Page 43 of 116 FirstFirst ... 3341424344455393 ... LastLast
Results 421 to 430 of 1158

Thread: A theory about the origin of E-V13

  1. #421
    Registered Users
    Posts
    794
    Sex
    Location
    Belgrade
    Ethnicity
    Slavic
    Nationality
    Serb
    Y-DNA (P)
    I2-BY55783>BY79593

    Serbia Montenegro Bosnia and Herzegovina Croatia Split-Dalmatia
    Quote Originally Posted by Aspar View Post
    The formation date of E-L618 is taken by the TMRCA date of it's ancestor E-Z1919 but this is rather speculative and not as precise as the TMRCA dating hence it's not reliable. In other words, it's very possible that the formation date of E-L618 is the same or close to it's TMRCA dating.
    What you suggested can't be further away from very possible. Except if by "same or close" you mean 3500-4000 years at least, since there are more than 40 SNPs at L618 level.
    Last edited by Pribislav; 06-13-2021 at 03:46 PM.

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

     leorcooper19 (06-13-2021),  Michał (06-19-2021),  Riverman (06-13-2021)

  3. #422
    Registered Users
    Posts
    694

    Quote Originally Posted by Pribislav View Post
    What you suggested can't be further away from very possible. Except if by "same or close" you mean 3500-4000 years at least, since there are more than 40 SNPs at L618 level.
    Sure.

    Do you know the chronological order of those SNPs?

    Is E-L618 the oldest out of those SNPs?
    Target: Aspar_scaled
    Distance: 1.9646% / 0.01964602 | ADC: 1x RC
    57.6 Macedonian
    42.4 Greek_Central_Macedonia

  4. #423
    Registered Users
    Posts
    794
    Sex
    Location
    Belgrade
    Ethnicity
    Slavic
    Nationality
    Serb
    Y-DNA (P)
    I2-BY55783>BY79593

    Serbia Montenegro Bosnia and Herzegovina Croatia Split-Dalmatia
    Quote Originally Posted by Aspar View Post
    Sure.

    Do you know the chronological order of those SNPs?

    Is E-L618 the oldest out of those SNPs?
    Chronological order is not relevant to this discusion. I was just responding to your unrealistic statement that the formation and TMRCA dates of a clade that contains more than 40 SNPs could be "same or close".

  5. #424
    Registered Users
    Posts
    694

    Quote Originally Posted by Pribislav View Post
    Chronological order is not relevant to this discusion. I was just responding to your unrealistic statement that the formation and TMRCA dates of a clade that contains more than 40 SNPs could be "same or close".
    How is that not relevant?

    What if some day a sample appears on the tree, negative for L618 but positive for let's say 30 of those SNPs?

    There will be a new branch under Z1919 formed between the new sample* and L618.

    Will the formation date for E-L618 be the same as before?
    Target: Aspar_scaled
    Distance: 1.9646% / 0.01964602 | ADC: 1x RC
    57.6 Macedonian
    42.4 Greek_Central_Macedonia

  6. #425
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,677
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspar View Post
    How is that not relevant?

    What if some day a sample appears on the tree, negative for L618 but positive for let's say 30 of those SNPs?

    There will be a new branch under Z1919 formed between the new sample* and L618.

    Will the formation date for E-L618 be the same as before?
    While that is true, E-L618, as it is currently defined, has a longer history based on dozens of SNPs.
    But surely, it might be broken up into different regional branches of younger age eventually.
    Currently not even the birth place of E itself is known for sure, so everything is conjecture.

  7. #426
    Registered Users
    Posts
    794
    Sex
    Location
    Belgrade
    Ethnicity
    Slavic
    Nationality
    Serb
    Y-DNA (P)
    I2-BY55783>BY79593

    Serbia Montenegro Bosnia and Herzegovina Croatia Split-Dalmatia
    Quote Originally Posted by Aspar View Post
    How is that not relevant?

    What if some day a sample appears on the tree, negative for L618 but positive for let's say 30 of those SNPs?

    There will be a new branch under Z1919 formed between the new sample* and L618.

    Will the formation date for E-L618 be the same as before?
    I'm not talking about what-ifs, I'm talking about how things are. L618 level currently has 41 SNPs and it is beyond ridiculous to claim it could have the same or close formation and TMRCA dates. And that goes for any level of comparable size in any haplogroup. It's just basic math/logic.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Pribislav For This Useful Post:

     Michał (06-19-2021),  Scythoslav (06-13-2021)

  9. #427
    Registered Users
    Posts
    694

    Quote Originally Posted by Pribislav View Post
    I'm not talking about what-ifs, I'm talking about how things are. L618 level currently has 41 SNPs and it is beyond ridiculous to claim it could have the same or close formation and TMRCA dates. And that goes for any level of comparable size in any haplogroup. It's just basic math/logic.
    We are probably going around and around but since you replied to me and called my response unrealistic and ridiculous, I will ask you again, do you know the chronology of all those SNPs?
    I know you've done your homework therefore I'm sure you are pretty well aware that all those SNPs can't occur at once.
    So, what's the oldest and what's the youngest out of all those SNPs?

    The tree currently doesn't back up your claim that things are as you say they are because all the current modern samples are positive for every single one of those SNPs. Once a sample appears (whether ancient or modern) that isn't positive for all those SNPs, the things will become more obvious.

    Until then, the only chronology we have is the most ancient E-L618 up to date, the Croatian Cardial sample and based on that E-L618 shouldn't be younger than 5500 BCE or 7500 ybp.
    Target: Aspar_scaled
    Distance: 1.9646% / 0.01964602 | ADC: 1x RC
    57.6 Macedonian
    42.4 Greek_Central_Macedonia

  10. #428
    Registered Users
    Posts
    694

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    While that is true, E-L618, as it is currently defined, has a longer history based on dozens of SNPs.
    But surely, it might be broken up into different regional branches of younger age eventually.
    Currently not even the birth place of E itself is known for sure, so everything is conjecture.
    This might be confusing but this is how I understand:

    All the SNPs currently listed besides E-L618 are the mutations that occured from TMRCA of E-Z1919 and all the way to TMRCA of the people that are positive for all those SNPs. Where does L618 stands in that chronological period is a question we don't really know because we have no idea when exactly all those SNPs occured since a mutation occurres once in every generation or couple of generations because can vary and the current NGS tests such as BIG Y can read mutations per every 80-140 years depending whether you've tested with BIG Y-500 or 700.
    Target: Aspar_scaled
    Distance: 1.9646% / 0.01964602 | ADC: 1x RC
    57.6 Macedonian
    42.4 Greek_Central_Macedonia

  11. #429
    Registered Users
    Posts
    366
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Johane Derite View Post
    These are not "rough approximations". This is the map of the exact find spots of all the Messapic inscriptions, the language which is Albanoid. The highest density is in the region of the Kalabri. There is nothing rough about tribal ethnicity and language.


    It is much harder to adopt a language and tribal name than it is to import pots. The strait of otranto favours imports coming from south Albania directly into south italy because it is the closest distance, so there can easily be a situation created by the economic conditions in which they just imported pots/potmakers from southern albania because it was cheaper.
    Mentioned archeologist was aware of those names and yet Matt-painted pottery has been attributed to Messapians. Find a quote of another archeologist disputing that and then we can talk. I don't think you can find that easily. You are here disputing my statement because I said it, not because its wrong.

    These pots came from Southern Albania probably because Messapians came from Southern Albania i.e. it came with the Messapians. And only Southern Albania has some migratory events dating to LBA/EIA which might explain some V13 clades there. Northern Albania was together with Dalmatia, Montenegro culturally uniform since the MBA and these people were J-L283 as indicated by aDNA.

    Quote Originally Posted by Johane Derite View Post
    Thus also the dating of the Trojan war here becomes crucial.
    Has been dated long ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by Johane Derite View Post
    Dardanian mercenaries appear already in 1270BC. This means Dardanians must have already been formed at least by 1300BC. Anatolian Dardania and Balkan Dardani are without a doubt most likely related.
    Garasanin tried to find evidence connecting Dardanians of Mediana culture to Troy but the only connections were far more generalized and in no way typical of Mediana culture.

    Quote Originally Posted by Johane Derite View Post
    Because of the central importance of Messapic and Dardanii and Albanian relation, the Dardanoi of Anatolia also become relevant in constructing the phylogeny of Albanoid (which I believe had main E-V13 component).
    This is the problem with you. You first make a conclusion about something, and then you go on to fit existing facts with your narrative ignoring the other facts. This methodology is not scientific. In this instance you made a pre-conclusion that E-V13 is "Albanoid" (a term you invented).


    Quote Originally Posted by Johane Derite View Post
    Here is a well detailed lecture and argument that the Trojan war occurred ~1400BC.

    https://www.blod.gr/lectures/the-tro...ical-findings/
    Thank you for proving once again that you are into revisionist pseudo-scientific nonsense, in this instance the point is what? You are not satisfied with the age of Dardanians at Troy being 1200 BC, so it must be extended to 1300, 1400 BC?? It seems you are attempting to match Dardanians with the TMRCA of Z5018.. In order to support your fore conclusion which has "determined" that "Albanoids" are Dardanians of Troy and they are E-V13/E-Z5018.. Invoking pseudo-science to support a pseudo-scientific "conclusion". Well done.


    Quote Originally Posted by Johane Derite View Post
    I am talking about the wider Albanoid group and believe that E-V13 is the one, because of the shared features in both Bulgarian, Macedonian, but also Messapic.

    I see E-V13 as the mediator of Albanoid features.


    "Schumacher and Matzinger believe Albanian came into existence separately from Illyrian, orginating from the Indo-European family tree during the second millennium BC, somewhere in the northern Balkans.

    The language’s broad shape resembles Greek. It appears to have developed lineally until the 15th century, when the first extant text comes to light.

    “One thing we know for sure is that a language which, with some justification, we can call Albanian has been around for at least 3,000 years,” Schumacher says. “Even though it was not written down for millennia, Albanian existed as a separate entity,” he added."

    Joachim Matzinger & Stefan Shumacher. 2011


    "Albanian is closely related to Illyrian and Messapic (a language spoken in Southern Italy in antiquity but originally of Balkan origin), which is why Albanian in some instances may shed light on the explanation of Messapic as well as Illyrian words"

    Joachim Matzinger
    2018
    https://balkaninsight.com/2011/03/25...ost-for-words/

    Viennese researchers upset traditionally minded Albanians by pouring cold water on the theory that the Albanian language has its roots in Ancient Illyria.

    Like a couple of detectives searching for clues, Stefan Schumacher and Joachim Matzinger are out to reconstruct the origins of Albanian – a language whose history and development has received remarkably little attention outside the world of Albanian scholars.

    “You’ll find the doctrine about the Illyrian origin of Albanians everywhere,” Matzinger muses, “from popular to scientific literature and schoolbooks. “There is no discussion about this, it’s a fact. They say, ‘We are Illyrians’ and that’s that,” he adds.

    Speaking during a conference in November organised by the Hanns Seidel Foundation, where Pani presented Schumacher’s and Matzinger’s findings, she defended the linkage of Albanian and Illyrian, saying it was not based only on linguistic theory.

    “Scholars base this hypothesis also on archeology,” Kore said. Renowned scholars who did not “subscribe blindly to the ideology of the [Hoxha] regime” still supported the idea, she insisted.

    One of the key problems in working out the linguistic descendants of the Illyrians is a chronic shortage of sources.

    The Illyrians appears to have been unlettered, so information on their language and culture is highly fragmentary and mostly derived from external sources, Greek or Roman.

    Matzinger points put that when the few surviving fragments of Illyrian and Albanian are compared, they have almost nothing in common.

    “The two are opposites and cannot fit together,” he says. “Albanian is not as the same as Illyrian from a linguistic point of view.”

    Schumacher and Matzinger believe Albanian came into existence separately from Illyrian, orginating from the Indo-European family tree during the second millennium BC, somewhere in the northern Balkans.
    Even though your methodology has plenty of pseudo-science, you are still way above most of Albanians whose views on Albanians and Illyrians are more befitting of a cult or religion.

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

     Pribislav (06-13-2021)

  13. #430
    Banned
    Posts
    762
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    EV13>Z5018>FGC33625
    mtDNA (M)
    U1a1a

    Albania Kosovo
    Quote Originally Posted by Huban View Post
    This is the problem with you. You first make a conclusion about something, and then you go on to fit existing facts with your narrative ignoring the other facts. This methodology is not scientific. In this instance you made a pre-conclusion that E-V13 is "Albanoid" (a term you invented).
    A term I invented? This is a term used by linguists like Eric Hamp, Martin Huld, etc. I didn't invent it. Just goes to show how full of hot air you are.

    It is very simple. Dardanoi of Anatolia in Trojan tradition appear in the Egyptian records of the Battle of Kadesh, dated 1270 BC. So it is impossible that their origin comes from a culture from 1200 BC. Plain and simple, it must be a culture older than at least 1270 BC.
    Last edited by Johane Derite; 06-13-2021 at 10:40 PM.

Page 43 of 116 FirstFirst ... 3341424344455393 ... 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
  •