Quote Originally Posted by Aspurg View Post

Delmatae culture was connected with major complex of Varvara in Western Bosnia. This is L283 Posusje culture. Pannonians must have been derived in good part from a major Unrfield wave. This must have included R-L51's. But also some E-V13's that got in the way of Unrfield. I suspect E-L241's were prominent among those..
So actually archeologically Delmatae and Pannonians were not alike. Again Urnfield brought with them cremation, uncommon for coastal Illyrians and in general for Posusje culture (J-L283).
One important linguistic evidence to keep in mind is from pg 182 which is copy pasted the previous comment.

Specifically, Katicic mentions Emona in Slovenia, and that there are 3 visible layers of anthroponymy here:

1. East Celtic names which he calls "Noric"
2. Non-Noric Celtic names from an older Celtic onomastic substratum
3. The oldest layer: "North-Adriatic" (Venetic, Istrian, Liburnian)

We know that Venetic is an isolate branch language somehwere in between italo-celtic and germanic and the "illyric" languages.

The three different anthroponymic (all non-Illyrian according to current consensus) layers suggest we should expect also at least three different non-Illyrian archaeological cultures in north west frontier of delmato-pannonians. All three of these had possibility to influence different zones through religious notions about burials to their neighbours etc without entailing linguistic assimilation.

Delmatians and Pannonians may have different archaeological cultures from each other but their onomastic system seems to be the same for now, which means an elevated probability they spoke the same language despite different complexes/origins existing within the group. Pannonians were closer to the frontier with celts and so would have been more likely to experience cultural influence and even assimilation/mixing with oncomers.

(Albanian muslims and catholics in Kosovo have different burials today, but speak identical language.)

Quote Originally Posted by Aspurg View Post

Archaeological eviedence on proto-Dardanians from what I read is clear, the Brnjica culture, a subgroup of Vatin (non-West Serbian Vatin which was Illyrian) was totally not Illyrian (one large difference total dominance of cremation in Brnjica and no cremation usually in Glasinac Illyrian culture) and was very Thracian. If Dardani of Troy were to be connected with Dardanians it is only with those who were Daco-Moesian. On that I believe there is a consensus among archaeologists. And subsequent Illyrian Dardanians migrated from the West, that much is also clear (read PH1602, Z631).
I will take some time to respond to this, but will comment this in meanwhile.

Dardania according to Katicic had 3 anthroponymic layers:

1. Illyrian proper
2. Delmato-Pannonian (which he suggests invaded the west dardania at some point and replaced the Illyrian anthroponymy, pg181 in previous comment)
3. Thracian in the east

Important to take into account at least three, and we should look for three different archaeological cultures.

Quote Originally Posted by Aspurg View Post
Thracian was satem and indeed has been connected to Baltic.
Important to remember that Messapic was satem also.

Quote Originally Posted by Aspurg View Post

But the question is where are R1a's - the progenitors of Thracian language? Slavic clades totally dominate. There is another issue of R-Z93 Srubnaya element, among Bulgarians I can identify few likely Thracian clades of Z93. These might have shifted Thracian more into that direction as well. I now know which culture brought these Z93's in Thrace.

Recently I noticed a Serb from Hungary, near Vojvodina border belonged to a very rare but basal clade of Z380: R-YP4078*, YP469-, YP561- so no cousins for 4400 ybp. He might be connected to some other Serbs.
This clade does not seem Slavic at all and I believe there are two good scenarios for it:

1. Vatin culture, Vatin as proto-Daco-Moesian. This clade can be originator of the Thracian language if we go with the Baltic connection.

2. Cetina culture. Attested as a strong element in Cetina culture is the Corded Ware element! And CW suggests some R-Z280 (such as YP4078). According to many even though Cetina is often grouped among Vucedol, there is no evidence Vucedol people played significant role biologically in it. While there is such evidence for Corded Ware people, this is attested in pottery but also in funeral ritual such as cremation being very common in Cetina culture.

So from two sides this R-YP4078 might be connected to E-V13. And you see Baltoid influenced and E-V13 does not exclude each other at all.
If V13 stems from Cetina one might argue Cetina people were "Baltoid/Corded Ware" influenced from the onset.

About this spread of basal E-CTS1273*s on the Balkans: if your were to find a central focal point of all these 5-6 clades it would be somewhere around the river Struma. According to the Pseudo-Plutarch the older name of the river Strymon was Palaistinos. Which ofc many connect to Pelasgians.

In vicinity also R-Y5586 has great diversity - 4300 ybp. Not far also E-FGC44169>S7461 also is diverse. Under S7461 BY5022 (3800 ybp TMRCA) is very diverse in the Middle East, including one cluster in Druze, other in Lebanon, other Arabs etc.

I thought maybe to connect these BY5022 to Philistines and connect that East Balkan diversity area to river Palaistinos but among those 4 Philistines only a R-M269 was found of "genuine" Philistines.

The Greek term Pelasgian is a clear corruption of "Pelast", also Greeks seem to have called various peoples as "Pelasgians", for example the "Pelasgians of Lemnos" who spoke a dialect of Etruscan later are connected with Tyrrhenians (which is realistic and right there on Lemnos a rare clade of G-L497 is found actually). Pre-Greeks also, but vast majority of Greek E-V13's for example do not fit as pre-Greek people at all.. They are post-Mycenian let alone pre-Greek.. But the real Pelastians might have been some people. Considering genuine Philistine names are connected to Indo-European languages it seems to me they were IE or IE-zed group.

Now I was thinking, if R1a is progenitor of Thracians, maybe the progenitor of Pelastians is in fact R-CTS1450, and I'm thinking some CTS1273s maybe spread with that group.

Also to consider there are some other peoples such as Paeonians. There is also significant diversity of R-PF7562 on the Balkans and Albanians as well. Some connected Phillistines to Luwian group as well where PF7562 fits. Going by current data, it seems R-PF7562 was more common than R-Z2705 among Illyrians because R-Z2705 has a TMRCA of 1500 ybp. Yet this group is clearly fundamentally important to Albanian ethogenesis, more important than any other cluster of similar age.

There is so much here, i think it will take me a bit longer to respond to everything. I am not as knowledgable on R1b, as i've had to defend it less and so haven't become as familiar with it. I am also quite confused by the Brygians, what they must have belonged to. They were centum, so possibly urnfield connected?

I will mention also, that Katicic says the only Baltic hydronomy is found amongst the North-Adriatic regions the most (of the west balkan groups, thracian not included).

Quote Originally Posted by Aspurg View Post

However I think from the POV of Albanian common hg's being J-L283 and E-V13, I think these hg's had very different paths and it is simply impossible to make them part of "one people" at 2000 BC, 1500 BC, 1000 BC in most cases. Where they were it was mostly due to assimilation.

Obviously at one point all our ancestors diverge and cannot have been always one group. I am trying to pinpoint the proto-albanian language and which haplos we should expect to see among proto-albanian speakers. Schumacher publicly stated:

One thing we know for sure is that a language which, with some justification, we can call Albanian has been around for at least 3,000 years, Schumacher says. Even though it was not written down for millennia, Albanian existed as a separate entity, he added."

I don't think we yet know at what point proto-Albanian was identical to another paleo-balkan (proto-greek, etc) language and first began to diverge and attain its individuality, but that is the point at which Albanian history ends (going backwards), and it enters common paleo-balkan history, and after that common IE history.

Quote Originally Posted by Aspurg View Post

I read that the relations between Cetina people (likely V13) and Posusje/Dinara (likely L283) who coexisted for some time were "possibly hostile", "competing" etc.
Violence amongst one another is what I would expect to see among Albanian's ancestors. See: highland tribes and feuds.