Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 13 of 18 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 325 of 438

Thread: Southern Illyrians & Mycenean Greeks on a PCA plot

  1. #301
    Regular Member torzio's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,030

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - SK1480
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a

    Ethnic group
    North Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by enter_tain View Post
    There is a reason why northern parts of Europe have more Steppe ancestry. There were less people there. It's that simple. EEFs largely dominated Southern Europe. We see this north/south effect in Italy and the Balkans, including Illyrians.

    Northern Illyrians are no more "core Illyrians" than Fins or Estonians who have the highest steppe ancestry are "core Indo-Europeans". The word "Illyrians" was specifically meant for Iron Age Albanians, and only later covered northern parts of the Balkans. By far and away the most powerful tribes were in the south close to the Hellenic world.

    The term Illyrian was first used by ancient Greeks circa 800BC when they encountered the Liburnians on Corfu

    Italicus excursus per Liburnos, quae gens Asiatica est, procedit in Dalmatiae pedem

    Italics look east though the asiatics Liburnians and Dalmatians ....................they did not use the term Illyrians...nor did the Romans

    Too many people the term in error
    https://www.degruyter.com/document/d...568874.154/pdf

    Romans did it best....they used tribal names
    Fathers mtdna ...... T2b17
    Grandfather paternal mtdna ... T1a1e
    Sons mtdna ...... K1a4p
    Mothers line ..... R1b-S8172
    Grandmother paternal side ... I1-CTS6397
    Wife paternal line ..... R1a-PF6155

  2. #302
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Posts
    1,482

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Let's stick to the facts. Like what is upsetting about Bruzmi is that he misquotes papers the wrong way three times, five times, ten times, always selectively. Like when he quoted Nenova, he pointed out the LBA diversity of Bulgaria/Thrace, but she herself wrote in the same paper, some pages later, how big the impact of Channelled Ware was, that it created a new era and can be used to relatively date the LBA-EIA transition. Its so widespread and common, so homogeneous in almost all later Thracian territories, that it can be used to date other finds and cultures!
    I wrote this to him, but he still keeps quoting Nenova as if her paper would create some sort of contradiction to what I'm saying: Absolutely not, I quoted her before he did, and I say exactly what she says, just with one difference, since the "pots not people" dogma doesn't allow the "correctly working" archaeologists to prematurely associate such archaeological complexes with mass migrations and replacement events. That's the job of ancient DNA, to prove or disprove that.

    And that's bad intention, if people do that over and over again. Selectively misquoting papers.

    I made my faults too, but I won't repost the same quotations 10 times on 5 fora in a misleading and wrongly contextualised way.

    As for J-L283 before Glasinac-Mati: I said repeatedly that I see Illyrians being associated with Posusje-Dinaric culture, either coming from Cetina or Castellieri with some influences from Apennine Italian and/or Alpine Tumulus culture.

    We will see when exaclty J-L283 gets more numerous in e.g. Serbia, so not just low level presence like in Mokrin, but really starting to get dominant.

    Critical for me is how this relates to E-V13 and its prehistory, because my main point was that E-V13 spread late in the Balkans, especially the more Southern Balkan, to which Albania belongs. And that's exactly what we see, up to this point: Even J-L283 in high frequencies was there before E-V13.

    What does that mean? In my opinion it means Proto-Illyrians reached parts of Serbia, possibly very Northern Albania, earlier than E-V13 which came with Channelled Ware. They might have started to mix with local populations there or not, that's something we don't know, but they seem to have been there, before.

    Thracians with Channelled Ware and dominated by E-V13 came in on top of these earlier layers and pushed them West, initially.

    Like the area of Srem: It was not related to Channelled Ware groups before the LBA-EIA, but it was largely taken by G�va-related Channelled Ware groups in the transitional period. However, in the Early to Middle Iron Age, the Illyrians, under pressure from the West, started to push back and crossed into Srem, creating a largely Illyrian group with Channelled Ware/Thracian substrate.

    So the same area might have been:
    - 1. Heavily J-L283 and related to Illyrians at one point in the Bronze Age
    - 2. Became more E-V13 and Thracian shifted in the LBA-EIA transition
    - 3. Was taken by Illyrians (historically proven) from the West which formed kind of an adstrate and replaced a good portion of the locals

    What would that mean for the J-L283 : E-V13 ratio? It shifted from 2. to 3. fairly massively, because we really see that new elites just crashed into the area, and replacing the preceding one to a large degree.

    That's what I'm talking about. I'm not questioning that historically known people were ethnic Illyrians. But they were different from core Illyrian groups which being dominated by J-L283 and resemble HRV_BA/IA not by chance, but because of fairly big admixtue events with locals/other neighbours, especially the Thracians and Paenonians, Channelled Ware related formations.
    The Psenicevo samples for instance are not from 500 B.C, but Early Iron Age. And Psenicevo Culture is a culture descending somewhat between Gava Cultural complex and Noua-Sabatinovska-Coslogeni Complex.



    The Hungarian archaeologists define them explicitely as Gava variants, while Romanian ones stick with their own terminology. But, the true is that Psenicevo came down via Central Balkans, Belegis-Gava II. This is the so called Balkan-Carpathian/Balkan-Danubian hemisphere scretching from Vatin-Belegis up to Gava core and Eastern Carpathians, everything between them is a viable option. This kind of people initially landed on Greece/Mycenae where they are attributed to have been crucial on Mycenean downfall and then we see them in and around Troy/North-Western Anatolian region.

    I mean unless someone has an agenda, how obvious this is. Ridiculous, i remember not accepting this, but as soon as i saw the leaks, and read on studies on my own, i could project the bigger picture. They didn't expand from Siberia, they were right there, hence why they are called Balkan-Carpathian Cultural Complex. I do expect these people to have been packed with EEF, probably after the Yamnaya migration, the post Bronze Age people from Carpathians down to Aegeans might have had more or less similar EEF/Yamnaya ratios so the simple calculators cannot make the clear differences.

    It's like a common knowledge that the period from Late Early Bronze Age up to Early Iron Age the region around Pannonia/Balkans was populated by various different cultures.

  3. #303
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,642


    Country: Austria



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni pushed, imho, Proto-Greeks into the Aegean. They heavily influenced Gva itself, mainly through the intermediate Wietenberg-Noua fusion in Transylvania. Psenichevo is imho simply a mix of Gva (either directly from the North East, like their pottery looks like it) or indirectly via Belegis II-Gva, which reached the Lower Danube as welll. They simply mixed with the locals, which were pretty much Aegean like still, and got additional steppe influences from the Cimmerians and Scythians, as well as local and other Pannonian influences (Brnjica, Encrusted Pottery especially).

    The archaeological connections are pretty clear, going from the North Carpathians to the Aegean, whereas the J-L283 dominated Illyrian zone was going from the Upper Adriatic, Bell Beakers-Tumulus culture-Italian Apennine down. So these were simply two different cultural spheres, with different connections, dominated by different haplogroups.

  4. #304
    Banned
    Join Date
    27-08-20
    Posts
    351

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13>Z17107

    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    That's very true. The North-South positioned changed in many regions much less than the West <-> East one. Just think about the Croatian and some upcoming Serbian BA-IA samples which could plot with Italians and French.



    Usually a people were fairly homogeneous, not always, but most of the time, after their ethnogenesis. And we can clearly recognise the Illyrian ethnogenesis started from the EBA-MBA and ended with the HRV_MBA samples. From then on, we deal with a continuity in uniparentals and autosomal profil for the Illyrian core groups. Before, well, there were shifts and we have not enough samples yet.

    Same goes e.g. for Germanics or Slavs. They were surely more homogeneous before expanding and mixing with other people outside of their original homelands. Like in Pannonia, the Balkans, Germany. Same here for Illyrians, which are such an easy case, because they preferred inhumatoin throughout. Most other IE did have at least some period for cremation, but they really sticked to their collective tumuli burials for their clans. With only rare and not as important exceptions, especially in the core area. That's why we have a continuous sampling from the MBA to the Roman era, by and large. Its glass clear who the Illyrian founder were, and which tribes mixed with other people.
    But IA Albania and IA Croatia are very homogeneous groups compared to IA Bulgaria and IA Macedonia.

    As I’ve told you many times, you need to find a new name for your personal Illyrians. Illyrians are in Albania. Proto-Illyrians might have been only the ones in Croatia.

  5. #305
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,642


    Country: Austria



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dushman View Post
    But IA Albania and IA Croatia are very homogeneous groups compared to IA Bulgaria and IA Macedonia.

    As I’ve told you many times, you need to find a new name for your personal Illyrians. Illyrians are in Albania. Proto-Illyrians might have been only the ones in Croatia.
    I'm sticking to the definition of Illyrians I learnt and read in all reasonable sources:



    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ish%29.svg.png

    Illyrians being never restricted to Albania. And we know that other people's influences were stronger in the area of Albania than in the core zone of these Illyrians. That's just how it is.

    At some point we might simply see significant differences based on tribal groupings, caused by different admixture events.

    Alternative map:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...English%29.jpg

  6. #306
    Banned
    Join Date
    27-08-20
    Posts
    351

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13>Z17107

    Country: Albania



    So Thracians are older than Illyrians in the Balkans.

    Thracians are E-V13, Illyrians are J2b2.

    Yet, J2b2 is older than E-V13 in the Balkans.

    Your theories are sounding more and more like agendas. I was open to your theories before but I'm starting to fully doubt you.

    And you never answer direct questions, never admit when wrong, and always dodge and change topic by repeating your personal theories.

    Your personal interest is to find the most distant origin of a haplogroup. None of us really cares about that, so no point even discussing. We know that everyone was Proto-something and Indo-European back in time and came from around the Carpathians too.

    Hell, J2b2 seems even older than Illyrians themselves yet we have to waste time with these distant origins.

    Let's stick to 500BC onwards and the auDNA of the historic Illyrians, being the Southern ones and the proprie dicti.

  7. #307
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,642


    Country: Austria



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dushman View Post
    So Thracians are older than Illyrians in the Balkans.

    Thracians are E-V13, Illyrians are J2b2.

    Yet, J2b2 is older than E-V13 in the Balkans.
    That's just on one map and its being labelled with a "?". That is not my opinion. More important is the historically attested position of the Illyrians, and this is correct. Also, the very map has Proto-Thracians to the North East, which is more correct as an alternative. They just offered two alternatives.

    And you never answer direct questions, never admit when wrong, and always dodge and change topic by repeating your personal theories.
    Which question? That's a rather biased perspective on my writings I'd say, but if you feel that way, I can't help. I can just answer questions the best I can.

    Your personal interest is to find the most distant origin of a haplogroup. None of us really cares about that, so no point even discussing.
    Seriously? The origin and source theories are some of the most interesting ones, for all humans. And in this case we are talking about major haplogroups and ethnolinguistic formations. Of course its very interesting to know how a haplogroup migrated, with which cultures and people, how it expanded, or suffered. Which language it spoke and how the people lived etc.

    If you care only for the origin of Albanians in more recent history, I completely get that and have no problem with this. But see, that's not my main interest. And talking about Southern Illyrians and Mycenaean Greeks, which this thread is primarily about, we're talking about the Bronze to Iron Age, not Antiquity or the Medieval period.

    We know that everyone was Proto-something and Indo-European back in time and came from around the Carpathians too.
    All IE people West and South of the Carpathians had to move through the Carpathian mountains or had to walk around them. Yes, kind of true. Doesn't have to mean they picked a lot of ancestry up, in the Carpathians, but some did.

    Hell, J2b2 seems even older than Illyrians themselves yet we have to waste time with these distant origins.

    Let's stick to 500BC onwards and the auDNA of the historic Illyrians, being the Southern ones and the proprie dicti.
    Make up a thread about historical Illyrians and their tribes. But in the end, if talking about genetics, you always come back to the Bronze Age. Because before the Late Roman period, with Levantine admixture, Germanic and Slavic migrants etc., the main source of all regional ancestries was in the MBA-LBA and LBA-EIA transition. Like that's when these people like the Greeks, Illyrians, Thracians etc. being formed. They didn't exist in that way before, because the mixtures which we see later came up in this time frame.

  8. #308
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    7,222

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    All of this shows me that Olalde et al. 2021 was correct. Balkans IA (Tuscany to South Italy)spans the leaked PCA.

  9. #309
    Banned
    Join Date
    27-08-20
    Posts
    351

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13>Z17107

    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    All of this shows me that Olalde et al. 2021 was correct. Balkans IA (Tuscany to South Italy)spans the leaked PCA.
    We're seeing this even with modern Albanian outliers from isolated areas.

    So far there's my cousin (North Albanian) who's completely overlapping with 2 samples from Romagna and 1 from Tuscany and other samples that are South Italian shifted with 1 being almost overlapping with Palermo and Trapani, 1 being halfway between Romagna and South Italy.

    We also have an Albanian from Montenegro that is even more Northern than my cousin but a bit Eastern shifted and the closest to the Illyrian samples from Croatia.

    So there seems to have been 2 or 3 ancestral Illyrian populations that with additional North-Eastern (Dacian, Pannonian, Sarmatian, Slavic) and South-Eastern (Aegean, Anatolian, maybe Armenian) resulted in the modern Albanian variations.

  10. #310
    Banned
    Join Date
    27-08-20
    Posts
    351

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13>Z17107

    Country: Albania



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    That's just on one map and its being labelled with a "?". That is not my opinion. More important is the historically attested position of the Illyrians, and this is correct. Also, the very map has Proto-Thracians to the North East, which is more correct as an alternative. They just offered two alternatives.

    Which question? That's a rather biased perspective on my writings I'd say, but if you feel that way, I can't help. I can just answer questions the best I can.

    Seriously? The origin and source theories are some of the most interesting ones, for all humans. And in this case we are talking about major haplogroups and ethnolinguistic formations. Of course its very interesting to know how a haplogroup migrated, with which cultures and people, how it expanded, or suffered. Which language it spoke and how the people lived etc.

    If you care only for the origin of Albanians in more recent history, I completely get that and have no problem with this. But see, that's not my main interest. And talking about Southern Illyrians and Mycenaean Greeks, which this thread is primarily about, we're talking about the Bronze to Iron Age, not Antiquity or the Medieval period.

    All IE people West and South of the Carpathians had to move through the Carpathian mountains or had to walk around them. Yes, kind of true. Doesn't have to mean they picked a lot of ancestry up, in the Carpathians, but some did.

    Make up a thread about historical Illyrians and their tribes. But in the end, if talking about genetics, you always come back to the Bronze Age. Because before the Late Roman period, with Levantine admixture, Germanic and Slavic migrants etc., the main source of all regional ancestries was in the MBA-LBA and LBA-EIA transition. Like that's when these people like the Greeks, Illyrians, Thracians etc. being formed. They didn't exist in that way before, because the mixtures which we see later came up in this time frame.
    No mate, your problem is that you're never happy. You're not happy when E-V13 samples have Illyrian-like auDNA and not Thracian, you're not happy that the E-V13 from Roman Croatia was called Illyrian, you're not happy that IA Albania samples are even closer to Albanians than IA and BA Croatian ones, you're not happy that IA Albania is called Illyrian, etc.

    It's just non-stop negativity from you in 2 different forums. You don't see us going around telling Italians they're nothing like Italics and they shouldn't be called Italics or whatever.

    Even the early Slavs needed a Balkan/Pannonian admixture on top of the Baltic to create what we know as historic Slavs.

  11. #311
    Regular Member Idontknowwhatimdoing's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-07-21
    Posts
    25


    Ethnic group
    Greek Cypriot
    Country: Cyprus



    Quote Originally Posted by blevins13 View Post
    PCA is coincidence YDNA is not indicative, so what else? Hahahaha ridiculous. Keep it coming, it is all good fun.


    Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
    Bruh on qpAdm and on G25 Albanians literally shift towards Anatolia/Armenia by 10-20%. Cypriots also cluster with many Jews by coincidence on PCA, according to your logic Cypriots are either 100% Jews or Jews are 100% Cypriot. There seems to be a lot of people online that think clustering with someone on PCA from 2-3000 years ago means high ancestry from them.

  12. #312
    Banned
    Join Date
    27-08-20
    Posts
    351

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13>Z17107

    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Idontknowwhatimdoing View Post
    Bruh on qpAdm and on G25 Albanians literally shift towards Anatolia/Armenia by 10-20%. Cypriots also cluster with many Jews by coincidence on PCA, according to your logic Cypriots are either 100% Jews or Jews are 100% Cypriot. There seems to be a lot of people online that think clustering with someone on PCA from 2-3000 years ago means high ancestry from them.
    Do you understand how different from modern Albanians would be an Iron Age Albania sample + 20% Anatolia/Armenia + 20-35% Slavic?

  13. #313
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,642


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Dushman View Post
    No mate, your problem is that you're never happy. You're not happy when E-V13 samples have Illyrian-like auDNA and not Thracian, you're not happy that the E-V13 from Roman Croatia was called Illyrian, you're not happy that IA Albania samples are even closer to Albanians than IA and BA Croatian ones, you're not happy that IA Albania is called Illyrian, etc.

    It's just non-stop negativity from you in 2 different forums. You don't see us going around telling Italians they're nothing like Italics and they shouldn't be called Italics or whatever.

    Even the early Slavs needed a Balkan/Pannonian admixture on top of the Baltic to create what we know as historic Slavs.
    I have no problem with what you said, just with wrong interpretations which state that E-V13 being associated with Proto-Illyrians instead of Channelled Ware. The problem also comes from the fact that Channelled Ware was there (too):

    Like the rest of this area around lake Ohrid, I would consider it mixed-Illyrianised. From Sovjan we have a lot of finds, its to the West in Albania, but generally its context is related. In the LBA-Early Iron Age, we have three influences:
    - the older incised local ware (ultimately also related to the Carpatho-Balkan sphere, from earlier connections)
    - the channelled Ware, with origins to the North, more common in North Albania (I would associate with E-V13 and Thracians)
    - matt painted pottery, coming newly to the region

    You can read up on matt painted pottery here, its essentially more Aegean related:

    http://www.aegeobalkanprehistory.net...mbs/tmb_75.jpg

    http://www.aegeobalkanprehistory.net...ticle&id_art=8

    p. 119:
    Alongside matt painted pottery, channelled ware occupies a significant place in the EIA assemblages of Sovjan as well. In contrast to the matt painted ware, this type of decoration is much more widespread in Albania and is also popular in the North of the modern country. Best known are the turban dishes, but there are also deeper bowls with a marked shoulder and even channelled handles.
    p. 122:
    the EIA channelled ware are elements with a wide distribution. It is interesting to note that some of these LBA features were adopted immediately, others, however, with a significant delay. an example of the latter is the matt painted pottery that had not become common before the EIA (Sovjan levle 5b).
    https://www.persee.fr/doc/iliri_1727..._num_39_1_2500

    Therefore the matt painted pottery could be associated with a Aegean influences, rather, Channelled Ware with Thracian. Illyrian came on top in this region. If there is J2a there, I would associate it rather with Aegean-Mycenaean influences primarily and Channelled Ware-Carpathian/Thracian influences (like in Kyjatice, which also had J2a due to Aegean contacts in earlier times) secondarily.

    Also compare, once more, with this map:


    I only have a problem with people ignoring those earlier layers, which, without a doubt, contributed both the autosomal shift and new uniparentals to the J-L283 Illyrians.

    Or do you think I would explain Bavarian and Alsatian genetics without non-Germanic admixture? That would be ridiculous. Its as ridiculous to state that from HRV_IA to Albanian_IA is just "a range" - yes it is, but because of admixture.

  14. #314
    Regular Member torzio's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,030

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - SK1480
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a

    Ethnic group
    North Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    I'm sticking to the definition of Illyrians I learnt and read in all reasonable sources:



    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ish%29.svg.png

    Illyrians being never restricted to Albania. And we know that other people's influences were stronger in the area of Albania than in the core zone of these Illyrians. That's just how it is.

    At some point we might simply see significant differences based on tribal groupings, caused by different admixture events.

    Alternative map:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...English%29.jpg
    your map ( top one ) is clearly from Corinthian Greeks entered the Adriatic in 733BC ...............we know their was no celts in the North of Illyria until circa 1000BC ( Halstatt culture first phase )

    Everybody wants to dismiss the first phase and use the second phase of Halstatt culture ( circa 800BC )

  15. #315
    Regular Member torzio's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,030

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - SK1480
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a

    Ethnic group
    North Italian
    Country: Australia



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post

    your bottom map .............looks like a old theory when Montenegro had thracian tribes ( some time prior to 1000BC ) and as the illyrian tribes pushed down from the north , these thracian where either annexed into Illyrian society or simply disappeared .........................this theory , was on both sides of the 2 world wars

  16. #316
    Banned
    Join Date
    27-08-20
    Posts
    351

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13>Z17107

    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    I have no problem with what you said, just with wrong interpretations which state that E-V13 being associated with Proto-Illyrians instead of Channelled Ware. The problem also comes from the fact that Channelled Ware was there (too):

    Like the rest of this area around lake Ohrid, I would consider it mixed-Illyrianised. From Sovjan we have a lot of finds, its to the West in Albania, but generally its context is related. In the LBA-Early Iron Age, we have three influences:
    - the older incised local ware (ultimately also related to the Carpatho-Balkan sphere, from earlier connections)
    - the channelled Ware, with origins to the North, more common in North Albania (I would associate with E-V13 and Thracians)
    - matt painted pottery, coming newly to the region

    You can read up on matt painted pottery here, its essentially more Aegean related:

    http://www.aegeobalkanprehistory.net...mbs/tmb_75.jpg

    http://www.aegeobalkanprehistory.net...ticle&id_art=8

    p. 119:


    p. 122:


    https://www.persee.fr/doc/iliri_1727..._num_39_1_2500

    Therefore the matt painted pottery could be associated with a Aegean influences, rather, Channelled Ware with Thracian. Illyrian came on top in this region. If there is J2a there, I would associate it rather with Aegean-Mycenaean influences primarily and Channelled Ware-Carpathian/Thracian influences (like in Kyjatice, which also had J2a due to Aegean contacts in earlier times) secondarily.

    Also compare, once more, with this map:


    I only have a problem with people ignoring those earlier layers, which, without a doubt, contributed both the autosomal shift and new uniparentals to the J-L283 Illyrians.

    Or do you think I would explain Bavarian and Alsatian genetics without non-Germanic admixture? That would be ridiculous. Its as ridiculous to state that from HRV_IA to Albanian_IA is just "a range" - yes it is, but because of admixture.
    If Thracians brought E-V13 pretty "late" in the Balkans, then are Thracians truly Thracian knowing their big Aegean-like admixture. I'm using your logic and pessimism here.

    Who brought J2b2 in the Balkans? Indo-Europeans/Illyrians? Or J2b2 predates them both? And when did that happen?

    And when did R1b come to the Balkans? Did it predate J2b2 too?

  17. #317
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,642


    Country: Austria



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dushman View Post
    If Thracians brought E-V13 pretty "late" in the Balkans, then are Thracians truly Thracian knowing their big Aegean-like admixture. I'm using your logic and pessimism here.
    Are Germans which have more than 70 percent Baltoslavic ancestry still Germanic? I mean that's the kind question you are asking. Obviously they were Thracians, if they identified as Thracian or one of their tribal affiliations, spoke a Thracian language and so on. But there is a difference between the people who brought the language and identity and the ancestral profile they had vs. the later people in the region, which continued with elements of the identity and culture, but had a different ancestry.
    That's like asking whether a Pontic Greek or a very Slavic Greek, assuming both have not that much "old Greek ancestry"...
    You know what I mean.

    Genetic profiles and ethnic identity correlate, but they are not free from time and space. Proto-Thracian might have been a very different people than late Southern Thracians. But its hard to tell, because at this point, even if I'm right, we lack proper sampling of both. So probably actual Gva was already more Southern when moving out and the distance not that big.

    Who brought J2b2 in the Balkans? Indo-Europeans/Illyrians? Or J2b2 predates them both? And when did that happen?
    I don't know, but I think it was brought by Indo-Europeans into the Carpathian basin, like we have it from Mokrin, Maros culture in the EBA. That's the earliest starting point. It seems to have been early on the Balkans.

    The better known prehistory starts with Cetina, Castellieri and Posusje-Dinaric. The later being imho the core Illyrian/J-L283 culture by and large.

    And when did R1b come to the Balkans? Did it predate J2b2 too?
    R-Z2103 reached the Carpatho-Balkan sphere with Yamnaya fairly early on. They even mixed with the people I think were the ancestors of E-V13, in the Carpathian basin. Local Eneolithic, Corded Pottery decorated groups related to Usatovo and GAC splinters came to the Carpatho-Balkans, this formed Cotofeni. Yamnaya lived in the Carpathian sphere side by side with Cotofeni, which copied in their burials some Yamnaya elements.

    I don't know when exactly J-L283 came in, we just know it was there in Maros later. There are rumours of an earlier sample close to the Carpathians, but you must ask others whether they know more.

  18. #318
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    25-12-21
    Posts
    507

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J2B2-L283/Z638

    Country: United States



    3 members found this post helpful.
    I don't understand how Riverman doesn't exhaust himself writing a bunch of bullshit all the time. This dude has gone so far off the deep end with his "theories", there's no connection to reality anymore.

    Watch there's another Riverman in the year 4000, arguing that the United States, Canada, UK, etc... didn't actually exist. It was all the "Starbucks Culture" because they found Starbucks cups in all these places.

  19. #319
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    1,135


    Country: Albania



    Target: Albanian_Montenegro
    Distance: 628.0296% / 6.28029572
    73.2 Italian_Tuscany
    26.8 Polish_South


    Target: Albanian_Macedonia
    Distance: 819.6674% / 8.19667388
    83.6 Italian_Tuscany
    16.4 Polish_South


    Target: Albanian_Kosovo
    Distance: 666.5453% / 6.66545269
    82.4 Italian_Tuscany
    17.6 Polish_South


    Target: Albanian_Catholic_Mirdite
    Distance: 682.5687% / 6.82568678
    100.0 Italian_Tuscany


    Target: Albanian_South_Albania
    Distance: 832.7333% / 8.32733295
    92.2 Italian_Tuscany
    7.8 Polish_South


    Target: Albanian_Central_Albania
    Distance: 821.3798% / 8.21379757
    96.2 Italian_Tuscany
    3.8 Polish_South



    Target: Albanian_North_Albania
    Distance: 797.5859% / 7.97585871
    84.0 Italian_Tuscany
    16.0 Polish_South

  20. #320
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,642


    Country: Austria



    4 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by enter_tain View Post
    I don't understand how Riverman doesn't exhaust himself writing a bunch of bullshit all the time. This dude has gone so far off the deep end with his "theories", there's no connection to reality anymore.

    Watch there's another Riverman in the year 4000, arguing that the United States, Canada, UK, etc... didn't actually exist. It was all the "Starbucks Culture" because they found Starbucks cups in all these places.
    That comment is ridiculous, because
    a) Pottery was far more important at that time, having a meaning for the people which goes far beyond consumption, like tradition, spritiuality, distinction etc.
    b) Channelled Ware in particular was a complete package, they even brought their own, unique and completely new weapons and customs, among which cremation in larger cemeteries in urns and with scattered ashes with them.

    That argument of "pots not people" crowd in New Archaeology was wrong 5 decades ago and its still wrong. If its just one type of artefact, maybe, but if its complete package, they don't migrate and expand without carriers, without people.

    Most of the time when people like you go ad hominem against me, they can't even properly define what exactly is wrong. They just don't like the result.

  21. #321
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    7,222

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    2 members found this post helpful.
    What about the Bell Beakers? Surely that is a shining example of pots are not people. There was a lot of trade throughout the world in the BA, but now we see that places like Anatolia were genetically impregnable until the IA, according to the upcoming Reich lecture. I think pots are important to us, rather than to them. I find it kind of silly to think ancient people cared so much about pottery and or even where their language came from even just 1000 years before them. These things only seem important because of the massive blank spots of what we know of in those times. Imho

  22. #322
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    7,222

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Something I find interesting is the fact that many Albanians also share my same haplogroup group which goes back to the EBA. Perhaps brought in with the Yamnaya migration into the Balkans?

  23. #323
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,642


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    What about the Bell Beakers? Surely that is a shining example of pots are not people. There was a lot of trade throughout the world in the BA, but now we see that places like Anatolia were genetically impregnable until the IA
    Bell Beakers were considered by the "pots not people" crowd just a "social happening" and "trade network phenomenon". What is the reality? In some regions they eliminated within their sphere nearly 95 % of the local male lineages and replaced them. The autosomal replacement varies, but is in one of the highest ballparks every recorded in prehistory.
    Yes, they did adopt elements into their package, before swarming out, largely. But here too: Where you got the whole cultural package, they did replace, with a few exceptions.

    And I highly doubt the conclusion of Reich, its simply impossible. Even if the PIE would have been sitting somewhere around the Caucausus, that there was no penetration of Anatolia before the Iron Age, nothing recognisable at all, is simply not possible. I can only attribute it, if he presents any sort of data in that direction, as bad sampling strategy.
    I'm particularly curious about Cernavoda into Troy. Whether they tested those groups and what's the outcome. If they didn't test it, that's like talking about "Yamnaya expansion" while ignoring Sredny Stog and the Lower Don cultural centre in the period before. Its just missing the point, either deliberately or by accident.

    I find it kind of silly to think ancient people cared so much about pottery and or even where their language came from even just 1000 years before them. These things only seem important because of the massive blank spots of what we know of in those times. Imho
    Take Gva pottery as an example, it was ideologically, religiously loaded. Being connected with a specific ideology, whole package and religious motif.

    People did keep specific pottery traditions with a strict borderline between complexes for hundreds years. And so far, in many such cases, if there was as strict border in the cultural package, the easiest to define aspect is pottery, then there was also a strict genetic borderline. We deal with different ethnicities.

    That some people were as delusational as to say Channelled Ware appeared as a matter of "trade and contacts", even for areas in which there was never such kind of pottery before, yet it appars after all the settlements in the valley being burnt down and the local survivors fled ot the hills, is just idiotic. Even more so, if its not just the pots which were fine ware, black burnished, with channelling and knobs, black outside, red inside, but specific swords (Naue II category type Reutlingen), spearheads (like the casted flame shaped spearheads), molds, jewelry including fibulae (knobs), ritual pits, cremation burials in urns and scattered ashes, ritual hoards, first iron working etc., etc.

    But of course, all those things which were extremely rare to non-existent appear after in some regions whole clusters of villages were burnt to the ground and the locals fled to the hills, that's just a (un-) lucky coincidence! Has nothing to do with migration, or that the groups to the South started to cross the Mediterranean as the Sea People, or the Illyrians moved to Southern Italy, because of the pressure from the North. That's all something people have "imagined".

    I totally get that a culture or people could adopt foreign influences, but you know what's the difference: If local people just adopt a new style, it shows, it just shows. Because they do it in their very own way, based on the preceding traditions and they don't give up on all they made before, nor do they take up the whole package the foreigners brought in.
    That's e.g. in Pre-Gva Lapus I the case. They still used earlier incision and broom stroke techniques which were old in the region, which other branches of Gva did not to the same extent. If you see something like that, you can say that its a local uptake or development.

    But then again. For what I'm debating here, things are way different: We have the evidence for invasions and we have whole packages appearing and replacing local ones. Either fully or partly, with a speed (within one generation) which never happens without a large scale migration.

    The funniest part is, that the evidence for Channelled Ware people's migration is better, with way more density of finds, than that for the migration of Celts in many areas, and of Bell Beakers and Corded Ware in particular. Because of the latter, you rarely have scenes of slaughter and a destruction horizon. They just appear, but the transition is missing. In this case that's true as well, for many areas, but in many others, because of the density of settling in that period and the finds made, we can actually see that they besieged and destroyed fortresses and settlements.

  24. #324
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    7,222

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Bell Beakers were considered by the "pots not people" crowd just a "social happening" and "trade network phenomenon". What is the reality? In some regions they eliminated within their sphere nearly 95 % of the local male lineages and replaced them. The autosomal replacement varies, but is in one of the highest ballparks every recorded in prehistory.
    Yes, they did adopt elements into their package, before swarming out, largely. But here too: Where you got the whole cultural package, they did replace, with a few exceptions.

    And I highly doubt the conclusion of Reich, its simply impossible. Even if the PIE would have been sitting somewhere around the Caucausus, that there was no penetration of Anatolia before the Iron Age, nothing recognisable at all, is simply not possible. I can only attribute it, if he presents any sort of data in that direction, as bad sampling strategy.
    I'm particularly curious about Cernavoda into Troy. Whether they tested those groups and what's the outcome. If they didn't test it, that's like talking about "Yamnaya expansion" while ignoring Sredny Stog and the Lower Don cultural centre in the period before. Its just missing the point, either deliberately or by accident.



    Take G�va pottery as an example, it was ideologically, religiously loaded. Being connected with a specific ideology, whole package and religious motif.

    People did keep specific pottery traditions with a strict borderline between complexes for hundreds years. And so far, in many such cases, if there was as strict border in the cultural package, the easiest to define aspect is pottery, then there was also a strict genetic borderline. We deal with different ethnicities.

    That some people were as delusational as to say Channelled Ware appeared as a matter of "trade and contacts", even for areas in which there was never such kind of pottery before, yet it appars after all the settlements in the valley being burnt down and the local survivors fled ot the hills, is just idiotic. Even more so, if its not just the pots which were fine ware, black burnished, with channelling and knobs, black outside, red inside, but specific swords (Naue II category type Reutlingen), spearheads (like the casted flame shaped spearheads), molds, jewelry including fibulae (knobs), ritual pits, cremation burials in urns and scattered ashes, ritual hoards, first iron working etc., etc.

    But of course, all those things which were extremely rare to non-existent appear after in some regions whole clusters of villages were burnt to the ground and the locals fled to the hills, that's just a (un-) lucky coincidence! Has nothing to do with migration, or that the groups to the South started to cross the Mediterranean as the Sea People, or the Illyrians moved to Southern Italy, because of the pressure from the North. That's all something people have "imagined".

    I totally get that a culture or people could adopt foreign influences, but you know what's the difference: If local people just adopt a new style, it shows, it just shows. Because they do it in their very own way, based on the preceding traditions and they don't give up on all they made before, nor do they take up the whole package the foreigners brought in.
    That's e.g. in Pre-G�va Lapus I the case. They still used earlier incision and broom stroke techniques which were old in the region, which other branches of G�va did not to the same extent. If you see something like that, you can say that its a local uptake or development.

    But then again. For what I'm debating here, things are way different: We have the evidence for invasions and we have whole packages appearing and replacing local ones. Either fully or partly, with a speed (within one generation) which never happens without a large scale migration.

    The funniest part is, that the evidence for Channelled Ware people's migration is better, with way more density of finds, than that for the migration of Celts in many areas, and of Bell Beakers and Corded Ware in particular. Because of the latter, you rarely have scenes of slaughter and a destruction horizon. They just appear, but the transition is missing. In this case that's true as well, for many areas, but in many others, because of the density of settling in that period and the finds made, we can actually see that they besieged and destroyed fortresses and settlements.
    Do people honestly think, that David Reich, the foremost expert in population genetics knows less about what he is talking about than pseudonym laymen more than likely with less experience and education in the topic? You think you have a better command and understanding than the head of the lab that produced more than half the papers in archeogenetics? Honestly some of you people are starting to remind of antivaxxers who need to "do their own research" on the covid vaccine inspite of overwhelming data and proven effectiveness. Can we at least wait until the man speaks and presents the data to back his claims before becoming so impassioned?

  25. #325
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    7,222

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    INB4 lame appeal to authority logical fallacy claim:

    http://ds-wordpress.haverford.edu/ps...%20an%20expert.

Page 13 of 18 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •