PDA

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



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 [6]

vasil
03-11-2021, 05:30 PM
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.

Michelsberg rich in WHG and I2a so maybe E-V13 from Cardium pottery brings the neolithic lifestyle to L621 WHG in the West Alps and then they expand violently together to the north replacing G2a guys and later get absorbed by Indo-Europeans. What do you think?

Hawk
03-11-2021, 05:59 PM
Michelsberg rich in WHG and I2a so maybe E-V13 from Cardium pottery brings the neolithic lifestyle to L621 WHG in the West Alps and then they expand violently together to the north replacing G2a guys and later get absorbed by Indo-Europeans. What do you think?

It's speculation but that is quite possible.

I really doubt E-V13 was close by Eastern European farmers considering that 5-6 thousand years ago space and time was a huge thing, the only real E-V13 mutation to date comes from Neolithic Spain, so the other E-V13 groups must have lived closeby.

vasil
03-11-2021, 07:49 PM
It's speculation but that is quite possible.

I really doubt E-V13 was close by Eastern European farmers considering that 5-6 thousand years ago space and time was a huge thing, the only real E-V13 mutation to date comes from Neolithic Spain, so the other E-V13 groups must have lived closeby.

The question still remains if its from Cardium pottery and it didnt come from the Balkans then how did it get there maybe from North Africa. I think Southern Germany was way more important historicaly than its given credit for now that we have results from Single Grave culture and stuff didnt turn out how people tought ie its probably not the source of the Beakears it would make sence that the region between the Danube and Alps is the most likely location of origin and if we involve E-V13 and L621 in the picture i think we need high res Y-DNA from that place really badly.

digital_noise
03-11-2021, 07:58 PM
We need high res samples to move this conversation along to the next chapter. I feel the same arguments, same rigid opinions and the same insults have been thrown around for too long lol. I’d like for some historical clues to be uncovered so certain elements can be accepted as fact so we can argue about the next stage for a couple years...

armalite
03-11-2021, 10:38 PM
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.

Funny that my father’s ancestors have been living in the Lasinje culture for the past 250 years, researching my father’s bloodline. Vukovar, Dalj, Erdut, Moravice, Kaptol, Požeška županija, Popovac, Banat, Fibis :)

Hawk
03-12-2021, 08:39 AM
We need high res samples to move this conversation along to the next chapter. I feel the same arguments, same rigid opinions and the same insults have been thrown around for too long lol. I’d like for some historical clues to be uncovered so certain elements can be accepted as fact so we can argue about the next stage for a couple years...

That's a bit disrespectful, it's still ok to wonder.

Johane Derite
03-12-2021, 09:42 AM
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

Possibly nothing, but interesting that the field of Brnjica-type pottery in Greek Macedonia is not far from where the Brygians were supposed to have had their capital (between Edessa and Beroea):

https://i.imgur.com/kUW9hCx.jpg

Aspar
03-12-2021, 11:57 AM
Possibly nothing, but interesting that the field of Brnjica-type pottery in Greek Macedonia is not far from where the Brygians were supposed to have had their capital (between Edessa and Beroea):

https://i.imgur.com/kUW9hCx.jpg

Actually according to that image posted initially by Rob, Brnjica-type pottery doesn't corelate with the Brygians but with the Paeonians. We see this type of pottery shows up mainly east of Morava river where the supposed Dardanians were located and east of Vardar river and along Struma. The region of Greek Macedonia where this pottery appears was inhabited by Paeonian and Thracian tribes, that is east of Vardar in the Thessalonikian plain.

Besides, Mt.Vermio (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermio_Mountains) where the Brygians had their capital is far from the region where Brnjica-type pottery was found.

What is interesting, this Brnjica-type pottery correlates quite nicely with the Daco-Thracian elements in the map that represents Vladimir Georgiev's finds about the toponymy in the region:
https://i.postimg.cc/g0n16kYd/Map-of-Balkans-linguistic-groups-late-3rd-millennium-BC-according-to-Georgiev.png (https://postimages.org/)

So again, if this Brnjica-type pottery represents anything, it must be the Thracian and Paeonian tribes in the region, not the Brygians who certainly were closely related to the ancient Macedonians and Greeks linguistically. Besides, someone did mention in this thread that the Paeonians were related to the Dardanians. I haven't read much on that matter but this Brnjica-type pottery could indicate such a connection.

armalite
03-12-2021, 12:54 PM
Possibly nothing, but interesting that the field of Brnjica-type pottery in Greek Macedonia is not far from where the Brygians were supposed to have had their capital (between Edessa and Beroea):

https://i.imgur.com/kUW9hCx.jpg

This is crazy!
Thank you for sharing and looking at the direction of my Y chromosome occurrence and the recent whereabouts of my straightforward paternal ancestors over the past 200 years.
It may not be clear to some, but Herodotus mentions my straightforward paternal descent.
Archaeogenetic measurements and historical sources perfectly justify each other.
43830

armalite
03-12-2021, 01:09 PM
43829

43831

43833

43834

XXD
03-12-2021, 01:58 PM
Very interesting posts. Until 800 BC, most of what later became Macedonia was inhabited by Thracians, Paeonians and Illyrians. When the Greeks (protoMacedonians) expanded from their homeland around Mt Olympus, they absorbed most of these peoples. But until a few centuries later, there were many Illyrian and Thracian names still surviving in the Macedonian population.

I am not really sure why Protomacedonians are mentioned as a distinct group in the above maps. Their language was clearly an early dialect of Greek. That they may have later diverged genetically from the other Greeks due to mixtures with Illyrians and Thracians is another story.

Aspar
03-12-2021, 02:35 PM
I see that indirectly I've been mentioned here because I make distinction between ancient Macedonian, Phrygian/Brygian and Greek. My believe is these were related languages that formed a single Indo-European branch among the rest of the Indo-European languages. However the little evidence shows they were enough distinct to be a separate languages, still highly related tho...

To cite some sources:

Brian D. Joseph (https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/joseph.1/articles/gancient.htm):

Family: Ancient Greek is generally taken to be the only representative (though note the existence of different dialects) of the Greek or Hellenic branch of Indo-European. There is some dispute as to whether Ancient Macedonian (the native language of Philip and Alexander), if it has any special affinity to Greek at all, is a dialect within Greek (see below) or a sibling language to all of the known Ancient Greek dialects. If the latter view is correct, then Macedonian and Greek would be the two subbranches of a group within Indo-European which could more properly be called Hellenic.

Related Languages: As noted above, Ancient Macedonian might be the language most closely related to Greek, perhaps even a dialect of Greek. The slender evidence is open to different interpretations, so that no definitive answer is really possible but most likely, Ancient Macedonian was not simply an Ancient Greek dialect on a par with Attic or Aeolic (see below).

Vladimir Georgiev (http://www.kroraina.com/vg/vg.html):

V. The Macedonian Region

The original region of the ancient Macedonians was the basin of the river Haliakmon. The oldest toponyms here are very similar to the Greek ones. Numerous isoglosses connect the Macedonian language with different Greek dialects. This fact attests the genetic identity of Macedonian and Greek.

However, there is an essential difference between Macedonian and all other Greek dialects. This is the change of IE ma into ta in Greek which was completed before the epoch of the Mycenaean documents. In Macedonian IE ma changed into m. This difference which separates Macedonian from all other Greek dialects is therefore very old. There are also other differences.

In the present writer's opinion, ancient Macedonian is closely related to Greek, and Macedonian and Greek are descended from a common Greek-Macedonian idiom that was spoken till about the second half of the third millennium b.c.

vettor
03-12-2021, 02:44 PM
43829

43831

43833

43834

most times ...if you remove "smooth path " in SNP tracker, you get a better result

armalite
03-12-2021, 03:01 PM
most times ...if you remove "smooth path " in SNP tracker, you get a better result

Is it a sensation or a sensation? Can I call myself Phrygian? :)

43840

43841

XXD
03-12-2021, 04:07 PM
I see that indirectly I've been mentioned here because I make distinction between ancient Macedonian, Phrygian/Brygian and Greek. My believe is these were related languages that formed a single Indo-European branch among the rest of the Indo-European languages. However the little evidence shows they were enough distinct to be a separate languages, still highly related tho...

To cite some sources:

Brian D. Joseph (https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/joseph.1/articles/gancient.htm):


Vladimir Georgiev (http://www.kroraina.com/vg/vg.html):

Most ancient authors and modern classic scholars agree that the proto-Macedonians were a Doric tribe known as Makednoi, who originated from the mountains of Pindus in Epirus. Surprise, surprise, the earliest Doric dialects came from exactly the same region (also according to Georgiev's theory). Due to conflicts with Greek and Illyrian tribes, the proto-Macedonians migrated to Pieria around 900BC if I am not mistaken. This was even part of the own mythology of the Macedonians, as even centuries after their expansion to Macedonia, they would still gather and hold pan-Macedonian festivals in Pieria and Dion to honour their fatherland (summarised on Nicholas Hammond's work on Macedonia). The proto-Macedonians practiced transhumance, and their way of life was very similar to the Vlach people of today's Balkans.

The proto-Macedonians were always part of the Mycenaean influence, unlike their Phrygian neighbours (http://www.aegeobalkanprehistory.net/index.php?p=article&id_art=11).

That Macedonian has some Phrygian and Illyrian loanwords clearly is a result of later contacts with these cultures.

Yes, Phrygian and the Greek languages are likely to be related, but Macedonian is clearly part of the strictly Greek dialectal/language continuum.

I don't want to derail the thread. I do not care whether Macedonians were Greek, Illyrian or anything else. I care about being precise. During their early history, they mixed with non-Greeks, and during the Hellenistic times, they mixed with Anatolians and Levantines, like everybody else in the Greek world. Furthermore, I suspect that only the most microscopic fragments of Macedonian ancestry may survive in modern populations, if at all. But I feel that labelling proto-Macedonians as a distinct entity from other Greeks is somewhat imprecise at best, or feeds into certain nationalist narratives at worst.

By the way, this is in no way a reference to you. Its just that based on what I've read, it is rather imprecise to refer to proto-Macedonians as a distinct linguistic entity and culture, in the way we refer to other groups such as Phrygians and Thracians. I would write the same if someone (like many Greeks, but not here in AG) labelled ancient Thracians as ancient Greeks (which our schoolbooks do).

Johane Derite
03-12-2021, 04:23 PM
Actually according to that image posted initially by Rob, Brnjica-type pottery doesn't corelate with the Brygians but with the Paeonians.

It is not incorrect to say that it is not far from where the Brygians had their capital supposedly (between edessa and beroea). Marked out:

https://i.imgur.com/MZwqpC5.png

Johane Derite
03-12-2021, 04:34 PM
Actually according to that image posted initially by Rob, Brnjica-type pottery doesn't corelate with the Brygians but with the Paeonians. We see this type of pottery shows up mainly east of Morava river where the supposed Dardanians were located and east of Vardar river and along Struma. The region of Greek Macedonia where this pottery appears was inhabited by Paeonian and Thracian tribes, that is east of Vardar in the Thessalonikian plain.

Besides, Mt.Vermio (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermio_Mountains) where the Brygians had their capital is far from the region where Brnjica-type pottery was found.

What is interesting, this Brnjica-type pottery correlates quite nicely with the Daco-Thracian elements in the map that represents Vladimir Georgiev's finds about the toponymy in the region:
https://i.postimg.cc/g0n16kYd/Map-of-Balkans-linguistic-groups-late-3rd-millennium-BC-according-to-Georgiev.png (https://postimages.org/)

So again, if this Brnjica-type pottery represents anything, it must be the Thracian and Paeonian tribes in the region, not the Brygians who certainly were closely related to the ancient Macedonians and Greeks linguistically. Besides, someone did mention in this thread that the Paeonians were related to the Dardanians. I haven't read much on that matter but this Brnjica-type pottery could indicate such a connection.

As for this map, it is based on georgiev's positions, correct? Do you know which period specifically, it has "pelasgian" there on it and proto-greek in Epirus, so before greeks were even in the mainland, middle bronze age or earlier?

Georgiev's position is obviously of value, but maybe mistaken in many places as a lot is from the 50-70s, so I don't think it can be used as a conclusive argument.

Especially given how totally far away Albanian was known by linguists in that period compared to the last 20 years.

Especially on the Brygian/Phrygian question, given the relative dearth of material, everything is very speculative. Also that it is very one sided and based mostly on Phrygian inscriptions that come from at least ~500 years after a split from the proposed common Brygo-Phryo group:

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


Maybe we could imagine a parallel case where if we only had inscriptions from English over a 1000 year period, starting from 500 years after it had split from the common Anglo-Frisian group, and were using those to speculate about Frisian. We may fall for many traps given the intense contacts English had with Romance. Likewise with a still limited Phrygian corpus, that had intense contacts with Hittite, Luwian, and Greek, I think we have to be a bit wary about extrapolating directly to Brygian.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/18/West_Germanic_languages_%28simplified%29.png

Johane Derite
03-12-2021, 05:04 PM
So again, if this Brnjica-type pottery represents anything, it must be the Thracian and Paeonian tribes in the region, not the Brygians who certainly were closely related to the ancient Macedonians and Greeks linguistically. Besides, someone did mention in this thread that the Paeonians were related to the Dardanians. I haven't read much on that matter but this Brnjica-type pottery could indicate such a connection.

And there is the opinion of Vanja Stanisic, who argued for a possible Brygo-Dardano-Mysian group that was linguistically neither Illyrian nor Thracian, with Moesians being fully Thracianised, later, as well as Dardanians falling under the Illyrian label.

But since Joachim Matzinger's work on Albanian has got him to desginate Albanian as neither Illyrian nor Thracian, this got me to think maybe there is something in this theory to be explored. Maybe Dardanians had an Illyrian adstrate without being linguistically fully Illyrianised (bilingual, still speaking dardanian at home)? Likewise maybe there were Brygians in Albania and Pelagonia that are mentioned well in to the time of the Roman empire that also could have survived linguistically.

It is still very speculative terrain.

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

digital_noise
03-12-2021, 05:10 PM
That's a bit disrespectful, it's still ok to wonder.

Sorry if you feel that way but as an observer that’s what I sbeen seeing for the last few years. I never said it’s not ok to wonder. But people get pretty nasty around this topic, and it would be nice to get some concrete facts in place so the discussion can move along. I don’t think that’s disrespectful at all.

Johane Derite
03-12-2021, 05:36 PM
It is still very speculative terrain.

Whichever camp you feel is more likely, I think it all converges on the era of trojan war, and the Phrygians, Dardanians, and Mysians that connect Balkans and Troy have to have a central focus given they are among the earliest documented peoples of the balkans.

Riverman
03-12-2021, 05:52 PM
Sorry if you feel that way but as an observer that’s what I sbeen seeing for the last few years. I never said it’s not ok to wonder. But people get pretty nasty around this topic, and it would be nice to get some concrete facts in place so the discussion can move along. I don’t think that’s disrespectful at all.

Actually we got some facts in the last years. It starts with E1b1b being present in most geographical regions of Europe during the Neolithic and other E1b1b's other than E-V13 being present in many European regions to this day. It goes on with E-V13 being not present in most regions during the Middle and Late Neolithic, even in the EBA to MBA, E-V13 is not widespread, especially largely absent from Central Europe, Pannonia and the Balkans. Soon after the LBA to EIA transition, it pops up in large numbers, especially in Daco-Thracian people. A lot of this was not that well understood and known just 2 years ago. So progress was made, some old theories are now dead, the remaining options rather limited, and the LBA-EIA transition in the Carpatho-Balkan region is key.

Hawk
03-12-2021, 06:11 PM
Actually we got some facts in the last years. It starts with E1b1b being present in most geographical regions of Europe during the Neolithic and other E1b1b's other than E-V13 being present in many European regions to this day. It goes on with E-V13 being not present in most regions during the Middle and Late Neolithic, even in the EBA to MBA, E-V13 is not widespread, especially largely absent from Central Europe, Pannonia and the Balkans. Soon after the LBA to EIA transition, it pops up in large numbers, especially in Daco-Thracian people. A lot of this was not that well understood and known just 2 years ago. So progress was made, some old theories are now dead, the remaining options rather limited, and the LBA-EIA transition in the Carpatho-Balkan region is key.

I was going to write this, but you summarized it well. Next step is figuring out from where exactly. Also some questions have been raised.

- Was it really Proto-Cetina the source or more Northerly Corded-Ware + Farmer as you have been putting the hypothesis.

- Did the Illyrians have E-V13 as well, were they similar wave as Thracians?

- Did E-V13 enter in Greece during LBA/EIA?

broder
03-12-2021, 06:22 PM
Actually we got some facts in the last years. It starts with E1b1b being present in most geographical regions of Europe during the Neolithic and other E1b1b's other than E-V13 being present in many European regions to this day. It goes on with E-V13 being not present in most regions during the Middle and Late Neolithic, even in the EBA to MBA, E-V13 is not widespread, especially largely absent from Central Europe, Pannonia and the Balkans. Soon after the LBA to EIA transition, it pops up in large numbers, especially in Daco-Thracian people. A lot of this was not that well understood and known just 2 years ago. So progress was made, some old theories are now dead, the remaining options rather limited, and the LBA-EIA transition in the Carpatho-Balkan region is key.

How do you know that V13 was largely absent during MBA in the Balkans?

digital_noise
03-12-2021, 06:25 PM
All excellent points. Maybe my original comment was worded poorly? One only has to go back a few pages to see deeper disagreements pop up. I was simply stating that I am hoping for a bit more concrete evidence so these arguments can be built upon with fact. I’m also a casual observer despite having an interest in the ultimate outcome and I don’t pay as much attention as most contributing members in this thread so I’m likely overlooking progress. Anyways, I didn’t mean offense and I was not coming from a perspective of hostility.

XXD
03-12-2021, 06:32 PM
I was going to write this, but you summarized it well. Next step is figuring out from where exactly. Also some questions have been raised.

- Was it really Proto-Cetina the source or more Northerly Corded-Ware + Farmer as you have been putting the hypothesis.

- Did the Illyrians have E-V13 as well, were they similar wave as Thracians?

- Did E-V13 enter in Greece during LBA/EIA?

One observation that might help is that Maniot Greeks who claim to be of Spartan origin, are overwhelmingly J2a and E-V13. They (and probably Tsakonians as well) have the least Slavic admixture among all mainland Greeks (and the Balkans in general), and I think represent what Hellenistic/Roman Southern Greece looked like (excluding their Slavic component). Until recently Maniots were very endogamous, and although I am sure that some of their E-V13 could be from assimilated Arvanites, I think this should account for a very small minority of cases.

The Iron age (at least, could be even earlier) seems like a good entry point.

Aspar
03-12-2021, 07:27 PM
Most ancient authors and modern classic scholars agree that the proto-Macedonians were a Doric tribe known as Makednoi, who originated from the mountains of Pindus in Epirus. Surprise, surprise, the earliest Doric dialects came from exactly the same region (also according to Georgiev's theory). Due to conflicts with Greek and Illyrian tribes, the proto-Macedonians migrated to Pieria around 900BC if I am not mistaken. This was even part of the own mythology of the Macedonians, as even centuries after their expansion to Macedonia, they would still gather and hold pan-Macedonian festivals in Pieria and Dion to honour their fatherland (summarised on Nicholas Hammond's work on Macedonia). The proto-Macedonians practiced transhumance, and their way of life was very similar to the Vlach people of today's Balkans.

The proto-Macedonians were always part of the Mycenaean influence, unlike their Phrygian neighbours (http://www.aegeobalkanprehistory.net/index.php?p=article&id_art=11).

That Macedonian has some Phrygian and Illyrian loanwords clearly is a result of later contacts with these cultures.

Yes, Phrygian and the Greek languages are likely to be related, but Macedonian is clearly part of the strictly Greek dialectal/language continuum.

I don't want to derail the thread. I do not care whether Macedonians were Greek, Illyrian or anything else. I care about being precise. During their early history, they mixed with non-Greeks, and during the Hellenistic times, they mixed with Anatolians and Levantines, like everybody else in the Greek world. Furthermore, I suspect that only the most microscopic fragments of Macedonian ancestry may survive in modern populations, if at all. But I feel that labelling proto-Macedonians as a distinct entity from other Greeks is somewhat imprecise at best, or feeds into certain nationalist narratives at worst.

By the way, this is in no way a reference to you. Its just that based on what I've read, it is rather imprecise to refer to proto-Macedonians as a distinct linguistic entity and culture, in the way we refer to other groups such as Phrygians and Thracians. I would write the same if someone (like many Greeks, but not here in AG) labelled ancient Thracians as ancient Greeks (which our schoolbooks do).

You may call me perfectionist but I really like to keep to the facts. I don't know how that would lead into nationalist narratives and I could care less TBH because everyone who follows me would know I'm far from being nationalistic type of guy.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to take any of the 'Greekness' off the ancient Macedonians. At the end, they did formed a single culture and single people with the Greeks and the Coine became the norm in both Macedonia and southern Greece.

Still, I will remain on what I said because mythological evidence and ancient authors who thought the earth is flat can hardly be base for scientific research and conclusions unlike the scientific and linguistic work I've cited. Based on Byzantine authors from the Early Medieval we can very well take their writings for granted that the Bulgarians were called Myrmidons in the past whose legendary hero was Achilles. Now from this perspective that's funny ain't? Then I don't see why even older works from the antique should have more weight than these Byzantine works of authors such as John Malalas.

As for the archaeological work you've posted it literally says that while Thessaly was clearly under Mycenaean influence, the same can't be said for Macedonia. I'm not sure if the Pyndos mountains can be considered as Thessaly but nevertheless, the Mycenaean finds were clearly located in the plains. Afterall, the Mycenaeans were sea faring people, not really the mountainious type such as the Macedonians were. The preservation of the trance-humance style of living of the Macedonians which you compared to the Vlachs might indicate that the Macedonians were less influenced from pre-Steppe people in Greece and were probably more archaic and steppe influenced than the Mycenaeans.

Aspar
03-12-2021, 07:37 PM
@ Johane

Although Georgiev's work is quite old by now, nothing new came up in the recent years to disprove what he wrote. On contrary, there are more works that confirm the kinship between the Brigians/Phrigians, ancient Macedonians and Greeks.

Another thing about these Brnjica-type finds is that the other places they were found such as Western Bulgaria and south-easstern Serbia don't corelate at all with the Brigians.

peloponnesian
03-12-2021, 08:40 PM
The preservation of the trance-humance style of living of the Macedonians which you compared to the Vlachs might indicate that the Macedonians were less influenced from pre-Steppe people in Greece and were probably more archaic and steppe influenced than the Mycenaeans.

Very interesting discussion. As an aside, it's kind of crazy that many people in the Balkans only changed their transhumance lifestyle very recently, after thousands of years of that tradition. Really puts things into perspective. My grandparents had their summer place and their winter place (χειμαδιό).

Johane Derite
03-12-2021, 08:59 PM
@ Johane

Although Georgiev's work is quite old by now, nothing new came up in the recent years to disprove what he wrote. On contrary, there are more works that confirm the kinship between the Brigians/Phrigians, ancient Macedonians and Greeks.

Another thing about these Brnjica-type finds is that the other places they were found such as Western Bulgaria and south-easstern Serbia don't corelate at all with the Brigians.

But linguistically Albanian is also phylogenetically kin with Greek. Thats the issue, that most of these guys from 50s had none of the data that has only come.out in the last 10 years, specifically after the study of the Old Albanian texts. 99% of phrygian, greek, thrracian, etc works just didnt have any way to take into account the data of the only livong non-greek palebalkan language. Obviously this will warp the results.

People talking about a common phrygo-greek language based on 500 total disparate inscriptions spread out over 1000 years, before studying the living language of albanian and its old texts.

gjergj
03-12-2021, 09:22 PM
Well as I have mentioned before there are two separate samples of ancient dna in the process/analysis from the territories of Albania. From the inital indications bronze is looking good for R1b and J2b. No sign of E-v13 yet. I suspect it should show up in IA samples though. This fits more rationally with the current structure of haplos we have at Rrenjet for the Albanian population.
I believe that may be with some potentially small exceptions E-V13 will end up being a very very late bronze/Iron Age entry in the proper balkans or at least west balkans.
With a few more months of patience we will have more clarity and eliminate or narrow down some of these theories presented around regarding E-V13.

Riverman
03-12-2021, 10:12 PM
How do you know that V13 was largely absent during MBA in the Balkans?

Simply because it was not found yet and the later spread in the LBA-EIA transition happened also in the North, to the West, to the East as well. There was, however, no significant movement of people and genes in that time frame from the Balkans, to the North. So any kind of origin story from the Balkans would have meant that the Balkans HAD TO (!!!) be packed with E-V13 already in the EBA the latest! So even small groups of isolated E1b1b's won't save that any more. For a South -> North movement, the weaker part of the upcoming admixture events in the LBA-EIA transition would have to have been extremely E-V13 rich, for making the spread possible in some kind of "backflow event". And that is now, even with finds made so far, completely out of question. Its no option at all based on ancient DNA and modern clades and subclades with their respective TMRCA. The bulk of E-V13 was going down to the Balkans, in the LBA-EIA transition, from a more Northerly point, and the South Eastern Urnfield groups, Fluted Ware and especially Gáva-Holigrady are the prime candidates.
A Balkan origin would have meant a steep rise of E-V13 in the Balkan itself before the MBA, an early spread to Pannonia and beyond, to withstand the massive Northern Urnfield-influx and further spread in backflow events, as well as in historical times, like within the Roman empire. But the data we have makes this option not just unlikely, but completely falsified it. Instead E-V13 is now a prime marker for various Urnfield-related and Iron Age groups. Worth to note that the custom of cremation spread to Greece as well and did spread in an altered form exactly in the right time frame.

Looking at Greece, I see the potential for not just one, but actually two changes of signficiance, the first one coming from the Western Balkans rather:


Cremation was a very rare burial practice throughout the entire Aegean Bronze Age. Generally, this also applies to the 12th century BC, the time after the destruction of the Mycenaean palaces that was accompanied by the complete dissolution of the palatial political and economic system. This period is referred to as LH (Late Helladic) IIIC on the Greek mainland and LM (Late Minoan) IIIC on the island of Crete.However, some considerable changes occurred in the 12th century BC with regards to cremation burials. There were far more cemeteries with a few cremation burials in this period than in the preceding palatial era of the Myce-naean culture (LH IIIA–LH IIIB: ca. 1400–1200 BC).



A more distinctive change in the Greek burial customs happened at the very beginning of the Early Iron Age in the late 11th century BC. In some regions, notably in Attica and Euboea, cremation became the dominant, nearly exclusively practiced burial custom.


Cemeteries with a predominance of cremation burials belong to the second group. Only three such cemeteries are known: at Argos5 and Mycenae-Chania6 on the Greek mainland and at Atsipades7 on Crete. The cremation burial cemeteries at Argos and Mycenae-Chania were established in other places to the usual chamber tomb cemeteries of the same settlements. Moreover, they differ from the customary Mycenaean cemeteries because the cremations were depos-ited in tumuli and not in chamber tombs. Thus, the com-munities who cremated their deceased members and buried them in tumuli clearly set themselves apart from the major-ity of the population. Therefore, it can be inferred that these communities were distinct groups, which were not fully in-tegrated into the Mycenaean society.


Hitherto it has hardly been noticed that swords of Naue II type and cremation burials are concentrated in the same regions during the LH/LM IIIC period (cf. tab. 1).14This observation is significant because R. Jung and Matthias Mehofer have plausibly substantiated that the Aegean Naue II swords depend on Italian prototypes. A Naue II sword from a hoard that was found by Tsountas in 1890 in Myce-nae is probably even an import from Italy.15


It is therefore a plausible assumption that the intro-duction of cremation to the Aegean was inspired by contacts to Italy. This hypothesis holds as well for the Dodecanese because even this archipelago was in contact with Italy as is attested by weapons and implements. An inhumation burial in tomb 21 of the cemetery at Langada on Kos was equipped not only with a Naue II sword but also with an Italian type spearhead as has recently been demonstrated by R. Jung.18 A flange-hilted knife with a ring-end was found in tomb 15 of the cemetery at Ialysos on Rhodes.19 The type can be associ-ated with the Urnfield koine of weapons and implements. Parallels exist in Italy, east central Europe and the Northern Balkans.


When searching for a possible place of origin, an area where cremations in tumuli were a com-mon burial custom has to be looked for. In fact, it is possible to locate this region: it is the Western Balkans, the territory of former Yugoslavia. The cemeteries of the Paraćin and Donja Brnjica cultural groups compare especially well with the tumuli in the Argolid. These two cultural groups flour-ished in Southern Serbia and Kosovo mainly during the 13th century BC (Br D, LH IIIB).

The second one is much more mysterious and not as obviously connected to newly incoming people at first sight:


A marked change in the preference for cremations oc-curred during the Submycenaean/Protogeometric tran-sitional phase. 16 out of 28 burials in the Kerameikos are cremations in this phase (see tab. 3).71 This corresponds to a ratio of 57.1 % and a growth rate of more than 50 % com-pared to the Submycenaean period. This striking change can hardly be interpreted as a gradual development from one phase to the next. This is even more evident when consid-ering the fact that there was no increase in the number of cremations during the course of the Submycenaean period. The sharp increase in the number of cremations during the transitional phase from Submycenaean to Protogeometric was apparently a sudden occurrence and therefore can-not be explained with a culmination of a development that started in the LH IIIC period. The reasons for the sudden shift to cremation as the preferred burial custom in the Sub-mycenaean/Protogeometric transitional phase are not ob-vious.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/j.ctv8d5tfn.15.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Acbc7d4814e f0a27a5945a4dd25669b8a

Whenever we look at the data, any kind of data (ancient DNA, modern clades and TMRCA calculations, archaeological finds and migrations), the most important time frame for the spread of E-V13 and related cultures is around 1200 BC. That data is absolutely key, you can't overlook it actually. Around that time iron technology entered Europe, large fortresses were built in the Carpathian sphere, massive movements of people can be observed, whole cultures crash or disappear, new ones emerge. And most of this was one big North -> South migration period, one groups pushed the other further South, until some even ended up in the Near East. And E-V13 spread in all directions, but especially South, in this big scale migration period, which also involved the Sea People and the Dorians. But as we can see, just looking at one striking example of change in that period, like cremation burials, its not instantly that obvious who was moving in and what they brought. These times were fairly chaotic, so only widespread testing can pin it down exactly.
Obvious is just that these LBA-EIA spread E-V13, at least down to Greece and probably beyond, coming from a more Northern source region, with the Carpathians being surely involved. What's not sure is how widespread E-V13 really was in the Urnfield sphere overall and whether it got reduced in many regions of the North later, which I think could be an option, just like a more focal concentration and just thin expansion to the West. Must be seen.

Bruzmi
03-12-2021, 10:19 PM
But linguistically Albanian is also phylogenetically kin with Greek. Thats the issue, that most of these guys from 50s had none of the data that has only come.out in the last 10 years, specifically after the study of the Old Albanian texts. 99% of phrygian, greek, thrracian, etc works just didnt have any way to take into account the data of the only livong non-greek palebalkan language. Obviously this will warp the results.

People talking about a common phrygo-greek language based on 500 total disparate inscriptions spread out over 1000 years, before studying the living language of albanian and its old texts.

Linguists based on the knowledge which has been gained in the last 30 years about its morphology, phonology and vocabulary have grouped Phrygian with Greek, possibly as part of a Proto-Graeco-Phrygian language. The consensus is based on much more than 500 inscriptions.

Obrador-Cursach, Bartomeu (2019). "On the place of Phrygian among the Indo-European languages (https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.31826/jlr-2019-173-407/html)". Journal of Language Relationship

The affinity between the two languages cannot be denied. Indeed, they are so close that some scholars have suggested a Proto-Greco-Phrygian language, a common pre-historic stage (Neumann 1988). In the light of the available data, this is a very attractive idea. However, Greek has some features that distance it from Phrygian, and in fact they can be used in order to discern when this suggested common language split. [..]

Phrygian has constantly been compared to Armenian, but never with any great success. As we can see in Table 1, Phrygian shares fewer isoglosses with Armenian than with Greek, and only two of them are exclusive. Today, we know that Phrygian is a centum language and, despite Lejeune’s (1979) attempts to deny it (followed by Brixhe 2008: 74, Matzinger 2005: 378 and de Lamberterie 2013: 27–28), Lubotsky (2004) showed that Phrygian stops were affected by devoicing and deaspiration, an incomplete Lautverschiebung. However, the phenomenon is not exactly the same as the one found in Armenian; in fact, the two languages only share the devoicing. Recently, Kortlandt (2016: 250) considered this shift to be an innovation which affected Armenian, Thracian (see below) and Phrygian, and this is one of the clearest differences between Phrygian and Greek. However, more than genetic, it should be considered a real feature of the proto-languages in their pre-historic homeland. Leaving Thracian aside (considered “an early dialect of Proto-Armenian” by Kortlandt 2016: 249), one must wonder if this is the only possible scenario for the Phrygian devoicing. [..] It seems that rather than a close genetic affinity, Armenian and Phrygian may have shared the same linguistic area, as suggested recently by Kim (2018) for Greek and Armenian (see also Martirosyan 2013: 126). It is even possible that such an area (including its substrate language(s)) was shared by Proto-Greco-Phrygian and Proto-Armenian. However, if Greco-Armenian is still preferred, there is no strong evidence for a Proto-Phrygio-Armenian split from Proto-Greco-Phrygio-Armenian. In both scenarios, the relation of Phrygian and Armenian seems to be subordinate to the relation between Phrygian and Greek and the relation between Proto-(Phrygio-)Greek and Proto-Armenian.

As can be seen, there are possible affinities in the phonology of Phrygian and Thracian, but they seem to point to ancient contacts rather than to genetic affinity.

[..] ancient sources state that ̯ in the original homeland of the Phrygians in the Balkans they were neighbours of the Macedonians (Hdt. 8.138), the two languages were traditionally considered to be closely related. However, inferring from glosses and the few texts possibly written in Ancient Macedonian, there are strong arguments for considering that this language was a Greek dialect (see Méndez Dosuna 2012 for a convincing survey of the advantages and disadvantages). Although there is no universal consensus, internal Macedonian data dispel the idea of a special relation with Phrygian.

Although the first testimonies of Albanian are very late, it shares certain features with the ancient Balkan languages. For this reason, it is sometimes considered in the discussion of Phrygian. As in the case of Armenian, the comparison is not easy because of the internal evolution of this language revealed in its different historical stages. However, the comparison between languages does not yield enough isoglosses to be able to conclude that Albanian and Phrygian were more closely related in pre-history than Greek and Albanian and there is no one isogloss that occurs only in these two languages.

broder
03-12-2021, 10:30 PM
Simply because it was not found yet and the later spread in the LBA-EIA transition happened also in the North, to the West, to the East as well. There was, however, no significant movement of people and genes in that time frame from the Balkans, to the North. So any kind of origin story from the Balkans would have meant that the Balkans HAD TO (!!!) be packed with E-V13 already in the EBA the latest! So even small groups of isolated E1b1b's won't save that any more. For a South -> North movement, the weaker part of the upcoming admixture events in the LBA-EIA transition would have to have been extremely E-V13 rich, for making the spread possible in some kind of "backflow event". And that is now, even with finds made so far, completely out of question. Its no option at all based on ancient DNA and modern clades and subclades with their respective TMRCA. The bulk of E-V13 was going down to the Balkans, in the LBA-EIA transition, from a more Northerly point, and the South Eastern Urnfield groups, Fluted Ware and especially Gáva-Holigrady are the prime candidates.
A Balkan origin would have meant a steep rise of E-V13 in the Balkan itself before the MBA, an early spread to Pannonia and beyond, to withstand the massive Northern Urnfield-influx and further spread in backflow events, as well as in historical times, like within the Roman empire. But the data we have makes this option not just unlikely, but completely falsified it. Instead E-V13 is now a prime marker for various Urnfield-related and Iron Age groups. Worth to note that the custom of cremation spread to Greece as well and did spread in an altered form exactly in the right time frame.

Looking at Greece, I see the potential for not just one, but actually two changes of signficiance, the first one coming from the Western Balkans rather:













The second one is much more mysterious and not as obviously connected to newly incoming people at first sight:



https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/j.ctv8d5tfn.15.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Acbc7d4814e f0a27a5945a4dd25669b8a

Whenever we look at the data, any kind of data (ancient DNA, modern clades and TMRCA calculations, archaeological finds and migrations), the most important time frame for the spread of E-V13 and related cultures is around 1200 BC. That data is absolutely key, you can't overlook it actually. Around that time iron technology entered Europe, large fortresses were built in the Carpathian sphere, massive movements of people can be observed, whole cultures crash or disappear, new ones emerge. And most of this was one big North -> South migration period, one groups pushed the other further South, until some even ended up in the Near East. And E-V13 spread in all directions, but especially South, in this big scale migration period, which also involved the Sea People and the Dorians. But as we can see, just looking at one striking example of change in that period, like cremation burials, its not instantly that obvious who was moving in and what they brought. These times were fairly chaotic, so only widespread testing can pin it down exactly.
Obvious is just that these LBA-EIA spread E-V13, at least down to Greece and probably beyond, coming from a more Northern source region, with the Carpathians being surely involved. What's not sure is how widespread E-V13 really was in the Urnfield sphere overall and whether it got reduced in many regions of the North later, which I think could be an option, just like a more focal concentration and just thin expansion to the West. Must be seen.

How many middle bronze age samples do we have from the Balkans?? There are literally only few, and only one from western Balkans - the Croatian samples that's L283. How many do we have from Central, Eastern and Western Europe??

You have been repeating the same nonsense comment in almost every post of yours, that there were only north to south movements.

Riverman
03-12-2021, 11:59 PM
How many middle bronze age samples do we have from the Balkans?? There are literally only few, and only one from western Balkans - the Croatian samples that's L283. How many do we have from Central, Eastern and Western Europe??

You have been repeating the same nonsense comment in almost every post of yours, that there were only north to south movements.

In the crucial time frame, the LBA-EIA transition, the primary movement of people was indeed North -> South. That's a fact. For explaining the spread to the North and West, which is a sure thing, even with the little we have based on ancient and modern DNA, Pannonia needs to have been colonised from the South earlier. Its about population dynamics, you can't have an expansion of that size against the tide and you need, for expanding under such circumstances, a true stronghold in the Balkans. The few results we have are enough, for saying that Pannonia and the Balkans, two key regions in this debate, were not filled with E-V13 at all, in fact, it was barely present. And these two regions were interconnected. The glimpse on the Pannonian results really nailed it and there was no movement of people in the necessary category from the West to the East Balkans anyway, yet the Eastern Balkans was the true stronghold for E-V13 in the Iron Age, which the first results communicated about Daco-Thracians suggest too. However, in the Eastern Balkans we have this massive spread with the Fluted Ware horizon and the socio-political centre of Gáva-Holigrady.

Show me a pathway from the West to the Daco-Thracians, which can explain their position in this context. If going through everything we know, there is practically no way to ignore the importance of Urnfield networks for the first big spread of E-V13. You won't get around it. It doesn't matter that not every corner of the Balkans has been tested thoroughly, if it would have been coming from the South, it would have been there already and small or even medium sized pockets in the Balkans are totally insufficient to explain the later distribution.

We are at the same position as with Bell Beakers in the West, the door to an autochthonous spread was closed already, the invasion scenario is the only viable one. And I can repeat what I said before about the archaeological situation: If it wouldn't be about E-V13, we had to search for other winners from this massive scale migration period. Its not like we have to desperately construct a scenario for the spread of E-V13 in this context, on the contrary, its more like a side effect: We have this huge turmoil, this massive changes and replacements in the LBA-EIA transition, coming from the North, making it completely unlikely that there was regional continuity in the Balkans, and therefore we need to find a marker which might serve as a signifier, just like R1b in the West for Bell Beakers. Its simply connecting two obvious dots to a line.
They can search for E-V13 in the Balkans before the transition for decades, probably they find one, here or there, but very unlikely, probably still not impossible, but extremely unlikely, they find a bigger population dominated by it. But you will see, directly after the transition to the Iron Age, especially in the Eastern Balkans, things will look very, very different. This is a replacement scenario, just like Bell Beakers in the West. E-V13 will be found to be even way more dominant in some regions and groups, than it is now. Don't forget, Corded Ware with R1a and Bell Beakers with R1b too started from a fairly small group, which, at the right time, adopted the right ways, to outcompete others and spread their lineage.
Look at Teleac, look at Gáva-Holigrady, at the Fluted Ware horizon, the early spread of iron. That's it for E-V13.

What's the alternative scenario? E-V13 sitting and hiding in the Balkans, in some pockets, and then magically, out of thin air, spreading to almost all of Europe within a couple of generatoins for no reason, with no movement, no technological or other advantage of significance? Not using a specific time window? The TMRCAs of the clades and subclades tell the story, the big founder effects and spreads happened all in the same time window, with Urnfield and the Iron Age transition. That's no coincidance, that would defy logic.

I might be proven wrong, but then again, what's the alternative scenario that really works out and considers population dynamics? I know none which is still left standing after the few results we got.

Huban
03-13-2021, 12:02 AM
Eleonora Petrova wrote about Brygians. Per her and according to some other opinions the Southern Albanian tumulii culture south of Shkumbin river that I mentioned were all originally Bryges or proto-Phrygians. And that Phrygians had an earlier continuity in that area from MBA, even EBA. For example that early Maliq III and Armenochori were also proto-Phrygian. These in turn were surely connected to Cetina and Bubanj Hum III of the EBA.

I always thought proto-Phrygians belonged to either R-Y13369 or R-Y4364 with the other being proto-Armenian. Both of these are common in Armenians with the R-Y13369 being stronger.

Southern Albanian tumulii culture were in turn connected to Messapians, by a virtue of pottery. Also Enchelii were being thrown into picture here as being connected to this Southern culture.

For V13 to have an association with the Phrygians it must have strength and diversity in Asia Minor and assuming most of those are not Greek.

It might be that proto-Phrygians were the locals south of Shkumbin, yet they too received inputs from the North in the form or Brnjica and other elements in the LBA.

This nicely explains why J-L283 has such low diversity and strength in Southern Albania, bar "bizarrely" the J-Z631. As only in Iron Age Glasinac-Mati exerted the greater influence there these older clades show no presence except the Z631 which I connected to the Glasinac-Mati expansion. Another reason why Z631 should be related to Glasinac-Mati.

Huban
03-13-2021, 12:05 AM
Well as I have mentioned before there are two separate samples of ancient dna in the process/analysis from the territories of Albania. From the inital indications bronze is looking good for R1b and J2b. No sign of E-v13 yet. I suspect it should show up in IA samples though. This fits more rationally with the current structure of haplos we have at Rrenjet for the Albanian population.


Where from? :) You don't need to say here. I have a pretty good idea where BA J2b in Albania could be found. About R1b I'm less sure, but I guess somewhere south it is more likely.

Huban
03-13-2021, 12:20 AM
How many middle bronze age samples do we have from the Balkans?? There are literally only few, and only one from western Balkans - the Croatian samples that's L283.

Gjergj just brought us two more. J2b and R1b. So E-V13 is 0 for 3 in Western Balkan BA. :)

You must be aware of the fact that while E-V13 is individually the most common Albanian hg, once Slavic invasion hg's are eliminated the percentage of E-V13 in the likes of Greeks and Bulgarians increases more because Albanians have less Slavic influence in Y-DNA. Especially in Bulgaria.

E-V13 is nowhere near being a typically Albanian hg in the same capacity that J-L283 or R-Z2705 are. Also many Albanian clusters don't have any close relatives but their closest EIA/LBA relatives are found in Bulgaria, Greece etc. When one applies similar phenomenon from the other hg's such as many I-Y3120 clusters the answer to that is migratory event.

There is no archeological support to suggest such a strong movement from the Western Balkans into Eastern Balkans and most definitely not to explain how IA Thracians all carry E-V13 and that is in three separate finds. Not to mention the Late Atniquity Moesian areas..

Also there is a fact that many of the modern Western Balkan E-V13 clades are simply not native there, they came mostly with Vlach related movements from the C.Balkans.

Hawk
03-13-2021, 12:33 AM
Well as I have mentioned before there are two separate samples of ancient dna in the process/analysis from the territories of Albania. From the inital indications bronze is looking good for R1b and J2b. No sign of E-v13 yet. I suspect it should show up in IA samples though. This fits more rationally with the current structure of haplos we have at Rrenjet for the Albanian population.
I believe that may be with some potentially small exceptions E-V13 will end up being a very very late bronze/Iron Age entry in the proper balkans or at least west balkans.
With a few more months of patience we will have more clarity and eliminate or narrow down some of these theories presented around regarding E-V13.

Thanks for the informations, it makes sense. Very likely Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age entrance.

Bruzmi
03-13-2021, 12:37 AM
There is no archeological support to suggest such a strong movement from the Western Balkans into Eastern Balkans and most definitely not to explain how IA Thracians all carry E-V13 and that is in three separate finds. Not to mention the Late Atniquity Moesian areas..


There is nothing thats suggests any movement from the eastern Balkans to the western Balkans. There are, however, many migrations from the western and central Balkans to the eastern Balkans. If E-V13 shows up in Bulgaria in modern times, it says nothing even about its location 200 years ago.

The "IA Thracians" argument is pure speculation at this point because 1)there are very few samples 2)we don't know the context of these sites in order to be able to label them as part of any cultural group.



Eleonora Petrova wrote about Brygians. Per her and according to some other opinions the Southern Albanian tumulii culture south of Shkumbin river that I mentioned were all originally Bryges or proto-Phrygians. And that Phrygians had an earlier continuity in that area from MBA, even EBA. For example that early Maliq III and Armenochori were also proto-Phrygian.


Instead of quoting "some opinions", you might want to read the work of the archaeologist who has collected the latest data in Maliq The Shaping of Social Complexity, Networks and Cultural Transmissions: Pottery from the Bronze and Iron Age Communities of Southern Illyria and Northern Epirus (2500–500 B.C.) (https://escholarship.org/content/qt0nd2w8zt/qt0nd2w8zt_noSplash_992ef068824cc32c985d7cec7490c7 0c.pdf?t=n2bimm)

The Early Bronze Age: 2500 - 19/1800 B.C.

The geographic distribution of sites dating to this period does not follow any particular order. The settlements of Maliq IIIa and b (Prendi and Bunguri 2008), Tren (Korkuti 1971), Nezir (Andrea 1990), and Shkodër castle (Hoxha 1987), together with the tumuli of Shtoj (Koka 2012), Shkrel (Jubani 1995), Bujan (Andrea 1995), Apollonia (Amore 2010), and Barç (Andrea 1985) are grouped here.

Fabric analysis indicates interesting similarities among sites. As aforementioned, the lack of data for individual vessels does not permit a more systematic assessment. However, from the data available a broad evaluation for each site can be achieved. For instance, in the settlements of Maliq IIIa and b, Nezir, and Shkodër, a certain number of attributes such as clay mixture, surface treatment, and firing temperature mark notable similarities (Plate 2). Hence in each of these sites two broad types of vessels, mainly fine fabric and coarse or semi-coarse ware, share roughly similar features. The fine ware has few inclusions, a smoothed or polished surface, and dark fabric has color varying from black to dark gray or dark brown. Burnished surfaces are rarer. The semi-coarse and coarse ware has abundant inclusions, air pockets and rough surfaces. Such a phenomenon even at a lower scale is repeated in the pottery collected in the tumuli of Shtoj, Shkrel, Apollonia, and Barç (Plate 1). A special feature of the surface treatment is noted at Maliq with a few vessels that are semi-barbotine on the exterior surface (P55, P56, P107 and P108). Prendi considers this a continuation from the Neolithic tradition encountered in the sites of Dunavec and Dërsnik (Prendi and Bunguri 2008, 93-4). In addition, despite the lack of detailed and systematic data available, the assessment of fabric during the Early Bronze Age represents a significant number of shared choices distributed without defining any type of pattern. In the settlement of Maliq, the groups of semi-barbotine pottery comprise an individual choice exclusive to this site during the Early Bronze Age.

Hawk
03-13-2021, 12:38 AM
Gjergj just brought us two more. J2b and R1b. So E-V13 is 0 for 3 in Western Balkan BA. :)

You must be aware of the fact that while E-V13 is individually the most common Albanian hg, once Slavic invasion hg's are eliminated the percentage of E-V13 in the likes of Greeks and Bulgarians increases more because Albanians have less Slavic influence in Y-DNA. Especially in Bulgaria.

E-V13 is nowhere near being a typically Albanian hg in the same capacity that J-L283 or R-Z2705 are. Also many Albanian clusters don't have any close relatives but their closest EIA/LBA relatives are found in Bulgaria, Greece etc. When one applies similar phenomenon from the other hg's such as many I-Y3120 clusters the answer to that is migratory event.

There is no archeological support to suggest such a strong movement from the Western Balkans into Eastern Balkans and most definitely not to explain how IA Thracians all carry E-V13 and that is in three separate finds. Not to mention the Late Atniquity Moesian areas..

Also there is a fact that many of the modern Western Balkan E-V13 clades are simply not native there, they came mostly with Vlach related movements from the C.Balkans.

gjergj is talking about Maliq Early Bronze Age. Wait and see the Iron Age Illyrians showing E-V13 Z5018 starting from LBA/EIA.

gjergj
03-13-2021, 12:46 AM
Where from? :) You don't need to say here. I have a pretty good idea where BA J2b in Albania could be found. About R1b I'm less sure, but I guess somewhere south it is more likely.

Due to being correct with the people working on these project cant say much more. We will help them latter do a proper comparison with our database at Rrenjet.com as is the largest for albanians and as many of our samples are not in Yfull.
but the current batch was north. PF7562 EBA and J2b mid to late bronze.
The second batch will be more from south albania and will have a range of 1,400-700 BC.
Next year will be even more samples. close to 100 may be. It will take some time as covid has slowed things down.
I truly hope the second batch will show at least some E-V13 Iron Age so we can give some more structure to this E-v13 debate by having a clearer timeline of their presence in west balkans.
At the moment I tend to agree with the overall logic presented by Riverman a few posts above. Of course we should keep an open mind if ancient dna provides new windows of interpretations.
As i said earlier just a bit more patience. Albania is completely empty now from ancient dna so filling even some of this space should have a significant effect in understanding the path of some these haplos and specifically for E-V13 that seems to still have wide points of view.

gjergj
03-13-2021, 12:59 AM
gjergj is talking about Maliq Early Bronze Age. Wait and see the Iron Age Illyrians showing E-V13 Z5018 starting from LBA/EIA.

I fully agree.
I see E-V13 as fully present in IA Illyrians. So we should see in the second group from the south some results. In fact I am really hopping to see them there.
Because E-v13 it might be Iron Age I don't see why it should be connected/be Thracian. I think these guys entered the central/west balkans and adopted with the regional groups. So some fused with Thracians and some with Illyrians. Of course there must have been different regional degrees of fusion. Time will clarify.
Also I have spoken personally with some of these albanian guys/archeologists that you guys quote here, the one's that are still alive of course:)
They are more open minded than some strong opinions here and they are very interested to see ancient dna results to see how their work will match with the new data.

Huban
03-13-2021, 01:18 AM
There is nothing thats suggests any movement from the eastern Balkans to the western Balkans.

When in Iron Age? Sure there is. Heavy Basarabi pottery influence in Glasinac-mati areas for example. There are various individual cases of Eastern people settling in Illyrian areas.


There are, however, many migrations from the western and central Balkans to the eastern Balkans.

Such as?? In recent and Medieval context the migrations from the Eastern Balkans were far, far more common and this is an undeniable fact. The exceptions were some expansions of the Serbian state to the West, some Ottoman era Albanian migrations to Bulgaria, and the latter would ofc carry most common Albanian clusters not the entire or significant % of their E-V13 as you would have us believe..

Don't forget the Vlach incomers to Albania who also carried some V13, and surely a number of Albanian E-V13 are descended of them such as the E-Y3183* guy that was paraded recently.:biggrin1:



If E-V13 shows up in Bulgaria in modern times, it says nothing even about its location 200 years ago.

The enormous diversity of Bulgarian E-BY3880, greater than Albanian diversity of E-BY3880 despite the greater number of Albanians tested speaks to the contrary. This is backed up by the aDNA too.



The "IA Thracians" argument is pure speculation at this point because 1)there are very few samples

There is no speculation about having multiple finds in three separate archeological Thracian contexts. In fact thus far Thracian Iron Age results show 4 finds and all of them being E-V13. While the sample is far from ideal it does show the tendency which will continue from a statistical POV.

When you test random ethnicity on a low sample the most common hg's will pop out first. Same as with the aDNA..

When the first 3 Scytho-Sarmatian necropolises were tested how many R-Z93 they showed. Same goes for many others.

Your argument is similar to an argument of a Serb autochthonist (who believes that Serbs are descended of Lepenski Vir) who commented on Pribislav's analysis of Lepenski Vir/Iron Gate finds. He asked for all Iron Gates samples to be tested and that only then we can draw some conclusions. :crazy:

We have already some finds to draw conclusions on. Not to mention the Moesian Late Antiquity finds. Where the sample is higher. Yet those 40 or more samples have just one J-L283. Less than


2)we don't know the context of these sites in order to be able to label them as part of any cultural group.

Actually I'm trying to bring some light on that. They have already been labelled as early Thracian by the experts in any case.



Instead of quoting "some opinions", you might want to read the work of the archaeologist who has collected the latest data in Maliq The Shaping of Social Complexity, Networks and Cultural Transmissions: Pottery from the Bronze and Iron Age Communities of Southern Illyria and Northern Epirus (2500–500 B.C.) (https://escholarship.org/content/qt0nd2w8zt/qt0nd2w8zt_noSplash_992ef068824cc32c985d7cec7490c7 0c.pdf?t=n2bimm)

The Early Bronze Age: 2500 - 19/1800 B.C.

The geographic distribution of sites dating to this period does not follow any particular order. The settlements of Maliq IIIa and b (Prendi and Bunguri 2008), Tren (Korkuti 1971), Nezir (Andrea 1990), and Shkodër castle (Hoxha 1987), together with the tumuli of Shtoj (Koka 2012), Shkrel (Jubani 1995), Bujan (Andrea 1995), Apollonia (Amore 2010), and Barç (Andrea 1985) are grouped here.
.

The J-L283 proto-Illyrian invaders expanded to Albania. No big news. The fact that some Albanian nativists might call these EBA finds "Illyrian" is also not a surprise.

Based on archeological evidence it is blatantly clear, firmly set in stone that the Early Illyrians represented by the Mati (and other related complexes) and the people south of Shkumbin river had very very different origins. :P



Prendi considers this a continuation from the Neolithic tradition encountered in the sites of Dunavec and Dërsnik (Prendi and Bunguri 2008, 93-4).

Whatever Neolithic tradition they were continuing it wasn't the E-V13 tradition. These were some G2a locals who were either peacefully or forcefully pushed aside.

Western Balkans Bronze Age

3 finds

2 J-L283

Iron Age Thracians 4 finds, 3 sites = 4 E-V13

Moesian areas Late Antiquity
38 finds, 2 sites

12 E-V13 (including those E-L618 who are all V13 ofc)

1 J-L283

Are you going to claim these Moeso-Thracians were of Illyrian origin? But if so why do they show only one J-L283 out of 38????? As 2 out of 3 BA Illyrians were J2b... :lol:

Pribislav
03-13-2021, 01:27 AM
Due to being correct with the people working on these project cant say much more. We will help them latter do a proper comparison with our database at Rrenjet.com as is the largest for albanians and as many of our samples are not in Yfull.
but the current batch was north. PF7562 EBA and J2b mid to late bronze.
The second batch will be more from south albania and will have a range of 1,400-700 BC.
Next year will be even more samples. close to 100 may be. It will take some time as covid has slowed things down.
I truly hope the second batch will show at least some E-V13 Iron Age so we can give some more structure to this E-v13 debate by having a clearer timeline of their presence in west balkans.
At the moment I tend to agree with the overall logic presented by Riverman a few posts above. Of course we should keep an open mind if ancient dna provides new windows of interpretations.
As i said earlier just a bit more patience. Albania is completely empty now from ancient dna so filling even some of this space should have a significant effect in understanding the path of some these haplos and specifically for E-V13 that seems to still have wide points of view.

I hope information about which aDNA lab is conducting the analysis of these samples can be revealed?

Huban
03-13-2021, 01:30 AM
Due to being correct with the people working on these project cant say much more. We will help them latter do a proper comparison with our database at Rrenjet.com as is the largest for albanians and as many of our samples are not in Yfull.
but the current batch was north. PF7562 EBA and J2b mid to late bronze.


Maliq EBA??:) I actually thought E-V13 might be found there in EBA.. That's the first PF7562 aDNA find in history I believe so congrats, as you are PF7563 too.:party:

This can help me identify the Steppe element there. I was leaning towards the PF7562 until l I saw some Yamnaya opinions. Although it is not excluded there was some assimilation by the Yamnaya.

J2b MBA/LBA is totally expected. The culture where MBA J2b Dalmatian was found expanded to Albania as well (from the NW).

gjergj
03-13-2021, 01:35 AM
I hope information about which aDNA lab is conducting the analysis of these samples can be revealed?

Sorry. They are both western countries. very reputable. Thats all I can say.

Huban
03-13-2021, 01:41 AM
The second batch will be more from south albania and will have a range of 1,400-700 BC.

I truly hope the second batch will show at least some E-V13 Iron Age so we can give some more structure to this E-v13 debate by having a clearer timeline of their presence in west balkans.


E-V13 is expected in South Albania in Early Iron Age, I've said that multiple times. So I do expect it there. Though I still kinda expect/hope for EBA V13 (if its Maliq)...

vettor
03-13-2021, 02:01 AM
I fully agree.
I see E-V13 as fully present in IA Illyrians. So we should see in the second group from the south some results. In fact I am really hopping to see them there.
Because E-v13 it might be Iron Age I don't see why it should be connected/be Thracian. I think these guys entered the central/west balkans and adopted with the regional groups. So some fused with Thracians and some with Illyrians. Of course there must have been different regional degrees of fusion. Time will clarify.
Also I have spoken personally with some of these albanian guys/archeologists that you guys quote here, the one's that are still alive of course:)
They are more open minded than some strong opinions here and they are very interested to see ancient dna results to see how their work will match with the new data.

I have only seen that E-v13 makes up about only 10% of "Illyrian" tribes ...........the bulk of Illyrians where I1 and I2 group

Also Dardanians have been in the balkans a lot longer ( maybe 1000 years longer ) than Illyrians ............and Dardanians carry a very high % of E-V13 , last I saw was stated at 37%

E-V13 was in the balkans for over 5000 years

Studies by A. Benac and B. Čović. Working from the relative abundance of prehistoric remains in Bosnia and adjacent areas, have stated that during the Bronze Age there took place a progressive 'Illyrianization' of peoples dwelling in the lands between the Sava and Adriatic. These "illyrians " arriving from Central Europe circa early 1300BC

The dalmatian split is 48% was I1 ...............many % culled after the Great Illyrian revolt early AD times....the Roman dispersed of 150000 surviving Dalmatians and Pannonians to other parts of their empire

Huban
03-13-2021, 02:01 AM
Besides, someone did mention in this thread that the Paeonians were related to the Dardanians. I haven't read much on that matter but this Brnjica-type pottery could indicate such a connection.

I mentioned it. There were two Paeonian cultures in Iron Age Macedonia.

About the Donja Bregalnica archeological group from the Iron Age Macedonia, connected to Paeonians.
Vasić

"The autochthonous Central-Balkan component which to a certain degree connects it to the Dardanians to the North"

About the Gevgelija group:

"B.Henzel considers on the basis of the shapes of channeled pottery in Kastanas which have no parallels to the north of Sava and Danube rivers that the incomers began journey closer to Serbia or North Macedonia - and had appeared in Macedonia as a result of successive movements of individual groups from the North to the South. Similar opinion displays Garašanin pointing to the occurrence of rough pottery decorated by the plastic strips or cuts in Greece which has parallels to the North especially in the Mediana group.

When Bruzmi disputed the Brnjica group, I said that the older culture from where Brnjica sprang out, the Mediana group, cannot be denied.

If Daco-Thracians were the newcomers in the LBA/EIA then these peoples could not have been Thracian.

The difference between me and Riverman here is that I believe it was these cultures such as Mediana, Paraćin, Vatina that could have held plenty of E-V13 even in MBA.

Some hg was there, it wasn't the J-L283.. And V13 has to be the candidate no.1

Bruzmi
03-13-2021, 02:01 AM
Eleonora Petrova wrote about Brygians. Per her and according to some other opinions the Southern Albanian tumulii culture south of Shkumbin river that I mentioned were all originally Bryges or proto-Phrygians. And that Phrygians had an earlier continuity in that area from MBA, even EBA. For example that early Maliq III and Armenochori were also proto-Phrygian.





Instead of quoting "some opinions", you might want to read the work of the archaeologist who has collected the latest data in Maliq The Shaping of Social Complexity, Networks and Cultural Transmissions: Pottery from the Bronze and Iron Age Communities of Southern Illyria and Northern Epirus (2500–500 B.C.) (https://escholarship.org/content/qt0nd2w8zt/qt0nd2w8zt_noSplash_992ef068824cc32c985d7cec7490c7 0c.pdf?t=n2bimm)

The Early Bronze Age: 2500 - 19/1800 B.C.

The geographic distribution of sites dating to this period does not follow any particular order. The settlements of Maliq IIIa and b (Prendi and Bunguri 2008), Tren (Korkuti 1971), Nezir (Andrea 1990), and Shkodër castle (Hoxha 1987), together with the tumuli of Shtoj (Koka 2012), Shkrel (Jubani 1995), Bujan (Andrea 1995), Apollonia (Amore 2010), and Barç (Andrea 1985) are grouped here.

Fabric analysis indicates interesting similarities among sites. As aforementioned, the lack of data for individual vessels does not permit a more systematic assessment. However, from the data available a broad evaluation for each site can be achieved. For instance, in the settlements of Maliq IIIa and b, Nezir, and Shkodër, a certain number of attributes such as clay mixture, surface treatment, and firing temperature mark notable similarities (Plate 2). Hence in each of these sites two broad types of vessels, mainly fine fabric and coarse or semi-coarse ware, share roughly similar features. The fine ware has few inclusions, a smoothed or polished surface, and dark fabric has color varying from black to dark gray or dark brown. Burnished surfaces are rarer. The semi-coarse and coarse ware has abundant inclusions, air pockets and rough surfaces. Such a phenomenon even at a lower scale is repeated in the pottery collected in the tumuli of Shtoj, Shkrel, Apollonia, and Barç (Plate 1).




The J-L283 proto-Illyrian invaders expanded to Albania. No big news. The fact that some Albanian nativists might call these EBA finds "Illyrian" is also not a surprise.

Based on archeological evidence it is blatantly clear, firmly set in stone that the Early Illyrians represented by the Mati (and other related complexes) and the people south of Shkumbin river had very very different origins. :P


(I'm going to reply later to the rest but I want to address this issue now)

What I wanted to explain via the archaeological data is that EBA Maliq (Maliq IIIa) was part of the same material culture as the rest of Albania. There is no "southern Albanian tumuli culture" in this period.

Setting aside the pure speculation about hgs of this population ("J2b-L83 invaders"), you are completely wrong about the archaeological grouping.

These sites throughout Albania (northern and southern) are part of a material culture which developed hundreds of years before Glasinac-Mati. The first Glasinac-Mati site in central Albania appeared in 1350-1250 BC.

Whether this population was part of the same ancestral population which gave rise to Glasinac-Mat is a different matter. aDNA will answer this question too at some point.

gjergj
03-13-2021, 02:14 AM
Maliq EBA??:) I actually thought E-V13 might be found there in EBA.. That's the first PF7562 aDNA find in history I believe so congrats, as you are PF7563 too.:party:

This can help me identify the Steppe element there. I was leaning towards the PF7562 until l I saw some Yamnaya opinions. Although it is not excluded there was some assimilation by the Yamnaya.

J2b MBA/LBA is totally expected. The culture where MBA J2b Dalmatian was found expanded to Albania as well (from the NW).

I dont want to turn this into a debate.
Just want to give you my opinion/guess about EBA Maliq. If we have some EBA rapture there of the earlier/previous Neolithic culture from an early wave of indoeuropeans, than R1B-Z2103 and or PF7562 are the most likely bearer of that rapture. not E-V13 for sure and less likely to be J2b.
I have to say this is my educated guess so no need to respond to this. Just wanted to be on record on this for the future. I don't mind if time will show me wrong on this.

Kelmendasi
03-13-2021, 02:17 AM
I have only seen that E-v13 makes up about only 10% of "Illyrian" tribes ...........the bulk of Illyrians where I1 and I2 group
On what genetic evidence are you basing this on?

The claims that the Illyrians, and the other Paleo-Balkan groups of antiquity, were predominantly I1-M253 or I2-M438 are extremely dated and cannot be taken seriously.

Bruzmi
03-13-2021, 02:17 AM
(Just quoting as a notification)

On yfull:
E-Z16988* (https://yfull.com/tree/E-Z16988*/) and E-Y146086 (https://yfull.com/tree/E-Y146086/) showed up among Albanians. Is there any further information which can be shared publicly?

broder
03-13-2021, 02:23 AM
In the crucial time frame, the LBA-EIA transition, the primary movement of people was indeed North -> South. That's a fact. For explaining the spread to the North and West, which is a sure thing, even with the little we have based on ancient and modern DNA, Pannonia needs to have been colonised from the South earlier. Its about population dynamics, you can't have an expansion of that size against the tide and you need, for expanding under such circumstances, a true stronghold in the Balkans. The few results we have are enough, for saying that Pannonia and the Balkans, two key regions in this debate, were not filled with E-V13 at all, in fact, it was barely present. And these two regions were interconnected. The glimpse on the Pannonian results really nailed it and there was no movement of people in the necessary category from the West to the East Balkans anyway, yet the Eastern Balkans was the true stronghold for E-V13 in the Iron Age, which the first results communicated about Daco-Thracians suggest too. However, in the Eastern Balkans we have this massive spread with the Fluted Ware horizon and the socio-political centre of Gáva-Holigrady.

Show me a pathway from the West to the Daco-Thracians, which can explain their position in this context. If going through everything we know, there is practically no way to ignore the importance of Urnfield networks for the first big spread of E-V13. You won't get around it. It doesn't matter that not every corner of the Balkans has been tested thoroughly, if it would have been coming from the South, it would have been there already and small or even medium sized pockets in the Balkans are totally insufficient to explain the later distribution.

We are at the same position as with Bell Beakers in the West, the door to an autochthonous spread was closed already, the invasion scenario is the only viable one. And I can repeat what I said before about the archaeological situation: If it wouldn't be about E-V13, we had to search for other winners from this massive scale migration period. Its not like we have to desperately construct a scenario for the spread of E-V13 in this context, on the contrary, its more like a side effect: We have this huge turmoil, this massive changes and replacements in the LBA-EIA transition, coming from the North, making it completely unlikely that there was regional continuity in the Balkans, and therefore we need to find a marker which might serve as a signifier, just like R1b in the West for Bell Beakers. Its simply connecting two obvious dots to a line.
They can search for E-V13 in the Balkans before the transition for decades, probably they find one, here or there, but very unlikely, probably still not impossible, but extremely unlikely, they find a bigger population dominated by it. But you will see, directly after the transition to the Iron Age, especially in the Eastern Balkans, things will look very, very different. This is a replacement scenario, just like Bell Beakers in the West. E-V13 will be found to be even way more dominant in some regions and groups, than it is now. Don't forget, Corded Ware with R1a and Bell Beakers with R1b too started from a fairly small group, which, at the right time, adopted the right ways, to outcompete others and spread their lineage.
Look at Teleac, look at Gáva-Holigrady, at the Fluted Ware horizon, the early spread of iron. That's it for E-V13.

What's the alternative scenario? E-V13 sitting and hiding in the Balkans, in some pockets, and then magically, out of thin air, spreading to almost all of Europe within a couple of generatoins for no reason, with no movement, no technological or other advantage of significance? Not using a specific time window? The TMRCAs of the clades and subclades tell the story, the big founder effects and spreads happened all in the same time window, with Urnfield and the Iron Age transition. That's no coincidance, that would defy logic.

I might be proven wrong, but then again, what's the alternative scenario that really works out and considers population dynamics? I know none which is still left standing after the few results we got.

I don't care about your speculations, seen them allover the forum. Walls of text repeating the same stuff. My problem is with your statement that you throw it so freely when out of the entire Balkans, excluding Mycenaen samples, we only have one Middle Bronze Age sample coming from southern Croatia.

gjergj
03-13-2021, 02:24 AM
I have only seen that E-v13 makes up about only 10% of "Illyrian" tribes ...........the bulk of Illyrians where I1 and I2 group

Also Dardanians have been in the balkans a lot longer ( maybe 1000 years longer ) than Illyrians ............and Dardanians carry a very high % of E-V13 , last I saw was stated at 37%

E-V13 was in the balkans for over 5000 years

Studies by A. Benac and B. Čović. Working from the relative abundance of prehistoric remains in Bosnia and adjacent areas, have stated that during the Bronze Age there took place a progressive 'Illyrianization' of peoples dwelling in the lands between the Sava and Adriatic. These "illyrians " arriving from Central Europe circa early 1300BC

The dalmatian split is 48% was I1 ...............many % culled after the Great Illyrian revolt early AD times....the Roman dispersed of 150000 surviving Dalmatians and Pannonians to other parts of their empire

Sorry to say but you are completely out of sink with the results for the albanian population. There are now more than 1,350 Y dna results for albanians. which is a good sample size for the albanian population. most results but not all you can find here: www.rrenjet.com (around 1,015 as of today). The I1 and I2 that you are referring are Roman and post roman migration to the west balkans. Goths and Slavic. There is no doubt about it.
Do some comprehensive reading. This is basic info that you should not waste any bodies time at the forum.

vettor
03-13-2021, 02:27 AM
Sorry to say but you are completely out of sink with the results for the albanian population. There are now more than 1,350 Y dna results for albanians. which is a good sample size for the albanian population. most results but not all you can find here: www.rrenjet.com (around 1,015 as of today). The I1 and I2 that you are referring are Roman and post roman migration to the west balkans. Goths and Slavic. There is no doubt about it.
Do some comprehensive reading. This is basic info that you should not waste any bodies time at the forum.

Your link showing nothing .....do you have a better link

I state roman studies ...........the Gheg ( Dardanians ) are the true modern Albanians and are recognised in Roman texts ...................the Tosks sit under Epirote and Molossian peoples ...................the Romans have been in albania since the Roman war against Hannibal, they will know who is who in these ancient times

Huban
03-13-2021, 02:28 AM
What I wanted to explain via the archaeological data is that EBA Maliq (Maliq IIIa) was part of the same material culture as the rest of Albania.

I agree.



There is no "southern Albanian tumuli culture" at this period.

Indeed.



Setting aside the pure speculation about hgs of this population ("J2b-L83 invaders"), you are completely wrong about the archaeological grouping.

Here's the problem. In EBA Maliq III dominated but the culture of Maliq III has nothing to do with J-L283. And it seems we have aDNA confirmation of that. So J-L283 comes with a different culture, with branches and ofshoots of Posušje which are attested in MBA Albania. These two have nothing to do with each other. For you they do. Why, maybe because you are a very biased Albanian and you seek to establish and defend the notion that various MBA different peoples were the same thing in order for a longer undisturbed chain of unaltered material culture to be established in Albania so that you can parade yourself to the world that "We're natives for 4500 years not just 2800 years".

I prefer to get to the point, instead of going around in circles. I do not think that being native is a source of particular pride.. I appreciate "invaders" alot more.. This in stark contrast with you and most people.

vettor
03-13-2021, 02:30 AM
On what genetic evidence are you basing this on?

The claims that the Illyrians, and the other Paleo-Balkan groups of antiquity, were predominantly I1-M253 or I2-M438 are extremely dated and cannot be taken seriously.

Spanish , Serb and Austrian studies

Dated !!!...................what are you saying or trying to say ?............., they are completely wrong or old ..............if they are old they are still correct

If Old means irrelevant then after how many years does a DNA study become useless regardless of results ?

Trojet
03-13-2021, 02:48 AM
(Just quoting as a notification)

On yfull:
E-Z16988* (https://yfull.com/tree/E-Z16988*/) and E-Y146086 (https://yfull.com/tree/E-Y146086/) showed up among Albanians. Is there any further information which can be shared publicly?

The new E-Z16988* sample was mentioned here:


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

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

As for the Albanian E-Y146086 cluster, we discovered it back in 2018/19, and it's mostly found in southwestern Albania (http://www.gjenetika.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/E-Z5018.png).

Kelmendasi
03-13-2021, 02:48 AM
Spanish , Serb and Austrian studies

Dated !!!...................what are you saying or trying to say ?............., they are completely wrong or old ..............if they are old they are still correct

If Old means irrelevant then after how many years does a DNA study become useless regardless of results ?
Could you provide the links to those studies?

Yes, they are rather dated and were pushed back when there was little understanding of haplogroup diversity and other factors such as ancient DNA. The claims were based on the elevated frequency of I2-M438 in the Balkans, and particularly in the nations of former Yugoslavia, although we know today that the overwhelming majority of I2-M438+ lineages belong to the I2a-Y3120 branch that is associated with the expansion of the Slavs into the peninsula between the sixth and seventh centuries CE.

As for I1-M253, the vast majority of the M253+ lineages in the Balkans only arrived during the Migration Period onwards. They do not date back to the Iron Age or antiquity.

broder
03-13-2021, 02:52 AM
Gjergj just brought us two more. J2b and R1b. So E-V13 is 0 for 3 in Western Balkan BA. :)

You must be aware of the fact that while E-V13 is individually the most common Albanian hg, once Slavic invasion hg's are eliminated the percentage of E-V13 in the likes of Greeks and Bulgarians increases more because Albanians have less Slavic influence in Y-DNA. Especially in Bulgaria.

E-V13 is nowhere near being a typically Albanian hg in the same capacity that J-L283 or R-Z2705 are. Also many Albanian clusters don't have any close relatives but their closest EIA/LBA relatives are found in Bulgaria, Greece etc. When one applies similar phenomenon from the other hg's such as many I-Y3120 clusters the answer to that is migratory event.

There is no archeological support to suggest such a strong movement from the Western Balkans into Eastern Balkans and most definitely not to explain how IA Thracians all carry E-V13 and that is in three separate finds. Not to mention the Late Atniquity Moesian areas..

Also there is a fact that many of the modern Western Balkan E-V13 clades are simply not native there, they came mostly with Vlach related movements from the C.Balkans.

He hasn't brought anything. He has been saying the same thing ever since he tested with us 'R1b early Illyrians, J2b middle Illyrians, and V13 late Illyrians' - his words lol

Even if true, which I won't believe until I see studies published, makes sense for the sites and period that are being tested. They obviously don't exclude the hypothesis that V13 wasn't around.

Not true at all. Bulgaria has diversity because of its peoples history, a complex network of migrations from all corners of the Balkans. Hence why you don't find much structure, but just patchy individual subclades here and there. Their most numerous clusters actually expanded from the western Balkans, like A18833 for example.

Greece is even more difficult to gauge what's going on considering the amount of Vlahs and Albanians that have been assimilated there.

gjergj
03-13-2021, 02:57 AM
(Just quoting as a notification)

On yfull:
E-Z16988* (https://yfull.com/tree/E-Z16988*/) and E-Y146086 (https://yfull.com/tree/E-Y146086/) showed up among Albanians. Is there any further information which can be shared publicly?

On E-Y146086 we have 5 albanians there in Yfull. Both north and south. We have at least one and may be two in pipeline for WGT and Yfull. So the picture will be even better completed in the next months. These are all at Rrenjet.com. This clade seems to have very good presence among Albanians and we have a few more in this clade with low resolution that would be worthet for WGT just its hard to get people to spent the money. slow process. But all results on this clade are exclusively at Rrenjet Project.

On the Z16988* we don't have it at Rrenjet. We have the largest database by far for Albanians and the better tested with WGT but not 100% is ours :)
But downstream of Z16988* we have new results. The Palebardhi/Bjellopavllici guys and their subclade in Montenegro would not be very happy with our results as more Albanians are showing up on top of them. They are also exclusively only at Rrenjet.
Overall as the Albanian populations is being tested more and with higher resolutions these initial gaps that allowed for some tribal feel good story building of modern political conveniences are being challenged by dna results and historical interpretation will be bitter for some to swallow.
In southern Montenegro with the exception of of Vasojevici that we still don't have any direct Albanian lines to connect all the so called "slavic highland tribes" today that are E-V13 or other bronze and iron period haplos are already linked or being linked with clear Albanian results. So its only a matter of time that they will all be shown to be Slavicized Albanian tribes.
Pellumb Xhufi is also writing a book on this currently/tribes in south Montenegro. I am not sure how much he will integrate dna results in the book but definitively he will have very good archive resources.

Bruzmi
03-13-2021, 02:59 AM
Here's the problem. In EBA Maliq III dominated but the culture of Maliq III has nothing to do with J-L283. And it seems we have aDNA confirmation of that. So J-L283 comes with a different culture, with branches and ofshoots of Posušje which are attested in MBA Albania. These two have nothing to do with each other.

When I comment about something related to material cultures, I do so from a purely archeological perspective. In this case, I was referring to the material culture groupings which exhibited no north-south differentiation, but I didn't connect them to any hg because there is no sufficient number of results which allows such a claim.

Your core argument seems to be that material cultures can be linked to just one hg which in the case of Proto-Illyrian or any Proto-Balkan population can't be backed up by aDNA evidence at a sufficient sample size. I also don't think (again, from a purely archaeological perspective) that it will hold water as a theory because social complexity had reached a point in which material cultures represented individuals from different ancestral populations which formed a common collective identity.

Huban
03-13-2021, 03:22 AM
When I comment about something related to material cultures, I do so from a purely archeological perspective. In this case, I was referring to the material culture groupings which exhibited no north-south differentiation, but I didn't connect them to any hg because there is no sufficient number of results which allows such a claim.

Your core argument seems to be that material cultures can be linked to just one hg which in the case of Proto-Illyrian or any Proto-Balkan population can't be backed up by aDNA evidence at a sufficient sample size. I also don't think (again, from a purely archaeological perspective) that it will hold water as a theory because social complexity had reached a point in which material cultures represented individuals from different ancestral populations which formed a common collective identity.

Oh really? Well aDNA disagrees.

Yes I believe SNP's of certain age tended to expand within one archeological context as a rule.

Yamnaya - mostly R-Z2103, no R1a or even R-L51
Corded Ware - R1a
Shintashta - R-Z93 totally

This is when approximate SNP matches archeological estimates about the age of a culture.

Z2103's TMRCA is 5400 ybp = 3400 BC , commonly Yamnaya is dated 3300-2600 BC

R-M198's TMRCA is/was about 5000 ybp, CWC is dated to have begun 3100 BC usually.

These are some close matches. The point is such sudden demographic growth occurs within some culture. I bet E-V13 has such culture as well. As do most bottleneck effects.

J-Z597 is the main Balkan expansion point for J-L283, TMRCA 4400 ybp, little older than early Posušje culture but in general it fits reasonably well.

R-PF7562's TMRCA is 5400 ybp. Per Gimbutas proto-Anatolians departed for Anatolia in 33rd, 34th centuries BC. About the same time R-PF7562's separated from their Balkan PF7563 cousins. Of course Anatolian languages being more distant fits perfectly in this being the earliest branch off from the R-M269 tree..

So these SNP expansion dates usually match their native culture's expansion.

E-L618 has/had a TMRCA of around 8100 ybp. Again it matches the Early Neolithic (here Cardial) expansions..

vettor
03-13-2021, 03:24 AM
Could you provide the links to those studies?

Yes, they are rather dated and were pushed back when there was little understanding of haplogroup diversity and other factors such as ancient DNA. The claims were based on the elevated frequency of I2-M438 in the Balkans, and particularly in the nations of former Yugoslavia, although we know today that the overwhelming majority of I2-M438+ lineages belong to the I2a-Y3120 branch that is associated with the expansion of the Slavs into the peninsula between the sixth and seventh centuries CE.

As for I1-M253, the vast majority of the M253+ lineages in the Balkans only arrived during the Migration Period onwards. They do not date back to the Iron Age or antiquity.

Dated means they are still correct ..................dated does not mean they are wrong haplogroup .................so , if they have I1 or I2 studies from say 10 years ago or more , they are still correct........so I completely do not understand why you dismiss these results

if you said , these I1 or I2 are calculated wrong 10 years ago, then what are they now, what haplogroup ?

Kelmendasi
03-13-2021, 03:30 AM
Dated means they are still correct ..................dated does not mean they are wrong haplogroup .................so , if they have I1 or I2 studies from say 10 years ago or more , they are still correct........so I completely do not understand why you dismiss these results

if you said , these I1 or I2 are calculated wrong 10 years ago, then what are they now, what haplogroup ?
You seem to be under the impression that those claims are based on ancient DNA samples, however they are not and are rather based on modern-day frequencies. Not a single ancient I1-M253 or I2-M438 sample from the western Balkans (or the area corresponding to ancient Illyria) has been discovered.

Trojet
03-13-2021, 03:57 AM
He hasn't brought anything. He has been saying the same thing ever since he tested with us 'R1b early Illyrians, J2b middle Illyrians, and V13 late Illyrians' - his words lol

Even if true, which I won't believe until I see studies published, makes sense for the sites and period that are being tested. They obviously don't exclude the hypothesis that V13 wasn't around.

Yes, Gjergj has been mentioning this since three years ago when we were working together at Albanian Bloodlines - Gjenetika.com (before he decided to split). In fact, I brought up this theory during private conversations with him :D

I'm sure there is ongoing aDNA studies in Albania, but I won't make too much out of it until I see the samples published..

vettor
03-13-2021, 04:42 AM
You seem to be under the impression that those claims are based on ancient DNA samples, however they are not and are rather based on modern-day frequencies. Not a single ancient I1-M253 or I2-M438 sample from the western Balkans (or the area corresponding to ancient Illyria) has been discovered.

Then we are discussing about nothing as there are only 6 or so samples

Macedonia has
I0676
mtDNA: J1c1
Y-DNA: G2a2b2b1


Albania
nil


Bosnia
I4331
mtDNA: I1a1
Y-DNA: J2b2a

I4332
mtDNA: W3a1



Croatia
I3433
mtDNA: H1

I3947
mtDNA: K1b1a
Y-DNA: C1a2

I3948
mtDNA: N1a1
Y-DNA: E1b1b1a1b1

I5071
mtDNA: H5a

I5072
mtDNA: H7c
Y-DNA: G2a2a1

I5079
mtDNA: J1c2

I2792
mtDNA: T2c2
Y-DNA: G2a2a1a2a


I3313
mtDNA: HV0e


I we only go by ancients ....not many in the western balkans ..................G2a2 ydna seems the slight majority

Hawk
03-13-2021, 05:28 AM
Then we are discussing about nothing as there are only 6 or so samples

Macedonia has
I0676
mtDNA: J1c1
Y-DNA: G2a2b2b1


Albania
nil


Bosnia
I4331
mtDNA: I1a1
Y-DNA: J2b2a

I4332
mtDNA: W3a1



Croatia
I3433
mtDNA: H1

I3947
mtDNA: K1b1a
Y-DNA: C1a2

I3948
mtDNA: N1a1
Y-DNA: E1b1b1a1b1

I5071
mtDNA: H5a

I5072
mtDNA: H7c
Y-DNA: G2a2a1

I5079
mtDNA: J1c2

I2792
mtDNA: T2c2
Y-DNA: G2a2a1a2a


I3313
mtDNA: HV0e


I we only go by ancients ....not many in the western balkans ..................G2a2 ydna seems the slight majority

These are mostly Neolithic samples from different studies.

You are mixing stuff.

Hawk
03-13-2021, 08:10 AM
Yes, Gjergj has been mentioning this since three years ago when we were working together at Albanian Bloodlines - Gjenetika.com (before he decided to split). In fact, I brought up this theory during private conversations with him :D

I'm sure there is ongoing aDNA studies in Albania, but I won't make too much out of it until I see the samples published..

Why would he make up the results?

I already knew something will come up from Maliq Late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age (i am not sure which one or both of the periods?!).

Hawk
03-13-2021, 10:39 AM
If all of this is confirmed, E-V13 makes sense to fit what Gimbutas was calling Koszidor horizont.

https://i.imgur.com/4QEILr0.png

BukeKrypEZemer
03-13-2021, 11:02 AM
Maybe E-V13 was beamed to earth from Mars and we are a high alien culture... be aware Earthlings! We have now taken over your planet.

So Elon Musk is trying to get all non E-V13 s to Mars!

Riverman
03-13-2021, 12:10 PM
I don't care about your speculations, seen them allover the forum. Walls of text repeating the same stuff. My problem is with your statement that you throw it so freely when out of the entire Balkans, excluding Mycenaen samples, we only have one Middle Bronze Age sample coming from southern Croatia.

Pannonia is key. Pannonia and the West Balkans being interconnected and the glimpse on the Pannonian study was crystal clear. Also, there are other lines of evidence other than direct samples from the Balkans, first and foremost modern clades and subclades with thier distribution and TMRCA. Its not me and my theory which needs a back up from ancient DNA desperately, to stand a chance, but those which claim a regional continuity and no influx from the North. Because there is nothing in favour of that option out there so far, nothing at all.

For all, since I saw some maps posted already, here is my current best model, which might be proven to be wrong in detail, but its what I currently deem the most likely scenario. It shows the distribution and spread of E-V13 in stages.
1st stage is red, it outlines the zone of survival and later build up, recovery of the presumably Neolithic survivor E-V13 in an Epi-Corded environment, developing into specific regional cultures. The final stage of this epicentre is the Gáva-Holigrady culture and the associated Fluted Wares.These start to expand within and along with other Urnfield groups, which were not dominated by E-V13, just somewhat influenced by the South Eastern Urnfields, in the
2nd stage, which is green, which shows the expansion phase in the Late Bronze Age, where those Urnfield-related E-V13 lineages got the upper hand and became the dominant lineage.
The 3rd stage yellow is the maximal extent of this sphere of dominance, coming about in the Iron Age transition the early Iron to middle Iron Age period, which however shifted South, because other groups especially from the steppe (Cimmerians , Scythians, generally Iranian related) moved in and thinned the regional lineages there somewhat out. At this piont, the Thracian sphere might have had the highest percentage, keeping it into the later Iron Age and historical period.
The 4th stage, represented by yellow arrows, shows secondary expansions out of the established centres in Central and South Eastern Europe, along other groups, mostly in Urnfield related networks first, the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Hallstatt later, or within the Greek world.

43856

Don't pin me down on every detail, its just a rough outline and not a precise map for all the associated archaeological cultures. A somewhat open question is also the extend to the North, like how much was the Lusatian culture affected, or the early Northern Danubian groups, that's open to debate.

Trojet
03-13-2021, 12:34 PM
Why would he make up the results?

I already knew something will come up from Maliq Late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age (i am not sure which one or both of the periods?!).

Oh, let me be clear: I don't think he is making it up. It's just that sometimes these "leaks" or info from "sources" never end up being confirmed in a paper. I would be delighted to see J2b-L283 confirmed in North Albania since MBA :)

Aspar
03-13-2021, 02:42 PM
I mentioned it. There were two Paeonian cultures in Iron Age Macedonia.

About the Donja Bregalnica archeological group from the Iron Age Macedonia, connected to Paeonians.
Vasić


About the Gevgelija group:


When Bruzmi disputed the Brnjica group, I said that the older culture from where Brnjica sprang out, the Mediana group, cannot be denied.

If Daco-Thracians were the newcomers in the LBA/EIA then these peoples could not have been Thracian.

The difference between me and Riverman here is that I believe it was these cultures such as Mediana, Paraćin, Vatina that could have held plenty of E-V13 even in MBA.

Some hg was there, it wasn't the J-L283.. And V13 has to be the candidate no.1

First of all, we should keep in mind that people such as Paeonians, Thracians, Dacians are attested in IA and Hellenistic times. We can't really make parallels with LBA cultures because these people had multiple influences and can hardly be the result of a single culture.
For example the Paeonians, their Greekoid influence it's undeniable and it's evident in both anthroponyms(most of their kings names can be explained with the Greek language unlike the names of people such as Thracians and Illyrians) and material culture. Even before the spread of the ancient Macedonian kingdom, the Paeonians minted coins that depicted mythological creatures such as Centaurs that had their origins in the Minoan Aegean world but also coins that depicted the sun god Helion.
On the other hand, there are parallels that can be only describes as of Thracian or Illyrian or Thraco-Illyrian origin.

Therefore, the origin of the Paeonians is quite more complexed and it needs to be looked upon from many different angles. But as I said, they certainly had Greekoid(Brygian?) and Thracian elements. What can be said about the people that inhabited the middle-lower Vardar, especially from the eyes of the local archaeological museum is that the first signs of habitation is from the LBA period and this period is characterized by both inhumation and cremation burials while during the IA the inhumation is the main burial type and are known three types of inhumation(burials in cysts made of stone slabs, burials in Pithos and burials in oval pits). This is in stark contrast with the burials located further north during the IA in Kosovo, in what was then a Dardanian territory where the cremation was the main burial type. If you understand Macedonian and are interested in the region of Middle-Lower Vardar you can read more here (https://www.academia.edu/32436783/%D0%90%D1%80%D1%85%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%88%D 0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%87_%D0%93%D 0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BA%D0% BE_%D0%92%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B 2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%BE %D0%BD_%D0%93%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8% D1%98%D0%B0_2012). This was the situation until the late 5-th century when the ancient Macedonian kingdom under Alexander I Philhellene started a quick expansion and invaded these Paeonian lands. The Paeonians were pressed to migrate north in which turn they themselves pressed the Dardanians to migrate and occupied their lands around Skopje and Kumanovo.

Now I will refer to the Serbian archaeologist Aleksandar Bulatovich who wrote about "SOUTH MORAVA BASIN IN THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD FROM THE BRONZE TO THE IRON AGE" because this south Moravian region is very important for us to understand more about the Dardanians who lived there and what happened during the LBA-EIA transitional period and subsequent migrations to Macedonia. He writes:

The analysis of the material, particularly pottery, shows that channelled pottery of Gava-Belegish{ II type (Iron Age Ib) was a prevailing feature at the beginning of the Transitional period in the entire region. It is also stated that during the Transitional period a particular culture group formed in the basin of the river Pcinja, the upper course of the Vardar, then in the Kochani-Kratovo area and in the Vranje-Bujanovac valley, which later influenced south-east Kosovo and the Leskovac area. The group was named the Pcinja cultural group, after the central part of the territory.

Many authors go further in the ethnic interpretation and consider the bearers of the earlier Brnjica group as proto- Dardanians or pra-Dardanians.56 If this supposition is correct, then the bearers of the Pcinja group, who originate partly in the tradition of the Brnjica group, could also belong to this ethnos.
I don't agree with the last quote and I don't think that the Pcinja group were Dardanians. Simply because there were fundamental differences with the burial rites in Kosovo which is considered to have been the core zone of the Dardanians:

Unlike Kosovo, where the dead were cremated in this period, in north Macedonia and the Vranje-Bujanovac region inhumation under tumuli or in flat necropolises was in use (Bulatovi} 1996/97, 5‡14). There is another argument that at the end of the Transitional period from the Bronze to the Iron Age there were two different groups, one in the Pcinja valley and the other in the Preshevo area but also other differences:

[quote]It's interesting to notice that the spreading of the so-called Macedonian bronzes or Paeonian bronzes to the north, in the 7th and 6th century, corresponds with the territory of the Pcinja group.5

Thus, it seems that this territory at the time of the Pcinja group belonged to a population which can be conditionally considered as proto-Dardanian, but later at the time of Paeonian expansion the south part of this territory (Bregalnica and the Skopje‡Kumanovo region) fell under the Paeonian influence. On the other hand, Proto-Dardanians, turned towards the north and north-west (Kosovo, the Leskovac region) because of this Paeonian pressure.

So, it seems there was a fundamental difference in the burial rites practiced by the Paeonians and the Dardanians but also in the ornaments where more southern influence can be felt in the Paeonian ornaments.

However, the thing I want to note is that under the preasure of the bearers of the channeled pottery of the Gava-Belegis type, the bearers of the Brnjica culture either migrated south where they formed the core of the Paeonians, or mixed with the new migrants as in the case of the Dardanians. Nevertheless, the Brnjica Culture had more to do with the old cultures from the Central Balkans such as Verbicoara or Vatin. And I highly doubt these were heavy with E-V13 bearers simply because they show more Greekoid influence and resemblance. Also I highly doubt these cultures had heavy influence on Europe as Urnfield related cultures such as Gava had. These were more like dead end cultures with their bearers mostly migrating southwards during LBA. And we are witnesses from papers that are still unofficial that E-V13 was heavy in Moesia and in late antiquity Serbia. These can't be the legacy of the previous cultures before the bearers of Gava-Belegis type of channeled pottery migrated there. It's obvious that E-V13 is becoming stronger further north you go, rather than south during BA or IA.

Simply, I must say that I'm on the same opinion as Riverman as I stated already.

vettor
03-13-2021, 03:39 PM
These are mostly Neolithic samples from different studies.

You are mixing stuff.

he stated he only wanted to see Ancient DNA ..............as I could not find any ..................find out what the real aim of this thread is and let me know and the other person as well

vettor
03-13-2021, 04:03 PM
When in Iron Age? Sure there is. Heavy Basarabi pottery influence in Glasinac-mati areas for example. There are various individual cases of Eastern people settling in Illyrian areas.



Such as?? In recent and Medieval context the migrations from the Eastern Balkans were far, far more common and this is an undeniable fact. The exceptions were some expansions of the Serbian state to the West, some Ottoman era Albanian migrations to Bulgaria, and the latter would ofc carry most common Albanian clusters not the entire or significant % of their E-V13 as you would have us believe..

Don't forget the Vlach incomers to Albania who also carried some V13, and surely a number of Albanian E-V13 are descended of them such as the E-Y3183* guy that was paraded recently.:biggrin1:




The enormous diversity of Bulgarian E-BY3880, greater than Albanian diversity of E-BY3880 despite the greater number of Albanians tested speaks to the contrary. This is backed up by the aDNA too.




There is no speculation about having multiple finds in three separate archeological Thracian contexts. In fact thus far Thracian Iron Age results show 4 finds and all of them being E-V13. While the sample is far from ideal it does show the tendency which will continue from a statistical POV.

When you test random ethnicity on a low sample the most common hg's will pop out first. Same as with the aDNA..

When the first 3 Scytho-Sarmatian necropolises were tested how many R-Z93 they showed. Same goes for many others.

Your argument is similar to an argument of a Serb autochthonist (who believes that Serbs are descended of Lepenski Vir) who commented on Pribislav's analysis of Lepenski Vir/Iron Gate finds. He asked for all Iron Gates samples to be tested and that only then we can draw some conclusions. :crazy:

We have already some finds to draw conclusions on. Not to mention the Moesian Late Antiquity finds. Where the sample is higher. Yet those 40 or more samples have just one J-L283. Less than



Actually I'm trying to bring some light on that. They have already been labelled as early Thracian by the experts in any case.



The J-L283 proto-Illyrian invaders expanded to Albania. No big news. The fact that some Albanian nativists might call these EBA finds "Illyrian" is also not a surprise.

Based on archeological evidence it is blatantly clear, firmly set in stone that the Early Illyrians represented by the Mati (and other related complexes) and the people south of Shkumbin river had very very different origins. :P




Whatever Neolithic tradition they were continuing it wasn't the E-V13 tradition. These were some G2a locals who were either peacefully or forcefully pushed aside.

Western Balkans Bronze Age

3 finds

2 J-L283

Iron Age Thracians 4 finds, 3 sites = 4 E-V13

Moesian areas Late Antiquity
38 finds, 2 sites

12 E-V13 (including those E-L618 who are all V13 ofc)

1 J-L283

Are you going to claim these Moeso-Thracians were of Illyrian origin? But if so why do they show only one J-L283 out of 38????? As 2 out of 3 BA Illyrians were J2b... :lol:

Further analysis of J-L283 states it is a caucasus marker .................see below to all the L283 finds ....the red one being the croatian one ..............clearly central italy has many more

https://i.postimg.cc/C1yPBHz9/L283.png (https://postimg.cc/wtVcnN5k)


The discovery of a basal J2b-L283* in the Caucasus MBA sample reported by Wang et al. (2018)

Bruzmi
03-13-2021, 05:32 PM
First of all, we should keep in mind that people such as Paeonians, Thracians, Dacians are attested in IA and Hellenistic times. We can't really make parallels with LBA cultures because these people had multiple influences and can hardly be the result of a single culture.



However, the thing I want to note is that under the preasure of the bearers of the channeled pottery of the Gava-Belegis type, the bearers of the Brnjica culture either migrated south where they formed the core of the Paeonians, or mixed with the new migrants as in the case of the Dardanians.


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

I don't know if a theory about new and old migrants applies in the case of Dardania because there isn't sufficient differentiation among sites. The latest data show that most sites in LBA/EIA Dardania practiced inhumation in tumuli, and those which practiced cremation did so in sites largely similar to all other settlements. Moreover, most cremation sites were formed after most inhumation sites.

My point is not to "prove" homogeneity but to note that regardless of whether E-V13 became part of any Paleo-Balkan people in the LBA, we will likely find it in all kinds of material culture settings because as you correctly pointed out about Paeonians, all of these formations were not the result of a single culture. The era of single hg material cultures had long ended.

Aspar
03-13-2021, 05:46 PM
https://i.imgur.com/jeQKKUQ.jpg

I don't know if a theory about new and old migrants applies in the case of Dardania because there isn't sufficient differentiation among sites. The latest data show that most sites in LBA/EIA Dardania practiced inhumation in tumuli, and those which practiced cremation did so in sites largely similar to all other settlements. Moreover, most cremation sites were formed after most inhumation sites.

My point is not to "prove" homogeinity but to note that regardless of whether E-V13 became part of any Paleo-Balkan people in the LBA, we will likely find it in all kinds of material culture settings because as you correctly pointed out about Paeonians, all of these formations were not the result of a single culture. The era of single hg material cultures had long ended.


Exactly...

As for the burials, basically it's the same for the middle-lower Vardar as well during the LBA-EIA transition where inhumations and cremations were equally practiced(note that cremation burial was not the norm before the LBA period) however during the IA and the Hellenistic period the inhumation was the norm. While according to the work I've cited, in Kosovo during IA the cremation was the norm.
So we have matching between the two regions during LBA-EIA transition but mismatch during the IA.

Therefore, the Dardanians and the Paeonians could have been related and probably were through some Brsnjica like elements but essentially they were different people.

And yes, we can not say that this culture or that culture had this or this haplogroup only. That would be sily. So some older subclades of E-V13, CTS5856, BY3880 definitely were present in some earlier cultures like Vatin, Brsnjica etc. But the bulk likely came later, especially those younger CTS9320, L241 etc. subclades...

Riverman
03-13-2021, 05:56 PM
Urnfield culture represents a complex network, but its obvious that it also was a religious movement. Simple put, people could adopt that belief system, which included cremation and they could abandon it, coming either back to older norms or adopting new ones once more. This is apparent even in the central Urnfield regions, were not necessarily all people at the same time adopted that burial rite at all. In a lot of regions, they never did. Its also quite obvious to me, that especially the Daco-Thracian core is extremely likely to have started as one of the source groups for the whole movement and culture in the Carpathian zone, yet once they settled down and got into contact with both Balkan and new steppe people (Cimmerian and Scythian), they changed to inhumation as well.
We also have obviously Germanic people which transitioned to cremation, without being overrun by Urnfield core groups like Celts, Illyrians and Daco-Thracians in particular. And in later times, some change to inhumation, whereas other Germanic fringe groups seem to have adopted cremation very late at roughly the same time! So its, overall, quite complicated. The cremation rite is most important for the movement of people and ethnicities where it appeared rather abruptly, not based on a smooth transition or local evolution. This was the case, for example, in Greece, like quoted before. There, at least in some places, the people practising cremation appeared as an intrusive, distinct and new element in the region. Or in some parts of Romania and Bulgaria, with the expansion of Gava/Fluted Ware. These changes clearly point to the movement of people, whereas in other scenarios, this must not be the case or its just a rather limited movement of very small groups of people, which had no huge impact.

Hawk
03-13-2021, 06:03 PM
Also there is a fact that many of the modern Western Balkan E-V13 clades are simply not native there, they came mostly with Vlach related movements from the C.Balkans.

So, basically you were fighting the "Albanian nationalists" who "claimed" most of E-V13 in Eastern Balkans is because of Albanian medieval migrations to just switch the coin and claim most of Albanian E-V13 are Vlachs. :lol:

Huban
03-13-2021, 06:14 PM
Why would he make up the results?

I already knew something will come up from Maliq Late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age (i am not sure which one or both of the periods?!).



but the current batch was north. PF7562 EBA and J2b mid to late bronze.


Maliq is not in North Albania.

Hawk
03-13-2021, 06:16 PM
Maliq is not in North Albania.

I know, it's in Korca, South East Albania. Originally it was expected to come from there, but apparently we have more leaks than planned.

Huban
03-13-2021, 06:23 PM
So, basically you were fighting the "Albanian nationalists" who "claimed" most of E-V13 in Eastern Balkans is because of Albanian medieval migrations to just switch the coin and claim most of Albanian E-V13 are Vlachs. :lol:

Not really. Trojet paraded the E-Y3183>KMS66 Albanian who clusters with Bulgarian, mentioning another Y3183* Albanian result. I just pointed out that Bulgaria has 3 Y3183* clusters. And two Y3183* clusters have also the likes of Greeks, Romanians, Hungarians even (here its likely southern origin).

Albanian Medieval and Ottoman era migrations were ofc packed with people belonging to typical Albanian clusters. Not with clusters that are rare or non-existent in Albanians.

I do not think dominant and most widespread Albanian clusters have Vlach origin.

I'll tell you who does.

These Y3183* most likely (if the 2nd guy falls in those two numerous clusters).

then,
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY95428/

Albanian and Bulgarian but there is also a Greek related to them at FTDNA, who might be above them actually per STR's. His surname in Greek means "son of a Vlach".

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z17424/

There is one Albanian here. He is probably around 400-500 years away from a Greek and 1000 years away from another Greek. Also one Romanian Basarab cluster falls in here. More distant is this Bulgarian (1700 ybp based only on his novels).

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-PH1173*/

Some Albanians cluster with YF16967, as do many Greeks, Bulgarians, Romanians, Serbs etc. I think this clade is either of Greek or Bulgarian origin. Greek more likely, there is even a Greek Cypriot in this cluster. I don't think there were any Vlachs there.

It's mostly isolated cases. Not numerous Albanian clusters.

Riverman
03-13-2021, 06:28 PM
So, basically you were fighting the "Albanian nationalists" who "claimed" most of E-V13 in Eastern Balkans is because of Albanian medieval migrations to just switch the coin and claim most of Albanian E-V13 are Vlachs. :lol:

There are more parallels between Iberia-Britain and the Balkans than just Bell Beakers (R1b) and Gáva-Holigrady (E-V13), because the same patterns repeated themselves in later times. Like the same regions in which the pre-Celtic inhabitants of Britain sought refuge were later the home and refuge for the Celts and R1b! Because in Britain the push came usually from East, just like in the Balkans most pushes came either from the North or the South East. So its possible that what is now Albania was once the refuge for the pre-LBA old Balkan people, which got largely replaced by Danubian and Carpathian (E-V13) people, and later these were same people fell back to the same area. Albania has more of what remained of the pre-Slavic Balkans than most places.
You just have to take a look on a topographic map of South Eastern Europe to see that Pannonia and most of (Northern) Serbia is open to any kind of intrusion from all directions. So once your main defences being broken, there is no place to hide:
https://external-preview.redd.it/0-tlJe2dxWEunssVi53J6Tz2HArm1ffea0HrbhGWoMc.jpg?widt h=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&33d0f1b9

The Balkan and Carpathian mountains however are better places to fall back to, that's why E-V13 survived there, probably, in the first place. Its quite obvious to me that any kind of newcomer to the Balkans would probably have entered the region of Albania the latest. So what people in Albania at least got, is more time. For Pannonia, Northern Serbia and most of Bulgaria, that was never an option. Any kind of invasion could have reached, especially on horses, the centre within hours to days, once the army was defeated in open battle.

So I expect E-V13 to have entered what is now Albania fairly late, certainly later than Pannonia, Northern Serbia and Bulgaria. But since they dominated and infiltrated the whole region over many generations, they eventually got there too and established the lineage there as well. And when the Slavs came in, those too just needed longer to get there and in this case never managed to control the region completely. Obviously Albanians are what remains ethnolinguistically from the pre-Slavic Balkan. Genetically the heritage is much more widespread, since the Slavs obviously fused with the Vlachs and other people.

Korabi
03-13-2021, 06:45 PM
Not really. Trojet paraded the E-Y3183>KMS66 Albanian who clusters with Bulgarian, mentioning another Y3183* Albanian result. I just pointed out that Bulgaria has 3 Y3183* clusters. And two Y3183* clusters have also the likes of Greeks, Romanians, Hungarians even (here its likely southern origin).

Albanian Medieval and Ottoman era migrations were ofc packed with people belonging to typical Albanian clusters. Not with clusters that are rare or non-existent in Albanians.

I do not think dominant and most widespread Albanian clusters have Vlach origin.

I'll tell you who does.

These Y3183* most likely (if the 2nd guy falls in those two numerous clusters).

then,
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY95428/

Albanian and Bulgarian but there is also a Greek related to them at FTDNA, who might be above them actually per STR's. His surname in Greek means "son of a Vlach".

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z17424/

There is one Albanian here. He is probably around 400-500 years away from a Greek and 1000 years away from another Greek. Also one Romanian Basarab cluster falls in here. More distant is this Bulgarian (1700 ybp based only on his novels).

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-PH1173*/

Some Albanians cluster with YF16967, as do many Greeks, Bulgarians, Romanians, Serbs etc. I think this clade is either of Greek or Bulgarian origin. Greek more likely, there is even a Greek Cypriot in this cluster. I don't think there were any Vlachs there.

It's mostly isolated cases. Not numerous Albanian clusters.

I wouldn't be so quick to push Y3183 to the East Balkans. I am in the process of testing my own Albanian friend who is already confirmed Y3183* and is being tested for E-KMS66 on YSEQ panel as we speak.

In a few years that cluster could be flooded with Albanians. The best indicator will be to see as the branch grows, where the tmrca remains most diverse. It's too early to make such a claim on a small group of people.

What is clear is E-V13 is very diverse in Albanians. Regardless which haplotypes remain more prevalent.

Huban
03-13-2021, 06:51 PM
I wouldn't be so quick to push Y3183 to the East Balkans. I am in the process of testing my own Albanian friend who is already confirmed Y3183* and is being tested for E-KMS66 om YSEQ panel as we speak.

In a few years that cluster could be flooded with Albanians.

It's already flooded with Bulgarians, and many others.. Three Y3183* clusters. What makes you think that won't continue once more of them are profiled? Not only that but isolated multiple clades south of Y3183 that have Early Iron Age age.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y18360/
Romanian result will split this level most likely soon.

Bulgaria also has E-Z16661 result, and the guy is distant from Kuchi.

So Y3183 is heavily, heavily an Eastern Balkan clade, and despite the fact that Albanians are better profiled.

Hawk
03-13-2021, 06:57 PM
Not really. Trojet paraded the E-Y3183>KMS66 Albanian who clusters with Bulgarian, mentioning another Y3183* Albanian result. I just pointed out that Bulgaria has 3 Y3183* clusters. And two Y3183* clusters have also the likes of Greeks, Romanians, Hungarians even (here its likely southern origin).

Albanian Medieval and Ottoman era migrations were ofc packed with people belonging to typical Albanian clusters. Not with clusters that are rare or non-existent in Albanians.

I do not think dominant and most widespread Albanian clusters have Vlach origin.

I'll tell you who does.

These Y3183* most likely (if the 2nd guy falls in those two numerous clusters).

then,
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY95428/

Albanian and Bulgarian but there is also a Greek related to them at FTDNA, who might be above them actually per STR's. His surname in Greek means "son of a Vlach".

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z17424/

There is one Albanian here. He is probably around 400-500 years away from a Greek and 1000 years away from another Greek. Also one Romanian Basarab cluster falls in here. More distant is this Bulgarian (1700 ybp based only on his novels).

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-PH1173*/

Some Albanians cluster with YF16967, as do many Greeks, Bulgarians, Romanians, Serbs etc. I think this clade is either of Greek or Bulgarian origin. Greek more likely, there is even a Greek Cypriot in this cluster. I don't think there were any Vlachs there.

It's mostly isolated cases. Not numerous Albanian clusters.

So, what? E-V13 FGC33621 has a parallel in Bulgaria yet the whole E-V13 FGC33621 subclades have parallels in Central Europe, Italy and Western Europe as well.

Huban
03-13-2021, 07:02 PM
Their most numerous clusters actually expanded from the western Balkans, like A18833 for example.


Don't be too sure of that. Recently a Bulgarian was found belonging to this cluster, and he's pretty basal, he is not downstream of any Serbs/Montenegrins
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-A18844/

Bulgarian A9739 has the greatest age of these clusters sharing just one SNP. Some samples of Bulgarians indicate presence of more E-Y172393 there and they are all A9739-.

Huban
03-13-2021, 07:09 PM
So, what? E-V13 FGC33621 has a parallel in Bulgaria yet the whole E-V13 FGC33621 subclades have parallels in Central Europe, Italy and Western Europe as well.

The difference is, you have parallels in Bulgaria and Greece (Crete) that are EIA or even LBA territory. That's totally different in comparison to people who have relatives that are just centuries away. In cases of young clusters you look at the numbers and diversity within these clusters that are multi-ethnic. Of course for those that are mono-ethnic such as yours the picture is clear.

broder
03-13-2021, 07:22 PM
Don't be too sure of that. Recently a Bulgarian was found belonging to this cluster, and he's pretty basal, he is not downstream of any Serbs/Montenegrins
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-A18844/

Bulgarian A9739 has the greatest age of these clusters sharing just one SNP. Some samples of Bulgarians indicate presence of more E-Y172393 there and they are all A9739-.

Whats 'pretty basal', is he A18833*? Hopefully you're not basing that on their STRs as you usually do. Obviously as it stands it's more divers in the western Balkans with multiple branches in North Albania and Montenegro.

capsian
03-13-2021, 07:24 PM
Pannonia is key. Pannonia and the West Balkans being interconnected and the glimpse on the Pannonian study was crystal clear. Also, there are other lines of evidence other than direct samples from the Balkans, first and foremost modern clades and subclades with thier distribution and TMRCA. Its not me and my theory which needs a back up from ancient DNA desperately, to stand a chance, but those which claim a regional continuity and no influx from the North. Because there is nothing in favour of that option out there so far, nothing at all.

For all, since I saw some maps posted already, here is my current best model, which might be proven to be wrong in detail, but its what I currently deem the most likely scenario. It shows the distribution and spread of E-V13 in stages.
1st stage is red, it outlines the zone of survival and later build up, recovery of the presumably Neolithic survivor E-V13 in an Epi-Corded environment, developing into specific regional cultures. The final stage of this epicentre is the Gáva-Holigrady culture and the associated Fluted Wares.These start to expand within and along with other Urnfield groups, which were not dominated by E-V13, just somewhat influenced by the South Eastern Urnfields, in the
2nd stage, which is green, which shows the expansion phase in the Late Bronze Age, where those Urnfield-related E-V13 lineages got the upper hand and became the dominant lineage.
The 3rd stage yellow is the maximal extent of this sphere of dominance, coming about in the Iron Age transition the early Iron to middle Iron Age period, which however shifted South, because other groups especially from the steppe (Cimmerians , Scythians, generally Iranian related) moved in and thinned the regional lineages there somewhat out. At this piont, the Thracian sphere might have had the highest percentage, keeping it into the later Iron Age and historical period.
The 4th stage, represented by yellow arrows, shows secondary expansions out of the established centres in Central and South Eastern Europe, along other groups, mostly in Urnfield related networks first, the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Hallstatt later, or within the Greek world.

43856

Don't pin me down on every detail, its just a rough outline and not a precise map for all the associated archaeological cultures. A somewhat open question is also the extend to the North, like how much was the Lusatian culture affected, or the early Northern Danubian groups, that's open to debate.


but E-V13 is found at low to moderate frequencies in west-ukraine am i wrong or not

Riverman
03-13-2021, 07:28 PM
but E-V13 is found at low to moderate frequencies in west-ukraine am i wrong or not

E-V13 is present in Ukrainians and Russians, but in Western Ukrainian in relatively higher proportions, yes. I don't understand the "but", do you see a contradiction? It was never dominated by E-V13, with the exception of the very Western part. Obviously later migrations changed the situation, as it did in Romania, Slovakia etc. The map shows the MBA to Iron Age stages. Not the later situation.

Hawk
03-13-2021, 07:28 PM
The difference is, you have parallels in Bulgaria and Greece (Crete) that are EIA or even LBA territory. That's totally different in comparison to people who have relatives that are just centuries away. In cases of young clusters you look at the numbers and diversity within these clusters that are multi-ethnic. Of course for those that are mono-ethnic such as yours the picture is clear.

That Greek from Crete has parallels in Western Europe and Hungary so very likely he was a Late Bronze Age newcomer via Western Balkan, Middle Danube group.

Huban
03-13-2021, 07:32 PM
Whats 'pretty basal', is he A18833*? Hopefully you're not basing that on their STRs as you usually do. Obviously as it stands it's more divers in the western Balkans with multiple branches in North Albania and Montenegro.

I know various YFiler and Power Plex Bulgarian A18833 that based on STR's seem definitely A9739-, as an A9739 defining STR is present in those sets.

But here I speak of Bulgarian Big-Y700 result. He is E-A18844* so his distance to Mataruga Montenegrin tribe is also 1100 ybp as presently estimated. As I expected based on STR's Bulgarian non A9739 are starting to appear.

Yes W.Balkans had more diversity prior to this result. Now E.Balkans has also two clades.

Mataruga tribe must be local in the area for a very long time. Linguistics point to that because the Slavic/Serb nasals->u shift happened already in the 11th century. So at the latest they have been there in 11th century.

broder
03-13-2021, 07:47 PM
I know various YFiler and Power Plex Bulgarian A18833 that based on STR's seem definitely A9739-, as an A9739 defining STR is present in those sets.

But here I speak of Bulgarian Big-Y700 result. He is E-A18844* so his distance to Mataruga Montenegrin tribe is also 1100 ybp as presently estimated. As I expected based on STR's Bulgarian non A9739 are starting to appear.

Yes W.Balkans had more diversity prior to this result. Now E.Balkans has also two clades.

Mataruga tribe must be local in the area for a very long time. Linguistics point to that because the Slavic nasals->u shift happened already in the 11th century. So at the latest they have been there in 11th century.

STRs for this cluster are almost useless, like is the case for most Z2705, especially in that resolution, so I wouldn't take any of that seriously. At least not until we have properly profiled samples.

When you factor in Y172393 it's still more diver in the west. Plus considering the history of the region, it's extremely unlikely that these clusters entered North Albania/Montenegro via Bulgaria.

Add to that the Albanian clans Bobi and Shoshi that are considered to be native to Dukagjin, north Albania. Shoshi did get tangled up with the Shala tradition but when you actually look at some of the older sources from the natives of Shoshi, they say that they predate Shala there. Which is pretty obvious now considering Bobi's results.

capsian
03-13-2021, 07:58 PM
E-V13 is present in Ukrainians and Russians, but in Western Ukrainian in relatively higher proportions, yes. I don't understand the "but", do you see a contradiction? It was never dominated by E-V13, with the exception of the very Western part. Obviously later migrations changed the situation, as it did in Romania, Slovakia etc. The map shows the MBA to Iron Age stages. Not the later situation.

thanks you about this informatoin

Huban
03-13-2021, 08:05 PM
STRs for this cluster are almost useless, like is the case for most Z2705, especially in that resolution, so I wouldn't take any of that seriously. At least not until we have properly profiled samples.

Wrong. Y172393 is defined by dys390=25 + dys439=11. So not useless for classification as Y172393 or very likely Y172393. A9739 is defined by dys635=22. Backmutation from 23 present in two other clusters. So those Y172393 haplotypes with dys635=23 in Bulgaria are most definitely very likely A9739-. What else cannot be said with any degree of certainty. But that much can be said.

Same way we can say Arberesh have plenty of Y172393, again A9739- most likely.




When you factor in Y172393 it's still more diver in the west. Plus considering the history of the region, it's extremely unlikely that these clusters entered North Albania/Montenegro via Bulgaria.

Add to that the Albanian clans Bobi and Shoshi that are considered to be natives to North Albania. Shoshi did get tangled up with the Shala tradition but when you actually look at some of the older sources from the natives of Shoshi, they say that they predated Shala there. Which is pretty obvious now considering Bobi's results.

I'm not saying Y172393 is of E.Balkan origin necessarily, just that both options are in circulation. C.Balkans also obviously. And more samples will provide definite answers. I read a little about Shoshi. For sure Bobi and Shoshi are there since the time of their TMRCA at least.

broder
03-13-2021, 08:27 PM
Wrong. Y172393 is defined by dys390=25 + dys439=11. So not useless for classification as Y172393 or very likely Y172393. A9739 is defined by dys635=22. Backmutation from 23 present in two other clusters. So those Y172393 haplotypes with dys635=23 in Bulgaria are most definitely very likely A9739-. What else cannot be said with any degree of certainty. But that much can be said.

Same way we can say Arberesh have plenty of Y172393, again A9739- most likely.




I'm not saying Y172393 is of E.Balkan origin necessarily, just that both options are in circulation. C.Balkans also obviously. And more samples will provide definite answers. I read a little about Shoshi. For sure Bobi and Shoshi are there since the time of their TMRCA at least.

If other sister subclades carry those exact mutations, all over the tree, then that subclade it's not defined by those markers. Yes, with 635=23 they most probably are A9739-. However that doesn't mean they are Y172393+ automatically. They most certainly are A18844+ like many other samples that share those values below A18844...

vettor
03-13-2021, 09:52 PM
Your information sharing is not any reality.

43860

Are you aware that your lying on purpose?

https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/samples.php?searchcolumn=Y_Haplotree_Variant&searchfor=I-&ybp=500000,0

Huban
03-14-2021, 01:19 AM
Earlier P192-1 E-Z1919 (per some confirmed E-V13+) from Svilengrad, upcoming Kapitan Andreevo E-L618 find and Kapitan Andreevo E-V13 find all belong to Babadag-Pšeničevo culture.

Because 3 out of 3 Babadag-Pšeničevo finds from two sites were E-V13, due to close relations of this culture with the Insula-Banului and the Basarabi cultures it can be predicted that these culture also carried mostly E-V13. Moldavian Saharna-Solonceni is said also to descend of Babadag movement.

These cultures represent the bulk of Geto-Dacians and significant percentage of Thracians.

Babadag most likely developed out of Insula-Banului while Insula-Banului seem to have had two components: Gava and Žuto Brdo.

Huban
03-14-2021, 01:23 AM
Because 3 out of 3 Babadag-Pšeničevo finds from two sites were E-V13, due to close relations of this culture with the Insula-Banului and the Basarabi cultures it can be predicted that these culture also carried mostly E-V13. Moldavian Saharna-Solonceni is said also to descend of Babadag movement.

These cultures represent the bulk of Geto-Dacians and significant percentage of Thracians.


This is the EIA event that caused massive replacement of Y-DNA lineages in historical Daco-Thracian areas by the E-V13.

Kelmendasi
03-14-2021, 01:27 AM
Your information sharing is not any reality.

43860

Are you aware that your lying on purpose?
Those samples are from the site and settlement of Mokrin in north-eastern Serbia on the border with Romania. Personally I would not classify that area as a part of the western Balkans despite the fact that a good amount of Serbia is located within that geographical area. It is central or even eastern Balkan.

However, some of the recently discovered samples from the Neolithic Croatian site of Potočani did turn out to be I2-M438+ (specifically I2a-Y4213+ (https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y4213/)) , though of course they are completely unrelated to the Illyrians and subsequent cultures of the area.

Huban
03-14-2021, 02:22 AM
Troy VIIa stood for a century before it was destroyed around 1180 BC.[5] Its destruction has been attributed to enemy attack, though the culprits could not have been a confederation of Mycenaean kings whose own cities had already been destroyed.[5] Partial human remains were found in houses and in the streets, and near the north-western ramparts a human skeleton with skull injuries and a broken jawbone. Three bronze arrowheads were found, two in the fort and one in the city.

Thracia, 1972

if the invaders of Troy VIIb originated from or left of Thrace some time in the 12th century to invade Troy, it is more plausible to identify these people as Thracians rather than as Phrygians originating in Central Europe , as proposed by Gimbutas. In addition to the material already mentioned , there exists other archaeological material in Bulgaria which is very closely parallel to the material from Troy . There is the vase from Gabarevo which is so similar to one from Troy that it could have been made by the same potter. " . There is also the Pšeničevo complex of southern Bulgaria which is related to the Babadag group of Rumania . The pottery from Pšeničevo has not yet been fully published , yet there are enough fragments with decorations and knobs to lend support to the idea of interconnection. The motif of incised circles connected by their tangents is very characteristic of this material and exists in other parts of the Balkans as well .

Pšeničevo people also in newer finds do show Troy VIIb material.

E-V13 drop by to say hello.:)

Kelmendasi
03-14-2021, 02:25 AM
Elbasan, Korce, Berat, Voskopoje all Vlach-Bulgarian settled areas.
Not really. Anyways, what has this got to do with the Illyrians or the topic of the thread?

Kelmendasi
03-14-2021, 02:45 AM
In August 2010 archaeologists discovered two Illyrian graves near the walls of the castle of Elbasan.
What is your point?

Kelmendasi
03-14-2021, 03:04 AM
Regarding? I made multiple fact statements, you didn't digest them properly or what you asking?
I simply do not see the correlation between your claim that those regions were settled by “Vlach-Bulgars” and the discovery of Illyrian burial sites near Elbasan. You are yet to make an actual point that makes sense.

Huban
03-14-2021, 03:13 AM
Because 3 out of 3 Babadag-Pšeničevo finds from two sites were E-V13, due to close relations of this culture with the Insula-Banului and the Basarabi cultures it can be predicted that these culture also carried mostly E-V13. Moldavian Saharna-Solonceni is said also to descend of Babadag movement.


Which EIA/LBA E-V13 SNP corresponds well to these? Without doubt CTS9320.

E-Y84585 have probably a cousin in Bulgaria.

There are two E-CTS9320* clades shared by Romanians and Bulgarians. There is an E-CTS9320* Greek very near Svilengrad. Ossetian E-CTS9320*.

Interestingly most of E-CTS9320* clades do not occur in Westerners. It is common that Westerners would have various other basal clades due to their level of testing.

The only exception is E-Z16988 which is heavy in the Western Balkans, can be explained in various ways, including Basarabi influence on Glasinac, Gava related etc.

It is blatantly clear E-V13 is related to this complex, the question is what are the repercussions for the entire V13. Did these older cultures such as Vatina, Paraćin, Mediana etc. sport V13?

Mediana, considered as proto-Dardanian, non-Illyrian, non-Thracian in its phase III received migrants from Pšeničevo. They received some Gava influx in phase 2. This is when they could have learned Thracian, only to learn Illyrian centuries later after Glasinac-Mati expansion (especially the Brnjica branch).

Huban
03-14-2021, 03:36 AM
Pšeničevo people also in newer finds do show Troy VIIb material.


Garašanin writing about Mediana group noted similarities in pottery with Troy VIIb. And he raised the question of Trojan Dardanians. But also he emphasized that this pottery is actually Pšeničevo pottery related to Insula Banului, befitting more Moesians, also mentioned there.

It could be that this is a Moesian link but that also some Mediana I people (non-Pšeničevo and non-Gava), probably original Dardanians also went with them so their name also appeared.

Very interesting is to look at the genesis of Insula Banului, and whether in its genesis Gava or Girla-Mare played a determining role. This is a difference between young LBA/EIA Thracians, basically invaders who imposed their language in a relatively short period of time or older Thracians, thus making the these MBA cultures such as Mediana I, Paraćin, Vatin, Verbicioara also Thracian.

I think option no.1 is more likely for now.

gjergj
03-14-2021, 08:06 AM
So 10 Albanians are in the I2 project is that right. And I see 5 are undisclosed, 2 Elbasan, 2 Korce, 1 Berat.

Here you can find the largest sample of albanians and the sub sample with I2. It include results from multiple companies not just FTDNA. some of them we have uploaded in Yfull as well.
I2 Dinaric is about 7-8% of the population. But all points to arrival in the balkans in 6-7 AD with slavic migration.

There is not much to dispute. All regional data points to this direction.

gjergj
03-14-2021, 08:46 AM
What do you call us again in your region, ok right Aromanians is what they using over there. So here I'm not making any actual points that make sense, I add facts to discussion that people can read or not read make their own conclusion. But they are facts. And not random claims where is the line of the Balkans drawn is it in Serbia or is not in Serbia or is it in Slovenia? This chatter I don't do it, is not fun for me that stuff or relevant for me, that is your games. I just post facts if people want to understand origin of I2 Albanians.

"Elbasan

180 Aromanian families residing in the St. Nicholas neighbourhood on the edge of town. At the beginning of the 20th century it was estimated that 15,000 people lived in Elbasan.

The site seems to have been abandoned until the Ottoman army built a military camp there, followed by urban reconstruction under Sultan Mehmet II in 1466. Mehmet constructed a massive four-sided castle with a deep moat and three gates. He named it Elbasan, meaning 'conquered country' in Turkish. He had built the castle in order to fight Skanderbeg, due to an ongoing conflict between the Ottomans and Albanians.

The city survived attacks by the Bulgars and Ostrogoths and was mentioned in the work of Procopius of Cæsarea.

Korce

When the nearby town of İskopol (Moscopole or Moschopolis or Voskopojë) was destroyed by Ali Pasha's men in 1789, some of its commerce shifted to Görice (Korçë) and Arnavud Belgrad (Berat). Korçë grew as part of its population came from nearby Moscopole. Greek sources (Liakos and Aravandinos) have noted of the Korçë Aromanian populations' origins that in addition to many being from Moscopole, others settled during a time of calm and were from the village of Shalës, Kolonjë and established the market district of Korçë known as Varosh. Aromanians from the Arvanitovlach subgroup that in the early 19th century arrived to the Korçë area played a significant role in establishing the Korçë Christian urban class. In Psalidas' work Geography from 1830 noted that in the district of Varosh in Korçë, 100 Aromanian families lived there.

Berat

A Greek school was operating in the city already from 1835. In the late Ottoman period, the population of Berat was 10–15,000 inhabitants with Orthodox Christians numbering some 5,000 people of whom 3,000 spoke the Aromanian language and the rest the Albanian language.

In the modern period, a Romani community numbering 200-300 lives in Berat and its outskirts whereas others in a few nearby villages, at times living in difficult economic circumstances with some seasonally migrating to Greece for work. There are Greek and Aromanian speakers in the city and in settlements close by.

Voskopoje

(Albanian: Voskopojë; Aromanian: Moscopole, Moscopoli, Muscopuli, Voscopole; Greek: Μοσχόπολη or Βοσκόπολη; Turkish: İskopol or Oskopol[1]) is a village in Korçë County in southeastern Albania. During the 18th century, it was the cultural and commercial center of the Aromanians.

Historians have attributed the decline of the city to a series of raids by Muslim Albanian bandits. Moscopole was initially attacked and almost destroyed by those groups in 1769 following the participation of the residents in the preparations for a Greek revolt supported by the Russian Empire. Its destruction culminated with the abandoning and destruction of 1788. Moscopole, once a prosperous city, was reduced to a small village by Ali Pasha. According to another opinion, the city's decline was mainly due to the relocation of the trade routes in central and eastern Europe following these raids. Today Moscopole, known as Voskopojë, is a small mountain village, and along with a few other local settlements is considered a holy place by local Orthodox Christians. It was one of the original homelands of the Aromanian diaspora."

Kelmendasi is speaking false conclusions for my haplogroup I2 that is why I post relevant facts.

This is completely different topic from the thread. You might want to fill in with dna results first and than built a more factual narrative. What I am saying below applies more to Aromanians in Albania. DNA points to a mixture of Illyrian/west balkan local lines with Celts, gothic and than later some slavic/only I dinaric not R1a additions. Different aromanian settlements have different % of these haplos in albania. So data points to local west balkan haplos partially or fully Latinized during a few centuries in the wester Danubian Roman front that the romans build after 2 century AD against barbarians. After the slavic migration to the west balkans possibly some of this latinized population reverted back to the local/balkan identity and some remained latinized/Aromanians and continue to this day.
Regarding Voskopoje its decline started much earlier economically than the "raids" that you mentioned and the fact that you present are also not fully correct and tainted/biased. The essence of the confilict was not orthodox vs muslim. That is taking the tenth layer/symbol and putting it as the most important in the conversation.
The current majority of the population today in Voskopoja is Vlach but that does not mean that 200 years ago that was the case for the town people that left. DNA tests from families in Albania that claim origin from Voskopoja, when they left it 200 years ago, now living in Korca and Berat as you mentioned yourself, indicate a different population from the ones that are today in Voskopoja. So you are taking current population/identity and extrapolating it back 100% and data don't support that. Orthodox continuity does not automatically imply "ethnic" continuity. There are plenty of albanian orthodox that have never considered themselves Aromanian. Different from other Balkan nations religion is not the defining feature of Albanians. So picking one of these religions and running with a narrative on that is very superficial to understanding history. So in short I am suggesting you read, collect and link data more carefully. And find the right thread to articulate it. best.

XXD
03-14-2021, 11:16 AM
Kelmendasi is speaking false conclusions for my haplogroup I2 that is why I post relevant facts.

You are in denial regarding the origins of your Y haplogroup.

Johane Derite
03-14-2021, 11:26 AM
This is already outdated, but this is map distribution of E-V13>Z5018 in Albania. If Messapic regions are also Z5018 heavy, maybe they have a role in spread of Early-Proto-Albanian

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eb7aicMU0AAsoBM?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

Hawk
03-14-2021, 11:31 AM
This is already outdated, but this is map distribution of E-V13>Z5018 in Albania. If Messapic regions are also Z5018 heavy, maybe they have a role in spread of Early-Proto-Albanian

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eb7aicMU0AAsoBM?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

It coincides with the map Riverman created for the initial origin of E-V13

https://i.imgur.com/21wRXKr.png

The encircled red region is approximately Beskid mountains, which many linguists believe is a remnant word from an ancient Albanoid language.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8c/c1/c9/8cc1c9ef869310f5c3d0eea3fe426c4e.png

Albanoid-like language might have been one of many languages spoken there during Bronze Age.

armalite
03-14-2021, 12:41 PM
This is already outdated, but this is map distribution of E-V13>Z5018 in Albania. If Messapic regions are also Z5018 heavy, maybe they have a role in spread of Early-Proto-Albanian

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eb7aicMU0AAsoBM?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

These are the birthplaces of my straightforward paternal ancestors for the past 200 years and our population approximation.
It completely overlaps the regions mentioned in the topics

43869
43870

Moderator
03-14-2021, 03:09 PM
The thread is closed. Despite numerous warnings and reminders personal attacks and violations of the ToS continued, so we had no other choice than to close this thread.