Where does the Albanian language come from? [VIDEO]

Johane Derite said:
Again you are demonstrating that you can't read a simple sentence. He says right there the word "several" and "culture". Several entails plural, are you aware?
Among whom were Illyrians, Thracian, Ottomans, Slavs, Latins, etc.
You understand yet or no? He literally says this remark after just arguing Albanian does not descend from Ilyrian as a sort of way of saying, "look all is not lost, I'm sure there is something at least partially illyrian in Albanian culture!"
Click to expand...

Like what? Like Malësors using Glasinac Mat like tools in the 2nd millenium AD? Is that something?
Like 1/4-1/3 of Albanians falling in haplogroups strongly linked with Illyrians? And even found in LBA burial from North Albania?
"hEy LoOk i'M sUrE tHeRe Is SoMetHiNg aT LeAsT pArTiAllY Illyrian"

The mental dissonance you are showing is despicable. Also I think you have no clue what he is saying or what you are reading.
 
Johane Derite said:
This presence of this non-illyrian knobbed ware in Mati regions of Albania is particulary interesting also. How many non-Illyrians moved into this region at this time. Were there pockets and enclaves where they were linguistically Illyrianised, and were there places where they kept their own language?
I'm reminded of Wilkes argument that Albanians did not descend from the Illyrians, but that they came from transhumance shepherds.
EfNt9s3XsAIcXvl
Click to expand...

The only dissonance is from you, I'm only trying to share and update the discourse with what the top academics in these fields are saying, and you are spazzing out. I've posted for years all the possible pro-Illyrian arguments that exist, and as we get close to solving it, and as I have learnt more along the way, I am only trying to push it further forward.

"The Albanian case that the Komani-Kruja cemeteries represent a continuity of Illyrians rests on several arguments, notably the Illyrian character of the ornaments and the shapes of some grave-goods, hemispherical buttons, biconical beads, bracelets, the bronze hanging-lringes recalling lllyrian ornaments from the Mat valley.

These comparisons are certainly valid, but the Albanian case is weakened by a highly improbable reconstruction of lllyrian history in this period.

This makes theIllyrians recover their lost independence during the collapse ofthe later Roman Empire and reassert their ethnic identity through liberation from Greco-Roman dominance in material culture.

This view regards the new fortifications in the area as measures against the independent Illyrians.

Out of this population came the Arberi of the tenth and eleventh centuries, represented by an early tumulus culture in southern Albania.

The weakness of these arguments for an area where historical sources are non-existent seems obvious.

There can surely be nodoubt that the Komani-Kruja cemeteries indicate the survival of a non-Slav population between the sixth and ninth centuries, and their most likely identification seems to be with a Romanized population of lllyrian origin driven out by Slav settlementsfurther north, the 'Romanoi" mentioned by Constantine Porphyrogenitus (c32).

This interpretation is supported by the concentration of Latin place-names around the Lake ofShkoder, in the Drin and Fan valleys and along the road from Lissus to Ulpiana in Kosovo, with some in the Black Drin and Mat valleys, a distribution limited on the south by the line of the Via Egnatia."

So, there was a Latinised Illyrian population living around the Lake of Shkoder, Drin and Fan valleys, and from Lezhe to Ulpiana, as well as some in Mat and Black Drin. These people left placenames like "Valbona" all the way up in the Albanian mountains (Beautiful valley in Latin).

What did the Proto-Albanian shepherds do with these Romanised Illyrians? Did they kill them, or integrate them linguistically as the Latins had before them? I don't know yet. If they assimilated them, we should expect higher percentages of this ancestry in those areas (Gegë) that were mentioned.


Lets check the percentages from Rrenjet that were posted the other day.

Taken with a grain of salt but nonetheless if we look at the Slavic haplogroups (I2a-Y3120 + R1a-M417) the total percentage comes to:

13.4%

This is quite close to J2b-l283 which shows up here as 15.3%

Should we then conclude that the Albanian language descends from these Slavic haplogroups?


270133522_456810809353155_1148095093524099947_n.png
 
I read Wilkes years ago and the only time I remember him saying that Albanians aren't related to the Illyrians is at the end of the book, his reasons being that modern Albanians are too short.
 
Wilkes does not state that Komani-Kruja is not related to Albanians, neither does he say that Albanians are not related to Illyrians.
He criticized the reconstruction, and methodology of Communist Era archeologists to arrive at such conclusion. While the criticism that there is not enough evidence to reconstruct Illyrian history of the period due to lack of sources is valid insofar the methodology used by Communist archeologists is a valid one, criticism of the method that arrived at said conclusion, does not invalidate the conclusion itself.


"These comparisons are certainly valid, but the Albanian case is weakened by a highly improbable
reconstruction of lllyrian history in this period. This makes the Illyrians recover their lost independence during the collapse of the later Roman Empire and reassert their ethnic identity through liberation from Greco-Roman dominance in material culture. This view regards the new fortifications in the area as measures against the independent Illyrians. Out of this population came the Arberi of the tenth and eleventh centuries, represented by an early tumulus culture in southern Albania. The weakness of these arguments for an area where historical sources are non-existent seems obvious. There can surely be no doubt that the Komani-Kruja cemeteries indicate the survival of a non-Slav population between the sixth and ninth centuries, and their most likely identification seems to be with a Romanized population of lllyrian origin driven out by Slav settlements further north, the 'Romanof mentioned by Constantine Porphyrogenitus (c32). This interpretation is supported by the concentration of Latin place-names around the Lake of Shkoder, in the Drin and Fan valleys and along the road from Lissus to Ulpiana in Kosovo, with some in the Black Drin and Mat valleys, a distribution limited on the south by the line of the Via Egnatia"

So please, don't tell me about reading comprehension. Read black on white fella.

Just because there is no evidence to prove L283 was the main carrier of the Albanian language does not mean there is evidence to prove EV-13 was or R1b-Z2103.

Just because there is no evidence that a flying pig exists, does not prove that a spaghetti monster exists. That's the issue, you're dealing with a lack of evidence, which Wilkes IN 1992!!! pointed out... 20 years before excavations were done in the Komani Kruja complexes, when most of the archeological evidence was not produced yet (2009-2014).

Why don't you quote a publication since then? You are trying to lecture us on silicon transistors quoting 1940's transistors. That's beyond insane.

"
Florin Curta 2012 : In western Macedonia there are several settlements linked to Komani-Kruja:

full paper: https://www.academia.edu/2292584

And the most recent work is Tom Winnifrith's Nobody's Kingdom: A History of Northern Albania published in 2021 (unfortunately he died in late 2020 https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...frith-obituary )"

Get with the times fella.


For the record, I would not be surprised if V13 was indeed the Dardanian marker of Troy as well as Balkans Dardania. In fact if you recall I was an early proponent on a thread very long ago, when my feet weren't wet in the field.

My issue is you pretend to be dealing in some sort of scientific discussion, and are stuck in 1992. The other issue I have is you are undermining my reading comprehension, at a point where I do not wish to reveal my credentials.

In my mind, mainly subscribing to wave model of languages, more than a few eggs were cracked for us to get the Modern Albanian language, yes Slavic input as well. In my mind there is 0 way to scientifically prove that any of the Bronze Age Balkan haplogroups have a sole progenitor status to Albanian. In my mind in fact the difference in dialect and wave model influences could explain a lot. But I certainly would not leave such analysis to someone that is stuck 30 years back, and would be most confident in Neural Networks/Statistics to take care of this. Take a look at the previous links I shared, all very recent developments.

Ps: in Malësi less than 3% of YDNA is of Slavic origin. Coincidentally 42% of male lines are L283.

p9icpzn.png

Also notice that coincidentally that is the highest region with E-V13 as well. Just food for thought.
 
Archetype0ne said:
"These comparisons are certainly valid, but the Albanian case is weakened by a highly improbable
reconstruction of lllyrian history in this period. This makes the Illyrians recover their lost independence during the collapse of the later Roman Empire and reassert their ethnic identity through liberation from Greco-Roman dominance in material culture. This view regards the new fortifications in the area as measures against the independent Illyrians. Out of this population came the Arberi of the tenth and eleventh centuries, represented by an early tumulus culture in southern Albania. The weakness of these arguments for an area where historical sources are non-existent seems obvious. There can surely be no doubt that the Komani-Kruja cemeteries indicate the survival of a non-Slav population between the sixth and ninth centuries, and their most likely identification seems to be with a Romanized population of lllyrian origin driven out by Slav settlements further north, the 'Romanof mentioned by Constantine Porphyrogenitus (c32). This interpretation is supported by the concentration of Latin place-names around the Lake of Shkoder, in the Drin and Fan valleys and along the road from Lissus to Ulpiana in Kosovo, with some in the Black Drin and Mat valleys, a distribution limited on the south by the line of the Via Egnatia"


Why don't you quote a publication since then? You are trying to lecture us on silicon transistors quoting 1940's transistors. That's beyond insane.
Click to expand...

The quote you bolded literally states his opinion that Komani represents a romanised Illyrian population, i.e. a LATIN speaking people not a proto-Albanian speaking people.

I literally quoted recent papers on William Bowden and Buchet on Komani so again what type of nonsense comment is this.

I posted the most recent archaeological and linguistic work on Illyrians which was published less than a month ago by specialists of Albanian and Illyrian language and archaeology, where both do not accept Albanian descending from Illyrian.

Personally i think R1b is the proto-Albanian speaking lineage, so again don't project your nonsense on to me.
 
At this point it is clear we are not reading the same text or speaking the same language. You completely missed my point many times now, not sure why I proceed to repeat it. I suspect the many contradictions in your thinking are not made aware to you.

Some of the paradoxes:
Many languages including Illyrian - Albanian/s doesn't descend from Illyrians, culturally linguistically.
No ethnic continuity with Illyrians - non Slavic VI-VII century population, likely Latinized Illyrians
Four various populations - But for sure not Albanians
Not enough proof that there was Illyrian continuity in contrast to Communist Archeologists - But at the same time there is enough proof that there was no Illyrian continuation?!

Mate, the logical hoops you like jumping through to waste my time.

Have not seen you quote William Bowden or Buchet, and after a quick google search not sure which of their publications you mean. As a sign of courtesy usually you cite your sources. So people don't have to take you at your word, cause I will be honest seeing how your bending your sources, there is not much to your word.

For now, I hope the more astute readers can make the difference between the opinions of authors which through appeal to authority you sneakily propagate as facts, and the actual facts those authorities clearly stated before they gave their opinion. (hint: in the bolded part 'no doubt' vs 'most likely')

I find it funny though, that the analysis provided by Wilkes suffers from the same flaws he so associates with communist archeologists.
Unless he found a way to speak to bones of course. Do not want to open another can of worms anyways. I will stop wasting my time.

Edit: Final words - I think I know what your biggest fear is. No E-V13 found in Albania pre Komani-Kruja complex, so by putting forth this nonsense you cover all the bases.
In my mind that is almost impossible, in fact I am willing to bet on it, am that sure. In my mind V13 is the best candidate for Epirote at the very least, but even Doric possibly. Hence I expect to find it as far north as some of the Komani-Kruja regions much much earlier than the VII century AD.

Edit 2: To address your next two posts Mr. Pseudoscience. Physical anthropology in 2019? Is that what you're quoting? And about the 2nd reply: No I am not misunderstanding Wilkes, I clearly put what he states as fact and what is his unfounded opinion(and noted the irony of his critique given such lack of evidence). Nonetheless, the above reply was targeted at your logical paradoxes. Keep speculating about comparative linguistics, if that thing is even possible between 3 'dead' languages of which 2 are barely attested (but a handful personal names) and posting physical anthropology papers as a retort. Time will tell who is on the right side of this. You're acting like a charlatan, understand this, this is directed at you and not Wilkes, so don't defer blame to him. You mentioned projections a handful of times, I wonder why?
 
Archetype0ne said:
Have not seen you quote William Bowden or Buchet, and after a quick google search not sure which of their publications you mean. As a sign of courtesy usually you cite your sources. So people don't have to take you at your word, cause I will be honest seeing how your bending your sources, there is not much to your word.
Click to expand...

William Bowden, medieval archaeologist specialist of Epirus and Albania. This is just one of his papers from 2019 that I posted, which you misrepresented as me claiming it as an Asian culture.

Buchet, French physical anthropologist who found not only Asian skulls in Komani, but also at least three differing morphological groups, from direct sampling of medieval bones coming from hundreds of Komani-Kruja culture graves.

So two recent and professional academic sources you literally misrepresented and already saw, you now claim you have never seen? Funny that you are criticising my "word".

I share every source because I'm not bending anything, I try to simplify things with highlights, etc, for people like you who can literally read, copy and paste, and even bold a sentence saying that a population was not speaking proto-Albanian and still perceive this as somehow saying they were speaking proto-Albanian.

E9jveCkXMAMNp91

FGvWWXuVgAUd42M

FGvWZdsUcAsTerz
 
Archetype0ne said:
At this point it is clear we are not reading the same text or speaking the same language. You completely missed my point many times now, not sure why I proceed to repeat it. I suspect the many contradictions in your thinking are not made aware to you.

Some of the paradoxes:
Many languages including Illyrian - Albanian/s doesn't descend from Illyrians, culturally linguistically.
No ethnic continuity with Illyrians - non Slavic VI-VII century population, likely Latinized Illyrians
Four various populations - But for sure not Albanians
Not enough proof that there was Illyrian continuity in contrast to Communist Archeologists - But at the same time there is enough proof that there was no Illyrian continuation?!

Mate, the logical hoops you like jumping through to waste my time.
Click to expand...

This is again a case of projection. We are reading the same text indeed, but you are the one who completely missed the point of Wilkes.

There are no contradictions in the claims, rather in your misapprehension of them. This is like a colourblind person complaining why his apple has no colour.

The Latin language is not the Proto-Albanian language, are you aware of this? I will try simplify this. Latin and Proto-Albanian were two different languages

When Wilkes says:

"If the Komani-Kruja cemeteries represent a Romanized Christian population bordered by new Slav settlements on the north and south, then the ancestors of the historical Albanians were pastoral communities on the higher ground behind the plains.

The tripartite linguistic division of the area has been recognized in some late medieval documents relating to the Shkoder region."



What he means is that the ancestors of the historical Albanians were not the ones who were Romanized (LATIN speaking, not Proto-Albanian) who lived in Komani-Kruja culture cemeteries.

The word "Tripartite" means "three-parts" as in Albanian, Latin, Slavic, in this case.

He is saying that proto-Albanian speakers were nomadic shepherds (Transhumance) that did not live in Komani-Kruja or Slavic settlements.
 
What complicates the issue is that a lot of the E-V13 might have appeared in Albanians fairly late, with provincial Romans retreating and in Albanians in general, most of the timings are rather shallow and recent, with a lot of founder effects. Another issue is, that there was a broad zone of mixture and interaction between Illyrians and Daco-Thracians, going right through the later Albanian territories, especially their more likely somewhat Northern position, since the Late Bronze Age. There were numerous people which had a Thracian substrate and Illyrian adstrate or vice versa. E.g., the Srem group was more Illyrian, but had a Dacian substrate, while the Triballi were Daco-Thracians, but had Illyrian influences. This means there are a lot of options how this could work out linguistically and genetically both ways.
 
Johane Derite said:
This is again a case of projection. We are reading the same text indeed, but you are the one who completely missed the point of Wilkes.

There are no contradictions in the claims, rather in your misapprehension of them. This is like a colourblind person complaining why his apple has no colour.

The Latin language is not the Proto-Albanian language, are you aware of this? I will try simplify this. Latin and Proto-Albanian were two different languages

When Wilkes says:

"If the Komani-Kruja cemeteries represent a Romanized Christian population bordered by new Slav settlements on the north and south, then the ancestors of the historical Albanians were pastoral communities on the higher ground behind the plains.

The tripartite linguistic division of the area has been recognized in some late medieval documents relating to the Shkoder region."



What he means is that the ancestors of the historical Albanians were not the ones who were Romanized (LATIN speaking, not Proto-Albanian) who lived in Komani-Kruja culture cemeteries.

The word "Tripartite" means "three-parts" as in Albanian, Latin, Slavic, in this case.

He is saying that proto-Albanian speakers were nomadic shepherds (Transhumance) that did not live in Komani-Kruja or Slavic settlements.
Click to expand...

What language were these proto-Albanian shepherds speaking? I think for now it was the Dardani, based on a fusion of the arguments that come from Noel Malcolm about Dardani shepherds, Matzinger and all the other linguists about which zone to seek out proto-Albanian language, etc, etc.

It is much harder to trace archaeologically and historically such shepherd populations, but since we know the richest Albanian vocabulary is precisely this part, this is where we must start and localise a minimal zone / region they lived and worked in, and then from there on out expand the search.
 
"I have long wondered whether the blood feuding of Albanians and Maniots has a common origin (both have high E-V13) or developed independently of each other due to external circumstances." @AlbHistory on Twitter; 'E-V13 is a bloodfeud spreading Y-dna'

https://twitter.com/albhistory/status/1478711283314798593?s=21

I'm not making this up.
 
Last edited:
Johane Derite said:
What language were these proto-Albanian shepherds speaking? I think for now it was the Dardani, based on a fusion of the arguments that come from Noel Malcolm about Dardani shepherds, Matzinger and all the other linguists about which zone to seek out proto-Albanian language, etc, etc.

It is much harder to trace archaeologically and historically such shepherd populations, but since we know the richest Albanian vocabulary is precisely this part, this is where we must start and localise a minimal zone / region they lived and worked in, and then from there on out expand the search.
Click to expand...

Shepherds are also a conservative economic position, since they are partially self reliant, they have to sell their goods on the market and stuff, but insofar as they have their flocks they don't have to assimilate into a foreign language group, etc, to survive. Whereas this type of pressure is exerted in the towns which would have been latin or greek or illyrian possibly in earlier periods.

So if the proto-Albanians were shepherds, it is unlikely they would have had towns and inscriptions of their owns, our only hope would be to find their linguistic traces in injections of their peoples into other settled communites that have writing traditions. So a name may pop up here or there, but eventually disappear. A lot of these types of problems appear. We should not expect a symmetrical terrain where every people was writing or doucmenting.
 
Riverman said:
What complicates the issue is that a lot of the E-V13 might have appeared in Albanians fairly late, with provincial Romans retreating and in Albanians in general, most of the timings are rather shallow and recent, with a lot of founder effects. Another issue is, that there was a broad zone of mixture and interaction between Illyrians and Daco-Thracians, going right through the later Albanian territories, especially their more likely somewhat Northern position, since the Late Bronze Age. There were numerous people which had a Thracian substrate and Illyrian adstrate or vice versa. E.g., the Srem group was more Illyrian, but had a Dacian substrate, while the Triballi were Daco-Thracians, but had Illyrian influences. This means there are a lot of options how this could work out linguistically and genetically both ways.
Click to expand...

Oh really? Being uniformly present among Albanians? How is that even possible?

I think you guys are pushing agenda on the other hand, Daco-Thracian/Balto-Slavic continuum to appease Balkan Slavs. But both of you will loose in the end.

I checked the E-V13 outlier after hearing J2b2-L283 Illyrian similarity or Geto-Scythian and the sample has overhelmly Aegean autosomal despite in the model having Carpathian_Neolithic and scoring so low of it totally excluding Geto-Scythian possibility, or Illyrian-like.

As for Triballi, they were closer to Channeled-Ware/Carpathian Urnfielders than Dacians or Thracians who used biritual practices, inhumation on tumuli (one elite Thracian tomb already has R1b-Z2103) and cremation.

The same can be said of proper Dardani, reading archeoligists they related the real Dardanians with the Channeled-Ware/Belegis-Gava groups, though Serbian archaeologists like to use Daco-Mysian, that's up to interpretation.
 
Hawk said:
The same can be said of proper Dardani, reading archeoligists they related the real Dardanians with the Channeled-Ware/Belegis-Gava groups, though Serbian archaeologists like to use Daco-Mysian, that's up to interpretation.
Click to expand...

This is why i often insist on the importance of the balkan-anatolian doublets.

So far chanelled ware does seem to be the common denominator between troy and balkan dardani.

There are no prechanneled ware brnjica like finds in troy, neither are there glasinac finds in troy. So these two cultures dont seem to be the ones to explain the doubling of mysians, dardanians, etc.
 
Unless some brnjica dardanians hybridised to the chanelled ware culture and kept their name with some conservative brnjica shepherd dardanians retaining their pre-chanelled ware language. This is also possible but way more improbable
 
Hawk said:
Oh really? Being uniformly present among Albanians? How is that even possible?
Click to expand...

Its all about the timing, when exactly. A later and even very late arrival, like with Celts, Germanic groups and Slavs, is likely for some subclades, but much less so for others. Its especially more likely or at least possible for which have a shallow time debth in Albanians while being fairly common in other people to the North and East. There are Albanian subclades which look both old for E-V13, possibly date to the transitional period, and being rather concentrated in the Balkans and people clearly affected by more recent Balkan people migrations. So I'm not saying that E-V13 as a whole came late, not at all, it was in the region, present in Kosovo and Macedonia for example, presumably since the Late Bronze Age, for sure since the Early Iron Age (Psenichevo and Bosut-Basarabi).

As for Triballi, they were closer to Channeled-Ware/Carpathian Urnfielders than Dacians or Thracians who used biritual practices, inhumation on tumuli (one elite Thracian tomb already has R1b-Z2103) and cremation. The same can be said of proper Dardani, reading archeoligists they related the real Dardanians with the Channeled-Ware/Belegis-Gava groups, though Serbian archaeologists like to use Daco-Mysian, that's up to interpretation.
Click to expand...

Those using biritual burials in the earlier periods being always more likely to have been influenced by other people, especially Illyrians (like Srem group) or Cimmerians-Scythians (like especially some Eastern steppe influenced Daco-Thracians and e.g. Mezocsat/Thraco-Cimmerian horizon). No contradiction to me.

Johane Derite said:
This is why i often insist on the importance of the balkan-anatolian doublets.
So far chanelled ware does seem to be the common denominator between troy and balkan dardani.
There are no prechanneled ware brnjica like finds in troy, neither are there glasinac finds in troy. So these two cultures dont seem to be the ones to explain the doubling of mysians, dardanians, etc.
Click to expand...

The preceding groups in the region, before Encrusted Pottery and Channelled Ware expanded into the region, were probably closer to Mokrin and more Southern Neolithic derived groups. The Channelled Ware people mixed with them, probably, but we see that their rites and artefacts simply replace the locals, sometimes rapidly, sometimes more gradually, but in the end, little remaind.
And like you say, its common Fluted Ware, Knobbed Ware and "Barbarian Ware" which did eventually reach Anatolia, and these are all Channelled Ware products. Also, we know that if not the Phrygians too, the Thyni and Bithyni were Thracians in Anatolia. So there is indeed a strong relation of Daco-Thracians with related tribes in Anatolia. The situation is pretty similar to the one of Belgae and Gallic tribes on the continent and those which expanded with La Tene to Britain.
There too the same ethnonyms and relations appear, as with the Balkan tribes vs. the Anatolian ones of recent Balkan, mostly Channelled Ware origin.

The only thing about this which bothers me is that Anatolia has a rather low rate of E-V13, though its still higher in those areas than more to the centre and East. And it would be unlikely that the Thyni and Bythyni left a big mark of continuity on the region.

The Bithyni (/ˈbɪθɪnaɪ/; Greek: Βιθυνοί) were a Thracian tribe who, along with the Thyni, migrated to Anatolia. Herodotus, Xenophon and Strabo all assert that the Bithyni and Thyni settled together in what would be known as Bithynia and Thynia. According to Herodotus, the Bithynian Thracians originally lived along the Strymon river, and were known as Strymonians.
Click to expand...

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

The Strymon river was one of the routes the Channelled Ware people took South from the Danubian basin:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struma_(river)#/media/File:Struma_Balkan_topo_de.jpg
 
To sum up what I expect for the Southern Central Balkan, important for the Proto-Albanian story:
- possible low level E1b1b, even E-V13 presence in the Neolithic period
- possible first sligth increase in the Middle Bronze Age
- massive increase during the expansion of Channelled Ware/Belegis II-G?va, which did largely replace local Paracin/Brnjica and expanded down the river valleys, especially the Morava.
- slight drop overall, stronger one in some regions, because of the Illyrian and Celtic expansions in the Iron Age
- slight drop in the Roman era, because of the provincial influx
- again a big increase at the end of the Roman era, because of Pannonians and Northern Balkan provincials pushing South, trying to evade the tribal aggression of the migration period
- general decrease with the Slavic expansion, but some new subclades might have been brought by the Slavs directly from the Carpathian-Pannonian sphere, as well as Vlach contacts with early Albanians at the same time
 
He doesn't really know, but even if, it would be no surprise, because Yamnaya R-Z2103 was in the region before (compare Mokrin) and might have been present both among Daco-Thracians and Cimmerians. The question is really when and how - in which frequency - E-V13 appears. And the most important aspect is, that it has to expand rapidly, radically, in the transitional period. We know this from the modern distribution and phylogeny. Exactly in the transitional period, when Channelled Ware/Urnfield expanded, E-V13 had a series of massive founder effects. You know it from all main clades and subclades of the haplogroup.
This is what we really have to account and this means that, considering all the now excluded other options, that we will see striking dominance of E-V13 in the Daco-Thracians, either from Channelled Ware from the start, or the Eastern groups with Psenichevo-Basarabi. That not all of them were E-V13, especially after their original networks were broken up by the Cimmerians, doesn't hurt.

By the way: Going by both the modern and ancient distribution, it is very clear that R-Z2103 is fundamentally closer to E-V13 than J-L283 in the Bronze Age. So if these two had some relationship at some group, I wouldn't wonder at all. But the distribution of J-L283 is way more peculiar. In a way, its like R-Z2103 was between those two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 608440 times.

Back
Top