Where does the Albanian language come from? [VIDEO]

[Johane Derite]

While the consensus is pretty clear that these extreme knobs that portrude in Troy came from the Babadag/Pshenicevo regions which seem to have been connected, we can see that even in Vatin culture there were some little variations of these "knobs". These also show up in Paracin II (which also have the spirals and are quite large) and also in Brnjica, but in Brnjica they are smaller, Paracin II seems to be closer to the Babadag and Pshenicevo Troy ones:

But in the case of pottery, we know that traditionally this was made by women, and in the case of corded ware for example, local pottery styles continued on to be made by local women with foreign men, so this is important to keep in mind.

Since we have tribal names that appear before Illyrians in both Anatolia and Central Balkans, (Dardani, Mysi, etc), it is important to isolate which movements these names would have spread with.

 

[Johane Derite]

But in the case of pottery, we know that traditionally this was made by women, and in the case of corded ware for example, local pottery styles continued on to be made by local women with foreign men, so this is important to keep in mind.

Since we have tribal names that appear before Illyrians in both Anatolia and Central Balkans, (Dardani, Mysi, etc), it is important to isolate which movements these names would have spread with.

But of course Hammond found exactly such Knobbed Ware in Albania, Epirus, and Macedonia. He singularly attributed these to the "Brygi".


I have long argued for an interesting possible Albanoid connection between the toponyms

Illyrian. Scodra
Brygian. Cydrae
Phrygian. Kydrara

 

[Johane Derite]

But of course Hammond found exactly such Knobbed Ware in Albania, Epirus, and Macedonia. He singularly attributed these to the "Brygi".


I have long argued for an interesting possible Albanoid connection between the toponyms

Illyrian. ScodraBrygian. Cydrae
Phrygian. Kydrara

Might this injection of Knobbed ware into Epirus and Macedonia explain why some names like "Dardas" "Derdas" show up among Epirotes and Macedonians?

 

[Riverman]

Paracin was a more local group, but Paracin II attests the Channelled Ware expansion from Belegis II-Gava.
Same goes for Brnjica, which got overrolled. The southward expansion of Channelled Ware along the Morava valley is quite noticeable and associated with a whole package, like specific cremation burials in urns, hoards, Reutlingen swords, flame shaped casted spearheads, black burnished, channelled ceramic, sun, fire and metal symbolism etc.
This migration was eventually reaching Greece and they mixed with Illyrian derived groups.
The Brygoi movements in the quoted map therefore go back at least to the Banat centre of Belegis II-Gava, if not the Gava core at the Upper Tisza.

 

[Hawk]

I would expect E-V13 to appear in horizontal axis of Late Madarovce, Hatvan and Fzesabony/Otomany. Or even Vatya since we don't have any samples from that culture, the problem is that they used heavily cremation as burial rite. And all of these variants Knobbed-Ware/Channeled-Ware/Gava etc, etc.

 

[Riverman]

If we go through this, we don't just have a table of how they differed, which had features which can be seen in G?va, but we also know which survived better than others. The main survivors of this whole spectrum being Encrusted Pottery and F?zesabony (into Piliny -> Kyjatice). All the others largely vanished before the LBA. For Channelled Ware mainly F?zesabony played a role, the others less so, but additional groups from the North and East played in, as well as smaller regional variants.
As for E-V13, that's another story, because it might have been present in a couple of these groups in theory, though the Pannonian paper doesn't suggest so, its still possible because of the cremation rite of many. But of these only Hatvan and F?zesabony are good candidates imho, and even those no perfect ones.
You see the area at which the Tisza makes a bend, East of Otomani? That's an area which deserves special attention, really the triangle of Hungary-Slovakia-Romania.

 

[enter_tain]

We already know the Greek/Byzantine writers. The very same ancient Greek writers who thought Etruscans came from Western Anatolia descending from Lydians led by their prince Tyrrhenos and various superstisious/faulty and wrong interpretations, anyway, they have their own merit/credit, but living 2500 years ago you were more prone to subjectivity/superstitions.

For your information no one is denying any connection of J2b2-L283 with Proto-Illyrians, on contrary, everyone is reiterating the connection (though there are people who think Illyrians were not uniform people, let's wait for Illyrii proprii dictii samples, although i wouldn't be surpised the pattern to repeat itself with J2b2-L283 appearing again), and it's not that Illyrians were an ancient civilization to be obsessed with in any way. They achieved nothing of value. It's just that a model was proposed by a renowned linguist like Matzinger based on his decade research, and we play with the options we have in hand. Because, proofs lead us to Proto-Albanoids living in Central Balkans and either E-V13 or R1b-Z2105 being the primary marker. I see you, jumping from time to time with such an uneasy when we mention this facts. It's like we are hitting your ego.

And, E-V13 is totally lacking in Early Bronze Age context, even on Early Bronze Age Bulgaria where supposedly was quite in huge numbers during ancient times. So, logic so far dictates us it came during Late Bronze Age, various subclades with various Danubian Urnfield cultures and Dardanians unlike Glasinac Illyrians had quite an influence from Danubian Urnfielders based on material culture. This is a fact.

The Proto-Albanoids are the Albanoi living in northern Albania. Aurel Plasari published an entire book showing the continuation from antiquity to the middle Ages of the Albanoi. We have mentions of them in 2nd century AD, we know Geg/Tosk split there in 4th-6th century AD, other mentions from 5th century to 7th century, and again when they show up as the Principality of Arbanon.

You're just a whiny dude that cries to his mother that EV-13 doesn't show up in samples, so you make up fake histories with Johan Derite who got banned from other sites.

 

[enter_tain]

For R-Z2103 its not solved yet whether it was primarily Greco-Armenian in the Balkans or had different associations too, but E-V13 being clearly connected to Daco-Thracians.
Most likely since Gava, but for sure since Psenichevo-Basarabi.
Proto-Albanians came up by a fusion of Illyrian and Daco-Thracians. The question is whether it was an early one, like in Dardanians, ir the result of later movements in Antiquity.
To solve that you need to find ancient DNA from the pre-Slavic Proto-Albanians and their predecessors from the Iron Age.

You're making no sense. Greeks are EV-13 heavy. Are they "Daco-Thracians" too?

Albanians cluster with Greeks genetically. There is a reason for that. Dacians were all the way in Central/Eastern Europe.

 

[Riverman]

You're making no sense. Greeks are EV-13 heavy. Are they "Daco-Thracians" too?
Albanians cluster with Greeks genetically. There is a reason for that. Dacians were all the way in Central/Eastern Europe.

Greeks were influenced in the Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age and over time heavily by Thracians and later by the same people as Albanians were plus Albanians directly. Sure they are supposed to share some ancestry.
As for the geography, they were surrounded by Thracian and Dacian people. There is no clear borderline between Dacians and Thracians at all, as there was not between the various Channelled Ware groups and Bosut-Basarabi or Psenichevo.
This was one Daco-Thracian Koine in the LBA to EIA.
Both Dacians and Thracians lived along the Danube.

 

[enter_tain]

Greeks were influenced in the Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age and over time heavily by Thracians and later by the same people as Albanians were plus Albanians directly. Sure they are supposed to share some ancestry.
As for the geography, they were surrounded by Thracian and Dacian people. There is no clear borderline between Dacians and Thracians at all, as there was not between the various Channelled Ware groups and Bosut-Basarabi or Psenichevo.
This was one Daco-Thracian Koine in the LBA to EIA.
Both Dacians and Thracians lived along the Danube.

What in the tarnation are you talking about? The heavy Greek EV-13 is "Thracian influence"? Are you joking or what? EV-13 is found all over Europe. There were Slavs that were heavy in EV-13. It's not solely tied to "Thracians".

The EV-13 in Albanians has nothing to do with Thracians. It's a "Greek-like" southern Balkan marker. That's why Albanians cluster almost identically with Greeks. Even the Albanian language has nothing to do with Thracian or Dacian. Thracians ended their places -para and Dacians in -dava. These are foreign conventions to the language. Albanians add -"et"/"atet" just like Illyrians to the names of tribes. "Geget", "Tosket", "Greket", "Anglezet". This is the Illyrian naming convention. "Delmatae", "Autariatae". The "um" ending is a Latinism added by the Romans as the same endings are replaced by "on" by the Greeks.

 

[Riverman]

What in the tarnation are you talking about? The heavy Greek EV-13 is "Thracian influence"? Are you joking or what? EV-13 is found all over Europe. There were Slavs that were heavy in EV-13. It's not solely tied to "Thracians".

The EV-13 in Albanians has nothing to do with Thracians. It's a "Greek-like" southern Balkan marker. That's why Albanians cluster almost identically with Greeks. Even the Albanian language has nothing to do with Thracian or Dacian. Thracians ended their places -para and Dacians in -dava. These are foreign conventions to the language. Albanians add -"et"/"atet" just like Illyrians to the names of tribes. "Geget", "Tosket", "Greket", "Anglezet". This is the Illyrian naming convention. "Delmatae", "Autariatae". The "um" ending is a Latinism added by the Romans as the same endings are replaced by "on" by the Greeks.

The basic assumption, which a couple of archaeologists hold up too, is that the Proto-Thracian culture was Channelled Ware/G?va and if you might notice, I wrote about it here:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...an-case/page12?p=637970&viewfull=1#post637970

Proto-Slavs had early contacts with Channelled Ware, both directly and indirectly, via Lusatians. You can read up on contacts with Lusatians and Trzciniec. The article is linked in the post, but this is the direct link:
https://www.academia.edu/32255479/T...ron_Age_Settlement_at_Wierzchosławice_Site_15

The very same elements reached Greece and Asia minor (Troy), later Thracian territories with Belegis II-G?va along the Morava valley, and from the East the Fluted Ware horizon and Knobbed Ware in the Lower Danube, from where they entered Asia minor. In all those places Daco-Thracian place names being testified:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_Daco-Thracian_peoples_and_tribes


As you can see, much of Northern Greece was "Grecisized" but was originally Thracian. Channelled Ware elements moved deep into Illyrian and Greek territory.

E.g., one of the signatures for Channelled Ware people being flame shaped, fully casted spearheads and Reutlingen/Naue II type swords in areas which were devoid of it earlier, as well as black burnished, channelled/fluted and knobbed fine ceramic, together with cremation in urns. You find it all from Transcarpathia/Southern Poland down to Asia minor in the LBA-EIA transition and in all places in which a related culture persisted, you find Daco-Thracians. In areas which had elements of it, at least substrate effects, like in the Dardanians.

Its a pretty clear cut case overall, even more so for the succeeding main cultures of Bosut-Basarabi and Psenichevo. While for Channelled Ware there might remain a small doubt, for the horizon as a whole, Psenichevo-Basarabi is absolutely clearly and 100 % both heavy in E-V13 and Daco-Thracian ethnolinguistically. Whatever was before, which is still somewhat in the dark, that's pretty certain and no longer a matter of debate.

Yes, they were already present in other people too, even in the LBA the latest, but that was largely due to contacts with Channelled Ware and the great influence Channelled Ware/Psenichevo-Basarabi had on other groups, including intensive, proven contacts, like with Illyrians, Greeks and Celts, presumably also with Veneti, Ligurians and Pre-Slavs among others. The pre-Slavic groups might have been their neighbours to the North/North East, in Eastern Poland and Ukraine.
Daco-Thracian is supposed to be linguistically closest to Balto-Slavs and Channelled Ware emerged from Epi-Corded groups living in the Carpathian zone.

 

[Riverman]

Some more quotations from Britannica:

At the dawn of recorded history, two Indo-European peoples dominated the area: the Illyrians to the west and the Thracians to the east of the great historical divide defined by the Morava and Vardar river valleys. The Thracians were advanced in metalworking and in horsemanship. They intermingled with the Greeks and gave them the Dionysian and Orphean cults, which later became so important in classical Greek literature. The Illyrians were more exclusive, their mountainous terrain keeping them separate from the Greeks and Thracians.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Balkans#ref476014

The Dacian people had earlier occupied lands south of the Danube and north of the mountains, and those lands as a Roman province eventually included wider territories both to the north and to the east. The Dacians were of Thracian stock and, among the Thracian successor peoples in the region, were most akin to the Getae. (Indeed, the similarities between the groups led the Greek historian Herodotus to label both as Getae, while the Romans referred to all these populations as Dacians.) They first appeared in the Athenian slave market in the 4th century bce. Subsequently they traded with the Greeks (importing especially wine) and used Greek coins. They spoke a Thracian dialect but were influenced culturally by the neighbouring Scythians?from whom they adopted the cult of the Scythian deity Zalmoxis and a belief in immortality?and by Celtic invaders of the 4th century bce.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Dacia#ref1214614

Note that there were different Thraco-Scythian groups, like the Geto-Scythians known from history, the Vekerzug group with Pannonian and Dacian locals which got Scythianised, as well as the Ferigile group (Scythianised Basarabi Dacians). Basarabi as a whole got more influenced by Iranians (Scythians) than Thracians proper (Psenichevo). This aligns very well with the descriptions given.

 

[Hawk]

I am 100% sure he doesn't even grasp the slightest what you are writing, because the way he thinks is dualistic, either what suits him or totally rejecting if it doesn't suit him, there is no middle-ground.

In addition, we still don't know the exact linguistic affiliations of Thracian, the Balto-Slavic supposed hypothesis is an obsolete theory.

 

[Riverman]

I am 100% sure he doesn't even grasp the slightest what you are writing, because the way he thinks is dualistic, either what suits him or totally rejecting if it doesn't suit him, there is no middle-ground.

In addition, we still don't know the exact linguistic affiliations of Thracian, the Balto-Slavic supposed hypothesis is an obsolete theory.

It would fit into the G?va/Channelled Ware origin hypothesis though, because F?zesabony/Otomani and Suciu de Sus, among other predecessor candidates, all had closer relations to Epi-Corded (like the Nitra group and Unetice) than to Bell Beakers, contrary to the Middle Danubians/Illyrians.
But the actual linguistic knowledge is rather limited and we won't get much more out of it, since the written evidence is what it is, quite sparse. Otherwise many of these debates, including the debate about Proto-Albanians, would be not necessary if the corpus would be big and complete enough, which it isn't, unfortunately. I think this will be solved by genetics, we're just not there yet, because we need way more samples for it. And there we are with the problem that they mostly cremated...

 

[Hawk]

It would fit into the G�va/Channelled Ware origin hypothesis though, because F�zesabony/Otomani and Suciu de Sus, among other predecessor candidates, all had closer relations to Epi-Corded (like the Nitra group and Unetice) than to Bell Beakers, contrary to the Middle Danubians/Illyrians.
But the actual linguistic knowledge is rather limited and we won't get much more out of it, since the written evidence is what it is, quite sparse. Otherwise many of these debates, including the debate about Proto-Albanians, would be not necessary if the corpus would be big and complete enough, which it isn't, unfortunately. I think this will be solved by genetics, we're just not there yet, because we need way more samples for it. And there we are with the problem that they mostly cremated...

Well, based on location yes, but we don't know how distant is the connection.

As for Illyrians, Matzinger and Lippert are totally refusing any Middle Danubian Urnfield influence on Illyrians, they say it was almost left untouched. That could be true for the bulk of Urnfielders who were attracted more by rich Aegean regions instead of poor Adriatic regions.

But then again we don't know about earlier periods, Middle Bronze Age, whether the so called Koszider hoard by Gimbutas fit into the timeline of influence. Or, it was a Late EBA from East Alps to Western Balkans.

The Southern-arch paper will give us enough information to scope it down i guess.

 

[Riverman]

Well, based on location yes, but we don't know how distant is the connection.

As for Illyrians, Matzinger and Lippert are totally refusing any Middle Danubian Urnfield influence on Illyrians, they say it was almost left untouched. That could be true for the bulk of Urnfielders who were attracted more by rich Aegean regions instead of poor Adriatic regions.

But then again we don't know about earlier periods, Middle Bronze Age, whether the so called Koszider hoard by Gimbutas fit into the timeline of influence. Or, it was a Late EBA from East Alps to Western Balkans.

The Southern-arch paper will give us enough information to scope it down i guess.

Hopefully. For me so far nothing changed, I think the Proto-Illyrians were marching South just earlier than the Proto-Thracians, namely in the MBA, with the expansions of Middle Danubian Tumulus culture. Both Illyrians and Thracians just moved further South, over time.
In the case of the Pannonian-Illyrian sphere, the later Urnfield connection influenced primarily the more Northern, Danubian groups (Pannonian) with possible para-Celtic from the West and Channelled Ware from the East. The Southern core block wasn't heavily influenced, but instead they expanded over the Adriatic and Southward in that time. Later, in the Early Iron Age, they also expanded West, pushing each other, causing some Daco-Thracians to be assimilated, like under the Dardanians or just fusing with those, like in the Triballi.

The question which remains for me is how much of the Tumulus culture from Pannonia-Illyria was brought from the Upper Danube-Alpine regions or was just locals which picked some elements up, even more so since they had their own forms of tumulus burials before. That's not resolved so far, but I'm leaning towards a strong Middle Danubian contact zone and massive expansion from there. This would also explain why J-L283 might have been present before, but not as dominant in the region, before the Tumulus culture expansion. They were the main profiteers from this cultural movement in the Balkans, replacing many other local lineages, probably even some other J2b lineages among these, in the course of these events.
Similar to E-V13, which was in the region before, but expanded from a contact zone with a fused culture (Channelled Ware) North to South in the Balkans.

Because what is quite clear is that those elements we see in Mokrin and Bulgarian EBA became a minority somewhere between the MBA to MIA in most of the Carpatho-Balkan zone and J-L283 dominating the West, E-V13 the centre and East. We'll see whether survivors of the earlier groups turn up and whether R-Z2103 was among those or can be associated with an expansive group too.

 

[Hawk]

Hopefully. For me so far nothing changed, I think the Proto-Illyrians were marching South just earlier than the Proto-Thracians, namely in the MBA, with the expansions of Middle Danubian Tumulus culture. Both Illyrians and Thracians just moved further South, over time.
In the case of the Pannonian-Illyrian sphere, the later Urnfield connection influenced primarily the more Northern, Danubian groups (Pannonian) with possible para-Celtic from the West and Channelled Ware from the East. The Southern core block wasn't heavily influenced, but instead they expanded over the Adriatic and Southward in that time. Later, in the Early Iron Age, they also expanded West, pushing each other, causing some Daco-Thracians to be assimilated, like under the Dardanians or just fusing with those, like in the Triballi.

The question which remains for me is how much of the Tumulus culture from Pannonia-Illyria was brought from the Upper Danube-Alpine regions or was just locals which picked some elements up, even more so since they had their own forms of tumulus burials before. That's not resolved so far, but I'm leaning towards a strong Middle Danubian contact zone and massive expansion from there. This would also explain why J-L283 might have been present before, but not as dominant in the region, before the Tumulus culture expansion. They were the main profiteers from this cultural movement in the Balkans, replacing many other local lineages, probably even some other J2b lineages among these, in the course of these events.
Similar to E-V13, which was in the region before, but expanded from a contact zone with a fused culture (Channelled Ware) North to South in the Balkans.

Because what is quite clear is that those elements we see in Mokrin and Bulgarian EBA became a minority somewhere between the MBA to MIA in most of the Carpatho-Balkan zone and J-L283 dominating the West, E-V13 the centre and East. We'll see whether survivors of the earlier groups turn up and whether R-Z2103 was among those or can be associated with an expansive group too.

Someone mentioned that R1b-Z2103 subclade present among Albanians, forgot the exact subclade root level, has the oldest subclade somewhere in Hungary during LBA/EIA. I have no idea how correct is this information.

 

[Johane Derite]

I am 100% sure he doesn't even grasp the slightest what you are writing, because the way he thinks is dualistic, either what suits him or totally rejecting if it doesn't suit him, there is no middle-ground.

In addition, we still don't know the exact linguistic affiliations of Thracian, the Balto-Slavic supposed hypothesis is an obsolete theory.

Ye, we must stop responding to t-rolls. Only way is to starve them, since their function is to slide threads and derail them, so they require engagement. If you absolutely ignore them eventually they go away. I bought Aurel Plasari's book "Arbni" in the hope that it would be a good historical addition, but it is full of crap, and the entire Albanoi page on wiki it seems has been filled with the book's anachronistic and garbage claims. The fact that "delus mucati" is given as na illyrian name on that wiki pge shows just how manipulative and not interested in the truth the people on that wiki are. Mouka- Muka- is one perhaps one of the most common ever thracian names, so when someone so boldly claims it as Illyrian, you know that something dodgy is going on.

 

[torzio]

The basic assumption, which a couple of archaeologists hold up too, is that the Proto-Thracian culture was Channelled Ware/G�va and if you might notice, I wrote about it here:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...an-case/page12?p=637970&viewfull=1#post637970

Proto-Slavs had early contacts with Channelled Ware, both directly and indirectly, via Lusatians. You can read up on contacts with Lusatians and Trzciniec. The article is linked in the post, but this is the direct link:
https://www.academia.edu/32255479/T...ron_Age_Settlement_at_Wierzchosławice_Site_15

The very same elements reached Greece and Asia minor (Troy), later Thracian territories with Belegis II-G�va along the Morava valley, and from the East the Fluted Ware horizon and Knobbed Ware in the Lower Danube, from where they entered Asia minor. In all those places Daco-Thracian place names being testified:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_Daco-Thracian_peoples_and_tribes


As you can see, much of Northern Greece was "Grecisized" but was originally Thracian. Channelled Ware elements moved deep into Illyrian and Greek territory.

E.g., one of the signatures for Channelled Ware people being flame shaped, fully casted spearheads and Reutlingen/Naue II type swords in areas which were devoid of it earlier, as well as black burnished, channelled/fluted and knobbed fine ceramic, together with cremation in urns. You find it all from Transcarpathia/Southern Poland down to Asia minor in the LBA-EIA transition and in all places in which a related culture persisted, you find Daco-Thracians. In areas which had elements of it, at least substrate effects, like in the Dardanians.

Its a pretty clear cut case overall, even more so for the succeeding main cultures of Bosut-Basarabi and Psenichevo. While for Channelled Ware there might remain a small doubt, for the horizon as a whole, Psenichevo-Basarabi is absolutely clearly and 100 % both heavy in E-V13 and Daco-Thracian ethnolinguistically. Whatever was before, which is still somewhat in the dark, that's pretty certain and no longer a matter of debate.

Yes, they were already present in other people too, even in the LBA the latest, but that was largely due to contacts with Channelled Ware and the great influence Channelled Ware/Psenichevo-Basarabi had on other groups, including intensive, proven contacts, like with Illyrians, Greeks and Celts, presumably also with Veneti, Ligurians and Pre-Slavs among others. The pre-Slavic groups might have been their neighbours to the North/North East, in Eastern Poland and Ukraine.
Daco-Thracian is supposed to be linguistically closest to Balto-Slavs and Channelled Ware emerged from Epi-Corded groups living in the Carpathian zone.

the only issue with that map is

They assume the Histrians as Adriatic Veneti instead of Illyrian
and
without the Norians being Illyrian , you have NO Halstatt culture phase one

 

[Riverman]

the only issue with that map is
They assume the Histrians as Adriatic Veneti instead of Illyrian
and
without the Norians being Illyrian , you have NO Halstatt culture phase one

They didn't mark the whole zone without historically attested, clear signals. Obviously both Illyrian and Daco-Thracian had a wider range than this map is showing, which kind of reduces everything to the very core regions of these people, which being safe and well attested. Daco-Thracians once reached up to the Middle Danube, here they don't even get the area up to the Tisza river. This is really the bare minimum for their distribution, with a much bigger zone of influence, especially in pre-Celtic times.