Page 52 of 137 FirstFirst ... 242505152535462102 ... LastLast
Results 511 to 520 of 1366

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

  1. #511
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,858
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by DFSTFD View Post
    I agree. We only have 2 samples, which differ considerably between each other too, towards a UKR_N direction. That being said, the early Corded Ware samples interestingly do seem to plot between Yamnaya (or the pre-Yamnaya part of the Khvalynsk-Progress cline if you prefer) and a "Dereivka"-like population, though that might be just a fluke since a similar steppe-hg-farmer mix would probably give you similar results.
    My current interpretation is that from the Lower Don Culture two branches came, first Sredny Stog, the other Khvalynsk. Early Khvalynsk was still rather pure LDC-SSC, but later the acquired admixture from local foragers and farmers to the North East, up the river. This mixed Khvalynsk branch was however largely eliminated later and Yamnaya was the next branch expanding also to the East, being again more pure LDC-SSC derived. After their specialisation, probably under influence from Maykop, they turned on the Western groups and networks, which they seem to have either pushed out, mixed or annihilated them. However, with the exception of the very fringe groups in the borderland to the farmers and Northern foragers, they had exactly the same mix of ancient ancestries, because they were all LDC-SSC, Yamnaya and the relatively unmixed Western groups. This ancestral component was not introduced by Yamnaya, it was already there, but how widespread and how Dereivka proper will look, only a large survey can conclude.

  2. #512
    Registered Users
    Posts
    548

    Quote Originally Posted by DFSTFD View Post
    I find the first part likely too, a neighboring relationship rather than a genetic (in the linguistic sense too) one at this point but we'll see with more data.

    The foothills of Bermion were the "gardens of Midas". It was where the Phrygians were supposed to have settled in Macedonia before moving towards Anatolian Phrygia (while apparently leaving some remnants behind in parts of the Balkans) via NW Anatolia, though it's true that Thracian tribes seem to have settled in the area too (e.g. the Bottiaei) before the Argead Macedonians apparently expelled them. As I said, Hammond himself made the connection of these Lusatian findings to the Phrygians specifically, especially because of the dating. You're opting for a different interpretation, reasonable enough I suppose, but the areas they are found in do have a connection with the Phrygians which is why he made the connection himself.

    Another point is what Lusatian connection the historical larger Thracian area has in general, rather than those specific ones that have different interpretations too. I haven't come across that.
    Exactly, I made a different interpretation of Hammond's finds because as I said, Phrygian was found to be close relative of proto-Greek and proto-Macedonian, a characteristic highly improbable of Lusatian connection. On the other hand, the Phrygians were historically associated with the Thracian which would suggest that some sort of mixing or mingling between the two peoples occured.

    The Balkans are generally not well explored but going by some scarce archaeological materials the Gava Culture or the Fluted Ware certainly had a presence in the core Thracian area however I haven't found anything about Lusatian finds in the core Thracian region. Since the Gava and the Lusatian Cultures were neighbors to each other, I assume there was not a single Culture or peoples involved in the large scale LBA migrations that brought the Dark age in Greece but rather more than one. How these movements are related to each other is not well known but the picture is rather quite complex. My point was initially that some of the Carpathian Cultures such as Gava-Holihrady might have been Lusatianized sort to say, bringing the language in the Balkans but not necessarily much of the genetic material of the Lusatian Culture. Of course this all is in the range of speculation.
    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

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Aspar For This Useful Post:

     Riverman (02-08-2021)

  4. #513
    Registered Users
    Posts
    74
    Sex
    Omitted

    Here's another older view on that particular issue I recalled, just for the sake of extra information, from a chapter discussing the different pottery that finds itself towards the south during the LBA period of complex movements you mentioned, that helped bring the Dark Ages in southern Greece too.

    Jan Bouzek, 1974: "The Macedonian 'Lausitz' ware is best paralleled in the north-west Balkan Urnfields (sometimes called Middle Danubian)"

    Lausitz in quotes because I suppose he considers it a non-direct offshoot, not from the Lusatian but from the nearby more southern region, the Transdanubian groups of the image you posted (a bit like what I wrote earlier about another archaeologist's opinion I had come across). Judging from what you wrote here and in your previous posts too, I suppose you'd consider Thracian to be a recent offshoot towards the Balkans from the northwest, whether Lusatian-related or close-by, during the LBA rather than a relatively in situ eastern Balkan development since the late EBA - early MBA.
    Last edited by DFSTFD; 02-08-2021 at 06:46 PM.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to DFSTFD For This Useful Post:

     Aspar (02-08-2021)

  6. #514
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,054
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    G2a2b1 M406> FGC5081

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspar View Post
    Exactly, I made a different interpretation of Hammond's finds because as I said, Phrygian was found to be close relative of proto-Greek and proto-Macedonian, a characteristic highly improbable of Lusatian connection. On the other hand, the Phrygians were historically associated with the Thracian which would suggest that some sort of mixing or mingling between the two peoples occured.

    The Balkans are generally not well explored but going by some scarce archaeological materials the Gava Culture or the Fluted Ware certainly had a presence in the core Thracian area however I haven't found anything about Lusatian finds in the core Thracian region. Since the Gava and the Lusatian Cultures were neighbors to each other, I assume there was not a single Culture or peoples involved in the large scale LBA migrations that brought the Dark age in Greece but rather more than one. How these movements are related to each other is not well known but the picture is rather quite complex. My point was initially that some of the Carpathian Cultures such as Gava-Holihrady might have been Lusatianized sort to say, bringing the language in the Balkans but not necessarily much of the genetic material of the Lusatian Culture. Of course this all is in the range of speculation.
    A small correction here:Thracian is a satem dialect and Phrygian is centum.Phrygians came THROUGH Thrace, that does not mean they came FROM Thrace, their Balkan homeland was prolly in the Macedonia, Paeonia areas.Thracians and Phrygians were not the same people.Herodotus claims are not exactly accurate.But even Herodotus says that Bryges, from whom Phrygians descend from, lived in and around Macedonia.

  7. #515
    Banned
    Posts
    845
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Albanian
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V13

    Albania
    Quote Originally Posted by DFSTFD View Post
    Here's another older view on that particular issue I recalled, just for the sake of extra information, from a chapter discussing the different pottery that finds itself towards the south during the LBA period of complex movements you mentioned, that helped bring the Dark Ages in southern Greece too.

    Jan Bouzek, 1974: "The Macedonian 'Lausitz' ware is best paralleled in the north-west Balkan Urnfields (sometimes called Middle Danubian)"

    Lausitz in quotes because I suppose he considers it a non-direct offshoot, not from the Lusatian but from the nearby more southern region, the Transdanubian groups of the image you posted (a bit like what I wrote earlier about another archaeologist's opinion I had come across). Judging from what you wrote here and in your previous posts too, I suppose you'd consider Thracian to be a recent offshoot towards the Balkans from the northwest, whether Lusatian-related or close-by, during the LBA rather than a relatively in situ eastern Balkan development since the late EBA - early MBA.
    Well, the Middle Danubian groups influenced Illyrians, while the Eastern offshots were the ones who formed or influenced Thracians.

  8. #516
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,021
    Sex
    Location
    lombardy
    Nationality
    italian

    Italy Portugal Order of Christ Russia Imperial Canada Quebec Spanish Empire (1506-1701) Vatican
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    My current interpretation is that from the Lower Don Culture two branches came, first Sredny Stog, the other Khvalynsk. Early Khvalynsk was still rather pure LDC-SSC, but later the acquired admixture from local foragers and farmers to the North East, up the river. This mixed Khvalynsk branch was however largely eliminated later and Yamnaya was the next branch expanding also to the East, being again more pure LDC-SSC derived. After their specialisation, probably under influence from Maykop, they turned on the Western groups and networks, which they seem to have either pushed out, mixed or annihilated them. However, with the exception of the very fringe groups in the borderland to the farmers and Northern foragers, they had exactly the same mix of ancient ancestries, because they were all LDC-SSC, Yamnaya and the relatively unmixed Western groups. This ancestral component was not introduced by Yamnaya, it was already there, but how widespread and how Dereivka proper will look, only a large survey can conclude.
    SSC do not derive from the Lower Don. It is based on local Dneper Donets Culture ( original PIE folks) + strong cultural imput from the Balkan Carpathian region. As per the Kotova paper

    https://www.academia.edu/35556491/Th..._to_Eneolithic

    From the abstract.

    This article is devoted to cultural contacts of steppe population and Balkan people about 5300–4800 BC. Numerous imports (adornments from copper, cornelian, marine shells, pots, plates from the bone and nacre, pendants from the teeth of red deer), radical changes in the cultural traditions (new type ornamental compositions, flexed inhumations, stone in graves and above them, pits with alcove) and imitation of pottery have been fxed for the Late Neolithic in the Eastern European steppe. Acquaintance with first metal and strong western impact caused the formation of the new Sredniy Stog culture.

    Dneper Donets Culture has a strong influence also on the Middle/Lower Volga. Khvalinsk can be modeled as having something like 40% Ukraine neolithic input.
    IMHO that the way I see the IE issue

    DDC= archaic PIE
    SREDNI STOG ( after EEF influence with agro pastoralism and metals)= full PIE
    Sredni Stog east ( proto Yamanaya) LPIE

  9. #517
    Registered Users
    Posts
    548

    Quote Originally Posted by DFSTFD View Post
    Here's another older view on that particular issue I recalled, just for the sake of extra information, from a chapter discussing the different pottery that finds itself towards the south during the LBA period of complex movements you mentioned, that helped bring the Dark Ages in southern Greece too.

    Jan Bouzek, 1974: "The Macedonian 'Lausitz' ware is best paralleled in the north-west Balkan Urnfields (sometimes called Middle Danubian)"

    Lausitz in quotes because I suppose he considers it a non-direct offshoot, not from the Lusatian but from the nearby more southern region, the Transdanubian groups of the image you posted (a bit like what I wrote earlier about another archaeologist's opinion I had come across). Judging from what you wrote here and in your previous posts too, I suppose you'd consider Thracian to be a recent offshoot towards the Balkans from the northwest, whether Lusatian-related or close-by, during the LBA rather than a relatively in situ eastern Balkan development since the late EBA - early MBA.
    I will definitely take a look at this "Macedonian Lausitz" ware. Trans-Danubian culture or the Encrusted Pottery Culture had great influence in the Central Balkans especially in the formation of the Girla-Mare Culture or Dubovac-Zuto group. Recently pottery from the Encrusted Pottery Culture was also found in North-Western Bulgaria. As you already mentioned, artifact of the same culture are found in Greece as well and it's almost certain that people of this culture were involved in LBA movements in Greece. I read sime Russian articles that this culture might have been proto-Dorian but this likely not the case as witnessed by the Mycenaean as a Greek language already in MBA Greece and the Dorians as Greek speakers were already in the South Balkans by MBA. I would imagine Encrusted Pottery Culture rather brought some Urnfield or Illyrian flavour to Greece.

    Yes, that's exactly what I think about Thracian. It was a LBA arrival in the Balkans south of Danube. It goes hand in hand with the genetic picture of BA Bulgaria thus far where it seems there was huge replacement and change of population from EBA to EIA.
    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

  10. #518
    Registered Users
    Posts
    548

    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny ola View Post
    A small correction here:Thracian is a satem dialect and Phrygian is centum.Phrygians came THROUGH Thrace, that does not mean they came FROM Thrace, their Balkan homeland was prolly in the Macedonia, Paeonia areas.Thracians and Phrygians were not the same people.Herodotus claims are not exactly accurate.But even Herodotus says that Bryges, from whom Phrygians descend from, lived in and around Macedonia.
    Well that's what I was saying all along, they were different people. However we can imagine there was mixing and intermingling between the two peoples as Thracian tribes did migrate in Macedonia but also going by historical accounts that made association between the two peoples.
    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 User Says Thank You to Aspar For This Useful Post:

     Johnny ola (02-08-2021)

  12. #519
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,858
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by DFSTFD View Post
    Here's another older view on that particular issue I recalled, just for the sake of extra information, from a chapter discussing the different pottery that finds itself towards the south during the LBA period of complex movements you mentioned, that helped bring the Dark Ages in southern Greece too.

    Jan Bouzek, 1974: "The Macedonian 'Lausitz' ware is best paralleled in the north-west Balkan Urnfields (sometimes called Middle Danubian)"

    Lausitz in quotes because I suppose he considers it a non-direct offshoot, not from the Lusatian but from the nearby more southern region, the Transdanubian groups of the image you posted (a bit like what I wrote earlier about another archaeologist's opinion I had come across). Judging from what you wrote here and in your previous posts too, I suppose you'd consider Thracian to be a recent offshoot towards the Balkans from the northwest, whether Lusatian-related or close-by, during the LBA rather than a relatively in situ eastern Balkan development since the late EBA - early MBA.
    I consider Urnfield a multi-ethnic network held together by common religious and belief systems, trade and technology. The exact relations are unclear, but I think they formed alliances to achieve goals against people outside their realm and this included the Urnfield expansions Southward. Fluted Ware, Gáva-Holigrady in particular, is extremly likely to be Proto-Daco-Thracian. What the main Urnfield groups and especially Lusatian spoke, we don't know, but Western groups are highly likely to have been Proto-Celtic speakers and in the Pannonian sphere Illyrians. This alone shows the range. Yet the strongest association of E-V13 is clearly with the Daco-Thracians, so I'd assume the South-Eastern Urnfield groups with the Fluted Ware groups are the core, but they also influenced neighbouring groups, which would mean some moved during the Urnfield times, but also later, in the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and especially early Hallstatt, to the West, even in the Celtic sphere.
    The Dacians however got also influenced by new steppe people of the Cimmerian and Scythian-Iranian sphere, so this influence could have reduced the original percentages brought there during Urnfield and increased respective steppe lineages. More so in the Dacian, than the Thracian sphere, even though the same did happen in both regions.

    Looking at both the archaeological and genetic data, there is no way the developments in the Pannonian, Carpathian and Balkan regions can be explained by in situ development with only cultural diffusion from the North, that's absolutely impossible. However, how exactly the genetic and archaeological-cultural relations pan out, can only be determined by large scale testing, otherwise its indeed more or less informed guesswork.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Riverman For This Useful Post:

     Hawk (02-08-2021)

  14. #520
    Banned
    Posts
    845
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Albanian
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V13

    Albania
    Btw, the close relationship between Thracian and Baltic languages is not supported by mainstream linguists. Worth to note it.

Page 52 of 137 FirstFirst ... 242505152535462102 ... 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
  •