Archetype0ne
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,777
- Reaction score
- 693
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Albanian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- L283>Y21878>Y197198
-
Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.
Where does the Albanian language come from? [VIDEO]
- Thread starter Johane Derite
- Start date
Johane Derite
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,959
- Reaction score
- 1,057
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Albanian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- E-V13>Z5018>FGC33625
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U1a1a
Oh look, another genius here now arguing pots not people
torzio
Well-known member
- Messages
- 4,205
- Reaction score
- 1,313
- Points
- 113
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- T - L131
You finally gave up your dream ...........
Johane Derite
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,959
- Reaction score
- 1,057
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Albanian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- E-V13>Z5018>FGC33625
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U1a1a
Note how he didn't even link the study. Johane highlighted this sentence **While some researchers equal the spread of the pottery style with the movement of people** and then cropped the page.
Here's the full quote:
While some researchers equal the spread of the pottery style with the movement of people (Leviţki 1994; Rusu 1963; Smirnova 1974), others prefer explanations which can be summarized under key words like cultural syncretism, acculturation, communication or the spread of a new ‘fashion’ (Hänsel 1976; Pare 1998; Vulpe 1995. As the first theory cannot account for the great number and the dimensions of the settlements which contained channelled pottery (one would have to imagine mass migration for this to have been the case), the second line of thought gains ground, although the details of the presumed culturally-induced changes have not yet been made clear.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...te_Bronze_Age_and_Early_Iron_Age_Transylvania
Once more Johane Derite/@Albanian History is caught manipulating sources and misusing their content in order to promote his agenda.
See, this is a perfect example of the disrespect and accusations that come from having a low reading comprehension (often a symptom of low IQ).
Apparantly, i was "manipulating sources" and "misusing their content".
Hey genius, this image and the highlights come from a post made last year:
https://twitter.com/AlbHistory/status/1397839079644008448
The post explicitly states:
"While the author below does not accept a mass migration as an explanatory model for the spread (preferring instead a "pots not people" scenario), a mass migration is something that should be reckoned with as having a strong likelihood of being accurate."
You trying to frame me as some dishonest manipulator is exactly why I will never respect you and your lowly group.
It is clear that mass migration is the more likely scenario for spread of channelled ware, the author doesn't even argue why there can't have been mass migration, it is clearly the obvious contender since it shows up with destruction horizons in many places, Troy being the most obvious one.
And in that post there was also this page with these highlights:
Johane Derite
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,959
- Reaction score
- 1,057
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Albanian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- E-V13>Z5018>FGC33625
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U1a1a
I sent the title page of the study, one google click away? Is this supposed to be me being "manipulative"? What next, am I supposed to come spoonfeed you your breakfast? Are you a baby? Do you need your diapers changed?
The only reason the "debate" with Bruzmi" continues is that he never accepts the data or facts, and always starts from scratch, because he doesn't accept the factsa nd rejects them again and again, to promote his ideas. To give some examples: He posted numerous times the same source from Bulgarian archaeologists about the diversity of Thracian cultures - but on the next page this same author confirmed how important the Channelled/Fluted Ware horizon in Bulgaria was, basically replacing anything which were there before! Its being used for relative chronology, to date finds, for god's sake! It was an epoch-and game changer in the region.
And if you quote archaeologists on "migrations": You should know that migrationism got discredited after WW2 for purely ideological reasons. Everything should be explained by "processual changes and communication", based on "socio-economic models" working on local people - even the transition to the Neolithic! They still try that crap when explaining the spread of R-L51 in Iberia with "social inequality". No "social inequality" would ever have produced that outcome, unless you mean that one party smashed the other party's males their heads with "social inequality". There is no fat guy sitting on top of a harem with 200 women which produced 2.000 children behind the spread of most haplogroups. Its clans taking territories from other clans and tribes. That's how things were always done. Albanians should know that better than other Europeans, because this is living memory, part of your history. You know very well that some clans got nearly annihilated and others spread. Not by some fat chieftain with 200 girls in his harem, but by one clan and tribe taking the resources, including females, from another.
Same here: We have a patter for E-V13, which can only be explained by a grande scale LBA-EIA expansion. No sitting around in the Balkans, while from left, right, up and down new tribes crash in. But an active role with a dominant cultural group. For such a phenomenon like the E-V13 growth, you need an explanation. It's not self-explanatory. Neither is the spread of J-L283, by the way. It had a similar story, which just started at the other end of the Balkans.
And Bruzmi goes on and on with false claims, like using "Pre-G?va period" samples which are clearly unrelated to G?va proper (inhumation burials in a flexed position!!!). Next he claims that cremation doesn't matter. Then he comes up with Illyrians everywhere. Every E-V13 needs to be "Illyrian" or "Roman". It's totally ridiculous.
I'm not claiming that E-V13 carriers were all part of one ethnicity in the Middle Iron Age. It would be ridiculous. They had mixed and moved into various other people and territories by that time. No doubt about that. We have the finds from Bosnia, Croatia, Austria, Italy etc., which can be connected to Channelled ware people and Thraco-Cimmerians, Basarabi. It's all there.
Illyrian J-L283 will have moved East, E-V13 West, that's no big deal.
I'm striclty speaking about the MBA-EIA if associating J-L283 and E-V13 so clearly with Illyrians and Thracians.
The same patterns usually have the same cause. If some archaeologists which even recognise the dramatic changes caused by Channelled Ware say, "oh no, it was no big migration", its just the same talk like we had it for decades for Corded Ware and Bell Beakers. And what did the data show? That the migrationists were all right, because people don't abandon their whole cultural package all at once, just like that. And even if people still settle in the same valley, probably even in the same village, they don't have to be the same people, if having a completely different set of artfacts and customs.
Rather, they might just have preferred to take the huts and women of those patrilinear clans which lived their before, instead of destroying and burning it down, unless they have to. Like the fortresses in the Morava valley, which were in their way, when the Channelled Ware people came down.
So this debate in circles is because of misleading informations being spread, primarily by one user.
Like you agreed when he posted something about G?va and Belegis II-G?va being unrelated. You applauded him, but this was totally wrong! In the very source he quoted, just one page later, even this author, which was extreme with his position of G?va and Belegis II-G?va being distinct, much more than most, even he had to say: Related, probably even genetically related.
But I could really feel how glad he was, that you applauded him for this falsely contextualised piece.
Just recently he came up with someone saying "Belegis II" being not related to G?va - he didn't even care to read on, because its a different terminology, only used by a group of Serbian authors, which created three stages for Belegis! In their scheme the G?va stage, decisive for the spread I have in mind, being simply "Belegis III". Practically nobody else does this, but this author.
I mean what is this? He obviously doesn't care, and picks up any quote which goes against the spread of Channelled Ware.
But that's like arguing "British Bell Beakers were so different, completely different people, completely unrelated to the Dutch Beakers..."
And it will be proven as wrong, because there is no way that such a complete package like it spread with Channelled Ware had no effect. There are random coincidences, and not every random pattern is for real. But in this case, it would be a hell of a coincidence on multiple levels.
As for the importance of the debate, two levels:
1) E-V13 getting a new role and position, can be clearly associated with prehistorical and historical events. Not being just a "random Balkan lineage" which expanded "somehow" (how!) in the Bronze Age. As if haplogroups "just expand". No, they don't. Haplogroups always spread with migrations and replacement events. By whole ethnic, social groups taking advantage or being better in avoiding damage.
2) Its the final nail to the coffin of the anti-migrationists: Not even the Balkan lineages, not a single one, just spread by chance, randomly, from nothing and for nothing. It followed all a princlple pattern, known from biology and history. Its random which lineage ends up in which group, but the mechanism of how they spread is always the same, its collective replacement, not the social role of individuals.
We could add a 3rd layer to the debate:
3) It will change how people have to research their deeper genealogical relationships and patterns. Because we now clearly see that we can indeed associate many lineages with specific prehistorical and historical events and people. And the very idea of all E-V13 spreading rapidly in the Roman era is just a fallacy. Every clade and subclade needs to be researched and followed up on its own, based on the context it was growing in.
No doubt about that. Even the ancient sources remind us on the Balkanic origin of some of these people. The Dardanians were just the neighbours:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bithyni
As for the deeper origin of G?va and E-V13: Look on this map and keep in mind Suciu de Sus and potentially also Wietenberg:
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-fd78f7957a273c511dbfc376a1679fb9-lq
These are key imho. All others are secondary. Note especially the area not covered by Otomani in the narrower sense. Suciu de Sus was between Otomani and Wietenberg, in many respects, and its more local derived and Southern influenced at the same time than F?zesabony-Otomani or the Carpathian Tumulus culture.
F?zesabony-Otomani was R1a dominated, because of the Kostany-Mierzanowice invasion-fusion with Hatvan-Nyirseg, but the Eastern Nyirseg groups might have persisted and led up to Suciu de Sus. This is particularly noteworthy, as some authors saw "old features" in the Suciu de Sus area, but couldn't explain its survival, interpreted is as "chance" even.
I think its clear that the locals retreated to higher ground when F?zesabony-Otomani invaded. They got strongly influenced and mixed, but stayed a group apart in the East. Same applies to the Tumulus culture invasion and the Carpathain TC/Egyek: Again, from Piliny -> Berkesz-Demecser -> Suciu de Sus, the TC influence decreases, the local, autochthonous element increases.
And we know by now, very clearly, that TC was dominated by R-L51 (primarily R-L2).
So the local element in Eastern Otomani, which gave rise to Suciu de Sus, probably present in Wietenberg too, that's debatable, in all likelihood was the base of E-V13.
More manipulation.
You posted a source which says nothing Gava migrations in Albania or Kosova. It's blatant misinformation.
Its author clearly says that Gava pottery even in the areas near the Carpathians or the Danube can't be explained via mass migrations. You even hid this information from the caption you posted and then you were forced to admit it and link to an old post on your twitter page where you explicitly that you are the one who claims that Gava migrations moved Gava pottery, not the author. This is besides the point, but it's one more instance of outright misinformation.
Johane Derite
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,959
- Reaction score
- 1,057
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Albanian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- E-V13>Z5018>FGC33625
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U1a1a
You truly are a genius. Lets see what you'll be saying in two years.
Presence in Iron Age as a result of transitional BA-IA migration and clearly being a minor component in other areas does not make it its expansion area. What you are not getting is that Albanians and others regardless of ethnicity, nationality who are carriers of E1b-V13 want to find out/ are interested in knowing where it expanded from in the Bronze Age. As far as the data, archeology and geography goes it obviously won't be the East Adriatic Illyrian territory, since we know there is both BA and IA J2b-L283 continuity, this case is closed.
Also, I don't really think that others are in the position to comment on which guy
you choose to hype up, if that is what makes you happy, each to their own.
Johane Derite
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,959
- Reaction score
- 1,057
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Albanian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- E-V13>Z5018>FGC33625
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U1a1a
Scholars like Vekony argue that the Gava / Channelled Ware people were the ancestors of the Dacians, Getians, and Mysians.
This culture also appears in North Albania & Kosova.
Here it is for everyone to see. I posted a map of channelled ware distribution in Albania and Kosova, and the comment reads:
"Scholars like Vekony argue that the Gava / Channelled Ware people were the ancestors of the Dacians, Getians, and Mysians.
This culture also appears in North Albania & Kosova."
It literally cannot be anymore straightforward.
Archetype0ne
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,777
- Reaction score
- 693
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Albanian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- L283>Y21878>Y197198
Interesting. Are you referring to this? Was not an applause, rather upvoted cause it was a fact I was not aware before I saw Brumzi share the source. So no idea how that can be held against me.
The archaeological reality:
My question is rather what is the core philosophical difference between Bela Crkva and Gava, aka the two competing hypotheses here?
What does that change at the heart of the matter. I am trying to wrap my head around this and tbh, I feel you guys have taken this way too personally, maybe a step back would help reassess things. Cause if one gets invested too much and later the facts don't line up, that can't be good for mental health. I try to keep some insulation between myself and my hypotheses, cause its not for granted the hypothesis will be right, and that is the whole point of an hypothesis to begin with.
Samples will, hopefully be coming much sooner than that. I wouldn't bother to even check this forum in 2 years. Maybe take your own advice and take it easy on the poorly hidden insults
Now, now. That’s disrespectful. Didn’t the Ottomans teach you some manners.
We might be just neighbours and nothing else but we can still show some basic respect.
Johane Derite
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,959
- Reaction score
- 1,057
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Albanian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- E-V13>Z5018>FGC33625
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U1a1a
Here is Bruzmi's theory about the Albanian language's origin:
"Rapid radiation of the inner Indo-European languages: an advanced approach to Indo-European lexicostatisticsAlexei S. Kassian, Mikhail Zhivlov, George Starostin, Artem A. Trofimov, Petr A. Kocharov, Anna Kuritsyna and Mikhail N. Saenko
From the journal Linguistics
Abstract
In this article we present a new reconstruction of Indo-European phylogeny based on 13 110-item basic wordlists for protolanguages of IE subgroups (Proto-Germanic, Proto-Slavic, etc.) or ancient languages of the corresponding subgroups (Hittite, Ancient Greek, etc.). We apply reasonably formal techniques of linguistic data collection and post-processing (onomasiological reconstruction, derivational drift elimination, homoplastic optimization) that have been recently proposed or specially developed for the present study. We use sequential phylogenetic workflow and obtain a consensus tree based on several algorithms (Bayesian inference, maximum parsimony, neighbor joining; without topological constraints applied). The resulting tree topology and datings are entirely compatible with established expert views. Our main finding is the multifurcation of the Inner IE clade into four branches ca. 3357–2162 bc: (1) Greek-Armenian, (2) Albanian, (3) Italic-Germanic-Celtic, (4) Balto-Slavic–Indo-Iranian. The proposed radiation scenario may be reconciled with diverse opinions on Inner IE branchings previously expressed by Indo-Europeanists.
Matzinger dates the specific Proto-Albanian language or "dialect" around 1000-800 BCE and Adam & Hyllested (2022) place Albanian and Messapic under an Illyric branch.
In my opinion, the "Albanian branch" was likely spoken in Late Vucedol Culture (Late EBA/pre-MBA) in northern Croatia. There are several cultures which emerged from Vucedol: Cetina along the Adriatic coast, Belotic-Bela Crkva inland and from these groups Glasinac-Mati. All western/west-central Balkan languages/dialects ultimately stem from the Vucedol complex. I think that these were dialects of a mutually intelligible language which gradually diverged like all dialects do.
One of them is "Proto-Albanian".
Matzinger dates it as a distinct language in the EIA.
In my opinion, E-V13 will be shown to have existed in Belotic-Bela Crkva derived IA Illyrian groups (including Dardanians) and Glasinac-Mati ones."
So more or less he seems to support that IA Illyrian groups had E-V13, i.e. they assimilated non-Illyrian speaking E-V13s sometime in the late bronze age.
Interesting how he references Matzinger and Shumacher's chronology of Albanian being distinct language for at least 3000 years but yet he ignores their position on relation to the Illyrian language (that it doesn't descend from it).
"Rapid radiation of the inner Indo-European languages: an advanced approach to Indo-European lexicostatisticsAlexei S. Kassian, Mikhail Zhivlov, George Starostin, Artem A. Trofimov, Petr A. Kocharov, Anna Kuritsyna and Mikhail N. Saenko
From the journal Linguistics
Abstract
In this article we present a new reconstruction of Indo-European phylogeny based on 13 110-item basic wordlists for protolanguages of IE subgroups (Proto-Germanic, Proto-Slavic, etc.) or ancient languages of the corresponding subgroups (Hittite, Ancient Greek, etc.). We apply reasonably formal techniques of linguistic data collection and post-processing (onomasiological reconstruction, derivational drift elimination, homoplastic optimization) that have been recently proposed or specially developed for the present study. We use sequential phylogenetic workflow and obtain a consensus tree based on several algorithms (Bayesian inference, maximum parsimony, neighbor joining; without topological constraints applied). The resulting tree topology and datings are entirely compatible with established expert views. Our main finding is the multifurcation of the Inner IE clade into four branches ca. 3357–2162 bc: (1) Greek-Armenian, (2) Albanian, (3) Italic-Germanic-Celtic, (4) Balto-Slavic–Indo-Iranian. The proposed radiation scenario may be reconciled with diverse opinions on Inner IE branchings previously expressed by Indo-Europeanists.
Matzinger dates the specific Proto-Albanian language or "dialect" around 1000-800 BCE and Adam & Hyllested (2022) place Albanian and Messapic under an Illyric branch.
In my opinion, the "Albanian branch" was likely spoken in Late Vucedol Culture (Late EBA/pre-MBA) in northern Croatia. There are several cultures which emerged from Vucedol: Cetina along the Adriatic coast, Belotic-Bela Crkva inland and from these groups Glasinac-Mati. All western/west-central Balkan languages/dialects ultimately stem from the Vucedol complex. I think that these were dialects of a mutually intelligible language which gradually diverged like all dialects do.
One of them is "Proto-Albanian".
Matzinger dates it as a distinct language in the EIA.
In my opinion, E-V13 will be shown to have existed in Belotic-Bela Crkva derived IA Illyrian groups (including Dardanians) and Glasinac-Mati ones."
So more or less he seems to support that IA Illyrian groups had E-V13, i.e. they assimilated non-Illyrian speaking E-V13s sometime in the late bronze age.
Interesting how he references Matzinger and Shumacher's chronology of Albanian being distinct language for at least 3000 years but yet he ignores their position on relation to the Illyrian language (that it doesn't descend from it).
Which kind of fact? On the next page of this paper, he clearly states that G?va and Belegis II-G?va being related and their deeper genetic relations go beyond the scope of his article. That's for an author like him, who wanted to stress the differences, as far as he could go in telling: They come from the same source, but are different development, provinces.
Like what you expect if a source group splits into separate tribes, of which the new Southern one has local influences and substrate effects. Like many known people had similar sort of differences, like when the East Germanic Goths split up into Western and Eastern Goths or the like. It's on that level.
And I don't blame you, because like you say, you simply had no idea and probably don't care that much, but Bruzmi, because he posted just this page, with the next saying something different, and giving you an upvote for stating that "G?va and Belegis II-G?va are unrelated, interesting" or the like. I mean any honest writer would say: Distinct, but at least related, if not just different branches from the same tree.
You can read it on the next page... But that's the kind of misinformation being spread and he's happy if people follow the wrong trail. I myself always said that nobody can't say for sure how big the genetic impact of the G?va people in their Belegis II-G?va province was. Like it could have been just 10 % of males coming down, bringing the culture, and local clans getting turned towards the new ways of G?va, with some regional adaptations. I can't say anything against such a hypothesis, as long as we don't have solid G?va data. But to state that G?va and Belegis II-G?va are not related is just plain wrong. That's logically and scientifically absurd. Such claims are what upsets me the most, and so do people which play with that and kind of troll me. Because at some point people can't be as naive, that's intentional.
I might give everybody the benefit of doubt, that he is not that mean and manipulative. But if somebody does the same "trick" again and again, even with the same misquoted passages from papers, it get's really annoying and that's just trolling.
If somebody has a different point of view, if being refuted with concrete evidence, you can come up with something new. But misquoting the same passages 10 times, that's really too much for being honest and having good intentions.
The most basic difference is that G?va can be connected to huge, impressive movement, which expanded over a gigantic territory in a very short time. So its ideal for an expanding, conquering population. And that's exactly what we need for E-V13, because it has dozens of new, main subclade branches right in the time frame of 1.300-1.000 BC. If you go through the E-V13 tree, practically all major clades came up in that time and spread over many parts of Europe in this time slot.
We deal with a big series of founder effects, like for early Slavs or Germanics, just with a worse long term outcome.
G?va has the position, the expansion, and its a lasting phenomenon, because whereever it stood its ground, we see later Thracian people.
That's ideal for an expansion like E-V13 had it.
Now what's Bela Crkva in comparison? It had no such big expansion, even less in that time frame. It can't be associated with the right places or people and seems to have been much too close to J-L283 dominated groups and spheres. Simple put: Its a very bad fit.
Two issues:
- I believe its the only plausible alternative. Call me a bit self-opinionated or dogmatic on the matter, but I went through all the evidence, and I really think that no other alternative is still standing. There is simply no way around Channelled Ware. Even if G?va in the North, in its core, wouldn't be it, E-V13 must have spread with Channelled Ware and being dominant in Bosut-Basarabi, Psenichevo-Babadag. Can't be anything else, because the data is so clear for me, I just don't get how people can still go for alternatives. Its a question of logic and truth.
- What's really annoying is if people don't play honest. Like trolling or acting close to it. You can't use the same papers 3 times for supposed Bronze Age continuity, if these papers, even if they are anti-migrationist ideologically, clearly HAVE TO confess that e.g. Thrace was completely turned upside down by the arrival of Fluted/Channelled Ware.
Quoting something about the different provinces of Thrace in the Middle Bronze Age. That's like saying there was no Slavic migration, because there was no Slavic-like culture in Roman era Serbia. Well, if we're talking about the Transitional Period, it matters what happened then, in this period of transition.
Honestly I simply can't stand the ignorance of people which still go against a migratory explanation in cases in which everything, really everything, is so clearly in favour of a large scale replacement event. That's just ideological. If you see in the record a complete turnover, and the new package being clearly connected to people living in the neighbourhood - you can't just say "it might be no migration, but local evolution". On which base do people make that claim? On the base of the complete archaeological culture having changed, but some huts being left intact? Seriously, it annoys if people can't add 2 + 2 and keep saying ideological nonsense.
Whether they are on the internet or in real life, I can't stand that.
You are right, that's probably my problem, that I'm emotionally invested. But its like if you see a pattern and there is, even after having tested the hypothesis numerous times, absolutely nothing which goes against it, but people argue against that hypothesis with false, manipulated and hypocritical arguments, well, that's just annoying.
Like I said before: People are afraid to talk about big, replacement level migrations in archaeology and genetics. It's kind of risky, especially for the official researchers. If you keep saying population continuity, against all odds, you still get a nice welcome. But if you say anyting about ethnic, tribal migration, regardless of how good the factual evidence is, you are entering a dangerous mine field in archaeology, because of the ideological pressures and limitations set.
Like some early researchers just called all the Channelled Ware groups "G?va", but then came the counter movement with people saying: No, such a phenomenon can't be that big, there are regional differences. Like they make smaller knobs on the pots or they used a slightly different plan for their huts and stuff like that. Yet we know from actual, proven ethnic groups, that they often had much larger differences between their provinces. But these differences being overstressed and "accidently" all national research groups use different names for basically the same package and phenomenon, which appeared in all these regions roughly about the same time. And these small differences still don't explain how the whole package could travel within one generation and could either successively or even rapidly replace regional earlier cultures.
I was very dissatisfied with the E-V13 origin theories, because they were always missing big parts of the story, which the established narratives were unable to explain. And this hypothesis with Channelled Ware is the only one I ever heard which brings all pieces together. Probably someone can create a better one, but at this point, with the data we got in the last 3 years, I highly doubt that. Because all half-way plausible alternatives being killed by the data.
Again:
E-V13
- must have been dominant in a fairly big population from the MBA-MIA. It can't be a minority group, hidden somewhere without a strong regional concentration. The modern data documenting the founder effects is clear about that. Up to about 1.200 BC the bulk of the E-V13 population still lived together, in one population.
- the population and associated culture did rapidly expand, especially in the Transitional Period from about 1.300-1.000 BC. It did so in almost all directions, including along the Danube and westwards on a low level, but strongest into the Balkans.
Any candidate region or culture must account for that, as well as for the earlier or densely sampled ancient DNA regions, like Psenichevo (Kapitan Andreevo, Bulgaria), Viminacium (Serbian Danube) or the Tisza-Transtisza regions of Hungary.
About 1.300-1.000 BC is just such a peak for the E-V13 haplogroup, that something really big did happen to this E-V13 population. Just sitting around in a protected Balkan zone, without a massive outward expansion, is absolutely no option. And if they wouldn't have cremated their dead and lived in the Balkans, we should have dozens of BA samples by now, but we don't.
Last edited:
You know, I can even agree with him, but this was not the main E-V13 group, but just the South Western fringe and borderzone which got assimilated by expanding Illyrians. Its not the bulk of E-V13, but a small part of it incoporated, fairly early, by Illyrians.
But he stresses that also to immunise the Illyrian theory against the lack of finds and E-V13 being just in the borderzone.
The problem is frequency and diversity, and this won't ever be higher in those border groups than in the main Thracian ones. But the problem is, that the Illyrians had an ideal burial for preservation. The Thracians didn't, especially the early cremating ones, obviously.
There is a huge problem with the Illyrian E-V13 theory: How can a group with a low level of E-V13 at its very fringe periphery, with the most local substrate element, being the source for groups with higher frequencies and diversity? That's not making any sense, but its predictable, that this will be the long term outcome of sufficient sampling.
Illyrians can easily be the source for most of the J-L283, but not for E-V13.
Read again:
Matzinger dates the specific Proto-Albanian language or "dialect" around 1000-800 BCE and Adam & Hyllested (2022) place Albanian and Messapic under an Illyric branch.
Albanian can be Illyric and closely related to Messapic without having to be the same exact language spoken by Illyrii proprie dicti, which itself is open for debate. Illyrian of the Illyrii Proprie Dicti, Albanian and Messapic can all be just located under the Illyric branch.
Also where did you see him write that Illyrians "assimilated non-Illyrian E-V13s"?? Nowhere. Belotic-Bela Crkva is considered Pre-Proto-Illyrian/Proto-Illyrian. Proto-Illyrians were 50-60% EEF derived. They obviously didn't become so high in EEF ancestry without any Balkan Neolithic lineage playing a significant role in their formation.
Thanks for pointing out Bruzmi's misinformation spread and non sense.
I'd advice everyone who thinks otherwise or tries to portray his "opinion" as something else, go through the Patterson et. al. paper thread on anthrogenica where Bruzmi basically had a mental breakdown because both Bronze and Iron Age Illyrian samples were J2b-L283 and E1b-V13 is clearly not associated with Proto-Illyrians:
"The Illyrians formed as a people in the LBA, before the LBA all IE groups in the Balkans are at best proto- (Proto-Greeks, Proto-Illyrians, Proto-Thracians, Proto-Dacians). My argument is that E-V13 was in the northwestern Balkans-southern Pannonia at least since the LBA - like J-L283 - as part of the same population which formed the historical Illyrians which are attested for the first time in the EIA and for the last time in the 7th century AD. I don't see what makes "E-V13 not Illyrian" if it was present in all historical Illyrian groups."
"We only have 7 samples (a blatant lie by the way) from what is the fringes of Illyria, these cannot be representative of Illyrians."
"The Glasinac-Mati culture is an archaeological culture, which first developed during the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in the western Balkan Peninsula in an area which encompassed much of modern Albania to the south, Kosovo[a] to the east, Montenegro, southeastern Bosnia and Herzegovina and parts of western Serbia to the north. It is named after the Glasinac and Mati type site areas, located in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Albania respectively."
"I can't see how "Illyrian-like" groups which didn't have both J2b-L283 and E-V13 can have existed."
"The biggest expansion of E1b-V13 will be Glasinac-Mati"
His standpoint is:
- E1b-V13 is Proto-Illyrian from Belotic Bela Crkva
- E1b-V13 was the main bulk of Glasinac-Mati culture and continues today to be the main lineage of Albanians who in their entirety are descendants of Illyrians
- Illyrians did not form in their core territory from Bronze Age - Iron Age they formed in the LBA-EIA with E1b-V13
- the many J2b-L283 samples from the East Adriatic and West Adriatic, whose archeology and genetics clearly have proven to be the Illyrian Ethnos, are from the fringes of Illyria (laughs in Southern Dalmatia, or wait a also that J2b-L283>Z1043 from Montenegro), so they are not the main Illyrian bulk, since E1b-V13 is the main Proto-Illyrian lineage
This person constantly undermines the genetic data, mixes up archeological records e.g. time frames, cultural zones etc.
My suggestion: Take a shot every time that person has a mental breakdown and temper tantrum when someone says Illyrians are J2b-L283. At least his non sense is worth a drinking game :beer1:
Southpaw
Regular Member
- Messages
- 2,618
- Reaction score
- 1,424
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Albanian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- E-V13
If you ask me, i think E-V13 will be found among Illyrians, just moreso among Pannonians and Southern Illyrians(where some Pannonian Urnfield influence was hinted by Frano Prendi), the Illyrii proprii dictii will probably be dominated by J2b2-L283 and to a degree R1b-Z2103.
That's my personal guess.
That's my personal guess.