Page 224 of 275 FirstFirst ... 124174214222223224225226234274 ... LastLast
Results 2,231 to 2,240 of 2749

Thread: Albanian DNA Project

  1. #2231
    Registered Users
    Posts
    3,528
    Sex

    Talking about Albanian ancient DNA, I hope they have taken some samples from Lofkënd, which is a very interesting site with mixed burial rites of cremation and inhumation, but clearly dominated by the Illyrian part, imho. Could be mixed, but should be dominated by J-L283 and Yamnaya R1b:
    https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/papadopo...kend/2006.html

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

     Archetype0ne (10-22-2021),  rafc (10-22-2021),  vasil (10-22-2021)

  3. #2232
    Registered Users
    Posts
    555
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by rafc View Post
    It seems to me L283 must have been the major haplogroup in Illyrians, that's what would follow from both aDNA and it's current presence in the Western Balkans, no? So if the population of Viminacium was Illyrian, I would expect to find L283. If the Illyrians were only a small component of the Viminacium population maybe less so. Do you think L283 was not the major haplogroup in Illyrians?


    I'm not really following you here. Are you saying the people on the east side of the Balkans cline are actually people from the west side admixed with NE/Aegean ancestry? As I said before, this is not possible since they are shifted to far to the south for such a scenario.
    After the IE migrations, there is 1 J-L283 found in Dalmatia and 3 J-L283 found in the triborder region between Serbia-Romania-Bulgaria. In the Balkans, there are more J-L283 in the central Balkans than in the western Balkans, so why are we assuming that J-L283 was a majority haplogroup in the western Balkans and the Illyrians? In my opinion, J-L283 and E-V13 were equally important as particular R1b lineages for the formation of the Illyrian people. Who is right and who is wrong will be shown by the many studies which will occur in the next years.

    What I'm saying is that BGR_IA and some Balkan IA samples cluster in roughly the "eastern side" because they have similar Aegean-like admixtures. How these individuals would cluster without this admixture, which might even be their actual original ancestry, is impossible for me and anyone else to know. What is important here is that half of the samples cluster close to Albanians and its this Paleo-Balkan group which the Slavs intermarried with and formed the Kuline cluster.
    Quote Originally Posted by rafc View Post


    Can you show me a scientific study that says it's not there?
    If you want to claim that there is high E-V13 diversity in Dacia, you have to prove it. It's not Exercitus or anyone else who has to prove that Romania doesn't have any high E-V13 diversity.

    What is obvious, however, even from tools like phylogeographer's diversity heatmap is that Romania doesn't appear under areas of high E-V13 diversity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Secondly, under pressure from the North West, Illyrian tribes conquered some Channelled Ware tribal territories, most notably the Dardanians.
    No. There is nothing at all which suggests that Dardanians were conquered by Illyrians. This is found nowhere at all in literature.

    Dardanians are described as Illyrians in antiquity and all recent archaeological finds show that Dardanians were just that....Illyrians.

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Talking about Albanian ancient DNA, I hope they have taken some samples from Lofkënd, which is a very interesting site with mixed burial rites of cremation and inhumation, but clearly dominated by the Illyrian part, imho. Could be mixed, but should be dominated by J-L283 and Yamnaya R1b:
    https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/papadopo...kend/2006.html
    Lofkend was an Illyrian site. It wasn't a site of a "mixed" population. Illyrians practiced inhumation and cremation - a widespread dual practice in the western Balkans. Lofkend was mostly an inhumation site. Whomever we find there will be just that...an Illyrian. Cremation itself was a different practice from community to community in Europe. There were people who practiced urn cremations, others who practiced ceramic cremations and others who buried cremated individuals in tumuli.

    The only reason why in "internet theories" about "Daco-Thracians" (it is no longer even considered viable that Dacians and Thracians were the same people) J-L283 is presented the "true Illyrian" haplogroup is because of their aim to claim that E-V13 wasn't "originally" Illyrian. Setting aside the fact a)that E-V13 diversity is mostly found in the western Balkans, not in Thrace or Dacia and b)that even in their own theories E-V13 must have been part of Illyrian communities since the LBA/EIA transition aka at least for 1000 years before the arrival of the Romans in the area, the bigger irony is that J-L283 has lower diversity in the western Balkans (except for Albania and Kosovo) than E-V13



    Anyway, there's no point in continuing another discussion about E-V13. The samples and their autosomal profiles will speak for themselves.
    Last edited by Bruzmi; 10-23-2021 at 01:02 PM.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Bruzmi For This Useful Post:

     olive picker (10-23-2021)

  5. #2233
    Registered Users
    Posts
    305
    Sex
    Location
    Bulgaria
    Ethnicity
    NW Bulgarian
    Y-DNA (P)
    I-Y151633
    mtDNA (M)
    H4d

    Bulgaria North Macedonia Greek Macedonia European Union
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruzmi View Post
    ...
    Its like you insist on being wrong all the time. You argued with me on the Anatolian DNA in the Balkans then just after that we get the Serbian samples now you are arguing for V13 being Illyrian when we keep finding L283 and V13 is nowhere to be found. I wonder after we get good BA sampling of the Western Balkans what the next thing on which you will be wrong is going to be.
    Distance: 6.5138% / 0.06513835
    56.4 TUR_Pinarbasi_HG
    17.8 GEO_CHG
    13.4 RUS_AfontovaGora3
    7.6 LUX_Loschbour
    3.4 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
    1.4 MNG_Late_Med

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to vasil For This Useful Post:

     Pribislav (10-23-2021),  XXD (10-23-2021)

  7. #2234
    Registered Users
    Posts
    555
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by vasil View Post
    Its like you insist on being wrong all the time. You argued with me on the Anatolian DNA in the Balkans then just after that we get the Serbian samples now you are arguing for V13 being Illyrian when we keep finding L283 and V13 is nowhere to be found. I wonder after we get good BA sampling of the Western Balkans what the next thing on which you will be wrong is going to be.
    Yes, the model you proposed was highly incorrect because you termed as "Anatolian", ancestral backgrounds which already existed in the Balkans even in the BA/IA (long before the Roman era).

    Where exactly do "we keep finding" J-L283 in the Balkans and how is E-V13 "nowhere to be found" in relation to it?

    1 J-L283 in Dalmatia
    3 J-L283 in eastern Serbia

    The Daunian J-L283 probably migrated from Pannonia-Dalmatia before in the LBA/EIA transition. This is the region where in the Neolithic era the ancestor of E-V13 was found. We'll see what newer studies will show.

    Timacum Minus, where 3 X E-V13, 3 J-L283, 1 X R-CTS4150 were found:


    Timacum Minus in Moesia Superior—Centrality and Urbanism at a Roman Mining Settlement
    :

    During the reign of Marcus Aurelius, the newly founded cohors II Aurelia Dardanorum was transferred to Timacum Minus and replaced cohors I Thracum Syriaca [16] (pp. 123, 170), [28] (pp. 44–45, 66–67, 73–77, 82–85), [36] (p. 514). This coincided with the initial erection of a first, permanent stone-built auxiliary camp. Both the shift of military units and the erection of a stone camp in Timacum Minus were aimed at the protection and maintanence of the Timok valley road, the newly opened mines in the surroundings, and the road and river transport of mining commodities. In both contextual and spatial relation to the auxiliary camp, a civilian settlement developed at Timacum Minus. To date, it has not become clear whether this settlement already existed in the 1st century AD or only developed after the onset of mining in the vicinity and the deployment of cohors II Aurelia Dardanorum. What is clear, however, is that due to the traffic significance of the site and the mining industry in its hinterland, both the military camp and the civilian settlement of Timacum Minus remained occupied throughout the Principate, the late Roman period, and up until the early 6th century AD [36] (p. 518).

    The erection of a stone camp in Timacum Minus, then, correlated with the installation and deployment of cohors II Aurelia Dardanorum during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, most probably in AD 169. For this developed stone form of the Timacum Minus camp, three major building phases have been confirmed by archaeological research since 1975. Phase I comprises the initial erection of the stone camp as related to the initial encampment of cohors II Aurelia Dardanorum in the second half of the 2nd century AD.

    As the existence of a municipium in Timacum Minus can, thus, be eliminated, the settlement around the camp of cohors II Aurelia Dardanorum is commonly addressed as a vicus metalli [28] (p. 37), [31] (pp. 257–259). This characterization of Timacum Minus is further supported by comparing it to other mining settlements in Moesia. The mining territories of central Dardania around the settlements of Ulpiana and so-called Municipium DD in today’s Kosovo had indeed been put under municipal administration and supervision. Yet, this did not result from the mining per se. Instead, it concerned the overall territorial administration of Roman settlement in the wider region of Dardania.

  8. #2235
    Registered Users
    Posts
    305
    Sex
    Location
    Bulgaria
    Ethnicity
    NW Bulgarian
    Y-DNA (P)
    I-Y151633
    mtDNA (M)
    H4d

    Bulgaria North Macedonia Greek Macedonia European Union
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruzmi View Post
    Yes, the model you proposed was highly incorrect because you termed as "Anatolian", ancestral backgrounds which already existed in the Balkans even in the BA/IA (long before the Roman era).

    Where exactly do "we keep finding" J-L283 in the Balkans and how is E-V13 "nowhere to be found" in relation to it?

    1 J-L283 in Dalmatia
    3 J-L283 in eastern Serbia

    The Daunian J-L283 probably migrated from Pannonia-Dalmatia before in the LBA/EIA transition. This is the region where in the Neolithic era the ancestor of E-V13 was found. We'll see what newer studies will show.

    Timacum Minus, where 3 X E-V13, 3 J-L283, 1 X R-CTS4150 were found:


    Timacum Minus in Moesia Superior—Centrality and Urbanism at a Roman Mining Settlement
    :

    During the reign of Marcus Aurelius, the newly founded cohors II Aurelia Dardanorum was transferred to Timacum Minus and replaced cohors I Thracum Syriaca [16] (pp. 123, 170), [28] (pp. 44–45, 66–67, 73–77, 82–85), [36] (p. 514). This coincided with the initial erection of a first, permanent stone-built auxiliary camp. Both the shift of military units and the erection of a stone camp in Timacum Minus were aimed at the protection and maintanence of the Timok valley road, the newly opened mines in the surroundings, and the road and river transport of mining commodities. In both contextual and spatial relation to the auxiliary camp, a civilian settlement developed at Timacum Minus. To date, it has not become clear whether this settlement already existed in the 1st century AD or only developed after the onset of mining in the vicinity and the deployment of cohors II Aurelia Dardanorum. What is clear, however, is that due to the traffic significance of the site and the mining industry in its hinterland, both the military camp and the civilian settlement of Timacum Minus remained occupied throughout the Principate, the late Roman period, and up until the early 6th century AD [36] (p. 518).

    The erection of a stone camp in Timacum Minus, then, correlated with the installation and deployment of cohors II Aurelia Dardanorum during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, most probably in AD 169. For this developed stone form of the Timacum Minus camp, three major building phases have been confirmed by archaeological research since 1975. Phase I comprises the initial erection of the stone camp as related to the initial encampment of cohors II Aurelia Dardanorum in the second half of the 2nd century AD.

    As the existence of a municipium in Timacum Minus can, thus, be eliminated, the settlement around the camp of cohors II Aurelia Dardanorum is commonly addressed as a vicus metalli [28] (p. 37), [31] (pp. 257–259). This characterization of Timacum Minus is further supported by comparing it to other mining settlements in Moesia. The mining territories of central Dardania around the settlements of Ulpiana and so-called Municipium DD in today’s Kosovo had indeed been put under municipal administration and supervision. Yet, this did not result from the mining per se. Instead, it concerned the overall territorial administration of Roman settlement in the wider region of Dardania.
    I was arguing there were Anatolians coming in during Antiquity and was using Kaman-Kalehoyuk/Hittites as a proxy and you came in saying i was wrong and that it was simply Bronze Age Aegean that i was mistaking for later input and then we get 100% Anatolians from the Serb study its pretty obvious who was wrong there. On the subject of L618 there is the sample from Croatia but there is also E from Michelsberg, Western Cardium Pottery and Trypillia so V13 could be a descendent of any of those. What if the Croat sample has something to do with this > https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Y182141/ or is just a dead end and what if V13 is a Neolithic survivor in the Carpathians and is connected to the Michelsberg sample or the one from Trypillia?
    Distance: 6.5138% / 0.06513835
    56.4 TUR_Pinarbasi_HG
    17.8 GEO_CHG
    13.4 RUS_AfontovaGora3
    7.6 LUX_Loschbour
    3.4 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
    1.4 MNG_Late_Med

  9. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to vasil For This Useful Post:

     AnthroSurvey (10-28-2021),  Pribislav (10-23-2021),  Riverman (10-23-2021),  XXD (10-23-2021)

  10. #2236
    Registered Users
    Posts
    475
    Sex
    Omitted

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruzmi View Post
    After the IE migrations, there is 1 J-L283 found in Dalmatia and 3 J-L283 found in the triborder region between Serbia-Romania-Bulgaria. In the Balkans, there are more J-L283 in the central Balkans than in the western Balkans, so why are we assuming that J-L283 was a majority haplogroup in the western Balkans and the Illyrians? In my opinion, J-L283 and E-V13 were equally important as particular R1b lineages for the formation of the Illyrian people. Who is right and who is wrong will be shown by the many studies which will occur in the next years.
    You offer the indications for L283 being important in the Wester Balkans yourself, and all you offer for V13 is 'your opinion'. I would love to have more aDNA V13, but I have to do with what we have. Nothing in the Western Balkans or to the west of that before Roman times, on the other hand we have the Moldovan V13, indications that IA samples from Thracian region will have V13, and the Viminacium results wich show V13 coming from all over the Balkans.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruzmi View Post
    What I'm saying that is BGR_IA and some Balkan IA samples cluster in roughly the "eastern side" because they have similar Aegean-like admixtures. How these individuals would cluster without this admixture, which might even be their actual original ancestry, is impossible for me and anyone else to know. What is important here is that half of the samples cluster close to Albanians and its this Paleo-Balkan group which the Slavs intermarried with and formed the Kuline cluster.
    It seems to me in that first phrase that you are implying something, but I really don't grasp it. Could you explain what you mean there? I don't get the reference to the Albanians either, why is that important?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruzmi View Post
    if you want to claim that there is high E-V13 diversity in Dacia, you have to prove it. It's not Exercitus or anyone else who has to prove that Romania doesn't have any high E-V13 diversity.

    What is obvious, however, even from tools like phylogeographer's diversity heatmap is that Romania doesn't appear under areas of high E-V13 diversity.
    Except I don't claim it, but you and Exercitus keep claiming it has low diversity and therefore V13 is young there. To do so you have to prove ot's low, and a website measuring density of results is no proof.

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

     Pribislav (10-23-2021),  XXD (10-23-2021)

  12. #2237
    Registered Users
    Posts
    3,528
    Sex

    No. There is nothing at all which suggests that Dardanians were conquered by Illyrians. This is found nowhere at all in literature.

    Dardanians are described as Illyrians in antiquity and all recent archaeological finds show that Dardanians were just that....Illyrians.
    The Dardanians were Illyrians which conquered local Daco-Thracians, as is seen in the archaeological record. So they had a significant Daco-Thracian substrate in large parts of their territory. Read up on it.

    What is obvious, however, even from tools like phylogeographer's diversity heatmap is that Romania doesn't appear under areas of high E-V13 diversity.
    Phylogeographer is based on YFull and there are practically no Romanians on YFull! If you would the meagre results from FTDNA, as shallow as they are, they would pop up all over the place already and in some clades having as much or more diversity than Albanians and forming their own lineages, often with Slavs and Central Europeans. Romanians being split into lineages with Albanian-Montenegrine and Slavic-Central European affiliations.

    The only reason why in "internet theories" about "Daco-Thracians" (it is no longer even considered viable that Dacians and Thracians were the same people)
    They were not the same people, but closely related, forming a linguistic group. And Psenichevo and Bosut-Basarabi surely are closely related. You have Psenichevo E-V13 in Svilengrad and Bosut-Basarabi descendents in Viminacium.

    E-V13 wasn't "originally" Illyrian. Setting aside the fact a)that E-V13 diversity is mostly found in the western Balkans, not in Thrace or Dacia and b)that even in their own theories E-V13 must have been part of Illyrian communities since the LBA/EIA transition aka at least for 1000 years before the arrival of the Romans in the area, the bigger irony is that J-L283 has lower diversity in the western Balkans (except for Albania and Kosovo) than E-V13
    Yes, E-V13 was common especially in Pannonians and probably present in more Southern Illyrian groups too, since the LBA-EIA transition, but not as evenly distributed, widespread or in a similar frequency as in Daco-Thracians or people derived from them. Same is true in the opposite way for J-L283: Surely it made its way into Daco-Thracians early, but frequency and distribution will be just very different because they were originally separated, before E-V13 expanded into the Balkans.
    We already see that E-V13 Channelled Ware people replaced local EBA patrilineages, like those found in Mokrin and Bulgaria.

    Concerning diversity: No. Just a big no. You have no data on YFull to make your case. Go upstream for any major clade and you don't end up in the South Western Balkan. On FTDNA Romanians are not particularly basal, but the situation is similar to Serbs: They being split into a more Northern-Carpathian to Central European and a more Southern Balkan variation. Clearly one could be ancient, the other Vlach derived. And the Vlach derived on its own is close in diversity to Albanians, but they have the Northern branch on top. When more samples come in, from Romania and Moldova, it will open your eyes.

    By the way: Most people had split patrilinear branches, in the Bronze Age! Like Germanics, Slavs, even Celts in detail - you can go on with this list. Why do you think that of all things Albanians must be a united front already in the Stone Age? Its not realistic to begin with and it doesn't change anything about later Albanian ethnogenesis, in which all these three groups Yamnaya R1b, J-L283 and E-V13 Southern subclades, played their big part and took their share. Germanics, Slavs, etc., all being affected by major migrations and shifts in the Bronze and even Iron Age. The Balkan was a particularly volatile environment, not a more stable one.
    Last edited by Riverman; 10-23-2021 at 11:48 AM.

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Riverman For This Useful Post:

     Pribislav (10-23-2021),  XXD (10-23-2021)

  14. #2238
    Registered Users
    Posts
    3,528
    Sex

    This map is a nice illustration, I found it on Eupedia:



    https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post574878

    As you can see, and what confuses people, both the Middle Danubians (Illyrian) and Gava (Daco-Thracian) met. The Illyrian groups, part of them cremating, most using inhumation as their main burial rite, had an expansion into the more Central Balkan areas later, on top of Channelled Ware derived settlements, which created the Dardanians. For the Triballi something similar might be true, but with Daco-Thracians on top of the mix. That easily explains, with both groups expanding into the Southern Central Balkan, why they were so mixed early on, especially South of the Belegis II-Gava core zone, which covers Viminacium and everything around it.
    The Albanian territory is likely to have been mixed much earlier, because especially in Kosovo and Macedonia, they clashed into each other again and again, finally fusing.
    Gimbutas, once more, already got the basics right. I quoted her in my E-V13 thread on the issue as well.

  15. #2239
    Registered Users
    Posts
    555
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    The Dardanians were Illyrians which conquered local Daco-Thracians, as is seen in the archaeological record. So they had a significant Daco-Thracian substrate in large parts of their territory. Read up on it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Illyrian tribes conquered some Channelled Ware tribal territories, most notably the Dardanians.
    You've proposed two different and contradictory to each other definitions and none of them actually corresponds to historical or archaeological data.

    There is nothing in the Dardanian area which shows "conquest" by any population. Conquests appear in the archaeological record in a very clear manner in stratigraphy. No such thing exists in Dardania. All settlements evolved organically since the MBA/LBA and all later settlements derive from the expansion of the earlier ones. There is a complete catalogue of Dardanian sites in Kosovo which was published in 2019 with all the latest excavations: Les habitats de l'Age du fer sur le territoire de l'actuel Kosovo, which shows exactly that.

    I honestly have nothing to reply to the rest because they're not arguments, they're your personal expectations about what the future will bring. In that sense, they can't be subject of any debate.

  16. #2240
    Registered Users
    Posts
    3,528
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruzmi View Post
    You've proposed two different and contradictory to each other definitions and none of them actually corresponds to historical or archaeological data.

    There is nothing in the Dardanian area which shows "conquest" by any population. Conquests appear in the archaeological record in a very clear manner in stratigraphy. No such thing exists in Dardania. All settlements evolved organically since the MBA/LBA and all later settlements derive from the expansion of the earlier ones. There is a complete catalogue of Dardanian sites in Kosovo which was published in 2019 with all the latest excavations: Les habitats de l'Age du fer sur le territoire de l'actuel Kosovo, which shows exactly that.
    Even modern excavations showed the expansion of Glasinac related elements on top of Channelled Ware (Daco-Thracian) in the Eastern territory of the Dardanians.

    Here is an older but still valid comment on the issue:

    The Dardanian hypothesis has been most widely accepted today,
    as it encompasses the followers of both the Illyrian and Thracian origin
    of Albanians. The Dardanian-Illyrian origin of Albanians formulated
    by Norbert Jokl in the 1930s is accepted by many contemporary schol-
    ars [Hamp 1966: 106; Kodderitzsch 1988: 113; Lorna 1991: 283-284;
    Gindin 1992]. The traditional opinion that Dardanians were of Illyrian
    origin is based on express claims of ancient scholars, above all Strabo
    and Apian. Though only the names of three plants have been preserved
    from the Dardanian language, abundant onomastic material (primarily
    Dardanian names dating from Roman times in present-day Kosovo and
    Metohija) have an overall Illyrian character. Contrary to this, positive
    Thracian onomastic traces are to be encountered in eastern Dardania
    (e.g. BE<JtaVa , with the Thracian ethnicon BE<J<JOl recognizable in the
    basis, and ~apoa1tapa with a Thracian name for a settlement in an-
    other part). The presence of Thracian elements has been ascribed to the
    political expansion of Dardania to the Juzna Morava and Nisava rivers
    in the third century B.C.
    [Papazoglu 1969: 161-195]

    On the other hand, advocates of the Thracian hypothesis saw
    potential Albanian ancestors in the Thracian stratum in Dardania. In
    keeping with a comparatively recent view of this Thracian stratum as
    an ethno-linguistically separate Daco-Mysian region, which included
    Dardania, V.Georgiev in assumed a joint Daco-Mysian heritage of Al-
    banians and Romanians in 1960. His main argument was that the sub-
    strate lexicon of the Romanian language (the Daco-Mysian heritage)
    has parallels in the Albanian language almost entirely, while the com-
    mon Romanian-Albanian lexicon of Latin origin is distinctly different
    in its geo-linguistic and ethno-social features from the western Balkan
    Dalmatian language. On the basis of all this, Georgiev inferred an af-
    finity between the relationship of the Albanian language to the Daco-
    Mysian on the one hand, and the Romanian language to the Latin, on
    the other. Contrary to Jokl, who considered Albanian an amalgamated
    language of central Balkan origin, with predominantly Illyrian features,
    Georgiev saw it as a basically Daco-Mysian language with specific
    Illyrian components [Georgiev 1960: 19]. Georgiev's hypothesis, how-
    ever, is relativized by the fact that the ethno-linguistic distinction be-
    tween Dacian and Thracian is also a hypothesis, and that traces of the
    Dacian language comprise only about a dozen plants and several
    anthroponyms and toponyms. Still, Georgiev's hypothesis, though set
    out in the early sixties, has not been seriously contested, but rather
    approved of, as the text will show later on.
    https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/225623272.pdf

    Looking at the Dardanian border and habits (cremation burials included), it is clear that there was a significant Daco-Thracian influence, especially to the East:
    https://www.facebook.com/AlbanianArc...3494564036632/

    These areas were once settled by the Channelled Ware groups and just secondarily conquered from the West, when Middle Danubian groups pushed some related Illyrian tribes West and South.

    Here another quotation, from the strictly archaeological point of view, on the issue:

    Südlich von diesem Gebiet war die Kultur (Kulturgrup-
    pe) Donja Brnjica – Gornja Stražava seit einer späteren Pha-
    se der Urnenfelderkultur (Ha verbreitet (Abb. 1/18 – D.
    Brnjica; Abb. 1/19 – G. Stražava). Diese Gruppe umfasste
    die südlichen Morawa-Gebiete, Kosovo und Sandžak. Sie
    ist durch Brandbestattungen, vorwiegend in Urnen, ge-
    kennzeichnet – Typ III-A/1, aber auch ohne Urne – Typ III-
    B/1.25 Obwohl ihre Bestattungsweise große Ähnlichkeiten
    mit der Urnenfelderkultur aufweist, wird sie in ihrem Be-
    stattungsritual mit der benachbarten mittelbronzezeitlichen
    Paraćin-Gruppe verglichen. Dieser Umstand führt zum
    Schluss, dass die Gruppe Donja Brnjica – Gornja Stražava
    die Endphase einer langen Entwicklung darstellt, die auf
    dem Zentralbalkan in der Bronzezeit verfolgt werden kann.
    Dieser Prozess ist mit dem Balkan-Donauraum-Komplex
    und den als dakisch-mysisch bezeichneten Elementen
    eng
    verknüpft. Es wurde aber auch eine deutliche Verknüpfung
    mit der Urnenfelderkultur festgestellt. So werden die Funde
    dieser Gruppe als die nicht-illyrische Komponente in der
    Entwicklung der Dardanier verstanden. Nach dieser Auf-
    fassung sind illyrische Elemente in der prähistorischen Kul-
    tur Kosovos erst seit der entwickelten Eisenzeit eindeutig
    vorhanden
    .
    Google Translate:
    South of this area was the culture (cultural group
    pe) Donja Brnjica - Gornja Stražava since a later phase
    se of the urn field culture (Ha widespread (Fig. 1/18 - D.
    Brnjica; Fig. 1/19 - G. Stražava). This group included
    the southern Morawa areas, Kosovo and Sandžak. she
    is through cremation, mainly in urns,
    indicates - type III-A / 1, but also without urn - type III-
    B / 1.25 Although their method of burial is very similar
    with the urn field culture, it becomes
    furnishing ritual with the neighboring Middle Bronze Age
    Paraćin group compared. This fact leads to
    Conclusion that the group Donja Brnjica - Gornja Stražava
    represents the final phase of a long development based on
    the Central Balkans in the Bronze Age can be traced.
    This process is with the Balkan-Danube region complex
    and the elements designated as Daco-Mysian
    closely
    connected. But there was also a clear link
    determined with the urn field culture. So are the finds
    this group as the non-Illyrian component in the
    Understand the evolution of the Dardanians. After this up
    version are Illyrian elements in prehistoric culture
    ture of Kosovo only since the developed Iron Age
    available
    Source:
    https://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576_0x003ace22.pdf

    You can disagree, you can quote people having a different opinion, favouring a different interpretation, but don't tell the readers here that this position is completely out of question. It was favoured by many, over the decades, and there is archaeological evidence in favour of it. Ancient DNA will clarify who's right or wrong, on the long run. But you can't by just ignoring the work of great scholars over the decades, just because you don't like it.
    Last edited by Riverman; 10-23-2021 at 08:14 PM.

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

     JoeyP37 (10-23-2021)

Page 224 of 275 FirstFirst ... 124174214222223224225226234274 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Old Albanian & Proto-Albanian
    By Johane Derite in forum Linguistics
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 06-03-2021, 03:25 PM
  2. Albanian
    By Glauk in forum Southern
    Replies: 2025
    Last Post: 10-06-2020, 09:17 PM
  3. Albanian Linguistics
    By Johane Derite in forum Linguistics
    Replies: 189
    Last Post: 05-07-2020, 06:57 PM
  4. Messapian - Albanian connection
    By Johane Derite in forum Other
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-22-2018, 04:29 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
  •