Apperance of the illyrians

Neander said:
It's FALSE

Since they were called Illyrians by their contemporaries you have no authority to question them.

It was a big population, which was divided through time diverged in to tribes, but they had always genetic relations, linguistic relations.
Click to expand...

Illyria is a geographical term for an area....any tribe living there was named illyrian because it was easy...same as italian. According to the constitution of Italy, there was no such thing as Italians BEFORE 1861, the Italians referred to before this date was for "tribes" living in a geographical area called Italy, .................italy , illyria, Baltic, Iberia, britain, Scandinavia, anatolia these are some of the terms used as geographical areas.....they are not the same people or languages within each term.

You can read all historical text for the term italians, you get something like this.......Genoese, Tuscans and italians joined together to fight......this means genoese people, tuscan people and other "tribes" people in italy but we do not know who exactly. Same thing was used for Illyria and other geographical areas noted above


show me some linguistic relations ...text
 
 
How you want to see how an ancient people were looking like,if you do not have any descriptions from those times?
Especially in Balkans,where people are so mixed,with various European people and also with some West Asian people.No
Not to mention that climate changed from that time and climate change is also making people looking different.
I was amazed to see same Romanian,how his look changed when he moved to a more Nordish area,as climate.
Or how my hair turned from dark brown,to medium brown with reddish nuance,when I stopped staying too much in the sun.
 
Yetos said:

Croats? Bosnians? Serbs? Montenegrins? Albanians?
Click to expand...

Serbs/Croats/Bosniacs surely, probably and Montenegrins, Albanians for discussion.

Bosnians don't exist as nation. In Bosnia live Serbs, Bosniacs and Croats.

And between Serbs, Bosniacs and Croats difference is not language or origin. Difference is religion, Serbs are Orthodox Christians, Croats are Catholic Christians, Bosniacs are Sunni Muslims.

Illyrians probably mostly were R1a/I2a people, probably they have G, maybe anyuthing else (J2, E-V13 etc.).

But we were talking more times that Illyrians and Illyria are two different things.

And inhabitants of south part of Illyria had significant E-V13.

Inhabitants north part of Illyiria probably were R1b carriers. Etc.

This is generally, in the site things probably were more complex.

Serbs, Bosniacs and Croats are decedents of Illyrians, and Serbs (and less Bosniacs) are descedents of Thracians (for Thracians of course and members another today's nations in Balkans and beyond). Illyrians and Thracians probably had similar haplogroups (in root R1a/I2a).

Thracians came to the Balkans long time ago in comparison with Illyrians, and Thracians were much more numerous and they have much more territory. Dacians (today's Romania) are Thracians too, or people very closer to Thracians.
 
Garrick said:
Serbs/Croats/Bosniacs surely, probably and Montenegrins, Albanians for discussion.

Bosnians don't exist as nation. In Bosnia live Serbs, Bosniacs and Croats.

And between Serbs, Bosniacs and Croats difference is not language or origin. Difference is religion, Serbs are Orthodox Christians, Croats are Catholic Christians, Bosniacs are Sunni Muslims.

Illyrians probably mostly were R1a/I2a people, probably they have G, maybe anyuthing else (J2, E-V13 etc.).

But we were talking more times that Illyrians and Illyria are two different things.

And inhabitants of south part of Illyria had significant E-V13.

Inhabitants north part of Illyiria probably were R1b carriers. Etc.

This is generally, in the site things probably were more complex.

Serbs, Bosniacs and Croats are decedents of Illyrians, and Serbs (and less Bosniacs) are descedents of Thracians (for Thracians of course and members another today's nations in Balkans and beyond). Illyrians and Thracians probably had similar haplogroups (in root R1a/I2a).

Thracians came to the Balkans long time ago in comparison with Illyrians, and Thracians were much more numerous and they have much more territory. Dacians (today's Romania) are Thracians too, or people very closer to Thracians.
Click to expand...

Dacians were described as mostly light haired with blue eyes and very tall.
Romanians are not very tall,as Serbians,Montenegrins,Bosnians and Albanian highlanders are (no idea about Croats).
Supposing that Thracians were quite closed to Dacians,or almost same people they were also mountain people,which is true for Serbians,Montenegrins,Bosnians and Albanian highlanders,all being mountain people.
(Thracians and Dacians were also mountain people).
I do not know about Ilyrians,but they are said to be closed to Thracians,so I think most closed people to old Ilyrians and Thracians are Montenegrins,Serbians,Bosnians and Albanian highlanders.
Sure they mixed with colonists Roman Empire brought,which were most likely italo-galic people.
And depending on the nation,they are mixed with Slavs,more pronounced,or less,as it is the case with Albanians,that are not that mixed with Slavs,as Serbians,Bosnians and Montenegrins are.
 
As mihaitzateo already mentioned, with climate change also look may change a little, and also different invasions might have blurried the way real illyrians looked.
but i would point also the picture of the book of john wilkes, i like that because i look alike :)
 
mihaitzateo said:
Dacians were described as mostly light haired with blue eyes and very tall.
Romanians are not very tall,as Serbians,Montenegrins,Bosnians and Albanian highlanders are (no idea about Croats).
Supposing that Thracians were quite closed to Dacians,or almost same people they were also mountain people,which is true for Serbians,Montenegrins,Bosnians and Albanian highlanders,all being mountain people.
(Thracians and Dacians were also mountain people).
I do not know about Ilyrians,but they are said to be closed to Thracians,so I think most closed people to old Ilyrians and Thracians are Montenegrins,Serbians,Bosnians and Albanian highlanders.
Sure they mixed with colonists Roman Empire brought,which were most likely italo-galic people.
And depending on the nation,they are mixed with Slavs,more pronounced,or less,as it is the case with Albanians,that are not that mixed with Slavs,as Serbians,Bosnians and Montenegrins are.
Click to expand...

And we can see haplogroups.

Thracians and Illyrians probably were R1a/I2a carriers, with some G, and they mixed with E-V13, J2.

Maybe R1b-ht35 (Armenian/Anatolian) carriers came much later from Caucasus.

I think Thracians and Dacians were same, and they had same haplogroups.

You can see Serbian and Romanian haplogroups, almost same, One can go in exploring subtle differences, but for example in Italia which is one country, differences are much higher, so Serbians and Romanians are brothers.

For me the highest mystery is why Geg Albanians have no significant I2a (in Kosovo less than 5%!!!) but all people of Balkans have.

Therefore it is very difficult that someone says that Albanians have link with Illyrians.

Tosk Albanians have about 20% I2a but it can be because Aromanians, Tsintsars, Slavs lived there and they are probably assimilated.
 
Because i2a is a also a large slavic branch dont forget that...ukraine 20%, belarus 17%, every slavic nation has i2a... More or less and dont tell me that ukraine or belarus are illyrians to this high degree, you can read on i2a haplogroup on eupedia.com that i2a also came with slavic invasion.
 
Bardhyl said:
Because i2a is a also a large slavic branch dont forget that...ukraine 20%, belarus 17%, every slavic nation has i2a... More or less and dont tell me that ukraine or belarus are illyrians to this high degree, you can read on i2a haplogroup on eupedia.com that i2a also came with slavic invasion.
Click to expand...

Thracians were I2a/R1a carriers. Dacians too. Language of Thracians (and Dacians) was Balto Slavic. Thracians/Dacians, Slavs, Baltic people, and a lot of other peoples (in history) etc. are linked, linguistical and genetic (although percents I2a towards north decline).

Thracians first came to the Balkans, then Greeks. Illyrians came after.

Theory is that Illyrians were I2a/R1a carriers too. If it is true Albanian theory about Illyirian origin is false, because Geg Albanians have the smallest percent I2a in the Balkans and beyond. For example in Cyprus and some parts of Turkey there are much more I2a than in Geg Albanians.
 
A really weird difference between Romanians,Serbians,Bosnians on one side and Montenegrins,Albanians on the other side,is the larger presence of R1A in Romanians and Serbians and Bosnians (in Moldovians is reaching 20% or even more,if you take Moldovans from Bessarabia).
What is most weird is that Montenegro got lowest percentage of R1A1,according to the data from the table from this site.
I do not know how this is explained,since I suppose both Thraco-Dacians and Ilyrians,besides Slavs,were R1A carriers,between other HGs.
 
Garrick said:
Thracians were I2a/R1a carriers. Dacians too. Language of Thracians (and Dacians) was Balto Slavic. Thracians/Dacians, Slavs, Baltic people, and a lot of other peoples (in history) etc. are linked, linguistical and genetic (although percents I2a towards north decline).

Thracians first came to the Balkans, then Greeks. Illyrians came after.

Theory is that Illyrians were I2a/R1a carriers too. If it is true Albanian theory about Illyirian origin is false, because Geg Albanians have the smallest percent I2a in the Balkans and beyond. For example in Cyprus and some parts of Turkey there are much more I2a than in Geg Albanians.
Click to expand...

DNA found in Thracian skeletons in SE Romania showed more similarities with modern Albanians than Romanians or Bulgarians.

Mysa dialect (which included Dardania) shows sound changes exactly the same as in Albanian. For example e > je, Thracian Bessi, Mysan Bjessi, same as PIE *e to je in Albanian. It merged PIE long *e and *a into long a, which later gave o, exactly like in Albanian, and in no other IE language attested. Long IE u gave oi and later y and i depending in the position, exactly like in Albanian. Long IE o gave e exactly like in Albanian. IE *ew and *aw gave e and a, exactly the same as Albanian. These and others mean Mysan dialect as attested in inscriptions was what's dubbed today as Proto-Albanian. It shows some intermediary states which explain a lot of changes from PIE to modern Albanian.

Illyrians were mixed people, they did not speak the same language, there were several different cultures in the region based on their pottery. They saw themselves distinct in different regions. Illyrian is like saying Swiss, who are Italians, German, French, speakers if you apply to ancient world the concept of borders as known today, which is a big mistake. The concept of borders is pretty new.

So which "Illyrians" are you talking about? I think you're talking about the Iapodes and Liburnians where what you said makes sense to me. It's not good to group all Illyrians in one, they did not see themselves as one.
 
have we writings or external testimony about what Illyriansthought about themselves ??? I would be very pleased to have someones...
that said, the "illyrian" question is a question of abuse done by old scholars concerning archeologic cultural traces spred on a large scale and geographic localization based on imperial roman borders, I suppose
 
mihaitzateo said:
Dacians were described as mostly light haired with blue eyes and very tall.
Romanians are not very tall,as Serbians,Montenegrins,Bosnians and Albanian highlanders are (no idea about Croats).
Supposing that Thracians were quite closed to Dacians,or almost same people they were also mountain people,which is true for Serbians,Montenegrins,Bosnians and Albanian highlanders,all being mountain people.
(Thracians and Dacians were also mountain people).
I do not know about Ilyrians,but they are said to be closed to Thracians,so I think most closed people to old Ilyrians and Thracians are Montenegrins,Serbians,Bosnians and Albanian highlanders.
Sure they mixed with colonists Roman Empire brought,which were most likely italo-galic people.
And depending on the nation,they are mixed with Slavs,more pronounced,or less,as it is the case with Albanians,that are not that mixed with Slavs,as Serbians,Bosnians and Montenegrins are.
Click to expand...

1- the I-Eanstribes, almost in every place they colonized in central or westernEurope, seem having been absorbed or at least well crossed after sometime, except, perhaps, in North – the descriptions of Ancients arevery often stereotypes copied by one on another even if they canoppose some populations to others – sometimes they corresponded tosome reality but restricted to an noble elite -

2- even if I suppose at some time theY-DNA was statistically linked to a phenotype, as did too mt DNA, Ithink it is very hard to devine the global types associated to HG'sin far past – when we see the discrepancy between currentdomination of some Y-HGs opposed to the far more inextricableadmixtures in phenotypes in the same regions...
here I answer someone maybe: northpeople is not synonymus to 'nordid' or 'nordic' type which is a welldefined phenotype (a lot of parameters) that does not cover allthe blond types you can find in Europe or elsewhere– were all Y-I bearers tall and blond, or only tall, or onlyblond?: we have no proof for now: the old hunters-gatherers were notblond all of them as it seems (dark as a majority), and Y-Irepresents A father ligneage only- and the 'nordic' type means (truephenotype or not) are not convincingly 'cromagnoid' nor 'brünnoid'nor 'borreby'like: i'm tempted to see their cradle in eastern Europe,in the north Steppes where depigmentation mutation could have gainedsome weight upon a type derived from a first far 'eurafrican' typestayed in these lands far enough to acquire some typical nuances,maybe with some 'brünnoid' slight admixture – all the way, alreadyneolithicized for some time -
3- Romanians, according to the date Ihave, were far to be dwarves; they were as a whole smaller thanwestern Balkans-Dinaric Alps people, but were on the high side of themeans for stature – by the way, Croatians as a whole are slightlytaller than the Slovenes but shorter than the Bosnians, Montenegropeople and the Serbians and even the «slavic» Macedonians – andRomania is not level: some regions were of middle stature, someonesover middle stature, as Croatians, and even in far North, nearGalicia/Volhynia, they were as high as Serbians if not as tall asBosnians and Montenegro people (the highest people in Europe withsome Scandinavians) -
4- according to what we know concerningcentral Europe at iron times, the newcomers were almost all of themof high stature and dolicho-mesocephalic, but it is hard to assignthem an ethnic name everytime -
a bet: the Y-I people could have beenat first more on the 'brünn' and later 'brünnoid-like borreby'types before more crossings, whatever the pigmentation* – I shouldbe possible that Y-I males progressed from West to East at Mesolithicand the more partlygracile 'nordic' type (ifI'm right) came on theopposite side, after, linked to I-Ean or I-Europeanized tribes whatis not to say ALL the I-Eans were of this type (we know it is anexageration) -
*the depigmentation seems linked tovitamin D synthesis skill, and the hunters-gatherers of westernEurope were rather fish eaters than flesh eaters, at least in a lotof place, what diminished the natural selection pressure on them –fish fat is a good provider of vitamin D, I think – but milk is nottoo good, so does not erase the need of sun exposure +depigmentation (a study upon African breeders would be interestinghere - by the way a survey about Britain-Ireland shows the bronze agepeople ate far more often flesh:meat than the hunter-gatherers! -
5 define type of Illyrians is till a bet
 
MOESAN said:
have we writings or external testimony about what Illyriansthought about themselves ??? I would be very pleased to have someones...
that said, the "illyrian" question is a question of abuse done by old scholars concerning archeologic cultural traces spred on a large scale and geographic localization based on imperial roman borders, I suppose
Click to expand...

They were different cultures inhabiting one region which in Roman times became known as Illyricum. The Northern parts seemed to have been Celtic and identified with the Celts, so we do have a segregation here. Not to mention, the numerous, Greek, Dacian and other colonies prior to Roman Empire. Putting them as the same group of people allows jumping into conclusions which might not be right. Kind like Thracians and Dacians separated with -dava/-para placenames for Illyrians ther were -ona/-menos/-tae/-dunum etc. (there were a lot more I'm keeping it short). There were at least five groups 1)"Propi Dictii", (the Southern-most ones) 2)Delmetae 3)Liburni (Veneti) 4)Japodes 5)Pannonians that streched mostly in this area. As I mentioned there were others too.
 
Zemra said:
They were different cultures inhabiting one region which in Roman times became known as Illyricum. The Northern parts seemed to have been Celtic and identified with the Celts, so we do have a segregation here. Not to mention, the numerous, Greek, Dacian and other colonies prior to Roman Empire. Putting them as the same group of people allows jumping into conclusions which might not be right. Kind like Thracians and Dacians separated with -dava/-para placenames for Illyrians ther were -ona/-menos/-tae/-dunum etc. (there were a lot more I'm keeping it short). There were at least five groups 1)"Propi Dictii", (the Southern-most ones) 2)Delmetae 3)Liburni (Veneti) 4)Japodes 5)Pannonians that streched mostly in this area. As I mentioned there were others too.
Click to expand...


Thanks for answer

so you have no ancient Illyrians description by the hand, fancied or authentic?
I agree with you concerning the «big mess» of tribes in this area at Iron Age -
Coon did a description of Illyrians that is simplified a bit but is not laughable at all, the question is still the ethnic assignation of the archeologic founds -
at Iron Age it would habe been a quarter of the sepultures of celtic settlements in SW Germany which countained a high statured very dolichocephalic type with flattened temporals, new there, very different from the celtic means of the time – Illyrians? Who knows? I think they did not provide a new celtic language and could illustrate the same phenomenon as the Franks some centuries later, but more quickly: they were assimilated in celtic culture, but provided new arms and war advantages, modifying social life? They could very well be a new wave from East, carrying a more «childish barbarbic» (nomadic inherited) cultural aspect among partly pacified and sedentary Celts?
 
MOESAN said:
Thanks for answer

so you have no ancient Illyrians description by the hand, fancied or authentic?
I agree with you concerning the «big mess» of tribes in this area at Iron Age -
Coon did a description of Illyrians that is simplified a bit but is not laughable at all, the question is still the ethnic assignation of the archeologic founds -
at Iron Age it would habe been a quarter of the sepultures of celtic settlements in SW Germany which countained a high statured very dolichocephalic type with flattened temporals, new there, very different from the celtic means of the time – Illyrians? Who knows? I think they did not provide a new celtic language and could illustrate the same phenomenon as the Franks some centuries later, but more quickly: they were assimilated in celtic culture, but provided new arms and war advantages, modifying social life? They could very well be a new wave from East, carrying a more «childish barbarbic» (nomadic inherited) cultural aspect among partly pacified and sedentary Celts?
Click to expand...

I posted this before on their appearance http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/27879-Apperance-of-the-illyrians?p=403704&viewfull=1#post403704 but you probably have read it before.
 
Zemra said:
They were different cultures inhabiting one region which in Roman times became known as Illyricum. The Northern parts seemed to have been Celtic and identified with the Celts, so we do have a segregation here. Not to mention, the numerous, Greek, Dacian and other colonies prior to Roman Empire. Putting them as the same group of people allows jumping into conclusions which might not be right. Kind like Thracians and Dacians separated with -dava/-para placenames for Illyrians ther were -ona/-menos/-tae/-dunum etc. (there were a lot more I'm keeping it short). There were at least five groups 1)"Propi Dictii", (the Southern-most ones) 2)Delmetae 3)Liburni (Veneti) 4)Japodes 5)Pannonians that streched mostly in this area. As I mentioned there were others too.
Click to expand...

I agree
But we need to go back to the late bronze-age for the area known as "Propi Dictii".....the area takes on modern Montenegro and northern Albania. The oldest people known in this area plus the rest of albania and Epirus where the Doric people. These Dorians invaded modern Greece around 1000BC.

After some time, these lands of Montenegro, Albania and Epirus where filled with other migrating tribes

Propi Dictii in Roman times was a term used to say..........we need to find the truth of these people as we do not know who we they are
 
Sile said:
I agree
But we need to go back to the late bronze-age for the area known as "Propi Dictii".....the area takes on modern Montenegro and northern Albania. The oldest people known in this area plus the rest of albania and Epirus where the Doric people. These Dorians invaded modern Greece around 1000BC.

After some time, these lands of Montenegro, Albania and Epirus where filled with other migrating tribes

Propi Dictii in Roman times was a term used to say..........we need to find the truth of these people as we do not know who we they are
Click to expand...
Something like Sovjan culture? This site is in French http://www.sovjan-archeologie.net/ Eupedia has a map http://www.eupedia.com/europe/neolithic_europe_map.shtml for Early to Middle Bronze age cultures (Sovjan is part of Bubanj-Hum-Maliq). There were found some tumulus burials, but I'm not aware of DNA tests conducted.

This paper on the other hand is in English http://www.chronikajournal.com/resources/Ruzi.pdf but still says nothing about remains, which doesn't answer OP's question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 14031 times.

Back
Top