| Forum | Europe Travel Guide | Ecology | Facts & Trivia | Genetics | History | Linguistics |
| Austria | France | Germany | Ireland | Italy | Portugal | Spain | Switzerland |
 Eupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
|
Interesting, PF7562 is my branch too. I'd give you an up-vote, but I'm currently out for the day.Originally Posted by Piro Ilir
Okay, because I thought I also read that they existed outside of the centum/satem binary?
You are right. Luwian shows all three dorsal consonant rows survived separately in Proto-Anatolian. This means it is non-centum, and is one of the reasons that more and more linguists are beginning to consider satem as more conservative and centum as an innovation.
"As we have already stressed, the mass evacuation of the Albanians from their triangle is the only effective course we can take. In order to relocate a whole people, the first prerequisite is the creation of a suitable psychosis. This can be done in various ways." - Vaso Cubrilovic
You write, "It's not a "djuh" sound like the English J is--it's an entirely different sound. It's a "dzuh" sound--like a hard Z. I think in some dialects it's a little bit less harsh and intense, something more like "tsuh". It's not a sound that exists in English natively--the only word I can think of that has a similar sound that is commonly used in English (albeit a loan from Slavic) is tsar/czar, but tsar might not be as harsh. Maybe tsi fly is another.
So the word for hand in Armenian is pronounced like "dzer" or "tser".
EDIT: Google has an audible translation. It's in a weird tense for some reason and the voice sounds very robotic, but you can kind of get the gist of the "dz" sound:
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+say+hand+in+armenian".
OK, i see what you mean.
You write, "I'm curious what your thoughts on Thracian (and Dacian) languages are. What do you think their relationship was to other subfamilies--I've seen Greek, Armenian, Iranian, Baltic, and Illyrian all mentioned in relation to Thracian languages.".
My linguist friend Philippos Kitselis has written a great article (http://www.palaeolexicon.com/Thracian) on this. Here is the segment that relates.
"The language of the Thracians
The Thracian language is scarcely attested and survives only through few inscriptions and glosses recorded by ancient authors. This makes its classification within the Indo-European languages very difficult. Was it a centum or satem language? Was it closer to Greek or Baltic languages? Was Dacian a Thracian dialect or a closely related language? Those are the issues that we’re gonna discuss below.
Back in time, it was believed that Thracian, Illyrian and Phrygian shared a development which showed that they were still closely related in late prehistoric times: a 'sound-shift' which had affected the occlusive consonants ('stops') of Indo-European. We know now that Phrygian was a centum language, however, Thracian and Dacian have one of the main satem characteristics, the change of IE *k and *ĝ or *g to s and z. Some other satem characteristics though are doubtful or completely missing which leads us to the conclusion that the development of satem characteristics was a late change in central or residual dialects of Indo-European, such as Thracian and Dacian. That means that although Thracian was a satem language in classical years, proto-Thracian might have been centum. Those partially satem characteristics and the similarities of Thracian to the Baltic group suggest that an ancestral Thraco-Dacian people was settled in Dacia until part of it migrated into Thrace.
Another big issue within Thracology is whether the people of Dacia were Thracians or not. It might have been that the Thraco-Dacian area was inhabited by tribes, speaking closely related tongues, with differences that are enough to classify them as different languages and not dialects. For example differences between the ancient place-names of Dacia and Moesia on the one hand and Thrace on the other indicate that the native idioms of the two former areas diverged somewhat from those of the latter in vocabulary and word formation. In Dacia name of towns are formed with the suffix -deva/-dava while place names ending in -bria, -para, -sara are confined in to southern Thrace. On the other hand, evidence seems to indicate divergence of a 'Thraco-Dacian' language into northern and southern groups of dialects, not so different as to rank as separate languages, with the development of special tendencies in word formation and of certain secondary phonetic features in each group. In ancient times, Strabo states that the Dacians spoke the same language as the Getae and later he states that the Getae spoke the same as the Thracians, which means that more or less Dacian was Thracian. However, Strabo was a geographer not a dedicated linguist that we can rely on with full confidence. For practical reasons, Palaeolexicon is grouping Dacian within Thracian, without however taking a definite side on the nature of Dacian (dialect or sibling language).
The position of Thracian within the IE languages is also uncertain. There is evidence, that links Thracian to Ancient Greek, Albanian as well as the Baltic languages. It is easier however to start with what Thracian was not.
a) Thracian was not Phrygian (or the opposite). In the past many linguists grouped Thracian in one group with Phrygian (Thraco-Phrygian). However, Phrygian is a centum language with such an affinity to Greek that it is evident both languages had a common pre-historic background.
b) Thracian was not Illyrian. A grouping of Illyrian with the Thracian and Dacian language in a “Thraco-Illyrian” group or branch, an idea popular in the first half of the 20th century, is now generally rejected due to a lack of sustaining evidence, and due to what may be evidence to the contrary. Also, the hypothesis that the modern Albanian language is a surviving Illyrian language remains very controversial among linguists.
So, what about Baltic?
In the 70s Ivan Duridanov presented a respected work, where he proposed the connection of Thracian with the Baltic languages. Indeed a number of cognates seem to exist between Thracian and the Baltic languages, e.g: Thr. Sautes = lazy ->Latv. Sautis = lazy man, Thr. Zibythides = nobble Thracians ->Lith. Zibute = shining. Although the cognates are many, no conclusive evidence exists that can support a very close relation between Thracian and Baltic. Also, the few Thracian inscriptions that exist are not apparently close to Baltic.
What about Ancient Greek?
Sorin M. Olteanu, the Romanian thracologist who suggested that early Thracian was a centum language that later changed to satem, proposed the connection to Ancient Greek, though a number of cognates (including a substratum of words in Romanian). One example of the remote kinship of Greek and Thracians is a word that appears in the inscription of Flavius Dizalas, son of Ezbenis (IGB b4.2338). Ζραικῆς (referring to a Thracian strategy) as rendered in Greek, read as Zrayka in Thracian and could have been the native Thracian word for the ethnonym “Thracian”. Based on the theory of the late satemization of Thracian and the IE sound-laws, the semi-satem version of Zrayka should be ġrayk(o) (same root as one of the ethnonyms of the Greeks). The question that remains in such cases is, whether such evidence signifies remote kinship or a generic common Indo-European ancestry? The discovery of ~300 inscribed ceramic items from Zone, Samothraki has reignited the discussions about the relationship of Thracian with Greek. However, most inscriptions remain unpublished leaving us with nothing else than speculations. In fact, the language of the inscribed objects remains unknown and could even be unrelated to the language spoken in Thrace proper.
What about Albanian?
Even though, Illyrian has been the first language to be compared to Albanian, Thraco-Dacian is the strongest contestant. A number of linguists have been examining the possibility of Albanian being a descendant of a Dacian relic. The initial Roman conquest of part of Dacia did not put an end to the language, as free Dacian tribes such as the Carpi may have continued to speak Dacian in Moldavia and adjacent regions as late as the 6th or 7th century AD, still capable of leaving some influences in the forming of Slavic languages. According to the hypothesis of Hasdeu (1901), a branch of Dacian continued as the Albanian language. A refined version of that hypothesis considers Albanian to be a Daco-Moesian dialect that split off before 300 BC, and that Dacian became extinct. Strong evidence to this theory is the shared substratum of words in Romanian and Albanian.".
You write, "Were the Anatolian languages centum or did they exist outside of those categories? Either way, this could maybe support your theory of an original Anatolian Armenian...perhaps it just had a satem overlay. Then again, the Anatolian similarities/influence could come from Luwian (and maybe Hittite) too. The Luwian influence is quite widely accepted.".
The Anatolian languages have had their own divided camps of linguists. There are linguists who view Anatolian (especially Luwian) to have preserved the three-row velar consonant distinction from Proto-Indo-European, rendering it outside the centum/satem division. While there are others such as Hrozný and Melchert who view Anatolian as a "centum" branch. As Melchert wrote, "The three-way contrast of dorsal stops in Luvo-Lycian is due to a conditioned split of palatovelars before their merger with velars, not an unconditioned three-way contrast preserved from Proto-Indo-European. Anatolian is thus, as per already Hrozný, “centum” (Melchert 2012a).". Furthermore, Hittite shows no assibilation of palatovelars (satemization), but there are also those who propose that the centumization that is observed in Hittite occurred only after the breakup of Proto-Anatolian (which would be closer to PIE).
Interesting! Not that I don't believe you, but do you have a source for the satem being more conservative? I'd like to learn more about this theory!
Nice to have you back, Demetrios! I hope that you enjoyed your vacation.
I'll read your friend's whole article when I get time.
From the excerpt that you linked, it'd be interesting if Thracian was connected to Balto-Slavic, because Balto-Slavic is often thought to have been connected to Indo-Iranian, and there is a theory that the Cimmerians spoke a language that was a midway point between Thracian and Indo-Iranian.
I wonder how sure they even are that all the Thracian and Dacian languages were indeed from one or two language families. For example, the article addresses Phrygian being connected with Thracian. If I'm not wrong, Macedonian was linked to Thracian too, but of course that's now thought to have been a Hellenic language or a dialect of Greek (which seems obvious--Phillip and Alexander were Macedonians/Greeks).
I don't have any opinion on Albanian being Illyrian or Thracian, but from a geographic standpoint, Illyrian seems it would make the most sense.
This assertion rests on the very disputable, if not already obsolete, assumption that Romanian stems from Dacian. While some Romanians might have partial Dacian ancestry, the Romanian language probably moved there from South of the Danube in the Middle Ages.
And in addition to linguistics, note that Albanian and Moldovan Y-DNA lines have almost nothing in common, while there is very little in common between Albanians and Romanians. And among the few paleo-Balkan lines they do share, the ones that have been researched best were clearly in the Western Balkans Classical or Late Antiquity.
You write, "Nice to have you back, Demetrios! I hope that you enjoyed your vacation.".
Thanks mate. Although i am still away, but i do have internet now.
You write, "I'll read your friend's whole article when I get time.
From the excerpt that you linked, it'd be interesting if Thracian was connected to Balto-Slavic, because Balto-Slavic is often thought to have been connected to Indo-Iranian, and there is a theory that the Cimmerians spoke a language that was a midway point between Thracian and Indo-Iranian.".
Yeah, i also found this very interesting. Unfortunately, like the article points to, most of the Thracian inscriptions haven't been published for mainstream analysis yet, and we don't even know if the said inscriptions are indeed Thracian and not some other language. In the end, further research is needed. Hopefully we will have some progress soon, but i wouldn't be surprised if an early Balto-Slavic language existed in the broader region of Dacia-Thrace, among others.
You write, "I wonder how sure they even are that all the Thracian and Dacian languages were indeed from one or two language families. For example, the article addresses Phrygian being connected with Thracian. If I'm not wrong, Macedonian was linked to Thracian too, but of course that's now thought to have been a Hellenic language or a dialect of Greek (which seems obvious--Phillip and Alexander were Macedonians/Greeks).".
In the case of Thracian and Dacian, this falls in line with what i wrote in the previous paragraph, namely that additional evidence and research is required. But like Kitselis pointed to, Strabo wrote that they spoke the same language. But it is still obscure whether they were dialects of the same language or sibling languages. The unfortunate thing is that we haven't discovered a single Dacian inscription yet, in contrast to the case of Thracian, in order to be able to make an accurate assessment. Very few material remains of Dacian.
In the case of Phrygian, the article actually writes the exact opposite, namely that Thracian was not a) Phrygian and b) Illyrian. The fortunate thing with Phrygian is that we have some 200 inscriptions (much more than we have for Thracian) of it beginning from the 8th century BCE, that show strong affinities to Greek.
In the case of Macedonian, it was also obscure academically in the past, with a number of suggestions being presented as to its classification, most of which viewed it as a Hellenic (either dialect of Greek or closely related to Greek) language with probable influence from Thracian, Illyrian, and Paeonian. Today though it is pretty much evident that ancient Macedonian was a NW-Doric Greek dialect, in affinity with the dialects of Epirus, Aetolia, Acarnania, Locris, and Phocis. There are 4 available inscriptions written in the local ancient Macedonian dialect that point to this fact, one of which has become mainstream, namely the "Pella curse tablet", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pella_curse_tablet. In addition to the inscriptions, we also have a collection of ancient Macedonian words by the 5th century CE grammarian, Hesychius of Alexandria, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesychius_of_Alexandria, preserved in his work "Alphabetical Collection of All Words/Συναγωγὴ Πασῶν Λέξεων κατὰ Στοιχεῖον". In total, we have some 350 ancient Macedonian preserved words with their vast majority being Greek. Furthermore, the NW-Doric Greek dialect of the ancient Macedonians is also validated by ancient authors such as for example the Roman historian Titus Livius who in his "Ab Urbe Condita Libri/History of Rome" (Book 31, Paragraph 29) writes the following, "Aetolos, Acarnanas, Macedonas, eiusdem linguae homines" which translates as "The Aetolians, the Acarnanians, the Macedonians, men of the same speech". Lastly, a Thracian influence isn't that much extreme to consider, bearing in mind that ancient Macedon had considerably different confines prior of the Classical era. It is generally assumed that the ancient Macedonians began from Argos Orestiko, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argos_Orestiko (let me remind you of the "Argead dynasty" as well, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argead_dynasty, which also originated from the Peloponnesian Argos). Argos Orestiko also compliments their evident NW-Doric Greek dialect in addition to being within the broader original confines of all Dorians (as well as those of the proto-Greeks), namely the Pindus mountain range.
Later, in the Archaic and Classical eras, Macedonians expanded eastwards, therefore they surely must have encompassed some earlier Thracians, but they weren't significantly influenced as the evidence shows.
You write, "I don't have any opinion on Albanian being Illyrian or Thracian, but from a geographic standpoint, Illyrian seems it would make the most sense.".
I am not absolute either on the matter, other than viewing Albanian as a palaeo-Balkan Indo-European language. Everything else are just hypotheses. As for geographic distribution, it is only suggestive not indicative of Illyrian affiliation, and besides, the modern distribution of Albanians is not that which was 1000-1200 years ago. Furthermore, the widespread assumed homeland of proto-Albanians is placed within the confines of the Roman province of "Moesia Superior" which was inhabited by Thracians, Dacians, Illyrian and Thraco-Illyrian (Dardani) peoples. Therefore geographically it isn't that extreme to consider proto-Albanian as stemming from a Daco-Moesian dialect. But my personal view deviates a little from Kitselis' article, and certainly i don't hold a view that relates Carpi (supposed NE-Dacian tribe) to proto-Albanians, and neither does Kitselis from what i gather. I also, haven't excluded a Thraco-Illyrian, or an Illyrian origin for that matter.
You write, "This assertion rests on the very disputable, if not already obsolete, assumption that Romanian stems from Dacian.".
Not really. Greek also has a considerable substrate of pre-Hellenic non-IE words. That doesn't mean Greek stems from a pre-Hellenic non-IE language. It is evidently a Hellenic IE language stemming from the same PIE source as the rest of the members. The same can be true for Romanian, which evidently stems from Latin (unless you are a supporter of Carme Jiménez Huertas' hypothesis - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPI_Y4hdIaU). The only question is from which palaeo-Balkan language does the common Romano-Albanian substrate comes from. Maybe it comes from more than one language. After all this region was their (Thr., Illy., Dac.-Moes.) common boundary.
You write, "While some Romanians might have partial Dacian ancestry, the Romanian language probably moved there from South of the Danube in the Middle Ages.".
I agree. This is also called the Romanian "Immigrationist theory". By the way, this view supports a close regional origin of the two and the evident common origin for the substrate of words found in both Romanian and Albanian, since it would place proto-Romanians closer to the widespread assumed homeland of proto-Albanians, namely the Roman province of "Moesia Superior" (that included central Serbia, Kosovo, and the northern regions of modern North Macedonia-including Skopje). By the way, "Moesia Superior" encompasses much of Gegëria (Gheg-speaking region of Albanians). Here is also a map of the Roman province "Moesia Superior", which was inhabited by Thracians, Dacians, Illyrian and Thraco-Illyrian (Dardani) peoples.
Furthermore, the name of the region derives from the Moesi, a Thraco-Dacian people who lived there before the Roman conquest. Last, the Albanian Daco-Moesian hypothesis was first set out by Georgiev in the early 60s, and has not been seriously contested. In the end though, i am not really a proponent of the Albanian Daco-Moesian hypothesis. A Thraco-Illyrian/Illyrian Dardanian hypothesis would also be acceptable to me. Unfortunately it is the absence of evidence for most of these languages that limits us from coming to safe conclusions.
You write, "And in addition to linguistics, note that Albanian and Moldovan Y-DNA lines have almost nothing in common, while there is very little in common between Albanians and Romanians.".
Not that genetics dictate linguistics, but can you be more precise in terms of the Y-DNA haplogroups you refer to because i have a different view, especially for the case of Romanians.
You write, "And among the few paleo-Balkan lines they do share, the ones that have been researched best were clearly in the Western Balkans Classical or Late Antiquity.".
Which do you term palaeo-Balkan Y-DNA haplogroups? And also, do you know of many Thracian, Daco-Moesian, and Illyrian tested samples from the Classical era?
i think the myceneneans referred to themselves as the myken. has there ever been any tribe who referred to themselves as the myken, mycen, mikken etc etc.
Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk
I did not say it is because of the substrate as that is only one element. There are many pieces of evidence, from different fields, that suggest that the Romanian language formed south of the Danube. Read what Schramm has to say about it if you haven't had a chance until now.
Albanians are majority E-V13, J2b-L283 and R1b-M269(xL51). Romanians have much lower levels of each and have substantially more I2a-Y3120, R1a and possibly R1b-L51. Moldovans are even more extreme: low E-V13 and close to none of the other two + higher I2a-Y3120 & R1a.
J2b-L283, E-V13, R1b-Z2103 and R1b-PF7563 all have several subclades that were most likely present in pre-Medieval Balkans. Their diversity is concentrated in the western Balkans, and J2b-L283 was even found in BA Dalmatia.
If you look at the estimated formation and diversity of each branch you will see that the Albanian J-Z638 branches, or R1b-Z2705, for example, could not possibly have spread out of Moldova and into Albania during the first millennium, so the Carpi idea has no genetic support at all, at least not in Y-DNA lines.
You write, "I did not say it is because of the substrate as that is only one element. There are many pieces of evidence, from different fields, that suggest that the Romanian language formed south of the Danube. Read what Schramm has to say about it if you haven't had a chance until now.".
But the "article" i shared referred to a substrate, not a superstrate nor the origin of the language. As for the question of the origin of this common substrate, an answer can only be hypothetical due to the lack of evidence, and the author knows it as well. He simply made a suggestion by giving an example. As for the second point, you make it appear as if i don't agree with all these. I have already written that i am a supporter of the "Immigrationist theory", namely of the Romanian northward migration sometime between the 10th-12th centuries CE (which interestingly enough is also around the time when the Albanian and Aromanian migrations begin southwards), therefore we agree on this. I also agree with Schramm, who also places the proto-Romanian homeland within "Moesia Superior", and more specifically "Dacia Aureliana". And i don't know about Romanian, but Aromanian has a considerable Greek substrate (4000-4500 words) that is traced to the Mycenaean, Homeric, Byzantine, and Modern eras, which means that it must have formed and evolved very close to Greek, in accordance with the Jireček line, something that their historical and modern regional distribution validates. Although Albanian seems to have formed north of the Jireček line, showing no signs of Hellenization, but rather of Romanization, with Latin roots comprising over 60% of the Albanian lexicon.
You write, "Albanians are majority E-V13, J2b-L283 and R1b-M269(xL51). Romanians have much lower levels of each and have substantially more I2a-Y3120, R1a and possibly R1b-L51. Moldovans are even more extreme: low E-V13 and close to none of the other two + higher I2a-Y3120 & R1a.".
Indeed, the most prevalent Y-DNA Albanian haplogroups are E-V13 and R1b-Z2103 (which actually accounts for 3/4 of all R1b-M269 in Albania or 14% of all lines), although J2b-L283 which i will touch upon later is more complex. Along these lines, isn't this following R1b-Z2103 distribution map interesting in terms of the Albanian and Romanian frequencies?
As for the higher frequencies of I2a-L621 and R1a in Romania, well it is obviously as a result of more Slavic influence, that doesn't really say much in terms of proto-Romanian. Especially when you are also a supporter of the "Immigrationist theory", you can certainly assess this as something very natural. The Romanians that moved north must have assimilated some earlier populations, many of which must have been Slavs who had began their own southern migrations in the Balkans from the 6th-7th centuries CE. Also, i don't see why you are against a Y-DNA haplogroup similarity between Albanians and Romanians, even if it's not so considerable. It would only further support the northward "Immigrationist theory" and Schramm that you also seem to be fond of.
Last, there are even considerable differences between Albanians, with Tosks having approximately 6.4% of J2b-L283 in contrast to Ghegs who seem to have 25.2%. In fact, the third most prevalent haplogroup in Tosks is I2a-L621 (10.8%), followed by I1-M253 (7.8%), and J2b-L283 coming fifth. Therefore, if anything, i believe we must focus on R1b-Z2103 (which seems to have the most uniform distribution among Albanians) and E-V13. As we saw above, R1b-Z2103 is significant in Romania (when compared to other Balkan regions), and E-V13 even though not prevalent (but still nicely present) in Romania, is still concentrated mostly in regions outside of Illyria, such as Thrace and Moesia (which is viewed as the most probable homeland of both proto-Albanian as well as proto-Romanian per Schramm and others).
You write, "J2b-L283, E-V13, R1b-Z2103 and R1b-PF7563 all have several subclades that were most likely present in pre-Medieval Balkans. Their diversity is concentrated in the western Balkans, and J2b-L283 was even found in BA Dalmatia.".
Today i don't see much of E-V13 in what would be Illyria, but rather other than Greece and Albania, we have big concentrations in what would be Thrace and Moesia. As for J2b-L283, other than Greece and Albania again, it seems to have significant concentrations throughout Thrace, Moesia, and Illyria. Furthermore, yes, i am already aware that the oldest discovered J2b-L283 was found in Vrgorac, Croatia dating at approximately 1576 BCE. Still, i don't see how all these relate to what you wrote and i asked upon, namely that "the ones that have been researched best were clearly in the Western Balkans Classical or Late Antiquity". Are you certain that they weren't in the Central and Eastern Balkans during the Archaic, Classical, Hellenistic, and early Medieval eras?
You write, "If you look at the estimated formation and diversity of each branch you will see that the Albanian J-Z638 branches, or R1b-Z2705, for example, could not possibly have spread out of Moldova and into Albania during the first millennium, so the Carpi idea has no genetic support at all, at least not in Y-DNA lines.".
You keep writing the same stuff, even though i have never written anything along these lines. I even plainly wrote that i am not a supporter of an Albanian-Carpi hypothesis, "But my personal view deviates a little from Kitselis' article, and certainly i don't hold a view that relates Carpi (supposed NE-Dacian tribe) to proto-Albanians, and neither does Kitselis from what i gather. I also, haven't excluded a Thraco-Illyrian, or an Illyrian origin for that matter.". I only shared an article that generally and broadly presented some ideas in relation to the ancient Thracian language and its hypothetical relation to other groups. This is not my own article, and by sharing it doesn't mean that i am in complete agreement with everything that it presents, let alone when i have explicitly denied those very same points, which even in the article were only suggestive. For me, as aforementioned, i view proto-Albanian to have formed within "Moesia Superior". Furthermore, in my view Moldova is really unsignificant in terms of proto-Albanian and proto-Romanian. We seem to be in agreement more or less, i don't know why we are arguing.
I have already touched upon this in the following comment, https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34414-Genetic-Origins-of-Minoans-and-Mycenaeans/page51?p=583559&viewfull=1#post583559. Here is the segment that relates again.
"By the way, the Mycenaean (as in Linear B form), of ancient Greek (Attic) and Ionic "Μυκῆναι ( Mukênai)", is "Mu-ka-nai", therefore more similar. The Doric form would also be "Μυκᾶναι (Mukânai)". And also take into account that the "ai" at the end of all signifies plurality. The singular form would be "Mukêne" (Attic/Ionic), "Mukâna" (Doric), and "Mu-ka-na" (Linear B). Last, the word "Mycenae" simply refers to a powerful citadel/region in north-eastern Peloponnese, neither the capital city of what we have contemporarily termed Mycenaean civilization, nor a historical collective ethnonym. Mycenaean citadels/regions were all independent from each other, while real collective ethnonyms for the Mycenaeans, as preserved through the Homeric Epics, the Hittite records, and the Egyptian records, were the ethnonyms "Achaeans", "Danaans", and "Argives". And besides that, Mycenaeans, which were comprised of what we would call in the Archaic/Classical periods the Aeolians, Achaeans, and Ionians, were not the only Greeks in existence. Dorians were also Greeks, but not originally part of the Mycenaean civilization, since they lived in the Pindus mountain range as pastoralists.".
@Demetrios. I replied to the info you posted, hinting a relation between Carpi and Albanians, which I find implausible. That was my main point. If you agree, great.
On possible links between Romanians and Albanians, common paleo-Balkan lines spreading around the time protoAlbanian-protoRomanian contact should be relevant, so first millennium CE.
There is no reason at all to exclude J2b-L283 (try to find a hg that is uniformly spread around Greece). J2b-L283 in Tosks actually has some good diversity, and it is still more frequent than in neighboring countries. Among the rare Romanian J2b-L283 results, there are some J-Z631 matching others from N Albania, NW Bosnia and Greece (western spread). Some of it is J-PH1602, which is not present in Albanians. Overall, J2b-L283 looks very western.
The R-Z2103 map is not indicative of substantive similarity because most Albanian R1b-Z2103 is R1b-BY611>Z2705. This branch is rare in Romanians, and they all have matches in the western and southern Balkans within 1100 ybp (YFull estimate). The diversity of R-Z2705 is currently concentrated around NW Albania & Montenegro (see this thread).
As for E-V13, substantial shared paternal ancestry within the last 2000 years does not seem likely, but since it is not as easy to classify E-V13 haplotypes with few STRs, I would rather wait for higher resolution data on Romanians. Yes, most of the shared ancestry is I-Y3120 and R1a, which should not be relevant for the location of the spears of paleo-Balkan languages.
So, as I said, there is little shared paleo-Balkan paternal ancestry in the best researched branches, and current data suggests that this small amount spread from the western half of the Balkans.
You write, "@Demetrios. I replied to the info you posted, hinting a relation between Carpi and Albanians, which I find implausible. That was my main point. If you agree, great.".
Yeah, i agree. But the way you replied appeared as if i didn't agree with you, hence my clarification.
You write, "On possible links between Romanians and Albanians, common paleo-Balkan lines spreading around the time protoAlbanian-protoRomanian contact should be relevant, so first millennium CE.".
I agree, although which are these lines per your view? That's what i am trying to understand.
You write, "There is no reason at all to exclude J2b-L283. J2b-L283 in Tosks actually has some good diversity, and it is still more frequent than in neighboring countries.".
Maybe there is not a reason to exclude it, bearing in mind that it is the second most prevalent haplogroup among Ghegs (which are also the ones living the closest to the proto-Albanian homeland), but we also have to consider the frequency among Tosks. What i shared earlier is very crucial and erases some false preconceptions many people have. It is crucial because Tosks make about half of the Albanian population. And by the way, i included a mistake in my previous comment. J2b-L283 is not the 5th most prevalent haplogroup among Tosks, but rather the 7th most prevalent. Here is a better presentation.
Ghegs (484 samples)
E1b-V13: 29.8%
J2b-L283: 25.2%
R1b-M269: 19.8%
I1-M253: 7%
R1a-M417: 5%
I2a-L147.2: 3.9%
J2a-M410: 2.3%
J1-M267: 1.9%
and then follow some others with insignificant frequencies.
Tosks (295 samples)
E1b-V13: 26.4%
R1b-M269: 16.6%
I2a-L147.2: 10.8%
R1a-M417: 9.2%
I1-M253: 7.8%
J2a-M410: 6.8%
J2b-L283: 6.4%
J1-M267: 5.1%
and then follow some others with insignificant frequencies.
The J2b-L283 haplogroup maps that i have seen are largely outdated and fail to show this significant distinction. Furthermore, Albanian average frequencies are not ideal sources of this information bearing in mind that we have more Gheg than Tosk representation, and Ghegs have the highest frequency of J2b-L283 worldwide.
As for being slightly more frequent in Tosks than in neighboring countries, that doesn't really say much, bearing in mind that they have been living next to and among Ghegs since time immemorial. Furthermore, we also have to consider that during the Communist period many people were displaced from the north to the south and vice versa.
You write, "(try to find a hg that is uniformly spread around Greece)".
Maybe uniformly is not the right word i should have used, but broadly prevalent. In the case of Greece, E1b-V13, R1b-M269, and J2a-M410 are all generally broadly prevalent. In the case of Albania, i view E1b-V13 and R1b-M269 as broadly prevalent.
You write, "Among the rare Romanian J2b-L283 results, there are some J-Z631 matching others from N Albania, NW Bosnia and Greece (western spread). Some of it is J-PH1602, which is not present in Albanians. Overall, J2b-L283 looks very western.".
Even if we consider the common J2b-L283 lines of Romanians and Albanians as western rather than generally Balkanic lines, this doesn't erase the fact that E-V13 looks more central, southern and eastern, in a Balkanic context, and seems to be more frequent in Romanians rather than J2b-L283, with a frequency of around 8%. Of course more data is needed in relation to their E-V13 common lines.
You write, "The R-Z2103 map is not indicative of substantive similarity because most Albanian R1b-Z2103 is R1b-BY611>Z2705 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-Z2705/). This branch is rare in Romanians, and they all have matches in the western and southern Balkans within 1100 ybp (YFull estimate). The diversity of R-Z2705 is currently concentrated around NW Albania & Montenegro (see this thread (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/36731-R1b-BY611-Z2705-Origins-and-Expansion/page3)).".
Indeed, most Albanian R1b-Z2103 is R1b-Z2705, and i see that its earliest lines seem to be concentrated in the Dinaric Alps. In any case, the group's predecessor lived approximately 1450 years ago, which was a period of great upheaval and subsequent migrations in the Balkans. Is there any possibility he could have come from the eastern and central Balkans, subsequently pushed to the west by the newcomers? Do we have any significant information on R1b-Y10789 and R1b-Y23373?
You write, "As for E-V13, substantial shared paternal ancestry within the last 2000 years does not seem likely, but since it is not as easy to classify E-V13 haplotypes with few STRs, I would rather wait for higher resolution data on Romanians. Yes, most of the shared ancestry is I-Y3120 and R1a, which should not be relevant for the location of the spears of paleo-Balkan languages.".
I agree that we need more data on E-V13, although even if we have a split between 3000-2000 ybp, it would still be significant.
You write, "So, as I said, there is little shared paleo-Balkan paternal ancestry in the best researched branches, and current data suggests that this small amount spread from the western half of the Balkans.".
But shouldn't there have been some, bearing in mind that you are also a proponent of the "Immigrationist theory" and Schramm? As for the current genetic data suggesting that it spread from the west, allow me to view it as more obscure. In any case it is very probable, not just because of genetics, but folklore does give some hints likewise.
Despite Ev13 frequency in Greece today, by tmrca's we see that it must have entered greece in the last 3000 years from the north. This is too late in greek history, meaning it entered as a non-greek lineage. There are some clades which are exceptions, but for most part so far this seems to be the trend.
Can you share with us the source of these percentages of different haplogroups among Geg and Tosk Albanians? Thanks in advance.
There are Greek E-V13 lines that have a TMRCA of 4300 and 4100 ybp, which can be identified as proto-Greek. Furthermore, even if the 3000 ybp line you refer to entered Greece after the proto-Greek and Mycenaean periods, i wouldn't consider it as a non-Greek lineage. After all, this period is prior of the Archaic Age, that saw the ethnogenesis of the Greek nation. The Greek ethnogenesis is linked to the development of Pan-Hellenism in the 8th century BCE, and the establishment of the ancient Olympic Games (776 BCE). Of course Greek history begins much prior of that, but ethnogenesis is something different.
Sure, here it is, http://www.gjenetika.com/statistikat/. This is actually a very useful website, although in the Albanian language.
Z2705 couldn’t have come from East or Central Balkans. As was already explained to you, its diversity and frequency peaks in the western part of the Balkans (North Albania and Southern Montenegro mainly).
Serbs pushed hard the eastern theory a while back but mainly based on few low res samples from scientific studies that have been now identified and further sequenced.
Thank you for the link.
Can we say that these results definitively demonstrate the percentage of different haplogroups among Albanian?
Go take a nap, bro.
Didn't asked you. Are you and Demetrios the same person?
As with all statistics they represent averages. The larger and more diversified the database of the samples, the more realistic the frequencies will be. In any case, 484 samples and 295 samples for Ghegs and Tosks respectively is significant. I don't think the frequencies will change much in the future.
I mentioned "exceptions" and even the two clades you refer to (E-BY3880 and E-37092) also show up in Montenegro and Bulgaria and are not good candidates for proto-Greek.
As for the "archaic age" ethnogenesis argument. This is just a way of saying a non-greek lineage that became greek at a later point. Normans which are germanic tribe in origin, are very important also for French ethnogenesis, who speak a romance language, but that doesn't mean they didn't enter the french people as non-romance speakers/ethnicity. And we don't erase the non-romance origins of the Normans. For now Ev13 shows all signs of having non-greek origins.
If new samples show up maybe this changes, but for now thats what the data shows.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote