Page 40 of 116 FirstFirst ... 3038394041425090 ... LastLast
Results 391 to 400 of 1160

Thread: A theory about the origin of E-V13

  1. #391
    Registered Users
    Posts
    317
    Sex
    Location
    Central Balkans
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-Z16988+BY99620+

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspar View Post
    I believe you are what I call haplogroupist. The main problem of the haplogroupists is neglect of auDNA. They think everything is about uniparentals however much of the ancient migrations and movements of populations can be better tracked with auDNA.
    Ok if you say so.
    I do not underestimate auDNA. It's just that making conclusions based on Y-DNA, either ancient or modern, rarely let me down in the past.

    Ok when I have time I will go through the papers you quoted. I respect the effort you put into the research.

  2. #392
    Registered Users
    Posts
    694

    Quote Originally Posted by Bane View Post
    Ok if you say so.
    I do not underestimate auDNA. It's just that making conclusions based on Y-DNA, either ancient or modern, rarely let me down in the past.

    Ok when I have time I will go through the papers you quoted. I respect the effort you put into the research.
    Thanks.

    You can also have read of these:
    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...nelqDTy_upUJ4M
    Early farmers from across Europe directly descended from Neolithic Aegeans

    The ancient Anatolian Farmer Bar11 was found to belong to E-M35. I can't find this sample in any aDNA deposit so I can't check it but I have the feeling the sample is not just E-M35*. It's a low coverage sample hence no readings for downstreams. It would be great if a DNA is taken again from the sample in question and tested for further analysis.

    Nevertheless, the auDNA alone and the EEF context the oldest E-V13 and E-L618 samples are found in Europe are overwhelming evidence of dispersion of these markers with the first farmers that arrived from Anatolia and with deeper origins from the Levant. In fact, our marker could very well be the pioneer in the farming and dispersal of the same to Anatolia and Europe. Furthermore because the Anatolian Ceramic Farmers are characterised with an increased Levantine ancestry of up to 20%, our very ancient ancestor could be pioneer in production of Ceramic vessels. In other words, could have been part of the people who have sparked the very first components very important for the birth of the civilizations.
    Target: Aspar_scaled
    Distance: 1.9646% / 0.01964602 | ADC: 1x RC
    57.6 Macedonian
    42.4 Greek_Central_Macedonia

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

     etrusco (06-08-2021),  Johane Derite (06-08-2021),  Riverman (06-08-2021)

  4. #393
    Registered Users
    Posts
    118
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-Y150909
    mtDNA (M)
    H10a

    Moldova Ukraine
    Quote Originally Posted by Aspar View Post
    Thanks.

    You can also have read of these:
    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...nelqDTy_upUJ4M
    Early farmers from across Europe directly descended from Neolithic Aegeans

    The ancient Anatolian Farmer Bar11 was found to belong to E-M35. I can't find this sample in any aDNA deposit so I can't check it but I have the feeling the sample is not just E-M35*. It's a low coverage sample hence no readings for downstreams. It would be great if a DNA is taken again from the sample in question and tested for further analysis.

    Nevertheless, the auDNA alone and the EEF context the oldest E-V13 and E-L618 samples are found in Europe are overwhelming evidence of dispersion of these markers with the first farmers that arrived from Anatolia and with deeper origins from the Levant. In fact, our marker could very well be the pioneer in the farming and dispersal of the same to Anatolia and Europe. Furthermore because the Anatolian Ceramic Farmers are characterised with an increased Levantine ancestry of up to 20%, our very ancient ancestor could be pioneer in production of Ceramic vessels. In other words, could have been part of the people who have sparked the very first components very important for the birth of the civilizations.
    Could this increased Levantine ancestry be detected among European Cardial ware samples?

  5. #394
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,973
    Sex
    Location
    Bay Area
    Nationality
    American
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V13
    mtDNA (M)
    J1c
    mtDNA (P)
    I1a1

    Germany Italy Sweden Netherlands
    Anyone care to weigh in on this study? I did a half assed count on yfull and there seems to be close to 10 +/- samples under E-V13. I haven’t had the time to look into this so if it’s already been discussed, please excuse the duplicate.

    I’m also not sure if these are ancient samples or
    More recent.

    Ok I’ve looked into it a bit. Looks like recent samples

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA674530
    Last edited by digital_noise; 06-08-2021 at 11:17 PM.
    E-V13 -> E-PH1246 -> E-BY14160*
    distance%=4.6465"
    Barcin_N,47.2
    Yamnaya_Samara,41.4
    WHG,10.6
    Ethiopia_4500BP,0.8

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to digital_noise For This Useful Post:

     Johane Derite (06-09-2021)

  7. #395
    Registered Users
    Posts
    366
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Johane Derite View Post
    Among Etruscans, you get alongside Etruscan names, also Latin, Oscan, Umbrian, Illyrian, and even Celtic names appearing.

    Therefore you have to differentiate methodically which archaeological group gave which linguistic element.

    The people who brought house urns could have spoken a totally different language to those who used those biconical urns in Girla-Mara (those bell shaped statues were also found inside such urns btw).

    I have seen no inscriptions from Girla-Mare of a non-IE language so I will not assume that so surely. Also, the other regions listed there in italy with biconical urns didn't have Etruscan speakers.

    We also have the goddess among the Veneti people wearing such a bell shaped dress, so again another IE language speaking group (Albanians, Veneti, Myceneans, related to this dress):

     
    The strongest proponent of Girla-Mare being non-IE was Gimbutas. She was quite explicit in this. Milutin Garašanin in his article on Dubovac/Girla-Mare didn't mention the non-IE option for them, rather calling them probably Mysian due to the fact that they migrated to the Southeast including the Asia-Minor where Mysians were mentioned as having taken part in Trojan war as were the Thracians as well.

    Ultimately in EBA Girla-Mare should stem from the Vučedol complex, which should have been generally IE in nature.

    As I was saying the only certain Etruscoid speakers on the Balkans were Lemnians and there thus far two G2a EEF clades were found, including an isolated G-L497 clade.


    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    This is exactly when most of the subclades of E-V13 which spread across Europe had their TMRCA, between the LBA and the Iron Age, the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and the beginning of Hallstatt. If you read on, what the, later heavily E-V13 penetrated areas, West and East of the Carpathians had in common are late Cruceni-Belegiš and Belegiš-Gāva influences on top of that of Girla-Mare.
    Thraco-Cimmerian find, MJ12, it belongs to Babadag culture, sister culture to Pshenichevo (full of E-V13), autosomally we see that find was alot closer to Iron Age Bulgarian (which might also be of Pshenichevo origin, I remember searching for some clues and that was the closest approximation) and Moldovan Scythians than to most Gava people, bar DA198.

    Thraco-Cimmerian horizon is related to Babadag and Basarabi cultures far far more than to Gava proper. This was known in archeology and it is confirmed in auDNA. MJ12 carried slight steppe Iranian admixture (Cimmerian?).

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...A_MARE_CULTURE

    The big Gāva push, resulting in Belegiš-Gāva, just strengthened that trend and led to a massive flooding of the Eastern Carpathians by related Channelled Ware groups. Of course, there were movements and influences going in both directions, but if searching for a fairly massive spread of new elements on both sides of the Carpathians, there is no way around Belegiš and Gāva. I see no reason to associate this big push at the transition from the Bronze to the Iron Age with anything else but E-V13 right now, until more data comes in.
    If you look at distribution maps of Belegiš II-Gāva.

    We need to have a movement of people on both sides of the Carpathians, and Belegiš II fits the bill better than any other group.
    I don't think so. The big Gava push was nowhere nearly as strong as the Pshenichevo, Babadag, Basarabi push. And they came after, which means more of their influence was left. Had the Germanics expanded to the Balkans in 6th century and Slavs in 5th, today Germanics would likely have dominated the Balkans.
    1. We have three Pshenichevo finds from Bulgaria, this is not channeled ware but stamped pottery (only with indirect channeled influence from an earlier time).
    2. Stamped pottery cultures exerted significantly more influence on the Thrace than the chanelled ware. Same goes for Romania.

    So in this game of Stamped/Encrusted vs Channeled in Daco-Thracian areas there is no contest. The former is considerably stronger, many times stronger. And as "last man standing" in the population movements it is the element that must have played more role in ethnogenesis of Thracians.

    Gava pottery outside its native area, in SE Serbia, Bulgaria was isolated and its bearers were quite secluded from the environment. Only in Moldavia did Gava proper settle in stronger numbers. But even there also settled the Saharna people stemming from Babadag.

    Years ago I made a prediction CTS9320 = Basarabi, even one Albanian admin agreed with me there. Then prompted by some "northern" CTS9320 finds I moved more towards Gava direction, but it seems my initial guess was more appropriate.

    It may well be that some splits on the E-V13 tree will come to define some of these cultural splits.
    Last edited by Huban; 06-08-2021 at 11:40 PM. Reason: typo

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Huban For This Useful Post:

     Riverman (06-08-2021)

  9. #396
    Registered Users
    Posts
    694

    Quote Originally Posted by Scythoslav View Post
    Could this increased Levantine ancestry be detected among European Cardial ware samples?
    The Cardium Pottery individuals from Croatia were modeled as 97% AF + 3% HG by Mathieson et al. The Levantine component was already embedded in the Anatolian Farmer genetics after an admixture event that happened in Anatolia as per the papers I already quoted.
    In fact, even amateur tools such as G25 do good job detecting the Levantine component in the Anatolian Farmers and even among the Cardium Pottery samples from Croatia.

    Let's try to model the Anatolian Farmers and the Cardium Pottery samples with this spreadsheet:
    Code:
    TUR_Pinarbasi_HG,0.113823,0.166547,0.029793,-0.082688,0.070782,-0.04016,-0.005875,0.001846,0.04745,0.079637,0.006008,0.009142,-0.021407,-0.009358,-0.042073,-0.003713,0.0442,-0.002787,0.008045,-0.001251,-0.013851,0.003339,-0.003451,-0.009278,-0.005628
    RUS_Samara_HG,0.119514,0.048745,0.113513,0.206398,-0.008001,0.054384,-0.013161,-0.023537,-0.01309,-0.090936,0.01429,-0.018883,0.026164,-0.03647,0.020629,0.012994,-0.005867,-0.000507,-0.00729,0.009004,-0.011854,0.025102,0.009737,-0.02651,-0.009101
    WHG,0.1246365,0.116278,0.184789,0.189279,0.1546445,0.0464355,0.0131605,0.0372675,0.0890705,0.017768,-0.0153455,-0.015811,0.0159065,-0.0030275,0.053338,0.0582065,0.00502,0.016343,-0.0093015,0.055589,0.0944585,0.0111905,-0.049607,-0.160866,0.0170045
    MAR_Taforalt,-0.189857,0.0814452,-0.0242866,-0.085595,0.027636,-0.0552202,-0.0705968,0.0184146,0.155397,0.003499,0.0209156,-0.0318316,0.0747168,-0.0513334,0.0711988,-0.0363032,0.0052676,-0.066106,-0.1424162,0.0389938,-0.0376836,-0.1255322,0.0730118,-0.0137606,0.0164534
    GEO_CHG,0.091058,0.102568,-0.083344,-0.00323,-0.08617,0.020638,0.024911,-0.001846,-0.128236,-0.074717,-0.006333,0.023979,-0.054856,0.004404,0.026601,-0.03275,0.02386,-0.013429,-0.022249,0.034767,0.033815,-0.007048,0.006532,-0.025787,-0.002036
    Levant_Natufian,0.01935,0.135065,-0.039221,-0.135984,0.026774,-0.076137,-0.019036,-0.024691,0.100626,-0.008018,0.02858,-0.019633,0.067343,0.001651,0.022801,0.02612,-0.0103,0.006714,-0.018101,0.041395,-0.004118,-0.003215,-0.014297,-0.011206,0.011975


    G25 basically replicated the admixture performed by this paper which I quoted earlier:
    Interestingly, while we observe a continued presence of the AHG-related gene pool throughout the studied period, a pattern of genetic interactions with neighboring regions is evident from as early as the Late Pleistocene and early Holocene. In addition to the local genetic contribution from earlier Anatolian populations, Anatolian Aceramic farmers inherit about 10% of their genes from a gene pool related to the Neolithic Iran/Caucasus while later ACF derive about 20% of their genes from another distinct gene pool related to the Neolithic Levant.
    So the first Aceramic Anatolian Farmers from Boncuklu don't have Levantine admixture but have up to 10% admixture related to Neolithic Iran/Caucasus where G25 produced numbers of 7.4% which is stil; very close.
    Then the later Ceramic Farmers from Tepecik Ciftlik are interesting because for the first time we observe the Levantine component, up to 20% according to the paper and up to 15.4% according to the G25 model.
    As these Ceramic Farmers further advanced into North-Western Anatolia and Barcin, they admixed more and more with Anatolian HG further diluting the Levantine component which according to G25 is present at around 4.4%.
    The Barcin Farmers then penetrated into the Balkans and had limited mixing with the HG, further diluting the Levantine component which was still visible in the samples from the Cardium Pottery Culture in Croatia, albeit only around 2.4%.

    Note that the Iberomaurusian component although included in the spreadsheet wasn't detected, in accordance with the findings from the relevant papers.
    Last edited by Aspar; 06-08-2021 at 11:17 PM.
    Target: Aspar_scaled
    Distance: 1.9646% / 0.01964602 | ADC: 1x RC
    57.6 Macedonian
    42.4 Greek_Central_Macedonia

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

     dosas (06-09-2021),  Riverman (06-09-2021)

  11. #397
    Registered Users
    Posts
    366
    Sex

    Ofc there is something else about Dubovac/Girla-Mare Aspar and Johane Derite do not want to see.

    Russian wikipedia
    Girla Mare - proto-Dorians?
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93...B0%D1%80%D0%B5

    Encrusted pottery - ancestors of the Greeks ?

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A...B8%D0%BA%D0%B8

    I see they generally use some Polish sources there.

  12. #398
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,677
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Huban View Post
    The strongest proponent of Girla-Mare being non-IE was Gimbutas. She was quite explicit in this. Milutin Garašanin in his article on Dubovac/Girla-Mare didn't mention the non-IE option for them, rather calling them probably Mysian due to the fact that they migrated to the Southeast including the Asia-Minor where Mysians were mentioned as having taken part in Trojan war as were the Thracians as well.

    Ultimately in EBA Girla-Mare should stem from the Vučedol complex, which should have been generally IE in nature.

    As I was saying the only certain Etruscoid speakers on the Balkans were Lemnians and there thus far two G2a EEF clades were found, including an isolated G-L497 clade.




    Thraco-Cimmerian find, MJ12, it belongs to Babadag culture, sister culture to Pshenichevo (full of E-V13), autosomally we see that find was alot closer to Iron Age Bulgarian (which might also be of Pshenichevo origin, I remember searching for some clues and that was the closest approximation) and Moldovan Scythians than to most Gava people, bar DA198.

    Thraco-Cimmerian horizon is related to Babadag and Basarabi cultures far far more than to Gava proper. This was known in archeology and it is confirmed in auDNA. MJ12 carried slight steppe Iranian admixture (Cimmerian?).



    I don't think so. The big Gava push was nowhere nearly as strong as the Pshenichevo, Babadag, Basarabi push. And they came after, which means more of their influence was left. Had the Germanics expanded to the Balkans in 6th century and Slavs in 5th, today Germanics would likely have dominated the Balkans.
    1. We have three Pshenichevo finds from Bulgaria, this is not channeled ware but stamped pottery (only with indirect channeled influence from an earlier time).
    2. Stamped pottery cultures exerted significantly more influence on the Thrace than the chanelled ware. Same goes for Romania.

    So in this game of Stamped/Encrusted vs Channeled in Daco-Thracian areas there is no contest. The former is considerably stronger, many times stronger. And as "last man standing" in the population movements it is the element that must have played more role in ethnogenesis of Thracians.

    Gava pottery outside its native area, in SE Serbia, Bulgaria was isolated and its bearers were quite secluded from the environment. Only in Moldavia did Gava proper settle in stronger numbers. But even there also settled the Saharna people stemming from Babadag.

    Years ago I made a prediction CTS9320 = Basarabi, even one Albanian admin agreed with me there. Then prompted by some "northern" CTS9320 finds I moved more towards Gava direction, but it seems my initial guess was more appropriate.

    It may well be that some splits on the E-V13 tree will come to define some of these cultural splits.
    There is no doubt about Basarabi, but I think Belegiš-Gava made a huge impression. You are right, Gįva-Holigrady proper it was not, that was just the cultural centre from which the push came.
    I also agree with you ob the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, but if talking about the time before all that, I just don’t see the big Girla-Marke to the West. But we simply don’t know without more data. Its still undecided.

  13. #399
    Registered Users
    Posts
    694

    Quote Originally Posted by Huban View Post
    Ofc there is something else about Dubovac/Girla-Mare Aspar and Johane Derite do not want to see.

    Russian wikipedia
    Girla Mare - proto-Dorians?
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93...B0%D1%80%D0%B5

    Encrusted pottery - ancestors of the Greeks ?

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A...B8%D0%BA%D0%B8

    I see they generally use some Polish sources there.
    Lol, why is that, because of our earlier discussion where I didn't agree with your ideas that E-V13 was the main marker of the Dorians?
    Well I still hold my ground and believe that E-V13 wasn't that important among the Doric Greeks.
    You should also remember that we are are only speculating at this moment because we don't have any aDNA from Girla-Mare neither from Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery Culture so we don't know how strong was E-V13 among their bearers.
    Nevertheless, you can't simply identify the proto-Dorians with Girla-Mare because there is a chronological and geographical gap with the Mycenaean Greeks and because of the fundamental difference in culture, funeral rites and so on.

    In fact, some archaeologists such as Demetrios Grammenos indeed attributed the appearance of the Geometric period in Greece to the bearers of the Incised/Encrusted Ware however this is all very different than making it as simple as Girla Mare = proto-Dorians, not to mention that in the Russian Wikipedia there aren't any sources claiming that!

    The first appearance of the Incised/Encrusted Ware in Macedonia and Thrace dates to the beginning of the LBA and the period between 1600-1500 BCE. Here, the bearers of the Incised/Encrusted Ware coexisted peacefully with the older inhabitants of the region, the bearers of the Plain Burnished Ware who are thought to have been part of the larger Bubanj-Hum and Sitagroi cultural complexes with a Steppe influences that came from Cernavodă culture.
    With the end of the first part of the LBA and the beginning of the second, new Mycenaean elements appear as evidenced in the matt-painted pottery, both authentic and locally made.

    All these three elements were present in Greek Macedonia(Central and East), South-Western Bulgaria(Struma valley) and North Macedonia(Ulanci-Vardar group) producing an unique cultural environment different than let's say Thrace where the presence of the Incised/Encrusted ware was also evident but there was no Mycenaean influence. An environment where both cremation and inhumation burials in cysts were practiced.
    And in this environment we should very likely trace the Dorians because Macedonia was and it is a crossroad where Danubian and Mediterranean elements met and mixed with each other. The very typical geometric symbols such as the solar symbol which was so typical for the Doric Greeks appear here with the Incised/Encrusted ware and later reproduced with matt-painting.


    Disruption and destruction here only becomes visible in the transitional period where new lustrous or channeled ware appears. Many sites were destroyed and abandoned for good, with their inhabitants migrating south.

    As you see, the things are lot more complex and not that simple as Girla-Mare = proto-Dorians. Influences from more than one culture and people were responsible for that complex environment. Nevertheless, the Incised/Encrusted bearers brought fundamental cultural inputs, however how much they changed the genetic landscape or the language is a different question altogether. They for sure brought many elements typical for the older non-Steppe Neolithic Danubian communities as evidenced by the Furchenstich style of pottery decoration that was very common for Bodrogkeresztśr culture culture in Hungary but also as evidenced by influences from other cultures such as Vučedol.
    What is interesting is that the ethnonym of the Greeks, Ellines/Έλληνες stems from Hellene, the mythical founder whose name means a sun ray. This all very similat to the name of the Illyrians whose name is thought to be in relation with the Greek word for Sun - ήλιος(ilios) and the Albanian word for Star - yll. Some linguists think the Greek word is a borrowing from Albanian like Orel while others think it's from an old non Indo-European language. Nevertheless, it's interesting that the Greek ethnonym is a word of non Greek origin.

    It happened many times in the history where different people mixed with each other and where the language was direct continuation of the more numerous ones and the name of the those who established control over the region. Whether is the case with the Bulgars and the Bulgarians, the Franks and the French or the Rus and the Russians.
    Target: Aspar_scaled
    Distance: 1.9646% / 0.01964602 | ADC: 1x RC
    57.6 Macedonian
    42.4 Greek_Central_Macedonia

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

     Johane Derite (06-19-2021),  Riverman (06-09-2021)

  15. #400
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,211
    Sex
    Location
    lombardy
    Nationality
    italian

    Italy Portugal Order of Christ Russia Imperial Canada Quebec Spanish Empire (1506-1701) Vatican
    Quote Originally Posted by Aspar View Post
    Lol, why is that, because of our earlier discussion where I didn't agree with your ideas that E-V13 was the main marker of the Dorians?
    Well I still hold my ground and believe that E-V13 wasn't that important among the Doric Greeks.
    You should also remember that we are are only speculating at this moment because we don't have any aDNA from Girla-Mare neither from Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery Culture so we don't know how strong was E-V13 among their bearers.
    Nevertheless, you can't simply identify the proto-Dorians with Girla-Mare because there is a chronological and geographical gap with the Mycenaean Greeks and because of the fundamental difference in culture, funeral rites and so on.

    In fact, some archaeologists such as Demetrios Grammenos indeed attributed the appearance of the Geometric period in Greece to the bearers of the Incised/Encrusted Ware however this is all very different than making it as simple as Girla Mare = proto-Dorians, not to mention that in the Russian Wikipedia there aren't any sources claiming that!

    The first appearance of the Incised/Encrusted Ware in Macedonia and Thrace dates to the beginning of the LBA and the period between 1600-1500 BCE. Here, the bearers of the Incised/Encrusted Ware coexisted peacefully with the older inhabitants of the region, the bearers of the Plain Burnished Ware who are thought to have been part of the larger Bubanj-Hum and Sitagroi cultural complexes with a Steppe influences that came from Cernavodă culture.
    With the end of the first part of the LBA and the beginning of the second, new Mycenaean elements appear as evidenced in the matt-painted pottery, both authentic and locally made.

    All these three elements were present in Greek Macedonia(Central and East), South-Western Bulgaria(Struma valley) and North Macedonia(Ulanci-Vardar group) producing an unique cultural environment different than let's say Thrace where the presence of the Incised/Encrusted ware was also evident but there was no Mycenaean influence. An environment where both cremation and inhumation burials in cysts were practiced.
    And in this environment we should very likely trace the Dorians because Macedonia was and it is a crossroad where Danubian and Mediterranean elements met and mixed with each other. The very typical geometric symbols such as the solar symbol which was so typical for the Doric Greeks appear here with the Incised/Encrusted ware and later reproduced with matt-painting.


    Disruption and destruction here only becomes visible in the transitional period where new lustrous or channeled ware appears. Many sites were destroyed and abandoned for good, with their inhabitants migrating south.

    As you see, the things are lot more complex and not that simple as Girla-Mare = proto-Dorians. Influences from more than one culture and people were responsible for that complex environment. Nevertheless, the Incised/Encrusted bearers brought fundamental cultural inputs, however how much they changed the genetic landscape or the language is a different question altogether. They for sure brought many elements typical for the older non-Steppe Neolithic Danubian communities as evidenced by the Furchenstich style of pottery decoration that was very common for Bodrogkeresztśr culture culture in Hungary but also as evidenced by influences from other cultures such as Vučedol.
    What is interesting is that the ethnonym of the Greeks, Ellines/Έλληνες stems from Hellene, the mythical founder whose name means a sun ray. This all very similat to the name of the Illyrians whose name is thought to be in relation with the Greek word for Sun - ήλιος(ilios) and the Albanian word for Star - yll. Some linguists think the Greek word is a borrowing from Albanian like Orel while others think it's from an old non Indo-European language. Nevertheless, it's interesting that the Greek ethnonym is a word of non Greek origin.

    It happened many times in the history where different people mixed with each other and where the language was direct continuation of the more numerous ones and the name of the those who established control over the region. Whether is the case with the Bulgars and the Bulgarians, the Franks and the French or the Rus and the Russians.
    helios is a full fledged native greek term. Obviously of full fledged IE origin

    sāwel-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning "the sun." According to Watkins, the *-el- in it originally was a suffix, and there was an alternative form *s(u)wen-, with suffix *-en-, hence the two forms represented by Latin sol, English sun.

    It forms all or part of: anthelion; aphelion; girasole; heliacal; helio-; heliotrope; helium; insolate; insolation; parasol; parhelion; perihelion; Sol; solar; solarium; solstice; south; southern; sun; Sunday.

    It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit suryah, Avestan hvar "sun, light, heavens;" Greek hēlios; Latin sol "the sun, sunlight;" Lithuanian saulė, Old Church Slavonic slunice; Gothic sauil, Old English sol "sun;" Old English swegl "sky, heavens, the sun;" Welsh haul, Old Cornish heuul, Breton heol "sun;" Old Irish suil "eye;" Avestan xueng "sun;" Old Irish fur-sunnud "lighting up;" Old English sunne German Sonne, Gothic sunno "the sun."

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to etrusco For This Useful Post:

     Pribislav (06-10-2021),  Riverman (06-09-2021)

Page 40 of 116 FirstFirst ... 3038394041425090 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Arabic Q-m25 cluster origin theory
    By Afshar in forum Q
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 06-17-2020, 07:45 PM
  2. Mycenaean South Caucausian Origin theory
    By Johane Derite in forum Archaeology (Prehistory)
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-24-2019, 04:03 PM
  3. Out of Africa: a theory in crisis
    By firemonkey in forum Human Evolution
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-29-2018, 11:46 AM
  4. Ancestral origin and Haplogroup origin
    By Smilelover in forum FTDNA
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-17-2016, 10:26 AM

Posting Permissions

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