A theory about the origin of E-V13

[rafc]

"For all the above-mentioned cultural novelties which appeared in central and southern Greece in the 11th century BC, parallels can be found in an area that comprises Epirus, western Greek Macedonia, southern Albania and the Republic of North Macedonia."

What language we thinking here, cause I don't think it is Greek.

As Aspar said, the argument of the article is that in the region above Doric Greek was spoken. The language of those that moved southward will be harder to discern. The region where Ruppenstein sees the Brnjica group moving roughly corresponds to the later Paeonian region, but there are centuries between that movement and the first mention of groups like Paeonians. Plus, it doesn't help all that much as there is no agreement of the language of Paeonians anyway. The region where Belegis expanded has some correspondence to where the Dardani lived, but again the time gap is huge and there is little agreement on their language.

I'm not sure about the relevance for V13, but given it's age I would not be surprised if it was already in this region by then, even if limited. And I would guess just about any group mentioned (including Brnjica, Belegis II) would have had certain subclades. Something like CTS9320 might not be unlikely to have come southward at this time with Belegis. For me these movements are more relevant to explaing younger subclades of V13 than V13 as a whole.

[Johane Derite]

As Aspar said, the argument of the article is that in the region above Doric Greek was spoken. The language of those that moved southward will be harder to discern. The region where Ruppenstein sees the Brnjica group moving roughly corresponds to the later Paeonian region, but there are centuries between that movement and the first mention of groups like Paeonians. Plus, it doesn't help all that much as there is no agreement of the language of Paeonians anyway. The region where Belegis expanded has some correspondence to where the Dardani lived, but again the time gap is huge and there is little agreement on their language.

I'm not sure about the relevance for V13, but given it's age I would not be surprised if it was already in this region by then, even if limited. And I would guess just about any group mentioned (including Brnjica, Belegis II) would have had certain subclades. Something like CTS9320 might not be unlikely to have come southward at this time with Belegis. For me these movements are more relevant to explaing younger subclades of V13 than V13 as a whole.

Yes I know Doric Greek was spoken, but the people bearing that new intrusive northern culture could not have been speaking a Greek dialect.

This is why timing of trojan war becomes so important. In the Iliad, Paeonian capital is Amydon (southern Greek Macedonia). Implying they must have at least been there at the time of trojan war.

[rafc]

Yes I know Doric Greek was spoken, but the people bearing that new intrusive northern culture could not have been speaking a Greek dialect.

This is why timing of trojan war becomes so important. In the Iliad, Paeonian capital is Amydon (southern Greek Macedonia). Implying they must have at least been there at the time of trojan war.

The Illiad only tells us something about the world its writer(s) lived. It means in the Homerical age Paeonians were already living in the same region as in the better documented classical age, not whether that was the case in the Bronze age.

[Johane Derite]

The Illiad only tells us something about the world its writer(s) lived. It means in the Homerical age Paeonians were already living in the same region as in the better documented classical age, not whether that was the case in the Bronze age.

Right, they must have been in Amydon at least in the Homeric age (or possibly no longer there if it is an archaic recorded fact), but if there is a minimal historical core to the Iliad and the Epic Cycle, then the possibility that they were there at the time of the Trojan war also exists (why I used the word "imply").

The Iliad is composed in Homer's time, but many aspects of it date to the bronze age. There are some Iron age additions that were added on generation after generation, and by Homer himself, but there are things that date back far before the Homeric period.

Konstantinos for example argues that "Akagamunas, Great King of Ahhiyawa" ~1425-1400BC who appears in the Hittite records should be identified with Agamemnon, wanax of Achaeans.

In the Epic Cycle for example:

1. Euboea was independent, something that was valid only before 1300BC as later it was in dominion of Thebes
2. Miletus was an enemy of Achaeans, this was only valid before 1400BC as it was Ahhiyawa's bridgehead after that.
3. Idomeneus was wanax of Knossos, but Knossos ceased to have an operational palace after ~1375BC so this must have been earlier.

From this classicist about the dating of Trojan war here are just some issues:

"I posed the question of whether this discrepancy really matters — given that they lived up to 1000 years later, and that for 400–500 of those years there was complete illiteracy, with no textual transmission of any documents.

And now the answers. No, the imprecision doesn’t really matter; yes, the 400–500 year gap most definitely does matter.

Here’s a way of exposing the real problem. These writers weren’t just looking at which year Troy fell, but also at the calendar date; and most Hellenistic investigations put the date of Troy’s fall in the month of Thargelion, or less often, Panemon or Skirophorion. And it’s rather conspicuous that those are all months in the classical Athenian calendar.

Eratosthenes’ date isn’t based on secret archives from Babylon or anything like that. It’s a synthesis of the work of other Greek historians, most of them within the last hundred years, working without any special access to lost evidence, and making their estimates using a contemporary calendar. It was guesstimation by consensus. As far as Herodotus, Ephorus, or Eratosthenes were concerned, there was no documentary evidence from that era — other than Homer.

In other words: Eratosthenes carries no weight. He had far less evidence to work with than we do.

If we’re going to find any authentic memories of the Bronze Age in classical-era Greek texts, it’s going to be in Homer."

LINK: https://kiwihellenist.blogspot.com/2...r-2-homer.html

If there is a minimal historical core to the epic cycle, something I believe there is, then it will not be immediately accessible, rather it will have to be dug out from the myths and legends via rigorous scrutiny of every detail, like raw ore from the ground. This means there will be additions, exxagerations, innacuracies, impurities, but that in the core there is something real and valuable.

I think the big emotional resonance that this war had came from a real place, the signal through space and time is too powerful.

[rafc]

Right, they must have been in Amydon at least in the Homeric age (or possibly no longer there if it is an archaic recorded fact), but if there is a minimal historical core to the Iliad and the Epic Cycle, then the possibility that they were there at the time of the Trojan war also exists (why I used the word "imply").

The Iliad is composed in Homer's time, but many aspects of it date to the bronze age. There are some Iron age additions that were added on generation after generation, and by Homer himself, but there are things that date back far before the Homeric period.

Konstantinos for example argues that "Akagamunas, Great King of Ahhiyawa" ~1425-1400BC who appears in the Hittite records should be identified with Agamemnon, wanax of Achaeans.

In the Epic Cycle for example:

1. Euboea was independent, something that was valid only before 1300BC as later it was in dominion of Thebes
2. Miletus was an enemy of Achaeans, this was only valid before 1400BC as it was Ahhiyawa's bridgehead after that.
3. Idomeneus was wanax of Knossos, but Knossos ceased to have an operational palace after ~1375BC so this must have been earlier.

From this classicist about the dating of Trojan war here are just some issues:

"I posed the question of whether this discrepancy really matters — given that they lived up to 1000 years later, and that for 400–500 of those years there was complete illiteracy, with no textual transmission of any documents.

And now the answers. No, the imprecision doesn’t really matter; yes, the 400–500 year gap most definitely does matter.

Here’s a way of exposing the real problem. These writers weren’t just looking at which year Troy fell, but also at the calendar date; and most Hellenistic investigations put the date of Troy’s fall in the month of Thargelion, or less often, Panemon or Skirophorion. And it’s rather conspicuous that those are all months in the classical Athenian calendar.

Eratosthenes’ date isn’t based on secret archives from Babylon or anything like that. It’s a synthesis of the work of other Greek historians, most of them within the last hundred years, working without any special access to lost evidence, and making their estimates using a contemporary calendar. It was guesstimation by consensus. As far as Herodotus, Ephorus, or Eratosthenes were concerned, there was no documentary evidence from that era — other than Homer.

In other words: Eratosthenes carries no weight. He had far less evidence to work with than we do.

If we’re going to find any authentic memories of the Bronze Age in classical-era Greek texts, it’s going to be in Homer."

LINK: https://kiwihellenist.blogspot.com/2...r-2-homer.html

If there is a minimal historical core to the epic cycle, something I believe there is, then it will not be immediately accessible, rather it will have to be dug out from the myths and legends via rigorous scrutiny of every detail, like raw ore from the ground. This means there will be additions, exxagerations, innacuracies, impurities, but that in the core there is something real and valuable.

I think the big emotional resonance that this war had came from a real place, the signal through space and time is too powerful.

I'm sure there is a minimal historical core in these stories, but I'm also fairly sure that this minimal core does not extend to details of where people lived who only played a very minor role in the story. That someone who is a main player like Agamemnon would have some historical base (even if that 'historical' Agamemnon was never involved in any war with Troy) is conceivable. But I don't expect a small detail like the location of the Paeonians to be based on centuries of oral storytelling. Even more so I don't believe the Illiad necessarily refers to one real-life event, and even if it did I don't believe the details in the Illiad can be used to date it. Vice-versa I don't believe that if you could date a warlike event based on archeology that this would allow you to draw conclusions on details in the Illiad.

[Johane Derite]

I'm sure there is a minimal historical core in these stories, but I'm also fairly sure that this minimal core does not extend to details of where people lived who only played a very minor role in the story. That someone who is a main player like Agamemnon would have some historical base (even if that 'historical' Agamemnon was never involved in any war with Troy) is conceivable. But I don't expect a small detail like the location of the Paeonians to be based on centuries of oral storytelling. Even more so I don't believe the Illiad necessarily refers to one real-life event, and even if it did I don't believe the details in the Illiad can be used to date it. Vice-versa I don't believe that if you could date a warlike event based on archeology that this would allow you to draw conclusions on details in the Illiad.

The capital of a political body in a *16 state wide alliance (the Trojan alliance) is not a small detail. It is a tradition that is contained in the "Trojan Catalogue."

(The Assuwan confederation is 22, which some link to the tradition of the Trojan catalogue)

And, actually many conclusions can be drawn. Names of persons and places that find archaeological corroboration in inscriptions, etc, on the first hand establish that these places and people were not just invented.

Secondly, 1186 ships with an army embarked according to the tradition. This is a naval expedition. Territories and who rules them are of particular importance when it comes to this, and not a small detail.

The epic cycle goes to great lengths to list the names of 44 rulers of 28 states and 34 tribes on the Achaean side alone (and also Agamemnon who is the supreme ruler of all of them).

These traditions cannot just be discarded or given some tiny relevance.

[Bruzmi]

Though the community that founded the cremation cemetery in Klucka can clearly be associated with the Brnjica cultural group, it had probably also come in contact with the Belegis II cultural group. This is indicated by the presence of fluted pottery of the Belegis II type in the cemetery.
[…]
The Southwesternmost cremation cemetery of the Brnjica type was excavated some 200 kilometers distant from Klucka at Palio Gynaikokastro near Kilkis in central Greek Macedonia. Its foundation can be dated with the help of regionally produced pottery of Mycenaean type, to the years around 1100BC. […] The presence of 85 inhumations in stone cist and earth pit graves next to the overwhelming majority of 542 cremation urns signifies the existence of a group of people within the burial community of Palio Gynaikokastro that maintained the burial practice of the Ulanci and related cultural groups which inhabited Macedonia in the late bronze age.

The discussion has progressed, so I won't quote every post but I do want to mention that the above quote is based on a reading of Jovanovich (1999) who spread the "Brnjica culture" pottery in all directions as a marker for the existence of wide "Brnjica culture". In newer excavations this taxonomy didn't make much sense as has been shown. Klucka is a necropolis near modern Skopje and Ulanci is a necropolis near Gradsko. The circulation of products from site to site in wide regions shows the opposite of what theories about compact material cultures in the mid 20th century tried to prove. There was widespread contact in large distances between diverse groups of people who then produced new cultural symbols.

What might be interesting for our discussion - regardless of old classifications - is the fact that there might have been indeed a migration from Northern Macedonia towards Epirus in the LBA and the transitional era as the possible links between some southern and northern ethnonyms might show. These groups couldn't have been Doric speakers originally. It would also explain why in Homer the only people described by name as living in Epirus are the Thesprotoi.

But if this movement of people is linked to E-V13, then Epirus should have 1)a high diversity of E-V13 subclades 2)pre-classical antiquity links with other Balkan E-V13. That doesn't seem to be the case so far. On the other hand, if we assume that 1)this movement of people was only linked to tribes which later lived in southern Albania but not groups like the Molossians (who don't seem to have been recorded as anything else other than Doric-speakers) 2)it carried E-V13 southwards then E-V13 should show up among people like the Atintanians - Tyntenoi. Without aDNA research, however, it's all just a working hypothesis.

[Johane Derite]

Interesting to see new E-S2979* sample (E-S2979 TMRCA is 3600YBP) from Turkey on Yfull.

[Riverman]

Interesting to see new E-S2979* sample (E-S2979 TMRCA is 3600YBP) from Turkey on Yfull.

At some point we might be able to identify and telling apart for example Sea People and Phrygian, Cimmerian-Iranian and Greek-Roman lineages in regions like Anatolia. I guess at least some remains of these settlements will be still alive today in the region.

[Bruzmi]

At some point we might be able to identify and telling apart for example Sea People and Phrygian, Cimmerian-Iranian and Greek-Roman lineages in regions like Anatolia. I guess at least some remains of these settlements will be still alive today in the region.

I think that Turkey is a melting pot of many different populations from many different eras and it'll be very difficult to identify a sample's origin unless a background profile exists for each sample. The E-S2979 result is a Torbesh from Macedonia/Macedonian Turk. See #171 on "The genetic structure of the Turkish population"

Under E-Y3183:
E-BY174450 is an Albanian (#205)
E-Y3183* is a Kurd (#227)