Is there any difference between Kosovo Albanians and Albanians from Albania?

They might have played some minimal role, but absolutely nothing significant, at least i am not convinced, sorry.

The Thraco-Cimmerian horizon was culturally influential for generations and connected the Carpathian sphere with the more Upper Danubian and North Italian even more directly than Urnfield before, which was more split into provinces/groups. That's why its important to mention, they pushed and pulled Daco-Thracian elements, which were still concentrated along the Carpathians largely, West and South, both directly and indirectly. Like in the Veneti, Fr?g, Kalenderberg group in Eastern Hallstatt, they all preserved elements of this Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and being directly connected to Basarabi the same time. The network which came up with the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon persisted. The innovations brought by the Cimmerians were spread by the Daco-Thracians, especially Basarabi, too.

We have discussed before, i am of the opinion, in fact, it's very straightforward. Gava/Channeled-Ware along with some other Middle Danube Urnfield, Grla-Mare/Dubovac-Zuto Brdo/Brnjica, Vatin, Paracin/Mediana, Psenicevo-Babadag. All of these had E-V13, some more some less.

Probably, but I think G?va/Channelled Ware is the real core and much of the others being derivatives or predecessors anyway. However, Middle Danubian Urnfield in the narrower sense is probably a group apart, because like I said, they are too much Western Bell Beaker derived, unlike Kyjatice-G?va. I largely agree with you anyway, but Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Hallstatt is not who got it first, but about who spread it West. Actually its these two cultural formations which brought the Daco-Thracian E-V13 West like a Wedge, right through the more Pannonian-Illyrian Middle Danubian and Para-Celtic territory.

On a large map, you can really see that the Cimmerian and Scythian intrusions into the Carpathians pushed many elements, almost all Daco-Thracian in origin, West, first while fleeing from them, then with them, later by people which copied 1:1 Cimmerian and Scythian styles, but being genetically fully Daco-Thracian and Pannonian. Whether they were E-V13 dominated or not, autosomally that's clear.

I find the Thraco-Cimmerian label ambigious, we don't know who they were, and where did they come from, what language did they spoke, and who were their descendants. It's all open to interpretations.

We have some "original Cimmerians" and they are pretty mixed. Like one in Central Europe had haplogroup N and was autosomally quite different from the Kyjatice sample BR2, I wrote about it here:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...kan-case/page8?p=633773&viewfull=1#post633773

So you see two completely different populations, one being related to Vatya, Mako, Epi-Corded and the other wild mixture from the East. The first are Daco-Thracian related, Pannonian-Carpathian Urnfielders, the second the steppe alliance of the Cimmerians.

The point is, they introduced and spread iron working techniques, they did introduce new horse gear and tactics, most likely new horse breeds also. And these spread among the elites of all Eastern and Central European groups, throughout most of the Urnfield networks, but not all. Like the Transcarpathian G?va people resisted in fortified areas for a prolonged period of time and got less Thraco-Cimmerian horizon influences than Basarabi!
But otherwise, you see the whole elite from Southern Germany, Northern Italy, Austria, Hungary, Croatia etc., they all adopted the whole package or many elements of it. And those which adopted the most from the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and kept these traits the longest are the groups closer connected to Basarabi too! Like Fr?g and Kalenderberg for example, vs. the much less influenced Unterkrainische group, which was more in the Illyrian tradition.

There you see that after the initial impact, Thracian and Cimmerian elements fused to something new, which was fundamental for the final stage of the Bronze Age and the introduction of Hallstatt. But Hallstatt was full of elements from Channelled Ware and Encrusted Ware influences too! That means you see here two main elements at work: Thraco-Cimmerian horizon/Cimmerian influences, Channelled Ware traditions with Encrusted Ware influences.
"Hallstattisation" is basically Channelled Ware with Cimmerian ideological-religious and material influences from my point of view. That's what really brought it West. Because where G?va Urnfield stopped in Eastern Germany, Bohemia, Austria-West Hungary etc., Hallstatt went right through and Thraco-Cimmerian elites with it.

We know it from the "Scythian" finds too: In some there were mostly or even pure Daco-Thracian and Pannonian people, but sometimes in complete "Scythian gear". That's just what the elite warriors adopted and the lifestyle the surviving locals embraced. The question is how much paternal replacement the Cimmerians and Scythians caused, but in my opinion not too much, because the haplogroups associated and found so far were much less common afterwards than the rather Thraco-Illyrian ones.

Like Yamnaya thousands of years before: The initial impact was huge, but the genetic legacy comparatively small. Same for Cimmerians and Scythians, but apparently not the Daco-Thracians which spread the fused culture, they had more of an impact. For the Cimmerians we don't have enough samples, and the rite of cremation among many of the Channelled Ware and Eastern Hallstatt people makes it difficult, but for the Scythian case some generations later, its easy to see:

Scythian-Mixture.jpg


https://ibb.co/cCKD3Bj

There are relatively "pure", "mixed" and "local" individuals within the "Scythian" cultural context. There was also exchange between the Pannonian Thraco-Scythians and the Moldovan Geto-Scythians. There are outliers in the clusters of the respective other group.

Thraco-Cimmerian elements in the burials, which is the main thing, will be even more "local" or in many Eastern Hallstatt instances Daco-Thracian/Basarabi related than these. The elites in Fr?g buried as horse warriors are likely to have been very strongly Daco-Thracian/Basarabi influenced. Unfortunately they mostly cremated, but we know from the inventory that both male and female elite individuals moved from Basarabi to Fr?g, but there is little evidence for a movement in the opposite direction! So the whole Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Hallstatt based on it created a primary mode of cultural transmission and people moving from East (Carpathians and further) to the West (Danubian-Alpine sphere). That's true for the formative period of early Hallstatt in particular.

Pre-Scythian Mez?cs?t = Thraco-Cimmerian core. It shows primarily steppe Cimmerian elements on top of local Channelled Ware people. Like I said, the tested individual was East Asian admixed and had yDNA N. Let's see what others might bring. Probably some being in the new British paper, because they didn't cremate...
 
These two things being actually connected, because the Cimmerians were foreign to the region and pushed and destroyed many of the Daco-Thracian/Channelled Ware groups. There were basically two major surviving nests: In the North, in the mountainous regions, especially Transcarpathia and in the South, from where Psenichevo and Bosut-Basarabi emerged. But those groups in between, and this is key, didn't completely disappear, and even Bosut-Basarabi became heavily influenced by the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon. Note the difference:
- Cimmerians
- Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and its influence
The latter soon became completely mixed but was very influential for the developing cultures, especially of the Basarabi-Hallstatt sphere. So in the end, while we already know the earliest Cimmerians were different people, the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, as a migration event and cultural horizon, spread Daco-Thracian ancestry wide and far.
Its similar to the later Thraco-Scythians and Geto-Scythians, of which we already have plenty of samples: They are usually much more Pannonian and Thracian-like respectively than anything else! And its from these mixed groups, of which some even retained Daco-Thracian languages, that there were wider spread and backflow onto the steppe. You might have noticed in papers about Carpathian "Scythians" that their ceramic is fairly conservative and regional at first. The question is just: How much of this was female transmitted, how well did the males? I'd say that E-V13 got in their former core regions heavily reduced, both by Cimmerians and Scythians, but didn't disappear. Whereas in the more Southern centres, in which these Cimmerian and Scythian influences remained primarily culturally, and there never was such a big impact, more of the regional paternal ancestry survived.
That's at least up to this point my impression, unless they had the biggest founder effects in Psenichevo-Basarabi to begin with. To explore that, we need many samples from the cultural formations in the Northern Carpathians, for the phases in which some of them at least didn't cremate. Then it can be checked probably. F�szesabony-late Otomani might prove to be interesting as well.
Thraco-Cimmerian influences spread very far and wide, deeply into Central Europe. These weren't all pure Cimmerians, especially in the later stages.
Not all the cimmerians moved to the south caucasus to kingdom of Urartu (an old name for Armenia).

The Cimmerians were closely related and are archaeologically almost identical to the Scythians, who may have expelled them from their home country. Archaeologists have identified the Cimmerians with the Novocerkassk culture on the grass plains between the river Prut and the Lower Don (c.900-c.650 BCE).

are they similar to Circassians ???
 
Cimmerians seem to have varied, I doubt the people on the move under that label were that homogeneous.
What sticks out is that at least some of these people on the move had significant East Asian admixture, more than the later Scythians.
 
The Thraco-Cimmerian horizon was culturally influential for generations and connected the Carpathian sphere with the more Upper Danubian and North Italian even more directly than Urnfield before, which was more split into provinces/groups. That's why its important to mention, they pushed and pulled Daco-Thracian elements, which were still concentrated along the Carpathians largely, West and South, both directly and indirectly. Like in the Veneti, Fr�g, Kalenderberg group in Eastern Hallstatt, they all preserved elements of this Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and being directly connected to Basarabi the same time. The network which came up with the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon persisted. The innovations brought by the Cimmerians were spread by the Daco-Thracians, especially Basarabi, too.



Probably, but I think G�va/Channelled Ware is the real core and much of the others being derivatives or predecessors anyway. However, Middle Danubian Urnfield in the narrower sense is probably a group apart, because like I said, they are too much Western Bell Beaker derived, unlike Kyjatice-G�va. I largely agree with you anyway, but Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Hallstatt is not who got it first, but about who spread it West. Actually its these two cultural formations which brought the Daco-Thracian E-V13 West like a Wedge, right through the more Pannonian-Illyrian Middle Danubian and Para-Celtic territory.

On a large map, you can really see that the Cimmerian and Scythian intrusions into the Carpathians pushed many elements, almost all Daco-Thracian in origin, West, first while fleeing from them, then with them, later by people which copied 1:1 Cimmerian and Scythian styles, but being genetically fully Daco-Thracian and Pannonian. Whether they were E-V13 dominated or not, autosomally that's clear.



We have some "original Cimmerians" and they are pretty mixed. Like one in Central Europe had haplogroup N and was autosomally quite different from the Kyjatice sample BR2, I wrote about it here:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...kan-case/page8?p=633773&viewfull=1#post633773

So you see two completely different populations, one being related to Vatya, Mako, Epi-Corded and the other wild mixture from the East. The first are Daco-Thracian related, Pannonian-Carpathian Urnfielders, the second the steppe alliance of the Cimmerians.

The point is, they introduced and spread iron working techniques, they did introduce new horse gear and tactics, most likely new horse breeds also. And these spread among the elites of all Eastern and Central European groups, throughout most of the Urnfield networks, but not all. Like the Transcarpathian G�va people resisted in fortified areas for a prolonged period of time and got less Thraco-Cimmerian horizon influences than Basarabi!
But otherwise, you see the whole elite from Southern Germany, Northern Italy, Austria, Hungary, Croatia etc., they all adopted the whole package or many elements of it. And those which adopted the most from the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and kept these traits the longest are the groups closer connected to Basarabi too! Like Fr�g and Kalenderberg for example, vs. the much less influenced Unterkrainische group, which was more in the Illyrian tradition.

There you see that after the initial impact, Thracian and Cimmerian elements fused to something new, which was fundamental for the final stage of the Bronze Age and the introduction of Hallstatt. But Hallstatt was full of elements from Channelled Ware and Encrusted Ware influences too! That means you see here two main elements at work: Thraco-Cimmerian horizon/Cimmerian influences, Channelled Ware traditions with Encrusted Ware influences.
"Hallstattisation" is basically Channelled Ware with Cimmerian ideological-religious and material influences from my point of view. That's what really brought it West. Because where G�va Urnfield stopped in Eastern Germany, Bohemia, Austria-West Hungary etc., Hallstatt went right through and Thraco-Cimmerian elites with it.

We know it from the "Scythian" finds too: In some there were mostly or even pure Daco-Thracian and Pannonian people, but sometimes in complete "Scythian gear". That's just what the elite warriors adopted and the lifestyle the surviving locals embraced. The question is how much paternal replacement the Cimmerians and Scythians caused, but in my opinion not too much, because the haplogroups associated and found so far were much less common afterwards than the rather Thraco-Illyrian ones.

Like Yamnaya thousands of years before: The initial impact was huge, but the genetic legacy comparatively small. Same for Cimmerians and Scythians, but apparently not the Daco-Thracians which spread the fused culture, they had more of an impact. For the Cimmerians we don't have enough samples, and the rite of cremation among many of the Channelled Ware and Eastern Hallstatt people makes it difficult, but for the Scythian case some generations later, its easy to see:

Scythian-Mixture.jpg


https://ibb.co/cCKD3Bj

There are relatively "pure", "mixed" and "local" individuals within the "Scythian" cultural context. There was also exchange between the Pannonian Thraco-Scythians and the Moldovan Geto-Scythians. There are outliers in the clusters of the respective other group.

Thraco-Cimmerian elements in the burials, which is the main thing, will be even more "local" or in many Eastern Hallstatt instances Daco-Thracian/Basarabi related than these. The elites in Fr�g buried as horse warriors are likely to have been very strongly Daco-Thracian/Basarabi influenced. Unfortunately they mostly cremated, but we know from the inventory that both male and female elite individuals moved from Basarabi to Fr�g, but there is little evidence for a movement in the opposite direction! So the whole Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Hallstatt based on it created a primary mode of cultural transmission and people moving from East (Carpathians and further) to the West (Danubian-Alpine sphere). That's true for the formative period of early Hallstatt in particular.

Pre-Scythian Mez�cs�t = Thraco-Cimmerian core. It shows primarily steppe Cimmerian elements on top of local Channelled Ware people. Like I said, the tested individual was East Asian admixed and had yDNA N. Let's see what others might bring. Probably some being in the new British paper, because they didn't cremate...

Not really. Thraco-Cimmerian influence on Italy and Central-Europe is negligible. I don't think some of the very old E-V13 branches in Central Europe are due to Thraco-Cimmerians or Daco-Thracians who are an Iron Age ethnicities.
 
Not really. Thraco-Cimmerian influence on Italy and Central-Europe is negligible. I don't think some of the very old E-V13 branches in Central Europe are due to Thraco-Cimmerians or Daco-Thracians who are an Iron Age ethnicities.

Yes, some branches moved through Urnfield networks earlier, others with the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Basarabi-Hallstatt later. Both did happen.
If we identify Channelled Ware with Daco-Thracians, then they already had a significant influence on the Middle Danubian group through infiltration in the border zone, where we have increased Kyjatice-Gava finds.
Its just I think they started separated, largely, but they had large zones of interaction once Urnfield was established.
This was however more about clans and individuals, rather than whole tribes marching, with the exception of the very borderzone, where its possible.
Middle Danubians also reached the Danubian zone, so it was reciprocal.
 
Yes, some branches moved through Urnfield networks earlier, others with the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Basarabi-Hallstatt later. Both did happen.
If we identify Channelled Ware with Daco-Thracians, then they already had a significant influence on the Middle Danubian group through infiltration in the border zone, where we have increased Kyjatice-Gava finds.
Its just I think they started separated, largely, but they had large zones of interaction once Urnfield was established.
This was however more about clans and individuals, rather than whole tribes marching, with the exception of the very borderzone, where its possible.
Middle Danubians also reached the Danubian zone, so it was reciprocal.

In my opinion, Channeled-Ware + Thraco-Cimmerian mix is what made the Daco-Thracians, that would make sense and would give an explanation at why Thracian costumes, horse-breeding and riding attachments were so similar to Scythians and Indo-Iranians. Otherwise their Channeled-Ware ancestors preferred the proto-phalanx-like formation or battle-style.
 
In my opinion, Channeled-Ware + Thraco-Cimmerian mix is what made the Daco-Thracians, that would make sense and would give an explanation at why Thracian costumes, horse-breeding and riding attachments were so similar to Scythians and Indo-Iranians. Otherwise their Channeled-Ware ancestors preferred the proto-phalanx-like formation or battle-style.

Yes, agree. It was kind of reduction in societal complexity initially, we can also observe the transition to pastoralist economy and transhumance, reduced settlements and population density. Initially it did really hurt the Daco-Thracians massively and I expect a reduction of their patrilineages.
But like I said before, two independent groups remained, Transcarpathian and Danube, with the latter being more important, leading to Psenichevo-Basarabi and eventually Hallstatt.
After that, the Scythian influence was minimum as impactful. Note e.g. the Vekerzug group of Thraco-Scythians.
 
In my opinion, Channeled-Ware + Thraco-Cimmerian mix is what made the Daco-Thracians, that would make sense and would give an explanation at why Thracian costumes, horse-breeding and riding attachments were so similar to Scythians and Indo-Iranians. Otherwise their Channeled-Ware ancestors preferred the proto-phalanx-like formation or battle-style.

Which would mean they may have had plenty of r1a and some q-l54 -

'Järve (2019)[3] studied genetics of various peoples belonging to the Scythian cultures, such as Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, and Saka. Mostly of the remains in all groups were found to carry various subclades of haplogroup R1a, with a few haplogroup Q samples also found."

Eastern scythians -

"Mary (2019)[18] studied the genetics of remains from the Aldy-Bel culture in and around Tuva in central Asia, adjacent to western Mongolia; the Aldy-Bel culture is considered one of the Scythian cultures. The majority of the samples (9 out of 17) were found to be carriers of haplogroup R1a, including two carriers of haplogroup R1a1a1b2‑Z93. East Asian admixture was also detected, as 6 haplogroup Q-L54 (including 5 in Sagly culture) and 1 haplogroup N-M231 were excavated. The haplogroup of the remaining 1 sample was uncertain (probably group R)."

There is a complete lack of these lines in western balkans though a bit more frequent in the east. Serbs, Poles and Turks seem to have a fair amount of N but they likely come from different sources -
https://www.yfull.com/tree/n/

Srubnaya can also be ruled out for v13 -

"In 2018, a genetic study of the earlier Srubnaya culture, and later peoples of the Scythian cultures, including the Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, was published in Science Advances. Six males from two sites ascribed to the Srubnaya culture were analysed, and were all found to possess haplogroup R1a1a1. Cimmerian, Sarmatian and Scythian males were however found have mostly haplogroup R1b1a1a2, although one Sarmatian male carried haplogroup R1a1a1."

We have yet to find any v13 in urnfield either. The lack of ancient dna from south europe and the fact that v13 has yet to be found in central european cultures, is that not a coincidence? If we want to solve v13, maybe more effort should be put into finding ancient dna in south europe
 
The samples from 3 upcoming studies are promising. British replacement paper with Central European and Balkan samples, Thracians from the Bulgarian Iron Age, the Pannonian study.
All three seem to have E-V13, from different times and contexts.
We need some lucky strikes also, because the supposed E-V13 core groups, almost all potential ones, used cremation over prolonged periods of time.
They were among the earliest and latest in Europe to burn their dead.
Similar problems arise with early Hittites, Germanics and Slavs.
Its very clear that for early E-V13 are only specific time windows and special, irregular burials key.
But I am confident that both Psenichevo and Bosut-Basarabi will have plenty of it, yet that doesn't answer which exact path it took before and the lack of subclades hurts.
 
Which would mean they may have had plenty of r1a and some q-l54 -
'Järve (2019)[3] studied genetics of various peoples belonging to the Scythian cultures, such as Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, and Saka. Mostly of the remains in all groups were found to carry various subclades of haplogroup R1a, with a few haplogroup Q samples also found."
Eastern scythians -
"Mary (2019)[18] studied the genetics of remains from the Aldy-Bel culture in and around Tuva in central Asia, adjacent to western Mongolia; the Aldy-Bel culture is considered one of the Scythian cultures. The majority of the samples (9 out of 17) were found to be carriers of haplogroup R1a, including two carriers of haplogroup R1a1a1b2‑Z93. East Asian admixture was also detected, as 6 haplogroup Q-L54 (including 5 in Sagly culture) and 1 haplogroup N-M231 were excavated. The haplogroup of the remaining 1 sample was uncertain (probably group R)."
There is a complete lack of these lines in western balkans though a bit more frequent in the east. Serbs, Poles and Turks seem to have a fair amount of N but they likely come from different sources -
https://www.yfull.com/tree/n/
Srubnaya can also be ruled out for v13 -
"In 2018, a genetic study of the earlier Srubnaya culture, and later peoples of the Scythian cultures, including the Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, was published in Science Advances. Six males from two sites ascribed to the Srubnaya culture were analysed, and were all found to possess haplogroup R1a1a1. Cimmerian, Sarmatian and Scythian males were however found have mostly haplogroup R1b1a1a2, although one Sarmatian male carried haplogroup R1a1a1."
We have yet to find any v13 in urnfield either. The lack of ancient dna from south europe and the fact that v13 has yet to be found in central european cultures, is that not a coincidence? If we want to solve v13, maybe more effort should be put into finding ancient dna in south europe

We already have Late Neolithic samples from Bulgaria and there is a lack of E-V13, and we have Early Bronze Age samples from Albania and E-V13 lacks, E-V13 lacks in Croatia as well also Trypillian Ukraine and very likely it wa abset in Romania. So what's left? Greece and Central Europe (Eastern Austria, Northern Hungary, South-Eastern Slovakia/Czech)? Considering the earlier split of E-V13 maps and corresponds more Southern Central Europe then chances are way higher it's the latter. I mean, you should check the Czech archeologist Jan Bouzek, he argues that the South-East Urnfielders massively migrated into Balkans, and a specific group of them after mixing with Achaeans formed the classical Greeks. That was his opinion.
 
...and very likely it wa abset in Romania.

Not that quick. We have to concentrate on North Western Romania, Eastern Slovakia and very North Eastern Hungary for the MBA-LBA. The question is where is the E1b1b from the Pannonian and British study from.
 
Not that quick. We have to concentrate on North Western Romania, Eastern Slovakia and very North Eastern Hungary for the MBA-LBA. The question is where is the E1b1b from the Pannonian and British study from.

I am talking about Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age, and Romania as a whole can be safely removed from equation. ;)
 
I am talking about Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age, and Romania as a whole can be safely removed from equation. ;)


Wouldn't be that sure either, because they might have migrated the Danube and Tisza up and down, if not staying North already from Lengyel colonists, because they settled in the Carpathians and persisted there longer than elsewhere.
 

This thread has been viewed 157524 times.

Back
Top