E-V13 entered Greece with Illyrians and Dorian invasions

[Bruzmi]

You clearly don't know what you are writing.

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

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

I'm sorry but this is not what Oliver Dickinson is writing and it's not what modern archaeology is discussing. Again:

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

I suppose that our discussion has reached the point where we have to agree to disagree. For what it's worth, I suggest you update your bibliography. The "Dorian invasion" and similar theories aren't taught at any university today.

(To the comment about "protochronism", there's no need to even reply. If someone wants to claim (based on 50 y.o. speculations) that there was a "Brnjica culture" when confronted with the actual data which really show no actual differentiated material culture, they can certainly do so. As for Alaj, he writes that: Ces migrations de la période énéolithique se caractérisent aussi par la venue de groupes semi-nomades de la partie supérieure de Danube, à l’origine de la culture de Baden. Le mélange de ces cultures autochtones avec l’apport de populations indoeuropéennes ont constitué le substrat à partir duquel se sont développées à l’âge du. Les plus connus sites de l’âge du bronze fouillés au Kosovo son Vlashnje, Korishë, Pogragjë, Teneshdoll, Bardhi i Madh, Gadime e Epërme, Graqanicë-Glladnicë, Lubozhdë, Përçevë, Volljakë, Ticë, Budrigë e Ulët, Topanicë et Nasale
La période de l’Âge du fer par rapport à la période de l’Âge du bronze voit une augmentation du nombre d’habitats mais n’enregistre aucune rupture, comme va le montrer ce travail. Les études menées dans cette région ont montré que l’espace dardanien entre dans le groupe ethnoculturel Glasinac-Mat des Balkans occidentaux, et représente un groupe particulier de la culture illyrienne de l’Âge du fer)

[Huban]

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

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

Where does Alaj claim Brnjica culture never existed?? Nowhere. Where does he even dispute anything Garašanin said? I can't find it.

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

You think archeologists who studied Brnjica culture didn't take your "arguments" about "metallic objects" into consideration? There is literally nothing published that supports your POV.

"Dorians" also never existed, or Dorian migration. Especially Greek protochronists support that POV. There is much of contradictory and disputable material on that topic true.

[Kelmendasi]

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

The displacement of Illyrians to provinces such as Noricum and Dacia is another thing. What we do know from most of the evidence is that the tribes of what would become Noricum under Roman administration were speaking a language that branched from Continental Celtic by the time that they enter the historical spotlight.

I do not think there is any reason to consider Noricum as a part of Illyria. As I have mentioned, it was a separate province made up of various Celtic-speaking tribes who were not considered to be Illyrian or a part of Illyria by the classical scholars. And of course the genealogy that I mentioned is simply myth, however it can be of use to historians studying the Illyrians since it gives insight as to how Graeco-Roman scholars may have viewed the Illyrian peoples, their origins, and their relationships between each other. If the tribes are supposed to have a common mythical forefather according to historians such as Appian, then this may suggest that they viewed those tribes as belonging to the same ethnos or that they had clear cultural and linguistic similarities.

[Huban]

La période de l’Âge du fer par rapport à la période de l’Âge du bronze voit une augmentation du nombre d’habitats mais n’enregistre aucune rupture, comme va le montrer ce travail. Les études menées dans cette région ont montré que l’espace dardanien entre dans le groupe ethnoculturel Glasinac-Mat des Balkans occidentaux, et représente un groupe particulier de la culture illyrienne de l’Âge du fer)

He said there was an increase in population (which can be interpreted in various ways including ofc migrations). Claiming significant continuity is not the same thing as claiming Brnjica culture never existed which is what you claim based on your own "interpretation". That is why you quoted nobody in your post about the lack of metallic objects. Because there is nothing to quote in your favor. Nobody serious would be that stupid to write such a thing...

[Bruzmi]

Where does Alaj claim Brnjica culture never existed?? Nowhere. Where does he even dispute anything Garašanin said? I can't find it.



You think archeologists who studied Brnjica culture didn't take your "arguments" about "metallic objects" into consideration? There is literally nothing published that supports your POV.

"Dorians" also never existed, or Dorian migration. Especially Greek protochronists support that POV. There is much of contradictory and disputable material on that topic true.

I cited Alaj about the latest data. There is nothing in the data which shows, justifies or implies a grouping of sites in eastern Kosovo. Alaj doesn't differentiate the material culture of the region. The settlements with cremation sites exist in the same framework of material development as all other sites. No "Brnjica culture" there, but I didn't cite Alaj to "prove" that because he doesn't even mention it as a theory. The archaeological record today doesn't allow for any discussion about "Brnjica" . Yugoslav archaeologists didn't "study" anything because most excavations in Kosovo didn't happen in the Yugoslav era. They speculated on the very little data in one site. Today, the "Brnjica" theory is formulated nowhere else except for the internet and very few people in (post-)Yugoslav archaeology. The stuff about "Brnjica" and the Dorians is part of the realm of total speculation. No archaeological journal would ever publish such a theory today.

The Dorians (regardless of their collective identity) existed. The migration of some groups from the fringes of the Mycenaean world is plausible. The "Dorian invasion" from anywhere north of the Mycenaean fringes isn't plausible. To say that much, makes nobody a "Greek protochronist".

PS On metallic objects: Dans les publications, on ne trouve aucun exemple d’objet métallique, en bronze ou en fer, dans les habitats de la phase transitoire XIe -IXe siècles av. J.-C. D'autre part, les fouilles et prospections menées ces dernières années sur des sites comme Ticë, Trudë, Nasale, Qeremenik ,Cërnicë, n’ont livré aucun objet métallique. Dans les nécropoles de cette phase, les objets métalliques sont très rares. Les seuls exemples connus proviennent de la nécropole non tumulaire de Bërnicë e Ulët où ont été retrouvée une épée de 57 cm, un fer de lance de 9 cm, deux aiguilles mesurant 6 cm et 8 cm, et une épingle de 5 cm. p.671 (This one pin in Bërnica/Brnjica is "evidence" about the "Daco-Mysian traditions" (500+ years before the historical Dacians/Thracians even appeared in historical records) in the 50 y.o. which you cited. 50 years later, archaeologists haven't found yet at least a second pin or anything else about "Daco-Mysian traditions" for that matter.)

[vettor]

The displacement of Illyrians to provinces such as Noricum and Dacia is another thing. What we do know from most of the evidence is that the tribes of what would become Noricum under Roman administration were speaking a language that branched from Continental Celtic by the time that they enter the historical spotlight.

I do not think there is any reason to consider Noricum as a part of Illyria. As I have mentioned, it was a separate province made up of various Celtic-speaking tribes who were not considered to be Illyrian or a part of Illyria by the classical scholars. And of course the genealogy that I mentioned is simply myth, however it can be of use to historians studying the Illyrians since it gives insight as to how Graeco-Roman scholars may have viewed the Illyrian peoples, their origins, and their relationships between each other. If the tribes are supposed to have a common mythical forefather according to historians such as Appian, then this may suggest that they viewed those tribes as belonging to the same ethnos or that they had clear cultural and linguistic similarities.

how do you explain then......Halstatt culture which is in Noricum circa 1000Bc is stated everywhere as being a celtic -Illyrian mix ?

[Kelmendasi]

how do you explain then......Halstatt culture which is in Noricum circa 1000Bc is stated everywhere as being a celtic -Illyrian mix ?

Whether or not the Illyrians originated from or were influenced by the Hallstatt horizon is not of importance in regards to the ethno-linguistic makeup of the area in classical antiquity and the era of Roman imperialism. What we know from this region during antiquity is that it was made up various tribes who classical scholars considered to have been Celtic-speaking, something that is supported by the epigraphic data (from Grafenstein in Austria and Ptuj in Slovenia) which shows that these tribes spoke a Continental Celtic language that has been coined as Noric or Eastern Celtic.

Under Roman imperialism, the region formed its own province of Noricum, distinct from that of the Illyrians which initially was Illyricum prior to being separated into the provinces of Dalmatia and Pannonia. Illyrians were displaced from their provinces into Noricum (as well as in provinces such as Dacia), but this does not change the core local or native nature of Noricum, which since at least the Iron Age was Celtic.

[Táltos]

Please stay on topic. Insults and crude language will not be tolerated. This thread is being monitored by the team. Thank you.

[Hawk]

All evidences so far point that Balkans probably from Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age up until Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age was dominated by R1b-Z2103.

Atleast for Thracians we know that this shifted on favor of E-V13 starting from Late Bronze Age most likely.

So, for E-V13 we have two options:

1. They were always living somewhere in Balkans, and from within Central-North Balkans they expanded on Late Bronze Age.

2. Somewhere from East Alps and North/West Carpathians expansion during Middle Bronze Age in Central-North Balkans then during Late Bronze Age South/East/West Balkans. They were specialized miners and metallurgs.

[rafc]

The Dorians (regardless of their collective identity) existed. The migration of some groups from the fringes of the Mycenaean world is plausible. The "Dorian invasion" from anywhere north of the Mycenaean fringes isn't plausible. To say that much, makes nobody a "Greek protochronist".

Yes, but it if you include Mycenaean fringes, aren't we talking about a big area? It seems to me recent authors are often very duplicitous on this subject. I read a standard work on Greek language history that first explained how the Dorian invasion was complete fiction, and then went on to argue that the distribution of Dorian and other Greek dialects could only be explained by a massive influx of people from the northwest to other parts of Greece at or after the end of the bronze age.
I see no reason why the Greek legends around the Dorian invasion would have no root in reality, even if the details are obviously invented. But it seems modern archeologists are so scared of any theory involving migration that they start to deny migration without any proof, or put the bar for proof of migration so high that it can never be passed.
Don't forget, only a few years ago practically all modern scholars believed Bell Beaker was a cultural and ideological phenomenon without any movements of people, and every scholar was convinced Corded Ware was a gradual evolution of preceding Eastern-European cultures. If they were wrong there, I'm not putting 100% faith in Dickinson either.