Hittite, Luwic and Palaic people. What was their Y-dna?

Amazing isn't it? First they have to prove they are actually the heirs to the Illyrians and not some small group from Dacia or Pannonia displaced by the either the Slavs or Avars.

There is no "proving" when it comes to past events. There are just theories, and lots of them.
The one theory that has gained most favor both nationally and internationally regarding the origin of albanians, is that they descend largely from some of the ancient western balkan tribes dubbed the Illyrians.
The reason i say 'largely', is because no group of people remains unchanged for thousands of years, it is just impossible.
Just look at ancient greeks, even though they had a rich literary culture, they can not even be linked fully to modern greeks beyond any doubt, as we actually have pretty hard evidence that there were huge slavic and albanian migrations towards especially thessaly, euboea, boetia, attica and peloponnes in greece during the middle ages. All those slavs and albanians did not magically disappear, but they were assimilated into what we today call modern greeks.
 
Amazing isn't it? First they have to prove they are actually the heirs to the Illyrians and not some small group from Dacia or Pannonia displaced by the either the Slavs or Avars.
The answer is in the Albanian language. Albanian language is a separate branch of the Indo-European family of languages and it is also an Paleo-Balkanic language. How much is possible that a small group of tribes somewhere in Dacia or Pannonia preserved for thousands of year their language meanwhile the other Paleo-Balkanic languages including the ancient Greek are now dead languages? It was not spoken by some small group of tribes.
Of course there are other evidences but i think this can be discussed in other threads.
 
This is not a thread for the discussion of Albanian foundation stories. Next thing you know we're going to get the mad Serb who thinks everyone famous was Serbian and everything wonderful was invented by Serbians.

BACK ON TOPIC, or there will be consequences. You're not going to take over and ruin every thread here. Am I clear?
 
Last edited:
Not true, because it's of the West Asian variety. I would associate it with the Hattic-Kaskian branch.

I now believe in a hybrid Anatolian hypothesis, by the way, with LPIE spreading to Sredny Stog with C-T (Urheimat in Central Anatolia, same area as the very old Catalhoyuk on the Konya plain and basically the bulk source of Danubian farmers in Europe). It explains so much, from the very early similarity with Kartvelian (presumably a Halafian East Anatolian variety that spread to Leyla Tepe and then Maykop) to the lack of a word for wheel and axle. I also think Steppe L23 didn't speak IE but a Dene-Caucasian language, perhaps literally proto-Dene-Caucasian. So, Yamnaya speaking Dene-Caucasian and Corded Ware speaking Indo-European. The main difficulties with the former (nobody doubts the latter, except for Carlos from indo-european.eu) are the Sino-Tibetan and Dene-Yeniseian language families. The former can be explained by Afanasievo (also true for Yeniseian), the Na-Dene part of the latter can be explained more controversially by a crossing of the Bering strait (can be seen by similarities between Nivkh and the rest of the Almosan language family, as well as of course that infamous North American R1b and also copper working suddenly appearing out of nowhere as part of the Old Copper Complex). North Caucasian language family would be K-A/Trialetian derived, itself with probable Yamnaya elements as shown by Eurogenes and others. Vasconic is obviously explained by this theory too, and Burushaski is the remainder.

There's absolutely no way that that hypothesis may be correct. Dené-Caucasian is not just a highly disputed and far from consensually accepted macro-family in the field of linguistics, but it also necessarily dates to a very, very old time, because some of its constituent language families, which were already extremely divergent, are estimated to have started splitting themselves between 5000 and 6000 years ago - that is, even before the Yamnaya and Afanasievo cultures. Sino-Tibetan, with all its characteristics, was probably already spoken 6000 years ago, Dené-Yeniseian dates to at least 5000-6000 years ago, too. Dené-Caucasian, if it ever existed (I highly doubt so), was most definitely a Mesolithic or even Late Pleistocene language. This assumption assumes that the Dené-Caucasian language branches would be roughly as old as the particular branches of Indo-European, but that couldn't be further from the linguistic evidences, which point to an extremely higher linguistic divergence between the supposed Dené-Caucasian language subgroups compared to the Indo-European ones. Just to make it clearer, let's remember that while Afro-Asiatic is almost a consensus among linguists even though its constituent branches are extremely different from each other and its usual dating usually ranges from 10,000 to 20,000 years go, Dené-Caucasian is deemed as too tenuous to be accepted by most.

There's also the problem that Ukraine Neolithic and Eneolithic ancestry does not seem at all to be the main source of ancestry for the latter CWC, Bell Beaker, Sintashta and so on. More eastern (east of the Don river) sources in Khvalynsk and the Piedmont Steppe look much more plausible, and that in fact fits the archaeological evidences that point to a strong expansion of broadly Khvalynsk-derived culture (and presumably people) westward into Ukraine, changing Sredny Stog gradually into the more homogeneized cultural horizon of Yamnaya.
 
There's absolutely no way that that hypothesis may be correct. Dené-Caucasian is not just a highly disputed and far from consensually accepted macro-family in the field of linguistics, but it also necessarily dates to a very, very old time, because some of its constituent language families, which were already extremely divergent, are estimated to have started splitting themselves between 5000 and 6000 years ago - that is, even before the Yamnaya and Afanasievo cultures. Sino-Tibetan, with all its characteristics, was probably already spoken 6000 years ago, Dené-Yeniseian dates to at least 5000-6000 years ago, too. Dené-Caucasian, if it ever existed (I highly doubt so), was most definitely a Mesolithic or even Late Pleistocene language. This assumption assumes that the Dené-Caucasian language branches would be roughly as old as the particular branches of Indo-European, but that couldn't be further from the linguistic evidences, which point to an extremely higher linguistic divergence between the supposed Dené-Caucasian language subgroups compared to the Indo-European ones. Just to make it clearer, let's remember that while Afro-Asiatic is almost a consensus among linguists even though its constituent branches are extremely different from each other and its usual dating usually ranges from 10,000 to 20,000 years go, Dené-Caucasian is deemed as too tenuous to be accepted by most.

There's also the problem that Ukraine Neolithic and Eneolithic ancestry does not seem at all to be the main source of ancestry for the latter CWC, Bell Beaker, Sintashta and so on. More eastern (east of the Don river) sources in Khvalynsk and the Piedmont Steppe look much more plausible, and that in fact fits the archaeological evidences that point to a strong expansion of broadly Khvalynsk-derived culture (and presumably people) westward into Ukraine, changing Sredny Stog gradually into the more homogeneized cultural horizon of Yamnaya.

Well that Dene-Caucasian theory made the most sense to me given Bell Beakers probably spoke Vasconic and I still like the idea the PIE was spoken by Anatolians originally.

It does seem far-fetched, but so does the whole Dene-Caucasian language family. R1b L23 PC Steppe-derived cultures were the only Urheimat cultures I could see that were spread far enough to explain Dene-Caucasian (given CW-derived cultures are so obviously IE), if D-C is legit I still can't think of any other way to explain it. The impression I get is that D-C languages show a distinct link to one another but that it seems somewhat absurd given the distances involved, so linguists don't like it. I bet if this were the case with the Caucasian languages it would have more acceptance.

Also, given the huge influence native cultures would have had on all these areas compared with the I-E expansion (higher levels of replacement in general with much less isolation), can glottochronology really be considered that accurate here? Does glottochronology take into account things like influence of "replaced" languages?
 
This is wishful thinking. Read the Iberia paper.

No R1b in high status Maykop graves either, just J, G & L.

I didn't knew that they have Y-dna samples yet, from Maykop sites. Here in Eupedia I have read that they don't have yet any sample.
 
But you're wrong. Anatolian Z2103 is far older than that, and it spread from the Caucasus as it is the West Asian variety. Your theory is wrong, so show some flexibility in changing it. There's no shame, I've changed a theory I held for a long time and was pretty confident in after the Maykop paper. The Anatolian Z2103 may have expanded in the Bronze Age, but it still goes back to that variety which spread south from the Steppe through the Caucasus mountain range.

Z2103, was found near Danube at early third millennium bce. Proto-Illyrian. It doesn't mean it is exclusively Illyrian. It was probably Phrygian and Armenian as well. It is considered the eastern branch of L23. I don't know if there is any Z2103 found in Anatolian bronze age sites so far.
 
I can't help but think that somehow you're going to relate this back to being Albanian too

Sure, it's the main branch of Albanian R1b Y-dna. It makes Albanians being IE speakers. Furthermore, Z2103 is important in Armenians too. The original proto Armenian homeland was Balkans too. So it makes sense.
Z2103 is the same as L51 for the Celtic branch.
It makes sense; Germanic, Italics, Gauls in one branch and Albanian, Armenian, Phrygians at the other R1b branch.
Considering the linguistic difference between Anatolian and other IE languages, PF7562 correlate well with the earlier split between the two's.
Anatolians were IE speakers, and has no sense at all , if they had neither from the two IE major lineages, R1b or R1a either.
 
R1b-PF7562.JPG
Is this map showing, it picks in Kosova? That's kinda strange.
Unfortunately, this map has no percentage estimates. It would be helpful
 
@everyone,

Let us stick to the topic of discussion, and avoid conflict.

I think they got me wrong. I'm not linking Albanians with Hittites. It's quite the contrary. I link mostly proto Albanians with the R1b-Z2103. This is my humble opinion.
 

This thread has been viewed 19592 times.

Back
Top