PDA

View Full Version : A theory about the origin of E-V13



Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5]

ShpataEMadhe
09-03-2021, 12:15 PM
Something on dorian relations to illyrians -
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KX_0jwEACAAJ&redir_esc=y

p. 166: "In this region occupied by an ancient Illyrian population some part of the Illyrian heritage has survived in the Dorian dialect: the form Deipaturos may be a vocative of Illyrian origin."

Here is something even more interesting -
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sfakians

If we could get dna tests done on these people it may help answer a few questions

Riverman
09-03-2021, 12:35 PM
We have:
- 1 MBA J2b-L283 sample from Dalmatia.
- 3 IA J2b-L283 from Daunia.
- 3 Roman era J2b-L283 from eastern Dardania.
- 3 Roman era E-V13 from eastern Dardania.
-Viminacium is a Roman construction, so we'll see from the published files what posible origins individuals there had
-I-M223 has been found in Sopot culture and Daunia, but further analysis is required for definite conclusions.

You're being just dishonest, because you know the Geto-Scythian and Psenichevo Thracian samples. And I have proven to you that the local population, but also those from the surrounding areas of Viminacium, was essentially Basarabi derived. So you have the Thracian connection, unless you claim that all those people with E-V13 the area were of foreign descent, which is ridiculous.


All Paleo-Balkan groups are attested in IA ancient Greek texts, but they existed before that era.

But not necessarily in the same place, as the archaeological cultures, ancient DNA and historical accounts combined prove. The older people in the region didn't even have the same culture, society, ideology!


Ancient Greek texts refere to events which include Paleo-Balkan people before the EIA. The conflict which involved Troy happened around 1300-1200 BC and Thracians are mentioned in the Iliad, so Thracians were a well-established people in historical Thrace before the LBA. This is also attested archaeologically. The people who constituted the core Thracian-speaking population already lived in Thrace and were numerous.

First, the Iliad is no historical account, but the later authors might have exchanged old with new people. Other than that, around 1.300-1.100, most of the E-V13 main branching events took place and Channelled Ware expanded exactly in that time frame! Go figure! That's the time frame I'm proposing and the new paper has proven it, also mentioning the big shift in the LBA-EIA and later continuity with Belegis II-Gava -> Bosut-Basarabi.
So yes, the time frame fit, but just some generations before, there were no Thracians in the region.


Cremation and inhumation practices are also not a good indication for population movements because more often than not they were cultural practices which were adopted or abandoned from time to time:

I know that, but they weren't just changed like that. Burial rites were an important part of a given society, its religion and ideology.


LBA tumuli are the earliest burials of this type in the Rhodope Mountains. They are usually combined in groups, with from 2 to 20 contemporary burial mounds in a single
cemetery. It seems also noteworthy that there is a considerable degree of topographic continuity with later periods like the IA and Roman, resulting in the accumulation of
tumuli (sometimes up to 200 mounds) in large cemeteries. Furthermore, cremation, which is typical of the LBA, is almost entirely replaced by inhumation at the beginning
of the EIA. In Upper Thrace, on the other hand, the opposite trend is observable: LBA inhumation dies out with the end of the period and is replaced by cremation in ‘knobbed’ urns.

Knobbed Ware is a derivative of Channelled Ware, just so you know. Its exactly the kind of movement of people, including those moving to Anatolia, I'm writing about and I mentioned it before. The change in burial rite can easily be explained by the intrusion of Cimmerians, which produced the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon I wrote about so much. This is when Daco-Thracians moved to the West, playing an important part of what became Eastern Hallstatt and in their own core territories developing Basarabi-Bosut. The new Cimmerian steppe elements introduced inhumation. So it was also caused by a migrating people, which however were much less numerous and swiftly assimilated by the Daco-Thracians.


Thracians were already there. If E-V13 entry in Thrace is a transitional era development, then by defintion it's not of Thracian origin. On the other hand, we don't know the exact sources of E-V13 in modern Bulgaria, nor its pre-Roman distribution in that country. We'll have to see for results from more sites to see what represents a broader phenomenon and what an isolated.


Pre-Channelled Ware Bulgaria had no E-V13, but Psenichevo, a derivative of Channelled Ware, for Bulgaria also known as Fluted Ware horizon, had it. And its no earlier than that we have any accounts of Thracians. The samples from Viminacium/Serbia, Moldova, Bulgaria, Pannonia, all fit. In all places was E-V13, after the Channelled Ware, not before. And before Hallstatt, it wasn't anywhere else but in the regions which introduced Channelled Ware and Naue II, respectively iron swords. That's all proven, its not necessary to speculate about something which can turn everything around and trying to twist reality.

Kelmendasi
09-03-2021, 01:55 PM
Algeria 1700bc, Italy 1700bc, Norway 1600bc, Portugal 1300bc?

Looking at the data we have now not sure how you can claim this line is definitely illyrian, it doesnt match the expansion of illyrians. Looks more like a sea traveller - possibly phoenician?

"In the twelfth century B.C., Phoenicians arrived on the west coast of the Iberian Peninsula in search of metals and founded trading posts at Cádiz, Málaga, and Seville. They traded with the peoples of the interior, taking out silver, copper, and tin and bringing in eastern trade goods."
A Phoenician or, more broadly, Semitic explanation for the presence of J2b-L283 in Europe is not convincing in the slightest in my opinion. J2b-L283 clusters do not show any significant diversity or basal diversity in the Levant or West Asia as a whole and L283 is not found in noticeably elevated frequencies in the former Phoenician colonies or areas of settlement. On top of that, the clusters present in West Asia tend to have numerous parallel clusters in Europe. On the other hand, J2b-L283 reaches highest diversity in Europe with a great chunk of that diversity centred in the western Balkans which already alludes to an Illyrian connection.

As for ancient DNA, this too does not support an expansion with the Phoenicians. So far J2b-L283 has only been discovered in ancient samples from Europe and the Caucasus/Transcaucasia and as I have mentioned previously the dating for sample I4331 is rather close to that of the TMRCA for Z38240 so an origin around the territory of modern-day Croatia is most certain. The sample itself has been connected to the Posušje culture which may have contributed to the formation of the Illyrians. The connection with the western Balkans and more specifically the Illyrian sphere is then supported by the presence of J2b-L283 among the Daunians, a Messapic-speaking group which most certainly arrived from the area of historical Illyria.

The J2b-M102 cluster that can be connected to the Phoenicians and even Proto-Semites is M205 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-M205/) which has been found alongside J1-Z2331 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z2331/) in numerous sites across the Levant and West Asia. Sample ERS1790732 from Middle Bronze Age Sidon, Lebanon, was in fact J2b-M205.

ShpataEMadhe
09-03-2021, 02:10 PM
A Phoenician or, more broadly, Semitic explanation for the presence of J2b-L283 in Europe is not convincing in the slightest in my opinion. J2b-L283 clusters do not show any significant diversity or basal diversity in the Levant or West Asia as a whole and L283 is not found in noticeably elevated frequencies in the former Phoenician colonies or areas of settlement. On top of that, the clusters present in West Asia tend to have numerous parallel clusters in Europe. On the other hand, J2b-L283 reaches highest diversity in Europe with a great chunk of that diversity centred in the western Balkans which already alludes to an Illyrian connection.

As for ancient DNA, this too does not support an expansion with the Phoenicians. So far J2b-L283 has only been discovered in ancient samples from Europe and the Caucasus/Transcaucasia and as I have mentioned previously the dating for sample I4331 is rather close to that of the TMRCA for Z38240 so an origin around the territory of modern-day Croatia is most certain. The sample itself has been connected to the Posušje culture which may have contributed to the formation of the Illyrians. The connection with the western Balkans and more specifically the Illyrian sphere is then supported by the presence of J2b-L283 among the Daunians, a Messapic-speaking group which most certainly arrived from the area of historical Illyria.

The J2b-M102 cluster that can be connected to the Phoenicians and even Proto-Semites is M205 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-M205/) which has been found alongside J1-Z2331 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z2331/) in numerous sites across the Levant and West Asia. Sample ERS1790732 from Middle Bronze Age Sidon, Lebanon, was in fact J2b-M205.

It is still possible for proto pheonicians to have carried both j2b l283 and m205. Pheonicians have more history in europe than west asia, look at their trading routes after they moved out of the levant. How much j m205 has been found in ancient italy so far?

46378

46377

The j2b found in ancient croatia is not enough to confirm that is what the illyrians carried as it predates illyrians by hundreds of years, we need more

Trojet
09-03-2021, 03:18 PM
It is still possible for proto pheonicians to have carried both j2b l283 and m205. Pheonicians have more history in europe than west asia, look at their trading routes after they moved out of the levant. How much j m205 has been found in ancient italy so far?

46378

46377

I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself. The J2b-L283 samples found in the Balkans (such as MOK15, I4331) predate any Phoenician colonies, which is evident by the maps you posted yourself.

I see user Kelmendasi already took you to school, but you choose to believe your own predetermined and unsubstantiated theories.

Kelmendasi
09-03-2021, 03:27 PM
It is still possible for proto pheonicians to have carried both j2b l283 and m205. Pheonicians have more history in europe than west asia, look at their trading routes after they moved out of the levant. How much j m205 has been found in ancient italy so far?

46378

46377

The j2b found in ancient croatia is not enough to confirm that is what the illyrians carried as it predates illyrians by hundreds of years, we need more
Looking at the modern structure of J2b-L283 in the Levant and West Asia, a correlation with the Phoenicians or Canaanites is extremely unconvincing for the reasons that I mentioned. If it was in fact a cluster present among the Canaanites and even Proto-Semites then we should see considerable diversity with high TMRCAs showing no recent connection to Europe. Numerous early Semitic sites have also been tested and not a single L283 sample has been discovered, M205 on the other hand has. While the Phoenicians did have multiple colonies in Mediterranean Europe, the regions which continuously had the most significant and profound Phoenician presence and influence were outside of Europe such as the North African coast and of course the Levant.

As for J2b-M205 in the ancient Italian Peninsula, samples R50 (135-244 CE) and R1283 (771-947 CE) from the paper on Rome were both under this group. The former was identified as J2b-M205>PF7321>Y134209 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Y134209/) sharing a TMRCA of ~3,000 ybp with a modern sample from the North Governorate of Lebanon and the latter has been classified as J2b-M205>PF7321 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-PF7321/).

I do agree that we need more ancient DNA from the Balkans, however the fact that J2b-L283 has been discovered in a Bronze Age culture that contributed to the formation of the Illyrians, has been discovered among the Daunians who belonged to the Illyrian continuum and shows extremely high diversity in the western Balkans does create a very solid foundation for a theory connecting the group to the Illyrians.

ShpataEMadhe
09-03-2021, 03:47 PM
I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself. The J2b-L283 samples found in the Balkans (such as MOK15, I4331) predate any Phoenician colonies, which is evident by the maps you posted yourself.

I see user Kelmendasi already took you to school, but you choose to believe your own predetermined and unsubstantiated theories.

They predate illyrians too, please leave personal bias out of this until we get concrete evidence. How do you explain the j2b appearing in places like algeria, portugal and italy from 1700bc-1300bc? This looks clearly a pre illyrian line

Also, kelmendasi above has just pointed out that earliest j2b m205 in italy is from 200AD - italy should have much earlier phoenician lines that m205 is currently not supporting

Trojet
09-03-2021, 03:53 PM
They predate illyrians too, please leave personal bias out of this until we get concrete evidence. How do you explain the j2b appearing in places like algeria, portugal and italy from 1700bc-1300bc? This looms clearly a pre illyrian line

What bias are you talking about?

There is no ancient J2b-L283 from any of those places in those time periods. So, please stop spreading disinformation and derailing this thread!

Furthermore, the Phoenicians would have to have J2b-L283 in order to spread it. There is zero ancient J2b-L283 from the Levant/Middle East.

ShpataEMadhe
09-03-2021, 03:59 PM
What bias are you talking about?

There is no ancient J2b-L283 from any of those places in those time periods. So, please stop spreading disinformation and derailing this thread!

Furthermore, the Phoenicians would have to have J2b-L283 in order to spread it. There is zero ancient J2b-L283 from the Levant/Middle East.

What would an l283 be doing all the way in portugal and algeria if was directly related to illyrians? Go look at yfull for tmrca

How do we explain the lack of l283 in greece where illyrians had influence?

Riverman
09-03-2021, 04:03 PM
They predate illyrians too, please leave personal bias out of this until we get concrete evidence. How do you explain the j2b appearing in places like algeria, portugal and italy from 1700bc-1300bc? This looks clearly a pre illyrian line

Also, kelmendasi above has just pointed out that earliest j2b m205 in italy is from 200AD - italy should have much earlier phoenician lines that m205 is currently not supporting

I think you have to learn to differentiate between TMRCA and actual movements of people. The TMRCA just tells you, if its accurate to begin with, when a branching event took place, when a lineage split. It doesn't tell you where, it doesn't tell you when the people actually left the common tribe. Like two lineages could still be neighbours in the same village for 1.000 years before one decides to be a colonist in North Africa and the other goes to Italy. Now, in modern times, you have one in Italy and the other North Africa, but before that, they were for 1.000 years after the split still in the same home village in Croatia. Just as an example, food for thought.
Also, we do know how some J-L283 might have moved to the Near and North Africa early on, namely with the Sea People. Just recently I saw Daco-Thracian and Illyrian-Pannonian people with hats, including horned hats, on depictions, and they are practically of the same kind as some Sea People were depicted in Medinet Habu.
There can be no doubt that LBA migrants with Naue II swords participated in the movements to the East Mediterranean. So even if you find a lineage of J-L283 in the Near East and North Africa, it might be from later movements from North. But let's assume, for a moment, that J2-L283 had ancestors which were related to Afro-Asiatic Near Easterners, which is possible. Let's talk about the time frame. The time in which this could have been the case predates everything we are talking about here. Because in the Bronze Age, presumably even in the Late Neolithic period, they were in South Eastern and possibly even Eastern Central Europe. This means for the debate about Illyrians, its completely irrelevant whether they came 2.000 or 3.000 years earlier with some kind of Afro-Asiatic Copper Age people, which is not the case anyway, but for the sake of an argument, because these are much later events.

ShpataEMadhe
09-03-2021, 04:08 PM
I think you have to learn to differentiate between TMRCA and actual movements of people. The TMRCA just tells you, if its accurate to begin with, when a branching event took place, when a lineage split. It doesn't tell you where, it doesn't tell you when the people actually left the common tribe. Like two lineages could still be neighbours in the same village for 1.000 years before one decides to be a colonist in North Africa and the other goes to Italy. Now, in modern times, you have one in Italy and the other North Africa, but before that, they were for 1.000 years after the split still in the same home village in Croatia. Just as an example, food for thought.
Also, we do know how some J-L283 might have moved to the Near and North Africa early on, namely with the Sea People. Just recently I saw Daco-Thracian and Illyrian-Pannonian people with hats, including horned hats, on depictions, and they are practically of the same kind as some Sea People were depicted in Medinet Habu.
There can be no doubt that LBA migrants with Naue II swords participated in the movements to the East Mediterranean. So even if you find a lineage of J-L283 in the Near East and North Africa, it might be from later movements from North. But let's assume, for a moment, that J2-L283 had ancestors which were related to Afro-Asiatic Near Easterners, which is possible. Let's talk about the time frame. The time in which this could have been the case predates everything we are talking about here. Because in the Bronze Age, presumably even in the Late Neolithic period, they were in South Eastern and possibly even Eastern Central Europe. This means for the debate about Illyrians, its completely irrelevant whether they came 2.000 or 3.000 years earlier with some kind of Afro-Asiatic Copper Age people, which is not the case anyway, but for the sake of an argument, because these are much later events.

Not sure what you mean by horned hats? Do you have a source for that? Only "illyrian" hat i know of is this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pileus_(hat)

This is what im talking about, illyrians and people who lived there before them had different cultures, different beliefs. The horned hat people likely had little to do with illyrians - if you had mentioned snakes thats a different story because they carried clear symbolism for snakes

rafc
09-03-2021, 04:14 PM
Just want to add that I can easily see how L283 would spread to Algeria and Portugal in Roman times.

vettor
09-03-2021, 04:20 PM
The samples you are referring to were not related to the Illyrians but rather belonged to the pre-Illyrian and even pre-Indo-European cultures of the area such as the Sopot culture and southern variation of the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture (successors of Neolithic males). The only published male sample obtained from Croatia that may have belonged to a culture that took part in the formation of the Illyrians is I4331 under J2b-Z38240 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z38240/) which likely was from the Posušje culture. Then there are the Daunian samples under J2b-L283, R1b-M269 and R1b-M269>Z2103.

You are typically deflecting the samples found ................G2a2 has been in the area for over 2000 years

here is the make up of the ydna and the age period

in the current 2 x croatian and italian papers which range in date from 4790BC to 300BC

there was found

6 x G2a2
3 x R1b
3 x J2b2
3 x I2d
1 x I1
1 x C1
1 x R1a


you can chi-chat about any of the branches and sub-branches as much as you like , but these are the ydna haplogroups

BTW, I do not see and E ydna

ShpataEMadhe
09-03-2021, 04:24 PM
Just want to add that I can easily see how L283 would spread to Algeria and Portugal in Roman times.

So since tmrca is useless we can make all sorts of theories until we wait for more ancient dna. L283 obviously could have spread with the romans but doesnt mean it came from illyrians since we dont have enough ancient dna. The l283 we have right now from ancient italy predates roman conquest of balkans

Riverman
09-03-2021, 04:30 PM
Not sure what you mean by horned hats? Do you have a source for that? Only "illyrian" hat i know of is this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pileus_(hat)

Horned hats and helmets appear in various contexts, and the typical flat hats appear in Eastern Hallstatt, Illyrian, Daco-Thracians and Greeks. The Pannonian-Illyrian groups had also some kind of bull-cult. On Eastern Hallstatt situla-art appear leaders with the same flat hats or helmets like others, but with horns.

Note that the Geto-Thracian groups appear in the same gear as Scythians, but with a flat hat like in Eastern Hallstatt, Illyrians and Greeks, here p. 16 - according to the author, the Persians called the Thracians "Skudra":
https://www.academia.edu/35966841/_Von_Thrakern_und_Kelten_Kontakte_und_Austausch_zw ischen_fr%C3%BChen_Thrakern_und_dem_%C3%B6stlichen _Hallstattkreis

Eastern Hallstatt elites wore both flat hats like Illyrians, Greeks, some Thracians, but also Phrygian like hats, like Geto-Scythians, Scythians and some Thracians. Image 24a on page 91 shows the leader or priest with a horned hat:
https://rcin.org.pl/Content/67443/WA308_87448_PIII149_Motiv-und-Symbol-als_I.pdf

Note the horned hats and helmets of some Sea Peoples warrior, probably their leaders for comparison:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Djahy#/media/File:Pulasti_(Philistine)_and_Tsakkaras_(painting) .png

And that's not the only thing pointing to a Sea Peoples connection of the Balkan groups.

The situla art is very remarkable, it shows the strong Mediterranean-Geek ties, as well as those to the Eastern, Cimmerian and Scythian groups, Basarabi anyway, which were very close. Its still very different from later La Tene, which however got in some respects even more of the Geto-Scythian influence (trousers, heavy cavalry, horse cult, animal style, bent weapons) after a time of war and upheaval.

vettor
09-03-2021, 04:31 PM
The samples you are referring to were not related to the Illyrians but rather belonged to the pre-Illyrian and even pre-Indo-European cultures of the area such as the Sopot culture and southern variation of the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture (successors of Neolithic males). The only published male sample obtained from Croatia that may have belonged to a culture that took part in the formation of the Illyrians is I4331 under J2b-Z38240 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z38240/) which likely was from the Posušje culture. Then there are the Daunian samples under J2b-L283, R1b-M269 and R1b-M269>Z2103.

you left out this paper below

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-94932-9


the second of the Croatian/Dalmatian papers of August

vettor
09-03-2021, 04:35 PM
So since tmrca is useless we can make all sorts of theories until we wait for more ancient dna. L283 obviously could have spread with the romans but doesnt mean it came from illyrians since we dont have enough ancient dna. The l283 we have right now from ancient italy predates roman conquest of balkans

J-L283 origins is the north caucasus

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

ShpataEMadhe
09-03-2021, 04:49 PM
Horned hats and helmets appear in various contexts, and the typical flat hats appear in Eastern Hallstatt, Illyrian, Daco-Thracians and Greeks. The Pannonian-Illyrian groups had also some kind of bull-cult. On Eastern Hallstatt situla-art appear leaders with the same flat hats or helmets like others, but with horns.

Note that the Geto-Thracian groups appear in the same gear as Scythians, but with a flat hat like in Eastern Hallstatt, Illyrians and Greeks, here p. 16 - according to the author, the Persians called the Thracians "Skudra":
https://www.academia.edu/35966841/_Von_Thrakern_und_Kelten_Kontakte_und_Austausch_zw ischen_fr%C3%BChen_Thrakern_und_dem_%C3%B6stlichen _Hallstattkreis

Eastern Hallstatt elites wore both flat hats like Illyrians, Greeks, some Thracians, but also Phrygian like hats, like Geto-Scythians, Scythians and some Thracians. Image 24a on page 91 shows the leader or priest with a horned hat:
https://rcin.org.pl/Content/67443/WA308_87448_PIII149_Motiv-und-Symbol-als_I.pdf

Note the horned hats and helmets of some Sea Peoples warrior, probably their leaders for comparison:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Djahy#/media/File:Pulasti_(Philistine)_and_Tsakkaras_(painting) .png

And that's not the only thing pointing to a Sea Peoples connection of the Balkan groups.

The situla art is very remarkable, it shows the strong Mediterranean-Geek ties, as well as those to the Eastern, Cimmerian and Scythian groups, Basarabi anyway, which were very close. Its still very different from later La Tene, which however got in some respects even more of the Geto-Scythian influence (trousers, heavy cavalry, horse cult, animal style, bent weapons) after a time of war and upheaval.

I cant read german as nice as it would be. Other than that you havent provided any evidence linking illyrians to horned hats. It is obvious that thracians were scythian influenced and you will find genetic ties too

However you cant group everything together. For example, thracians had no interest in snake symbolism whereas illyrians did. The pileus hat shows a clear cultural unity between south illyrians and greeks with no mention of thracians, you must be referring to a completely different kind of hat such as this

46382

Trojet
09-03-2021, 04:50 PM
You are typically deflecting the samples found ................G2a2 has been in the area for over 2000 years

here is the make up of the ydna and the age period

in the current 2 x croatian and italian papers which range in date from 4790BC to 300BC

there was found

6 x G2a2
3 x R1b
3 x J2b2
3 x I2d
1 x I1
1 x C1
1 x R1a


you can chi-chat about any of the branches and sub-branches as much as you like , but these are the ydna haplogroups

BTW, I do not see and E ydna

Just LOL, you include all these Neolithic samples from Croatia and around, yet you exclude I3948, Croatia_Cardial_Neolithic: E1b-L618 (source (https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fnature25778/MediaObjects/41586_2018_BFnature25778_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx)), who btw lived in the same location as the C1 sample you seem to bring up.

ShpataEMadhe
09-03-2021, 04:52 PM
J-L283 origins is the north caucasus

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

Yes, we know that. Whats that got to do with it being in italy pre roman balkan conquests?

ShpataEMadhe
09-03-2021, 04:55 PM
You are typically deflecting the samples found ................G2a2 has been in the area for over 2000 years

here is the make up of the ydna and the age period

in the current 2 x croatian and italian papers which range in date from 4790BC to 300BC

there was found

6 x G2a2
3 x R1b
3 x J2b2
3 x I2d
1 x I1
1 x C1
1 x R1a


you can chi-chat about any of the branches and sub-branches as much as you like , but these are the ydna haplogroups

BTW, I do not see and E ydna

Interesting, do you have rough dates on each of those samples? The most important thing is always the date

Trojet
09-03-2021, 04:58 PM
J-L283 origins is the north caucasus

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


Yes, we know that. Whats that got to do with it being in italy pre roman balkan conquests?

No, we do not know that yet for J-L283. The ancient KDC001 (https://yfull.com/tree/J-L283/) is too young to "prove" an origin in the North Caucasus. Anyway, it's likely somewhere around the Black Sea.

vettor
09-03-2021, 05:01 PM
Just LOL, you include all these Neolithic samples from Croatia and around, yet you exclude I3948, Croatia_Cardial_Neolithic: E1b-L618 (source (https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fnature25778/MediaObjects/41586_2018_BFnature25778_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx)), who btw lived in the same location as the C1 sample you seem to bring up.

you are correct....missed it
I3948
mtDNA: N1a1
Y-DNA: E1b1b1a1b1
6400-5500 BCE


I left out many from the area which was not in the 2 papers...like

I5072
mtDNA: H7c
Y-DNA: G2a2a1
Impressa, 5700-5550 calBCE


I3313
mtDNA: HV0e
Bronze Age, 1500-900 BCE


I3433
mtDNA: H1


I3947
mtDNA: K1b1a
Y-DNA: C1a2
6400-5500 BCE


I4331
mtDNA: I1a1
Y-DNA: J2b2a


I4332
mtDNA: W3a1


I1875
mtDNA: U5b2b
7308-7027 calBCE


But the numbers are the same with 1 x E added

Kelmendasi
09-03-2021, 05:08 PM
you left out this paper below

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-94932-9


the second of the Croatian/Dalmatian papers of August
No, the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture samples that I mentioned were published in this study. You continuously mix up time periods and cultures, the G2a samples are all from Neolithic cultures or Bronze Age cultures that were the successors of those Neolithic groups. They are completely unrelated to the Illyrians that formed in the western Balkans later from different sources.

vettor
09-03-2021, 05:10 PM
No, we do not know that yet for J-L283. The ancient KDC001 is too young to suggest an origin in the Caucasus. Anyway, it's likely somewhere around the Black Sea.

you are fishing ............the daunian paper has your J-L283

and the latest paper does not........it has

1879–1642 calBCE K2a G2a2a1a2a2a1 ~ 


1800–1600 BCE
T2b11 G2a2a1a2a2a1 ~ 
U5b1b1a G2a2a1a2a2a1 ~ 
U2e1a1 G2a2a1a2a2a1 



Jagodnjak-Krčevine Middle Bronze Age Southern Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery Culture
1800–1600 BCE T2b11 G2a2a1a2a2a1


4790–4558 calBCE
U5b2b I2a2a
K1a1a I2a2a
T2b11 G2a2a


4603–4071 BCE
K1a1 G2a2b2a1a1


4584–4458 calBCE
J2b1a5 C1a2b


4700–4300 BCE
H G2a2a

vettor
09-03-2021, 05:12 PM
No, the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture samples that I mentioned were published in this study. You continuously mix up time periods and cultures, the G2a samples are all from Neolithic cultures or Bronze Age cultures that were the successors of those Neolithic groups. They are completely unrelated to the Illyrians that formed in the western Balkans later from different sources.

see post 1025

vettor
09-03-2021, 05:14 PM
Interesting, do you have rough dates on each of those samples? The most important thing is always the date

see post 1025

all from croatian/Dalmatian area ....from istria to Split

vettor
09-03-2021, 05:17 PM
No, the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery culture samples that I mentioned were published in this study. You continuously mix up time periods and cultures, the G2a samples are all from Neolithic cultures or Bronze Age cultures that were the successors of those Neolithic groups. They are completely unrelated to the Illyrians that formed in the western Balkans later from different sources.

what is the Illyrian period for you ?

Aspar
09-03-2021, 05:18 PM
Not sure what you mean by horned hats? Do you have a source for that? Only "illyrian" hat i know of is this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pileus_(hat)

This is what im talking about, illyrians and people who lived there before them had different cultures, different beliefs. The horned hat people likely had little to do with illyrians - if you had mentioned snakes thats a different story because they carried clear symbolism for snakes

Funny thing, the Pileus was an ancient Greek cap, not an Illyrian one. The Illyrians wearing these kind of caps I believe was invented because of the Albanian felt cap that to some looked similar to the Pileus.

Otherwise, images of Illyrians such as the one where Gentius is depicted on a coin show that the Illyrians wore caps similar to the Macedonian "Shield" cap:
https://i.postimg.cc/2jvHqc2w/Gentius.jpg (https://postimages.org/)
https://i.postimg.cc/PfRwjTmV/Scudra.png (https://postimages.org/)

These are also very similar to the hats of the "Sea People" as depicted in the Battle of Djahy by the way.

Interestingly enough, the Albanian felt cap in this case resembles more the cap worn by the "Scudra" or the Thracian as some think although the Greeks regularly depicted the Thracians and Paeonians wearing the Phrygian cap instead:
https://i.postimg.cc/0Qpc4nXx/Phrygian-cap.jpg (https://postimg.cc/G8mF8F1S)

The Pileus on the other hand is the classical ancient Greek cap which is more convex and protruding than the Macedonian "Shield" cap.

Kelmendasi
09-03-2021, 05:21 PM
Also, kelmendasi above has just pointed out that earliest j2b m205 in italy is from 200AD - italy should have much earlier phoenician lines that m205 is currently not supporting
Sample R50 is from the period of Roman imperialism, the period in which we should expect a decent amount of input from the eastern Mediterranean (Levant in this case) to have entered the city. There is also the simple fact that those earlier samples with Phoenician patrilineal ancestry have not been uncovered or tested yet.

It is pretty clear that J2b-M205 did expand with the Proto-Semites and also later Canaanite groups such as the Phoenicians. On top of continuously being discovered alongside J1-Z2331 which we know for certain was among the Proto-Semites by the look of things (evidence is even more convincing than for J2b-M205), J2b-M205 has been discovered in Early Bronze Age sites directly connected to these early Semitic groups such as 'Ain Ghazal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CA%BFAin_Ghazal), Tel Megiddo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Megiddo) and Tel Yehud (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yehud). It has then been discovered in sites from Sidon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidon) to Alalakh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alalakh) and a few more. All showing clear connections to the movement of Semitic-speaking groups throughout history. There is also the burden of proof on your behalf to provide convincing evidence for a Phoenician or Semitic expansion of J2b-L283.

Riverman
09-03-2021, 05:39 PM
I cant read german as nice as it would be. Other than that you havent provided any evidence linking illyrians to horned hats. It is obvious that thracians were scythian influenced and you will find genetic ties too

However you cant group everything together. For example, thracians had no interest in snake symbolism whereas illyrians did. The pileus hat shows a clear cultural unity between south illyrians and greeks with no mention of thracians, you must be referring to a completely different kind of hat such as this


The bull cult wasn't spread throughout the whole zone either, but rather restricted to the Pannonian-Illyrian-Thracian mixed Eastern Hallstatt zone. Well, the Phrygian hats were similar but not exactly the same as the Scythian hats:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrygian_cap

The Phrygian, Pileus and other similar hats had fluent borders. That's exactly what you see in the paper I linked. Even if you can't read German, you can see the depictions from the situla art from Eastern Hallstatt, they show all these types of hats, including wider ones, common in Greek, side by side.

Kelmendasi
09-03-2021, 05:48 PM
Funny thing, the Pileus was an ancient Greek cap, not an Illyrian one. The Illyrians wearing these kind of caps I believe was invented because of the Albanian felt cap that to some looked similar to the Pileus.

Otherwise, images of Illyrians such as the one where Gentius is depicted on a coin show that the Illyrians wore caps similar to the Macedonian "Shield" cap
From Aleksandar Stipčević's The Illyrians: History and Culture surrounding the caps worn by the Illyrians:

From among the various caps that the Illyrians wore, one can distinguish four different types. On the monument from Zenica one can see the more common type of skullcap. Fundamentally it does not differ from the present-day small, white Albanian fez known as qeleshe. It is generally agreed, and rightly so, that the modern Albanian cap originates directly from the similar cap worn by the Illyrians. Another type of cap is a conical leather one, resembling the modern fur cap or šubara. There is a relief from Gardun near Sinj, on which a captive wears such a fur cap. The third type is shaped like a skullcap worn only by soldiers, because it is found exclusively on those Roman monuments on which Illyrians were represented as captives (Gemma Augustea, a relief from Gardun, etc.)-if, of course, the Roman artist author of the monument has not somewhat stylized it. The samples of the caps - worn mostly by womenfolk - discovered in the necropolises of the Iapodes tribe in Lika (Kompolje, Prozor, Smiljan and Vrebac) very probably do not belong to any of the above-mentioned types. These are also shaped like skullcaps and are made either of cloth or of leather; they are embellished with a large number of small bronze discs and even occasionally with more massive twisted torques. In shape they resemble the cranium-shaped helmets found in some necropolises of Slovenia but were made in a completely different way, their function being entirely different.

Personally I do think there is a connection between the traditional Albanian skull-cap usually referred to as the qeleshe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qeleshe) and the pileus, the former is also referred to as plis (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/plis#Albanian) which I believe shows linguistic similarities with the name of the latter.

Aspar
09-03-2021, 06:31 PM
From Aleksandar Stipčević's The Illyrians: History and Culture surrounding the caps worn by the Illyrians:

From among the various caps that the Illyrians wore, one can distinguish four different types. On the monument from Zenica one can see the more common type of skullcap. Fundamentally it does not differ from the present-day small, white Albanian fez known as qeleshe. It is generally agreed, and rightly so, that the modern Albanian cap originates directly from the similar cap worn by the Illyrians. Another type of cap is a conical leather one, resembling the modern fur cap or šubara. There is a relief from Gardun near Sinj, on which a captive wears such a fur cap. The third type is shaped like a skullcap worn only by soldiers, because it is found exclusively on those Roman monuments on which Illyrians were represented as captives (Gemma Augustea, a relief from Gardun, etc.)-if, of course, the Roman artist author of the monument has not somewhat stylized it. The samples of the caps - worn mostly by womenfolk - discovered in the necropolises of the Iapodes tribe in Lika (Kompolje, Prozor, Smiljan and Vrebac) very probably do not belong to any of the above-mentioned types. These are also shaped like skullcaps and are made either of cloth or of leather; they are embellished with a large number of small bronze discs and even occasionally with more massive twisted torques. In shape they resemble the cranium-shaped helmets found in some necropolises of Slovenia but were made in a completely different way, their function being entirely different.

Personally I do think there is a connection between the traditional Albanian skull-cap usually referred to as the qeleshe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qeleshe) and the pileus, the former is also referred to as plis (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/plis#Albanian) which I believe shows linguistic similarities with the name of the latter.

I've tried to look into what that Zenica monument might represent and I found this:
https://i.postimg.cc/ydKPpYbF/Screenshot-20210903-191100-Drive.jpg (https://postimg.cc/B8hHXss6)

It seems to be a tomb relief dating from the 4th century AD. It represents an Illyrian group called Daesitiates which were of the Pannonian group of Illyrians. Not the core Illyrians such as Labaetae which Illyrian King Gentius stems from. And I believe many among them R. Katicic argued these Pannonian Illyrians were different than the southern ones.

Nevertheless, I find it remarkable how similar is the cap worn by Gentius and the Macedonian "Kausia":
https://i.postimg.cc/4dbG75Mp/Antialcidas-Indo-Greek-coin.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

ShpataEMadhe
09-03-2021, 08:03 PM
you are fishing ............the daunian paper has your J-L283

and the latest paper does not........it has

1879–1642 calBCE K2a G2a2a1a2a2a1 ~ 


1800–1600 BCE
T2b11 G2a2a1a2a2a1 ~ 
U5b1b1a G2a2a1a2a2a1 ~ 
U2e1a1 G2a2a1a2a2a1 



Jagodnjak-Krčevine Middle Bronze Age Southern Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery Culture
1800–1600 BCE T2b11 G2a2a1a2a2a1


4790–4558 calBCE
U5b2b I2a2a
K1a1a I2a2a
T2b11 G2a2a


4603–4071 BCE
K1a1 G2a2b2a1a1


4584–4458 calBCE
J2b1a5 C1a2b


4700–4300 BCE
H G2a2a

These dates are simply too early to be linked with illyrians, illyrians likely wiped these people out when they invaded western balkans or at least made them irrelevant

Also dont greeks carry some of these? Could be illyrians pushed them south

ShpataEMadhe
09-03-2021, 08:07 PM
Funny thing, the Pileus was an ancient Greek cap, not an Illyrian one. The Illyrians wearing these kind of caps I believe was invented because of the Albanian felt cap that to some looked similar to the Pileus.

Otherwise, images of Illyrians such as the one where Gentius is depicted on a coin show that the Illyrians wore caps similar to the Macedonian "Shield" cap:
https://i.postimg.cc/2jvHqc2w/Gentius.jpg (https://postimages.org/)
https://i.postimg.cc/PfRwjTmV/Scudra.png (https://postimages.org/)

These are also very similar to the hats of the "Sea People" as depicted in the Battle of Djahy by the way.

Interestingly enough, the Albanian felt cap in this case resembles more the cap worn by the "Scudra" or the Thracian as some think although the Greeks regularly depicted the Thracians and Paeonians wearing the Phrygian cap instead:
https://i.postimg.cc/0Qpc4nXx/Phrygian-cap.jpg (https://postimg.cc/G8mF8F1S)

The Pileus on the other hand is the classical ancient Greek cap which is more convex and protruding than the Macedonian "Shield" cap.

The thracian hat looks completely unrelated to the pileus or the modern albanian hat, i dont know what youre on about really.

Also, which were the first greeks to wear the pileus? Dont forget the dorian invasion from the north had an impact on greeks and we arent sure if dorians were illyrian or half illyrian/thracian/or some other proto european

Riverman
09-03-2021, 08:55 PM
Looking at the depictions of Eastern Hallstatt people, which they made themselves, or those of Thracians, by themselves and others, one question is whether a specific type of hat had any big importance. I would guess so, but which one in a given context? If on the Eastern Hallstatt situla people with a whole range of hats appear, is that ethnic? They had multi-ethnic communities in which Pannonian Illyrians, Pre-Celts, Daco-Thracians, Greeks and Scythians could live side by side. Was it social, a sign of rank? It seems to on some, less so on other images. In any case we see these hats, which appear in Thracians, Illyrians and Greeks in the Sea People.
The typical flat hat of the Illyrians and those of the Macedonians were also worn in Eastern Hallstatt and among the Thracians. And the connections goes deeper than that, because there was intensive trade and communication between these groups. Some even speculated that the citizen poleis of Greece inspired some of the Hallstatt communtieis to rebel against their royal and aristocratic elite, especially once the economic and military crisis became rampant. Looking at some Hallstatt remains, this is not far fetched. In some areas the princely palaces and religious buildings were burnt down, the religious objects destroyed. In some cases it looks like an inside job.
One thing which did distinguish Eastern Hallsttt for quite a long time from other groups was that they shaved both their heads and faces. Thracians on the other hand seem to have worn beards and longer head hair. Illyrians to the South seem to vary, what's your take on that? Gentius looks like he was shaven.
Greeks never shaved their head hair as far as I know, making this a genuinely Eastern Hallstatt fashion.

The break and shift towards La Tene was in many respects very drastic and revolutionary. And in many Eastern Hallstatt regions there was little continuity to later Celts, in some they seem to have transformed and integrated the locals when coming from the West, like in Noric group.

vettor
09-03-2021, 09:16 PM
Looking at the depictions of Eastern Hallstatt people, which they made themselves, or those of Thracians, by themselves and others, one question is whether a specific type of hat had any big importance. I would guess so, but which one in a given context? If on the Eastern Hallstatt situla people with a whole range of hats appear, is that ethnic? They had multi-ethnic communities in which Pannonian Illyrians, Pre-Celts, Daco-Thracians, Greeks and Scythians could live side by side. Was it social, a sign of rank? It seems to on some, less so on other images. In any case we see these hats, which appear in Thracians, Illyrians and Greeks in the Sea People.
The typical flat hat of the Illyrians and those of the Macedonians were also worn in Eastern Hallstatt and among the Thracians. And the connections goes deeper than that, because there was intensive trade and communication between these groups. Some even speculated that the citizen poleis of Greece inspired some of the Hallstatt communtieis to rebel against their royal and aristocratic elite, especially once the economic and military crisis became rampant. Looking at some Hallstatt remains, this is not far fetched. In some areas the princely palaces and religious buildings were burnt down, the religious objects destroyed. In some cases it looks like an inside job.
One thing which did distinguish Eastern Hallsttt for quite a long time from other groups was that they shaved both their heads and faces. Thracians on the other hand seem to have worn beards and longer head hair. Illyrians to the South seem to vary, what's your take on that? Gentius looks like he was shaven.
Greeks never shaved their head hair as far as I know, making this a genuinely Eastern Hallstatt fashion.

The break and shift towards La Tene was in many respects very drastic and revolutionary. And in many Eastern Hallstatt regions there was little continuity to later Celts, in some they seem to have transformed and integrated the locals when coming from the West, like in Noric group.

venetic also had a flat hat

http://www.paabo.ca/uirala/ARTICLES/veneticpopevisit.html

dosas
09-03-2021, 09:16 PM
Α bit of an off-topic but itching to ask you, guys, of this question.

Where does exactly the fascination with the Doric speaking groups stem from? We're talking about a relatively under-achieving group that left very little behind, in terms of art, science, literature, etc. At the height of their military prowess, when they defeated the real representatives of the Greek Classical world, ie the Ionic/Attic groups (Peloponnese war, Macedonian expansion) all they could manage was to proceed to be linguistically annihilated and end up carriers of the Ionic culture/language into the Hellenistic Era.

So, what gives? What's the big deal about a group that willingly got appropriated and became part of their (defeated) mortal enemy's tradition/culture?

Kelmendasi
09-03-2021, 10:03 PM
Illyrians to the South seem to vary, what's your take on that? Gentius looks like he was shaven.
From Stipčević's aforementioned book:

To judge from the above-mentioned images on local monuments, non-Romanized and semi-Romanized Illyrians did not shave their beards. It seems, however, that the custom of wearing beards was not practised by all Illyrians, or at least not to the same degree in prehistoric times, or even later during the time of Roman occupation. For them the findings of bronze shaving knives in Slovenia, northern Bosnia, and along the Adriatic littoral, which date from the Bronze and early Iron Age, it appears that at that period the Illyrians in these areas were clean shaven. During the Roman era the Romanized Illyrians (i.e. those living in towns or in military camps all over the far flung Roman provinces) followed the fashion of Rome in this respect at any given time

Riverman
09-03-2021, 10:53 PM
venetic also had a flat hat

http://www.paabo.ca/uirala/ARTICLES/veneticpopevisit.html

The scene, man and woman, is an exact copy of what we have from Eastern Hallstatt. Completely the same, from the way the artist depicted them, to the kind of posture they had, to the clothes and details. Could be a scene from Hallstatt Austria.

Concerning the Eastern Hallstatt beards and hair: They were really completely shaven, having a bald head. That's really exceptional in the context of Europe. In Northern Eurasia some steppe groups even had clean shaven females, but that's another story, like the artificial deformation. But in Hallstatt all males were completely shaven, not just beard but head also, which kind of sticks out.

ShpataEMadhe
09-04-2021, 01:55 PM
Α bit of an off-topic but itching to ask you, guys, of this question.

Where does exactly the fascination with the Doric speaking groups stem from? We're talking about a relatively under-achieving group that left very little behind, in terms of art, science, literature, etc. At the height of their military prowess, when they defeated the real representatives of the Greek Classical world, ie the Ionic/Attic groups (Peloponnese war, Macedonian expansion) all they could manage was to proceed to be linguistically annihilated and end up carriers of the Ionic culture/language into the Hellenistic Era.

So, what gives? What's the big deal about a group that willingly got appropriated and became part of their (defeated) mortal enemy's tradition/culture?

I dont think people are impressed with dorians for being nice people but at what they managed to do so quickly. Reasons why they didnt overthrow the greek language is either because they never became the majority since they moved about and spread destruction across pretty much all of ancient greece. Another theory is that after their invasion of greece they returned back north where they came from so didnt leave too much influence behind. Though it is reported some settled in crete and the sfakian tribe today still claim to be related to dorians

"The scholars were now faced with the conundrum of an invasion at 1200 but a resettlement at 950. One explanation is that the destruction of 1200 was not caused by them, and that the quasi-mythical return of the Heracleidae is to be associated with settlement at Sparta c. 950. On the one hand, it is possible that the destruction of the Mycenaean centres was caused by the wandering of northern people (Dorian migration): destroying the palace of Iolcos (LH III C-1), the palace of Thebes ( late LH III B), then crossing Isthmus of Corinth (end of LH III B) and destroying Mycenae, Tiryns and Pylos, and finally returning northward. However, Pylos was destroyed by a sea-attack, the invaders didn't leave behind traces of weapons or graves, and it cannot be proved that all the sites were destroyed about the same time.[34] It is also possible that the Doric clans moved southward gradually over a number of years, devastating the territory, until they managed to establish themselves in the Mycenaean centres."

The dates of these events are close to the "illyrian" settlement in western balkans. It could be after pushing thracians east these illyrians/dorians (if related) travelled south in search for more conflict/loot as they seemed quite barbaric

"The historical facts are that the Dorians most likely came from northern and northwestern Greece, which were the regions of Macedonia and Epirus. They traveled southward into central Greece. At the end of the Bronze Age, about 1100 BCE, they began several migrations to the southern Aegean area of Greece.

These invaders weren’t cultured compared to the four tribes of Ionian Greeks who were living in Greece at that time. The Dorian tribes, Hylleis, Pamphyloi, and Dymanes, could be identified by their strong dialect and their burning desire for war. In fact, their major invention was a sword made of iron and meant for slashing."

dosas
09-04-2021, 02:09 PM
snip


Interesting approach, thanks for your answer.

You must know, by now, though, that the Dorics do not exist archaeologically outside the Mycenean world, right? That it's mostly turned into a fringe theory among academic scholars, specifically the 'invasion from the North' type that keeps being regurgitated on some internet spaces by certain types.

Check the take of one of the most established scholars on the subject of Bronze Age antiquity:


https://youtu.be/fQ2gT9HQy7Q

ShpataEMadhe
09-04-2021, 02:32 PM
Interesting approach, thanks for your answer.

You must know, by now, though, that the Dorics do not exist archaeologically outside the Mycenean world, right? That it's mostly turned into a fringe theory among academic scholars, specifically the 'invasion from the North' type that keeps being regurgitated on some internet spaces by certain types.

Check the take of one of the most established scholars on the subject of Bronze Age antiquity:


https://youtu.be/fQ2gT9HQy7Q

They dont exist archaelogically in what sense? Prior to 1100bc? If they came from the north they wouldnt have been there for long because illyrians had just arrived - so archaelogically it will be difficult to find anything on dorians if they merged with ancient greek culture straight away and became assimilated over the next hundred years

How do you explain the dorians having a completely new strong dialect to ancient greeks? They were obviously unrelated to the people who lived there as new migrants, if dorians werent related to illyrians they may have come from different directions as the "sea peoples"

46394

dosas
09-04-2021, 02:53 PM
How do you explain the dorians having a completely new strong dialect to ancient greeks? They were obviously unrelated to the people who lived there, if dorians werent related to illyrians they may have come from different directions as the "sea peoples"

46394


I am not sure I am following, all dialects are derivatives of Bronze Age Greek and related to each other, Ionic, Doric, Aeolic, etc. There's nothing particularly alien to Doric specifically in order to assign it foreign invader status.

Dr. Eric Cline, in the video, explains that the term 'invasion' would require archeological findings outside the Mycenean world, indicating a foreign material culture, such findings do not exist and as such he rejects the term.

The Sea People option is there, he also admits to that, but assigning "Northern" ancestry to them is also a fringe possibility as the consensus is that they consist of a collection of East Med groups of the time (not wanting to delve too much into it as it'd probably spark other arguments).

"Northern Barbarian" Dorics invading the Mycenean world is largely a 19th century Madison Grant rambling about 'Aryan invasions' and is mostly laughed at by modern academia (and for good reason).

Riverman
09-04-2021, 08:19 PM
I am not sure I am following, all dialects are derivatives of Bronze Age Greek and related to each other, Ionic, Doric, Aeolic, etc. There's nothing particularly alien to Doric specifically in order to assign it foreign invader status.

Dr. Eric Cline, in the video, explains that the term 'invasion' would require archeological findings outside the Mycenean world, indicating a foreign material culture, such findings do not exist and as such he rejects the term.

The Sea People option is there, he also admits to that, but assigning "Northern" ancestry to them is also a fringe possibility as the consensus is that they consist of a collection of East Med groups of the time (not wanting to delve too much into it as it'd probably spark other arguments).

"Northern Barbarian" Dorics invading the Mycenean world is largely a 19th century Madison Grant rambling about 'Aryan invasions' and is mostly laughed at by modern academia (and for good reason).

The problem is that what some scholars today say is just the reaction to the extremes from the other side some decades earlier, but no more realistic because of the still rampant "pots not people" dogma. We know from various sources, archaeological and historical accounts, that the movement of people from the relative North is real. Take for examle Naue II swords which appear as far as the Levante and can be clearly connected to regions to the North of Greece. The same applies to various other features of the Sea Peoples. They seem to have been no single-ethnic group, but an alliance of tribes and warbands, of which some were of more Northern descent, related e.g. to Illyrians and Thracians respectively.
We also know that the Barbarian Ware and Northern influences appeared in Mycenaean Greece before the collapse. Quite similar to Western steppe people in Tripolye Cucuteni or Germanics in the Roman Empire, migrant groups, mercenaries, traders, even workers and artisans seem to have preceded the collapse. This could either mean that there was an uprising of this foreign class, or even more likely, their Northern tribal brethren got word from the riches and potential of the South and they were conquered from both within and outside the same time, having to retreat to areas more safe. In the course of this, one group pushed the other, which means that the most fringe Sea People, which made it the furthest, consisted of more East Mediterranean ethnicities, while those which initiated the wave-like migration period were more Northern (Thracian and Illyrian respectively).
Dorians seem to have been a mix of Northern Greek tribes outside of the Mycenaean states with influences and admixture from those Thraco-Illyrian groups. The appearance of complete burial grounds with clearly Channelled Ware related graves dates to the transitional period. So regardless of earlier migrants, whole groups came in, deep into Greece, at exactly the time of the collapse. Who they were exactly and who were the later Dorians, this is hard to answer. But the North -> South movement which initiated the spread of Doric which replaced other, older Greek tribal formations, is without doubt.

dosas
09-05-2021, 05:07 AM
Challenging established academics as extreme w/o proper proof or referencing is not very good form, but everyone is entitled to their opinion, even fans of Madison Grant's ideological labors.

I will refrain from digressing further.

DFSTFD
09-05-2021, 06:58 AM
I am not sure I am following, all dialects are derivatives of Bronze Age Greek and related to each other, Ionic, Doric, Aeolic, etc. There's nothing particularly alien to Doric specifically in order to assign it foreign invader status.

Dr. Eric Cline, in the video, explains that the term 'invasion' would require archeological findings outside the Mycenean world, indicating a foreign material culture, such findings do not exist and as such he rejects the term.

The Sea People option is there, he also admits to that, but assigning "Northern" ancestry to them is also a fringe possibility as the consensus is that they consist of a collection of East Med groups of the time (not wanting to delve too much into it as it'd probably spark other arguments).

"Northern Barbarian" Dorics invading the Mycenean world is largely a 19th century Madison Grant rambling about 'Aryan invasions' and is mostly laughed at by modern academia (and for good reason).

To take a somewhat different approach to Riverman's archaeologically-focused post, the dialectal division I'll refer to is one among others that have been considered by linguists but it seems plausible to me on a broad level and has been supported by quite a few: there's no need to assume West Greek (Doric proper + Northwest Greek) speakers were some far-flung group from almost central Europe or somesuch considering how close the historical Greek dialects seem to be to each other, but considering that Myceanean Greek looks more like an early East Greek dialect, rather than something "proto-Greek", and what the distribution of East vs West Greek dialects in historical times looks like, it's quite possible that early West Greeks inhabited the territory directly northwest of the Myceanean proper world, i.e. in present day northwest Greece, close to the likely proto-Greek (or at least "early common Greek") homeland and that they found the chance to invade more southern territory during the upheavals towards the end of the Late Helladic/Mycenaean period.

At least it's something that should be considered. I'm not sure I'd buy e.g. Chadwick's theory about Doric speakers being present in Mycenaean Greece but invisible due to low status.

Edit: Deleted a partial response to Riverman, he had already covered the issue in his post, I just misread part of it!

rafc
09-05-2021, 07:37 AM
To take a somewhat different approach to Riverman's archaeologically-focused post, the dialectal division I'll refer to is one among others that have been considered by linguists but it seems plausible to me on a broad level and has been supported by quite a few: there's no need to assume West Greek (Doric proper + Northwest Greek) speakers were some far-flung group from almost central Europe or somesuch considering how close the historical Greek dialects seem to be to each other, but considering that Myceanean Greek looks more like an early East Greek dialect, rather than something "proto-Greek", and what the distribution of East vs West Greek dialects in historical times looks like, it's quite possible that early West Greeks inhabited the territory directly northwest of the Myceanean proper world, i.e. in present day northwest Greece, close to the likely proto-Greek (or at least "early common Greek") homeland and that they found the chance to invade more southern territory during the upheavals towards the end of the Late Helladic/Mycenaean period.

At least it's something that should be considered. I'm not sure I'd buy e.g. Chadwick's theory about Doric speakers being present in Mycenaean Greece but invisible due to low status.

I think the original region where Doric speakers lived can even include regions directly north of current Greece. In antiquity Epirote dialects were spoken more northerly so the Greek speaking region would have already been bigger, but it also seems likely that if these Northwest-Greek speakers moved south it was because others were pushing them on in a domino movement. I would not be surprised if some areas north of Epirus and Macedonia were still speaking Northwest Greek (and/or Macedonian if you are of the opinion that it's not a Northwest Greek dialect) in the LBA period.

And to get back to the subject of the thread, I would think that it's mainly at this point that V13 (more specific the younger widespread clades like CTS9320) would have arrived at these regions north of Greece, being part of of the movement from the Carpathian bassin downwards. On the other hand I don't think it's very likely a lot of V13 made it as far as Greece at this moment, although I would expect some of it to have reached at least northern Greece in the LBA/EIA transition.

Riverman
09-05-2021, 11:23 AM
Challenging established academics as extreme w/o proper proof or referencing is not very good form, but everyone is entitled to their opinion, even fans of Madison Grant's ideological labors.

I will refrain from digressing further.

Its not like all academics have the same stance on the matter, you can pick your scientific voice as you wish. Because the archaeological and historical evidence is unambiguous, but still leaves interpretative space. Considering Madison Grant and stuff, the Dorians might have been, generally speaking, quite similar people to the Mycenaeans, they just lived to the North of the Myceneaan states, which still means modern Greece, largely. Its the Greeks, Thracians and Illyrians themselves which came from further North earlier. But the Dorians surely were not somewhere in Central Europe or even further up the North. Its "relative North" from the Greek perspective, like being invaded from Macedonia, not Sweden...
You should be aware of Macedonians and Epirotes living North of the classical Greeks too and Macedonians even playing a similar role in Philipp and Alexanders time. The Dorians are just likely to have been from the same stock, coming to Mycenaean Greece as small group migrants even before the collapse, together with other more Northern people of mainly Thracian, but also Illyrian stock. That's no fringe theory, but the result of some of the newest archaeological research done on the topic. I quoted it extensively for the so called "Barbarian Ware".
Such archaeological phenomeneons, as well as the introduction of Naue II and iron swords, urnfield cemeteries and Gava-related Channelled Ware and weapon hoards don't pop up just like that. Who they really were and what there ancestral profile looks exactly we don't know. My guess is that some early Mycenaean Greeks will be just as Northern shifted, probably even more, as they were. The results should come in with the next study on LBA Greeks.



And to get back to the subject of the thread, I would think that it's mainly at this point that V13 (more specific the younger widespread clades like CTS9320) would have arrived at these regions north of Greece, being part of of the movement from the Carpathian bassin downwards. On the other hand I don't think it's very likely a lot of V13 made it as far as Greece at this moment, although I would expect some of it to have reached at least northern Greece in the LBA/EIA transition.

Looking at the related graveyards, I'm pretty sure they made it to Greece and were not that small in numbers. But there are two remaining questions:
- How mixed were the incoming cremating groups. They could have been way more mixed than the later Basarabi and Psenichevo, also on the paternal side, from moving through the Central Balkan southward
- How much survived from the incoming elements. They could have been replaced by the locals later, since some of the groups lived side by side withe locals for a longer time. What happened then? Nobody really knows.

dosas
09-05-2021, 12:23 PM
Such archaeological phenomeneons, as well as the introduction of Naue II and iron swords, urnfield cemeteries and Gava-related Channelled Ware and weapon hoards don't pop up just like that. Who they really were and what there ancestral profile looks exactly we don't know. My guess is that some early Mycenaean Greeks will be just as Northern shifted, probably even more, as they were. The results should come in with the next study on LBA Greeks.



I don't want to argue anymore about this (ie, the academic consensus and how it's completely against your wall of texts), it is what it is, the "NE" cluster in the Serbian paper has already dealt a huge blow to a lot of your Nordicist fairy tales, even though a lot of you like to pretend it hasn't. As for the LBA Myceneans coming up, I agree, let's wait and see what the future holds, but I should warn you, though, a little birdie told me about their haplogroups, and how it will make Madison Grant/Nordicist advocates want to collectively /wrists.

Bruzmi
09-05-2021, 12:49 PM
To take a somewhat different approach to Riverman's archaeologically-focused post, the dialectal division I'll refer to is one among others that have been considered by linguists but it seems plausible to me on a broad level and has been supported by quite a few: there's no need to assume West Greek (Doric proper + Northwest Greek) speakers were some far-flung group from almost central Europe or somesuch considering how close the historical Greek dialects seem to be to each other, but considering that Myceanean Greek looks more like an early East Greek dialect, rather than something "proto-Greek", and what the distribution of East vs West Greek dialects in historical times looks like, it's quite possible that early West Greeks inhabited the territory directly northwest of the Myceanean proper world, i.e. in present day northwest Greece, close to the likely proto-Greek (or at least "early common Greek") homeland and that they found the chance to invade more southern territory during the upheavals towards the end of the Late Helladic/Mycenaean period.

At least it's something that should be considered. I'm not sure I'd buy e.g. Chadwick's theory about Doric speakers being present in Mycenaean Greece but invisible due to low status.

Edit: Deleted a partial response to Riverman, he had already covered the issue in his post, I just misread part of it!

It's not just something that should be considered. It's the only acceptable theory in linguistics and archaeology because there is nothing at all which makes Doric Greek ... non-Greek. It developed in close contact with other Greek dialects and its development shows these contacts. These dialects evolved both in contact and divergence on the Greek mainland, nowhere north of Macedonia proper. Richardo Janko (2013) has written an interesting chapter in Studies in Ancient Greek Dialects: From Central Greece to the Black Sea (https://books.google.com/books?id=XXFLDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT142) about Proto-Doric, Proto-Mycenaean, Proto-Aetolic

https://anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=45158&d=1623623305
https://anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=45157&d=1623622545

Riverman
09-05-2021, 12:52 PM
I don't want to argue anymore about this (ie, the academic consensus and how it's completely against your wall of texts), it is what it is, the "NE" cluster in the Serbian paper has already dealt a huge blow to a lot of your Nordicist fairy tales

What does a migration from the Carpathian basin to Northern Greece in the LBA-EIA has to do with "Nordicist fairy tales"? And my wall of text refers to new studies from the very archaeologists you claim they say otherwise. The Near Eastern cluster in the Serbian finds has absolutely nothing to do with the Dorians or Late Bronze Age migrations, including the Sea Peoples. I don't know why you suddenly start to attack mainstream observations in the archaeological context like that.


As for the LBA Myceneans coming up, I agree, let's wait and see what the future holds, but I should warn you, though, a little birdie told me about their haplogroups, and how it will make the Madison Grant/Nordicist advocates want to collectively /wrists.

We already know that the Proto-Greeks are supposed to come from a mixed CEE steppe-local group, just like the Channelled Ware people. Its not by chance that both have "unusual" haplogroups for steppe related migrations, because we're dealing with fused cultures and people in both the Proto-Thracian and Proto-Greek case. But that doesn't change the fact that the Proto-Greeks came relatively late from a more Central-Eastern European position with direct steppe influences (Catacomb + Babino). Nothing new for those looking at the archaeological record and how Greeks early on picked up chariots and horsemanship when coming in.

Why you constantly call names with "Madison Grant" and crap like that is beyond me. I thought you are more reasonable and talk about facts first.

Talking about facts, you probably know the thread, but I don't know whether you also know this post:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?16757-E-V13-entered-Greece-with-Illyrians-and-Dorian-invasions&p=757351&viewfull=1#post757351

From it, the most relevant parts:

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.


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 III

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

About Barbarain Ware:

It is claimed that this type of pottery is a product of the foreign population which entered the mainland after the collapse of the Mycenaean palaces. However, later evidence proved that this ceramic type was in use already from the Late Helladic IIIA period and continued to exist during the Dark Ages. The fact that it occurs in exactly the same form also in other countries, Albania, Roumania and Italy, leads to the assumption that this pottery is related with movement of population which had started several centuries before the decline of the Mycenaean power.

http://www.fhw.gr/chronos/02/mainland/en/mg/technology/pottery/index4.html

Barbarian Ware is therefore a signal of foreign ethnocultural migrants before and during the downfall of the Mycenaean states.

Channelled Ware people's connections to the Naue II sword production and distribution:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292397599_The_Dissemination_of_Naue_II_swords_-_a_Case_Study_on_Long-distance_Mobility

There are tons of archaeological papers dealing with these Late Bronze Age newcomers and intrusive elements, including Barbarian Ware which is supposed to represent Northern migrants. Please think twice before you accuse me of an ideologically driven argumentation if the facts are that obvious to anyone who opens his eyes. I'm not saying who the Dorians were in this context, because the archaeological remains have no label on them. Its even possible the Dorians formed from within the Myceneaean society, but with influences of these "Barbarians". But that's exactly were ancient DNA can help, with new data to age old debates which can't resolved with archaeological studies alone.

rafc
09-05-2021, 01:07 PM
Looking at the related graveyards, I'm pretty sure they made it to Greece and were not that small in numbers. But there are two remaining questions:
- How mixed were the incoming cremating groups. They could have been way more mixed than the later Basarabi and Psenichevo, also on the paternal side, from moving through the Central Balkan southward
- How much survived from the incoming elements. They could have been replaced by the locals later, since some of the groups lived side by side withe locals for a longer time. What happened then? Nobody really knows.

For sure there are graveyards that imply that people made it all the way from the Carpathian bassin to Northern Greece. But it's hard to estimate what the genetic impact would have been. I guess it also depends on how much the local population had shrunk due to the LBA collapse. In any case I would expect it to be mostly limited to the northern fringe of Greece, not the Peloponnese or other southern parts of Greece.
On the other hand, Doric speakers are associated with the Peloponnese, and even Crete and southern parts of Asia minor. Hopefully one day aDNA can clear up how that came to be. I would not be surprised if this was in fact a second movement a while later, in which case there could indeed be small parts of V13 involved.

Riverman
09-05-2021, 01:24 PM
For sure there are graveyards that imply that people made it all the way from the Carpathian bassin to Northern Greece. But it's hard to estimate what the genetic impact would have been. I guess it also depends on how much the local population had shrunk due to the LBA collapse. In any case I would expect it to be mostly limited to the northern fringe of Greece, not the Peloponnese or other southern parts of Greece.

Absolutely. And after the local populations fused, cremation became widespread in the region and the cultural elements were regrouped, its hard to impossible to follow the archaeological traces. At this point we don't even know whether all Channelled Ware groups were dominated by E-V13. Its, e.g., possible that there was an early split between the expanding Gava groups, with just some being more dominated by E-V13 than others. We just know it for sure for Psenichevo and Basarabi. These two are beyond doubt. And we also know that it spread with Channelled Ware, but how exactly and whether it was distributed evenly from the start, that's not known. I would guess so, but I can't know or finally prove it yet.

The groups which went through Brnjica, which are exactly those which influenced the Northern Greek populations, might have been even more mixed than others, because the shift in this region was more gradual, with the Channelled/Belegis II-Gava elements constantly increasing, from a minority to the absolute majority. So they were taking over, but how much this process involved local lineages which just adopted is unknown. This means they could have been one of the Channelled Ware groups with the lowest E-V13 frequency from the start, even before entering Greece. We just don't know.


On the other hand, Doric speakers are associated with the Peloponnese, and even Crete and southern parts of Asia minor. Hopefully one day aDNA can clear up how that came to be. I would not be surprised if this was in fact a second movement a while later, in which case there could indeed be small parts of V13 involved.

Its possible that Dorians had a Northern Greek core and around that elements from other ethnic groups from the Illyrian-Thracian sphere, as well as local Mycenaeans were picked up. Kind of similar to the Sea Peoples alliances. These movements did make it deep into the Peleponnes and secondarily from there to the islands as well, and there were Dorian colonies. But how much of that is E-V13 is completely in the dark. It can vary from 0 to 30 %. Nobody knows at this point.

Another issue I came about recently is the high E-V13 in Ligurians. Ligurians are probably a pre-Celtic but Celtic-related group, possible from the Hallstatt sphere. The frequency in Liguria is as high as in Southern Italy and the question is:
- How much of this could pre-Hallstatt (probably nothing)
- Hallstatt derived (probably a lot)
- Greek derived (uncertain, definitely not the majority)
- Roman era migration (which)
- Gothic and Germanic migrations (probably a large fraction)

In any case, the local frequency and diversity needs an explanation. I recently also read from a commentator on the Eupedia maps that a large fraction of E-V13 on Corsica and Sardinia might be from the same source. As you know, its restricted mainly to the colonist settlements around Cagliari, and not widespread in other, more classical Sardinian populations.

This means the Sardinian high diversity of E-V13 could be kind of a first approximation of what Ligurian E-V13, which seems to be fairly high, might look like. In case this assumption is correct, it would definitely give some credit to the Hallstatt theory, because most of the local subclades being also widespread in Central and Western Europe, having Iron Age TMRCAs quite often. In case this could be proven and further investigated, it would make the Hallstatt related spread of E-V13 even more important.
Ideas?

rafc
09-05-2021, 02:01 PM
Another issue I came about recently is the high E-V13 in Ligurians. Ligurians are probably a pre-Celtic but Celtic-related group, possible from the Hallstatt sphere. The frequency in Liguria is as high as in Southern Italy and the question is:
- How much of this could pre-Hallstatt (probably nothing)
- Hallstatt derived (probably a lot)
- Greek derived (uncertain, definitely not the majority)
- Roman era migration (which)
- Gothic and Germanic migrations (probably a large fraction)

In any case, the local frequency and diversity needs an explanation. I recently also read from a commentator on the Eupedia maps that a large fraction of E-V13 on Corsica and Sardinia might be from the same source. As you know, its restricted mainly to the colonist settlements around Cagliari, and not widespread in other, more classical Sardinian populations.

This means the Sardinian high diversity of E-V13 could be kind of a first approximation of what Ligurian E-V13, which seems to be fairly high, might look like. In case this assumption is correct, it would definitely give some credit to the Hallstatt theory, because most of the local subclades being also widespread in Central and Western Europe, having Iron Age TMRCAs quite often. In case this could be proven and further investigated, it would make the Hallstatt related spread of E-V13 even more important.
Ideas?

That's a great question. The high level of V13 in Liguria (an Piedmont) has fascinated me for a long time, and it often gets overlooked even though it's comparable to Southern Italian levels.

In and around Genoa we have two FGC11450+ and a V13. Around Turin three V13's, a BY4281 and a CTS9320+ predicted. Without more deep testing it's hard to say a lot. It's hard to imagine a lot of impact of Roman soldiers here (although Liguria was a disputed area in the Byzantine area where Balkan soldiers were deployed). Some connection with LBA/EIA movements could explain, certainly since there is two FGC11450 and two CTS9320, but other explanations are possible also.

Bruzmi
09-05-2021, 02:56 PM
But that doesn't change the fact that the Proto-Greeks came relatively late from a more Central-Eastern European position with direct steppe influences (Catacomb + Babino). Nothing new for those looking at the archaeological record and how Greeks early on picked up chariots and horsemanship when coming in.

Proto-Greeks reached the southern Balkans in 2200-1900 BC.



From it, the most relevant parts:




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


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


When you quote an archaeological paper, you should not quote papers older than the date of the latest discoveries because they are based on outdated material. The bottom line is that Brnjica culture theories were based on almost 0 excavations concerning the actual Brnjica sites


These sites have been excavated and have been classified (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?16757-E-V13-entered-Greece-with-Illyrians-and-Dorian-invasions/page93&p=753205#post753205). There's no "Brnjica culture". The three identified sites which were hypothesized decades ago as part of a "Brnjica culture" are:
1)Trudë (Bërnicë e Poshtme cremation site): 11th-7th centuries BC. No metallic objects found at Trudë. A sword and few other metallic objects were found at Bërnicë e Poshtme (hence the name Brnjica culture).
2)Gracanicë-Glladnicë (Badovc and Ulpiana cremation sites): Neolithic to Middle Ages (Ulpiana was built on top of the ancient site area). No metallic objects found at the site. This was a settlement which existed long before the transitional phase and used cremation in the 11th-9th centuries.
3)Rixhevë (Gllarevë cremation site/Zabërgjë tumuli): MBA to 4th century BC. No metallic objects found at Rixhevë. The population of Rixhevë practiced tumuli burial but in the transitional phase practiced cremation. This site is unique because it has both a tumuli "necropolis" and a cremation site.

No classification scheme can be applied to them in order to include them in a separate "Brnjica culture". Literally, there's nothing at all to present as the catalogued artifacts of the "Brnjica culture". The Bërnica (Trudë) site itself has no features which radically differentiate it from other sites in the region and they weren't even founded in the same transitional era. And even at the time when the "Brnjica culture" hypothesis was proposed, the only thing the hypothesis relied on was a single pin (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?16757-E-V13-entered-Greece-with-Illyrians-and-Dorian-invasions&p=753508&viewfull=1#post753508).

But let's go back to Ruppenstein's article. The first thing I want to clarify is that cultural traditions and items traveled as part of trade networks since the MBA-LBA interval and they don't necessarily come with migrations. The other thing is that cultural traditions, Naue II swords and other items didn't reach Greece via Carpathian>central/eastern Balkan migrations, but sea routes and they shouldn't be really seen as population movements from the Balkans in southern Greece but as cultural traditions created in areas which had contact with each other because of sea routes.

According to the same paper quoted by Riverman:


Cremation burials in tumuli are also characteristic for the cemeteries of the Barice-Gređani group in the northern part of Bosnia-Herzogovina. Cemeteries of this type were in use from Br C until Ha A1. However, the cremated remains of the deceased were deposited directly in pits and not in urns in this cultural group. There is no other region in Southeast Europe where the combination between tumuli and cremation burials was so widespread and lasted for such a long period of time as the Western Balkans. Therefore, the tumuli at Argos and Mycenae-Chania are best related to this area.

The contact between the Western Balkans and Greece, that led to the construction of the Argive tumuli, was probably conducted via the Adriatic because there are no tumuli with cremations of a 12th century date in Northern Greece. The finds of Naue II swords of the early standard type in Donja Brnjica and Tekija near Paraćin clearly show that the Donja Brnjica and Paraćin cultures were not isolated but in contact with the innovative centers of the period.

It does, however, locate such cultural traditions and innovations in the western Balkans along the Adriatic and Ionian coastline and it certainly doesn't locate them in the eastern Balkans. The same paper also says that these innovations developed differently in every society despite cultural contacts:


The sharp increase in the number of cremations during the transitional phase from Submycenaean to Protogeometric was apparently a sudden occurrence and therefore cannot 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 Submycenaean/Protogeometric transitional phase are not obvious. External stimuli are not recognizable and therefore intra-societal developments may be assumed. It seems that the Athenian society of the time was ready for a change and innovations in various fields. It is also the time of the introduction of iron weapons and thus corresponds to the beginning of the Iron Age.

So, not only is this not related to Dorians but it's also not related to any migrations at all, especially from land routes of the central and eastern Balkans which seem to have played no role in the dissemination of cultural trends.

DFSTFD
09-05-2021, 03:32 PM
What does a migration from the Carpathian basin to Northern Greece in the LBA-EIA has to do with "Nordicist fairy tales"? And my wall of text refers to new studies from the very archaeologists you claim they say otherwise. The Near Eastern cluster in the Serbian finds has absolutely nothing to do with the Dorians or Late Bronze Age migrations, including the Sea Peoples. I don't know why you suddenly start to attack mainstream observations in the archaeological context like that.

We already know that the Proto-Greeks are supposed to come from a mixed CEE steppe-local group, just like the Channelled Ware people. Its not by chance that both have "unusual" haplogroups for steppe related migrations, because we're dealing with fused cultures and people in both the Proto-Thracian and Proto-Greek case. But that doesn't change the fact that the Proto-Greeks came relatively late from a more Central-Eastern European position with direct steppe influences (Catacomb + Babino). Nothing new for those looking at the archaeological record and how Greeks early on picked up chariots and horsemanship when coming in.

Getting quite off-topic here but, since you brought it up, I'm not completely convinced that chariotry came south with the proto-Greeks (and I'm generally not sure if it had any "original" role to play with any IE group except Indo-Iranians, if not specifically just Indo-Aryans even, for that matter). It looks a bit like a Mycenaean elite phenomenon rather than something pan-Greek and might be related to these contacts with the Carpathian Basin or even the Near East. In general, chariot-related findings between the Carpathian Basin and Mycenaean southern Greece were quite rare last time I had checked; not sure if that's somehow changed since. Naturally it's been appealing for researchers to consider whether these and some other Mycenaean-era findings of northern/Carpathian/steppe provenance were proto-Greek related since they were IE speakers, while other cosmopolitan material in shaft graves came from cultures that obviously were linguistically irrelevant and could be treated as importation of goods (even though even the northern findings are sometimes stripped of their original context).

The Middle Helladic paper had only two samples but even those two were somewhat interesting in their analysis of inbreeding and sex-biased admixture in the paper and their relative positions in G25. In G25, Log04 shifts away from Log02 towards a Steppe_EBA-like direction and in the paper Log04 is more inbred and shows no sex-biased admixture (much like the steppe-less EBA individuals) while Log02 looks like it has 1 purely EF grandmother according to the sex-biased admixture. This kinda leads me to think that a somewhat long-standing, mixed Steppe_EBA-Balkan group might have been responsible, further admixed within northern Greece itself perhaps in a sex-biased way overall, and then again in whatever way in southern Greece to produce those Mycenaean individuals we have. The putative population I'm suggesting here might not unlike what we see with the Bulgarian Yamnaya Bul4 though that one might specifically be too early to be directly responsible, just potentially representing a similar mix since after all even Catacomb is basically straight up Yamnaya. Just two samples can be very misleading of course, though I found their specific findings along with their relative positions/admixtures very interesting, if not necessarily telling since a lot of scenaria are possible.

It's the old dramatic arrival of charioteers at the LBA vs more gradual arrival towards the end of the EBA, destruction and rebuilding/fusion during the MBA and a gradual build-up to the cosmopolitanism and relative splendor of the LBA (the latter being the argument/dating that Bruzmi mentions above) argument which we'll hopefully clarify at some point with more data.

Anyway, I think dosas kinda got the wrong idea since I don't think anyone here was suggesting some sort of northern European like (or "Nordic", a category in modern terms that was seemingly still in the making during the Bronze Age for that matter!) population at play for the Dorians, anyway. The closest to that would be any Urnfielders involved in the looting of the east Med coming down from east-central Europe at the time but those would present admixtures, if present at all, from obviously non-Greek groups. It'd be interesting if we happen to see any Urnfield or Nordic Bronze age related individuals in the south in Mycenaean Greece though, that is even before the downfall, considering the trade and technological connections ultimately reached all the way up there. Those kinds of "Nordic" suppositions had been made a lot by weird, internet Nordicist relics for all sorts of populations in southern Europe and even the Near East (Italics, Illyrians, Thracians, Greeks, Anatolians, Sumerians, Phoenicians and Egyptians even!) but they obviously don't concern us.

Riverman
09-05-2021, 05:12 PM
Proto-Greeks reached the southern Balkans in 2200-1900 BC.

The main groups came in the LBA, just like the new paper on Mycenaean era Greeks will prove.


When you quote an archaeological paper, you should not quote papers older than the date of the latest discoveries because they are based on outdated material. The bottom line is that Brnjica culture theories were based on almost 0 excavations concerning the actual Brnjica sites

Brnjica is important because it shows the succeeding layers with Channelled Ware increasing over time.


It does, however, locate such cultural traditions and innovations in the western Balkans along the Adriatiac and Ionian coastline and it certainly doesn't locate them in the eastern Balkans. The same paper also says that these innovations developed differently in every society despite cultural contacts:

Some passages on, like quoted in the other thread, they stress the potential ties to the Carpathian region, which gets even more apparent by adding other artifacts other than Naue II swords. That within Urnfield the networks were running far wider is known.


So, not only is this not related to Dorians but it's also not related to any migrations at all, especially from land routes of the central and eastern Balkans which seem to have played no role in the dissemination of cultural trends.

That's true and untrue the same time, because it depends on the exact context it appeared and there are enough which point to migrants, like the Barbarian Ware and Channelled Ware related burials do. The main question in this respect is always: Do innovations come as a package, together, and rather abpruptly. If so, its most likely a migratory event.


Getting quite off-topic here but, since you brought it up, I'm not completely convinced that chariotry came south with the proto-Greeks (and I'm generally not sure if it had any "original" role to play with any IE group except Indo-Iranians, if not specifically just Indo-Aryans even, for that matter). It looks a bit like a Mycenaean elite phenomenon rather than something pan-Greek and might be related to these contacts with the Carpathian Basin or even the Near East.

There can be no doubt than in many regions it was rather an elite phenomenon, but I wouldn't underestimate it. The introduction of the chariot did impact a lot of people similar to the introduction of Naue II swords or iron weaponry, regardless of wether it was just picked up by contacts or came in with a conquering new people. In the case of chariots I just don't believe in coincidences and there is no stronger steppe related signal in the region before the date for chariots in Greece. How and where exactly the Proto-Greeks picked chariots up is not known, but I guess they had indeed direct contacts to the Indo-Iranians/Sintashta related complex. The connection might be from Babino to Catacomb Grave culture. But that's really something the new study will help to clarify.
We also see how Unetice was collapsing, probably with incursions from the Eastern charioteers, the strong influence it had on Hallstatt Celts - typically it survived in the British, while being largely abandoned with the introduction of heavy cavalry from the Geto-Scythians I mentioned before. The introduction of the latter was accompanied by many new innovations.

So we seem to deal in the case of chariots not with something arbitary, unimportant, but one of the major shifts in European cultural and military history, just like longer bronze swords, Naue II swords, iron swords and weaponry or heavy cavalry. All those caused major disruptiosn, shifts and movement of people. The Greek are just in the focus because their prehistory and history being better researched, but in the end, similar events took place in Poland (Unetice) and other areas of Europe too. The spread of the chariot is of course in Europe militarily not as important as in the Near East, considering the terrain it had to be used on, but still, it was very impactful and I wouldn't underestimate it.
As far as I understood, the introduction of the chariot and more Central European/steppe heavy ancestry in Greece will almost exactly overlap. But let's see what this paper has to add to this story. Greece is, by the way, from depictions and historical accounts, one of the areas more heavily influenced by chariotry in Europe outside of the steppe. Much more so than in Central Europe, where it played more the role of a status symbol probably, after some time, even before the introduction of heavy cavalry and larger horsebreeds in two waves, first Thraco-Cimmerians, then (Geto-) Scythians.

rafc
09-05-2021, 05:30 PM
Getting quite off-topic here but, since you brought it up, I'm not completely convinced that chariotry came south with the proto-Greeks (and I'm generally not sure if it had any "original" role to play with any IE group except Indo-Iranians, if not specifically just Indo-Aryans even, for that matter). It looks a bit like a Mycenaean elite phenomenon rather than something pan-Greek and might be related to these contacts with the Carpathian Basin or even the Near East. In general, chariot-related findings between the Carpathian Basin and Mycenaean southern Greece were quite rare last time I had checked; not sure if that's somehow changed since. Naturally it's been appealing for researchers to consider whether these and some other Mycenaean-era findings of northern/Carpathian/steppe provenance were proto-Greek related since they were IE speakers, while other cosmopolitan material in shaft graves came from cultures that obviously were linguistically irrelevant and could be treated as importation of goods (even though even the northern findings are sometimes stripped of their original context).

I agree completely.


The Middle Helladic paper had only two samples but even those two were somewhat interesting in their analysis of inbreeding and sex-biased admixture in the paper and their relative positions in G25. In G25, Log04 shifts away from Log02 towards a Steppe_EBA-like direction and in the paper Log04 is more inbred and shows no sex-biased admixture (much like the steppe-less EBA individuals) while Log02 looks like it has 1 purely EF grandmother according to the sex-biased admixture. This kinda leads me to think that a somewhat long-standing, mixed Steppe_EBA-Balkan group might have been responsible, further admixed within northern Greece itself perhaps in a sex-biased way overall, and then again in whatever way in southern Greece to produce those Mycenaean individuals we have. The putative population I'm suggesting here might not unlike what we see with the Bulgarian Yamnaya Bul4 though that one might specifically be too early to be directly responsible, just potentially representing a similar mix since after all even Catacomb is basically straight up Yamnaya. Just two samples can be very misleading of course, though I found their specific findings along with their relative positions/admixtures very interesting, if not necessarily telling since a lot of scenaria are possible.

I think this is certainly a possibility, but I'm not sure these were the bringers of proto-Greek. The reason is that these steppe samples are already there quite early in the 3d millennium BC. I find that a bit hard to reconcile with the supposed proximity between proto-Greek speakers and early Armenian and Iranian speakers. I hypothesized earlier that these steppe guys of the 3d millenium BC might actually be Anatolian speakers who stayed in the Balkans longer than conventually thought. They might have left for Anatolia only at the end of the 3d millenium BC pushed on exactly by the new wave of Steppe nomads that would bring the Greek language.

It's a pity that historians and archeologists have spend decades finding arguments against migration into Greece. With more attention to mobility we could maybe answer these questions today. I think that Greek EBA paper has conclusively ruled out an early arrival of Greek speakers (a very early arrival was already excluded once the Renfrew theory fell). It will be interesting to see how academics incorporate this and rethink the available data in the next years.

rafc
09-05-2021, 05:33 PM
The main groups came in the LBA, just like the new paper on Mycenaean era Greeks will prove.

That's a bold statement. I guess it depends on your definition of LBA, but I find it very hard to believe that a late arrival would not leave more traces. If there is a paper on the Mycenaean era upcoming, I'm looking forward to it.

Riverman
09-05-2021, 06:00 PM
That's a bold statement. I guess it depends on your definition of LBA, but I find it very hard to believe that a late arrival would not leave more traces. If there is a paper on the Mycenaean era upcoming, I'm looking forward to it.

I agree with you on the Anatolian issue, because I think Proto-Anatolian can be best associated with very early Corded decorated groups from the Western steppes and Cernavoda in particular. Those might, however, not managed to completely break through in the Aegean, but being rather concentrated more to the North and in Anatolia. When Yamnaya pastoralists, I wouldn't associate with a known IE language, came down as well, these mixed and produced new Balkan groups, of which some can be seen in the already known records. We have those direct Yamnaya-related incursions also in EBA to MBA groups in Pannonia, Serbia (Mokrin) and Bulgaria. But I don't see these first steppe groups being the Greeks, and even if they were, they didn't really break through either, but still staying somewhere to the North of modern Greece.

When they came exactly is unknown, but the real evidence of their presence dates to the introduction of chariotry in the MBA-LBA transition. This would allign well with the new paper which states that "Central European" (words from the paper) ancestry and connections appeared in the LBA, which is for Greece the equivalent for Mycenaean Greece. So we have new "Central European"-related ancestry, basically a more steppe-heavy migration to Greece, exactly about the same time as chariotry spread to the region, since it started about 2.000 BC in Sintashta. Greece is fairly early with its first evidence for and depiction of chariots in Europe.
All of that would be too much of a coincidence, even more so if we consider the fact that Babino-Catacomb-related groups were even before that solid candidates. I might quote once more about which time we're talking about in Greece:

The Mycenaean civilization flourished in the Late Bronze Age (c. 1700-1100 BCE), peaking from the 15th to the 13th century BCE.

https://www.worldhistory.org/Mycenaean_Civilization/

If they would have entered Greece between about 1.900-1.600 BC, that would fit the bill for what the paper is stating. I think that fits well into a scenario with Indo-Aryan influenced Proto-Greeks associated with KMK-Babino coming down, already having chariots or adopting them soon after, but while still pushing forward within Greece. Chariots should have been present in Greece since no later than the 15th century, when it was widely used, but more likely came to the region much earlier.

Also interesting:

The BA civilizations in the Aegean, often termed Aegean Cultures, include the Minoan civilization in Crete (3,200/3,000–1,100 BCE) (Wilson, 2008), the Helladic civilization in mainland Greece (3,200/3,000–1,100 BCE) (Wright, 2008) including the Mycenaean (i.e., the last phase of Helladic [1,600–1,100 BCE]), the Cycladic civilization in the Cycladic islands in the middle of the Aegean Sea (3,200/3,000–1,100 BCE) (Broodbank, 2008), and the western Anatolian cultures (3,000–1,200 BCE) (Şahoğlu, 2008; Yakar, 2012).

Note how the collapse or transformation of all these cultures coincides not just with the "Bronze Age collapse" and the Sea Peoples, but also with the spread of three elements in South Eastern Europe:
- Urnfield, cremation horizons, especially Channelled Ware/Gava and Middle Danubian groups for the Balkans
- Naue II swords and the introduction of iron weapons within a short period of time
- the first appearance of E-V13 in the region, with most of its main branches having a TMRCA of around exactly that time (1.300-1.000) - the rest groups around Basarabi-Hallstatt.


Caucasus HG-related ancestry is present in some of the late Neolithic Aegean individuals, Chalcolithic Anatolians (Kılınç et al., 2017; Lazaridis et al., 2017; Omrak et al., 2016), LBA Mycenaeans, and Early to Middle BA (EMBA) Minoans (Lazaridis et al., 2017), raising the possibility of gene flow from the East. LBA Mycenaeans also show evidence for an ancestry attributable to gene flow from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, or from Armenia (Lazaridis et al., 2017).

Before the MBA there was nothing which points to IE:

show that the Helladic-Manika-EBA, Minoan-Petras-EBA, and Cycladic-Koufonisi-EBA have a similar profile, which contrasts with the Helladic-Logkas MBA.


Compared to other ancient Eurasian populations, the EBA Aegeans are similar to other Aegean BA and Anatolian populations, but are quite distinct from all Balkan populations.


In contrast, EBA Aegeans carry little to no EHG ancestry. Based on the D-statistics analysis, we cannot reject that most EBA Aegean genomes and Anatolia_N are equally close to EHG (Figure S6).


Our ADMIXTURE estimates are consistent with an increase of EHG components in the Late Neolithic and EBA in most regions of Europe, including in the Balkans (Figure 3; Document S1). Yet, in Anatolia, such an increase in EHG-like ancestry is residual, and in the Aegean, it is only seen later in the MBA (Helladic-Logkas-MBA) and LBA (Mycenaean) individuals, suggesting a later arrival of Steppe-related ancestry in the Aegean.


The timing of such gene flow into the ancestors of the Helladic-Logkas-MBA ought to have occurred by ∼1,900 BCE, based on the radiocarbon dates of the Logkas individuals, and was estimated at ∼2,300 BCE (2,616–2,003 BCE 95% highest posterior density interval) (Table S4) in the ABC-DL analysis. This suggests that a Steppe-like migration wave may have reached the Aegean by the MBA.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867421003706

The question is, whether the first steppe-related ancestry in the MBA were the Proto-Greeks, or rather other Indoeuropean, like Proto-Anatolian people. To answer that, we need more data and especially this sounds interesting, its the abstract from the upcoming paper, which leaves, in my opinion, not much to alternative scenarios, if the wording is correct and they can prove it:


Our results indicate multi-phased genetic shifts in the Aegean populations since the early Neolithic that can be traced to populations related to Anatolia and then, during the Late Bronze Age, to Central-Eastern Europe

https://submissions.e-a-a.org/eaa2021/repository/preview.php?Abstract=2323

One of the more interesting questions will be whether the MBA first steppe groups, like from Logkas, are the same as the early Mycenaean ones or not.

CopperAxe
09-06-2021, 01:49 AM
There is a fairly popular theory that toponyms along the Aegean sea have Anatolian etymologies (not exclusively so), and the attempts I've seen to date them seem to be from around 2800 bc onwards.

I've toyed with the idea but I have a hard time linking the two samples from Logkas, after 2000 bc to Anatolian speakers. Not the expected location of early Anatolians in Greece based on the toponym distribution, and they look quite 'recent' I think because of their steppe rich ancestry. Steppe ancestry was already going into Anatolia prior to these samples too.

The KMK theory in itself ultimately is not based on strong evidence of migrations towards the Balkans either, and is mostly based on some paralels in burial practises, ornament designs as well as stylistic overlap between metal goods and stone axes of the Borodino hoard with Mycenaean era goods, and the Proto-chariots/chariots from an archaeological perspective. Linguistically its used to connect it to the Graeco-Aryan hypothesis, one which I find ever increasingly unlikely to represent a geneaological relation beyond PIE, or an areal zone even.

A replacement by Srubnaya does not explain those movements either as Srubnaya never went west of the Dnieper pretty much, whereas KMK did and it was followed by the Sabatinov culture, seemingly derived from it (although maybe just partially).

One thing which I find very interesting however is how in Greek mythology some deities like Apollo had chariots pulled by swans, which reminds me of the depictions of water birds pulling chariots from the Urnfield horizon.

Aspar
09-06-2021, 07:09 AM
A replacement by Srubnaya does not explain those movements either as Srubnaya never went west of the Dnieper pretty much, whereas KMK did and it was followed by the Sabatinov culture, seemingly derived from it (although maybe just partially).

One thing which I find very interesting however is how in Greek mythology some deities like Apollo had chariots pulled by swans, which reminds me of the depictions of water birds pulling chariots from the Urnfield horizon.

There is that MLBA Bulgarian sample which is R-Z93 and plots similar to Srubnaya samples which gives a hint that Srubnaya incursions probably occurred deep in the Balkans.

On the other hand, deities like Apollo can be representative for the believes of the IA and Classical Greeks, not the Mycenaeans. The equivalent of Apollo among the Mycenaeans was Paean (Ancient Greek: Παιάν).

The image of Apollo you describe shows post LBA influences which came from the north alongside with the urnfield burials and Naue II swords. The ethnonym Έλληνες, Ellines, also dates from the post LBA period. In other words, there is a clear discontinuation between the LBA Mycenaeans and the post LBA Greeks. The historians before the decipherment of the Linear B thought that the Mycenaeans were some pre Greek people, probably Pelasgians.

Even after the decipherment, there are still many puzzles and confusion about how to connect the dots between the two. It's very likely that what the Classical Greeks referred to as Pelasgians were the Mycenaeans actually.

On the other hand, I am not a linguist but I don't see it that strange if there was a language shift of northern Urnfield related groups to Mycenaean once they found themselves in numerically inferior position. It happened many times in the past, why would that be a problem in this case? Or in other words, could the Greeks be the result of the mixing between Pelasgians and some northern Balkan groups that descended in Greece post LBA? I know the northern Balkan influences aren't very popular among the Greeks and many authors tried to deny them and to prescribe em to some Anatolian influences instead. However there is an overwhelming evidence these came from the northern Balkans and not from Anatolia. How this all fits with the ethnogenesis of the Greeks and the marker E-V13 is yet to be seen. We need lot more aDNA from Greece to make any serious conclusions.

dosas
09-06-2021, 07:28 AM
Consensus has Apollo originating from Lycia, a city of the Luwian League.

Also, the Ionic/Attic dialect is (currently) the best link with Mycenean Greek as evident from the Homeric Epics that were written in Old Ionic and contained several Mycenean elements.

Aspar
09-06-2021, 07:28 AM
Another interesting aspect is the name Hellas or Hellines. As I said, it's only attested post LBA and according to some it's pre-Greek or pre IE name( see Beekers).

On the other hand, linguists like Orel connect it with the ethnonym of the Illyrians and the Albanian word for star, yll.

Both words are connected most likely, see Greek hyllos (sun) and Albanian yll (star).

rafc
09-06-2021, 07:28 AM
There is a fairly popular theory that toponyms along the Aegean sea have Anatolian etymologies (not exclusively so), and the attempts I've seen to date them seem to be from around 2800 bc onwards.

I've toyed with the idea but I have a hard time linking the two samples from Logkas, after 2000 bc to Anatolian speakers. Not the expected location of early Anatolians in Greece based on the toponym distribution, and they look quite 'recent' I think because of their steppe rich ancestry. Steppe ancestry was already going into Anatolia prior to these samples too.

Thanks. I had actually forgotten how young these Logkas samples were, in my mind was the date of 2600-2000, but that's only something they calculate from a model. I agree it would not be so likely for the Logkas to still be Anatolians (although not completely excluded). Good point also on the toponyms. I think when we put all the genetic evidence together it becomes very unlikely that these toponyms were Anatolian, in all likelyhood they are in the language spoken by those EBA-Greeks.
In the paper on EBA they seem to favor the option that Greek speakers lived in the Balkans for a while before moving into Greece. Will be interesting to see how that plays out.

If it was really a movement from the Balkans, it again suggests proto-Greek like languages were once spoken over a much larger part of the Balkans than today, and were only pushed southwards (and into Anatolia) at the LBA/EIA transition.

CopperAxe
09-06-2021, 09:13 AM
There is that MLBA Bulgarian sample which is R-Z93 and plots similar to Srubnaya samples which gives a hint that Srubnaya incursions probably occurred deep in the Balkans.

I'd say we don't know if that sample got there by way of expansions or was just a one-off migrant/descendant of migrations.

Considering that the Dnieper is a fairly sharp border between Srubnaya and sites of other material cultures I can't imagine there were major Srubnaya related expansions to the Balkans.

Another issue is that we can't be sure if the guy was from the Srubnaya region or further west, part of KMK/Sabatinovka until we have samples from that period.


Even after the decipherment, there are still many puzzles and confusion about how to connect the dots between the two. It's very likely that what the Classical Greeks referred to as Pelasgians were the Mycenaeans actually.

Mhmm, doesn't Herodotus provide a fairly detailed description of their non-Greek languages and even the assinilation of Pelasgians into Greek society?

Then you have their presence in the Homeric epics as well as an ally of Troy.


I know the northern Balkan influences aren't very popular among the Greeks and many authors tried to deny them and to prescribe em to some Anatolian influences instead. However there is an overwhelming evidence these came from the northern Balkans and not from Anatolia.

As someone who spends way to much time reading about archaeology, I recognize this a lot lol. Another issue is that Northern Greece has next to no archaeology when compared to the Peleponnese.

Not to mention anti-migrationist stances were popular in (western) European archaeology, I dont think I've come across a more anti-migrationist sentiments than in articles which deal with bronze age Greece. And like you said, the only migrations and influences accepted im that circle were those from the east.

All those articles were in English though so I have no clue if they represent what Greek archaeologists themselves state.

peloponnesian
09-06-2021, 09:35 AM
The image of Apollo you describe shows post LBA influences which came from the north alongside with the urnfield burials and Naue II swords.

You can't take Greek mythology literally, there were Egyptian references but I don't think anyone is looking in Egypt for the ancestors of the Greeks.


On the other hand, I am not a linguist but I don't see it that strange if there was a language shift of northern Urnfield related groups to Mycenaean once they found themselves in numerically inferior position. It happened many times in the past, why would that be a problem in this case? Or in other words, could the Greeks be the result of the mixing between Pelasgians and some northern Balkan groups that descended in Greece post LBA? I know the northern Balkan influences aren't very popular among the Greeks and many authors tried to deny them and to prescribe em to some Anatolian influences instead. However there is an overwhelming evidence these came from the northern Balkans and not from Anatolia. How this all fits with the ethnogenesis of the Greeks and the marker E-V13 is yet to be seen. We need lot more aDNA from Greece to make any serious conclusions.

There is clear evidence of Anatolian influences on Ancient Greece, both cultural and genetic, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. A chunk of ancient Greek autosomal ancestry and uniparental markers came from Anatolia after the Neolithic period. The Greek language itself and part of the culture came from somewhere in the north but denying the Anatolian influence is ridiculous. By all accounts, the Aegean and Anatolia were in constant contact (arguably they were one and the same region) from the Mesolithic until the Turkish conquest. People should really stop thinking of the Ancient Mediterranean in terms of modern geography and politics.

Riverman
09-06-2021, 09:58 AM
If it was really a movement from the Balkans, it again suggests proto-Greek like languages were once spoken over a much larger part of the Balkans than today, and were only pushed southwards (and into Anatolia) at the LBA/EIA transition.

I think that is very likely and would explain why Greek brought some new innovations from the relative North to their new homeland and had also a different set of haplogroups. There can be little doubt about Greeks having taken a route to the South and there is good reason to believe it could have been a longer stage. Even the pastoralist Hungarians lived for a long time in the Western steppe before being pushed to the West by other tribal formations. Something similar might have been true for Greeks and Illyrians in particular. For Illyrians we even know it, because there was constant pressure along the Danube coming down both from related Tumulus culture groups and later Urnfielders.

What is pretty annoying if looking at Greek yDNA and deciding what could be old, at least classical era Greek E-V13 lineages, is the fact that a large fraction of the Greeks just tested on FTDNA, while a larger fraction of the Albanians only uploaded to YFull. This makes the comparison for larger numbers more labour-consuming.

I defined for myself three categories of Greek subclades and samples:
Category A: Having no other Balkan samples in the same subclade, distance at least 30 SNP, other Greek, Turkish or Southern Italian samples in the same or upstream clade
Category B: Single Greek sample in its own clade, distance at least 30 SNP to other Balkan samples
Category C: Single or multiple Greek samples in their own clade at a distance of at least 20 SNP to other Balkan samples

Browsing through some of the main V13 clades at FTDNA, there is a real scarcity of best qualtiy category A samples. But that's probably because of the low testing density in Greeks and Southern Italians?

Category A + B would be good candidates for Iron Age Greek lineages and those which made it from the Thracian sphere to Greece before the common era, in classical and early Hellenistic times. Category C could be Vlach, but less likely they are modern Albanian or Slavic related.

E-S2978 has 1 Greek and 1 Italian at the 41 SNP level, downstream at E-BY5285 is another Greek, the others are unknown from this subclade unfortunately, but on YFull the whole clade looks rather Greek derived: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-S2978/ so far and might point to a relationship of Greeks with Russian Tatars.
E-FGC11451 has 2 Greek and two Italian samples at the 35 SNP level.

With more samples and comparisons with other data bases, especially YFull, it might be possible to get an even better impression. But at the current state of things, its hard to say something definitive.

DFSTFD
09-06-2021, 11:25 AM
There can be no doubt than in many regions it was rather an elite phenomenon, but I wouldn't underestimate it. The introduction of the chariot did impact a lot of people similar to the introduction of Naue II swords or iron weaponry, regardless of wether it was just picked up by contacts or came in with a conquering new people. In the case of chariots I just don't believe in coincidences and there is no stronger steppe related signal in the region before the date for chariots in Greece. How and where exactly the Proto-Greeks picked chariots up is not known, but I guess they had indeed direct contacts to the Indo-Iranians/Sintashta related complex. The connection might be from Babino to Catacomb Grave culture. But that's really something the new study will help to clarify.
We also see how Unetice was collapsing, probably with incursions from the Eastern charioteers, the strong influence it had on Hallstatt Celts - typically it survived in the British, while being largely abandoned with the introduction of heavy cavalry from the Geto-Scythians I mentioned before. The introduction of the latter was accompanied by many new innovations.

So we seem to deal in the case of chariots not with something arbitary, unimportant, but one of the major shifts in European cultural and military history, just like longer bronze swords, Naue II swords, iron swords and weaponry or heavy cavalry. All those caused major disruptiosn, shifts and movement of people. The Greek are just in the focus because their prehistory and history being better researched, but in the end, similar events took place in Poland (Unetice) and other areas of Europe too. The spread of the chariot is of course in Europe militarily not as important as in the Near East, considering the terrain it had to be used on, but still, it was very impactful and I wouldn't underestimate it.
As far as I understood, the introduction of the chariot and more Central European/steppe heavy ancestry in Greece will almost exactly overlap. But let's see what this paper has to add to this story. Greece is, by the way, from depictions and historical accounts, one of the areas more heavily influenced by chariotry in Europe outside of the steppe. Much more so than in Central Europe, where it played more the role of a status symbol probably, after some time, even before the introduction of heavy cavalry and larger horsebreeds in two waves, first Thraco-Cimmerians, then (Geto-) Scythians.

Yeah, I don't disagree with most of this at all. Though, as an aside, as you correctly noted in a previous post of yours the Naue II swords actually seem to somewhat predate the Mycenaean destructions, they already are part of Urnfield-Mycenaean exchange that likely had an important role to play in the development of the Bronze Age sword in the first place (that was what the edited part of my previous comment was about actually, until I noticed more carefully that you had covered it!). But on the issue of linguistic ties specifically, while the chariot also has clear impact in (pre-) Germanic and Celtic groups starting from around the same period, it looks like something secondary among them too and not something that connects their linguistic spread to the west somehow only from the MLBA Carpathian Basin (not that this kind of argument hasn't been made ever, either; we know it has). In the case of Greek it's been a much more common argument because of the larger share of features with Indo-Iranian groups so that a common, more recent descent between the two and a more intimate connection with the chariot groups was also much easier to argue for. The view that you've cited is basically the other major, likely alternative in the case of proto-Greek but considering the MBA samples from northern Greece, I still hold to the view that chariotry was something secondary, that spread slightly later, perhaps via the contacts with the Carpathian Basin even and not necessarily something the somewhat earlier proto-Greeks came south with.

Also, in fairness, the abstract of the forthcoming paper that you referred to (Skourtanioti et al. - Insights into Admixture History and Social Practices in the Prehistoric Aegean from Ancient DNA) doesn't make it particularly clear to me whether they have any actual Middle Helladic/MBA samples, rather than just the usual steppe-less Early Helladic/EBA and modestly steppe-rich Late Helladic/LBA/Mycenaean ones. Their "Central-Eastern Europe" is fairly vague as well, i.e. I wonder if they actually mean the "eastern part of central Europe" or "central or eastern Europe", which would cover a lot of ground. Almost deliberate on their part, considering the Carpathian Basin connections in Mycenaean Greece and potentially even before with proto-Greek groups that have been discussed. I'll wait to be pleasantly surprised by a more temporally exhaustive dataset if the above doesn't turn out to be the case; if it pinpoints the putative more northern population even more clearly, even better. The most interesting aspect in the abstract, since it was a bit clearer, was the extreme endogamy in some groups that we've so far seen only rarely in ancient samples.

The earliest shaft graves in the "far south" so far appear ~18th century BC (earliest in Aegina IIRC), i.e. towards the late MHII, early MHIII. Under that scenario, this should still be a period of fusion so we might still find individuals without any steppe ancestry and individuals with as much steppe ancestry as Log02.


The image of Apollo you describe shows post LBA influences which came from the north alongside with the urnfield burials and Naue II swords. The ethnonym Έλληνες, Ellines, also dates from the post LBA period. In other words, there is a clear discontinuation between the LBA Mycenaeans and the post LBA Greeks. The historians before the decipherment of the Linear B thought that the Mycenaeans were some pre Greek people, probably Pelasgians.

The last part isn't completely the case; plenty of historians thought the Mycenaeans might have been Greek-speaking though of course the issue was much more contentious before the decipherment of Linear B (and even after that, there were some holdouts!). Some, on flimsier considerations, were putting the arrival of early Greek speakers to the south already towards the later 3rd millennium BC already during the 19th century, for example.

"Hellenes", of whatever ultimately origin, referred probably to a specific Greek tribe, perhaps with connections to Thessaly, and slowly expanded to the rest of the Greek-speaking populations. The word has stress on the first syllable even though the expected stress of that kind of tribal name in -enes/-anes would be on the second syllable which has made some historians and linguists consider that the broader use of Hellenes came from a form like Pan-hellenes, i.e. "all-Hellenes". Either way, this is more about the later, specific usage of particular ethnic names rather than linguistic connections. On that kind of issue, a Greek historian thought that "Achaeans" was also a potentially pre/non-Greek (but IE!) name but it's hard to know that either way too.


Thanks. I had actually forgotten how young these Logkas samples were, in my mind was the date of 2600-2000, but that's only something they calculate from a model. I agree it would not be so likely for the Logkas to still be Anatolians (although not completely excluded). Good point also on the toponyms. I think when we put all the genetic evidence together it becomes very unlikely that these toponyms were Anatolian, in all likelyhood they are in the language spoken by those EBA-Greeks.
In the paper on EBA they seem to favor the option that Greek speakers lived in the Balkans for a while before moving into Greece. Will be interesting to see how that plays out.

If it was really a movement from the Balkans, it again suggests proto-Greek like languages were once spoken over a much larger part of the Balkans than today, and were only pushed southwards (and into Anatolia) at the LBA/EIA transition.


There is a fairly popular theory that toponyms along the Aegean sea have Anatolian etymologies (not exclusively so), and the attempts I've seen to date them seem to be from around 2800 bc onwards.

I've toyed with the idea but I have a hard time linking the two samples from Logkas, after 2000 bc to Anatolian speakers. Not the expected location of early Anatolians in Greece based on the toponym distribution, and they look quite 'recent' I think because of their steppe rich ancestry. Steppe ancestry was already going into Anatolia prior to these samples too.

The KMK theory in itself ultimately is not based on strong evidence of migrations towards the Balkans either, and is mostly based on some paralels in burial practises, ornament designs as well as stylistic overlap between metal goods and stone axes of the Borodino hoard with Mycenaean era goods, and the Proto-chariots/chariots from an archaeological perspective. Linguistically its used to connect it to the Graeco-Aryan hypothesis, one which I find ever increasingly unlikely to represent a geneaological relation beyond PIE, or an areal zone even.

A replacement by Srubnaya does not explain those movements either as Srubnaya never went west of the Dnieper pretty much, whereas KMK did and it was followed by the Sabatinov culture, seemingly derived from it (although maybe just partially).

One thing which I find very interesting however is how in Greek mythology some deities like Apollo had chariots pulled by swans, which reminds me of the depictions of water birds pulling chariots from the Urnfield horizon.

Kuzmina related that swan aspect to forest steppe populations east and west of the Urals i.e. offered a connection to Sintashta-like populations, that she thought were likely relevant for proto-Greek too. It's, I suppose, an interesting point and I wouldn't be sure what's going on either way but mythological comparisons can be a bit vague and be obviously argued for different proximal connections, as we can see. Not that it necessarily tells us much either way. It could be a theme adopted from the north along with certain innovations about Apollo that don't impinge on linguistic connections. We really have no idea what it means ultimately. As dosas mentioned, Apollo might originally actually have eastern/Anatolian connections, though apparently acquiring northern ones as well. Though I'll note that the IA dialect usually considered to be closest to Mycenaean Greek is Arcado-Cypriot, whose later distribution has been often noted with some interest, i.e. surrounded by Doric in the Peloponnese and simultaneously present in very related form in far Mycenaean/Dark Ages colonized Cyprus.

As you both write, an IE Anatolian theory of pre-Greek is still very up in the air. What's certain is that a non-IE language preceded Greek in the Aegean and whether any IE ones did in parts or in the whole area (and multiple have been suggested in the past) is far more uncertain. Whether the characteristic ss/nth/nd toponymical substratum is IE Anatolian or something that existed in both Anatolia and the south Balkans (maybe even Italy, in fact) from a non-IE source, e.g. those Iran_N/CHG-rich populations that seem to even reach up to Italy at points during the N-CA-BA, still hasn't been agreed upon by linguists. I tend to think it's something non-IE and related to those later, eastern movements before the steppe-rich groups arrived.

Certainly, to repeat some specifics from the paper, the idea that samples from around the border of southern Macedonia and northern Thessaly circa late 3rd, early 2nd millennium with over 30% Yamnaya-like ancestry represent Anatolian rather than proto-Greek speakers, especially when the lower-steppe one seems to be recently and sexually-biased admixed compared to the other who has some 40% and shows no sex bias and so makes it look like a relatively recent arrival of people from further north (rafc correctly noted in his subsequent post that the early dating is about the admixture dating, not the dating of the samples in northern Greece itself who are somewhat later), doesn't look that convincing to me right now either. Per above, Anatolian speakers might have never existed in these areas in the first place while proto-Greek speakers definitely did and this would present one of the most common scenaria offered for them, as Bruzmi mentioned too. Leaving aside the potential quite early entry of Anatolian into Anatolia, rather than some steppe-rich populations still lingering around and crossing over later, which has been another debated issue. That's certainly a call for further clarification if anything though I obviously am biased towards certain scenaria due to my own reading on the issue.

Honestly, as I've mentioned to Riverman and Aspar in another discussion before, I still think all the attested Iron Age Balkan languages, including Armenian even if it somehow ends up not following a Balkan route, trace back to late Yamnaya and Catacomb groups and might have started diversifying in different respective relative areas of the Balkan(-Danubian) area (east, west, south) and maybe the western steppe during the later 3rd millennium BC, whatever different formations and 'local' Y-DNA we see becoming as or even more important than the Yamnaya/Catacomb-related lineages down the line. Obviously we see a very different situation in the Balkan and Carpathian Basin areas compared to the western Beaker zone where that initial Y-DNA replacement was almost total, anyway. With regard to Babino/KMK/Multiroller in particular, I've come across arguments that considered it either a local evolution of Catacomb (which was considered a local evolution of Yamnaya on some part of the steppe, an opinion that did pan out) or an intrusion of the forest steppe groups and I have no idea which one is more likely. We still don't have any relevant data to see whether the transition on the west steppe comes with Multiroller or only later on with Srubnaya, as far as I know. Certainly at least for the northeastern parts of the Balkans, you still have to wonder about seemingly contemporary, later steppe-influenced cultures like Noua (which have been basically referred above indirectly at least with the Srubnaya-like individual etc.) and what subsequent impact they might have had on the linguistic landscape of the Balkans, even if my scenario would tend to make them irrelevant as primary ancestors linguistically.

Just for the sake of discussion, it might even be simpler for hypothetical, linguistic scenaria to get everything post-Tocharian from early Corded Ware considering the apparent Greco-Armenian linguistic connections to Indo-Iranian and the recent early CW paper with its varied Y-DNA, but I'm still holding out for the other kind of theory until the issue is better resolved and even the exact connections between Yamnaya and CW (at least a couple of reasonable options there) become clearer. Kassian et al. - Rapid radiation of the inner Indo-European languages was an interesting, recent read on that front, though showed the usual result of hypothetical, less terminal branches that concerns us here being the least robustly argued for.

I don't particularly mind being wrong about any and all of these particular theories anyway, as long as they end up being somewhat resolved while we're still around, though a lot of progress has been made in just some 6 odd years on the broader issues. Sorry for the large, off-topic response. :biggrin1:

Aspar
09-06-2021, 11:59 AM
.
Mhmm, doesn't Herodotus provide a fairly detailed description of their non-Greek languages and even the assinilation of Pelasgians into Greek society?

Then you have their presence in the Homeric epics as well as an ally of Troy.


Of course Herodotus is relevant and what he said doesn't contradict that IA Greeks and the Mycenaeans might have seen each other as different people. As I said, there is a huge discontinuation between the Mycenaeans and the IA and Classical Greeks. Even the Greek alphabet is different than the one used by the Mycenaeans.

As for the Pelasgian language, we don't much apart from some toponyms and names which isn't enough to make a definite conclusion.
It could be that the Pelasgians could have been a Mycenaean nevertheless but in the ears of the IA Greeks might have sounded different enough to be regarded as foreign. It's like when you have Dutch and High German. Two very related languages but still little different to be regarded the same. J my two cents, maybe you as a Dutch have different opinion about the parallel I made between German and Dutch...

Bruzmi
09-06-2021, 12:06 PM
If it was really a movement from the Balkans, it again suggests proto-Greek like languages were once spoken over a much larger part of the Balkans than today, and were only pushed southwards (and into Anatolia) at the LBA/EIA transition.

Greeks didn't reach Greece in the LBA/EIA transition from the Balkans. This is not debatable and there is no theory which would claim otherwise because Greek has been attested long before the LBA/EIA transition within Greece and not outside Greece. Proto-Greek reached Greece between EH (Early Helladic) II and EH III and there are countless attestations of Greeks (Mycenaean Greeks) all around southern Greece and the Mediterranean since writing systems were employed.

The cultural counterparts to Proto-Indoeuropean, Proto-Uralic and Proto-Aryan: Matching the dispersal and contact patterns in linguisti and archaeological record (https://books.google.com/books?id=fHYnGde4BS4C)

https://i.ibb.co/6YXZ0xP/protogreeek.jpg


The evolution from Proto-Greek to ancient Greek dialects involved the absorption of a significant part of its vocabulary from a substratum already spoken in the Greek peninsula. Therefore, ancient Greek was formed within the Greek peninsula over a long period of time. The oldest attestation of Greek is in Linear B (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_B), which is an adaptation of Minoan Linear A (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_A) (since 1800 BCE)

The earliest text so far found in Linear B Greek dates to LH II - LH III (1510-1390 BCE) (https://web.archive.org/web/20131015044633/http://www.aegeanscripts.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=98:new-linear-b-tablet-found-at-iklaina&catid=80&Itemid=473) in Iklaina (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iklaina) (near the palatial complex of Pylos)

Mycenaean Greek Linear B is found as far south as Crete at the time of the destruction of the palatial complex of Minoan Knossos (c. 1420-1370 BCE).

Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers (https://books.google.com/books?id=BwHPKIUXKGsC):

https://i.ibb.co/QDsRYQ9/linearb.jpg


So, no, Greek was not "pushed southwards at the LBA/EIA transition".

Aspar
09-06-2021, 12:10 PM
You can't take Greek mythology literally, there were Egyptian references but I don't think anyone is looking in Egypt for the ancestors of the Greeks.



There is clear evidence of Anatolian influences on Ancient Greece, both cultural and genetic, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. A chunk of ancient Greek autosomal ancestry and uniparental markers came from Anatolia after the Neolithic period. The Greek language itself and part of the culture came from somewhere in the north but denying the Anatolian influence is ridiculous. By all accounts, the Aegean and Anatolia were in constant contact (arguably they were one and the same region) from the Mesolithic until the Turkish conquest. People should really stop thinking of the Ancient Mediterranean in terms of modern geography and politics.

I don't know where you have seen any argument against the Anatolian influences on Greeks.
I was only arguing about the cremation burials in urns and about the water birds which were influences coming from the Urnfield related zone and the North Balkans and not from Anatolia.

Of course, the Anatolian influences were big even before the Greeks. We see this with the increased CHG ancestry and more specifically yDNA J2a in Minoans.

Bruzmi
09-06-2021, 12:12 PM
Another interesting aspect is the name Hellas or Hellines. As I said, it's only attested post LBA and according to some it's pre-Greek or pre IE name( see Beekers).

On the other hand, linguists like Orel connect it with the ethnonym of the Illyrians and the Albanian word for star, yll.

Both words are connected most likely, see Greek hyllos (sun) and Albanian yll (star).

I know very well the work of prof. Orel.

Can you cite where he says such a thing?

I'm pretty sure that such a citation doesn't exist, but you can prove me wrong and I'll learn more about what prof. Orel has written.

Aspar
09-06-2021, 12:21 PM
I know very well the work of prof. Orel.

Can you cite where he says such a thing?

I'm pretty sure that such a citation doesn't exist, but you can prove me wrong and I'll learn more about what prof. Orel has written.

Ὕλλος

Ancient Greek

Hyllus

Etymology

Imported from Pre-Greek. Orel considers it to be from Proto-Albanian *h₁us-los meaning diety, or star, relating it to Albanian Bardhyll, which translates into "white star", encompassing the godlike role the stars held as viewed by early Albanians.[1]

[1] Orel, Vladimir (1998), “Bardhyll”, in Albanian Etymological Dictionary, Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill, →ISBN

DFSTFD
09-06-2021, 12:29 PM
Ὕλλος

Ancient Greek

Hyllus

Etymology

Imported from Pre-Greek. Orel considers it to be from Proto-Albanian *h₁us-los meaning diety, or star, relating it to Albanian Bardhyll, which translates into "white star", encompassing the godlike role the stars held as viewed by early Albanians.[1]

[1] Orel, Vladimir (1998), “Bardhyll”, in Albanian Etymological Dictionary, Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill, →ISBN

Ok, but Bruzmi is right about this. Orel according to that citation would apparently connect "Hyllos" to proto-Albanian/Illyrian, not "Hellenes". There have been theories about the Hylleis, one of the three Doric "original" tribes, and their potential Illyrian connections for a long time now, at least since the 19th century. Though I don't see how their name is connected to "Hellenes". There are also words in West Greek in particular (which would have had a somewhat more northern position originally as discussed), though not only, that have been considered as borrowings from more northern Balkan languages, like Illyrian and Thracian. That part is naturally plausible as well.

Aspar
09-06-2021, 12:42 PM
The last part isn't completely the case; plenty of historians thought the Mycenaeans might have been Greek-speaking though of course the issue was much more contentious before the decipherment of Linear B (and even after that, there were some holdouts!). Some, on flimsier considerations, were putting the arrival of early Greek speakers to the south already towards the later 3rd millennium BC already during the 19th century, for example.

"Hellenes", of whatever ultimately origin, referred probably to a specific Greek tribe, perhaps with connections to Thessaly, and slowly expanded to the rest of the Greek-speaking populations. The word has stress on the first syllable even though the expected stress of that kind of tribal name in -enes/-anes would be on the second syllable which has made some historians and linguists consider that the broader use of Hellenes came from a form like Pan-hellenes, i.e. "all-Hellenes". Either way, this is more about the later, specific usage of particular ethnic names rather than linguistic connections. On that kind of issue, a Greek historian thought that "Achaeans" was also a potentially pre/non-Greek (but IE!) name but it's hard to know that either way too.


You might know more than me on the subject, I am not saying I am an expert.
However I've got such an impression reading "Codebreakers and Groundbreakers" by AP Judson, Part 1 The Decipherment of Linear B:


Without knowing the language the texts were written in, this was
very far from being enough information to produce a decipherment. Of
course, there was no shortage of suggestions as to what the language of the Linear B tablets might be: theories ranged from an Anatolian language, related to those spoken in the area that is now Turkey, to Etruscan, a pre-Roman language of Italy. The one language that was generally ruled out as a possibility was Greek: the ‘Minoan’ Cretan culture Evans had discovered seemed entirely unlike anything known from classical Greece. Evans himself was convinced – and he convinced many others – that the 'Minoan’ language of the tablets could not be Greek.

Bruzmi
09-06-2021, 12:49 PM
Ὕλλος

Ancient Greek

Hyllus

Etymology

Imported from Pre-Greek. Orel considers it to be from Proto-Albanian *h₁us-los meaning diety, or star, relating it to Albanian Bardhyll, which translates into "white star", encompassing the godlike role the stars held as viewed by early Albanians.[1]

[1] Orel, Vladimir (1998), “Bardhyll”, in Albanian Etymological Dictionary, Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill, →ISBN

You read that in wiktionary (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BD%9D%CE%BB%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%82) so you're not citing Orel, you're citing a wiktionary user who supposedly cited Orel. The citation is wrong. In fact, Orel writes nothing about Bardhyll or Hyllus or any such etymology. As a matter of fact, what he writes, is the opposite.

Allow me to cite what Vladimir Orel writes in the Albanian Etymologicaly Dictionary in p. 518:

yll m, pl. yje 'star'. A parallel form is hyll. Goes back to PAlb *sktwila, a derivative of *skija > hije 'shadow' (OREL Linguistica XXIV 438-439). For the phonetic development of -Twi- > -y- cf. gryke. 0 MEYER Wb. 460 (to IE *sulno- or *sun- `sun'), Alb. St. III 43; PEDERSEN KZ XXXIII 544, XXXVI 277-278 (accepts MEYER's comparison with *sa/i); JOKL Balkangerm. 114-115; TAGLIAVINI Dalmazia 273; PISANI REIE IV 9; PORZIG Gliederung 181; HAMP Laryngeals 132-133 (yll as a proof of s-mobile in the word for `sun'); HULD 132, KZ XC 178-182 (to OE ysle, ON us/i 'spark, ember'); LIUKKONEN SSF X 58 (to Slav *aviti `to appear'); RASMUSSEN Morph. 264; BEEKES CIEL 264 (follows HULD and reconstructs *Huslo-); DEMIRAJ AE 206.

p. 155:

hyj m, pl. hyja, hyj 'god'. Singularized plural of yll, hyll 'star' (OREL Linguistica XXIV 438) coined by BOGDANI (CABEJ apud DEMIRAJ). 0 MEYER Wb. 150 (connects hyj with hije); KRISTOFORIDHI 135, 139 (same as MEYER); JOKL LKUBA 64-65 (reconstructs *hye continuing IE *skeini-); MANN Language XXVIII 39 (to ON skuggi < IE *skuni-); HAMP St. Whatmough 88.; DEMIRAJ AE 205.

https://i.ibb.co/dgwC7nq/orelyll.jpg


Albanian yll (according to Orel) derives from PAlb *skija > *sktwila via the development of /sk/ > /h/ in Proto-Albanian (see also skije > hije (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hije). (Other etymologies (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/yll) propose a different path, but you mentioned Orel, so I'll focus on his work)

The equivalent of PAlb *skija is ancient and modern Greek σκιά (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%83%CE%BA%CE%B9%CE%AC). Both derive from PIE (s)ḱeh₃ih₂ (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/(s)%E1%B8%B1eh%E2%82%83ih%E2%82%82)


Greek helios (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%A5%CE%BB%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%82#Ancient_Greek) derives from PGreek *hawelios < PIE *sóh₂wl̥ (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/s%C3%B3h%E2%82%82wl%CC%A5)

The equivalent of Greek helios is Albanian diell (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/diell) ; PAlb *delwa (its reconstruction according to Orel) and they both derive from PIE sóh₂wl̥

DFSTFD
09-06-2021, 12:54 PM
You might know more than me on the subject, I am not saying I am an expert.
However I've got such an impression reading "Codebreakers and Groundbreakers" by AP Judson, Part 1 The Decipherment of Linear B:

I can't give you a relative percentage of views or anything, it might have been a minority for that matter, but it certainly wasn't absolutely ruled out. Obviously that's a bit of dramatic effect in that citation. The decipherment of Linear B was monumental but it's not like it found Greek speakers where and when absolutely no one had expected to find them. Martin P. Nilsson's older work The Mycenaean Origin of Greek Mythology to mention a well-known example clearly made the case for that a couple of decades before its definitive decipherment.

Aspar
09-06-2021, 12:55 PM
Ok, but Bruzmi is right about this. Orel connects "Hyllos" to proto-Albanian/Illyrian, not "Hellenes". There have been theories about the Hylleis, one of the three Doric "original" tribes, and their potential Illyrian connections for a long time now, at least since the 19th century. Though I don't see how their name is connected to "Hellenes". There are also words in West Greek in particular (which would have had a somewhat more northern position originally as discussed), though not only, that have been considered as borrowings from more northern Balkan languages, like Illyrian and Thracian. That part is naturally plausible as well.

The name of the Hellenes according to their mythology stems from the name of the progenitor Hellena (sun rays), which name itself is derived from Hyllus (sun). Hell(enes) or Hyll(eis) comes from the same root and it' different pronouncing depends on different Greek dialects.
I am not entirely sure but I think I've read somewhere that in Ionian 'Y' is pronounced as 'A' in the Doric dialects:
Attic and Ionic mḗtēr (μήτηρ); Doric mā́tēr (μᾱ́τηρ)

DFSTFD
09-06-2021, 01:02 PM
The name of the Hellenes according to their mythology stems from the name of the progenitor Hellena (sun rays), which name itself is derived from Hyllus (sun). Hell(enes) or Hyll(eis) comes from the same root and it' different pronouncing depends on different Greek dialects.
I am not entirely sure but I think I've read somewhere that in Ionian 'Y' is pronounced as 'A' in the Doric dialects:
Attic and Ionic mḗtēr (μήτηρ); Doric mā́tēr (μᾱ́τηρ)

Yes, you're right about the dialectal differentation there but it's ē/ā, not u/ā. It's an archaic feature of West Greek. Anyway, your point there about the potential extra northern affinities of the Dorians is well-taken (on whatever level it existed) but Hylleis and Hellenes don't seem to necessarily share roots. I'd actually be interested to see if Doric speakers of the Peloponnese end up being slightly more northern than e.g. Attic speakers despite occupying a more southern position, whether that's just due to their more recent descent to the south or also their potential recent other Balkan admixture.

Riverman
09-06-2021, 01:41 PM
I like your argumentation and can largely agree with what you wrote, but I don't agree with this:



Honestly, as I've mentioned to Riverman and Aspar in another discussion before, I still think all the attested Iron Age Balkan languages, including Armenian even if it somehow ends up not following a Balkan route, trace back to late Yamnaya and Catacomb groups

I think we need to differentiate here, because while a Yamnaya-related linguistic and paternal descendence would be feasible for Greek-Phrygian-Armenian, I think the chances go down from Illyrian to Daco-Thracian.
The Thracians in particular are way more likely to descend from an Epi-Corded and Balto-Slavic related environment, the Illyrians being probably between those and the Celtic sphere. In any case I see no real path for Thracians, and a low probability for Illyrian. Talking about Greek-Phryian-Armenian, I think a later KMK-Babino wave is still a viable option, but we'll see.
The original Yamnaya elements in the Balkans most mixed and were dispersed early on, playing a role on the Balkans and for some time in Pannonia also, but rather as an element within a wider framework not created by them. But all of that will be seen, hopefully.

Otherwise I think, even though the Greeks are very important for the debate, coming back to E-V13 in any context would be great. From my personal view a Middle to Late Bronze Age transition entry point for Proto-Greeks to the Aegean is possible to likely, an earlier too - a later not. But Greek speakers with different dialects might have been much more widespread before and after migrating to the Aegean, with additional tribes, part of the "Dorian invasion", coming down later, in the Late Bronze to Early Iron Age transition. But that's not the same as Greeks as such coming down as a whole just in the transitional period to the Aegean. That's largely out of question imho.

I would be more interesting to investigating how the LBA-EIA might or might not have spread E-V13 among Greeks, Southern Italians and Ligurians. But in most of these cases, the currently available data of both ancients and moderns is insufficient, yet some clues could be gathered by comparing the Greek samples on FTDNA, like the examples I brought up before. There are definitely more Greeks tested on FTDNA than we have on YFull, which runs contrary to the Albanian pattern.

rafc
09-06-2021, 03:38 PM
Greeks didn't reach Greece in the LBA/EIA transition from the Balkans. This is not debatable and there is no theory which would claim otherwise because Greek has been attested long before the LBA/EIA transition within Greece and not outside Greece. Proto-Greek reached Greece between EH (Early Helladic) II and EH III and there are countless attestations of Greeks (Mycenaean Greeks) all around southern Greece and the Mediterranean since writing systems were employed.

Evidently that is not what I wrote. (Proto)-Greek was indeed already spoken in Greece in the Late bronze age. Your argument on attestation is not relevant, since the absence of any attested languages is not proof that a certain language was not spoken.

Riverman
09-09-2021, 03:12 PM
Today I came across an old study on Northern Vlachs in Moravia. There general frequency of E1b1b is quite similar to that of Czechs in general, actually the Czechs have somewhat more of it. Still there are some remarkable Vlach lineages of E1b1b:

The second Valach sample set consisted of 79 samples (code: VLIN, Moravian Valachs lineages). The sampling process in this case differed significantly from the VALACH sample set. VLIN sample set came from 7 Valach paternal lineages. These were defined primarily by surname, as well as by geographic localization in the Valach region and self-identification of the donors. Although the samples came from broad families, no first, second, third, and fourth degree relatives were included in the study, virtually making this Valach sample set composed of unrelated, non-randomly selected Valachs, carrying 7 different surnames.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3131682/

I wonder how much of the frequency of E-V13 in the West Slavic regions, especially Bohemia, Moravia, Slovakia and Carpathian Poland, Western Ukraine, can be attributed to those Vlachs and their migrations. In the Czech case, it doesn't seem to be that much and the Vlach as a class and profession can often be confused with any sort of real ethnic diffusion. How much is hard to guess since the Vlachs themselves vary a lot of and the V13 frequency is not always that high anyway, like in this case. We would need to get more high resolution samples to estimate that.
Anything new on the issue, anyone?

Riverman
09-12-2021, 07:54 PM
Recently, after the Bohemian paper, which brought up not enough samples from other Neolithic cultures, especially Baden and Jordanow, I thought about the Michelsberger E1b1b again and whether there was a connection. Obviously, E1b1b was a minority among the Michelsberger, which were mostly from the Impresso-Cardial farmers which were to large part captured and transformed by local Mesolithic groups, but there is an interesting connection I kind of overlooked before:

Die Michelsberger Kultur war als Flächenkultur von ihrem Ursprungsgebiet im Pariser Becken bis nach Süddeutschland verbreitet.[1] Siedlungsschwerpunkte lagen in der Oberrheinischen Tiefebene, am Mittelrhein sowie im Kraichgau.[2] Die südöstlichste Fundgruppe lag in Ostbayern nahe der Donau, wo es kulturelle Kontakte mit der zeitgleichen späten Münchshöfener Kultur gab.

https://de-academic.com/dic.nsf/dewiki/954160

There were contacts to the Münchshöfener Kultur, about which I knew even less, but it goes on:

Die Münchshöfener Kultur ist eine jungneolithische Kultur mit dem Kerngebiet im Donauraum Bayerns, die etwa um 4500 v. Chr. begann und um 3900/3800 v. Chr. endete. Sie ist ein Ausläufer der Lengyelkultur, deren Kerngebiet im östlichen Mitteleuropa liegt.

https://de-academic.com/dic.nsf/dewiki/990534

This means the Michelsberger had indeed direct contact to the other group of people with so far 2 E1b1b samples, which is Lengyel-Sopot! This probably explains why we have in the Michelsberger a minority of E1b1b, because the new I2 clans met with the other expanding group from the East. Both met on the corpses of the preceding Cardial-Impresso and Linearbandkeramik groups. That means we have the best evidence, so far, for Lengyel-Sopot being indeed the main carrier of E1b1b.
In this context it would be very interesting if there would have been more Jordanow/Jordansmühler Kultur samples from Bohemia, because they represent the end phase of Lengyel:
https://de-academic.com/dic.nsf/dewiki/711006

Baden could have picked some up as well. There is however one big problem with the Jordanow culture, they were, already in the Neolithic times, cremating their dead in many places, especially Bohemia:

In Böhmen dominiert dir Brandbestattung.

I think that might have been the main reason why there were no finds of E1b1b in the recent Bohemian paper, because they burned their dead. However, I think its interesting that their burials were in a way similar in some respects to the Corded Ware customs and what's even more, not all seem to have cremated:


In Schlesien meist von Steinpackungen umgebene OW-gerichtete Hockergräber. Frauen liegen auf der rechten Seite, Männer auf der linken. Relativ häufig ist Grabschmuck aus Kupferblech (Perlen aus eingerolltem Blech), außerdem kupferne Spiralarmringe und brillenförmige Doppelspiralen; daneben Abschläge aus Feuerstein und zwei bis vier Gefäße am Kopfende. In Böhmen dominiert dir Brandbestattung.


https://de-academic.com/dic.nsf/dewiki/711006


. From Jordanów/Michelsberg contexts
exist first evidence of burials under barrows (Březno u Loun (100)), assumed also for the Funnel Beaker
period and later on a mass scale for the CW and BB (50), alternatively for the EBA (101).

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi6941

This means there are indeed body burials, inhumations, but not that much in the Bohemian groups, but in Silesia. That's very close to the region where I would assume the pre-Gava culture started, between Moravia-Silesia-Carpathian Poland-Slovakia-North Western Romania.

I guess there are no Jordanow samples from Silesia available? But in search of the predecessors of Channelled Ware in the Middle to Later Neolithic, that's one of the places to search for I guess. The Michelsberger E1b1b finds might therefore not represent an independent group from Northern Lengyel-Sopot, but sort of a colony or fusion from it.

If Northern Lengyel-Sopot is indeed the main body of E1b1b carrying groups in Middle Neolithic Europe, I'd assume that, as a logical consequence, it could go from there to Epi-Lengyel, over to Baden, to Southern Unetice-related, to pre-Gava. This graphic helps to understand how the evolution could have possibly going on:

https://de-academic.com/pictures/dewiki/77/Megawal97.PNG
https://de-academic.com/pictures/dewiki/77/Megawal97.PNG

In that sense its frustrating, but not surprising, that the Bohemian study didn't reveal too much about the prehistory of E-V13, because of the few good inhumation burials available in the region and practically all tested ones being females. Also, in Jordanow, Michelsberger and Baden, E1b1b will remain a minority element, but unfortunately they just sampled, of the few available burials, mostly females. The only male was an unclear case of haplogroup I. Same for the Rivnac samples: All females!

vettor
09-12-2021, 09:14 PM
@riverman

what % of bosnians are E-V13 ?

Riverman
09-12-2021, 10:09 PM
@riverman

what % of bosnians are E-V13 ?

Within Bosnia there is a decrease from Bosnian Serbs to Muslims to Croats. But overall it should be, depending on the study, between 10-20 percent, so if I say about 13-15 percent, it might not be that far off. Some Serbian regions have a higher percentage, remarkably especially those closer to the main epicentre of Belegis II-Gava. Viminacium is pretty much in one of these centres.

Bruzmi
09-13-2021, 02:13 AM
Individuals from Viminacium were not from the city itself. They were from other areas of the Balkans as the inscriptions show and many weren't even from the Balkans as the new study strongly suggests. When we get their files, we'll have a better idea where the place of origin of each individual might be located.

It's known many E-V13 individuals from northern Serbia are from Raska or Kosovo or Montenegro or Herzegovina. Others are from the Timok valley. We shouldn't assume that there is a geographical continuity of E-V13, because we can actually see that there isn't any such continuity. Anyone can read on poreklo fora the family history of every single one of them and they can see that many of them are not from northern Serbia and 300 years ago their ancestors didn't live there. We don't have to assume or hypothesize anything about the history of E-V13 from a certain point in time onwards, because the family history of every individual is publicly available.

E-V13 in Bosnia & Herzegovina:

Haplogroup Prediction Using Y-Chromosomal Short Tandem Repeats in the General Population of Bosnia and Herzegovina
(https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2021.671467/full) (2021):

Haplogroup E was detected in the present study through its sublineage E1b1b (14.58%), which is characteristic for European male individuals (Primorac et al., 2011). The previously studied population of B&H marked E1b1b as the second most prevalent haplogroup in the population with a frequency of 13.7% based on Y-SNP analysis (Marjanović et al., 2005, 2006). The similarity in frequency of E1b1b and R1a in this study population of B&H was also shown in the Y-STR-based study, whereby these two haplogroups appear in the frequency of 17% each (Dogan et al., 2016a).



Looking at the family histories of many samples, in my opinion much of E-V13 in Bosnia spread quite recently (medieval and Ottoman times) from northwestern Montenegro/Old Herzegovina and Herzegovina towards other areas in Bosnia. That's not to say that no E-V13 existed in northern and northwestern Bosnia, but these individuals are significantly fewer than those from Herzegovina and Montenegro. Low frequency of E-V13 and even lower J2b-L283 in many of these more northern areas in my opinion reinforces the view that in late antiquity constant warfare had largely depopulated Bosnia except for some settlements.

Riverman
09-13-2021, 06:33 AM
Individuals from Viminacium were not from the city itself. They were from other areas of the Balkans as the inscriptions show and many weren't even from the Balkans as the new study strongly suggests. When we get their files, we'll have a better idea where the place of origin of each individual might be located.

It's known many E-V13 individuals from northern Serbia are from Raska or Kosovo or Montenegro or Herzegovina. Others are from the Timok valley.

The only way to really know is to check the subclades with more samples. The region between the Morava and Timok valley was a central region for the Belegis II-Gava expansion as well by the way. That's how E-V13 came down to Kosovo-Albania in the first place. But you are right, even if they are in the right position, that doesn't mean there has to be actual continuity without further testing and checking.

There are some Serbian E-V13 with an Albanian-Montenegrine connection, but talking about Bosnia, there are also more independent subclades, like this one:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-PF6784/

Upstream: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y35953/ (E-Z16663)
We had this one for Croatians. Definitely old and independent subclades.

rafc
09-13-2021, 09:20 AM
Anyone can read on poreklo fora the family history of every single one of them and they can see that many of them are not from northern Serbia and 300 years ago their ancestors didn't live there. We don't have to assume or hypothesize anything about the history of E-V13 from a certain point in time onwards, because the family history of every individual is publicly available.

I think you might be overestimating the knowledge of the Serbian language in most people. :)

Riverman
09-13-2021, 10:49 AM
Going by the data from Poreklo, there appears to be the following pattern:
E > E-A18844 = Montenegrine with Bosnian and Western-Central Serbia
E > E-BY14160 = Southern Serbia, North of Kosovo, especially around Raška
E > E-BY165837 = Montenegrine and Southern Serbian, especially around Brda and Raška
E > E-PH2180 (subclade of E-L241) = clearly Southern distribution, Montenegrine and Albanian related
E > E-Y126722 = Montenegrine and Bosnian concentration
E > E-Y37092 = Montenegrine and Bosnian concentration
E > E-Z13591 = widespread, but hotspots in Montenegro
E > E-Z38456 = widespread, but rather Montenegrine and Albanian related

Those fit your idea Bruzmi, but now come the others:

E > E-FGC11450 = more central Serbian, wide distribution, up to Hungary and into Croatia, very low in Montenegro (2)
E > E-L241 (x PH2180, x Y142744) = strong in Bosnia and Serbia, widespread, but rather a central distribution, very low in Montenegro (1), even though its one of the most common clades among Serbs
E > E-PH1173 = more central distribution, little in the South, nothing in Montenegro, no overlap with Albania, but rather with Macedonia-Bulgaria possibly. Unfortunately no deeper subclades known, would have been very interesting. https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-PH1173/
E > E-Y142744 (subclade of E-L241) = Central distribution, very strong in Bosnian and Krajina Serbs.

After going through the data in more detail than before, I'd say too that a very large fraction comes from Montenegro-Kosovo-Southern Serbia, but there are distinct clades which can be clearly differentiated from these and seem to have an older tradition more to the North or East respectively.
Closer Albanian matches, more recent TMRCA than Hallstatt period, quite often point to a concentrated Southern origin, like for E-PH2180, while the absence or extreme rarity is counter-argument. That the second part of the list is so much shorter might be misleading, because in total the numbers are not that different I'd say. A large portion of the total 582 E samples is more upstream and not assigned to any more region- or ethnic-specific subclade at this point, or being from other haplogroups like E-M81 and E-V22.

Bruzmi
09-13-2021, 02:38 PM
Some Serbian regions have a higher percentage, remarkably especially those closer to the main epicentre of Belegis II-Gava. Viminacium is pretty much in one of these centres.



It's known many E-V13 individuals from northern Serbia are from Raska or Kosovo or Montenegro or Herzegovina. Others are from the Timok valley. We shouldn't assume that there is a geographical continuity of E-V13, because we can actually see that there isn't any such continuity.

We are examining E-V13 in northern Serbia, particularly the areas near Viminacium. As you can see (thanks for going through the trouble of gathering the data :) ), the background of many samples shows a distribution from the south to the north. Of those which are not found in high frequency/diversity in more southern Balkan areas, a significant portion of them have a substantial distribution in central Serbia or Bosnia (some with origin from Herzegovina) but not in northern Serbia. If you examine branches like E-PH1173, you'll see that many of these Bosnian Serbs have a family background from Herzegovina.

Some comments:
-E-A18844 is the branch of the Mataruga tribe (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3821-Albanian-DNA-Project&p=779802&viewfull=1#post779802). Its upstream clade includes the Shoshi and Bobi fis of the Dukagjini Highlands. These medieval Albanian tribes seem to have lived around Lake Shkodra until branching out and migrating northwards. E-A18844 has an impressive medieval/Ottoman expansion of lineages. E-18844 and E-Z16988 are the most frequent E-V13 lineages among Bosnian Serbs, in particular in regions like Herzegovina and via migrations in other regions.

Herzegovina Serbs (n=123): Hg E = 18 of which 9/18 are E-18844 and 6/18 E-Z16988. The three others are E-PH2180, E-PH1173 and an E-Z1057 who hasn't tested deeper.

-E-Y126722 is Vasojevići (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasojevi%C4%87i)

-E-FGC11450 may be low among Montenegrins but it has high diversity and frequency among Albanians of all areas so a south > north late antiquity/medieval/Ottoman distribution in some areas of Serbia is likely in general but it depends on the clade of each individual.

Article about E-FGC11450 (https://rrenjet.com/e-fgc11450/) in Project Rrënjët:
https://rrenjet.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/E-FGC11450-08.2021-1.02.png

Results in the public databases of Gjenetika (http://www.gjenetika.com/rezultatet/) and Rrënjët (https://rrenjet.com/databaza-publike/)

Among Bosniaks (https://bosnjackidnk.com/ydnk-baza-rodova/), E-FGC11450 has been found in downstream E-BY68094 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY68094/) in Usora, central Bosnia and its upstream E-Y146086 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y146086/) in Kosovo. It has high diversity/frequency among Albanians. Other E-FGC11450 who haven't tested beyond that level are found in Sandzak, Herzegovina and Bosnia.

-E-PH2180 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-PH2180/) has very high diversity/frequency among Albanians( fise of Tropoja/Malësia e Gjakovës). Project Rrënjët has published an article about its distribution (https://rrenjet.com/e-ph2180/) and the Bosniak DNA Project (https://bosnjackidnk.com/e-ph2180-mavricki/) has mapped part of the movement of PH2180 from northern Albanian areas to Sandzak. In low concentration, it's found among Bosnian Serbs and others.

-E-PH1173 is found via migrations in several areas in Serbia. As an example, check E-PH1173 results from Serbian DNA Month 2020 (https://www.poreklo.rs/2020/11/11/konacni-rezultati-akcije-srpski-dnk-mesec-2020/):

52. Škipina, Nikoljdan, Udrežnje, Nevesinje, E-V13> CTS9320> PH1173. Nevesinje (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevesinje) is in Eastern Herzegovina.
127. Romić, Nikoljdan, Crna Dolina, Prijedor, E-V13> CTS9320> PH1173. Prijedor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prijedor) is in northwestern Bosnia, but the Romići are recorded as settling there from Čvaljina (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%8Cvaljina), western Herzegovina.



(E-Y142744 is an interesting branch, which we'll examine closely in a later discussion)

Bane
09-13-2021, 03:19 PM
-E-A18844 is the branch of the Mataruga tribe (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3821-Albanian-DNA-Project&p=779802&viewfull=1#post779802). Its upstream clade includes the Shoshi and Bobi fis of the Dukagjini Highlands. These medieval Albanian tribes seem to have lived around Lake Shkodra until branching out and migrating northwards.


This statement is a bit ambiguous so I will just mention that according to YFull Albanian and Serbian lineages had split at least 1150 years ago.
Actually, for Serbian lineages of this particular clade there are arguments to consider migration from Northeast, instead of towards Notheast. That would further imply its Triballian origin. But I have to say this is just a speculation.

Riverman
09-13-2021, 03:38 PM
-E-PH1173 is found via migrations in several areas in Serbia. As an example, check E-PH1173 results from Serbian DNA Month 2020 (https://www.poreklo.rs/2020/11/11/konacni-rezultati-akcije-srpski-dnk-mesec-2020/):

52. Škipina, Nikoljdan, Udrežnje, Nevesinje, E-V13> CTS9320> PH1173. Nevesinje (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevesinje) is in Eastern Herzegovina.
127. Romić, Nikoljdan, Crna Dolina, Prijedor, E-V13> CTS9320> PH1173. Prijedor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prijedor) is in northwestern Bosnia, but the Romići are recorded as settling there from Čvaljina (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%8Cvaljina), western Herzegovina.

(E-Y142744 is an interesting branch, which we'll examine closely in a later discussion)

Probably you have more data, but
E > E-PH1173
has 0 samples from Montenegro and Kosovo, just 2 samples from Herzegovina, but also 2 from Macedonia and a more Central-Eastern centre it seems to me. There is a Bosnian-Krajina Serb centre around Knin possibly, but that's obviously secondary. With higher resolution there might be some split.

The very North of Serbia has probably also a lack of actual Serbian old lineages, considering its settlement history, but just over the border, the E-V13 distribution goes on in that area with Hungarians and Romanians, and those rather connect with the Central Serbian subclades, rather than with the more Southern ones. Though there are some exceptions and in some cases its hard to tell who brought it where within the Vlach networks in particular.

Bruzmi
09-13-2021, 05:15 PM
This statement is a bit ambiguous so I will just mention that according to YFull Albanian and Serbian lineages had split at least 1150 years ago.
Actually, for Serbian lineages of this particular clade there are arguments to consider migration from Northeast, instead of towards Notheast. That would further imply its Triballian origin. But I have to say this is just a speculation.

Mataruga is recorded for the first time in 1222 in Pelješac in Dalmatia. Its initial homeland was in Katunska Nahija (from the word "katund", pasture settlement) and Old Herzegovina, present-day Montenegro. The Mataruga in 1477 are found in Pljevlja and Prijepolje where they form their own nahija in present-day Sandzak. Their slavicization wasn't yet completed because one of their heads bore the name Vojko Arbanash and some villages still had elements of Albanian toponymy (Dobroja Bukur, Gurovik, Dardaca). Later, the Mataruga migrated to central Serbia (Mataruge, Mataruška Banja) and other areas. This is all historically recorded. Movements from Old Montenegro formed the nahija (commune) in Sandzak and all other settlements in Serbia, not the other way around.

Hence, its diversification is found in Old Montenegro where it branches in the Bjelice (FT104106) and the Riđani (CTS11222) which are mentioned in the 15th century (maybe even earlier, but that's the earliest date I can verify with certainty). (There is also A18844* in Arkadia, Greece and possibly another A18844 sample from Thessaly which further indicate the broad region where this lineage branched from)

Other samples outside Montenegro represent earlier or even much younger outward migrations. For example, there is a sample from Zajecar, Serbia under A188444, but this person is not from Zajecar or the Timok Valley. His family moved around 1910 in Timok from Montenegro.

A18844 shows a typical rapid expansion of some lineages in the medieval/Ottoman period from Montenegro.

Bane
09-13-2021, 05:38 PM
Mataruga is recorded for the first time in 1222 in Pelješac in Dalmatia.


Indeed, among Serbian enthusiasts for population genetics E-A18844 has been connected to the Mataruge tribe for years.
I have to say there are couple of people including me which find this connection not well-founded. Even the opponents would admit other Y-DNA connections for Vasojevici, Bjelopavlici or Kuci are notably more reliable, or we can say proven (unlike for Mataruge).

Bruzmi
09-13-2021, 06:20 PM
Probably you have more data, but
E > E-PH1173
has 0 samples from Montenegro and Kosovo, just 2 samples from Herzegovina, but also 2 from Macedonia and a more Central-Eastern centre it seems to me. There is a Bosnian-Krajina Serb centre around Knin possibly, but that's obviously secondary. With higher resolution there might be some split.

The very North of Serbia has probably also a lack of actual Serbian old lineages, considering its settlement history, but just over the border, the E-V13 distribution goes on in that area with Hungarians and Romanians, and those rather connect with the Central Serbian subclades, rather than with the more Southern ones. Though there are some exceptions and in some cases its hard to tell who brought it where within the Vlach networks in particular.

Under E-PH1173:
a)Sedlan from Gračac (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gra%C4%8Dac), Dalmatia.
b)Andic from Biskupija (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biskupija), Dalmatia
c)Mijukov from Kovin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kovin), Banat. They settled there by the early 19th century.
d)Guga from Vršac, Banat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vr%C5%A1ac). They are close to the Romići from Prijedor.
e)Becejski from Banat.
f)Cenic from Leskovac (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leskovac). They claim descent from Montenegro.
g)Popovic from Loznica (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loznica). They claim to be natives of western Serbia.
h)Vlastenica from Stari Vlah (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%C5%A1ka_(region)) (Raska/Sandzak)
i)Milosavljevic from Velika Plana (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velika_Plana). They are recorded by Erdeljanovic as originating from Kosovo. They seem to have to settled in Velika Plana in the 18th century.

It'll be interesting to find the exact relation of the samples from Macedonia and the Sardinian E-PH1173. Based on existing data, I would say that E-PH1173 is more concentrated in western/central parts of the Balkans with a possible expansion from Montenegro-Herzegovina-Raska/Sandzak for a substantial part of its branches. A linguistic observation I want to make is that some of the names show obvious Romance influence (Romic, Guga, Vlastenica). It may not mean much eventually but it's interesting that such an influence exists.

rafc
09-13-2021, 07:11 PM
We are examining E-V13 in northern Serbia, particularly the areas near Viminacium.

This was very interesting. In fact, it would be great if someone could gather the data from these diverse projects and keep us posted of these results.

rafc
09-13-2021, 07:20 PM
Under E-PH1173:
a)Sedlan from Gračac (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gra%C4%8Dac), Dalmatia.
b)Andic from Biskupija (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biskupija), Dalmatia
c)Mijukov from Kovin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kovin), Banat. They settled there by the early 19th century.
d)Guga from Vršac, Banat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vr%C5%A1ac). They are close to the Romići from Prijedor.
e)Becejski from Banat.
f)Cenic from Leskovac (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leskovac). They claim descent from Montenegro.
g)Popovic from Loznica (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loznica). They claim to be natives of western Serbia.
h)Vlastenica from Stari Vlah (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%C5%A1ka_(region)) (Raska/Sandzak)
i)Milosavljevic from Velika Plana (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velika_Plana). They are recorded by Erdeljanovic as originating from Kosovo. They seem to have to settled in Velika Plana in the 18th century.

It'll be interesting to find the exact relation of the samples from Macedonia and the Sardinian E-PH1173. Based on existing data, I would say that E-PH1173 is more concentrated in western/central parts of the Balkans with a possible expansion from Montenegro-Herzegovina-Raska/Sandzak for a substantial part of its branches. A linguistic observation I want to make is that some of the names show obvious Romance influence (Romic, Guga, Vlastenica). It may not mean much eventually but it's interesting that such an influence exists.

Thanks for this overview. What I always find hard to understand with these Poreklo lists (and same is true for the comparable Albanian site) is what this PH1173 means exactly. Are these guys SNP tested or STR-predicted? If they are SNP-tested, are there any negatives downstream of PH1173?
PH1173 is a very interesting clade that despite it's young age has a wide distribution around the Mediterranean.

Riverman
09-13-2021, 07:32 PM
Under E-PH1173:
a)Sedlan from Gračac (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gra%C4%8Dac), Dalmatia.
b)Andic from Biskupija (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biskupija), Dalmatia
c)Mijukov from Kovin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kovin), Banat. They settled there by the early 19th century.
d)Guga from Vršac, Banat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vr%C5%A1ac). They are close to the Romići from Prijedor.
e)Becejski from Banat.
f)Cenic from Leskovac (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leskovac). They claim descent from Montenegro.
g)Popovic from Loznica (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loznica). They claim to be natives of western Serbia.
h)Vlastenica from Stari Vlah (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%C5%A1ka_(region)) (Raska/Sandzak)
i)Milosavljevic from Velika Plana (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velika_Plana). They are recorded by Erdeljanovic as originating from Kosovo. They seem to have to settled in Velika Plana in the 18th century.

It'll be interesting to find the exact relation of the samples from Macedonia and the Sardinian E-PH1173. Based on existing data, I would say that E-PH1173 is more concentrated in western/central parts of the Balkans with a possible expansion from Montenegro-Herzegovina-Raska/Sandzak for a substantial part of its branches. A linguistic observation I want to make is that some of the names show obvious Romance influence (Romic, Guga, Vlastenica). It may not mean much eventually but it's interesting that such an influence exists.

The Vlachs were very mobile and it seems many regional modern Vlach groups, bug Romanian-Moldovan in particular, came up by constant splits and fusions of smaller units. This also means that even if in the network linguistically more Southern groups prevailed, that doesn’t have to mean ghey didn't incorporate more local Northern groups which persisted and contributed genetically within the Carpathian zone.
Also, as many lineages expanded Northward in Medieval times, they might just have moved more Southern just some centuries earlier.
Like we know about Provincial Roman people from as far as Pannonia and Dacia which sought refuge in the mountains, coastal cities and ultmately as their last resort the Dalmatian islands, Italy and Byzantium.
Its quite telling that as soon as the main defences of the Hungarians were brocken by the Mongols, the Hungarians king and elite fled to the islands as well.

Aspar
09-14-2021, 10:57 AM
Under E-PH1173:
a)Sedlan from Gračac (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gra%C4%8Dac), Dalmatia.
b)Andic from Biskupija (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biskupija), Dalmatia
c)Mijukov from Kovin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kovin), Banat. They settled there by the early 19th century.
d)Guga from Vršac, Banat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vr%C5%A1ac). They are close to the Romići from Prijedor.
e)Becejski from Banat.
f)Cenic from Leskovac (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leskovac). They claim descent from Montenegro.
g)Popovic from Loznica (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loznica). They claim to be natives of western Serbia.
h)Vlastenica from Stari Vlah (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%C5%A1ka_(region)) (Raska/Sandzak)
i)Milosavljevic from Velika Plana (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velika_Plana). They are recorded by Erdeljanovic as originating from Kosovo. They seem to have to settled in Velika Plana in the 18th century.

It'll be interesting to find the exact relation of the samples from Macedonia and the Sardinian E-PH1173. Based on existing data, I would say that E-PH1173 is more concentrated in western/central parts of the Balkans with a possible expansion from Montenegro-Herzegovina-Raska/Sandzak for a substantial part of its branches. A linguistic observation I want to make is that some of the names show obvious Romance influence (Romic, Guga, Vlastenica). It may not mean much eventually but it's interesting that such an influence exists.

If you consider this E-PH1173 to be of West/Central Balkan origin then I am afraid you are undermining the very Albanian West Balkan presence since ancient times because this is one of the most insignificant subclades found in the Albanians I believe.

On the other hand, this subclade is very strong in the Eastern Balkans, Macedonia, Thessally, Thrace. And not only that but there is a clear diversity and substructure as witnessed by the samples on YFULL.
On the other hand, we need to see these Dalmatian and Bosnian samples on the Y tree to tell where they stand on the Y tree. The samples from Leskovac are from South-East Serbia, region which historically was interconnected with Macedonia and the Eastern Balkans, more so than with the West Balkans. Even in the antiquity, it was a region settled by Moesian tribes, not Illyrian ones. Plus their story of a Montenegrin descent shouldn't be taken too seriously because as I know from reading these forums, there is some fetish among the Serbs to make up stories of Montenegrin descent and many such stories were disproven so far. What really matters is the place of birth of their most distant known patrilineal ancestor, not some mumbo jumbo story which itself doesn't stand at all seeing that E-PH1173 is just as insignificant in Montenegro as in Albanians.

Another thing is that the Vlachs presence in Bosnia and Dalmatia(Eastern Romance speakers, not Dalmatian ones) is undisputable and many historical accounts confirm the same. The Vlachs can be one of the possible mediators of E-PH1173 in Dalmatia and Bosnia. The Albanians are most certainly not. Plus, the Vlachs aligne more as a Central/Eastern Balkan derived population rather than as West Balkan, both linguistically and genetically (the Balkan derived yDna of the Vlachs shows remarkable difference to the Albanian one), with TMRCA well into the BA for the vast majority of yDna.
If the Vlachs are not the mediator then this subclade might have an older presence in those regions, originally steaming from the same Carpathian source as the most CTS9320 related subclades, from where it dispersed in different directions through the Urnfield system networks.

Kelmendasi
09-14-2021, 12:27 PM
Going by the data from Poreklo, there appears to be the following pattern:
E > E-BY165837 = Montenegrine and Southern Serbian, especially around Brda and Raška
The ultimate source for the E-BY165837 (https://yfull.com/live/tree/E-BY165837/) in Sandžak or Raška is Brda (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brda_(Montenegro)), Montenegro, since these families and individuals trace their ancestry directly back to the Kuči (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku%C4%8Di_(tribe)) (Albanian: Kuçi) tribe and closely match them. The Kuči that migrated away from their ancestral lands to regions such as Sandžak were rather mixed in regards to ethno-linguistic identity and religious background. A large portion of those that settled around Plav (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Plav+Municipality,+Montenegro/@42.6091673,19.8946113,11.57z/data=!4m13!1m7!3m6!1s0x13525fd8e68a8d87:0xc792ab2b 14af4557!2sPlav,+Montenegro!3b1!8m2!3d42.6001337!4 d19.9407541!3m4!1s0x1352607ceb57cf4f:0x38eb0114381 e746!8m2!3d42.6059842!4d19.9735048) and Gusinje (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Gusinje+Municipality,+Montenegro/@42.5328097,19.7621228,12z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x135265b88e0b2891:0xf9c1b eeb224aecab!8m2!3d42.5563455!4d19.8306051) for example were Albanian-speaking and Catholic Christians prior to converting to Islam, this is the case for noteworthy brotherhoods such as the Šabovići/Shabaj and Ferovići/Ferri who share the same ancestor. However, a number were also Serbs and Montenegrins adhering to Orthodox Christianity prior to adopting Islam.

E-BY168279 (https://yfull.com/live/tree/E-BY168279/), upstream of BY165837, so far seems to be most diverse among Albanians with three different lineages being identified as of now: E-BY168279>Y187415 (https://yfull.com/live/tree/E-Y187415/) identified in Albanian samples ranging from Durrës (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Durr%C3%ABs+District,+Albania/@41.4216206,19.238829,10z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x134fd5dc2f312285:0x281c5 638d896c98c!8m2!3d41.3706517!4d19.5211063) to Kruja (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Kruj%C3%AB+District,+Albania/@41.5206823,19.7000285,12z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x1351ce798fda35a9:0x88c62369999d0 381!8m2!3d41.5094765!4d19.7710732) to Kurbin (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Kurbin+District,+Albania/@41.6255161,19.5490094,11z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x1351da6418d11e15:0x372e0 2a9704168df!8m2!3d41.6300368!4d19.6877385); E-BY168279>Y174869>BY165837 identified in ethnic Albanians from the Kuçi and Koja (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koja_e_Ku%C3%A7it) tribes; and another cluster that has yet to be clearly defined present in Albanians from Gruda (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruda_(tribe)) and Trie(p)shi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triepshi_(tribe)) which seems to be a little distant to both of the other lineages, though if I had to guess based on what I have been told it may be E-BY168279>Y174869 (BY165837-) (https://yfull.com/live/tree/E-Y174869/).

Edit: As for E-Z13591 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z13591/), this cluster too has its ultimate source in Brda, specifically connected to the Bjelopavlići (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjelopavli%C4%87i) tribe centred around modern Danilovgrad (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Danilovgrad+Municipality,+Montenegro/@42.6138875,18.8308303,10z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x134dbce593093c63:0xd1fd2 8ecb69e2a48!8m2!3d42.58357!4d19.140438), and has spread with the movement of the tribe. By the year 1485 the tribe seems to have already become primarily Orthodox Christian and Slavic-speaking as is suggested by the dominance of typical Slavic and Orthodox Christian anthroponymy in the settlements, though Albanian personal names are also attested in a number of individuals: Brata, son of Doda; Lleshi, son of Radonja; Rashko, son of Kola, etc. Albanians have been identified in two other clusters under Y133830 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y133830/) and what is most interesting is that so far they are exclusively from the south of the country rather than the north.

Bruzmi
09-14-2021, 12:54 PM
If you consider this E-PH1173 to be of West/Central Balkan origin then I am afraid you are undermining the very Albanian West Balkan presence since ancient times because this is one of the most insignificant subclades found in the Albanians I believe.

On the other hand, this subclade is very strong in the Eastern Balkans, Macedonia, Thessally, Thrace. And not only that but there is a clear diversity and substructure as witnessed by the samples on YFULL.
On the other hand, we need to see these Dalmatian and Bosnian samples on the Y tree to tell where they stand on the Y tree. The samples from Leskovac are from South-East Serbia, region which historically was interconnected with Macedonia and the Eastern Balkans, more so than with the West Balkans. Even in the antiquity, it was a region settled by Moesian tribes, not Illyrian ones. Plus their story of a Montenegrin descent shouldn't be taken too seriously because as I know from reading these forums, there is some fetish among the Serbs to make up stories of Montenegrin descent and many such stories were disproven so far. What really matters is the place of birth of their most distant known patrilineal ancestor, not some mumbo jumbo story which itself doesn't stand at all seeing that E-PH1173 is just as insignificant in Montenegro as in Albanians.

Another thing is that the Vlachs presence in Bosnia and Dalmatia(Eastern Romance speakers, not Dalmatian ones) is undisputable and many historical accounts confirm the same. The Vlachs can be one of the possible mediators of E-PH1173 in Dalmatia and Bosnia. The Albanians are most certainly not. Plus, the Vlachs aligne more as a Central/Eastern Balkan derived population rather than as West Balkan, both linguistically and genetically (the Balkan derived yDna of the Vlachs shows remarkable difference to the Albanian one), with TMRCA well into the BA for the vast majority of yDna.
If the Vlachs are not the mediator then this subclade might have an older presence in those regions, originally steaming from the same Carpathian source as the most CTS9320 related subclades, from where it dispersed in different directions through the Urnfield system networks.

Good debates generally have two basic rules:
1)We should argue for/against theories one proposes, not for/against theories one doesn't propose.
2)We should provide evidence for every claim. Otherwise we risk having the same situation as when it was incorrectly claimed that prof. Orel suggested a particular etymology.

I listed 9 samples from Bosnia/Herzegovina/Serbia. When you claim that this "subclade is very strong in the eastern Balkans", you have to provide at the very least a number of samples which justify this claim. You can't just say that because E-PH1173 has very low coverage on yfull it's very strong in the eastern Balkans. What matters of course is frequency of diversity (unless a historical migration event exists), which can only be verified if they all test deeper and upload their results (A reply to @rafc as many individuals who test with regional Balkan projects usually don't test deeper. For the standard procedures each project uses, it's better to ask their admins)

The western and central Balkans stretch from Albania to Croatia (south-north) and inlands include parts of Kosovo, Bosnia and Macedonia. It's obvious that there's no reason why only particular E-V13 or other lineages should inhabit this vast area and it's not necessary for all to have spoken Albanian in the medieval period (something which I didn't claim but you mention it as if I did). In fact, not only is not necessary for them to have spoken Albanian so late, but the opposite: it's necessary for a good portion of lineages to have been latinized. The linguistic situation of the Balkans requires that by early medieval times, a portion still spoke a surviving native language (Albanian) and the rest of the native population had either become Latin-speaking or Greek-speaking.

Regarding samples, there's no reason to assume continuity or discontinuity in an area. We should know more about the background of a sample and then propose a historical genealogy. There's no reason why anyone should have assumed that this person's ancestors have been in the region for 2000 years (a proposition which is extremely unlikely in itself given the population changes in the region).


The sample from Leskovac claims descent from Montenegro so we shouldn't ignore the family history of individuals in order to infer information which fits particular hypotheses.

As for Leskovac even though it doesn't involve the background of this particular sample:
-In pre-Roman antiquity the broad area of today's Leskovac was a contact zone between many groups including Illyrians and Moesians. The exact position of Leskovac today seems to have been Dardanian and the area east of it Moesian or Triballian in the era just before Roman control and/or in the early Roman period.

https://i.ibb.co/2NbF869/dardania.png
Les habitats de l'Age du fer sur le territoire de l'actuel Kosovo (http://www.theses.fr/2019LYSE2097) (2019)

- In late Roman antiquity, the broad region of Leskovac is likewise located in Dardania. From 'The Illyrians', 1992:

The origin of the family in northern Dardania was later marked by the new city Justiniana Prima, on a ridge above the village of Caricin Grad in southern Serbia, 20 miles west of Leskovac. The walls enclose an area 500 by 215 metres, with an inner acropolis at the northwest. Internal arrangements were based on two streets flanked with colonnades, with a circular forum at the intersection. Most of the interior appears to have been taken up with several churches, some of which had mosaic decoration. Justiniana Prima was made the seat of the archbishop of Dardania and was granted many privileges by a law issued in AD 535

- We don't have to discuss about tribal labels of pre-Roman antiquity and then try to infer what haplogroups these labels might have carried. We have samples from Timacum Minus, further north from Leskovac in late Roman antiquity. As such, we can stop discussing with arbitrary labels and just discuss about the samples:

I15544 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis E-V13,E-Z1057,E-CTS1273,E-BY3880 HV9
I15545 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis I1,I-Z58,I-Z59,I-CTS8647,Z60,Z140,Z141 H1
I15546 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis J2b2a-L283,J-Z622,J-Z600,J-Z585,J-Z615,J-Z597 L2a1+143+16189 (16192)
I15547 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis J2b2a-L283 H+152
I15548 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis J2b2a-L283,J-Z585,J-Z615,J-Z597,J-Z638,J-Z1297,J-Z8421,J-Z631,J-Z1043 W+194
I15551 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis R1b-Z2103,R-Z2105 T1a
I15552 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis R1b-Z2103,R-M12149,R-Z2106,R-Z2108,R-Z2110,R-CTS7556,R-Y5592,R-CTS1450 H1c
I15553 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis E-V13,E-Z1057,E-CTS1273 T2b25
I15554 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis E-V13,E-Z1057,E-CTS1273,E-BY3880 H
I15555 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis G-P303,G-L140,G-PF3346,G-PF3345,G-CTS342,G-FGC12126 [email protected]


- Instead of discussing generic "interconnectivity", I would prefer to discuss the actual demographics of Leskovac. Ottoman Leskovac was a multilingual region inhabited by Christians, Muslims and Jews. Many people regardless of religion hailed ultimately from today's Montenegro, northern Albania, Kosovo, Raska/Sandzak (Serbs, Albanians). In 1877-1878, the Muslim population was expelled and farmers from Montenegro, Herzegovina and parts of Serbia settled in the vacant region.
Miloš Jagodić (1998), The Emigration of Muslims from the New Serbian Regions 1877/1878 (https://journals.openedition.org/balkanologie/265?lang=en#tocto2n3):

https://i.ibb.co/v4vHZmf/pops.png

The chief of the Leskovac county administration made a list of settlements and houses in his administrative area and sent it as a report to the Minister of education on 14. (26) March 187874. According to this inventory, there were 221 settlements and 10 369 houses in the Leskovac county. Leskovac itself had 2 015 inhabited and about 700 empty Muslims’ houses. Besides, there were also 53 abandoned Albanian villages, which were not included in the previously mentioned number of settlements. They were placed in the region called Pusta Reka. Apart from these villages, the Albanians lived in three more communities next to them. These communities comprised 45 villages, of which 14 purely Albanian, 10 Serbian, 17 with a mixed population and there are no data for the 4 remained. There were 542 Serbian and 691 Albanian houses in these 41 villages. The last ones were vacant. The chief of the county administration stated in the report that in the 53 empty villages might have been approximately 30 houses each. The average number of houses in the mentioned 41 villages was 27 (27,4). Since they were next to the empty ones, that relation can be applied to them also, which means that they had about 1 431 houses. Then, it follows that there were 2 122 vacant Albanian houses altogether in the villages of the Leskovac county. The number of inhabitants is not stated in the report, but it can be presumed that the families had approximately 8 members, like in the other counties. In the Pusta Reka district, which was established after the Berlin congress, the average number of inhabitants in one house was exactly 876, which confirms the previous assumption. Therefore, it follows that about 16 976 Albanians moved out from the villages of the Leskovac county.

The territory of this county was identical with the one of the former Turkish Leskovac district. This fact gives the opportunity to check the stated estimations about the number of emigrants. About 17 033 Muslims lived in the villages of the Leskovac district in187778, which means that the mentioned assumption is correct.

I mention the demographic history of Leskovac to show how much the demographic situation has changed in just the last 150 years. Instead of assuming historical genealogies which might fit our own confirmation bias (we all do it from time to time), we should rely on actual historical knowledge and the construction of a proper genealogical profile for every sample.

Aspar
09-14-2021, 01:53 PM
@Bruzmi

Please, you don't provide sources for half of the content for what I provide...

As for the etymology of the word in question I did provide a source. Wiktionary is still better source than some anonymous guy posting on forums. If you disagree with Wiktionary try to modify that particular section and give sources why is that so. Until then you haven't disproved anything I am afraid.

Second, your wall of text is out of context and hasn't got anything to do with the most of what I wrote.

My source for the spread of E-PH1173 are the commercial trees such as the one on YFULL and FTDNA haplotree but also the available and public DNA projects. There are three SNP tested Bulgarians and two SNP tested Greeks on FTDNA with two unrelated Bulgarians on YFULL and one Cappadocian Greek.
On the other hand, there are no West Balkan samples E-BY4280 as of now clearly demonstrating which regions have more of the share and diversity of this subclade.

Plus on these closed for the public ethnic projects many samples are not even SNP tested but only STR predicted. There phylogenetic placement is not clear and there only a few of them.

Leskovac and the surroundings was clearly Moesian inhabited, not Illyrian, going by archaeological and historical sources. The eastern portion of the Roman province Dardania was inhabited by Moesian tribes, and just because the Romans decided to include Dacia Ripensis and Dacia Mediterranea into a bigger administrative unit called Dardania doesn't imply the people there were Illyrians. The Romans also put South Albania and Epirus but also Paeonia into the administrative unit of Macedonia but none with a little bit of brain between his ears will say that the Illyrians and the Paeonians were Macedonians.

Riverman
09-14-2021, 01:56 PM
Too bad there are no conclusive downstream clades from the Roman era Serbian sites.
On a sidenote, I think the relative frequent appearance of E-V13 in earlier Slavic related finds is remarkable.
Krakauer Berg (E-L540), Southern Moravia (E-L241), Krivich tribe, Tver etc. Actually a good portion of the current ancient DNA samples comes from a Slavic-related context.
Even if mostly from migration and medieval times and, with two important exceptions, also no downstream subclades known afaik.
I hope the new sampling method for yDNA gets widely accepted and applied soon for all future testing.

Aspar
09-14-2021, 02:12 PM
Too bad there are no conclusive downstream clades from the Roman era Serbian sites.
On a sidenote, I think the relative frequent appearance of E-V13 in earlier Slavic related finde is remarkable.
Krakauer Berg (E-L540), Southern Moravia (E-L241), Krivich tribe, Tver and Yaroslavl. Actually a good portion of the current ancient DNA samples comes from a Slavic-related context.
Even if mostly from migration and medieval times and, with two important exceptions, also no downstream subclades known afaik.
I hope the new sampling method for yDNA gets widely accepted and applied soon for all future testing.

J-L283 was also found among those Krakauer samples and not that alien for the Balkans subclade as L540 is. I think what this is all about is that people of the former Urnfield zones in Poland, Czechia etc. were assimilated by different people from later times. Let's not forget the Visigoth E-V13 from Spain as well. All these people, Goths, Slavs, were present in Eastern and Central Europe close to the Carpathians and could have picked up various clades of E-V13.

Bruzmi
09-14-2021, 03:38 PM
As for the etymology of the word in question I did provide a source. Wiktionary is still better source than some anonymous guy posting on forums. If you disagree with Wiktionary try to modify that particular section and give sources why is that so. Until then you haven't disproved anything I am afraid.


You copied a wiktionary entry without checking the source and I posted the relevant pages from the work it supposedly cited and showed that there's no such thing written by Orel. I didn't write something which I made up, I just posted the relevant pages from a book which I own. The person who wrote that on wiktionary is also anonymous. You chose to repost here something you read on wiktionary without checking its source. Here's what Orel writes (again):


You read that in wiktionary (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BD%9D%CE%BB%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%82) so you're not citing Orel, you're citing a wiktionary user who supposedly cited Orel. The citation is wrong. In fact, Orel writes nothing about Bardhyll or Hyllus or any such etymology. As a matter of fact, what he writes, is the opposite.

Allow me to cite what Vladimir Orel writes in the Albanian Etymologicaly Dictionary in p. 518:

yll m, pl. yje 'star'. A parallel form is hyll. Goes back to PAlb *sktwila, a derivative of *skija > hije 'shadow' (OREL Linguistica XXIV 438-439). For the phonetic development of -Twi- > -y- cf. gryke. 0 MEYER Wb. 460 (to IE *sulno- or *sun- `sun'), Alb. St. III 43; PEDERSEN KZ XXXIII 544, XXXVI 277-278 (accepts MEYER's comparison with *sa/i); JOKL Balkangerm. 114-115; TAGLIAVINI Dalmazia 273; PISANI REIE IV 9; PORZIG Gliederung 181; HAMP Laryngeals 132-133 (yll as a proof of s-mobile in the word for `sun'); HULD 132, KZ XC 178-182 (to OE ysle, ON us/i 'spark, ember'); LIUKKONEN SSF X 58 (to Slav *aviti `to appear'); RASMUSSEN Morph. 264; BEEKES CIEL 264 (follows HULD and reconstructs *Huslo-); DEMIRAJ AE 206.

p. 155:

hyj m, pl. hyja, hyj 'god'. Singularized plural of yll, hyll 'star' (OREL Linguistica XXIV 438) coined by BOGDANI (CABEJ apud DEMIRAJ). 0 MEYER Wb. 150 (connects hyj with hije); KRISTOFORIDHI 135, 139 (same as MEYER); JOKL LKUBA 64-65 (reconstructs *hye continuing IE *skeini-); MANN Language XXVIII 39 (to ON skuggi < IE *skuni-); HAMP St. Whatmough 88.; DEMIRAJ AE 205.

https://i.ibb.co/dgwC7nq/orelyll.jpg


Albanian yll (according to Orel) derives from PAlb *skija > *sktwila via the development of /sk/ > /h/ in Proto-Albanian (see also skije > hije (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hije). (Other etymologies (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/yll) propose a different path, but you mentioned Orel, so I'll focus on his work)

The equivalent of PAlb *skija is ancient and modern Greek σκιά (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%83%CE%BA%CE%B9%CE%AC). Both derive from PIE (s)ḱeh₃ih₂ (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/(s)%E1%B8%B1eh%E2%82%83ih%E2%82%82)


Greek helios (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%A5%CE%BB%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%82#Ancient_Greek) derives from PGreek *hawelios < PIE *sóh₂wl̥ (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/s%C3%B3h%E2%82%82wl%CC%A5)

The equivalent of Greek helios is Albanian diell (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/diell) ; PAlb *delwa (its reconstruction according to Orel) and they both derive from PIE sóh₂wl̥






My source for the spread of E-PH1173 are the commercial trees such as the one on YFULL and FTDNA haplotree but also the available and public DNA projects.
The source for the samples from Croatia/Bosnia/Serbia is the public database of Poreklo (https://dnk.poreklo.rs/DNK-projekat/). For most samples, you can see additional information posted by admins and members including these individuals themselves on Poreklo articles/posts. I posted 9 samples from these regions (there may be more but I haven't checked all areas). When you say that there are "there only a few of them", it reads like a statement that in areas outside Croatia/Bosnia/Serbia there are more PH1173 samples than the western/central Balkans. I haven't found anything which supports such a statement.

Two more:
a)Veljkovic from Toplica. He is close to to Škipina from Nevesinje, Eastern Herzegovina.

and also:

b)Petrovic from Prilep in Macedonia. This person's grandfather went to Macedonia from Montenegro during the reign of King Nikola of Montenegro (1841-1921). That's literally something which happened within 3 generations.

Not only is there quite a large spread of this lineage in the western/central Balkans but it's also recorded that very recently its carriers migrated from Montenegro to Macedonia.

Aspar
09-14-2021, 04:00 PM
You copied a wiktionary entry without checking the source and I posted the relevant pages from the work it supposedly cited and showed that there's no such thing written by Orel. I didn't write something which I made up, I just posted the relevant pages from a book which I own. The person who wrote that on wiktionary is also anonymous. You chose to repost here something you read on wiktionary without checking its source. Here's what Orel writes (again):






The source for the samples from Croatia/Bosnia/Serbia is the public database of Poreklo (https://dnk.poreklo.rs/DNK-projekat/). For most samples, you can see additional information posted by admins and members including these individuals themselves on Poreklo articles/posts. I posted 9 samples from these regions (there may be more but I haven't checked all areas). When you say that there are "there only a few of them", it reads like a statement that in areas outside Croatia/Bosnia/Serbia there are more PH1173 samples than the western/central Balkans. I haven't found anything which supports such a statement.

Two more:
a)Veljkovic from Toplica. He is close to to Škipina from Nevesinje, Eastern Herzegovina.

and also:

b)Petrovic from Prilep in Macedonia. This person's grandfather went to Macedonia from Montenegro during the reign of King Nikola of Montenegro (1841-1921). That's literally something which happened within 3 generations.

Not only is there quite a large spread of this lineage in the western/central Balkans but it's also recorded that very recently its carriers migrated from Montenegro to Macedonia.

Wiktionary did provide a source and I stated that in my post.
Don't argue with me, there is a discussion page on Wiktionary where people debate about the relevant sources. You can't just edit a page and be done with it. It's usually reverted back to the previous content if it's edited without a good source. So go for it...

The link you provided doesn't show any public base?!? It seems it redirects you to the main Poteklo page. So even the link you provide don't work and aren't reliable.

There are zero samples of West Balkan origin of E-PH1173 on YFULL and FTDNA. This tells you alone how widespread is this subclade in the western Balkans. Then again, you didn't answer the question, are those West Balkan samples SNP tested or predicted?
Because with STR prediction I can tell you there are quite many ethnic Macedonians and Bulgarians belonging to this subclade, and also Greeks. I am talking only about SNP tested people and these are clearly more numerous in the Eastern Balkans than Western ones.

Bruzmi
09-14-2021, 04:17 PM
The link you provided doesn't show any public base?!? It seems it redirects you to the main Poteklo page. So even the link you provide don't work and aren't reliable.



You have a responsibility when you repost a linguistic claim which is not produced in a peer-reviewed process to check it and then decide if you want to reproduce it or not. You reproduced something which wasn't written by its author and I corrected it. That's it. In the future, just double-check your sources.


I can't know the exact process via which each sample was tested, but what you're saying wouldn't change anything for PH1173. I've provided 13 published samples so far, 1 of which is a person whose ancestor moved from Montenegro to North Macedonia. If you want to claim something else, all you have to do is list the published samples from any regional project or company in their public database and provide some information about their roots (if any is available in any project).

I don't know what exactly you mean but the link works just fine https://dnk.poreklo.rs/DNK-projekat/

Bruzmi
09-14-2021, 05:26 PM
https://bosnjackidnk.com/e-z17264-starohercegovacka/ The Bosniak DNA Project has mapped all available E-Z17264 samples (the majority are under downstream PH1173) at the time the article was published. It includes all samples both from commercial companies and regional projects.

As everyone can see for PH1173, most samples are from the western Balkans and they've even mapped the migration of the Montenegrin individual to North Macedonia.

https://i.ibb.co/82cGgV8/PH1173.png

They explain its origin/expansion as :

It is very likely that the members of E-Z17264 in the past formed the pre-Illyrian (Pelasgian?), Illyrian and Romance parts of the population of the Balkans


The mountainous regions of Montenegro and Old Herzegovina form the territory from which it branched in the western Balkans. E-Z17264 settled Krajina from the area of today's Montenegro via the recruitment of Albanian-Vlach tribes into trade route guards (derbendzi and martoloz)



I disagree with the equation pre-Illyrian=Pelasgian or the links of the label "Pelasgian" to E-V13 and I would be cautious about the term Albanian-Vlach because PH1173 hasn't been found in Albanians yet, but for its geographical origin, spread and context as a native latinized lineage of the western Balkans, this looks like a very likely scenario.

EDIT:

Full list of samples I've posted:

(it will make reading of the map easier)





1)Škipina from Nevesinje in Eastern Herzegovina.
2)Romić from Prijedor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prijedor) in northwestern Bosnia. They are recorded as settling there from Čvaljina (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%8Cvaljina), western Herzegovina.
3)Sedlan from Gračac, Dalmatia.
4)Andic from Biskupija, Dalmatia
5)Mijukov from Kovin, Banat. They settled there by the early 19th century.
6)Guga from Vršac, Banat. They are close to the Romići from Prijedor.
7)Becejski from Banat.
8)Cenic from Leskovac. They claim descent from Montenegro.
9)Popovic from Loznica. They claim to be natives of western Serbia.
10)Vlastenica from Stari Vlah (Raska/Sandzak)
11)Milosavljevic from Velika Plana. They are recorded by Erdeljanovic as originating from Kosovo. They seem to have to settled in Velika Plana in the 18th century.
12)Veljkovic from Toplica. He is close to to Škipina from Nevesinje, Eastern Herzegovina.
13)Petrovic from Prilep in Macedonia. This person's grandfather went to Macedonia from Montenegro during the reign of King Nikola of Montenegro (1841-1921).

capsian
09-14-2021, 07:55 PM
Good debates generally have two basic rules:
1)We should argue for/against theories one proposes, not for/against theories one doesn't propose.
2)We should provide evidence for every claim. Otherwise we risk having the same situation as when it was incorrectly claimed that prof. Orel suggested a particular etymology.

I listed 9 samples from Bosnia/Herzegovina/Serbia. When you claim that this "subclade is very strong in the eastern Balkans", you have to provide at the very least a number of samples which justify this claim. You can't just say that because E-PH1173 has very low coverage on yfull it's very strong in the eastern Balkans. What matters of course is frequency of diversity (unless a historical migration event exists), which can only be verified if they all test deeper and upload their results (A reply to @rafc as many individuals who test with regional Balkan projects usually don't test deeper. For the standard procedures each project uses, it's better to ask their admins)

The western and central Balkans stretch from Albania to Croatia (south-north) and inlands include parts of Kosovo, Bosnia and Macedonia. It's obvious that there's no reason why only particular E-V13 or other lineages should inhabit this vast area and it's not necessary for all to have spoken Albanian in the medieval period (something which I didn't claim but you mention it as if I did). In fact, not only is not necessary for them to have spoken Albanian so late, but the opposite: it's necessary for a good portion of lineages to have been latinized. The linguistic situation of the Balkans requires that by early medieval times, a portion still spoke a surviving native language (Albanian) and the rest of the native population had either become Latin-speaking or Greek-speaking.

Regarding samples, there's no reason to assume continuity or discontinuity in an area. We should know more about the background of a sample and then propose a historical genealogy. There's no reason why anyone should have assumed that this person's ancestors have been in the region for 2000 years (a proposition which is extremely unlikely in itself given the population changes in the region).


The sample from Leskovac claims descent from Montenegro so we shouldn't ignore the family history of individuals in order to infer information which fits particular hypotheses.

As for Leskovac even though it doesn't involve the background of this particular sample:
-In pre-Roman antiquity the broad area of today's Leskovac was a contact zone between many groups including Illyrians and Moesians. The exact position of Leskovac today seems to have been Dardanian and the area east of it Moesian or Triballian in the era just before Roman control and/or in the early Roman period.

https://i.ibb.co/2NbF869/dardania.png
Les habitats de l'Age du fer sur le territoire de l'actuel Kosovo (http://www.theses.fr/2019LYSE2097) (2019)

- In late Roman antiquity, the broad region of Leskovac is likewise located in Dardania. From 'The Illyrians', 1992:

The origin of the family in northern Dardania was later marked by the new city Justiniana Prima, on a ridge above the village of Caricin Grad in southern Serbia, 20 miles west of Leskovac. The walls enclose an area 500 by 215 metres, with an inner acropolis at the northwest. Internal arrangements were based on two streets flanked with colonnades, with a circular forum at the intersection. Most of the interior appears to have been taken up with several churches, some of which had mosaic decoration. Justiniana Prima was made the seat of the archbishop of Dardania and was granted many privileges by a law issued in AD 535

- We don't have to discuss about tribal labels of pre-Roman antiquity and then try to infer what haplogroups these labels might have carried. We have samples from Timacum Minus, further north from Leskovac in late Roman antiquity. As such, we can stop discussing with arbitrary labels and just discuss about the samples:

I15544 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis E-V13,E-Z1057,E-CTS1273,E-BY3880 HV9
I15545 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis I1,I-Z58,I-Z59,I-CTS8647,Z60,Z140,Z141 H1
I15546 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis J2b2a-L283,J-Z622,J-Z600,J-Z585,J-Z615,J-Z597 L2a1+143+16189 (16192)
I15547 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis J2b2a-L283 H+152
I15548 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis J2b2a-L283,J-Z585,J-Z615,J-Z597,J-Z638,J-Z1297,J-Z8421,J-Z631,J-Z1043 W+194
I15551 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis R1b-Z2103,R-Z2105 T1a
I15552 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis R1b-Z2103,R-M12149,R-Z2106,R-Z2108,R-Z2110,R-CTS7556,R-Y5592,R-CTS1450 H1c
I15553 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis E-V13,E-Z1057,E-CTS1273 T2b25
I15554 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis E-V13,E-Z1057,E-CTS1273,E-BY3880 H
I15555 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis G-P303,G-L140,G-PF3346,G-PF3345,G-CTS342,G-FGC12126 [email protected]


- Instead of discussing generic "interconnectivity", I would prefer to discuss the actual demographics of Leskovac. Ottoman Leskovac was a multilingual region inhabited by Christians, Muslims and Jews. Many people regardless of religion hailed ultimately from today's Montenegro, northern Albania, Kosovo, Raska/Sandzak (Serbs, Albanians). In 1877-1878, the Muslim population was expelled and farmers from Montenegro, Herzegovina and parts of Serbia settled in the vacant region.
Miloš Jagodić (1998), The Emigration of Muslims from the New Serbian Regions 1877/1878 (https://journals.openedition.org/balkanologie/265?lang=en#tocto2n3):

https://i.ibb.co/v4vHZmf/pops.png

The chief of the Leskovac county administration made a list of settlements and houses in his administrative area and sent it as a report to the Minister of education on 14. (26) March 187874. According to this inventory, there were 221 settlements and 10 369 houses in the Leskovac county. Leskovac itself had 2 015 inhabited and about 700 empty Muslims’ houses. Besides, there were also 53 abandoned Albanian villages, which were not included in the previously mentioned number of settlements. They were placed in the region called Pusta Reka. Apart from these villages, the Albanians lived in three more communities next to them. These communities comprised 45 villages, of which 14 purely Albanian, 10 Serbian, 17 with a mixed population and there are no data for the 4 remained. There were 542 Serbian and 691 Albanian houses in these 41 villages. The last ones were vacant. The chief of the county administration stated in the report that in the 53 empty villages might have been approximately 30 houses each. The average number of houses in the mentioned 41 villages was 27 (27,4). Since they were next to the empty ones, that relation can be applied to them also, which means that they had about 1 431 houses. Then, it follows that there were 2 122 vacant Albanian houses altogether in the villages of the Leskovac county. The number of inhabitants is not stated in the report, but it can be presumed that the families had approximately 8 members, like in the other counties. In the Pusta Reka district, which was established after the Berlin congress, the average number of inhabitants in one house was exactly 876, which confirms the previous assumption. Therefore, it follows that about 16 976 Albanians moved out from the villages of the Leskovac county.

The territory of this county was identical with the one of the former Turkish Leskovac district. This fact gives the opportunity to check the stated estimations about the number of emigrants. About 17 033 Muslims lived in the villages of the Leskovac district in187778, which means that the mentioned assumption is correct.

I mention the demographic history of Leskovac to show how much the demographic situation has changed in just the last 150 years. Instead of assuming historical genealogies which might fit our own confirmation bias (we all do it from time to time), we should rely on actual historical knowledge and the construction of a proper genealogical profile for every sample.

hi this remains have G25 or not yet

Bruzmi
09-15-2021, 12:25 PM
hi this remains have G25 or not yet

Not yet. Hopefully, we will have them in late September or October.

capsian
09-15-2021, 05:20 PM
Not yet. Hopefully, we will have them in late September or October.

thank you

ShpataEMadhe
09-18-2021, 11:01 AM
https://bosnjackidnk.com/e-z17264-starohercegovacka/ The Bosniak DNA Project has mapped all available E-Z17264 samples (the majority are under downstream PH1173) at the time the article was published. It includes all samples both from commercial companies and regional projects.

As everyone can see for PH1173, most samples are from the western Balkans and they've even mapped the migration of the Montenegrin individual to North Macedonia.

https://i.ibb.co/82cGgV8/PH1173.png

They explain its origin/expansion as :

It is very likely that the members of E-Z17264 in the past formed the pre-Illyrian (Pelasgian?), Illyrian and Romance parts of the population of the Balkans


The mountainous regions of Montenegro and Old Herzegovina form the territory from which it branched in the western Balkans. E-Z17264 settled Krajina from the area of today's Montenegro via the recruitment of Albanian-Vlach tribes into trade route guards (derbendzi and martoloz)



I disagree with the equation pre-Illyrian=Pelasgian or the links of the label "Pelasgian" to E-V13 and I would be cautious about the term Albanian-Vlach because PH1173 hasn't been found in Albanians yet, but for its geographical origin, spread and context as a native latinized lineage of the western Balkans, this looks like a very likely scenario.

EDIT:

Full list of samples I've posted:

(it will make reading of the map easier)

E-Ph1173 is downstream from cts9320 which is fairly common among albanians today - it looks like expansion into south slavic areas or do you think it was already there pre south slavic migration and was assimilated? Which are the most common E lines among south slavs today?

bce
09-18-2021, 11:26 AM
The information in the spreadsheet is a bit mangled, but after checking I see FTDNA now has a second SNP at BY6357 level, which is positive in Scy197: BY90238.
I will be checking FT27407 branch also, I guess it was not there when I made the original FGC44169 assessment.

Edit: I checked and the FT27407 SNP's all appear to be negative (or not covered). I am seeing if I can contact the person who made the BY6357* call.

Did you manage to find out anything about Quiles' haplogroup assignment methodology?

This is very important, if his assignments are unreliable, then we can rely only on official assignents from studies which are very shallow compared to his.

Riverman
09-18-2021, 01:19 PM
E-Ph1173 is downstream from cts9320 which is fairly common among albanians today - it looks like expansion into south slavic areas or do you think it was already there pre south slavic migration and was assimilated? Which are the most common E lines among south slavs today?

Haplogroup E-CTS9320 was found in Viminacium:

I15495 Viminacium, Pirivoj Necropolis E-V13,E-Z1057,E-CTS1273,E-BY3880,E-Z5017,E-Z5016,E-Y3762,E-CTS6377,E-CTS9320

a second one slightly upstream:

I15537 Timacum Minus, Kuline Necropolis E-V13,E-Z1057,E-CTS1273,E-BY3880,E-Z5017,E-Z5016,E-Y376

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?24658-Cosmopolitanism-at-the-Roman-Danubian-Frontier-Slavic-Migrations-and-the-Genomic-Fo&p=796838&viewfull=1#post796838

So it seems that the local population in and around Viminacium could have been dominated by E-CTS9320 already. It seems to spread with Channelled Ware/Belegis II-Gava and Basarabi-Bosut in the Iron Age. I also think it moved down South early, but could as well have spread with Vlachs later too, which depends on the subclades.

Like https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y84585/ looks like having moved more South earlier, but that's also hard to tell without better samping. In any case, while there are some possible more independent lineages in this clade, I guess most come from Montenegrines-Albanians in the Serbian population.

Compare with this:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?18885-A-theory-about-the-origin-of-E-V13&p=800345&viewfull=1#post800345

The Serbian E-V13 being largely split in a more Southern, rather Montenegrine-Albanian related, and into a more Northern and Eastern (Vlach-Romanian, Hungarian and Bulgarian) branches. They are probably around 50:50 overall.

Kelmendasi
09-18-2021, 01:42 PM
Like https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y84585/ looks like having moved more South earlier, but that's also hard to tell without better samping. In any case, while there are some possible more independent lineages in this clade, I guess most come from Montenegrines-Albanians in the Serbian population.
Sample YF10339 under E-Y84585>Y103928 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y103928/) is in fact not a Montenegrin or even an ethnic Albanian from Montenegro for that matter, they are from the Tirana District (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tirana_District) in Central Albania if I recall correctly. From what I have gathered they changed their flag to the Montenegrin one since they have a tradition of having arrived from Montenegro or Kosovo a few centuries following the Ottoman occupation. So far most samples under Y84585 are from the settlements and villages of Tirana with only a single sample (YF15176) coming from Mirdita (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mirdit%C3%AB+District,+Albania/@41.858702,19.7075576,10z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x135192f6c7c11c2d:0xc8f05 6213bf189e2!8m2!3d41.764286!4d19.9020509) to the north so there is no direct evidence of a movement from either Montenegro or Kosovo for now.

BukeKrypEZemer
09-18-2021, 02:35 PM
I wanted to share one of my observations from yesterday - the predecessor from CTS9320 CTS6377 seems already to have a high diversity in the balkans. There is a new result in CTS6377* from Belgrade. Moreover E-BY95428 as parallel clade to CTS9320 found amongst one Albanian and Bulgarian guy (I am relating only to Yfull here). Then we have CTS9320 with a high diversity in Balkans but also in Central Europe. So, starting from that, I would not rule out that CTS9320 expanded from Balkans, with a strong north movement (we even find it in Scandinavia) and a nearer south movement.

Rrenjet.
09-18-2021, 02:53 PM
Sample YF10339 under E-Y84585>Y103928 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y103928/) is in fact not a Montenegrin or even an ethnic Albanian from Montenegro for that matter, they are from the Tirana District (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tirana_District) in Central Albania if I recall correctly. From what I have gathered they changed their flag to the Montenegrin one since they have a tradition of having arrived from Montenegro or Kosovo a few centuries following the Ottoman occupation. So far most samples under Y84585 are from the settlements and villages of Tirana with only a single sample (YF15176) coming from Mirdita (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mirdit%C3%AB+District,+Albania/@41.858702,19.7075576,10z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x135192f6c7c11c2d:0xc8f05 6213bf189e2!8m2!3d41.764286!4d19.9020509) to the north so there is no direct evidence of a movement from either Montenegro or Kosovo for now.

Yes, he is Albanian from Tirane. I inquired about their ancestry a while back and my personal belief is that their legends have been misunderstood a bit, and may have originally referred to Malizi between Puke and Kukes. Whether that is true or not, matches show that this lineage has been in Tirane for centuries. The other lineage is from Selite (which is mostly J2b). All these Albanian samples have a German match on FTDNA with whom they likely split not too long after the CTS9320 MRCA.

Bane
09-18-2021, 03:15 PM
I wanted to share one of my observations from yesterday - the predecessor from CTS9320 CTS6377 seems already to have a high diversity in the balkans. There is a new result in CTS6377* from Belgrade. Moreover E-BY95428 as parallel clade to CTS9320 found amongst one Albanian and Bulgarian guy (I am relating only to Yfull here). Then we have CTS9320 with a high diversity in Balkans but also in Central Europe. So, starting from that, I would not rule out that CTS9320 expanded from Balkans, with a strong north movement (we even find it in Scandinavia) and a nearer south movement.


On FTDNA tree there are E-CTS6377+CTS9320- from England, France and Switzerland. What now?

BukeKrypEZemer
09-18-2021, 03:25 PM
On FTDNA tree there are E-CTS6377+CTS9320- from England, France and Switzerland. What now?

Still diversity remains higher in the balkans. Check out the diversity heatmap from Hunter Provyn (do it only for CTS9320, neglect CTS6377).
Moreover the distance in FTDNA between the individuals is not known. So taking them just for the sake of showing they exist does not contribute to a better understanding.

Riverman
09-18-2021, 04:26 PM
Still diversity remains higher in the balkans. Check out the diversity heatmap from Hunter Provyn (do it only for CTS9320, neglect CTS6377).
Moreover the distance in FTDNA between the individuals is not known. So taking them just for the sake of showing they exist does not contribute to a better understanding.

E-CTS9320 has an interesting TMRCA, exactly in the transitional period (around 1.100 BC). This means it could have split from a lineage which was already moving South, or up in the North shortly before moving South. I think it was rather the latter, but that the majority of the descendents lived along the Danube, probably even close to Viminacium, and where an important element in the Western Basarabi group. There are different pathways for them to spread West:
- Early Channelled Ware migrants, which had contacts up to Central Germany and we know of mobile blacksmiths in particular
- Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, which too reached deep into Central Europe
- From the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon came Basarabi up and the Eastern Hallstatt being strongly influenced by the horizon and Basarabi, from Eastern Hallstatt individuals and small groups could have moved to the Western Hallstatt sphere
- Later Scythian incursions led to new movements and these had Western contacts as well. The Scytho-Thracians had a strong influence on La Tene
- After the Celtic La Tene expansion West, many of these Danubian areas became connected with the whole Celtic world
- Roman Age and later individual migrations of merchants, soldiers and so on.

Looking at the TMRCA of the various subclades of E-CTS9320, I think it split up fairly early, right after the Channelled Ware LBA-EIA expansion timing. Its one of the major clades with a more regional Carpatho-Balkan centre, but decisive for each subclade is the timing of the branching event and some of it are pretty old.
E.g., even the Czech samples from a single branch surrounded by Carpatho-Balkan subclades has so far no overlap and was formed in the transitional period again:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-YP223/

Any closer ethnic-regional correlation demands a later split, after the transitional period (post 1.000 BC) or even better after Hallstatt (post 400 BC). If that's not given, we might deal with LBA to EIA splits, which happened in the main expansion periods of E-V13 and show no closer relationship at all.
To speak of anything like coming from a region in Albania or Balkan in general, we need an even closer overlap, like from Late Antiquity on. Because to speak of those modern people in prehistorical and Roman times might be not justified anyway.

What we can say for sure is that CTS9320 was important in the Bosut-Basarabi complex of the Daco-Thracian sphere. But that doesn't mean that some lineages could have split off earlier and moved West as soon as about 1.300 to 1.000 BC. Any common origin needs to be proven either by ancient DNA or modern high resolution samples with a TMRCA pointing to it. If those don't exist, they could have separated directly after the TMRCA date and that's for most no later than the Early Iron Age/Hallstatt so far.

That doesn't mean that future results might not prove a closer connection, but so far its very rare to have such and most of the major regional splits date early.

Bane
09-18-2021, 05:22 PM
Still diversity remains higher in the balkans. Check out the diversity heatmap from Hunter Provyn (do it only for CTS9320, neglect CTS6377).
Moreover the distance in FTDNA between the individuals is not known. So taking them just for the sake of showing they exist does not contribute to a better understanding.


Hunter Provyn's heatmaps are based on the YFull tree data. If they would be based on FTDNA data the result would be a lot different.

Riverman
09-18-2021, 06:18 PM
Hunter Provyn's heatmaps are based on the YFull tree data. If they would be based on FTDNA data the result would be a lot different.

Another problem is the gross overrepresentation of some testers. Like Moldovan and Romanian are very rare, people of German descent test more often, but I came across the fact that on FTDNA in the M35 group a lot of the people put in some categories are German lineages based on STR. Yet in the BigY category they are 10 times more rare and for some subclades not a single one, though being on important positions, uploaded his results! It seems a lot of the Central European testers just search for paternal close relatives, instead of ethnic and prehistorical ancestry. Once they get their results and either have a close match to work with, or none at all, they just tick it off. There seems to be a genuine lack of motivation to do the BigY and upload to YFull.
Same goes for the Serbian and Bosnian testers, which have a lot of STR-tested individuals, but a fairly low number of BigY and even less uploaded ones. Albanians are, in comparison, definitely overrepresented.
That doesn't mean their position is not strong and probably all the testing of the other people wouldn't change much, but at this point we just don't know, because there is a lack of results to work with.
If I think about the handful of Austrians which got tested or the Sardinian large sample, they yielded very interesting positions on the branches, independent and old. There is just so much unresolved.
E.g., so far there is just ONE, only one single Moldovan on YFull under E-BY3880! And he sits on its own branch it seems, from the initial expansion phase, with a TMRCA of 1.000 BC!
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y150909/

E-V13 in Moldovans might be above 10 percent in the total population. Moldova has 2,5 mio inhabitants, almost as much as Albania, but just one sample from E-V13 is on YFull. And that's even though they have a percentage of about 8,8 %:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3547065/

Even on FTDNA they are under E-BY3880 only represented by a mere 0.18%! Two samples! That's ridiculously low for a population with up to 10 % E-V13 in total. Liechtenstein comes close:

Liechtenstein 0 1 1 0.09%

I mean Liechtenstein! No offense, its great the people of Liechtenstein get tested and yielded some V13, but that countries like Moldova are on the same level, that's just bad. Moldova was part of Gáva-Holigrady central regions and it part of the Geto-Scythian sphere. Even if a lot comes from Vlachs more recently, it still would be highly interesting. Talking about whatever any map currently represents is hard to tell, but we can say more about Great Britain, Ireland, Albania, probably Serbia and Bosnia, than about a lot of other countries in Europe at this point. That with the intensive testing in the Balkans, there is still so little overlap with a closer TMRCA is quite telling.

BukeKrypEZemer
09-19-2021, 06:13 AM
I clearly want to state that I do not believe CTS9320 originated in Albania. I think it must have been futher north, that for sure, but I also think that it must have been further west. Whatever, as you say Riverman, this remains speculation as we do not have the overall picture. Although I think that Albanians are not overrepresented. There are a lot of BigY testers in Albania, but there is also a bunch doing only the STRs. If you look at several clades under E-Z17107, there is a bunch of Albanians tested with a very low TMRCA, so this is not saying anything about the diversity. Often the purpose is also from a personal perspective to confirm or not whether some people from a certain area share a common ancestor as their tribal legends say. Despite this, Z17107 has a quite astonishing diversity, as it holds for Z16988 as well in Albanians. For my clade Y20805 you see that there is quite an old balkan presence with a more western concentration, but apparently not x different subclades. At least, what we can say is that so far every known CTS9320 subbranch has been found in Albanians (with different intensities). I think same holds for Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia and Hungary (?). Moldova would be indeed interesting, as well as Romania. I am not sure how testing situation is in Hungary, but these are some of the areas which I would also wish to have better tested. Then as you say Picture should be clearer.

Riverman
09-19-2021, 11:18 AM
I clearly want to state that I do not believe CTS9320 originated in Albania. I think it must have been futher north, that for sure, but I also think that it must have been further west. Whatever, as you say Riverman, this remains speculation as we do not have the overall picture. Although I think that Albanians are not overrepresented. There are a lot of BigY testers in Albania, but there is also a bunch doing only the STRs. If you look at several clades under E-Z17107, there is a bunch of Albanians tested with a very low TMRCA, so this is not saying anything about the diversity. Often the purpose is also from a personal perspective to confirm or not whether some people from a certain area share a common ancestor as their tribal legends say. Despite this, Z17107 has a quite astonishing diversity, as it holds for Z16988 as well in Albanians. For my clade Y20805 you see that there is quite an old balkan presence with a more western concentration, but apparently not x different subclades. At least, what we can say is that so far every known CTS9320 subbranch has been found in Albanians (with different intensities). I think same holds for Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia and Hungary (?). Moldova would be indeed interesting, as well as Romania. I am not sure how testing situation is in Hungary, but these are some of the areas which I would also wish to have better tested. Then as you say Picture should be clearer.

From my point of view, the more testers, the better. Surely there might be still some surprises in Albania and hidden diversity nobody and especially me not knowing of. But especially on YFull, and if making frequency or diversity maps with YFull, it becomes apparent, misses such a large portion of E-V13 from other countries. We're talking about tens of millions of people not being represented well or not at all. The about 100.000 E-V13 carriers, rather more, because that's more at the lower end of the estimation, from Moldova being represented by a single person on FTDNA and YFull.
What's more, the Albanians went through a serious bottleneck and selective ethnogenesis, with a couple of clans dominating the landscape more than in some other people. This means chances for rare and upstream clades in Albanians are generally lower, usually, than in some other people with less of a bottleneck. And chances that a higher frequency of testing will pay off, from a phylogenetic point of view, are also higher.

Some comparisons for E-BY3880 on YFull:
In Austria, just for comparison, we can expect about 5 percent, give or take, E-V13 overall, that too means about 175.000 E-V13 carriers and from what I saw, on FTDNA, YFull and in my matches, they are very diverse, but there are just 3 samples on YFull, and all forming their own, distinct branch at the root of some of the main clades, with a timing around the expansion phase (LBA-Hallstatt). 2 of 3 samples come from the Austrian genetic project, so in summary, only 1 tester for all of Austria again!

Albanians have, at the maximum, about 350.000 E-V13 carriers, almost exactly double the number of Austrians, yet they have 62 samples from Albania alone, and this is without the Albanians from the neighbouring countries! That makes a ratio of about 1:10 for Austrians:Albanians on YFull.
Even the English are not better represented than Albanians, because they have about 350.000 E-V13 carriers as well, about as much as Albanians, since though their percentage is rather low, their population is way higher! Yet they have on YFull a representation by 52 samples with England and another 19 with the code GB.

So Albanians and English are the only well-represented people on YFull at the moment, if comparing total male population, E-V13 frequency and samples. On FTDNA the situation is way more skewed in favour of the English, but that's another story. I always counted just the samples below E-BY3880 by the way.

rafc
09-19-2021, 01:33 PM
Did you manage to find out anything about Quiles' haplogroup assignment methodology?

This is very important, if his assignments are unreliable, then we can rely only on official assignents from studies which are very shallow compared to his.

I had contact with Quiles' source and I checked the BAM myself, I have no reason to doubt the classification.

Huban
09-19-2021, 11:01 PM
There are zero samples of West Balkan origin of E-PH1173 on YFULL and FTDNA. This tells you alone how widespread is this subclade in the western Balkans. Then again, you didn't answer the question, are those West Balkan samples SNP tested or predicted?

Most of them are just predicted but as E-Y164554 has a very distinct STR profile in YFiler set it has no less than 4 mutations that are not modal for CTS9320, two of which are defining for PH1173, and two are defining for a subclade under E-Y164554 including the most distinct triple back mutation on dys439, another is a slow STR backmutation. No other V13 clade has this combination as modal, so surely all of those people are PH1173 (Y164554).


https://bosnjackidnk.com/e-z17264-starohercegovacka/ The Bosniak DNA Project has mapped all available E-Z17264 samples

No, they didn't. There are FTDNA Greek samples they are unaware of because these Greeks are hidden.. There are also Hungarian, Romanian samples. And I really wouldn't quote Bosniak a.k.a earlier Sandzak DNA project on archaeogenetic topics.. Also this article was written in 2018. In some newer articles on the Z16988 clade, also under CTS9320, they claim that it came to the Balkans from Central Europe. And they still maintain this. Which is more correct actually than this clade being "Pelasgian", but contrary to their claims it has nothing to do with Illyrians either..



I listed 9 samples from Bosnia/Herzegovina/Serbia. When you claim that this "subclade is very strong in the eastern Balkans", you have to provide at the very least a number of samples which justify this claim. You can't just say that because E-PH1173 has very low coverage on yfull it's very strong in the eastern Balkans. What matters of course is frequency of diversity (unless a historical migration event exists), which can only be verified if they all test deeper and upload their results (A reply to @rafc as many individuals who test with regional Balkan projects usually don't test deeper. For the standard procedures each project uses, it's better to ask their admins)

Important to say for Balkan E-PH1173/Z17264:
1. The entire Balkan diversity of ethnic Serbs, Bosniaks, Albanians, Montenegrins falls within the E-Y164554 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y164554/) cluster. At YFull one Bulgarian makes up this clade, though there was another sample which disappeared. Only Bulgarians and Greeks have clades which are not Y164554. Greek from a study who is E-Z17264* and a Cappadocian Greek who is E-BY4418, and a Bulgarian E-BY4404.

Additionally there is STR evidence to suggest two Greeks form another clade under E-BY4404 as they are very close to the YF02039 sample and they do possess PH1173 and CTS9320 defining mutations.

It must be noted that poreklo has tested 6000+ people so having multiple Serbs of a single branch doesn't mean that much. Because E-Y164554 has a very distinct STR profile we can add a bunch of people to this cluster from scientific papers, in addition to those Serbs, Bosniaks you mentioned:
Albanians: 5
2 Albanians from Rrenjet,
1 Gheg in Ferri et al.
1 Gheg (ALB271fta) in Sarno et al.
1 Albanian from Macedonia, Jankova et al.
*ALB271 also occurs in an Albanian sample from Tofanelli et al.

Montenegrins: 4
4 Montenegrins from a 404 sample, Mirabal et al.

Romanians: 5
1 Romanian from the NW Romania at FTDNA,
4 Romanians from Oradea, NW Romania , Bembea et al.

Hungarians: 1
1 Hungarian at FTDNA, NE Romania

Ukrainians: 1
1 Ukrainian from Lviv, Mielnik-Sikorska et al.

Greeks: 17
FTDNA:
Greek from Phocis,
Greek unknown location,
Greek Cyclades,
Greek Constantinople,
overall 4

Studies:
2 Greeks from Phocaea, King et al.
Greek from Cyprus, Voskarides et al.
Greek Xal25 from Euboea, Tofanelli et al.
Greek, Western Greece, Katsaloulis et al.
Greek, Central Macedonia, Katsaloulis et al.
Greek, Ionian Islands, Katsaloulis et al.
Greek, East Macedonia and Thrace, Katsaloulis et al.
4 Greeks from Macedonia, Kovatsi et al.
Greek, unknown region, Begona Martinez-Cruz et al.
overall 13

So actually there are 17 E-Y164554 Greeks

Bulgarians: 4
4 Bulgarians at FTDNA
no Bulgarians from studies

Macedonians: 1
Macedonian from Skopje, Bosch et al.

Serbs: 12
10 Serbs from poreklo , 2 are from Croatia, 1 from Bosnia
1 from Serbia, Central in Zgonjanin et al.
1 from Vojvodina, Veselinovic et al.

Bosniaks: 5
Bosniaks from Eastern Bosnia and Eastern Herzegovina , FTDNA/YSEQ
3 Bosnians , Jordamovic et al. unpublished study n=480, most of them should be Bosniaks, but some could be Serbs too.

Croats: 1
Croat from Western Croatia , Mrsic et al.

Austrians: 1
Austrian from Salzburg, Pickrahn et al.

So, due to specific STR's as well this being a common cluster, actually we have 56 Balkan/Pannonian/Carpathian samples, one Austrian.

Regarding the origins of this cluster whose TMRCA must be in high Medieval range, crucial are the three samples who do not share the defining backmutation dys448=19 that all others have. So 449=19 represents a Medieval bottleneck and all of these are closer to each other than either is to these 3 samples sporting the old V13 level mutation.

These are:
Greek from Macedonia
Greek from Macedonia
Bulgarian from Plovdiv

So we can say that E-Y164554 originates most likely in the Greek Macedonia - Southern Bulgaria area, and that it's subcluster defined by dys48=19 spread Westwards, Northwards into Carpathians with either Vlach or Byzantine related movements.
And despite all of these E-Y164554 Western Balkan samples, we can already say that E-Z17264 has nothing to do with the Western Balkans bar Medieval era migratory events.

Interestingly this clade occurs in Romanians from NW, and Hungarian is actually from the NE Romania. This would suggest some dispersion with the Vlachs.

Also interestingly, this Bulgarian has a surname with a Greek root. As does the E-BY4404* Bulgarian (his is just G'rk/Greek). I have seen plenty of Greek personal names in some areas of Bulgaria, and some of those obviously Greek names were not common in ethnic Greeks at all, so they might date to some Byzantine era influence in Bulgaria.
Example is Bulgarian surname Harizanov (there is one J-Y22059 with it but its not his oldest surname), root is Greek χαρίζω, but in 16th century it occurred in various Bulgarians, but in no ethnic Greeks at the time even though its root is Greek. This word entered Bulgarian language as an adjective so it was utilized by the Bulgarians and not Greeks despite its ultimate origin.

Huban
09-19-2021, 11:26 PM
I clearly want to state that I do not believe CTS9320 originated in Albania. I think it must have been futher north, that for sure, but I also think that it must have been further west. Whatever, as you say Riverman, this remains speculation as we do not have the overall picture. Although I think that Albanians are not overrepresented. There are a lot of BigY testers in Albania, but there is also a bunch doing only the STRs. If you look at several clades under E-Z17107, there is a bunch of Albanians tested with a very low TMRCA, so this is not saying anything about the diversity. Often the purpose is also from a personal perspective to confirm or not whether some people from a certain area share a common ancestor as their tribal legends say. Despite this, Z17107 has a quite astonishing diversity, as it holds for Z16988 as well in Albanians. For my clade Y20805 you see that there is quite an old balkan presence with a more western concentration, but apparently not x different subclades. At least, what we can say is that so far every known CTS9320 subbranch has been found in Albanians (with different intensities). I think same holds for Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia and Hungary (?). Moldova would be indeed interesting, as well as Romania. I am not sure how testing situation is in Hungary, but these are some of the areas which I would also wish to have better tested. Then as you say Picture should be clearer.

Current picture for CTS9320 is very misleading. For a number of reasons. Just some:

1) Albanians are most deep-tested
2) Albanians all upload to YFull, there are plenty of other CTS9320 samples that have stayed at FTDNA.
3) There are various Bulgarian/Romanian people who did SNP packs, are under CTS9320, cluster with nobody.
4) There are significant matches in Bulgarians/Romanians for a number of W.Balkan CTS9320 samples at YFull
5) The bolded is incorrect as there are two CTS9320* clades in Romanians/Bulgarians, Bulgarian (looks to be of Romanian origin by surname and his matches, and this clade looks more likely at home North of Danube) did an SNP pack, while another Bulgarian did BigY but didn't upload to YFull.
6) E-Z17107 you mentioned, despite Albanians wanting to find more clades has 2 Early Iron Age clades in Albanians. It has three separate EIA clades in Hungarians for example. And it has another Russian, and another W.Ukrainian clade.
7) There is also a CTS9320* undefined clade in Ossetians, there is some CTS9320* sample in Kangju Sogdians from Central Asia. Though some have tried to label him as "Greek" in Alexanders Army that is dubious as there is CTS9320* in Ossetians, and this sample is autosomally Kangju proper.
8) In general CTS9320 has great diversity in Carpathian area, and we know there is a E-L539 Gava sample from far NE Hungary, at the Slovakian border and close to Ukrainian border as well. This sample has high steppe auDNA and until it is out the most likely clade for him is actually CTS9320 based on diversity and age. Second choice being FGC11451. L241 might be too young..
9) Your own clade has BY4526 also has significant NE/Carpathian diversity with three clades, and although your clade does seem old in the Balkans, obviously there are some other NE clades as well as a Scandinavian clade with significant age there.
10) There is a huge Shop area diversity for CTS9320. Combined with NE diversity, combined with Gava sample this points towards proto Daco-Mysians as its initial carriers. Not Illyrians.

Huban
09-20-2021, 12:04 AM
- In late Roman antiquity, the broad region of Leskovac is likewise located in Dardania. From 'The Illyrians', 1992:

The origin of the family in northern Dardania was later marked by the new city Justiniana Prima, on a ridge above the village of Caricin Grad in southern Serbia, 20 miles west of Leskovac. The walls enclose an area 500 by 215 metres, with an inner acropolis at the northwest. Internal arrangements were based on two streets flanked with colonnades, with a circular forum at the intersection. Most of the interior appears to have been taken up with several churches, some of which had mosaic decoration. Justiniana Prima was made the seat of the archbishop of Dardania and was granted many privileges by a law issued in AD 535

- We don't have to discuss about tribal labels of pre-Roman antiquity and then try to infer what haplogroups these labels might have carried. We have samples from Timacum Minus, further north from Leskovac in late Roman antiquity. As such, we can stop discussing with arbitrary labels and just discuss about the samples:

I15544 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis E-V13,E-Z1057,E-CTS1273,E-BY3880 HV9
I15545 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis I1,I-Z58,I-Z59,I-CTS8647,Z60,Z140,Z141 H1
I15546 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis J2b2a-L283,J-Z622,J-Z600,J-Z585,J-Z615,J-Z597 L2a1+143+16189 (16192)
I15547 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis J2b2a-L283 H+152
I15548 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis J2b2a-L283,J-Z585,J-Z615,J-Z597,J-Z638,J-Z1297,J-Z8421,J-Z631,J-Z1043 W+194
I15551 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis R1b-Z2103,R-Z2105 T1a
I15552 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis R1b-Z2103,R-M12149,R-Z2106,R-Z2108,R-Z2110,R-CTS7556,R-Y5592,R-CTS1450 H1c
I15553 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis E-V13,E-Z1057,E-CTS1273 T2b25
I15554 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis E-V13,E-Z1057,E-CTS1273,E-BY3880 H
I15555 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis G-P303,G-L140,G-PF3346,G-PF3345,G-CTS342,G-FGC12126 [email protected]


Again you assume Dardanians were some typical Illyrians. There were plenty of typical Illyrians but Dardanians were not typical in any way.

1) Archeological evidence clearly indicates that in the Middle Iron Age Illyrians expanded forcefully into the area, establishing their dominance and ensuring Dardania was politically Illyrian. But epigraphic evidence and archeological evidence points towards two other older layers that were indigenous in the area:
2) Thracian as represented by EIA Pshenichevo influx as well as some earlier direct Gava influx. Confirmed by heavy Thracian epigraphic and onomastic influence.
3) pre-Thracian, pre-Illyrian layer of MBA locals represented by the Mediana culture, and partially Brnjica as well. Confirmed by the existence of names that are of Indoeuropean origin but do not seem to be related to neither Illyrians or Thracians. As again some archeological and epigraphic evidence suggests, some of these parallels look to be related to proto-Paeonians. In any case this layer is likely related to Dardanians of Troy i.e. original pre-Illyrian/Thracian Dardanians.

We can say based on aDNA the first group were likely pred. J-L283, the second E-V13 and the third... I used to think E-V13 but that is not likely, R-Z2103? Maybe R-BY611?

In Late Antiquity at Timachum Minus there are just 3 definite Illyrian names, two being father and his son. There are actually more Thracian names, and not only that but some of those Thracians were not locals in the area but came from the East. The wife of one soldier with a Thracian name suggests grecophone areas of Thrace. There are also alot of Greek names at Ravna. Greeks of oriental origins..

Btw. per historical records Illyrian Dardanians used to practice widespread slavery, not so usual for groups whose social structure still resembled the pre-slavery era. Individual Dardanians owning 1000 Dardanian slaves, whom they utilized as solders/cannon fodder. Papazoglu suggested ethnic basis for this so that these slaves (who were still Dardanian solders) were of pre-Illyrian origin, and indeed Dardania had plenty of such people..

So you may not utilize those E-V13 samples as some "Illyrians" at face value. Not only because of Thracian influence but also due to the nature of LIA Dardanians as a people.

Archetype0ne
09-20-2021, 12:10 AM
1) Archeological evidence clearly indicates that in the Middle Iron Age Illyrians expanded forcefully into the area, establishing their dominance and ensuring Dardania was politically Illyrian. But epigraphic evidence and archeological evidence points towards two other older layers that were indigenous in the area:
2) Thracian as represented by EIA Pshenichevo influx as well as some earlier direct Gava influx. Confirmed by heavy Thracian epigraphic and onomastic influence.
3) pre-Thracian, pre-Illyrian layer of MBA locals represented by the Mediana culture, and partially Brnjica as well. Confirmed by the existence of names that are of Indoeuropean origin but do not seem to be related to neither Illyrians or Thracians. As again some archeological and epigraphic evidence suggests, some of these parallels look to be related to proto-Paeonians. In any case this layer is likely related to Dardanians of Troy i.e. original pre-Illyrian/Thracian Dardanians.



That is a cool theory. I somehow doubt that things were that clear cut, as in that homogeneous. But nonetheless, quite interesting, especially point 3.
I do feel, too little attention is payed to z2103.

Huban
09-20-2021, 01:01 AM
That is a cool theory. I somehow doubt that things were that clear cut, as in that homogeneous. But nonetheless, quite interesting, especially point 3.
I do feel, too little attention is payed to z2103.

And yet a clade of Z2103 is the most Albanian cluster of any. It's certain that R-Z2705 is fundamentally related to proto-Albanians.

Dardanian rulers all had Illyrian names, while the situation with "commoners" was a bit different especially in the East. This existence of slavery among them is attested. As is the existance of an "underclass" of people in Illyrian Ardiaei, similar to Spartan helots. Unlike Romans or Greeks where slavery was institutionalized Illyrians were not at such level but more resembling old military Aristocracy. Originally Roman slavery has its roots also in defeating and then enslaving other peoples.

Albanian language does seem surely closer to Illyrian than Thracian. But it seems Illyrian in nouns (while also very un-Illyrian in some other nouns) in verbs not at all. Verbs are more resistant to change.. Albanian - Illyrian parallel could something similar to the modern English - French. Half on English vocabulary is Latin/French. Just take a look at words you wrote:

theory - M. French
doubt - Fr. douter
somehow - compound where both parts are Germanic
thing - Germanic
clear - Old Fr.
homogeneous - Medieval Latin
nonetheless - Germanic
interesting - old Fr. interesse
especially - Old Fr. especial
point - Fr. point
attention - French
feel - Germanic
little - Germanic
paid - Fr. payer

Is English a Latin language? No.

I read a very interesting linguistic analysis of the Shar mountain oronym. And the suggestion is that some proto-Albanian or proto-Vlach nomadic shepherds sometimes between 7th and 10th century met remnants of Dardanians whose toponym this should be originally and incredibly there is some Dardanian proper evidence for this! Not proto-Albanian though. I think Bruzmi tried, but Šar mountain does not fit Albanian phonetic development rules, but it seems they took it from the Dardanians, either they or the proto-Vlachs.. I wonder whether this event meant introduction of Dardanian lineages into the proto-Albanian pool. It looks very interesting.

Huban
09-20-2021, 02:13 PM
I read a very interesting linguistic analysis of the Shar mountain oronym. And the suggestion is that some proto-Albanian or proto-Vlach nomadic shepherds sometimes between 7th and 10th century met remnants of Dardanians whose toponym this should be originally and incredibly there is some Dardanian proper evidence for this! Not proto-Albanian though. I think Bruzmi tried, but Šar mountain does not fit Albanian phonetic development rules, but it seems they took it from the Dardanians, either they or the proto-Vlachs.. I wonder whether this event meant introduction of Dardanian lineages into the proto-Albanian pool. It looks very interesting.

There is another piece of evidence confirming this Dardanian connection, and not only that it seems it is paired with the proto-Albanians again! If this is true (and it looks that way tbh) this would definitely mean that the proto-Albanians are from the Shop area originally or Eastern Dardania. Presumably descended from the most ancient layer of population there, which was pre-Illyrian and pre-Thracian. This fits the linguistically based Slavic adoption of the names of Štip and Niš from the mouth of proto-Albanians.

And there seems to have been a Paleo-Balkan mish-mash in the Shop in late antiquity. The strongest unromanized group on the entire Balkan peninsula, the late Antiquity Bessoi (who were actually at the time all in the Shop area, even though centuries earlier they were supposed to have been located to the Southeast of Shop). Albanians may not descend of Thracians proper on linguistic grounds but it is possible that simply some incoming Bessi imposed their name in Late Antiquity upon the locals, so there was a large Paleo-Balkan mixture in the Shop that went by the name Bessoi even if most were not descended of "real" Bessi. Similar to various other examples, Hungarian "Scythians", and even people like the original Serbs or Croats. So I think everybody might have been correct in a sense. Schramm was correct in that a group of people migrated from the East into Arbanon in LA/EM, but they were not Thracian proper other than possibly in the name and partial genetic descent. Albanian authors are correct that Albanian has an Illyrian connection. This connection being the partial Illyrisation of the local Dardanian language (Mediana culture, Brnjica culture maybe) via the political domination of the Illyrian elite. Additionally proto-Albanians would have been ethnically and politically Illyrian in LIA as Dardanians.

And these people were most likely R-Z2705, with Bessoi proper being some V13 clades, and with additional Dardanian locals being represented by some J-L283, E-V13 clades. In this scenario R-Z2705 would stem from the MBA/LBA locals of Dardania. It will be interesting to see what that R-CTS1450 find from Timachum Minus is.

Kelmendasi
09-20-2021, 04:56 PM
There is another piece of evidence confirming this Dardanian connection, and not only that it seems it is paired with the proto-Albanians again! If this is true (and it looks that way tbh) this would definitely mean that the proto-Albanians are from the Shop area originally or Eastern Dardania. Presumably descended from the most ancient layer of population there, which was pre-Illyrian and pre-Thracian. This fits the linguistically based Slavic adoption of the names of Štip and Niš from the mouth of proto-Albanians.

And there seems to have been a Paleo-Balkan mish-mash in the Shop in late antiquity. The strongest unromanized group on the entire Balkan peninsula, the late Antiquity Bessoi (who were actually at the time all in the Shop area, even though centuries earlier they were supposed to have been located to the Southeast of Shop). Albanians may not descend of Thracians proper on linguistic grounds but it is possible that simply some incoming Bessi imposed their name in Late Antiquity upon the locals, so there was a large Paleo-Balkan mixture in the Shop that went by the name Bessoi even if most were not descended of "real" Bessi. Similar to various other examples, Hungarian "Scythians", and even people like the original Serbs or Croats. So I think everybody might have been correct in a sense. Schramm was correct in that a group of people migrated from the East into Arbanon in LA/EM, but they were not Thracian proper other than possibly in the name and partial genetic descent. Albanian authors are correct that Albanian has an Illyrian connection. This connection being the partial Illyrisation of the local Dardanian language (Mediana culture, Brnjica culture maybe) via the political domination of the Illyrian elite. Additionally proto-Albanians would have been ethnically and politically Illyrian in LIA as Dardanians.

And these people were most likely R-Z2705, with Bessoi proper being some V13 clades, and with additional Dardanian locals being represented by some J-L283, E-V13 clades. In this scenario R-Z2705 would stem from the MBA/LBA locals of Dardania. It will be interesting to see what that R-CTS1450 find from Timachum Minus is.
I do not think there is any conclusive evidence presented that would place the ancestral homeland of the Albanians or Proto-Albanians in eastern Dardania or Shopi (Niš itself does not belong in this ethno-geographic area) specifically. If toponyms showing Albanian phonological developments are to be taken into account then those located more to the west should not be excluded and only the eastern ones considered or displayed. For example the Albanian name for the city of Skopje (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Skopje,+North+Macedonia/@41.9991965,21.3548497,12z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x135415a58c9aa2a5:0xb2ed8 8c260872020!8m2!3d41.9981294!4d21.4254355), Shkupi, clearly developed from the older Scupi. There are other Albanian toponyms that show typical development in the Albanian language since at least the Roman period: Barbanna > Bunë (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Buna+River/@41.9540588,19.2739335,11z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x134e170b65eeed1f:0x81d05 2262f72cecf!8m2!3d41.9538887!4d19.4140202), Isamnus > Ishëm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ish%C3%ABm_(river)), Lissus > Lezhë (older Lesh) (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lezh%C3%AB+District,+Albania/@41.7885045,19.6075194,13z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x1351e0b7bb1fcd0b:0xedb35 3f464fc4b5f!8m2!3d41.786073!4d19.6460758), Mathis (Vibius Sequester) > Mat (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mat+River/@41.6805588,19.6427018,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x1351dbf6899e78f1:0x3ef27 b63274d505c!8m2!3d41.680528!4d19.6602114), etc.

Schramm's theory of an early medieval movement of Proto-Albanians or early Albanians into the modern territory of Albania has no real historical basis or credibility, his theory as a whole has been quite easily deconstructed and put down. I might later make a post on another thread regarding his theories.

Archetype0ne
09-20-2021, 08:45 PM
And yet a clade of Z2103 is the most Albanian cluster of any. It's certain that R-Z2705 is fundamentally related to proto-Albanians.

Dardanian rulers all had Illyrian names, while the situation with "commoners" was a bit different especially in the East. This existence of slavery among them is attested. As is the existance of an "underclass" of people in Illyrian Ardiaei, similar to Spartan helots. Unlike Romans or Greeks where slavery was institutionalized Illyrians were not at such level but more resembling old military Aristocracy. Originally Roman slavery has its roots also in defeating and then enslaving other peoples.

Albanian language does seem surely closer to Illyrian than Thracian. But it seems Illyrian in nouns (while also very un-Illyrian in some other nouns) in verbs not at all. Verbs are more resistant to change.. Albanian - Illyrian parallel could something similar to the modern English - French. Half on English vocabulary is Latin/French. Just take a look at words you wrote:

theory - M. French
doubt - Fr. douter
somehow - compound where both parts are Germanic
thing - Germanic
clear - Old Fr.
homogeneous - Medieval Latin
nonetheless - Germanic
interesting - old Fr. interesse
especially - Old Fr. especial
point - Fr. point
attention - French
feel - Germanic
little - Germanic
paid - Fr. payer

Is English a Latin language? No.

I read a very interesting linguistic analysis of the Shar mountain oronym. And the suggestion is that some proto-Albanian or proto-Vlach nomadic shepherds sometimes between 7th and 10th century met remnants of Dardanians whose toponym this should be originally and incredibly there is some Dardanian proper evidence for this! Not proto-Albanian though. I think Bruzmi tried, but Šar mountain does not fit Albanian phonetic development rules, but it seems they took it from the Dardanians, either they or the proto-Vlachs.. I wonder whether this event meant introduction of Dardanian lineages into the proto-Albanian pool. It looks very interesting.

Sardis is also a mountain near Troy, speculated to be a refugium of sorts.
Albeit I am not sure what is unclear about Sharr etymology. https://www.etymonline.com/word/shard
PIE root *sker- (1) "to cut."

https://i.imgur.com/8GjRo0J.png

Not sure if you have been to Sharr. For me it is quite evident how the PIE root connects to the mountain range.
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-4-kIRdK32z8%2FVKbgfCh7gJI%2FAAAAAAAAAKQ%2FdxFPUSLKK_ k%2Fs1600%2F1890424_797715426938245_25949809138728 43597_o.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

Huban
09-20-2021, 10:22 PM
I do not think there is any conclusive evidence presented that would place the ancestral homeland of the Albanians or Proto-Albanians in eastern Dardania or Shopi (Niš itself does not belong in this ethno-geographic area) specifically. If toponyms showing Albanian phonological developments are to be taken into account then those located more to the west should not be excluded and only the eastern ones considered or displayed. For example the Albanian name for the city of Skopje (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Skopje,+North+Macedonia/@41.9991965,21.3548497,12z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x135415a58c9aa2a5:0xb2ed8 8c260872020!8m2!3d41.9981294!4d21.4254355), Shkupi, clearly developed from the older Scupi. There are other Albanian toponyms that show typical development in the Albanian language since at least the Roman period: Barbanna > Bunë (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Buna+River/@41.9540588,19.2739335,11z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x134e170b65eeed1f:0x81d05 2262f72cecf!8m2!3d41.9538887!4d19.4140202), Isamnus > Ishëm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ish%C3%ABm_(river)), Lissus > Lezhë (older Lesh) (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lezh%C3%AB+District,+Albania/@41.7885045,19.6075194,13z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x1351e0b7bb1fcd0b:0xedb35 3f464fc4b5f!8m2!3d41.786073!4d19.6460758), Mathis (Vibius Sequester) > Mat (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mat+River/@41.6805588,19.6427018,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x1351dbf6899e78f1:0x3ef27 b63274d505c!8m2!3d41.680528!4d19.6602114), etc.

I don't have time for that now but i know Barbanna > Bunë, Lissus > Lezhë are very contested and I have read very detailed views denying this continuity.

Do you know who is mentioned to have inhabited Scupi in Late Antiquity, also people with tribal designation of Bessus.. And there are Bessian archeological traces all over Dardania in Late Antiquity..

Also this culture was arguably by far the strongest Paleo-Balkan culture in the Balkans at the time. Komani culture from Albania really appears Byzantine, Christian, Avar even Slavic pagan before Paleo-Balkan. I don't think these people were early Albanians.. For the rest, some locals survived, some old Illyrian forts/settlements continued their existence but just barely.. And even then we see some foreign influences in Albanopolis I mentioned.

the Bessian pagan culture end coincides with the the report Paulin, who in 366-415 AD speaks of the bishop Nicketas of Remesiana "who was converting the Bessi". So Bessi highlanders started abandoning their old pagan ways and their pagan culture can be followed until 4th century AD.



Schramm's theory of an early medieval movement of Proto-Albanians or early Albanians into the modern territory of Albania has no real historical basis or credibility, his theory as a whole has been quite easily deconstructed and put down. I might later make a post on another thread regarding his theories.

I'm afraid linguistic evidence points towards early Albanian speakers having something to do with Dardania, and also this seems to include maybe the only definite early distinctly Albanian toponym found anywhere.

Why wouldn't people move?

Bessi originally were from Southern Bulgaria, then in 1st century they are mentioned in Dobruja, and then in Late Antiquity they are found in Shop, and arguably they represent the strongest Paleo-Balkan element in existence at the time. And they match the territory of Dardania and some of these parallels (or all of them even).

Some time ago while going through some Ottoman defters, I noticed something which attracted my attention. Various villages named Darda, Dardas. I used to think this was problematic because of some claims about earlier *dzarda/*dzardza, but in Orel I see the earlier form is *darda. I used to ask myself why are there so many pear-named villages in Albania. Many of these places no longer exist, though they existed 500+ years ago in Albania. So I came back to them, and I see they are roughly around the old Arbanon. And I looked for them in Shkoder area, and there are none there. That's a good sign. I see one of them is from the Mat area (no longer exists). So we know early Albanians are clearly connected to Arbanon, and could these Darda's be an indicator of a tribal group which settled the Arbanon in Early Medieval times and left traces there, that called themselves Dardanians?

Other than Bessus, there were various LA people in Dardania carrying the designation Dardanus. So I'd propose

- Bessoi , political leaders of the Late Antiquity Shop "Paleo-Balkanism"
-- Dardanii, composed of:
--- Illyrian Dardanii
--- Dardanian Dardanii (connected to Dardanians from Troy, it is likely Pshenichevo people, tied with E-V13 carried with them some original Dardanians to Troy, Pshenichevo were present at Troy and they were present in Dardania)

I would suggest that the late Bessian archeological culture included also the Dardanii.

In 7th, 8th century AD as proposed by Schramm they move to Arbanon in Bulgarian expansion related events. These people possibly under umbrella of Bessoi still primarily called themselves Dardanians if these Darda's are anything to go by.

Huban
09-20-2021, 10:40 PM
Sardis is also a mountain near Troy, speculated to be a refugium of sorts.
Albeit I am not sure what is unclear about Sharr etymology. https://www.etymonline.com/word/shard
PIE root *sker- (1) "to cut."


Shar mountain is not derived of that PIE root *sker but of a related root with -d at the end. Because in Antiquity sources it was Skard mountain. Which is clearly and very distinctly Illyrian but at the same time cannot derive directly of Albanian but there is evidence it derives from Illyrian Dardanians who gave it to early Albanians and who in turn passed it to Slavs. There is an Albanian remnant from which sharr stems from, which escaped the dominant sk>h change but Shar mountain cannot derive from this remnant.. Also there is another issue of Albanian retaining -rd- as -rdh- and -rd->-r goes against the Albanian phonetic development rules.

Archetype0ne
09-20-2021, 11:28 PM
Shar mountain is not derived of that PIE root *sker but of a related root with -d at the end. Because in Antiquity sources it was Skard mountain. Which is clearly and very distinctly Illyrian but at the same time cannot derive directly of Albanian but there is evidence it derives from Illyrian Dardanians who gave it to early Albanians and who in turn passed it to Slavs. There is an Albanian remnant from which sharr stems from, which escaped the dominant sk>h change but Shar mountain cannot derive from this remnant.. Also there is another issue of Albanian retaining -rd- as -rdh- and -rd->-r goes against the Albanian phonetic development rules.

Would love to read this source, with the Skard. Could you point me in the right direction.
Otherwise, I would think there is not even need for much change from PIE *sker to Alb sharr. Here is the entry regarding PIE *sker https://www.etymonline.com/word/*sker-
Meaning, imo, that whoever gave the name Sharr, *Sker or any derivate of such to the mountain range, likely had PIE derived lingustics. While what I got from your point is that these early Dardanians that had a connection to Troy were not IE (please correct me if I missunderstood).
Alas I am not very invested in this. And I think you know my opinion on reconstructed linguistics. Lets say I find it a bit nonscientific. Unless ML algorithms are aplied, removing human bias. I have shared such papers in the past.

And I personally believe, E-V13, just like z2103, and l283 could have easily been, part of such movements, even if in different phases/waves.

https://i.redd.it/3tlbagy1eyk31.png

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kristian-Kristiansen/publication/318751121/figure/fig1/AS:[email protected]/The-breakup-of-the-Proto-Indo-European-language-in-various-datings-and-the-branching.png

https://brill.com/view/journals/ieul/8/1/22125892_008_01_s003_i0086.png

Sources:

1)reddit

2)https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kristian-Kristiansen/publication/318751121/figure/fig1/AS:[email protected]/The-breakup-of-the-Proto-Indo-European-language-in-various-datings-and-the-branching.png

3)https://brill.com/view/journals/ieul/8/1/article-p110_3.xml


This paper uses ML, there are quite a few ways the author went at it. This is just image 25, the last one. In various model the position of Albanian may vary I recommend the paper.

Figure 25
MLE tree with bootstrap scores (NJ start tree)
Citation: Indo-European Linguistics 8, 1 (2020) ; 10.1163/22125892-20201000

Trojet
09-20-2021, 11:32 PM
Nice, you guys are making some more progress ;) Before it was just "Bulgaria" and now we've been placed in Dardania (modern ~Kosovo) :)

In all seriousness though, the Bessi hypothesis doesn't make any sense genetically speaking considering the available data. You keep bringing up R-Z2705 as a very important subclade for early Albanians (which as you know I would agree), although I would argue there is others that were probably just as important among early Albanians. As you know, modern distributions are as a result of genetic bottlenecks and founder effects. Anyway, even with R-Z2705 there is no phylogenetic evidence (upstream/downstream) that it expanded from modern Bulgaria or eastern Balkans. I believe there is no need to go into details as the Y trees speak for themselves.

Huban
09-21-2021, 12:35 AM
Would love to read this source, with the Skard. Could you point me in the right direction.
Otherwise, I would think there is not even need for much change from PIE *sker to Alb sharr. Here is the entry regarding PIE *sker https://www.etymonline.com/word/*sker-
Meaning, imo, that whoever gave the name Sharr, *Sker or any derivate of such to the mountain range, likely had PIE derived lingustics.

Actually I also see now sources claiming Alb. sharr stems from Lat. serra.

Bolded: similar has occurred except it's not PIE *sker but (late) Dardanian *sker (stemming from *skerd<*skard) which became Albanian Shar Mountain and from Alb. Slavic Šar mountain. Illyrian Dardanians transmitted this to early Albanians. But it did not develop in early Albanians.


While what I got from your point is that these early Dardanians that had a connection to Troy were not IE (please correct me if I missunderstood).

You misunderstood. Dardanians of Troy should have been IE by all means. Just another branch of IE, judging by the archeological evidence, these were neither Illyrians nor Thracians.


Alas I am not very invested in this. And I think you know my opinion on reconstructed linguistics. Lets say I find it a bit nonscientific. Unless ML algorithms are aplied, removing human bias. I have shared such papers in the past.

And I personally believe, E-V13, just like z2103, and l283 could have easily been, part of such movements, even if in different phases/waves.


Well proto-Albanian has been reconstructed. One has to be very careful, and I am extremely careful when it comes to etymologies. Also I am somebody who knows alot about linguistics. Though I haven't studied Paleo-Balkan languages, now I have begun to grasp some sense.



Nice, you guys are making some more progress ;) Before it was just "Bulgaria" and now we've been placed in Dardania (modern ~Kosovo) :)

In all seriousness though, the Bessi hypothesis doesn't make any sense genetically speaking considering the available data. You keep bringing up R-Z2705 as a very important subclade for early Albanians (which as you know I would agree), although I would argue there is others that were probably just as important among early Albanians. As you know, modern distributions are as a result of genetic bottlenecks and founder effects. Anyway, even with R-Z2705 there is no phylogenetic evidence (upstream/downstream) that it expanded from modern Bulgaria or eastern Balkans. I believe there is no need to go into details as the Y trees speak for themselves.

Well there are some connections with the East within R-Z2705. There is some evidence to suggest R-Y182782 was some important Albanian-Vlach contact clade as it occurs in multiple Romanians and Aromanians. So clades like these should represent the proposed early Albanian- early Romanian/Vlach cohabitation.

My late arguments about Shop, Bessi, Dardania are not at all based on genetic evidence or anything "political". I just have learned alot about Paleo-Balkan languages in the past few months. And believe me, when I take linguistics into my hands I can do things. For example I have in few sentences at poreklo debunked the thesis of Serbian linguist Aleksander Loma who claimed that the Serbs are related to Sarmatian Serboi. That's because I am semi-fluent in Persian, Ossetian while speaking basic Pashto and Wakhi. My new argumentation is based on his (and of some others) reconstruction and deliberation on the etymology of the Shar mountain. And I do believe Albanians passed this to early Slavs, while picking it up from (Illyrian) Dardanians. That's one of the reasons why Albanians were I think likely in Dardania 1500 ybp. Others are Nish, Shtip et...

Btw. I and various other people have no difficulties in finding suitable etymologies for various Scythian, Sarmatian, Alan names. There is a world of difficulty when it comes to Albanian-Illyrian etc parallels.. That's another reason why I think Albanian falls outside of Illyrian-Thracian mainstream..

I know Albanian is unrelated to Thracian bar few influences. But also I know Albanian is hard to derive from Illyrian despite some even strong lexical Illyrian influence in Albanian. So the question is what is Albanian? Based on what I've seen it's neither Daco-Thracian nor Illyrian. And as there is some linguistic evidence really implicating Late Antiquity/Early medieval Albanian speakers with Dardania, I am forced to say that I think Albanian stems from the attested non-Illyrian, non-Thracian indigenous Dardanian element, which spoke some other IE language. These are "real" Dardanians ofc. Illyrians are just Middle Iron Age conquerors who adopted that name..

Albanians IMO should not take this as followers of Enver Hoxha's dogma (as in his era and under his direction began the exploration of Albanian-Illyrian connection), but rather there are pro's of this scenario i.e. Dardanians are older people than Illyrians..

So, if Albanians are related to these Bessoi then these Bessoi were Thracian just in name, not in language, or there were some Dardanians under the label as well which is more likely. There were actually other than ethnic Bessians in LA also people with Dardanus as their label..

There are some other links within small clusters, especially under E-V13 which point clearly towards Bulgaria. Both by diversity and aDNA.. Plus ofc. Bulgaria is a very diverse place which needs more testing.. Even more so for Macedonia, and SE Serbia too.

To add about R-Z2705, ofc there are other very important clusters, but really this is the only Albanian cluster whose age is around 1500 ybp and that makes up more than 10 % of the Albanian population.. And also what about a cluster being young, expansive and found in strong numbers in both Ghegs and Tosks, which means it predates their separation.. How many clusters can boast that? Very few. Your own cluster has a single Tosk from a scientific paper despite being a major Gheg cluster.

Archetype0ne
09-21-2021, 01:08 AM
https://i.imgur.com/Qqit9Ks.png

This should likely fit in your worldview. Slaves or Freedmen they had same names.
The names linked to Dalmatian, the language to Central Illyrian.

Papazoglu 1978, p. 245.
Katičić, Radoslav (1964b) "Die neuesten Forschungen über die einhemiche Sprachschist in den Illyrischen Provinzen" in Benac (1964a) 9-58 Katičić, Radoslav (1965b) "Zur frage der keltischen und panonischen Namengebieten im römischen Dalmatien" ANUBiH 3 GCBI 1, 53-76
Katičić, Radoslav. Ancient languages of the Balkans. The Hague - Paris (1976)

Now I asked you for a source for Skard. If there is a source provide it. If not, no need to color the word, it wont make it more legitimate.
For all I see, Dardanians were likely Illyrian, meaning they clearly spoke if not the same language a related language.
Either way, for* various other sources, despite the lack of clarity due to the lack of literature from these peoples, even Thracians could have been on the same language continuum.

The point boils down to this. Unless you spend your whole life researching Linguistics, and maybe even then, lacking first hand written sources (Dardanian/Illyrian, Thracian) writen sources, your word is as good as anyone's. Let alone a couple of months. People like Orell that did comparative linguistics all their lives (meaning many Languages) had less confidence, and always dealt in possibilities rather than absolutes.

I am not saying I am right. I am saying if I am wrong I was lied to better, by actual sources.

Huban
09-21-2021, 01:48 AM
https://i.imgur.com/Qqit9Ks.png

This should likely fit in your worldview. Slaves or Freedmen they had same names.
The names linked to Dalmatian, the language to Central Illyrian.


Papazoglu 1978, p. 245.
Katičić, Radoslav (1964b) "Die neuesten Forschungen über die einhemiche Sprachschist in den Illyrischen Provinzen" in Benac (1964a) 9-58 Katičić, Radoslav (1965b) "Zur frage der keltischen und panonischen Namengebieten im römischen Dalmatien" ANUBiH 3 GCBI 1, 53-76
Katičić, Radoslav. Ancient languages of the Balkans. The Hague - Paris (1976)

Not sure I grasp the point here, as freedmen are former slaves.. :D It seems Illyrians were among the "bad guys" of Antiquity.. Slavery in Dardania I mentioned is something totally different, something that existed within Dardanian society. It has been suggested it had roots in the Dardanian heterogenous makeup.



Now I asked you for a source for Skard. If there is a source provide it. If not, no need to color the word, it wont make it more legitimate.
For all I see, Dardanians were likely Illyrian, meaning they clearly spoke if not the same language a related language.
Either way, for* various other sources, despite the lack of clarity due to the lack of literature from these peoples, even Thracians could have been on the same language continuum.

The point boils down to this. Unless you spend your whole life researching Linguistics, and maybe even then, lacking first hand written sources (Dardanian/Illyrian, Thracian) writen sources, your word is as good as anyone's. Let alone a couple of months. People like Orell that did comparative linguistics all their lives (meaning many Languages) had less confidence, and always dealt in possibilities rather than absolutes.

I am not saying I am right. I am saying if I am wrong I was lied to better, by actual sources.

Σκάρδον ὂρος (Skardon oros) in Polybius and Ptolemy, Scordus Mons in Pliny.

*often in roman Greek sources we find "o" for Illyrian/Thracian terms, in most cases they both should be read with "a" as both Illyrian and Thracian had this phonetic change.

Phd. linguists such as Loma and others do not make analysis based on made up sources.. Btw his analysis on Shar doesn't come out of thin air either, it began with a river.

Of course, but I although I began recently have the advantage of the accumulated knowledge from the earlier authors.

Similarly for Scodra.. An Albanian author (seeing the problem it represents for the Albanian language :D) has suggested even non-IE origin, but very convincing IE parallels were proposed in Lithuanian skudrůs (Lithuanian as an archaic language often comes up as a cognate for various languages). And there are other instances where proto-Baltic looks closer to Illyrian than Albanian does (even though Albanian too has plenty of such parallels).

Archetype0ne
09-21-2021, 02:31 AM
Not sure I grasp the point here, as freedmen are former slaves.. :D It seems Illyrians were among the "bad guys" of Antiquity.. Slavery in Dardania I mentioned is something totally different, something that existed within Dardanian society. It has been suggested it had roots in the Dardanian heterogenous makeup.



Σκάρδον ὂρος (Skardon oros) in Polybius and Ptolemy, Scordus Mons in Pliny.

*often in roman Greek sources we find "o" for Illyrian/Thracian terms, in most cases they both should be read with "a" as both Illyrian and Thracian had this phonetic change.

Phd. linguists such as Loma and others do not make analysis based on made up sources.. Btw his analysis on Shar doesn't come out of thin air either, it began with a river.

Of course, but I although I began recently have the advantage of the accumulated knowledge from the earlier authors.

Similarly for Scodra.. An Albanian author (seeing the problem it represents for the Albanian language :D) has suggested even non-IE origin, but very convincing IE parallels were proposed in Lithuanian skudrůs (Lithuanian as an archaic language often comes up as a cognate for various languages). And there are other instances where proto-Baltic looks closer to Illyrian than Albanian does (even though Albanian too has plenty of such parallels).

So this was the source?

http://aleksandarloma.com/PDF/Clanci/141%20summary.pdf

https://i.imgur.com/rPJY4rG.png

/

About an exonym from the Greek language that could have been about the Sharr, or could have taken the root and added Greek ending to it, even thought Pliny and Liv say the term encompasses from the Pindus, to Korab, to Sharr and to Malesi/Bjeshket e Nemuna, putting into question the very premise.
This is exactly why I dislike Lingguistics.

https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/skardon-oros-e1114740#

Weather it should be read with a or o, you are reading ancient Greek authors exonym for the place. Say Selanik or Thessaloniki. Then basing the whole argument on that. Then taking that newly devised argument, to make overarching conclusions about Dardanians.

I think this all will be settled either way, with ancient bones. Or maybe a time machine.

Thanks for providing the source. Have a good night.

ShpataEMadhe
09-21-2021, 09:00 AM
From my point of view, the more testers, the better. Surely there might be still some surprises in Albania and hidden diversity nobody and especially me not knowing of. But especially on YFull, and if making frequency or diversity maps with YFull, it becomes apparent, misses such a large portion of E-V13 from other countries. We're talking about tens of millions of people not being represented well or not at all. The about 100.000 E-V13 carriers, rather more, because that's more at the lower end of the estimation, from Moldova being represented by a single person on FTDNA and YFull.
What's more, the Albanians went through a serious bottleneck and selective ethnogenesis, with a couple of clans dominating the landscape more than in some other people. This means chances for rare and upstream clades in Albanians are generally lower, usually, than in some other people with less of a bottleneck. And chances that a higher frequency of testing will pay off, from a phylogenetic point of view, are also higher.

Some comparisons for E-BY3880 on YFull:
In Austria, just for comparison, we can expect about 5 percent, give or take, E-V13 overall, that too means about 175.000 E-V13 carriers and from what I saw, on FTDNA, YFull and in my matches, they are very diverse, but there are just 3 samples on YFull, and all forming their own, distinct branch at the root of some of the main clades, with a timing around the expansion phase (LBA-Hallstatt). 2 of 3 samples come from the Austrian genetic project, so in summary, only 1 tester for all of Austria again!

Albanians have, at the maximum, about 350.000 E-V13 carriers, almost exactly double the number of Austrians, yet they have 62 samples from Albania alone, and this is without the Albanians from the neighbouring countries! That makes a ratio of about 1:10 for Austrians:Albanians on YFull.
Even the English are not better represented than Albanians, because they have about 350.000 E-V13 carriers as well, about as much as Albanians, since though their percentage is rather low, their population is way higher! Yet they have on YFull a representation by 52 samples with England and another 19 with the code GB.

So Albanians and English are the only well-represented people on YFull at the moment, if comparing total male population, E-V13 frequency and samples. On FTDNA the situation is way more skewed in favour of the English, but that's another story. I always counted just the samples below E-BY3880 by the way.

350,000?? It is at 27% overall but gegs have a bit more at 28-29% and they are much more numerous than tosks which have 25% v13

If we count about 5 million albanians in balkans and most of them being gegs, v13 should be found in around 1.5million not 350,000

Edit: just half the numbers - forgot about females!

ShpataEMadhe
09-21-2021, 09:22 AM
Haplogroup E-CTS9320 was found in Viminacium:


a second one slightly upstream:


https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?24658-Cosmopolitanism-at-the-Roman-Danubian-Frontier-Slavic-Migrations-and-the-Genomic-Fo&p=796838&viewfull=1#post796838

So it seems that the local population in and around Viminacium could have been dominated by E-CTS9320 already. It seems to spread with Channelled Ware/Belegis II-Gava and Basarabi-Bosut in the Iron Age. I also think it moved down South early, but could as well have spread with Vlachs later too, which depends on the subclades.

Like https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y84585/ looks like having moved more South earlier, but that's also hard to tell without better samping. In any case, while there are some possible more independent lineages in this clade, I guess most come from Montenegrines-Albanians in the Serbian population.

Compare with this:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?18885-A-theory-about-the-origin-of-E-V13&p=800345&viewfull=1#post800345

The Serbian E-V13 being largely split in a more Southern, rather Montenegrine-Albanian related, and into a more Northern and Eastern (Vlach-Romanian, Hungarian and Bulgarian) branches. They are probably around 50:50 overall.

Yes found in viminacium. We cant say how it got there because we dont have any earlier adna from balkans from 500bc to 300ad. Also the results we received from viminacium were very mixed - a lot of german/ostrogothic or is it possible that illyrians or daco thracians mixed early on with germans? There are also a lot of other lines in there that could be roman legionaries - viminacium was an important roman city and some definitely settled there

I cant see why v13 would be successful in moving from as far south east as north anatolia to north west all the way to places like crotia/bosnia. For me v13, once it had settled in the balkans - looks like it spread from the dardania sort of region but slightly further north - in all directions. Do we have approximate dates on each sample from viminacium?

Riverman
09-21-2021, 09:38 AM
350,000?? It is at 27% overall but gegs have a bit more at 28-29% and they are much more numerous than tosks which have 25% v13

If we count about 5 million albanians in balkans and most of them being gegs, v13 should be found in around 1.5million not 350,000

I just counted those from Albania, not the unknown origin and other countries. Also, you have to count 50 percent, because females don’t count.
If you do both, count only males from Albania, you end up with my number.

Also, Balkan IA Viminacium is largely regional, and regional is mostly Channelled Ware derived.

ShpataEMadhe
09-21-2021, 09:54 AM
I just counted those from Albania, not the unknown origin and other countries. Also, you have to count 50 percent, because females don’t count.
If you do both, count only males from Albania, you end up with my number.

Also, Balkan IA Viminacium is largely regional, and regional is mostly Channelled Ware derived.

Oops completely forgot about females.

Should be around 750,000 then. If we count just albania which would have a higher ratio of tosks but still less than gegs, it should be about 400,000 so youre not far off

Most important detail we found in iron age? Viminacium (i couldnt find the dates) was that german influence in balkans is underestimated

peloponnesian
09-21-2021, 10:02 AM
Although I think that Albanians are not overrepresented. There are a lot of BigY testers in Albania, but there is also a bunch doing only the STRs

Not that there's anything wrong with that (on the contrary), but Albanians are definitely overrepresented on the YFull tree relative to their neighbours:

https://phylogeographer.com/yfull-world-sampling-rate-map/
(https://phylogeographer.com/yfull-world-sampling-rate-map/)

They're the 3rd most tested country (per capita) in Europe, after Ireland and Sweden. For comparison, they're 13 times more tested than Greeks, 7 times more tested than Serbs, 13x compared to Croatians, 11x compared to Italians and 50x to Romanians.

Not sure what the situation is on FTDNA.

ShpataEMadhe
09-21-2021, 10:19 AM
Not that there's anything wrong with that (on the contrary), but Albanians are definitely overrepresented on the YFull tree relative to their neighbours:

https://phylogeographer.com/yfull-world-sampling-rate-map/
(https://phylogeographer.com/yfull-world-sampling-rate-map/)

They're the 3rd most tested country (per capita) in Europe, after Ireland and Sweden. For comparison, they're 13 times more tested than Greeks, 7 times more tested than Serbs, 13x compared to Croatians, 11x compared to Italians and 50x to Romanians.

Not sure what the situation is on FTDNA.

Maybe on yfull but overall only 1200 albanians have been tested, kosovo is severely undertested - https://rrenjet.com/statistikat/

Meanwhile 3700 serbs have been tested - https://dnk.poreklo.rs/DNK-projekat/

Are we suggesting that we cannot completely trust these results until they get on yfull?

Per capita is a bit pointless really, i would still say albanians are undertested - its just that other countries are maybe moreso. You need at least 2000 results (preferably more) for any country with over a million males to get a somewhat accurate idea of their overall genetics, few results is never a good thing

Riverman
09-21-2021, 11:52 AM
We already have a good idea about the Albanian and English subclades and diversity, which is good, but its much worse for other people.
And the modern local frequency is not decisive for the origin in the past. Especially not if a country with a low frequency has still millions of carriers.
Without testing, it's unresolved.
On FTDNA Albanians are not as overrepresented, but the English even more so than on YFULL.
Serbs lack the density for WGS/BigY, which is a problem for their exact position on the trees. I just wrote about YFULL, which most use for the maps.

ShpataEMadhe
09-21-2021, 12:38 PM
We already have a good idea about the Albanian and English subclades and diversity, which is good, but its much worse for other people.
And the modern local frequency is not decisive for the origin in the past. Especially not if a country with a low frequency has still millions of carriers.
Without testing, it's unresolved.
On FTDNA Albanians are not as overrepresented, but the English even more so than on YFULL.
Serbs lack the density for WGS/BigY, which is a problem for their exact position on the trees. I just wrote about YFULL, which most use for the maps.

If there a particular reason why some people/countries are not using yfull more? Is yfull the most reliable source that looks into genetics? If so, is it possible that for whatever agenda some people/countries prefer to use different sources to mask their overall results?

Also off topic but why dont they allow genetic tests in france? Such a weird thing to ban

Riverman
09-21-2021, 12:47 PM
If there a particular reason why some people/countries are not using yfull more? Is yfull the most reliable source that looks into genetics? If so, is it possible that for whatever agenda some people/countries prefer to use different sources to mask their real results?

Also off topic but why dont they allow genetic tests in france? Such a weird thing to ban

The problem is rather a lack of interest, money and knowledge, as well as trust. Albanians seem to have more personal and national interest for testing yDNA.
The English and Americans are just numbers, money and more trust into companies, as well as unknown origins for the Americans.
Since both FTDNA and YFULL want money now, to get you there, most seem just to lack the motivation and knowledge to upload.

leorcooper19
09-21-2021, 06:25 PM
Could some folks here fill me in on the current theories for when and how E-V13 carriers entered Greece? In the LBA? IA "Dark Ages"? Classical period? Even after? Many thanks.

Riverman
09-21-2021, 07:19 PM
Could some folks here fill me in on the current theories for when and how E-V13 carriers entered Greece? In the LBA? IA "Dark Ages"? Classical period? Even after? Many thanks.

Since we lack the ancient DNA nobody really knows and all the periods you mentioned might have brought new E-V13 carriers.
However, we know that before Channelled Ware and Psenichevo-Basarabi, which seems to have grown out of it, there seems to have been very little if any E-V13 in the Balkans, afterwards the region was packed.
It seems therefore reasonable to connect Channelled Ware people, which introduced Naue II swords, iron weapons, cremation burials in urns and weapon hoards, plus the typical black burnished, channelled and knobbed pottery styles, among other things, to the Balkans and Aegean, with E-V13.
If that's correct we can say that the earliest V13 appeared between 1.300-1.000 in Greece in greater numbers.
Whether that archaeological influence led to a higher frequency of V13 that early is unknown, but I would guess so. Since there was a constant influx of Thracians later, its impossible to tell what caused the rise over time and we also have no data on later Iron Age and classical Greeks.
Channelled Ware groups had a significant impact on Greece, but more indirectly, so the genetic contribution is impossible to estimate without more data. Since LBA V13 could be anywhere between 1 - 40 percent in Northern Greece, nobody knows.

rafc
09-21-2021, 08:42 PM
If there a particular reason why some people/countries are not using yfull more? Is yfull the most reliable source that looks into genetics? If so, is it possible that for whatever agenda some people/countries prefer to use different sources to mask their overall results?

The issue is mainly in the lack of NGS. I guess that's part financially, although the cost of Big Y is really not that high anymore. It also seems that many people from the Balkans prefer to test at these 'national' projects, even at a higher cost. Someone cited the Bosnian project here, which I did not yet know. They offer an Y37 test at €169, which would be 102€ at FTDNA (92€ when on sale). Likewise the NGS test advertised is €499 (on sale from €599), while big Y700 is €383 (€340 when on sale). That NGS test is Whole Genome, but who cares about other chromosomes than the Y ;)

Bane
09-21-2021, 09:18 PM
Could some folks here fill me in on the current theories for when and how E-V13 carriers entered Greece? In the LBA? IA "Dark Ages"? Classical period? Even after? Many thanks.


I have a "cousin" in Sicily which is distant 2600 years from me. I believe his ancestor reached South Italy before 400 BCE. Plus, there are several other examples which indicate E-V13 clades got to South Italy before 500 BCE (from the Balkans).
If E-V13 reached South Italy before 500 BCE, then I would be free to say E-V13 entered Greece before that and even before 700 BCE. But as Riverman wrote, it is not easy to estimate how much of todays E-V13 in Greece descend from that particular Early Iron Age arrival.

capsian
09-21-2021, 10:42 PM
The issue is mainly in the lack of NGS. I guess that's part financially, although the cost of Big Y is really not that high anymore. It also seems that many people from the Balkans prefer to test at these 'national' projects, even at a higher cost. Someone cited the Bosnian project here, which I did not yet know. They offer an Y37 test at €169, which would be 102€ at FTDNA (92€ when on sale). Likewise the NGS test advertised is €499 (on sale from €599), while big Y700 is €383 (€340 when on sale). That NGS test is Whole Genome, but who cares about other chromosomes than the Y ;)

hey sorry so far i see that the price of Y-big is still exorbitant compared to the whole genome

Kelmendasi
09-22-2021, 12:12 AM
Some time ago while going through some Ottoman defters, I noticed something which attracted my attention. Various villages named Darda, Dardas. I used to think this was problematic because of some claims about earlier *dzarda/*dzardza, but in Orel I see the earlier form is *darda. I used to ask myself why are there so many pear-named villages in Albania. Many of these places no longer exist, though they existed 500+ years ago in Albania. So I came back to them, and I see they are roughly around the old Arbanon. And I looked for them in Shkoder area, and there are none there. That's a good sign. I see one of them is from the Mat area (no longer exists). So we know early Albanians are clearly connected to Arbanon, and could these Darda's be an indicator of a tribal group which settled the Arbanon in Early Medieval times and left traces there, that called themselves Dardanians?

Other than Bessus, there were various LA people in Dardania carrying the designation Dardanus. So I'd propose

- Bessoi , political leaders of the Late Antiquity Shop "Paleo-Balkanism"
-- Dardanii, composed of:
--- Illyrian Dardanii
--- Dardanian Dardanii (connected to Dardanians from Troy, it is likely Pshenichevo people, tied with E-V13 carried with them some original Dardanians to Troy, Pshenichevo were present at Troy and they were present in Dardania)

I would suggest that the late Bessian archeological culture included also the Dardanii.

In 7th, 8th century AD as proposed by Schramm they move to Arbanon in Bulgarian expansion related events. These people possibly under umbrella of Bessoi still primarily called themselves Dardanians if these Darda's are anything to go by.
Toponyms or place names stemming from the Albanian dardhë (pear), from Proto-Albanian *dardā, are historically attested around Shkodra and its environs. For example the settlement of Dardha is recorded in the Venetian cadastre of Scutari (1416-17) and neighboured the modern village of Ashta (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Asht%C3%AB,+Albania/@42.0087024,19.5190357,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x134e023a63ecc31d:0xb92f7 ff4ee695d02!8m2!3d42.0097388!4d19.5300317) on the banks of the Drin. The settlement is remembered in the form of a landmark in the latter modern settlement as Qafë-Dardha. As for the Ottoman defter of 1485, the anthroponym Dardo is attested in the village of Morina (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Morin%C3%AB,+Albania/@42.1421316,20.2511769,10z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x1353c60ea0a38127:0x6995c85c28ac8 170!8m2!3d42.1418249!4d20.5308567) which we can gather was the settlement of origin for the eponymous tribe, however it is not clear to me if this name can be linked back linguistically to the root *dardā. The main point is that settlements derived from this root were indeed historically present in these areas of northern Albania and are remembered in modern times as toponyms of landmarks. There are also plenty of modern settlements in the north of the country from this root such as Dardhe (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Dardhe,+Albania/@42.1935359,20.1459645,15z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x13523097b696df69:0xec08b e55d21185fc!8m2!3d42.1933774!4d20.1566391) (north-east of Puka) and Dardhe-Shosh (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Dardhe+Shosh,+Albania/@42.2528462,19.7625697,16z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x135211d119530365:0x5c2d8 5cc5277784e!8m2!3d42.2527428!4d19.7658644) (north-east of Shkodra, Shoshi). Even Dardha (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Dardha,+Ko%C4%87i,+Montenegro/@42.4644874,19.4075793,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x134d8da6eb380b0f:0xa3e99 91693c84e94!8m2!3d42.4641965!4d19.4099233) in Koja, eastern Montenegro.

Also the borders of Arbanon as a politico-geographic entity extended beyond its borders under the rulership of the archons and princes of the Progoni fis between the twelfth and thirteenth centuries CE. For example the region of Pulati or Pulti which historically extended over northern Albania is recorded as having been a part of Arbanon prior to its capture by Stefan Nemanja ca. 1198. Demetrio Progoni in a correspondence to Pope Innocent III in 1208 declared the lands between Shkodra (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Shkod%C3%ABr,+Albania/@42.0645897,19.3887635,12z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x134e005bf998212f:0x7c0d3 fbd64d1804e!8m2!3d42.0692985!4d19.5032559), Durrës (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Durr%C3%ABs,+Albania/@41.3314435,19.3963166,12z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x134fd97c5fbbbcc7:0x77f37 7eae6cd81ee!8m2!3d41.3245904!4d19.4564686), Ohrid (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ohrid,+North+Macedonia/@41.1140549,20.7569497,13z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x1350db6587ea6657:0xc46cf c65390bc9d3!8m2!3d41.1230977!4d20.8016481) and Prizren (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Prizren/@42.2234773,20.6995781,13z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x1353950a12f4301f:0xda0e2 e9b8d3d5850!8m2!3d42.2171438!4d20.7436495) as rightfully belonging to his domain or Arbanon (regionis montosae inter Scodram, Dyrrachium, Achridam et Prizrenam sitae).

A hypothetical arrival of the ancestors of the Albanians into the territory of modern Albania as late as the seventh or eighth century CE has no historical or even linguistic basis. For starters there is no documentation of such a migration ever taking place during this time period and the Albanians when they are mentioned for the first time in the historical record appear as a well-established group in the region rather than the descendants of migrants and settlers from elsewhere. As for linguistic evidence against such a hypothesis, we can firstly turn to the fact that the hydronym of Mat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mat_(river)) for the river of the same name is attested in the Vibius Sequester (fourth or fifth century CE) as Mathis (Mathis Dyrrachi non longe a Lisso). This hydronym/toponym is of clear Proto-Albanian origins and so is strong evidence towards the fact that by this period of time at least the ancestors of the Albanians were well-established in the region. Not only this, but certain city or place names in Albania show Tosk rhotacism which we know developed prior to the arrival of the Slavs during the sixth century and onwards. For example, the city of Vlora (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Vlor%C3%AB,+Albania/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x134533f1e8cc1895:0xd31099af13e0e 86?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiWoJfZpZHzAhUJRUEAHQ3pB_IQ8gF6BAhuEAE) in the south-west is referred to in the Geg dialects as Vlonë or Vlona both ultimately from the Ancient Greek Aulón (Αυλών). Later the city of Kruja (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Kruj%C3%AB+District,+Albania/@41.5083426,19.704835,12z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x1351ce798fda35a9:0x88c62 369999d0381!8m2!3d41.5094765!4d19.7710732) in north-central Albania is recorded for the first time in Byzantine documents of the early-seventh century CE in the form of Kroai (Κροαί). This toponym is derived from the Albanian krua (water spring) which Orel derived from the Proto-Albanian *krāna (earlier *krasna).

vettor
09-22-2021, 02:38 AM
Toponyms or place names stemming from the Albanian dardhë (pear), from Proto-Albanian *dardā, are historically attested around Shkodra and its environs. For example the settlement of Dardha is recorded in the Venetian cadastre of Scutari (1416-17) and neighboured the modern village of Ashta (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Asht%C3%AB,+Albania/@42.0087024,19.5190357,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x134e023a63ecc31d:0xb92f7 ff4ee695d02!8m2!3d42.0097388!4d19.5300317) on the banks of the Drin. The settlement is remembered in the form of a landmark in the latter modern settlement as Qafë-Dardha. As for the Ottoman defter of 1485, the anthroponym Dardo is attested in the village of Morina (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Morin%C3%AB,+Albania/@42.1421316,20.2511769,10z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x1353c60ea0a38127:0x6995c85c28ac8 170!8m2!3d42.1418249!4d20.5308567) which we can gather was the settlement of origin for the eponymous tribe, however it is not clear to me if this name can be linked back linguistically to the root *dardā. The main point is that settlements derived from this root were indeed historically present in these areas of northern Albania and are remembered in modern times as toponyms of landmarks. There are also plenty of modern settlements in the north of the country from this root such as Dardhe (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Dardhe,+Albania/@42.1935359,20.1459645,15z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x13523097b696df69:0xec08b e55d21185fc!8m2!3d42.1933774!4d20.1566391) (north-east of Puka) and Dardhe-Shosh (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Dardhe+Shosh,+Albania/@42.2528462,19.7625697,16z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x135211d119530365:0x5c2d8 5cc5277784e!8m2!3d42.2527428!4d19.7658644) (north-east of Shkodra, Shoshi). Even Dardha (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Dardha,+Ko%C4%87i,+Montenegro/@42.4644874,19.4075793,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x134d8da6eb380b0f:0xa3e99 91693c84e94!8m2!3d42.4641965!4d19.4099233) in Koja, eastern Montenegro.

Also the borders of Arbanon as a politico-geographic entity extended beyond its borders under the rulership of the archons and princes of the Progoni fis between the twelfth and thirteenth centuries CE. For example the region of Pulati or Pulti which historically extended over northern Albania is recorded as having been a part of Arbanon prior to its capture by Stefan Nemanja ca. 1198. Demetrio Progoni in a correspondence to Pope Innocent III in 1208 declared the lands between Shkodra (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Shkod%C3%ABr,+Albania/@42.0645897,19.3887635,12z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x134e005bf998212f:0x7c0d3 fbd64d1804e!8m2!3d42.0692985!4d19.5032559), Durrës (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Durr%C3%ABs,+Albania/@41.3314435,19.3963166,12z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x134fd97c5fbbbcc7:0x77f37 7eae6cd81ee!8m2!3d41.3245904!4d19.4564686), Ohrid (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ohrid,+North+Macedonia/@41.1140549,20.7569497,13z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x1350db6587ea6657:0xc46cf c65390bc9d3!8m2!3d41.1230977!4d20.8016481) and Prizren (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Prizren/@42.2234773,20.6995781,13z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x1353950a12f4301f:0xda0e2 e9b8d3d5850!8m2!3d42.2171438!4d20.7436495) as rightfully belonging to his domain or Arbanon (regionis montosae inter Scodram, Dyrrachium, Achridam et Prizrenam sitae).

A hypothetical arrival of the ancestors of the Albanians into the territory of modern Albania as late as the seventh or eighth century CE has no historical or even linguistic basis. For starters there is no documentation of such a migration ever taking place during this time period and the Albanians when they are mentioned for the first time in the historical record appear as a well-established group in the region rather than the descendants of migrants and settlers from elsewhere. As for linguistic evidence against such a hypothesis, we can firstly turn to the fact that the hydronym of Mat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mat_(river)) for the river of the same name is attested in the Vibius Sequester (fourth or fifth century CE) as Mathis (Mathis Dyrrachi non longe a Lisso). This hydronym/toponym is of clear Proto-Albanian origins and so is strong evidence towards the fact that by this period of time at least the ancestors of the Albanians were well-established in the region. Not only this, but certain city or place names in Albania show Tosk rhotacism which we know developed prior to the arrival of the Slavs during the sixth century and onwards. For example, the city of Vlora (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Vlor%C3%AB,+Albania/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x134533f1e8cc1895:0xd31099af13e0e 86?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiWoJfZpZHzAhUJRUEAHQ3pB_IQ8gF6BAhuEAE) in the south-west is referred to in the Geg dialects as Vlonë or Vlona both ultimately from the Ancient Greek Aulón (Αυλών). Later the city of Kruja (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Kruj%C3%AB+District,+Albania/@41.5083426,19.704835,12z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x1351ce798fda35a9:0x88c62 369999d0381!8m2!3d41.5094765!4d19.7710732) in north-central Albania is recorded for the first time in Byzantine documents of the early-seventh century CE in the form of Kroai (Κροαί). This toponym is derived from the Albanian krua (water spring) which Orel derived from the Proto-Albanian *krāna (earlier *krasna).


does it name the owners in the cadastre of Scutari ? ...............where they Albanian or Bosnian?


The term Cadastre is related to Venetian (1185) catastico ("list of citizens possessing a taxable property")

Kelmendasi
09-22-2021, 08:14 AM
does it name the owners in the cadastre of Scutari ? ...............where they Albanian or Bosnian?


The term Cadastre is related to Venetian (1185) catastico ("list of citizens possessing a taxable property")
They were ethnic Albanians, specifically a branch of the Tuzi tribe. Given the geographic area where this cadastre was conducted, Bosnians in the modern understanding of the word are never attested.

Riverman
09-25-2021, 10:48 PM
This is a map from Eupedia, from an Italian ancestry project, posted there by Pax Augusta:
https://i.imgur.com/ho1om0f.png
https://i.imgur.com/ho1om0f.png
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/41501-Genomes-from-82-Etruscans-and-Southern-Italians-(800-BCE-%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%93-1-000-CE)/page18?p=631566&viewfull=1#post631566

Interesting, for E-V13 this map alone is helpful to confirm that there seem to have been two to three centres, one in the North West, rather associated with Hallstatt, Ligurian and Lombards, the other in the very South East, associated with Greeks and Balkan people, including Albanians from rather recent times and possibly a third one Sicily even more associated with Greeks and Balkan people up to Roman times (?). Contrary to some other regions of the North, the association of R1a+I2 with E1b1b is not there in North Eastern Italy, but that is no such big suprise, considering that Slovenians have an exceptionally low amount as well and its mostly from the Slovenes that the Slavic and R1a in the North East might be coming from. On the other hand J2 might correlate with E1b1b, which might point to the clear Balkan, Greek and especially Illyrian association.
I1 and E1b1b have even in the North only a little bit of an overlap, but the most in Monza and less suprisingly Southern Tyrol. The Monza case might be pure chance, but it has a background of pile dwellings, Celtic Insumbres and Lombard settlement:

Berengar I of Italy (850–924) located his headquarters in Monza. A fortified castrum was constructed to resist the incursions of the Hungarians. Under Berengar's reign, Monza enjoyed a certain degree of independence: it had its own system of weights and measures, and could also seize property and mark the deeds with their signatures. Berengar was very generous evident by the donation of numerous works to the Monza Cathedral, including the famous cross, and by giving large benefits to its 32 canons and other churches.

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

Less suprising is Genua as a centre of E-V13.

vettor
09-26-2021, 12:24 AM
This is a map from Eupedia, from an Italian ancestry project, posted there by Pax Augusta:
https://i.imgur.com/ho1om0f.png
https://i.imgur.com/ho1om0f.png
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/41501-Genomes-from-82-Etruscans-and-Southern-Italians-(800-BCE-%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%93-1-000-CE)/page18?p=631566&viewfull=1#post631566

Interesting, for E-V13 this map alone is helpful to confirm that there seem to have been two to three centres, one in the North West, rather associated with Hallstatt, Ligurian and Lombards, the other in the very South East, associated with Greeks and Balkan people, including Albanians from rather recent times and possibly a third one Sicily even more associated with Greeks and Balkan people up to Roman times (?). Contrary to some other regions of the North, the association of R1a+I2 with E1b1b is not there in North Eastern Italy, but that is no such big suprise, considering that Slovenians have an exceptionally low amount as well and its mostly from the Slovenes that the Slavic and R1a in the North East might be coming from. On the other hand J2 might correlate with E1b1b, which might point to the clear Balkan, Greek and especially Illyrian association.
I1 and E1b1b have even in the North only a little bit of an overlap, but the most in Monza and less suprisingly Southern Tyrol. The Monza case might be pure chance, but it has a background of pile dwellings, Celtic Insumbres and Lombard settlement:


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

Less suprising is Genua as a centre of E-V13.

these are modern italian samples by region ............I cannot see what it has to do with the ancients

Riverman
09-26-2021, 12:50 AM
these are modern italian samples by region ............I cannot see what it has to do with the ancients

The pattern is too strong to be ignored and will in any case date to late Antiquity and earlier.

eastara
09-26-2021, 02:11 AM
Also interestingly, this Bulgarian has a surname with a Greek root. As does the E-BY4404* Bulgarian (his is just G'rk/Greek). I have seen plenty of Greek personal names in some areas of Bulgaria, and some of those obviously Greek names were not common in ethnic Greeks at all, so they might date to some Byzantine era influence in Bulgaria.
Example is Bulgarian surname Harizanov (there is one J-Y22059 with it but its not his oldest surname), root is Greek χαρίζω, but in 16th century it occurred in various Bulgarians, but in no ethnic Greeks at the time even though its root is Greek. This word entered Bulgarian language as an adjective so it was utilized by the Bulgarians and not Greeks despite its ultimate origin.

You should not conclude too much from the etymology of Bulgarian surnames or even place of origin. Bulgarians did not have surnames during Ottoman times and they were officially introduced only after Bulgaria became independent. A huge number derive from Turkish names for profession or other Turkish words. Those derived from Greek words are not many and usually used by the Turks as well. I am not sure if 'harizo" actually comes from Greek or the other way around. Thе verb "харизвам" exist in Bulgarian and also means "given away, gifted". This was because many kids from poor families were "given away" for adoption already as grownups, babies were rarely adopted unless foundlings (like surname Найденов).
Most Bulgarians from Eastern Bulgaria are new settlers since 18-19 c. and you should consider this area as a "genetic sink" with 2 main sources - first South Albania and West Macedonia and later from all over the rest of Bulgaria, including North West.

dosas
09-26-2021, 05:32 AM
I am not sure if 'harizo" actually comes from Greek or the other way around.

:heh:

"Χαρίζω" the verb is a derivative from the term "χαρίεις" (meaning: virtue, happiness, verb: to give happiness) found as early as the Homeric works. Nothing to do with Bulgarian or South Slavic :biggrin1:.

Bane
09-26-2021, 08:12 AM
This is a map from Eupedia, from an Italian ancestry project, posted there by Pax Augusta:

Interesting, for E-V13 this map alone is helpful to confirm that there seem to have been two to three centres, one in the North West, rather associated with Hallstatt, Ligurian and Lombards, the other in the very South East, associated with Greeks and Balkan people, including Albanians from rather recent times and possibly a third one Sicily even more associated with Greeks and Balkan people up to Roman times (?).

Very nice maps.

Regarding E-V13 in the Southeastern Italy, personally I doubt a lot if it came in the Common Era.
The main reason is almost absent I-Y3120 in Southeastern Italy. The map shows some presence of I-Y3120 but it's ratio with E-V13 is not comparable with what modern DNA shows on the other side of Adriatic and Ionian see.
Hence it is my belief, that there is no significant difference in source of E-V13 in Apulia and in Sicily. Apulia has higher frequency for a simple reason that it is closer to the Balkans. Gradual decline of frequency towards Sicily seems natural and does not imply a separate "center" by default.

So it all points to the Middle Iron Age as the main period of arrival of E-V13 to South Italy. Which I think a lot of people would agrre with. But some minor share could've indeed migrate in the Common Era, and even after 500 CE.

Aspar
09-26-2021, 08:24 AM
Very nice maps.

Regarding E-V13 in the Southeastern Italy, personally I doubt a lot if it came in the Common Era.
The main reason is almost absent I-Y3120 in Southeastern Italy. The map shows some presence of I-Y3120 but it's ratio with E-V13 is not comparable with what modern DNA shows on the other side of Adriatic and Ionian see.
Hence it is my belief, that there is no significant difference in source of E-V13 in Apulia and in Sicily. Apulia has higher frequency for a simple reason that it is closer to the Balkans. Gradual decline of frequency towards Sicily seems natural and does not imply a separate "center" by default.

So it all points to the Middle Iron Age as the main period of arrival of E-V13 to South Italy. Which I think a lot of people would agrre with. But some minor share could've indeed migrate in the Common Era, and even after 500 CE.


Why would I-Y3120 have any relevance here to the numbers of E-V13 if as we know, main Balkan people that settled in the Medieval in those parts in Italy were Greeks and Albanians. Ratio of E-V13 and I-Y3120 among them is 4:1, 3:1.

Aspar
09-26-2021, 08:25 AM
:heh:

"Χαρίζω" the verb is a derivative from the term "χαρίεις" (meaning: virtue, happiness, verb: to give happiness) found as early as the Homeric works. Nothing to do with Bulgarian or South Slavic :biggrin1:.

Funny, it's a common surname in my native region. Even my sister now bears it...

Bane
09-26-2021, 09:11 AM
Why would I-Y3120 have any relevance here to the numbers of E-V13 if as we know, main Balkan people that settled in the Medieval in those parts in Italy were Greeks and Albanians. Ratio of E-V13 and I-Y3120 among them is 4:1, 3:1.


Among Tosks the ratio is 2,5 : 1.
Even if we consider 4 : 1, in my opinion if it was Medieval migration there would have to be visibly more I-Y3120 people. If this is not natural to you or others then I think I can't help. :)

dosas
09-26-2021, 10:49 AM
Funny, it's a common surname in my native region. Even my sister now bears it...


Tell your sister the etymology of her name is very flattering:

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

Riverman
09-26-2021, 12:14 PM
Very nice maps.

Regarding E-V13 in the Southeastern Italy, personally I doubt a lot if it came in the Common Era.
The main reason is almost absent I-Y3120 in Southeastern Italy. The map shows some presence of I-Y3120 but it's ratio with E-V13 is not comparable with what modern DNA shows on the other side of Adriatic and Ionian see.
Hence it is my belief, that there is no significant difference in source of E-V13 in Apulia and in Sicily. Apulia has higher frequency for a simple reason that it is closer to the Balkans. Gradual decline of frequency towards Sicily seems natural and does not imply a separate "center" by default.

So it all points to the Middle Iron Age as the main period of arrival of E-V13 to South Italy. Which I think a lot of people would agrre with. But some minor share could've indeed migrate in the Common Era, and even after 500 CE.

We will know for sure when we get more ancient and modern DNA. Some of the subclades I saw in Southern Italians could be either of distant or more recent, of more Northern or Balkan, for Balkan more Greek, Illyrian-Thracian or Albanian origin. Its rather inconclusive or mixed. They definitely do not form, so far, close networks with Albanians I'd say. I rather saw connections to Vlachs, Greeks and Central Europeans, as well as a majority which is rather not definable in the moment and seems to be older and independent. Really hard to say with so few samples which did BigY or are on YFull.

Interestingly, most Italian E-V13 have relatively close matches in the Sardinian Cagliari samples, like this example:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY6527/

His paternal ancestry is from Mandanici, Messina, Sicily. Directly above is a second sample from the same region in Messina, forming a subclade of its own under
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY3880/

This are significant subclades, very early, Early Iron Age date and no overlap with other Balkan people afaik. Please inform me if it there are. It could be a good example of an early Thraco-Greek origin and spread with Greek colonisation. Above there is at BY3880 level a Greek from Kilkis.

vettor
09-26-2021, 04:08 PM
Very nice maps.

Regarding E-V13 in the Southeastern Italy, personally I doubt a lot if it came in the Common Era.
The main reason is almost absent I-Y3120 in Southeastern Italy. The map shows some presence of I-Y3120 but it's ratio with E-V13 is not comparable with what modern DNA shows on the other side of Adriatic and Ionian see.
Hence it is my belief, that there is no significant difference in source of E-V13 in Apulia and in Sicily. Apulia has higher frequency for a simple reason that it is closer to the Balkans. Gradual decline of frequency towards Sicily seems natural and does not imply a separate "center" by default.

So it all points to the Middle Iron Age as the main period of arrival of E-V13 to South Italy. Which I think a lot of people would agrre with. But some minor share could've indeed migrate in the Common Era, and even after 500 CE.

A lot of E in southeast Italy comes from Albanian migration from the time of the Kingdom of Naples in the 15th century until basically 20 years ago and the illegal boat people into Italy which was stopped by Berlosconi government

Again...I state the maps of these Haplogroup groups are only today dna

vettor
09-26-2021, 04:10 PM
The pattern is too strong to be ignored and will in any case date to late Antiquity and earlier.

You are in error ..................If we stop mixing BC samples from AD samples we will get a true picture instead of this false stories

ask yourself.............why is sardinia full of I2 ydna ?

Bane
09-26-2021, 04:27 PM
ask yourself.............why is sardinia full of I2 ydna ?


What is your explanation, why is it like that?

rafc
09-26-2021, 05:19 PM
I think when looking at the aDNA that chances of significant V13 in Italy before the imperial age is slim. Apparently there is an upcoming paper on Campania, if this doesn't show any IA V13 we get a really interesting situation. The V13 in Italy is clearly not consistent with a recent spread from the Western Balkans (and we do have multiple V13 samples from late antiquity and the middle ages in Italy). So that would point to mainly imperial and/or Early Medieval arrival.

Riverman
09-26-2021, 05:34 PM
You are in error ..................If we stop mixing BC samples from AD samples we will get a true picture instead of this false stories

ask yourself.............why is sardinia full of I2 ydna ?

I2 in Sardinia is so strong because the Western European I2 agro-pastoralists did colonise Sardinia from the Middle Neolithic to Middle Bronze Age and were never fully replaced afterwards.


I think when looking at the aDNA that chances of significant V13 in Italy before the imperial age is slim. Apparently there is an upcoming paper on Campania, if this doesn't show any IA V13 we get a really interesting situation. The V13 in Italy is clearly not consistent with a recent spread from the Western Balkans (and we do have multiple V13 samples from late antiquity and the middle ages in Italy). So that would point to mainly imperial and/or Early Medieval arrival.

In this upcoming study are not too many Greeks, but it might help indeed. There should be at least some V13 samples in the mix, but even if not, I wouldn't write it off, because we need samples from the early Greek colonies too. I think a good portion could have come with slaves and migrants too, like Spartacus, most likely a Thracian, might serve as a historical example, as well as late Roman and Byzantine age migrants from the Balkans, including refugees from the threatened provinves during migration period. But especially the concentration in Sicily is most likely from Greek colonists plus Thracian migrants and slaves for the most part. Yet we should not forget that the relative and absolute numbers for E-V13 are not that much higher there than in many parts of Central Europe and Northern Italy.

Riverman
10-03-2021, 02:34 PM
Yesterday I came across another interesting fact, namely that there was a very big shift in the early Gava military tactics and equipment, from the Carpathians, down to the Balkans where they moved. During the Late Bronze Age transition, the frequency of spearheads among metal goods and weaponry drastically increased, as did swords, which is less suprising. Both the spearheads and swords took new shapes, like the Naue II examples, but even more advanced swordtypes than those. The swords changed in the Carpathian area from thrusting to cutting weapons. This in combination with the spearheads suggests to me that a new military tactic was introduced as well, coming closer to fighting in close quarters, in formation, even approaching a phalanx style military order.
Interestingly, some old experts on the matter recognised spearheads of the new type from Transcarpathia, over the Balkan, to Greece. In Greece it seems to be new and intrusive, and appears in the transitional and Dorian period.
In the earlier phase, axes were much more common the cultures which preceded Gava. The rise in typical spearheads is very steep and points to a drastic shift.

That means it wasn't just about swords, but new military formations with spears and cutting swords in combination. This makes the Battle of the Delta, in which Urnfield related people with similar swords and spearheads participated all the more instructive, because they were primarily suited for close quarter combat, rather than long range weapons. Many Sea Peoples at the Battle of the Delta were equipped "hoplite style" with spears, swords and large round shields:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/02010_Naval_battle_of_Delta%2C_peuples_de_la_mer%2 C_Medinet_Habu_Ramses_III._Tempel_Nordostwand.jpg

The later Gava success seems therefore also due to the adoption of a completely new tactic and military equipment than they had before and this shift being recognisable in the archaeological record from Poland-Ukraine to Greece and beyond (Sea Peoples) with related artefacts of spearheads and swords. This change would have most certainly also affected the whole society and we see even in Eastern Hallstatt still some kind of units of a leading sword-bearer with a squad of spear and axe bearers.

By the way, if you use Google translate for this interesting paper, you can find something about the burial customs of Lăpuș II, which was at the core of Gava.

https://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576%200x002debec.pdf

It was an elite which controlled the mining of ores and production of metal goods, especially weapons. A large portion of the population was not buried, but the elite was buried in huge tumuli of, in part, exceptional size for the time. Channelled Ware appears there from 14th, safely the 13th century, so much earlier than in the Balkans. The early Gava-related cultural formations in the region being closely connected to the Transcarpathian region of the Ukraine and Eastern Slovakia, of Hungary its only the very North Eastern part which being related at that time, but this changes once they start to expand Southward and Eastward. Intriguingly, they don't really expand big time, only fuse and influence a bit, into the territory of related Urnfield groups to the North and West, like Lusatians and Middle Danubians. Probably both because they had not the same advantages, leverage and were all part of the same religious-cultural wider network of the Urnfield system.
The Gava-people primarily expanded South and East, that's where they headed once the core was finally formed and homogenised from different local influences and small groups. I'd assume that a specific tribe had taken over, homogenising the region, and then started to expand outward. An ideal scenario for a paternal lineage spread and replacement.

It might help to stress the speed of the expansion, once it started:

In terms of relative chronology, the early Gáva
phase in Central and Southern Transylvania is later
than the Lăpuş II-Gáva I horizon in North-West Romania
(K a c s ó 1990, 49; M a r t a 2009, 102) and
it is partially contemporary to the Susani group from
Banat (S t r a t a n, Vu l p e 1977, 56–58; G umă
1993, 169–170; Vu l p e 1995, 83–86). The finds
from Hunedoara (L u c a 1999, pl. 4:5–6,16, 5:6,9–10;
S â r b u et al. 2005, fig. 4:5) and Simeria (B a s a 1970,
fig. 4–6; A n d r i ţ o i u 1996) point to an expansion of
the Susani group towards South-West Transylvania (the
Haţeg-Deva area), where no early Gáva sites are known
so far, a situation similar to the one of the Banat region
(G umă 1993, 190–194).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344667504_The_chronology_of_the_Gava_culture_in_Tr ansylvania

They appeared at roughly the same time in Southern Transylvania and at the Danube and in both regions, unlike the core area to the North, there is no regional continuous development towards Gava/Channelled Ware. These are massive changes, with grande scale expansions and replacements taking place in just about 100-150 years. Like I said before, in some cases the grandfather which settled in Serbia, Greece or Bulgaria, could still tell his grandchildren about the homeland in the North, that was the speed of the expansion, within just a couple of generations.

Almost all the main splits of E-V13 fall in the same time span: 1.300-900 BC. The rest happened in the Hallstatt, after that, the macro-regions of Europe show only limited overlap in their TMRCAs, mainly attributable to historically known migrations and individual migrants in the historical period. That's hardly a coincidene, that the main branching events and expansions of E-V13 date exactly, really exactly, to the main expansion and branching events of Gava/Channelled Ware. Actually it can't be, since E-V13 was simply not there in many regions we have proof of its abundant existence just some generations later, AFTER Channelled Ware.

Going by the settlement of Rotbav, the Gava people also build more pit houses instead of on the ground, like the earlier Noua and Wietenberg people:

Die Siedlung der Gáva-Kultur zeigt Unterschiede zu den Hausstrukturen der Siedlungsphasen
der Wietenberg- und der Noua-Kultur, die durch Oberflächenbauten charakterisiert sind.

The authors assume it was also because of a colder climate, with pit houses giving more protection. But in any case its a completely different architecture and settlement structure.

They also bred more ovicaprids, also for the secondary products, especially wool and milk:

Schon in den Noua-Phasen, vor allem aber in der Siedlungsphase
der Gáva-Kultur werden vor allem Schweine früher geschlachtet, sie können offenbar nicht mehr
über den Winter gehalten und gefüttert werden, während Ovicaprinen in größerer Zahl vorkommen als
früher und vermutlich auch für ihre sekundären Produkte, wie Wolle, gehalten wurden.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259533360_Die_Gava-Siedlung_von_Rotbav_Sudostsiebenburgen_Ein_kurzer_ Vorbericht

About the end of Gava in the North:

The beginning of the Early Iron Age in the northeastern
part of the Carpathian basin is characterized
by strong historical-cultural changes connected with
the appearance of new ethnic groups of eastern Iranian
origin - the representatives of the Mezőcsát Culture
(PATEK 1967.101-105,PATEK 1974.339, PATEK 1980.
162, KEMENCZEI 1984.228, CHOCHOROWSKI 1989/A.
527-534, CHOCHOROWSKI 1993.231-218). The questions
of the genesis of this culture are still discussed.
Certain researchers connect the appearance of
Mezőcsát finds at the Great Hungarian Plain with
Caucasian-Pontic milieu (GAZDAPUSZTAI 1966.307,
MOZSOLICS 1984.48.), others with the steppe zone of
the North Pontic region (BONA 1984.170-171,
KEMENCZEI 1986/B. 15, HARMATTÁ 1946/48.131).
Gáva Culture which occupied significant territories
of the Middle and Upper Tisza region and that of the
neighbouring Kyjatice Culture ceased to exist already
in the middle of the 9th century B.C.
Territories lying closer to the Carpathian range were
influenced by the mentioned processes only indirectly.
In East Slovakia, Carpathian Ukraine and partly in
Transylvania, Gáva Culture continued to exist almost
until the appearance of the Thraco-Scythian sites
(DUSEK 1978., PÁRDUCZ 1973., VASILIEV 1980.,
CHOCHOROWSKI 1985., POPOVICH 1993.).
In recent works the following terms have been used
for the finds mentioned above: Gáva III, Szomotor/
Somotor type, pre-Kushtanovica/Kustánfalva horizon
(PASTOR 1958.314, PLEINEROVÁ-OLMEROVÁ 1958.109,
BUDINSKY-KRICKA 1976., MIROSSAJOVÁ 1987.,
SMIRNOVA 1966., BALAHURI 1972., POPOVICH 1989.,
CHOCHOROWSKI 1989/A.540).


In the Southern zone there was a fluent transition into Psenichevo-Basarabi in particular, while in the North Gava persisted as long or longer, but was more drastically transformed by Cimmerians and Scythians. How the Cimmerian and Scythian intrusions affected their paternal genetics is of course largely unknown. So far the E-V13 connection being only proven for Psenichevo and Basarabi, and made likley for some Thraco-Scythians/Geto-Scythians with the single find in the North Carpathians.

It seems they formed a huge defensive line against the steppe incursions:


A specific moving factor of this process
was the situation formed as a result of the appearance
of the militant "Cimmerians" at the territory of Alföld.
At the turn of HB2-HB3 probably a part of the
Gáva and Kyjatice population under the pressure of
the Mezőcsát population appeared here, moved into
the regions of the Eastern Carpathians together with
relative tribes. Here they formed a defensive line in
the mountainous regions of East Slovakia, Transylvania
and Transcarpathia. One of these sites was
the Irshava fortified settlement.
So, in the regions situated closer to the Carpathian
range we can observe the process of accumulation of
the Gáva Culture. The absence of finds of the so-called
"Thraco-Cimmerian type" make us think that the
population of the Transcarpathian region had not
changed.

In many regions they began to fuse, in which way is unknown and needs to be investigated genetically:

Researchers separate two components in the
material culture of the Mezőcsát sites: a foreign one
that appeared with the Iranian speaking Syginna
(HARMATTÁ 1946/48.79-132) and is represented by
weapons and horse harness, and a local one represented
by pottery. Two groups can be divided in the ceramic
material. The first one contains ceramic forms
connected with the Gáva and Kyjatice Culture, the
second one is represented by the Mezőcsát forms
(KEMENCZEI 1989.55-70) that have a wide circle of
analogies, for example in the forest-steppe regions of
Moldova and Ukraine.


So finally, we have to assume that from chronological
point of view the pre-Kushtanovica horizon of
sites involves the period HB3-HC, (8th-7th century
B.C.) and represents the final stage of the Gáva Culture
in the Transcarpathian region. In the complicated
political situation that formed after the appearance of
Iranian speaking nomads in Central Europe, a
powerful defensive line consisting of fortified
settlements was built in the mountainous regions of
the inner Carpathians. These fortified settlements were
the centres of the political and economic life of the
population.
Despite of the fact that to-date the dating of the
métallurgie ovens investigated at Stremtura is still
problematic, we have to suggest, that the process of
the transition from the Late Bronze to the Early Iron
was accomplished in the region, but no sharp changes
in the material and spiritual life of the population can
be observed. In the burial rite, traditions of the local
population of the Late Bronze Age had continued. The
western territories felt an influence from the Luzice
culture. At the final stage of the pre-Kushtanovica
horizon, in the period HC, contacts with the Mezőcsát
finds can be traced.

https://www.academia.edu/15002240/Study_of_the_Early_Iron_Age_sites_in_the_Transcarp athian_region

capsian
10-03-2021, 04:28 PM
I think branch E-FTA2623 very likely is was tribe member in sea peoples
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FTA2623/

Riverman
10-03-2021, 04:59 PM
I think branch E-FTA2623 very likely is was tribe member in sea peoples
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FTA2623/

Its possible, but probably even more likely is a Greek colonist or Roman Age origin.

A possible candidate for Sea People, with very high age and so far no overlap with Europeans, is:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y125215/

and
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FT350379/

possible:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY5024/

Its interesting that the Near Eastern branches seem to be quite old, have an even older overlap than the main European branches, rather 1.300 BC and earlier, which would fit with first clans and mercenaries joining the Sea Peoples, while the bulk was probably not yet split and diversified, but lived in the unified horizon. Its quite likely some of the older V13 branches among Lebanese, Syrians and Jews coming from the Sea Peoples and especially the Philistines.

Riverman
10-17-2021, 02:34 PM
More on the important spread of Naue II swords and related spearheads, like they being found especially in Channelled Ware groups.


This well-oiled network collapsed during the transition to
the 13th century BC and was replaced by an East–Central
European network of the Sprockhoff type II/Naue II
flange-hilted sword (see Figs 5–6forchronologyandfind
contexts). The earlier Sprockhoff type I/Naue I sword
had a narrower blade and couldbeusedforbothslashing
and thrusting. The Naue II is a warrior sword more
suitable for man-to-man combat where slashing
dominates. Though it could also be used for thrusting, its
wider and heavier blade made it more efficient for
combat dominated by slashing, which eventually took
place on horseback, as indicated by the cemetery of
Neckarsulm. Emerging strontium isotope analysis, for
example from Neckarsulm insouthernGermanyaround
1300 BC,providesevidencethatwarriorscouldbe
hired by foreign chiefdoms. It is a male cemetery
of 51 individuals, where one third were non-locals.
However, before they died they shared the same healthy
diet and were above average height. They were therefore
most likely part of a chieflyretinue,andthree
sword graves distinguished the chieflycommanders.
The skeletons also showed signs of riding, which may
have been introduced by the Urnfield period (Wahl &
Price 2013).
Given the efficient design of the flange-hilted swords
and the sheer intensity of warfare as a form of social
interaction, it is hardly surprising that this type of
weapon spread fast and over vast areas during the
Late Bronze Age (cf. Suchowska-Ducke 2015).
Hundreds of these swords have been found in Central
and Northern Europe and in the Balkans, dozens in
Southern and Western Europe and in the Aegean;
several examples of Naue II swords are also known
from Cyprus and eastern parts of Europe (Figs 5 and 6).
The majority of flange-hilted swords have been found in
graves (Scandinavia, northern Germany, and Greece)
and in hoards (Carpathian Basin and Western Europe).
Many Naue II swords were accompanied by a special
package of objects that characterizes travelling warriors
or mercenaries, such as other types of weaponry and
tools, drinking vessels, and toiletries (razors, tweezers,
combs, and mirrors), and also by such unique items as
parts of armour and campstools (Deger-Jalkotzy 2006).
The following are some examples of the often strikingly
rich assemblages in which Naue II swords were
embedded.
Particularly rich in finds are the hoards from
Central Europe and the Balkans (Fig. 6). For instance,
the hoard from Şpălnaca in Romania (dated to Br D/
HaA1) yielded 23 examples of flange-hilted swords,
along with 24 other types of swords and fragments,
parts of helmet, daggers, spearheads, axes, chisels,
awls, fragments of a saw and hammer, sickles, a knife,
a razor, fish hooks, belt fragments, pins, fibulae, an
armlet, a neck collar, a necklace, several discs, beads
of different materials, parts of horse harness, a metal
vessel, as well as a tin scrap (Bader 1991, 89–90, 92,
95, 98). The Romanian hoard from Uioara de Sus
(dated to Br D/HaA1) consisted of 15 Naue II swords,
all items mentioned above, and additionally fragments
of a diadem and a corselet, spirals, rings, and parts of
a wheel (Bader 1991, 88–90, 96). In the Central
European grave of Čaka in Slovakia (dated to Br
D/HaA1) two flange hilted swords, the fragment of a
corselet, two spearheads, a razor, an axe, two chisels,
a pin, and fibulae have been found (Novák 1975, 20).
In the Hungarian burials in Csabrendek and
Mosonszolnok (both dated to Br C2/D), Naue II
swords were accompanied by, respectively: two
spearheads, a decorated belt fragment, and a pin and
armlet; in the other burial was a dagger, spearhead,
armlet, pin, as well as two violin fibulae (Kemenczei
1988, 59).

(p. 373)


In Mycenaean
Greece, in a tomb from Portes-Kephalovryso (dated to
LH III C), a Naue II sword was found along
with greaves, a spear, a knife, and a tiara-like helmet
(Eder 2003, 40).

(p. 375)


It suggests that Period III was a
turbulent time where traditional warriors and mercen-
aries could rise to the highest chieflypositions,perhaps
as part of social upheaval, orperhapsbecausewarfare
and warriors now allowed war leaders to take over
chieflyleadership.WeseethisnewtrendfromAchaeain
Greece to the Nordic realm. Suddenly flange-hilted
warrior swords of Naue II type appear in rich graves
with local prestige goods. All evidence linked to the
expansion of the Naue II sword thus points to disruption
and violence along the way.

This is absolutely key for the expansion of Channelled Ware and E-V13:


Already during Period III from 1350/1300 to 1150/
1100 BC we see that full-hilted swords are more often
used in combat, just as some warrior burials in this
period may contain the symbolic paraphernalia of ritual
chiefs: razors and tweezers. The warriors are making
claims to positions previously not open to them. The
stable conditions of the ‘golden’Period II had come to an
end after 150–200 years of wealth expansion and con-
solidation of power for the ruling chieflyelites.However,
during Period III, 1300–1150 BC,adramaticchangetook
place in the supplies of bronze, probably during the 13th
century BC (HaA1). The old network with southern
Germany, which had secured a steady flow of metal for
amber during most of the 15th and 14th centuries BC and
provided opportunities for warriors and traders to travel
both ways (Fig. 4), was cut off due to warfare linked to
social and religious reformation throughout eastern
Central Europe. The archaeological evidence for this is
twofold: the successor of the octagonal-hilted swords, the
Riegsee full-hilted sword, never reached Denmark, but
we suddenly find a group of Riegsee swords in Slovakia,
the new hub for contacts to the north (Fig. 8). We may
interpret this as an attempt to forge new political
alliances, but perhaps it is also a result of new east/west
hostilities on a regional scale. At the same time we see a
geographical expansion of hoarding (Fig. 8), which was
an old ritual tradition in the Carpathians, but now also
occurs in central Germany and former Yugoslavia,
suggesting either the intrusion of new people from the
Carpathian Basin and/or new hostilities.
In the Nordic
zone, and in the area of the former Tumulus Culture as
well as in the Aegean, warrior burials continued and
suggest the continuation of old social and ritual traditions
(Sperber 1999). In southern Germany one of the
central hubs of trade, Bernstorff, was heavily fortified
around 1340 BC and shortly after burned down and
deserted. Bernstorff is the largest fortified settlement in
southern Germany/western Central Europe with a size of
14 ha. Its huge fortifications were constructed in the
Middle Bronze Age (middle of the 14th century BC), when
the power balance between eastern and western Central
Europe was changing, and shortly after it was devastated
and burned down along 1.6 km of its length (Bähr et al.
2012). We will probably never know who the enemies
were, but we might suspect them to be outsiders, because
at the same time we find evidence of major upheavals in
eastern Central Europe.


(p. 376)

This is absolutely key, because hoarding is so clearly associated with Channelled Ware and the later distribution of E-V13, as well as with Daco-Thracians in its Eastern core zone.

The Carpathian clan, presumably dominated by E-13, rose to dominance in this late phase of the Bronze Age, while other centres and people were in massive decline:


In the Carpathians and Transylvania huge metal
hoards containing up to a ton of objects are deposited,
testifying to the collapse of the traditional metal
distribution system, and in the west in southern Germany,
full-hilted swords of ‘Riegsee’and ‘Dreiwulstschwerter’
type are becoming more and more worn on the hilt, as
they had to be kept in circulation longer (Figs 9 and 10).
From Riegsee to Dreiwulstschwerter the number of
heavily worn swords increases to nearly 50%, which,
however, corresponds to similar figures in Denmark
2
(Kristiansen 1978, fig. 3). This figure should be
compared to the previous period when there was a
balance of unused, moderately and heavily worn swords
(Fig. 11; Kristiansen 1978, fig. 2). This increase in
circulation time is a sure sign of declining metal supplies
due to a rather long-lasting breakdown of regular trade.
In addition these later types of full-hilted Central
European swords rarely came to Northern Europe. They
testify to a new east–west Central European network,
with a high degree of stylistic and formal homogeneity
among swords, suggesting that either few workshops
existed, or imitation was common (Stockhammer 2004,
chap. 6).


What we see in the Urnfield
period is the beginning of more organised battles with
hundreds or even thousands of warriors. It only
makes sense if you were able to control your enemy’s
territory after a conquest, and to do that there had
to be centralised settlements housing all major
institutions and functions needed to govern and
control a larger territory, eventually supported by
smaller local forts. This form of government started on
a smaller scale in the Carpathian Basin with the
tell cultures during the Middle Bronze Age (Earle &
Kristiansen 2010; Uhner 2012), and by the
14th century reached a new momentum in the very
same region, which led to new settlements and
increased population.

A huge fortress just like Teleac, destroyed about the same time, releasing a huge, heavily armoured and militarised, local population, which probably was on the move (to the South?) afterwards:

New forms of settlement & increasing population
densities
Cornesti-Iarcuri in Transylvania represents a new form
of proto-urban settlement of a size never seen before or
after, that is until the historical period. This settlement,
nearly 6 km across (1733 ha/17 km
2
), had four for-
tification lines and an inner settlement with a diameter of
c. 2km(Szentmiklosiet al. 2011). Magnetic mapping
and preliminary excavations suggest a dense and well-
organised settlement of urban character. For the for-
tification walls alone an estimated 824,000 tonnes of
earth had to be moved. Archaeological material and a
few radiocarbon dates suggest the construction took
place during the earlier Urnfield Culture (there are only
three radiocarbon dates of the later burning phase, made
on wood from burnt oak beams whose inbuilt age
should be considered). Some time after, probably during
HaA1, the settlement was burned down in a heavy
fire and apparently abandoned. There is still a long
way to go before we fully understand this mega-site;
archaeological work so far is preliminary, but it suggests
that something completely new was taking place in terms
of the organisation of large populations. There is also
evidence of two smaller fortified sites, 1 km across, that
might have been part of this new political structure as
well. We must envisage these mega-sites as being part of
apoliticalcentralisationprocess, a complex chiefdom, or
archaic state that perhaps failed. In the vicinity we also
find corresponding rich graves from the same period,
which are contemporary with the Bernstorf fortification
and its later devastation. Furthermore, such population
surplus would be a natural primary instigator for later
migrations, especially if the settlement was abandoned,
in part or entirely, during the 12th century BC


We may thus conclude that during the 13th century
BC societies in Central Europe underwent not only a
religious reform with the onset of the Urnfield culture,
but they also underwent economic and political
reforms –in short a new political economy with a
higher degree of centralisation was established, and
consequently many later settlements were now
fortified (Harding 2000, 296). The more extreme
centralisation processes may have succeeded only in
the heartland of Central Europe, as is evidenced by the
mega-site Cornesti-Iarcuri in Transylvania. Such
centralisation processes of large populations might
have spurred new migrations to the north, the west,
and later to the south when the mega settlements were
abandoned.

(p. 382-383)

Ultimately, they reached Greece and the East Mediterranean, like with the Sea Peoples and other unnamed Northern groups coming down from the Carpathians, to the Balkans, to Greece and the Mediterranean:


However, as Eder (1999)
points out, Mycenaean types of weapons were found
mostly in peripheral regions (such as Thessaly), while
Naue II swords were mainly found in the warrior
tombs of the Peloponnese and on the Aegean Islands.
Thus, the phenomenon of the ‘warrior graves’reflects
a deeply rooted change in the social and economic
spheres of Mycenaean Greece that originated in the
collapse of the palatial system (Deger-Jalkotzy 2006).
In a broader view, the involvement of the European
warriors in a ‘globalised’network of power
and wealth can be demonstrated by the diverse
archaeological finds from Naue II contexts, such as
Baltic amber, dress fasteners, toiletries, and weapons
of so-called ‘northern origin’that have been found in
the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean (cf. Harding
1984; Bouzek 1985; Czebreszuk 2011; Suchowska-
Ducke in press). Furthermore, the cargoes of the
aforementioned shipwrecks of Uluburun and Cape
Gelidonya indicate that warriors from the North were
present on board. Such a presence among the crew of
the Uluburun is attested to by an Italian sword of
Pertosa type, six European-type spearheads, a globular
bronze pin, a mace with closest parallels in the
northern Balkans, and 41 beads of Baltic amber (Pulak
2001). On board the Cape Gelidonya vessel a genuine
flange-hilted sword of Naue II type was found (Bass
1991). It is very likely that such items belonged to a
foreign warrior whose hired role might have been to
protect the traders on their mercantile mission.


After 1200 BC
these very same peripheries for reasons yet unknown
started to migrate towards the centres of civilisation,
at land and at sea. We should probably envisage these
historical processes much in the same way as later
Celtic and Viking migrations, which channelled
surplus populations into seasonal trading and raiding
alternating with war service leading to conquest and
migration when conditions were ripe.

(p. 385)

From: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284811960_Connected_Histories_the_Dynamics_of_Bron ze_Age_Interaction_and_Trade_1500-1100_bc

Riverman
10-17-2021, 03:36 PM
About the huge fortified settlement of Corneşti-Iarcuri, which was a more Southern fortification of the Channelled Ware people similar to Teleac. Interestingly there is no local continuity proven yet, it seems to have been build completely new, by newly incoming settlers. Before that were probably minor local settlements, but nothing comparable. This was therefore a true colonisation event on a grande scale:


A complete bowl recovered at the exterior foot of the phase B rampart can be dated to
the Cruceni-Belegis¸ IIA phase (equivalent to Hallstatt A1) (Figure 8). The Cruceni-Belegis¸
culture is part of the south-east European Urnfield culture, with a distribution similar to
the preceding Vatina group in Oltenia, Banat and eastern Hungary. In terms of relative
chronology, it is situated between the Middle Bronze Age Vatina culture and the Early
Iron Age Gornea-Kalakaˇca culture. The absolute chronology places the group between the
fifteenth and eleventh centuries BC (Szentmiklosi 2009).
Three samples for radiocarbon dating were taken from burnt beams belonging to the
later construction. The results provide a clear indication of construction between 1450 and
1200 cal BC (Table 1 and Figure 9) combined to give a construction date of 1393–1314 (at
68.2% probability), and 1411–1270 (at 95.4%) (Figure 10).

The timing is exactly like Teleac and fits the main dispersion of the main E-V13 clades. If they will ever find human remains from that settlement which can be tested, its quite likely the males will be packed with E-V13.

About the buildings inside of the settlement:

The magnetogram shows concentrations of pits, and large rectangular houses (about 20 or
25×30m) possibly forming an urban scheme with lanes orientated along rampart II. It is
difficult to identify clear outlines of houses in the magnetogram. However, it is possible
that closer to the burnt rampart II some burnt houses exist, which may give a more precise
‘city plan’ once further survey is undertaken. There is also a remarkable number of circular
structures with diameters of 8–12m, looking like flattened barrows (ring-ditches) or huts.

The increase in production and population with the formation of the town and colonisation through Channelled Ware people:


Analysis of the Bronze Age sherds shows that Early Bronze Age (Mak´o) finds are
uncommon. The sherds become more frequent towards the Middle Bronze Age (Vatina).
It is only in the Late Bronze Age (Cruceni-Belegis¸) that sherds are found in all areas in
relatively high numbers.


...the evidence strongly suggests that the main settlement phase belongs to the
Late Bronze Age.


What is still not well understood is how such an enormous construction project
could have been undertaken, either on this particular site or on others of the same date —
bearing in mind that so far the size of Cornes¸ti-Iarcuri is unparalleled at this period either
locally (the Romanian Banat), within the wider area (theHungarian Plain and Transylvania),
or internationally.

The new elites of Channelled Ware people concentrated populations, specialists and warriors, in huge fortified settlements, with well-organised structures to support them economically and armies to defend their interests. The sudden appearance can just mean that whole subsets of these people, like also suggested by the even spread of the main clades in that time, colonised, as a whole tribe or even proto-state, large regions collectively. It might be compared with Greek colonies, though their impact on the local populations seems to have been far bigger.
The ultimate origin is the Gava centre in the Northern Carpathians:


At the moment little is known about the development of fortified sites in the Banat, though further south in the
Vojvodina some analyses have been conducted on the Titel plateau (Falkenstein 1998). A site
with many similarities to Cornes¸ti-Iarcuri in terms of topographic situation and structure
is Sˆantana near Arad (known in the older Hungarian literature as Szentanna), about 45km
away, and recently under excavation by a team from Cluj under the direction of Dr Florin
Gogˆaltan. Earlier excavations on the site found a rampart sequence not dissimilar to that
at Iarcuri with pottery from Eneolithic to Hallstatt B; the largest part fell in the periods
Bronze D to Hallstatt A1, the pottery being mainly of Gava style (Rusu et al. 1999). This
is close in time to what is present at Iarcuri, and Rusu et al. considered Iarcuri the closest
analogy to Sˆantana even though Sˆantana, at ‘only’ 1km in diameter, is considerably smaller.
As excavations progress at both sites, it will become possible to specify these links more
closely.

The cultural ties are obvious, now we need genetic evidence - E-V13 will be the main marker - to prove it to be a demic-ethnic diffusion. Going back in time, in search of this Gava colonisation, we come to:


In northern Hungary and Slovakia
too, sites of both the Middle Bronze Age Piliny and the succeeding Kyjatice cultures saw
a number of fortifications erected and used (Furm´anek et al. 1982; Kemenczei 1982). A
marked increase in defended settlements can be noticed during the Urnfield culture in many
parts of Europe (Harding 2000: 296). This ‘stronghold horizon’ probably begins inHallstatt
A2 (Rind 1999: 13) and stops in Hallstatt B3 (Jockenh¨ovel 1990: 219). A similar situation
may be discerned in Slovakia (Furm´anek et al. 1982) and Transylvania (Soroceanu 1982). (Furm´anek et al. 1982; Kemenczei 1982).

These were not simple warbands on the move:

A purely agrarian socio-economic
framework for the society that built Iarcuri seems unlikely; the social and economic structures
present must have included a range of craft specialisms and personal identities, probably
including leadership and warriorhood. On the other hand, the site cannot have been purely
urban in character across its full extent; the population would have been enormous.

The colonisation happened exactly in the time frame of the main E-V13 spread:

We are
therefore talking about large numbers of people, from a sizeable area around Cornes¸ti, who
would have taken part in the site’s construction. This brings with it the need to consider
motivation, not to speak of logistics.
The three radiocarbon dates, along with the suggested pottery dating in the Late Bronze
Age, indicate construction and use of the rampart of Enclosure I in the centuries around
3000 BP. Unfortunately the calibration curve is relatively flat at this period, which means
that there is a sizeable potential spread of calendar dates, from 1400 to 1000 cal BC or even
wider.

Suciu de Sus and Lapus represent elite burials, of kings or at least princes form the Gava/Channelled Ware people in the wider region, probably of transregional importance:

It is noticeable how many archaeological phenomena have produced radiocarbon dates
at just this period. This was, for instance, the time when the dates for the great tumuli of
the Suciu de Sus culture at L˘apus¸ in the Maramures¸ fall (Metzner-Nebelsick et al. 2010;
C. Metzner-Nebelsick pers. comm.), and many other phenomena across Europe have been
radiocarbon dated close to 3000 BP. Wolfgang Kimmig suggested many years ago that the
start of theUrnfield period could be connected with far-reaching movements of people across
the whole of Southern and Central Europe (Kimmig 1964), a theory that has never been
refuted and continues to be attractive in many ways. Although it would be too simplistic
to see a straight correlation between the new burial rite of cremation, and the rise of major
fortifications, there are certainly attractive possibilities to explore in this general field.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273293618_Cornesti-Iarcuri_-_A_Bronze_Age_town_in_the_Romanian_Banat

Riverman
10-18-2021, 10:02 AM
Not sure if this was posted last year. No surprise to anyone... U152 is most frequent in all sampled Swiss populations with a peak of 53% in Ticino.

The Y-chromosomal haplotype and haplogroup distribution of modern Switzerland still reflects the alpine divide as a geographical barrier for human migration
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1872497320301186#tbl0005

Abstract
A sample of 606 Swiss individuals has been characterized for 27 Y-STR and 34 Y-SNPs, defining major European haplogroups. For the first time, a subsample from the southernmost part of Switzerland, the Italian speaking canton Ticino, has been included. The data reveals significant intra-national differences in the distribution of haplogroups R1b-U106, R1b-U152, I1 and J2a north and south of the alpine divide, with R1b-U152 being the most frequent haplogroup among all Swiss subpopulations, reaching 26 % in average and 53 % in the Ticino sample. In addition, a high percentage of haplogroup E1b1b-M35 in Eastern Switzerland corresponds well with data reported from Western Austria. In general, we detected a low level of differentiation between the subgroups north of the alpine divide. The dataset also revealed a variety of microvariants. Some of them were previously known to be associated with particular haplogroups. However, we discovered one microvariant in DYS533 that seems to be closely associated with haplogroup I2-P215 (xM223). This association had not yet been reported to date. The concordance study with two STR-kits suggests that the DYS533 microvariant is due to an InDel in the flanking regions of the marker. One individual carried a large deletion, frequently detected in people of East Asian ancestry, encompassing the amelogenin locus. To our knowledge, this is the first time that such a deletion has been observed within European haplogroup R1b-U152. This is the first comprehensive Y chromosomal dataset for Switzerland, demonstrating significant population substructure due to an intra-national geographical barrier.

The highest proportion of E1b1b appears in St. Gallen:

We could also observe an uneven distribution of haplogroup E1b1b-M35 (Fig. 4e). However, this one does not follow a gradient from north to south but manifests as an enrichment of haplogroup E1b1b-M35 in the eastern part of the country, close to Austria. This pattern fits quite well with data from Tyrol, a region in Western Austria [61], showing an important fraction of 16.9 % haplogroup E in this area, mostly attributed to E-M78, a subclade of E1b1b-M35.

With very Western Switzerland and Tyrol having a higher proportion of E-V13 than the one in the rest of the German speaking lands being noticeable. Allemannic groups in general have a higher proportion than Bavarians, but not as high as in this case. Western Switzerland has 9 % and Eastern (canton St. Gallen) 13 %. The Italian part has a much lower percentage of just 6 %, the Central and North Western part even lower. So generally speaking, a portion of the increased E1b1b could have come from Alpine Romance speakers I'd say. Most likely they had, just like the provincial Hallstatt-derived population in Austria, a higher portion of E-V13. Parts of St. Gallen were Raetoromanic speaking up to recently. The Rhaetians however are rather less likely to have harboured a higher proportion of E-V13, but more likely are Alpine Celts, Pannonians and Thraco-Cimmerians. The Ligurian percentage too speaks for itself, with some subclades coming from the large Sardinian sample seemingly being representative for those.
Because the Cagliari E-V13 samples most likely come from Genuese settlers:

Carloforte was founded in the 18th century by around 30 families of coral fishers, originally from the Ligurian town of Pegli, near Genoa. They had left their hometown in 1541, and had settled in the island of Tabarka, off the coast of Tunisia, to fish for coral. After centuries, the coral in that area was exhausted[3] and the families, while setting off back to Italy, found there was plenty of coral in the sea off the Sardinian west coast. They asked the King of Piedmont-Sardinia Charles Emmanuel III for permission to settle down on the once uninhabited San Pietro Island instead. When he granted them permission, the island was colonized (1739); the name Carloforte ("Charles the Strong", but also the "Carlo's Fort") was given to the town they then proceeded to found, in the Piedmontese king's honour. To this day, Carloforte maintains strong cultural ties with the mainland towns of Pegli and Genoa: the population still speaks a variety of Ligurian language called tabarchěn (or tabarchino, in Italian), separate from both Italian and Sardinian, which is used even by most children and taught in the island's schools.

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

If the Cagliari samples would be representative for the Ligurian-Genuese variation of E-V13, they indeed show relations connecting them with the Basarabi-Hallstatt sphere I'd say and I expect something similar for the Swiss German and Swiss French variation. Sardinian samples from Cagliari, presumably representing for the most part Ligurian variation:

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-PF6784*/

Possible Greek/Messina overlap, but note the age:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-BY6527/

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y150909*/

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FT79653*/

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

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z21340*/

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FGC11450/

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-L241*/

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-S2972*/

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-S2978*/

The interesting thing about this Sardinian Cagliari diversity is that some of its subclades might be slightly younger than the initial dispersion, possibly, but none overlap after the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and the early Hallstatt phase! There is no single younger overlap for all this 10 major subclades of E-V13 present in Sardinia, Cagliari on YFull. They are all local, presumably mostly Ligurian and Alpine Celtic, Early Iron Age branches.

Bruzmi
10-18-2021, 10:31 AM
The interesting thing about this Sardinian Cagliari diversity is that some of its subclades might be slightly younger than the initial dispersion, possibly, but none overlap after the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and the early Hallstatt phase! There is no single younger overlap for all this 10 major subclades of E-V13 present in Sardinia, Cagliari on YFull. They are all local, presumably mostly Ligurian and Alpine Celtic, Early Iron Age branches.

There are a lot of interesting comments to be made about E-V13 in northern Italy and its relations to the northwestern Balkans, but none of it has anything to do with a "Thraco-Cimmerian horizon" from the eastern Balkans.

Riverman
10-18-2021, 11:07 AM
There are a lot of interesting comments to be made about E-V13 in northern Italy and its relations to the northwestern Balkans, but none of it has anything to do with a "Thraco-Cimmerian horizon" from the eastern Balkans.

The Thraco-Cimmerian horizon was very strong in Pannonia and spread from there, was very influential for Hallstatt in general and some Eastern Hallstatt provinces in particular. You find Thraco-Cimmerian equipment and weaponry in Northern Italy and the connections of Eastern Hallstatt to Alpine Celts and Ligurians are obvious.
What's your take on the Ligurian and Alpine Celtic E-V13 frequency?

There might be another case which could be related to Vlachs and Albanians, because in Slovenia the frequency of E-V13 is extremely low, even much lower than in Poland, much lower than in Russians actually. However, in one region its higher than the rest and a paper concluded:

However, higher frequencies of G2a (5.2%) and especially
E1b1b (7.3%), which were found in Lower Carniola, could
represent a historic genetic trace of 15th, 16th and 17th
century migrations of Balkan peoples known as Uskoks, who
took refuge from the Ottoman invasions of the Balkan region.
In Slovenia, these migrations were characteristic of Lower
Carniola, especially the White Carniola sub-region, where
certain towns and villages have preserved their unique Uskok
culture to the present day. A future study involving DNA
sampling specifically targeting the remaining Uskok communities
could provide a clearer picture of the genetic structure
of this population.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251567977_The_paternal_perspective_of_the_Slovenia n_population_and_its_relationship_with_other_popul ations

Does anybody know some results from Uskok communities? They were ethnically mixed, Dalmatians, Vlachs, Albanians, regular Croats and so on. Like usual, especially the subclades would be interesting.

These are the Slovenian regions:
https://www.khoffer.com/Diario%20Pages/ALL%20TRIPS/East%20EU%202011/EASTEU11-06/EASTEU1.jpg

White Carniola is in the very South, therefore much closer to the Croatian and Serbian territory also. The second highest E1b1b being recorded for Styria, which is in the very North bordering Austria. On the whole this means the West Slovenia has an extremely low percentage of E-V13 (1,8-2,1 %) while the Central-Eastern region has a much higher one (5,8-7,3 %) and it goes down again in Prekmurje (2,4 %). Overall, if this distribution holds up, its a quite complicated pattern for the region. But what sticks out is that E1b : J2 is excluding each other!

So this pattern might go still back, in part, to the Illyrian : Pannnian-Dacian-Celtic dichotomy in Eastern Hallstatt. The Frög group had strong relations to Basarabi, whereas the Unterkrainer group was very much oriented towards Illyrians. While the other haplogroups show no clear pattern in relation to J2 and E1b, those too do.

High E1b and high J2 exclude each other:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Damjan-Glavac/publication/251567977/figure/tbl1/AS:[email protected]/Y-chromosome-haplogroup-frequencies-and-haplogroup-diversities-in-five-Slovenian.png

Top J2 is Upper Carniola with the lowest of all E1b counts (just 1,8 %)
Top E1b is Lower Carniola with the lowest J2 count (just 1,8 %)

Prekmurje is just more Germanic-Slavic shifted, with low counts of both. This mutually exclusive pattern is highly interesting.

mikulic33
10-18-2021, 03:55 PM
There might be another case which could be related to Vlachs and Albanians, because in Slovenia the frequency of E-V13 is extremely low, even much lower than in Poland, much lower than in Russians actually. However, in one region its higher than the rest and a paper concluded:


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251567977_The_paternal_perspective_of_the_Slovenia n_population_and_its_relationship_with_other_popul ations

Does anybody know some results from Uskok communities? They were ethnically mixed, Dalmatians, Vlachs, Albanians, regular Croats and so on. Like usual, especially the subclades would be interesting.



If you look into the Šarac et al. 2016 paper you will see that they also tested inhabitants of the Žumberak region settled by Uskoks and adjacent to the Slovenian Uskok region Bela Krajina. Out of 44 samples 8 were E-V13 (18,18%).

Riverman
10-18-2021, 04:51 PM
If you look into the Šarac et al. 2016 paper you will see that they also tested inhabitants of the Žumberak region settled by Uskoks and adjacent to the Slovenian Uskok region Bela Krajina. Out of 44 samples 8 were E-V13 (18,18%).

Thank you very much.

Also interesting in the Northern Italy are not just the Rhatoromans, Alpine Celts and Ligurians, but also the Veneti with increased Hallstatt influences. Interestingly there is a decrease of E-V13 probably in both directions from the Veneti core region, both towards Slovenians and other Italians. The most ancient common lineages of Massenzatica have by far the highest frequency with 16 %, followed by the less drifted, probably more representative nearby Mesola population with 7,14 and Grignano with 6,25, while the people from Nonantola go down to 3,6 and those from S. Agata B. have zero. This is quite a decline from the more coastal regions of Massenzatica, Mesola and Grignano.


This study shows how the co-presence of admixture and drift forms a suitable model for explaining the genetic variability of at least two of the four considered Commons, namely Grignano P. and Massenzatica. At the same time, we observed that the peculiar social-cultural features of Commons—based on patrilineal descent and local residence—influence their Y-chromosomal variability in a way reminiscent of ethnic-linguistic minorities, where phenomena such as isolation and/or admixture are frequently observed. The collected results allowed to reconstruct some aspects of the genetic history of the considered communities. For instance, our estimates suggest that the Commons of Nonantola, S. Agata B., and Grignano P. probably originated in the central Middle Ages from a set of mainly but not exclusively local populations, while the case of Massenzatica seems to suggest a more ancient origin.


All these cases can be explained based on the effects of genetic drift, according to which the frequency of some haplogroups may have increased (or decreased) by random fluctuations. However, it is possible that some of them—particularly in Eastern Commons—could be the result of an introgression/admixture event around the time in which the Common was formed.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajpa.24302

Since its being mentioned in this study, I found a small study on Frisians, which seem to have about 5 % E-V13 in this small sample, the English 3,57 %. But since the other samples being also rather skewed, this needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. Original study for the Frisian number:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4327154/

I just mention it because I found very little about Frisian and generally Dutch E-V13.

capsian
10-18-2021, 09:39 PM
The Thraco-Cimmerian horizon was very strong in Pannonia and spread from there, was very influential for Hallstatt in general and some Eastern Hallstatt provinces in particular. You find Thraco-Cimmerian equipment and weaponry in Northern Italy and the connections of Eastern Hallstatt to Alpine Celts and Ligurians are obvious.
What's your take on the Ligurian and Alpine Celtic E-V13 frequency?

There might be another case which could be related to Vlachs and Albanians, because in Slovenia the frequency of E-V13 is extremely low, even much lower than in Poland, much lower than in Russians actually. However, in one region its higher than the rest and a paper concluded:


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251567977_The_paternal_perspective_of_the_Slovenia n_population_and_its_relationship_with_other_popul ations

Does anybody know some results from Uskok communities? They were ethnically mixed, Dalmatians, Vlachs, Albanians, regular Croats and so on. Like usual, especially the subclades would be interesting.

These are the Slovenian regions:
https://www.khoffer.com/Diario%20Pages/ALL%20TRIPS/East%20EU%202011/EASTEU11-06/EASTEU1.jpg

White Carniola is in the very South, therefore much closer to the Croatian and Serbian territory also. The second highest E1b1b being recorded for Styria, which is in the very North bordering Austria. On the whole this means the West Slovenia has an extremely low percentage of E-V13 (1,8-2,1 %) while the Central-Eastern region has a much higher one (5,8-7,3 %) and it goes down again in Prekmurje (2,4 %). Overall, if this distribution holds up, its a quite complicated pattern for the region. But what sticks out is that E1b : J2 is excluding each other!

So this pattern might go still back, in part, to the Illyrian : Pannnian-Dacian-Celtic dichotomy in Eastern Hallstatt. The Frög group had strong relations to Basarabi, whereas the Unterkrainer group was very much oriented towards Illyrians. While the other haplogroups show no clear pattern in relation to J2 and E1b, those too do.

High E1b and high J2 exclude each other:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Damjan-Glavac/publication/251567977/figure/tbl1/AS:[email protected]/Y-chromosome-haplogroup-frequencies-and-haplogroup-diversities-in-five-Slovenian.png

Top J2 is Upper Carniola with the lowest of all E1b counts (just 1,8 %)
Top E1b is Lower Carniola with the lowest J2 count (just 1,8 %)

Prekmurje is just more Germanic-Slavic shifted, with low counts of both. This mutually exclusive pattern is highly interesting.

E1b1b* do you Y-STR this samples

Riverman
10-18-2021, 09:52 PM
E1b1b* do you Y-STR this samples

No. I also don't know if anybody else did.

capsian
10-18-2021, 10:38 PM
No. I also don't know if anybody else did.

okay thanks this so sad maybe there samples under https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-V2729/
there sample from serbia under this branch V1039 he is did WGS400 he is waiting his result exiting
maybe also under haplgroup https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-PF2431/

Bruzmi
10-19-2021, 12:57 AM
There might be another case which could be related to Vlachs and Albanians, because in Slovenia the frequency of E-V13 is extremely low, even much lower than in Poland, much lower than in Russians actually. However, in one region its higher than the rest and a paper concluded:



However, higher frequencies of G2a (5.2%) and especially
E1b1b (7.3%), which were found in Lower Carniola, could
represent a historic genetic trace of 15th, 16th and 17th
century migrations of Balkan peoples known as Uskoks, who
took refuge from the Ottoman invasions of the Balkan region.
In Slovenia, these migrations were characteristic of Lower
Carniola, especially the White Carniola sub-region, where
certain towns and villages have preserved their unique Uskok
culture to the present day. A future study involving DNA
sampling specifically targeting the remaining Uskok communities
could provide a clearer picture of the genetic structure
of this population.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251567977_The_paternal_perspective_of_the_Slovenia n_population_and_its_relationship_with_other_popul ations

Does anybody know some results from Uskok communities? They were ethnically mixed, Dalmatians, Vlachs, Albanians, regular Croats and so on. Like usual, especially the subclades would be interesting.

These are the Slovenian regions:
https://www.khoffer.com/Diario%20Pages/ALL%20TRIPS/East%20EU%202011/EASTEU11-06/EASTEU1.jpg


(I'll write a full post about E-V13 in Italy at some point. I'll reply then to your question.)

The largest study ever done on Poles (n=2,705) showed that E is 3.84%.

Y-Chromosome Genetic Analysis of Modern Polish Population (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2020.567309/full)
The most frequent Y-SNP binary haplogroups in all analyzed samples were found to be R (71.02%), I (15.71%), N (4.29%), E (3.84%), J (3.22%), and G (1.22%). The total contribution of the others, viz. Q, C, T, H, and O, totaled less than 1% (0.70%), and each comprised only individual samples (Table 1).

It's not any different from Poland, nor should we expect Slovenia, an area which has faced many migrations to have any significant E-V13 %. In general, the last migration is the one which has the highest impact. E-V13 carriers were on the receiving end of migration impact in Pannonia (although Slovenia isn't really an area which ever had high E-V13 in my opinion as only a part of it is linked to Pannonia and the northwestern Balkans to the south) and they brought demographic changes when they moved to the north in the early Middle Ages.

Uskoks in addition to Slavic have Herzegovinian/Dalmatian Aromanian and Albanian ancestry. It would explain their high E-V13, but the Zumberak results also represent founder effects of several related families.




High E1b and high J2 exclude each other:

I don't how such a statement can be inferred, but presence of one haplogroup doesn't necessarily correlate with the non-presence of another haplogroup. It all depends on the historical circumstances. For LBA-EIA migrations from the Balkans to Italy, E-V13+J2b-L283 seem to be positively correlated. And for Roman Timacum Minus, they were pretty much part of the same population:

I15544 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis E-V13,E-Z1057,E-CTS1273,E-BY3880 HV9
I15545 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis I1,I-Z58,I-Z59,I-CTS8647,Z60,Z140,Z141 H1
I15546 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis J2b2a-L283,J-Z622,J-Z600,J-Z585,J-Z615,J-Z597 L2a1+143+16189 (16192)
I15547 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis J2b2a-L283 H+152
I15548 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis J2b2a-L283,J-Z585,J-Z615,J-Z597,J-Z638,J-Z1297,J-Z8421,J-Z631,J-Z1043 W+194
I15551 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis R1b-Z2103,R-Z2105 T1a
I15552 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis R1b-Z2103,R-M12149,R-Z2106,R-Z2108,R-Z2110,R-CTS7556,R-Y5592,R-CTS1450 H1c
I15553 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis E-V13,E-Z1057,E-CTS1273 T2b25
I15554 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis E-V13,E-Z1057,E-CTS1273,E-BY3880 H
I15555 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis G-P303,G-L140,G-PF3346,G-PF3345,G-CTS342,G-FGC12126 [email protected]

After the Avar-Slavic migrations:

I15537 Timacum Minus, Kuline Necropolis E-V13,E-Z1057,E-CTS1273,E-BY3880,E-Z5017,E-Z5016,E-Y3762 H13a2a
I15538 Timacum Minus, Kuline Necropolis R1b-P312,R-D99 H1e1a6
I15539 Timacum Minus, Kuline Necropolis R1b-P312,R-D99 H1e1a6,H1e1a6
I15540 Timacum Minus, Kuline Necropolis .. J1b1a1
I15541 Timacum Minus, Kuline Necropolis I2a1b-L621,I-CTS10936,I-S19848,I-CTS4002,I-CTS10228,I-Y3120 K1a4
I15542 Timacum Minus, Kuline Necropolis I2a1b-L621,I-CTS10936,I-S19848,I-CTS4002,I-CTS10228,I-Y3120 H9a
I15543 Timacum Minus, Kuline Necropolis J2-L26,J-Z6064,J-Z6055,J-Z6057,J-Y7013,J-Y7010 H1f+16093

Riverman
10-19-2021, 01:53 AM
(I'll write a full post about E-V13 in Italy at some point. I'll reply then to your question.)

The largest study ever done on Poles (n=2,705) showed that E is 3.84%.

Y-Chromosome Genetic Analysis of Modern Polish Population (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2020.567309/full)
The most frequent Y-SNP binary haplogroups in all analyzed samples were found to be R (71.02%), I (15.71%), N (4.29%), E (3.84%), J (3.22%), and G (1.22%). The total contribution of the others, viz. Q, C, T, H, and O, totaled less than 1% (0.70%), and each comprised only individual samples (Table 1).

It's not any different from Poland, nor should we expect Slovenia, an area which has faced many migrations to have any significant E-V13 %. In general, the last migration is the one which has the highest impact. E-V13 carriers were on the receiving end of migration impact in Pannonia (although Slovenia isn't really an area which ever had high E-V13 in my opinion as only a part of it is linked to Pannonia and the northwestern Balkans to the south) and they brought demographic changes when they moved to the north in the early Middle Ages.

Uskoks in addition to Slavic have Herzegovinian/Dalmatian Aromanian and Albanian ancestry. It would explain their high E-V13, but the Zumberak results also represent founder effects of several related families.




I don't how you inferred this statement, but presence of one haplogroup doesn't necessarily correlate with the non-presence of another haplogroup. It all depends on the historically circumstances. For LBA-EIA migrations from the Balkans to Italy, E-V13+J2b-L283 seem to be positively correlated. And for Roman Timacum Minus, they were pretty part of the same population:

I15544 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis E-V13,E-Z1057,E-CTS1273,E-BY3880 HV9
I15545 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis I1,I-Z58,I-Z59,I-CTS8647,Z60,Z140,Z141 H1
I15546 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis J2b2a-L283,J-Z622,J-Z600,J-Z585,J-Z615,J-Z597 L2a1+143+16189 (16192)
I15547 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis J2b2a-L283 H+152
I15548 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis J2b2a-L283,J-Z585,J-Z615,J-Z597,J-Z638,J-Z1297,J-Z8421,J-Z631,J-Z1043 W+194
I15551 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis R1b-Z2103,R-Z2105 T1a
I15552 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis R1b-Z2103,R-M12149,R-Z2106,R-Z2108,R-Z2110,R-CTS7556,R-Y5592,R-CTS1450 H1c
I15553 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis E-V13,E-Z1057,E-CTS1273 T2b25
I15554 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis E-V13,E-Z1057,E-CTS1273,E-BY3880 H
I15555 Timacum Minus, Slog Necropolis G-P303,G-L140,G-PF3346,G-PF3345,G-CTS342,G-FGC12126 [email protected]

After the Avar-Slavic migrations:

I15537 Timacum Minus, Kuline Necropolis E-V13,E-Z1057,E-CTS1273,E-BY3880,E-Z5017,E-Z5016,E-Y3762 H13a2a
I15538 Timacum Minus, Kuline Necropolis R1b-P312,R-D99 H1e1a6
I15539 Timacum Minus, Kuline Necropolis R1b-P312,R-D99 H1e1a6,H1e1a6
I15540 Timacum Minus, Kuline Necropolis .. J1b1a1
I15541 Timacum Minus, Kuline Necropolis I2a1b-L621,I-CTS10936,I-S19848,I-CTS4002,I-CTS10228,I-Y3120 K1a4
I15542 Timacum Minus, Kuline Necropolis I2a1b-L621,I-CTS10936,I-S19848,I-CTS4002,I-CTS10228,I-Y3120 H9a
I15543 Timacum Minus, Kuline Necropolis J2-L26,J-Z6064,J-Z6055,J-Z6057,J-Y7013,J-Y7010 H1f+16093

I observed it for Slovenia, whatever is the reason. Its surely different for Pannonia and the Central Balkan where they mixed early on in various hybrid and transitional groups. They even spread together to the West in some regions possibly. It always depends on the group and region in question.

leonardus
10-19-2021, 12:08 PM
Belegis II-Gava is surely a factor but Psenicevo-Babadag and related groups per literature do not derive bulk of their ancestry from it but rather from Insula Banului which also had crucial Gava input. Nevertheless difference is minor. Both are Gava related.
Gavans of Pacin are also autosomally heterogenous so some mixture there for sure. But him having most Steppe ancestry of any Urnfield sample to date I do not think is an accident at all.. Actually he looks as if he could have just arrived from the Steppes.. I totally didn't expect to see such profile..


Why is still a debate about the E-V13 origin when almost all was 'decompiled' and the result is CLEAR ?!!!!
The PLACE of origin for EV-13 is GAVA-Holigrady. Point. How they migrated back and forth, north of Danube and north of Carpathians from southern Balkan in first place and how they return into theirs ancestral southern Danube area is another matter.

rafc
10-19-2021, 12:30 PM
Why is still a debate about the E-V13 origin when almost all was 'decompiled' and the result is CLEAR ?!!!!
The PLACE of origin for EV-13 is GAVA-Holigrady. Point. How they migrated back and forth, north of Danube and north of Carpathians from southern Balkan in first place and how they return into theirs ancestral southern Danube area is another matter.

Yfull has V13 age at 2950BC, and that is probably underestimated. Gava-Holigrady is at least 1500 years younger. There is no way V13 originated there.

Riverman
10-19-2021, 12:38 PM
Yfull has V13 age at 2950BC, and that is probably underestimated. Gava-Holigrady is at least 1500 years younger. There is no way V13 originated there.

But it was spread mostly by it and before that, there is a good chance it was in the same region Gava originated before. Because Gava has a local evolution, possibly, in its core region.
Lengyel - Epi-Corded- Unetice- Carpathian Tumulus - before are among the best options.

Bruzmi
10-19-2021, 01:37 PM
But it was spread mostly by it and before that, there is a good chance it was in the same region Gava originated before. Because Gava has a local evolution, possibly, in its core region.

None of that shows up in any study.


Yfull has V13 age at 2950BC, and that is probably underestimated. Gava-Holigrady is at least 1500 years younger. There is no way V13 originated there.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

Pointing out the obvious is often necessary in a thread where "alternative theories" with zero data are regularly paraded as certainties.

leonardus
10-19-2021, 01:55 PM
It's both apparently.
Character assassination without any basis in reality. She cannot be quoted because she is a Kosovo Serb? Has anyone published a paper denying what she said? On this topic there is absolutely nothing to deny and actually she is rather more pro-Illyrian as were many Yugoslav authors because they view Illyria as their space of operation. In fact I judged against her view that Thamarcus is of "unknown" origin per view of Romanian authors and some finds from Bulgaria.

Character assassination attempt, victimology, guilt by association all so typical of what most Albanians are like, what so many Serbs are, Bosniaks, Croats, Greeks, "x" are..

I am relative of some people who were in prison in communist Yugoslavia. I am not capable of being into Albanian or Serbian or whatever victimology based nationalism. As I am of those who take it on the chin and live to fight.. I don't care who says something, I care what they say..


That's also my explicit point of view ! Me too, lived in totalitarian communist Romania where all 'history' MUST had to be INLINE with the 'official' propaganda and compulsory be nationalistic. Full of bullshit everywhere. I know these albanian die-hard 'heroes' here from a long time, and despite a large dose of knowledge and truths spoken by them THEY JUST SIMPLY can't not fall into the damn trap of hate, nationalism and stupid revenge. Just simply they can't...

Riverman
10-19-2021, 02:47 PM
None of that shows up in any study.

Yeah, funny. That's because they have no remains, but the cultural tradition is clear, they didn't come out of nowhere and replace the 50-100 percent of local male population. We have the data pre- and post and we already have studies in which there was the word "replacement" and "Iron Age" migration. I quoted you the relevant passages more than once:
We can read up on the crucial region of Viminacium:

Numerous Early Iron Age finds, which were obtained after a series of excavation
in the near past, originate from the area of Viminacium. Those finds are primarily represented
by potsherds and metal artifacts, while remains of architecture such as economic or
residential buildings and graves, were recorded to a lesser degree. Finds belonging to the
first phase of the Early Iron Age, i.e. the transition between the 2nd and the 1st millennium
BC, are attributed to the bearers of the Channeled pottery culture (Belegiš II-Gava culture).

This is exactly when E-V13 spread, in the transitional phase - look at the main branches, all around the same time. Not by chance, they build almost like the Romans later colonies, fortified towns of enormous size for their time, in the midst of hostile territory. The main difference to Romance: They settled it with their own Daco-Thracian people, for the most part and primarily took the local women, with foreign males being only accepcted occasionally it seems.

You can read on for the regional archaeology:


The finds attributed to the Belegiš II-Gava culture have also been recorded
at the site of Drmno-Lugovi (black-burnished and channeled pottery and one fibula of the
ꞌꞌPeschiera typeꞌꞌ).2 Out of numerous sites in the wider area of Mlava and Danube confluence,
on which the Early Iron Age pottery was recorded, we highlight the site of Selište
on the right bank of the former course of Mlava River, and the site of Rudine, located in
Viminacium itself.

That area was ground zero for the Daco-Thracian colonisation of the Central and Southern Balkan. It was the next leap after Corneşti-Iarcuri, one of the biggest fortified towns in the Bronze Age of Central Europe up to this time, like described here:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?18885-A-theory-about-the-origin-of-E-V13&p=808872&viewfull=1#post808872

The area around Viminacium was packed with the daughter groups to the South, coming most likely from that hub downward, everything is full of Belegis II-Gava finds!


The collection of finds
which originate from the wider area of the Braničevo District indicate the intensification
of settlement in that area during the 1st millennium BC, and a certain cultural continuity
which is confirmed by finds from all of the phases of the Early Iron Age: the Transitional
period, the penetration of the Channeled pottery culture, early phase of the Bosut culture
(Kalakača, Basarabi), and the Rača-Ljuljaci cultural group, followed by the first settling of
Celtic populations during the 4th century BC.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338655388_EARLY_IRON_AGE_HORIZON_AT_THE_SITE_OF_NA D_KLEPECKOM

While Celts had a bit of E-V13, they didn't brought that much to the region. This can be attributed to this place, the whole region and most of the neighbouring regions, all being totally dominated by Channelled Ware people, which consisted mainly out of E-V13 clans. No doubt where this came from. And with the clear relatedness of Basarabi and Psenichevo, as well as Glinoe Geto-Scythians, you can't deny reality forever. Daco-Thracian is an archaeological, cultural, linguistic and genetic reality which spread with Channelled Ware in the LBA-EIA transition. The Viminacium, Timacum Minus, Glinoe and Svilengrad finds, all are glass clear, as are the modern subclades and their distribution.

Daco-Thracian historical tribes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_Daco-Thracian_peoples_and_tribes

Also, for the origin of Gava/Channelled Ware are only limited number of options, the core region was in any case in Eastern Slovakia-North Western Romania-Transcaparthia. That's where the shift happens within local contexts, even though whether there was immediately before an immigration and replacement is so far unresolved.

Riverman
10-19-2021, 03:58 PM
This is, once more, what Gimbutas wrote about the so called Tisza group of Urnfield, which is largely the equivalent to Channelled Ware people in her work. First about the weapons:


...flange-hilted swords, flame-shaped spearheads, and a median-wing axe which are very close parallels to the swords, spearheads, and axes from Late Helladic III B and Late Helladic III C sites in Greece and contemporary sites in the eastern Mediterranean area.


From central Transylvania come the largest bronze hoards of Europe: Uioara de Sus, Suseni and Spalnaca. Bronze belts were decorated with incised emblems and a minute geometric ornament. The sun motif dominated. Thos this phase belong the beautiful composite pendants made up of interconnected wheels, hourglass emblems, water birds and dangling pendants, as in the well-known example from the hoard of Rimaszombat. Bird heads of stylized bird figures usually appear in association with "sun wheels". In the pendant from Hungary from the stylized bird bodies wheels are suspended the tails of which form the loop of the pendant.
In the amount of metal objects it produced, the Tisza group was unequalled in Europe. Within its confines lay the most creative metallurgical center of central Europe from which the basic forms of weapons, tools and ornaments spread in all directions.

Gava and Middle Urnfield related groups reached Asia minor with the Sea Peoples, as well as with known ethnic groups like the Phrygians, Thyni and Bithyni:


The coarse knobbed ware from Troy VII B, dated to the twelfth century BC has close relatives in eastern central Europe, particularly in eastern Hungary and western Rumania. Similarties can be seen in the pottery of the Gava, Mohi and Czorvas cemeteries and even more in teh pottery of the cemetery of Mezöcsat in northeastern Hungary, which is somewhat later is dated with Urnfield III objects. A striking similarity can be noticed not only in the application of knobs, but also in ornamental motifs and the shape of the handles. Cups and jugs had one or two high raised handles. Vases with two high handles are also characteristic of the late Monteoru or Noua cultrue in eastern Romania and Moldavia. The cultural layers succeeding the destruction of the Hittite Empire are assumed to belong to the Phrygians.

Marija Gimbutas, Bronze Age cultures in Central and Eastern Europe.
https://books.google.de/books?id=BvtRdigDtFoC&printsec=frontcover&hl=de#v=onepage&q&f=false

Riverman
10-20-2021, 02:12 PM
Going by modern frequencies, if assuming some continuity, the correlation with Urnfield-Hallstatt is strong in the Alpine zone and North Italy. There are clear positive (Ligurian, Veneti, Eastern Hallstatt) and negative (Italic, Etruscan, early Bavarian, Slovenian Slavic) correlations with historical and modern ethnicities.

In Northern Italy specifically, a potentially positive correlation might be with Ligurian, Lepontic and Veneti in particular:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Iron_Age_Italy.png

These areas yield about or above 10 % E-V13, which is significantly above the niveau of the neighbouring regions. In Switzerland, the correlation is negative with Italian speakers, positive with the Eastern Swiss German-Rhaetoroman local population, a similar pattern like in Tyrol, where the combination German-Rhaetoroman seems to yield higher frequencies than both neighbouring Bavarian Germanic and general Italians.
In Southern Italy a correlation with the Greek speaking regions seems to be fairly obvious, whether it was Greeks themselves or later Balkan migrations which brought it, or, most likely, both at different times.

Riverman
10-21-2021, 10:39 PM
If we go some steps back, its very important to check Makó and Nyírség. The whole pre-Gava succession of cultural groups is extremely complex and its just with Gava that it gets simpler, because they eat them all up. What's more, and that is something Michelsberg and Lengyel, Sopot teach us: We can have samples from hundreds of individuals, if they are from the wrong clan and province, they will miss it. Like Lengyel-Sopot along the Danube had a lot of E1b1b, Michelsberger in some areas too, but in others, nothing or close to nothing. Something similar could have been the case with any of the local cultures around the Carpathians. It might be one subgroup which rose to prominence from within, with a new cultural shift and conquest, profiting from it.

This is the succession of cultures in some of the most relevant regions for the Gava/E-V13 question:

https://anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=47152&d=1634855697

It's from this work, which is a good read on some of the relevant connections and replacements:


The Nagyrév complex evolved locally on the Danube west of the Tisza-Körös
confluence at the same time that the Perjámos group evolved on the Maros (Bóna 1994a).
Since Makó sites were found in the same area of the Pitvaros, an EBA culture around
Szeged with little resemblance to them, Bóna (1965) argued that the Pitvaros represented
an intrusive group that pushed the Makó out. His account invoked the migrations of
people in the Balkans and Anatolia as the driving factor that brought the Pitvaros and
Nyírség groups to the Carpathian Basin. This in turn was premised on Mellaart’s (1958)
description of mass migration of people displaced by Indo-European invasions at the end
of the Early Bronze Age in Macedonia and Anatolia (ca. 1900 BC).
On the Upper Tisza, along the foothills of the Northern Mid-Mountains all the
way to the Danube Bend, however, the scattered remains of the Makó led way to the
emergence of the Hatvan culture– Bóna (1994a) suggests the cremation burial rite in the
latter derived from the tradition of the former. He also argued that these people
annihilated the residents of the Nagyrév area, displacing among them the occupants of
Tószeg. As this occurred, the residents of the Berettyó and Ier valleys, the once members
of the ‘Nyírség’ culture, began to incorporate new decorative techniques – fine incising
and zigzag patterns – to became the early ‘Ottomány’ (Kalicz 1970).

Now this get really interesting, because like predicted, they expanded out of the Epi-Corded environment:


To the north on the Upper Tisza the Füzesabony group is supposed to have crystallized out of eastern Corded Ware group in
the Hernád valley. The different burial customs of the Hatvan and the Füzesabony
(cremations in the former, inhumations in the latter) suggested to Bóna (1994a) they were
mortal enemies. It was not surprising, then, that the Füzesabony expanded in the Middle
Bronze Age and destroyed a whole series of Hatvan settlements. It is at this time that they
profoundly affect other people of the Great Plain, including the stylistic development of
the Vatya, remaining Hatvan, and in the Körös basin, the emergence of the Gyulavarsánd
style out of the Ottomány.

Since they buried, they can be tested, let's see.


The Tumulus culture was described as an invasion across
the Little Plain of the Danube, and few of the ‘classical’ Bronze Age settlements
persisted into this period (Bóna 1958). Those that did, such as the Piliny in northeastern
Hungary and Slovakia, evolving out of the Füzesabony, were in remote areas where the
Tumulus culture did not penetrate. Some existing traditions merged with the Tumulus
culture on the Danube (Kreiter 2005a, b), but most, such as the Gyulavarsánd tradition of
the lower Körös basin, disappeared.

Piliny and Kyjatice are to look for as well.

A typical element of Gava is the burnished ceramic, which is typical for Gyulavarsánd/Otomani III, not the earlier horizons of Otomani and the cultures of the region:


Perhaps most obvious to excavators is the replacement of wiped or brushed
surface treatment with burnishing across multiple forms. Brushed ceramics (besentrecht
in German, seprűzött or ‘broom-stroked’ in the Hungarian literature) are typically
considered ‘household’ wares33. Brushed surface treatment is phased out between the late
Ottomány and early Gyulavarsánd. Bóna’s (1974:149) excavations indicate that 48% of
the brushed ceramics from excavation came from the lowest Ottomány level (Layer 4; he
was calling it ‘Hatvan’ at the time). The next layer above it (Layer 3), contained 28%,
and the two upper Gyulavarsánd layers (Layer 2 and 1) had 18% and 6%, respectively.


During the Gyulavarsánd, spiral or otherwise curved
decoration is added. The spiral feature (girland in German) is sometimes accompanied by
a bas-relief technique or bossing (created through pushing out the interior of the vessel
wall before firing). The effect, usually found on mugs or other liquid containers,
heightens the visual effect of the spiral, and is not seen in the preceding Ottomány with
geometric patterns.
The third feature that distinguishes Ottomány from Gyulavarsánd ceramics is the
addition of ‘flare’ to vessel body parts. In the Gyulavarsánd, rims flare out more, lips
protrude, and handles extend high above the rim. These formal modifications, along with
the visual effects of bossing and incised spirals on a polished vessel all add to what can
be described as a more ‘baroque’ style similar to the trajectory described in other parts of
the Plain (Bóna 1975; O’Shea 1996; Michelaki 1999).

Absolute chronology, Gyulavarsánd is directly followed by Tumulus/Piliny/Gava:

The radiocarbon chronology, in contrast to
the traditional chronology, the Hungarian Ottomány and Gyulavarsánd phases show a
100 year overlap, from 2150-1650 BC, and from 1750-1400 BC, respectively.


The contemporaneity
between the late Hatvan and Ottomány in the northern part of the Plain also support the
claim for a strong northern influence contributing to the genesis of the Ottomány


During the subsequent Gyulavarsánd, major new fortified settlements –
Vărşand and Socodor – appear on the Fekete Körös where there were none before. New
fortified sites also appear on the Berrettyó, such as Esztár-Fenyvesdomb and Szilhalom,
and on the Sebes Körös (Sîntion), and in the Ier valley (Pir). It is a geographical
expansion of the style southeast and northeast further up river.
Bóna (1974, 1994a) argued that the crystallization of the Gyulavarsánd culture
was the result of immigration into the Ottomány area. Like Roska before him, he noted
that some new ceramic forms had precedents in the Vattina area to the south. Many
forms in the Gyulavarsánd, such as highly polished shallow bowls with spiral engraving
and lugs, were found all over the Füzesabony area to the north and west as well. He was
unsure in which direction the new forms travelled because they did not have precedent in
the north either. The radiocarbon data indicate that the Füzesabony clearly precedes the
Gyulavarsánd, occurring between 2000-1800 BC, two hundred years before it is found in
the Körös basin. If Bóna is correct about the population movement into the basin at about
1750 BC, it is perhaps more likely that they came from the north and west. This would
then mean a northern origin out of the Hatvan for the Ottomány and a northern origin
from the Füzesabony for the Gyulavarsánd.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiItY6smdzzAhUm_rsIHW7zDHoQFnoECAUQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fdeepblue.lib.umich.edu%2Fbitstre am%2Fhandle%2F2027.42%2F75970%2Fpduffy_1.pdf%253Fs equence%253D1&usg=AOvVaw3U0AMwnYDmmWSpfxLO-Z4E

Nyírség is a group which should keep an eye on too, I heard. I wait for the Pannonian study to which group the E1b1b (V13?) belonged. He was close by, at the triangle between Hungary-Slovakia-Romania, which is absolutely key for everything.

Gyulavarsánd-Füzesabony is much closer to later Gava than Otomani proper, and its exactly Füzesabony from which Piliny is supposed to have developed in North Eastern Hungary and Slovakia. Even if the that's not the direct line, its a direction we have to look.

Riverman
10-21-2021, 11:31 PM
I was searching for a connection of the old "smith caste" surviving in the Epi-Corded context, as one theory of how E-V13 could survive the steppe conquest and being integrated in the new Corded Ware world from Lengyel. This might be a possible path, the origin of Gava can be traced to the Upper Tisza, the triangle of Hungary-Slovakia-Romania, and cultural formations like Suciu de Sus, Lăpuş, Kyjatice, Piliny - about which possible origin I wrote my last post. Now I made this highly interesting find:


Die Bronzewerkstätten der Pilinyer und der Kyjatice-Kultur31 beschafften ihre regionalen Rohstoffen aus der Erzlagerstätten der
slowakischen Erzgebirge (Nižná Myšľa), der westlichen Karpaten (Umgebung von Kremnitz/ Kremnica/ Körmöcbánya), sowie der Kleinen und Weißen Karpaten (Špania Dolina). Die Nutzung dieser
Bergwerke begann ab der späten Lengyel-Kultur, doch ist auch ihre bronzezeitliche Nutzung (z.B. durch
die Lausitzer-Kultur) bzw. die Erzverhüttung gut bekannt32

https://www.academia.edu/3060312/Changes_in_the_settlement_history_of_the_Late_Bron ze_and_Iron_Age_K%C3%B6r%C3%B6s_Region._Hydrology_ Reliefs_and_settlements

Piliny-Kyjatice used the same mines as the Lengyel, there is an ongoing tradition of mining and forging in the Carpathians - a direct continuation from late Lengyel usage in Slovakia! That's bulls eye and could be it.

vasil
10-22-2021, 02:23 AM
I was searching for a connection of the old "smith caste" surviving in the Epi-Corded context, as one theory of how E-V13 could survive the steppe conquest and being integrated in the new Corded Ware world from Lengyel. This might be a possible path, the origin of Gava can be traced to the Upper Tisza, the triangle of Hungary-Slovakia-Romania, and cultural formations like Suciu de Sus, Lăpuş, Kyjatice, Piliny - about which possible origin I wrote my last post. Now I made this highly interesting find:



https://www.academia.edu/3060312/Changes_in_the_settlement_history_of_the_Late_Bron ze_and_Iron_Age_K%C3%B6r%C3%B6s_Region._Hydrology_ Reliefs_and_settlements

Piliny-Kyjatice used the same mines as the Lengyel, there is an ongoing tradition of mining and forging in the Carpathians - a direct continuation from late Lengyel usage in Slovakia! That's bulls eye and could be it.

Could be, working in a mine is not very nice and also requires certain skills so one could imagine conquerors deciding to keep the miners that are already in place.

Riverman
10-22-2021, 03:54 AM
Could be, working in a mine is not very nice and also requires certain skills so one could imagine conquerors deciding to keep the miners that are already in place.

Also, they controlled the complete production chain from mining to forging. In the whole Bronze Age the Carpathians were the metallurgical centre.
Skilled smiths surely were in high demand and oftentimes a category of their own within the village communities. Corded Ware in particular was not that advanced in the metallurgical field, nor mining.

Riverman
10-24-2021, 05:55 PM
From the archaeological perspective, these patterns of the transitional period, with burned down settlements and new fortified structures are key:

The descriptions of the hillforts named above indicate
that settlement patterns changed significantly during
the Late Bronze Age, especially on the southern side
of the Morava valley, where hilltops comprise 50 % of
all known settlements (Maps 1–2). Many of the hilltops,
both of the residential or defensive type, were burned
down, and the material culture of the successor population
that settled here in the following period displayed
completely different features (Fig. 5). Unlike the
native Late Bronze Age cultural groups, Brnjica and
Paraćin, the predominant pottery of the Transitional
period consists of pear-shaped amphoras with widely
everted rims, bowls with inverted rims, and flutes and
facets as the most frequent ornaments. A symbiosis
of old and new pottery shapes occurs only very rarely.
Therefore, it can be assumed that the significant
changes in material culture were rapid.

The clash of the Northern with the Souther, Aegean related groups:

During the Late Bronze Age (Br C–D), weapons that
originate in the Aegean Bronze Age area appear in the
Morava valley (Fig. 6).19 Several Mycenaean-style rapiers
turned up in the wider region of the Morava valley,
with another one in the South Morava valley (Aleksinac).
20 Mycenaean-style daggers and knives with one
or more rivet holes were found together with these
swords, along with bronze sheet-metal arrowheads of
different types. Further evidence of influence from the
south includes a Mycenaean boar’s-tusk helmet from a
Brnjica culture necropolis north of Skopje.21 Conversely,
there are also examples of weapons that originate in
Central Europe and the Middle Danube regions. A dagger
from the Sedlare site in the Velika (Great) Morava
valley corresponds to Central European products, as do
bronze socketed arrows. In general, it seems that some
weapon types of Aegean origin were commonly used
by the Brnjica culture of the southern part of the Morava
valley, while the cultures that occupied the Great
Morava and Danube valleys used objects from Central
European regions.


The appearance of numerous types of Central European
weapons has been documented for the Transitional
period (Ha A–B) in the Velika (Great) Morava valley,
and their number and diversity exceed that of the previous
period (Fig. 7).25 Considering the Great Morava
valley as a somewhat wider territory, it is extraordinary
that five types of swords have been identified.26
21 examples are short-tanged swords of the Reutlingen
type, and three of them belong to the Konjuša variant
There are nine swords of the Stätzling type, three of
the Novigrad type, four of the Riegsee type, one of the
Marina and one of the Moškjanci type.27 Of all these
swords, the most instructive is the Reutlingen type,
which is the most common in the Serbian Danube region
but also appears in the Great and South Morava
valleys, with two more examples found in south-western
Albania.
The Reutlingen type is linked to a population
that used the Fluted Ware of Type Gava-Belegiš
II from the Central Balkan area. In a broader context,
examples of this type of sword are found throughout
Europe, with a significant number being found in the
Pannonian Basin. Southwards, their abundance decreases
south of the Sava and Danube rivers, although
some pieces have turned up in Mycenae, Crete, and
even on Kos Island.

Like already Gimbutas noted, the flame shaped spears are a classic signal of Channelled Ware people:

Thus, the socketed arrowheads occur in the territory of
the Belegiš II-Gava and late Brnjica cultures, while the
bronze sheet metal arrowheads circulate exclusively
in the territory of the late Brnjica culture (i.e., outside
of the Morava valley).29 A casting mould for these distinct
bronze sheet metal arrowheads was found on the
Kokino site in Macedonia, close to the South Morava
valley.30 Spearheads found in this Transitional period
between the Belegiš II-Gava and late Brnjica cultures,
and which do not appear any earlier, have characteristic
narrow and elongated blades. Of particular interest
are pieces with so-called flamed blades,31 which
are undoubtedly of Central European origin, and can
probably be attributed to the Gava complex. A casting
mould for this type of spearhead was identified at the
Kokino site,32 together with indigenous pottery of the
Brnjica culture. Flame-bladed spearheads and swords
of the Reutlingen type seem to penetrate the Morava
river valley from north to south during the Transitional
period. In a broader context, flame-bladed spearheads
are found in Poland,33 Moravia,34 Bosnia and Herzegovina,
35 Bulgaria36 and even – albeit rarely – in Greece.37

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330321590_The_Morava_Valley_in_the_Late_Bronze_and _Early_Iron_Age_-_changes_in_topography_and_material_culture

Thus new findings confirm, largely, the basic interpretation by the classic researchers on the topic, including Gimbutas, which made this map:

https://i.ibb.co/8dCB27J/gim.jpg

About the sword type Reutlingen in the Carpatho-Balkan sphere:

The compositional scheme of a Bronze Age sword, found near the town of Giurgiu in Romania has been determined by the method of particle-induced X-ray emission (PIXE), at the tandem accelerator of the National Institute for Physics and Nuclear Engineering from Bucharest, Magurele, Romania. The results of the analyses and the comparison with the composition of other swords from the same geographic area, the Danubian plane from Bulgaria and Transylvania regions, show that the sword from Giurgiu could be relatively associated with the swords from Bulgaria, having also the same stylistic, temporal and geographical similitude.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2168771_Compositional_analyses_of_a_Reutlingen_Bro nze_Age_sword_discovered_at_Giurgiu_Romania

Its a common type of Naue II swords, with regional subtypes and terms:

This type of Naue II sword is called Nenzingen or Reutlingen in Central Europe, Cetona in Italy and, according to Kilian-Dirlmeier, group A in Greece.

https://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576_0x003ace22.pdf

rafc
10-25-2021, 11:03 AM
Riverman, I had a question for you and I did not want to pollute the Albanian project thread with that. On the PCA of the Viminacium paper the area covered by Croatia IA & MBA is really small. That would seem to suggest the autosomal shift between MBA and IA was very small and so mainly genetic continuity, especially compared with the big shift from Neolothic EEF towards Steppe (which lead to the MBA/IA triangle) and the subsequent additional Steppe shift from the Slavic invasions. What is your take on that?

Riverman
10-25-2021, 11:29 AM
Riverman, I had a question for you and I did not want to pollute the Albanian project thread with that. On the PCA of the Viminacium paper the area covered by Croatia IA & MBA is really small. That would seem to suggest the autosomal shift between MBA and IA was very small and so mainly genetic continuity, especially compared with the big shift from Neolothic EEF towards Steppe (which lead to the MBA/IA triangle) and the subsequent additional Steppe shift from the Slavic invasions. What is your take on that?

That's because the shift there took place in the MBA with the Tumulus culture expansion. There is way more continuity on the West Balkans than on the Central and Eastern one, which directly relates to the Illyrian background story. The Middle Danubian Tumulus expanded southward, replaced the locals to a large extent and actually pushed people from Pannonia East and South, including Füzesabony-Gyulavarsánd, of which the latter was destroyed by this expansion and the former pushed to the North East, where it led to the development of Piliny, out of which Kyjatice emerged, a close group to Gava and part of the wider Channelled Ware horizon!

So the separation dates to the MBA, when the Tumulus culture from the Alpine zone invaded Pannonia and the West Balkan, most likely the ancestors of the Illyrians and especially Pannonians. The Daco-Thracians were at that point either already in the triangle or being pushed there, with what remained of Füzesabony. About Füzesabony origin and how they eliminated the earlier inhabitants:


To the north on the Upper Tisza the Füzesabony group is supposed to have crystallized out of eastern Corded Ware group in
the Hernád valley. The different burial customs of the Hatvan and the Füzesabony
(cremations in the former, inhumations in the latter) suggested to Bóna (1994a) they were
mortal enemies. It was not surprising, then, that the Füzesabony expanded in the Middle
Bronze Age and destroyed a whole series of Hatvan settlements. It is at this time that they
profoundly affect other people of the Great Plain, including the stylistic development of
the Vatya, remaining Hatvan, and in the Körös basin, the emergence of the Gyulavarsánd
style out of the Ottomány.

Gyulavarsánd being the result of their expansion on top of the local Otomani. Here you see why the West Balkan is different, but stable, from the MBA:


The Tumulus culture was described as an invasion across
the Little Plain of the Danube, and few of the ‘classical’ Bronze Age settlements
persisted into this period (Bóna 1958). Those that did, such as the Piliny in northeastern
Hungary and Slovakia, evolving out of the Füzesabony, were in remote areas where the
Tumulus culture did not penetrate. Some existing traditions merged with the Tumulus
culture on the Danube (Kreiter 2005a, b), but most, such as the Gyulavarsánd tradition...

A typical element of Gava is the burnished ceramic, which is typical for Gyulavarsánd/Otomani III as well, but not the earlier horizon:


Perhaps most obvious to excavators is the replacement of wiped or brushed
surface treatment with burnishing across multiple forms. Brushed ceramics (besentrecht
in German, seprűzött or ‘broom-stroked’ in the Hungarian literature) are typically
considered ‘household’ wares33. Brushed surface treatment is phased out between the late
Ottomány and early Gyulavarsánd. Bóna’s (1974:149) excavations indicate that 48% of
the brushed ceramics from excavation came from the lowest Ottomány level (Layer 4; he
was calling it ‘Hatvan’ at the time). The next layer above it (Layer 3), contained 28%,
and the two upper Gyulavarsánd layers (Layer 2 and 1) had 18% and 6%, respectively.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiItY6smdzzAhUm_rsIHW7zDHoQFnoECAUQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fdeepblue.lib.umich.edu%2Fbitstre am%2Fhandle%2F2027.42%2F75970%2Fpduffy_1.pdf%253Fs equence%253D1&usg=AOvVaw3U0AMwnYDmmWSpfxLO-Z4E

So the differences between the Western Pannonia-Balkan (Illyrian) and Eastern Pannonia-Carpathians (Daco-Thracian) date back to this time. Its just that its hard to tell from which groups exactly the Gava-core was formed. But as you can see, a likely candidate is what remained of Füzesabony-Gyulavarsánd and developed into the Piliny/Carpathian Tumulus culture. The Late Bronze Age with Urnfield and cremation just continued the trend, with the Middle Danube group expanding further down into the West Balkan, the East Pannonian-Carpathian Channelled Ware into the Central and East Balkan - both met in the Central Balkans, West of the Morava valley, towards Albania.

The Füzesabony-Gyulavarsánd Epi-Corded tradition was fully integrated and fused with local elements, when the new invaders from the Alpine-Danubian zone conquered Western Pannonia. And this invasion led to an increased BB-like component, imho, which the Eastern groups, from which Gava emerged, had just less. Actually Gava penetrated some areas which were probably even way more Neolithic shifted and not conquered by Epi-Corded or Bell Beaker derived people before. This too can, in some regions, result in a high diversity and less homogeneous appearance than in the Western Pannonian-Balkan Tumulus regions, where there is more kind of a continuous cline to be expected, not pockets here and there, like in the centre and East, in which high in steppe (Yamnaya, Cimmerian, Scythian derived) could alter with high Neolihic (survivors).

The Middle Danubians and their derivates, both those adopting cremation, as well as those sticking to tumuli, did in many regions fuse with Gava-derived/Channelled Ware people. In Central Pannonia, even more so in the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Eastern Hallstatt, in the Dardanians, the Triballi etc. But their origin story is just different, even though they became early neighbours in Pannonia - their relationship started very hostile and deadly, as can be seen. Where exactly E-V13 emerged and rose to the top is hard to answer, they must have been in the Gava-networks, but at which point and where exactly is hard to tell at this point. Bosut-Basarabi and Psenichevo are safe bets though, because the results from Viminacium and Svilengrad speak for themselves.

rafc
10-25-2021, 11:52 AM
So the separation dates to the MBA, when the Tumulus culture from the Alpine zone invaded Pannonia and the West Balkan, most likely the ancestors of the Illyrians and especially Pannonians. The Daco-Thracians were at that point either already in the triangle or being pushed there, with what remained of Füzesabony. About Füzesabony origin and how they eliminated the earlier inhabitants:

So you think the ancestors of Iron age Daco-Thracians were in that small triangle in the MBA? What happened then to bring them to their IA position?

Riverman
10-25-2021, 12:29 PM
So you think the ancestors of Iron age Daco-Thracians were in that small triangle in the MBA? What happened then to bring them to their IA position?

The problem is that this is actually quite big territory, even if its much smaller than their later distribution. And its cultural regional formations were quite patchy, which makes it difficult to predict who dominated whom at which point. However, Piliny and Lăpuş being absolutely key for what happened then. What we see is a connection of Kyjatice-Gava to Lusatians, with them being one of the main producers of high quality jewelry, weapons and ceramics. The classical Gava pottery itself is highest quality luxurary ware with a transcendental connotation.
Part of the reason for their rise to power was that they connected the Northern Urnfield groups, from the same Epi-Corded context they stem from probably, with the Greek and East Mediterranean world. They picked up innovations from the South, like new sword types and tactics, and evolved them on themselves. Like some of the first razors and tweezers too came from the Carpathian area, some of the earliest slashing swords of the Naue II style. They were either the first or among the first for many of these transitions, including cremation, and of course iron weapons mass production! Even a slightly increased usage of horses seems to be, in some regions, associated with their appearance.

That way they were important innovaters, producers, ressource keepers, traders and generally transmitters of goods and ideas. At the same time they came under pressure, by two factors: Their own success seems to have led to a rapid population growth and increased inner-group competition. This in part explains the sudden growth or new build if the large fortified settlements, controlled by the new elites, defended by half-professional warriors, in which professionalised specialists, artisans, especially smiths, produced highest quality goods for export and war. This was a role model for the whole Urnfield world, copied by others, even without ethnic change, but most likely groups and individuals from the Carpathians moving out.
Concrete examples: New workshows seem to have been established in the Lusatian territory by master smiths from the Kyjatice-Gava groups.
Also, the new religious Urnfield movement seems to have inspired, together with the population growth and new tactics and technology massive expansions throughout the Urnfield world. You seem many groups just consolidating after the intial Tumulus expansion, there is not that much happening, they rather stabilise their newly conquered territory. But with Urnfield, everything gets more dynamic and aggressive again.

Talking about the tactics, especially spearwalls in a phalanx seem to have been adopted by this new warriors with clan shaven faces and a new ethos. The production of spearheads goes up steeply, up to the Transcarpathian zone of Gava. Exemplary are the already mentioned flame shaped spears, which appear primarily in associated groups and regions, and which, just like the black burnished, channelled Gava luxury ware, seem to have had a meaning, a religous connotation. The obvious one being fire & metal. The cult of iron seems to have been developed among them as well. They were a very religious, yet very warlike and practical society the same time. The practical approach can be seen in the quality of their production, which exceeded that of most of their contemporaries. They were also among the first to use Naue II swords and iron swords, this surely was a big advantage. They had some of the first mass productions of usable iron swords in the world.
Interestingly, in some regions there was kind of a regression at the end of Gava, with iron largely disappearing again. Part of the reason might have been that a real group or caste of specialists, living in these fortified towns, could produce good quality iron weapons. Once their network broke down, during the Cimmerian incursion, which produced the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon after the fusion, some groups might have lost the knowledge.

Riverman
10-25-2021, 12:54 PM
The origin of Gáva as the core of the Channelled Ware spread, many authors see in the Suciu de Sus-Lăpuş -> Berkesz-Demecser -> Gáva-Holigrady/Belegis II-Gáva.

More on the Lusatian dependency on ressources, trade and production from the Channelled Ware horizon core area:

The above remarks indicate that during the older segment of the Urnfield period (HaA1-HaA2), in this part of the West Carpathian range that today belongs to Slovakia and Poland, there existed two zones of contact between the south and the north. The transmission of bronze objects took place from south to north, while the flow in the opposite direction (apart from the already mentioned hoard from Bodrog in slovakia) is generally not confirmed. To put it simply, the following conclusion can be proposed:
the population representing the Tarnobrzeg group (the Tarnobrzeg Lusatian culture) in the San River basin maintained contacts with the population of the Gáva culture, while the population of Upper Silesian-Little Poland group which at that time could still be referred to as Kraków subgroup of the Silesian group, as proposed by Marek Gedl maintained contact with the population of the Slovakian group of the Lusatian culture and of the Piliny respectively the Kyjatice culture.

p. 294-295
https://books.google.de/books?id=4S5GEAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=de#v=onepage&q&f=false

Its also obvious, and this seems to have happened later, if the relationships would deteriorate, both sides got into trouble. The whole network was severely crippled by the Thraco-Cimmerians and completely teared down by the Scythians/Thraco-Scythians, leading to the complete downfall of the Lusatians and transformation (Thraco-Cimmerian, Basarabi-Eastern Hallstatt) and later downfall of the Daco-Thracians.
Their main weakness was that the all important Danubian-Pannonian heartland was open to steppe incursions, because of the terrain.
In any case both Kyjatice and Gava were more Northern oriented, Basarabi-Hallstatt was more Western oriented, in both cases they produced and traded highest quality goods of their own and from the Aegean-Eastern Mediterranean. The downfall of Eastern Hallstatt Basarabi was because of being attacked from two sides, Scythians from the East first, then La Tene Celts from the West second, which profited from being largely spared from the Scythian destruction, while adopting the same innovations they brought (trousers, heavy cavalry, new horse breeds, animal style etc.) and being able to get their own access to the East Mediterranean via the Phoceans in Massilia and their colonies. This was a game changer which degraded the Danubian-Tisza route, which was so important before and the backbone of the Daco-Thracian early strength, because everything was running through in the Bronze Age, both the Carpathian production and the Mediterranean trade.

Typical for the Thraco-Cimmerian and later Thraco-Scythian fusion are the cultural groups of Mezöcsát (also "Pre-Scythian") and Vekerzug respectively. These Thraco-Cimmerians made it deep into Central Europe and Northern Italy, were very influential and played a role in the formation of the early Hallstatt culture. In part, in some regions, possibly even as some sort of aristocratic elite. The Thraco-Scythians on the other hand mark the end of Hallstatt and made it up to Czechia:

Distribution of the Vekerzug and other Eastern
cultures artefacts shows considerable similarities
in both regions of Moravia and Bohemia.
They appear in two types of sites: 1. highland
settlements/hillforts; 2. lowland settlements.
They have not been found in any of the Hallstatt
Period graves. These findings are from all settled
areas of Moravia, but only from particular parts
of Bohemia. In Bohemia we only find them in
settled flatland areas from eastern and central
parts of the region to northwest Bohemia. More
hilly areas of western and southern Bohemia
have not yet provided these findings or only few.
It is not a coincidence that here we are able to
observe an obvious continuity of a habitation
with some very rich findings, that in other parts
of named regions either completely (Moravia) or
partially (Bohemia) disappeared.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325399942_The_Vekerzug_and_other_Eastern_cultures_ in_the_Czech_Republic

Example of a documented attack of Scythians:
http://files.archaeolingua.hu/2014TA/Upload/cikk_Szabo_EN.pdf

This was the end of a whole range of Eastern Central European groups, all related to Channelled Ware descendents, even though the still survived and might, at least autosomally, still dominated the Thraco-Scythians themselves.

Possible finds from Kyjatice yielded so far just one sample, it was J2a, the Mezöcsát individual haplogroup N:

Individual BR2, L. Bronze, Kyjatice Culture (1.110-1.270 BC) = Y-Haplogroup J2a1
Individual IR1, Iron Age, Pre-Scythian Mezöcsát Culture (830-980 BC) = Y-Haplogroup N


Our two Bronze Age samples, BR1 (1,980–2,190 cal BC) and BR2 (1,110–1,270 cal BC) fall among modern Central European genotypes. Within this period the trade in commodities across Europe increased and the importance of the investigated region as a node is indicated by the growth of heavily fortified settlements in the vicinities of the Carpathian valleys and passes linking North and South26. These two Bronze Age genomes represent the oldest genomic data sampled to date with clear Central European affinities.


A third genomic shift occurs around the turn of the first millennium BC. The single Iron Age genome, sampled from the pre-Scythian Mezőcsát Culture (Iron Age (IR1), 830–980 cal BC), shows a distinct shift towards Eastern Eurasian genotypes, specifically in the direction of several Caucasus population samples within the reference data set. This result, supported by mtDNA and Y-chromosome haplogroups (N and G2a1, respectively, both with Asian affinities) suggests genomic influences from the East. This is supported by the archaeological record which indicates increased technological and typological affinities with Steppe cultures at this time, including the importation of horse riding, carts, chariots and metallurgical techniques

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6257

Also: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30570-Ancient-DNA-from-Hungary-Christine-Gamba-et-al

Piliny was part of the same South Eastern Urnfield group block as Gáva, but had more influences from Füzesabony and closer contacts to the Middle Danubian groups. Out of Piliny Kyjatice evolved under various influences from neighbouring groups, which was very closely connected to Gáva and in foreign contexts, there is often no way to decide which subgroup brought the artefacts. Kyjatice being more centered in Central Slovakia, with Gáva to the East and South.