Where does the Albanian language come from? [VIDEO]

[Hawk]

Emotional damage.

[enter_tain]

Oh yeah. Johan Deranged is definitely the sock. He goes quiet for a long time, and all the sock accounts pop up. As soon as I quote him, he pops up again. Someone check his IP.

[Johane Derite]

Matzinger's argument is relevant here
He argues thar Messapic is part of the Balkanic IE group with Greek, Phrygian, Albanian, etc, but not part of the East Alpine Block like Illyrian.
He also clarifies that Balkanic IE doesnt necessarily mean phylogenetic relationship, but can possibly be areal contact as in the balkan sprachbund where Albanian, Turkish, South Slavic dialects have shared features from contact despite not having a phylogenetic relationship.
So according to him the term Messapo-Illyrian is like saying Albano-South Slavic, it is imposing a phylogenetic relationship where there is possibly none, and should therefore be avoided.
Messapians Proper also need to be differentiated from Daunians, etc, since almost all messapian language inscriptions are found where the Messapi Proper lived, and those regions outside of the Messapi Proper also appear to be places that Messapi conquered, as in the example of a reference to Messapi conquering the Dauni.
Daunians may have had more Illyrians, Dalmatians, Iapodians etc in their ethnogenesis, Messapi Proper may have had more Dardanians, etc (the largest Messapi Proper tribe, the Kalabri, are connected with the Dardani Galabroi.)
Another thing relevant here is that Messapic is not Proto-Albanian, it feels like some people are under this impression.
Likewise, the big point here is that languages like Phrygian, Paeonian, etc, existed. These were Balkan IE languages that were neither Thracian or Illyrian, as Matzinger is considering Messapic and Albanian.

Also relevant to the Messapic Kalabri and Dardanian Galabroi is the earliest known king of the Taulanti, Galabrus/Galaurus.

If this kings name is related, might it possibly have something to do with the channelled ware presence in Taulanti regions?

[enter_tain]

Albanian is not a pure Illyrian language

Albanian is not a pure Thracian language

Bryges were in Albania circa 1200BC, some Dardani crossed from Balkans to Anatolia around this time too, WITH some of the Bryges. Some stayed behind in the Balkans. Bryges, Dardani, Paeoni, seem to all be heavily interlinked in history & their geography, in both the Balkans and Anatolia. Lots of overlap with these ancient tribes. It's likely these people were rich in E-V13. I think around this time, Illyrians had started settling Albania, and other nearby areas, or possibly earlier (rumored MBA J2b2 Albania sample)

No doubt J2b2 and E-V13 lived among each other and mixed since the LBA. By The Iron Age, Illyrians gave even more influence, to the Dardani, Paeoni, etc. The Illyrians allied with these people numerous times in history too, their stretch of influence was up to the Morava Vardar, where they met Thracians that lived among these rivers

It's also interesting that after Bryges disappear from Albania, the Albanoi are mentioned in their place several hundreds of years later. This makes me wonder, if Albanoi / Arber was formed from Bryges + Illyrians (Arbi?)

Either way, I think there's no doubt that Albanian is Thraco-Illyrian, with more Illyrian influence than Thracian. I don't think it's possible to tie it down to only one of these languages, given the lack of written material from ancient Illyrians and Thracians. We know Albanian is linked to Messapic, who came from Illyria, who were J2b2. To ignore this, is a wishful, pure Thracoid fantasy.. In that same token, to ignore that E-V13 is the most common haplogroup among Albanians today, is a wishful, pure Illyrian fantasy too. Clearly we have links to both, I think this shouldn't be ignored. Everyone wants to be "pure" and assign themselves to one tribe or race, this type of thinking is a lot like the outdated "Aryan-Nordic-Nazi" theories that was popular in Germany / Northern Europe like 100 years ago. All we talk about here is, "J2b2 isn't Albanian" "E-V13 isn't Albanian" "Illyrians were weak, look how low J2b2 is." "Thracians were weak, look how assimilated E-V13 is"

Ridiculous. We are not pure Illyrians and we are not pure Thracians... All the fantasy fiction writers on here need to realize this

That's not how languages work. Albanian, like any other language, has a certain set of laws that go from Proto-Indo-European -> Albanian. Thracian and Illyrian are a different set of languages with different rules.

There's nothing in Albanian that implies it's a fusion language.

It's also interesting that after Bryges disappear from Albania, the Albanoi are mentioned in their place several hundreds of years later. This makes me wonder, if Albanoi / Arber was formed from Bryges + Illyrians (Arbi?)

They are most likely an extension of the Taulanti. Probably a northern tribe of theirs.

[torzio]

Your fragile brain still fails to grasp that Albanian and Messapic being related, makes this impossible. Messapic has roots as long as >3000 years back to the Balkans, and we see archeological + genetic evidence linking them to the West Balkans.



There are 0 linguists today who dispute a link between Albanian and Messapic. This is why Albanian is "Adriatic Indo-European".

whatever link you have with messapic and Albania is due to the Messapic trading with Albania , the people on the Albanian coast be it epirotes or whoever learnt some messapic words........it is not the other way around.............this trade only began circa 400BC , due to the fact that the messpics and Daunians led an isolated/closed society who only traded with croatians...ie Liburnians

[torzio]

Also relevant to the Messapic Kalabri and Dardanian Galabroi is the earliest known king of the Taulanti, Galabrus/Galaurus.
If this kings name is related, might it possibly have something to do with the channelled ware presence in Taulanti regions?

messapic had already changed after 500 years in Italy ................the Kalabri/calabri at the time lived near modern Taranto ( SW of )

they had already changed their alphabet

Messapic alphabet, also called Messapian Alphabet, one of two Italian offshoots of the Tarentine–Ionic variety of the Greek alphabet. It was adopted c. 500 bc by the Messapii, who inhabited southeastern Italy in pre-Roman times.

[Excine]

@Johane Do not credit Matzinger with theories he has never written. Matzinger does not argue that Messapian is more closely related to Greek and Phrygian due to its position in a Balkanic IE or that Albanian is more closely related to Messapian than to Illyrian of the Illyrii proprie dicti. You are attempting to lend credibility to your personal theories by attributing them to a linguist.


Illyrian is the language of the Illyrian proprie dicti, according to Matzinger. According to Matzinger, neither the Iapodes nor any other northern/middle/inner Illyrian tribe spoke "Illyrian." This is simply his terminology; it does not imply that they did not speak a mutually intelligible language that belonged to the same group as "Illyrian."




Daunians and Messapians belonged to the same people, spoke the same language, and were regarded by all as the same people. The notion that we should "differentiate" them is an absurd fringe theory that nobody supports.


You wish to distinguish them because you refuse to believe that J-L283 and E-V13 spoke the same language. Illyrians are the only ancient people to have a single haplogroup, according to fringe theories promoted by the same people who claimed Albanians originated in the Caucasus a decade ago. In any case, we are beginning to discover E-V13 in the western Balkans during antiquity, and that's what will remain recorded in history.

[Excine]

Matzinger is just following the data and is the most updated linguist dealing both in specialised Albanian and Old Albanian and ancient balkan languages. He is also not alone, this is what is most updated. He would not argue for Messapic-Albanian relations for some sort of agenda, since this language is even more western than Illyrian.

Also his reference here to the Ostalpenblock (East Alpine Block) is based on linguist Peter Anreiter's work, he is just in agreement more or less (but he does say "cautiously").

But this paradigm of Messapic not being Illyrian is interesting (he says that Messapic and Illyrian would have had contacts in the balkan stage though).

According to him Messapic is a typical language of the Balkan IE group like Phrygian, Armenian, Albanian, Thracian, and Greek. The East Alpine Block group is not part of this group but had contacts with it according to him.

Herodotus actually wrote the the Messapians came from Crete:

"§ 7.170 For the story goes that Minos, having come to Sicania, which is now called Sicily, in search of Daidalos, died there by a violent death; and after a time the Cretans, urged thereto by a god, all except the men of Polichne and Praisos, came with a great armament to Sicania and besieged for seven years the city of Camicos, which in my time was occupied by the Agrigentines; and at last not being able either to capture it or to remain before it, because they were hard pressed by famine, they departed and went away.

And when, as they sailed, they came to be off the coast of Iapygia, a great storm seized them and cast them away upon the coast; and their vessels being dashed to pieces, they, since they saw no longer any way of coming to Crete, founded there the city of Hyria; and there they stayed and were changed so that they became instead of Cretans, Messapians of Iapygia, and instead of islanders, dwellers on the mainland: then from the city of Hyria they founded those other settlements which the Tarentines long afterwards endeavoured to destroy and suffer great disaster in that enterprise, so that this in fact proved to be the greatest slaughter of Hellenes that is known to us, and not only of the Tarentines themselves but of those citizens of Rhegion who were compelled by Mikythos the son of Choiros to go to the assistance of the Tarentines, and of whom there were slain in this manner three thousand men: of the Tarentines themselves however, who were slain there, there was no numbering made. This Mikythos, who was a servant of Anaxilaos, had been left by him in charge of Rhegion; and he it was who after being driven out of Rhegion took up his abode at Tegea of the Arcadians and dedicated those many statues at Olympia."

Fringe theories about Messapians by Johane Derite include calling them ... Cretans!

[Hawk]

Also relevant to the Messapic Kalabri and Dardanian Galabroi is the earliest known king of the Taulanti, Galabrus/Galaurus.
If this kings name is related, might it possibly have something to do with the channelled ware presence in Taulanti regions?

I have been checking Italian sources before on Messapi burial rite and they are an interesting case, early Messapi used mostly burial pits as their funerary practice, while latter adopting the sarcophagi and burial rites from neighboring Greeks. I cannot find anything where they mention that they used the Illyrian-specific tumulus mounds or that they cremated their deads on a pyre on top of a tumuli like Channeled-Ware people did, but variants of Channeled-Ware like Kapitan Andreevo used burial pits as well.

Anyway, confusing group if you look at material culture, nothing conclusive.

Even if we want to connect via Matt-Painter Pottery Culture, just doesn't sum up everything, neither with Glasinac-Mat neither with the Channeled-Ware people. That must have been a group which was conquered and latter on merged with incoming three tribes, no matter whether Messapi differed from the other two (like old Italic tales tell us that two brothers Iapyx and Daun and the unrelated Messapi were forerunners of the three tribes).

[Johane Derite]

I have been checking Italian sources before on Messapi burial rite and they are an interesting case, early Messapi used mostly burial pits as their funerary practice, while latter adopting the sarcophagi and burial rites from neighboring Greeks. I cannot find anything where they mention that they used the Illyrian-specific tumulus mounds or that they cremated their deads on a pyre on top of a tumuli like Channeled-Ware people did, but variants of Channeled-Ware like Kapitan Andreevo used burial pits as well.

Anyway, confusing group if you look at material culture, nothing conclusive.

Even if we want to connect via Matt-Painter Pottery Culture, just doesn't sum up everything, neither with Glasinac-Mat neither with the Channeled-Ware people. That must have been a group which was conquered and latter on merged with incoming three tribes, no matter whether Messapi differed from the other two (like old Italic tales tell us that two brothers Iapyx and Daun and the unrelated Messapi were forerunners of the three tribes).

It's very messy since there are so many influences from greeks, italics, and also the possibility of other balkan groups.

Testing dna in their main older cities in the heart of Messapia, like Oria, Manduria, etc, might give a clearer picture about what was going on.

I remember reading from leonard palmer that he argued that messapic lamguage came around 700s bc as an easternising influence of horse riding as opposed to horse driving.

I read in an other article that daunians had contact with dalmatia since at least middle bronze age via gargano. So if there were multiple waves of differing balkan peoples this also makes it messier.

[Hawk]

It's very messy since there are so many influences from greeks, italics, and also the possibility of other balkan groups.
Testing dna in their main older cities in the heart of Messapia, like Oria, Manduria, etc, might give a clearer picture about what was going on.
I remember reading from leonard palmer that he argued that messapic lamguage came around 700s bc as an easternising influence of horse riding as opposed to horse driving.
I read in an other article that daunians had contact with dalmatia since at least middle bronze age via gargano. So if there were multiple waves of differing balkan peoples this also makes it messier.

Yeah, the maz word for horse and the connection with Albanian and Thracian maz sounds interesting.

[blevins13]

whatever link you have with messapic and Albania is due to the Messapic trading with Albania , the people on the Albanian coast be it epirotes or whoever learnt some messapic words........it is not the other way around.............this trade only began circa 400BC , due to the fact that the messpics and Daunians led an isolated/closed society who only traded with croatians...ie Liburnians

There is a area in Laberia (Vlore) called Mesaplik. Relations seem much more deeper than just trade.

[torzio]

@Johane Do not credit Matzinger with theories he has never written. Matzinger does not argue that Messapian is more closely related to Greek and Phrygian due to its position in a Balkanic IE or that Albanian is more closely related to Messapian than to Illyrian of the Illyrii proprie dicti. You are attempting to lend credibility to your personal theories by attributing them to a linguist.


Illyrian is the language of the Illyrian proprie dicti, according to Matzinger. According to Matzinger, neither the Iapodes nor any other northern/middle/inner Illyrian tribe spoke "Illyrian." This is simply his terminology; it does not imply that they did not speak a mutually intelligible language that belonged to the same group as "Illyrian."




Daunians and Messapians belonged to the same people, spoke the same language, and were regarded by all as the same people. The notion that we should "differentiate" them is an absurd fringe theory that nobody supports.


You wish to distinguish them because you refuse to believe that J-L283 and E-V13 spoke the same language. Illyrians are the only ancient people to have a single haplogroup, according to fringe theories promoted by the same people who claimed Albanians originated in the Caucasus a decade ago. In any case, we are beginning to discover E-V13 in the western Balkans during antiquity, and that's what will remain recorded in history.

as you say.............Daunians, Messapians belong to the same North Balkan group Iapodes ...............which is nowhere near Montenegro and the Illyrian proprie dicti .................

So you say Illyrian from Illyrian proprie dicti are speaking a different language to the Iapodes Messapic, Daunian Illyrians

[mount123]

as you say.............Daunians, Messapians belong to the same North Balkan group Iapodes ...............which is nowhere near Montenegro and the Illyrian proprie dicti .................
So you say Illyrian from Illyrian proprie dicti are speaking a different language to the Iapodes Messapic, Daunian Illyrians

They did not speak different languages. That person is trolling.

[mount123]

You wish to distinguish them because you refuse to believe that J-L283 and E-V13 spoke the same language. Illyrians are the only ancient people to have a single haplogroup, according to fringe theories promoted by the same people who claimed Albanians originated in the Caucasus a decade ago. In any case, we are beginning to discover E-V13 in the western Balkans during antiquity, and that's what will remain recorded in history.

What kind of pseudo scientific wishful thinking non sense is this? E1b-V13 did absolutely not spread from the ancient East Adriatic zone and has nothing to do with core Illyrians. E1b-V13 is completely absent in Iron Age Illyrians and taking one AD sample whose carrier is a Roman infant as a proof that E1b-V13 is core Illyrian is laughable.

I hope that the mods will take some action against these troll accounts who derail every thread, even linguistic ones, and make them about haplogroups.

This is the aDNA map of J2b-L283 (© Trojet) with links to scientific papers:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...2563547568&z=5

[Dushman]

Since they all lived nearby and influenced each other, did Neo-Illyrian influence Albanian too?

At around which period did the Neo-Illyrians abandon their neo-language in favour of the E-V13 shepherding clans that towards the Adriatic for the first time while trying to escape Slavs?

Based on current evidence, they hadn’t come into contact with fishes since the Albanian word for fish is peshk, a Latin loanword, and not a Dardano-Trojan one.

Furthermore, considering the fact that the Dardano-Trojans are the ancestors of the Romans, doesn’t that make the Latin loanwords actually Dardano-Trojan loanwords that made their way back in circle back to their Dardano-Trojan roots in Central Balkans?

Free food for thought for Matzinger. He can call this the Trojan Boomerang Effect.

Another Boomerang Effect is seen on the account of Aeneas the Dardano-Trojan taking the daughter of Latinus from Turnus, a Daunian-Dardanian prince of the Rutulians of Ardea. Basically a Dardanian civil war in the middle of Italy.

Another Dardano-Trojan, Paris of Troy, stole Helen of Sparta, the wife of Menelaus of Sparta. Quite the heart/wife robbers these Dardanians.

[mount123]

What kind of pseudo scientific wishful thinking non sense is this? E1b-V13 did absolutely not spread from the ancient East Adriatic zone and has nothing to do with core Illyrians. E1b-V13 is completely absent in Iron Age Illyrians and taking one AD sample whose carrier is a Roman infant as a proof that E1b-V13 is core Illyrian is laughable.

I hope that the mods will take some action against these troll accounts who derail every thread, even linguistic ones, and make them about haplogroups.

This is the aDNA map of J2b-L283 (© Trojet) with links to scientific papers:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...2563547568&z=5

It is also not present in Bronze Age Dalmatian Posusje culture from which the Iron Age Illyrian samples show a continuity from. Neither is it the case for the West Adriatic Bronze or Iron Age.

[Illyria]

Could DNA alone solve the puzzle of the Proto-Albanian language?

What I mean by that is, once we get samples from Albania, Montenegro, Macedonia, and Kosova, and we have more J2b2/E-V13/R1b samples, with more specific matching clades in modern Albanians, would we be able to get a closer look at how these subclades rose and fell? To spot which specific subclades rose or fell in synchronicity, or alone, etc.

Like how Riverman made that chart of the J-L283, R-L2, E-V13 haplogroups, except this would need specific clades from Albania, Montenegro, Macedonia, and Kosova.

Maybe this could give deep clues on when certain clades rose and fell in Modern Albanians, like instead of having a chart for all E-V13 and all J-L283, it would be for the specific ones found in the upcoming papers

Maybe we'll be able to find out which ones did well from 200BC-500AD, and 500AD-1200AD, 1200-1500, etc.

Might be able to see some competition, or alliances, in certain times periods

[blevins13]

Could DNA alone solve the puzzle of the Proto-Albanian language?

What I mean by that is, once we get samples from Albania, Montenegro, Macedonia, and Kosova, and we have more J2b2/E-V13/R1b samples, with more specific matching clades in modern Albanians, would we be able to get a closer look at how these subclades rose and fell? To spot which specific subclades rose or fell in synchronicity, or alone, etc.

Like how Riverman made that chart of the J-L283, R-L2, E-V13 haplogroups, except this would need specific clades from Albania, Montenegro, Macedonia, and Kosova.

Maybe this could give deep clues on when certain clades rose and fell in Modern Albanians, like instead of having a chart for all E-V13 and all J-L283, it would be for the specific ones found in the upcoming papers

Maybe we'll be able to find out which ones did well from 200BC-500AD, and 500AD-1200AD, 1200-1500, etc.

Might be able to see some competition, or alliances, in certain times periods

It will definitely help. It will require samples after every major population movement.



Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

[Riverman]

The first step is to trace down where the major modern Albanian lineages lived at which time, how they migrated and when they had major founder effects. Like we know for Proto-Germanics that I-M253 and R-L106 went in synchrony from a specific time frame onwards, concrete, after the Urnfieldisation/unified cremation horizon of the Nordic Bronze Age was established and confirmed by the time of the formation and first expansion of Jastorf. So we have two events, which likely can be associated with Proto- and early Germanics, like the Urnfieldisation of the NBA and the formatoin of Jastorf.

For the Albanian case we already have some dates for the moderns, and we can see related founder effects, but that's really late. The main Albanian lineages go in synchrony somewhere between 100 AD to 1.300 AD. A good position might be reached, but this is really vague and speculative, around 600 AD.
That's by going after the main haplogroups E-V13, J-L283, R-PF7563, R-CTS9219 (R-CTS1450).

It might look somewhat different already if just counting actual Albanian lineages.

Before 100 AD the general haplogroups (not Albanian specific) are very weakly to not at all correlated. In fact, they are even contradictory, like when J-L283 expanded E-V13 goes down and vice versa, same for R-PF7563, R-CTS9219.



If someone could do such a correlation analysis specifically for the Albanian subclades of these haplogroups, which is somewhat more tricky than for the general one, just going after the TMRCA dates, it could probably help. Because by going after the haplogroups in general, they could have been largely separated lineages up to at least 100 AD, probably even much later.

Because if lineages share a fate, if reaching a certain size, numbers, they usually go in synchrony, just like we can see it for the Germanic and Slavic lineages. If e.g. some E-V13 joined successfully the Slavs and expanded with them, its visible, because they go up with the Slavic main lineages. This is something we can see looking at YFull data alone.

For the Albanian lineages specifically, there were major founder effects, fairly late, these show up. How far back they go, that's open to debate - going by the general data, not before 100 AD, but probably the Albanian-specific data is different - though I doubt it.

Also note the size-numbers of E-V13. It can't have been confined to a small Eastern South Balkan area - if you compare it with the data from J-L283. Much to big and geographically even wider spread.

[Archetype0ne]

The first step is to trace down where the major modern Albanian lineages lived at which time, how they migrated and when they had major founder effects. Like we know for Proto-Germanics that I-M253 and R-L106 went in synchrony from a specific time frame onwards, concrete, after the Urnfieldisation/unified cremation horizon of the Nordic Bronze Age was established and confirmed by the time of the formation and first expansion of Jastorf. So we have two events, which likely can be associated with Proto- and early Germanics, like the Urnfieldisation of the NBA and the formatoin of Jastorf.

For the Albanian case we already have some dates for the moderns, and we can see related founder effects, but that's really late. The main Albanian lineages go in synchrony somewhere between 100 AD to 1.300 AD. A good position might be reached, but this is really vague and speculative, around 600 AD.
That's by going after the main haplogroups E-V13, J-L283, R-PF7563, R-CTS9219 (R-CTS1450).

It might look somewhat different already if just counting actual Albanian lineages.

Before 100 AD the general haplogroups (not Albanian specific) are very weakly to not at all correlated. In fact, they are even contradictory, like when J-L283 expanded E-V13 goes down and vice versa, same for R-PF7563, R-CTS9219.



If someone could do such a correlation analysis specifically for the Albanian subclades of these haplogroups, which is somewhat more tricky than for the general one, just going after the TMRCA dates, it could probably help. Because by going after the haplogroups in general, they could have been largely separated lineages up to at least 100 AD, probably even much later.

Because if lineages share a fate, if reaching a certain size, numbers, they usually go in synchrony, just like we can see it for the Germanic and Slavic lineages. If e.g. some E-V13 joined successfully the Slavs and expanded with them, its visible, because they go up with the Slavic main lineages. This is something we can see looking at YFull data alone.

For the Albanian lineages specifically, there were major founder effects, fairly late, these show up. How far back they go, that's open to debate - going by the general data, not before 100 AD, but probably the Albanian-specific data is different - though I doubt it.

Also note the size-numbers of E-V13. It can't have been confined to a small Eastern South Balkan area - if you compare it with the data from J-L283. Much to big and geographically even wider spread.

You know whats funny to me Riverman?
After one conclusion based on the deployment of one method on a data fails, just make another conclusion, make sure that conclusion is in line in regards to negation of the first, and try again.
Last time I saw such methods use was from Ghurier and you over at Anthro, for different hypotheses, but both hypotheses negating the same thing. I am starting to think its not about proving something, its about denying something else. The negation the hypotheses inadvertebly brings here has more value to some than any positive statement coming out of the hypothesis itself.

But maybe its just me.

Ps: I am not saying anything about the hypothesis you bring, just found it funny looking at the method - data being recycled yet again, this time with different conclusions.

Edit: Also:

"Before 100 AD the general haplogroups (not Albanian specific) are very weakly to not at all correlated. In fact, they are even contradictory, like when J-L283 expanded E-V13 goes down and vice versa, same for R-PF7563, R-CTS9219."

Biggest cap.

Are we looking at the same data here? Like what?
When even one owns data contradicts their claims. C'mon are we supposed not to look at the data and just at the wall of text?

[Riverman]

"Before 100 AD the general haplogroups (not Albanian specific) are very weakly to not at all correlated. In fact, they are even contradictory, like when J-L283 expanded E-V13 goes down and vice versa, same for R-PF7563, R-CTS9219."

Biggest cap.

Are we looking at the same data here? Like what?
When even one owns data contradicts their claims. C'mon are we supposed not to look at the data and just at the wall of text?

The problem is, that if we assume a going into synchrony and sharing fate means they interlocked and didn't leave again. Obviously, being both Carpatho-Balkan lineages, for the most part, they shared specific events. Like the Scythian and La Tene Celtic invasions affected them both negatively at first, you see the dents, but they reacted differently afterwards. Like E-V13 had one of its biggest expansions with Scythianised groups, after the Scythian invasion. J-L283 shows absolutely no sign of this. Even more important, some of the modern Albanian E-V13 subclades likely participated in this Scythianised expansions.

With the Celtic dent its different, both go down and up, but E-V13 double time of J-L283. Here you could argue they share the same fate, and its true, but this was affecting all of the Carpatho-Balkans, almost, so it doesn't tell us how closely they were, exactly.

My main concern is the Roman conquest period: E-V13 had its darkest hours (about 0-200 AD in particular), going down to nothing, no new founder lineages at all in this period. At the same time, J-L283 stays stable and keeps growing. That's a major out of synchrony moment, which needs to be explained.

When E-V13 goes up again, one could argue it looks like they closed the gap, but in fact, these later E-V13 upturns can be brought into synchrony with Germanic and Slavic migration and growth events as well. You see the solid uptick of E-V13 in the Slavic expansion period: That's 100 % in synchrony with the Southern-Eastern Slavic expansion of R1a and I2a. J-L283 goes down right there, but probably the Balkan E-V13 lineages did also, especially those in the early Albanians, that needs to be checked.

But what really bothers me the most is this Roman era complete out of sync moment for E-V13 and J-L283. E-V13 was more than double time as big as J-L283, and it goes down to zero growth, zero, nothing, after Roman conquest. That's so huge, its the single most important negative impact E-V13 ever experienced and its right in the time of the Roman conquest.

Its very tempting to associate that with the catastrophic defeats, wars, famines, uprisings and demographic downward trends assocated with the Roman era in the Celtic, Sarmatian, Dacian and Thracian regions. Very tempting to do so. For that time there is zero correlation between E-V13 and J-L283, so they had completely different trajectories. Completely different.

Even if going for the Albanian subclades, we already see that it must have affected them too, because E-V13 had zero growth in that time, zero!

For such a major lineage of Europe, which grew so consistently, even during times of wars and tumult, since the Early Bronze Age, never going down that much, you just can't overestimate these numbers. If you read up what happened especially to the Dacians/Daco-Celtic people in that time period, being attacked from all sides, like the Roman conquest of Dacia and the Germanic attacks on the Free Dacians, its very, very tempting to associate it that way.

And the recovery period of E-V13 was mostly carried on by tribals, not by Roman territories. You can see the first significant uptick being completely Slavic related and going against J-L283, which did not signficantly grow with Slavs. You see the dent, right about 600 AD for J-L283, while E-V13 goes steeply up, completely in sync with R1a and I2a Slavic clades.

So in the Roman period the two major Albanian haplogroups are diametral to each other, same for the Slavic expansion phase, but less pronounced. There are not small issues or events, these are no small numbers which could be explained by "chance".

It simply looks also like J-L283 was conquered by the Romans significantly earlier, like 1-2 centuries earlier. This affected E-V13 as well, negatively. But the J-L283 did fairly well after that, recovered and were growing, whereas E-V13 was cut yet again, like "the second half" of the growth it had before, and this likely shows the Dacian, Daco-Celtic conquest and Germanic invasion of Eastern Europe.

The Illyrians were defeated and largely integrated by 200 BC, finally about 160 BC:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrian_Wars

The Dacian wars were 200-300 years later:

The Dacian Wars (101�102, 105�106) were two military campaigns fought between the Roman Empire and Dacia during Emperor Trajan's rule.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan%27s_Dacian_Wars

That's exactly when J-L283 goes down first - and E-V13 too, somewhat, but then the biggest blow for E-V13 is right in the era of the Dacian wars. Hardly a coincidence, it just fits so nicely.

[Archetype0ne]

The problem is, that if we assume a going into synchrony and sharing fate means they interlocked and didn't leave again. Obviously, being both Carpatho-Balkan lineages, for the most part, they shared specific events. Like the Scythian and La Tene Celtic invasions affected them both negatively at first, you see the dents, but they reacted differently afterwards. Like E-V13 had one of its biggest expansions with Scythianised groups, after the Scythian invasion. J-L283 shows absolutely no sign of this. Even more important, some of the modern Albanian E-V13 subclades likely participated in this Scythianised expansions.

With the Celtic dent its different, both go down and up, but E-V13 double time of J-L283. Here you could argue they share the same fate, and its true, but this was affecting all of the Carpatho-Balkans, almost, so it doesn't tell us how closely they were, exactly.

My main concern is the Roman conquest period: E-V13 had its darkest hours (about 0-200 AD in particular), going down to nothing, no new founder lineages at all in this period. At the same time, J-L283 stays stable and keeps growing. That's a major out of synchrony moment, which needs to be explained.

When E-V13 goes up again, one could argue it looks like they closed the gap, but in fact, these later E-V13 upturns can be brought into synchrony with Germanic and Slavic migration and growth events as well. You see the solid uptick of E-V13 in the Slavic expansion period: That's 100 % in synchrony with the Southern-Eastern Slavic expansion of R1a and I2a. J-L283 goes down right there, but probably the Balkan E-V13 lineages did also, especially those in the early Albanians, that needs to be checked.

But what really bothers me the most is this Roman era complete out of sync moment for E-V13 and J-L283. E-V13 was more than double time as big as J-L283, and it goes down to zero growth, zero, nothing, after Roman conquest. That's so huge, its the single most important negative impact E-V13 ever experienced and its right in the time of the Roman conquest.

Its very tempting to associate that with the catastrophic defeats, wars, famines, uprisings and demographic downward trends assocated with the Roman era in the Celtic, Sarmatian, Dacian and Thracian regions. Very tempting to do so. For that time there is zero correlation between E-V13 and J-L283, so they had completely different trajectories. Completely different.

Even if going for the Albanian subclades, we already see that it must have affected them too, because E-V13 had zero growth in that time, zero!

For such a major lineage of Europe, which grew so consistently, even during times of wars and tumult, since the Early Bronze Age, never going down that much, you just can't overestimate these numbers. If you read up what happened especially to the Dacians/Daco-Celtic people in that time period, being attacked from all sides, like the Roman conquest of Dacia and the Germanic attacks on the Free Dacians, its very, very tempting to associate it that way.

And the recovery period of E-V13 was mostly carried on by tribals, not by Roman territories. You can see the first significant uptick being completely Slavic related and going against J-L283, which did not signficantly grow with Slavs. You see the dent, right about 600 AD for J-L283, while E-V13 goes steeply up, completely in sync with R1a and I2a Slavic clades.

So in the Roman period the two major Albanian haplogroups are diametral to each other, same for the Slavic expansion phase, but less pronounced. There are not small issues or events, these are no small numbers which could be explained by "chance".

It simply looks also like J-L283 was conquered by the Romans significantly earlier, like 1-2 centuries earlier. This affected E-V13 as well, negatively. But the J-L283 did fairly well after that, recovered and were growing, whereas E-V13 was cut yet again, like "the second half" of the growth it had before, and this likely shows the Dacian, Daco-Celtic conquest and Germanic invasion of Eastern Europe.

The Illyrians were defeated and largely integrated by 200 BC, finally about 160 BC:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrian_Wars

The Dacian wars were 200-300 years later:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan%27s_Dacian_Wars

That's exactly when J-L283 goes down first - and E-V13 too, somewhat, but then the biggest blow for E-V13 is right in the era of the Dacian wars. Hardly a coincidence, it just fits so nicely.

Funnily enough the bolded part is the very cap here.
I would give you the benefit of the doubt if we started talking about different time frames in reference to lagging and leading indicators vis a vis the two haplogroup diversification patterns. But even then lagging and leading still implies correlation.

Edit: Doubled checked. Stand by my words.
200 BC to 200 AD correlation stands. What you call "stable moderate Roman era expansion" is no expansion at all, no matter what label you put on it, its a retraction.
You can argue about magnitude of impact. But given the low number of phylogenies it is not out of the ordinary.

Also check 200-100 BC in relative % terms L283 dropped more than 80% while V13 55%? If anything the bigger impact on V13 100 years later was a lagging indicator. When you think what this data shows and how mutations happen 100 years is nothing.

Really this whole method is a mess.
The data is phylogenic diversification based on current clades on Yfull? With magnitudes of 1-14? Little room for statistical error, when you are dealing with random events such as Y mutations...
Even then... correlation among the two branches is staggering.
And you were claiming first there is no correlation? Then changed it upon scurrility with " oh during this arbitrary 200 years in history there was no correlation"... And even then I don't think the data backs you up.

There is formulas if you wanna test correlation. Go at it. And lets see the result. ;)

[mount123]

"Before 100 AD the general haplogroups (not Albanian specific) are very weakly to not at all correlated. In fact, they are even contradictory, like when J-L283 expanded E-V13 goes down and vice versa, same for R-PF7563, R-CTS9219."

Biggest cap.

Are we looking at the same data here? Like what?
When even one owns data contradicts their claims. C'mon are we supposed not to look at the data and just at the wall of text?

Can you please elaborate what you mean by that?

[Archetype0ne]

Can you please elaborate what you mean by that?

What is there to elaborate though? Do I need to draw arrows pointing at the correlated moves on the graph? Be them lagging or leading correlations? Just look at the general pattern. I have not done stats in a couple* of years, but you go ahead and run the numbers for correlation between the data and you will see.

Even then I am giving this particular method tooo much merit. The whole point of Y mutations is randomness, trying to measure degree of correlation in such a scenario beyond the general pattern that gets tricky. But even then its still staggering just from the eye test.