Page 100 of 137 FirstFirst ... 50909899100101102110 ... LastLast
Results 991 to 1,000 of 1366

Thread: E-V13 entered Greece with Illyrians and Dorian invasions

  1. #991
    Banned
    Posts
    845
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Albanian
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V13

    Albania
    Some insight......

    Rutter (1975, 1990), Walberg (1976), Deger-Jalkotzy (1977, 1983), Small (1990, 1997), Pilides (1994), Bankoff, Meyer, and Stefanovich (1996)
    Rutter, following in the footsteps of E. French, identified a non-Mycenaean handmade and burnished class of pottery in early LH IIIC contexts at Korakou, Mycenae, Lefkandi, and a few other sites in central and southern Greece. Since this pottery was locally made, it constituted evidence for the presence of a non-Mycenaean population element within Mycenaean Greece in the period immediately following the destruction of the major Peloponnesian centers. This handmade and burnished pottery, in Rutter’s view, had its closest parallels in the “Coarse Ware” of Troy VIIb1 and in the pottery of the Final Bronze Age Coslogeni culture of southeastern Rumania. Rutter therefore suggested that there might be a connection between the makers of this non-Mycenaean pottery and the destroyers of both Troy VIIa and of the Mycenaean centers in the Peloponnese.


    Deger-Jalkotzy, publishing similar non-Mycenaean ceramics from early LH IIIC contexts at the coastal site of Aigeira in Achaea, argued that similar pottery was to be found not only in Troy and Rumania but also in Sicily and southern Italy. In all cases, this pottery had no local ancestry and was presumably evidence for intrusive population groups. Such groups were probably not large (i.e. not comparable in scale to the migrating tribes who contributed to the downfall of the Roman Empire in the 4th and 5th centuries A.D.), but rather small bands of pirates, freebooters, and unemployed mercenaries. The original homeland of these groups, from which they filtered down into various areas of the Mediterranean by a number of different routes, was the central Danube. These warrior bands, comparable in terms of their activities and organization to the Vikings of the 7th to 10th centuries A.D., may indeed have constituted the nucleus of the raiders known later to the Egyptians as the Sea Peoples.

    https://www.dartmouth.edu/~prehistor...n/?page_id=615

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Hawk For This Useful Post:

     ShpataEMadhe (03-22-2021)

  3. #992
    Registered Users
    Posts
    5,773
    Sex
    Location
    Australia
    Ethnicity
    Italian Alpine
    Nationality
    Australian and Italian
    Y-DNA (P)
    T1a2b- SK1480
    mtDNA (M)
    H95a
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1b-S8172
    mtDNA (P)
    T2b17

    Australia Italy Veneto Friuli Italy Trentino Alto Adige Italy Ladinia Austria Tirol
    Quote Originally Posted by Kelmendasi View Post
    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.
    Your first line is an issue in that you only see linguistic makeups for society ................we can , in todays world, all be called English then!

    All scholars know the illyrians moved from North to South and the bulk of "illyrians" Dalmatians and Pannonians make up the major "illyrian groups "..............the issue here , you do not recognise halstatt culture and its make-up, avoid "illyrian" cities as in modern Oderzo and Trieste to name 2......the major iron mining areas in Noricum, mined by Illyrians , a place the Romans needed badly............the
    Last edited by vettor; 02-28-2021 at 05:41 PM.


    My Path = ( K-M9+, TL-P326+, T-M184+, L490+, M70+, PF5664+, L131+, L446+, CTS933+, CTS3767+, CTS8862+, Z19945+, BY143483+ )


    Grandfather via paternal grandmother = I1-Y33791 ydna
    Great grandmother paternal side = T1a1e mtdna

  4. #993
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,089
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Albanian
    Y-DNA (P)
    J-BY32817
    mtDNA (M)
    T1a1l
    Y-DNA (M)
    E-CTS1273*

    Albania Kosovo
    Quote Originally Posted by vettor View Post
    Your first line is an issue in that you only see linguistic makeups for society ................we can , in todays world, all be called English then!

    All scholars know the illyrians moved from North to South and the bulk of "illyrians" Dalmatians and Pannonians make up the major "illyrian groups "..............the issue here , you do not recognise halstatt culture and its make-up, avoid "illyrian" cities as in modern Oderzo and Trieste to name 2......the major iron mining areas in Noricum, mined by Illyrians , a place the Romans needed badly............the
    What matters most is what ethno-linguistic group the core or bulk of the local population belonged to and how they were considered by their neighbours, and in the case of Roman Noricum it for sure was not Illyrian but actually Celtic; Eastern Celtic or Noric to be more specific. The fact that there were enclaves of Illyrians who were displaced for reasons of labour and that some Illyrian anthroponyms show up is a completely different thing which rather speaks of population movements and influence.

    You are mentioning the Hallstatt culture in an anachronistic way, here we are discussing the situation during classical antiquity and the era of Roman imperialism. By these periods of time the core population of Noricum was Celtic-speaking and did not belong to the Illyrian sphere, as far as I am aware the classical sources do not ever mention the area as being a part of Illyria.

    In regards to the core Illyrian area, it should be sought in modern-day Albania and Montenegro, the area where the Illyrians Proper (Illyrii Proprie Dicti) were concentrated.

    As for the settlements of Opitergium (present-day Oderzo) and Tergeste or Tergestum (present-day Trieste), by the time of classical antiquity they were both Venetic settlements.
    Last edited by Kelmendasi; 02-28-2021 at 07:03 PM.
    Ydna: J1>P58>YSC234>ZS241>BY32817 (Y179831)

    Maternal Ydna: E-V13>CTS1273*

    Mtdna: T1a1l

  5. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Kelmendasi For This Useful Post:

     Bruzmi (03-01-2021),  ShpataEMadhe (03-22-2021),  XXD (02-28-2021)

  6. #994
    Registered Users
    Posts
    690
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    EV13>Z5018>FGC33625
    mtDNA (M)
    U1a1a

    Albania Kosovo
    Quote Originally Posted by Johane Derite View Post

    For the Brygians, Heinrich Eichner placed them around Mirdita right in between the Mati/Drin region:

    I wasn't too clear here, so I will restate why this problem is relevant. Brygians are not considered Illyrians usually, and yet they are placed right next to or right inside of the Mati region by some contemporary scholars as well as ancients.

    Since the Mati region is crucial to the Glasinac-Mati complex which is argued to be related with Illyrian languages, then this question should be answered, or at least some working hypotheses should be given.

    There are some rock cut tombs in Burgajet, are they maybe of the Brygians? Were the Brygians a substrate on top of which Glasinac related languages settled, etc.

    Secondly, Mati is also important because this is where Albanopolis is usually thought to have been roughly. So, if this region was at the least bilingual at some point, with both Illyrian and Brygian languages, then it is important to speculate on which of those languages Albanopolis gave the proto-Albanians.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Johane Derite For This Useful Post:

     ShpataEMadhe (03-22-2021)

  8. #995
    Registered Users
    Posts
    5,773
    Sex
    Location
    Australia
    Ethnicity
    Italian Alpine
    Nationality
    Australian and Italian
    Y-DNA (P)
    T1a2b- SK1480
    mtDNA (M)
    H95a
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1b-S8172
    mtDNA (P)
    T2b17

    Australia Italy Veneto Friuli Italy Trentino Alto Adige Italy Ladinia Austria Tirol
    Quote Originally Posted by Johane Derite View Post
    I wasn't too clear here, so I will restate why this problem is relevant. Brygians are not considered Illyrians usually, and yet they are placed right next to or right inside of the Mati region by some contemporary scholars as well as ancients.

    Since the Mati region is crucial to the Glasinac-Mati complex which is argued to be related with Illyrian languages, then this question should be answered, or at least some working hypotheses should be given.

    There are some rock cut tombs in Burgajet, are they maybe of the Brygians? Were the Brygians a substrate on top of which Glasinac related languages settled, etc.

    Secondly, Mati is also important because this is where Albanopolis is usually thought to have been roughly. So, if this region was at the least bilingual at some point, with both Illyrian and Brygian languages, then it is important to speculate on which of those languages Albanopolis gave the proto-Albanians.
    There we meet with Phrygians, or with a modification of their name, Brygians, in all directions. Mardonius, on his expedition against Greece, met Brygians in Thrace. (Hdt. 6.45; Steph. B. sub voce Βρύκαι; Plin. Nat. 4.18, where we have probably to read Brycae for Brysae.) The Phrygian population of Thrace is strongly attested by the fact that many names of places were common to Thrace and Troas. (Strab. xiii. p.590; comp. Thuc. 2.99; Suid. s. v. Θάμυρις; Solin. 15; Tzetz. Chil. 3.812.) Traces of Phrygians also occur in Chalcidice. (Lycoph. 1404; Steph. B. sub voce Κρουσίς. Further south they appear about Mount Oeta and even in Attica. (Thuc. 2.22; Strab. xiii. p.621; Steph. B. sub voce Φρυγία and Φρίκιον; Eustath. ad Dionys. Per. 810.) Mount Olympus, also, was perhaps only a repetition of the Phrygian name. In the west of Edessa in Macedonia, about lake Lychnidus, we meet with Bryges (Strab. vii. pp. 326, 327; Steph. B. sub voce Βρύξ), and in the same vicinity we have the towns of Brygion, Brygias, and Mutatio Brucida. (Steph. B. sub voce s. vv.; It. Hieros. p. 607.) The westernmost traces of Brygians we find about Dyrrhachium. (Strab. l.c.; Appian, App. BC 2.39; Scymn. 433, 436.) It is difficult to determine how far Phrygian tribes extended northward. The country beyond the eastern part of Mount Haemus seems to have been occupied at all times by Thracians; but Phrygians extended very far north on both sides of Mount Scardus, for PANNONIA and MOESIA seem to be only different forms for PAEONIA and MYSIA; and the Breucae on the Savus also betray their origin by their name. It is possible also that the DARDANI were Phrygians, and descendants of the Teucrians in Troas; at least they are clearly distinguished from the Illyrians.

    Phrygians are also present in Asia Minor, south-east of the troas ( trojan lands) .................they where still around circa 500Bc in Asia Minor because they where fighting against the Lydians


    https://www.academia.edu/37262757/El...RICAL_EVIDENCE


    My Path = ( K-M9+, TL-P326+, T-M184+, L490+, M70+, PF5664+, L131+, L446+, CTS933+, CTS3767+, CTS8862+, Z19945+, BY143483+ )


    Grandfather via paternal grandmother = I1-Y33791 ydna
    Great grandmother paternal side = T1a1e mtdna

  9. #996
    Registered Users
    Posts
    690
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    EV13>Z5018>FGC33625
    mtDNA (M)
    U1a1a

    Albania Kosovo
    Quote Originally Posted by vettor View Post
    There we meet with Phrygians, or with a modification of their name, Brygians, in all directions. Mardonius, on his expedition against Greece, met Brygians in Thrace. (Hdt. 6.45; Steph. B. sub voce Βρύκαι; Plin. Nat. 4.18, where we have probably to read Brycae for Brysae.) The Phrygian population of Thrace is strongly attested by the fact that many names of places were common to Thrace and Troas. (Strab. xiii. p.590; comp. Thuc. 2.99; Suid. s. v. Θάμυρις; Solin. 15; Tzetz. Chil. 3.812.) Traces of Phrygians also occur in Chalcidice. (Lycoph. 1404; Steph. B. sub voce Κρουσίς. Further south they appear about Mount Oeta and even in Attica. (Thuc. 2.22; Strab. xiii. p.621; Steph. B. sub voce Φρυγία and Φρίκιον; Eustath. ad Dionys. Per. 810.) Mount Olympus, also, was perhaps only a repetition of the Phrygian name. In the west of Edessa in Macedonia, about lake Lychnidus, we meet with Bryges (Strab. vii. pp. 326, 327; Steph. B. sub voce Βρύξ), and in the same vicinity we have the towns of Brygion, Brygias, and Mutatio Brucida. (Steph. B. sub voce s. vv.; It. Hieros. p. 607.) The westernmost traces of Brygians we find about Dyrrhachium. (Strab. l.c.; Appian, App. BC 2.39; Scymn. 433, 436.) It is difficult to determine how far Phrygian tribes extended northward. The country beyond the eastern part of Mount Haemus seems to have been occupied at all times by Thracians; but Phrygians extended very far north on both sides of Mount Scardus, for PANNONIA and MOESIA seem to be only different forms for PAEONIA and MYSIA; and the Breucae on the Savus also betray their origin by their name. It is possible also that the DARDANI were Phrygians, and descendants of the Teucrians in Troas; at least they are clearly distinguished from the Illyrians.

    Phrygians are also present in Asia Minor, south-east of the troas ( trojan lands) .................they where still around circa 500Bc in Asia Minor because they where fighting against the Lydians


    https://www.academia.edu/37262757/El...RICAL_EVIDENCE
    Ok, so this archaeologist (Eleonora Petrova) attributes tumuli burials to Phrygians in Anatolia.

    Importantly most of the locations that she lists as Brygians being mentioned are inside the borders of Albania or right next to them:

    "The historical sources, except the Iliad, which gives us data on the period before and during the Trojan war, are mainly bound to the classical period.

    On their account we may locate the Bryges on the Balkans in the area among Dyrrachium, Lichnydus Lake, the Thesprothians on the south and Pelagonia in the later period. In the area to the east of Axius, Herodotus places the Thracean Bryges"

  10. #997
    Registered Users
    Posts
    508
    Ethnicity
    Macedonian
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-Y16729
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Quote Originally Posted by Johane Derite View Post
    I wasn't too clear here, so I will restate why this problem is relevant. Brygians are not considered Illyrians usually, and yet they are placed right next to or right inside of the Mati region by some contemporary scholars as well as ancients.

    Since the Mati region is crucial to the Glasinac-Mati complex which is argued to be related with Illyrian languages, then this question should be answered, or at least some working hypotheses should be given.

    There are some rock cut tombs in Burgajet, are they maybe of the Brygians? Were the Brygians a substrate on top of which Glasinac related languages settled, etc.

    Secondly, Mati is also important because this is where Albanopolis is usually thought to have been roughly. So, if this region was at the least bilingual at some point, with both Illyrian and Brygian languages, then it is important to speculate on which of those languages Albanopolis gave the proto-Albanians.
    That's hardly the only place the Bryges settled. In fact we know that tribes such as Mygdones who are thought to be of Brigian origins lived in Central Macedonia near the lower Vardar. Toponyms in connection with the Bryges/Phryges are found around middle Vardar as well such as Gortynia or Gordinia which is very similar to ancient Phrigian city of Gordion in Anatolia. Based on the ancient toponymy the Bulgarian linguist Vladimir Georgiev proposed that the core of the Phrygians in the Balkans was along the river Erigon/Crna reka in North Macedonia and their territory extended throughout the western part of North Macedonian where they mixed with Illyrians and in Central Macedonia where they mixed with Paeonian and Thracian tribes.
    By now, it's clear that Phrygian was a language kin of Greek and ancient Macedonian. This explains why there was a visible Greekoid superstrate in the anthroponyms related to Paeonians and Paeonia where probable mixing between the Phrygians and some Daco-Thracian tribes occured which gave rise of the Paeonians.
    This is the map based on Georgiev's findings:
    Distance to: Aspar_scaled
    0.01995435 35.00% HUN_Avar_Szolad:Av2 + 65.00% ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR65
    0.02156914 40.60% HUN_Avar_Szolad:Av1 + 59.40% ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR65
    0.02223177 55.20% Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2:I8215 + 44.80% UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
    0.02300447 61.80% BGR_IA:I5769 + 38.20% UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Aspar For This Useful Post:

     Bane (03-01-2021),  Kelmendasi (03-01-2021)

  12. #998
    Registered Users
    Posts
    194
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by rafc View Post
    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.
    Bell Beaker was first hypothesized to be the result of mass migrations of a material culture based on craniometry and the crude use of other methods of physical anthropology. This set of data was rejected because of many methodological problems and the fact that some sites showed continuity with older populations and others discontinuity. Archaeological theories rejected the mass migration model based on the only available data about any prehistoric population: material finds from many different sites. aDNA studies didn't invalidate archaeological theories, nor did they allow for a comeback of the mass migration model. They allowed for migration to be re-included in modern theories and they provided more nuance to them which in turn allowed us to move beyond the overly simplistic migration vs. non-migration model.

    Martin Furholt (2021), Mobility and Social Change: Understanding the European Neolithic Period after the Archaeogenetic Revolution, Journal of Archaeological Research:

    The main problem and source of confusion with these three archaeological units—Yamnaya, Corded Ware, and Bell Beakers—is that they have traditionally been conceptualized using the model of “archaeological culture,” as discussed in the introduction. This has led, repeatedly, to a faulty reification of these units of classification to represent distinct culturally uniform groups of people (see Furholt 2014). This reification has dominated archaeological discourse during the 20th century—with an interlude by processual archaeologists such as Clarke (1970) and Shennan (1976)—and has unfortunately infected the migration discourse connected to the new aDNA data presented since 2015 (Allentoft et al. 2015; Haak et al. 2015). (..) To use the archaeological culture model for those units, say, the LBK, to impose a coherence of specific forms of material culture with specific forms of houses, settlement patterns, burial rites, etc., is a stark simplification, but it is not such a blatant misrepresentation as it is for Yamnaya, Corded Ware, and Bell Beakers. (..) All three units of classification (Yamnaya, Corded Ware, and Bell Beakers) are not compatible with the monothetic archaeological culture concept.

    The migration narrative fell out of favor in the context of processual archaeology, in which inner-social transformations were highlighted and Corded Ware and Bell Beakers were conceptualized as “packages” of symbols related to social groups and ideologies (Clarke 1970; Damm 1991; Furholt 2003; Müller 2002; Shennan 1976; Strahm 2002). However, when Kristiansen (1989) and Anthony (1990) revived migration as an explanatory framework, they chose the Jutlandish Single Grave culture—a Corded Ware subunit—and the Yamnaya culture as examples. Nevertheless, the archaeological mainstream remained highly skeptical of migration, with a few notable exceptions (Burmeister 2000; Prien 2005), until the aDNA studies were published in 2015.

    What is more, Olalde et al. (2018) published a large set of Bell Beaker samples, which showed that the majority of the eastern Bell Beakers (in Germany, Czech Republic, Netherlands, England, and Scotland) also carried large portions of steppe ancestry, in contrast to individuals connected to western Bell Beaker contexts (in France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal), who for several centuries carried much less or no steppe ancestry, which suggests an ongoing migration stream not congruent with the borders of archaeological units of classification.

    While almost all male individuals from Yamnaya burials share the haplogroups R1b-Z2103 and Q1a2 (Wang et al. 2019), the great majority of all Corded Ware males share a different haplogroup, R1a (Mathieson et al. 2018). R1b, but of a different variant (P312), is the most frequent Y-chromosome haplogroup among male burials from Bell Beaker contexts (Olalde et al. 2018). Thus the core of the Kristiansen et al. narrative—Yamnaya males migrating into central Europe and constituting the new Corded Ware complex—is contradicted by the data.

    In many contexts Corded Ware pottery was produced alongside traditional styles with not much tangible change in social practices connected to these novel vessel forms (Beckerman 2015; Iversen 2015; Kroon et al. 2019; Salzman 2010; Suter 2017). In others, their occurrence was connected to changes in the settlement pattern (Hecht 2007; Hübner 2005; Müller 1999; Schultrich 2019). The same is true for Bell Beakers (Kleijne 2019; Vander Linden 2006).

    The whole setting of the third millennium BC in Europe is one that is better explained by a strengthening of translocal relations than by the traditional mass migration model. Whereas the latter has a unidirectional bias and regards human movement as a finite process—a person or group moves from A to B, the anthropological concept of translocality (Furholt 2018a; Greiner 2010; Greiner and Sakdapolrak 2013) highlights how mobile human individuals continuously engage with both the new and the old communities.



    Quote Originally Posted by rafc View Post
    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.
    The Dorians are not a prehistoric population. We know a lot about their language (Doric Greek), the way they perceived themselves and they way others perceived them. Doric Greek preserves elements of Proto-Greek and doesn't have a pre-Greek substrate which is different from other Greek dialects. For Doric Greek to have preserved Proto-Greek elements and have the same pre-Greek substrate, the speakers of Doric Greek could not have come from anywhere north of the Mycenaean fringes (Epirus, northern Thessaly, western Macedonia). If the Dorians were part of a "mass migration" from the central or the northern Balkans, they would have introduced a non-Greek language in Greece which even if they were "hellenized" eventually, would create a very different Greek dialect than Doric Greek.

    If some E-V13 kin groups joined some Dorian groups before they moved to the south will be answered by aDNA studies, but a theory which sees the Dorians as a people who brought E-V13 to Greece from the central/northern Balkans in a mass migration/invasion isn't plausible.

    We should look to a gradual migration in order understand the introduction of E-V13 and other lineages in Greece. For example, Albanian migrations didn't happen as a single event but as a series of events with smaller and larger migrations over 500 years and they're still continuing. I consider the same scenario to be the most plausible for E-V13. Illyrians, Paeonians, Thracians and others from their many subgroups moved to Greece over a period of more than 800 years as workers, traders, mercenaries, slaves, students etc.

    The Hellenistic cemetery of Demetrias contains the graves of several Illyrians (c.250 BC). We know that they were Illyrians because their families identified them as Illyrians. They were Rodon Archou, Stratonike Oinantiou Metrodorou gyne (wife of Metrodoros), Dazis, Skeneta Torou and Trito. No mass migration simplistic model can investigate the stories of these individuals.

  13. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Bruzmi For This Useful Post:

     Aspar (03-01-2021),  dosas (03-01-2021),  Kelmendasi (03-01-2021),  ShpataEMadhe (03-22-2021),  trdbr1234 (03-02-2021),  XXD (03-02-2021)

  14. #999
    Registered Users
    Posts
    194
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Johane Derite View Post
    I wasn't too clear here, so I will restate why this problem is relevant. Brygians are not considered Illyrians usually, and yet they are placed right next to or right inside of the Mati region by some contemporary scholars as well as ancients.

    Since the Mati region is crucial to the Glasinac-Mati complex which is argued to be related with Illyrian languages, then this question should be answered, or at least some working hypotheses should be given.

    There are some rock cut tombs in Burgajet, are they maybe of the Brygians? Were the Brygians a substrate on top of which Glasinac related languages settled, etc.

    Secondly, Mati is also important because this is where Albanopolis is usually thought to have been roughly. So, if this region was at the least bilingual at some point, with both Illyrian and Brygian languages, then it is important to speculate on which of those languages Albanopolis gave the proto-Albanians.
    All theories about the Bryges date to an account by Herodotus. There is no historical or archaeological data about them. He writes that:
    The Phrygian equipment was very similar to the Paphlagonian, with only a small difference. As the Macedonians say, these Phrygians were called Briges as long as they dwelt in Europe, where they were neighbors of the Macedonians; but when they changed their home to Asia, they changed their name also and were called Phrygians. The Armenians, who are settlers from Phrygia, were armed like the Phrygians. Both these together had as their commander Artochmes, who had married a daughter of Darius

    This migration took place in the LBA/ transitional era. If the Glasinac-Mati material culture ever "met" with the Bryges, it would have been only for a very brief period. People like the Taulantii appear almost 400-600 years after the Bryges left for Anatolia. Many maps contain elements from different periods so that might be misleading.

    The cemetery in Burgajet dates to the 4th-3rd centuries BC.
    Last edited by Bruzmi; 03-01-2021 at 04:43 PM.

  15. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Bruzmi For This Useful Post:

     dosas (03-01-2021),  Johane Derite (03-01-2021),  Kelmendasi (03-01-2021),  ShpataEMadhe (03-22-2021),  trdbr1234 (03-02-2021),  XXD (03-02-2021)

  16. #1000
    Registered Users
    Posts
    690
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    EV13>Z5018>FGC33625
    mtDNA (M)
    U1a1a

    Albania Kosovo
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruzmi View Post
    All theories about the Bryges date to an account by Herodotus. There is no historical or archaeological data about them. He writes that:
    The Phrygian equipment was very similar to the Paphlagonian, with only a small difference. As the Macedonians say, these Phrygians were called Briges as long as they dwelt in Europe, where they were neighbors of the Macedonians; but when they changed their home to Asia, they changed their name also and were called Phrygians. The Armenians, who are settlers from Phrygia, were armed like the Phrygians. Both these together had as their commander Artochmes, who had married a daughter of Darius

    This migration took place in the LBA/ transitional era. If the Glasinac-Mati material culture ever "met" with the Bryges, it would have been only for a very brief period. People like the Taulantii appear almost 400-600 years after the Bryges left for Anatolia. Many maps contain elements from different periods so that might be misleading.
    There are at least two Phrygian migrations that are supposed to have happened into Anatolia.

    One in the middle-late bronze age before the trojan war (such that the Phrygians are already in Anatolia and allied with Priam), and a second one later in the Iron age.

    It is not accurate, nor fair, to say that "all theories" about the bryges are because of that one account by Herodotus.

    In fact, many linguists have built on this theory specifically because of linguistic evidence alone, without need for Herodotus' claim.

    Personal names, toponyms, that match, etc. For example:

    Kydrada in Anatolia, Phrygian placename
    Kydrai in Pelagonia which according to Strabo was "Polis ton Brygon" (a Brygian town)


    Also the change of β to φ is something that is observed in Macedonian vs Greek, so has secure linguistic grounding.

    Herodotus wouldn't have understood the concept of phonological evolution and sound laws, so for him it must have been that they "changed" their name.

    Macedonian. ἀβροῦτες
    Greek. ὀφρῦς

    Macedonian. Βερενίκη
    Gree. Φερενίκη

    etc.

  17. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Johane Derite For This Useful Post:

     Michał (03-01-2021),  vettor (03-01-2021),  XXD (03-02-2021)

Page 100 of 137 FirstFirst ... 50909899100101102110 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. G-L497 et les invasions indo-européennes
    By palamede in forum French
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-22-2019, 10:33 AM
  2. Monkeys and Chimpanzees have entered the Stone Age
    By shazou in forum Natural Sciences
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-12-2019, 07:48 AM
  3. sorry to have entered in this forum
    By euasta in forum Forum Support
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-23-2019, 06:27 PM
  4. Mycenaean and Crete Armenoi (Dorian) on GEDMatch!
    By Sikeliot in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-05-2017, 07:47 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-19-2015, 01:07 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •