My proposed tree of Indo-European languages

All Insular Celts (R1b-L21) spoke Q-Celtic languages originally, and P-Celtic probably started replacing Q-Celtic in Britain when the Hallstatt migrants arrived c. 500 BCE, followed by Belgic tribes in the first century BCE. As you explained it yourself, Q-Celtic speakers could easily have adopted the new Gaulish dialect and turned it into Brythonic if the continental Celts enjoyed a higher cultural prestige. The same thing happened when Latin replaced (quite easily) Celtic languages in northern Italy, Gaul, Iberia and Britain owing to its higher prestige. This can happen quickly when languages are relatively close to one another (same family). That is also how Arabic came to replace other Semitic languages in the southern Middle East and North Africa (e.g. Coptic Egyptian and Berber).
According to your tree Italic is a Celtic language? So maybe people viewed it as adopting a new dialect, merely a matter of convenience when dealing with traders.

Rather than viewing continental Celtic as a single language, it should probably be viewed as a language family, as without a nation state it would have fragmented into a thousand different dialects.
 
The Tocharian branch is in all likelihood descended from the Afanasievo culture (3300-2500 BCE), a Steppe culture in the Altai region that is contemporary to Yamna (3500-2500 BCE), but started a few centuries later.

But the tarim mummie's were found to be R1a, weren't they? As well as being closer to andronovo than either yamnaya or afanasievo, according to Allentoft 2015 that is.

You don't think the tarim mummies were the speakers of tocharian maybe? There's almost 2000 years between the cherchen man and other mummies, and the tocharian manuscripts. Or is there something I'm missing? :)
 
There only seems to be one cluster of I2a1b-Din at present that predated the majority of South Slavic I2a1b-Din. In the case of this cluster, a Goth or Bastarnae could explain it. However this cluster so far is rare, and only present in Greeks and Jews with TMRCA of 2200ypb. Most I2a1b-Din in the Balkans is very young. If I am not mistaken they belong to clades 1500ypb. Majority of Serbian and Bosnian I2a1b-Din seems to stem from PH908. Specifically further downstream clades with a TMRCA of 900-1100ypb. Very young. Based on the current data, I am willing to bet this theoretical "Greek" Cluster of I2-Din is the one that arrived before Slavs. For all we know, Albanian I2-Din could belong to a similar cluster, as I read somewhere Jews had a significant presence in the south at one time.

i2greek.png
The I2a1b-Din Albanians that have tested so far are I2a-Din-south iirc and not from this clade, I saw that Dinaric-South belongs to the PH908 cluster
 
The I2a1b-Din Albanians that have tested so far are I2a-Din-south iirc and not from this clade, I saw that Dinaric-South belongs to the PH908 cluster

Ok I see. Do the Albanian samples on Bloodlines all belong to PH908? Or are some of them low resolution?

I was initially predicted YP515 until I got tested, which is a completely different clade.

Are all the I2-Din Albanians higher resolution?
 
Ok I see. Do the Albanian samples on Bloodlines all belong to PH908? Or are some of them low resolution?

I was initially predicted YP515 until I got tested, which is a completely different clade.

Are all the I2-Din Albanians higher resolution?
I don't think so. Many of them (I've seen two cases) that are simply I-M423 having Sardinian matches but of course here they are counted as Slavic DNA because you know, "it makes more sense" since one of them is from Montenegro.

Your case was the same and your R1a was counted as Slavic so who knows how many like you there are out there but Maciamo confidently claims that 21% of the Y-DNA of Albanians is Slavic when the majority of regions have less than 5% R1a and I2a (no matter the subclade).

I think the best we can do is rely on individual tests rather than previous studies from Tirana.
 
I don't think so. Many of them (I've seen two cases) that are simply I-M423 having Sardinian matches but of course here they are counted as Slavic DNA because you know, "it makes more sense" since one of them is from Montenegro.

Your case was the same and your R1a was counted as Slavic so who knows how many like you there are out there but Maciamo confidently claims that 21% of the Y-DNA of Albanians is Slavic when the majority of regions have less than 5% R1a and I2a (no matter the subclade).

I think the best we can do is rely on individual tests rather than previous studies from Tirana.

Alot of conjecture sadly goes into this stuff. There literally no ancient YDNA for M458 yet(early middle ages or iron age). It is mostly Slavic I am sure. Maybe in my case too. Serious scientists however are not historians. Nor do they make strong claims without evidence. One sample even isnt conclusive. I question that given the scarce data for my cluster. Could have been a Germanized Proto-Slav. Or even a Avarized/Bulgarized-Slav(Avar elite in Poland that were recently discovered came close to poles genetically).

But as you say, its easier to pass basic generalizations than to look at each case with care.

I was predicted YP515 which is not at all what ended up being the case. They were right about predicting the Albanian founder effect. Just didn't know where under M458 exactly. The irony is my basal clade has not even been found in any Slavs yet(they are further downstream in the B Western Cluster). Even my founder effect only has an Albanian(whose been on the border near my place of origin for over 400 years). Verbjan to be exact. His ancestors moved their from Luma supposedly 4-500 years ago.

Varangians could be possible to. After all people forget, they were turned into a sort of recruitment corps. Men from the British Isles, up to Russia and the Balts enlisted. Only the early Varangians Guard were entirely of Scandinavian stock. Theres so many scenarios that are ignored because its popular to paint things with a broad brush.

I agree my line is Proto-Slavic in the "Meta" sense. It makes the most sense given the data. However many Proto-Slavs were assimilated by East Germanic tribes. So theres no certainty my clades ancestor actually spoke Slavic when he arrived in the Balkans, despite his line(Or even arrived with the Sclavenoi). It is conjecture on all sides(myself included). But my hypothesis actually has some weight to it given theres no South Slavs in my branch and that most M458 in south Slavs is overwhelmingly B-Eastern(YP417 and subclades) and YP515. M458 for instance only reaches 4 percent in Serbia lol. If a South Slav pops up upstream my clade it would be a probability that it arrived with Slavs and joined Albanian clans. Even my STR and SNP matches are closer to German/Norwegian/Finnish/ and one Sardinian sample, than they are to South Slavs. Only 2 Bulgarians and 1 Croatian show up in my SNP matchs. My closest SNP match is the Sardinian.

Could have been due to Vandals in his case, or a Albanian or Greek that came with Byzantines from the mainland etc.

B-Western makes up only 20 percent of Bulgarian M458 which has a 60/40 ratio of M458/Z280. Couple that with the rest of the haplogroups, my cluster is not that high in their country. But, as far as Balkans goes, my cluster is most dominant in Bulgaria/Romania/Macedonia/Greece. Me and my match seem to be the first Albanian cases with our founder clade so far TMRCA 800AD. The last 8 novels are being tested so that could be refined up or down. Initially Trojet predicted the range is likely between 1000-1600ypb for the founder effect.

Also as you say, Albanians are very under-tested. L1029 was only discovered in 2012. Thus far my cluster is most Diverse and common in Germany and Poland. Take Sweden which has negligible amounts of L1029. They belong entirely to B-Western and have more diversity in the little they have than the Balkans does. Unless theres other data to the contrary. But this is the most up to date info: http://blog.vayda.pl/en/haplogroup-r1a-statistic-02-2018-14-new/
 
Last edited:
Ok I see. Do the Albanian samples on Bloodlines all belong to PH908? Or are some of them low resolution?

I was initially predicted YP515 until I got tested, which is a completely different clade.

Are all the I2-Din Albanians higher resolution?
I just checked, I think some are under PH098/Dinaric-South going by the STRs although the others are under some clade of Y3120 which is common among South Slavs and the father clade of PH098 and other clades. Trojet would know better than me though if all are PH098 or just some. Going by what I can see some are PH098 although all are under Y3120
 
I just checked, I think some are under PH098/Dinaric-South going by the STRs although the others are under some clade of Y3120 which is common among South Slavs and the father clade of PH098 and other clades. Trojet would know better than me though if all are PH098 or just some. Going by what I can see some are PH098 although all are under Y3120


Ok thanks for clarification. The way I understand it. If a clade is predicted wrong its usually still close to the actual assignment. So YP515 is next to L1029, so even though it was wrong it was close on the tree to be somewhere in the right direction. So I imagine if they are predicted PH908, even if incorrect, they should still test positive for S17250 or another clade under it. Which would rule out A2512 in this case. But, of course, Albanians still remain under-tested.
 
Greek would have started as Mycenaean Greek...It supposedly evolved to Doric Greek after the mysterious Dorians moved in after 1200 BCE. I believe that the Dorians could have been related to Hallstatt Celts as they came from the North and their name sounds very Celtic (Dorian is a Gaulish given name that still survives in French to this day). If the had come straight from the Steppe like the Mycenaeans, Doric Greek would be a satem language.

Basically everything in this part is wrong from start to finish. You should read something on the Greek dialects and their interrelation.
 
But the tarim mummie's were found to be R1a, weren't they? As well as being closer to andronovo than either yamnaya or afanasievo, according to Allentoft 2015 that is.

You don't think the tarim mummies were the speakers of tocharian maybe? There's almost 2000 years between the cherchen man and other mummies, and the tocharian manuscripts. Or is there something I'm missing? :)

There are many Tarim mummies from different periods. The ones that were tested date from the Scythian period and were R1a. Modern Uyghurs have both R1b-L23 and R1a-Z93, and yet the Scythians hardly had any R1b (at least not as much proportionally as the Uyghurs), so it's likely that another, earlier migration brought R1b to the Tarim basin.
 
But the tarim mummie's were found to be R1a, weren't they? As well as being closer to andronovo than either yamnaya or afanasievo, according to Allentoft 2015 that is.

You don't think the tarim mummies were the speakers of tocharian maybe? There's almost 2000 years between the cherchen man and other mummies, and the tocharian manuscripts. Or is there something I'm missing? :)

it would be interesting to know what branch of R1a :
CWC R1a-M417, or Sintashta R1a-Z93 or the older Lake Bajkal & Combed Ware R1a-YP1272 ?
 
Albanians have mixed South Slavic ancestry, of course, as it is the South Slavs that spread over all the Balkans.

Albanian is one variant of Thracian, Albanian language is Satem and this fact nothing to do with South Slavs, it was from the beginning Satem.

Proto-Thracian people (R1b-Z2103 carriers among others) were speakers of Satem language.

Someone should not compare Albanian with Greek, which is Centum, they had different paths.

You know some linguists using computational methods classified Albanian as Indo Iranian and it is not incidentally.

Fact that Balto-Slavic languages have similarities with Albanian has a much older background than contacts in newer history between South Slavs and Albanians, Balto-Slavic have similarity with Thracian too, and both Albanian and Balto-Slavic are Satem as Thracian and Iranian (plus Phyrgian and Armenian are Satem too).
 
Albanian is one variant of Thracian, Albanian language is Satem and this fact nothing to do with South Slavs, it was from the beginning Satem.

Proto-Thracian people (R1b-Z2103 carriers among others) were speakers of Satem language.

Someone should not compare Albanian with Greek, which is Centum, they had different paths.

You know some linguists using computational methods classified Albanian as Indo Iranian and it is not incidentally.

Fact that Balto-Slavic languages have similarities with Albanian has a much older background than contacts in newer history between South Slavs and Albanians, Balto-Slavic have similarity with Thracian too, and both Albanian and Balto-Slavic are Satem as Thracian and Iranian (plus Phyrgian and Armenian are Satem too).
There isn't enough evidence for you to place Albanian as a Thracian language. Albanian is Satem but it shows characteristics of Centum languages and is believed to have been originally Centum by some. R1b-Z2103 has been found in Vucedol samples which would later participate in the Illyrian ethnogenesis, R1b-Z2103 could be connected to Satem speaking IE peoples. Albanian is far closer to Greek than it is to Indo-Iranian, I haven't seen linguists link Albanian to Indo-Iranian, I have only seen them link it to Germanic, Balto-Slavic and Greek. Albanian so far shows more similarity to Illyrian and DNA seems to back this up with the J2b2-L283 sample from Bronze Age Dalmatia.
 
Albanian is one variant of Thracian, Albanian language is Satem and this fact nothing to do with South Slavs, it was from the beginning Satem.

Proto-Thracian people (R1b-Z2103 carriers among others) were speakers of Satem language.

Someone should not compare Albanian with Greek, which is Centum, they had different paths.

You know some linguists using computational methods classified Albanian as Indo Iranian and it is not incidentally.

Fact that Balto-Slavic languages have similarities with Albanian has a much older background than contacts in newer history between South Slavs and Albanians, Balto-Slavic have similarity with Thracian too, and both Albanian and Balto-Slavic are Satem as Thracian and Iranian (plus Phyrgian and Armenian are Satem too).

Don't present your opinions as facts.

The 'satem' / 'centum' thing is based on features some modern languages have on one hand and the reconstructed pronunciation of ancient languages like Attic or Latin.
But the thing is that palatalization next to front vowels (e, i,) and the semivowel/glide (j) is common all over Europe.
At some point, linguists will understand that in Late PIE consonants were realized in different ways, depending on the vowel sound that followed.
 
There isn't enough evidence for you to place Albanian as a Thracian language. Albanian is Satem but it shows characteristics of Centum languages and is believed to have been originally Centum by some. R1b-Z2103 has been found in Vucedol samples which would later participate in the Illyrian ethnogenesis, R1b-Z2103 could be connected to Satem speaking IE peoples. Albanian is far closer to Greek than it is to Indo-Iranian, I haven't seen linguists link Albanian to Indo-Iranian, I have only seen them link it to Germanic, Balto-Slavic and Greek. Albanian so far shows more similarity to Illyrian and DNA seems to back this up with the J2b2-L283 sample from Bronze Age Dalmatia.
where is this Illyrian language .........please link it as I was told none has been found.
.
we do have illyrian personnel names from east-austria ( where illyrians originated from )
.

.
there are more pages if you like me to present
 
where is this Illyrian language .........please link it as I was told none has been found.
.
we do have illyrian personnel names from east-austria ( where illyrians originated from )
.
there are more pages if you like me to present

Check out the section on Illyrian in Katicic - Ancient Languages of the Balkans. He comments on the issue of Illyrian linguistic/dialectal variation too based on the anthroponymic evidence, from Pannonia to south Illyria. But yes, the linguistic evidence is generally slim indeed which is why you have to resort to this sort of method (and why so much debate exists about the specific ancient Balkan associations of Albanian).
 
Don't present your opinions as facts.

The 'satem' / 'centum' thing is based on features some modern languages have on one hand and the reconstructed pronunciation of ancient languages like Attic or Latin.
But the thing is that palatalization next to front vowels (e, i,) and the semivowel/glide (j) is common all over Europe.
At some point, linguists will understand that in Late PIE consonants were realized in different ways, depending on the vowel sound that followed.

I agree with you that it is wider theme and we can discuss.

But it is not my opinion, you can see which languages are Satem and Centum in literature, for example in book of author Colin Renfrew, "Archaeology and Language: Puzzle of Indo-European Origins", page 107:

The satem/centum subdivision

Western group (centum)

Germanic
Venetic
Illyrian
Celtic
Italic
Greek

Eastern group (satem)
Baltic
Slavic
Albanian
Thracian
Phrygian
Armenian
Iranian
Indian
 
Entirely agreed - it all seems fairly conclusive, except with the Anatolians, where it could really go either way (post or pre Steppe, that is).
too many things speak for pre Steppe imo. And there is absolutely no archeological or genetic trail for a Balkan solution. Anatolian lacks linguistic features typical for Steppe Indo Europeans. It has no Finno_Ugric borrowings.
 
Check out the section on Illyrian in Katicic - Ancient Languages of the Balkans. He comments on the issue of Illyrian linguistic/dialectal variation too based on the anthroponymic evidence, from Pannonia to south Illyria. But yes, the linguistic evidence is generally slim indeed which is why you have to resort to this sort of method (and why so much debate exists about the specific ancient Balkan associations of Albanian).
This 1976 analysis is too old and wrong
Read this from latest haplogroup report
.
Iapypians are messapians........they are now know as East-Balkan people ....thracians............so clearly thracians are not illyrians and neither are messapians
.
https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/handle/11375/22810
.
https://indo-european.eu/tag/iapygian/
.
Iron Age southern Italians likely descended from early to late Neolithic farmers from Anatolia and possibly as far East as the Caucasus, and from migrants arriving from eastern Europe around the late Neolithic/early Bronze Age. These findings support previous hypotheses that the ancestors of the Iapygians may have originated in the eastern Balkan region, or derive shared ancestry with a common source population from eastern Europe.
.
The Greek mythographers, as usual, derived the name from a hero, Iapyx, whom they represented as a son of Lycaon, a descent probably intended to indicate the Pelasgic origin of the Iapygians. (Anton. Liberal. 21; Plin. Nat. 3.11. s. 16.) For a further account of the national affinities of the different tribes in this part of Italy, as well as for a description of its physical geography, see the articles APULIA and CALABRIA.
.
so if albanians think they match messapian language , then they are not illyrian, but most likely thracian, Albania could have had thracians before others arrives ...............I mentioned this to Salento about 2 months ago.
.
To finalise, we have no illyrian script or language ...all we have is illyrian personnel names from Noricum ( east-austria)
 
This 1976 analysis is too old and wrong
Read this from latest haplogroup report
.
Iapypians are messapians........they are now know as East-Balkan people ....thracians............so clearly thracians are not illyrians and neither are messapians
.
https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/handle/11375/22810
.
https://indo-european.eu/tag/iapygian/
.
Iron Age southern Italians likely descended from early to late Neolithic farmers from Anatolia and possibly as far East as the Caucasus, and from migrants arriving from eastern Europe around the late Neolithic/early Bronze Age. These findings support previous hypotheses that the ancestors of the Iapygians may have originated in the eastern Balkan region, or derive shared ancestry with a common source population from eastern Europe.
.
The Greek mythographers, as usual, derived the name from a hero, Iapyx, whom they represented as a son of Lycaon, a descent probably intended to indicate the Pelasgic origin of the Iapygians. (Anton. Liberal. 21; Plin. Nat. 3.11. s. 16.) For a further account of the national affinities of the different tribes in this part of Italy, as well as for a description of its physical geography, see the articles APULIA and CALABRIA.
.
so if albanians think they match messapian language , then they are not illyrian, but most likely thracian, Albania could have had thracians before others arrives ...............I mentioned this to Salento about 2 months ago.
.
To finalise, we have no illyrian script or language ...all we have is illyrian personnel names from Noricum ( east-austria)

First of all, only some Iapygians are Messapians, as the latter was only one tribe among the group that formed the former.

Second, the study you mentioned has no connection to the Thracians. It shows that preLGM mtDNA haplogroups were replaced to a large extent by postLGM ones, mainly eastern farmers ones, and some from the Eurasian Steppe, maybe with some Armenian too. If you want a source of migration the paper mentions in different parts Central Europe, Anatolia, Armenia, Near East, Balkans, Greek Ionians, EEH, and many many more. You just selected the one that includes the Balkan reference, but most of the time the author talks about Central Europe, Near East and Armenia. It does not look like the mtDNA is the result of one migration.

Third, it has already been shown that the expansion of the eastern farmers was relatively balanced sex-wise while the indo-european expansion was very heavily male-dominated. You cannot distinguish between indo-european migrations based on mtDNA alone.
 

This thread has been viewed 99753 times.

Back
Top