardanians were not. Neither were they Thracian.

Interestingly part of them, hit by Urnfield waves in LBA/EIA migrated to Southern Albania where they together with others formed a culture there. And Messapians seem to descend of those. Albanian language can only fit into such Illyrian scenario where proto-Dardanian like language was Illyrianized as we know from the traits of Albanian language that it cannot possibly be closely related to Illyrian of the Glasinac-Mati proper.

Dardani that stayed after the Urnfield waves were conquered by the Glasinac-Mati Illyrians proper.

are you referring to roughly this area as Glasinac...see below

https://i.postimg.cc/HsKhYWr9/este.png (https://postimages.org/)


all arrows moving from north to south are celtic movements

gjergj
02-27-2021, 07:35 AM
I don't think so.

Z1043- so basals
J-Y144394 South Albania
J-Y155546 South Albania

J-Z1043* Albanian
J-Y22894 Greek, Bosnian Croat but also Romanians, Albanians
Vojvodina guy is German so I won't count him
J-FT33373 Bulgaria
J-Y146109 Hungarian
J-FT117099 Macedonian
J-Y98609* Bosniak from Sandzak
J-FGC55768* Greek
J-Y191359 Albanians, Romanian
J-CTS11760>Y53027 Hungary
J-Y155803 Bulgaria

As some Glasinac-Mati expanded to the North a number may have been/were likely assimilated by the Celts, but I don't think Z631 has a Celtic origin point. It has strong Balkan diversity. 5 Albanian clades with no relation to each other. And also some of its Hungarian clades may represent Glasinac expansions into Pannonia.

There is also proof of a Romanian cluster existing there (hasn't been profiled yet).

And many of these Western results could be Roman, as Glasinac-Mati played important role politically, more of them were being recruited into the Legions. They had more influence in rebellions (and therefore in some punitive forced resettlements).

It seems to me that you are using Yfull data in a very narrow way/one dimensional.
Looking at spread of Z631 and the split between different clades it matches the Celtic expansion, neither Illyrian nor any significant Roman movement of tribes can justify its spread. Also it has much higher diversity in the west.

Olymp
02-27-2021, 09:12 AM
My northern french cousin (close) is E-V13.

Johane Derite
02-27-2021, 12:05 PM
Archaeological cultures cannot be linked to specific lineages unless we have aDNA studies which prove otherwise. There are no aDNa studies for Glasinac-Mati, Brnjica or any Balkan archaeological culture for that matter.

When discussing archaeology, arguments should be made on the basis of the latest field reports, site studies etc. An argument about the historical region of Dardania should start from an overview of the sites which have been found and/or excavated in Dardania.

43576
There have been found a total of 51 burial sites in Kosovo from the Middle Bronze Age to the Iron Age. 42 are tumuli burial sites, 7 are non-tumuli (cremation) sites. 2 sites where urn burials have been found have not yet been confirmed to be part of any burial site.


All non-tumuli burial sites date to the 11th-9th century BC, the transitional phase between the BA-IA. About 1/6 of the tumuli sites date to the Bronze Age (up to the MBA), 5/6 date to the Iron Age. Archaeological conclusion #1: Tumuli-based sites predate all non-tumuli sites. Cremation appears much later than the typical hillfort-tumuli complex.

43577
The grouping of material characteristics into what is called a "material culture" in modern archaeological theory requires different key aspects of the material culture of a population to be relatively similar, but not necessarily homogeneous. It means that no archaeological culture today is defined by grouping together sites based only on observed similarity in one specific material aspect of its population's activity, in this case, burial customs. The concept of a "Brnjica culture" was based on the hypothesis that because there were some cremation sites during the transitional phase in what would become Dardania, these sites were linked to (not yet found at the time) settlements which must have been part of the same archaeological culture, which in turn was hypothesized to have appeared as the result of a migration from the north in the LBA/transitional phase. The key problem with the "Brnjica culture" at the time was that there had been excavated no settlements which could prove or disprove the hypothesis: cremation sites = archaeological culture ("Brnjica") = Urnfield migrants. Today, those settlements sites have been surveyed and are part of several excavation projects. These are (the corresponding necropolis is stated in parenthesis):

*All comments about metallic objects concern the transitional phase (11th-9th centuries BC)

1)Trudë (Bërnicë e Poshtme cremation site): 11th-7th centuries BC. No metallic objects found at Trudë. A sword and few other metallic objects were found at Bërnicë e Poshtme (hence the name Brnjica culture).
2)Gracanicë-Glladnicë (Badovc and Ulpiana cremation sites): Neolithic to Middle Ages (Ulpiana was built on top of the ancient site area). No metallic objects found at the site. This was a settlement which existed long before the transitional phase and used cremation in the 11th-9th centuries.
3)Rixhevë (Gllarevë cremation site/Zabërgjë tumuli): MBA to 4th century BC. No metallic objects found at Rixhevë. The population of Rixhevë practiced tumuli burial but in the transitional phase practiced cremation. This site is unique because it has both a tumuli "necropolis" and a cremation site.
4) No settlement has been conclusively linked yet to the cremation site at Grashticë. No metallic objects found.
5) No settlement has been conclusively linked yet to the cremation site at Karagaç. No metallic objects found.
6) No settlement has been conclusively linked yet to the cremation site at Keqekollë. No metallic objects found.
7) + 8) The urn burials at Lushtë and Varosh have not yet been confirmed to be part of a burial site.

Of the three settlements which have been definitively linked to cremation/urn burial sites, only one appears during the transitional era, the other two predate it. One was a settlement which practiced tumuli burial, but also practiced cremation during the transitional era. Metallic objects appear rarely in tumuli burials in the late bronze age and the transitional era, but they are even rarer in cremation sites and linked settlements. They have been found only once (Bërnicë e Poshtme). This is in stark contrast to the heavy use of metallic objects in many Urnfield sites.

Archaeological conclusion #2: 50 years ago the "Brnjica culture" grouping was an unproven hypothesis. 50+ years of excavations have debunked it. There is no connection between cremation sites and related settlements which differentiates them from tumuli sites and related settlements. There never was a "Brnjica culture".

There are some more listed here. The shiroka site is especially important as it shows more continuity supposedly:

https://i.imgur.com/Ysc3WVH.jpg

Johane Derite
02-27-2021, 12:08 PM
There are some more listed here. The shiroka site is especially important as it shows more continuity supposedly:




Also important to note, that there was mixing also, in which inurned cremations were buried under tumuli, so if a tumuli is unexcavated, we cannot say for sure whether there is buried inhumation or an inurned cremation.

The largest tumulus in Kosovo is Gjinoc, right next to shiroka, which is unexcavated to my knowledge.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EhD5H-2XkAAz6ca?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

Huban
02-27-2021, 02:33 PM
Archaeological cultures cannot be linked to specific lineages unless we have aDNA studies which prove otherwise. There are no aDNa studies for Glasinac-Mati, Brnjica or any Balkan archaeological culture for that matter.

There are aDNA finds for Posušje (J-L283) and various Eastern cultures in Bulgaria. There are upcoming late Antiquity finds from Mysian areas indicating heavy E-V13 presence, and almost no J-L283. Finds from Geto-Thracian context clearly indicate E-V13 was the dominant Thracian haplogroup. E-V13 is for Thracians what J-P58 is for Semitics.



When discussing archaeology, arguments should be made on the basis of the latest field reports, site studies etc. An argument about the historical region of Dardania should start from an overview of the sites which have been found and/or excavated in Dardania.

There have been found a total of 51 burial sites in Kosovo from the Middle Bronze Age to the Iron Age. 42 are tumuli burial sites, 7 are non-tumuli (cremation) sites. 2 sites where urn burials have been found have not yet been confirmed to be part of any burial site.

Most of those finds are from Western Kosovo, not Eastern part which also must be taken into consideration. On the map of Garašanin I posted you can see this area of Metohija/W.Kosovo was not included in Brnjica areal. That's for a reason.




43577
The grouping of material characteristics into what is called a "material culture" in modern archaeological theory requires different key aspects of the material culture of a population to be relatively similar, but not necessarily homogeneous. It means that no archaeological culture today is defined by grouping together sites based only on observed similarity in one specific material aspect of its population's activity, in this case, burial customs. The concept of a "Brnjica culture" was based on the hypothesis that because there were some cremation sites during the transitional phase in what would become Dardania, these sites were linked to (not yet found at the time) settlements which must have been part of the same archaeological culture, which in turn was hypothesized to have appeared as the result of a migration from the north in the LBA/transitional phase. The key problem with the "Brnjica culture" at the time was that there had been excavated no settlements which could prove or disprove the hypothesis: cremation sites = archaeological culture ("Brnjica") = Urnfield migrants. Today, those settlements sites have been surveyed and are part of several excavation projects. These are (the corresponding necropolis is stated in parenthesis):

*All comments about metallic objects concern the transitional phase (11th-9th centuries BC)

1)Trudë (Bërnicë e Poshtme cremation site): 11th-7th centuries BC. No metallic objects found at Trudë. A sword and few other metallic objects were found at Bërnicë e Poshtme (hence the name Brnjica culture).
2)Gracanicë-Glladnicë (Badovc and Ulpiana cremation sites): Neolithic to Middle Ages (Ulpiana was built on top of the ancient site area). No metallic objects found at the site. This was a settlement which existed long before the transitional phase and used cremation in the 11th-9th centuries.
3)Rixhevë (Gllarevë cremation site/Zabërgjë tumuli): MBA to 4th century BC. No metallic objects found at Rixhevë. The population of Rixhevë practiced tumuli burial but in the transitional phase practiced cremation. This site is unique because it has both a tumuli "necropolis" and a cremation site.
4) No settlement has been conclusively linked yet to the cremation site at Grashticë. No metallic objects found.
5) No settlement has been conclusively linked yet to the cremation site at Karagaç. No metallic objects found.
6) No settlement has been conclusively linked yet to the cremation site at Keqekollë. No metallic objects found.
7) + 8) The urn burials at Lushtë and Varosh have not yet been confirmed to be part of a burial site.

Of the three settlements which have been definitively linked to cremation/urn burial sites, only one appears during the transitional era, the other two predate it. One was a settlement which practiced tumuli burial, but also practiced cremation during the transitional era. Metallic objects appear rarely in tumuli burials in the late bronze age and the transitional era, but they are even rarer in cremation sites and linked settlements. They have been found only once (Bërnicë e Poshtme). This is in stark contrast to the heavy use of metallic objects in many Urnfield sites.

Archaeological conclusion #2: 50 years ago the "Brnjica culture" grouping was an unproven hypothesis. 50+ years of excavations have debunked it. There is no connection between cremation sites and related settlements which differentiates them from tumuli sites and related settlements. There never was a "Brnjica culture".

So a double digit IQ-er (I sincerely hope its not you, that you copy pasted this, and he fully deserves this epithet because of his last sentence) who wrote this thinks that not finding metallic objects disqualifies these finds from being connected to Urnfield. Who ever said Brnjica culture was Urnfield?? It's pottery bears similarity to Zimnicea-Plovdiv complex from Bulgaria = non-Urnfield. Brnjica was part of Carpatho-Danubian complex which wasn't Urnfield even though it practiced cremation. They were the ones being pushed by the Urnfield. There is a difference between Urnfield and practicing cremation.

Huban
02-27-2021, 02:49 PM
It seems to me that you are using Yfull data in a very narrow way/one dimensional.
Looking at spread of Z631 and the split between different clades it matches the Celtic expansion, neither Illyrian nor any significant Roman movement of tribes can justify its spread. Also it has much higher diversity in the west.

I don't ever look only at YFull because YFull contains incomplete information. For Z631 to originate in Central Europe one must find stronger diversity there. There are still 2 basals in Southern Albania and several Z1043's. I think part of Z631 was assimilated by the Celts but it doesn't originate there.

There are some English/Americans at the basal level where the entire population has been deep tested.. Celts do not originate from Britain.

Huban
02-27-2021, 02:52 PM
It's the same occassion as other day when you quoted me a dubious Ukrainian website.

You can find the article and book on the internet. If you can't read Ukrainian that's not my problem. Dacians were heavily Urnfield in most areas of their culture. Far, far more than Illyrians.

Hawk
02-27-2021, 03:10 PM
You can find the article and book on the internet. If you can't read Ukrainian that's not my problem. Dacians were heavily Urnfield in most areas of their culture. Far, far more than Illyrians.

This is what Harry Mountain says about Dacians.


Between 15th-12th B.C century, the Dacian-Getae culture was influenced by the Bronze Age Tumulus-Urnfield warriors.

Huban
02-27-2021, 03:16 PM
If I get one wrong I will get 9 right..




Sept 2017

Balochistan, Iran [Baloch]
12 22 14 10 14-16 12 13 11 29 15 14 21 10 15 10 21

Zahedan, Iran [Baloch]
12 22 14 10 14-16 11 13 11 29 15 14 21 10 15 10 21

Zahedan, Iran [Baloch]
12 22 14 10 14-16 12 13 11 29 15 14 21 10 15 10 21

More than 3 years ago I predicted these Baloch will be related to the Montenegrin Pješivci-Cuce tribe
https://www.yfull.com/live/tree/J-SK1357/

And here they are at YFull (HGDP00025 and HGDP00007 are Brahui but there are many upcoming Baloch as well).

B)

Dorian9
02-27-2021, 03:18 PM
https://www.academia.edu/489614/Peoples_on_the_northern_fringes_of_the_Greek_world _Illyria_as_seen_by_Strabo
interpretation of strabo in regards illyria.............

Seeing that as an Italian you're well versed in this period and geography I wonder If you have ever came across the books mentioned in the below excerpt. I couldn't find them in any online form or translated , is it possible any of them exist in Italian websites in a non-scanned form that can be translated?

" Sophronius Eusebius Hieronymus (331-420), an almost contemporary of the Gothic Ulfilas, is said to be multilingual and in fact possessor of more languages, who is primarily distinguished as a brilliant and respected pastor. At the same time he emerges as a great teacher and author of works in all branches of Theology. The Latin translation of the Bible is also considered an important contribution.He creates the Vulgata which after the opinion of the Council of the Trinity is considered a source of faith with probative value. This famous father of the Church was born in Stridona, Dalmatia, "the first province of Graecia" , according to Saint Isidore, Bishop of Seville and later on Archbishop of Spain, who calls the prefecture of Illyricum "Graecia".
Not surprising today, given that our contemporary professor at the University of Padua, Lorenzo Braccesi, writes in detail Grecità adriatica (Bologna 1971, 2nd edition 1977).Thirty years later it is completed with the inscription Hellenikòs Kolpos: Supplemento a Grecità adriatica (Roma 2001), in collaboration with Benedetta Rossignoli.
Over the centuries, Greeks from both metropolitan Greece and the Diaspora entered Dacia using water and land routes. A. Bodor describes in detail one of the latter, whose starting point is located on the Greek peninsula. However, V. Parvan points out the most appropriate, referring to the inhabitants of the northern continental cities of Apollonia and Dyrrachium. B. Mitrea enlightens with great precision and great clarity, writing his study Penetrazione comerciale e circolazione monetaria nella Dacia prima della conquista.
But the issue is perpetuated because opinions differ. Some like N. Iorga accept the exit of pure Romans from Italy although prohibited by the law, and those, like C. Daicovici, support the movement of Italiote Graecians "tra la Adriatico e l’ interno della penisola Balcanica, specialemente sol S.E. di essa. Molto primo dei Romani era fatto dai Greci”. The final solution of the problem was given by E. Lozovan, who out of curiosity studied the synthetic book of G. Rolhfs, (Etymologisches Worterbuch des unteritalienischen Grazitat). He collected dozens of Greek words of agricultural life, common in the south Italiote dialects and in the Romanian language, and at the same time 127 common phonetic and morphological phenomena (Orbis, Tome III, No 1, 1945, 123-137). "

vettor
02-27-2021, 03:27 PM
Mid Iron Age Dardani from historical sources are indeed from Glasinac-Mati or presumably from their conqueror elite (probably J-Z631 etc.). But it is quite known what Dardanians were originally. Brnjica culture stems from an earlier culture in turn related to cultures from modern-day Serbia and Romania (it seems they fit plenty of Z5018).

Dardanians were Illyrian, but the original Dardanians were not. Neither were they Thracian.

Interestingly part of them, hit by Urnfield waves in LBA/EIA migrated to Southern Albania where they together with others formed a culture there. And Messapians seem to descend of those. Albanian language can only fit into such Illyrian scenario where proto-Dardanian like language was Illyrianized as we know from the traits of Albanian language that it cannot possibly be closely related to Illyrian of the Glasinac-Mati proper.

Dardani that stayed after the Urnfield waves were conquered by the Glasinac-Mati Illyrians proper.

You are wrong here on Messapians ..................they are the minor tribe of the Iapygians , together with the Daunians and Peucetians who where larger in number .............all spoke the messapic language

https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/4404527/mod_resource/content/1/Daunians%2C%20Peucetians%20and%20Messapians.pdf

they originate from northern adriatic area near the Liburnians .................they migrated to Italy around circa 1000BC , conquering italic tribes after initially landing in modern Foggia Italy

all three tribes are basically the same
https://www.academia.edu/33341054/Illyrian_Vestiges_in_Daunian_Costume_tattoos_strin g_aprons_and_a_helmet

messapic alphabet is in link below .................it only began circa 600BC
https://www.academia.edu/10650046/Language_Identity_and_Culture_in_Ancient_Italy

vettor
02-27-2021, 03:38 PM
Seeing that as an Italian you're well versed in this period and geography I wonder If you have ever came across the books mentioned in the below excerpt. I couldn't find them in any online form or translated , is it possible any of them exist in Italian websites in a non-scanned form that can be translated?

" Sophronius Eusebius Hieronymus (331-420), an almost contemporary of the Gothic Ulfilas, is said to be multilingual and in fact possessor of more languages, who is primarily distinguished as a brilliant and respected pastor. At the same time he emerges as a great teacher and author of works in all branches of Theology. The Latin translation of the Bible is also considered an important contribution.He creates the Vulgata which after the opinion of the Council of the Trinity is considered a source of faith with probative value. This famous father of the Church was born in Stridona, Dalmatia, "the first province of Graecia" , according to Saint Isidore, Bishop of Seville and later on Archbishop of Spain, who calls the prefecture of Illyricum "Graecia".
Not surprising today, given that our contemporary professor at the University of Padua, Lorenzo Braccesi, writes in detail Grecità adriatica (Bologna 1971, 2nd edition 1977).Thirty years later it is completed with the inscription Hellenikòs Kolpos: Supplemento a Grecità adriatica (Roma 2001), in collaboration with Benedetta Rossignoli.
Over the centuries, Greeks from both metropolitan Greece and the Diaspora entered Dacia using water and land routes. A. Bodor describes in detail one of the latter, whose starting point is located on the Greek peninsula. However, V. Parvan points out the most appropriate, referring to the inhabitants of the northern continental cities of Apollonia and Dyrrachium. B. Mitrea enlightens with great precision and great clarity, writing his study Penetrazione comerciale e circolazione monetaria nella Dacia prima della conquista.
But the issue is perpetuated because opinions differ. Some like N. Iorga accept the exit of pure Romans from Italy although prohibited by the law, and those, like C. Daicovici, support the movement of Italiote Graecians "tra la Adriatico e l’ interno della penisola Balcanica, specialemente sol S.E. di essa. Molto primo dei Romani era fatto dai Greci”. The final solution of the problem was given by E. Lozovan, who out of curiosity studied the synthetic book of G. Rolhfs, (Etymologisches Worterbuch des unteritalienischen Grazitat). He collected dozens of Greek words of agricultural life, common in the south Italiote dialects and in the Romanian language, and at the same time 127 common phonetic and morphological phenomena (Orbis, Tome III, No 1, 1945, 123-137). "

what you linked is from Corinthians conquests and settlements in the south-adriatic sea area from circa 700BC............................so, the Liburnians ruled all the Adriatic sea up to Corfu from circa 1100Bc .the liburnians settled in only corfu and Picene lands in Italy, but, they where involved in moving their neigbours the Iapygians ( some of them ) to south east italy ( apulia )..........................from 700BC the Corinthians attacked an took Corfu from the Liburnians and then began creating Corinthians settlements in Apollonia and Dyrrachium ............Burint was Epirote already
The Corinthians also seemed to have founded a trading area around modern Ancona

you as a Greek , will known all greek sicily in bulk are Corinthians in origin


some of what you attached is gothic settlements in dalmatia...........be it at the time when some goths where allowed to settle in roman lands , fleeing from scythians attacking their ukraine/black sea lands and/or also the eventual gothic invasion ....down the black sea , through greece , up the dalmatian coast and into Italy ....to be finally named ostrogoths

Huban
02-27-2021, 03:43 PM
they originate from northern adriatic area near the Liburnians .................they migrated to Italy around circa 1000BC , conquering italic tribes after initially landing in modern Foggia Italy

No, they don't. Archeologist Alojz Benac wrote an article "Illyrians in Apulia" where he addressed the alleged origin of Messapians from Liburnian areas. There is no archeological support for that from Messapians finds. Rather Messapian finds, their colored pottery point to links with the Southern Albanian Devolli group, again the Southern Albanian tumulii culture I mentioned.



all three tribes are basically the same
https://www.academia.edu/33341054/Illyrian_Vestiges_in_Daunian_Costume_tattoos_strin g_aprons_and_a_helmet


Good, so they all come from Southern Albania.

Hawk
02-27-2021, 03:46 PM
You are wrong here on Messapians ..................they are the minor tribe of the Iapygians , together with the Daunians and Peucetians who where larger in number .............all spoke the messapic language

https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/4404527/mod_resource/content/1/Daunians%2C%20Peucetians%20and%20Messapians.pdf

they originate from northern adriatic area near the Liburnians .................they migrated to Italy around circa 1000BC , conquering italic tribes after initially landing in modern Foggia Italy

all three tribes are basically the same
https://www.academia.edu/33341054/Illyrian_Vestiges_in_Daunian_Costume_tattoos_strin g_aprons_and_a_helmet

messapic alphabet is in link below .................it only began circa 600BC
https://www.academia.edu/10650046/Language_Identity_and_Culture_in_Ancient_Italy

Exactly. Iapiguans were related with Japodes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japodian_burial_urns

Hence, why archeologists do mention that Illyrians were a mixture of previous people and incoming people from Koszidor horizont as noted by Gimbutas on various bronze items found in the region.

Burial customs depended, but people from Koszidor horizont do used tumuli burials with mixed cremation and inhumation.

Huban
02-27-2021, 03:53 PM
Exactly. Iapiguans were related with Japodes.


No they were not. Read the post above and the article dealing with the topic.

Dorian9
02-27-2021, 03:54 PM
what you linked is from Corinthians conquests and settlements in the south-adriatic sea area from circa 700BC............................so, the Liburnians ruled all the Adriatic sea up to Corfu from circa 1100Bc .the liburnians settled in only corfu and Picene lands in Italy, but, they where involved in moving their neigbours the Iapygians ( some of them ) to south east italy ( apulia )..........................from 700BC the Corinthians attacked an took Corfu from the Liburnians and then began creating Corinthians settlements in Apollonia and Dyrrachium ............Burint was Epirote already
The Corinthians also seemed to have founded a trading area around modern Ancona

you as a Greek , will known all greek sicily in bulk are Corinthians in origin


some of what you attached is gothic settlements in dalmatia...........be it at the time when some goths where allowed to settle in roman lands , fleeing from scythians attacking their ukraine/black sea lands and/or also the eventual gothic invasion ....down the black sea , through greece , up the dalmatian coast and into Italy ....to be finally named ostrogoths

I'm more interested in the Roman period parts basically , are these books focused only on antiquity?

vettor
02-27-2021, 03:54 PM
No, they don't. Archeologist Alojz Benac wrote an article "Illyrians in Apulia" where he addressed the alleged origin of Messapians from Liburnian areas. There is no archeological support for that from Messapians finds. Rather Messapian finds, their colored pottery point to links with the Southern Albanian Devolli group, again the Southern Albanian tumulii culture I mentioned.



Good, so they all come from Southern Albania.

Benac is using John Wilkes book " the Illyrians " ...........................he is also using info from
https://www.academia.edu/2490281/Cultural_Treasure_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina_editio n_Prehistoric_and_Ancient_Period_Book_2_Illyrian_B osnia_and_Herzegovina_an_Overview_of_a_Cultural_Le gacy_Ancient_Illyrians_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina
where you state that Glasinac culture Illyrians are from

all three tribes are the same with Dauninas being the largest

All Illyrian helmets where made in ancient greece and traded up north.........actually the bulk of all Balkan helmets are Greek ....................we cannot decipher trade as immigration

vettor
02-27-2021, 03:57 PM
No they were not. Read the post above and the article dealing with the topic.

The Iapydes (or Iapodes, Japodes; Greek: Ἰάποδες) were an ancient people who dwelt north of and inland from the Liburnians, off the Adriatic coast and eastwards of the Istrian peninsula

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iapydes#/media/File:Liburnia_5th_BC.png
neighbours

vettor
02-27-2021, 04:02 PM
I'm more interested in the Roman period parts basically , are these books focused only on antiquity?

never seen these books

check the net

Huban
02-27-2021, 04:02 PM
So we have determined that Southern Albanian tumulii group had a Brnjica proto-Dardanian influx. Proto-Dardanians are in turn connected to proto-Paeonians.

How interesting names of Messapians parallel some Dardanian names..

I know some details about the Illyrian language that if true clearly indicate Albanian is related to Illyrian. So I don't mention the Bessi theory anymore.

But we know from linguistic evidence that a phonetic change sk->h is very old in Albanian, so Albanian language is not related to Scodra, Scerdilaidas, Scenobarbus.

But if Albanian is Illyrian it could be that it as an Illirianised proto-Dardanian/proto-Paeonian language. This creole formed in Southern Albanian tumulii culture, Devolli group.

And this fits very nicely with R-Z2705, and also distant links Albanian has with the Greek and Armenian.

So the crucial point are these non-Illyrian, non-Thracian original Dardanii.

So only among the Illyrians south of Shkumbin river should one search for the ancestors of Albanians. Bylliones, Parthini.. And indeed we see only one J-L283 cluster being proto-Albanian. It's these Southerners that form the bulk of clades found in both Ghegs and Tosks.

Hawk
02-27-2021, 04:05 PM
So, how come R-Z2705 a mutation that happened in V century A.D be related to Proto-Dardani/Proto-Paeonians?

Sooner or later we will have aDNA for all of those burials. And then we can talk with certainty. :)

As for you months ago talking about Thracians, i am 100% sure you were aware of the results months before those leaks were revealed in youtube, but you just kept acting smartass as if you connected the dots.

Huban
02-27-2021, 04:13 PM
So, how come R-Z2705 a mutation that happened in V century A.D be related to Proto-Dardani/Proto-Paeonians?

Sooner or later we will have aDNA for all of those burials. And then we can talk with certainty. :)

Z2705 happened in V century, where they were prior to that is unknown.

You yourself said that Z2705 represents the proto-Albanian language.



As for you months ago talking about Thracians, i am 100% sure you were aware of the results months before those leaks were revealed in youtube, but you just kept acting smartass.

No, this has little to do with genetics, but linguistics, I know Albanian is not related to Thracian. But I know it seems to show Illyrian links yet in other respects (sk->h) it doesn't.

I think Matzinger proposed links with Messapian, at the same time I don't think he considers that language proper Illyrian. I think there is only one explanation for that and that is Devolli group.

Hawk
02-27-2021, 04:19 PM
Z2705 happened in V century, where they were prior to that is unknown.

You yourself said that Z2705 represents the proto-Albanian language.

If Albanian is related to Greek and Armenian then R1b-Z2103 for sure, some of the subclades. But, if as Trumper and some recent linguists propose that Albanian has Central European connection, that must have lived somewhere close to Germanic, Celtic and Balto-Slavic on the east then some Corded Ware Y-DNA which i am not sure which one exactly.



No, this has little to do with genetics, but linguistics, I know Albanian is not related to Thracian. But I know it seems to show Illyrian links yet in other respects (sk->h) it doesn't.

I think Matzinger proposed links with Messapian, at the same time I don't think he considers that language proper Illyrian. I think there is only one explanation for that and that is Devolli group.

Matzinger proposed that Albanian is not descended from Illyrian but related to Illyrian and Messapian. On the other hand Proto-Albanians, Messapians and Thracians shared the same word for horse, maz/manz. There was some very complex scenario from Middle Bronze Age to Early Iron Age.

There is also Apuli attested at both Dacians and Messapians. In my opinion there must have been a third layer shared by both Thracians and Illyrians.

Kelmendasi
02-27-2021, 04:23 PM
So we have determined that Southern Albanian tumulii group had a Brnjica proto-Dardanian influx. Proto-Dardanians are in turn connected to proto-Paeonians.

How interesting names of Messapians parallel some Dardanian names..

I know some details about the Illyrian language that might indicate Albanian is related to Illyrian. So I don't mention the Bessi theory much anymore.

But we know from linguistic evidence that a phonetic change sk->h is very old in Albanian, so Albanian language is not related to Scodra, Scerdilaidas, Scenobarbus.

But if Albanian is Illyrian it could be that it Illirianised proto-Dardanian/proto-Paeonian language. This creole formed in Southern Albanian tumulii culture, Devolli group.

And this fits very nicely with R-Z2705, and also distant links Albanian has with the Greek and Armenian.

So the crucial point are these non-Illyrian, non-Thracian original Dardanii.

So only among the Illyrians south of Shkumbin river should one search for the ancestors of Albanians. Bylliones, Parthini.. And indeed we see only one J-L283 cluster being proto-Albanian. It's these Southerners that form the bulk of clades found in both Ghegs and Tosks.
I do not think that an origin for Proto-Albanian that far south of the Shkumbin River is likely at all. These tribes were under heavy Hellenistic socio-cultural, linguistic, and even political influence. The Bylliones who occupied the hinterland around the initially Greek trading colony and then polis of Apollonia in south-western Albania, had already become bilingual by the third century BCE due to direct influence from the Epirote Molossians and formed their own koinon. Hellenistic influence is also evident in the local cults and religious practices of the Bylliones. As for the Parthini, they occupied territories to the north of the Shkumbin as well as to the south. Not only this, but they are also believed by some to have initially been a part of the Taulantian tribal confederation alongside the eponymous tribe and the Abri, prior to branching off and becoming distinct.

I think that if the ancestral population of the Albanians occupied these territories, then the Albanian language would for sure show a far higher degree of Greek loanwords when compared to Latin. Unless you argue that there was some kind of migration north, but I do not know how you could verify this. Or you could say that the Greek loans were replaced by Latin and later Slavic or Ottoman Turkish words. It seems far more likely that the Albanians simply descend from a population group that occupied an area to the north, in my opinion the area of the Dardani may correspond best to this.

Johane Derite
02-27-2021, 04:45 PM
But we know from linguistic evidence that a phonetic change sk->h is very old in Albanian, so Albanian language is not related to Scodra, Scerdilaidas, Scenobarbus.



Indo-european *sk cluster became *kh early in pre-Albanian, but once that sound law finished there is nothing that would have stopped pre-Albanians forming a new *sk cluster in words with s+k.

So this argument only works insofar as the etymologised *SK in "Scodra, Scerdilaidas, Scenobarbus" is claimed to come from an original indo european word with that *sk cluster. If these are later developments then the argument does not rest.

There is also the second option that these names were simply not proto-Albanian but the cities and individuals still were, as the point earlier about Albanians and proto-Albanian at least since Roman times having been bilingual with a hegemonic adstrate. You have cities with entire Albanian populations that don't have Albanian etymologies because of a ruling class that imposed names, likewise die-hard Albanian nationalist fighters that have turkish, slavic, greek, etymology names.

So this whole line of reasoning is so reductive and even pseudo-scientific and entirely missing the specific and unique situations of Albanian history.

Furthermore, neither Albanian nor Proto-Albanian is a creole, this is not even on the table as an option by any linguist since the 19th century, so this notion is already dead on arrival.

Huban
02-27-2021, 04:47 PM
I do not think that an origin for Proto-Albanian that far south of the Shkumbin River is likely at all. These tribes were under heavy Hellenistic socio-cultural, linguistic, and even political influence. The Bylliones who occupied the hinterland around the initially Greek trading colony and then polis of Apollonia in south-western Albania, had already become bilingual by the third century BCE due to direct influence from the Epirote Molossians and formed their own koinon. Hellenistic influence is also evident in the local cults and religious practices of the Bylliones. As for the Parthini, they occupied territories to the north of the Shkumbin as well as to the south. Not only this, but they are also believed by some to have initially been a part of the Taulantian tribal confederation alongside the eponymous tribe and the Abri, prior to branching off and becoming distinct.

I think that if the ancestral population of the Albanians occupied these territories, then the Albanian language would for sure show a far higher degree of Greek loanwords when compared to Latin. Unless you argue that there was some kind of migration north, but I do not know how you could verify this. Or you could say that the Greek loans were replaced by Latin and later Slavic or Ottoman Turkish words. It seems far more likely that the Albanians simply descend from a population group that occupied an area to the north, in my opinion the area of the Dardani may correspond best to this.

You do make valid points about the Greek influence. However this Southern Tumulli group stretched from the Adriatic sea to the Ohrid and Prespa lake. Kuçi i Zi, Maliq, Barç were the main centers. That's far away from the Greek colonies. We need to see which historical tribe descends of those.

R-Z29758 has strong diversity there. And its subgroup R-FGC40202 seems proto-Albanian with various Northern branches. Originally FGC40202 must be of Southern origin too. FGC40202 seems to be weak in Tosks but I guess few of these are Tosks judging by their location.

Johane Derite
02-27-2021, 04:56 PM
This is development of just one type of verb endings from Early Proto-Albanian, with at least 3 intermediate stages, into Late Proto-Albanian until Old Albanian. This is not creolisation but direct descendancy and linear evolution. Albanian has had contact in form of loans, but it is not a creole in its grammar or development, it is very grammatically complex, creoles have very simple and reduced grammar.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Elv0ftqWMAgDt-3?format=png&name=large

Hawk
02-27-2021, 05:07 PM
One interesting thing to note, is that some Albanian historians always declared that Albanians are a mix between Illyrians and Thracians and they even labelled Thraco-Illyrian for Albanian ethnogenesis.

Like for instance there was rumours that Thaci tribe are Thracians and Berishas came from Odrysians. But these were just rumours. The former Thaci (original clan members) belonging to E-V13 L241 and the latter to E-V13 FGC33621.

Kelmendasi
02-27-2021, 05:10 PM
You do make valid points about the Greek influence. However this Southern Tumulli group stretched from the Adriatic sea to the Ohrid and Prespa lake. Kuçi i Zi, Maliq, Barç were the main centers. That's far away from the Greek colonies. We need to see which historical tribe descends of those.

R-Z29758 has strong diversity there. And its subgroup R-FGC40202 seems proto-Albanian with various Northern branches. Originally FGC40202 must be of Southern origin too. FGC40202 seems to be weak in Tosks but I guess few of these are Tosks judging by their location.
A notable Illyrian tribe that occupied the regions between the Osum and Devoll river basins, the plain or plateau of Korça, and extending to Lake Ohrid, was the Dassareti who's chief settlement is believed to have been Lychnidos.

In regards to what little we know about the linguistic background of the Illyrians as a whole, it seems that the Dassareti belonged to the core Illyrian linguistic or onomastic area. However, it is also clear that they too were under heavy Hellenistic influence and likely became bilingual. What is interesting to note is that the Dassareti may have absorbed or been influenced by the Brygi who are believed to be a Paleo-Balkan group related to the Phrygians, as well as by the Enchelei (possibly Sesarethioi) who may have been a pre-Illyrian group that was assimilated.

In terms of religious background, Dassareti cult-objects share similarities with multiple other objects found across Illyria with an interesting connection being found with Labeatae materials. The Gradistë belt-plate shares many similarities with a belt discovered in a site from Gostilj on the Zeta Lowlands, both depicting a horseman who's guardian was a serpent. The royal tombs excavated at Selcë e Poshtme also belong to this tribe. However, there was also a cult to Artemis Argota which was especially prevalent during the Hellenistic and later Roman eras.

It has also been argued by some historians that Bardylis and his dynasty was actually Dassaretan instead of Dardanian.

Johane Derite
02-27-2021, 05:14 PM
One interesting thing to note, is that some Albanian historians always declared that Albanians are a mix between Illyrians and Thracians and they even labelled Thraco-Illyrian for Albanian ethnogenesis.

Like for instance there was rumours that Thaci tribe are Thracians and Berishas came from Odrysians. But these were just rumours. The former Thaci (original clan members) belonging to E-V13 L241 and the latter to E-V13 FGC33621.

For clarity, these were not rumours or any existing oral tradition, but the speculation/theory of Nikollë Gazulli, and this was based on the folk etymology of Murr Dedi.

Hawk
02-27-2021, 05:15 PM
From all ancient samples the GRC_Helladic_MBA:Log02 is the closest i get, i assume the other Albanians have GRC_Helladic_MBA:Log02 as closest sample (even closer than me since i have some excessive Steppe than other Albanians which might come from Slavic admixture). I have read somewhere that this sample might even be Proto-Illyrian.


Distance to: Hawk_scaled

0.03299762 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ43
0.03438320 IND_Roopkund_B:I6936
0.03482785 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ36
0.03608238 GRC_Helladic_MBA:Log02
0.03749184 DEU_MA_Alemanic_Byzantine:NIEcap3b
0.03756047 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ37
0.03832633 ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR55
0.03939553 IND_Roopkund_B:I3404
0.03943402 Scythian_MDA:scy192
0.03964654 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR33
0.04018759 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR36
0.04031992 Scythian_MDA:scy197
0.04085139 DEU_MA_ACD:NW_54
0.04117742 ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b
0.04135765 ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance:RMPR970
0.04174284 HRV_MBA:I4331
0.04180661 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK17A
0.04206426 HUN_BA:I7043
0.04220230 DEU_MA_Alemanic_Byzantine:NIEcap3c
0.04226506 VK2020_ITA_Foggia_MA:VK538
0.04232969 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ28
0.04239937 ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR1287
0.04250456 GRC_Helladic_MBA:Log04
0.04252108 ITA_Proto-Villanovan:RMPR1
0.04253080 UKR_Cimmerian_o:MJ12

https://i.imgur.com/FwFGEKA.png

Bruzmi
02-27-2021, 07:12 PM
Most of those finds are from Western Kosovo, not Eastern part which also must be taken into consideration. On the map of Garašanin I posted you can see this area of Metohija/W.Kosovo was not included in Brnjica areal. That's for a reason.


(I don't know what or whom you're referring to so I'll skip the last part of your response entirely)

Garašanin's archaeological activity is outdated by many decades. Many of the sites which have been surveyed and/or excavated today hadn't been found at his time. There is no "Brnjica areal", there is just one site which shows no similarities with other sites in eastern Kosovo which justify their grouping as part of a "Brnjica culture". These sites are part of the general material development in what would become known as Dardania hundreds of years later. They existed before the transitional phase, practiced tumuli burials (no cremation) and those which continued to exist or initially developed in the Iron Age display the same general characteristics as all other settlements in the region. I responded to you specifically because your argument presupposes the existence of an archaeological culture which never existed.


So we have determined that Southern Albanian tumulii group had a Brnjica proto-Dardanian influx. Proto-Dardanians are in turn connected to proto-Paeonians.

No archaeologist has ever determined such a connection because there is no Brnjica culture. Archaeological theories have to correspond to the archaeological data. A material culture linked to tumuli burials existed in historical Dardania long before the transitional era. Cremation as a choice among very few existing settlements in the region appears in the transitional phase with no other differentiation which would suggest the emergence of any new material culture, let along "migration from the north". About the tumuli sites in southern Albania, John Wilkes writes that

In central Albania the cemetery of 25 tumuli at Pazhok commenced in the Late Bronze Age (c.1300 BC) but would appear to have gone out of use by 700 BC, though many of its tumuli have yet to be explored. Further east in the Korce basin, which lies south of the Lakes, the great tumulus at Barç (41 m diameter) contained a primary burial of the Late Bronze Age. After a considerable interval burials began to be inserted into the mound and continued for around three centuries until around 850 BC So far nearly 200 graves have been recovered, representing a large ruling elite rather than the succession of a single dynasty. The earlier burials contained jewellery and ornaments of gold and bronze, an early variety of the 'spectacle'-brooch, and pottery decorated with knobs and nip the so-called Devoll ware. The burials at Barç contain significantly fewer weapons than those in the Mat and Drin valleys. As a whole they appear to relate more closely with a group of burials a few miles to the south at Kuç i Zi, also in the Korce basin, which so far represent the most southerly extension of the Glasinac-Mat material culture. The earlier of two tumuli (29m in diameter) contained five cremations in urns and many skeleton burials in trenches, some of which were stone-lined. Many weapons were recovered, among them swords, spears, arrows, knives and choppers, while ornaments include bronze bracelets, beads and pendants, which match closely those from southern Kosovo and Glasinac. One suggestion is that these burials belong to a ruling dynasty of the eighth century that had moved to the area from somewhere in the Glasinac region to the north. Also connected with this regime may be the complexes of fortifications guarding entry to the Korce plain, which Albanian archaeologists have dated to the ninth and eighth centuries. These include Symize and Bellovode on the west, Bilisht in the south, and the group around Tren on the coast, controlling the 'Wolf's pass' (Gryke e Ujkut) leading to Little Prespa Lake.

gjergj
02-27-2021, 07:29 PM
You do make valid points about the Greek influence. However this Southern Tumulli group stretched from the Adriatic sea to the Ohrid and Prespa lake. Kuçi i Zi, Maliq, Barç were the main centers. That's far away from the Greek colonies. We need to see which historical tribe descends of those.

R-Z29758 has strong diversity there. And its subgroup R-FGC40202 seems proto-Albanian with various Northern branches. Originally FGC40202 must be of Southern origin too. FGC40202 seems to be weak in Tosks but I guess few of these are Tosks judging by their location.

FGC40202 is not of southern origin. All results point to the region between Kukes-Struga area. Only one is Tosk and that is a very late movement. All diversity is north of Shkumbin.
All tested clades and subclades are fully represented in Yfull.

Hawk
02-27-2021, 07:38 PM
Brnjica, Paracin and Vatin related cultures are real, part of this group even went down in Greece.

There is very recent papers from Austrian universities i have quoted here before.

Hawk
02-27-2021, 08:00 PM
a. The cemeteries of the Paraćin and
Donja Brnjica cultural groups compare especially well with
the tumuli in the Argolid. These two cultural groups flourished in Southern Serbia and Kosovo mainly during the 13th
century BC (Br D, LH IIIB).35 The usual form of interment
was cremation burial, often in tumuli. The cremated remains
of the deceased were placed in urns, which were closed with
bowls. This practice can be paralleled to the inurned cremations in the Argive tumuli.36 The Argive custom of placing
the small open vessel upside down on the urn finds its correspondence in a grave in the cemetery of Paraćin.37 This
grave is dated to phase Paraćin II by Rastko Vasić that can
be equated to Br D2–Ha A1 and LH IIIB Late–LH IIIC
respectively.38 It is therefore roughly contemporary with the
tumuli at Argos and Mycenae-Chania.

http://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576_0x002debf4.pdf


Not only Brnjica and Paracin were cultural groups, but they were powerful, inflating Naue II sword type further down.


The contact between the Western Balkans and Greece,
that led to the construction of the Argive tumuli, was probably conducted via the Adriatic because there are no tumuli
with cremations of a 12th century date in Northern Greece.
The finds of Naue II swords of the early standard type in
Donja Brnjica and Tekija near Paraćin clearly show that the
Donja Brnjica and Paraćin cultures were not isolated but in
contact with the innovative centers of the period.41

gjergj
02-27-2021, 08:10 PM
I don't ever look only at YFull because YFull contains incomplete information. For Z631 to originate in Central Europe one must find stronger diversity there. There are still 2 basals in Southern Albania and several Z1043's. I think part of Z631 was assimilated by the Celts but it doesn't originate there.

There are some English/Americans at the basal level where the entire population has been deep tested.. Celts do not originate from Britain.

Well, you don't look at Yfull and than where do you get your data? you invent them?
As every body else we can look at Yfull and I also have access to Rrenjet.com that has the largest database for the albanians. Most of their results are not FTDNA so you can't see the full picture there either.

All clades are 2,900 ybp or younger. so from what location could it be possible to have that much spread in in west and north europe at that timeline to justify Illyrian origin?
J-Y144394 has TMRCA of 2,500 ybp one Albanian and one Polish
J-Y155546 has TMRCA of 2,300 ybp one Albanian and one USA/Utah which is usually North europeans not southeast europeans.
J-Y191359 has TMRCA 1,050 ybp. One Romanian and two Albanians.
J-Z1043* has TMRCA 2,900 ybp. One Duch, one Albanian and one Czech.

All of them have very low presence in albanian population. None of them are part of any strong tribal affiliation that some of the most typical "Illyrian lines" have created in the albanian mountains during the middle ages. Their regional presence among albanians also is similar to R-L51.

So how do you get the Illyrian warrior elite from the Z631 data :)
To be frank after I saw your comment on the supposedly southern origin of R-FGC40202 when there is absolutely no indication of it, on the contrary it is clearly northern makes me think that data are not important to what you say.

vettor
02-27-2021, 08:19 PM
So we have determined that Southern Albanian tumulii group had a Brnjica proto-Dardanian influx. Proto-Dardanians are in turn connected to proto-Paeonians.

How interesting names of Messapians parallel some Dardanian names..

I know some details about the Illyrian language that if true clearly indicate Albanian is related to Illyrian. So I don't mention the Bessi theory anymore.

But we know from linguistic evidence that a phonetic change sk->h is very old in Albanian, so Albanian language is not related to Scodra, Scerdilaidas, Scenobarbus.

But if Albanian is Illyrian it could be that it as an Illirianised proto-Dardanian/proto-Paeonian language. This creole formed in Southern Albanian tumulii culture, Devolli group.

And this fits very nicely with R-Z2705, and also distant links Albanian has with the Greek and Armenian.

So the crucial point are these non-Illyrian, non-Thracian original Dardanii.

So only among the Illyrians south of Shkumbin river should one search for the ancestors of Albanians. Bylliones, Parthini.. And indeed we see only one J-L283 cluster being proto-Albanian. It's these Southerners that form the bulk of clades found in both Ghegs and Tosks.

Let me make this clear .................I treat the term illyria as a geographical term , same as one would Scandinavia or britain ..............I follow the Roman theory of what is Illyria and there are no tribes called actaully Illyrian, but there are Dalmatians , liburnians etc etc that fall under the term Illyria
roman area for illyria below
https://i.postimg.cc/ZRN25S1v/illyricum.png (https://postimages.org/)

In regards to illyrian language...............there will never be found one as it does not exist, you could find maybe a dalmatian, liburnian or pannonian ones...but they are slightly different from each other .............or we do have Noricum ( east-austria ) illyrian ( nori and carni tribes ) personnel names...but no language that I can find in this area either

In regards to messapic language, due to its late appearance ( over 300 years after these people arrived in Italy ) , it seems more likely that messapic languag is a fusion of the language that arrived with the old italic tribal language in the area over a period this messapic language was formed

.................................................. ......

so you follow this theory below
https://i.postimg.cc/tCF6tMHd/dardani.png (https://postimages.org/)

Well yes the Dardani southern neighbours are the Paeonians..............so yes it can be true

south of the Paeonians are the Macedonians

My albanian friend originates from western Macedonia and he states the same thing

Kelmendasi
02-27-2021, 09:11 PM
Let me make this clear .................I treat the term illyria as a geographical term , same as one would Scandinavia or britain ..............I follow the Roman theory of what is Illyria and there are no tribes called actaully Illyrian, but there are Dalmatians , liburnians etc etc that fall under the term Illyria
roman area for illyria below
https://i.postimg.cc/ZRN25S1v/illyricum.png (https://postimages.org/)

In regards to illyrian language...............there will never be found one as it does not exist, you could find maybe a dalmatian, liburnian or pannonian ones...but they are slightly different from each other .............or we do have Noricum ( east-austria ) illyrian ( nori and carni tribes ) personnel names...but no language that I can find in this area either

In regards to messapic language, due to its late appearance ( over 300 years after these people arrived in Italy ) , it seems more likely that messapic languag is a fusion of the language that arrived with the old italic tribal language in the area over a period this messapic language was formed

.................................................. ......

so you follow this theory below
https://i.postimg.cc/tCF6tMHd/dardani.png (https://postimages.org/)

Well yes the Dardani southern neighbours are the Paeonians..............so yes it can be true

south of the Paeonians are the Macedonians

My albanian friend originates from western Macedonia and he states the same thing
The classical scholars of the time did view the Illyrians, the inhabitants of the historical region of Illyria, as being somewhat culturally or linguistically related and are mentioned as a separate ethnos from the other non-Greek or non-Hellenic peoples of the Balkans. Archaeological data does also support that many tribes shared common material culture and religious practices and beliefs. The mythological genealogy of the Illyrian peoples that was constructed in Graeco-Roman literature which places much of the tribes as either first, second, or third generation descendants of Illyrius, may also reflect this feeling of common origin or background for the peoples of Illyria as well as some prehistoric connections between them.

In the genealogy constructed by Appian, the sons of Illyrius are: Encheleus (Enchelei), Autarieus (Autariatae), Dardanus (Dardani), Maedus (uncertain), Taulas (Taulantii), and Perrhaebus (Perrhaebi). Whilst the daughters are: Partho (Parthini), Daortho (Daorsi), and Dassaro (Dassareti). These are the mythological first generation descendants. For the second generation, only the son of Autarieus named Pannonius/Paeon (Pannonians) is mentioned. He himself had two sons; Scordiscus (Scordisci) and Triballus (Triballi) who make up the third generation. The two later generations may hint at a more distant relation that the classical scholars saw, or could just be an attempt to lump up all the "barbarian" groups together.

In regards to linguistics, considering the extremely limited amount of data, the best way to go about seems to be breaking down the region into onomastic or linguistic areas. As has been done by quite a few linguists before. Radoslav Katičić for example breaks Illyria down into three areas: the core Illyrian area that roughly corresponds to the Illyrian areas of present-day Albania and Montenegro, the Delmato-Pannonian area that extends from the historical territories of the Delmatae and surrounding tribes into Pannonia, and the Liburnian or Adriatic area which corresponds to Liburni lands. He also makes a point in regards to Dardania that the region initially seems to have belonged to the core Illyrian onomastic area but was then superseded to a degree by the Delmato-Pannonian one. How closely these linguistic areas were related to each other is hard to say, but I believe that the core Illyrian area was to a degree related to the Delmato-Pannonian one and may have had closer ties with Messapian, whilst the Liburnian area was completely unrelated and rather belonged to or was related to the Venetic language group.

As for Noricum, this was a completely separate province from Illyricum and the two later provinces that would replace it; Dalmatia and Pannonia. Its only relation was that Noricum ripense and Noricum mediterraneum belonged to the diocese of Pannonia or Illyria (as it is known from 395 CE). The classical scholars did not consider the tribes of Noricum to be related to the Illyrians, the former were also Celtic-speakers.

Huban
02-27-2021, 09:34 PM
Well, you don't look at Yfull and than where do you get your data? you invent them?

Everywhere, FTDNA, YFull, even studies where haplotypes can be safely predicted for an SNP below. That's why I mentioned J-Y22894. Although there are atm just a Croat and Greek, per STR's Albanian Thaci-Korbi and 9 Basarabs from Romania belong to this cluster.


As every body else we can look at Yfull and I also have access to Rrenjet.com that has the largest database for the albanians. Most of their results are not FTDNA so you can't see the full picture there either.

All clades are 2,900 ybp or younger. so from what location could it be possible to have that much spread in in west and north europe at that timeline to justify Illyrian origin?
J-Y144394 has TMRCA of 2,500 ybp one Albanian and one Polish
J-Y155546 has TMRCA of 2,300 ybp one Albanian and one USA/Utah which is usually North europeans not southeast europeans.
J-Y191359 has TMRCA 1,050 ybp. One Romanian and two Albanians.
J-Z1043* has TMRCA 2,900 ybp. One Duch, one Albanian and one Czech.

All of them have very low presence in albanian population. None of them are part of any strong tribal affiliation that some of the most typical "Illyrian lines" have created in the albanian mountains during the middle ages. Their regional presence among albanians also is similar to R-L51.

I see an Albanian Thaci is predicted as J-FGC55778. So that means six Z631 Albanian clades. And bar that clade with Romanian they are all above Z8424. I have to be very suspicious towards the notion that Z631 began in Celtic areas. Because from logical POV, if these are all Celtic why is Celtic presence in Albania mostly represented through Z631, shouldn't logically R-L51 be stronger??

Besides some of R-L51 you have may not be Celtic but of older Urnfield origin. We do have some finds in Bosnia especially and Montenegro of some loose R-L51 clades that don not appear Celtic but rather Urnfield derived.

I don't deny Celtic connection as I've said, R116 had a NW Euro autosomal profile I believe.

In Romania Z631 is 2.28 %, with 4 separate clusters. And actually there Z631 seems to make up half of L283. In Bulgaria also it makes up significant portion of L283. It could be that presence in Bulgaria is due to some Westward Glasinac expansion or Celtic. In Romania at least one cluster doesn't seem related to currently profiled clades.



So how do you get the Illyrian warrior elite from the Z631 data :)

Spread and age. None of other Albanian clades have any Iron Age diversity in various SE European areas. And yet according to archeological evidence there should be some J-L283 tied to Glasinac-Mati in a big way.
Also J-PH1602 should have some connection to it.



To be frank after I saw your comment on the supposedly southern origin of R-FGC40202 when there is absolutely no indication of it, on the contrary it is clearly northern makes me think that data are not important to what you say.

Okay so its Northern. As you are saying that Tosk is of Gheg origin. In that case R-FGC40202 cannot be a proto-Albanian lineage because proto-Albanian lineage must be present in both Ghegs and Tosks, i.e. predate Gheg Tosk separation. And of course you cannot count people that are 3000, 4000 years away as relevant. Gheg-Tosk separation doesn't go that far.

Bruzmi
02-27-2021, 09:45 PM
Not only Brnjica and Paracin were cultural groups, but they were powerful, inflating Naue II sword type further down.

The "Bnjica cultural group" theory is based on the partial excavation (at the time) of just one site where exactly one sword has been found. Nothing in the archaeological record has shown that there ever was a "Brnjica culture". It's a hypothesis which wasn't confirmed by excavations. The paper you're quoting is an overview of an old theory by Rastko Vasić, itself a continuation of the theory of N. Tasić. This theory today doesn't correspond to anything that we have learned in the archaeological record.

When someone claims that "X was a powerful group", they have to prove via the archaeological record which sites formed this group and what made them important (population, monumentalization of architecture, religious sites etc) Nothing of the sort exists for the hypothetical "Brnjica culture". On the contrary, what we've learned is that there's nothing at all which proves at least to some extent the existence of this group. Some (wealthy) people in one very ordinary settlement ( identical to settlements in western Kosovo) in modern eastern Kosovo adopted cremation and one member of this wealthy elite bought a sword which was placed in his (probably a male) grave. That's it.

When someone claims that "X group were the carriers of Y weapon type", they have to go back to the archaeological record and show that indeed excavations have found this particular type of weapon to such an extent that the conclusion is probable or at least plausible. But theories which are constructed on the basis of one sword and some characteristics of just one site aren't archaeological theories. Probability in archaeology comes from real data.

Hawk
02-27-2021, 09:53 PM
The "Bnjica cultural group" theory is based on the partial excavation (at the time) of just one site where exactly one sword has been found. Nothing in the archaeological record has shown that there ever was a "Brnjica culture". It's a hypothesis which wasn't confirmed by excavations. The paper you're quoting is an overview of an old theory by Rastko Vasić, itself a continuation of the theory of N. Tasić. This theory today doesn't correspond to anything that we have learned in the archaeological record.

When someone claims that "X was a powerful group", they have to prove via the archaeological which sites formed this group and what made them important (population, monumentalization of architecture, religious sites etc) Nothing of the sort exists for the hypothetical "Brnjica culture". On the contrary, what we've learned is that there's nothing at all which proves at least to some extent the existence of this group. Some (wealthy) people in one very ordinary settlement ( identical to settlements in western Kosovo) in modern eastern Kosovo adopted cremation and one member of this wealthy elite bought a sword which was placed in his (probably a male) grave. That's it.

When someone claims that "X group were the carriers of Y weapon type", they have to go back to the archaeological record and show that indeed excavations have found this particular type of weapon to such an extent that the conclusion is probable or at least plausible. But theories which are constructed on the basis of one sword and some characteristics of just one site aren't archaeological theories. Probability in archaeology comes from real data.

I quoted you the paper which has tones of tones of references you talk me voodoo magic.

Bruzmi
02-27-2021, 10:11 PM
I quoted you the paper which has tones of tones of references you talk me voodoo magic.

I explained to you what the paper you quoted refers to. I suggest you read Vasic, Tasic and other Yugoslav archaeologists in order to better understand the data they were relying on for their speculations. Below is the archaeological data about cremation sites including the so-called "Brnjica culture" type site in eastern Kosovo. (Premtim Alaj (2019), Les habitats de l'Age du fer sur le territoire de l'actuel Kosovo, Université Lumière (Lyon))



43576
There have been found a total of 51 burial sites in Kosovo from the Middle Bronze Age to the Iron Age. 42 are tumuli burial sites, 7 are non-tumuli (cremation) sites. 2 sites where urn burials have been found have not yet been confirmed to be part of any burial site.

All non-tumuli burial sites date to the 11th-9th century BC, the transitional phase between the BA-IA. About 1/6 of the tumuli sites date to the Bronze Age (up to the MBA), 5/6 date to the Iron Age. Archaeological conclusion #1: Tumuli-based sites predate all non-tumuli sites. Cremation appears much later than the typical hillfort-tumuli complex.

43577
The concept of a "Brnjica culture" was based on the hypothesis that because there were some cremation sites during the transitional phase in what would become Dardania, these sites were linked to (not yet found at the time) settlements which must have been part of the same archaeological culture, which in turn was hypothesized to have appeared as the result of a migration from the north in the LBA/transitional phase.

*All comments about metallic objects concern the transitional phase (11th-9th centuries BC)

1)Trudë (Bërnicë e Poshtme cremation site): 11th-7th centuries BC. No metallic objects found at Trudë. A sword and few other metallic objects were found at Bërnicë e Poshtme (hence the name Brnjica culture).
2)Gracanicë-Glladnicë (Badovc and Ulpiana cremation sites): Neolithic to Middle Ages (Ulpiana was built on top of the ancient site area). No metallic objects found at the site. This was a settlement which existed long before the transitional phase and used cremation in the 11th-9th centuries.
3)Rixhevë (Gllarevë cremation site/Zabërgjë tumuli): MBA to 4th century BC. No metallic objects found at Rixhevë. The population of Rixhevë practiced tumuli burial but in the transitional phase practiced cremation. This site is unique because it has both a tumuli "necropolis" and a cremation site.
4) No settlement has been conclusively linked yet to the cremation site at Grashticë. No metallic objects found.
5) No settlement has been conclusively linked yet to the cremation site at Karagaç. No metallic objects found.
6) No settlement has been conclusively linked yet to the cremation site at Keqekollë. No metallic objects found.
7) + 8) The urn burials at Lushtë and Varosh have not yet been confirmed to be part of a burial site.

Of the three settlements which have been definitively linked to cremation/urn burial sites, only one appears during the transitional era, the other two predate it. One was a settlement which practiced tumuli burial, but also practiced cremation during the transitional era. Metallic objects appear rarely in tumuli burials in the late bronze age and the transitional era, but they are even rarer in cremation sites and linked settlements. They have been found only once (Bërnicë e Poshtme). This is in stark contrast to the heavy use of metallic objects in many Urnfield sites.


Now, do tell me which one of these sites - including Bërnica/Brnjica - prove anything about powerful cultural groups, evidence that such a differentiated culture existed in eastern Kosovo in comparison to western Kosovo, and how these people were the carriers of particular types of weapons when just one sword has been found? Just the archaeological data linked to these specific sites, Brnjica in particular, will do. No theoretical constructions, just the raw data. Thank you :)

Hawk
02-27-2021, 10:39 PM
Somewhere North of Balkans, around the Vatin Culture and similar the density of Naue II swords was high.

https://i.imgur.com/88gpIqj.png

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292397599_The_Dissemination_of_Naue_II_swords_-_a_Case_Study_on_Long-distance_Mobility

We have discussed this before, the people most likely who put an end to Mycenae came from the North, that means somewhere North of Central Balkans.

Bruzmi
02-27-2021, 10:47 PM
The appearance of the Dorians in southern Greece is a subject of Aegean archaeology. The textbook used by many universities which have Aegean archaeology classes is
The Aegean from Bronze Age to Iron Age: Continuity and Change Between the Twelfth and Eighth Centuries BC
(2006) by Oliver Dickinson. On the other hand, the paper Cremation Burials in Greece from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age. Continuity or Change? (http://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576_0x002debf4.pdf) (2013) has been cited 12 times (at least that is what jstor tells me). I'm mentioning this detail because the response of the academic community to a work shows its validity to an extent. It's a sort of market mechanism within academia.

Cremation Burials in Greece from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age on cist graves:

Thus, they were apparently not fully integrated members of the Mycenaean society. This impression is enhanced through the inhumations in the tumulus at Argos as the deceased were laid to rest in stone cist graves. This is an entirely uncommon grave type in the palatial and postpalatial periods of the Mycenaean culture. In fact, the cist graves in the tumulus at Argos are the only examples of their type in the core regions of the Mycenaean culture that can be securely dated to the LH IIIB–LH IIIC period.24 For all these reasons, it can be deduced that the burial communities, who used the tumuli at Mycenae-Chania and Argos were groups of foreigners or were of foreign descent. It is almost impossible for a population group of foreign origin to leave more obvious marks in the archaeological record.


To which the now textbook publication of Oliver Dickinson "replies":
Here it is necessary to return to theories already mentioned above which depend on the notion that the traditions of invasion by Dorians and other groups encapsulate historical fact, and that the Mycenaean centres were in fact destroyed and their territories conquered by other Greek-speaking peoples. Often their source has been suggested to be Epirus, particularly by Hammond (1932, 1975), although there is no warrant for this in the ancient traditions, which do not derive any of the supposedly incoming peoples from outside the boundaries of Classical Greece. As noted above, it has often been thought a difficulty that no major archaeological change can be associated with such an invasion, but this is much less of a problem if the Dorians and allied groups in fact came from within the area of Mycenaean culture.
...
The proposed distinction between Mycenaean and Submycenaean burial customs is far from clear-cut (see Chapter 6), for the vases and metalwork typical of the cist cemeteries can also appear in chamber tombs. Also, many of the best examples of cist cemeteries are found in Attica and Euboea, which according to the traditions were not successfully invaded by newcomers, whereas such cemeteries are notably lacking from classic Dorian areas such as the south Peloponnese (pit and cist graves are now report from Sparta and Amykla) and Crete. There are also significant variations in burial customs between different cist cemeteries, undermining the suggestion that they represent a homogeneous culture.

Bruzmi
02-27-2021, 10:52 PM
Somewhere North of Balkans, around the Vatin Culture and similar the density of Naue II swords was high.

https://i.imgur.com/88gpIqj.png

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292397599_The_Dissemination_of_Naue_II_swords_-_a_Case_Study_on_Long-distance_Mobility

We have discussed this before, the people most likely who put an end to Mycenae came from the North, that means somewhere North of Central Balkans.

I asked a very specific question about sites, their importance etc. There is exactly one sword found in Brnjica and nowhere else in the transitional phase in eastern Kosovo. And it was an import which a wealthy person owned because nothing else in this settlement suggests any differentiation from western Kosovo.

I've written a response about cist graves which is applicable to "north of the Balkans" theories as well about the Dorians etc. It's just above this post.

Huban
02-27-2021, 10:55 PM
I responded to you specifically because your argument presupposes the existence of an archaeological culture which never existed.

........
No archaeologist has ever determined such a connection because there is no Brnjica culture.

The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 3, Part 1
Iorwerth Eiddon Stephen Edwards, Cyril John Gadd, Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond, John Boardman, David Malcolm Lewis, Frank William Walbank, A. E. Astin, John Anthony Crook, Andrew William Lintott, Elizabeth Rawson, Alan K. Bowman, Edward Champlin, Peter Garnsey, Dominic Rathbone, Averil Cameron, Bryan Ward-Perkins, Michael Whitby

pages 596-598

The Donja Brnjica - Gornja Stražava Group

The finds for this group come entirely from graves in the southern Morava region and the Kosovo area in the latest phase of Iron Age I, and in the present state of research it is not possible to say whether we have to deal with one group or two regional variants . The best known cemetery is at Donja Brnjica . Burials in specially constructed graves were arranged in groups . The dead were cremated and their ashes placed in urns set on stone slabs . Each urn was placed on a stone slab and often covered by a stone slab . Both individual and communal graves were found . In most cases the urns were fenced in and covered by a stone layer consisting of concentrically arranged white pebbles or boulders . Bronze arrow - heads are the most typical metal find, being either flat - based or tanged to fix in a shaft . Such arrows can be traced back into the Bronze Age , for instance in the Paraćin group of the Morava region . Typical too are pins with a conical head and a widened neck which can be dated with certainty to Hallstatt B3 , at the very end of our Iron Age 1 . 38 Of the pottery the most characteristic are vessels with two vertical knobbed handles, but there are also some vessels with horizontal handles and some urns with long or short conical necks and a highly pronounced body. Sometimes two or four knobbed handles were placed on the body ( fig . 52 , 8 – 12 ) . At Gornja Stražava in the Toplica valley in Cemetery I urn - graves were fenced in with a double circle of stones . The pottery here is related to that at Donja Brnjica , and a pin resembles those at Donja Brnjica . 39 A similar urn has been found at Togočevac near Leskovac . The pottery in its shapes and handles is completely in the tradition of the Morava region in the Bronze Age . Since the southern Morava region and Kosovo were occupied by the Dardani , this pottery may be regarded as particular to them . The handles of the urns in both areas are the same , but some urns at Gornja Stražava are very similar to those of the cemetery of Dalj in the Dalj - Val - Podol group in southern Pannonia , which are dated Hallstatt B , and so late in our Iron Age I after 1000 B . C . Certain pottery shapes connected with the Donja Brnjica group were found as large pithoi for the depot at the site of Markova Varoš near Prilep , and at Kale Fortress at Skopje . In the depot of Plovdiv in Thrace vessels were found in different layers in a pit , and among them were vessels of the traditional shapes of the Daco - Mysian region in the Bronze Age , such as two - handled vessels and vessels with cut - away neck . The nearest analogy to them was found at a Late Bronze Age cemetery at Zimnicea on the Danube in Romania . 40 Other vessels with omphaloi , conical necks and handles set on the body were very close to those at Dalj and to the urns of the Donja Stražava -- Gornja Brnjica group .

From this we conclude that it is possible to trace the evolution in Dardania of the Bronze Age Daco - Mysian traditions into Iron Age I and towards the end to see a new influence emanating from a late phase of the Urnfield cultures . In the case of the Mediana group it is difficult at present to decide whether we should see only influences through trade or rather people moving from southern Pannonia towards the central Balkans . The same difficulty arises at Plovdiv .

Hawk
02-27-2021, 11:01 PM
I asked a very specific question about sites, their importance etc. There is exactly one sword found in Brnjica and nowhere else in the transitional phase in eastern Kosovo. And it was an import which a wealthy person owned because nothing else in this settlement suggests any differentiation from western Kosovo.

I've written a response about cist graves which is applicable to "north of the Balkans" theories as well about the Dorians etc. It's just above this post.

Marija Gimbutas has brilliantly and elegantly explained the Late Bronze Age in Balkans on her Bronze Age cultures in Central and Eastern Europe book.

Not trying to undermine the author you quoted me, but he probably is simply biased.

Bruzmi
02-27-2021, 11:08 PM
The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 3, Part 1
Iorwerth Eiddon Stephen Edwards, Cyril John Gadd, Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond, John Boardman, David Malcolm Lewis, Frank William Walbank, A. E. Astin, John Anthony Crook, Andrew William Lintott, Elizabeth Rawson, Alan K. Bowman, Edward Champlin, Peter Garnsey, Dominic Rathbone, Averil Cameron, Bryan Ward-Perkins, Michael Whitby


I listed you the latest results from excavation projects and you provided a publication from 1970. If I were to write a paper and submit it based on this publication, it would be rejected by all archaeological journals. The 1970 theory - based on very few excavations - which you quoted is debunked by today's standards and it's considered completely wrong to move back to the Bronze Age (!!!) populations which appear in classical antiquity ("Dacians" etc.) You won't find anywhere today the sentence "From this we conclude that it is possible to trace the evolution in Dardania of the Bronze Age Daco - Mysian traditions into Iron Age I and towards the end to see a new influence emanating from a late phase of the Urnfield cultures . " because it relies on sheer speculation and no archaeological data.


At Gornja Stražava in the Toplica valley in Cemetery I urn - graves were fenced in with a double circle of stones . The pottery here is related to that at Donja Brnjica , and a pin resembles those at Donja Brnjica . 39 A similar urn has been found at Togočevac near Leskovac . The pottery in its shapes and handles is completely in the tradition of the Morava region in the Bronze Age . Since the southern Morava region and Kosovo were occupied by the Dardani , this pottery may be regarded as particular to them . The bad methodology which has been abandoned today is quite evident just by this inference.

Huban
02-27-2021, 11:12 PM
Not trying to undermine the author you quoted me, but he probably is simply biased.

He's a usual protochronist, who tries to argue that his people's culture in the said area has been unchanged for many thousands of years. Similarly some Greek authors would argue that there never was any Indo-European influx into Greece.

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

Enver Hohxa's legacy in Albanians. :)

Priestland, David (2009). The Red Flag: Communism and the making of the modern world
Imitating Stalinist trends in the Communist Bloc, Albania developed its own version of protochronist ideology which stressed the continuity of Albanians from ancient peoples such as the Illyrians

Bruzmi
02-27-2021, 11:20 PM
Marija Gimbutas has brilliantly and elegantly explained the Late Bronze Age in Balkans on her Bronze Age cultures in Central and Eastern Europe book.

Not trying to undermine the author you quoted me, but he probably is simply biased.

Biased against whom?

Oliver Dickinson is an archaeologist whose work is considered textbook material today. Marija Gimbutas is considered completely outdated by today's standards. It would be hard for me to find even one institution which uses Gimbutas's theories as textbook material. And it doesn't even have to do with Gimbutas or Dickinson or any author on a personal level. Modern archaeologists rely on modern data and this is how theories evolve. Gimbutas contributed to the evolution of theoretical knowledge, but we're way beyond that.

The fact that many people have read Gimbutas has to do with the fact that her works are now free to read because they are outdated, while the most authoritative of papers and books written by modern archaeologists are hidden behind paywalls.

Hawk
02-27-2021, 11:22 PM
He's a usual protochronist, who tries to argue that his people's culture in the said area has been unchanged for many thousands of years. Similarly some Greek authors would argue that there never was any Indo-European influx into Greece.

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

Enver Hohxa's legacy in Albanians. :)

Priestland, David (2009). The Red Flag: Communism and the making of the modern world
Imitating Stalinist trends in the Communist Bloc, Albania developed its own version of protochronist ideology which stressed the continuity of Albanians from ancient peoples such as the Illyrians

The problem is not the connection of Albanians with Illyrians, there is basis on that and we all agree, not conclusive but solid basis. The problem is that they allude connection of Pelasgians as direct ancestors of Illyrians which we all agree it's bullshit.

Hawk
02-27-2021, 11:22 PM
Biased against whom?

Oliver Dickinson is an archaeologist whose work is considered textbook material today. Marija Gimbutas is considered completely outdated by today's standards. It would be hard for me to find even one institution which uses Gimbutas's theories as textbook material. And it doesn't even have to do with Gimbutas or Dickinson or any author on a personal level. Modern archaeologists rely on modern data and this is how theories evolve. Gimbutas contributed to the evolution of theoretical knowledge, but we're way beyond that.

The fact that many people have read Gimbutas has to do with the fact that her works are now free to read because they are outdated, while the most authoritative of papers and books written by modern archaeologists are hidden behind paywalls.

You cited Perparim not Oliver.

Bruzmi
02-27-2021, 11:32 PM
You cited Perparim not Oliver.

I cited Alaj's publication (University of Lyon) about the latest archaeological data. One sword in one site is one sword in one site. You can't interpret that in any other way and you certainly can't construct a theory about carriers of specific weapon types, let alone theories about "Dorians".

I cited Dickinson about the general theories about "northern invasions" and "Dorians" etc etc

Cremation Burials in Greece from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age (which you cited) on cist graves:

Thus, they were apparently not fully integrated members of the Mycenaean society. This impression is enhanced through the inhumations in the tumulus at Argos as the deceased were laid to rest in stone cist graves. This is an entirely uncommon grave type in the palatial and postpalatial periods of the Mycenaean culture. In fact, the cist graves in the tumulus at Argos are the only examples of their type in the core regions of the Mycenaean culture that can be securely dated to the LH IIIB–LH IIIC period.24 For all these reasons, it can be deduced that the burial communities, who used the tumuli at Mycenae-Chania and Argos were groups of foreigners or were of foreign descent. It is almost impossible for a population group of foreign origin to leave more obvious marks in the archaeological record.


To which the now textbook publication of Oliver Dickinson "replies":
Here it is necessary to return to theories already mentioned above which depend on the notion that the traditions of invasion by Dorians and other groups encapsulate historical fact, and that the Mycenaean centres were in fact destroyed and their territories conquered by other Greek-speaking peoples. Often their source has been suggested to be Epirus, particularly by Hammond (1932, 1975), although there is no warrant for this in the ancient traditions, which do not derive any of the supposedly incoming peoples from outside the boundaries of Classical Greece. As noted above, it has often been thought a difficulty that no major archaeological change can be associated with such an invasion, but this is much less of a problem if the Dorians and allied groups in fact came from within the area of Mycenaean culture.
...
The proposed distinction between Mycenaean and Submycenaean burial customs is far from clear-cut (see Chapter 6), for the vases and metalwork typical of the cist cemeteries can also appear in chamber tombs. Also, many of the best examples of cist cemeteries are found in Attica and Euboea, which according to the traditions were not successfully invaded by newcomers, whereas such cemeteries are notably lacking from classic Dorian areas such as the south Peloponnese (pit and cist graves are now report from Sparta and Amykla) and Crete. There are also significant variations in burial customs between different cist cemeteries, undermining the suggestion that they represent a homogeneous culture.

The same bad methodology in Yugoslav archaeology which plagued theories about the "Brnjica culture" becomes even more obvious when it formulates similar speculations about Dorians

Hawk
02-27-2021, 11:33 PM
Biased against whom?

Oliver Dickinson is an archaeologist whose work is considered textbook material today. Marija Gimbutas is considered completely outdated by today's standards. It would be hard for me to find even one institution which uses Gimbutas's theories as textbook material. And it doesn't even have to do with Gimbutas or Dickinson or any author on a personal level. Modern archaeologists rely on modern data and this is how theories evolve. Gimbutas contributed to the evolution of theoretical knowledge, but we're way beyond that.

The fact that many people have read Gimbutas has to do with the fact that her works are now free to read because they are outdated, while the most authoritative of papers and books written by modern archaeologists are hidden behind paywalls.

Gimbutas was a genius archeologist.

Marija Gimbutas Triumphant: Colin Renfrew Concedes (https://feminismandreligion.com/2017/12/11/marija-gimbutas-triumphant-colin-renfrew-concedes-by-carol-p-christ/)

Hawk
02-27-2021, 11:39 PM
I cited Alaj's publication (University of Lyon) about the latest archaeological data. One sword in one site is one sword in one site. You can't interpret that in any other way and you certainly can't construct a theory about carriers of specific weapon types, let alone theories about "Dorians".

I cited Dickinson about the general theories about "northern invasions" and "Dorians" etc etc

Cremation Burials in Greece from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age (which you cited) on cist graves:

Thus, they were apparently not fully integrated members of the Mycenaean society. This impression is enhanced through the inhumations in the tumulus at Argos as the deceased were laid to rest in stone cist graves. This is an entirely uncommon grave type in the palatial and postpalatial periods of the Mycenaean culture. In fact, the cist graves in the tumulus at Argos are the only examples of their type in the core regions of the Mycenaean culture that can be securely dated to the LH IIIB–LH IIIC period.24 For all these reasons, it can be deduced that the burial communities, who used the tumuli at Mycenae-Chania and Argos were groups of foreigners or were of foreign descent. It is almost impossible for a population group of foreign origin to leave more obvious marks in the archaeological record.


To which the now textbook publication of Oliver Dickinson "replies":
Here it is necessary to return to theories already mentioned above which depend on the notion that the traditions of invasion by Dorians and other groups encapsulate historical fact, and that the Mycenaean centres were in fact destroyed and their territories conquered by other Greek-speaking peoples. Often their source has been suggested to be Epirus, particularly by Hammond (1932, 1975), although there is no warrant for this in the ancient traditions, which do not derive any of the supposedly incoming peoples from outside the boundaries of Classical Greece. As noted above, it has often been thought a difficulty that no major archaeological change can be associated with such an invasion, but this is much less of a problem if the Dorians and allied groups in fact came from within the area of Mycenaean culture.
...
The proposed distinction between Mycenaean and Submycenaean burial customs is far from clear-cut (see Chapter 6), for the vases and metalwork typical of the cist cemeteries can also appear in chamber tombs. Also, many of the best examples of cist cemeteries are found in Attica and Euboea, which according to the traditions were not successfully invaded by newcomers, whereas such cemeteries are notably lacking from classic Dorian areas such as the south Peloponnese (pit and cist graves are now report from Sparta and Amykla) and Crete. There are also significant variations in burial customs between different cist cemeteries, undermining the suggestion that they represent a homogeneous culture.

The same bad methodology in Yugoslav archaeology which plagued theories about the "Brnjica culture" becomes even more obvious when it formulates similar speculations about Dorians

You clearly don't know what you are writing.

The paper states that during Middle Bronze Age Mycenean burial customs of inhumation dominated and people from the North most likely mercenaries(most likely coming from borders of North Serbia and Southern Romania) like the one from Uluburun shipwreck were not fully members of Mycenean society yet they were very familiar with Mycenean culture.

It is exactly the Late Bronze Age crisis where things get interesting, there is a lot of movements going on and Balkans is the center of it for sure. Either Proto-Illyrians and Proto-Thracians pushing older Indo-European people living there and creating total chaos or people related to them pushing further South and creating coalition with local people to overthrow Myceneans.

Huban
02-27-2021, 11:39 PM
He's a usual protochronist, who tries to argue that his people's culture in the said area has been unchanged for many thousands of years. Similarly some Greek authors would argue that there never was any Indo-European influx into Greece.


I take this back.

I just went through the publication of Premtim Alaj, almost 800 pages in French. It's mostly a catalogue of finds. He doesn't say anything Bruzmi says. Bruzmi made his own dilettante "conclusions" out of this.

Bruzmi is a usual protochronist.:) I speak French Bruzmi, you can't fool me.

vettor
02-27-2021, 11:55 PM
The classical scholars of the time did view the Illyrians, the inhabitants of the historical region of Illyria, as being somewhat culturally or linguistically related and are mentioned as a separate ethnos from the other non-Greek or non-Hellenic peoples of the Balkans. Archaeological data does also support that many tribes shared common material culture and religious practices and beliefs. The mythological genealogy of the Illyrian peoples that was constructed in Graeco-Roman literature which places much of the tribes as either first, second, or third generation descendants of Illyrius, may also reflect this feeling of common origin or background for the peoples of Illyria as well as some prehistoric connections between them.

In the genealogy constructed by Appian, the sons of Illyrius are: Encheleus (Enchelei), Autarieus (Autariatae), Dardanus (Dardani), Maedus (uncertain), Taulas (Taulantii), and Perrhaebus (Perrhaebi). Whilst the daughters are: Partho (Parthini), Daortho (Daorsi), and Dassaro (Dassareti). These are the mythological first generation descendants. For the second generation, only the son of Autarieus named Pannonius/Paeon (Pannonians) is mentioned. He himself had two sons; Scordiscus (Scordisci) and Triballus (Triballi) who make up the third generation. The two later generations may hint at a more distant relation that the classical scholars saw, or could just be an attempt to lump up all the "barbarian" groups together.

In regards to linguistics, considering the extremely limited amount of data, the best way to go about seems to be breaking down the region into onomastic or linguistic areas. As has been done by quite a few linguists before. Radoslav Katičić for example breaks Illyria down into three areas: the core Illyrian area that roughly corresponds to the Illyrian areas of present-day Albania and Montenegro, the Delmato-Pannonian area that extends from the historical territories of the Delmatae and surrounding tribes into Pannonia, and the Liburnian or Adriatic area which corresponds to Liburni lands. He also makes a point in regards to Dardania that the region initially seems to have belonged to the core Illyrian onomastic area but was then superseded to a degree by the Delmato-Pannonian one. How closely these linguistic areas were related to each other is hard to say, but I believe that the core Illyrian area was to a degree related to the Delmato-Pannonian one and may have had closer ties with Messapian, whilst the Liburnian area was completely unrelated and rather belonged to or was related to the Venetic language group.

As for Noricum, this was a completely separate province from Illyricum and the two later provinces that would replace it; Dalmatia and Pannonia. Its only relation was that Noricum ripense and Noricum mediterraneum belonged to the diocese of Pannonia or Illyria (as it is known from 395 CE). The classical scholars did not consider the tribes of Noricum to be related to the Illyrians, the former were also Celtic-speakers.

Roman text on their Gold mines in Dacia...brought many illyrians to the area as they where excellent miners, especially iron in Noricum

Illyrian languages are usually associated with the western Balkans, but onomastic studies often sweep wider to include the Danube provinces as Illyrian names appear in Noricum, Pannonia, Dalmatia, Moesia Superior,and Dacia. Therefore, although a name might be identified as Illyrian, it does not distinctly provide an origin without other evidence. This prevalence of Illyrian names does provide a clue at indigenous naming conventions. Illyrian inscriptions in the Danube provinces listed an individual’s name with the father’s name following in the genitive.441Roman convention included filius/filiaor f.with the father’s name, a practice found only onceon a monument for the deceased at Alburnus Maior.442Without this identifier, the genitive following a nominative name implies the individual was a slave in other regions of the empire.443Instead, this combination is used to identify lineage at Alburnus Maior and is often the only identifier used for the deceased.

Alburnus Maior is a place in Dacia where they mined for Gold

While I admit that Dalmatian and pannonians make up the bulk of what people state as Illyrians ( we also have these groups as the major revolts in the Great Illyrian revolt against Rome ), it does not mean the others are not illyrian, especially since Illyria is a geographical area ................we can discuss this theory of teh sons of Illyrius, but there is no proof on this, it seems a fabricated case of which of the Gods created which race of humans....
BTW...is Maedus in Picene as I recall a similar name

Romans listed
Illyricum superius (later Dalmatia)and inferius (later Pannonia).

there are many pages on Illyrian personnel names but nothing on language...one page below
https://i.postimg.cc/2628F3cq/illyrian-personnel.png (https://postimages.org/)

Bruzmi
02-28-2021, 12:04 AM
You clearly don't know what you are writing.

The paper states that during Middle Bronze Age Mycenean burial customs of inhumation dominated and people from the North most likely mercenaries(most likely coming from borders of North Serbia and Southern Romania) like the one from Uluburun shipwreck were not fully members of Mycenean society yet they were very familiar with Mycenean culture.

It is exactly the Late Bronze Age crisis where things get interesting, there is a lot of movements going on and Balkans is the center of it for sure. Either Proto-Illyrians and Proto-Thracians pushing older Indo-European people living there and creating total chaos or people related to them pushing further South and creating coalition with local people to overthrow Myceneans.

I'm sorry but this is not what Oliver Dickinson is writing and it's not what modern archaeology is discussing. Again:

Here it is necessary to return to theories already mentioned above which depend on the notion that the traditions of invasion by Dorians and other groups encapsulate historical fact, and that the Mycenaean centres were in fact destroyed and their territories conquered by other Greek-speaking peoples. Often their source has been suggested to be Epirus, particularly by Hammond (1932, 1975), although there is no warrant for this in the ancient traditions, which do not derive any of the supposedly incoming peoples from outside the boundaries of Classical Greece. As noted above, it has often been thought a difficulty that no major archaeological change can be associated with such an invasion, but this is much less of a problem if the Dorians and allied groups in fact came from within the area of Mycenaean culture.
...
The proposed distinction between Mycenaean and Submycenaean burial customs is far from clear-cut (see Chapter 6), for the vases and metalwork typical of the cist cemeteries can also appear in chamber tombs. Also, many of the best examples of cist cemeteries are found in Attica and Euboea, which according to the traditions were not successfully invaded by newcomers, whereas such cemeteries are notably lacking from classic Dorian areas such as the south Peloponnese (pit and cist graves are now reported from Sparta and Amykla) and Crete. There are also significant variations in burial customs between different cist cemeteries, undermining the suggestion that they represent a homogeneous culture.

I suppose that our discussion has reached the point where we have to agree to disagree. For what it's worth, I suggest you update your bibliography. The "Dorian invasion" and similar theories aren't taught at any university today.

(To the comment about "protochronism", there's no need to even reply. If someone wants to claim (based on 50 y.o. speculations) that there was a "Brnjica culture" when confronted with the actual data which really show no actual differentiated material culture, they can certainly do so. As for Alaj, he writes that: Ces migrations de la période énéolithique se caractérisent aussi par la venue de groupes semi-nomades de la partie supérieure de Danube, à l’origine de la culture de Baden. Le mélange de ces cultures autochtones avec l’apport de populations indoeuropéennes ont constitué le substrat à partir duquel se sont développées à l’âge du. Les plus connus sites de l’âge du bronze fouillés au Kosovo son Vlashnje, Korishë, Pogragjë, Teneshdoll, Bardhi i Madh, Gadime e Epërme, Graqanicë-Glladnicë, Lubozhdë, Përçevë, Volljakë, Ticë, Budrigë e Ulët, Topanicë et Nasale
La période de l’Âge du fer par rapport à la période de l’Âge du bronze voit une augmentation du nombre d’habitats mais n’enregistre aucune rupture, comme va le montrer ce travail. Les études menées dans cette région ont montré que l’espace dardanien entre dans le groupe ethnoculturel Glasinac-Mat des Balkans occidentaux, et représente un groupe particulier de la culture illyrienne de l’Âge du fer)

Huban
02-28-2021, 12:04 AM
I listed you the latest results from excavation projects and you provided a publication from 1970. If I were to write a paper and submit it based on this publication, it would be rejected by all archaeological journals. The 1970 theory - based on very few excavations - which you quoted is debunked by today's standards and it's considered completely wrong to move back to the Bronze Age (!!!) populations which appear in classical antiquity ("Dacians" etc.) You won't find anywhere today the sentence "From this we conclude that it is possible to trace the evolution in Dardania of the Bronze Age Daco - Mysian traditions into Iron Age I and towards the end to see a new influence emanating from a late phase of the Urnfield cultures . " because it relies on sheer speculation and no archaeological data.

The bad methodology which has been abandoned today is quite evident just by this inference.


Where does Alaj claim Brnjica culture never existed?? Nowhere. Where does he even dispute anything Garašanin said? I can't find it.


I cited Alaj's publication (University of Lyon) about the latest archaeological data. One sword in one site is one sword in one site. You can't interpret that in any other way and you certainly can't construct a theory about carriers of specific weapon types, let alone theories about "Dorians".

You think archeologists who studied Brnjica culture didn't take your "arguments" about "metallic objects" into consideration? There is literally nothing published that supports your POV.

"Dorians" also never existed, or Dorian migration. Especially Greek protochronists support that POV. There is much of contradictory and disputable material on that topic true.

Kelmendasi
02-28-2021, 12:12 AM
Roman text on their Gold mines in Dacia...brought many illyrians to the area as they where excellent miners, especially iron in Noricum

Illyrian languages are usually associated with the western Balkans, but onomastic studies often sweep wider to include the Danube provinces as Illyrian names appear in Noricum, Pannonia, Dalmatia, Moesia Superior,and Dacia. Therefore, although a name might be identified as Illyrian, it does not distinctly provide an origin without other evidence. This prevalence of Illyrian names does provide a clue at indigenous naming conventions. Illyrian inscriptions in the Danube provinces listed an individual’s name with the father’s name following in the genitive.441Roman convention included filius/filiaor f.with the father’s name, a practice found only onceon a monument for the deceased at Alburnus Maior.442Without this identifier, the genitive following a nominative name implies the individual was a slave in other regions of the empire.443Instead, this combination is used to identify lineage at Alburnus Maior and is often the only identifier used for the deceased.

Alburnus Maior is a place in Dacia where they mined for Gold

While I admit that Dalmatian and pannonians make up the bulk of what people state as Illyrians ( we also have these groups as the major revolts in the Great Illyrian revolt against Rome ), it does not mean the others are not illyrian, especially since Illyria is a geographical area ................we can discuss this theory of teh sons of Illyrius, but there is no proof on this, it seems a fabricated case of which of the Gods created which race of humans....
BTW...is Maedus in Picene as I recall a similar name

Romans listed
Illyricum superius (later Dalmatia)and inferius (later Pannonia).

there are many pages on Illyrian personnel names but nothing on language...one page below
https://i.postimg.cc/2628F3cq/illyrian-personnel.png (https://postimages.org/)
The displacement of Illyrians to provinces such as Noricum and Dacia is another thing. What we do know from most of the evidence is that the tribes of what would become Noricum under Roman administration were speaking a language that branched from Continental Celtic by the time that they enter the historical spotlight.

I do not think there is any reason to consider Noricum as a part of Illyria. As I have mentioned, it was a separate province made up of various Celtic-speaking tribes who were not considered to be Illyrian or a part of Illyria by the classical scholars. And of course the genealogy that I mentioned is simply myth, however it can be of use to historians studying the Illyrians since it gives insight as to how Graeco-Roman scholars may have viewed the Illyrian peoples, their origins, and their relationships between each other. If the tribes are supposed to have a common mythical forefather according to historians such as Appian, then this may suggest that they viewed those tribes as belonging to the same ethnos or that they had clear cultural and linguistic similarities.

Huban
02-28-2021, 12:13 AM
La période de l’Âge du fer par rapport à la période de l’Âge du bronze voit une augmentation du nombre d’habitats mais n’enregistre aucune rupture, comme va le montrer ce travail. Les études menées dans cette région ont montré que l’espace dardanien entre dans le groupe ethnoculturel Glasinac-Mat des Balkans occidentaux, et représente un groupe particulier de la culture illyrienne de l’Âge du fer)

He said there was an increase in population (which can be interpreted in various ways including ofc migrations). Claiming significant continuity is not the same thing as claiming Brnjica culture never existed which is what you claim based on your own "interpretation". That is why you quoted nobody in your post about the lack of metallic objects. Because there is nothing to quote in your favor. Nobody serious would be that stupid to write such a thing...

Bruzmi
02-28-2021, 12:43 AM
Where does Alaj claim Brnjica culture never existed?? Nowhere. Where does he even dispute anything Garašanin said? I can't find it.



You think archeologists who studied Brnjica culture didn't take your "arguments" about "metallic objects" into consideration? There is literally nothing published that supports your POV.

"Dorians" also never existed, or Dorian migration. Especially Greek protochronists support that POV. There is much of contradictory and disputable material on that topic true.

I cited Alaj about the latest data. There is nothing in the data which shows, justifies or implies a grouping of sites in eastern Kosovo. Alaj doesn't differentiate the material culture of the region. The settlements with cremation sites exist in the same framework of material development as all other sites. No "Brnjica culture" there, but I didn't cite Alaj to "prove" that because he doesn't even mention it as a theory. The archaeological record today doesn't allow for any discussion about "Brnjica" . Yugoslav archaeologists didn't "study" anything because most excavations in Kosovo didn't happen in the Yugoslav era. They speculated on the very little data in one site. Today, the "Brnjica" theory is formulated nowhere else except for the internet and very few people in (post-)Yugoslav archaeology. The stuff about "Brnjica" and the Dorians is part of the realm of total speculation. No archaeological journal would ever publish such a theory today.

The Dorians (regardless of their collective identity) existed. The migration of some groups from the fringes of the Mycenaean world is plausible. The "Dorian invasion" from anywhere north of the Mycenaean fringes isn't plausible. To say that much, makes nobody a "Greek protochronist".

PS On metallic objects: Dans les publications, on ne trouve aucun exemple d’objet métallique, en bronze ou en fer, dans les habitats de la phase transitoire XIe -IXe siècles av. J.-C. D'autre part, les fouilles et prospections menées ces dernières années sur des sites comme Ticë, Trudë, Nasale, Qeremenik ,Cërnicë, n’ont livré aucun objet métallique. Dans les nécropoles de cette phase, les objets métalliques sont très rares. Les seuls exemples connus proviennent de la nécropole non tumulaire de Bërnicë e Ulët où ont été retrouvée une épée de 57 cm, un fer de lance de 9 cm, deux aiguilles mesurant 6 cm et 8 cm, et une épingle de 5 cm. p.671 (This one pin in Bërnica/Brnjica is "evidence" about the "Daco-Mysian traditions" (500+ years before the historical Dacians/Thracians even appeared in historical records) in the 50 y.o. which you cited. 50 years later, archaeologists haven't found yet at least a second pin or anything else about "Daco-Mysian traditions" for that matter.)

vettor
02-28-2021, 01:24 AM
The displacement of Illyrians to provinces such as Noricum and Dacia is another thing. What we do know from most of the evidence is that the tribes of what would become Noricum under Roman administration were speaking a language that branched from Continental Celtic by the time that they enter the historical spotlight.

I do not think there is any reason to consider Noricum as a part of Illyria. As I have mentioned, it was a separate province made up of various Celtic-speaking tribes who were not considered to be Illyrian or a part of Illyria by the classical scholars. And of course the genealogy that I mentioned is simply myth, however it can be of use to historians studying the Illyrians since it gives insight as to how Graeco-Roman scholars may have viewed the Illyrian peoples, their origins, and their relationships between each other. If the tribes are supposed to have a common mythical forefather according to historians such as Appian, then this may suggest that they viewed those tribes as belonging to the same ethnos or that they had clear cultural and linguistic similarities.

how do you explain then......Halstatt culture which is in Noricum circa 1000Bc is stated everywhere as being a celtic -Illyrian mix ?

Kelmendasi
02-28-2021, 04:44 AM
how do you explain then......Halstatt culture which is in Noricum circa 1000Bc is stated everywhere as being a celtic -Illyrian mix ?
Whether or not the Illyrians originated from or were influenced by the Hallstatt horizon is not of importance in regards to the ethno-linguistic makeup of the area in classical antiquity and the era of Roman imperialism. What we know from this region during antiquity is that it was made up various tribes who classical scholars considered to have been Celtic-speaking, something that is supported by the epigraphic data (from Grafenstein in Austria and Ptuj in Slovenia) which shows that these tribes spoke a Continental Celtic language that has been coined as Noric or Eastern Celtic.

Under Roman imperialism, the region formed its own province of Noricum, distinct from that of the Illyrians which initially was Illyricum prior to being separated into the provinces of Dalmatia and Pannonia. Illyrians were displaced from their provinces into Noricum (as well as in provinces such as Dacia), but this does not change the core local or native nature of Noricum, which since at least the Iron Age was Celtic.

Táltos
02-28-2021, 05:49 AM
Please stay on topic. Insults and crude language will not be tolerated. This thread is being monitored by the team. Thank you.

Hawk
02-28-2021, 09:03 AM
All evidences so far point that Balkans probably from Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age up until Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age was dominated by R1b-Z2103.

Atleast for Thracians we know that this shifted on favor of E-V13 starting from Late Bronze Age most likely.

So, for E-V13 we have two options:

1. They were always living somewhere in Balkans, and from within Central-North Balkans they expanded on Late Bronze Age.

2. Somewhere from East Alps and North/West Carpathians expansion during Middle Bronze Age in Central-North Balkans then during Late Bronze Age South/East/West Balkans. They were specialized miners and metallurgs.

rafc
02-28-2021, 02:44 PM
The Dorians (regardless of their collective identity) existed. The migration of some groups from the fringes of the Mycenaean world is plausible. The "Dorian invasion" from anywhere north of the Mycenaean fringes isn't plausible. To say that much, makes nobody a "Greek protochronist".

Yes, but it if you include Mycenaean fringes, aren't we talking about a big area? It seems to me recent authors are often very duplicitous on this subject. I read a standard work on Greek language history that first explained how the Dorian invasion was complete fiction, and then went on to argue that the distribution of Dorian and other Greek dialects could only be explained by a massive influx of people from the northwest to other parts of Greece at or after the end of the bronze age.
I see no reason why the Greek legends around the Dorian invasion would have no root in reality, even if the details are obviously invented. But it seems modern archeologists are so scared of any theory involving migration that they start to deny migration without any proof, or put the bar for proof of migration so high that it can never be passed.
Don't forget, only a few years ago practically all modern scholars believed Bell Beaker was a cultural and ideological phenomenon without any movements of people, and every scholar was convinced Corded Ware was a gradual evolution of preceding Eastern-European cultures. If they were wrong there, I'm not putting 100% faith in Dickinson either.

Hawk
02-28-2021, 03:28 PM
Some insight......


Rutter (1975, 1990), Walberg (1976), Deger-Jalkotzy (1977, 1983), Small (1990, 1997), Pilides (1994), Bankoff, Meyer, and Stefanovich (1996)
Rutter, following in the footsteps of E. French, identified a non-Mycenaean handmade and burnished class of pottery in early LH IIIC contexts at Korakou, Mycenae, Lefkandi, and a few other sites in central and southern Greece. Since this pottery was locally made, it constituted evidence for the presence of a non-Mycenaean population element within Mycenaean Greece in the period immediately following the destruction of the major Peloponnesian centers. This handmade and burnished pottery, in Rutter’s view, had its closest parallels in the “Coarse Ware” of Troy VIIb1 and in the pottery of the Final Bronze Age Coslogeni culture of southeastern Rumania. Rutter therefore suggested that there might be a connection between the makers of this non-Mycenaean pottery and the destroyers of both Troy VIIa and of the Mycenaean centers in the Peloponnese.


Deger-Jalkotzy, publishing similar non-Mycenaean ceramics from early LH IIIC contexts at the coastal site of Aigeira in Achaea, argued that similar pottery was to be found not only in Troy and Rumania but also in Sicily and southern Italy. In all cases, this pottery had no local ancestry and was presumably evidence for intrusive population groups. Such groups were probably not large (i.e. not comparable in scale to the migrating tribes who contributed to the downfall of the Roman Empire in the 4th and 5th centuries A.D.), but rather small bands of pirates, freebooters, and unemployed mercenaries. The original homeland of these groups, from which they filtered down into various areas of the Mediterranean by a number of different routes, was the central Danube. These warrior bands, comparable in terms of their activities and organization to the Vikings of the 7th to 10th centuries A.D., may indeed have constituted the nucleus of the raiders known later to the Egyptians as the Sea Peoples.

https://www.dartmouth.edu/~prehistory/aegean/?page_id=615

vettor
02-28-2021, 05:30 PM
Whether or not the Illyrians originated from or were influenced by the Hallstatt horizon is not of importance in regards to the ethno-linguistic makeup of the area in classical antiquity and the era of Roman imperialism. What we know from this region during antiquity is that it was made up various tribes who classical scholars considered to have been Celtic-speaking, something that is supported by the epigraphic data (from Grafenstein in Austria and Ptuj in Slovenia) which shows that these tribes spoke a Continental Celtic language that has been coined as Noric or Eastern Celtic.

Under Roman imperialism, the region formed its own province of Noricum, distinct from that of the Illyrians which initially was Illyricum prior to being separated into the provinces of Dalmatia and Pannonia. Illyrians were displaced from their provinces into Noricum (as well as in provinces such as Dacia), but this does not change the core local or native nature of Noricum, which since at least the Iron Age was Celtic.

Your first line is an issue in that you only see linguistic makeups for society ................we can , in todays world, all be called English then!

All scholars know the illyrians moved from North to South and the bulk of "illyrians" Dalmatians and Pannonians make up the major "illyrian groups "..............the issue here , you do not recognise halstatt culture and its make-up, avoid "illyrian" cities as in modern Oderzo and Trieste to name 2......the major iron mining areas in Noricum, mined by Illyrians , a place the Romans needed badly............the

Kelmendasi
02-28-2021, 06:55 PM
Your first line is an issue in that you only see linguistic makeups for society ................we can , in todays world, all be called English then!

All scholars know the illyrians moved from North to South and the bulk of "illyrians" Dalmatians and Pannonians make up the major "illyrian groups "..............the issue here , you do not recognise halstatt culture and its make-up, avoid "illyrian" cities as in modern Oderzo and Trieste to name 2......the major iron mining areas in Noricum, mined by Illyrians , a place the Romans needed badly............the
What matters most is what ethno-linguistic group the core or bulk of the local population belonged to and how they were considered by their neighbours, and in the case of Roman Noricum it for sure was not Illyrian but actually Celtic; Eastern Celtic or Noric to be more specific. The fact that there were enclaves of Illyrians who were displaced for reasons of labour and that some Illyrian anthroponyms show up is a completely different thing which rather speaks of population movements and influence.

You are mentioning the Hallstatt culture in an anachronistic way, here we are discussing the situation during classical antiquity and the era of Roman imperialism. By these periods of time the core population of Noricum was Celtic-speaking and did not belong to the Illyrian sphere, as far as I am aware the classical sources do not ever mention the area as being a part of Illyria.

In regards to the core Illyrian area, it should be sought in modern-day Albania and Montenegro, the area where the Illyrians Proper (Illyrii Proprie Dicti) were concentrated.

As for the settlements of Opitergium (present-day Oderzo) and Tergeste or Tergestum (present-day Trieste), by the time of classical antiquity they were both Venetic settlements.

Johane Derite
03-01-2021, 02:43 PM
For the Brygians, Heinrich Eichner placed them around Mirdita right in between the Mati/Drin region:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EtPnqILXAAgIiMs?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

I wasn't too clear here, so I will restate why this problem is relevant. Brygians are not considered Illyrians usually, and yet they are placed right next to or right inside of the Mati region by some contemporary scholars as well as ancients.

Since the Mati region is crucial to the Glasinac-Mati complex which is argued to be related with Illyrian languages, then this question should be answered, or at least some working hypotheses should be given.

There are some rock cut tombs in Burgajet, are they maybe of the Brygians? Were the Brygians a substrate on top of which Glasinac related languages settled, etc.

Secondly, Mati is also important because this is where Albanopolis is usually thought to have been roughly. So, if this region was at the least bilingual at some point, with both Illyrian and Brygian languages, then it is important to speculate on which of those languages Albanopolis gave the proto-Albanians.

vettor
03-01-2021, 03:32 PM
I wasn't too clear here, so I will restate why this problem is relevant. Brygians are not considered Illyrians usually, and yet they are placed right next to or right inside of the Mati region by some contemporary scholars as well as ancients.

Since the Mati region is crucial to the Glasinac-Mati complex which is argued to be related with Illyrian languages, then this question should be answered, or at least some working hypotheses should be given.

There are some rock cut tombs in Burgajet, are they maybe of the Brygians? Were the Brygians a substrate on top of which Glasinac related languages settled, etc.

Secondly, Mati is also important because this is where Albanopolis is usually thought to have been roughly. So, if this region was at the least bilingual at some point, with both Illyrian and Brygian languages, then it is important to speculate on which of those languages Albanopolis gave the proto-Albanians.

There we meet with Phrygians, or with a modification of their name, Brygians, in all directions. Mardonius, on his expedition against Greece, met Brygians in Thrace. (Hdt. 6.45; Steph. B. sub voce Βρύκαι; Plin. Nat. 4.18, where we have probably to read Brycae for Brysae.) The Phrygian population of Thrace is strongly attested by the fact that many names of places were common to Thrace and Troas. (Strab. xiii. p.590; comp. Thuc. 2.99; Suid. s. v. Θάμυρις; Solin. 15; Tzetz. Chil. 3.812.) Traces of Phrygians also occur in Chalcidice. (Lycoph. 1404; Steph. B. sub voce Κρουσίς. Further south they appear about Mount Oeta and even in Attica. (Thuc. 2.22; Strab. xiii. p.621; Steph. B. sub voce Φρυγία and Φρίκιον; Eustath. ad Dionys. Per. 810.) Mount Olympus, also, was perhaps only a repetition of the Phrygian name. In the west of Edessa in Macedonia, about lake Lychnidus, we meet with Bryges (Strab. vii. pp. 326, 327; Steph. B. sub voce Βρύξ), and in the same vicinity we have the towns of Brygion, Brygias, and Mutatio Brucida. (Steph. B. sub voce s. vv.; It. Hieros. p. 607.) The westernmost traces of Brygians we find about Dyrrhachium. (Strab. l.c.; Appian, App. BC 2.39; Scymn. 433, 436.) It is difficult to determine how far Phrygian tribes extended northward. The country beyond the eastern part of Mount Haemus seems to have been occupied at all times by Thracians; but Phrygians extended very far north on both sides of Mount Scardus, for PANNONIA and MOESIA seem to be only different forms for PAEONIA and MYSIA; and the Breucae on the Savus also betray their origin by their name. It is possible also that the DARDANI were Phrygians, and descendants of the Teucrians in Troas; at least they are clearly distinguished from the Illyrians.

Phrygians are also present in Asia Minor, south-east of the troas ( trojan lands) .................they where still around circa 500Bc in Asia Minor because they where fighting against the Lydians


https://www.academia.edu/37262757/Eleonora_Petrova_BRYGIANS_and_PHRYGIANS_PARALLELIS M_BETWEEN_THE_BALKANS_AND_ASIA_MINOR_THROUGH_ARCHA EOLOGICAL_LINGUISTIC_AND_HISTORICAL_EVIDENCE

Johane Derite
03-01-2021, 04:16 PM
There we meet with Phrygians, or with a modification of their name, Brygians, in all directions. Mardonius, on his expedition against Greece, met Brygians in Thrace. (Hdt. 6.45; Steph. B. sub voce Βρύκαι; Plin. Nat. 4.18, where we have probably to read Brycae for Brysae.) The Phrygian population of Thrace is strongly attested by the fact that many names of places were common to Thrace and Troas. (Strab. xiii. p.590; comp. Thuc. 2.99; Suid. s. v. Θάμυρις; Solin. 15; Tzetz. Chil. 3.812.) Traces of Phrygians also occur in Chalcidice. (Lycoph. 1404; Steph. B. sub voce Κρουσίς. Further south they appear about Mount Oeta and even in Attica. (Thuc. 2.22; Strab. xiii. p.621; Steph. B. sub voce Φρυγία and Φρίκιον; Eustath. ad Dionys. Per. 810.) Mount Olympus, also, was perhaps only a repetition of the Phrygian name. In the west of Edessa in Macedonia, about lake Lychnidus, we meet with Bryges (Strab. vii. pp. 326, 327; Steph. B. sub voce Βρύξ), and in the same vicinity we have the towns of Brygion, Brygias, and Mutatio Brucida. (Steph. B. sub voce s. vv.; It. Hieros. p. 607.) The westernmost traces of Brygians we find about Dyrrhachium. (Strab. l.c.; Appian, App. BC 2.39; Scymn. 433, 436.) It is difficult to determine how far Phrygian tribes extended northward. The country beyond the eastern part of Mount Haemus seems to have been occupied at all times by Thracians; but Phrygians extended very far north on both sides of Mount Scardus, for PANNONIA and MOESIA seem to be only different forms for PAEONIA and MYSIA; and the Breucae on the Savus also betray their origin by their name. It is possible also that the DARDANI were Phrygians, and descendants of the Teucrians in Troas; at least they are clearly distinguished from the Illyrians.

Phrygians are also present in Asia Minor, south-east of the troas ( trojan lands) .................they where still around circa 500Bc in Asia Minor because they where fighting against the Lydians


https://www.academia.edu/37262757/Eleonora_Petrova_BRYGIANS_and_PHRYGIANS_PARALLELIS M_BETWEEN_THE_BALKANS_AND_ASIA_MINOR_THROUGH_ARCHA EOLOGICAL_LINGUISTIC_AND_HISTORICAL_EVIDENCE

Ok, so this archaeologist (Eleonora Petrova) attributes tumuli burials to Phrygians in Anatolia.

Importantly most of the locations that she lists as Brygians being mentioned are inside the borders of Albania or right next to them:

"The historical sources, except the Iliad, which gives us data on the period before and during the Trojan war, are mainly bound to the classical period.

On their account we may locate the Bryges on the Balkans in the area among Dyrrachium, Lichnydus Lake, the Thesprothians on the south and Pelagonia in the later period. In the area to the east of Axius, Herodotus places the Thracean Bryges"

Aspar
03-01-2021, 04:23 PM
I wasn't too clear here, so I will restate why this problem is relevant. Brygians are not considered Illyrians usually, and yet they are placed right next to or right inside of the Mati region by some contemporary scholars as well as ancients.

Since the Mati region is crucial to the Glasinac-Mati complex which is argued to be related with Illyrian languages, then this question should be answered, or at least some working hypotheses should be given.

There are some rock cut tombs in Burgajet, are they maybe of the Brygians? Were the Brygians a substrate on top of which Glasinac related languages settled, etc.

Secondly, Mati is also important because this is where Albanopolis is usually thought to have been roughly. So, if this region was at the least bilingual at some point, with both Illyrian and Brygian languages, then it is important to speculate on which of those languages Albanopolis gave the proto-Albanians.

That's hardly the only place the Bryges settled. In fact we know that tribes such as Mygdones who are thought to be of Brigian origins lived in Central Macedonia near the lower Vardar. Toponyms in connection with the Bryges/Phryges are found around middle Vardar as well such as Gortynia or Gordinia which is very similar to ancient Phrigian city of Gordion in Anatolia. Based on the ancient toponymy the Bulgarian linguist Vladimir Georgiev proposed that the core of the Phrygians in the Balkans was along the river Erigon/Crna reka in North Macedonia and their territory extended throughout the western part of North Macedonian where they mixed with Illyrians and in Central Macedonia where they mixed with Paeonian and Thracian tribes.
By now, it's clear that Phrygian was a language kin of Greek and ancient Macedonian. This explains why there was a visible Greekoid superstrate in the anthroponyms related to Paeonians and Paeonia where probable mixing between the Phrygians and some Daco-Thracian tribes occured which gave rise of the Paeonians.
This is the map based on Georgiev's findings:
https://i.postimg.cc/BQcjdjwN/Map-of-Balkans-linguistic-groups-late-3rd-millennium-BC-according-to-Georgiev.png (https://postimages.org/)

Bruzmi
03-01-2021, 04:25 PM
Don't forget, only a few years ago practically all modern scholars believed Bell Beaker was a cultural and ideological phenomenon without any movements of people, and every scholar was convinced Corded Ware was a gradual evolution of preceding Eastern-European cultures. If they were wrong there, I'm not putting 100% faith in Dickinson either.

Bell Beaker was first hypothesized to be the result of mass migrations of a material culture based on craniometry and the crude use of other methods of physical anthropology. This set of data was rejected because of many methodological problems and the fact that some sites showed continuity with older populations and others discontinuity. Archaeological theories rejected the mass migration model based on the only available data about any prehistoric population: material finds from many different sites. aDNA studies didn't invalidate archaeological theories, nor did they allow for a comeback of the mass migration model. They allowed for migration to be re-included in modern theories and they provided more nuance to them which in turn allowed us to move beyond the overly simplistic migration vs. non-migration model.

Martin Furholt (2021), Mobility and Social Change: Understanding the European Neolithic Period after the Archaeogenetic Revolution (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10814-020-09153-x), Journal of Archaeological Research:

The main problem and source of confusion with these three archaeological units—Yamnaya, Corded Ware, and Bell Beakers—is that they have traditionally been conceptualized using the model of “archaeological culture,” as discussed in the introduction. This has led, repeatedly, to a faulty reification of these units of classification to represent distinct culturally uniform groups of people (see Furholt 2014). This reification has dominated archaeological discourse during the 20th century—with an interlude by processual archaeologists such as Clarke (1970) and Shennan (1976)—and has unfortunately infected the migration discourse connected to the new aDNA data presented since 2015 (Allentoft et al. 2015; Haak et al. 2015). (..) To use the archaeological culture model for those units, say, the LBK, to impose a coherence of specific forms of material culture with specific forms of houses, settlement patterns, burial rites, etc., is a stark simplification, but it is not such a blatant misrepresentation as it is for Yamnaya, Corded Ware, and Bell Beakers. (..) All three units of classification (Yamnaya, Corded Ware, and Bell Beakers) are not compatible with the monothetic archaeological culture concept.

The migration narrative fell out of favor in the context of processual archaeology, in which inner-social transformations were highlighted and Corded Ware and Bell Beakers were conceptualized as “packages” of symbols related to social groups and ideologies (Clarke 1970; Damm 1991; Furholt 2003; Müller 2002; Shennan 1976; Strahm 2002). However, when Kristiansen (1989) and Anthony (1990) revived migration as an explanatory framework, they chose the Jutlandish Single Grave culture—a Corded Ware subunit—and the Yamnaya culture as examples. Nevertheless, the archaeological mainstream remained highly skeptical of migration, with a few notable exceptions (Burmeister 2000; Prien 2005), until the aDNA studies were published in 2015.

What is more, Olalde et al. (2018) published a large set of Bell Beaker samples, which showed that the majority of the eastern Bell Beakers (in Germany, Czech Republic, Netherlands, England, and Scotland) also carried large portions of steppe ancestry, in contrast to individuals connected to western Bell Beaker contexts (in France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal), who for several centuries carried much less or no steppe ancestry, which suggests an ongoing migration stream not congruent with the borders of archaeological units of classification.

While almost all male individuals from Yamnaya burials share the haplogroups R1b-Z2103 and Q1a2 (Wang et al. 2019), the great majority of all Corded Ware males share a different haplogroup, R1a (Mathieson et al. 2018). R1b, but of a different variant (P312), is the most frequent Y-chromosome haplogroup among male burials from Bell Beaker contexts (Olalde et al. 2018). Thus the core of the Kristiansen et al. narrative—Yamnaya males migrating into central Europe and constituting the new Corded Ware complex—is contradicted by the data.

In many contexts Corded Ware pottery was produced alongside traditional styles with not much tangible change in social practices connected to these novel vessel forms (Beckerman 2015; Iversen 2015; Kroon et al. 2019; Salzman 2010; Suter 2017). In others, their occurrence was connected to changes in the settlement pattern (Hecht 2007; Hübner 2005; Müller 1999; Schultrich 2019). The same is true for Bell Beakers (Kleijne 2019; Vander Linden 2006).

The whole setting of the third millennium BC in Europe is one that is better explained by a strengthening of translocal relations than by the traditional mass migration model. Whereas the latter has a unidirectional bias and regards human movement as a finite process—a person or group moves from A to B, the anthropological concept of translocality (Furholt 2018a; Greiner 2010; Greiner and Sakdapolrak 2013) highlights how mobile human individuals continuously engage with both the new and the old communities.



Yes, but it if you include Mycenaean fringes, aren't we talking about a big area? It seems to me recent authors are often very duplicitous on this subject. I read a standard work on Greek language history that first explained how the Dorian invasion was complete fiction, and then went on to argue that the distribution of Dorian and other Greek dialects could only be explained by a massive influx of people from the northwest to other parts of Greece at or after the end of the bronze age.
I see no reason why the Greek legends around the Dorian invasion would have no root in reality, even if the details are obviously invented. But it seems modern archeologists are so scared of any theory involving migration that they start to deny migration without any proof, or put the bar for proof of migration so high that it can never be passed.

The Dorians are not a prehistoric population. We know a lot about their language (Doric Greek), the way they perceived themselves and they way others perceived them. Doric Greek preserves elements of Proto-Greek and doesn't have a pre-Greek substrate which is different from other Greek dialects. For Doric Greek to have preserved Proto-Greek elements and have the same pre-Greek substrate, the speakers of Doric Greek could not have come from anywhere north of the Mycenaean fringes (Epirus, northern Thessaly, western Macedonia). If the Dorians were part of a "mass migration" from the central or the northern Balkans, they would have introduced a non-Greek language in Greece which even if they were "hellenized" eventually, would create a very different Greek dialect than Doric Greek.

If some E-V13 kin groups joined some Dorian groups before they moved to the south will be answered by aDNA studies, but a theory which sees the Dorians as a people who brought E-V13 to Greece from the central/northern Balkans in a mass migration/invasion isn't plausible.

We should look to a gradual migration in order understand the introduction of E-V13 and other lineages in Greece. For example, Albanian migrations didn't happen as a single event but as a series of events with smaller and larger migrations over 500 years and they're still continuing. I consider the same scenario to be the most plausible for E-V13. Illyrians, Paeonians, Thracians and others from their many subgroups moved to Greece over a period of more than 800 years as workers, traders, mercenaries, slaves, students etc.

The Hellenistic cemetery of Demetrias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demetrias) contains the graves of several Illyrians (c.250 BC). We know that they were Illyrians because their families identified them as Illyrians. They were Rodon Archou (https://epigraphy.packhum.org/text/207947?hs=50-57), Stratonike Oinantiou (https://epigraphy.packhum.org/text/207911?hs=81-88) Metrodorou gyne (wife of Metrodoros), Dazis (https://epigraphy.packhum.org/text/207890?hs=39-46), Skeneta Torou and Trito. No mass migration simplistic model can investigate the stories of these individuals.

Bruzmi
03-01-2021, 04:35 PM
I wasn't too clear here, so I will restate why this problem is relevant. Brygians are not considered Illyrians usually, and yet they are placed right next to or right inside of the Mati region by some contemporary scholars as well as ancients.

Since the Mati region is crucial to the Glasinac-Mati complex which is argued to be related with Illyrian languages, then this question should be answered, or at least some working hypotheses should be given.

There are some rock cut tombs in Burgajet, are they maybe of the Brygians? Were the Brygians a substrate on top of which Glasinac related languages settled, etc.

Secondly, Mati is also important because this is where Albanopolis is usually thought to have been roughly. So, if this region was at the least bilingual at some point, with both Illyrian and Brygian languages, then it is important to speculate on which of those languages Albanopolis gave the proto-Albanians.

All theories about the Bryges date to an account by Herodotus (https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text.jsp?doc=Hdt.+7.73). There is no historical or archaeological data about them. He writes that:
The Phrygian equipment was very similar to the Paphlagonian, with only a small difference. As the Macedonians say, these Phrygians were called Briges as long as they dwelt in Europe, where they were neighbors of the Macedonians; but when they changed their home to Asia, they changed their name also and were called Phrygians. The Armenians, who are settlers from Phrygia, were armed like the Phrygians. Both these together had as their commander Artochmes, who had married a daughter of Darius

This migration took place in the LBA/ transitional era. If the Glasinac-Mati material culture ever "met" with the Bryges, it would have been only for a very brief period. People like the Taulantii appear almost 400-600 years after the Bryges left for Anatolia. Many maps contain elements from different periods so that might be misleading.

The cemetery in Burgajet dates to the 4th-3rd centuries BC (https://www.persee.fr/doc/iliri_1727-2548_1987_num_17_1_1429).

Johane Derite
03-01-2021, 04:47 PM
All theories about the Bryges date to an account by Herodotus (https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text.jsp?doc=Hdt.+7.73). There is no historical or archaeological data about them. He writes that:
The Phrygian equipment was very similar to the Paphlagonian, with only a small difference. As the Macedonians say, these Phrygians were called Briges as long as they dwelt in Europe, where they were neighbors of the Macedonians; but when they changed their home to Asia, they changed their name also and were called Phrygians. The Armenians, who are settlers from Phrygia, were armed like the Phrygians. Both these together had as their commander Artochmes, who had married a daughter of Darius

This migration took place in the LBA/ transitional era. If the Glasinac-Mati material culture ever "met" with the Bryges, it would have been only for a very brief period. People like the Taulantii appear almost 400-600 years after the Bryges left for Anatolia. Many maps contain elements from different periods so that might be misleading.

There are at least two Phrygian migrations that are supposed to have happened into Anatolia.

One in the middle-late bronze age before the trojan war (such that the Phrygians are already in Anatolia and allied with Priam), and a second one later in the Iron age.

It is not accurate, nor fair, to say that "all theories" about the bryges are because of that one account by Herodotus.

In fact, many linguists have built on this theory specifically because of linguistic evidence alone, without need for Herodotus' claim.

Personal names, toponyms, that match, etc. For example:

Kydrada in Anatolia, Phrygian placename
Kydrai in Pelagonia which according to Strabo was "Polis ton Brygon" (a Brygian town)


Also the change of β to φ is something that is observed in Macedonian vs Greek, so has secure linguistic grounding.

Herodotus wouldn't have understood the concept of phonological evolution and sound laws, so for him it must have been that they "changed" their name.

Macedonian. ἀβροῦτες
Greek. ὀφρῦς

Macedonian. Βερενίκη
Gree. Φερενίκη

etc.