Looking at European genes : Paleolithic vs Neolithic

In my opinion, Albanian is most probably descended from Dacian, but it received input from other languages (including Latin, to a considerable degree), ancient Greek, and probably Paleo-Balkan languages other than Dacian.

regarding Dacian - quite a number of Dacian words are very close to modern Lithuanian, too. The connections however aren't easy to explain.
 
I know that. Everywhere in Central and Northern Asia blond hair and blue eyes were brought by Indo-European speakers from the Pontic-Caspian steppes (including the Tocharians). This is actually one of the strongest argument in favour of the Pontic-Caspian stepped homeland for the Indo-Europeans (as opposed to Anatolia or the Caucasus where blond hair and blue eyes are rare).
Maybe proto Indo-European were not as light as the native European population.
Maybe Indo-European became lighter, like Jews from Israel after they observerd natve EU population.

Turks in Anatolia changed their appearance too after they came to Turkey. Jews changed their appearance when the came to Europe. So it is possible that the Indo-Europeans changed their appearance after they appeared in Europe!
 
The Minoan language was spoken in Crete not in the Balkans. As for Albanian I really don't know. Do you think they are Pelasgians (pre-Indo-Europeans)?

well the minoan language was not only spoken in Crete,
but also in Palaistine south west minor asia, Egypt Syria etc,
the minoans are connected with Cyclades civilization Thera civilization,
the myth of theseus and story of Thoukidides tell us about almost same language and people with Athens Before IE,
until times of Kodros Athens was considered Pelasgian
By Pelasgian we speak about a non IE language more towards to Ugarit
the lingustic relics from Pelasgian that pass to Homer and Hesiodos give same with Etruscan and Hebrew or Palaistinian,
it looks like Pelasgians are not connecetd with Hettits but with Hattians,
the Pelasgian that remain in Albanian language are many,
remember that Pelasgians reach North of Elimians to lake Lychnitis (Ochrid) as we are told By Makedonians,

Now about Y-Dna in tombs in Italy they found G which is enough in Greek Thessaly and Makedonia around Olymp

Besides in my last visit to a friend we finally realize what Ematheia Means
Mat in Hattians and many modern languages in middle east means Area, Land
Theia is the Vrugian Tios Greek Dios
So Ematheia means holy land, Land of Gods, and Not after king Emathos, or Sandy,

Now about Vrygians
IN IE Greek god is Dios Di+ieus ->Zeus
in Vrygian the god was Tios,
But in Vrygian God's name Bakchos
Bakchos is simmilar Greek spelling and Greek isotones, but the root of word is Thracian,
Today exist in South Slavic as BOG Bakch->Bokch->Bog

Now about Albanians, many times I connect them with History of tribe Albocense in Moesia,
That means Daci
The case of Daci being Thracians, or South Slavic being Thracian is still under debate,
Besides in Greek Thracian vocabulary exists many words that are found in South Slavic or Daci,
Many linguists also connect ancient Greek with Thracian and Armenian to the first family
that means Thracian is still a mystery language, or we do not know much,
for example the word χτισται (κτιστες-Builders) is Thracian but found only in Greek not in South Slavic or Daci, etc many words
Now about pelasgian since Archaiocapilos knows,
understand the Greek word for No is Ουκ compare it with Turkish yok,
the Greek word for Ocean is Ωκεα-νος compare with Etruscan Aqua -Ακουα οκεα->ακουα and compare it with Turkish sou su σου also compare with aqwa ans Aswan in Egypt
Οκεα Ακουα and k->s in Satemization σου
want more connection to understand Pelasgian
Greek healing Ιασω (γιασoo)
Semitic Yeshu (γιεσου)
Greek Γαληνη
Semitic Salem-Salom satemization of K->s
According Mayer's analysis of Albanian Language, we find many elements of that Language,
that means either imported by Greeks to ancient Illyrians at Makedonian and after time, or By Pelasgians before Myceneans.
the Albanian that is spoken today first mention in 1040,
the analysis of Mayer gives Roman enough and mostly to Roman languages, but also gives IE, and many unknown that means that Albanian is language undiscovered, but surely is not pure, by pure I mean that is full of influences and mix,
for example if word Erevet etc in Albanian is from Daci that means Thracians spoke Semitic also.
But is that correct? I don't think so,
I mostly believe that in times of Slavic invasions and after, and at times of religion schisma and Maniakis times many Daci from tribe albocense moved to Illyria and mixed with ancient Illyrians creating a new culture and Nation,
Besides Albania has changed 3 cultures from 1000 Ad,
the Byzantine Maniakis culture,
the Serbs, Montenegrin and Normands culture (times before and after Anju)
the epic Kastrioti culture
the Vallavan passa culture and the ottoman's culture
to become the today Albania

Personally I believe that Albanian language is connected with Daci Thracian Language but with big Influence of Roman-Latin

Now about the Minoan language were it was spoken?
just think and read
Minoan ko+νo+σo = κνωσσος
Mycenean Μου +κο+νο = Μυκηναι
Doric λα+κο+νο = Λακωνια
remember the Greek word for pyramid is Κωνος, and for big village is Κωμη -Κωμοπολις
while the Hettit form and probably IE Greek is -is -issa -intha
example of mixed language Greek and Pelasgian
Λαρισσα Λα+ρεω+ισσα fortified by stones walls or miners
Λαυριο Λα+ρεω conflux of stones -> miners
Λαβυρινθος ΛΑ+ρεω +ινθα (-intha)

FOR YOUR INFORMATION
ATTIKH
Hattica <-> Hatussa

God Light in Hattians Iluyanka (lighting God) -> Latin Ilum

Etruscans either from Greek en+Turcis = in towers
either from Hatt-Rasians (they keep their tradition of Hatt- before their tribe rasena)


to understand more
Greek language is IE but has many Hattians non IE from the pre-Hettit or Driopes invasion

Just think that before Troyan war
Hettits IE attacked Arzawa (ephesus) Millawanda (Milletus) which was an ahhiyawa (achaians) city

Aegean civilizations


The Early Bronze Age (c. 3000–2200)

<script src="http://adserver.adtechus.com/addyn/3.0/5308.1/1371356/0/170/ADTECH;target=_blank;grp=256;key=false;kvqsegs=D;kvtopicid=6965;kvchannel=HISTORY;misc=1307821411399"></script> The transition from Neolithic to Bronze Age in the Aegean was marked by changes in pottery and other aspects of material culture. These changes may reflect the arrival in Crete and the Cyclades of new people from lands farther east bringing knowledge of metalworking with them. In Crete and the islands, the changes that inaugurated the Bronze Age were more or less contemporary with the beginning of dynastic times in Egypt. The Bronze Age in the Peloponnese appears to have begun later under the influence of settlers from the islands. The Bronze Age ...

just look

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked...Early-Bronze-Age-c-3000-2200?anchor=ref276446

the story according sesklo/dimini excavations is before 3000,

Greece was inhabited BY I people? and G and J came,
and much later R1b and R1a

Minoan language was spoken in Greece and Balkans,
to understand that,
search for Bottiaeans
According to Strabo, Bottiaeans were Cretan immigrants from Iapygia,[1] named so after their leader Βόττων, Botton,[2] in pre-Argead Macedonia (Emathia), most of which, as Strabo says, was held by Bottiaeans and Thracians

That means that Minoan was known in Makedonia and probably Ematheia could be Cretan(pelasgic)-Vrygian word

the first purely Greeks with today meaning (sonsof Γραικος)is not the Myceneans But The Thessalians.


http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked...36/Ancient-Aegean-and-Greece?anchor=ref599931


The Pelasgians after Thera volcano broke to many,
south Pelasgians (Minoans) manage to invade and colonise Egypt and Palestine and had the up hand uppon North Pelasgians (Athens) until Theseus

the invasion of IE Greeks is much later than Pelasgians

to understand

Theory No 1


The first widespread use of the term "Dorian invasion" appears to date to the 1830s. A popular alternative was the "Dorian migration." For example, in 1831 Thomas Keightly was using Dorian migration in Outline of History; by 1838 in The Mythology of Ancient Greece and Italy he was using Dorian invasion.
Neither of those two words exactly fit the return, as they imply an incursion from outside a society to within, but they do not clear where did the Dorians fit, if outside or inside the society. William Mitford's History of Greece (1784–1810)[4] described a "Dorian revolution" and Grote's first two volumes did not appear until 1846, although he was working on them since 1822.
In 1824 Karl Otfried Müller's Die Dorier was published.[5] The English translators used such terms as "the Doric invasion" and "the invasion of the Dorians" to translate Müller's "Die Einwanderung von den Doriern", (literally: "the migration of the Dorians") which was quite a different concept; presumably "invasion" was already current in English.
On one level the Einwanderung meant no more than the Heraklidenzug, the return of the Heracleidae. However, Müller was also applying the sense of Völkerwanderung to it, which was being used of the Germanic migrations. Müller's approach was philological. In trying to explain the distribution of tribes and dialects he hypothesized that the aboriginal or Pelasgian population was Hellenic. His famous first paragraph of the Introduction asserts:
The Dorians derived their origin [der Ursprung des dorischen Stammes] from those districts in which the Grecian nation bordered toward the north upon numerous and dissimilar races of barbarians. As to the tribes which dwelt beyond these borders we are indeed wholly destitute of information; nor is there the slightest trace of any memorial or tradition that the Greeks originally came from those quarters.
Müller goes on to propose that the original Pelasgian language was the common ancestor of Greek and Latin, that it evolved into Proto-Greek and was corrupted in Macedon and Thessaly by invasions of the Bryges


Theory No 2

Toward the end of the 19th century the philologist Paul Kretschmer made a strong case that Pelasgian was a pre-Greek substrate, perhaps Anatolian,[6] taking up a classical theme of remnant populations existing in pockets among the Greek speakers, in mountainous and rural Arcadia and in inaccessible coasts of the far south. This view left Müller's proto-Greeks without a place to be, but Kretschmer did not return the Heracleidae or their Dorian allies from Macedon and Thessaly. Instead he removed the earliest Greeks to the trail leading from the plains of Asia, where he viewed the Proto-Indo-European language as having broken up about 2500 BC. Somewhere between Greece and there a new cradle of the Greek tribes developed, from which Proto-Ionians at about 2000 BC, Proto-Achaeans at about 1600 BC and Dorians at about 1200 BC exited to swoop down on an increasingly less aboriginal Greece as the three waves of external Greeks.[7]
Kretschmer was confident that if the unknown homeland of the Greeks was not then known, archaeology would find it. The handbooks of Greek history from then on spoke of Greeks entering Greece. As late as 1956 J.B. Bury's History of Greece (3rd edition) wrote of an "...invasion which brought the Greek language into Greece." Over that half-century Greek and Balkan archaeology united in an effort to locate the Dorians further north than Greece. The idea was combined with a view that the sea peoples were part of the same north-south migration at about 1200 BC.
The weakness in this theory[8] is that it requires an invaded Greece and its mirror image where Greek evolved and continued to evolve into dialects contemporaneously with the invaded Greece. However, although the invaded Greece was amply represented by evidence of all sorts, there was no evidence at all of its hidden mirror. Similarly, the sea peoples failed to show anywhere except in the sea for which the Egyptians named them. Retaining Müller's three waves and Kretschmer's Pelasgian pockets the scholars continued to search for the Dorians in other quarters. Müller's common ancestor of Greek and Latin had vanished by 1950, breaking that link, and by 1960 although given lip service still the concept of Greek developing outside of Greece had seen its best days


Τηεορυ Νο 3

Additional progress in the search for the Dorian invasion came about as a result of the decipherment of Linear B, an early form of Greek written in a syllabary. It became known as Mycenaean Greek. Comparing it with the later Greek dialects scholars could see that a development had taken place. For example, classical Greek anak-s, "king", came from a reconstructed *wanak- and a glance at Linear B turned up wa-na-ka.
Ernst Risch lost no time in proposing that there was never any more than one migration, which brought proto-Greek into Greece, and it dissimilated into dialects in Greece.[10] Meanwhile the linguists closest to the decipherment were having doubts about the classification of proto-Greek. John Chadwick summarizing in 1976 wrote:[11]
Let us therefore explore the alternative view. This hypothesis is that the Greek language did not exist before the twentieth century B.C., but was formed in Greece by the mixture of an indigenous population with invaders who spoke another language .... What this language was is a difficult question ... the exact stage reached in development at the time of the arrival is difficult to predict.
In another ten years the "alternative view" was becoming the standard one. JP Mallory wrote in 1989 concerning the various hypotheses of proto-Greek that had been put forward since the decipherment:[12]
Reconciliation of all these different theories seems out of the question ... the current state of our knowledge of the Greek dialects can accommodate Indo-Europeans entering Greece at any time between 2200 and 1600 BC to emerge later as Greek speakers.
By the end of the 20th century the concept of an invasion by external Greek speakers had ceased to be the mainsteam view, (although still asserted by a minority), thus Geoffrey Horrocks writes: [13]
Greek is now widely believed to be the product of contact between Indo-European immigrants and the speakers of the indigenous languages of the Balkan peninsula beginning c. 2,000 B.C.
Although the linguists had failed to return the Heracleidae, they had after a long Wanderung at last returned the Dorian invasion to Greece as an internal event.




choose what you like,


Simply words like

ARGOS is Pelasgian not IE and exist only in Greek and and in Latin-Etruscan
ΘΥΜΟΣ ισ Πελασγιαν while IE is μηνις etc. Θυμοετης βασιλευς Αθηνων

και εαν το θελεις ακομα πιο πολυ Λυκος Αλωπηξ (αλεπου) Lat Lupus.
 
Last edited:
Personally I believe that Albanian language is connected with Daci Thracian Language but with big Influence of Roman-Latin

I agree with nearly all you said except that Albanian "borrowed" latin words against its wishes. It was not an illyric language which was closer to italic-Latin as we see with north picene, messapic, venetic , lubarni in ancient times and also Dalmatian/Ragusan language from the dark ages to the 16th century. These languages where quickly latinized. You can even find this in the many illyrian emperors that Rome had.
 
Yes, by the looks and genetics also :)

For insntace, I was reading about branches of N1c1 - there is Finnish, South Baltic (Prussians, Lithuanians, Latvians), and other branches for Uralids, Northern Russians, etc.
http://dna-forums.org/index.php?/topic/11890-neuri-south-baltic-n1c1/

In the ancient times, the seperation of nordic, finnic, baltic peoples was the h16 marker.
While they where all I1b , the nordic/danes did not have the H16. This applies to the eastern alpine areas as well, but the dinaric areas do have the H16.
 
I agree with nearly all you said except that Albanian "borrowed" latin words against its wishes. It was not an illyric language which was closer to italic-Latin as we see with north picene, messapic, venetic , lubarni in ancient times and also Dalmatian/Ragusan language from the dark ages to the 16th century. These languages where quickly latinized. You can even find this in the many illyrian emperors that Rome had.

hmm that means that ancient Illyric were more Pelasgian (pre-latin -> towards etruscan) before they adopted Messapic? or more IE -> Celtic or Thracian(Vrygian)?

cause Messapic are considered the language of Illyria in times after 4th BC
 
Haganus

You forget Southern Europe too. Real blue eyes are not rare in Iberia, and you can also find them in Italy or Greece at lower frequencies, sure.
 
Correction

I had a linguistic debate on this a year ago , so if linguistics means anthing, well!

Finnic is not mongolid, but ugric ( from the urals) is

Ugric is also from hunnic invasion of europe.

so in true "modern" terms , finnic is finland areas and ugric is hungarian ( magyar)

now the point is , is finno-ugric only a term for the mixing of finnic people with the people from the urals. This is the problem. Modern people love to mix ...... italo-franco, anglo-saxon, finno-baltic, thraco-bulgarian etc etc

Not correct.

Finno-ugric is a language group comprising finnic subgroup and ugric subgroup.

Finno-Ugric group is sometimes called uralic languages which is similar notion to indo-european language group denoting possible location instead of reference to certain languages such as Finnish (finno) and Hungarian (ugric).
 
I have been wondering about this chart -
NE_Europe.png

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/dpwes/NE_Europe.png

All Europeans make up one diagonal from South Italians at one end to Latvians on the other end, while the Finnish move to different direction. They are also followed to some extent by Swedes and Estonians. This "other" direction could be easily explained by mongoloid influx, only then Lithuanians and Latvians should be placed somewhere on that "other" direction, too because they have a lot of N1c1. Besides, why would Latvians rather than Lithuanian be set at the far end of the diagonal, this is somewhat contradicts Y-haplogroup make up as Lithuanians have more of N1c1 and Latvians more of R1b.

The chart is made with a mathematical method called principal component analysis. It finds the two greatest differences shown as the charts axis. Removing populations and entering new ones will alter the chart. It is typical that populations at remote areas will show greatest distances from others. Explanations include less mixture with other populations due to conqer, population movement, bottle necks in small populations.

A way to look the chart above is to consider that Southern populations are closer to African and Near Eastern populations than Northern populations. That would propably show clearly if African and Near Eastern populations would be included in the study.
 
Maybe proto Indo-European were not as light as the native European population.
Maybe Indo-European became lighter, like Jews from Israel after they observerd natve EU population.

Turks in Anatolia changed their appearance too after they came to Turkey. Jews changed their appearance when the came to Europe. So it is possible that the Indo-Europeans changed their appearance after they appeared in Europe!

A map showing percentage of light hear:
Frost-2.jpg


and another one showing percentage of light eyes:
Frost-2.jpg
 
The chart is made with a mathematical method called principal component analysis. It finds the two greatest differences shown as the charts axis. Removing populations and entering new ones will alter the chart. It is typical that populations at remote areas will show greatest distances from others. Explanations include less mixture with other populations due to conqer, population movement, bottle necks in small populations.

A way to look the chart above is to consider that Southern populations are closer to African and Near Eastern populations than Northern populations. That would propably show clearly if African and Near Eastern populations would be included in the study.

Is there a meaning if peoples from South Italians to Latvians appear on one diagonal, whereas Finns (and to some extent Swedes and Estonians) spread to the another direction?

Visually it seams that those who are on the same diagonal are somehow more related, or that is wrong and it is only the distances that matter?
 
Is there a meaning if peoples from South Italians to Latvians appear on one diagonal, whereas Finns (and to some extent Swedes and Estonians) spread to the another direction?

Visually it seams that those who are on the same diagonal are somehow more related, or that is wrong and it is only the distances that matter?

The chart shows two principal components. One is shown on vertical axis and the other one on horizontal axis.

On horizontal axis Finns are next right to Latvians, Estonians and Lithuanians.

On vertical axis Finns are next above to Italians and Swedes.

The chart includes Kuusamo population, which is only few thousand people. They are, however, compared to populations of tens of millions obviously with the same number of samples. Remove Kuusamo population and the chart will change a bit. Or add a remote population from France, such as Corsica, or from Italy, such as Sardinia, and the chart will change again.
 
A strange thing! Never I heart that there are in Mongolia people with fair
hair and light eyes.

Actually according to some historians (such as the Persian historian Rashid-al-Din) Genghis Khan himself had a red beard and green eyes.
 
Here is a correct map showing percentage of light hear:


Frost-1.gif
No surveys from Italy show such high blondism for south-east Italy (Puglia) though north-east Italy is correctly shown as relatively light.
 
The exceptionally fast replacement of all paternal lineages by R1a and R1b lineages in Europe, Central Asia and South Asia, is probably due to several factors (heavy losses in battles among males in conquered populations, polygamy among Indo-European rulers, higher genetic predisposition of haplogroup R to conceive boys, etc.).

Don't forget epidemics... We don't really know how you can crush a population so fast.
The only thing we have to compare the IE peopling, is the conquest of the Americas.
Also we don't have to rule out the role of religion in gaining the locals approval, mainly women. The appearence of organized, military effective, and cattle owner and producer. You know, being able to get goods.
 
Don't forget epidemics... We don't really know how you can crush a population so fast.
The only thing we have to compare the IE peopling, is the conquest of the Americas.
Also we don't have to rule out the role of religion in gaining the locals approval, mainly women. The appearence of organized, military effective, and cattle owner and producer. You know, being able to get goods.

Of course, I thought about epidemics too. But there are two elements that argue against that:

1) Contrarily to the arrival of the Europeans in the Americas, there was no physical barrier between Eastern, Central and Western Europe. Germs would have travelled freely with people ever since the Palaeolithic. And Indo-European migrations advanced very slowly. Roughly 2000 years elapsed between the first Steppe incursions into the Balkans (4200 BCE) and the arrival of R1b Steppe people in Western Europe (2500-1800 CE). Epidemics are very fast and last only a few months or years.

2) Looking at paternal and maternal lineages it is clear that the Steppe replacement was disproportionately higher for paternal lineages (R1b replacing most Neolithic lineages). Maternal lineages were mostly preserved, with only 10-30% of new Steppe mtDNA arriving in Central and Western Europe, depending on the region.
 

This thread has been viewed 94369 times.

Back
Top