PDA

View Full Version : David Reich speech on steppe migrations-April 29, 2017



Angela
30-04-17, 03:17
For any one who wants to discuss the things he said.

It's really all in the title. Ancient DNA suggests Steppe migrations spread Indo-European languages


I personally sort of did a double take at this: No Steppe ancestry in aDNA data from Balkans and Anatolia.

So, no steppe from the Balkans into Anatolia either. If true, either Anatolian languages came south over the Caucasus, or the original Pre-or-proto Indo-European arose somewhere in Anatolia, as some of us have been saying for a long time was a possibility.

I wonder if my other suggestion at one time, that Greek came through Anatolia, could be true. That or it came with almost no people. How ironic if that should turn out to be true, given how often the Mycenaens were used to illuminate Indo-European societies: it may be a template for them but they might not be steppe people?

Modified linguistic tree:
http://s22.postimg.org/ayiu8c9gx/tree.png

If it did come from the Caucasus and then across Anatolia, then it's a pincer movement from the Caucasus with one arrow going into the steppe, mixing there with EHG and then moving into Europe, and another arrow going from the Caucasus into the rest of Anatolia, the Balkans, and on to the rest of southern Europe.

If that's the case then Pagani et al may be onto something, and the "Indo- European component" may be some group related to "Caucasians".

Sintashta not an ancestor of Indic peoples (and Andrnovo?). So much for all those statistics predicting they would be... I just love all the pretending going on over at Eurogenes that they never thought any such thing. :) Has the thread been deleted?

Promenade
30-04-17, 06:28
Honestly I think the most ground breaking part of this conference is that Albanian is now listed as a Germanic language or at according to that linguistic map.

Nonetheless some interesting stuff.

So we are 100 percent sure that Sintashta and Andronovo are not the source of indo-aryan people entering India? Their reasoning seems to be because they(Sintashta/Andronovo) have Early European farmer ancestry that Indians don't have they can't be the source. Do you think that is sound reasoning?

Sile
30-04-17, 07:47
Honestly I think the most ground breaking part of this conference is that Albanian is now listed as a Germanic language or at according to that linguistic map.

Nonetheless some interesting stuff.

So we are 100 percent sure that Sintashta and Andronovo are not the source of indo-aryan people entering India? Their reasoning seems to be because they(Sintashta/Andronovo) have Early European farmer ancestry that Indians don't have they can't be the source. Do you think that is sound reasoning?

IMO, they( Albanians ) could have been from the Ancient Germanic Bastanae people from roughly the southern Carpathian mountains..........they supplied 80000 troops not including wives and children to Philip of Macedon ..........no ones knows if they went back or not

bicicleur
30-04-17, 08:19
to me the modified linguistic tree suggests Germanic, Balto-Slavic, Armenian and Greek to belong to the Corded Ware / Sintashta branch, while Italo-Celtic directly to the Yamna branch

as for Anatolian :

So what's the issue with the Anatolian branch? Again, as per the above screencap, Reich sees no evidence of a migration from the steppe to Anatolia via the Balkans that would bring Anatolian languages to Anatolia. But please note that this evidence might soon be forthcoming, if the Reich lab manages to acquire Hittite ancient DNA. See here (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2017/04/out-of-eastern-europe_24.html?showComment=1493141363395#c44435927 02742696539) and here (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2017/04/out-of-eastern-europe_24.html?showComment=1493176570919#c78926793 68783577809).

http://eurogenes.blogspot.be/2017/04/ancient-dna-suggests-steppe-migrations.html

Hittite DNA ? that would be interesting, but note that Hittites were multi-ethnic and multilingual, only their official language was IE

berun
30-04-17, 09:57
As far as I know IE linguistic trees are many as pine races... just it depends on which source data is choosen by the linguist the results will be so or so.

Hittite DNA will be a hard issue as IIRC they cremated their deceased, if some DNA is got from just buried people what will prevent that he wouldn't be Hattic?

Yetos
30-04-17, 10:12
IMO, they( Albanians ) could have been from the Ancient Germanic Bastanae people from roughly the southern Carpathian mountains..........they supplied 80000 troops not including wives and children to Philip of Macedon ..........no ones knows if they went back or not


that is far too old,

more real seems to me the case of George Maniakis army


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Maniakes

Maciamo
30-04-17, 10:28
Where did you find the video of the speech, Angela? It's hard to comment without having heard it.

Regarding the new tree, I had proposed since 2009 that the Mycenaeans were predominantly R1a and descended from the Srubna culture by a nearly direct migration from the Steppe around 1600 BCE. I believe that the later Dorian migration brought R1b (Z2103, U152?) to Greece. Therefore Greek is a hybrid IE branch, and this is hard to show on such a tree.

However I disagree that this should be the case of the Armenian branch too. It is clear that Armenians are predominantly R1b-Z2103 (and especially L584). They have 30% of R1b for only 5% of R1a. The Mitanni or other Indo-Iranian tribes surely brought R1a-Z93 and probably also some R1b-Z2103 (Y24543 clade, found in Armenia, South Asia and Ukraine). That's probably what they found with ancient DNA. The Mitanni came first to Armenia (from 1500 BCE), then the actual Proto-Armenians from the Balkans (from 1200 BCE). That's what archaeology and history say.

I also find it odd to place Albanian with the Germanic branch. I wonder what are their justification for that. Albanian belong to R1b-Z2103 (SE European CTS9219 clade), not even to R1b-L51. I would place Albanian split a bit before the split between Italo-Celtic and Germanic. Phylogenetically, the Albanian branch is more closely related to the Armenian branch.

LABERIA
30-04-17, 11:19
IMO, they( Albanians ) could have been from the Ancient Germanic Bastanae people from roughly the southern Carpathian mountains..........they supplied 80000 troops not including wives and children to Philip of Macedon ..........no ones knows if they went back or not

Oh my God. But you still continue with the story that the Albanian father of one of your friends in Australia told you that Albanians are descendant of Bastanae? But this is not serious. This is supposed to be a serious forum. There are forums who offer Trool Carnival subforum. But please, not this kind of posts in a serious discussion.

LABERIA
30-04-17, 11:29
that is far too old,

more real seems to me the case of George Maniakis army


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Maniakes
Yetos, i understand the reason of this kind of theories. There is a cure for this. Every average greek know that the ancient greeks were wiped from history from the slavic invasion. And every average greek know that Romans replaced part of this slavs with populations from Asia Minor. Later arrived Albanians mostly from South Albania or Epir but also some from the North Albania, who colonized an empty Greece, this is what the medieval chronicles say. After that this Albanians settled in Greece, the eternal demographic problem that afflicted Greece, was resolved. For this reason, this Albanians, or Arvanites are to be considered the original inhabitants of Greece. Accept this reality and you and your compatriots will feel better and will stop to spam forums with folktales about original greeks and Macedonians, or as in this case about Maniakis.

LABERIA
30-04-17, 11:43
Where did you find the video of the speech, Angela? It's hard to comment without having heard it.

Regarding the new tree, I had proposed since 2009 that the Mycenaeans were predominantly R1a and descended from the Srubna culture by a nearly direct migration from the Steppe around 1600 BCE. I believe that the later Dorian migration brought R1b (Z2103, U152?) to Greece. Therefore Greek is a hybrid IE branch, and this is hard to show on such a tree.

However I disagree that this should be the case of the Armenian branch too. It is clear that Armenians are predominantly R1b-Z2103 (and especially L584). They have 30% of R1b for only 5% of R1a. The Mitanni or other Indo-Iranian tribes surely brought R1a-Z93 and probably also some R1b-Z2103 (Y24543 clade, found in Armenia, South Asia and Ukraine). That's probably what they found with ancient DNA. The Mitanni came first to Armenia (from 1500 BCE), then the actual Proto-Armenians from the Balkans (from 1200 BCE). That's what archaeology and history say.

I also find it odd to place Albanian with the Germanic branch. I wonder what are their justification for that. Albanian belong to R1b-Z2103 (SE European CTS9219 clade), not even to R1b-L51. I would place Albanian split a bit before the split between Italo-Celtic and Germanic. Phylogenetically, the Albanian branch is more closely related to the Armenian branch.

Albanian language, from what i know, is not related with Armenian branch. Greek is considered close to Armenian. There are different theories about Albanian language. It's true that some scholars support some connection with Germanic branch. There are some words, for example the word night in Albanian is natë, in german is nacht. In italian is notte, in greek nihta. But for the mainstream of the scholars, the Albanian language form an independent branch of the Indo-European languages.

Sile
30-04-17, 12:09
that is far too old,

more real seems to me the case of George Maniakis army


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Maniakes

where is the albanian with the german as per david reich video...............no point in giving something without these links as this is what was stated

Sile
30-04-17, 12:10
Oh my God. But you still continue with the story that the Albanian father of one of your friends in Australia told you that Albanians are descendant of Bastanae? But this is not serious. This is supposed to be a serious forum. There are forums who offer Trool Carnival subforum. But please, not this kind of posts in a serious discussion.

where do you think the german and albanian link came from or are you better than david reich?

Sile
30-04-17, 12:13
Albanian language, from what i know, is not related with Armenian branch. Greek is considered close to Armenian. There are different theories about Albanian language. It's true that some scholars support some connection with Germanic branch. There are some words, for example the word night in Albanian is natë, in german is nacht. In italian is notte, in greek nihta. But for the mainstream of the scholars, the Albanian language form an independent branch of the Indo-European languages.

you need to confront david on this linguistic theory ..............after you do this then reply to me why he placed german with albanian.........and not before

Yetos
30-04-17, 12:13
Albanian language, from what i know, is not related with Armenian branch. Greek is considered close to Armenian. There are different theories about Albanian language. It's true that some scholars support some connection with Germanic branch. There are some words, for example the word night in Albanian is natë, in german is nacht. In italian is notte, in greek nihta. But for the mainstream of the scholars, the Albanian language form an independent branch of the Indo-European languages.


the 2 Irish pilgrim monks at 1322 say different things,

Tomenable
30-04-17, 12:26
How can Albanian be descended from Proto-Germanic?:

http://s22.postimg.org/ayiu8c9gx/tree.png

bicicleur
30-04-17, 13:07
Where did you find the video of the speech, Angela? It's hard to comment without having heard it.

Regarding the new tree, I had proposed since 2009 that the Mycenaeans were predominantly R1a and descended from the Srubna culture by a nearly direct migration from the Steppe around 1600 BCE. I believe that the later Dorian migration brought R1b (Z2103, U152?) to Greece. Therefore Greek is a hybrid IE branch, and this is hard to show on such a tree.

However I disagree that this should be the case of the Armenian branch too. It is clear that Armenians are predominantly R1b-Z2103 (and especially L584). They have 30% of R1b for only 5% of R1a. The Mitanni or other Indo-Iranian tribes surely brought R1a-Z93 and probably also some R1b-Z2103 (Y24543 clade, found in Armenia, South Asia and Ukraine). That's probably what they found with ancient DNA. The Mitanni came first to Armenia (from 1500 BCE), then the actual Proto-Armenians from the Balkans (from 1200 BCE). That's what archaeology and history say.

I also find it odd to place Albanian with the Germanic branch. I wonder what are their justification for that. Albanian belong to R1b-Z2103 (SE European CTS9219 clade), not even to R1b-L51. I would place Albanian split a bit before the split between Italo-Celtic and Germanic. Phylogenetically, the Albanian branch is more closely related to the Armenian branch.

I see Srubna as related to R1a-Sintashta, but catacomb as R1b-Yamna
So did Myceneans come from Srubna or Catacomb?
They certainly came from the people of western Ukraine who invented the sword. Those same people also got into the Carpathian Basin, even before the Myceneans in Greece.

LABERIA
30-04-17, 13:23
the 2 Irish pilgrim monks at 1322 say different things,I don't have any slightly idea of what are you talking. Open a new thread and elaborate your conspiracy theories.

DuPidh
30-04-17, 14:55
IMO, they( Albanians ) could have been from the Ancient Germanic Bastanae people from roughly the southern Carpathian mountains..........they supplied 80000 troops not including wives and children to Philip of Macedon ..........no ones knows if they went back or not

I have seen a study suggesting that Albanian and Greek languages separated 5000 years ago

Yetos
30-04-17, 15:37
I don't have any slightly idea of what are you talking. Open a new thread and elaborate your conspiracy theories.

well if the written facts of Irish monks are conspiracy, :useless:
then what about Fallmayer and Metternich?

anyway Fallmayer theory suggested that Greeks were swaped by Slavs and Greeks moved to Asia,
but all genetical results dissapointed him and his followers :indifferent:

Yetos
30-04-17, 15:40
I have seen a study suggesting that Albanian and Greek languages separated 5000 years ago

i know about this study,
it was based on common words,
and gave wrong results,
we have discussed that method on the forum, in a previous thread

Milan.M
30-04-17, 16:04
How can Albanian be descended from Proto-Germanic?:

http://s22.postimg.org/ayiu8c9gx/tree.png
In the IE tree as a whole in my opinion the Albanian language was located somewhere between Germanic and Balto-Slavic languages.
My impression about this language was that the native words(non borowings) find their closest cognates either in Germanic or Balto-Slavic,i can't count the percentage to which is more close.

Some linguist make it most close to Lithuanian,still as seen here with Germanic,yet some to Old Slavic,but is between both in my opinion.

DuPidh
30-04-17, 18:40
Where did you find the video of the speech, Angela? It's hard to comment without having heard it.

Regarding the new tree, I had proposed since 2009 that the Mycenaeans were predominantly R1a and descended from the Srubna culture by a nearly direct migration from the Steppe around 1600 BCE. I believe that the later Dorian migration brought R1b (Z2103, U152?) to Greece. Therefore Greek is a hybrid IE branch, and this is hard to show on such a tree.

However I disagree that this should be the case of the Armenian branch too. It is clear that Armenians are predominantly R1b-Z2103 (and especially L584). They have 30% of R1b for only 5% of R1a. The Mitanni or other Indo-Iranian tribes surely brought R1a-Z93 and probably also some R1b-Z2103 (Y24543 clade, found in Armenia, South Asia and Ukraine). That's probably what they found with ancient DNA. The Mitanni came first to Armenia (from 1500 BCE), then the actual Proto-Armenians from the Balkans (from 1200 BCE). That's what archaeology and history say.

I also find it odd to place Albanian with the Germanic branch. I wonder what are their justification for that. Albanian belong to R1b-Z2103 (SE European CTS9219 clade), not even to R1b-L51. I would place Albanian split a bit before the split between Italo-Celtic and Germanic. Phylogenetically, the Albanian branch is more closely related to the Armenian branch.

Actually there are many Germanic words in Albanian language, but the common explanation has been that they have derived from Gothic invasion some time AD. Similarities are seen in grammar. Also the hapogroups I1+I2 Germanic are present in Ydna of Albanians at the rate of around 5%. R1b Germanic also is present . So genetically speaking if the classification has any ground it could be those people who brought it

LABERIA
30-04-17, 18:41
well if the written facts of Irish monks are conspiracy, :useless:
then what about Fallmayer and Metternich?

anyway Fallmayer theory suggested that Greeks were swaped by Slavs and Greeks moved to Asia,
but all genetical results dissapointed him and his followers :indifferent:

Again, read:

I don't have any slightly idea of what are you talking. Open a new thread and elaborate your conspiracy theories.

Yetos
30-04-17, 19:17
Actually there are many Germanic words in Albanian language, but the common explanation has been that they have derived from Gothic invasion some time AD. Similarities are seen in grammar. Also the hapogroups I1+I2 Germanic are present in Ydna of Albanians at the rate of around 5%. R1b Germanic also is present . So genetically speaking if the classification has any ground it could be those people who brought it

I1 means nothing if you did not expand to more deeper,

I1 is also mark of traditional Greek tribes
that have nothing to do with Albania

zanipolo
30-04-17, 20:51
David Reich said

Reich told :

We also see no evidence of steppe migrations through the Balkans into Anatolia, 'cause there's time series data now through the Balkans and there's no evidence of steppe ancestry in the Balkans or even in the sporadic samples we have from Anatolia. So, the model that people have been thinking about, about a source in the steppe which transmits these Hittite languages through the Balkans and impacts Anatolia, there's just no support for it in the genetic data, and in fact there's contradiction in terms of certain suggestions in India.

bicicleur
30-04-17, 22:07
it's about time the whole paper gets published

Angela
30-04-17, 22:31
The podcast may go up at the APS site eventually but it's not there yet.

The crucial question is what is the date of their youngest group of Balkan samples? It's one thing if there is no steppe there 4200-3000 BC or so, and this thus calls into question the movement of Anatolian languages from the steppe into Anatolia via the Balkans. I've maintained since the days of dna forums that there's no clear archaeological trail moving in that direction at that time; rather the reverse.

It's another thing if there's no steppe up to the time of the Mycenaeans. How then and with whom did the Greek language arrive? How did related Armenian get to eastern Anatolia?

As for India, he's not saying there's no steppe ancestry, just that it doesn't look like Andronovo or Sintashta were the vectors. For all we know they may have found a more proximate population

Maciamo
30-04-17, 22:55
The crucial question is what is the date of their youngest group of Balkan samples? It's one thing if there is no steppe there 4200-3000 BC or so, and this thus calls into question the movement of Anatolian languages from the steppe into Anatolia via the Balkans. I've maintained since the days of dna forums that there's no clear archaeological trail moving in that direction at that time; rather the reverse.

I think that this is just a problem of sample bias. There were lots of people living in the Balkans from 4200 to 3000 BCE. How many did they test? Ten? One hundred? Was it from different locations and different periods? If they tested over one hundred from at least 10 different locations and periods, including cultures that archaeologists thought had Steppe influence like Cernavodă, Ezero, Glina or Bubanj-Hum, then it would be rather surprising. But if they took samples from cultures still belonging to Old Europe like Boian or Karanovo, then there is nothing odd about it. Even in the former case, there was surely a strong segregation between the Steppe invaders and the indigenous population, so not finding any Steppe ancestry could just mean that they got samples belonging to unmixed indigenous people in the conquered population.

Maciamo
30-04-17, 22:57
I see Srubna as related to R1a-Sintashta, but catacomb as R1b-Yamna
So did Myceneans come from Srubna or Catacomb?
They certainly came from the people of western Ukraine who invented the sword. Those same people also got into the Carpathian Basin, even before the Myceneans in Greece.

It could have been either the Late Catacomb or the Early Srubna culture. It's not very clear the the Mycenaeans appear just after the transition period between the two cultures in the Steppe.

bicicleur
30-04-17, 23:23
The crucial question is what is the date of their youngest group of Balkan samples? It's one thing if there is no steppe there 4200-3000 BC or so, and this thus calls into question the movement of Anatolian languages from the steppe into Anatolia via the Balkans. I've maintained since the days of dna forums that there's no clear archaeological trail moving in that direction at that time; rather the reverse.

AFAIK there is no trail at all, not from the Balkans, neither from anywhere else

anyway archeological trails are always guesswork
if it is possible to get hold of the proper DNA the trail becomes much clearer and much more certain

LATGAL
01-05-17, 06:17
The "weird tree" comes from 'Indo-European and Computational Cladistics' by Ringe et al. Albanian assumes a more typical position when Germanic is removed.

Fire Haired14
01-05-17, 06:24
It could have been either the Late Catacomb or the Early Srubna culture. It's not very clear the the Mycenaeans appear just after the transition period between the two cultures in the Steppe.

R1a Z93 found in Srubna basically rules out Srubna for Greece unless other Srubna carried sometype of R1b.

Arame
01-05-17, 10:00
Maciamo

Greeks being as a R1a nation? Hmm.. Read the Cypriot y dna paper. There is 0 correlation with R1a and Greek language spread into Cyprus. Most R1a present today in Greece is from medieval Slavic settlers.


For the R1b in Armenia coming from Balkanes. There is no archaeological evidence and no genetic evidence. You simply don't want to accept that Anthony's theory was wrong about that.

And btw it was wrong also about Hittites. Reich is not a person that will make bold claims without serious evidence.
Chernavoda was caused by Anatolia Chl entering into Europe and not by Steppe incursion. Before Myceneans there was no enough Steppe in South Balkans. Look at Montenegro BA on PCA You will see that Reich is correct. I will attach it.

Milan.M
01-05-17, 10:16
Language shift is not always caused by "massive" migration of people(DNA).In my opinion the said group sometimes can be near unnoticable.Let's look at the Altaic family,I don't know what will be the difference with Indo European supermen fighting on horseback, while the Altaics were far superior in this,or the Arabic speaking people of north Africa.In more modern times in Europe I can think of Italians and Romanians speaking Romance and their similarity.Cyprus is yet small island it could have been "Hellenized" in many different ways.

Arame
01-05-17, 10:40
Milan.M

You need to read that Cyprus paper. Cyprus was Hellenized by E-V13, R1b, and J2-M67. No R1a and I2a1 which both are recent Slavic settlers in Greece during Byzantine epoch.

Milan.M
01-05-17, 10:48
Milan.M

You need to read that Cyprus paper. Cyprus was Hellenized by E-V13, R1b, and J2-M67. No R1a and I2a1 which both are recent Slavic settlers in Greece during Byzantine epoch.

I'm really not arguing which haplogroups are originally Greek if we can speak of that in the first place,was giving an examples of language shift nor is there any indications that R1a and I2a arrived with Slavic settlers to be honest(not enough data) but mere interpretation of historical data by amateurs.Trying to fit all that with genetics which not always work so well,always coming something new to surprise us.

Arame
01-05-17, 10:50
Concerning that tree which as far as I understand is based on Chang et al computational model. Which can create exotic branchings.
Any tree that place the split between Indo Aryan and Iranian after 2000 BC is wrong wrong wrong.
You can have dozens of ancient dna from Sintashta and Andronovo You will not find the Indian L657.

Because it was not there and it made a leap frog directly from maybe Abashevo to Indus Valley.

Albanian being a Germanic language is also very funny.

Fire Haired14
01-05-17, 11:20
Any tree that place the split between Indo Aryan and Iranian after 2000 BC is wrong wrong wrong.
You can have dozens of ancient dna from Sintashta and Andronovo You will not find the Indian L657.

Because it was not there and it made a leap frog directly from maybe Abashevo to Indus Valley.


Do you think Sintashta, Andronovo, Srubnaya spoke Iranian not proto-Indo Iranian? And that the Indo Aryans with L657 were already moving towards South Asia in 2000 BC?

Milan.M
01-05-17, 11:54
Concerning that tree which as far as I understand is based on Chang et al computational model. Which can create exotic branchings.
Any tree that place the split between Indo Aryan and Iranian after 2000 BC is wrong wrong wrong.
You can have dozens of ancient dna from Sintashta and Andronovo You will not find the Indian L657.

Because it was not there and it made a leap frog directly from maybe Abashevo to Indus Valley.

Albanian being a Germanic language is also very funny.

Indo Iranians split is still later than Tocharian because there in the east we have a Centum dialect,Satemization must have occurred at later level because Tocharian would have been affected too by this innovation which affects Indo-Iranian,Balto-Slavic,Armenian,Albanian,Thracian,Dacian etc,partly Greek.

Maciamo
01-05-17, 12:20
Greeks being as a R1a nation? Hmm.. Read the Cypriot y dna paper. There is 0 correlation with R1a and Greek language spread into Cyprus. Most R1a present today in Greece is from medieval Slavic settlers.

That only applies to Mycenaeans, and I didn't say that a lot of Mycenaean Y-DNA lineages survived. Indo-European lineages were either R1a or R1b, but if you remove Slavic, Germanic, Celtic and Roman R1a and R1b in Greece, there is not much left. Mostly R1b-Z2103 and R1a-Z93, but that's just a few percents of the population. If the Dorians were R1b -Z2103 from the Balkans, then all that is left for the Mycenaeans is R1a. However R1a-Z93 probably came from the Near East. So chances are that the Mycenaeans had quite Proto-Slavic looking lineages like R1a-Z282 (either Z280 or M458) that cannot easily be distinguished from those of later Slavic invasions. That would explain why there is R1a all over Greece even though the Slavs only really settled in the north. Those two separate sources of similar-looking R1a would also explain why R1a is considerably higher in the north, but present throughout Greece. It is also in agreement with the new tree proposed by David Reich, which places Greek in the R1a branch alongside the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian branches.

bicicleur
01-05-17, 12:58
Indo-European lineages were either R1a or R1b, but if you remove Slavic, Germanic, Celtic and Roman R1a and R1b in Greece, there is not much left. Mostly R1b-Z2103 and R1a-Z93, but that's just a few percents of the population. If the Dorians were R1b -Z2103 from the Balkans, then all that is left for the Mycenaeans is R1a. However R1a-Z93 probably came from the Near East.

there may have been a 3rd IE clade, apart from R1a and R1b, certain sublades of I2a2a
not for Myceneans, but for the expansion toward the Carpathian Basin from the steppe

DuPidh
01-05-17, 15:04
Concerning that tree which as far as I understand is based on Chang et al computational model. Which can create exotic branchings.
Any tree that place the split between Indo Aryan and Iranian after 2000 BC is wrong wrong wrong.
You can have dozens of ancient dna from Sintashta and Andronovo You will not find the Indian L657.

Because it was not there and it made a leap frog directly from maybe Abashevo to Indus Valley.

Albanian being a Germanic language is also very funny.

I am surprised with the new classification of Albanian as Germanic language, but its not really funny. Albanian original words, not the borrowed one, contain a number of German words (but not too many) that can not be explained with Gothic or Vandal invasions. Also 2 Austrian linguists published a work saying that Albanian is the base of all European languages including Germanic, and Albanian language is not related to Illyrian. Albanians were annoyed to their suggestion of Albanian not related to Illyrian since there is evidence of relation and ignored their findings. To make my point, even if Albanian is not Germanic signs of some kind of relation are there. But the question is who brought that language to Albanians since genetically Albanians are Balkanic and R1b Germanic is not common among Albanians.

spartan owl
01-05-17, 16:25
Milan.M

You need to read that Cyprus paper. Cyprus was Hellenized by E-V13, R1b, and J2-M67. No R1a and I2a1 which both are recent Slavic settlers in Greece during Byzantine epoch.
yes you are right about that, but a simple explanation could be that when cyprus was hellenized the myceneans were already settled in greece for centuries so even if the original myceneans were predominately R1a the invading armies of cyprus had all greek haplotypes in the normal percentages.Then if you consider the fact that this army was mingled with the locals then ydna differences are to be aspected anyway.

Sile
01-05-17, 18:48
I think that this is just a problem of sample bias. There were lots of people living in the Balkans from 4200 to 3000 BCE. How many did they test? Ten? One hundred? Was it from different locations and different periods? If they tested over one hundred from at least 10 different locations and periods, including cultures that archaeologists thought had Steppe influence like Cernavodă, Ezero, Glina or Bubanj-Hum, then it would be rather surprising. But if they took samples from cultures still belonging to Old Europe like Boian or Karanovo, then there is nothing odd about it. Even in the former case, there was surely a strong segregation between the Steppe invaders and the indigenous population, so not finding any Steppe ancestry could just mean that they got samples belonging to unmixed indigenous people in the conquered population.

he stated over 2000 tested

Sile
01-05-17, 18:52
I am surprised with the new classification of Albanian as Germanic language, but its not really funny. Albanian original words, not the borrowed one, contain a number of German words (but not too many) that can not be explained with Gothic or Vandal invasions. Also 2 Austrian linguists published a work saying that Albanian is the base of all European languages including Germanic, and Albanian language is not related to Illyrian. Albanians were annoyed to their suggestion of Albanian not related to Illyrian since there is evidence of relation and ignored their findings. To make my point, even if Albanian is not Germanic signs of some kind of relation are there. But the question is who brought that language to Albanians since genetically Albanians are Balkanic and R1b Germanic is not common among Albanians.

gothic and vandal invasion for this albanian is too late at ~ 400 AD

R1b is not Germanic

Yetos
01-05-17, 19:01
Personally I believe that Myceneans cause they are connected with Vucocar since we found many common with should be R1b
and Hellenes-Dorians should be R1a since Makedonians were Dorians but also consider as cousins the Bryges a Thracian nation, the Mygdones

Cyprus was first colonised by Myceneans and Achaioi,
much later only 2 areas colonised by Makedonians at Ammochostos/famagusta and North at Solotoi if remember correct,

but linguistic Cyprus belongs to Arcado-Cypriot Dialect,
which means is Connected with minor-Asian population the known at Hettite as Arzawa-Asuwa the ones in Centum Greek called Arcadia

MarkoZ
01-05-17, 19:29
This is refreshing - it's great to see that David Reich is so willing to adjust his hypotheses to accomodate new evidence. I'd think much of Gramkelidze's & Ivanov's work has been vindicated by recent DNA, though there's still quite some inertia when it comes to more popular theories. Anecdotally, what converted me from being Gimbutas' most loyal acolyte was G&I demonstration that early attested Indo-European societies fit quite perfectly in the pan-West-Asian cultural horizon. That always seemed like a stronger argument to me than the Y-DNA monomania and such and made me doubt their intrusive nature. This is in no contradiction to an intermediate steppe episode, which G&I discuss in several chapters.

Incidentally they also attempt to demonstrate the West Asian centrality of Greek culture. They even hint at the possibility that the extant Greeks might have been but an offshoot of a larger population inhabiting Anatolia and the Transcaucasus, which was displaced in its original homeland. If there was no early steppe incursion into the Balkans that suggestion might not be so outrageous after all.

MarkoZ
01-05-17, 19:34
I seem to have missed the tree :confused2:

That's a bit odd, isn't it? Albanian a Germanic language? :startled:

Apsurdistan
01-05-17, 19:57
So Albanian is Germanic? No wonder the Germans are one of the founders of the greater Albania project. Kosovo was first and looks like parts of Macedonia might be next.

MarkoZ
01-05-17, 20:49
So Albanian is Germanic?

Albanian definitely isn't Germanic. I guess computational models produce some weird results in some cases.

LATGAL
01-05-17, 23:46
This is the relevant paper for anyone who can properly interpret it:
https://www.cs.rice.edu/~nakhleh/CPHL/RWT02.pdf


That only applies to Mycenaeans, and I didn't say that a lot of Mycenaean Y-DNA lineages survived. Indo-European lineages were either R1a or R1b, but if you remove Slavic, Germanic, Celtic and Roman R1a and R1b in Greece, there is not much left. Mostly R1b-Z2103 and R1a-Z93, but that's just a few percents of the population. If the Dorians were R1b -Z2103 from the Balkans, then all that is left for the Mycenaeans is R1a. However R1a-Z93 probably came from the Near East. So chances are that the Mycenaeans had quite Proto-Slavic looking lineages like R1a-Z282 (either Z280 or M458) that cannot easily be distinguished from those of later Slavic invasions. That would explain why there is R1a all over Greece even though the Slavs only really settled in the north. Those two separate sources of similar-looking R1a would also explain why R1a is considerably higher in the north, but present throughout Greece. It is also in agreement with the new tree proposed by David Reich, which places Greek in the R1a branch alongside the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian branches.

Early Slavic speakers settled pretty much throughout the Balkans, all the way deep into southern Greece, going by toponymy (even in Albania, especially the area south of the Shkumbin river and Tosks do seem to have R1a and I2a associated with the Slavic expansion at higher levels than Ghegs so that's kinda corroborated) but it's true that there seems to be a south-north cline in their impact, if not the exact density of toponyms, as you said.

Based on what I've seen, and with my limited knowledge, don't Albanians and Greeks have similar levels of R1b (~ low teens) potentially associated with early Indo-European expansions (rather than later ones from Western Europe into the Balkans etc.) by the way?

Also, to keep to the particular tree, there's a Greco-Armenian node and Armenian is pretty associated with R1b overall, isn't it? You can make the "Mycenaeans" post-Greek Indo-Iranians arrivals to Greece, per the theories of Huxley and Makkay of course, who would be using an already existing Greek dialect. Unless you also have in mind something along the lines of what Garrett considers in 'Convergence 
in 
the 
Formation 
of 
Indo‑European
 Subgroups:
 Phylogeny 
and
 Chronology'

http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~garrett/IEConvergence.pdf

MarkoZ
02-05-17, 02:19
This probably wasn't your original intent when posting this, but I think this is something important that's often omitted from these discussions:


The first stage of IE language spread is characterized by a distinctive lexical, dervational, and onomastic profile; this corresponds to urbanization and the use of indigenous sociocultural traditions by speaker of IE languages. In Anatolia, Greece, and Bactria‑Margiana respectively, compare the dominant role of Hattic elements in Old Hittite religion and cult and ideology of kingship’ (Melcher 2003, 17), including Hattic loanwords like halmaššui‑‘throne’; the elite semantic profile of 'Minoan’ loans' in Greek (Renfrew 1998),including the vocabulary of kingship (Mycenaean wanaks > ánaks, perhaps gwasileus>basiléus).

This corresponds to the picture that Robert Drews paints in his 'The Coming of the Greeks' regarding the spread of Hittite, which is that of rather peaceful plebeian usurpation of an advanced urban culture. I imagine that this transformation couldn't have been effected without significant gene flow.

Angela
02-05-17, 03:32
There are quite a few entries on the Hittites in "Empires of the Silk Road". He agrees it was a peaceful, gradual infiltration, not a military invasion.
https://books.google.com/books?id=-Ue8BxLEMt4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q=Hittites&f=false

Even if they find a Hittite sample with steppe, given the Mitanni influence I don't know how that would be dispositive. I think we need lots of samples from south eastern Balkan cultures.

IronSide
02-05-17, 05:29
That only applies to Mycenaeans, and I didn't say that a lot of Mycenaean Y-DNA lineages survived. Indo-European lineages were either R1a or R1b, but if you remove Slavic, Germanic, Celtic and Roman R1a and R1b in Greece, there is not much left. Mostly R1b-Z2103 and R1a-Z93, but that's just a few percents of the population. If the Dorians were R1b -Z2103 from the Balkans, then all that is left for the Mycenaeans is R1a. However R1a-Z93 probably came from the Near East. So chances are that the Mycenaeans had quite Proto-Slavic looking lineages like R1a-Z282 (either Z280 or M458) that cannot easily be distinguished from those of later Slavic invasions. That would explain why there is R1a all over Greece even though the Slavs only really settled in the north. Those two separate sources of similar-looking R1a would also explain why R1a is considerably higher in the north, but present throughout Greece. It is also in agreement with the new tree proposed by David Reich, which places Greek in the R1a branch alongside the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian branches.

I get your point, but I feel we're limiting ourselves here by assuming that IE nations must have been either R1a dominant or R1b dominant, that could have been possible at the early days of Yamna maybe, but Indo-Europeans assimilated other groups in their migrations. In the case of Greece, E-V13 satisfies every criteria to be the lineage of proto-Hellenic people, it is a very young lineage that expanded during the bronze age, and not all of its branches are in the Balkans, so it is younger still, maybe a great patriarch lived as close as 2000 BC, R1b would be a secondary minor lineage, one Balkan variety is R1b-CTS9219.

By all means they could have expanded from the northern steppes of Russia if that was your argument (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1a_Y-DNA.shtml#Greek) for R1a, and I don't understand why we assume Dorians and Mycenaeans have different haplogroups, I don't know but didn't they speak Greek ? one language ? they weren't separate branches of IE, but different dialects of one language, that means they weren't much different genetically, E-V13 and R1b-CTS9219, and personally I would add some G-L13.

If Greek R1a is Mycenaean, two things must be true: 1- it would a clear and different branch than Slavic ones, maybe separated by a TMRCA of about 4000 ybp. 2- it would be present in all places settled by the Greeks, in their conquests and colonies, as well as Roman distribution, so a pan-European presence as well as middle eastern.

Arame
02-05-17, 06:48
Do you think Sintashta, Andronovo, Srubnaya spoke Iranian not proto-Indo Iranian? And that the Indo Aryans with L657 were already moving towards South Asia in 2000BC?

Yes they were exclusively Iranian related culture. Who later became Scythians mixing with Siberians and W Asians.
Indo Aryans were already in Indus valley at 2000 - 1600 bc that is why they don't need Sintashta but Yamna.

berun
02-05-17, 16:14
Hittite DNA will be a hard issue as IIRC they cremated their deceased, if some DNA is got from just buried people what will prevent that he wouldn't be Hattic?

By the way if Greek Mycaenean and Hittite are attested from 1600 BC such languages might be in place at least in 2000 BC. Of course if Yamnayists are obsesswd to find steppe genes the genetists would'nt be capable to track the IE migration, but for those pointing to a northern homeland it's not so problematic. I recall that Pax Augusta found in RISE595 a 15% of North Slavic.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/33420-Problematic-samples-from-Balkans!-Are-they-for-real?p=499438&viewfull=1#post499438

Even if I'm not confident comparing ancients with moderns (it is more like to find out how where Europeans in the Middle Ages comparing them with Southafrican coloureds), it is an interesting point, also to notice how the Yamnayist obsession can divert us from the right path.

LATGAL
03-05-17, 02:01
@Markoz,

Yes, the whole paper is interesting I think, but this part is what I had in mind in this case:

"...it hardly makes sense to reconstruct Proto-Greek as such: a coherent IE dialect, spoken by some IE speech community, ancestral to all the later Greek dialects. It is just as likely that Greek was formed by the coalescence of dialects that originally formed part of a continuum with other NIE (Nuclear Indo-European) dialects, including some that went on to participate in the formation of other IE branches"

As for E, J etc. and their potential assimilation on the way to their final stop, various theories (that of Michel Sakellariou in 'Les Proto-Grecs' comes to mind - and sorry for the vagueness since it's been a while :embarassed:) that agree with a steppe urheimat have the steppe-associated "proto-Greeks" being accompanied to the south with a non-Indo-European Balkan element alongside them. So it's not unlikely that those lineages were just as important or even more important than any R lineage when those groups finally arrived to the south sometime in the 2200-1900 BC period, assuming such a scenario. But I guess we'll see!

holderlin
07-05-17, 18:04
Regarding the new tree, I had proposed since 2009 that the Mycenaeans were predominantly R1a and descended from the Srubna culture by a nearly direct migration from the Steppe around 1600 BCE. I believe that the later Dorian migration brought R1b (Z2103, U152?) to Greece. Therefore Greek is a hybrid IE branch, and this is hard to show on such a tree.

However I disagree that this should be the case of the Armenian branch too. It is clear that Armenians are predominantly R1b-Z2103 (and especially L584). They have 30% of R1b for only 5% of R1a. The Mitanni or other Indo-Iranian tribes surely brought R1a-Z93 and probably also some R1b-Z2103 (Y24543 clade, found in Armenia, South Asia and Ukraine). That's probably what they found with ancient DNA. The Mitanni came first to Armenia (from 1500 BCE), then the actual Proto-Armenians from the Balkans (from 1200 BCE). That's what archaeology and history say.

I also find it odd to place Albanian with the Germanic branch. I wonder what are their justification for that. Albanian belong to R1b-Z2103 (SE European CTS9219 clade), not even to R1b-L51. I would place Albanian split a bit before the split between Italo-Celtic and Germanic. Phylogenetically, the Albanian branch is more closely related to the Armenian branch.

This is most likely the case.

holderlin
07-05-17, 18:27
The "weird tree" comes from 'Indo-European and Computational Cladistics' by Ringe et al. Albanian assumes a more typical position when Germanic is removed.Ah. This implies a latter influence of Germanic rather than generative.

holderlin
07-05-17, 18:30
R1a Z93 found in Srubna basically rules out Srubna for Greece unless other Srubna carried sometype of R1b.We don't have Mycenaean DNA yet. They could certainly be R1a.

holderlin
07-05-17, 18:39
Maciamo

Greeks being as a R1a nation? Hmm.. Read the Cypriot y dna paper. There is 0 correlation with R1a and Greek language spread into Cyprus. Most R1a present today in Greece is from medieval Slavic settlers.

Mycenaeans could still be R1a. Remember Mycenae was pre-bronze age collapse. Everything went to hell at the end of their reign.


For the R1b in Armenia coming from Balkanes. There is no archaeological evidence and no genetic evidence. You simply don't want to accept that Anthony's theory was wrong about that.
.

With Armenian being so strikingly close to Greek, I don't know how you can reasonably have such a strong anti-Balkan stance.

holderlin
07-05-17, 19:16
Yes they were exclusively Iranian related culture. Who later became Scythians mixing with Siberians and W Asians.
Indo Aryans were already in Indus valley at 2000 - 1600 bc that is why they don't need Sintashta but Yamna.This is reflected in the ANI aDNA as well. This is why I have posited that Indo-Iranian was in fact very much like Indic and was likely spoken in East Yamnaya at the very least, if not all of Yamnaya at its latter stages. This why known Iranian speaking samples in the West have some EEF(Sarmatian), but those further East do not. Sintashta and Andronovo almost certainly spoke Iranian.

holderlin
07-05-17, 19:37
This is reflected in the ANI aDNA as well. This is why I have posited that Indo-Iranian was in fact very much like Indic and was likely spoken in East Yamnaya at the very least, if not all of Yamnaya at its latter stages. This why known Iranian speaking samples in the West have some EEF(Sarmatian), but those further East do not. Sintashta and Andronovo almost certainly spoke Iranian.

In fact, this is all but proven now.

We have known historical Iranian speakers' aDNA along with Indic speaking modern aDNA that shows Yamnaya ancestry rather than Sintashta/Andronovo.

Yamnaya spoke Indo-Iranian not PIE, at least at its latter stage.

As to the other details of my theory like early departures of Anatolian, Tocharian and Italo-Celtic, it seems to fit as well, but I don't know what exactly "early" means. Perhaps PIE is the tail end of Khavlynsk/Low Mikhaylovka/Stredy Stog.

Sile
07-05-17, 20:35
Ah. This implies a latter influence of Germanic rather than generative.

before the chit-chat from reich , andrew garret the linguist spoke on the same thing

and the last speaker spoke on ancient chinese languages

holderlin
07-05-17, 21:13
before the chit-chat from reich , andrew garret the linguist spoke on the same thing

and the last speaker spoke on ancient chinese languages

As people are saying it probably has something to do with Gothic migrations.

Garrick
10-06-17, 04:03
Concerning that tree which as far as I understand is based on Chang et al computational model. Which can create exotic branchings.
Any tree that place the split between Indo Aryan and Iranian after 2000 BC is wrong wrong wrong.
You can have dozens of ancient dna from Sintashta and Andronovo You will not find the Indian L657.

Because it was not there and it made a leap frog directly from maybe Abashevo to Indus Valley.

Albanian being a Germanic language is also very funny.

Albanian is not Germanic.

It is the closest to Balto Slavic and it has link with Armenian, what is very logical.

Also with Iranian.

As Thracian.

Albanian is Satem as Balto Slavic, Armenian, Thracian and Iranian.


Kortlandt 2016:

http://www.baltistica.lt/index.php/baltistica/article/view/2284

"The closest relatives of Balto-Slavic are Albanian and Indo-Iranian. Together with Armenian and Thracian, these are the satǝm languages, which together with Greek and Phrygian constitute the eastern part of Classic Indo-European."

Garrick
10-06-17, 04:04
Whole paper, who is interested:

http://www.baltistica.lt/index.php/baltistica/article/view/2284/2264

Balkanite
10-06-17, 17:08
For any one who wants to discuss the things he said.

It's really all in the title. Ancient DNA suggests Steppe migrations spread Indo-European languages


I personally sort of did a double take at this: No Steppe ancestry in aDNA data from Balkans and Anatolia.

So, no steppe from the Balkans into Anatolia either. If true, either Anatolian languages came south over the Caucasus, or the original Pre-or-proto Indo-European arose somewhere in Anatolia, as some of us have been saying for a long time was a possibility.

I wonder if my other suggestion at one time, that Greek came through Anatolia, could be true. That or it came with almost no people. How ironic if that should turn out to be true, given how often the Mycenaens were used to illuminate Indo-European societies: it may be a template for them but they might not be steppe people?



If it did come from the Caucasus and then across Anatolia, then it's a pincer movement from the Caucasus with one arrow going into the steppe, mixing there with EHG and then moving into Europe, and another arrow going from the Caucasus into the rest of Anatolia, the Balkans, and on to the rest of southern Europe.

If that's the case then Pagani et al may be onto something, and the "Indo- European component" may be some group related to "Caucasians".

Sintashta not an ancestor of Indic peoples (and Andrnovo?). So much for all those statistics predicting they would be... I just love all the pretending going on over at Eurogenes that they never thought any such thing. :) Has the thread been deleted?
Angela, where can i find this speech?

Gash
10-06-17, 23:30
where do you think the german and albanian link came from or are you better than david reich?

Hallstatt culture from the proto-Ilyrians. Same reason Albanian was linked with Balto-Slavic which also Thracian has been.

Sile
11-06-17, 00:01
Hallstatt culture from the proto-Ilyrians. Same reason Albanian was linked with Balto-Slavic which also Thracian has been.

I know the illyrian mixed with the gallic-celts to form Halstatt and then the celts proceeded in the next 400 years to advance south towards Greece and absorb the illyrians on the way

But as I said many times....there are no true illyrians , there is just many different tribes in Illyria the Geographical named land ...............Illyria is like scandinavia in terminology ( a geographical area )

Garrick
11-06-17, 01:00
I know the illyrian mixed with the gallic-celts to form Halstatt and then the celts proceeded in the next 400 years to advance south towards Greece and absorb the illyrians on the way

But as I said many times....there are no true illyrians , there is just many different tribes in Illyria the Geographical named land ...............Illyria is like scandinavia in terminology ( a geographical area )

Hallstatt is too west. Basarabi, Proto-Scythian, Chernoles and similar cultures in Iron age much better connect forreruners of languages, Balto Slavic, Albanian, and further Armenian, and Iranian, surely and Thracian (all Satem).


http://www.eliznik.org.uk/RomaniaHistory/romania-arch-map/hallstatt.GIF

A. Papadimitriou
11-06-17, 01:31
Albanian is not Germanic.

It is the closest to Balto Slavic and it has link with Armenian, what is very logical.

Also with Iranian.

As Thracian.

Albanian is Satem as Balto Slavic, Armenian, Thracian and Iranian.


Kortlandt 2016:

http://www.baltistica.lt/index.php/baltistica/article/view/2284

"The closest relatives of Balto-Slavic are Albanian and Indo-Iranian. Together with Armenian and Thracian, these are the satǝm languages, which together with Greek and Phrygian constitute the eastern part of Classic Indo-European."

I won't say that the article is wrong but a few things.

Irrespective of my views on it, a link of Albanian and Germanic has been supported by other scholars. I don't agree to be frank but you should refute their arguments.

(Look, though. In page 359 he compares reconstructed 'Indo-Ir./Balto-Sl.' pronouns to attested Attic Greek ones. That doesn't have to do much with his arguments but it's comparing apples to oranges. I don't take seriously into account those who do it)

I personally believe Albanian has a Phrygian element too. And Phrygian in some ways connects Greek with Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian.

We don't know much about 'Thracian'. Actually there are some inscriptions which are undepichered and seem incomprehensible.

Rolisteneas Nerenea tiltean ēsko Arazea domean Tilezupta miē era zēlta

I think in that incription 'domean' is translated as 'woman'. What is it's IE cognate? It seems superficially similar to English woman but that comes from wīfmann. We then can say that is is related to PIE *dem, *dom, Gk. domos, Lt. domus, OCS domŭ = home, house. So it is the person who stays in house or who rules the house if we want something more feminist :P and theoretically it can be correct but we can't even verify that the way the scholar chose to seperate the words is correct because they are seperated like that in the ring.

Rolisteneasn ereneatil teanēskoa razeadom eantilezu ptamiēe raz ēlta
(What is transcribed as ē can also be h)

Balkanite
11-06-17, 01:49
I know the illyrian mixed with the gallic-celts to form Halstatt and then the celts proceeded in the next 400 years to advance south towards Greece and absorb the illyrians on the way

But as I said many times....there are no true illyrians , there is just many different tribes in Illyria the Geographical named land ...............Illyria is like scandinavia in terminology ( a geographical area )
So the celts just absorbed over 70 huge illyrian tribes in a matter of a few hundred years? :D
I do not know where you get your information, but you should try reading Aleksandar Stipcevic. He is a yugoslav like you, yet he accomplishes to understand that politics shouldn't always come before truth. Truth actually matter for some people : )
Stipcevic paints a near perfect picture of what was going on at that time. Only the more northern Illyrians got celtic influence(and it was not much). And as we all know, the celts didn't absorb people in the balkans(a few slaves and women maybe) at that time. They usually just raided around the countryside, while they made cities and towns pay tributes(or they would get robbed).
King Attalos(or some other king related to him) of Pergamon eventually kicked their butts out of Anatolia though. And if you know anything from history, then you should know that raiders usually take the easiest prey. And in the balkans that holds true too. When Gauls and celts raided, they usually raided the more compactly settled lowlands and towns, not the mountainous areas. And for your information, the Illyrians lived mostly in the highlands. That is also why you South slavs have never been able to completely subdue the northern Albanians. Mountains are natural fortresses. It is impossible for an bypassing celtic army to assimilate/absorb over 70 different tribes, all hardened and armed to the bones. And even if anyone would listen to your distortions of history, how come the celts left almost no genes or any sign of their language in the balkans?(except maybe some minor few words, which are inevitable)

Balkanite
11-06-17, 02:04
I know the illyrian mixed with the gallic-celts to form Halstatt and then the celts proceeded in the next 400 years to advance south towards Greece and absorb the illyrians on the way

But as I said many times....there are no true illyrians , there is just many different tribes in Illyria the Geographical named land ...............Illyria is like scandinavia in terminology ( a geographical area )

In the first sentence you say that the celts absorbed the illyrians. And in the next you say that the illyrians didn't really exist, but that it is only a geographical area. How could the celts absorb the illyrians if the illyrians did not exist? How could there be an indoeuropean language north of illyria(celtic), and one south of illyria(greek), and none in between. Then how did the albanians pop up in between the celts and greeks? Then according to you albanian language should be a mix between greek and celtic languages right? Does albanian look anything like a hellenized celtic language? Or a celtizized greek language? I really really REALLY hope that you are just intentionally spreading fake information. Because if you really believe those things yourself, then yea. I dont even know what to say man. Normally i would advice you to go see a psychiatrist or something, but i sincerely do not think that anyone will be able to help washing this fake reality out of your mind, if you really believe in these things yourself.

Balkanite
11-06-17, 02:09
But anyway, does anyone know where i can find more info on this speech?
I found his old speech in one of Angelas older post, but he doesn't talk linguistics at all in the speech.

Btw, is that map where albanian is branching of germanic legit? I mean, is that Reich and Garretts suggestion on how the phylogeny of IE looks like?
Could be cool if albanian were on the same branch as germanic languages.

Garrick
11-06-17, 10:47
I won't say that the article is wrong but a few things.

Irrespective of my views on it, a link of Albanian and Germanic has been supported by other scholars. I don't agree to be frank but you should refute their arguments.

(Look, though. In page 359 he compares reconstructed 'Indo-Ir./Balto-Sl.' pronouns to attested Attic Greek ones. That doesn't have to do much with his arguments but it's comparing apples to oranges. I don't take seriously into account those who do it)

I personally believe Albanian has a Phrygian element too. And Phrygian in some ways connects Greek with Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian.

We don't know much about 'Thracian'. Actually there are some inscriptions which are undepichered and seem incomprehensible.

Rolisteneas Nerenea tiltean ēsko Arazea domean Tilezupta miē era zēlta

I think in that incription 'domean' is translated as 'woman'. What is it's IE cognate? It seems superficially similar to English woman but that comes from wīfmann. We then can say that is is related to PIE *dem, *dom, Gk. domos, Lt. domus, OCS domŭ = home, house. So it is the person who stays in house or who rules the house if we want something more feminist :P and theoretically it can be correct but we can't even verify that the way the scholar chose to seperate the words is correct because they are seperated like that in the ring.

Rolisteneasn ereneatil teanēskoa razeadom eantilezu ptamiēe raz ēlta
(What is transcribed as ē can also be h)

Kortlandt in his article (2016) gives contemporary knowledge.

It is interesting for example American linguists and mathematicians did one extensively researching for Indo European languages where found Albanian is the closest to Balto Slavic.

What is interesting they found that Albanian is furthest from the Latin.

In their research they take only words from investigated IE language for which they were sure that not borrowed from other IE language.

Of course it is not disputed, Albanian has Germanic elements. Proto-Albanian, Thracian, Proto-Balto-Slavic, Proto-Germanic, all were close together for example in territory of todays Romania and beyond (East Europe).

East European cultures of iron age (Basarabi, Chernoles, Proto-Scythian and similar) were in link with Hallsttat culture.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Eastern_and_Central_Europe_around_750_BC.png

It is logical that Albanian is not Centum as Germanic languages.

Albanian is Satem as Balto-Slavic, Thracian, Armenian, Iranian (if we speak about Iranian languages especially someone can find any similarities between Albanian and Taylish and generally Nortwesthern Iranian languages).

Of course Albanian could have similarities with Phrygian.

MarkoZ
11-06-17, 11:02
Of course it is not disputed, Albanian has Germanic elements. Proto-Albanian, Thracian, Proto-Balto-Slavic, Proto-Germanic, all were close together for example in territory of todays Romania and beyond (East Europe).



The only marked Germanic elements in Albanian derive from East Germanic dialects, mostly via Slavic.

Garrick
11-06-17, 11:27
The only marked Germanic elements in Albanian derive from East Germanic dialects, mostly via Slavic.

What is most logical. Balto Slavic and Germanic always had long border and mixing. And Albanian borrowing from Balto Slavic took some Germanic elements, but it could be possible that Albanian somewhat borrowed directly from any Eastern German tribe.

MarkoZ
11-06-17, 11:51
What is most logical. Balto Slavic and Germanic always had long border and mixing. And Albanian borrowing from Balto Slavic took some Germanic elements, but it could be possible that Albanian somewhat borrowed directly from any Eastern German tribe.

Yes, I think what makes Albanian an oddball is that it readily soaked up foreign loanwords, presumably due to the relative underdevelopment of early Albanian society. Albanian-Slavic interactions are an interesting subject of study in this regard. Matthew C. Curtis (2012) summarizes it as follows: the significantly larger body of Slavic loanwords into Albanian is characterized by words pertaining to farming, cultural objects and nature, whereas the less numerous Albanian terms in Slavic relate to heroic virtue and family relations. It's an interesting dynamic and I think it explains to an extent the development of the Albanian language.

A. Papadimitriou
11-06-17, 12:22
Kortlandt in his article (2016) gives contemporary knowledge.


I don't believe you care about the truth. The article you posted isn't about the similarites between Albanian and Balto-Slavic. He wants to prove that 'a comparison of Balto-Slavic with Indo-Iranian leads to a reconstruction of an early stage of Indo-European' and he just states that Albanian appears to be' the closest relative of Balto-Slavic'. Irrespective of if that is correct or not that article isn't about it and can't be used to support it.

Garrick
11-06-17, 14:15
I don't believe you care about the truth. The article you posted isn't about the similarites between Albanian and Balto-Slavic. He wants to prove that 'a comparison of Balto-Slavic with Indo-Iranian leads to a reconstruction of an early stage of Indo-European' and he just states that Albanian appears to be' the closest relative of Balto-Slavic'. Irrespective of if that is correct or not that article isn't about it and can't be used to support it.
Only science.

It is scientific article about Balto Slavic, Indo Iranian and other Satem languages, published in Baltistica, 2016.

Citations:

"The closest relatives of Balto-Slavic are Albanian and Indo-Iranian. Together with Armenian and Thracian, these are the satǝm languages, which together with Greek and Phrygian constitute the eastern part of Classic Indo-European (cf. Porzig 1974). It is therefore legitimate to look for shared innovations of these languages which set them apart from their neighbors."

"Proto-Indo-European had a threefold distinction between fortis, glottalic lenis, and plain lenis obstruents, all of them voiceless, e.g. *t [t:], *d [ť], *dh [t] (cf. Kortlandt 2010, 53–65; 2012). In the Classic Indo-European languages (after their separation from Anatolian and Tocharian), the lenis obstruents became voiced [ʔd], [d], while the fortis remained voiceless [t]. This system was best preserved in Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic and Albanian until the plain voiced stops became breathy voiced in the majority of Indic dialects, e.g. dh [d̤] <[d], and glottalization was subsequently lost in the larger part of the area, yielding glottalized vowels in Balto-Slavic as a result of Winter’s law (cf. Kortlandt 2009, 51–76). The glottalized stops were devoiced in Thracian, Armenian and Phrygian, but not in Greek, where the plain voiced stops became devoiced and aspirated, e.g. θ [th] < [d]. The Greek devoicing was a local development because the closest relatives (Phrygian and the ancient Macedonian dialect) were not affected. The devoicing of the glottalized stops separated Thracian, Armenian and Phrygian from Balto-Slavic, Albanian and Greek. One may wonder if this development can be attributed to the influence of a Proto-Anatolian substratum."

"Another development that seems to be dialectal Indo-European is the retraction of *s to *ṣ after *i, *u, *r, *k in Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic, Albanian and Armenian. However, the distinction between these variants became phonemic in the separate sub-branches only. Moreover, it cannot be demonstrated that the retraction did not affect Greek and Phrygian because these languages never developed a similar distinction. Thus, we arrive at five dialectal areas within the eastern part of Classic Indo-European:
357
1. Indo-Iranian;
2. Balto-Slavic and Albanian;
3. Armenian and Thracian;
4. Phrygian;
5. Greek."

Etc...

I gave link and everyone can read whole paper.

If you want we can discuss further.

Balkanite
11-06-17, 15:56
here ya go, reich and garrett speech from 29 april 2017 http://www.ustream.tv/channel/aps-meeting
They do not say albanian descend from germanic though. He just uses that tree as an example of how language trees usually look

LABERIA
11-06-17, 16:48
here ya go, reich and garrett speech from 29 april 2017 http://www.ustream.tv/channel/aps-meeting
They do not say albanian descend from germanic though. He just uses that tree as an example of how language trees usually look
It's a theory like many others. Many have been in the past and many will be in the future. For example read this theory:


LITUANUS
LITHUANIAN QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

Volume 39, No.2 - Summer 1993
Editor of this issue: Robertas Vitas, Lithuanian Research & Studies Center
ISSN 0024-5089
Copyright © 1993 LITUANUS Foundation, Inc.
Lituanus
SLAVIC, A BALTICIZED ALBANIAN?

Harvey E. Mayer

Hamp (1984) in his criticism of my article (Mayer 1981), after his inaccurate comment that Iranian, because of its vowel system, 'can surely be classified only with Indic',1 makes statements about Albanian which stimulate major investigation.

He says: 'It can be said to be related more closely to Baltic and Slavic than to anything else, and certainly not to be close to Thracian.'2

I ask: If so, is Albanian more closely related to Slavic than to Baltic? And if it is, was Pre-Slavic originally so closely tied with Pre-Albanian in Late Dialectal Indo-European times that both represented very minor variations of the same dialect as opposed to other dialects like Pre-Baltic, Pre-Iranian, Pre-Germanic, etc.?

Martynov (1981) says that Proto-Slavic is Italicized Proto-Baltic while Common Slavic is Iranicized Proto-Slavic. This is all based on lexicon. My suggestion that Slavic mainly reflects in its essence an original Pre-Albanian variant both phonologically and lexically with a huge superimposed Baltic lexical influence now extending into morphology rests on a broader and deeper linguistic base. With this, it offers some answers to some vexing questions.

Phonologically, Slavic and Albanian have the following notable ancient ties: 1. Th, TH to T, 2. Dh, DH to D (T = voiceless stop, D = voiceless stop, h = aspiration, H = laryn-geal), 3. s alternating with h (not true of Baltic), 4. reflexes of k' (g'(h) kept separate from those of the ruki law (not true of Baltic), 5. ks- to h- (not true of Baltic), a special, exclusive Albanian-Slavic reflex, 6. more cases of k', g'(h) to k, g than other satem languages including Baltic which shows sibilants instead (Shevelov 1965 for the Slavic).

Lexically, Slavic and Albanian correspondences minus Baltic ones outnumber Baltic and Albanian correspondences minus Slavic ones.3 This is striking when we consider that the opposite is true for Hittite and Tokharian.

Viewing (Pre-)Slavic as a variant of (Pre-)Albanian, considering their relative geographic positions as a constant, makes it easy for us to see just how Martynov's comments about Italic and Iranian influences can apply not only for Slavic, but for Albanian as well. Note that North Iranian contacts apparently influenced Slavic while South Iranian contacts apparently influenced Albanian.4

This (Pre)-Slavic-(Pre) Albanian view allows us also to suggest an answer to the question mentioned by Trubačev (1981) of Common Slavic's absence from the region of Old European hydronomy in which Baltic plays an important role, possibly even that of the center of its radiation. He says, "... and this is very odd because it contradicts the supra-language and supra-dialect character of the named hydronymic region and also contradicts all the old ties of Common Slavic with other Indo-European languages of Europe, and finally contradicts the theory of departure of Common Slavic from the heart of Common Baltic or its western branch.' This (Pre-)Slavic (Pre-)Albanian view might also allow us to state with considerable assurance our answer to the question of the origins of Albanian, especially since a similar problem with ancient Albanian place names in Albania occurs. The answer to both questions is probably that the (Pre-)Slavs and (Pre-

The possibility of special, close aboriginal (Pre-)Slavic-(Pre)Albanian dialectal ties indicates the Carpathians as a common ancestral home for (Pre-)Slavs and (Pre-)Albanians where they led a pastoral, migratory existence. This location surely originally put them out of reach of contact with Pre-Baltic.

This is evidenced by two ancient phonological differences: 1. Slavic's and Albanian's reflexes of k', g'(h) separate from those of the ruki law versus Baltic's early immediate merger of them into š/s, ž/z, 2. The special Slavo-Albanian reflex of ks-to h-: Russian dialect xinit' 'to condemn', Russian xilyj, xiloj 'sickly'; Albanian (h)unj, Shkoder ulj, ulem 1 belittle' where h-is from ks- if not kh- (Fasmer 1973; 236-8)5 versus Baltic's metathesis of original ks- to sk-t an ancient change predating the ruki law: Lithuanian skaudus 'painful' versus Slavic xudu 'bad' (Stang 1965:95).

It is significant that wherever original sk-/ks- occurs, Baltic has sk-, Slavic has reflexes of either, while Albanian, where anti-Baltic drift is the strongest, has h- from an original ks- or, I believe, from a ks- via metathesis from an original sk- before a back vowel as in he from skoia 'shadow' (Fasmer 1973:602).

My present view of Slavic as a heavily Balticized Albanian, I believe, helps make my answers to all of Hamp's objections to my previous article's position against a Balto-Slavic protolanguage cogent despite the 'evidence' he cites for it including 'syllabic contrast between long and short or acuted and circumflex',6 'the remarkable agreement of Baltic and Slavic in the incidence of a double reflex of the Indo-European syllabic sonants,7 and in the lengthening of syllables before Indo-European mediae,8 and in the derivational vrddhi affecting i's and u's developed in Baltic and Slavic analyzed so fully by Leskien, and in several basic formational features of the verbal system.' In the end all of this involves borrowing, calking, and otherwise favoring of morphemes, even those occurring as doublets, of one sort (words) or another (affixes) over others via dialect or language clustering contact.

With Pre-Slavs seen as originally basically nomadic northern Pre-Albanian descending northward from the Carpathians into regions with sedentary, most likely, technically superior Baits, we can expect their dialect to have been strongly influenced by Baltic. A further sign of this ancient situation is the much greater degree of homogeneity of Slavic than of Baltic where more anciently sedentary dialects tend to show far less homogeneity than migratory ones. Albanian, with more homogeneity than Slavic, shows an even later onset of sedentary habits of its speakers who, having moved south, characteristically, seem to have replaced one mountainous region (the Carpathians) with another (the Balkans) to continue an earlier, somewhat migratory, nomadic type of living before finally becoming sedentary.

I am grateful to Hamp for his remarks about Albanian. They helped me identify Pre-Slavic as a variant of Pre-Albanian and support the notion that it was originally significantly different from Pre-Baltic under whose influence it later fell. In a way, Slavic resembles English, a powerfully Romanized Germanic language. But where the situation with English has been relatively easily identifiable, the analogous situation with Slavic has been very elusive. This is not surprising. The influence of conservative Baltic gave Slavic a conservative appearance. The influence of innovative neighboring dialects and languages (Celtic, for example) on Albanian gave it a much changed appearance. The immediate reaction has been: Albanian and Slavic look so different while Baltic and Slavic seem so much alike.

To counter this, I provide the reminder that the proposed Slavic-Albanian linguistic unity ended a long time ago, when Indo-European syllabic nasals n, m, n, m became vowels plus nasals. Before this, Pre-Slavic and Pre-Albanian had had different new neighbors. For, perhaps, centuries before this Pre-Slavic, and not Pre-Albanian, had had Pre-Baltic and Pre-Germanic, and for, perhaps, millennia after this Slavic, and not Albanian, had Baltic and Germanic as neighbors.

References

Fasmer, Maks. 1964-1973. Etimologičeskij slovar' russkogo jazyka, tr. by O. N. Trubačev. Vote. 1-4. Moskva: Izdatelstvo 'Progress'.
_. 1973. (Volume 4 of the above) 236-8, 253, 602.
Fraenkel, Ernst. 1962-1965. Litauisches etymologisches Worterbuch, Vote. 1,2. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitatsverlag. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Hamp, Eric P. 1980. Thracian, Dacian and Albanian-Romanian Correspondences. Actes du IIe Congres international de thracologie. Vol. 3, 57-60. Bucuresti.
_. 1984. On Myths and Accuracy. General Linguistics. 24.4.238-9.
Martynov, V.V. Balto-slavjano-iranskie jazykovye otnošenija. Balto-slavjanskie issledovanija 1980, 16-26. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo "Nauka'.
Mayer, Harvey E. 1981. Two Linguistic Myths: Balto-Slavic and Common Baltic. Lituanus. 27.1.63-8.
_. 1983. Zum Lexikon und der balto-slavischen Frage. San Antonio: Defense Language Institute. /To appear in Zeitschrift fur slavische Philologie./
_. 1987. Prussian, an Aboriginal a-Language? Lituanus. 35. 5. 66.
Shevelov, George Y. 1965. A Prehistory of Slavic: The Phonology of Common Slavic, 139-49. New York-Morningside Heights: Columbia University Press.
Stang, Chr. S. 1966. Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen, 95. Oslo-Bergen-Tromso: Universitetsforlaget.
Trubačev, O.N. 1981. Replika po balto-slavjanskomu voprosu. Balto-slavjanskie issledovanija 1980, 4. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo 'Nauka'.
Winter, Werner. 1978. The distribution of short and long vowels in stems of the type Lith. esti: vesti: mesti and OCS jasti: vesti: mesti in Baltic and Slavic Languages. Trends in Linguistics 4. Recent Developments in Historical Phonology, ed. by J. Fisiak, 431-46. The Hague-Paris-New York: Mouton.

Notes

1 Indie and Iranian once had five vowel systems of a, e, i, o, u, with e reconstructible from a in ca, ja from ke, ge, short o restorable by Brugmann's law of oR + vowel to aR + vowel, and long o retraceable from long a in formations alternating with those with a demonstrable erstwhile short o. With short o merging with short a before the merger of their long counterparts in Iranian, we arrive at the vowel system of a, e, i, o, u which I proposed for a conceivable Late Central Indo-European dialect including Iranian.
2 Hamp (1980) says that in Pre-Roman times palatalization of Indo-European labio-velars before front vowels occurred in Albanian but not in Thracian which proves Albanian could not have been Thracian. But can we be sure that the Latin and Greek symbols used circa Roman times represented unpalatalized velars? Note also that Hamp surely classifies
Lithuanian as dose to Latvian despite Lithuanian's kelti, kilti, gyvas, geltonas, etc. without the palatalizations Latvian shows in celt, cilt, dzivs, dzeltans ('raise, rise, alive, yellow'), etc.
3 In an article (Mayer 1987) I mention that examination of Fasmer 1964-1973 and Fraenkel 1962-1965 indicates that Slavic-Albanian-minus-Baltic native cognate roots outnumber Baltic-Albanian-minus-Slavic ones by approximately 1/3. Since we expect languages of long separation to match better in original lexicon with more conservative Baltic, this opposite situation with Albanian indicates special ties with Slavic as a unit separate from Baltic.
4 For Indo-European k', g'(h) North Iranian and Slavic coincide with s, z while South Iranian and Albanian coincide with th, dh.
5 This is less likely from kh. Note k, not h, in theke 'tip' from a possible kh.
6 In an article (Mayer 1983) and again in another (Mayer 1987) I explain the opposition in Baltic and Slavic of circumflex versus acute which replaced that of short versus long in tautosyllables as having arisen from a process of affixation initiated in one dialect or language and later spread to the others via calking. In these positions I saw long syllables arising from infixed vowel morphemes homophonous with already present root vowels, e.g., *varn- 'raven': *va-a-rn- 'crow'. Here, by analogy with long root vowels inherited from Indo-European as the long o in *do- 'give' the new long vowels arising through contraction were acute. The same sort of new long vowels in affixes were circumflex as the e, (e/ė) in Old Church Slavonic neseaste: Lithuanian nešėte 'you carried'. This new long-vowel-creating process involving positioning of morphological elements was syntactic and, therefore, as easily calked as lexicon. In origin it was not at all phonetic.
7 Evidence from Indie (r, ur, ir) indicates three possible reflexes of an Indo-European syllabic resonant (R):1. neutral R which later became aR in many dialects and daughter-languages, 2, labialized uR, and 3. palatalized iR. Where o tended to become a, labialized uR and/or palatalized iR tended to be generalized for morphological purposes to avoid confusion of TR(T) and ToR(T) reflexes, now both TaR(T). Through dialect and language clustering influences (calking, etc.), uR was stabilized as the reflex of R was stabilized as an alternate reflex of R in satem palatalizing Baltic and Slavic.
8 This lengthening of syllables before Indo-European mediae mentioned by Winter (1978) was not phonetic, but morphological in origin. Thus we find long e in Baltic and Slavic sed- 'sit down' matched by the same in Gothic setun 'they sat'. Short vowels occur in the same morpheme with shifts in meaning in Gothic sitan 'to sit' and Slavic šid- 'having gone', xod- 'going'. (Fasmer 1973:253 for the etymological connection.) Also, note the additional exceptions with (originally) short vowels: Slavic voda 'water', koza 'goaf, ogni 'fire', čeznoti 'to disappear', kogutu 'claw', stogu 'stack', stirženi 'pivot'; Old Russian: mulzu 'I churn butter'; Russian lizat' 'to lick'; Lithuanian: laigonas 'brother-in-law', luba 'ceiling board'.

http://www.lituanus.org/1993_2/93_2_05.htm#Ref

P. S.
About the Phrygian, it's an interesting topic. Once they lived, roughly in what is today Central Albania.

Garrick
11-06-17, 16:54
here ya go, reich and garrett speech from 29 april 2017 http://www.ustream.tv/channel/aps-meeting
They do not say albanian descend from germanic though. He just uses that tree as an example of how language trees usually look

Gray and Atkinson give another tree:

Albanian is related with Indo Iranian,
Greek and Armenian,
Germanic and Italic.

http://armchairprehistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/family-tree.gif

Kortlandt gives:

Balto Slavic and Albanian
Armenian and Thracian
Greek is isolated.

Chang, Catchart, Hall, Garret give:

Albanian, Greek, and Armenian are one branch
...

I discussed with Taranis about Gray & Atkinson model.

More factors has influence including choice of characters, computational model etc. Different methods will give different results but it is impossible to say which method is better.

Milan.M
11-06-17, 17:07
[email protected] It is interesting to examine loanwords but as you said underdeveloped Albanians and the loanwords they borrowed from Slavic does not corespond to things we know,for example loanwords for cultural objects.We know for Slavs to be barbarians who invaded Roman empire,while Albanians living in the Roman empire,how is it possible a Roman empire citizen to have borrowings for cultural object from barbarian,should be rather opposite,is one of questions want to ask to such theories.

Concerning farmering,ok it is not surprising Slavs were farmers by majority.

Concerning nature words borrowings from Slavic into Albanian they are right probably too,but most important things two borrowings come to my mind but this are probably from Albanian into Slavic and concerning nature.
Those are Slavic-Gramada,Albanian-Germadhe meaning mass of stones,heap found in Romanian too.
Second is Karpa found in Bulgarian,Macedonian,Polish "rock,rocky hill with sharp peak,etc",in Polish with bit different meaning so maybe Dacian sabstratum as some think? So if this are really borrowings from Albanians into Slavic it give us a description of nature known to Albanians.That should be mountainous zone with sharp rocks,stones etc.
We can not build entire theory out of this but many linguists have proposed a mountainous area for the Albanian language,this could be if we choose place close to the Balkans the Dinaric Alps either northern Albanian,Montenegro area or Carpathians.Carpathian most probably bear Albanian name Karpe (rock,rocky hill with sharp peak,cliff etc) found word with same meaning in some Slavic languages.