PDA

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



Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6

Johane Derite
03-01-2021, 04:50 PM
The cemetery in Burgajet dates to the 4th-3rd centuries BC (https://www.persee.fr/doc/iliri_1727-2548_1987_num_17_1_1429).

Thank you, good to know this.

Johane Derite
03-01-2021, 04:51 PM
"There are authors who say that the Moesi, the Brygi, and the Thyni crossed over from Europe, and that from them are descended the peoples called the Mysi, Phryges, and Bithyni."

Pliny the Elder
Natural History
1-11, 5.41.1

Johane Derite
03-01-2021, 05:06 PM
There were still Brygians living in Albania in 100BC:

"This country has a large lake they call Lychnites. The next island, some say, is where Diomedes ended his life, whence its name Diomedeia. Beyond these are barbarian Brygians. Toward the sea is Epidamnos, a Greek city, that Kerkyra apparently founded. Beyond the Brygians dwell the so-called Encheleians, whom Kadmos once ruled. Neighboring them is Apollonia,"

Pseudo Scymnus or Pausanias of Damascus
Circuit of the Earth
100 BCE


Lychnites = Ohrid
Epidamnos = Durrės

rafc
03-01-2021, 05:28 PM
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.

Ok, apparently archeologists are so reluctant to admit they were wrong that they call migration 'strenghtening translocal relations'. Whatever works for them I guess. But the main conclusion is that there were older theories involving migration, they were replaced by theories denying migration, and adna has proven there was migration. For the Dorians olders theories supposed migration, but current theories deny migration. I don't think it's farfetched to suspect current theories of Dorians suffer from the same problems as the ones on BB.

rafc
03-01-2021, 05:47 PM
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.

I was arguing that there had been a movement of people from NW-Greece to the rest of Greece, and that these people were the basis for what in classical times was known as the Dorians as opposed to the common thinking that says Dorian invasions didn't happen. I didn't write they carried V13 are came from the Northern Balkans. However, I don't think it's impossible either. You suppose already that people outside of the Mycenaean world did not speak Greek, are we sure of that? For all we know Greek was spoken a lot more north (and east) than in classical times and was replaced there by newcomers speaking something else.


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.

The V13 being dragged along by Dorians sounds like plausible scenario, but if you make a big genetic distinction between Dorians and 'V13 kin groups', what haplogroups do you think Dorians carried?


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.

Yes, this is also the scenario I favor.

Johane Derite
03-01-2021, 05:52 PM
From 160 AD on Brygians taking posession of Durrės:


"The consuls crossed safely to Dyrrachium, which some persons, by reason of the following error, consider the same as Epidamnus. A barbarian king of the region, Epidamnus by name, built a city on the sea-coast and named it after himself. Dyrrachus, the son of his daughter and of Neptune (as is supposed), added a dockyard to it which he named Dyrrachium. When the brothers of this Dyrrachus made war against him, Hercules, who was returning from Erythea, formed an alliance with him for a part of his territory; wherefore the Dyrrachians claim Hercules as their founder because he had a share of their land, not that they repudiate Dyrrachus, but because they pride themselves on Hercules even more as a god.

In the battle which took place it is said that Hercules killed Ionius, the son of Dyrrachus, by mistake, and that after performing the funeral rites he threw the body into the sea in order that it might bear his name.

At a later period the Briges, returning from Phrygia, took possession of the city and the surrounding country. They were supplanted by the Taulantii, an Illyrian tribe, who were displaced in their turn by the Liburnians, another Illyrian tribe, who were in the habit of making piratical expeditions against their neighbors, with very swift ships. Hence the Romans call swift ships liburnicoe, because these were the first ones they came in conflict with.

The people who had been expelled from Dyrrachium by the Liburnians procured the aid of the Corcyreans, who then ruled the sea, and drove out the Liburnians. The Corcyreans mingled their own colonists with them and thus it came to be considered a Greek port; but the Corcyreans changed its name, because they considered it unpropitious, and called it Epidamnus from the town just above it, and Thucydides gives it that name also.

Nevertheless, the former name prevailed finally and it is now called Dyrrachium.

2.6.39
Appian
Civil Wars


So here, we have a claim by Appian that they came from Phrygia, which doesn't make sense, it makes more sense that this detail is his addition.

Hawk
03-01-2021, 07:32 PM
I was arguing that there had been a movement of people from NW-Greece to the rest of Greece, and that these people were the basis for what in classical times was known as the Dorians as opposed to the common thinking that says Dorian invasions didn't happen. I didn't write they carried V13 are came from the Northern Balkans. However, I don't think it's impossible either. You suppose already that people outside of the Mycenaean world did not speak Greek, are we sure of that? For all we know Greek was spoken a lot more north (and east) than in classical times and was replaced there by newcomers speaking something else.



The V13 being dragged along by Dorians sounds like plausible scenario, but if you make a big genetic distinction between Dorians and 'V13 kin groups', what haplogroups do you think Dorians carried?



Yes, this is also the scenario I favor.

These are some of the subclades found in Peloponessus

E-V13-Z1057>CTS1273>BY3880>FGC44169>S7461>BY5022>Y150909
E-V13-Z1057>CTS1273>BY3880>Z5017>CTS1273>BY3880>Z5018>S2 979>Z16659>Y3183>S2972>Z16661>S2978
E-V13-Z1057>CTS1273>BY3880>Z5018
E-V13-Z1057>CTS1273>BY3880>Z5018
E-V13-Z1057>CTS1273>BY3880>Z5018>S2979>Z16659>E-L241
E-V13-Z1057>CTS1273>BY3880>Z5018>S2979>Z16659>Y3183>S2972>Z16661>S2978

Apuglians E-V13 is exclusively E-V13 Z5018/S979 as well.

IMO, the Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age spread by a specific group who had E-V13 in the percentages ranging somewhere from 50-90% and scattering around can explain the spread, not the likes of Medieval Arvanites, Vlachs who have less or equal E-V13 percentage themselves than actual Mainland Greeks.

vettor
03-01-2021, 09:51 PM
From 160 AD on Brygians taking posession of Durrės:


"The consuls crossed safely to Dyrrachium, which some persons, by reason of the following error, consider the same as Epidamnus. A barbarian king of the region, Epidamnus by name, built a city on the sea-coast and named it after himself. Dyrrachus, the son of his daughter and of Neptune (as is supposed), added a dockyard to it which he named Dyrrachium. When the brothers of this Dyrrachus made war against him, Hercules, who was returning from Erythea, formed an alliance with him for a part of his territory; wherefore the Dyrrachians claim Hercules as their founder because he had a share of their land, not that they repudiate Dyrrachus, but because they pride themselves on Hercules even more as a god.

In the battle which took place it is said that Hercules killed Ionius, the son of Dyrrachus, by mistake, and that after performing the funeral rites he threw the body into the sea in order that it might bear his name.

At a later period the Briges, returning from Phrygia, took possession of the city and the surrounding country. They were supplanted by the Taulantii, an Illyrian tribe, who were displaced in their turn by the Liburnians, another Illyrian tribe, who were in the habit of making piratical expeditions against their neighbors, with very swift ships. Hence the Romans call swift ships liburnicoe, because these were the first ones they came in conflict with.

The people who had been expelled from Dyrrachium by the Liburnians procured the aid of the Corcyreans, who then ruled the sea, and drove out the Liburnians. The Corcyreans mingled their own colonists with them and thus it came to be considered a Greek port; but the Corcyreans changed its name, because they considered it unpropitious, and called it Epidamnus from the town just above it, and Thucydides gives it that name also.

Nevertheless, the former name prevailed finally and it is now called Dyrrachium.

2.6.39
Appian
Civil Wars


So here, we have a claim by Appian that they came from Phrygia, which doesn't make sense, it makes more sense that this detail is his addition.

That is one story of the corfu - durres link with Liburnians ..........there is another

Ancient geography was the land of the Liburnians, a region along the northeastern Adriatic coast in Europe, in modern Croatia, whose borders shifted according to the extent of liburnian dominance at a given time between 11th and 1st century BC. Domination of the liburnian Thalassocracy in the Adriatic sea was confirmed by several ancient authors, but archaeologists have identified the areas of their material culture, in the North Dalmatia, Kvarner and Eastern Istria.
The liburnian cultural group developed at the end of the bronze age after the Balkan-Pannonian migrations, and during the iron age in the region, which borders race, Krka, and Zrmanja rivers, including the nearby Islands. This area lay mainly on the coast and on the numerous Islands. Her continental boundaries were marked by rivers and mountains: the race Učka, Gorski Kotar, peaks of Velebit mountain Mons Baebius, Krka, Zrmanja and, with a small area in the North-East it borders with Butisnica Krka Čikola and Kosovcica, the city of Promona modern Tepljuh near the city of Drnis area. Thus, it is adjacent on the North-West with the Histri, on the North Iapodian and in the South-Eastern Dalmatian cultural groups.

Liburnian culture have different characteristics and are significantly different from their neighbors. Its isolation and special qualities are due mainly to its geographical isolation from the hinterland and its orientation towards the sea, important for traffic and territorial connection. Naval focus-shaped liburnian ethnic development on the Indo-European basis with the transfer of Mediterranean cultural traditions as an independent ethnic community, separated from neighboring peoples, but having evident similarities and links with the wider Illyrian and Adriatic territories. Liburnians skilled in navigation allowed them to hold navigable routes along the Eastern Adriatic coast with strategic points, such as the Islands of Hvar and Lastovo in the Central Adriatic and Corfu 8th century BC in the Ionian sea, while they already had colonies at the Western Adriatic coast, especially in the area of Picenum, from the beginning of the iron age. From 9 to 6 century there was certain Koine - cultural unity in the Adriatic sea, with a total Liburninan seal, whose dominion was as political and economic power in the Adriatic sea over several centuries.

According to Strabo, V, 269, in Liburnians were the masters of the island, the island of Corfu, to 735 BC, when they left it, under pressure of Corinthian ruler Hersikrates, during the period of Corinthian expansion to South Italy, Sicily and the Ionian sea.

and your post in
https://research-management.mq.edu.au/ws/portalfiles/portal/86345945/Publisher_version.pdf

and another

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6558755_Analysis_of_Human_Skeletal_Remains_from_Na din_Iron_Age_Burial_Mound


A thalassocracy or thalattocracy (from Classical Greek: θάλασσα, romanized: thalassa (Attic Greek: θάλαττα, romanized: thalatta) transl. 'sea', and Ancient Greek: κρατεῖν, romanized: kratein, lit. 'power'; giving Koinē Greek: θαλασσοκρατία, romanized: thalassokratia, lit. 'sea power') is a state with primarily maritime realms, an empire at sea, or a seaborne empire.[1] Traditional thalassocracies seldom dominate interiors, even in their home territories. Examples of this were the Phoenician states of Tyre, Sidon and Carthage, and the Italian maritime republics of Venice and Genoa of the Mediterranean

Bruzmi
03-02-2021, 01:08 AM
I was arguing that there had been a movement of people from NW-Greece to the rest of Greece, and that these people were the basis for what in classical times was known as the Dorians as opposed to the common thinking that says Dorian invasions didn't happen. I didn't write they carried V13 are came from the Northern Balkans. However, I don't think it's impossible either. You suppose already that people outside of the Mycenaean world did not speak Greek, are we sure of that? For all we know Greek was spoken a lot more north (and east) than in classical times and was replaced there by newcomers speaking something else.



The people within the Mycenaean world (defined as the region under the influence of the palatial complexes which developed in southern/parts of central Greece) spoke Greek and in earlier times other languages. The people outside the Mycenaean world ("Mycanean fringes") spoke a variant of the same Greek which was the result of the same processes. There are at least two prerequisites for this parallel development: 1)constant contact with the same pre-Greek language 2)constant contact between variants of Greek. Otherwise their vocabulary would develop semantically in different ways and in fact another Greek language would be formed if there was a different pre-Greek substrate. So I would say that the people who lived on the fringes of the Mycenaean world spoke Greek and also the same or a similar pre-Greek in older times as those who lived in southern Greece. If the ancestors of Dorians of classical antiquity lived anywhere to the north of that area, it would have to display 1)the same features as northern Thessaly or west Macedonia (same pre-Greek substrate etc.), but also it would have to be in contact with the Mycenaean world in order to develop the same semantic functions.





The V13 being dragged along by Dorians sounds like plausible scenario, but if you make a big genetic distinction between Dorians and 'V13 kin groups', what haplogroups do you think Dorians carried?




It's all speculation until we get actual aDNA research, but I would say R1b-Z2103. Autosomally, they definitely would have had more steppe ancestry than Mycenaeans and more contact with E-V13 groups. I see the difference between the two not so much as a "genetic distance", but as part of the inter-tribal struggle between different patrilocal groups which certainly involved E-V13 vs. E-V13 groups as well.



Yes, this is also the scenario I favor.

It also explains quite well the high endurance of the Greek language in Greece. Small groups of migrants are always much more easily culturally integrated in any society and their descendants usually see the next group of migrants as foreigners and the cycle repeats itself (the same process has been happening in the USA for many centuries)

Bruzmi
03-02-2021, 01:22 AM
So here, we have a claim by Appian that they came from Phrygia, which doesn't make sense, it makes more sense that this detail is his addition.

Appian has merged two stories into one. The ancestors of the Taulantii (as Glasinac-Mati carriers) may have briefly encountered the Bryges around 1200-1000 BC. Appian is conflating them with the Bryges ("returning from Phrygia") who appear much later in Thrace as soldiers of the Persians. The same issue is obvious in Pseudo-Scymnus who uses the account of Herodotus as a contemporary story. Ancient authors often engaged in anachronisms because they copied older authors. This is why I said earlier that the ultimate source of many later authors is Herodotus.

John Wilkes, The Illyrians (https://www.ancientportsantiques.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/PLACES/Adriatic/Illyrians-Wilkes1996.pdf), writes that


the successive rule of Taulantii and Liburni in the historical tradition may represent the southward movement of lllyrian peoples during the early Iron Age from around 1000 BC into the area known as Illyris. The presence of Bryges at Epidamnus in the account of Appian seems to be confirmed by other sources, including the Coastal Voyage attributed to Scymnus of Chios and Strabo's Geography. No later record of their presence in the area survives and nor can any link be established with the Bryges of Thrace, supposedly descended from the soldiers of Xerxes' army, who appear four centuries I.Her in the army of M. Brutus during the Philippi campaign.

Bane
03-02-2021, 07:36 AM
It's all speculation until we get actual aDNA research, but I would say R1b-Z2103. Autosomally, they definitely would have had more steppe ancestry than Mycenaeans and more contact with E-V13 groups. I see the difference between the two not so much as a "genetic distance", but as part of the inter-tribal struggle between different patrilocal groups which certainly involved E-V13 vs. E-V13 groups as well.


I don't get it. Why exactly do you think R-Z2103 is plausible to be Dorian haplogroup but E-V13 is not?
You even allow some E-V13 came with the Dorians. What is the way to distinguish between E-V13 groups and Dorians both of which potentially were involved in the same migration?

Btw my impressions is that not a small number of people here support arrival of R-Z2103 to the Southern Balkans before arrival of E-V13. Due to different reasons. One reason would be to explain Indoeuropean component among Mycenaens.
I also think R-Z2103 reached Southern Balkans long time before Dorians did. One of my reasons for such opinion is what I would call "deeper" presence of R-Z2103 in Mediterranean compared to E-V13. For example you can take a look at Sardinia and Turkey.

Johane Derite
03-02-2021, 08:23 AM
Appian has merged two stories into one.


Appian is conflating them with the Bryges ("returning from Phrygia") who appear much later in Thrace as soldiers of the Persians.

No he is not.

Firstly, the Bryges who appear in Thrace KILL the army of the Persians, and wound their leader Mardonius, they don't appear as soldiers of the Persians, but rather are called the "Brygian Thracians" by Herodotus. They are then enslaved by the Persians, but they are very much locals.

So this is a total misreading and inaccurate representation of the truth:

"Thus fared the fleet; and meanwhile Mardonios and the land-army while encamping in Macedonia were attacked in the night by the Brygian Thracians, and many of them were slain by the Brygians and Mardonios himself was wounded.

However not even these escaped being enslaved by the Persians, for Mardonios did not depart from that region until he had made them subject. But when he had subdued these, he proceeded to lead his army back, since he had suffered great loss with his land-army in fighting against the Brygians and with his fleet in going round Athos. So this expedition departed back to Asia having gained no honour by its contests.

6.45
Herodotus
Histories







The same issue is obvious in Pseudo-Scymnus who uses the account of Herodotus as a contemporary story.



Pseudo-Scymnus account in which he says that the Brygi lived next to the Enchelae can have nothing to do with Herodotus, since nowhere does Herodotus ever mention such a detail.

His account must be considered at the least original and referring to the same time as that of the Enchelae.

And with respect to anachronism, Scymnus' account of the Brygi living next to the Enchelae (who lived in Ohrid), and then later in time Strabo mentioning specifically them in Pelagonia (with their city being Kydrae), would actually seem to suggest a chronology of them being pushed further and further away from the coast of Durres. (first in Durrės like Appian said and then progressively pushed eastward into Pelagonia).





This is why I said earlier that the ultimate source of many later authors is Herodotus.



Herodotus never mentioned Brygians in Albania, so their multiple appearance in different sites in or near Albania by different authors cannot be blamed on him so that it may be just thrown away and ignored.

Where I think Appian can have been influenced by Herodotus is in his assumption that the Bryges must have come into Albania from Phrygia.

The relation between Bryges and Phryges must have roughly been known about, but he would not have known that they more probably had come from the hinterland.

Pseudo-Apollodorus in his Bibliotheca (record of Greek myths and legends) recorded a war between Brygians against Thesprotians in Epirus, this is roughly the ēameria region.

John Wilkes totally wrongly supposes that Brygians came from Persians, probably misreading the original quote.

He made many such mistakes, for example, in his book The Illyrians, he writes that the chelidonoi meant "snail-men." Yet in Greek chelidon means swallow (bird).

Johane Derite
03-02-2021, 08:35 AM
The ancestors of the Taulantii (as Glasinac-Mati carriers) may have briefly encountered the Bryges around 1200-1000 BC.

When the Brygi posessed Durrės and the surrounding country is of great importance to figure out.

And whether they were pushed further into the hinterland and survived until the Roman occupation as Scymnus, Strabo, etc claimed is also of great importance.

This timeline of 1200BC-1000BC would match the legend of the Brygian-Thesprotian war since it was led by Odysseus supposedly, a figure from the time of the Trojan war.

Johane Derite
03-02-2021, 08:39 AM
Here is an ancient inscription found in Durrės, it writes:

"Brygos, son of Aphrodisios"

https://epigraphy.packhum.org/text/182255

Johane Derite
03-02-2021, 08:45 AM
Homer, in the Iliad, mentions Mysians both in Thrace and Anatolia, so this connection between Balkans and Anatolia tribal doublets is not an invention of Herodotus, who wrote later than homer:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EhLnAr9X0AAYrtP?format=png&name=4096x4096

Aspar
03-02-2021, 09:50 AM
Back to the original question, I believe that much of the E-V13 in Greece is also of Thracian origin, not only of Illyrian or Dorian origin. Let's not forget that the modern Greek country and nation isn't comprised of proto-Greek people only such as Dorians. Modern Greek nation is a product of all people living and mixing in the late Roman Empire of the Balkans and it's territory was lot more bigger than current borders of modern Greece. The language here it's not that important because the Greek became lingua franca in the Empire much like English is a lingua franca in USA but not all Americans are of English origin. Bruzmi explained well how we shouldn't look two-dimensional in regards of the haplogroups and much of the spread of a certain haplogroup could have happened with simple migration of workers, traders, slaves etc.

Also I don't think we can say lot about Greek E-V13 as the Greeks don't test SNPs much nor there are who knows how many NGS tests. However I can tell you that the Greek positive for https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y150909a/ (-Y150909a) is distantly related to a Bulgarian with origins from Central Macedonia who is SNP pack tested only and it's positive for E-BY5022 however many important SNPs aren't tested with the SNP pack so he is looking forward to do Big Y test in the next months and we will be able to tell how close he is to the Greek. I believe this is a late antiquity or early Medieval connection but we will see. As this clade is lot more diverse in the Central and Eastern Balkans than it is in the Western, I believe it's of ultimate Thracian origin.

Johane Derite
03-02-2021, 10:18 AM
Back to the original question, I believe that much of the E-V13 in Greece is also of Thracian origin, not only of Illyrian or Dorian origin.

However I can tell you that the Greek positive for https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y150909a/ (-Y150909a) is distantly related to a Bulgarian with origins from Central Macedonia

On yfull there you have an Armenian also on that clade. So if there is any truth to Phrygians relation to Armenians, then that clade might be Brygian not Thracian. :P

Aspar
03-02-2021, 10:35 AM
On yfull there you have an Armenian also on that clade. So if there is any truth to Phrygians relation to Armenians, then that clade might be Brygian not Thracian. :P

Yes there is an Armenian from Azerbaijan but the actual TMRCA between the Armenian and the Greek is 2300 ybp as per Yfull before they removed the TMRCA for E haplogroup because of glitch.
Even if we take in account that many believe that Yfull underestimates TMRCAs by bit, still the time frame is quite late for actual Phrigian/Brigian connection.

It can be anything actually, we don't know what groups or people TMRCA was part of. It could of been even an ancient Macedonian connection. But because the very ancient Macedonians were probably just amalgamation of different groups living in Macedonian such as Greeks, Thracians etc. I believe that the ultimate origin of the clade is Thracian. There is already an E-BY5022 Bulgarian from Yambol in south-east Bulgaria totally unrelated to the one discussed above. So we talk about diversity in Central and Eastern Balkans.

There is already a pattern where some important clades such as E-BY5022 or E-Y16729 are showing up as in important Central-East Balkan spread and diversification, a pattern not seen in the Western Balkans. Also parallel of E-BY5022 there seems to be another clade in Bulgaria found which further backs up it's Thracian-Getae connection. Also let's not forget for the most ancient E-BY3880+ up to date from Moldova positive for https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FGC44169/

gjergj
03-02-2021, 11:26 AM
Back to the original question, I believe that much of the E-V13 in Greece is also of Thracian origin, not only of Illyrian or Dorian origin. Let's not forget that the modern Greek country and nation isn't comprised of proto-Greek people only such as Dorians. Modern Greek nation is a product of all people living and mixing in the late Roman Empire of the Balkans and it's territory was lot more bigger than current borders of modern Greece. The language here it's not that important because the Greek became lingua franca in the Empire much like English is a lingua franca in USA but not all Americans are of English origin. Bruzmi explained well how we shouldn't look two-dimensional in regards of the haplogroups and much of the spread of a certain haplogroup could have happened with simple migration of workers, traders, slaves etc.

Also I don't think we can say lot about Greek E-V13 as the Greeks don't test SNPs much nor there are who knows how many NGS tests. However I can tell you that the Greek positive for https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y150909a/ (-Y150909a) is distantly related to a Bulgarian with origins from Central Macedonia who is SNP pack tested only and it's positive for E-BY5022 however many important SNPs aren't tested with the SNP pack so he is looking forward to do Big Y test in the next months and we will be able to tell how close he is to the Greek. I believe this is a late antiquity or early Medieval connection but we will see. As this clade is lot more diverse in the Central and Eastern Balkans than it is in the Western, I believe it's of ultimate Thracian origin.

What do you mean that its territory was a lot bigger than current borders? are you refering to their azia minor and sicily possetions or bigger in the balkans?

Aspar
03-02-2021, 11:55 AM
What do you mean that its territory was a lot bigger than current borders? are you refering to their azia minor and sicily possetions or bigger in the balkans?

https://i.postimg.cc/2jwd3vPj/Byzantine-Empire.jpg (https://postimg.cc/dDhZx7sg)

Bruzmi
03-02-2021, 01:15 PM
I don't get it. Why exactly do you think R-Z2103 is plausible to be Dorian haplogroup but E-V13 is not?
You even allow some E-V13 came with the Dorians. What is the way to distinguish between E-V13 groups and Dorians both of which potentially were involved in the same migration?.

Language.

A key difference between Proto-Greek and its descendants is that they have a pre-Greek substrate which accounts for a substantial portion of their vocabulary, sound changes etc. Even if aDNA recovery wasn't possible, we would still know that Proto-Greeks came into heavy contact with another people.

What eventually became Doric is one the most conservative group of variants of ancient Greek. If the Dorians had a high E-V13 component via any process a) their Greek wouldn't be conservative phonologically, but would have diverged in a different direction than southern Greek variants b) there would be a non-Greek substrate in Doric vocabulary, which would be different from the pre-Greek substrate of southern Greece.


You even allow some E-V13 came with the Dorians. What is the way to distinguish between E-V13 groups and Dorians both of which potentially were involved in the same migration?.

There is no way to distinguish them. If E-V13 joined the Dorians, it reached the Peloponnese as part of a Dorian tribe. Whether it later became a larger percentage via some founder effect or not, is a whole other discussion. All of this is speculation and I'm only saying it because I think that it's the only distantly plausible scenario for the Dorians to have carried E-V13 to the south



Herodotus never mentioned Brygians in Albania, so their multiple appearance in different sites in or near Albania by different authors cannot be blamed on him so that it may be just thrown away and ignored.


It's not being ignored. Herodotus mentions them as neighbours to the Macedonians. It is most probably true that Bryges migrated to Anatolia in the LBA/transitional era and became the Phrygians. But they didn't live in the Balkans in 100 BC except for maybe a small community in Thrace which had migrated from Anatolia.

Everything else is an anachronism in Strabo, Appian etc. When you read the context of every author, it becomes obvious. For example, Strabo writes that
"In earlier times there were also cities among these tribes; at any rate, Pelagonia used to be called Tripolitis, one of which was Azorus; and all the cities of the Deuriopes on the Erigon River were populous, among which were Bryanium, Alalcomenae, and Stubara. And Cydrae belonged to the Brygi, while Aeginium, on the border of Aethicia and Tricca,455 belonged to the Tymphaei." In historical times, Cydrae was just a Lyncestian settlement.

Dyrrhachium was the "tavern of the Adriatic" at that time. A person named Brygos doesn't say much about his origins. He could have easily been from Anatolia. See Brygos Sokratou (https://epigraphy.packhum.org/text/316967?hs=692-699) in Pergamon.

I wouldn't give too much weight on the Phrygians/Bryges as carriers of E-V13 because if they were E-V13 they would have to carry it in Anatolia, where the Phrygians were one the largest populations of the region. So there should be a heavy presence of E-V13 among Anatolian Greeks, Turks and also Armenians whom Herodotus calls "settlers from Phrygia, were armed like the Phrygians. Both these together had as their commander Artochmes, who had married a daughter of Darius". But that's not the case, is it?

The search for E-V13 should probably focus on historical people like the Enchelei (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enchele).

Aspar
03-02-2021, 02:14 PM
FYI, YF68040, BY169463+ sample, is Albanian from Gjirokaster. Shady dude from rrenjet hides his identity.

Well yeah, I was aware there was a E-FGC44169+ Albanian by looking at Rrenjet public database. However it's telling by the number of testees among Albanians and Bulgarians that statistically wise this subclade has more frequency and diversity in the Bulgarians even with less testees than Albanians.

There are some interesting connections among South Albanians and Bulgarians however. It certainly has something to do with a flow of people and genes in both directions during the two Bulgarian Empires in the Medieval although there are for sure subclades downstream of E-BY5022 and such among the Albanians that might even have an older, ancient presence among them.

Aspar
03-02-2021, 02:28 PM
I don't know what's the catch with these Saudis and other Arabs who appear to have plenty of E-BY5022 and E-Y16729 tho. What kind of migration reached that far away to the Arab lands?

Johane Derite
03-02-2021, 02:31 PM
It's not being ignored. Herodotus mentions them as neighbours to the Macedonians. It is most probably true that Bryges migrated to Anatolia in the LBA/transitional era and became the Phrygians. But they didn't live in the Balkans in 100 BC except for maybe a small community in Thrace which had migrated from Anatolia.

Everything else is an anachronism in Strabo, Appian etc.


When you read the context of every author, it becomes obvious. For example, Strabo writes that

"In earlier times there were also cities among these tribes; at any rate, Pelagonia used to be called Tripolitis, one of which was Azorus; and all the cities of the Deuriopes on the Erigon River were populous, among which were Bryanium, Alalcomenae, and Stubara. And Cydrae belonged to the Brygi, while Aeginium, on the border of Aethicia and Tricca,455 belonged to the Tymphaei." In historical times, Cydrae was just a Lyncestian settlement.



Even the quote you singled out said that in earlier times, there were also cities among these tribes. And it is not the full quote.

Strabo is clearly describing them as living there during his time, this is made evident by the very fact that he makes the reference to "earlier times'' when they had cities.

This makes explicit that he is not just anachronistically saying they lived here / there once, but rather that they live here now, in the past they had cities also.

Here is the full quote by strabo:

§ 7.7.9

For above Epidamnus and Apollonia as far as the Ceraunian Mountains dwell the Bylliones, the Taulantii, the Parthini, and the Brygi. Somewhere nearby are also the silver mines of Damastion, where the Perisadyes and the Encheleii (also called Sesarethii) together established their dominion; and near these people are also the Lyncestae, the territory Deuriopus, the Pelagonian Tripolitis, the Eordi, Elimeia, and Eratyra.

In earlier times these peoples were ruled separately, each by its own dynasty. For instance, it was the descendants of Cadmus and Harmonia who ruled over the Encheleii; and the scenes of the stories told about them are still pointed out there. These people, I say, were not ruled by men of native stock; and the Lyncestae became subject to Arrabaeus, who was of the stock of the Bacchiads (Eurydice, the mother of Philip, Amyntas' son, was Arrabaeus' daughter's daughter and Sirra was his daughter); and again, of the Epeirotes, the Molossi became subject to Pyrrhus, the son of Neoptolemus the son of Achilles, and to his descendants, who were Thessalians. But the rest were ruled by men of native stock. Then, because one tribe or another was always getting the mastery over others, they all ended in the Macedonian empire, except a few who dwelt above the Ionian Sea. And in fact the regions about Lyncus, Pelagonia, Orestias, and Elimeia, used to be called Upper Macedonia, though later on they were by some also called Free Macedonia.

But some go so far as to call the whole of the country Macedonia, as far as Corcyra, at the same time stating as their reason that in tonsure, language, short cloak, and other things of the kind, the usages of the inhabitants are similar, although, they add, some speak both languages. But when the empire of the Macedonians was broken up, they fell under the power of the Romans. And it is through the country of these tribes that the Egnatian Road runs, which begins at Epidamnus and Apollonia. Near the Road to Candavia are not only the lakes which are in the neighborhood of Lychnidus, on the shores of which are salt-fish establishments that are independent of other waters, but also a number of rivers, some emptying into the Ionian Sea and others flowing in a southerly direction — I mean the Inachus, the Aratthus, the Achelous and the Evenus (formerly called the Lycormas); the Aratthus emptying into the Ambracian Gulf, the Inachus into the Achelous, the Achelous itself and the Evenus into the sea — the Achelous after traversing Acarnania and the Evenus after traversing Aitolia.

But the Erigon, after receiving many streams from the Illyrian mountains and from the countries of the Lyncestae, Brygi, Deuriopes, and Pelagonians, empties into the Axius.


In earlier times there were also cities among these tribes; at any rate, Pelagonia used to be called Tripolitis, one of which was Azorus; and all the cities of the Deuriopes on the Erigon River were populous, among which were Bryanium, Alalcomenae, and Stybara. And Cydrae belonged to the Brygians,
"


And there is no argument that Scymnus or Appian just made it up based on Herodotus saying that Brygians lived next to Macedonia.

Also I saw no evidence for the claim of "they didn't live in the Balkans in 100 BC except for maybe a small community in Thrace which had migrated from Anatolia. "

First you claimed they were brought by the persians based on John Wilkes supposition/misreading of Herodotus, I don't know on what you base this specifically.

peloponnesian
03-02-2021, 02:36 PM
I don't know what's the catch with these Saudis and other Arabs who appear to have plenty of E-BY5022 and E-Y16729 tho. What kind of migration reached that far away to the Arab lands?

Saudis appear in all kinds of Y haplogroups. I think they've just taken a lot of paternal haplogroup tests compared to the rest of the world.

Johane Derite
03-02-2021, 02:42 PM
It is most probably true that Bryges migrated to Anatolia in the LBA/transitional era and became the Phrygians. But they didn't live in the Balkans .

What about the Balkan Dardani vs Anatolian Dardanians? Do you agree it is most probably the case that they are also related?

Aspar
03-02-2021, 02:49 PM
Saudis appear in all kinds of Y haplogroups. I think they've just taken a lot of paternal haplogroup tests compared to the rest of the world.

Well yeah, it makes sense, they are some of the most tested people in the world.
But if you look at subclades of E-V13 they seem to have lot more of E-BY5022 and E-Y16729 than anything else. What's funny is that they seem to cluster again closely to Bulgarians even in other unrelated clades such as this one: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY14150/
The Bulgarian is not on Yfull however he is Big Y tested and is even closer to the Spaniard on the Block Tree than to the Saudi.

broder
03-02-2021, 03:09 PM
I don't know what's the catch with these Saudis and other Arabs who appear to have plenty of E-BY5022 and E-Y16729 tho. What kind of migration reached that far away to the Arab lands?
Vast majority got there from Roman era to Ottoman Empire. Including the V13 clusters found among Kurds, Armenians, Azerbaijan etc.

There are even younger Balkan clusters among Saudis, like R-Y126039 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y126039/) and R-FGC40206 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-FGC40206/) for example.

peloponnesian
03-02-2021, 03:16 PM
Damn, Saudis doing work, wonder how many Y clades have been discovered by their testing

Aspar
03-02-2021, 03:36 PM
Vast majority got there from Roman era to Ottoman Empire. Including the V13 clusters found among Kurds, Armenians, Azerbaijan etc.

There are even younger Balkan cluster among Saudis, like R-Y126039 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y126039/) and R-FGC40206 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-FGC40206/) for example.

I thought so as well...

But one thing it bothers me is, why E-CTS9320 doesn't seem to show up at all or at least shows up as a minority lineage among the other E-V13 lineages in the Arabs when it's actually the most frequent and diverse E-V13 lineage among the Balkan people today?

gjergj
03-02-2021, 03:58 PM
https://i.postimg.cc/2jwd3vPj/Byzantine-Empire.jpg (https://postimg.cc/dDhZx7sg)

This is the border of the eastern Roman Empire not of greece.

broder
03-02-2021, 04:10 PM
I thought so as well...

But one thing it bothers me is, why E-CTS9320 doesn't seem to show up at all or at least shows up as a minority lineage among the other E-V13 lineages in the Arabs when it's actually the most frequent and diverse E-V13 lineage among the Balkan people today?

Probably just by chance. Could also be because CTS9320 was perhaps more of a northwestern Balkan lineage during the early Roman period. What we're seeing today could be as a result of populations that Slavs pushed further down south.

gjergj
03-02-2021, 04:22 PM
Well yeah, I was aware there was a E-FGC44169+ Albanian by looking at Rrenjet public database. However it's telling by the number of testees among Albanians and Bulgarians that statistically wise this subclade has more frequency and diversity in the Bulgarians even with less testees than Albanians.

There are some interesting connections among South Albanians and Bulgarians however. It certainly has something to do with a flow of people and genes in both directions during the two Bulgarian Empires in the Medieval although there are for sure subclades downstream of E-BY5022 and such among the Albanians that might even have an older, ancient presence among them.

The connection is older and not with the bulgarian empire.

Hawk
03-02-2021, 04:43 PM
This Latvian E-L618 doesn't make sense: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY6578/

He is probably a Jew paternally. These rare occassions of E-L618 do happen in MENA, we have Syrian, Lebanese, Tunisian, Egyptian Copt, probably Southern Levantine Neolithic back-migration. E-L618 looks like it was always in the minority everywhere.

Hawk
03-02-2021, 05:26 PM
Thracian romphaia and it's longer version falx were deadly swords. It is said that romphaia was forged firstly by Bessi blacksmiths.

https://i.imgur.com/B0YVkT0.jpg

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/7goUUUwU5oE/maxresdefault.jpg

Moderator
03-02-2021, 05:54 PM
Members are reminded to keep a civil dialogue and refrain from personalization of discussion.

- Admin team

rafc
03-02-2021, 08:14 PM
This Latvian E-L618 doesn't make sense: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY6578/

He is probably a Jew paternally. These rare occassions of E-L618 do happen in MENA, we have Syrian, Lebanese, Tunisian, Egyptian Copt, probably Southern Levantine Neolithic back-migration. E-L618 looks like it was always in the minority everywhere.

I think that is very unlikely, if he belonged to a Jewish group I would expect many other kits nearby. As far as I know he might have German roots.

rafc
03-02-2021, 08:18 PM
Probably just by chance. Could also be because CTS9320 was perhaps more of a northwestern Balkan lineage during the early Roman period. What we're seeing today could be a result of populations that Slavs pushed further down south.

I don't think chance can explain it. The very big, recent clades like CTS9320, L241 & FGC11450 don't have Arabian or Middle-Eastern members. Older and smaller clades like BY5022, Y16729 and Y145455 have them in several branches. These branches also tend to be less present in the Western Balkans. This seems to point to quite old connections.

broder
03-02-2021, 09:28 PM
I don't think chance can explain it. The very big, recent clades like CTS9320, L241 & FGC11450 don't have Arabian or Middle-Eastern members. Older and smaller clades like BY5022, Y16729 and Y145455 have them in several branches. These branches also tend to be less present in the Western Balkans. This seems to point to quite old connections.

That's why I threw the second option there.

However, there are some L241 middle Easterners. Even younger subclades such as Z2705 and FGC40202, that are predominantly Western Balkan, can be found among them. So, chance plays a part too.

Riverman
03-03-2021, 12:23 AM
I don't think chance can explain it. The very big, recent clades like CTS9320, L241 & FGC11450 don't have Arabian or Middle-Eastern members. Older and smaller clades like BY5022, Y16729 and Y145455 have them in several branches. These branches also tend to be less present in the Western Balkans. This seems to point to quite old connections.

We also have some E-V13 in East Asia and with more Chinese testing, more will appear. I think a possible connection is what I would call "backflow to the steppe" from the Thracian - Iranian connection in particular. Like to the West, some experts and especially smiths, or any kind of people becoming integrated one way or another into a steppe tribe could have migrated with Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians etc. to different regions. Including Caucasian countries (Armenians), China and the Near East. One important group for the timing in the Near East might be the Kurds. I didn't look more carefully at their E-V13 clades, but they seem to have some. What's their position overall? On YFull there isn't too much about it.

Hawk
03-03-2021, 07:19 AM
We also have some E-V13 in East Asia and with more Chinese testing, more will appear. I think a possible connection is what I would call "backflow to the steppe" from the Thracian - Iranian connection in particular. Like to the West, some experts and especially smiths, or any kind of people becoming integrated one way or another into a steppe tribe could have migrated with Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians etc. to different regions. Including Caucasian countries (Armenians), China and the Near East. One important group for the timing in the Near East might be the Kurds. I didn't look more carefully at their E-V13 clades, but they seem to have some. What's their position overall? On YFull there isn't too much about it.

Regarding Kurds i don't know their subclades but logically speaking since Kurds during Middle Ages were mountainous and isolated people i don't think their E-V13 was from Roman or Byzantine time, it was rather Balkan to Anatolian migrants during Late Bronze Age, the likes of Phrygians/Mushki who attacked and destroyed Hittite Empire.

Otherwise, all of this explanations by chance are becoming ridicilous when there is no facts of Y-DNA subclade correlation during historical times.

rafc
03-03-2021, 08:05 AM
It's all speculation until we get actual aDNA research, but I would say R1b-Z2103. Autosomally, they definitely would have had more steppe ancestry than Mycenaeans and more contact with E-V13 groups. I see the difference between the two not so much as a "genetic distance", but as part of the inter-tribal struggle between different patrilocal groups which certainly involved E-V13 vs. E-V13 groups as well.

It also explains quite well the high endurance of the Greek language in Greece. Small groups of migrants are always much more easily culturally integrated in any society and their descendants usually see the next group of migrants as foreigners and the cycle repeats itself (the same process has been happening in the USA for many centuries)

It' a bit the same issue as with the original Greek-speakers, if they were R1b-Z2103, why do we see so little of it in Greece today? For Doric speakers it's even more puzzling, since they would have moved south not long before the Iron age. If they were predominantly Z2103 and had sufficient numbers to replace Mycenaean Greek by Doric Greek I would expect to see more Z2103 in adna from the classical age (admittedly we have very little of that) and today.
It would seem either Greek speakers were already much more diverse before they arrived in Greece, maybe because of an intermediate stop in Bulgaria/NW Greece in the 3 millenium BC (in that case it's unlikely to have included V13), or else they formed only a small minority that was successful in transferring their language and culture to locals. If the second scenario turns out real, the Doric speakers would have included haplogroups, maybe also V13.

dosas
03-03-2021, 08:27 AM
It' a bit the same issue as with the original Greek-speakers, if they were R1b-Z2103, why do we see so little of it in Greece today? For Doric speakers it's even more puzzling, since they would have moved south not long before the Iron age. If they were predominantly Z2103 and had sufficient numbers to replace Mycenaean Greek by Doric Greek I would expect to see more Z2103 in adna from the classical age (admittedly we have very little of that) and today.

What classical age samples? Do you mean the Empuries2 from Spain? And what does Z2103 have to do with autosomals? Myceneans already have Steppe in their autosomals.

Hawk
03-03-2021, 08:35 AM
What classical age samples? Do you mean the Empuries2 from Spain? And what does Z2103 have to do with autosomals? Myceneans already have Steppe in their autosomals.

How much of R1b in Greece is R1b-Z2103, i assume i t should be 10-15%, with the rest 3-5% being other subclades. I think that's enough for language switch. All cosmopolitan civilizations are more varied in Y-DNA.

rafc
03-03-2021, 08:45 AM
We also have some E-V13 in East Asia and with more Chinese testing, more will appear. I think a possible connection is what I would call "backflow to the steppe" from the Thracian - Iranian connection in particular. Like to the West, some experts and especially smiths, or any kind of people becoming integrated one way or another into a steppe tribe could have migrated with Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians etc. to different regions. Including Caucasian countries (Armenians), China and the Near East. One important group for the timing in the Near East might be the Kurds. I didn't look more carefully at their E-V13 clades, but they seem to have some. What's their position overall? On YFull there isn't too much about it.

Despite the claims that V13 is relatively high in Kurds, we have very little samples to back this up. As far as I know two of our members, who form a cluster together, are from Kurdistan. They tested CTS5856* with the V13 SNP pack. Evidently many more branches are known today than are tested in the pack, and it's result's for some SNP's were not always a 100% reliable. But it seems probable they belong to a basal clade. I have tried to get them to do a Big Y many times, but no success. For some of our Druze members I've seen claims that they would have Kurdish roots, these Druze are mostly part of BY5022.
We also have an Assyrian from Iraq who tested Z5016* in the pack, he probably is also part of a more basal clade.

rafc
03-03-2021, 08:53 AM
What classical age samples? Do you mean the Empuries2 from Spain?
Yes, and as I said we have very little of it today.


And what does Z2103 have to do with autosomals? Myceneans already have Steppe in their autosomals.
Yes they did. It also seems to fluctuate wildly which might seem to support the idea that the arriving Greeks were a small minority. I guess in the third millennium BC there would have been a strong correlation between having Z2103 and having Steppe DNA.

Aspar
03-03-2021, 09:09 AM
This is the border of the eastern Roman Empire not of greece.

Well what is modern Greece to you?

Greeks are the descendants of the Roman Empire. Until recently their ethnonym was Roman/Rhōmaīoi and the Empire was called Basileķa Rhōmaķōn or simply Romania.
To be more precise, the Greeks are descendants of all those who lived in the Roman Empire where the Koine was lingua franca.

You can see the similarities with the Romanians who in turn are descendants of those who lived in the Roman Empire of the Balkans where Latin was spoken.

In terms of languages today, the Greeks and the Romanians are the real descendants of the Romans in the Balkans before the 6-th century AD when the defensive limes collapsed and the only Roman centers of power to survive were those where Koine was spoken.

Aspar
03-03-2021, 10:34 AM
How much of R1b in Greece is R1b-Z2103, i assume i t should be 10-15%, with the rest 3-5% being other subclades. I think that's enough for language switch. All cosmopolitan civilizations are more varied in Y-DNA.

From the various y-dna studies on Greeks I've seen R1b seems to vary between 10-15%.
Now there are two Greek y-dna projects on FTFNA, one seems active and the other seems abounded:
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Greece?iframe=yresults
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Arcadia?iframe=yresults

The first one has a decent number of members and with a quick look you can see that R-Z2103 and R-L51 are pretty equally represented.
R-Z2103 might be slightly more represented but that's because there are decent numbers of R-Z2705 carriers which doesn't seem to be a proto-Greek isn't it?

Riverman
03-03-2021, 10:37 AM
Despite the claims that V13 is relatively high in Kurds, we have very little samples to back this up. As far as I know two of our members, who form a cluster together, are from Kurdistan. They tested CTS5856* with the V13 SNP pack. Evidently many more branches are known today than are tested in the pack, and it's result's for some SNP's were not always a 100% reliable. But it seems probable they belong to a basal clade. I have tried to get them to do a Big Y many times, but no success. For some of our Druze members I've seen claims that they would have Kurdish roots, these Druze are mostly part of BY5022.
We also have an Assyrian from Iraq who tested Z5016* in the pack, he probably is also part of a more basal clade.

Some Near Eastern subclades look clearly Hellenistic to me, but considering how fairly widespread E-V13 is and was, I think there were more pathways into the region. However, the Kurdish ones could prove to be more ancient and interesting, because they could have entered with early Iranian speakers, regardless of how low their numbers are. But once more, without the full test, we can't know where they being placed.

Hawk
03-03-2021, 10:44 AM
From the various y-dna studies on Greeks I've seen R1b seems to vary between 10-15%.
Now there are two Greek y-dna projects on FTFNA, one seems active and the other seems abounded:
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Greece?iframe=yresults
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Arcadia?iframe=yresults

The first one has a decent number of members and with a quick look you can see that R-Z2103 and R-L51 are pretty equally represented.
R-Z2103 might be slightly more represented but that's because there are decent numbers of R-Z2705 carriers which doesn't seem to be a proto-Greek isn't it?

I am not sure, it looks like R-Z2705 is Proto-Albanian marker, since this lineage boomed after Justinian Pandemics initially within Albanian population after a great vacuum of power.

rafc
03-03-2021, 10:51 AM
Some Near Eastern subclades look clearly Hellenistic to me, but considering how fairly widespread E-V13 is and was, I think there were more pathways into the region. However, the Kurdish ones could prove to be more ancient and interesting, because they could have entered with early Iranian speakers, regardless of how low their numbers are. But once more, without the full test, we can't know where they being placed.

Early Iranian speakers could explain a bit, although I would assume they would have lived far more east than V13 carriers. Other possibilities are early Armenian speakers, who probably lived west of the early Iranian speakers and would have crossed the Caucasus before the Iron age, and nomadic tribes from the early Iron age that also moved south across the Caucasus.

Riverman
03-03-2021, 11:08 AM
and nomadic tribes from the early Iron age that also moved south across the Caucasus.

Prime candidates would be the groups subsumed under "Cimmerian" and those have, without a doubt, a Thracian connection.

Aspar
03-03-2021, 11:24 AM
Prime candidates would be the groups subsumed under "Cimmerian" and those have, without a doubt, a Thracian connection.

Tbh I'm not too sure about that...
Clades like these can't be explained with the nomads who lived on the eastern fringes of Europe:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY14150/ TMRCA 2900 ybp
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY5786/ TMRCA 2500 ybp

Both their distribution but age as well gives me impression of a Roman involvement in the spread rather than steppe nomads.
Also we have to keep in mind that even those Arabs who don't have European matches later than EIA might not necessarily mean that they have older presence in the Middle East. We must keep in mind that the Balkans in particular are not well tested but also that many lineages have died out, especially during the turbulent periods of the late antiquity and early Medieval so a connection like this: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y88062/ TMRCA = 4100 ybp, might actually reflect a historical migration from the Balkans during the Roman period.

Riverman
03-03-2021, 11:30 AM
Tbh I'm not too sure about that...
Clades like these can't be explained with the nomads who lived on the eastern fringes of Europe:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY14150/ TMRCA 2900 ybp
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY5786/ TMRCA 2500 ybp

Both their distribution but age as well gives me impression of a Roman involvement in the spread rather than steppe nomads.
Also we have to keep in mind that even those Arabs who don't have European matches later than EIA might not necessarily mean that they have older presence in the Middle East. We must keep in mind that the Balkans in particular are not well tested but also that many lineages have died out, especially during the turbulent periods of the late antiquity and early Medieval so a connection like this: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y88062/ TMRCA = 4100 ybp, might actually reflect a historical migration from the Balkans during the Roman period.

Especially https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY5786/ might be rather Hellenistic-Roman indeed, there are plenty of opportunities for such a spread, we just have to look at all the Hellenistic empires and their settlements in the wider region.

I just wanted to stress that I think it might have come in at different times, under different circumstances. Just like other European haplotypes which spread in the region as well.

Aspar
03-03-2021, 11:48 AM
Especially https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY5786/ might be rather Hellenistic-Roman indeed, there are plenty of opportunities for such a spread, we just have to look at all the Hellenistic empires and their settlements in the wider region.

I just wanted to stress that I think it might have come in at different times, under different circumstances. Just like other European haplotypes which spread in the region as well.

Yes, it does look so.
And lineages like these are particularly important to make guesses when did most of the E-V13 lineages ended up in the Arab peninsula. Because I believe the group of people that brought BY5786 there also brought plenty of other E-V13 lineages as well. The bulk actually might have arrived exactly during the Hellenistic/Roman period. And the European lineages we see today in the middle east might reflect what was once in the Balkans and other European parts of the Roman Empire.

Hawk
03-03-2021, 12:45 PM
Tbh I'm not too sure about that...
Clades like these can't be explained with the nomads who lived on the eastern fringes of Europe:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY14150/ TMRCA 2900 ybp
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY5786/ TMRCA 2500 ybp

Both their distribution but age as well gives me impression of a Roman involvement in the spread rather than steppe nomads.
Also we have to keep in mind that even those Arabs who don't have European matches later than EIA might not necessarily mean that they have older presence in the Middle East. We must keep in mind that the Balkans in particular are not well tested but also that many lineages have died out, especially during the turbulent periods of the late antiquity and early Medieval so a connection like this: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y88062/ TMRCA = 4100 ybp, might actually reflect a historical migration from the Balkans during the Roman period.

I thought about that too, but that implies magically older E-V13 clades died out and the younger subclades survived which IMO does not explain at all.

Riverman
03-03-2021, 12:56 PM
Yes, it does look so.
And lineages like these are particularly important to make guesses when did most of the E-V13 lineages ended up in the Arab peninsula. Because I believe the group of people that brought BY5786 there also brought plenty of other E-V13 lineages as well. The bulk actually might have arrived exactly during the Hellenistic/Roman period. And the European lineages we see today in the middle east might reflect what was once in the Balkans and other European parts of the Roman Empire.

I totally agree with your general conclusion, but I don't think such lineages in anywhere help us a lot for Europe, because most, and especially E-BY5786 looks like a radical founder effect. Probably some Hellenistic warlord or the like founded a local clan which managed to survive all changes and multiplied by a lot. Its also interesting in this respect, that the more basal clade being found in Iraq, which was surely more affected by Hellenistic Europeans than UA. Considering how bad the testing for Iraq is, this might mean it became already strong in Mesopotamia, around Babylon in the Hellenistic period and later expanded successfully Southward into coastal Arab communities and from there into the whole Eastern Arabian sphere. But all of this could have started with a single individual coming under Greek rule.

broder
03-03-2021, 02:02 PM
Regarding Kurds i don't know their subclades but logically speaking since Kurds during Middle Ages were mountainous and isolated people i don't think their E-V13 was from Roman or Byzantine time, it was rather Balkan to Anatolian migrants during Late Bronze Age, the likes of Phrygians/Mushki who attacked and destroyed Hittite Empire.

Otherwise, all of this explanations by chance are becoming ridicilous when there is no facts of Y-DNA subclade correlation during historical times.

The preception that Kurds have high V13 is based on some scientific studies that show elevated percentages of E1b1b among them. I have looked at a study a while ago that had about 100 Kurdish samples from Iraq. All of their E1b1b looked like V22, M34 etc. Didn't even see one V13.

broder
03-03-2021, 02:04 PM
Tbh I'm not too sure about that...
Clades like these can't be explained with the nomads who lived on the eastern fringes of Europe:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY14150/ TMRCA 2900 ybp
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY5786/ TMRCA 2500 ybp

Both their distribution but age as well gives me impression of a Roman involvement in the spread rather than steppe nomads.
Also we have to keep in mind that even those Arabs who don't have European matches later than EIA might not necessarily mean that they have older presence in the Middle East. We must keep in mind that the Balkans in particular are not well tested but also that many lineages have died out, especially during the turbulent periods of the late antiquity and early Medieval so a connection like this: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y88062/ TMRCA = 4100 ybp, might actually reflect a historical migration from the Balkans during the Roman period.

Exactly. Once Balkans is better profiled those high tmrca's will diminish, at least in most cases. Unless some of those lineages have gone extinct as you suggested.

Hawk
03-03-2021, 02:11 PM
The preception that Kurds have high V13 is based on some scientific studies that show E1b1b elevated percentages among them. I have looked at study a while ago that had about 100 Kurdish samples from Iraq. All of their E1b1b looked like V22, M34 etc. Didn't even see one V13.

It should be ~3-5%. And probably the ones coming from around Turkey having more, a regional difference. I don't really think it's related to any Iranian population. I don't know their subclades, so i cannot say much. We have one Kurd around who is E-V13, but he doesn't seem to be active.

Aspar
03-03-2021, 02:25 PM
I thought about that too, but that implies magically older E-V13 clades died out and the younger subclades survived which IMO does not explain at all.

I don't understand quite what you mean by 'magically older E-V13 clades died out and the younger subclades survived'' because there isn't actually old subclades. All modern men belong to terminal subclades which are young of course, but which are not necessarily defined on the tree as many haven't found their matches to do so.
I'm alone on the Yfull tree *. This doesn't mean I'm an alien without matches in the modern world. I still don't have matches with NGS test who are willing to share their BAM file with a third party such as Yfull.

The same with those Arabs who don't have more recent European matches. Their matches might not have tested yet or simply don't have more recent matches because those branches have died out.

Imagine a Balkan man migrating to the Middle East in the first century BC as a part of some Roman expedition. He works and lives there, marries there and eventually leaves descendants there who will assimilate to the local culture and people.

After two millenniums, this Balkan guy was lucky enough to have his line surviving all the sicknesses and wars and today have plenty of descendants who carry his y-dna. Some of his descendants living today decided to test their male line and discovered that they have matches from the Middle East with TMRCA of 2000 ybp. However, earlier than that all of their other matches are modern Europeans with who they share TMRCA of 4000 ybp or 2000 BCE.
The long bottleneck of 2000 years without matches might indicate that their matches from that period come from a small region where no one has tested yet, or that these matches might never appear because those lineages have died out( not enough descendants like the lucky Balkan migrant in the Middle East or most of them died for some reason). If the Great Alexander didn't manage to leave living descendants who will continue his male line how do you expect an ordinary peasant to so? Modern lineages who show such founder effects are not the norm, they were lucky enough because of some favourable position of their progenitor. So if you don't happen to match with people who are descendants of such a progenitor, then I'm afraid you will be * on the tree much like I am.

Aspar
03-03-2021, 02:36 PM
I totally agree with your general conclusion, but I don't think such lineages in anywhere help us a lot for Europe, because most, and especially E-BY5786 looks like a radical founder effect. Probably some Hellenistic warlord or the like founded a local clan which managed to survive all changes and multiplied by a lot. Its also interesting in this respect, that the more basal clade being found in Iraq, which was surely more affected by Hellenistic Europeans than UA. Considering how bad the testing for Iraq is, this might mean it became already strong in Mesopotamia, around Babylon in the Hellenistic period and later expanded successfully Southward into coastal Arab communities and from there into the whole Eastern Arabian sphere. But all of this could have started with a single individual coming under Greek rule.

I agree.
As for the Middle East, it wasn't just the Greeks who had great influence. The Romans were also quite active in Mesopotamia and Ancient Babylon with the region changing rulers in the faces of the Roman and Sassanid/Partian Empires few times. Second, the Roman Empire was more long lasting than the one created by Alexander where after the initial conquest and migration, no other expeditions from the European part have taken place but the descendants of his Empire such as the Seleukids relied mainly on the local population and were elite who imposed their rule without involving much of migration of people. On the other hand as the Roman Empire was longer lasting, I expect to have been more influential in regards to human flow to the Middle East in the form of legions, administration etc.

Hawk
03-03-2021, 03:06 PM
I don't understand quite what you mean by 'magically older E-V13 clades died out and the younger subclades survived'' because there isn't actually old subclades. All modern men belong to terminal subclades which are young of course, but which are not necessarily defined on the tree as many haven't found their matches to do so.
I'm alone on the Yfull tree *. This doesn't mean I'm an alien without matches in the modern world. I still don't have matches with NGS test who are willing to share their BAM file with a third party such as Yfull.

The same with those Arabs who don't have more recent European matches. Their matches might not have tested yet or simply don't have more recent matches because those branches have died out.

Imagine a Balkan man migrating to the Middle East in the first century BC as a part of some Roman expedition. He works and lives there, marries there and eventually leaves descendants there who will assimilate to the local culture and people.

After two millenniums, this Balkan guy was lucky enough to have his line surviving all the sicknesses and wars and today have plenty of descendants who carry his y-dna. Some of his descendants living today decided to test their male line and discovered that they have matches from the Middle East with TMRCA of 2000 ybp. However, earlier than that all of their other matches are modern Europeans with who they share TMRCA of 4000 ybp or 2000 BCE.
The long bottleneck of 2000 years without matches might indicate that their matches from that period come from a small region where no one has tested yet, or that these matches might never appear because those lineages have died out( not enough descendants like the lucky Balkan migrant in the Middle East or most of them died for some reason). If the Great Alexander didn't manage to leave living descendants who will continue his male line how do you expect an ordinary peasant to so? Modern lineages who show such founder effects are not the norm, they were lucky enough because of some favourable position of their progenitor. So if you don't happen to match with people who are descendants of such a progenitor, then I'm afraid you will be * on the tree much like I am.

I understand that, but they should have a corresponding match in Balkans during the timeline supposedly where they descends from.

The probability is more Early Middle Ages, after 0 A.D (more like 100 - 600 A.D) where local Balkan man started to dominate the Roman legionnaries.

Do we have a concrete proof for this?

Riverman
03-03-2021, 03:38 PM
I understand that, but they should have a corresponding match in Balkans during the timeline supposedly where they descends from.

The probability is more Early Middle Ages, after 0 A.D (more like 100 - 600 A.D) where local Balkan man started to dominate the Roman legionnaries.

Do we have a concrete proof for this?

Many Balkan testers have no corresponding match for that time period, so why should the Near Eastern relatives have one? That's the lack of samples taken. That their progenitor came in Hellenistic-Roman times doesn't have to mean he was a Roman by the way. Could be any kind of person travelling at that time within these empires.

Hawk
03-03-2021, 03:41 PM
Many Balkan testers have no corresponding match for that time period, so why should the Near Eastern relatives have one? That's the lack of samples taken. That their progenitor came in Hellenistic-Roman times doesn't have to mean he was a Roman by the way. Could be any kind of person travelling at that time within these empires.

Ok, makes sense. But that's just a guess game still. Because, anyway E-V13 in Arabs or Kurds is negligible.

Riverman
03-03-2021, 03:46 PM
Ok, makes sense. But that's just a guess game still. Because, anyway E-V13 in Arabs or Kurds is negligible.

And its mostly recent founder effects it seems.

armalite
03-03-2021, 05:33 PM
I think I am a descendant of the Dorians or Sea People's. My haplogroup is E-FGC44177. And my father’s bloodline research also shows that our ancestors may have come to Hungary deep from the Balkans.

Kelmendasi
03-03-2021, 05:38 PM
I think I am a descendant of the Dorians or Sea People's. My haplogroup is E-FGC44177. And my father’s bloodline research also shows that our ancestors may have come to Hungary deep from the Balkans.
What makes you assume the Hellenic Dorians or Sea Peoples specifically? Historically both of these groups did not venture that far up north.

armalite
03-03-2021, 05:54 PM
What makes you assume the Hellenic Dorians or Sea Peoples specifically? Historically both of these groups did not venture that far up north.

Didn't we venture north? Then why was I born in Hungary?

Kelmendasi
03-03-2021, 06:19 PM
Didn't we venture north? Then why was I born in Hungary?
I believe you misunderstood my question. I was curious as to why you believe your specific cluster arrived with the Dorians or Sea Peoples. Can you trace your paternal ancestry back to the Balkans?

Huban
03-03-2021, 07:16 PM
I think I am a descendant of the Dorians or Sea People's. My haplogroup is E-FGC44177. And my father’s bloodline research also shows that our ancestors may have come to Hungary deep from the Balkans.

That is not your likely ancestry, only a minority of Hungarian E-V13 have some likely recent Balkan origin. Though perhaps you are descended of Sea Peoples remnant who stayed in their old area, if that area fits into the North of Danube region which is possible according to some finds. And I say that because this subclade has strong Near-eastern diversity.

You need more profiling or at least some STR's for comparison.

armalite
03-03-2021, 08:32 PM
That is not your likely ancestry, only a minority of Hungarian E-V13 have some likely recent Balkan origin. Though perhaps you are descended of Sea Peoples remnant who stayed in their old area, if that area fits into the North of Danube region which is possible according to some finds. And I say that because this subclade has strong Near-eastern diversity.

You need more profiling or at least some STR's for comparison.

Thanks for the helpful advice!

armalite
03-03-2021, 08:38 PM
I believe you misunderstood my question. I was curious as to why you believe your specific cluster arrived with the Dorians or Sea Peoples. Can you trace your paternal ancestry back to the Balkans?

because 2 theoretical route-making pages also put my FGC44177 group into disrepair.
I think I can rightly believe that my ancestors had something to do with those areas at that stage of the Bronze Age.
If their descendants live for those peoples, who can be more likely than we?

vettor
03-03-2021, 09:30 PM
Prime candidates would be the groups subsumed under "Cimmerian" and those have, without a doubt, a Thracian connection.

Cimmerian is modern sochi area of Russia ...............these people where the border of Thracian peoples ( being second biggest race of the world according to Herodotus )

It is said these cimmerian where in majority blonde hair and blue eyes

vasil
03-03-2021, 10:39 PM
Cimmerian is modern sochi area of Russia ...............these people where the border of Thracian peoples ( being second biggest race of the world according to Herodotus )

It is said these cimmerian where in majority blonde hair and blue eyes

Whether they were blonde, red or blue haired makes no difference even autosomal dna is sometimes not very predictive of whether you are light or dark for instance i can tell you that my grandmother from Northwestern Bulgaria is more Northern European than most other Bulgarians who are blonde and blue eyed but she is has swarthy skin, brown eyes and wavy black hair that hasnt gone white even now when she is 74 light snps are recesive and you need to inherit them from both parents there are also plenty of dark eyed and skinned Northwestern Europeans too and the Thracians also had some Northern European so i see no problem for E-V13 in the steppe to be of Balkan origin.

broder
03-04-2021, 01:58 AM
It should be ~3-5%. And probably the ones coming from around Turkey having more, a regional difference. I don't really think it's related to any Iranian population. I don't know their subclades, so i cannot say much. We have one Kurd around who is E-V13, but he doesn't seem to be active.

These 110 Kurds from Iraqi Kurdistan that I mentioned are from Nebel et al study. Their E1b1b level was at 7.4% actually.

Trojet
03-04-2021, 02:53 AM
Thought I would share a Big Y-700 result of an Albanian from Kosovė that recently came out at Albanian Bloodlines - Gjenetika.com. He tested E-Y3183 (S2972-) and will form a subclade defined by BY5330 + etc with YF01502, Bulgarian from Plovdiv. Their TMRCA should be 1000-1500 ybp (https://www.yfull.com/live/tree/E-Y3183/)

Worth mentioning that we previously confirmed another Albanian sample, from Tirana region, that tested E-Y3183 (S2972-) at YSEQ (http://www.gjenetika.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/E-Z5018.png) and the STR distance is high as compared to the Albanian from Kosovė. The high genetic distance suggests that the sample from Tiranė would either split upstream or form another E-Y3183 (S2972-) subclade.

Hawk
03-04-2021, 07:50 AM
That is not your likely ancestry, only a minority of Hungarian E-V13 have some likely recent Balkan origin. Though perhaps you are descended of Sea Peoples remnant who stayed in their old area, if that area fits into the North of Danube region which is possible according to some finds. And I say that because this subclade has strong Near-eastern diversity.

You need more profiling or at least some STR's for comparison.

In the end, it will result that Marija Gimbutas was right regarding Late Bronze Age of Balkans just as she was right about her systematization of Kurgan theory.

dosas
03-04-2021, 08:59 AM
A question that might be off-topic. Are all of these Albanian clades uploaded to YFULL or somewhere else?

rafc
03-04-2021, 09:51 AM
Thought I would share a Big Y-700 result of an Albanian from Kosovė that recently came out at Albanian Bloodlines - Gjenetika.com. He tested E-Y3183 (S2972-) and will form a subclade defined by BY5330 + etc with YF01502, Bulgarian from Plovdiv. Their TMRCA should be 1000-1500 ybp (https://www.yfull.com/live/tree/E-Y3183/)

Worth mentioning that we previously confirmed another Albanian sample, from Tirana region, that tested E-Y3183 (S2972-) at YSEQ (http://www.gjenetika.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/E-Z5018.png) and the STR distance is high as compared to the Albanian from Kosovė. The high genetic distance suggests that the sample from Tiranė would either split upstream or form another E-Y3183 (S2972-) subclade.

Those old clades of Y3183 are quite fascinating. At FTDNA we have another Bulgarian who is in a small subclade with a German, and there is also a Morrocan sample who is negative for all Y3183 subclades. Compared to CTS9320 and L241 it also seem to have far less Central/Eastern European members, but no idea what it means.

Riverman
03-04-2021, 10:26 AM
Those old clades of Y3183 are quite fascinating. At FTDNA we have another Bulgarian who is in a small subclade with a German, and there is also a Morrocan sample who is negative for all Y3183 subclades. Compared to CTS9320 and L241 it also seem to have far less Central/Eastern European members, but no idea what it means.

Even if it would be correct that the original centre and base of E-V13 was in the North Carpathians, they could have "send" individuals and small clans in all directions at an earlier time as well. So one doesn't exclude the other. Not saying this is the case for this concrete example, but just stressing it more generally speaking. So even single ancient individuals which could pop up by chance are not key as long as they can't be connected to the main spreading event. The main spreading event and its source population and culture is what interests me the most and this leads to the North Carpathians the strongest. Another issue is that even old subclades can move with newer ones. The age is more important for younger dates, because then it tells us there must have been a common ancestor in this time frame. Like in this case, the clade is old, but the subclade is probably a new Balkan one, fitting exactly into that pattern.
There are various Central European E-Y3183, but most have a TMRCA to others from the Balkan in the Bronze Age. Same for the small subclade of the Bulgarian and the German, they share one mutation, but the average SNP distance is the same as for the basal ones. So the split is of the same age - so even older than for many other clades and subclades of E-V13 between NCE and SEE.

Even the later subclades are still very old, but sometimes post-Iron Age. Yet those post-Iron Age show a clear geographical pattern, like E-BY44794. And its the same in practically all branches. It looks like one big dispersion event in the LBA-EIA and after that a rather moderate survival rate, without too much of rapid expansions with some regional exceptions, especially in the Balkans.

Huban
03-04-2021, 03:20 PM
Thought I would share a Big Y-700 result of an Albanian from Kosovė that recently came out at Albanian Bloodlines - Gjenetika.com. He tested E-Y3183 (S2972-) and will form a subclade defined by BY5330 + etc with YF01502, Bulgarian from Plovdiv. Their TMRCA should be 1000-1500 ybp (https://www.yfull.com/live/tree/E-Y3183/)

Worth mentioning that we previously confirmed another Albanian sample, from Tirana region, that tested E-Y3183 (S2972-) at YSEQ (http://www.gjenetika.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/E-Z5018.png) and the STR distance is high as compared to the Albanian from Kosovė. The high genetic distance suggests that the sample from Tiranė would either split upstream or form another E-Y3183 (S2972-) subclade.

Interesting, this is a branch with a modal haplotype. Nevertheless among Bulgarians there are three separate E-Y3183*, S2972- clades: E-BY5350, E-BY174450 and as of yet an unprofiled cluster with an SNP pack. Interestingly like E-BY174450 who cluster with a German, they also have a cousin in Austria.

@Rafc E-BY174450 is not such a small cluster. In addition to Bulgarian with BigY, there is another FTDNA Bulgarian belonging to it and they are not close (8/37). There is also a Romanian (9/37 and 6/37 with these). Due to distinct STR profile, there are multiple additional Bulgarians, Macedonian Greeks, Romanian, and a N.Macedonian from scientific papers.

The third unprofiled E-Y3183* cluster has even more members: North Macedonians, Bulgarian, Romanian, Hungarian, Ruthenian, three Macedonian Greeks and three Greeks from Korinthia who are of non-Arvanite origin (they were tested in a study about Greek colonization where the people of Arvanite origin were excluded).

Chances are your second E-Y3183* Albanian from Tirana belongs to one of these clusters. Considering the general diversity of this branch, it is quite unlikely these are Antiquity locals in the Western Balkans. E-Y3183 has also various downstream branches in Bulgaria, and a cluster of Basarabi from Romania belongs to one of these isolated clades. Only the Kuchi branch seems to have an older presence in the Western Balkans, most likely arrivals in LBA/EIA.

Rather similarly to Shala R-PF7563>Y83965 they might even fit into some Bessi of Gottfried Schram.

There are E-V13 Albanians who do not appear to be of Illyrian origin at all. For example the E-PH1173 Albanians (dys439=9), and also E-FGC71980 Albanian clusters between the Greeks, and their c. 2000 year distant relative in Bulgaria..

Riverman
03-04-2021, 03:28 PM
There are E-V13 Albanians who do not appear to be of Illyrian origin at all. For example the E-PH1173 Albanians (dys439=9), and also E-FGC71980 Albanian clusters between the Greeks, and their c. 2000 year distant relative in Bulgaria..

What about Greek and Roman colonists in Albania by the way? We know a slight influence from the North West and the strong Albanian influence in parts of Greece. But what about the other direction in Antiquity?

Sorcelow
03-04-2021, 03:41 PM
Interesting, this is a branch with a modal haplotype. Nevertheless among Bulgarians there are three separate E-Y3183*, S2972- clades: E-BY5350, E-BY174450 and as of yet an unprofiled cluster with an SNP pack. Interestingly like E-BY174450 who cluster with a German, they also have a cousin in Austria.

@Rafc E-BY174450 is not such a small cluster. In addition to Bulgarian with BigY, there is another FTDNA Bulgarian belonging to it and they are not close (8/37). There is also a Romanian (9/37 and 6/37 with these). Due to distinct STR profile, there are multiple additional Bulgarians, Macedonian Greeks, Romanian, and a N.Macedonian from scientific papers.

The third unprofiled E-Y3183* cluster has even more members: North Macedonians, Bulgarian, Romanian, Hungarian, Ruthenian, three Macedonian Greeks and three Greeks from Korinthia who are of non-Arvanite origin (they were tested in a study about Greek colonization where the people of Arvanite origin were excluded).

Chances are your second E-Y3183* Albanian from Tirana belongs to one of these clusters. Considering the general diversity of this branch, it is quite unlikely these are Antiquity locals in the Western Balkans. E-Y3183 has also various downstream branches in Bulgaria, and a cluster of Basarabi from Romania belongs to one of these isolated clades. Only the Kuchi branch seems to have an older presence in the Western Balkans, most likely arrivals in LBA/EIA.

Rather similarly to Shala R-PF7563>Y83965 they might even fit into some Bessi of Gottfried Schram.

There are E-V13 Albanians who do not appear to be of Illyrian origin at all. For example the E-PH1173 Albanians (dys439=9), and also E-FGC71980 Albanian clusters between the Greeks, and their c. 2000 year distant relative in Bulgaria..

Do you have a link to the Greek study you could provide? Thank you.

Huban
03-04-2021, 03:52 PM
What about Greek and Roman colonists in Albania by the way? We know a slight influence from the North West and the strong Albanian influence in parts of Greece. But what about the other direction in Antiquity?

The influence was so large that various Southern Illyrian tribes were bilingual. And even this Southern Albanian Illyrian culture is hypothesized to have had Greek input.

There is also a Serb with a tradition of descend from Montenegro. He has an unusual haplotype and fully matches one Macedonain Greek. He is E-A7135*, A8555-. So if that Macedonian is E-A7136, there are five separate Y3183 clades in Greeks, although you only see those from Laconia at YFull due to their poor level of testing.

E-Y3183 overall has no less than nine separate branches in the Southeastern Europe whose distance to one another is at least the Early Iron Age.

Huban
03-04-2021, 04:08 PM
Do you have a link to the Greek study you could provide? Thank you.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2015124

104 Greeks from Corinthia, 93 from Euboea. Arvanite ancestry people excluded (therefore I believe there was no R-Z2705 and they usually appear in Greek samples).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1872497309000052

191 Greek from Macedonia (various regions)

And in these there are at least 8-9 E-Y3183 Greeks. Especially regarding this third E-Y3183* branch one has to assume that this clade might be Greek as it occurs in both Macedonian Greeks and in those from Corinthia, and it's more common in Greeks than in other peoples.

rafc
03-04-2021, 04:22 PM
https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2015124

104 Greeks from Corinthia, 93 from Euboea. Arvanite ancestry people excluded (therefore I believe there was no R-Z2705 and they usually appear in Greek samples).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1872497309000052

191 Greek from Macedonia (various regions)

And in these there are at least 8-9 E-Y3183 Greeks. Especially regarding this third E-Y3183* branch one has to assume that this clade might be Greek as it occurs in both Macedonian Greeks and in those from Corinthia, and it's more common in Greeks than in other peoples.

I would be careful with classifications based on 17 markers. Are you sure they cannot be anything else?

Huban
03-04-2021, 04:27 PM
I would be careful with classifications based on 17 markers. Are you sure they cannot be anything else?

I am very careful with such classifications. They cannot possibly be anything else, because:
1) they are defined by a range of very unusual and stable STR's,
2) due to their GD to the SNP profiled people (often almost identical haplotypes).

Some clades are just lucky in that they have crucial mutations happening in those 17.:)

rafc
03-04-2021, 04:33 PM
I am very careful with such classifications. They cannot possibly be anything else, because:
1) they are defined by a range of very unusual and stable STR's,
2) due to their GD to the SNP profiled people (often almost identical haplotypes).

Some clades are just lucky in that they have crucial mutations happening in those 17.:)

Indeed, sometimes we are lucky with very distinctive markers. What are the mutations for that third Y3183 group then?

Huban
03-04-2021, 04:43 PM
Indeed, sometimes we are lucky with very distinctive markers. What are the mutations for that third Y3183 group then?

FTDNA kit 122515, I believe Bulgarian with origins from Macedonia. His distant relative is Austrian 348774.

Balkans cluster shares:
dys385a=17
GATAH4=10
dys438=11

Also dys456=15 is slightly more common than 16, not sure if that also defines something in the cluster, it seems the entire E-Z16659 is defined by a backmutation there.

You can see Bulgarian and Austrian also share dys447. Austrian doesn't share low H4. One Greek from Macedonia also has the old H4=11. That might be an indication he is the oldest Balkan haplotype, or his private mutation.

mikulic33
03-04-2021, 05:53 PM
I do not know whether it was already mentioned here but the first thing which came to my mind having seen the Y3183 sample from Marocco was a Roman inscription from the 3th century AD: "CIL 8.9381 = ILS 2763 records 1,000 Bessian recruits sent to Mauretania Tingitana"

"D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum) Sex(tus) Iul(ius) Iulianus / ex Germania superiore{m} / tribunus n(umeri) Syrorum M(a)l/vensium hic sepultus est / <c=D>um deducit iuniores Bessos / |(mille) in Tingitana(m) provinciam / qui vixit annis XXXXV cui / mon<u=I>mentum fecit / Iul(ius) Ingenuus frater / et heres curante / Sacimatho / liberto eiusdem / defuncti"

Johane Derite
03-04-2021, 06:02 PM
I do not know whether it was already mentioned here but the first thing which came to my mind having seen the Y3183 sample from Marocco was a Roman inscription from the 3th century AD: "CIL 8.9381 = ILS 2763 records 1,000 Bessian recruits sent to Mauretania Tingitana"

"D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum) Sex(tus) Iul(ius) Iulianus / ex Germania superiore{m} / tribunus n(umeri) Syrorum M(a)l/vensium hic sepultus est / <c=D>um deducit iuniores Bessos / |(mille) in Tingitana(m) provinciam / qui vixit annis XXXXV cui / mon<u=I>mentum fecit / Iul(ius) Ingenuus frater / et heres curante / Sacimatho / liberto eiusdem / defuncti"


Here are other Bessi that were recorded as stationed in Germany, Sardina, Italy, Spain, Greece, Pannonia:

https://edh-www.adw.uni-heidelberg.de/inschrift/suche?qs=bessus

mikulic33
03-04-2021, 06:50 PM
Here are other Bessi that were recorded as stationed in Germany, Sardina, Italy, Spain, Greece, Pannonia:

https://edh-www.adw.uni-heidelberg.de/inschrift/suche?qs=bessus

There are some other correlations under Y3183. For example, BY5423 shows a migrational pattern and some other connections related to the Vlach migrations in the middle ages. The writer Kekaumenos gives us an explanation of their origins in his Strategikon from the 11th century and claims that they are descendants from the Dacians and the Bessi. His statement was maybe anachronistic but I would not exclude that some Vlachs in the 11th century had a living oral tradition in this direction.

Aspar
03-04-2021, 07:45 PM
There are some other correlations under Y3183. For example, BY5423 shows a migrational pattern and some other connections related to the Vlach migrations in the middle ages. The writer Kekaumenos gives us an explanation of their origins in his Strategikon from the 11th century and claims that they are descendants from the Dacians and the Bessi. His statement was maybe anachronistic but I would not exclude that some Vlachs in the 11th century had a living oral tradition in this direction.

Unlikely.

First of all, we have to keep in mind that 'Vlach' is an exonym. The Vlachs actually call themselves Aromanians or Romanians which simply means Roman. That along with their language means they were completely assimilated into the Roman Empire and culture. The medieval invasions cut them off completely from the Roman centers of power so the Vlachs became somewhat barbarised. What their pre-Roman origins are however can be said by their culture and customs they managed to keep.

I can tell you of several such customs but as I don't have the time ATM I will quickly write about two of them.

1. Rusalii - This custom was practiced by the Meglen Vlachs and the surrounding Bulgarian population. It is a combat dance called Rusalia and practiced around some religious holidays while the peasantry gave them presence and money. This custom was kept alive because unlike many other pagan customs, it's collections of money were directly given to the church and because of that it wasn't restricted by the church probably. The very name Rusalia means nothing in the Slavic languages but it means Pentecost in Aromanian and Meglen Vlach so I believe this custom and dance was taught by the Bulgarians from the Vlachs or very probably, the Vlachs were actually Bulgarized as the Bulgarian Empire and Church was dominating over the Vlachs.
The first mentioning of this custom comes from an account of the archbishop of Ohrid Demetrios Chomatenos around the early 13-th century who condemned some killing in relation with festivals known as Rusalia and Brumalia. It is believed that Rusalia is a heritage of the ancient Roman festival of Rosalia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalia_(festival)) while Brumalia in the account of Chomatenos is the ancient Roman festival of Brumalia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brumalia) which was again in relation with the Thracian or more specifically their God Dyonisius or Bachus.

2. Martenica or Mărțișor (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martenitsa) - a tradition kept alive in Bulgaria, N.Macedonia, Greece, Romania and Moldova and which spread in all these countries was initiated by the Vlachs. The tradition is related to the ancient pagan history of the Balkan Peninsula and to all agricultural cults of nature. Some specific features of the ritual, especially tying the twisted white and red woolen threads, are a result of centuries-old tradition and suggest Thracian origins!

mikulic33
03-04-2021, 07:52 PM
I cannot detect what in your explanations contradicts Kekaumenos claim that some of the Vlachs had Bessi origins.

Aspar
03-04-2021, 08:30 PM
The writer Kekaumenos gives us an explanation of their origins in his Strategikon from the 11th century and claims that they are descendants from the Dacians and the Bessi. His statement was maybe anachronistic but I would not exclude that some Vlachs in the 11th century had a living oral tradition in this direction.

I actually answered on your remark in bolded part...

rafc
03-04-2021, 08:42 PM
FTDNA kit 122515, I believe Bulgarian with origins from Macedonia. His distant relative is Austrian 348774.

Balkans cluster shares:
dys385a=17
GATAH4=10
dys438=11

Also dys456=15 is slightly more common than 16, not sure if that also defines something in the cluster, it seems the entire E-Z16659 is defined by a backmutation there.

You can see Bulgarian and Austrian also share dys447. Austrian doesn't share low H4. One Greek from Macedonia also has the old H4=11. That might be an indication he is the oldest Balkan haplotype, or his private mutation.

So only one of this group is tested Y3183 for now? I do not exclude they form a subclade together, but it's also not that obvious from the data.

Bruzmi
03-04-2021, 09:18 PM
All of these theories about E-V13 in Dorians, Sea Peoples, Bessi etc etc etc are unsupported by actual data and some are outright implausible (for example, Dorians as some E-V13 group). When aDNA studies occur we will learn more, but I wouldn't expect a model which will explain E-V13 as the hg of one particular group which spread it everywhere else.

Instead of looking for theories without data, it's better to focus on the actual, documented migrations which took place. There's a lot of talk about basal clades and ancestral areas but admittedly for many samples even basic profiling which will tell us where their ancestors lived in the last 200 years doesn't exist. There's not much point in discussing distance between samples, when all you know about them comes from a flag icon on yfull.

Bane
03-04-2021, 09:27 PM
Instead of looking for theories without data, it's better to focus on the actual, documented migrations which took place.

For example?

Hawk
03-04-2021, 09:31 PM
All of these theories about E-V13 in Dorians, Sea Peoples, Bessi etc etc etc are unsupported by actual data and some are outright implausible (for examples, Dorians as some E-V13 group). When aDNA studies occur we will learn more, but I wouldn't expect a model which will explain E-V13 as the hg of one particular group which spread it everywhere else.

Instead of looking for theories without data, it's better to focus on the actual, documented migrations which took place. There's a lot of talk about basal clades and ancestral areas but admittedly for many samples even basic profiling which will tell us where their ancestors lived in the last 200 years doesn't exist. There's not much point in discussing distance between samples, when all you know about them comes from a flag icon on yfull.

We do have some interesting points/leaks so far.

Total lack of E-V13 from Late Neolithic Bulgaria, Early Bronze Age and then every Thracian sample belonging to E-V13 starting from Early Iron Age.

It's well known that Balkans was totally overrun by Danubian migrants during Late Bronze Age. So, in turn there is no better candidate to explain this changes than E-V13. Otherwise, do us a favor and tell us which Y-DNA do you propose as a factor in this migrations and changes?

Korabi
03-04-2021, 09:47 PM
We do have some interesting points/leaks so far.

Total lack of E-V13 from Late Neolithic Bulgaria, Early Bronze Age and then every Thracian sample belonging to E-V13 starting from Early Iron Age.

It's well known that Balkans was totally overrun by Danubian migrants during Late Bronze Age. So, in turn there is no better candidate to explain this changes than E-V13. Otherwise, do us a favor and tell us which Y-DNA do you propose as a factor in this migrations and changes?

Is it really logical to link whole migration events of a culture/cultures with one haplogroup?

I highly doubt any ancient nigration from the Danube was that homogeneous. Not disagreeing with your underlying statement. I'm just sure there's more than one haplogroup involved in that process.

Hawk
03-04-2021, 09:52 PM
Is it really logical to link whole migration events of a culture/cultures with one haplogroup?

I highly doubt any ancient nigration from the Danube was that homogeneous. Not disagreeing with your underlying statement. I'm just sure there's more than one haplogroup involved in that process.

No, that's not possible for sure. But maybe around ~50-60% E-V13 (just a guess).

mikulic33
03-04-2021, 09:59 PM
The influence was so large that various Southern Illyrian tribes were bilingual. And even this Southern Albanian Illyrian culture is hypothesized to have had Greek input.

There is also a Serb with a tradition of descend from Montenegro. He has an unusual haplotype and fully matches one Macedonain Greek. He is E-A7135*, A8555-. So if that Macedonian is E-A7136, there are five separate Y3183 clades in Greeks, although you only see those from Laconia at YFull due to their poor level of testing.

E-Y3183 overall has no less than nine separate branches in the Southeastern Europe whose distance to one another is at least the Early Iron Age.

Is there a source for this Macedonian Greek “fully matching” the Montenegrin sample under A7136?

Korabi
03-04-2021, 10:16 PM
No, that's not possible for sure. But maybe around ~50-60% E-V13 (just a guess).

I suppose time will tell. Definitely need quite a bit of ancient DNA at all intervals of antiquity to get a pretty nice picture of things.

Hawk
03-04-2021, 10:22 PM
I suppose time will tell. Definitely need quite a bit of ancient DNA at all intervals of antiquity to get a pretty nice picture of things.

Well, we are still in a way doing guess games, but even if we are wrong it still doesn't matter as long as we don't get blindfolded by facts. aDNA has never ceased to amaze us every time.

Bruzmi
03-04-2021, 10:50 PM
We do have some interesting points/leaks so far.

Total lack of E-V13 from Late Neolithic Bulgaria, Early Bronze Age and then every Thracian sample belonging to E-V13 starting from Early Iron Age.

It's well known that Balkans was totally overrun by Danubian migrants during Late Bronze Age. So, in turn there is no better candidate to explain this changes than E-V13. Otherwise, do us a favor and tell us which Y-DNA do you propose as a factor in this migrations and changes?

"every Thracian sample belonging to E-V13 starting from Early Iron Age." A couple of points here. There are very few samples which have been recovered and we would have to check the context of each site before we place the label "Thracian" (or any label). We have (almost?) no samples from the western Balkans. When the sample size is so small, I think that conclusions should be very limited.

"It's well known that Balkans was totally overrun by Danubian migrants during Late Bronze Age." Is it?

The third edition of The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 B.C. (https://books.google.com/books?id=lf3RDwAAQBAJ) by Robert Drews was published in 2020 (Princeton University Press):

Even in the earlier excavations the quantity of this "barbarian ware" at any site was minute (at Korakou, for example, sixteen sherds). And now, as Podzuweit points out, the excavations at Tiryns not only confirm that "barbarian ware" was a negligible commodity in the LH IIIC period, but also that its use began before the Catastrophe rather than after it. Nor do the new metal artifacts (which point as much to Italy as to the central Balkans) indicate a migration. The best explanation for the fibulae seems to be, as Desborough argued, that they were first brought from the Balkans (or Italy) to Greece over trade routes, or by individuals and small groups and eventually were copied and produced by Mycenaean artisans.

The Naue Type II sword, we shall see in chapter 13, is undoubtedly a central European and northern Italian type, but the specimens found in Greece in LH IIIC contexts came from "Greek" tombs and were accompanied by "Greek" pottery. One would therefore suppose that Greek-speakers had acquired the swords and learned how to use them. Or as Herctor Catling suggested, one might imagine these Naue Type II swords in the hands of mercenaries who had joined the service of Helladic kingdoms or communities. In short, there may have been movement of people from the Balkans into Greece and western Asia Minor during and shortly after the Catastrophe, just as there had always been but what movement there was must have been limited to individuals, families, and small groups of families. There is no evidence for a general migration, to say nothing of a migration responsible for the destruction of the IIIB sites.


We should keep things simple until we do have results. What would be great is if there was some crowdfunding effort under the project of an archaeological institute in the Balkans in order to produce aDNA recovery for remains of individuals which have been "assigned" with high probability to a particular Iron Age culture.

Hawk
03-04-2021, 11:25 PM
It's the same leftist archeologists who will be proven wrong again and again just as they were with Kurgan theory.

Riverman
03-04-2021, 11:29 PM
"every Thracian sample belonging to E-V13 starting from Early Iron Age." A couple of points here. There are very few samples which have been recovered and we would have to check the context of each site before we place the label "Thracian" (or any label). We have (almost?) no samples from the western Balkans. When the sample size is so small, I think that conclusions should be very limited.

"It's well known that Balkans was totally overrun by Danubian migrants during Late Bronze Age." Is it?

The third edition of The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 B.C. (https://books.google.com/books?id=lf3RDwAAQBAJ) by Robert Drews was published in 2020 (Princeton University Press):

Even in the earlier excavations the quantity of this "barbarian ware" at any site was minute (at Korakou, for example, sixteen sherds). And now, as Podzuweit points out, the excavations at Tiryns not only confirm that "barbarian ware" was a negligible commodity in the LH IIIC period, but also that its use began before the Catastrophe rather than after it. Nor do the new metal artifacts (which point as much to Italy as to the central Balkans) indicate a migration. The best explanation for the fibulae seems to be, as Desborough argued, that they were first brought from the Balkans (or Italy) to Greece over trade routes, or by individuals and small groups and eventually were copied and produced by Mycenaean artisans.

The Naue Type II sword, we shall see in chapter 13, is undoubtedly a central European and northern Italian type, but the specimens found in Greece in LH IIIC contexts came from "Greek" tombs and were accompanied by "Greek" pottery. One would therefore suppose that Greek-speakers had acquired the swords and learned how to use them. Or as Herctor Catling suggested, one might imagine these Naue Type II swords in the hands of mercenaries who had joined the service of Helladic kingdoms or communities. In short, there may have been movement of people from the Balkans into Greece and western Asia Minor during and shortly after the Catastrophe, just as there had always been but what movement there was must have been limited to individuals, families, and small groups of families. There is no evidence for a general migration, to say nothing of a migration responsible for the destruction of the IIIB sites.


We should keep things simple until we do have results. What would be great is if there was some crowdfunding effort under the project of an archaeological institute in the Balkans in order to produce aDNA recovery for remains of individuals which have been "assigned" with high probability to a particular Iron Age culture.

There is this general tendency in post-1960's archaeology to prefer, if everything else is equal, a local origin, oftentimes even arguing for a regional scenario if all the evidence stands against it, like searching for a way out of any invasion scenario. Yet it is very clear, that what happened can only be explained by massive movements of people. There is the evidence, and they play it down. Its ridiculous from my point of view, but you are still right: We need the actual data to close the case, because once people have to accept that whole male clans being eliminated in the course of events and replaced, like in Iberia, they can't argue for a regional origin any more.
However, even in the Iberian case they still argue for a slower pace and possible spread by dominant males over many generations, which too is ridiculous. Because it was, at that time, primarily about clans and tribes, not individuals.

What's correct however is, that in a lot of cases there seems to have been something like a trickling of smaller groups of migrants first, as workers, mercenaries and so on, and then an overtake of the migrants and their relatives. Actually quite similar to what happened with the steppe invasion of Tripolye-Cucuteni before or the Roman end in the migraiton period many centuries later. The story is oftentimes the same: First contacts, transfer of goods and ideas, small scale migration, they learn of each other, at some point the demographically and militarily stronger side, probably in a favourable moment, takes over and a large portion of the indigenous population, especially its male part, being annihilated and replaced, the material culture shifts, sometimes its a near total societal collapse. That's a common theme, it happened again and again, since the Upper Palaeolithic period we have evidence for this, most likely it dates back even longer, even to pre-Homo sapiens times.

The reason for the massive influx and high frequency of E-V13 is simple: You need a scenario which explains the outcome. If there would have been a slow but steady increase over time in the crucial regions, other scenarios might be plausible. But since there was none, pretty much like in Iberia or Britain with Bell Beakers, it was a massive, grand scale invasion and replacement. And the best timing for it is the crucial LBA-EIA transition and ethnically a focus on the Daco-Thracian expansion primarily, the Illyrian, Celtic and Dorian secondarily. That's also good to explain, because of the networks established and at work during Urnfield and Hallstatt respectively, which connected these people and regions.

Bruzmi
03-04-2021, 11:42 PM
It's the same leftist archeologists who will be proven wrong again and again just as they were with Kurgan theory.

Em...Robert Drews is the author of The Coming of the Greeks: Indo-European Conquests in the Aegean and the Near East (https://books.google.com/books?id=coNaDwAAQBAJ) and for many years has been opposed to the Anatolian hypothesis so I'm not sure how your comment about "leftist archaeologists" and the Kurgan theory is related to his work. Not that it's about what one author has to say or not. It's about the data. They don't confirm the theories about mass migrations/invasions of single groups which caused radical changes.

Speaking of which (The Coming of the Greeks: Indo-European Conquests in the Aegean and the Near East, p.39):
Among specialists there is now a rough consensus that Aeolic developed in eastern Thessaly, which was - as John Chadwick proposed in an important article in 1956 - a "buffer zone" between North and South Greek. (..) It also appears (although on this point there is more debate) that ca. 1200 BC Aeolic and Doric were not yet - or not much -differentiated. Finally, there is considerable agreement that 1200 BC North and South Greek were linguistically not very far apart: speakers of North and South Greek were more readily intelligible (..)

Huban
03-05-2021, 12:27 AM
So only one of this group is tested Y3183 for now? I do not exclude they form a subclade together, but it's also not that obvious from the data.

I believe it is very much obvious. The Austrian is quite obviously distantly related to the Bulgarian, at least chance is enormous as they are both SNP tested. The majority of samples is related to Bulgarian, the statistical probability has to be 99 % or more. Because not only that their GD indicates relation, but these very mutations they share clearly indicate a cluster in the Balkans. You have a set of mutations on slower/very slow STR's, you have the GD closeness, there is the factor of geographic proximity in the area. Only little doubtful can be the Greek Corinthia samples who lack dys385. Have you even taken a proper look at these? For example their dys456=15/16 alone logically is an indication of being Z16659+, that aids in classification. I believe from the context it is very much clear this is a cluster and saying that it isn't is setting a bar high, extremely high and in this case I find it very much irrational, because there are clusters precited as belonging to various clades at FTDNA who have Y67 or even more but who have far less case for such a thing than these, due to "lucky" set of circumstances in this clusters case.

Riverman
03-05-2021, 12:33 AM
It's about the data. They don't confirm the theories about mass migrations/invasions of single groups which caused radical changes.

Be careful. What they really have proven is that there were contacts and migrants for a longer time before the collapse. So like I said above, "the Barbarians" were at the doors and seem to have participated in various ways, from slaves, merchants to mercenaries and so on, in the pre-collapse society. This means it was not rapid influx, at least not necessarily, of unknown newcomers, but they were there already. Just like steppe people traded and some even lived among Tripolye Cucuteni, or Germanics and Sarmatians close by and in Roman settlements.
That's what they really found. Whether these people already present took over, or there was no takeover, but just a collapse, or there were new tribes coming in from the North, or a combination thereof, the data they gathered doesn't tell. That's not what they can tell, because local people can adopt new ways, smaller scale migrations can cause a change, or a massive influx of newcomers can - or a combination and different scenarios for different regions and places.

But don't say they have disproven the invasion, that's not the case from my point of view. They just have proven an earlier presence of tribals. But you could say the same about Germanics in Roman provinces, and some even argue for a "slow change", yet whole tribes with hundreds of thousands of people and tens of thousands of warriors actually invaded Roman provinces on various occasions nevertheless. The original change in the material culture was, oftentimes, less pronounced than in Greece at that period.

So the last word has come from DNA studies, because this is the only source which can, without a doubt, prove or disprove whether a people was the same or changed quite a lot.

Huban
03-05-2021, 01:06 AM
"every Thracian sample belonging to E-V13 starting from Early Iron Age." A couple of points here. There are very few samples which have been recovered and we would have to check the context of each site before we place the label "Thracian" (or any label). We have (almost?) no samples from the western Balkans. When the sample size is so small, I think that conclusions should be very limited.

E-V13 looking by the evidence in SNP basal diversity clearly is a group that started out in the Western Balkans. And then massively expanded to the Central/Eastern and Carpathian areas.

Albanians display a completely irrational tendency to "Albananise" the entire E-V13. The reasons are several:
- the victimology based autochthonism - sported by many many peoples, we were there before you, "until the bad invaders came". From my ideological POV invaders are not necessarily bad so..
- to satisfy the determination of the great historian Enver Hoxha that Albanians are descended of Illyrians. And therefore we have to find an Illyrian connection for everything. It's not enough that we are 40, 50 % Illyrian, we have to be 80, no 90, no, 99, no 100 % Illyrian..

E-V13 did experience an enormous expansion at multiple points, first one already in EBA. When we see analogies in other haplogroups, such expansions are almost always closely related to migratory events. See R-Z93 expansion, see R-L51 expansion etc.

A nascent culture experiences a small growth and then their surroundings become too small, confined or resource lacking and they decide to go elsewhere. Having already built up numbers, developed a more aggressive way of life this groups had from an evolutionary perspective far exceeded its initial level. As such it becomes a serious threat to whatever natives it encounters during its expansion. So an expansion occurs, either the invader is strong enough to conquer the "natives" or the natives prevail.

J-L283 has already had a similar expansion into the Western Balkans from a limited demographic base (Mokrin find). So they go from SE Pannonia into the W.Balkans. For E-V13 the pattern is opposite.

To shorten. I don't care about Illyrians, Thracians, Greeks or whatever. I care that my haplogroup (E-V13) "kicks ass". If it expanded in the Western Balkans it cannot do that. Because there J-L283 already does that. And already we know E-V13 from aDNA that E-V13 has caused a massive population replacement in the Eastern Balkans. So the vector is obvious.

"broder" had on multiple occasions espoused the view that E-V13 are "Pelasgian slaves" that were farming peacefully until being conquered by the Illyrians. This mimics the 15+ year old narrative that E-V13 is related to some phantom Pelasgian slaves and of course such notions are usually accompanied by "how can these bloody Africans be anything else" in their minds. How interesting that usually these propagators are not V13.

Genetic evidence says they weren't conquered by any Illyrians. Because they expanded out of "Illyria" just before the coming of the J-L283 dominated culture..

Huban
03-05-2021, 01:49 AM
And ofc I support the Cetina theory partly also because I want to claim that E-V13 spoke an Egyptian-like language in Dalmatia for thousands of years and had little to do with the G2a dominated cultures. When I was about 12 I knew most about Egyptian pyramids. And I do have some knowledge on Egyptian language too, so.. Its closest MENA relative is likely progenitor of the proto-Egyptian. There are some encouraging signs in that direction.

Papazoglu mentioned that the only analogies for the Triballian king Hales are Egyptian.:) And these people should have been heavy with V13. But his historicity is not fully accepted.

broder
03-05-2021, 01:51 AM
Lol, here you again with your nonsense.

I never spoke of 'Pelasgian Slaves'. Stop making stuff up, my Kuqi brother. Those discussions we had like over 7 or so years ago when we had little data about V13 and Y lineages in general. All I said then was that V13 looks like a native lineage to the Balkans - populations akin to Pelasgians etc. Meaning native farmers. That narrative hasn't changed much, now has it??

Huban
03-05-2021, 02:34 AM
Lol, here you again with your nonsense.

I never spoke of 'Pelasgian Slaves'. Stop making stuff up, my Kuqi brother. Those discussions we had like over 7 or so years ago when we had little data about V13 and Y lineages in general. All I said then was that V13 looks like a native lineage to the Balkans - populations akin to Pelasgians etc.

Okay as it was a long time ago. Yet the V13 has its founding culture for sure, and that is most likely the early proto-Cetina culture. It's not some vague "Balkan" whatever thing.



my Kuqi brother

:lol: My cluster has a TMRCA on Peshter highlands exceeding 700 or more years with families without any Kuchi tradition. Imagine that, you phantasize about being descended of Lale Drekalov who is 4400 years away and yet 10 miles away you have people 500, 700 years away and you have no idea that you are related to them. Btw at that time (700 years ago) there was no Kuchi tribal area or Kuchi tribe, as the Kuchi tribe expanded from Cijevna river in mid 15th century. At that time the likely ancestor of Kuchi Petar Kuč was in the katun of Lješ Tuz near Shkoder.


So lets review our closest relatives, those who we know who they are:
- Berendei surnamed from a Bulgarian derived village on Pešter, 200 km away from Bulgarian border. TMRCA c. 500 ybp, this clusters locations match the 16th century voynuks from there (who actually carried my surname and my surname is at least 400 years old). btw they are also connected to two other Bulgarian/Berendei derived villages (it seems actually both are Turkic) there via their unique surname. Also match an Ottoman family locations who held my native village, who were connected to them. An explanation how my family was wealthy and was able to settle there. The progenitor of these voynuks carried a Kipchak name of C.Asian Iranian origins.
- from another Bulgarian derived village on Pešter, 200 km away from Bulgarian border. TMRCA c. 700-800 ybp, right next to a Kipchak named mountain
- Pečenjevce, near Leskovac , TMRCA c. 800-1000 ybp , origin unknown in literature, old surname possibly Turkic. Onomastic evidence clearly demonstrates the Berendei clan of same surname to the guy no.1 settled right there..

And Ofc
Bulgarian from Sofia TMRCA c. 800-1000 ybp
Unknown ethnicity from Vojvodina TMRCA c. 800-1000 ybp

So its Vojvodina -> Shop area -> Sandzak on a horseback. I guarantee you I am alot more Bulgarian than 90 % of Bulgarians on the internet fora going by direct paternal ancestry.

Bulgarian 1253/54 incursion into my area is well attested and these are facts, I enjoy repeating them as they go my way 100 %. We are descended of that event. It seems we kept a very separate identity only 400, 500 years ago.



Meaning native farmers. That narrative hasn't changed much, now has it??

Dalmatian Cardials were not farmers. Already from their beginnings they actually practiced more fishing and even kept plenty of cattle. Besides they wee the only ones who worshipped skulls among the Neolithic EEF's and today we all know why..

Hawk
03-05-2021, 06:03 AM
Em...Robert Drews is the author of The Coming of the Greeks: Indo-European Conquests in the Aegean and the Near East (https://books.google.com/books?id=coNaDwAAQBAJ) and for many years has been opposed to the Anatolian hypothesis so I'm not sure how your comment about "leftist archaeologists" and the Kurgan theory is related to his work. Not that it's about what one author has to say or not. It's about the data. They don't confirm the theories about mass migrations/invasions of single groups which caused radical changes.

Speaking of which (The Coming of the Greeks: Indo-European Conquests in the Aegean and the Near East, p.39):
Among specialists there is now a rough consensus that Aeolic developed in eastern Thessaly, which was - as John Chadwick proposed in an important article in 1956 - a "buffer zone" between North and South Greek. (..) It also appears (although on this point there is more debate) that ca. 1200 BC Aeolic and Doric were not yet - or not much -differentiated. Finally, there is considerable agreement that 1200 BC North and South Greek were linguistically not very far apart: speakers of North and South Greek were more readily intelligible (..)

Anyway he is opposed by majority. But, the point is that the way you are opposing so much any link of E-V13 gives me an insight who you are, and what Y-DNA do you belong. :lol:



Dalmatian Cardials were not farmers. Already from their beginnings they actually practiced more fishing and even kept plenty of cattle. Besides they wee the only ones who worshipped skulls among the Neolithic EEF's and today we all know why..

The progenitor of E-V13, E-L618 was probably the reason farming was spread in Anatolia like an idea. Check archeological records, no single chronological record for any proto-idea of farming in Anatolia or Iran. It was rather in Mesolithic Egypt where it started first and foremost, and due to desertification event probably they left their homeland for better lands. Mushabian expansion is the best possible candidate for E-L618.

Hawk
03-05-2021, 06:46 AM
Here are other Bessi that were recorded as stationed in Germany, Sardina, Italy, Spain, Greece, Pannonia:

https://edh-www.adw.uni-heidelberg.de/inschrift/suche?qs=bessus

Bessus as name was used by Iranics as well: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Bessus

Aspar
03-05-2021, 08:02 AM
Can we stop this childish behavior like my haplogroup is better than yours and they came and exterminated all the others and I know it all?
We certainly don't want this thread to be closed but to keep discussing...



There is also a Serb with a tradition of descend from Montenegro. He has an unusual haplotype and fully matches one Macedonain Greek. He is E-A7135*, A8555-. So if that Macedonian is E-A7136, there are five separate Y3183 clades in Greeks, although you only see those from Laconia at YFull due to their poor level of testing.
.

This Serb matches me, he is 11/12 with me and yet a different haplogroup. His haplotype is nothing special and not that distinctive. Where is the Greek tested? Is it from a public study or a private test?

gjergj
03-05-2021, 08:15 AM
What about Greek and Roman colonists in Albania by the way? We know a slight influence from the North West and the strong Albanian influence in parts of Greece. But what about the other direction in Antiquity?

At Rrenjet.com that has by far the largest sample of Albanians as well as the largest WGT sample among Albanians there is no indication thus far of greek DNA moving up. It seems dna moved down and cultural/linguistic influence moved north. In some cases you could argue about relations between Illyrians and Thracians but there not much from the greeks to albanians/Illyrians.
Even the J2a that are in the albanian population don't have any meaningful connections to the greek subclades as of now.

gjergj
03-05-2021, 08:22 AM
Interesting, this is a branch with a modal haplotype. Nevertheless among Bulgarians there are three separate E-Y3183*, S2972- clades: E-BY5350, E-BY174450 and as of yet an unprofiled cluster with an SNP pack. Interestingly like E-BY174450 who cluster with a German, they also have a cousin in Austria.

@Rafc E-BY174450 is not such a small cluster. In addition to Bulgarian with BigY, there is another FTDNA Bulgarian belonging to it and they are not close (8/37). There is also a Romanian (9/37 and 6/37 with these). Due to distinct STR profile, there are multiple additional Bulgarians, Macedonian Greeks, Romanian, and a N.Macedonian from scientific papers.

The third unprofiled E-Y3183* cluster has even more members: North Macedonians, Bulgarian, Romanian, Hungarian, Ruthenian, three Macedonian Greeks and three Greeks from Korinthia who are of non-Arvanite origin (they were tested in a study about Greek colonization where the people of Arvanite origin were excluded).

Chances are your second E-Y3183* Albanian from Tirana belongs to one of these clusters. Considering the general diversity of this branch, it is quite unlikely these are Antiquity locals in the Western Balkans. E-Y3183 has also various downstream branches in Bulgaria, and a cluster of Basarabi from Romania belongs to one of these isolated clades. Only the Kuchi branch seems to have an older presence in the Western Balkans, most likely arrivals in LBA/EIA.

Rather similarly to Shala R-PF7563>Y83965 they might even fit into some Bessi of Gottfried Schram.

There are E-V13 Albanians who do not appear to be of Illyrian origin at all. For example the E-PH1173 Albanians (dys439=9), and also E-FGC71980 Albanian clusters between the Greeks, and their c. 2000 year distant relative in Bulgaria..

Don't be soo sure about Shala Y83965 being Thracian. Their spread has happened form Kosova region not from Bulgaria. not all their results are in Yfull.

Hawk
03-05-2021, 08:29 AM
Don't be soo sure about Shala Y83965 being Thracian. Their spread has happened form Kosova region not from Bulgaria. not all their results are in Yfull.

Just to give you an insight of how unreliable yfull is as source of basing a general opinion is that on the top/root of Y-DNA E branching sits the Belorusian flag: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E/

It's not even meant for that purpose because it's ever changing.

gjergj
03-05-2021, 08:38 AM
E-V13 looking by the evidence in SNP basal diversity clearly is a group that started out in the Western Balkans. And then massively expanded to the Central/Eastern and Carpathian areas.

Albanians display a completely irrational tendency to "Albananise" the entire E-V13. The reasons are several:
- the victimology based autochthonism - sported by many many peoples, we were there before you, "until the bad invaders came". From my ideological POV invaders are not necessarily bad so..
- to satisfy the determination of the great historian Enver Hoxha that Albanians are descended of Illyrians. And therefore we have to find an Illyrian connection for everything. It's not enough that we are 40, 50 % Illyrian, we have to be 80, no 90, no, 99, no 100 % Illyrian..

E-V13 did experience an enormous expansion at multiple points, first one already in EBA. When we see analogies in other haplogroups, such expansions are almost always closely related to migratory events. See R-Z93 expansion, see R-L51 expansion etc.

A nascent culture experiences a small growth and then their surroundings become too small, confined or resource lacking and they decide to go elsewhere. Having already built up numbers, developed a more aggressive way of life this groups had from an evolutionary perspective far exceeded its initial level. As such it becomes a serious threat to whatever natives it encounters during its expansion. So an expansion occurs, either the invader is strong enough to conquer the "natives" or the natives prevail.

J-L283 has already had a similar expansion into the Western Balkans from a limited demographic base (Mokrin find). So they go from SE Pannonia into the W.Balkans. For E-V13 the pattern is opposite.

To shorten. I don't care about Illyrians, Thracians, Greeks or whatever. I care that my haplogroup (E-V13) "kicks ass". If it expanded in the Western Balkans it cannot do that. Because there J-L283 already does that. And already we know E-V13 from aDNA that E-V13 has caused a massive population replacement in the Eastern Balkans. So the vector is obvious.

"broder" had on multiple occasions espoused the view that E-V13 are "Pelasgian slaves" that were farming peacefully until being conquered by the Illyrians. This mimics the 15+ year old narrative that E-V13 is related to some phantom Pelasgian slaves and of course such notions are usually accompanied by "how can these bloody Africans be anything else" in their minds. How interesting that usually these propagators are not V13.

Genetic evidence says they weren't conquered by any Illyrians. Because they expanded out of "Illyria" just before the coming of the J-L283 dominated culture..
Stop connecting Hoxha and all these grand theories and putting albanians in one pot.
There is no indication that west balkan was the source of E-v13 expansion in the rest of the balkans. and its not likely.
If you want to argue about one theory of one specific albanian that you disagree go for it.

Johane Derite
03-05-2021, 08:42 AM
Bessus as name was used by Iranics as well: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Bessus

The Bessus appearing in these inscriptions (Natione Bessus, i.e. for example) are Thracians. Romans came to use Bessi as a general term for all Thracians.

Huban
03-05-2021, 08:43 AM
This Serb matches me, he is 11/12 with me and yet a different haplogroup. His haplotype is nothing special and not that distinctive. Where is the Greek tested? Is it from a public study or a private test?

You might familiarize yourself with the age of mutations and the sequence of mutations at different levels. That one difference he has with you at Y12 is a difference that defines your own cluster and so it makes sense you are indeed not related. The other matching STR is actually your own recent private mutation (439), so not of much relevance.

On YFiler STR's you are with this Serb at 13/16. Macedonian Greek is from that study I mentioned and his GD with the Serb is 16/16. Serb lacks dys635 being Y37, you are with this Greek 13/17. Unlike some of the clades I mentioned this Serb has no certain relatives who tested more STR's so we don't know the age of some of his mutations, nevertheless identical haplotype while having 4 non-modal STR's might be a good indication of a link. If it exists it must be quite recent.

Serb does have various unusual STR's, such as H4, 456 etc.

peloponnesian
03-05-2021, 09:38 AM
Em...Robert Drews is the author of The Coming of the Greeks: Indo-European Conquests in the Aegean and the Near East (https://books.google.com/books?id=coNaDwAAQBAJ) and for many years has been opposed to the Anatolian hypothesis so I'm not sure how your comment about "leftist archaeologists" and the Kurgan theory is related to his work.

Why is the Anatolian Hypothesis considered "leftist"? Colin Renfrew is a known member of the Conservative Party. If we're going to use politically-charged words at least they should have meaning.

Aspar
03-05-2021, 10:14 AM
You might familiarize yourself with the age of mutations and the sequence of mutations at different levels. That one difference he has with you at Y12 is a difference that defines your own cluster and so it makes sense you are indeed not related. The other matching STR is actually your own recent private mutation (439), so not of much relevance.

On YFiler STR's you are with this Serb at 13/16. Macedonian Greek is from that study I mentioned and his GD with the Serb is 16/16. Serb lacks dys635 being Y37, you are with this Greek 13/17. Unlike some of the clades I mentioned this Serb has no certain relatives who tested more STR's so we don't know the age of some of his mutations, nevertheless identical haplotype while having 4 non-modal STR's might be a good indication of a link. If it exists it must be quite recent.

Serb does have various unusual STR's, such as H4, 456 etc.

Well can you tell us something more about the mutation rates?
My modesty knows about studies which produced somewhat different rates of mutations but I like to use these rates as middle point compromise between different studies:


FTDNA Order(1st 111)/Long Name/Short Name/Mut Rate(Chandler/Little/SMGF)/Rank by Slowness Description
1 DYS393 393 0.00076 #34 Medium-Slow
2 DYS390 390 0.00311 #81 Fast
3 DYS19 19 0.00151 #55 Medium-Slow
4 DYS391 391 0.00265 #76 Medium-Fast
5 DYS385a 385a 0.00226 #68 Medium-Fast
6 DYS385b 385b 0.00226 #69 Medium-Fast
7 DYS426 426 0.00009 #6 Very Slow
8 DYS388 388 0.00022 #17 Slow
9 DYS439 439 0.00477 #94 Fast
10 DYS389i 389i 0.00186 #58 Medium-Fast
11 DYS392 392 0.00052 #28 Slow
12 DYS389ii 389ii-i 0.00242 #71 Medium-Fast

The marker the Serb has a miss match with me is DYS389ii. It's a medium-fast marker that can be reliable for defining clusters but also not very reliable because of the medium-fast mutation rate. In other words, you can't be for certain about your predictions based on markers like this. By the way, can you tell me more about the age of mutations? My modesty doesn't have much clue about this so it would like to learn more...

I have two close matches who are actually very close relatives. One of the matches is a son of the brother of the other match. They have mutations on the marker DYS439. One has 12 and the other 14. This marker has a mutation rate of 0.00477 which is double of that for DYS389ii. By the way, I already mentioned that cluster of Englishmen who are tottaly unrelated clade and yet are 12/12, 23/25 with me. I also have PowerPlex Y exact matches in England, Chile, Spain, Serbia etc. Do you really think all these are related to me? I have one step Yfiler neighbor in Chile. Should I make conclusions that this guy is of the same cluster as me? It's a guess work, what you are doing, NOT really for certain and NOT confirmed by SNP matching. Especially for E-V13, you can't be for certain with low number of STR markers because as it's the case with I-Y3120 it had a boom and diversification of a bigger scale where you will find similar haplotypes all over, especially in older clades such as S7461, Y16729 etc...
DYS635 is a fast marker with mutation rate of 0.00373, something similar to DYS439 I explained above. The Greek might have complete convergence in the haplotype with the Serb and yet to be of totally unrelated clade. It's not impossible, it's actually very possible based on such a low number of markers.

So, can you pls share the haplotype of the Greek to have a better look of how closely they match?

Aspar
03-05-2021, 10:30 AM
By the way, I just run the markers of the Serb in yhrd and he has 35 matches in PowerPlex Y, not enough markers to run Yfiller. He indeed has 1 match in Greece but also 2 matches in Croatia. I mean, I can't tell anything for certain looking at this...

mikulic33
03-05-2021, 11:19 AM
Quote: "The Bessus appearing in these inscriptions (Natione Bessus, i.e. for example) are Thracians. Romans came to use Bessi as a general term for all Thracians."

I do not think that this is accurate. It“s rather the other way around. The Romans used "Thracian" as an umbrella term for many distinct tribes in this area but the Bessi had a very long lasting sense of a specific identity. We are talking about tombstones and self-descriptions by family members not about categories in official documents. Have a look at the section "Thracians: Mountainmen and Bandits" in this dissertation (pages 102-112): https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/111635

mikulic33
03-05-2021, 12:03 PM
By the way, I just run the markers of the Serb in yhrd and he has 35 matches in PowerPlex Y, not enough markers to run Yfiller. He indeed has 1 match in Greece but also 2 matches in Croatia. I mean, I can't tell anything for certain looking at this...

You do not need to have all markers to run Yfiler. Just leave 635 out. There is one match from Peponia in the Serres province.

Aspar
03-05-2021, 12:57 PM
You do not need to have all markers to run Yfiler. Just leave 635 out. There is one match from Peponia in the Serres province.

Ok, I can't make comparison with many samples as I don't have the time so here are three Yfiler haplotypes:

Mine: DYS456(17) DYS389I(13) DYS390(24) DYS389II(29) DYS458(15) DYS19(13) DYS385(16, 19) DYS393(13) DYS391(10) DYS439(13) DYS635(21) DYS392(11) YGATAH4(11) DYS437(14) DYS438(10) DYS448(20)
Greek: DYS456(15) DYS389I(13) DYS390(24) DYS389II(30) DYS458(15) DYS19(13) DYS385(16, 19) DYS393(13) DYS391(10) DYS439(13) DYS635(22) DYS392(11) YGATAH4(11) DYS437(14) DYS438(10) DYS448(20)
Serb: DYS456(15) DYS389I(13) DYS390(24) DYS389II(30) DYS458(15) DYS19(13) DYS385(16, 19) DYS393(13) DYS391(10) DYS439(13) DYS635(n/a) DYS392(11) YGATAH4(10) DYS437(14) DYS438(10) DYS448(20)

I'm 13/17 with the Greek and two of the differences are on a same very fast mutating marker DYS456=0.00735, while one is on a fast mutating DYS635=0.00373. The last difference is on a medium-fast marker DYS389ii=0.00242.

The Greek and the Serb are 15/16 while one marker DYS635 is n/a for the Serb. The difference is on a medium-fast mutating marker Y-GATA-H4=0.00208 which is still more slowly than DYS389ii. In this situation the Greek and the Serb might have one more difference in the face of DYS635 but we don't know that. On top of that, my cluster is not well defined so I don't know the age of this DYS389ii=29 and how far back in time can be traced.
My point is, you can't tell for sure this Greek is A7136+ based on these markers and superficial similarity with the Serb, something which Huban does.

On the other hand I have a 15/17 match in Chile:
DYS456(17) DYS389I(13) DYS390(24) DYS389II(29) DYS458(15) DYS19(13) DYS385(16, 19) DYS393(13) DYS391(10) DYS439(12) DYS635(22) DYS392(11) YGATAH4(11) DYS437(14) DYS438(10) DYS448(20)
and a 12/12 PowerPlex Y match in Spain.
Should I make conclusions that these are my closest matches? Perhaps, perhaps not. You can't tell for sure until a profiled SNP match shows up...

Aspar
03-05-2021, 02:27 PM
Let me show more closely why does Yfiler doesn't work always. Two haplotypes, SNP profiled, 14/17 in Yfiler.

Mine(Y16729): DYS456(17) DYS389I(13) DYS390(24) DYS389II(29) DYS458(15) DYS19(13) DYS385(16, 19) DYS393(13) DYS391(10) DYS439(13) DYS635(21) DYS392(11) YGATAH4(11) DYS437(14) DYS438(10) DYS448(20)
Englishmen(S7461): DYS456(17) DYS389I(13) DYS390(24) DYS389II(29) DYS458(15) DYS19(13) DYS385(16, 19) DYS393(13) DYS391(10) DYS439(13) DYS635(23) DYS392(11) YGATAH4(12) DYS437(14) DYS438(10) DYS448(20)

The exact difference in YGATAH4 between the two haplotypes I've written above and also two differences in the marker DYS635, the one which is n/a. And totally different subclades. I think this is clear enough now...

slavomir
03-05-2021, 02:47 PM
Ok, I can't make comparison with many samples as I don't have the time so here are three Yfiler haplotypes:

Mine: DYS456(17) DYS389I(13) DYS390(24) DYS389II(29) DYS458(15) DYS19(13) DYS385(16, 19) DYS393(13) DYS391(10) DYS439(13) DYS635(21) DYS392(11) YGATAH4(11) DYS437(14) DYS438(10) DYS448(20)
Greek: DYS456(15) DYS389I(13) DYS390(24) DYS389II(30) DYS458(15) DYS19(13) DYS385(16, 19) DYS393(13) DYS391(10) DYS439(13) DYS635(22) DYS392(11) YGATAH4(11) DYS437(14) DYS438(10) DYS448(20)
Serb: DYS456(15) DYS389I(13) DYS390(24) DYS389II(30) DYS458(15) DYS19(13) DYS385(16, 19) DYS393(13) DYS391(10) DYS439(13) DYS635(n/a) DYS392(11) YGATAH4(10) DYS437(14) DYS438(10) DYS448(20)

I'm 13/17 with the Greek and two of the differences are on a same very fast mutating marker DYS456=0.00735, while one is on a fast mutating DYS635=0.00373. The last difference is on a medium-fast marker DYS389ii=0.00242.

The Greek and the Serb are 15/16 while one marker DYS635 is n/a for the Serb. The difference is on a medium-fast mutating marker Y-GATA-H4=0.00208 which is still more slowly than DYS389ii. In this situation the Greek and the Serb might have one more difference in the face of DYS635 but we don't know that. On top of that, my cluster is not well defined so I don't know the age of this DYS389ii=29 and how far back in time can be traced.
My point is, you can't tell for sure this Greek is A7136+ based on these markers and superficial similarity with the Serb, something which Huban does.

On the other hand I have a 15/17 match in Chile:
DYS456(17) DYS389I(13) DYS390(24) DYS389II(29) DYS458(15) DYS19(13) DYS385(16, 19) DYS393(13) DYS391(10) DYS439(12) DYS635(22) DYS392(11) YGATAH4(11) DYS437(14) DYS438(10) DYS448(20)
and a 12/12 PowerPlex Y match in Spain.
Should I make conclusions that these are my closest matches? Perhaps, perhaps not. You can't tell for sure until a profiled SNP match shows up...

these are your closest Serbian matches from studies:
distanceIDStudyPopulationSNP/officialnevgenNDYS393DYS390DYS19DYS391DYS385DYS439 DYS389iDYS392DYS389iiDYS458DYS437DYS448YGATAH4DYS4 56DYS438DYS635
022Stevanovic et al. 2009Serbia WestE1b1b > V1311324131016-19$131129$$$$$$$
114Stevanovic et al. 2009Serbia WestE1b1b > V1331324131016-18$131129$$$$$$$
329Todorovic et al. 2014Serbia AleksandrovacE1b1bE1b1b > V1311324131016-191213113216142011171021
4Se126Regueiro et al. 2012Serbia Central(Belgrade?)EV13E1b1b > V1311324131016-171413113015142011171023
482Todorovic et al. 2014Serbia AleksandrovacE1b1bE1b1b > V1311324131016-171213113015142011161021
446Todorovic et al. 2014Serbia AleksandrovacE1b1bE1b1b > V1311324131016-181213113015142011161021
456Todorovic et al. 2014Serbia AleksandrovacE1b1bE1b1b > V1311324131016-181213113015142011161021
4Mirabal et al. 2010Serbia Central(Sumadija?)E1b1b E1b1b > V1311324131016-181213113015142011161021
4Mirabal et al. 2010Serbia Central(Sumadija?)E1b1b E1b1b > V1311324131016-181213113015142011181021
4Mirabal et al. 2010Serbia Central(Sumadija?)E1b1b E1b1b > V1311324131016-191213113017142010171021
4Mirabal et al. 2010Serbia Central(Sumadija?)E1b1b E1b1b > V1311325131016-191213112715142011171022

slavomir
03-05-2021, 03:00 PM
Let me show more closely why does Yfiler doesn't work always. Two haplotypes, SNP profiled, 14/17 in Yfiler.

Mine(Y16729): DYS456(17) DYS389I(13) DYS390(24) DYS389II(29) DYS458(15) DYS19(13) DYS385(16, 19) DYS393(13) DYS391(10) DYS439(13) DYS635(21) DYS392(11) YGATAH4(11) DYS437(14) DYS438(10) DYS448(20)
Englishmen(S7461): DYS456(17) DYS389I(13) DYS390(24) DYS389II(29) DYS458(15) DYS19(13) DYS385(16, 19) DYS393(13) DYS391(10) DYS439(13) DYS635(23) DYS392(11) YGATAH4(12) DYS437(14) DYS438(10) DYS448(20)

The exact difference in YGATAH4 between the two haplotypes I've written above and also two differences in the marker DYS635, the one which is n/a. And totally different subclades. I think this is clear enough now...

is your YGATAH4 in the FTDNA format? FTDNA reports YGATAH4 decreased by 1 compared to yfiler and powerplex23.

slavomir
03-05-2021, 03:09 PM
Well can you tell us something more about the mutation rates?
My modesty knows about studies which produced somewhat different rates of mutations but I like to use these rates as middle point compromise between different studies:

here are mutation rates of the yfiler and powerplex markers, also from multipel studies:
https://yhrd.org/pages/resources/mutation_rates

Aspar
03-05-2021, 03:18 PM
these are your closest Serbian matches from studies:
distanceIDStudyPopulationSNP/officialnevgenNDYS393DYS390DYS19DYS391DYS385DYS439 DYS389iDYS392DYS389iiDYS458DYS437DYS448YGATAH4DYS4 56DYS438DYS635
022Stevanovic et al. 2009Serbia WestE1b1b > V1311324131016-19$131129$$$$$$$
114Stevanovic et al. 2009Serbia WestE1b1b > V1331324131016-18$131129$$$$$$$
329Todorovic et al. 2014Serbia AleksandrovacE1b1bE1b1b > V1311324131016-191213113216142011171021
4Se126Regueiro et al. 2012Serbia Central(Belgrade?)EV13E1b1b > V1311324131016-171413113015142011171023
482Todorovic et al. 2014Serbia AleksandrovacE1b1bE1b1b > V1311324131016-171213113015142011161021
446Todorovic et al. 2014Serbia AleksandrovacE1b1bE1b1b > V1311324131016-181213113015142011161021
456Todorovic et al. 2014Serbia AleksandrovacE1b1bE1b1b > V1311324131016-181213113015142011161021
4Mirabal et al. 2010Serbia Central(Sumadija?)E1b1b E1b1b > V1311324131016-181213113015142011161021
4Mirabal et al. 2010Serbia Central(Sumadija?)E1b1b E1b1b > V1311324131016-181213113015142011181021
4Mirabal et al. 2010Serbia Central(Sumadija?)E1b1b E1b1b > V1311324131016-191213113017142010171021
4Mirabal et al. 2010Serbia Central(Sumadija?)E1b1b E1b1b > V1311325131016-191213112715142011171022

Great...
And how many of these are actually my SNP matches? Probably less than two, which is the main thing why I opposed Huban.

Anyway, in the last three years I've been quite active on these forums, although I've started to read them since more than ten years ago when I still didn't have a clue what SNP or STR is. Therefore many probably encountered my story on some of these forums which coupled with my DNA results just confirmed the ethnographic material I relied upon in finding more about myself. It also made me to be a better man and see the truth from different angles. What I learned the most is that nation is a feeling of belonging, NOT a DNA thing and that I'm a mix of different ingredients like a good smoothie however this doesn't NOT affect my sense of belonging. One of these ingredients, especially the one which y-dna chromosome I carry today was most probably in the region of Macedonia since long time ago having been bilingual in both Vlach and Bulgarian but originally Vlach speaking.

That I might have real matches in Serbia is not far fetched because it's a neighboring country after all and migrations happened throughout the history. But such kind of matches exist in Bulgaria, Greece and Albania and all of them are and belong to different nations than I do which is the good thing about DNA that turns all that racist and nationalistic mockery upside-down. Becouse belonging is NOT a DNA thing as I said earlier.

Aspar
03-05-2021, 03:21 PM
is your YGATAH4 in the FTDNA format? FTDNA reports YGATAH4 decreased by 1 compared to yfiler and powerplex23.

Both of these haplotypes are in FTDNA format!

slavomir
03-05-2021, 03:56 PM
Great...
And how many of these are actually my SNP matches? Probably less than two, which is the main thing why I opposed Huban.

Anyway, in the last three years I've been quite active on these forums, although I've started to read them since more than ten years ago when I still didn't have a clue what SNP or STR is. Therefore many probably encountered my story on some of these forums which coupled with my DNA results just confirmed the ethnographic material I relied upon in finding more about myself. It also made me to be a better man and see the truth from different angles. What I learned the most is that nation is a feeling of belonging, NOT a DNA thing and that I'm a mix of different ingredients like a good smoothie however this doesn't NOT affect my sense of belonging. One of these ingredients, especially the one which y-dna chromosome I carry today was most probably in the region of Macedonia since long time ago having been bilingual in both Vlach and Bulgarian but originally Vlach speaking.

That I might have real matches in Serbia is not far fetched because it's a neighboring country after all and migrations happened throughout the history. But such kind of matches exist in Bulgaria, Greece and Albania and all of them are and belong to different nations than I do which is the good thing about DNA that turns all that racist and nationalistic mockery upside-down. Becouse belonging is NOT a DNA thing as I said earlier.

so what's the deepest subclade which can be predicted for these, in your opinion? just E-V13?

Aspar
03-05-2021, 04:17 PM
so what's the deepest subclade which can be predicted for these, in your opinion? just E-V13?

TBH I don't think you can tell for certain what they are downstream of BY3880. However I'm out of here for today. You might want to ask some more experience people who are lurking this forum. Some of them are administrators and were dealing with thousands of haplotypes in relation to E-V13.

BukeKrypEZemer
03-05-2021, 09:57 PM
As my posts here mostly restrict to posting updates on E-BY4526, I will continue this tradtion : in BY4529 we have a guy from Finland joining, rising the scandinavian presence. Each new result rather confuses than contributes to clearing up the path and origin of this clade.^^
So any new bids due to this result ? :D

Korabi
03-05-2021, 10:41 PM
As my posts here mostly restrict to posting updates on E-BY4526, I will continue this tradtion : in BY4529 we have a guy from Finland joining, rising the scandinavian presence. Each new result rather confuses than contributes to clearing up the path and origin of this clade.^^
So any new bids due to this result ? :D

Maybe it was picked up/assimilated by Slavs in the North Balkans during the early migration era and carrying it north with northern Slavs who injected it into Finns, and Scandinavians through the mixed Slavic/Scandinavian Viking settlements?

Just a guess since TMRCA were removed. Not sure what the distance everyone has with each other.

Bruzmi
03-05-2021, 11:16 PM
Can we stop this childish behavior like my haplogroup is better than yours and they came and exterminated all the others and I know it all?
We certainly don't want this thread to be closed but to keep discussing...

Absolutely agreed.


Why is the Anatolian Hypothesis considered "leftist"? Colin Renfrew is a known member of the Conservative Party. If we're going to use politically-charged words at least they should have meaning.
Good point there but it's not something I ever said, so the person who said so should probably explain why they consider it a "leftist theory". By the way, the fact that Renfrew was wrong about the Anatolian Hypothesis doesn't make him "generally wrong" or Gimbutas "generally correct". There's a reason why Renfrew & Bahn's Methodology of Archaeology publications are taught in many university courses worldwide, unlike publications by Gimbutas.


Anyway he is opposed by majority. But, the point is that the way you are opposing so much any link of E-V13 gives me an insight who you are, and what Y-DNA do you belong. :lol:

The academic consensus aka the "majority" is that In short, there may have been movement of people from the Balkans into Greece and western Asia Minor during and shortly after the Catastrophe, just as there had always been but what movement there was must have been limited to individuals, families, and small groups of families. There is no evidence for a general migration, to say nothing of a migration responsible for the destruction of the IIIB sites. A collection of some of the latest data and interpretations was published in "Sea Peoples" Up-to-Date (https://verlag.oeaw.ac.at/sea-peoples-up-to-date) (Austrian Academy of Sciences): The reader of this volume gains insights into very complex changes during this period. It will become clear that these changes manifest themselves over decades and not years, and include numerous underlying factors: One single wave of migration, one general military campaign and other simple explanations should be dismissed. The breakdown of Late Bronze Age societies and the transformative processes that followed in its wake occurred in a vast area but they are mirrored in differing ways at local level.

(I have never taken any DNA test, so I don't know what you're referring to)


Genetic evidence says they weren't conquered by any Illyrians. Because they expanded out of "Illyria" just before the coming of the J-L283 dominated culture..

Genetic evidence says nothing about anything because genetic evidence doesn't exist about Illyrians, Thracians, Paeonians or any other Paleo-Balkan people. Pure speculation based on the smallest of smallest sample sizes can't produce any theory. But from an archaeological point of view, I can say (based on the available excavations) the following: There were no "conquerors" or "conquered" people in the western or central Balkans. There's no destruction to be found, there's just a steady progression of population/settlement growth. Whatever the origin of the populations that lived in the region before the Iron Age, they (mostly) lived peacefully and intermingled with each other.


G Becouse belonging is NOT a DNA thing as I said earlier.

Great comment :)


Maybe it was picked up/assimilated by Slavs in the North Balkans during the early migration era and carrying it north with northern Slavs who injected it into Finns, and Scandinavians through the mixed Slavic/Scandinavian Viking settlements?

Just a guess since TMRCA were removed. Not sure what the distance everyone has with each other.


I think that the best thing to do is to actually profile the individuals. We know nothing about their recent history and learning about it is the first step towards getting a clearer picture. As far as migrations are concerned, there are some documented migrations from the Balkans to northern areas in the early 7th century:

For example, the fifth miracle in Book ii of the Miracles of St. Demetrius contains the story of the Sermesianoi—the descendants of prisoners that the Avars had taken from the Balkan provinces in the early 7th century, and had then moved forcefully to Pannonia, in the area of Sirmium (hence their name). After 60 years, during which they were ruled by their own chieftains, the Sermesianoi rose in rebellion against the Avars, and migrated across the Danube
back into the Balkans.30 In the early 9th century, after Krum’s successful campaigns in Thrace, between 10,000 and 20,000 prisoners of war are said to have been forcefully moved to “Bulgaria beyond the Danube”, which was most likely located in southern Romania. Much like the Sermesianoi, those prisoners had
their own leaders. With the assistance of the Byzantine fleet on the Danube, after spending 40 or 50 years in “Bulgaria beyond the Danube”, the Adrianopolitans rose in rebellion against the Bulgars, and migrated back to their homeland inside the Empire. - Migrations in the Archaeology of Eastern and Southeastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages (Some Comments on the Current State of Research) (https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004425613/BP000005.xml)

Huban
03-06-2021, 01:58 AM
Absolutely agreed.
But from an archaeological point of view, I can say (based on the available excavations) the following: There were no "conquerors" or "conquered" people in the western or central Balkans. There's no destruction to be found, there's just a steady progression of population/settlement growth. Whatever the origin of the populations that lived in the region before the Iron Age, they (mostly) lived peacefully and intermingled with each other.


Based on available excavations from Kosovo you mean. Most archeologists specialize in their native region or Greece like in your case. Outside of it they are like a fish on a sandy beach.
Archeological evidence from Croatia and Bosnia regarding Cetina and Posušje cultures shows that these two had absolutely nothing to do with each other in terms of mutual relations and their origin. And that at some locations their relations were hostile to each other.

Furthermore there is evidence Posušje culture represented by the J-L283 (which was found there) has even acted suppressively towards the Neolithic remnants and that they even may have ended such remnants. Looking at their autosomal profile in G25 which shows they are not related to Dalmatian Neolithics this seems to be well founded. It seems they intermarried very little with the locals. Their EEF ancestry they carried from Pannonia. According to archeological evidence this culture represents the new intrusive element, foreign to the area. And this culture was not significantly influenced by the natives there.

Obviously in your case there is a protochronist-like motivation probably based in political instructions you receive that in the case of Kosovo there has been an unending continuous harmonious cohabitation in the area since the Neolithic and so that the supposed natives of Kosovo, the Kosovo Albanians (who are almost all of recent Southern origin and do not represent the natives of that area in a continuous time since the Antiquity, bar possibly some cases who are certainly not proto-Albanian because proto-Albanians developed farther to the South) have actually been living peacefully with each other for thousands of years without any influx.

Problem is when, in your ideological nativism (typical of many archeologists), you attempt to deny cultures like Brnjica which very likely carried some E-V13 lineages and is a likely explanation for the arrival of some E-V13 clades to the area.

As vast majority of E-V13 is not native to Kosovo or Albania past the LBA/EIA, bar some older isolated clades, if you, in your nativism, try to remove any LBA/EIA foreign influence you are basically saying that no E-V13 is Illyrian or was present in Illyrians.

Huban
03-06-2021, 02:25 AM
Well can you tell us something more about the mutation rates?
My modesty knows about studies which produced somewhat different rates of mutations but I like to use these rates as middle point compromise between different studies:


I wasn't referring to mutation rates. But of STR's that do reflect SNP's. GD helps when a certain SNP connection can be indicated. GD proximity and counting the speed of STR's has no little whatsoever on your chances of being related to someone.

Matching non-modals counts in the case a clade has not been profiled through two NGS (or two SNP Pack people who are obviously related to each other).

You must pay attention to what defines your own clade. These are the STR's you share with the other members of your branch. In your case you form a cluster with the Greek with a TMRCA of few hundred years and STR's that define you are non-modal STR's that you and him share. These are 385b, 389b, 449, 570, DCYa, 511, 446, 568, 487 on Y67. These define your cluster. Of these only the first two are part of YFiler with the following two being part of Power Plex, YFiler Plus.

If you compare yourself to anyone from FTDNA you should begin with these. Same goes for the samples from the papers. Any non matching at these increases the likelihood of non-relation. Significant non-matching likely denies the relation. Unfortunately only the YFiler plus has the first four. And actually first two are slower than the other two.

Also Aromanian cluster matching you demonstrates a stability of dys385b=19 + dys389b=16 combination. An indication extra attention should be given to these.

Huban
03-06-2021, 02:31 AM
so what's the deepest subclade which can be predicted for these, in your opinion? just E-V13?

The last sample is in cluster with various Croats, a Romanian, and Serbian journalist Milomir Marić. :) Very hard to say what subclade is this, but it can be said that they form a clearly identified cluster.

Huban
03-06-2021, 02:47 AM
My point is, you can't tell for sure this Greek is A7136+ based on these markers and superficial similarity with the Serb, something which Huban does.


You did not substract GATAH4 -1 for the Greek. Similarity is resembling another thing, superficial is a seeming, likely fake, similarity.

There is no similarity here as the Greek is not similar to the Serb. He is identical. Being seemingly identical is a possibility, but it is reduced by the fact that there are four non-modal for E-V13 STR's that they happen to share.

And I didn't say they are related for sure, just that there is a strong possibility. Unfortunately the Serb doesn't have any other relatives so that we can determine the age of these non-modals. Nevertheless a full 16/16 match with 4 non-modal STR's being matched is a good argument in favor of their relation.

Huban
03-06-2021, 03:05 AM
Stop connecting Hoxha and all these grand theories and putting albanians in one pot.
There is no indication that west balkan was the source of E-v13 expansion in the rest of the balkans. and its not likely.
If you want to argue about one theory of one specific albanian that you disagree go for it.

I agree with you, vast majority of E-V13 arrived to Western Balkans in the LBA/EIA timeframe.

Yet of Albanians trying to claim the opposite we can safely say that they are under the strong influence of Hoxha era's nativism. Nativism is common all over the world among great many ethnic groups. Usually where there are tensions with other ethnic groups.

broder
03-06-2021, 04:11 AM
So its Vojvodina -> Shop area -> Sandzak on a horseback.

Nah, I am pretty sure they walked.

gjergj
03-06-2021, 08:12 AM
Based on available excavations from Kosovo you mean. Most archeologists specialize in their native region or Greece like in your case. Outside of it they are like a fish on a sandy beach.
Archeological evidence from Croatia and Bosnia regarding Cetina and Posušje cultures shows that these two had absolutely nothing to do with each other in terms of mutual relations and their origin. And that at some locations their relations were hostile to each other.

Furthermore there is evidence Posušje culture represented by the J-L283 (which was found there) has even acted suppressively towards the Neolithic remnants and that they even may have ended such remnants. Looking at their autosomal profile in G25 which shows they are not related to Dalmatian Neolithics this seems to be well founded. It seems they intermarried very little with the locals. Their EEF ancestry they carried from Pannonia. According to archeological evidence this culture represents the new intrusive element, foreign to the area. And this culture was not significantly influenced by the natives there.

Obviously in your case there is a protochronist-like motivation probably based in political instructions you receive that in the case of Kosovo there has been an unending continuous harmonious cohabitation in the area since the Neolithic and so that the supposed natives of Kosovo, the Kosovo Albanians (who are almost all of recent Southern origin and do not represent the natives of that area in a continuous time since the Antiquity, bar possibly some cases who are certainly not proto-Albanian because proto-Albanians developed farther to the South) have actually been living peacefully with each other for thousands of years without any influx.

Problem is when, in your ideological nativism (typical of many archeologists), you attempt to deny cultures like Brnjica which very likely carried some E-V13 lineages and is a likely explanation for the arrival of some E-V13 clades to the area.

As vast majority of E-V13 is not native to Kosovo or Albania past the LBA/EIA, bar some older isolated clades, if you, in your nativism, try to remove any LBA/EIA foreign influence you are basically saying that no E-V13 is Illyrian or was present in Illyrians.

So now we should watch out as there could be people here that post on "political instructions" on the case of Kosova? Are you serious? I can understand that someone could have their "patriotic" preferences on the subject. You clearly might have yours. But at least have the decency to allow others to have those opinions of his/her own and not turn them into agents and this into a conspiracy loaded..............

rafc
03-06-2021, 08:43 AM
The academic consensus aka the "majority" is that In short, there may have been movement of people from the Balkans into Greece and western Asia Minor during and shortly after the Catastrophe, just as there had always been but what movement there was must have been limited to individuals, families, and small groups of families. There is no evidence for a general migration, to say nothing of a migration responsible for the destruction of the IIIB sites. A collection of some of the latest data and interpretations was published in "Sea Peoples" Up-to-Date (https://verlag.oeaw.ac.at/sea-peoples-up-to-date) (Austrian Academy of Sciences): The reader of this volume gains insights into very complex changes during this period. It will become clear that these changes manifest themselves over decades and not years, and include numerous underlying factors: One single wave of migration, one general military campaign and other simple explanations should be dismissed. The breakdown of Late Bronze Age societies and the transformative processes that followed in its wake occurred in a vast area but they are mirrored in differing ways at local level.

I don't think anyone claims that what happened at the end of the Bronze age, or somewhat later, was one military campaign. I even doubt that movements on the Balkans had any connection to the Sea-peoples, and migrations on the Balkans were probably more a combination of many migrations by different groups in a chain reaction than one organised movement. At the same time time I think the above narrative about sea-peoples tilts to far the other way. I fail to see how 'small groups of families' could correspond to the description in Egyptian sources or the evidence (both archeological and genetic) of migration to the Philistine lands.

A good summary of the archeological evidence of movement of peoples on the Balkans at the LBA/EIA transition can be found in this very recent article: Florian Ruppenstein, "Migration events in Greece at the end of the second millennium BC and their possible Balkanic background" in this book (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342304983_Objects_Ideas_and_Travelers_Contacts_bet ween_the_Balkans_the_Aegean_and_Western_Anatolia_d uring_the_Bronze_and_Early_Iron_Age_Volume_to_the_ Memory_of_Alexandru_Vulpe_Proceedings_of_the_Confe rence_in_T).

BukeKrypEZemer
03-06-2021, 09:20 AM
Maybe it was picked up/assimilated by Slavs in the North Balkans during the early migration era and carrying it north with northern Slavs who injected it into Finns, and Scandinavians through the mixed Slavic/Scandinavian Viking settlements?

Just a guess since TMRCA were removed. Not sure what the distance everyone has with each other.

I would not rule that option out. Though these clades are almost all basal and the MRCA with us Balkanic samples is around 3000 years. Except from one Swede on a level with me (E-Y20805*). there TMRCA should be around 2400-2800 years according to Yfull. Although Yfull is pretty unreliable in recent times.

Aspar
03-06-2021, 11:14 AM
I wasn't referring to mutation rates. But of STR's that do reflect SNP's. GD helps when a certain SNP connection can be indicated. GD proximity and counting the speed of STR's has no little whatsoever on your chances of being related to someone.

Matching non-modals counts in the case a clade has not been profiled through two NGS (or two SNP Pack people who are obviously related to each other).

You must pay attention to what defines your own clade. These are the STR's you share with the other members of your branch. In your case you form a cluster with the Greek with a TMRCA of few hundred years and STR's that define you are non-modal STR's that you and him share. These are 385b, 389b, 449, 570, DCYa, 511, 446, 568, 487 on Y67. These define your cluster. Of these only the first two are part of YFiler with the following two being part of Power Plex, YFiler Plus.

If you compare yourself to anyone from FTDNA you should begin with these. Same goes for the samples from the papers. Any non matching at these increases the likelihood of non-relation. Significant non-matching likely denies the relation. Unfortunately only the YFiler plus has the first four. And actually first two are slower than the other two.

Also Aromanian cluster matching you demonstrates a stability of dys385b=19 + dys389b=16 combination. An indication extra attention should be given to these.

That's the key sentence. For example, a Bulgarian that recently turned out BY5022 because of his STR haplotype can further be predicted as E-Y150909a. But if there is no SNP confirmation that he is BY5022 this wouldn't have been that obvious.

As for my cluster, yes those are indeed the defining STRs but these are reliable only for the last 850 years as per various TMRCA calculators that give a range of TMRCA between 850-450 ybp. Therefore, you don't know what are the defining STRs with someone I share common ancestor in 500 AD or earlier because there isn't any close match of that sort which is SNP and STR defined as well.

gjergj
03-06-2021, 01:03 PM
I agree with you, vast majority of E-V13 arrived to Western Balkans in the LBA/EIA timeframe.

Yet of Albanians trying to claim the opposite we can safely say that they are under the strong influence of Hoxha era's nativism. Nativism is common all over the world among great many ethnic groups. Usually where there are tensions with other ethnic groups.

This is not about nativism but an attempt to deny to a group of people clarity. By constantly throwing doubts.

Albanians have clearly around 20-25% Celtic, Gothic and Slavic Y components in the population. So they are not 100% pure or native or whatever bothers some. The problem with your suggestion is that you do not seem to accept that the rest/the core of the Albanian population comes from Y components that are in the region/west Balkans mostly through bronze age and Iron age period layered on top of each others within this time frame. Now why you don't want to accept this when all the Y dna data is very clear and obvious I don't want to speculate and its not relevant to the subject. Of course there are gaps to be filled as this is still a huge regions with little ancient dna and more needs to be understood how these lines interacted and why some were more successful than others. But Albanians did not come into existence out of thin air but clearly their core group is a continuation of some of those Y dna haplos of BA/IA.
I remember that the theory initially was that Albanians came form Albania of Caucasus in the middle ages. That was a great one:). Than I heard that we are BA/IA but Thracians that were pushed west by the Slavs or mini versions of this theory and not descendants of Illyrians. As more WGT is being done this is clearly not standing any more for the majority of Albanian Y dna. The majority of the clades appear to be west balkan based. Of course as two neighboring groups there would be some grey areas between the two, but this is clearly minor for both of them and does not change the essence of each of them. Taking this minor cases and making them the core of one group of the other is at best misuse of data. At worse "payed agent".
I have lost track what is the current/next effort theory is. But whatever it is it can easily be called desperation.
I cant say for sure that there will be clarity for all of us in a year or two because I am sure some acrobatic interpretations will be devised even after we start to get the ancient dna results from albania that is in the process testing or to be tested by two different groups of archeologists that would most likely overall confirm this continuity.

Bruzmi
03-06-2021, 06:19 PM
Based on available excavations from Kosovo you mean. Most archeologists specialize in their native region or Greece like in your case. Outside of it they are like a fish on a sandy beach. Archeological evidence from Croatia and Bosnia regarding Cetina and Posušje cultures shows that these two had absolutely nothing to do with each other in terms of mutual relations and their origin. And that at some locations their relations were hostile to each other.

Furthermore there is evidence Posušje culture represented by the J-L283 (which was found there) has even acted suppressively towards the Neolithic remnants and that they even may have ended such remnants. Looking at their autosomal profile in G25 which shows they are not related to Dalmatian Neolithics this seems to be well founded. It seems they intermarried very little with the locals. Their EEF ancestry they carried from Pannonia. According to archeological evidence this culture represents the new intrusive element, foreign to the area. And this culture was not significantly influenced by the natives there.


(I'll skip the irrelevant "protochronism" discussion about archaeology and move to the discussion about Cetina and Posušje)

It's very plausible that the "origin" of the people who initially formed the Posušje culture was "IE" and that the "origin" of those who formed Cetina was "non-IE". But the question has no practical significance because all excavations have shown that in their fully developed form these two cultures came to share many of the same characteristics which by the end of the MBA gave rise to the later LBA/EIA cultures.

Huban writes: Archeological evidence from Croatia and Bosnia regarding Cetina and Posušje cultures shows that these two had absolutely nothing to do with each other in terms of mutual relations and their origin.

Now let's examine if this statement actually reflects the data:

Hrvoje Potrebica (2012), Burial Mounds in Croatia Landscapes of Continuity and Transformation (https://www.persee.fr/docAsPDF/mom_2259-4884_2012_act_58_1_3460.pdf):

The end of the Cetina Culture, as well as its beginning, is burdened with many unresolved chronological and cultural problems. That is especially true of its relation to the Posušje (or Dinaric) Culture, the name of which is given to the cultural phenomenon which chronologically partially overlaps the Cetina Culture. In its final stages the Posušje Culture succeeds to the Cetina Culture in the Dinaric area. The importance of this issue is further emphasized by some finds, which are crucial to understand the Early Bronze Age in this area of Croatia in relation to the broader European context, such as the famous stone cist tumulus burial in Živalji near Obrovac with a triangular dagger and litzen pottery fragments, which is by some authors attributed to the late phase of the Cetina Culture and by others to the Posušje Culture (Marović, Čović 1983, p. 207‑209;
Govedarica 1989, p. 154). Mounds attributed to the Posušje Culture are located next to the mounds of the Cetina Culture and material attributed to the Posušje Culture is sometimes interpreted as a secondary deposition within Cetina Culture mounds. In some cases authors use the same or similar arguments to attribute the same mound to one or the other culture. Some authors claim that, as opposed to the bi-ritual practice of the Cetina Culture, the Posušje Culture has exclusively skeletal burials but at the same time some mounds with cremation burials are attributed to the Posušje Culture. Since these two phenomena share an almost identical distribution area and at the initial stages of the Bronze Age they are apparently simultaneous, it is very hard to make any firm distinguishing criteria other than pottery. Preliminary results from the very important excavation of two tumuli by D. Periša at the site of Mali Mosor near Dicmo in the Dalmatian hinterland could provide the most recent and valuable contribution to this discussion and our understanding of the interrelation between the Cetina and the Posušje Culture (Periša 2005). However, the very small number of settlements which have been excavated and published so far did not provide a stratigraphy which would firmly establish a clear distinction between these two groups.

Excavations of the last 30 years have shown the Cetina culture spread as far as central Albania. The Cetina phenomenon across the Adriatic during the 2nd half of the 3rd millennium BC: new data and research perspectives (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326044535_The_Cetina_phenomenon_across_the_Adriati c_during_the_2nd_half_of_the_3rd_millennium_BC_new _data_and_research_perspectives)(2018):

Evidence of Cetina contexts and pottery is much rarer in the Southern Adriatic Balkans, but the uneven distribution of Cetina-type finds is likely due to a research bias in the area. Most of the early 3rd millennium BC “princely” tumuli are concentrated in southern Dalmatia, such as Mala Gruda, Velika Gruda (Primas 1996, Della Casa 1996) and Pazhok (Bodinaku 1982). It is worth mentioning that some of these tumuli were used over a long time-span, such as the impressive 6m high Velika Gruda tumulus, which, unlike the central Dalmatian tumuli, is made up of both soil (the primary barrow) and stones, used in succession in the complex sequence of construction phases. Cetina-type fragments occurred as stray finds in the secondary Late Bronze Age mound (fig. 3.8-10; Della Casa 1996, fig. 92, pp. 66–67). A considerable number of finds belonging to the Cetina culture comes from the southern Skadar lake area (northern Albania). Here the cemetery of Shkrel (Jubani 1995) includes several stone tumuli, ten of which were excavated in the early 1980s. Tumulus II is the richest in Cetina pottery, while tumulus V is outstanding for its size (1.80m x 21.50m) and architecture, which suggests an earlier date. Unfortunately no ceramic finds illuminate its chronology. The tumulus of Shtoj (see Govedarica 2016 for a thorough discussion) is of particular interest, as it shows two superimposed construction phases. (..) Two settlements of the gradina type (hillforts), Shkoder and Gajtan (Islami-Ceka 1964, Jubani 1972), have yielded some Cetina sherds. Like those found at the settlement of Monkodonja in Istria (Hellmut 2017), these appear to indicate an early use of the site that reflect more like occasional visits to the area than permanent settlement, which only occurred from the Middle Bronze Age onwards. Of particular interest is a sherd from Gajtan (Korkuti 1985, pl. IV.21), belonging to a thickened-rim bowl, whose impressed decoration (fig. 4.3; Jubani 1972 p. 424 fig. 8, dh-e) closely recalls the peculiar decoration of some thickened-rim bowls from Castelluccio (eastern Sicily; Orsi 1893, pl.5), that resemble Cetina-type pottery. New excavations in the caves of Blazi, Nezir and Keputa indicate that the Cetina culture spread in central Albania as well. In fact, several fragments of Cetina vessels come from the upper layers of Blazi (under study by M. Gori, T. Krapf). Finally, a handful of Cetina-type sherds and a juglet from Sovjan (Gori 2015, referred to as a tankard), a site in the Ohrid-Prespa lakes region, are significant pointers to the importance of overland connections in the spread of Cetina features in the south-western Balkans.

"IE" and "non-IE" people intermingled and formed new cultures in the western Balkans for almost a thousand years before the Iron Age. The people which became known with specific cultural labels in classical antiquity are the offspring of these processes.

Hawk
03-06-2021, 06:28 PM
This is not about nativism but an attempt to deny to a group of people clarity. By constantly throwing doubts.

Albanians have clearly around 20-25% Celtic, Gothic and Slavic Y components in the population. So they are not 100% pure or native or whatever bothers some. The problem with your suggestion is that you do not seem to accept that the rest/the core of the Albanian population comes from Y components that are in the region/west Balkans mostly through bronze age and Iron age period layered on top of each others within this time frame. Now why you don't want to accept this when all the Y dna data is very clear and obvious I don't want to speculate and its not relevant to the subject. Of course there are gaps to be filled as this is still a huge regions with little ancient dna and more needs to be understood how these lines interacted and why some were more successful than others. But Albanians did not come into existence out of thin air but clearly their core group is a continuation of some of those Y dna haplos of BA/IA.
I remember that the theory initially was that Albanians came form Albania of Caucasus in the middle ages. That was a great one:). Than I heard that we are BA/IA but Thracians that were pushed west by the Slavs or mini versions of this theory and not descendants of Illyrians. As more WGT is being done this is clearly not standing any more for the majority of Albanian Y dna. The majority of the clades appear to be west balkan based. Of course as two neighboring groups there would be some grey areas between the two, but this is clearly minor for both of them and does not change the essence of each of them. Taking this minor cases and making them the core of one group of the other is at best misuse of data. At worse "payed agent".
I have lost track what is the current/next effort theory is. But whatever it is it can easily be called desperation.
I cant say for sure that there will be clarity for all of us in a year or two because I am sure some acrobatic interpretations will be devised even after we start to get the ancient dna results from albania that is in the process testing or to be tested by two different groups of archeologists that would most likely overall confirm this continuity.

I agree in most of what you wrote.

Huban
03-06-2021, 08:24 PM
That's the key sentence. For example, a Bulgarian that recently turned out BY5022 because of his STR haplotype can further be predicted as E-Y150909a. But if there is no SNP confirmation that he is BY5022 this wouldn't have been that obvious.

Indeed he is 99.9 % E-Y150909a based on his STR's. I presume it is the guy who also joined the Serbian project with a Macedonian/Bulgarian surname.

This is for Rafc as well. Similarly based on SNP Packs of a Bulgarian E-Y3183* and Austrian E-Y3183*, by comparing their haplotypes we can determine they share at least 3 distinct STR values, two of them on relatively slower STR's. Therefore it is highly likely these will for ma clade of their own. That two of these STR's are of medium speed and 1 extremely slow, and that YFiler contains 1 medium and 1 extremely slow STR. Considering the fact Bulgarian has close STR YFiler matches with other Bulgarians, and that they share an additional backmutation on a medium speed STR, we can indeed predict that there is a Bulgarian E-Y3183* cluster defined by these. And that all those other ethnicities such as Greeks, Hungarians. Romanian, Ruthenian etc will also fall within this cluster.



As for my cluster, yes those are indeed the defining STRs but these are reliable only for the last 850 years as per various TMRCA calculators that give a range of TMRCA between 850-450 ybp. Therefore, you don't know what are the defining STRs with someone I share common ancestor in 500 AD or earlier because there isn't any close match of that sort which is SNP and STR defined as well.

That is true, what defines your young cluster in 500 AD obviously is not the same, some of them do not define it for sure, yes likely some of them still define it in 500 AD. Which ones of are older mutations, we do not know. We can just guess based on STR speed, number of these distinct STR's being shared etc.

Of help would be an STR that defines the entire E-Y16729, currently I don't see such Y111 STR.

Huban
03-06-2021, 09:10 PM
This is not about nativism but an attempt to deny to a group of people clarity. By constantly throwing doubts.

Albanians have clearly around 20-25% Celtic, Gothic and Slavic Y components in the population. So they are not 100% pure or native or whatever bothers some. The problem with your suggestion is that you do not seem to accept that the rest/the core of the Albanian population comes from Y components that are in the region/west Balkans mostly through bronze age and Iron age period layered on top of each others within this time frame. Now why you don't want to accept this when all the Y dna data is very clear and obvious I don't want to speculate and its not relevant to the subject. Of course there are gaps to be filled as this is still a huge regions with little ancient dna and more needs to be understood how these lines interacted and why some were more successful than others. But Albanians did not come into existence out of thin air but clearly their core group is a continuation of some of those Y dna haplos of BA/IA.

Y DNA data cannot be clear regarding the widely spread hg such as E-V13 for as long other SE Euro ethnicities such as Romanians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Greeks etc are not equally well NGS profiled.

I totally reject any notion that E-V13 as a haplogroup participated in greater extent in Illyrian than in Daco-Thracian ethnogenesis. In fact I believe most E-V13 LBA/EIA Illyrians are just originally (pre) Daco-Thracian/non-Illyrian spillovers into the Illyrian zone caused by the LBA collapse, and also later Illyrian expansion into Thracian and other areas areas. Such as the non-Illyrian original Dardanians and Triballii.

My thesis is based on E-V13 SNP diversity, spread and aDNA finds which continuously show heavy E-V13 presence.
Thus far out of six aDNA EIA/LIA Thracian, among Southern and Northern Thracian, finds five of them are E-V13. Therefore E-V13 shows the similar pattern to R-Z93 in Iranic populations.
Considering that four out of these five come from different archeological sites this debate is already over. When for ex. first four Iranic sites were tested they showed the same pattern.

Considering that I believe that E-V13 originally began in proto-Cetina (I said proto, because most E-V13 has nothing to do with Cetina but other related phenomenon) culture in the Western Balkans and not in Central Europe, this is how E-V13 came to form a defining influence in an ancient IE Paleo-Balkan culture.

Because if it was spread primarily by the Illyrians, then E-V13 cannot have an important IE connection.



I remember that the theory initially was that Albanians came form Albania of Caucasus in the middle ages. That was a great one:).

No one in the Serbian or Yugoslav academic world ever proposed such a theory.



Than I heard that we are BA/IA but Thracians that were pushed west by the Slavs or mini versions of this theory and not descendants of Illyrians.

Well Albanian language cannot be safely designated as either Illyrian or Thracian and various theories about Albanian exist, postulated by various people for various reasons. Some of them based on their own nativism would prefer a notion that Albanians are newcomers to Albania and that actually Slavs are more native to Albania. For that reason they might support a Bessi theory. Which was proposed by Schramm not any Yugoslav.




As more WGT is being done this is clearly not standing any more for the majority of Albanian Y dna. The majority of the clades appear to be west balkan based. Of course as two neighboring groups there would be some grey areas between the two, but this is clearly minor for both of them and does not change the essence of each of them. Taking this minor cases and making them the core of one group of the other is at best misuse of data. At worse "payed agent".
I have lost track what is the current/next effort theory is. But whatever it is it can easily be called desperation.

My focus is not on Albanian origins. What I care is that E-V13 makes up a bulk of an ancient Indoeuropean culture to such a degree so that without E-V13 it doesn't exist. Similarly to the proto-Semitic - J-Z2331 relationship where originally a non-AA hg has "hijacked" the entire linguistic group. Thracian in this instance. It cannot define a Western Balkan IE culture because IMO it originates from the Western Balkan Neolithic remnant. Indoeuropeans are invaders, to have such a connection one must be an invader, E-V13 is a not an invader in W.Balkans (except the LBA period). It is in the Eastern area where it wasn't present in Neolithic but was extremely strong in the Iron Age.

One Serbian admin who long ago opposed the E-V13 - Illyrian, Thracian, Greek connections told me: "I feel there is an inclination in you to make E-V13 Indoeuropean at all costs." Indeed. Just as there is a significant degree of it obviously in Riverman and it seems Aspar as well. Rafc also in his paper proposed at the time that V13 were proto-Greeks. As you can see all of us non-Albanian V13+ people work towards the same objective.

But I am very realistic and conservative and I know E-V13 likely originally began in the W.Balkans, so I work within the confines of that space which says E-V13 must not expand dominantly from the Western Balkans to achieve an important IE connection.

Bruzmi
03-06-2021, 09:49 PM
I totally reject any notion that E-V13 as a haplogroup participated in greater extent in Illyrian than in Daco-Thracian ethnogenesis. In fact I believe most E-V13 LBA/EIA Illyrians are just originally Daco-Thracian/non-Illyrian spillovers into the Illyrian zone caused by the LBA collapse, and also later Illyrian expansion into Thracian and other areas areas. Such as the non-Illyrian original Dardanians and Triballii.


Every excavation of the past 30 years has shown the every site in the core area of Dardania (present-day Kosovo) was part of the same general material culture as the rest of the western Balkans (LBA and Glasinac-Mati etc). I've posted the list of excavations before so at this point you're repeating something that doesn't reflect the current level of knowledge.




My focus is not on Albanian origins. What I care is that E-V13 makes up a bulk of an ancient Indoeuropean culture to such a degree so that without E-V13 it doesn't exist.
I don't know what exactly it is that you think the "ancient IE civilization" was, but E-V13 carriers had nothing to do with its formation, let alone "to such a degree so that without E-V13 it doesn't exist". And there's nothing wrong with that.



Archeological evidence from Croatia and Bosnia regarding Cetina and Posušje cultures shows that these two had absolutely nothing to do with each other in terms of mutual relations and their origin. And that at some locations their relations were hostile to each other.


Hrvoje Potrebica (2012), Burial Mounds in Croatia Landscapes of Continuity and Transformation (https://www.persee.fr/docAsPDF/mom_2259-4884_2012_act_58_1_3460.pdf):

The end of the Cetina Culture, as well as its beginning, is burdened with many unresolved chronological and cultural problems. That is especially true of its relation to the Posušje (or Dinaric) Culture, the name of which is given to the cultural phenomenon which chronologically partially overlaps the Cetina Culture. In its final stages the Posušje Culture succeeds to the Cetina Culture in the Dinaric area. The importance of this issue is further emphasized by some finds, which are crucial to understand the Early Bronze Age in this area of Croatia in relation to the broader European context, such as the famous stone cist tumulus burial in Živalji near Obrovac with a triangular dagger and litzen pottery fragments, which is by some authors attributed to the late phase of the Cetina Culture and by others to the Posušje Culture (Marović, Čović 1983, p. 207‑209;
Govedarica 1989, p. 154). Mounds attributed to the Posušje Culture are located next to the mounds of the Cetina Culture and material attributed to the Posušje Culture is sometimes interpreted as a secondary deposition within Cetina Culture mounds. In some cases authors use the same or similar arguments to attribute the same mound to one or the other culture. Some authors claim that, as opposed to the bi-ritual practice of the Cetina Culture, the Posušje Culture has exclusively skeletal burials but at the same time some mounds with cremation burials are attributed to the Posušje Culture. Since these two phenomena share an almost identical distribution area and at the initial stages of the Bronze Age they are apparently simultaneous, it is very hard to make any firm distinguishing criteria other than pottery. Preliminary results from the very important excavation of two tumuli by D. Periša at the site of Mali Mosor near Dicmo in the Dalmatian hinterland could provide the most recent and valuable contribution to this discussion and our understanding of the interrelation between the Cetina and the Posušje Culture (Periša 2005). However, the very small number of settlements which have been excavated and published so far did not provide a stratigraphy which would firmly establish a clear distinction between these two groups.


Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But if that opinion is just wrong, when corrected the very least they can do is to stop repeating it.

Riverman
03-06-2021, 09:58 PM
But I am very realistic and conservative and I know E-V13 likely originally began in the W.Balkans, so I work within the confines of that space which says E-V13 must not expand dominantly from the Western Balkans to achieve an important IE connection.

Its very simple, because male lineages don't get replaced for no reason on such a grand scale, at that time. It just doesn't happen and it practically never happened without an ethnic shift and invasion of some sort. Even if it was a process from within, so one clan growing to a tribe and expanding at the expanse of others. E-V13 was just assimilated very early in an Epi-Corded context of the Northern Carpathians, from some Tripolye Cucuteni or Lengyel related remains. Its funny that I1 and E-V13 being such a big fuzz, yet the same happened within R1a and R1b too! Many R1a and R1b lineages died out or were replaced regionally, because one clan and tribe, ethnic group, expanded at the expense of another. Like its not just because its "all R1b" it doesn't matter, because it does. And for I1 and E-V13 its just the same, just they were older branch offs, being assimilated from a late Neolithic-Eneolithic context.

In the end it was always one man, or one clan of men, doing something concrete, having a big success, at the expense of others. That some were R1b, others E-V13 or I1, was just pure chance. The question is just which kind of chance did they took, and the LBA-EIA environment is the ideal context for the timing of E-V13 main dispersal events. The geography fits too, because Urnfield expanded big into Romania and left a mark on Bulgaria, early Iron Age centres were in the Carpathians too and spread their ways from there Southward. That was the time, that was the chance they took. To the West they rather cooperated, so only individuals and small groups infiltrated the West from the centre in Eastern Slovakia-Northern Romania. But to the South, it was a full blown colonisation, resulting in the big replacement from the MBA to the EIA and the spread of Daco-Thracians.

Huban
03-06-2021, 10:17 PM
I don't know what exactly it is that you think the "ancient IE civilization" was, but E-V13 carriers had nothing to do with its formation, let alone "to such a degree so that without E-V13 it doesn't exist". And there's nothing wrong with that.

But there is. Five out of six Thracian IA finds are E-V13. Besides if Thracians were the LBA people connected to certain cultures E-V13 seems to be heavily implicated with that makes them, E-V13, the original Thracians, in the same way J-Z2331 are original proto-Semitics.
Even if Thracians were EBA people E-V13 could have been heavily involved.



Every excavation of the past 30 years has shown the every site in the core area of Dardania (present-day Kosovo) was part of the same general material culture as the rest of the western Balkans (LBA and Glasinac-Mati etc).

That is not the whole of Dardania. The original Dardanians (maybe related to Anatolian Dardanii) have nothing to do with the Illyrians. They spoke another language and they had a very different material culture. Even if you could somehow deny such influences regarding the Brnjica group, there is another stronger proto-Dardanian culture that cannot possibly be denied..



Hrvoje Potrebica (2012), Burial Mounds in Croatia Landscapes of Continuity and Transformation

:) We'll deal with this later.

BukeKrypEZemer
03-06-2021, 10:30 PM
Are any subclades available from the six Thracian finds? I hear about them for the first time.
Is it not wrong to speak about E-V13 as a whole? As it apparently is pretty old and widespread, we see that they did never travel as a united bad-boy-gang around Europe.

Hawk
03-06-2021, 10:41 PM
Are any subclades available from the six Thracian finds? I hear about them for the first time.
Is it not wrong to speak about E-V13 as a whole? As it apparently is pretty old and widespread, we see that they did never travel as a united bad-boy-gang around Europe.

No, they come from a leak. Apparently they will be published in an upcoming paper by David Reich.

Anyway E-V13 = solely Thracian as our Slavo-Vlach buddies are fighting in making has some serious issues on some old E-V13 clades being found in and around Central Europe where Proto-Thracians never even roamed.

Bruzmi
03-06-2021, 11:04 PM
No, they come from a leak. Apparently they will be published in an upcoming paper by David Reich.

Anyway E-V13 = solely Thracian as our Slavo-Vlach buddies are fighting in making has some serious issues on some old E-V13 clades being found in and around Central Europe where Proto-Thracians never even roamed.

Six samples from the EIA (?) in such a large territory can't be used for the conclusion "Thracians were predominantly E-V13" or even the conclusion "some Thracians were E-V13" (which, of course, is a valid theory on paper) because without knowing the material context of each site we can't place any label there. A very small sample size without archaeological context can't be properly used to formulate theories.

The other big problem with this theory is that the Thracians came with other IE-speaking people in the Balkans: Proto-Greeks and Proto-Illyrians and E-V13 has not been found in earlier periods in the territory of historical Thrace (yet - again a very small sample size makes this just a speculation), so for Iron Age Thracians to have been E-V13 a massive population replacement would have to have happened which miraculously left no trace to the language itself and Thracian remained a typical IE language.

Just like the theories about the Dorians, language remains the great barrier which no "X IE group was predominantly E-V13" theory can overcome.

Hawk
03-06-2021, 11:10 PM
Six samples from the EIA (?) in such a large territory can't be used for the conclusion "Thracians were predominantly E-V13" or even the conclusion "some Thracians were E-V13" (which, of course, is a valid theory on paper) because without knowing the material context of each site we can't place any label there. A very small sample size without archaeological context can't be properly used to formulate theories.

The other big problem with this theory is that the Thracians came with other IE-speaking people in the Balkans: Proto-Greeks and Proto-Illyrians and E-V13 has not been found in earlier periods in the territory of historical Thrace (yet - again a very small sample size makes this just a speculation), so for Iron Age Thracians to have been E-V13 a massive population replacement would have to have happened which miraculously left no trace to the language itself and Thracian remained a typical IE language.

Just like the theories about the Dorians, language remains the great barrier which no "X IE group was predominantly E-V13" theory can overcome.

Yes, Thracians were mostly E-V13. That's undeniable. Stamov leaks showed Iron Age Kapitan Andreevo around Svilengrad not only majority E-V13 but every single one of them as E-V13. Those few unclassified E/E-Z1919 were E-V13 as well for sure.

Secondly, Moesian leaks by one of the members showed predominately E-V13 as well. We already explained this, we also had leaks about Early Bronze, and Late Neolithic Bulgaria, where Early Bronze Age was dominated by R1b-Z2103 and some R1a and I2, while Late Neolithic was exclusively G2a.

Now the unknown/question is:

1. Was the takeover from within Balkans?

2. Did they come from North, from around North/West Carpathians?

Now, how Thracians ended up as E-V13 is a puzzle to me as much as how the Semites ended up being J1.

Bruzmi
03-06-2021, 11:30 PM
Yes, Thracians were mostly E-V13. That's undeniable. Stamov leaks showed Iron Age Kapitan Andreevo around Svilengrad not only majority E-V13 but every single one of them as E-V13. Those few unclassified E/E-Z1919 were E-V13 as well for sure.

Secondly, Moesian leaks by one of the members showed predominately E-V13 as well. We already explained this, we also had leaks about Early Bronze, and Late Neolithic Bulgaria, where Early Bronze Age was dominated by R1b-Z2103 and some R1a and I2, while Late Neolithic was exclusively G2a.

Now the unknown/question is:

1. Was the takeover from within Balkans?

2. Did they come from North, from around North/West Carpathians?

Now, how Thracians ended up as E-V13 is a puzzle to me as much as how the Semites ended up being J1.

I've seen the same leaks too, but the very small sample size doesn't allow for such broad conclusions. If you had to write a paper, you wouldn't be able to draw the conclusion "Thracians were predominantly E-V13" based on just that result.

capsian
03-06-2021, 11:55 PM
But there is. Five out of six Thracian IA finds are E-V13. Besides if Thracians were the LBA people connected to certain cultures E-V13 seems to be heavily implicated with that makes them, E-V13, the original Thracians, in the same way J-Z2331 are original proto-Semitics.
Even if Thracians were EBA people E-V13 could have been heavily involved.



That is not the whole of Dardania. The original Dardanians (maybe related to Anatolian Dardanii) have nothing to do with the Illyrians. They spoke another language and they had a very different material culture. Even if you could somehow deny such influences regarding the Brnjica group, there is another stronger proto-Dardanian culture that cannot possibly be denied..



:) We'll deal with this later.

E-M84 also proto-semetic

Aspar
03-07-2021, 07:49 AM
Indeed he is 99.9 % E-Y150909a based on his STR's. I presume it is the guy who also joined the Serbian project with a Macedonian/Bulgarian surname..

I don't usually throw ethnic labels around unless I know what I'm talking about. I've exchanged massages with the guy and he is indeed a Bulgarian with origins from Central Macedonia. His ancestor was a priest and his original last name was with ski/ich. The last names could be indicative today but in the past they weren't really indicative for a person's origin. For example, before the second half of the 19-th century, many priests and educated and prominent people in both Macedonia and Bulgaria tended to russify their last names with suffixes such as ski(ски)/ich(ич). It wasn't unusual for Bulgarians to have last names that ended in both ski and ich. A notable example in Macedonia was Kiril Peychinovich (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiril_Peychinovich) and in Bulgaria Georgi Rakovski born Popovich (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi_Sava_Rakovski).

Even in Serbia in the past and today you have people with suffixes such as ov/ev but who were/are ethnic Serbs nevertheless.


Of help would be an STR that defines the entire E-Y16729, currently I don't see such Y111 STR.

For great many Y16729+, not for all tho, DYS393=12 could be an indication.

Bane
03-07-2021, 09:07 AM
Just like the theories about the Dorians, language remains the great barrier which no "X IE group was predominantly E-V13" theory can overcome.

That is just your opinion.

Today we have Hungarian language with traces of Uralic haplogroups in Hungary.
There is also example of East Germany where Germanization of Slavs took place during the middle ages.
And there is number of other example but these are the most distinctive.

So you should take it easy with saying everyone is wrong, and actually try to explain what happened with E-V13 haplogroup and how did it spread in the Balkans and in Europe in general.

Riverman
03-07-2021, 10:11 AM
No, they come from a leak. Apparently they will be published in an upcoming paper by David Reich.

Anyway E-V13 = solely Thracian as our Slavo-Vlach buddies are fighting in making has some serious issues on some old E-V13 clades being found in and around Central Europe where Proto-Thracians never even roamed.

I think that's a question of timing and definition. Because, as an example, what is the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Hallstatt culture in this context? We could put it that way: The main body of E-V13 was evolving into Daco-Thracians, but from early to later times, from this core and source group, individuals and small groups began to move out in various directions, influencing for example other Urnfield groups other than the South Eastern ones, and spreading within Hallstatt culture later.
So the likely scenario is one original core around Eastern Slovakia-Northern Romania, and varying degrees of influence around it, with different prehistorical cultures being associated with a bigger scale movement, like the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Hallstatt.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Thraco-Cimmerian.png

So they were not necessarily Daco-Thracians, but many of the dispersals can be explained coming from the Proto-Thracian centre from the LBA to the EIA in particular. They were, at that time, especially with Gįva-Holigrady, among the technologically leading people of Europe. That didn't last for long, but its exactly in this time window that the big expansion of E-V13 happened, and honestly I don't believe in coincidences of that kind.

There is, by the way, practically no way around Urnfield being the big first spreader, however, the question is how many of its provinces were E-V13 heavy, was it just the South Eastern fringe, or a large part of e.g. Lusatian too. Were the Danubian groups more involved in this? That's still unresolved, but the involvement of Urnfield is undeniable at this point, because for the time window in question, that was the big spreading event which could have led to a big replacement in the Balkans. And its the right timing going after the currently available evidence, because Pannonia and the Balkans was largely E-V13 free before, but E-V13 heavy afterwards in the Iron Age.

Hawk
03-07-2021, 11:37 AM
I think that's a question of timing and definition. Because, as an example, what is the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Hallstatt culture in this context? We could put it that way: The main body of E-V13 was evolving into Daco-Thracians, but from early to later times, from this core and source group, individuals and small groups began to move out in various directions, influencing for example other Urnfield groups other than the South Eastern ones, and spreading within Hallstatt culture later.
So the likely scenario is one original core around Eastern Slovakia-Northern Romania, and varying degrees of influence around it, with different prehistorical cultures being associated with a bigger scale movement, like the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Hallstatt.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Thraco-Cimmerian.png

So they were not necessarily Daco-Thracians, but many of the dispersals can be explained coming from the Proto-Thracian centre from the LBA to the EIA in particular. They were, at that time, especially with Gįva-Holigrady, among the technologically leading people of Europe. That didn't last for long, but its exactly in this time window that the big expansion of E-V13 happened, and honestly I don't believe in coincidences of that kind.

There is, by the way, practically no way around Urnfield being the big first spreader, however, the question is how many of its provinces were E-V13 heavy, was it just the South Eastern fringe, or a large part of e.g. Lusatian too. Were the Danubian groups more involved in this? That's still unresolved, but the involvement of Urnfield is undeniable at this point, because for the time window in question, that was the big spreading event which could have led to a big replacement in the Balkans. And its the right timing going after the currently available evidence, because Pannonia and the Balkans was largely E-V13 free before, but E-V13 heavy afterwards in the Iron Age.

Well, that's funny because it fits the area called Beskids: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beskids

which supposedly has Proto-Albanian origin coming from Alb. bjeshke aka mountain.

Hawk
03-07-2021, 01:32 PM
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8c/c1/c9/8cc1c9ef869310f5c3d0eea3fe426c4e.png

Bruzmi
03-07-2021, 03:45 PM
Well, that's funny because it fits the area called Beskids: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beskids

which supposedly has Proto-Albanian origin coming from Alb. bjeshke aka mountain.

It's interesting but what it might show isn't related to Thracians, Dacians or any group of antiquity.

If it comes from Proto-Albanian (which is plausible, but not certain), then it was definitely brought there from the south by (Proto-)Romanians. Proto-Albanian was formed in the Roman era and it stopped being productive as the language shift to Eastern Balkan Romance was finalized. Until quite late at least in the early Middle Ages, there was a presence of a Proto-Romanian population in the region. It is evident in the fact that two forms of the name have been preserved. One which was directly borrowed from Proto-Romanian and one which formed under development in the local Slavic languages. In Slavic /sk/ became /šč/, /sc/ and other intermediate variants between them. Hence, the eastern Beskids are known as Bieszczady (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bieszczady_Mountains)(Polish) and Beščady (Slovak), but the western Beskids as Beskidy.

The same population brought Romanian barz (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/barz#Romanian) (from Proto-Albanian *bardza (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Albanian/bardza) ) to the north where it became Ukrainian barzij (http://macedonia.kroraina.com/rs/rs14_7.pdf) (black sheep or goat with white spots)

That's why I insist that we should focus more on actual, documented movement of people since late antiquity than on speculations about ancient groups.

vettor
03-07-2021, 04:08 PM
But there is. Five out of six Thracian IA finds are E-V13. Besides if Thracians were the LBA people connected to certain cultures E-V13 seems to be heavily implicated with that makes them, E-V13, the original Thracians, in the same way J-Z2331 are original proto-Semitics.
Even if Thracians were EBA people E-V13 could have been heavily involved.



That is not the whole of Dardania. The original Dardanians (maybe related to Anatolian Dardanii) have nothing to do with the Illyrians. They spoke another language and they had a very different material culture. Even if you could somehow deny such influences regarding the Brnjica group, there is another stronger proto-Dardanian culture that cannot possibly be denied..



:) We'll deal with this later.

What is the Thracian finds ........is this new
or
part of the 2015 paper, which has


Thracian burial mound Bulgaria Stambolovo (T2G2) 850-700 BC CT
Thracian Bulgaria Svilengrad (P192-1) 800-500 BC E1b1b1a1b-Z1919 ..............which was changed to E1b1b1-V68-M78-Z1919-V1083/CTS202/Z825
Other Thracian is Varna ( golden man ) ydna of T-M184-Z7767

or are there newer samples ?



some university in USA are going by this below ............I cannot recall which DNA lab in europe produced this

https://i.postimg.cc/Njh3cb4D/balkans-2400-bc.png (https://postimages.org/)



or are these Thracians

Sample P192-1 was found at the site of a pit sanctuary near Svilengrad, Bulgaria, excavated between 2004 and 2006. The pits are associated with the Thracian culture and date to the Early Iron Age (800–500 BC) based on pottery found in the pits. A total of 67 ritual pits, including 16 pits containing human skeletons or parts of skeletons, were explored during the excavations. An upper wisdom tooth from an adult male was used for DNA analysis.

Sample T2G2 was found in a Thracian tumulus (burial mound) near the village of Stambolovo, Bulgaria. Two small tumuli dating to the Early Iron Age (850–700 BC) were excavated in 2008. A canine tooth from an inhumation burial of a child (c.12 years old) inside a dolium was used for DNA analysis.

Sample V2 was found in a flat cemetery dating to the Late Bronze Age (1500–1100 BC) near the village of Vratitsa, Bulgaria. Nine inhumation burials were excavated between 2003 and 2004. A molar from a juvenile male (age 16–17) was used for DNA analysis.

Sample K8 was found in the Yakimova Mogila Tumulus, which dates to the Iron Age (450–400 BC), near Krushare, Bulgaria. An aristocratic inhumation burial containing rich grave goods was excavated in 2008. A molar from one individual, probably male, was used for DNA analysis.

from this paper
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824117/
??


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

late bronze age has these thracians, see below...no Haplogroup E though


I0700
mtDNA: T2e
Y-DNA: T1a1a

I1108
mtDNA: T2e
Y-DNA: T1a1

I1109
mtDNA: J2b1

I1113
mtDNA: U5a1c

I1295
mtDNA: J1c
Y-DNA: G2a2b2a

I1297
mtDNA: H5b

I3879
mtDNA: H
Y-DNA: G2a2b2a

I2431
mtDNA: N1b2
Y-DNA: G2a2b2a1a1c1a


I2430
mtDNA: K1a26
Y-DNA: R1b1a

I2175
mtDNA: K1c1
Y-DNA: I2a2a1b1

I2176
mtDNA: U1a1
Y-DNA: I2a2a1b

Hawk
03-07-2021, 04:21 PM
It's interesting but what it might show isn't related to Thracians, Dacians or any group of antiquity.

If it comes from Proto-Albanian (which is plausible, but not certain), then it was definitely brought there from the south by (Proto-)Romanians. Proto-Albanian was formed in the Roman era and it stopped being productive as the language shift to Eastern Balkan Romance was finalized. Until quite late at least in the early Middle Ages, there was a presence of a Proto-Romanian population in the region. It is evident in the fact that two forms of the name have been preserved. One which was directly borrowed from Proto-Romanian and one which formed under development in the local Slavic languages. In Slavic /sk/ became /šč/, /sc/ and other intermediate variants between them. Hence, the eastern Beskids are known as Bieszczady (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bieszczady_Mountains)(Polish) and Beščady (Slovak), but the western Beskids as Beskidy.

The same population brought Romanian barz (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/barz#Romanian) (from Proto-Albanian *bardza (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Albanian/bardza) ) to the north where it became Ukrainian barzij (http://macedonia.kroraina.com/rs/rs14_7.pdf) (black sheep or goat with white spots)

That's why I insist that we should focus more on actual, documented movement of people since late antiquity than on speculations about ancient groups.

There was no Proto-Romanians there. And the connection of Beskid is probably very old. Predating even the classical antiquity. A legacy word from an extinct language similar to Albanian, let's call it Albanoid as Matzinger likes to label for Messapian.

Kelmendasi
03-07-2021, 04:37 PM
..............................................

late bronze age has these thracians, see below...no Haplogroup E though


I0700
mtDNA: T2e
Y-DNA: T1a1a

I1108
mtDNA: T2e
Y-DNA: T1a1

I1109
mtDNA: J2b1

I1113
mtDNA: U5a1c

I1295
mtDNA: J1c
Y-DNA: G2a2b2a

I1297
mtDNA: H5b

I3879
mtDNA: H
Y-DNA: G2a2b2a

I2431
mtDNA: N1b2
Y-DNA: G2a2b2a1a1c1a


I2430
mtDNA: K1a26
Y-DNA: R1b1a

I2175
mtDNA: K1c1
Y-DNA: I2a2a1b1

I2176
mtDNA: U1a1
Y-DNA: I2a2a1b
Most of the samples that you have provided were not Thracians, but rather belonged to different and possibly unrelated cultures of Bronze Age Bulgaria.

Also sample ANI152 (also referred to as Golden Man) that belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup T-M184 (https://yfull.com/tree/T/) was from the Chalcolithic Varna culture of north-eastern Bulgaria and dates back to 4683-4406 BCE. Another sample from this site was ANI153 which was identified as R1b-V88 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-V88/) and dated to 4551-4374 BCE.

Bruzmi
03-07-2021, 04:46 PM
There was no Proto-Romanians there. And the connection of Beskid is probably very old. Predating even the classical antiquity. A legacy word from an extinct language similar to Albanian, let's call it Albanoid as Matzinger likes to label for Messapian.

Language studies are not based on speculation. The word, if indeed non-Slavic, comes from Proto-Albanian. Proto-Albanian existed in the Roman era. The Proto-Albanian word *beškā comes from either the Paleo-Balkan form of *bheug-iska (more likely) or Latin pastus (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pastus) (less likely). Languages provide many instances of terminus post quem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminus_post_quem). PIE *bheug did not evolve as *be until Proto-Albanian (if the word is of Paleo-Balkan origin). For this oronym to have any relation to Albanian bjeshkė, it could only have come to the region via a Proto-Albanian term retained in the language of Proto-Romanians in late antiquity and the early Middle Ages which was retained as Beskidy and Bieszczady in the Slavic languages. There is no other "probably very old" connection other than this.

Exactly in the same way that the term barzij in Ukrainian could only be the result of contact with (Proto-)Romanians who brought the term "barz" (from PA *bardza/bardhė in modern Albanian) to the north.

Johane Derite
03-07-2021, 05:02 PM
Language studies are not based on speculation. The word, if indeed non-Slavic, comes from Proto-Albanian. Proto-Albanian existed in the Roman era.

Depends on the linguists scheme. Some argue it comes from Early-Proto-Albanian or Pre-Proto-Albanian, which is the stage before there is yet any contact with Latin (before Romans).

Kelmendasi
03-07-2021, 05:15 PM
Language studies are not based on speculation. The word, if indeed non-Slavic, comes from Proto-Albanian. Proto-Albanian existed in the Roman era. The Proto-Albanian word *beškā comes from either the Paleo-Balkan form of *bheug-iska (more likely) or Latin pastus (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pastus) (less likely). Languages provide many instances of terminus post quem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminus_post_quem). PIE *bheug did not evolve as *be until Proto-Albanian (if the word is of Paleo-Balkan origin). For this oronym to have any relation to Albanian bjeshkė, it could only have come to the region via a Proto-Albanian term retained in the language of Proto-Romanians in late antiquity and the early Middle Ages which was retained as Beskidy and Bieszczady in the Slavic languages. There is no other "probably very old" connection other than this.

Exactly in the same way that the term barzij in Ukrainian could only be the result of contact with (Proto-)Romanians who brought the term "barz" (from PA *bardza/bardhė in modern Albanian) to the north.
Seems like a similar situation to the introduction of words such as watra (Polish) and vatra (Czech-Slovak) in the West Slavic languages, although the the variant ватра or vȁtra is found in South Slavic languages such as Serbo-Croatian and even Bulgarian. There is a general belief that these words stem from the Proto-Albanian *ōtar (either derived from or related to the Proto-Iranian *ātr- or *ātar-) which gave rise to the modern Albanian vatėr/votėr and Romanian vatră meaning "fireplace" or "hearth". Some have concluded that the West Slavic variants were transmitted via cultural and linguistic contact with the early or Proto-Romanians around the Carpathian Mountains and its sub-sections, which includes the Beskids.

Bruzmi
03-07-2021, 05:16 PM
Depends on the linguists scheme. Some argue it comes from Early-Proto-Albanian or Pre-Proto-Albanian, which is the stage before there is yet any contact with Latin (before Romans).

The schemes you are referring to have to do with labels and classification. No matter how you call it though, a *beska form could only exist at the period which we usually call Proto-Albanian. When you see two terms that resemble one another so closely, they are either not related or their relation is not that distant as in this case. Language diversification of PIE and all other language works in such ways that it is impossible for *beska to have produced Beskidy in a basically unchanged form for 3000+ years.

Hawk
03-07-2021, 06:11 PM
Language studies are not based on speculation. The word, if indeed non-Slavic, comes from Proto-Albanian. Proto-Albanian existed in the Roman era. The Proto-Albanian word *beškā comes from either the Paleo-Balkan form of *bheug-iska (more likely) or Latin pastus (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pastus) (less likely). Languages provide many instances of terminus post quem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminus_post_quem). PIE *bheug did not evolve as *be until Proto-Albanian (if the word is of Paleo-Balkan origin). For this oronym to have any relation to Albanian bjeshkė, it could only have come to the region via a Proto-Albanian term retained in the language of Proto-Romanians in late antiquity and the early Middle Ages which was retained as Beskidy and Bieszczady in the Slavic languages. There is no other "probably very old" connection other than this.

Exactly in the same way that the term barzij in Ukrainian could only be the result of contact with (Proto-)Romanians who brought the term "barz" (from PA *bardza/bardhė in modern Albanian) to the north.

Told you that you are triggered by the fact we talk about E-V13.

It's rather Pre Proto-Albanian, along the line. It's highly unlikely it was brought there by Proto-Romanians lol.

Johane Derite
03-07-2021, 06:35 PM
Language studies are not based on speculation.
Exactly in the same way that the term barzij in Ukrainian could only be the result of contact with (Proto-)Romanians who brought the term "barz" (from PA *bardza/bardhė in modern Albanian) to the north.

Here is Matzinger on this problem specifically, he is a linguist that has closely and meticulously studied the oldest Albanian texts, as well as the ancient languages of the Balkans. He is arguing that it is no Proto-Romanians who named it but rather Albanians:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?20371-Old-Albanian-amp-Proto-Albanian&p=755668&viewfull=1#post755668

BukeKrypEZemer
03-07-2021, 08:20 PM
Here is Matzinger on this problem specifically, he is a linguist that has closely and meticulously studied the oldest Albanian texts, as well as the ancient languages of the Balkans. He is arguing that it is no Proto-Romanians who named it but rather Albanians:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?20371-Old-Albanian-amp-Proto-Albanian&p=755668&viewfull=1#post755668

So, Albanian as neither Illyrian nor Thracian language? We are ruling out the two most obvious options, arent we? how comes the Messapic link to Albanian than?

vettor
03-07-2021, 09:20 PM
So, Albanian as neither Illyrian nor Thracian language? We are ruling out the two most obvious options, arent we? how comes the Messapic link to Albanian than?

Messapic is spoken by 3 tribes...with the Daunii tribe being the largest.......they arrived in Italy circa 1000BC from the northern Adriatic ......basically modern north croatia

Messapic or Messapian is an extinct language that was spoken in the south east of Italy in what is now Apulia between about the 6th and 1st centuries BC. It was spoken by the Messapians, Peucetians and Daunians

Messapic has been traditionally classified as connected to “Illyrian”, although the very concept of a language behind Illyrian tribe names is not tenable today.

The word “Messapic” refers to the language and alphabet of the pre-Roman Augustan II region Apulia et Calabria, corresponding to modern Puglia. The epigraphs range chronologically from the middle of the 6th century to the end of the 2nd century B.C. In a narrow sense, the term refers only to the language and alphabet attested in the southern part of Apulia, beneath the line which goes from Taranto to Brindisi: the so-called Salentine peninsula. It is not yet clear if the spoken language was the same in the whole of Puglia, from the Gargano in the north to Leuca in the South, because of the scarcity of the inscriptions from the northern Daunia (moreover from a later period, i.e. the 4th century B.C. on). The incomplete alphabet coming from the Daunia

Calabria in those days is not where calabria is now

so they arrived in Italy circa 1000Bc....but the language did not begin until 600BC ......that's 400 years ..............consensus, is that it is a mix of where they came from and the italic tribes they absorbed in Italy

Kelmendasi
03-07-2021, 10:12 PM
so they arrived in Italy circa 1000Bc....but the language did not begin until 600BC ......that's 400 years ..............consensus, is that it is a mix of where they came from and the italic tribes they absorbed in Italy
The Messapian (or Messapic) language is first attested through epigraphic materials that date back to the mid-sixth century BCE, meaning that it is by this period of time at least that they begun writing down their language in a specialized variant of the Greek alphabet. The language itself was certainly spoken earlier.

The epigraphic evidence clearly shows that Messapian shared a number of isoglosses and linguistic similarities with what little we have of Illyrian, and also Albanian. Similarities with Albanian include: Messapian *biliā ("daughter") and *biles ("son") with Albanian bijė (archaic and dialectal bilė) which means "daughter" and is derived from the Proto-Albanian *bir(i)lā, from which the Albanian bir ("son") also stems from. Another example is Messapian *bréndon ("deer") which is related to Proto-Albanian *brina and its modern Albanian derivative bri ("horn/antler"). Interestingly, modern Italian Brindisi in Apulia is likely derived from the Messapian word through the Latin Brundisium (which, in turn, was transmitted via Ancient Greek Βρεντέσιον or Brentésion).

Bruzmi
03-07-2021, 10:22 PM
Told you that you are triggered by the fact we talk about E-V13.

It's rather Pre Proto-Albanian, along the line. It's highly unlikely it was brought there by Proto-Romanians lol.

I think that E-V13 is a very interesting hg, which is why I consider it important that it is discussed on the basis of what archaeology, history, linguistics and all other relevant scientific fields have to say. And I suggest that everybody else does the same. To the extent that we want to have a fruitful discussion, we should do just that without getting into "theories" which aren't even remotely confirmed in contemporary archaeology and other fields.


Here is Matzinger on this problem specifically, he is a linguist that has closely and meticulously studied the oldest Albanian texts, as well as the ancient languages of the Balkans. He is arguing that it is no Proto-Romanians who named it but rather Albanians:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?20371-Old-Albanian-amp-Proto-Albanian&p=755668&viewfull=1#post755668

Language development is based on specific sets of rules. It's better to read a handbook about historical linguistics and then read the various theories about various languages than the other way around. Then it'll be easier to understand what exactly every author is proposing, in what way and under which set of hypotheses they consider it valid.

Matzinger writes:
If one takes into account that the mountain ranges of the Carpathians and Beskids located in Eastern Europe can perhaps be etymologically explained using Albanian, a later contact between the Pre-Proto-Albanians and the ancestors of the Baltic and Slavonic ones could easily be understood. As part of their migrations, the ancestors of the Albanians, e.g. in the region of the Carpathian Basin, could have moved into geographical proximity to the later Baltic and Slavs. From the time of these contacts in this area, certain lexical similarities between Albanian and Balto-Slavic were understandable.
Notes
See Jokl 1921: 165f., Olbert 1972: 62, Ēabej 1976: 68 und S. 268f.
Ēabej 1964b: 71 explicitly mentions the presence of the Pre-Proto-Albanians in the Carpathian Basin "a station in their migration to southern Europe".

Matzinger is actually copying a pretty popular argument published in the "The Albanians and Their Territories (https://books.google.com/books?id=gtFBAAAAYAAJ)" (Academy of Sciences of Albania, 1985):

(..) on the other hand , if it s considered that two mountain chains of Central and Eastern Europe — the Carpathians and the Beskids , have a meaning in Albanian , of all living Indo - European languages ( karpė , bjeshkė , the latter with subsequent diphthongization ) , it is not far from the truth to say that the cradle of the pre - Balkan phase of the Albanian in the European period of the Indo - European languages has been in an area somewhere to the north of the Balkan Peninsula.

The only difference between the two statements is that "The Albanians and Their Territories" calls this population Illyrians, while Matzinger Pre-Proto-Albanians.

The link between Beskidy - bjeshkė, if accepted, by itself doesn't say anything about when that relation was established ... which is why Matzinger is rather cautious. Ēabej - the original source of the debate - recognizing the fact that an actual etymology has to be established in order to explain when the oronym "Beskidy" entered Slavic languages writes in 1986 (https://books.google.com/books?id=GNPqAAAAMAAJ):

As N. Jokl has demonstrated, it is an indigenous formation with the base * bier (r) shkė, relating to bie "to fall" in the sense of "to bend, slope". The development of *berska, * bier (r) shke to bjeshke finds its evidence in the analogy lat. persica: alb. pjeshkė. The oldest form of the Albanian word is preserved in the name of the Beskides, whose kinship with the Albanian word has been glimpsed by K. Dobrowski. In this name it is maintained in the form Besk- not yet diphthongous. On the other hand, the name Bieskit already presents the more evolved form, imported in Poland by the Romanian shepherds.

For Orel, the Proto-Albanian word *beškā comes from either the Paleo-Balkan form of *bheug-iska or Latin pastus.

Whichever etymology you pick and in whatever way you label it, however, its origin lies in the first AD centuries and the only people who could have transported it there are (Proto-)Romanians. If you want to dispute any of these etymologies and their chronology, you'll have to 1)transfer contacts between Albanian and Latin 2,000 years to the past or 2)explain how *beska of Proto-Albanian appeared in the Bronze Age somewhere north of the Carpathians when the forms from which it stemmed hadn't appeared yet *bʰerH- (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/b%CA%B0erH-)>[*bier(r)shkė]>*berska>*beska or 3)how *beska- appeared before *bheug-iska itself from PIE *bʰerǵʰ- (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/b%CA%B0er%C7%B5%CA%B0-) even though it is a later development.

Johane Derite
03-08-2021, 01:34 AM
So, Albanian as neither Illyrian nor Thracian language? We are ruling out the two most obvious options, arent we? how comes the Messapic link to Albanian than?

Well, that is quite an interesting statement by him isn't it? We should investigate what that means more concretely, shouldn't we? He has a long paper on all the ancient languages of the balkans, he is not an amateur.


As for Messapi relations, either Dardanian proper was different group that was non-illyrian, non-thracian, possibly related to brygian, and the Galabri of Dardania and Kalabri of Messapia are related, or the Dardi mentioned in Italy as being conquered by Diomedes, or maybe the Apuli tribe in the Carpathians and Apulia are not accidental.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EvzTQuHXMAEqRUF?format=jpg&name=large

Johane Derite
03-08-2021, 01:46 AM
I think that E-V13 is a very interesting hg, which is why I consider it important that it is discussed on the basis of what archaeology, history, linguistics and all other relevant scientific fields have to say. And I suggest that everybody else does the same. To the extent that we want to have a fruitful discussion, we should do just that without getting into "theories" which aren't even remotely confirmed in contemporary archaeology and other fields.



Language development is based on specific sets of rules. It's better to read a handbook about historical linguistics and then read the various theories about various languages than the other way around. Then it'll be easier to understand what exactly every author is proposing, in what way and under which set of hypotheses they consider it valid.

Matzinger writes:
If one takes into account that the mountain ranges of the Carpathians and Beskids located in Eastern Europe can perhaps be etymologically explained using Albanian, a later contact between the Pre-Proto-Albanians and the ancestors of the Baltic and Slavonic ones could easily be understood. As part of their migrations, the ancestors of the Albanians, e.g. in the region of the Carpathian Basin, could have moved into geographical proximity to the later Baltic and Slavs. From the time of these contacts in this area, certain lexical similarities between Albanian and Balto-Slavic were understandable.
Notes
See Jokl 1921: 165f., Olbert 1972: 62, Ēabej 1976: 68 und S. 268f.
Ēabej 1964b: 71 explicitly mentions the presence of the Pre-Proto-Albanians in the Carpathian Basin "a station in their migration to southern Europe".

Matzinger is actually copying a pretty popular argument published in the "The Albanians and Their Territories (https://books.google.com/books?id=gtFBAAAAYAAJ)" (Academy of Sciences of Albania, 1985):

(..) on the other hand , if it s considered that two mountain chains of Central and Eastern Europe — the Carpathians and the Beskids , have a meaning in Albanian , of all living Indo - European languages ( karpė , bjeshkė , the latter with subsequent diphthongization ) , it is not far from the truth to say that the cradle of the pre - Balkan phase of the Albanian in the European period of the Indo - European languages has been in an area somewhere to the north of the Balkan Peninsula.

The only difference between the two statements is that "The Albanians and Their Territories" calls this population Illyrians, while Matzinger Pre-Proto-Albanians.

The link between Beskidy - bjeshkė, if accepted, by itself doesn't say anything about when that relation was established ... which is why Matzinger is rather cautious. Ēabej - the original source of the debate - recognizing the fact that an actual etymology has to be established in order to explain when the oronym "Beskidy" entered Slavic languages writes in 1986 (https://books.google.com/books?id=GNPqAAAAMAAJ):

As N. Jokl has demonstrated, it is an indigenous formation with the base * bier (r) shkė, relating to bie "to fall" in the sense of "to bend, slope". The development of *berska, * bier (r) shke to bjeshke finds its evidence in the analogy lat. persica: alb. pjeshkė. The oldest form of the Albanian word is preserved in the name of the Beskides, whose kinship with the Albanian word has been glimpsed by K. Dobrowski. In this name it is maintained in the form Besk- not yet diphthongous. On the other hand, the name Bieskit already presents the more evolved form, imported in Poland by the Romanian shepherds.

For Orel, the Proto-Albanian word *beškā comes from either the Paleo-Balkan form of *bheug-iska or Latin pastus.

Whichever etymology you pick and in whatever way you label it, however, its origin lies in the first AD centuries and the only people who could have transported it there are (Proto-)Romanians. If you want to dispute any of these etymologies and their chronology, you'll have to 1)transfer contacts between Albanian and Latin 2,000 years to the past or 2)explain how *beska of Proto-Albanian appeared in the Bronze Age somewhere north of the Carpathians when the forms from which it stemmed hadn't appeared yet *bʰerH- (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/b%CA%B0erH-)>[*bier(r)shkė]>*berska>*beska or 3)how *beska- appeared before *bheug-iska itself from PIE *bʰerǵʰ- (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/b%CA%B0er%C7%B5%CA%B0-) even though it is a later development.

Matzinger is clearly arguing for these names being given in a pre-roman stage of Albanian, that is why he is mentioning the old Balto-Slavic isoglosses with Albanian.

Some Proto-Romanians didn't go to the carpathians to take some Balto-Slavic isoglosses and bring them back into the Albanian population, the Albanians got them directly in the carpathians regions more or less, that is the argument.

His literal term "voruralbanisch" (Pre-proto-Albanian) is delineated by "romerzeit" i.e. before contact with romans/latins.

So it is a total misrepresentation to say that "whichever etymology you pick" its origin lies in the first AD centuries. Matzinger and even Orel is arguing for some sort of Iron Age movement here, so again there is no need for bronze age. Total misrepresentation. Neither pastus, bheug-iska, nor bjershke are secure etymologies by the way, so its a mistake to place your bets specifically on this.

Johane Derite
03-08-2021, 01:50 AM
The only difference between the two statements is that "The Albanians and Their Territories" calls this population Illyrians, while Matzinger Pre-Proto-Albanians.



Also this is really insincere, as if Matzinger is arguing the same thing, but just using different terminology. Matzinger is explicitly saying that Albanian descends from neither Illyrian or Thracian, but a third group:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?20371-Old-Albanian-amp-Proto-Albanian&p=755652&viewfull=1#post755652

Huban
03-08-2021, 04:03 AM
Hrvoje Potrebica (2012), Burial Mounds in Croatia Landscapes of Continuity and Transformation (https://www.persee.fr/docAsPDF/mom_2259-4884_2012_act_58_1_3460.pdf):

The end of the Cetina Culture, as well as its beginning, is burdened with many unresolved chronological and cultural problems. That is especially true of its relation to the Posušje (or Dinaric) Culture, the name of which is given to the cultural phenomenon which chronologically partially overlaps the Cetina Culture. In its final stages the Posušje Culture succeeds to the Cetina Culture in the Dinaric area. The importance of this issue is further emphasized by some finds, which are crucial to understand the Early Bronze Age in this area of Croatia in relation to the broader European context, such as the famous stone cist tumulus burial in Živalji near Obrovac with a triangular dagger and litzen pottery fragments, which is by some authors attributed to the late phase of the Cetina Culture and by others to the Posušje Culture (Marović, Čović 1983, p. 207‑209;
Govedarica 1989, p. 154). Mounds attributed to the Posušje Culture are located next to the mounds of the Cetina Culture and material attributed to the Posušje Culture is sometimes interpreted as a secondary deposition within Cetina Culture mounds. In some cases authors use the same or similar arguments to attribute the same mound to one or the other culture. Some authors claim that, as opposed to the bi-ritual practice of the Cetina Culture, the Posušje Culture has exclusively skeletal burials but at the same time some mounds with cremation burials are attributed to the Posušje Culture. Since these two phenomena share an almost identical distribution area and at the initial stages of the Bronze Age they are apparently simultaneous, it is very hard to make any firm distinguishing criteria other than pottery. Preliminary results from the very important excavation of two tumuli by D. Periša at the site of Mali Mosor near Dicmo in the Dalmatian hinterland could provide the most recent and valuable contribution to this discussion and our understanding of the interrelation between the Cetina and the Posušje Culture (Periša 2005). However, the very small number of settlements which have been excavated and published so far did not provide a stratigraphy which would firmly establish a clear distinction between these two groups.



Blagoje Govedarica, Early Bronze Age in the Eastern Adriatic area, Sarajevo 1989




pg 163
regarding the relationship between these cultures important are the following moments:

- Characteristic material production of Dinaric and Cetina culture differ stylistically and typologically to such an extent that on this relation there almost doesn't exist not even the most basic minimum of common elements which would be necessary for linking them in a unified entirety. From that aspect here we have certainly cultural groups of different origin.

- Typical Dinaric finds are not documented in closed context with the forms of Cetina culture. Safe closed unities we could only consider the the occurrence of these different elements in one grave, or at least, in the same tumulus in which the funeral was completed in one move, and without subsequent interventions. With regards to settlements, such context would correspond to the clearly differentiated and separate cultural layer.

- Alot more reliable in this regard are the results of exploration in Ravlića cave, where the layer IV with Dinaric culture is clearly separated from the layer IIIb, in which typical Cetina finds are represented. Stratigraphy of this cave is for now, the safest indicator about the relationship between these cultural units.

- In layers of fortified settlements the pottery of Cetina type is found in Sovići and Vučipolje and at that only sporadically. On all other fortifications from this frame, and their number is not small, there are no traces of joint coexistence, nor any contacts on this relation. Such situation dictates that the individual Cetina finds in previously named fortifications can be only considered as traces of short-term stay of the carriers of the Cetina culture at those places before the founding of Dinaric settlements, or as a result of certain contacts in the erly horizont of Dinaric culture, that is in the time which corresponds to the end of Cetina culture.


pg 225
There is no doubt that the finds of Dinara culture in a relatively short timeframe flood the area of Middle Adriatic and overlayer the previous Cetina culture, and at that time a certain number of Cetina settlements and necropolises were occupied.

..

Connections of Dinaric culture with the auchtochtonous tradition of the Middle Adriatic circle are very specific, and in that regard the relationship towards Cetina culture is very interesting. As it was previously said, except the cremation, carriers of Dinaric culture completely adopt the Cetina funerary rituals, and not seldom they place their deceased in tumulii which were built in the time of this culture. At the same time the pottery shapes, weapons, tools and other types of finds have almost no direct remodel nor predecessor in material of the Cetina culture.

Perhaps one of rare exceptions in this sense could be the stone pendants "pseudobrassardi", which are represented in both of these cultures. However not even with this can we safely count upon, because these finds in Cetina context represent imports, most likely from the frame of "epicampaniforme" from Northern Italy and in this culture they are not broadly domesticated. Other than that, the lone find of this type from the frame of Dinaric culture (T. XXXIV:5) differs considerably from Cetina examples, in comparison to whom it is typologically more developed and without doubt younger. Considering that, also in this case the best analogies are encountered in Polada culture, it is more likely that here too it is about synchronic ties with Northern Italy rather than Cetina heritage.


In totality we can conclude that Dinaric culture represents the first cultural unit whose material production has to a significant degree broken up with the Ljubljana and proto-Cetina tradition, as well as with the older autochthonous heritage. Also this is the only culture from the frame of EBA of the East Adriatic area where contacts with the Aegean and Alps cultural circle are broken, and overseas ties are reduced to Adriatic basin in a narrow sense. At the same time for the first time have stronger relations with the internal part of the Western Balkan have been forged, and because of that the Adriatic cultural circle precisely in this time occupies the broadest area in its hinterland.

The only elements which can be with more safety identified with regards to the process of formation of this culture are the participation of Cetina component, as the biological factor at that, and proto-Cetina and Cetina heritage in the spiritual culture, that is adoption of tumulii with skeletal cyst graves as the main monument in the cult of dead.

It is an irefutable fact that these new elements within a short timeframe flood the Middle Adriatic and overlayer the Cetina culture, but the direction from where they came and their true origin for now cannot be perceived. It could be said that the solution of this question lies in more detailed exploration of the Northern periphery of the Middle Adriatic area and broader hinterland of the Western Balkans, as well as in closer studies of connections with the Apennine peninsula.


The way of life of the two was also completely different, Cetina culture were nomadic herdsmen, Posušje/Dinaric culture people were sedentary and they lived in fortified settlements.

Huban
03-08-2021, 04:14 AM
(I'll skip the irrelevant "protochronism" discussion about archaeology and move to the discussion about Cetina and Posušje)

It's very plausible that the "origin" of the people who initially formed the Posušje culture was "IE" and that the "origin" of those who formed Cetina was "non-IE". But the question has no practical significance because all excavations have shown that in their fully developed form these two cultures came to share many of the same characteristics which by the end of the MBA gave rise to the later LBA/EIA cultures.


Posušje J-L283 people were sedentary and lived in fortified settlements. Not a an IE thing to do. Cetina had a strong Steppe IE component, and they were nomads. There actually isn't much resembling "Steppe" or IE about the Posušje culture.

Nor there is about having upstream basal genetic links with the Nuragics and downstream links with the Etruscans.

Posušje/Dinaric culture had heavy Apennine links.



"IE" and "non-IE" people intermingled and formed new cultures in the western Balkans for almost a thousand years before the Iron Age. The people which became known with specific cultural labels in classical antiquity are the offspring of these processes.

No doubt Posušje culture swallowed the Cetina remnants. Having entire E-V13 descend of that event is impossible though, as it completely denies any role of E-V13 in the ethnogenesis of Thracians or Greeks. Also from basal diversity it is impossible. Which is why only or mostly the E-Y37092 can represent the Cetina culture.

Huban
03-08-2021, 04:40 AM
Six samples from the EIA (?) in such a large territory can't be used for the conclusion "Thracians were predominantly E-V13" or even the conclusion

Yet one J-L283 "proto-Illyrian" and zero I-Y3120 "proto-Slavic" Y-DNA finds can...


Just like the theories about the Dorians, language remains the great barrier which no "X IE group was predominantly E-V13" theory can overcome.

Why do you presume E-V13 spoke a non-IE language in Early Bronze Age. Cetina people were most likely IE speaking. (ignore this nonsense written on wikipedia from a Croatian author, greater experts have spoken differently on the topic).

Govedarica about one component of Cetina ethnogenesis
Adriatic neo-Neolithic substrate whose part is mostly limited to populational, that is biological factors.



which miraculously left no trace to the language itself and Thracian remained a typical IE language.

Why do you demand a presence of an E-V13 non-IE substrate in Thracian despite the fact that Cetina people most likely spoke IE, and yet you do not demand the presence of a J-L283 non-IE substrate in Illyrian or I-Y3120 non-IE substrate in Slavic?



The other big problem with this theory is that the Thracians came with other IE-speaking people in the Balkans: Proto-Greeks and Proto-Illyrians and E-V13 has not been found in earlier periods in the territory of historical Thrace (yet - again a very small sample size makes this just a speculation), so for

Who were original Thracians?? Who is to say that the Steppe element which influenced Cetina culture wasn't proto-Thracian?? Ancient elements of Cetina material culture to a degree resemble late Dacian burials thousands of years later, notably the use of tumulii combined with cremation. As they do the MBA Carpatho-Danubian complex.

Alternatively some consider Thracians Late Bronze Age invaders. Also in such a case only few modern E-V13 clades can be considered as candidates.


Iron Age Thracians to have been E-V13 a massive population replacement would have to have happened

Who says it didn't happen? Judging by modern Y-DNA spread in Thrace it did happen. E-V13 is many many times stronger there than say R-Z2103. And Z2103 clades there are rare and scattered very distant to each other. R-Z93 which can be Paleobalkan are extremely rare.


"some Thracians were E-V13" (which, of course, is a valid theory on paper)

Unfamiliar with the Math or language basics? Some designates a plurality and plurality is two or more. And already some Thracians carry E-V13. This is not a theory but a fact.

Bruzmi
03-08-2021, 04:42 AM
Also this is really insincere, as if Matzinger is arguing the same thing, but just using different terminology. Matzinger is explicitly saying that Albanian descends from neither Illyrian or Thracian, but a third group:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?20371-Old-Albanian-amp-Proto-Albanian&p=755652&viewfull=1#post755652

Brother, Matzinger is using the same exact argument (which you can read for yourself above and verify that it is indeed the same argument) under a different label. The two proposed etymologies about the Beskidy which don't involve a Latin loanward, both presuppose a *beškā or *be(r)ska which could only have existed in the early AD centuries. (I hope that it was explained in detail) But this is where Matzinger unintentionally contradicts himself:

Matzinger says that Beskidy is perhaps linked to bjeshkė via which '"a later contact between the Pre-Proto-Albanians and the ancestors of the Baltic and Slavonic ones could easily be understood". Both non-Latin proposed etymologies which are linked to an ancestral form of Albanian presuppose that /sk/ evolved into /shk/ as a pretty normal development.

But in his argument in favor of Albanian being a Paleo-Balkan language different from Illyrian, he uses as an argument that /sk/ could not have developed in Albanian as /shk/ therefore toponyms like Shkodra, Shkumbin and others can only have been adopted into Albanian which according to him only evolved /sk/ as /h/. Hence, if the toponym recorded as Scodra was part of the lexicon of Proto-Albanians it would have evolved into something like *Hadėr (https://core.ac.uk/reader/94539639) according to him. ( La fonologia storica di Shkodėr esclude cosģ l'ipotesi di una formazione dell'ethnos albanese dall'illirico e lo sviluppo dell'illirico nell'albanese come lo assume la teoria dell'autoctonia, perché nel quadro di questa teoria la forma albanese dell'antico nome Scodra dovrebbe mostrare sviluppi fonologici pił vecchi, cioč gli sviluppi delle parole ereditate: *sk > albanese h e *ó > albanese a (vedi sopra 2.1) ) Therefore, he concludes that Albanian was not spoken near coastal Illyria, but in the Dardanian hinterland up to the area near the present-day Serbia-Bulgaria border.

As you can understand for yourself, this is a contradiction because his argument about Beskidy (hence in favor of an unattested other Paleo-Balkan branch) presupposes an evolution /sk/ to /shk/ while his argument against it being Illyrian presupposes that /sk/ didn't evolve as /shk/. And the area in which he places Albanian presupposes that toponyms which contain /sk/ developed eventually as /shk/ (Scardus>Sharr, Scupi>Shkupi).

So what's going on here? In the original argument of Ēabej et al., this is not problem because Albanian developed /sk/ in different ways in different circumstances. Demiraj (2006), The origin of the Albanians linguistically investigated writes: The place-name Shkodėr - Shkodr-a, as compared to the anciently evidenced form Scodra, has also developed in harmony with the evolution of the phonetic system of Albanian (..) It has been acknowledged that the consonantal cluster */sk-/ has evolved to /h/ only in IE inherited words, that is in words pertaining to a very ancient prehistorical period. But this consonantal cluster of relatively later periods including that of contacts with Old Greek and Latin has regularly yielded /shk/ in Albanian (..) (read pages 138-140)

The oronym Sharr evolved from the form attested as Scardus which comes from PIE *(s)kerH- which as *skardā also produced hardhje (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hardhje#Albanian) (as in Matzinger's hypothesis about Shkodra). In addition, Proto-Albanian *skera produced shqerr (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shqerr#Albanian) and shkierr and Scodra and Scupi became Shkodra and Shkupi in a very "linear" development model. These developmentS could not have happened in any other language and later adopted into Albanian. Toponyms like Scardus exist in many regions in the western Balkans but all as they came into contact with Slavic languages, they underwent metathesis. Hence: Skradnik (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skradnik_(Sjenica))(Sandzak, Serbia), Skradno (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skradno) (Bosnia), Skradin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skradin) (Croatia)

The fact that Albanian developed /sk/ in different ways to me shows that as a living language, it developed new dialectal innovations in particular regions.

Huban
03-08-2021, 05:00 AM
late bronze age has these thracians, see below...no Haplogroup E though


I0700
mtDNA: T2e
Y-DNA: T1a1a

I1108
mtDNA: T2e
Y-DNA: T1a1

I1109
mtDNA: J2b1

I1113
mtDNA: U5a1c

I1295
mtDNA: J1c
Y-DNA: G2a2b2a

I1297
mtDNA: H5b

I3879
mtDNA: H
Y-DNA: G2a2b2a

I2431
mtDNA: N1b2
Y-DNA: G2a2b2a1a1c1a


5800-5400 calBCE




I2430
mtDNA: K1a26
Y-DNA: R1b1a

4545-4260 calBCE




I2175
mtDNA: K1c1
Y-DNA: I2a2a1b1

I2176
mtDNA: U1a1
Y-DNA: I2a2a1b

3328-3015 calBCE


https://i1.wp.com/www.broyhillasset.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/facepalm.jpg?ssl=1

Hawk
03-08-2021, 09:30 AM
Similar scenario as I2a2-Din i agree, a single man fathering many sons, and that single man didn't hold any power or influence but instead spoke an IE dialect. Then a founder effect after hundred of years will explain the unknowns.

Either this, or a very specific group making alliances either with one or several IE groups.

Johane Derite
03-08-2021, 12:11 PM
Brother, Matzinger is using the same exact argument (which you can read for yourself above and verify that it is indeed the same argument) under a different label. The two proposed etymologies about the Beskidy which don't involve a Latin loanward, both presuppose a *beškā or *be(r)ska which could only have existed in the early AD centuries. (I hope that it was explained in detail) But this is where Matzinger unintentionally contradicts himself:

Matzinger says that Beskidy is perhaps linked to bjeshkė via which '"a later contact between the Pre-Proto-Albanians and the ancestors of the Baltic and Slavonic ones could easily be understood". Both non-Latin proposed etymologies which are linked to an ancestral form of Albanian presuppose that /sk/ evolved into /shk/ as a pretty normal development.

But in his argument in favor of Albanian being a Paleo-Balkan language different from Illyrian, he uses as an argument that /sk/ could not have developed in Albanian as /shk/ therefore toponyms like Shkodra, Shkumbin and others can only have been adopted into Albanian which according to him only evolved /sk/ as /h/. Hence, if the toponym recorded as Scodra was part of the lexicon of Proto-Albanians it would have evolved into something like *Hadėr (https://core.ac.uk/reader/94539639) according to him. ( La fonologia storica di Shkodėr esclude cosģ l'ipotesi di una formazione dell'ethnos albanese dall'illirico e lo sviluppo dell'illirico nell'albanese come lo assume la teoria dell'autoctonia, perché nel quadro di questa teoria la forma albanese dell'antico nome Scodra dovrebbe mostrare sviluppi fonologici pił vecchi, cioč gli sviluppi delle parole ereditate: *sk > albanese h e *ó > albanese a (vedi sopra 2.1) ) Therefore, he concludes that Albanian was not spoken near coastal Illyria, but in the Dardanian hinterland up to the area near the present-day Serbia-Bulgaria border.

As you can understand for yourself, this is a contradiction because his argument about Beskidy (hence in favor of an unattested other Paleo-Balkan branch) presupposes an evolution /sk/ to /shk/ while his argument against it being Illyrian presupposes that /sk/ didn't evolve as /shk/. And the area in which he places Albanian presupposes that toponyms which contain /sk/ developed eventually as /shk/ (Scardus>Sharr, Scupi>Shkupi).

So what's going on here? In the original argument of Ēabej et al., this is not problem because Albanian developed /sk/ in different ways in different circumstances. Demiraj (2006), The origin of the Albanians linguistically investigated writes: The place-name Shkodėr - Shkodr-a, as compared to the anciently evidenced form Scodra, has also developed in harmony with the evolution of the phonetic system of Albanian (..) It has been acknowledged that the consonantal cluster */sk-/ has evolved to /h/ only in IE inherited words, that is in words pertaining to a very ancient prehistorical period. But this consonantal cluster of relatively later periods including that of contacts with Old Greek and Latin has regularly yielded /shk/ in Albanian (..) (read pages 138-140)

The oronym Sharr evolved from the form attested as Scardus which comes from PIE *(s)kerH- which as *skardā also produced hardhje (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hardhje#Albanian) (as in Matzinger's hypothesis about Shkodra). In addition, Proto-Albanian *skera produced shqerr (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shqerr#Albanian) and shkierr and Scodra and Scupi became Shkodra and Shkupi in a very "linear" development model. These developmentS could not have happened in any other language and later adopted into Albanian. Toponyms like Scardus exist in many regions in the western Balkans but all as they came into contact with Slavic languages, they underwent metathesis. Hence: Skradnik (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skradnik_(Sjenica))(Sandzak, Serbia), Skradno (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skradno) (Bosnia), Skradin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skradin) (Croatia)

The fact that Albanian developed /sk/ in different ways to me shows that as a living language, it developed new dialectal innovations in particular regions.

That is a fair argument but built on a misunderstanding.

The -sk- in beskid is not argued to be from indo european *sk but rather the reflex of a suffix like -stico (example -stico > stko > sko). So this argument about shkodra doesnt apply.

Bruzmi
03-08-2021, 04:05 PM
That is a fair argument but built on a misunderstanding.

The -sk- in beskid is not argued to be from indo european *sk but rather the reflex of a suffix like -stico (example -stico > stko > sko). So this argument about shkodra doesnt apply.
If it was originally a suffix which was compounded with another morpheme doesn't affect its development at the stage we are discussing because in both proposed etymologies, Beskidy evolved from an oronym which included /sk/ and also gave rise to bjeshkė. They don't include any /st/ in the form from which developed Beskidy and bjeshkė. In Ēabej's case it's not even clear if he considers -ska as the result of a suffix (which couldn't have evolved as -stico>stko), while in Orel's case I think that it's obvious that his *bheug-iska is linked to PIE -iskos (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/-iskos). Other than that, no matter the position of /sk/ in addition to other forms it also displays a linear development in Albanian vocabulary which is not inherited from Latin as in eshk (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/eshk) < Proto-Albanian *aiska or *etska. In general, I think that the even bigger contradiction is the place-name Scardus>Sharr which is within the region he defines as Proto-Albanian but displays a development which should be impossible if the place-name recorded as Scodra couldn't develop to Shkodra.

As we've discussed, however, in reality contradiction only exists if we assume that Proto-Albanian was the same uniform language everywhere with no (proto-)dialects. Such a language exists nowhere, let alone in mountainous regions (see language diversification in the Caucasus or how ancient Greek developed dialects in relatively small regions) I think that many theories often forget that the history of the Albanian language is mostly one of contraction, not of expansion. As such, they assume that Geg and Tosk dialects represent the only two macrodialects which emerged from Albanian which until that point was 100% uniform. This isn't true. Geg and Tosk are just the variants which emerged from what remained of Albanian.

Johane Derite
03-08-2021, 05:40 PM
That is a fair argument but built on a misunderstanding.

The -sk- in beskid is not argued to be from indo european *sk but rather the reflex of a suffix like -stico (example -stico > stko > sko). So this argument about shkodra doesnt apply.

The Illyrian name Sceno-barbus is etymologised as "Grey-beard" and does not match proto-Albanian. Albanian cognate of Sceno- is Gege. Hini (grey), and the word for beard is "mjekėr", so the proto-Albanian equivalent of Illyrian. Scenobarbus should be something like Mekrakhini (mjekėrhini)

vettor
03-08-2021, 07:58 PM
5800-5400 calBCE




4545-4260 calBCE




3328-3015 calBCE


https://i1.wp.com/www.broyhillasset.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/facepalm.jpg?ssl=1

I don't know what you are trying to say here ......................when you also state middle bronze age samples, such as

Y-SNP analysis of I4331, J2b2a-L283, Bronze Age Croatia – Mathieson et al. 2018
28 February 2018 in L283 / M241 / Phylogeny / SNPs tagged ancient DNA / balkans / CTS3617 / J2b2 / J2b2a / J2b2a1 / L283 / M241 / Y15058 by Flor Veseli

I4331 position under J2b2a-L283

New DNA paper from Mathieson et al. 2018, The Genomic History of Southeastern Europe, gave us ancient DNA data from 225 individuals who lived in southeastern Europe and surroundings. Supplementary information from the paper states one of the sites analyzed was the Veliki Vanik burial mound, which is located near the town of Vrgorac in Split-Dalmatia County, in southern Croatia. Individual I4331,dated 1631-1521 calBCE (~3591 ybp), was 5-7 year old subadult male with Y-DNA haplogroup J2b2a-L283


we don't even know if there are more of this haplogroup that stayed, arrived or moved on because this 7 yo did not have any children

Hawk
03-09-2021, 07:00 AM
Yet one J-L283 "proto-Illyrian" and zero I-Y3120 "proto-Slavic" Y-DNA finds can...

Exactly, i agree 100% with you here.

Aspar
03-09-2021, 10:04 AM
The Illyrian name Sceno-barbus is etymologised as "Grey-beard" and does not match proto-Albanian. Albanian cognate of Sceno- is Gege. Hini (grey), and the word for beard is "mjekėr", so the proto-Albanian equivalent of Illyrian. Scenobarbus should be something like Mekrakhini (mjekėrhini)

Barba (https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/barba#Latin) meant beard in Latin.
'Barba' means beard, while 'bărbat' means a man in Romanian.

Could Illyrian language have been closely related to Latin? I mean, it won't be strange since Latin was spoken just across the sea. But if that's the case then it probably means that both Latin and Illyrian descend from the same Indo-European group, an Urnfield related group of people.

Riverman
03-09-2021, 10:34 AM
Barba (https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/barba#Latin) meant beard in Latin.
'Barba' means beard, while 'bărbat' means a man in Romanian.

Could Illyrian language have been closely related to Latin? I mean, it won't be strange since Latin was spoken just across the sea. But if that's the case then it probably means that both Latin and Illyrian descend from the same Indo-European group, an Urnfield related group of people.

I think a lot depends on the definition of what Illyrian actually is, because there are obviously narrow and wider definition. Like what's with the Pannonian tribes and with Eastern Hallstatt? Do you consider those being Illyrian or not. If so, the connection to Italics might be even more obvious, if not, much less so I'd say.

peloponnesian
03-09-2021, 10:45 AM
Barba (https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/barba#Latin) meant beard in Latin.
'Barba' means beard, while 'bărbat' means a man in Romanian.

Could Illyrian language have been closely related to Latin? I mean, it won't be strange since Latin was spoken just across the sea. But if that's the case then it probably means that both Latin and Illyrian descend from the same Indo-European group, an Urnfield related group of people.

Isn't Urnfield too late for a possible Italo-Illyrian language? And that's just leaving linguistics aside.

Hawk
03-09-2021, 10:52 AM
I think a lot depends on the definition of what Illyrian actually is, because there are obviously narrow and wider definition. Like what's with the Pannonian tribes and with Eastern Hallstatt? Do you consider those being Illyrian or not. If so, the connection to Italics might be even more obvious, if not, much less so I'd say.

Encyclopedia Britannica a reputable source still maintains that Illyrians were bearers of Hallstatt Culture (Eastern Zone): https://www.britannica.com/place/Illyria

It's something i wonder as well.

Riverman
03-09-2021, 10:52 AM
Isn't Urnfield too late for a possible Italo-Illyrian language? And that's just leaving linguistics aside.

Urnfield was a multi-ethnic religious, ideological, military, economic and technological complex. Its extremely unlikely to have been just one ethnicity. But at least parts of Celts, Italics, Illyrians, Daco-Thracians were part of the movement and Germanics and Baltoslavs got influenced by it. From my point of view its probably the biggest movement and migration of Indoeuropean in Europe since the EBA and many parts of Europe might have gotten Indoeuropeanised only at that point. And what's even more, it directly transitioned into Iron Age and history, so its the biggest shift in the dark which happened before historical records start to really come in. Directly after that you see the people from my list sitting in their historical places.


Encyclopedia Britannica a reputable source still maintains that Illyrians were bearers of Hallstatt Culture (Eastern Zone): https://www.britannica.com/place/Illyria

It's something i wonder as well.

Some modern scholars just spoke about "Alteuropäisch", but in this context that just means it was Indoeuropean, probably a less differentiated (Centum) Indoeuropean tongue, but we don't know much more about it. A close relationship to Illyrian and Thracian is extremely likely, more so to the first, whether you count it as Illyrian or not, doesn't really matter.

Aspar
03-09-2021, 02:15 PM
I think a lot depends on the definition of what Illyrian actually is, because there are obviously narrow and wider definition. Like what's with the Pannonian tribes and with Eastern Hallstatt? Do you consider those being Illyrian or not. If so, the connection to Italics might be even more obvious, if not, much less so I'd say.

I've just check some info about this Scenobarbus and it seems it appears as a personal names exclusively in Dalmatia and in Dacia, however it is assumed that the inscriptions found in Dacia ae in relation to Dalmatae miners and colonists in Dacia. From what I've been reading, there are two principal Illyrian onomastic areas, the southern and the Dalmatian-Pannonian. So, it seems this name 'Scenobarbus' could be specific for the Dalmatian-Pannoinian area.
However, it's doubtful how much these two areas were culturally and linguistically related at all. Most modern scholars are certain that all the peoples of western Balkans that were collectively labeled as 'Illyrians' were not a culturally or linguistically homogeneous entity.
In that sense, the southern "Illyrians" could have been totally unrelated to those from Dalmatian-Pannonian area.

The name "Illyrian" was probably a name of a single tribe which the Greeks first encountered and which name was applied to all other people north and north-west of that tribe. The Albanians still have a better claim on the southern Illyrians because the very name 'Illyrian' is assumed to come from the reconstructed proto-Albanian word *h₁us-los meaning diety, or star, relating it to Albanian Bardhyll, which translates to white star. The linguist Vladimir Orel considers that Greek Ὕλλος (Hśllos), Sun, to be from Proto-Albanian. Which is interesting by it's own because the very name Hellenes, a name of a Greek Dorian tribe, also is derived from this word. The sun as symbol among the Dorians and ancient Macedonians was very important, however it was also very important among the Illyrians as well. Many of the symbols found throughout Illyria were associated with the Sun, suggesting that the Sun worship was a cult common to Illyrian tribes.

So, you have a word in the Greek language which the linguists consider it to be of non-Greek origin, but which word is very important for them because their very name is derived from this word. Which makes me think that the Dorians either bordered some albanoid people or both Albanians and Doric Greeks borrowed this name from some pre-Albanian and pre-Doric people. Whatever is true, the proto-Albanians shouldn't have been too far away from the Doric Greeks, that is to say, these southern Illyrians could have been a proto-Albanian group of people. We don't know the extension of this group for certain but the borders of the Glasinac-Mati culture should be a good starting point. The most souther Illyrians however, either were thoroughly Hellenized or had a great Hellenic influence in their language. Those closer to Dalmatia and the sea should have been extensively Latinized. Because of this, the ancestors of the modern Albanians probably lived somewhere close to Morava and Ibar which corresponds to the area of Dardania. And I'm on the opinion that area wasn't solely Illyrian but had huge Daco-Mysian influence.

Kelmendasi
03-09-2021, 02:38 PM
there are two principal Illyrian onomastic areas, the southern and the Dalmatian-Pannonian. So, it seems this name 'Scenobarbus' could be specific for the Dalmatian-Pannoinian area.
Most linguists also include a third onomastic area, that of the Liburnians which Radoslav Katičić and others have coined North Adriatic. The rather scant data from this area suggests a closer affinity and relationship to the Venetic language group that was spoken by the ancient Veneti of north-eastern Italy and likely by the tribes of Istria in Croatia.

Bruzmi
03-09-2021, 02:54 PM
The Illyrian name Sceno-barbus is etymologised as "Grey-beard" and does not match proto-Albanian. Albanian cognate of Sceno- is Gege. Hini (grey), and the word for beard is "mjekėr", so the proto-Albanian equivalent of Illyrian. Scenobarbus should be something like Mekrakhini (mjekėrhini)



Barba (https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/barba#Latin) meant beard in Latin.
'Barba' means beard, while 'bărbat' means a man in Romanian.

Could Illyrian language have been closely related to Latin? I mean, it won't be strange since Latin was spoken just across the sea. But if that's the case then it probably means that both Latin and Illyrian descend from the same Indo-European group, an Urnfield related group of people.

We shouldn't expect Albanian to explain every Illyrian name. Whatever the exact relation of Albanian with Illyrian, it can be used to understand only a part of a possibly Illyrian and/or generic Paleo-Balkan vocabulary. The history of the language group is one of contraction, not of expansion. Albanian is only a part of it and it's certain that its vocabulary has lost many elements.

The original form of the Illyrian name Scenobarbus is Scenobardus. It must have been used in Pannonia and the hinterland of central Dalmatia. Cassius Dio records (https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/roman/texts/cassius_dio/55*.html)this original form in the History of Rome as the name of a Pannonian or Dalmatian chieftain in the Great Illyrian Revolt (6-9AD): And one, Scenobardus, who had pretended he was going to change sides and with reference to this very matter had sent to Manius Ennius, the commander of the garrison in Siscia, as if he were ready to desert. The name was later adjusted to Latin and became Scenobarbus via the change of lllyrian bard- to Latin barb- (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/barba#Latin) (bearded) (see, Nomina im Indogermanischen Lexikon (https://www.scribd.com/doc/162444771/Nomina-im-Indogermanischen-Lexikon-pdf), p.42-43: Scenobarbus mit Angleichung von illyr. bard- an lat. barb-). *sken- is a morpheme which is found in other names as well. We have discussed about Skeneta the Illyrian (https://epigraphy.packhum.org/search?patt=Skeneta) in Thessaly, Scenobarus and Scenocalus.

As such, 200+ years after this particular Scenobardus, in Alburnus Maior (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ro%C8%99ia_Montan%C4%83) (Roman Dacia/Transylvania) we find among the Pannonian workers (https://www.academia.edu/2114854/THE_BARBARIANS_WITHIN_ILLYRIAN_COLONISTS_IN_ROMAN_ DACIA) who were forced out of their homeland: Bisius Scenobarbi, Plator Scenobarbi, Scenobarbus Dasi, Saturninus Scenobarbi, Iulius Scenobarbus, Aelius Scenobarbus Batonis.

Katičić (https://www.scribd.com/document/422028318/Ancient-Languages-of-the-Balkans) proposes the etymology IE *skeno-bhardhos cf. OHG scinan 'shine' and English 'beard'.

The -d / -b difference between Illyrian bard- and Latin barb- has to do with the development of IE *dh (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/b%CA%B0ard%CA%B0%C3%A9h%E2%82%82) which gave Latin *b and Germanic, Balto-Slavic, Illyrian *d. The different development in these languages is much older than the Urnfield era. Proto-Albanian belongs to the same "northern" cluster as Illyrian of the pre-Roman era. The voiced IE *d is unchanged (darke, dire, drite). IE *dh coincides with *d in PAlb *d> Alb d (dere, djeg, dal). (Orel, 1998)

Two plausible PIE etymologies for *skeno are:

PIE (s)ḱeh₁y- (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/(s)%E1%B8%B1eh%E2%82%81y-) or *ḱey- or *(s)kand- (hėnė (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/h%C3%ABn%C3%AB) is a modern development) which mean "to shine"
PIE (s)ḱeh₃ih₂ (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/(s)%E1%B8%B1eh%E2%82%83ih%E2%82%82) "shadow"

Scenobardus could thus mean yellowbeard or greybeard.

*Sken- retains the same development as Proto-Albanian. IE *sk > Proto-Albanian *sk > Old Albanian *h (but also /shk/, /shq/ and /sh/) Modern Albanian hije (shade) has the same root as hini: Proto-Albanian *skija (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hije) < PIE (s)ḱeh₃ih₂. Hėnė (moon) < *skond-nah₂ < *(s)kand- (“to shine”)

This is linked to what was explained (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?16757-E-V13-entered-Greece-with-Illyrians-and-Dorian-invasions&p=755842#post755842) about the contradiction in any theory which claims that Beskidy in the Carpathians is linked to developments within Proto-Albanian, but /Skodra/ > /Shkodra/ isn't. Orel sums it as:
PAIb *sk < IE *sk, *sr changed to shk (shkak, shkal, shkas, shkep) and, before front vowels, to shq (shqarr, shqerr, shqyej). In other cases, PAIb *sk (apparently, continuing also *sk) underwent a metathesis into *ks and yielded h (hale, hap, harr, hedh) thus coinciding with the original *ks (huaj). No obvious distribution between shk and h as reflecting *sk has been found. Moreover, in some words the initial *sk (preceded by a prefix *eks-?) yielded c before a front vowel (caj, pie) (Orel (1998), Albanian Etymological Dictionary, p.22)

A penultimate comment: Comparing modern words with names attested in anitquity will not help us understand if they are related or not unless we know the development of the language we are comparing the ancient name to. Proto-Albanian *skija / *skond- are within the same cluster which produced *skeno- , but if you compare to *skeno their modern developments hije, hini, hėnė you can't reach any meaningful conclusion. Accordingly, you can't assume that because the contemporary form of a word looks the same as a name attested in antiquity they are related. The contemporary word might be the result of a particular type of consonant/vowel development which excludes any sort of relation between the two.

Finally, we shouldn't assume that a word has the same meaning in the 21st century as it had in 1st century AD. Case in point: mjekėr. It means beard in modern Albanian, but originally it meant chin and was figuratively used to denote beard as well. The same use is attested in other IE languages which inherited the PIE term (see Hittite zamankur 'beard'), but they also had a specific word for beard. The term still means chin in Lithuanian smakras (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/smakras#Lithuanian), but Lithuanian also uses barzda for beard. The fact that Albanian has retained only one term and uses it as a metonymy for beard as well is very likely a sign of vocabulary reduction. The same exact pattern of metonymy as the result of vocabulary reduction is observed 1)in Arbėreshė (Italy) 2)Arvanitika (Greece) in relation to the vocabulary inherited from Old Albanian and 3)Albanian migrants in the US, Europe and elsewhere who haven't received Albanian language eduction in relation to the vocabulary of modern Albanian.

Aspar
03-09-2021, 03:07 PM
Isn't Urnfield too late for a possible Italo-Illyrian language? And that's just leaving linguistics aside.

TBH, I'm not too sure. However as it seems there are strong indications that these 'northern Illyrians' of the Dalmatian-Pannonian group had names that have cognates and better correspondence in the Latin languages.

I can't do it ATM as I'm on my phone but back in the day when I was modeling various Italian groups, many North Italians seem to prefer HRV_IA. This is not to be understood that North Italians are descended from Dalmatian people necessarily. It could also mean that both the ancestors of the north Italians and HRV_IA come from a same group of people. Whether is Urnfield related or something even earlier such as Bell_Beakers I'm not too sure.

Bruzmi
03-09-2021, 03:12 PM
Isn't Urnfield too late for a possible Italo-Illyrian language? And that's just leaving linguistics aside.



TBH, I'm not too sure. However as it seems there are strong indications that these 'northern Illyrians' of the Dalmatian-Pannonian group had names that have cognates and better correspondence in the Latin languages.

I can't do it ATM as I'm on my phone but back in the day when I was modeling various Italian groups, many North Italians seem to prefer HRV_IA. This is not to be understood that North Italians are descended from Dalmatian people necessarily. It could also mean that both the ancestors of the north Italians and HRV_IA come from a same group of people. Whether is Urnfield related or something even earlier such as Bell_Beakers I'm not too sure.

I have explained above the difference between Illyrian and Latin in the development of IE *dh as *b in Latin and *d in Illyrian. These linguistic changes were much older than the Urnfield era. Illyrian Scenobardus became Latinized as Scenobarbus in the Roman era. This, of course, doesn't exclude later population and language contact.

Riverman
03-09-2021, 03:47 PM
I have explained above the difference between Illyrian and Latin in the development of IE *dh as *b in Latin and *d in Illyrian. These linguistic changes were much older than the Urnfield era. Illyrian Scenobardus became Latinized as Scenobarbus in the Roman era. This, of course, doesn't exclude later population and language contact.

Completely agree. They were different people already, which spoke different languages, but they were part of the same multi-ethnic Urnfield network. That's the point. Its even possible that at some point non-IE were converted to the Urnfield religious world. However, Proto-Italics very likely expanded into Italia with Urnfield, as did Celts move to the West under the same label, Illyrian-related groups in Eastern Central Europe and Daco-Thracians in Romania-Bulgaria.

CopperAxe
03-09-2021, 04:03 PM
Completely agree. They were different people already, which spoke different languages, but they were part of the same multi-ethnic Urnfield network. That's the point. Its even possible that at some point non-IE were converted to the Urnfield religious world..

Etruscans for example for sure connected to the Villanovan culture which in itself is ultimately linked to the Urnfield horizon and much of it's traditions were derived from it. Rhaetians without a doubt are connected to the Urnfield horizon as well.

I also think those three Tollense samples with low steppe but very high WHG (and neolithic I2) were probably non-Indo-European speaking peoples, atleast natively so. In fact I think that before the rise of the Urnfield/Hallstatt periods you still would've had a considerable amount of "remnant" populations scattered throughout Central Europe.

But while the Urnfield horizon in itself was extremely multi-ethnic (I wonder if it was more technology related through metalworking or religious related with the wide adoption of cremations that was the key selling point) I do think with all the various events which occured during it such as migrations, conquests, long distance political networks etc. you essentially had all the pieces in the right part for the ethnolinguistic groupings we know from the Iron age to have their formative period, resulting in their later epxansions. Imagine the sheer amount of closely related languages ultimately assimilated into Celtic speaking communities as they had their expansive periods for example.

Johane Derite
03-09-2021, 04:57 PM
Finally, we shouldn't assume that a word has the same meaning in the 21st century as it had in 1st century AD. Case in point: mjekėr. It means beard in modern Albanian, but originally it meant chin and was figuratively used to denote beard as well. The same use is attested in other IE languages which inherited the PIE term (see Hittite zamankur 'beard'), but they also had a specific word for beard. The term still means chin in Lithuanian smakras (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/smakras#Lithuanian), but Lithuanian also uses barzda for beard. The fact that Albanian has retained only one term and uses it as a metonymy for beard as well is very likely a sign of vocabulary reduction.


The Armenian and Sanskrit cognate of Alb. mjekėr both meaning "beard" gives support that this would have been an ancient use of the term, and that we should expect it in Proto-Albanian also.

Albanian is argued to have deeper more ancient phylogenetic ties with Greek and Armenian (and the Indo-Iranian group after that), so this has more weight than the Lithuanian meaning which is more distant.

Old Armenian. մօրուք (mōrukʿ, “beard”),
Sanskrit. श्मश्रु (śmįśru, “beard”))



The history of the language group is one of contraction, not of expansion. Albanian is only a part of it and it's certain that its vocabulary has lost many elements.

If the argument is that the Illyrian languages spoken from slovenia to greece are dialects of an early bronze age package that expanded to cover a massive terrain, then there is obviously no way Albanian can descend from all Illyrian languages, as they would have been way diverged in dialects over the millenia to be intelligible to each other, and no Koine or institutions for Illyrian standardization existed to flatten their dialects.

Albanian cannot be a pan-Illyrian creole, at best it is one dialect of one of the Illyrian language groups. Even Bahri Beci, whose book I recently purchased, believing that he was arguing for a deeper age of divergence between Gege and Tosk, still only argues for a split between Gege and Tosk sometime before Slavs, but during the Roman era, which is standard enough.

But, regardless of whether proto-Albanian did have a term for beard like the "bard-" in "scenobardus", and subsequently lost it, the *sk in sceno- is enough to say that the name in question was not proto-Albanian, and that proto-Albanian does not descend from at least that Illyrian language in question.

As for the supposed -stico like constructions (cognate with the ending -sticus in latin. pasticus for example), -stico could have become -sko or something of the like by the iron age in Albanian, and then the mountains subsequently would have been named in that era (in their beskid migration scheme).

The change of *sk to *kh is something that happened in the deep deep past of pre-Albanian, and by the iron age, this sound law had long finished, so new -sk- clusters formed by other routes (not inherited from the IE. *sk cluster that is in -scenobarbus) would not be expected to disappear or become kh or h.


One particular example that is interesting in that it possibly reflects proto-Albanian reflex of the IE *sk cluster is the Brygian and Phrygian toponyms in contrast to Illyrian ones:

Illyrian. Skodra
Thracian. Skudra
Brygian. Khydrai
Phrygian. Khydrara

vettor
03-09-2021, 04:58 PM
Etruscans for example for sure connected to the Villanovan culture which in itself is ultimately linked to the Urnfield horizon and much of it's traditions were derived from it. Rhaetians without a doubt are connected to the Urnfield horizon as well.

I also think those three Tollense samples with low steppe but very high WHG (and neolithic I2) were probably non-Indo-European speaking peoples, atleast natively so. In fact I think that before the rise of the Urnfield/Hallstatt periods you still would've had a considerable amount of "remnant" populations scattered throughout Central Europe.

But while the Urnfield horizon in itself was extremely multi-ethnic (I wonder if it was more technology related through metalworking or religious related with the wide adoption of cremations that was the key selling point) I do think with all the various events which occured during it such as migrations, conquests, long distance political networks etc. you essentially had all the pieces in the right part for the ethnolinguistic groupings we know from the Iron age to have their formative period, resulting in their later epxansions. Imagine the sheer amount of closely related languages ultimately assimilated into Celtic speaking communities as they had their expansive periods for example.

this site linked below is about Raetic language ( it is updated every 6 months )

https://www.univie.ac.at/raetica/wiki/The_Raetic_language

draw your own conclusions on the Etruscan -raetic link ....and the venetic-raetic link

https://i.postimg.cc/Z5v3yM1X/xxraetic.png (https://postimg.cc/cvZ6pX1c)



It is not clear how the list is ordered (chronologically? geographically? by importance of the victory?) and whether the reference to four Vindelican tribes stands on its own, or whether the four names after the phrase name these tribes. Certain parts of the list may reflect the chronology of individual campaigns, e.g., that of Drusus, who marched over the Brenner pass via Innsbruck into the Swabian-Bavarian highland (Frei-Stolba 1992: 664 f.; Lunz 1981b: 10). The name raeti is notably absent, but some of the tribes must be Raetic. The trumplini – here apparently considered equivalent to individual Raetic tribes – and camunni can be connected with the Val Trompia and the Val Camonica west of the Adige; the venostes gave their name to the Vinschgau (Val Venosta). The ambisontes, together with the laianci (Lienz) and saevates (Sebatum), are mentioned as a Noric (Celtic) tribe in an inscription from the Magdalensberg (HD 018230). Ptolemy (Geogr. II 12, 2) identifies five of the enumerated tribes as expressly Raetic: the brixentes (Bregenz) are the ones settling furthest in the north; the vennonetes and suanetes (possibly identical to the tribes mentioned by Pliny), calucones and rugusci may be assumed to inhabit the upper valleys of the Rhein and Inn (Frei-Stolba 1992: 666). Ptolemy (II 12, 4) goes on to locate the rucinates, leunoi, cosuanetes, genaunes, breuni and licates (from north to south) in Vindelicia; the licates can be connected with the river Lech, the breuni with the Inn valley around Innsbruck (through Mediaeval sources), and the isarci with the Eisacktal (Val d'Isarco; see also Gleirscher 1991: 5–7 and Anreiter 1997: 8–10). breuni and genaunes are sometimes set apart, being counted among the "Illyrians" (Strabo, Geogr. IV 6, 8) or the presumably Celtic vindelici (Horace, Carm. IV 14, 8–13), which may be reflected in their material culture (see Archaeology in the Raetic area). Anreiter 1997: 10 f. suggests that Strabo's choice of the term ἰλλυριῶν can be explained as referring to the custom district publicum portorii illyrici, which included the province Raetia. In light of the fact that a considerable number of toponyms from the assumed areas of settlement of the breuni, genaunes and focunates in Nordtirol can be explained as Indo-European, Anreiter considers these tribes, as well as the venostes, isarci and saevates, to be non-Celtic speakers of Indo-European dialects (also p. 150).

https://www.univie.ac.at/raetica/wiki/Ancient_sources

Johane Derite
03-09-2021, 05:24 PM
This is linked to what was explained (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?16757-E-V13-entered-Greece-with-Illyrians-and-Dorian-invasions&p=755842#post755842) about the contradiction in any theory which claims that Beskidy in the Carpathians is linked to developments within Proto-Albanian, but /Skodra/ > /Shkodra/ isn't.

Orel sums it as:
PAIb *sk < IE *sk, *sr changed to shk (shkak, shkal, shkas, shkep) and, before front vowels, to shq (shqarr, shqerr, shqyej). In other cases, PAIb *sk (apparently, continuing also *sk) underwent a metathesis into *ks and yielded h (hale, hap, harr, hedh) thus coinciding with the original *ks (huaj). No obvious distribution between shk and h as reflecting *sk has been found. Moreover, in some words the initial *sk (preceded by a prefix *eks-?) yielded c before a front vowel (caj, pie) (Orel (1998), Albanian Etymological Dictionary, p.22)



This idea from Orel is not accepted by Demiraj, Matzinger, and the latest linguists.

Shkal, shkak, shkas, shkep, etc, all these are given differing etymologies that do not require the ie. *sk cluster.

The evolution that is given is:


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZIY1AhXgAA_0Qw?format=png&name=large

Johane Derite
03-09-2021, 05:33 PM
PAIb *sk < IE *sk, *sr changed to shk (shkak, shkal, shkas, shkep) and, before front vowels, to shq (shqarr, shqerr, shqyej). In other cases, PAIb *sk (apparently, continuing also *sk) underwent a metathesis into *ks and yielded h (hale, hap, harr, hedh) thus coinciding with the original *ks (huaj). No obvious distribution between shk and h as reflecting *sk has been found. Moreover, in some words the initial *sk (preceded by a prefix *eks-?) yielded c before a front vowel (caj, pie) (Orel (1998), Albanian Etymological Dictionary, p.22)



Whenever a "contradiction" to a sound law is observed, 9 times out of 10 it will be the case that it does not actually descend from what it is thought to be. For example, many of these supposed sk -> shk examples, are words that had a K and an intensive sh- or ē- negator or something of the sort added to it later, (kap vs ckap, kep vs ckep, etj), and do not actually linearly descend from an ie. sk cluster.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZIigRxXkA0fwqE?format=jpg&name=large

Johane Derite
03-09-2021, 05:45 PM
In fact, Mjeker is considered the old indo european term for Beard by linguists:

"The old Indoeuropean name for "beard" "srnekru- is preserved in the
Hittite. zamankur,
Old Ind. cmacru-,
Old Arm. moruk: and
Alb. mjekėr

(in an altered meaning and in some old European languages:
Lith. snuikras "double chin", Old Ir. smech, Old Eng. snuieras "lips"),

while the innovation *bhar-dha: replaced it in the northern group of IE languages [Ivanov 1985: 162]."

So here Albanian again does not fit with the name Scenobardus either.

Johane Derite
03-09-2021, 06:20 PM
So this opens the possibility I shared a while ago, that Dardanian is not an originally Illyrian language, but an independent branch cognate with Mysian and Thracian (whithout being descendant of it) and Brygian.

I based this on some phonetic reasons.

The Messapic - Albanian relation is also explained by this in that Messapic had a big Dardanian contribution (Dardanian. Galabri tribe vs Messapic. Kalabri tribe and Dardi tribe).

Interestingly, I think I saw Hawk mention that Messapic regions have EV13>Z5018 branches. EV13 would explain the connection between Dardanian and Mysian (which shows up often in Moesians as we know from leaks).

One of the main phonetic reasons is the reflex of IE. ǵ:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZ5vlgHXgAErv9x?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

Johane Derite
03-09-2021, 07:10 PM
Since we know that Moesians were very Ev13 rich, their Anatolian counterparts, Mysians, and their associated Dardanians and Phrygians, are obviously more likely to have also been Ev13 rich, and therefore we can assume that the Dardanians, Mysians, and Phyrgians moved some EV13 around.

Bruzmi
03-09-2021, 08:21 PM
I think that you should re-read carefully what I've tried to explain, read your sources and a general reference textbook like the Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics (https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110542431/html)



Albanian cannot be a pan-Illyrian creole, at best it is one dialect of one of the Illyrian language groups.

Who said anything about a "pan-Illyrian creole"? I explained to you the **exact** opposite:

We shouldn't expect Albanian to explain every Illyrian name. Whatever the exact relation of Albanian with Illyrian, it can be used to understand only a part of a possibly Illyrian and/or generic Paleo-Balkan vocabulary. The history of the language group is one of contraction, not of expansion. Albanian is only a part of it and it's certain that its vocabulary has lost many elements.




But, regardless of whether proto-Albanian did have a term for beard like the "bard-" in "scenobardus", and subsequently lost it, the *sk in sceno- is enough to say that the name in question was not proto-Albanian, and that proto-Albanian does not descend from at least that Illyrian language in question.



The Illyrian name Sceno-barbus is etymologised as "Grey-beard" and does not match proto-Albanian. Albanian cognate of Sceno- is Gege. Hini (grey), and the word for beard is "mjekėr", so the proto-Albanian equivalent of Illyrian. Scenobarbus should be something like Mekrakhini (mjekėrhini)

You argued that because Geg hini (same root hije 'shadow') doesn't "match" *skeno, it doesn't "match" Proto-Albanian. I explained to you that the *h development didn't exist in Proto-Albanian and *sken- retains the same development as Proto-Albanian. IE *sk > Proto-Albanian *sk > Old Albanian *h (but also /shk/, /shq/ and /sh/) Modern Albanian hije (shade) has the same root as hini: Proto-Albanian *skija (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hije) < PIE (s)ḱeh₃ih₂. Hėnė (moon) < *skond-nah₂ < *(s)kand- (“to shine”) .


Whenever a "contradiction" to a sound law is observed, 9 times out of 10 it will be the case that it does not actually descend from what it is thought to be. For example, many of these supposed sk -> shk examples, are words that had a K and an intensive sh- or ē- negator or something of the sort added to it later, (kap vs ckap, kep vs ckep, etj), and do not actually linearly descend from an ie. sk cluster.

There is no contradiction in any "sound law" and nobody ever said such thing. Contradiction arises in a theory when it excludes an explanation for one case and then accepts the same exact explanation for another. A theory which accepts that Beskidy can be linked a development within any stage of Albanian, doesn't accept the same explanation for /Scodra/>/Shkodra/ and then re-accepts it for *Sk- place-names within Dardania is contradictory. I don't know why you cited this specific page, because it doesn't add anything to the discussion. All it says is that *sk- in words inherited from Latin becomes *shk- and proposes that two words may actually be prefixed formations. There's nothing at all here that contradicts anything about the development of Proto-Albanian *sk-.



The change of *sk to *kh is something that happened in the deep deep past of pre-Albanian, and by the iron age, this sound law had long finished, so new -sk- clusters formed by other routes (not inherited from the IE. *sk cluster that is in -scenobarbus) would not be expected to disappear or become kh or h.


Setting aside the fact that no language has a "final development", so Albanian couldn't have developed a *kh in the "deep deep past" and then "this sound law finished", Proto-Albanian had a *sk and this is evident in many lexemes which today contain *h-, a development which was produced and finalized by the advent of Old Albanian.

Not only do we know about these developments from the study of Albanian, but we also know it because their cognates show the same development Hije<*skija (Greek: skia), hir<*skīra (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hir#Albanian) (German schier, Old English sċīr) harb (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/harb#Albanian)<PAlb. *(s)karba (English sharp<Old English scearp (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/scearp#Old_English). There is a clear path of divergence from PIE which shows in cognates of every language. What you're trying to suggest is that Albanian underwent a very rapid consonant change hundreds of years earlier (!!) than it did.

All languages which belong to the same group are interconnected, so when you try to produce a false theory about one of them, it collapses immediately because it has to correspond to other languages as well.




One particular example that is interesting in that it possibly reflects proto-Albanian reflex of the IE *sk cluster is the Brygian and Phrygian toponyms in contrast to Illyrian ones:

Illyrian. Skodra
Thracian. Skudra
Brygian. Khydrai
Phrygian. Khydrara

Setting aside the many problems regarding the historicity of your theory, there could have never been a "Brygian Khydrai" or a Phrygian "Khydrara" because these languages didn't develop in such a way in the first place, nor has their development anything to do with the development of Albanian. Phrygian developed IE *b, *d, *g* as *p, *t, *k, while in Proto-Albanian they were retained as b, d, g. And the list of differences goes on and on and on.

There was a Persian satrapy named /Skudra (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skudra)/ which covered a part of Thrace at the end of the 6th century BC. It kind of looks the same as a possible form of late antiquity probably used by semi-Romance speakers which produced OSSlavic: Skŭdrŭ > Serbo-Croatian Skadar ... until you take into account that a)there's a 1000+ year gap between them b)there's no path from [u] to [ŭ].




https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZ5vlgHXgAErv9x?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

Setting aside (again) the countless problems with your historical theories, this entire graphic falls apart in the simplest of ways:
/dz> /δ/ did not exist in Albanian until Late Proto Albanian (just before the first contacts with the Slavic languages), so no, there is no /δ/ linked to Proto-Albanian on an inscription of the late Hellenistic period (http://mama.csad.ox.ac.uk/monuments/MAMA-XI-157.html) which informs us of the existence in eastern Lydia of a rural community known as ὁ περὶ Μοκαδα δῆμος (SEG 33, 1004) and the inscriptions linked to the people from this settlement.

So how can we be certain that Proto-Albanian /dz/ did not develop into /δ/ as Johane Derite would have it be ("at least since the 4th century BC")?
Setting aside (once more) the actual linguistic argument that IE *k and *gh yielded PAIb *dz > Alb dh (lidh, vjedh, herdhe, madh, rrjedh). (Orel, 1998):

Proto-Albanian *bardza (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Albanian/bardza) produced:
Albanian bar/dh/ė (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bardh%C3%AB) (and some others intermediate forms)
Aromanian bardzu (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bardzu)
Romanian barz (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/barz#Romanian) which Romanian shepherds brought to the north where it became
Ukrainian barzij (http://macedonia.kroraina.com/rs/rs14_7.pdf) (black sheep or goat with white spots)
Serbo-Croatian barzilo (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/barzilo#Serbo-Croatian)

This, obviously, could not have happened in the Hellenistic era, but in late antiquity, otherwise Aromanian and Romanian would not have contained the forms "bardzu" and "barz", nor would there be a barzilo in Serbo-Croatian and a barz-ij in Ukrainian.

PS I will not reply to further comments about this topic Johane. A fruitful discussion requires both sides to read, evaluate and use bibliography in a productive manner. Have a good day.

Johane Derite
03-09-2021, 08:59 PM
You argued that because Geg hini (same root hije 'shadow') doesn't "match" *skeno, it doesn't "match" Proto-Albanian.

I explained to you that the *h development didn't exist in Proto-Albanian and *sken- retains the same development as Proto-Albanian.

IE *sk > Proto-Albanian *sk > Old Albanian *h (but also /shk/, /shq/ and /sh/) Modern Albanian hije (shade) has the same root as hini:

Proto-Albanian *skija < PIE (s)ḱeh₃ih₂. Hėnė (moon) < *skond-nah₂ < *(s)kand- (“to shine”)





This is absolutely wrong, and the source of your misunderstanding. I posted the up to date reconstructed evolution of IE. *sk in post #1214 (From Matzinger's and Shumacher's book on Albanian)

This is the most up to date path taken that is given by Matzinger, Shumacher, Bardhyl Demiraj, etc. Sorry.

There is absolutely no way that *sk existed from the inherited IE *sk in Proto-Albanian, that is the entire point of why Scenobardus cannot be proto-Albanian.

This is the reconstructed path of this cluster, it did not just survive until proto-Albanian and then all of a sudden become H. That is why i reconstructed "mekrakhini"


Indo european. *sk̑
>
Pre-EarlyProto-Albanian 1.*sk
>
Pre-Early-Proto-Albanian 2.*hk
>
Early-Proto Albanian. *kh
>
Proto-Albanian. *x
>
Albanian. h


As for the rest, it seems I won't respond to you either then as you just keep missing the point.

Johane Derite
03-09-2021, 11:11 PM
Just Thracia alone was rather heterogeneous and conditioned by several different movements & networks. E.g.




Thanks for this, the Brnjica movement here is is quite interesting:

Figure 10.9. Chronologically defined distributions based on pottery styles:

a) the earliest appearance of the LBA incised ware in the area with its potential direction of spread;
b) microregional diversity in the developed LBA;
c) appearance of Brnjica type pottery in the southwest part of the area;
d) appearance of elements from Coslogeni and Govora (late Verbicoara) during the last phase of the LBA.

https://i.imgur.com/OyKtD0k.png

Huban
03-09-2021, 11:19 PM
I have even ready funny comments about Moldovan Scythians being Getans


Genetically autosomaly those Moldovan "Scythian" samples are not Scythian. They have zero Scythian autosomal admixture. Period. They do show affinity with the Thraco-Cimmerian EIA find from the same broader area. More precisely with the early Getae archeological find as that is the proper archeological context.

So those Moldovan "Scythians" are simply "Skythianized" Getae.

Similar goes for most other Scythian samples, Hungarian Scythians are both autosomally and significantly by material culture local Unrfielders, and Ukranian Scythians resemble some pre-Slavs.

Another similar analogy is Avar AV2 which is Early Slavic in autosomal DNA.

Riverman
03-09-2021, 11:19 PM
A tendency to overestimate the importance of Urnfield & underestimate the diversity of Balkan IE languages, the latter might have been quite structured rather than existing as smooth dialectic clines.

Most certainly, but the real question is, who was who, ethnolinguistically. For all we know part of the structure in the Balkans in pre-Urnfield times could have still been very much Anatolian and Greek related, but shifting in the LBA-EIA transition.


The corrolary being Thracian emerges by koinization during the LBA-IA, and Daco-Getan being a late offshoot moving north after 200 BC.

What's the evidence for such a late Northward expansion? I mean its possible, especially considering that there was a fairly massive steppe influence in between, but why exactly that, fairly late, date?


Literature has a tendency to be Thracomanic, imagining the great Thracian nation existed from northern Greece to Ukraine. I have even ready funny comments about Moldovan Scythians being Getans

Same problem as with "Illyrians", there are always lumpers and splitters.


From a genetic point of view:
https://imgur.com/Drn45GA

That however, was the result after the regional fusions and when everything began to settle down. BG_IA is clearly the result of a fusion of Urnfield-Carpathian and steppe related elements with Balkan locals.

For the spread of E-V13 with South Eastern Urnfield, the Early Iron Age is key and this reads like this:

The Early Iron Age culture developed based on that of the previous Late Bronze
Age. The Late Bronze Age, or at least its later stage, is characterised by the Plovdiv-
Zimnicae-Cerkovna (PZC) complex, which was spread over nearly the whole territory
of Thrace.3 The complex bordered in the northeast on Coslodgeni and in the northwest
on the southeastern variant of the Central European Urnfield culture (Urnenfelderkultur);
here it is called the ‘Lower Danube Culture with Incrusted Pottery’.4
The Danube River divided the regions of the PZC complex and the Verbicioara and
Tei cultures, although the border is not very distinct and there were probably areas on
both sides of the river where these cultures met and mixed.

This being also reflected by the last and most important map posted before, so map d) 13th century BC.

Absolutely key is the Fluted Ware horizon and Gįva-Holigrady:


The initial phase of the Early Iron Age was firstly identified with the group of
incised, decorated pottery named Catalka.10 The research that followed proved that
such incisions were very few on the ornamented pottery of this first stage. The fluted
ware proved to be the only pottery decorated in the new style, which led to associating
this stage instead with a ‘horizon of the fluted ware.’11 Besides their decoration, these
are also pottery types that are new to the beginning of the Early Iron Age. Few shapes
of the previous PZC complex continued with the first stage of the ‘Fluted ware horizon’
and those which did should be considered as remnant elements. Their presence
in this early stage together with the continuous development of both settlements and
necropoleis are the reasons for some researchers to consider this period a transitional
one between Bronze Age and Iron Age.

Obviously the anti-migrationist position is unfounded, such a drastic change within a short period of time, associated with a clear cultural and material shift, new technologies and fashions, especially the introduction of iron metallurgy, is highly likely to be the result of a massive intrusion. This is when E-V13 will be proven to have entered the scene on a grand scale, with a massive, but not total or extreme replacement. With the end result of BG_IA being a mix:

The new pottery style replaced that of the Late Bronze Age within quite a short
period within the first Early Iron Age stage and kept being conservative for the entire
Early Iron Age. The prototypes of the new shapes and the fluted decoration are to be
found in the Urnfield cultures of the central part of Eastern Europe.19 The fluted
decoration evolved first in the final stages of the Lower Danube Culture with Incrusted
Pottery in the Ha A1 period, under influences from the Middle and Lower Danube.20
Slightly later it became popular over nearly all of Thrace and it is much more likely to
represent a new fashion than a major migration. The reasons could be found in a
general reversal of the direction of contacts in Thrace from south/southeast to northwest.
It looks very probable that Thrace fell strongly under the influence of the cultures
from the Carpathian basin, because of their potential to provide sufficient metal
sources. This trend may even have strengthened during the time of the general crisis
that hit the Eastern Mediterranean region. A similar trend is marked for the contacts
of Troia — imports from the East Mediterranean that are numerous in the Troia VI
layers cease in the following layer, Troia VIIb, where they are mainly of northwestern
origin.21


Another European influence can be seen in the appearance of fibulae in Thrace at
the end of the Late Bronze Age. The first types to gain popularity were those of
Aegean origin and, together with the first iron Naue II–Nenzingen swords, they prove
that contacts with the south were not absolutely interrupted; Thrace kept bringing in
new ideas and innovations from the Mediterranean region. But the new fashion of
fastening clothes with fibulae, established as a typical feature of Thracian culture from
the beginning of the Iron Age onwards, reflects European influence.

Direct evidence for late Gava contacts:

It can be presumed that the region evolved peacefully in this period; however, there
are also limited traces of mobility of people from the northwest in the archaeological
record of Thrace. In a cremation grave on the bank of the Maritza River, next to the
village of Manole, a vessel of a type known as amphora Gava A was used as a burial
urn. This type is unfamiliar in Thrace and has no further development; conversely it
is typical in the Carpatho-Danubian region’s fluted pottery cultures, with a date not
later than the second half of the tenth century BC.35 The burial rite also contrasts
with the tradition of inhumation common in the region during both the Late Bronze
Age and the Early Iron Age. It is tantalizing to couple this evidence for movements in
the first centuries of the Iron Age in Thrace with the arrival of newcomers at Troia.

Fluted Ware therefore moved on to the South:

Troia VII B2 layers lack any Submycenaean pottery,40 thus through Troia, the Fluted ware horizon
1 in Thrace should be synchronised with the Aegean LH III C Middle to Late
period. Turning to the south, the data from Kastanas confirms this dating; fluted ware
appeared there in layer 13 of the KV period, together with LH IIIC pottery.

[...]

A similar delay in the arrival of fluted ware is to be seen in
Thassos, where channelled pottery first appeared in the IIB1 period, which has no
connection with Mycenaean pottery.

This could have first spread E-V13 in Greece.

https://www.academia.edu/7794465/Thrace_between_East_and_West_the_Early_Iron_Age_Cu ltures_in_Thrace

To try to explain THAT by cultural transmissions without demographic impact is a desperate attempt. It won't succeed, and once the genetic data trickles it, it will just prove that THIS was the massive replacement event, similar to what happened in Iberia or Britain with Bell Beakers, in the Balkans, introducing E-V13 from the Carpathian region.

Huban
03-09-2021, 11:55 PM
The corrolary being Thracian emerges by koinization during the LBA-IA, and Daco-Getan being a late offshoot moving north after 200 BC.

This statement, especially the bolded part, is 100 % nonsense. And it totally contradicts the archeological evidence, of which you obviously know nothing about, otherwise you would not have written this.

Bruzmi
03-10-2021, 12:16 AM
This is absolutely wrong, and the source of your misunderstanding. I posted the up to date reconstructed evolution of IE. *sk in post #1214 (From Matzinger's and Shumacher's book on Albanian)

This is the most up to date path taken that is given by Matzinger, Shumacher, Bardhyl Demiraj, etc. Sorry.

There is absolutely no way that *sk existed from the inherited IE *sk in Proto-Albanian, that is the entire point of why Scenobardus cannot be proto-Albanian.

This is the reconstructed path of this cluster, it did not just survive until proto-Albanian and then all of a sudden become H. That is why i reconstructed "mekrakhini"


Indo european. *sk̑
>
Pre-EarlyProto-Albanian 1.*sk
>
Pre-Early-Proto-Albanian 2.*hk
>
Early-Proto Albanian. *kh
>
Proto-Albanian. *x
>
Albanian. h




You are replying about an internal development of Proto-Albanian which nobody ever disputed. The problem with your analysis is that you keep pushing it to a distant past - something which is impossible. In the cases which display *sk >> h, *sk existed in the AD years as in every other case. In the era of the Pannonian Scenobardus, Proto-Albanian still retained *sk-.



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZ5vlgHXgAErv9x?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
Setting aside (again) the countless problems with your historical theories, this entire graphic falls apart in the simplest of ways:
/dz> /δ/ did not exist in Albanian until Late Proto Albanian (just before the first contacts with the Slavic languages), so no, there is no /δ/ linked to Proto-Albanian on an inscription of the late Hellenistic period (http://mama.csad.ox.ac.uk/monuments/MAMA-XI-157.html) which informs us of the existence in eastern Lydia of a rural community known as ὁ περὶ Μοκαδα δῆμος (SEG 33, 1004) and the inscriptions linked to the people from this settlement.

So how can we be certain that Proto-Albanian /dz/ did not develop into /δ/ as Johane Derite would have it be ("at least since the 4th century BC")?
Setting aside (once more) the actual linguistic argument that IE *k and *gh yielded PAIb *dz > Alb dh (lidh, vjedh, herdhe, madh, rrjedh). (Orel, 1998):

Proto-Albanian *bardza (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Albanian/bardza) produced:
Albanian bar/dh/ė (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bardh%C3%AB) (and some others intermediate forms)
Aromanian bardzu (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bardzu)
Romanian barz (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/barz#Romanian) which Romanian shepherds brought to the north where it became
Ukrainian barzij (http://macedonia.kroraina.com/rs/rs14_7.pdf) (black sheep or goat with white spots)
Serbo-Croatian barzilo (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/barzilo#Serbo-Croatian)

This, obviously, could not have happened in the Hellenistic era, but in late antiquity, otherwise Aromanian and Romanian would not have contained the forms "bardzu" and "barz", nor would there be a barzilo in Serbo-Croatian and a barz-ij in Ukrainian.


A small addition about this one. Apart from all the other issues, which make this theory impossible, what you're comparing here consists of two completely different things in the first place. The -γενής which you have highlighted derives from genos (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B3%CE%AD%CE%BD%CE%BF%CF%82#Ancient_Greek) from PIE ǵénh₁os (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/%C7%B5%C3%A9nh%E2%82%81os) + es (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-%CE%B7%CF%82#Ancient_Greek) as a nominative suffix. In genitive, all these names you have placed on your graphic would become Aristogenous, Diogenous etc.

The comparison with a supposed Proto-Albanian /-δεν/ from the same root in Μοκαδ(δ)ηνής and other variants is completely wrong because this suffix formation has nothing to do with any derivative of PIE ǵenh₁- . All of them are formed by the toponym Μοκαδ(δ)α + case suffix -enos. For example, on this inscription Μ[ο][κ]<α>δδηνοῖς (https://epigraphy.packhum.org/text/263949?hs=210-216%2C290-306) Mokad(d)- refers to the toponym and ηνοῖς is a dative plural formation of -ηνός (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-%CE%B7%CE%BD%CF%8C%CF%82)(-enos). Ask anyone on this forum who has even rudimentary knowledge of ancient Greek and they will explain to you the same exact thing.

This is the reason why it is so difficult for me to continue this discussion Johane. I think that it's admirable that you want to learn and that you are interested in these fascinating topics. The problem for me is that I'm trying to clarify to you very basic issues, but because you are trying to fit it into a narrative about Phrygian/Brygian/whatever E-V13-centric culture that spread a language akin to Proto-Albanian etc etc you are leading yourself to more and more wrong theories. I would reply the same to anyone who tried to produce a similar R1b-M269-centric or a J2b-L83-centric or any hg-centric theory.

Personally, I'm not interested in fetishizing any haplogroup. I think that all the Iron Age groups which we have come to know today were a mix of different haplogroups and the identities they formed are not linked to their haplogroups but to how they collectively perceived the world around them regardless of their haplogroups.

Riverman
03-10-2021, 01:34 AM
Hello to you too. You should not assume about others at risk of masterfully highlighting your own

Because it’s common knowledge that La Tene Celts inhabited the carpathian regions until 200 BC
It is less known, but archaeologically secure, that after the demise of the Celts a movement of the Padea-Panagjurski-Kolonii group from northern Bulgaria into the Orestes heartland & Dobruja . This has been outlined by none other then A Rustoiu, an authority on Dacian archaeology. ADNA will undoubtedly confirm but fine tune this .

The Celts were, however, never exclusively in control of the Carpathian region and the Daco-Thracian elements were there before. So the Celtic role is rather an influence on the region, stronger for a limited amount of time, rather than the sole inhabitants at any time. Even if there was a South -> North movement involved, at that time, it would be largely unrelated to the main topic of this thread, which is the first spread of E-V13, because that happened North -> South in the LBA-EIA transition, very likely with Urnfield, quite likely with Gava-Fluted Ware.

Huban
03-10-2021, 02:10 AM
Hello to you too. You should not assume about others at risk of masterfully highlighting your own

Because it’s common knowledge that La Tene Celts inhabited the carpathian regions until 200 BC
It is less known, but archaeologically secure, that after the demise of the Celts a movement of the Padea-Panagjurski-Kolonii group from northern Bulgaria into the Orestes heartland & Dobruja . This has been outlined by none other then A Rustoiu, an authority on Dacian archaeology. ADNA will undoubtedly confirm but fine tune this .

Hi.

Padea-Panagjurski-Kolonii group represents a multi-cultural alliance involving Celtic and Daco-Thracian elements engaged in pillaging operations to the South, not some Getae migrants towards the North.. Dacian-Gaetic archeological culture fully developed centuries prior to that. And also they are historically attested prior to that by multiple sources. So to suggest the original Daco-Getae descended of this culture is absolute nonsense.

Now I see you have had interest in Z17855. Perhaps you think "Z17855 is not Slavic but rather represents the Celtic natives of Dacia prior to 200 BC Dacian invasion??". Are you I-Y3120? Maybe you don't like those "Slavic" theories (or more like facts)?

Huban
03-10-2021, 02:31 AM
The problem lies with that belief, common in historiography of the autochthonism of Dacians & subsequent 'Daco-Romans' which dominates ROmanian discourse. Acc. to this evolutionist perspective (undoubtedly narrative inspired), Thraco-Dacians are seen to have been present since the Bronze Age, always the majority and always assimilating any 'foreigners'. Then when the Romans (very briefly) arrived, they changed their ideology, and gleefully accepted the Roman language

There are attested certain EIA, MIA Daco-Getaeo finds, and great many of them.




The problem with this is the Dacians are a late Iron / Roman Age phenomenon (as per above - a military -aristocratic group from the Danube), and the previous Gava, Basarabi, etc culture peoples are best described as eastern Urnfield-Halstatt groups. When the Celts arrived, the entire basin with Celticised.Although heterogeneous, there is no evidence of any cultural or ethnic dichotomy in the archaeological record.

Nonsense. Celts only exercised a storng influence in Transylvania of all Dacia, nowhere else was their influence that strong.



Which makes the notion of Thraco-Dacian continuity little than a furphy . There is no linear development from the aformentioned eastern Halstatt groups with historical Dacians, but they could have been transmitters of proto-Thracian adstrate


But there is. You don't have a clue what you are talking about.

I-Y3120 = Celtic natives of Dacia?? :rofl::rofl:

Moderator
03-10-2021, 02:43 AM
A general reminder to remain civil and refrain from ad hominem attacks. If you have not yet read our Terms of Service (https://anthrogenica.com/faq.php), please do so:


3.14 Anthrogenica encourages its members to participate in discussions in a topic-focused manner. Personalization of discussions is completely prohibited at all times. This includes (and is not limited to) direct personal attacks, accusations, insinuations and false disclosures. Additionally, discussions that degenerate into inconsequential flaming or inanity will be deleted without prior notice. Note that this discussion policy also applies to Anthrogenica's Private Messaging and Visitor Message functions.

Huban
03-10-2021, 03:59 AM
The corrolary being Thracian emerges by koinization during the LBA-IA, and Daco-Getan being a late offshoot moving north after 200 BC.


Lower Danube Getae ruler was Dromichaetes, 300-280 BC who ruled the Lower Danube region.

But per Nikulitsa already in Geate finds from 4th-3rd centuries BC in Dniestr-Prut interlude (by now 250+) one of the main characteristics of that period was the unification of Getae in larger tribal alliances, opposing the one led by Dromichates.

Levinskiy, 2010

"In conclusion the author pays attention that in material culture, especially in pottery, all main forms from the previous period were retained, the internal structure of the settlements remained unchanged as well as the funerary ritus. In his view settlements such as Pīrjolteni, Dănceni, Recea, Seliște, Hansca and others represent the connecting link, representing the transient phase from Thracian Hallstat to the Getae culture of the 4th-3rd centuries BC."


https://i.ytimg.com/vi/uSvJaYxRoB4/hqdefault.jpg

vettor
03-10-2021, 06:23 AM
Lower Danube Getae ruler was Dromichaetes, 300-280 BC who ruled the Lower Danube region.

But per Nikulitsa already in Geate finds from 4th-3rd centuries BC in Dniestr-Prut interlude (by now 250+) one of the main characteristics of that period was the unification of Getae in larger tribal alliances, opposing the one led by Dromichates.

Levinskiy, 2010

"In conclusion the author pays attention that in material culture, especially in pottery, all main forms from the previous period were retained, the internal structure of the settlements remained unchanged as well as the funerary ritus. In his view settlements such as Pīrjolteni, Dănceni, Recea, Seliște, Hansca and others represent the connecting link, representing the transient phase from Thracian Hallstat to the Getae culture of the 4th-3rd centuries BC."


https://i.ytimg.com/vi/uSvJaYxRoB4/hqdefault.jpg

The Getae must have been bigger than what is written as their lands ran from modern moldova to northern bulgaria ( along the black sea )

In the Sboryanovo Archaeological Reserve in northeastern Bulgaria are situated the remains of an ancient city which became the political and religious center of the powerful Thracian Getae tribe during the 4th century BC. The most spectacular of a number of ancient tombs at the site, which has been identified by Bulgarian archaeologists as “Dausdava”

https://www.academia.edu/32172303/FALL_OF_THE_CITY_OF_WOLVES_A_Celtic_Chariot_Burial _from_Sboryanovo_in_n_e_Bulgaria


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

there seems to be a difference of tribes ...as

The interior of eastern Thrace/Scythia Minor during this period was inhabited by a unique population of Thracian (Getae), Celtic, and Celto-Scythian (Bastarnae) tribes. During Rome’s recent conflict with the Pontic King Mithridates VI the Celts and Bastarnae had allied themselves against the empire (App. Mith. 69, 111; Justin 38:3, Memnon 27:7).

Riverman
03-10-2021, 09:09 AM
Are you addressing the correct person here ? because I'm not an immobilist

That was a necessary comment for the quoted text from the paper, since the author claims more regional continuity than seems to be justified. It wasn't directed at you.

Concerning the Celtic issue, the Celts were never that well established in the whole Carpathian region as that you can claim there was no other ethnicities and cultural formations beside from my point of view. And your extremely late date with 200 BC is just way off in any case.

Johane Derite
03-10-2021, 09:25 AM
In the cases which display *sk >> h, *sk existed in the AD years as in every other case.

In the era of the Pannonian Scenobardus, Proto-Albanian still retained *sk-.



No it didn't, this is why you keep misunderstanding the crucial point here over and over again.

"Proto-Albanian" itself is chronologically delineated by Matzinger, Bardhyl Demiraj, etc, as the point from which Latin Loans begin, so after contact with Romans has already begun (167BC, way before AD era).

In proto-Albanian there is no inherited *sk cluster, so it is impossible that there was a *sk inherited from IE since at least those years in which Latin loans begin entering Albanian.

But *sk is not even reconstructed in Early-Proto-Albanian, which is a period long before contact with romans.

So your idea that *sk inherited from IE was still present in Albanian all the way up to the historical era is totally wrong, and built on a misunderstanding of what Proto-Albanian actually means.


Matzinger gives an example of the evolution of njeh in the post I linked in #1214:

Proto-Indo-European. *ǵn̥h₃sḱéti.
>
Pre-Early-Proto-Albanian. *ȷ́nākʰet
>
Early-Proto-Albanian. *ɲɔxit
>
Proto-Albanian. *ɲœx
>
Old Albanian. njeh


As you can see, I have put in bold the evolution of the *sk cluster, and the change from *sk to kʰ is reconstructed as very ancient, long, long before the AD era.

This is the work of the most up to date linguists that are studying Old Albanian texts methodically, and not Orel from 1998.



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZIY1AhXgAA_0Qw?format=png&name=large

Image source: Die Verben Des Altalbanischen: "Belegworterbuch, Vorgeschichte Und Etymologie" (Albanische Forschungen)

Hawk
03-10-2021, 10:18 AM
Interestingly, I think I saw Hawk mention that Messapic regions have EV13>Z5018 branches. EV13 would explain the connection between Dardanian and Mysian (which shows up often in Moesians as we know from leaks).


Yes: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11853-Puglia-Y-DNA

Small sample size, 41, but better something than nothing.

4 E-Y3183, 1 E-L17 and 1 E-FGC11457.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y3183/

https://yfull.com/tree/E-L17/

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

and R-PF7563 was found among them.

Johane Derite
03-10-2021, 10:41 AM
From a proper study on Italian Y-DNA, EV13 is highest in Messapic regions and Sicily (Sicily, Apulia, and then Grecia Salentina):

https://i.imgur.com/S32lsVq.png

J2b-l283 is highest in Tortogna-Voghera and then in Apulia and Grecia Salentina.
R1b doesn't seem to be too high in the Messapic regions.

vettor
03-10-2021, 04:09 PM
The problem lies with that belief, common in historiography of the autochthonism of Dacians & subsequent 'Daco-Romans' which dominates ROmanian discourse. Acc. to this evolutionist perspective (undoubtedly narrative inspired), Thraco-Dacians are seen to have been present since the Bronze Age, always the majority and always assimilating any 'foreigners'. Then when the Romans (very briefly) arrived, they changed their ideology, and gleefully accepted the Roman language

The problem with this is the Dacians are a late Iron / Roman Age phenomenon (as per above - a military -aristocratic group originally from the south who established rule north of the Danube), and the previous Gava, Basarabi, etc culture peoples are best described as eastern Urnfield-Halstatt groups. When the Celts arrived, the entire basin with Celticised. Although heterogeneous, there is no evidence of any cultural or ethnic dichotomy in the archaeological record (Celts vs ''Thraco-Dacians").

Which makes the notion of Thraco-Dacian continuity little more than a furphy . There is no linear development from the aformentioned eastern Halstatt groups with historical Dacians, but they could have been transmitters of proto-Thracian adstrate



I did not state anything to the contrary of E-V13 moving from the north. Instead, I was replying to ''However, Proto-Italics very likely expanded into Italia with Urnfield, as did Celts move to the West under the same label, Illyrian-related groups in Eastern Central Europe and Daco-Thracians in Romania-Bulgaria.''




Agree, e.g. Iapodes are disitinctive to Illyrians proprie dictii & Pannonian-Dalmatians






Iapodes became the Messapic group in Italy after arriving there circa 1000BC ....................Iapodes lived between the Liburnians and the Pannonians in the northern Adriatic ( Northern Balkans )

vettor
03-10-2021, 04:17 PM
From a proper study on Italian Y-DNA, EV13 is highest in Messapic regions and Sicily (Sicily, Apulia, and then Grecia Salentina):

https://i.imgur.com/S32lsVq.png

J2b-l283 is highest in Tortogna-Voghera and then in Apulia and Grecia Salentina.
R1b doesn't seem to be too high in the Messapic regions.

the paper where this map came from , was a poor paper as it excluded every Italian people living on the adriatic sea side , the Apulian data is distorded due to the many north-west Greeks and Albanians that came across to Italy, mass migrations of boat people in the 1970s

Correct me If I am wrong......but only the Volterra, Borbera and Bergamo Valley had ancient samples

Johane Derite
03-10-2021, 04:47 PM
the paper where this map came from , was a poor paper as it excluded every Italian people living on the adriatic sea side , the Apulian data is distorded due to the many north-west Greeks and Albanians that came across to Italy, mass migrations of boat people in the 1970s

Correct me If I am wrong......but only the Volterra, Borbera and Bergamo Valley had ancient samples

This paper tested people with 4 grandparents in Italy, so Albanians and migrants should be irrelevant, unless I have confused it with another paper, as I screenshotted it ages ago.

capsian
03-10-2021, 04:49 PM
From a proper study on Italian Y-DNA, EV13 is highest in Messapic regions and Sicily (Sicily, Apulia, and then Grecia Salentina):

https://i.imgur.com/S32lsVq.png

J2b-l283 is highest in Tortogna-Voghera and then in Apulia and Grecia Salentina.
R1b doesn't seem to be too high in the Messapic regions.

any study this

vettor
03-10-2021, 05:00 PM
This paper tested people with 4 grandparents in Italy, so Albanians and migrants should be irrelevant, unless I have confused it with another paper, as I screenshotted it ages ago.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322822562_Reconstructing_the_genetic_history_of_It alians_new_insights_from_a_male_Y-chromosome_perspective

rafc
03-10-2021, 05:00 PM
This paper tested people with 4 grandparents in Italy, so Albanians and migrants should be irrelevant, unless I have confused it with another paper, as I screenshotted it ages ago.

I do think it's a bad study for other reasons. The sample sizes for different locations are too small, and they chose their locations too specific. This makes V13 appear too high on Sicily (small sample size) and too low in the NW (isolated locations).

vettor
03-10-2021, 05:08 PM
I do think it's a bad study for other reasons. The sample sizes for different locations are too small, and they chose their locations too specific. This makes V13 appear too high on Sicily (small sample size) and too low in the NW (isolated locations).

also bad is that they have no ydna spilits for adriatic sea side italians .... they did not test any ?

see link 1247 for the paper

Hawk
03-10-2021, 08:21 PM
Bruzmi reincarnated. :lol:

Bruzmi
03-10-2021, 10:35 PM
Bruzmi reincarnated. :lol:

I'm flattered :lol:

(On a more serious note, there is a valid linguistic argument to be made about the fact that Thracian -a language which doesn't belong to a "northern-like" cluster like Illyrian or any language from central Balkans which might not have been recorded - in the (Early?) Iron Age received some input which made it more "northern-like")

BukeKrypEZemer
03-11-2021, 08:10 AM
Maybe it was picked up/assimilated by Slavs in the North Balkans during the early migration era and carrying it north with northern Slavs who injected it into Finns, and Scandinavians through the mixed Slavic/Scandinavian Viking settlements?

Just a guess since TMRCA were removed. Not sure what the distance everyone has with each other.

Swedish guy who was on level BY4529 and the new finish guy form a cluster parallel to E-Y20805 now. :)

Hawk
03-11-2021, 08:59 AM
So members from Lasinja Culture in Croatia all belonged to G2a 1 I2a and 1 C-V20.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?23279-Genome-wide-analysis-of-nearly-all-the-victims-of-a-6200-year-old-massacre

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0247332

Was expecting atleast 1 E-L618/E-V13.

BukeKrypEZemer
03-11-2021, 09:42 AM
So members from Lasinja Culture in Croatia all belonged to G2a 1 I2a and 1 C-V20.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?23279-Genome-wide-analysis-of-nearly-all-the-victims-of-a-6200-year-old-massacre

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0247332

Was expecting atleast 1 E-L618/E-V13.

E-V13 must have had a very late success story.... pretty disappointing that old bones do not seem in favor of E-V13....

Hawk
03-11-2021, 10:03 AM
E-V13 must have had a very late success story.... pretty disappointing that old bones do not seem in favor of E-V13....

Yeah, it was almost inexistent among Early Neolithic Farmers, the only case were E-M78 was in group was in Michelsberger (France Late Neolithic), all other samples were lone wolfs.

armalite
03-11-2021, 11:27 AM
Yeah, it was almost inexistent among Early Neolithic Farmers, the only case were E-M78 was in group was in Michelsberger (France Late Neolithic), all other samples were lone wolfs.

What if they are where they have been believed so far they have only cremated their relatives for millennia?

Riverman
03-11-2021, 12:12 PM
What if they are where they have been believed so far they have only cremated their relatives for millennia?

Its simple, they were a minority group in many Neolithic formations. I highly doubt they were dominant in any grup prior to the EBA. I think we should really focus on Lengyel-Sopot and Tripolye-Cucuteni among others, because those might have brought it up North. And its exactly in their former territory, that in an Epi-Corded context a stronger Neolithic tradition survived.

Bruzmi
03-11-2021, 03:56 PM
So members from Lasinja Culture in Croatia all belonged to G2a 1 I2a and 1 C-V20.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?23279-Genome-wide-analysis-of-nearly-all-the-victims-of-a-6200-year-old-massacre

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0247332

Was expecting atleast 1 E-L618/E-V13.

According to the study:

Paleogenomic and bioanthropological studies of ancient massacres have highlighted sites where the victims were male and plausibly died all in battle, or were executed members of the same family as might be expected from a killing intentionally directed at subsets of a community, or where the massacred individuals were plausibly members of a migrant community in conflict with previously established groups, or where there was evidence that the killing was part of a religious ritual. Here we provide evidence of killing on a massive scale in prehistory that was not directed to a specific family, based on genome-wide ancient DNA for 38 of the 41 documented victims of a 6,200 year old massacre in Potočani, Croatia and combining our results with bioanthropological data. We highlight three results: (i) the majority of individuals were unrelated and instead were a sample of what was clearly a large farming population, (ii) the ancestry of the individuals was homogenous which makes it unlikely that the massacre was linked to the arrival of new genetic ancestry, and (iii) there were approximately equal numbers of males and females.

Geographical spread of Lasinja:

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

I don't know if Lasinja culture individuals were ever related to E-V13, but one study of a massacre in one site won't provide an answer.