E-V13 entered Greece with Illyrians and Dorian invasions

[Bruzmi]

The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 3, Part 1
Iorwerth Eiddon Stephen Edwards, Cyril John Gadd, Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond, John Boardman, David Malcolm Lewis, Frank William Walbank, A. E. Astin, John Anthony Crook, Andrew William Lintott, Elizabeth Rawson, Alan K. Bowman, Edward Champlin, Peter Garnsey, Dominic Rathbone, Averil Cameron, Bryan Ward-Perkins, Michael Whitby

I listed you the latest results from excavation projects and you provided a publication from 1970. If I were to write a paper and submit it based on this publication, it would be rejected by all archaeological journals. The 1970 theory - based on very few excavations - which you quoted is debunked by today's standards and it's considered completely wrong to move back to the Bronze Age (!!!) populations which appear in classical antiquity ("Dacians" etc.) You won't find anywhere today the sentence "From this we conclude that it is possible to trace the evolution in Dardania of the Bronze Age Daco - Mysian traditions into Iron Age I and towards the end to see a new influence emanating from a late phase of the Urnfield cultures . " because it relies on sheer speculation and no archaeological data.

At Gornja Stražava in the Toplica valley in Cemetery I urn - graves were fenced in with a double circle of stones . The pottery here is related to that at Donja Brnjica , and a pin resembles those at Donja Brnjica . 39 A similar urn has been found at Togočevac near Leskovac . The pottery in its shapes and handles is completely in the tradition of the Morava region in the Bronze Age . Since the southern Morava region and Kosovo were occupied by the Dardani , this pottery may be regarded as particular to them .

The bad methodology which has been abandoned today is quite evident just by this inference.

[Huban]

Not trying to undermine the author you quoted me, but he probably is simply biased.

He's a usual protochronist, who tries to argue that his people's culture in the said area has been unchanged for many thousands of years. Similarly some Greek authors would argue that there never was any Indo-European influx into Greece.

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

Enver Hohxa's legacy in Albanians.

Priestland, David (2009). The Red Flag: Communism and the making of the modern world
Imitating Stalinist trends in the Communist Bloc, Albania developed its own version of protochronist ideology which stressed the continuity of Albanians from ancient peoples such as the Illyrians

[Bruzmi]

Marija Gimbutas has brilliantly and elegantly explained the Late Bronze Age in Balkans on her Bronze Age cultures in Central and Eastern Europe book.

Not trying to undermine the author you quoted me, but he probably is simply biased.

Biased against whom?

Oliver Dickinson is an archaeologist whose work is considered textbook material today. Marija Gimbutas is considered completely outdated by today's standards. It would be hard for me to find even one institution which uses Gimbutas's theories as textbook material. And it doesn't even have to do with Gimbutas or Dickinson or any author on a personal level. Modern archaeologists rely on modern data and this is how theories evolve. Gimbutas contributed to the evolution of theoretical knowledge, but we're way beyond that.

The fact that many people have read Gimbutas has to do with the fact that her works are now free to read because they are outdated, while the most authoritative of papers and books written by modern archaeologists are hidden behind paywalls.

[Hawk]

He's a usual protochronist, who tries to argue that his people's culture in the said area has been unchanged for many thousands of years. Similarly some Greek authors would argue that there never was any Indo-European influx into Greece.

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

Enver Hohxa's legacy in Albanians.

Priestland, David (2009). The Red Flag: Communism and the making of the modern world
Imitating Stalinist trends in the Communist Bloc, Albania developed its own version of protochronist ideology which stressed the continuity of Albanians from ancient peoples such as the Illyrians

The problem is not the connection of Albanians with Illyrians, there is basis on that and we all agree, not conclusive but solid basis. The problem is that they allude connection of Pelasgians as direct ancestors of Illyrians which we all agree it's bullshit.

[Hawk]

Biased against whom?

Oliver Dickinson is an archaeologist whose work is considered textbook material today. Marija Gimbutas is considered completely outdated by today's standards. It would be hard for me to find even one institution which uses Gimbutas's theories as textbook material. And it doesn't even have to do with Gimbutas or Dickinson or any author on a personal level. Modern archaeologists rely on modern data and this is how theories evolve. Gimbutas contributed to the evolution of theoretical knowledge, but we're way beyond that.

The fact that many people have read Gimbutas has to do with the fact that her works are now free to read because they are outdated, while the most authoritative of papers and books written by modern archaeologists are hidden behind paywalls.

You cited Perparim not Oliver.

[Bruzmi]

You cited Perparim not Oliver.

I cited Alaj's publication (University of Lyon) about the latest archaeological data. One sword in one site is one sword in one site. You can't interpret that in any other way and you certainly can't construct a theory about carriers of specific weapon types, let alone theories about "Dorians".

I cited Dickinson about the general theories about "northern invasions" and "Dorians" etc etc

Cremation Burials in Greece from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age (which you cited) on cist graves:

Thus, they were apparently not fully integrated members of the Mycenaean society. This impression is enhanced through the inhumations in the tumulus at Argos as the deceased were laid to rest in stone cist graves. This is an entirely uncommon grave type in the palatial and postpalatial periods of the Mycenaean culture. In fact, the cist graves in the tumulus at Argos are the only examples of their type in the core regions of the Mycenaean culture that can be securely dated to the LH IIIB–LH IIIC period.24 For all these reasons, it can be deduced that the burial communities, who used the tumuli at Mycenae-Chania and Argos were groups of foreigners or were of foreign descent. It is almost impossible for a population group of foreign origin to leave more obvious marks in the archaeological record.


To which the now textbook publication of Oliver Dickinson "replies":
Here it is necessary to return to theories already mentioned above which depend on the notion that the traditions of invasion by Dorians and other groups encapsulate historical fact, and that the Mycenaean centres were in fact destroyed and their territories conquered by other Greek-speaking peoples. Often their source has been suggested to be Epirus, particularly by Hammond (1932, 1975), although there is no warrant for this in the ancient traditions, which do not derive any of the supposedly incoming peoples from outside the boundaries of Classical Greece. As noted above, it has often been thought a difficulty that no major archaeological change can be associated with such an invasion, but this is much less of a problem if the Dorians and allied groups in fact came from within the area of Mycenaean culture.
...
The proposed distinction between Mycenaean and Submycenaean burial customs is far from clear-cut (see Chapter 6), for the vases and metalwork typical of the cist cemeteries can also appear in chamber tombs. Also, many of the best examples of cist cemeteries are found in Attica and Euboea, which according to the traditions were not successfully invaded by newcomers, whereas such cemeteries are notably lacking from classic Dorian areas such as the south Peloponnese (pit and cist graves are now report from Sparta and Amykla) and Crete. There are also significant variations in burial customs between different cist cemeteries, undermining the suggestion that they represent a homogeneous culture.

The same bad methodology in Yugoslav archaeology which plagued theories about the "Brnjica culture" becomes even more obvious when it formulates similar speculations about Dorians

[Hawk]

Biased against whom?

Oliver Dickinson is an archaeologist whose work is considered textbook material today. Marija Gimbutas is considered completely outdated by today's standards. It would be hard for me to find even one institution which uses Gimbutas's theories as textbook material. And it doesn't even have to do with Gimbutas or Dickinson or any author on a personal level. Modern archaeologists rely on modern data and this is how theories evolve. Gimbutas contributed to the evolution of theoretical knowledge, but we're way beyond that.

The fact that many people have read Gimbutas has to do with the fact that her works are now free to read because they are outdated, while the most authoritative of papers and books written by modern archaeologists are hidden behind paywalls.

Gimbutas was a genius archeologist.

Marija Gimbutas Triumphant: Colin Renfrew Concedes

[Hawk]

I cited Alaj's publication (University of Lyon) about the latest archaeological data. One sword in one site is one sword in one site. You can't interpret that in any other way and you certainly can't construct a theory about carriers of specific weapon types, let alone theories about "Dorians".

I cited Dickinson about the general theories about "northern invasions" and "Dorians" etc etc

Cremation Burials in Greece from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age (which you cited) on cist graves:

Thus, they were apparently not fully integrated members of the Mycenaean society. This impression is enhanced through the inhumations in the tumulus at Argos as the deceased were laid to rest in stone cist graves. This is an entirely uncommon grave type in the palatial and postpalatial periods of the Mycenaean culture. In fact, the cist graves in the tumulus at Argos are the only examples of their type in the core regions of the Mycenaean culture that can be securely dated to the LH IIIB–LH IIIC period.24 For all these reasons, it can be deduced that the burial communities, who used the tumuli at Mycenae-Chania and Argos were groups of foreigners or were of foreign descent. It is almost impossible for a population group of foreign origin to leave more obvious marks in the archaeological record.


To which the now textbook publication of Oliver Dickinson "replies":
Here it is necessary to return to theories already mentioned above which depend on the notion that the traditions of invasion by Dorians and other groups encapsulate historical fact, and that the Mycenaean centres were in fact destroyed and their territories conquered by other Greek-speaking peoples. Often their source has been suggested to be Epirus, particularly by Hammond (1932, 1975), although there is no warrant for this in the ancient traditions, which do not derive any of the supposedly incoming peoples from outside the boundaries of Classical Greece. As noted above, it has often been thought a difficulty that no major archaeological change can be associated with such an invasion, but this is much less of a problem if the Dorians and allied groups in fact came from within the area of Mycenaean culture.
...
The proposed distinction between Mycenaean and Submycenaean burial customs is far from clear-cut (see Chapter 6), for the vases and metalwork typical of the cist cemeteries can also appear in chamber tombs. Also, many of the best examples of cist cemeteries are found in Attica and Euboea, which according to the traditions were not successfully invaded by newcomers, whereas such cemeteries are notably lacking from classic Dorian areas such as the south Peloponnese (pit and cist graves are now report from Sparta and Amykla) and Crete. There are also significant variations in burial customs between different cist cemeteries, undermining the suggestion that they represent a homogeneous culture.

The same bad methodology in Yugoslav archaeology which plagued theories about the "Brnjica culture" becomes even more obvious when it formulates similar speculations about Dorians

You clearly don't know what you are writing.

The paper states that during Middle Bronze Age Mycenean burial customs of inhumation dominated and people from the North most likely mercenaries(most likely coming from borders of North Serbia and Southern Romania) like the one from Uluburun shipwreck were not fully members of Mycenean society yet they were very familiar with Mycenean culture.

It is exactly the Late Bronze Age crisis where things get interesting, there is a lot of movements going on and Balkans is the center of it for sure. Either Proto-Illyrians and Proto-Thracians pushing older Indo-European people living there and creating total chaos or people related to them pushing further South and creating coalition with local people to overthrow Myceneans.

[Huban]

He's a usual protochronist, who tries to argue that his people's culture in the said area has been unchanged for many thousands of years. Similarly some Greek authors would argue that there never was any Indo-European influx into Greece.

I take this back.

I just went through the publication of Premtim Alaj, almost 800 pages in French. It's mostly a catalogue of finds. He doesn't say anything Bruzmi says. Bruzmi made his own dilettante "conclusions" out of this.

Bruzmi is a usual protochronist. I speak French Bruzmi, you can't fool me.

[vettor]

The classical scholars of the time did view the Illyrians, the inhabitants of the historical region of Illyria, as being somewhat culturally or linguistically related and are mentioned as a separate ethnos from the other non-Greek or non-Hellenic peoples of the Balkans. Archaeological data does also support that many tribes shared common material culture and religious practices and beliefs. The mythological genealogy of the Illyrian peoples that was constructed in Graeco-Roman literature which places much of the tribes as either first, second, or third generation descendants of Illyrius, may also reflect this feeling of common origin or background for the peoples of Illyria as well as some prehistoric connections between them.

In the genealogy constructed by Appian, the sons of Illyrius are: Encheleus (Enchelei), Autarieus (Autariatae), Dardanus (Dardani), Maedus (uncertain), Taulas (Taulantii), and Perrhaebus (Perrhaebi). Whilst the daughters are: Partho (Parthini), Daortho (Daorsi), and Dassaro (Dassareti). These are the mythological first generation descendants. For the second generation, only the son of Autarieus named Pannonius/Paeon (Pannonians) is mentioned. He himself had two sons; Scordiscus (Scordisci) and Triballus (Triballi) who make up the third generation. The two later generations may hint at a more distant relation that the classical scholars saw, or could just be an attempt to lump up all the "barbarian" groups together.

In regards to linguistics, considering the extremely limited amount of data, the best way to go about seems to be breaking down the region into onomastic or linguistic areas. As has been done by quite a few linguists before. Radoslav Katičić for example breaks Illyria down into three areas: the core Illyrian area that roughly corresponds to the Illyrian areas of present-day Albania and Montenegro, the Delmato-Pannonian area that extends from the historical territories of the Delmatae and surrounding tribes into Pannonia, and the Liburnian or Adriatic area which corresponds to Liburni lands. He also makes a point in regards to Dardania that the region initially seems to have belonged to the core Illyrian onomastic area but was then superseded to a degree by the Delmato-Pannonian one. How closely these linguistic areas were related to each other is hard to say, but I believe that the core Illyrian area was to a degree related to the Delmato-Pannonian one and may have had closer ties with Messapian, whilst the Liburnian area was completely unrelated and rather belonged to or was related to the Venetic language group.

As for Noricum, this was a completely separate province from Illyricum and the two later provinces that would replace it; Dalmatia and Pannonia. Its only relation was that Noricum ripense and Noricum mediterraneum belonged to the diocese of Pannonia or Illyria (as it is known from 395 CE). The classical scholars did not consider the tribes of Noricum to be related to the Illyrians, the former were also Celtic-speakers.

Roman text on their Gold mines in Dacia...brought many illyrians to the area as they where excellent miners, especially iron in Noricum

Illyrian languages are usually associated with the western Balkans, but onomastic studies often sweep wider to include the Danube provinces as Illyrian names appear in Noricum, Pannonia, Dalmatia, Moesia Superior,and Dacia. Therefore, although a name might be identified as Illyrian, it does not distinctly provide an origin without other evidence. This prevalence of Illyrian names does provide a clue at indigenous naming conventions. Illyrian inscriptions in the Danube provinces listed an individual’s name with the father’s name following in the genitive.441Roman convention included filius/filiaor f.with the father’s name, a practice found only onceon a monument for the deceased at Alburnus Maior.442Without this identifier, the genitive following a nominative name implies the individual was a slave in other regions of the empire.443Instead, this combination is used to identify lineage at Alburnus Maior and is often the only identifier used for the deceased.

Alburnus Maior is a place in Dacia where they mined for Gold

While I admit that Dalmatian and pannonians make up the bulk of what people state as Illyrians ( we also have these groups as the major revolts in the Great Illyrian revolt against Rome ), it does not mean the others are not illyrian, especially since Illyria is a geographical area ................we can discuss this theory of teh sons of Illyrius, but there is no proof on this, it seems a fabricated case of which of the Gods created which race of humans....
BTW...is Maedus in Picene as I recall a similar name

Romans listed
Illyricum superius (later Dalmatia)and inferius (later Pannonia).

there are many pages on Illyrian personnel names but nothing on language...one page below