lingüística · Prehistoria

Filogenia del Indoeuropeo

Mi interpretación más reciente de la expansión y diversificación de las lenguas Indoeuropeas y culturas arqueológicas asociadas de acuerdo con los datos más actualizados que he podido obtener:

click dcho. > ver imagen para mayor resolución

Se puede dibujar mejor? Seguro que sí. Se pueden pulir detalles y obtener un árbol mejor? Supongo que sí pero aún no lo he visto por ahí. Hay zonas oscuras que son discutibles? Casi sin duda alguna.

Bienvenidas las aportaciones en la sección de comentarios.

Notas:

  • El Balto-Eslávico realmente sólo se conoce, como subfamilias (eslávico y dos ramas bálticas) a partir de la Edad Media, así que su ubicación cronológica a partir del año 1 CE es absolutamente arbitraria. En realidad seguramente se podrá rebuscar un origen más antiguo pero me siento incapaz en este momento de asignar uno claro.
  • El origen del Albanés, seguramente la rama más divergente del Indoeuropeo que aún está viva, es un poco misterioso. Me inclino por un origen aproximadamente dacio pero es una cuestión abierta.
  • Respecto al Tracio, hay que señalar que los enterramientos de la cultura de Ezero son más parecidos a los de los Paleoeuropeos de Dniepr-Don (precursor parcial de la cultura mixta de Sredny Stog) que a las formas «kurgán» (túmulos característicos de los indoeuropeos, sobre todo en sus fases iniciales). Por ello sospecho que el tracio (lengua histórica pero muy mal documentada) podría no ser indoeuropeo o podría ser un indoeuropeo muy creolizado. Es un debate abierto en todo caso pero, incluso si fuera indoeuropeo, creo que hay buenas razones arqueológicas para considerarlo una rama excepcional.
  • Creo bastante probable que el Macedonio (antiguo) era pariente (e incluso precursor directo) del Frigio, y por lo tanto también del Armenio, pero es uno de esos debates abiertos, en este caso con sensibilidades nacionalistas griegas implicadas (que gustan de negar que el Macedonio existiera como lengua diferenciada no-griega).
  • Hay una decisión lógico-estética por mi parte de asignar el mismo color y eje horizontal a subdivisiones que comparten el área original de su progenitor cuando eso es posible: Poltavka y Yamna final se solapan, lo que no me permite hacerlo de manera tan clara, mientras que Hallstatt y Campos de Urnas son en cambio continuos, lo que me permite mostrar al Céltico Antiguo como derivado más directo del Italo-Céltico o al Proto-Iranio como derivado más directo del Proto-Indo-Iranio. Esto, que quede claro, no es un juicio de mayor o menor continuidad lingüística sino cultural-geográfica primaria.
  • La disglosia ha podido conmigo cuando he insertado al Germánico a última hora (se me había olvidado) y lo he puesto parcialmente en inglés en vez de en castellano, ejem! Algo a corregir en versiones futuras (también querría hacer una versión en inglés eventualmente).

31 comentarios sobre “Filogenia del Indoeuropeo

  1. Hello Luis,

    Long time since i last commented. Hope you are doing well. Don’t have the time to expand on a big discussion, just want to make some remarks. On the Phrygian language, have a look at the following article written by a scholar who is regarded among the foremost experts on the subject, Bartomeu Obrador-Cursach, https://www.degruyter.com/view/journals/jlr/17/3-4/article-p233.xml. Go to page 239 to see a table summarizing the different isoglosses discussed in 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 of his paper. The table makes a comparison of Phrygian with Greek, Armenian, Albanian, and Indo-Iranian. The same scholar also published a 684-page book on the subject this past year, https://brill.com/view/title/55093. Thus, i view a Graeco-Phrygian group far more likely than Graeco-Armenian (with the Armenian being supposedly a descendant of Phrygian). With this in mind, we could hypothesize a (Graeco-Phrygian)-Armenian group maybe. As for ancient Macedonian, you already know that i don’t consider it the same as Phrygian, but a Greek dialect (a mix of Doric-Aeolic likely). I don’t base this just on sensibilities (which honestly i do have, although not a nationalist), but on a number of points described with detail in a series (10) of unbiased articles i shared in the past (they were written in Greek and understandably you weren’t able to evaluate them).

    Even though not a popular view (due to Albanian sensibilities pertaining to autochthony), i like that you classify Albanian under a Dacian grouping. There are actually linguistic and genetic evidence to suggest that. I would prefer Daco-Moesian ideally (pertaining to a single group divided by the Danube – https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/Roman_Empire_Map_AlexanderFindlay1849.png/1280px-Roman_Empire_Map_AlexanderFindlay1849.png). Think of a Thracian broader grouping, with Thracian proper being the southern branch and Daco-Moesian the northern branch. You should also take note that Daco-Moesian would be better described as pre-proto-Albanian, and not proto-Albanian, since the proto-Albanian evolution only began after pre-proto-Albanian (hypothetically Daco-Moesian) came in contact with Latin during the beginning of the 1st millennium CE, with the latter influencing the former considerably (some scholars say up to ~60% of the Albanian lexicon can be traced to Latin). Take note that Albanian only managed to preserve ~10% of its original lexicon.

    Again, these are just some remarks. I would expand but i have very limited time nowadays.

    Sincerely,
    Demetrios

    Me gusta

  2. Hi, Demetrios. Glad to see you around. Hope everything is reasonably well (considering the difficult circumstances we all are going through).

    Greco-Phrygian is fine to me, I use Greco-Armenian because Greek and Armenian are living languages, while Phrygian (and its likely relative Ancient Macedonian) are dead and poorly documented and thus harder to compare. As the tree shows Phrygian and Armenian should be direct relatives (even if surely Armenian has a large addition of Hurrian or Urartean vocabulary via their unique substrate, making it even more distant from Greek). Another reason is that almost invariably in intra-Indoeuropean phylogenetic trees Greek and Armenian appear as distant but still clear relatives.

    All the rest you already know because I built my Vucedol model of Greco-Armenian while exchanging with you (you are a contributor to this tree at least regarding the Vucedol branch, not sure if willingly but your inputs certainly helped me to better understand all this conundrum and notably the Greek likely roots in the Mala Gruda coastal facies of Vucedol).

    Regarding Albanian there is a big question mark on its roots, even if it can be considered Illyrian too (a poorly defined ancient «ethnicity», which some think rather patchy and not homogeneous). It’s clear that it’s a highly divergent branch within Indoeuropean and AFAIK the most divergent one within living Indoeuropean. I chose the Dacian (Cotofeni) root because it’s the only one (other than Ezero-Thracian) that can fit but maybe I’m missing something (hence question mark, more research is needed).

    Just reviewing some trees: Atkinson and Bouckaert both place Albanian as less diverged than Greco-Armenian (but quite close) and at the very early proto-root of Indo-Iranian. On the other hand, Holm places it in «Greco-Armenian», which he calls «Balcan group» (all three branches equally divergent). AFAIK there’s some recent research claiming it might be related to Germanic but I’m skeptic because I haven’t seen that in any other tree, including an old one which pioner genetist Cavalli-Sforza included in his famous book, in which Albanian was the most divergent branch of all living Indoeuropean languages.

    This interpretation (always question-marked, I’m uncertain) would fit best with the Cavalli-Sforza language tree (unsure right now who were the actual authors but it was almost certainly product of a mass lexical comparison). If we accept the Atkinson & Bouckaert interpretation, it could also fit in this tree but would require accepting a greater conservatism in the Yamna>Poltavka>Indo-Iranian and also the (proto-)Yamna>Cotofeni branches. Not irrational, I tend to think this group as the «truest IE» bunch, the others being to some extent creolized by their greater interactions with their respective substrates, and hence evolving faster than the baseline since long ago.

    The Holms model on the other hand would make Albanian also descendant from Vucedol-derived groups instead. This one divides IE into NW IE (Corded Ware but not Vucedol groups) and all the rest (SE IE) and then splits this one into «Balcan-Group», «Anatolio-Tocharian» and «Irano-Indian» (weird choice of name as Indo-Iranian is very mainstream and means exactly the same). It seems less consistent with what I know but worth mentioning to have a counterpoint.

    There are probably other models anyhow but these are some I’ve collected from the Internet in recent times, my mention of them is only meant to be illustrative of the linguistic aspects of the Albanian origins’ conundrum and does not mean I adhere strongly to any (just that I need some linguistic academic references to guide my thoughts).

    Personally I don’t like «Daco-Moesian» because Moesia seems to have been historically a rather mixed area, with Celtic and Thracian influences and probably others as well, so it would be less specific rather than clarifying. What I’d like to learn is how in terms archaeological or proto-historical can the origin of Albanian language (and ethnicity) be linked to Dacians or proto-Dacians, I can imagine it could be something like the migration of the Vlachs in Medieval times but this is analogy and not material evidence.

    Re. Thracian, my point is that, because of the nature of Ezero culture, which is on one side clearly kurgan-related but on the other non-kurgan (burials that rather follow the Dniepr-Don tradition with extended position rather than crouched, lots of ochre and no tumuli/kurgans), I’m in doubt if Thracian is truly Indoeuropean, the last Paleoeuropean survivor or complex mix of both. I specifically attribute Ezero a Sredny-Stog root, where Dniepr-Don, kurgan and maybe even other influences mixed before being fully absorbed into the steppe kurgan area (Yamna). There is a serious chance that Thracian was not Indoeuropean, even if it was Indoeuropean-influenced. If it’s not Indoeuropean, then it cannot be the precursor of Albanian either.

    Me gusta

  3. Thanks for your input.

    A small sidenote. Armenian isn’t just differentiated in terms of lexical isoglosses from Phrygian, but phonological and morphological as well.

    Again, i have very limited time and thus i cannot participate in a discussion, so i will focus on one subject and try to include everything i know about it in one comment, for your benefit in terms of your studies. I am referring to my views on Albanian.

    First of all, here is a video with John Bassett Trumper (an expert on the Albanian language with more than 20 years experience).

    From 5:38 onwards he speaks of the Albanian ancestors ending up in Albania sometime after 500 CE, pressed by the Slavic migrations south. Their former presence was somewhere north of Kosovo and wide enough to connect with both the Celtic-German world in the northwest and the Baltic in the northeast. Among the arguments in favor of the non-autochthony of Albanians in Albania (which would pertain to an Illyrian origin) is the lack of genuine Albanian naval terminology and the fact that Albania is covered with Slavic toponyms. Also, at the beginning, he mentions the important influence Latin had on the Albanian vocabulary and estimates that 40% (Irena Sawicka in 2013 claimed 60%) of the basic vocabulary are Latin borrowings. He said that if the Slavs had not stopped the Latin influence in the Balkans, the linguistic ancestors of the Albanians would have been completely latinized, such as the linguistic ancestors of the Romanians and the Vlachs (Aromanians) for example. In a few words, the linguistic ancestors of the Albanians narrowly escaped complete latinization at the last minute.

    Here is Michiel de Vaan also with expertise on Albanian.

    He shares Trumper’s view that the Albanians escaped complete latinization at the last minute as well as the existence of thousands of Slavic toponyms in Albania. He also touched upon the Jireček line and its significance, which places with certainty the original home of Albanians to the north of it. In short, the Jireček line connects the points where the Greek and Latin inscriptions during the Roman period (~100 BCE-500 CE) are equal and, consequently, are the center of a wider gray zone where Latin and Greek had the same frequency of use as a common language.

    To the north of this gray zone the Latin language prevails and to the south the Greek language. The Dutch linguist also touches on another important issue, that of the relationship between Albanians and Romanians, and cites a few examples of common words between Albanian and the so-called Romanian substrate. This substrate is a series of about 100 words which are not borrowed from any known language with which Romanian came into contact, and are therefore considered linguistic remnants of the language spoken by the Romanian ancestors before they became latinized. It is noteworthy that almost all the words of this substrate also exist in Albanian. This, the linguist explains, can be interpreted in two ways. Either the ancestors of the Romanians and the Albanians once lived in the same place and lent a series of words to each other so that today we have a common lexical group OR the ancestors of the Romanians before becoming latinized spoke the same language as the ancestors of the Albanians and, consequently, these words are in reality a substrate indicative of the pre-Latin linguistic identity of Romanians.

    In other words, we see that the search for the origin of the Albanians is inextricably linked to that of the origin of the Romanians. The problem here is that each people has adopted anachronistic autochthonous ideologies and are trying, contrary to linguistic indications, to present themselves as the primitive inhabitants of their current homeland. The problem with the indigenousness of the Albanians is that Albania is a coastal region and most of it is south of the Jireček line, while the Albanians do not have a genuine maritime vocabulary and the Latin borrowings of proto-Albanian are up to 60 times more than the Ancient Greek ones. Proto-Albanian absorbed some 636 Latin loans and between 10-30 Ancient Greek. Such a thing could not have happened in a place where Greek was used as a common language and in a place that is directly adjacent to metropolitan Greece and with important Greek colonies such as Epidamnos/Durres and Apollonia that had the reputation of spiritual centers. Already in the time of Strabo, the southern Illyrians who were in direct contact with the Macedonians and the Epirotes, in the wider Roman Province of Macedonia, were bilingual. Furthermore, Romanian archaeologist Florin Curta mentions that whatever the mother tongue of the inhabitants who lived in the hinterland of Durres during the period 500-800 CE, the existence of Greek inscriptions and dedications in the area indicates knowledge of the Greek language.

    Namely, from the bilingual Illyrians of Strabo to the early Byzantine inhabitants who wear rings with Greek dedications and drink their wine in containers with Greek inscriptions, most of Albania south of the Jireček line uses Greek as a common language. When you compare this historical fact with the few ancient Greek loans in the Albanian language (between 10-30, 25-30 also found in Romanian) compared to the 636 Latin loans absorbed during the proto-Albanian period (as you can see below 700 were absorbed by Welsh and 674 by Basque) which make up between 40%-60% of their basic vocabulary, you immediately come to the reasonable conclusion that Albania south of the Jireček Line cannot be the original homeland of Albanians.

    If we also consider the thousands of Slavic place names of Albania and the fact that many Albanian hydronyms passed into Albanian through Slavic mediation our conclusion is further strengthened. For example.


    In the following map each red point represents a Slavic toponym.

    The only area that has a relatively reduced density of Slavic toponyms is the Mati valley around Kruja and the surrounding mountainous areas, and this is where we have the first records of Albanians in the 11th century, namely in Arbanon. But even Arbanon is just below the Jireček line, within the gray zone of Greek and Latin, and therefore, if the Albanians were the indigenous population of this area, the number of Greek loans should have been about equal to that of Latin. By contrast, the Albanian homeland is an area north of the gray area, deep in the Latin-speaking Balkans and responsible for the absorption of a great amount of Latin loans (636).

    As I wrote above, the search for the linguistic ancestors of the Albanians is inextricably linked to that of the ancestors of the Romanians and the origin of the latter is inextricably linked to the origin of the Vlachs as well. The Romanian autochthonous ideology (supposedly being the direct descendants of the trans-Danubian Dacians) is as unlikely as the Albanian one. The problem in this case is that the Roman presence north of the Danube was ephemeral (a little more than 150 years) and was limited to the southwestern part of the region. Trajan’s Dacia was created in 106 CE and lasted until 275 CE, when the emperor Aurelian ordered its evacuation and the relocation of the population south of the Danube to the area called Aurelian Dacia, which was administratively divided into two smaller areas, Dacia Malvensis/Ripensis with the capital Ratiaria, and Dacia Mediterranea with the capital Serdiki (modern Sofia). In other words, the Romanian autochthonous ideology claims that within a century and a half of ephemeral Roman presence, the ancient trans-Danubian Dacians became fully Latinized and managed to retain their latinophony by living outside the Roman Empire until the 12th century, which is when we learn of the Romanians for the first time living north of the Danube.

    Here it suffices to mention that the reason for the abandonment of Trajan Dacia in 275 CE was the Gothic pressure. A century later, in 376 CE tens of thousands of Goths seek permission to cross the Danube and settle within the Roman Empire to escape the pressure of the Huns. From the end of the 4th century until the Battle of Nedao in 454 CE the middle Danube region is the center of Hun rule. Although the Huns were probably Turkic-speaking, the lingua franca of Attila’s Empire was East German because it was the language of the majority of the peoples he ruled over (Goths, Gepids , Heruls , Rugii, etc.). Along with the Germanic tribes, there are also Iranian such as the Iazyges and the Roxolani. The fall of the Huns was followed by half a century of German rule until the beginning of the 6th century CE when the region of Romania became a home to the Slavic-speaking Sclaveni. In the second half of the 6th century the new superpower are the Turkic-speaking Avars. According to Florin Curta, in the second half of the history of the Avar Khaganate the lingua franca was Slavic due to the large number of Slavic subjects. At the end of the 7th century the new superpower are the Turkish-speaking Bulgars, while around 900 CE we have the Hungarian settlement around the middle Danube. The migrations of the Turkic Pechenegs and of the Kumans follow. After all these migrations of peoples that took place in the 8 centuries that separate the abandonment of Trajan Dacia and the arrival of the Cumans, we have the first reference to Romanians living north of the Danube in present-day Romania.

    You therefore understand why the majority of historians and linguists reject the Romanian autochthonous ideology and consider that the origin of the Romanian language lies south of the Danube, in areas that remained within the Roman Empire until 600 CE more or less, something that gives the linguistic ancestors of the Romanians at least 6 centuries room for their latinization against the 1.5 century of the autochthony myth. The migration of Romanians north of the Danube probably began after 1000 CE, perhaps in multiple waves. Andrè Du Nay, on pages 197-198 of the book «The Origins of the Rumanians» quotes the words of Italian linguist Carlo Tagliavini, summarizing the consensus of experts today. Namely:
    «Philological arguments indicate than Ancient Rumanian developed on the southern shore of the Danube. To this conclusion leads us the study of facts such as the concordances with Albanian which cannot exclusively be ascribed to a common substratum but must have developed during a period of symbiosis;……..the majority of foreign linguists now consider that the territory of formation of the Rumanian language must have been approximately in historical Serbia.».

    We therefore came to the conclusion that Albania is too southern and coastal to be the original homeland of the Albanians and trans-Danubian Romania too north to be the original homeland of the Romanians. The homeland of these two populations are the areas that today separate them, namely Serbia and northwest Bulgaria. The two populations have the same linguistic ancestor who lived in the aforementioned area and their symbiosis continued for a few centuries after the latinization of the linguistic ancestors of the Romanians and the Vlachs, because apart from the substrate relation, both languages ​​(Albanian and Romanian-Aromanian) are also associated with more recent Latin innovations, but also with the existence of Late-Proto-Albanian loans in Romanian. Their coexistence ended when first the linguistic ancestors of the Albanians migrated at some point after 500 CE to the mountains of present-day northern Albania where they emerge historically in the 11th century. The linguistic ancestors of the Romanians and the Vlachs continued to live together until the latter (perhaps at the same time as the Albanians) migrated to the areas south of the Jireček line as far as the Greek hinterland where they first appeared under the name «Vlachs» in descriptions of Byzantine historians of the 11th century (John Skylitzes) for events that occurred at the end of the 10th century. On the contrary, the linguistic ancestors of the Romanians continued to live north of the Jireček line until sometime after 1000 CE they began migrating north of the Danube. Those left behind are the linguistic ancestors of the present-day Vlachs of Serbia, Bosnia and Bulgaria.

    Romanian and all the Vlach dialects of the Balkans belong to the Eastern Balkan Romance branch. The last representative of the Western Balkan Romance is the now extinct Dalmatian language. According to Andrè Du Nay, the border between the two Balkan Romance branches was the Drina River, which now separates Serbia from Bosnia. Northern Albania was the point where the border of Drina’s vertical line intersected the horizontal Jireček line. Thus the coasts of Montenegro and northern Albania spoke Western Balkan Romance while their hinterlands in contact with Serbia and Kosovo spoke Eastern Balkan Romance. Due to the mobility of the nomadic Eastern Balkan Romance speakers, the Drina River border was eventually breached and the speakers reached all the way to Istria (Istro-Romanian language).

    Therefore, the ancestors of the Albanians and those of the Eastern Balkan Romance speakers coexisted in the triangular area created by the borders of the Drina river that separates the Eastern Balkan Romance from the Western Balkan Romance, the Jireček line that separates Latin and Greek as lingua franca, and the Danube separating the Latin-speaking Romans from Barbaricum. This area corresponds more or less to the following region, with its centroid point being found within the drawn circle.

    From the above map we can observe 3 things that will help us understand why the linguistic ancestors of the Albanians avoided the latinization that happened to the ancestors of the Vlachs and the Romanians. Latin was used in the military camps, in the cities and on the main roads. The camps (black dots) were mostly on the Danube, the cities (red dots) are concentrated in the northeast and the main roads (grey lines) are concentrated in the east. On the contrary, the western part of the area we are examining has a few camps at the southeast, no cities and the main roads are also concentrated in the east of the circle. Therefore, the populations living in the eastern area received a much stronger pressure from Latin than the central and western area.

    The significance of the military camps in the phenomenon of latinization lies not only in the fact that the language of the army was Latin, but also in the fact that the camps were the nucleus around which the first cities were formed. Initially, there was nothing around the camps, and gradually so-called «canabae» (shacks, literally cane structures) were set up to house traders who brought food and other goods in periodic bazaars. In time, some of the traders settled permanently around the camp and thus the first settlements emerged. Now, in Balkan Latin, the camp was called «fossatum» from the trench (fossa) surrounding it. The term φοσσάτον with the meaning of the military camp is also found in Byzantine Greek.

    So since the first cities in the Balkan hinterland started as canabae around the fossata, it is not surprising that a common Albanian-Romanian term for «village» comes from the Latin fossatum, namely fshat in Albanian and sat in Romanian. The other common term looks like substrate (pre-Latin), namely Albanian katund and Romanian cătun.

    Eric Hamp has been described by his colleagues as the «Prince of Albanology» because he was an emblematic figure in the development of proper Albanian linguistics, and after about 40 years of research has concluded that the linguistic ancestors of Romanians before latinization spoke an Albanoid language.

    Andrè Du Nay is likewise convinced that Romanians before their latinization spoke the same language as the ancestors of the Albanians. The following quotes are from the book «The Origin of the Rumanians».
    page 4-5: «Thus, for example, the pre-latin substratum of the Rumanian language is to a significant part identical with Albanian: about one hundred lexical elements, of which more than half pertain to the life of shepherds living in high mountains, and there also are correspondences regarding the Latin elements of these languages. This suggests that the ancestors of the Rumanians spoke the same language as those of the Albanians.»
    page 72: «The numerous correspondences between Rumanian and Albanian derive mainly from the same ancient language, once spoken by the ancestors of the Albanians and the Rumanians. The Albanians have largely preserved their original language, although they borrowed very many elements from Latin during six centuries of Roman domination in the Balkan peninsula. The ancestors of the Rumanians, on the other hand, changed their language to Latin, preserving only some elements from the ancient idiom. The correspondences regarding Latin elements, however -numerous expressions in common, changes of meaning of Latin words, etc.- must have been created during a period of close contact between the two populations, during the age of Latin influence.»
    So, it looks like the ancestors of the Albanians and the Romanians both spoke the same language before the latinization of the latter, and continued to coexist in the late Roman antiquity.

    If we start from the assumption that the linguistic ancestors of the Eastern Balkan Romance speakers spoke an Albanoid language before their latinization, then the Daco-Moesian language emerges as a very good historical candidate, with whom the pre-proto-Albanian can be identified. The Daco-Moesian grouping pertains to a more general classification. I know Moesia was a mixed area. For example, during the Roman era «Moesia Superior» was probably the most multi-ethnic region in the Balkans. It seems four linguistic groups were found in the region, namely Illyrian proper, Dalmatian-Pannonian, Thracian proper and Moesian (sub-Danubian branch of Daco-Moesian). And as if those were not enough, the Romans in the 1st century CE allowed two mass relocations of more than 150,000 Geto-Dacians (trans-Danubian branch of Daco-Moesian) to Moesia Superior and Moesia Inferior (50,000 in the years of Augustus and over 100,000 in the years of Nero). But i am personally referring to the Daco-Thracian element of the region and more specifically the Daco-Moesian branch which would be the oldest and the most populous.

    Strabo writes of homoglossy between the Daco-Getae and Thracians, which would make Daco-Moesian one pole of a Daco-Thracian linguistic continuum, with the Illyrian language to the west of it. Daco-Moesian was spoken by Dacians and Getae north of the Danube, and by Moesi, Triballians and Dardanians south of the Danube. The latter are often mistakenly described as Illyrian by ancient writers, but the majority of their names are Daco-Thracian. Illyrian names are often found only in the western part of the country, namely around the present-day borders of Albania and Kosovo, naturally through influence of their neighbors.

    The main feature of the Daco-Moesian language that allows us to estimate its geographical spread are the place names with -deva/-dava/-dova . These start from the northern Carpathians and reach Plovdiv and the borders of northern Albania and Kosovo to the south, where Claudius Ptolemy mentions the town Thermidava located between Shkodra and Ulpiana (Lipljan). Procopius later mentions the city of Quemedava in Dardania.

    The evolution of -dēva, -dāva, -dova is not by chance, but follows the evolution of proto-Albanian *ē>ā>ο (e.g. *plē-ta> plāta>plotë ~Greek πλήρης, Latin plēnus, complētus, etc.). Thus Georgiev observed that above the Danube delta was the city of Polondava while in western Dacia there was the city of Pelendava/Pelendova. The form Pelendova when compared to *Pōlōndāva shows two Albanian pecularities. The change ā>ο (e.g. māter->motër) and the change ō>e (e.g. *bhlōra > blerë). The Albanian word pelë (mare) comes from the Early-Proto-Albanian form *pōlnā, a derivative of PIE *pōlos (~Greek πῶλος, English foal, etc.) and this allowed Georgiev to etymologize the Dacian toponymes Polondava/Pelendava as «city of horses/mares» such as e.g. German Stuttgart. The first synthetic Pōlōn- > Pelen-, in particular, comes from the PIE general plural *pōlōm (~Greek τῶν πώλων) of the root *pōlos.


    The proto-Albanian change *ō>uo>ue>e occurred during the first half of the Roman period in the Balkans (~100 BCE-300 CE), as evidenced by the following Latin borrowings.

    In other words, the proto-Albanian language made the change *ō>uo>ue>e at the same time that the Dacian toponym Pōlōndāva evolved into Pelendova in western Dacia.
    As for the second synthetic -deva/-dava/-dova, this can be traced to the PIE *dhē-weh2 > -dēvā, meaning it can be considered a derivative of the root *dheh1- ~ *dhē- which also gave Greek τίθημι, θήκη and in zero grade ablaut, *dhh1-tis > θέσις, which is also found in the Albanian *dhh1-tis or *dhh1-teh2 > dhatë (place, position) (cf. the Thracian toponym Datos, which Edgar Polomé compared to the Albanian dhatë).

    Interestingly Hesychius is recorded writing: ΛΕΒΑ·ΠΟΛΙΣ ΥΠΟ ΘΡΑΚΩΝ
    Apparently, one of the transcribers of Hesychius confused Δ with Λ, because the original entry would definitely be «ΔΕΒΑ·city of Thracians» and not ΛΕΒΑ. The type ΔΕΒΑ responds, among others, to Pulpudeva, which is Philippopolis translated into Daco-Thracian. It is interesting that today’s Plovdiv comes from Thracian Pulpudeva and not from the Greek Philippopolis, which means that the latinized/hellenized Thracians of late antiquity continued to call the city Pulpudeva. So, the toponym *pōlōm dhēweh2 > *pōlōn dēwā (city of horses/mares) has a perfect ΙΕ structure.

    The toponymic pair Pelendova ~ Polondava (=*{pōlōn dāwā}) shows that there were two Daco-Moesian varieties. One that kept the long ō,ā, and one that changed them like Albanian. The study of the Romanian substrate also leads us to the same conclusion, but i have already expanded too much on the subject and even though i wanted to include everything, i must wrap it up. Let me leave you with one last linguistic reference.

    Here is a very possible etymology of the Carpathians as «Rocky Mountains», from the Albanian word karpë (rocky hill with sharp peak).

    Also note that the B(i)eskidy mountains in the north Carpathians also have an Albanian proposed etymology from bjeshkë (mountain pasture land). Vladimir Orel considers it possible, however, only in the case that bjeshkë is indeed a genuine Albanian term and not the Latin pastica borrowed, as he believes and mentions in another quote.

    Let me close by sharing some genetic data which favors a Daco-Moesian association, instead of an Illyrian, namely two maps showing the autosomal affinity of some ancient samples to modern populations. The maps are based on Eurogenes Global 25.
    BGR_IA=Moesian/Northern-Bulgarian Iron Age – Sample dated 500-400 BCE – Sample ID I5769

    HRV_IA=Dalmatian/Hrvatska or Croatia Iron Age – Sample dated 805-761 BCE – Sample ID I3313

    Hopefully you found all these interesting and will help you in your studies. Take care.

    Me gusta

  4. Hi, Demetrios. For some reason WP cuts down my (surely too long) reply, so I’ll go by segments in the hope that all is properly addressed. My apologies if you receive notifications for trashed comments.

    Re. Albanian – I’ll take a look but it seems clear that the Albanian of Kosova is relatively recent (Ottoman period), while the Albanian of Albania (and related scattered branches of Greece and Italy) is older. As far as we can tell the origin of Albanian language is in modern day Republic of Albania. The peppering of Slavic toponyms makes all sense because the area was dominated by Slavs (mostly Serbs) as I recall from reviewing the details of the only ever Basque imperialist action in history: the conquest of Albania (or more precisely Dürres) for the wife of the brother of Navarrese King Charles «the Bad», who acted as a typical medieval dynastes rather than a national monarch. There were factions in favor of Serbia but there were also factions in favor of the Westerners and there was some sort of «Albanian (quasi-)nationalist» leader as well. In the end it played in favor of Venice and the Basque-Gascon mercenaries went on to conquer (parts of) Greece to the Catalans (battle of Thebes, where the Navarrese Company demonstrated that the Almogavars could be defeated), which in turn played in favor of Angevin Naples or something like that.

    One important issue is that Albanians are genetically more Greek-like than most other Balcanic peoples, with lots of E1b that seems to have been in the region since the Neolithci era. In this regard at least the autochtonous origin makes sense and there was never any Albanian polity that could impose the language, so it must be pre-Slavic and rather impervious to both Roman languages: Greek and Latin. Howevee it might be from the interior of Albania (where the language would have a better chance to survive Roman domination) rather than the much more exposed coast.

    That may explain the lack of naval terminology, which, mind you, it’s typically very much international and changes with time. For example we use Dutch-derived words all the time, both in Basque and Spanish, and there was no Netherlands 500 years ago, nor they were a naval power either, not yet. For example, exploring the Spanish words «cala» and «calado» and related «Portus Cale» (from which Portugal but also strikingly similar to a near-Bilbao town called Portugalete < Portus Calete/-a surely), I can track those words to Latin or Vulgar Latin and in many cases looking as having Greek origins, yet they name cities in the (antique) Far West and in the case of Portus Cale (Porto) it was named that way right after Roman conquest. We know that in the Late Medieval Mediterranean a Romance pidgin (part Italian, part Catalan, part Portuguese, etc.) was often used in naval and trade affairs, and they used the so-called "vara de Burgos" (Burgos yard or Basque yard, which was almost adopted instead of the meter for international usage but is now nearly forgotten) for measures based on a reference parallel that goes by no particular city nor place but close enough to Rome, Barcelona and Naples to matter apparently.

    Said that, it may still be more Thraco-Dacian (or just Dacian) than Illyrian, whatever Illyrian was. But it looks different enough from all other living IE branches to grant them their unique branch from near-PIE roots, whichever it is and it has almost certainly been in or near Albania since Antiquity. Nothing suggests it arrived in the Middle Ages (also consider how strongly Romanized Dacia became with Roman colonization, so much that a derived language is still spoken majoritarily in that region (and is of course official in Romania).

    The "Jireček line" is approximative. Sure: it serves as a neat line to observe where Latin was dominant and where Greek was instead… but doesn't say much about the native languages of the various peoples, about languages spoken in the valleys by farmers and shepherds, only about the linguae francae of the elites (nobility, administrators, merchants).

    You go again on this somewhat arbitrary line again and again, ignoring the fact that Dürres (Dyrrachion) was the main early Roman colony in all the Balcans and it is clearly south of the line. Dürres plays a major role in the Roman campaigns against Macedon and later also in the civil wars (LOL Pompey and Caesar fighting a race to build the longest improvised wall ever is soooo fun to watch in docus! Romans doing Roman-style war: "build a wall!", "build a wall around their wall!", etc., all reputable maneuverist generals ever facepalming in the Netherworld at the same time, hehehe!) Sure: with the advent of the Byzantines, Greek would become more prominent but still Dürres and Albania overall largely looked to the Adriatic and Italy (and would eventually become a Venetian posession). I believe you overestimate the role of Greek in the daily lives of ancient and medieval Albanians. They would have used it, along with Latin, but much like we do use English, as a lingua franca or for intellectual purposes, not really in their daily lives.

    As a side note, it's interesting how Dürres preserves the original ancient sound of "y", which was surely a "French u" or "German ü", intermediate between /i/ and /u/. I.e. there's a direct phonetic line between ancient Dyrrachion and modern Dürres.

    Me gusta

  5. Re. ancient Romanian (necessarily Dacian) substrate: it fits my hypothesis like a glove. Nice observation. My hypothesis would be that in Antiquity (pre-Roman proto-History) Daco-Albanian language migrated (with some conquereror elites, I guess) to what is now Albania approx. One possibility could be that it did so as part (offshoot) of the Phrygio-Macedonian migration (late Bronze Age), another possibility is that it was part of more recent Celtic invasions (Dacians and Celts achieved a status quo in the area of Hungary-Slovakia, per V. Kruta, with a Daco-Celtic mixed «buffer zone»). Whatever the case, for reasons of tribal-political isolation in the mountainous country, they ended using a Dacian rather than a Celtic or Phrygio-Macedonian dialect. Some times the why a language is selected above others is complicated and hard to discern (Hungarian over Slavic, Slavic Bulgarian over Turkic Bulgarian, Aramaic over other Semitic or Luwian dialects… or even creolized English over Norman French are all examples of cases in which it could have gone in any other direction just if some king had made a different decision). In the case of Albanian it’s even more complicated because we lack historical documentation.

    Similarly in Dacia/Romania you seem to confuse the elites (Goths, Huns, Cumans, etc.) with the actual people. Remember that aristocrats in the Middle Ages, while very influential, never made up more than 3% of the population, while peasants were always above 90% instead (but nobody bothers, at least not in most cases, documenting them at all). It’s like imagining Greece under Ottoman domination being all Turkic-speaking just because grassroots Greeks mattered little in terms of power.

    I can agree with the military frontier issue re. Latin usage in the Balcans but it doesn’t seem enough. It seems to me that there was some heavy Roman (Italian) settlement too. One reason is the strong influence of Y-DNA J2, which may be excused to prehistoric sources in the case of Bulgaria maybe (only maybe, the Pelasgo-Tyrsenian parenthesis was quite brief, unlike in the Thessaly-EastMacedonia-Serbia-Tisza/Slavonia area) but it seems almost impossible to have affected what is now Romania, certainly not beyond Vallachia. I want to be cautious here, more research is needed re. subhaplogroups in order to clarify, but I have suspicion of strong Italian (Roman) settlement in Dacia, carrying «Etruscan» J2, much as we see in the Western provinces, notably Baetica (clearly the most dense Roman-settled province of all the Empire).

    Remember that at the origin (and all the way to Caracalla’s edict and the 3rd Century Crisis) the Roman Empire was for all practical purposes the colonial empire of Italy (where Roman citizenship had been granted universally, slaves excepted, after the Social War), and where every single emperor all the way to Maximinus Thrax was of Italian roots (and excepted Pertinax all aristocrats).

    Remember also that Y-DNA J2 is undocumented in Europe in Neolithic or Paleolithic layers and, West of the Balcans, prior to the Iron Age at least. As I believe we have already discussed, it seems almost exclusively a «Pelasgo-Tyrsenian» marker (but also a Roman colonization marker as well). Sure: small fractions of it could have other origins such as Greek, Phoenician, Jewish or Arab, but its overwhelming presence now (but not in older times) must be assigned mostly to Pelasgo-Tyrsenian expansion (since c. 5000 BCE in parts of the Balcans, as well as in Anatolia, since c. 1000 BCE in Italy) and to Roman (Italian) colonization as well. This last is very clear West of the Alps but it may also be the case in some instances East of the Adriatic, notably Romania (former Dacia).

    Many maps also give strong J2 presence in Albania, but at least inner Albania (not the coast though) was part of the Pelasgo-Tyrsenian expansion area. In this sense, you probably know more than I do, but I recall a Etruscan hypothesis for Albanian, which doesn’t seem to stand to scrutiny but could still hold a grain of truth if there are Pelasgo-Tyrsenian vocabulary fossils (local pre-IE substrate).

    You often mention «Daco-Thracian» but my hypothesis right now is that, if Thracian is direct descendant from Ezero culture (and so far I’ve found nothing against it), then even its Indoeuropean nature should be questioned. Because Ezero is very anomalous for «kurgan» cultures, in fact it lacks kurgans (tumuli) altogether and does instead follow the funerary practices of Dniepr-Don peoples. That’s why I used such a distinct grey color in that branch and, while geographically and prehistorically related somehow to proto-Dacian (Cotofeni, etc.), it is unclear how it is related or if it is related at all (beyond sprachbund).

    I was actually half-jokingly suggesting in the email conversation that pushed me to draw this tree that maybe Spartacus, who was Thracian, was «the last Paleoeuropean», linguistically speaking.

    This is because quite clearly the Dniepr-Don Neolithic was the only long-lasting aboriginal European Neolithic culture, always a bit mixed with hunter-gatherer continuity practices and expanded somehow all the way to the Baltic, where it is more focused on hunter-gathering (but has pigs and some crops) and crossed into Central Sweden even. It is overall identical to the so-called SHG autosomal cluster, which is mostly WHG (basic Paleoeuropean) but slightly EHG (proto-Uralics surely). Sredny Stog was a mixed bunch but clearly had a lot of Dniepr-Don in it and Ezero seems to be in that Dniepr-Don line, at least culturally (burial styles in extended position with ochre, very Paleoeuropean).

    So I am, from the archaeological point of view, distrustful of Thracian being Indoeuropean and, if it is, of being related to Dacian other than by sprachbund. I did treat them as separate branches in any case.

    And as far as I can tell, Thracians did not expand to Moesia Superior but Celto-Dacians may (Celts clearly so but my guess is that they were associated with Dacians in some complex manner, as they were further North). Hence what you and others call «Thracian» or «Daco-Thracian» is maybe rather Dacian. Let’s also not forget the Greco-Armenian (Vucedol) substrate, which could be similar to Ancient Macedonian and/or Phrygian in the core area around the middle Danube and which should be a distinct branch of Indoeuropean, yet, because of their obscurity (relative lack of texts) it’s also often dumped into «Thracian» or «Daco-Thracian», which is like a catch-all category and not a realistic linguistic grouping almost certainly.

    Me gusta

  6. Re. «deva» placenames: it’s probably not even Indoeuropean. Two «Deva» or «Deba» rivers over here are in clearly pre-IE areas: one in the middle of the Basque Country (never Celtizied) and the other in Asturias (also never Celtizied, only Indoeuropeanized in late Roman or post-Roman era, all their mythology is Basque-like, etc.) The word «deva» does mean «god» in Indo-Aryan but not in other Indoeuropean languages, even if it’s related to Latin Deus, Greek Zeus and theos, etc.

    I’m not sure which is the pre-IE root but for the North Iberian rivers at least I propose (Basque) «ate-ba», i.e. «under the pass» (ate = door, gate — used for mountain passes too and maybe in old times even for marine ports although now Latin-derived «portu» is used instead). I’m not sure if this logic can be exported to ancient Dacia (ref. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dava_(Dacian) ) but all the -«deba» placenames could indeed fit this Vasconic tentative reconstruction of «under the pass». Remember that much of Dacia/Romania was the last pre-IE (Vasconic) stronghold in Central-Eastern Europe, with Foltesti culture (last stage of Cucuteni) resisting well into the Bronze Age in Moldavia (AFAIK parts of Transylvania were also only slowly Indoeuropeanized). I can see other placenames suspect of Vasconic roots in Dacia such as Aizis (Basque (h)aitza or (h)aitze = the rock or the peak) or maybe all those Romanian placenames in -ara, which IMHO, could mean «valley» (Basque: (h)aran). All very unsure and very tentative but always worth reminiding to people who can only speak Indoeuropean, because you know: «when all you have is a hammer, all problems seem to be nails» (when all you know is Indoeuropean all words appear to be somehow Indoeuropean, even when they are not).

    Philipopolis > *Pulpudeva > Plodiv sounds all kinds of wrong to me. Much more likely to be a deformation under Slavic or Turkic influence (and also popular tendency to shortening such long words). By extending the Dacian «deva» placenames to Thracia you are strecthing the evidence beyond recognition, sorry.

    Karpathos is almost certainly (IMO) almost the same as Alpes, both being Vasconic in origin (remember that Indoeuropeans originated in non-mountainous areas). The main root is the same one that produces «karst» in Upper German, sometimes reconstructed as *kharr- and clearly cognate of Basque harri = stone. In the case of Karpathos it should be then *kharr- + pa (ba) + ate (+ Greek suffix -os), i.e. gate (pass) under the stone/rock(s). It may have originally meant some place in the Carpathian Mts. which the Indoeuropeans crossed and later adopted for the whole mountain chain. Alpes should be (per Krutwig) Arpe = *kharr-/harri + pe (ba/be) = under the stone/rock again. Krutwig underlined the form Alpes Graies (documented since Antiquity as Alpes Graiae) and made it mean High Alpes (garai = high in Basque), which is exactly what it refers to (the region, now called Upper Savoy, Aosta and Valais was surely Vasconic/Ligurian until Romanization). Indoeuropeanists and their useless «hammer» make it mean «grey Alps» but clearly not plausible («grey» is Germanic, not Latin nor Celtic even, also outside common toponimy vocabulary, would it be «white» OK but «grey» nope).

    So the most plausible meaning for these words is «under the stones», originally meaning the more palatable slopes under the rocky peaks, with the suffix -ate (gate, pass) in the Carpathian case. Both Vasconic and no surprises here because even Slavic «gora» (mountain) seems Vasconic-derived (and almost certainly adopted by the Carpathians). Gora = up, upwards in Basque (has a very clear Vasconic etymology: goi-ra = to (the) high) and also produces separately Serbo-Croat «gore», meaning exactly the same as Basque «gora», probably via some late Vasconic persistance in the Adriatic/Dinaric region and/or adoption of the word by some «Illyrian» language prior to Serbocroat presence.

    Your genetic comparisons are interesting but they suggest that the Iron Age «Moesian/Dacian» sample is within the Pelasgo-Tyrsenian population, nothing else. Otherwise why would it compare so well with most of Italy (and also Greece)? The Dalmatian sample also compares way too well with both Albanian and Italians (but tends to the North, which has a strong Dinaro-Vasconic Neolithic influx since many millennia ago, it would be interesting to compare with Ötzi, although, judging on Sardinia as proxy, he/she seems more admixed already).

    Me gusta

  7. Luis, thanks for your reply. When i said that i have very limited time i meant it. Just this morning i managed to find some free time and reply to you. In any case, i am trying to wrap up this exchange. These initial comments of mine weren’t meant to sprang a whole discussion, hence why i chose to focus on a single subject and include information that could benefit your studies. I must address some things though.

    Above you supported the view that Albanian originates from Dacian and then that Albanian originates from within the modern-day boundaries of Albania. From what we know, Dacian was never spoken in Albania. I see what you write in the second comment, but the southwesternernmost presence of Dacian, attested through the aforementioned suffixes of certain placenames, is essentially around the border between Kosovo and northern Albania (Thermidava, Quemedava). Even historically we are not informed of any Dacians that far southwest. And then there are all the other points which make proto-Albanian, let alone pre-proto-Albanian almost with certainly not present there during antiquity. You also say that dialects such as Arbëreshë (in Italy) and Arvanitika (in Greece) are conservative dialects that retain many archaic elements, which is true. Yet this is a faulty rationale because these two are both Tosk dialects (meaning not proto-Albanian; the other main branch of Albanian is Gheg) and their detachment from the Tosk nucleus happened in the late Middle Ages, namely within the 14th century CE. Furthermore, the reason of their conservative nature is because they were isolated varieties outside of the albanophonic nucleus. A similar example to this would be the Ophitic variety of Pontic Greek which preserves many archaic elements, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontic_Greek#Ophitic ; also an article about it, https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/history/jason-and-argot-land-where-greek-s-ancient-language-survives-2174669.html . Please review what i shared in my previous comment more carefully, because it represents the modern academic consensus about the origin of proto-Albanian, not subsequent dialectogenesis many centuries later. I could actually elaborate more on when the ancestors of Albanians entered «northern» Albania. There is evidence to suggest that they entered «northern» Albania between 600-650 CE, but again, this is already getting into a long discussion that i am trying to avoid due to limited time although i will try and include some data.

    The existence of many Slavic toponymes is one thing. The inheritance of pre-Slavic toponymes through Slavic mediation is another. This means that these toponymes/hydronymes were first adopted by Slavs, and later as Albanians arrived in the region by them as well, through «Slavic mediation». By the way, the identity of the Slavs is trivial, but in short Serbs mostly influenced the north, while Bulgarians/Slavomacedonians the center and south (which also happens to have the biggest concentration of Slavic toponymes). There are even small related Slavic minorities that continue to inhabit Albania. It should be noted however that there were additional Slavic tribes in the area under different names, that no longer exist.

    The reason Albanians are autosomally close to Greeks is due to the fact that they are also palaeo-Balkan descendants, while the rest of the Balkanites aren’t. So they stand out as related. But even with that in mind, you should take note that both Greeks and Albanians have less autosomal affinity to ancient Balkanites than Italians. And to answer your last question, this is due to the fact that ancient Italians were part of an autosomal continuum with much of the Balkans, for a number of reasons, and they weren’t affected as much by medieval migrations, like it happened with the Slavs in Albania and Greece. Especially in regards to southern Italy, geneticists have called this the «Mediterranean genetic continuum», and argue that mainland Greeks and Albanians also belonged to it before being somewhat detached due to the Slavic medieval migrations. You can read about it the following paper, «Ancient and recent admixture layers in Sicily and Southern Italy trace multiple migration routes along the Mediterranean (2017)», https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5434004/. A small quote from it:
    «Population expansions during the Middle Ages, for instance those related to the Slavic migrations, could have affected Albania and Continental Greece at least indirectly as a result of subsequent population contacts. We may therefore hypothesize that present-day mainland Greek and Southern Balkan populations detached from a genetic background originally shared with the ‘Mediterranean genetic continuum’ (i.e. Southern Italy and the Mediterranean Greek-islands) after these recent events which interested the Balkan Peninsula in historical times.»
    The Slavic autosomal influence of mainland Greeks and Albanians, though relatively small, was still notable. For example, in this following paper, «Genetics of the peloponnesean populations and the theory of extinction of the medieval peloponnesean Greeks (2017)», https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5437898/, it was found to be between 0.2%-14.4% in the case of Peloponnesians (who are not that different from the rest of mainland Greeks).

    I have written this again in the past (i believe it was about I2a), but you tend to generalize when it comes to haplogroups. E1b for example by its own means nothing. Even if you were to write E-V13, which is the branch most common in the Balkans (and Europe), it would still not mean much. Haplogroups can only be contextualized when their relative subclades are studied, and there are quite many with each one having a different story. The subclades of E-V13 that are most common in the Balkans, and specifically among Greeks and Albanians, are E-Z5017 and E-Z5018 (as you can see in their respective FTDNA projects; https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/greece/dna-results and https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/albanian-bloodlines/dna-results ), both of which appear to be the result of proto-Celtic migrants during the Late Bronze Age in the Balkans, when studied more carefully. There is nothing Neolithic Balkan about them, nor E1b1b as a whole is seen as a major Neolithic paternal line of the Balkans today. It used to be hypothesized but today we know that the most frequent Neolithic paternal haplogroup in the Balkans was G2a (some 60% i believe). We only have one E1b1b Neolithic sample in the Balkans, out of the dozens other samples belonging to different haplogroups, and even that E1b1b is not E-V13, but E-L618 (predating E-V13), namely from the Zemunica cave in Croatia, dated to 7,600-7,400 ybp. There is only one Neolithic E-V13 sample found in Europe, and it is located in far away for us (not for you) Iberia, namely from the Avellaner cave in Spain, dated to ~7,000 ybp. You can see a relevant table with Neolithic frequencies in the following webpage. Although not updated it does give you some idea, https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/haplogroups_of_neolithic_farmers.shtml . Last, the high frequency of E-V13 in the Balkans seems to be the result of a more recent founder effect since it lacks from Iron Age samples for the moment. Balkan-wise there is a single E1b1b Iron Age sample from Bulgaria which is E-Z1919.

    I didn’t claim that Albanian isn’t pre-Slavic. It is pre-Slavic, but in the context of the Balkans, not modern-day Albania. You also wrote, «Impervious to both Roman languages, Greek and Latin.» (i appreciate your acknowledgement of the former’s status). 40-60% of the Albanian lexicon is of Latin origin mate. As for Greek, you cannot claim imperviousness because it was probably not even in close contact with it (contrary to Latin) in antiquity, hence the extremely few loans it inherited (10-30; similar to Romanian), with many of them being related to traded goods from what i see.

    Maritime and naval vocabulary is just one of the many points which prove that Albanian didn’t form close to any coast, like where Illyrian was spoken. And that is crucial, because for example, the Illyrians of Teuta (who lived in present-day northern Albania and Montenegro)

    were great pirates and exercised piracy in special ships that could move quickly against the wind (either to approach merchant ships or to escape the warships that were chasing them). It is almost certain that the Illyrians of Teuta were a people who had their own maritime and naval vocabulary. On the contrary, the Albanian language does not have its own maritime and naval vocabulary. Here are some examples given by Radoslav Katičić in his book «The Ancient Languages ​​of the Balkans» (page 186):
    «From there some scholars conclude that the original Albanian area was more to the east, in the interior of the Balkans, and not in the maritime regions of present-day Albania. The almost complete lack of a native Albanian terminology for sea-faring and fishing seems to confirm this: Alb. gjemi “ship” is of Turkish origin, lundër “boat” is of Latin, varkë “barque” is of Modern Greek, lopatë “oar” is of Slavic, peshk “fish” and natoj “swim” are of Latin origin.»
    Of interesting note is lopatë mentioned above. The traditional Albanian word for «oar» (lopatë) is the Slavic term for «shovel» lopata . In other words, when the Albanians had to make a word with the meaning «oar» they already had the Slavic loan for «shovel» and due to the schematic similarity (both objects have a wide head and a long axis) they used the term lopatë «shovel» to cover the object «oar» as well. The lack of Proto-Albanian maritime and naval vocabulary shows that when the early Proto-Albanian language was spoken, the linguistic ancestors of the Albanians were unfamiliar with the sea and navigation, which of course cannot be true of the Illyrians of Teuta who were great pirates and their piracy actually made the Romans to declare the First Illyrian War.

    You write, «(also consider how strongly Romanized Dacia became with Roman colonization, so much that a derived language is still spoken majoritarily in that region (and is of course official in Romania)»
    I have written enough in my previous comment explaining why it is almost certain that the linguistic ancestors of the Romanians came from below the Danube and that their language didn’t form in Dacia. Unless by Dacia you mean the Diocese of Dacia shown below. Also, as aforementioned in the previous comment, 150,000 Dacians were also transplanted south of the Danube during the time of Augustus and Nero in the 1st century CE, therefore however you look at it and whatever hypothesis you choose to support, Dacian presence wasn’t exclusive to Dacia.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EFQBxXbUYAAf68a?format=jpg&name=large

    I don’t go again and again on this line. This line is a conceptual tool developed by specialists to assist them in their studies, it’s not something i created mate. Furthermore, i wrote myself above that the Jireček line is more like a grey zone, not an impenetrable line. If the ancestors of Albanians were within that grey zone though, they should have inherited as many Greek loans as they did with Latin, namely approximately 50/50, yet Latin loans are up to 60 times more in Albanian. With that put aside, it is interesting that you mention Durrës in relation to Albanians, because you will be surprised to know that Durrës is one of those words that reached Albanian through Slavic mediation, making their so-called presence in the «broader» area post-Slavic. It also happens to be very useful for determining a «terminus post quem» for the arrival of Albanians in Albania. You see, if the name of Dyrrachium (or Dyrrachion in Greek) had entered Albanian directly from the Greek or classical Latin then the Albanians would say the city «Durrëq», since the /kj/ of Latin loans gave the palatalized velar consonant q (= kʲ). For example:
    commercium > kumerq
    facies > faqe
    ericius > iriq
    socius > shok/shoq
    cocceus > kokju > kuq

    Instead, the Albanian /s/ in the word Durrës comes from the change tš [= č]>s. Therefore, the early Albanian name of the city was Durrëtš and this /tš/ couldn’t have come directly from the Greek Dyrrachion or the classical Latin Dyrrachium, because in that case the Albanian name would be Durrëq. So, the Albanian language needs a linguistic mediator that can take the Greek-Latin /kj/ and depalatalize it to /tš/ = /č/ or /ts/. The obvious candidate is Slavic, which during the first Slavic palatalization between 350-550 CE made the change *kj> tš = č. More about it here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_first_palatalization. In the tongue of the Slavs Dyrrachion/Dyrrachium became Dŭràčĭ. The Slavic Dŭràčĭ [=Dŭràtšĭ] developed into Duràtš > Dùrrëtš > Dùrrës in the Albanian language. Some other early Slavic loans in the Albanian lexicon showing the Slavic /tš/ = /č/ ending up as Albanian /s/ are the following:
    *penkwe > penk’we > pentswe > pentše > pensë > tosk. pesë ~ gheg. pêsë
    *kwērs-na > k’wērsna > tswērsna > tšērsna > tšārna > tšornë > tšorrë > sorrë
    Interestingly, even the change of the stress/accent from the penult to the antepenult is typical of the former western Bulgarian (current Macedonian Slavic) dialects.

    For example, Methodius > Metòdi (east of Axios river), Mètodi (west of Axios river). Listen closely at 1:35 of the following video the Slavomacedonian saying Mètodi and the Bulgarian Metòdi, namely Methodius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saints_Cyril_and_Methodius). Sidenote; the rest of the video shows the Bulgarian journalist trying to explain to his fellow Slavomacedonian that his ancestors were Bulgarians, which the latter refuses (ironically they are able to communicate perfectly with each other).

    Therefore, the Slavic language is the source of the Albanian Dùrrës, which means that the Albanians learned Dùrrës from the Slavs. I should also emphasize (clear up) something since you mentioned /u/. First of all, «y» in Dyrrachion was originally pronounced as /u/ by the Greeks themselves , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upsilon#Pronunciation, and it was also passed to Latins, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upsilon#Correspondence_with_Latin_Y. In Proto-Slavic loans from other languages, the foreign /u/ follows the fate of the genuine Proto-Slavic /u/ which turned into yer /ŭ/, which depending on whether it is in a weak or strong position, it was either lost or voiced. More about it here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yer. Some examples from Proto-Slavic German loans:
    PGmc *kuningaz (tribal leader, king) > PSlv *kŭnę(d)zĭ > South Slavic knez, East Slavic knjaz’ etc. (here u>ŭ was lost because it was in a weak position).
    PGmc *dulgaz > PSlv *dŭlgŭ > Old Church Slavonic dlŭgŭ > *dl.g (loss of yer) Mac. dolg, Bgr. dălg, Srb/Cr. dug (just like in the native term *vĭlkŭ > OCS vlĭkŭ (wolf) > *vl.k > Mac. volk, Bgr. vălk, Srb/Cr. vuk).
    Likewise, Slavic Duràtš/Duràč which is preserved in Old Church Slavonic, ended up being Drač in all the South Slavic languages after ~1000 CE. Namely it was lost due to its weak position, just like the aforementioned German loan *kunignaz > *kŭnę(d)zĭ > knez/knjaz.

    At this point however, we must find out when the Slavs settled in present-day Albania. Even though the first Slavic raids in the Balkans are dated after 518 CE, Procopius says that in 548 CE the Slavs invaded the area of ​​Epidamnos (alternative name of Dyrrachium), conquering fortresses that up until then were considered impenetrable, but instead of settling in the area they returned to their trans-Danubian homeland. These first Slavic invasions in the area before 550 CE explain why the name managed to undergo the first Slavic palatalization (kj> tš = č). Instead, we have to move around 600 CE to find the first evidence of a Slavic settlement in Albania. From a letter of Pope Gregory I around 600 CE we learn that the Slavs had already occupied the city of Lissos (modern Lezhë; 72 kilometers north of Dyrrachium) in northern Albania and its bishop had taken refuge in Italy shortly before the fall. Gregory had temporarily appointed him bishop of Squillace (in Calabria) and ordered him to return to his original diocese, if and when Lissos returned to Roman hands.

    In other words, around 600 CE the Slavs had begun to settle in Albania, and the Albanians learned the name of Dùrrës from the already settled Slavs, which means that the Albanians first entered Albania sometime after 600 CE, making this date their «terminus post quem» (the earliest time an event may have happened) in terms of their arrival.

    And since i made all this elaborate analysis on Durres, i should also mention some things that relate to its ancient and medieval era. Regardless of if Latin Romans colonized it as well, it was originally a Greek colony developed in a region that was inhabited by Brygians, who are seemingly related to Phrygians, and we already know from the table i shared in my first comment (https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.31826/jlr-2019-173-407/html ; page 239) that Phrygian has an insignificant number of isoglosses with Albanian and none that are exclusively between Phrygian and Albanian (contrary to Greek). Even long after, in the medieval era that Albanians were to be found in Albania, Durres wasn’t inhabited by them, but by Venetians, Greeks, Jews, and Slavs, as Robert Elsie writes in his Historical Dictionary of Albania.

    Also, an additional point about the religious affiliation of the area. Aside of the Jireček line, we also have an approximate religious boundary of the medieval era in this very same region, namely the zone of Durres-Kruje, as a result of religious jurisdiction following the tide of political power. When the Orthodox forces strengthened their position (Nicaea, Despotate of Epirus, Byzantium under Palaeologos), the Catholic bishops were expelled and Orthodox settled down. As soon as the Catholic forces of the region prevailed in power (Manfred of Sicily, Charles I of Anjou, etc.), the Orthodox bishops were expelled and the Catholics were restored. To the south of this line Orthodoxy was more or less permanent, and to the north of this line Catholicism. See the history of the diocese of Kruje to see this tide, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruj%C3%AB#Religion.
    10th century: The diocese of Kruje belongs to the Orthodox metropolis of Durres.
    1167: The Catholic Diocese of Kruje is founded.
    1284: Paleologian Byzantium expels the Catholic Bishop of Kruje and replaces him with an Orthodox one.
    From then on, the Catholic Church began to take root.
    At this point it should be noted that when the Albanians are first mentioned in the early 11th century, they are «all» described as Catholics (half-believers; non-Orthodox Christians in the mind of the Bulgarian Orthodox writer) in the context of the Balkans, such as the Croats. This information comes from a Bulgarian text from the time of Tsar Samuel. Here is a page from Robert Elsie’s book, «Early Albania: A Reader of Historical Texts 11th-17th Centuries», describing this first mention of Albanians.

    This additional point gives more credit to the view that the ancestors of Albanians inhabited a region that had strong western (Latin language and later Catholicism) influence, in contrast to eastern (Greek language and later Orthodoxy), and thus they must have been above the Jireček line or the Durres-Kruje religious zone, not on top of it.

    Your aristocratic example can also be used to support the opposite. For example, Mycenaeans only possessed around 21% of Europe_LNBA autosomal ancestry, yet an Indo-European elite minority managed to Hellenize the majority of the pre-Greek population. Let me also remind you that in previous discussions you have claimed that Turkic influence upon the Turkish population was quite small (if i recall correctly you had claimed around 1-3%; though it is actually much higher as i argued), yet they speak a Turkic language. But besides this, you seem to forget the Slavic presence of medieval Romania, and this can even be traced through the haplogroups of Romanians. Now, all these come second, because if you review again what i wrote in my previous comment you will see that it is more likely for the Eastern Balkan Romance languages to have formed below the Danube than north of it. The 6 centuries latinization room, instead of the 1.5 century. Or aside of the common Albanian/Romanian pre-Latin substrate, the existence of more recent Latin innovations shared between the two, as well as the the existence of Late-Proto-Albanian loans in Romanian shows that they were still in contact around 500 CE. As for the Romanian frequency of J2a, we would indeed need to study their subclades to see whether there is any Italian connection, i personally haven’t studied them, but i do consider Roman/Italian influence a possibility as you write. But still, just because modern Romanians possess J2a in a notable frequency (some 13.5%; not too much), this doesn’t mean that it’s because of Roman establishment in modern-day Romania or ancient Dacia. There was far more Roman presence below the Danube than north of it and for a longer period of time. If Roman-related, it is more likely that it came from the south for all the aforementioned reasons. Plus, take note that Aromanians (Vlachs) who belong to the same Eastern Balkan Romance group, happen to have almost double the frequency of J2a at 24.5%, yet they migrated south of what would be their proto-homeland in the central Balkans. Though the latter’s frequency could also be due to some Greek influence. As for Neolithic J2a in Europe, i am actually aware of only 7 samples. Namely:
    1) J2a-Z6055 sample from Neolithic Hungary
    2) J2a-Z6048 sample I5068, from Neolithic Austria
    3) J2a-Z6048 sample I5207, from Neolithic Austria
    4) J2a-Y13128 from Neolithic Hungary, Sopot Culture
    5) J2a-Z6057 from Neolithic Croatia, Lengyel Culture
    6) J2a-Y29673 from Neolithic Italy
    7) J2a-S11842 from Neolithic Italy
    But probably more exist, haven’t checked in a while. Though it should be noted that it was indeed a minor Neolithic haplogroup in the context of Europe. G2a and I were far more important.

    As for Albanian J2, take note that the respective high frequency pertains to J2b, not J2a. J2b is the other branch of haplogroup J and it likely arrived during the Bronze Age in the Balkans. Globally it peaks among Gheg Albanians (northern) who are far more conservative than Tosks (southern), as you can easily judge from their haplogroup frequencies. You can see some very elaborate pie charts in this following webpage, http://www.gjenetika.com/statistikat/. It’s in Albanian but you can easily understand through automatic translation what each pie stands for. In short, the first pie pertains to all the Albanian samples from throughout different countries, the second to Gheg Albanians specifically, and the third to Tosk Albanians. After those the rest of the pie charts pertain to the Albanians of specific countries.

    As for the classification of Thracian, i respect your opinion. Personally i haven’t focused very much on the archaeological aspect of the region and thus i cannot disregard what you say. But regardless of that, i tend to agree with the academic consensus that considers it Indo-European. That of course doesn’t mean that it didn’t have a pre-Indo-European element as well, but then again Greek does as well. Aside of linguistics, we also have some ancient relative samples that have been published. Here is a PCA based on the Eurogenes K15 algorithm. I have included a number of ancient samples as well for comparison, including Neolithic ones. Each sample actually takes some time to add on this PCA, it’s a process. As you can see, the Bronze Age Bulgarian sample is clearly Indo-European and a recent one from the looks of him, while the Iron Age Bulgarian sample (same as the one i shared in the previous comment) appears already blended with pre-Indo-European populations, but still not clustering with the Neolithic samples. The Iron Age Dalmatian is also included, as well as a Bronze Age Dalmatian who isn’t that much different, and both are close to northern Italy, as the previous image showed (by the way, Albanians don’t compare well with it as you write in the last paragraph, in contrast to the Moesian sample). Take note that Albanians, even though not shown below, are mostly located between Bulgaria and Thessaly from other PCAs that i have seen.

    Luis, -deva/-dava/-dova as explained in the previous comment, aren’t related to the Indo-Aryan term for «deity, god», «deva», or to Latin «Deus». They come from Proto-Indo-European *deywós (god, the celestial one); Greek «Zeus» comes from Proto-Indo-European *dyḗws (sky god, sky, heaven). Instead, Dacian -deva originates from PIE dʰeh₁- (place), https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/d%CA%B0eh%E2%82%81-, which even has a clear relative meaning contrary to *deywós (deity) or «ate-ba» (under the pass). If anything, the rivers you mention seem to be traced to the *deywós (deity) root, due to deification of rivers in antiquity, just like two additional rivers in Ourense and Pontevedra of neighboring Galicia (part of the same Roman province; Hispania Tarraconensis), https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Deva#Galician. Galicia certainly had a Celtic presence as the name suggests and stems from the local tribe Gallaeci/Callaeci. Furthermore, the respective Wikipedia articles contradict what you say about the Celtic presence of Asturias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astures) and the Basque Country (more vague; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caristii). This is probably a sensitive issue to you, and i respect that, but let’s not expand on it.

    You write, «By extending the Dacian “deva” placenames to Thracia you are strecthing the evidence beyond recognition, sorry.».
    Read the last paragraph of «Etymology», https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plovdiv#Etymology. Aside of what i mentioned, there is also the view that «pulpa» could be a Thracian word meaning «lake» (i assume related to one of the roots beginning with the letter «P» recorded here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reconstructed_Dacian_words). Anyway, Dacian-related toponyms weren’t only found in trans-Danubian Dacia, hence why the linguistic designation Daco-Moesian. Here is also a map that relates, even though not complete and with «Thermidava» (down left) placed in Epirus being totally wrong (as aforementioned Claudius Ptolemy places it between Scodra and Ulpiana, namely around the border between Kosovo and northern Albania).

    On the Carpathian mountains, other than the etymology that i shared, there are also some additional related views, as seen in the following links.
    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Carpathians
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpi_(people)#Name_etymology

    Let me close here. If you have a different opinion for some of the above i respect it, but again, let’s wrap it up and not expand.

    Me gusta

  8. Luis, thanks for your reply. When i said that i have very limited time i meant it. Just this morning i managed to find some free time and reply to you. In any case, i am trying to wrap up this exchange. These initial comments of mine weren’t meant to sprang a whole discussion, hence why i chose to focus on a single subject and include information that could benefit your studies. I must address some things though.

    Above you supported the view that Albanian originates from Dacian and then that Albanian originates from within the modern-day boundaries of Albania. From what we know, Dacian was never spoken in Albania. I see what you write in the second comment, but the southwesternernmost presence of Dacian, attested through the aforementioned suffixes of certain placenames, is essentially around the border between Kosovo and northern Albania (Thermidava, Quemedava). Even historically we are not informed of any Dacians that far southwest. And then there are all the other points which make proto-Albanian, let alone pre-proto-Albanian almost with certainly not present there during antiquity. You also say that dialects such as Arbëreshë (in Italy) and Arvanitika (in Greece) are conservative dialects that retain many archaic elements, which is true. Yet this is a faulty rationale because these two are both Tosk dialects (meaning not proto-Albanian; the other main branch of Albanian is Gheg) and their detachment from the Tosk nucleus happened in the late Middle Ages, namely within the 14th century CE. Furthermore, the reason of their conservative nature is because they were isolated varieties outside of the albanophonic nucleus. A similar example to this would be the Ophitic variety of Pontic Greek which preserves many archaic elements, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontic_Greek#Ophitic ; also an article about it, https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/history/jason-and-argot-land-where-greek-s-ancient-language-survives-2174669.html . Please review what i shared in my previous comment more carefully, because it represents the modern academic consensus about the origin of proto-Albanian, not subsequent dialectogenesis many centuries later. I could actually elaborate more on when the ancestors of Albanians entered “northern” Albania. There is evidence to suggest that they entered “northern” Albania between 600-650 CE, but again, this is already getting into a long discussion that i am trying to avoid due to limited time although i will try and include some data.

    The existence of many Slavic toponymes is one thing. The inheritance of pre-Slavic toponymes through Slavic mediation is another. This means that these toponymes/hydronymes were first adopted by Slavs, and later as Albanians arrived in the region by them as well, through “Slavic mediation”. By the way, the identity of the Slavs is trivial, but in short Serbs mostly influenced the north, while Bulgarians/Slavomacedonians the center and south (which also happens to have the biggest concentration of Slavic toponymes). There are even small related Slavic minorities that continue to inhabit Albania. It should be noted however that there were additional Slavic tribes in the area under different names, that no longer exist.

    The reason Albanians are autosomally close to Greeks is due to the fact that they are also palaeo-Balkan descendants, while the rest of the Balkanites aren’t. So they stand out as related. But even with that in mind, you should take note that both Greeks and Albanians have less autosomal affinity to ancient Balkanites than Italians. And to answer your last question, this is due to the fact that ancient Italians were part of an autosomal continuum with much of the Balkans, for a number of reasons, and they weren’t affected as much by medieval migrations, like it happened with the Slavs in Albania and Greece. Especially in regards to southern Italy, geneticists have called this the “Mediterranean genetic continuum”, and argue that mainland Greeks and Albanians also belonged to it before being somewhat detached due to the Slavic medieval migrations. You can read about it the following paper, “Ancient and recent admixture layers in Sicily and Southern Italy trace multiple migration routes along the Mediterranean (2017)”, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5434004/. A small quote from it:
    “Population expansions during the Middle Ages, for instance those related to the Slavic migrations, could have affected Albania and Continental Greece at least indirectly as a result of subsequent population contacts. We may therefore hypothesize that present-day mainland Greek and Southern Balkan populations detached from a genetic background originally shared with the ‘Mediterranean genetic continuum’ (i.e. Southern Italy and the Mediterranean Greek-islands) after these recent events which interested the Balkan Peninsula in historical times.”
    The Slavic autosomal influence of mainland Greeks and Albanians, though relatively small, was still notable. For example, in this following paper, “Genetics of the peloponnesean populations and the theory of extinction of the medieval peloponnesean Greeks (2017)”, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5437898/, it was found to be between 0.2%-14.4% in the case of Peloponnesians (who are not that different from the rest of mainland Greeks).

    I have written this again in the past (i believe it was about I2a), but you tend to generalize when it comes to haplogroups. E1b for example by its own means nothing. Even if you were to write E-V13, which is the branch most common in the Balkans (and Europe), it would still not mean much. Haplogroups can only be contextualized when their relative subclades are studied, and there are quite many with each one having a different story. The subclades of E-V13 that are most common in the Balkans, and specifically among Greeks and Albanians, are E-Z5017 and E-Z5018 (as you can see in their respective FTDNA projects; https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/greece/dna-results and https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/albanian-bloodlines/dna-results ), both of which appear to be the result of proto-Celtic migrants during the Late Bronze Age in the Balkans, when studied more carefully. There is nothing Neolithic Balkan about them, nor E1b1b as a whole is seen as a major Neolithic paternal line of the Balkans today. It used to be hypothesized but today we know that the most frequent Neolithic paternal haplogroup in the Balkans was G2a (some 60% i believe). We only have one E1b1b Neolithic sample in the Balkans, out of the dozens other samples belonging to different haplogroups, and even that E1b1b is not E-V13, but E-L618 (predating E-V13), namely from the Zemunica cave in Croatia, dated to 7,600-7,400 ybp. There is only one Neolithic E-V13 sample found in Europe, and it is located in far away for us (not for you) Iberia, namely from the Avellaner cave in Spain, dated to ~7,000 ybp. You can see a relevant table with Neolithic frequencies in the following webpage. Although not updated it does give you some idea, https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/haplogroups_of_neolithic_farmers.shtml . Last, the high frequency of E-V13 in the Balkans seems to be the result of a more recent founder effect since it lacks from Iron Age samples for the moment. Balkan-wise there is a single E1b1b Iron Age sample from Bulgaria which is E-Z1919.

    I didn’t claim that Albanian isn’t pre-Slavic. It is pre-Slavic, but in the context of the Balkans, not modern-day Albania. You also wrote, “Impervious to both Roman languages, Greek and Latin.” (i appreciate your acknowledgement of the former’s status). 40-60% of the Albanian lexicon is of Latin origin mate. As for Greek, you cannot claim imperviousness because it was probably not even in close contact with it (contrary to Latin) in antiquity, hence the extremely few loans it inherited (10-30; similar to Romanian), with many of them being related to traded goods from what i see.

    Maritime and naval vocabulary is just one of the many points which prove that Albanian didn’t form close to any coast, like where Illyrian was spoken. And that is crucial, because for example, the Illyrians of Teuta (who lived in present-day northern Albania and Montenegro)

    were great pirates and exercised piracy in special ships that could move quickly against the wind (either to approach merchant ships or to escape the warships that were chasing them). It is almost certain that the Illyrians of Teuta were a people who had their own maritime and naval vocabulary. On the contrary, the Albanian language does not have its own maritime and naval vocabulary. Here are some examples given by Radoslav Katičić in his book “The Ancient Languages ​​of the Balkans” (page 186):
    “From there some scholars conclude that the original Albanian area was more to the east, in the interior of the Balkans, and not in the maritime regions of present-day Albania. The almost complete lack of a native Albanian terminology for sea-faring and fishing seems to confirm this: Alb. gjemi “ship” is of Turkish origin, lundër “boat” is of Latin, varkë “barque” is of Modern Greek, lopatë “oar” is of Slavic, peshk “fish” and natoj “swim” are of Latin origin.”
    Of interesting note is lopatë mentioned above. The traditional Albanian word for “oar” (lopatë) is the Slavic term for “shovel” lopata . In other words, when the Albanians had to make a word with the meaning “oar” they already had the Slavic loan for “shovel” and due to the schematic similarity (both objects have a wide head and a long axis) they used the term lopatë “shovel” to cover the object “oar” as well. The lack of Proto-Albanian maritime and naval vocabulary shows that when the early Proto-Albanian language was spoken, the linguistic ancestors of the Albanians were unfamiliar with the sea and navigation, which of course cannot be true of the Illyrians of Teuta who were great pirates and their piracy actually made the Romans to declare the First Illyrian War.

    You write, “(also consider how strongly Romanized Dacia became with Roman colonization, so much that a derived language is still spoken majoritarily in that region (and is of course official in Romania)”
    I have written enough in my previous comment explaining why it is almost certain that the linguistic ancestors of the Romanians came from below the Danube and that their language didn’t form in Dacia. Unless by Dacia you mean the Diocese of Dacia shown below. Also, as aforementioned in the previous comment, 150,000 Dacians were also transplanted south of the Danube during the time of Augustus and Nero in the 1st century CE, therefore however you look at it and whatever hypothesis you choose to support, Dacian presence wasn’t exclusive to Dacia.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EFQBxXbUYAAf68a?format=jpg&name=large

    I don’t go again and again on this line. This line is a conceptual tool developed by specialists to assist them in their studies, it’s not something i created mate. Furthermore, i wrote myself above that the Jireček line is more like a grey zone, not an impenetrable line. If the ancestors of Albanians were within that grey zone though, they should have inherited as many Greek loans as they did with Latin, namely approximately 50/50, yet Latin loans are up to 60 times more in Albanian. With that put aside, it is interesting that you mention Durrës in relation to Albanians, because you will be surprised to know that Durrës is one of those words that reached Albanian through Slavic mediation, making their so-called presence in the “broader” area post-Slavic. It also happens to be very useful for determining a “terminus post quem” for the arrival of Albanians in Albania. You see, if the name of Dyrrachium (or Dyrrachion in Greek) had entered Albanian directly from the Greek or classical Latin then the Albanians would say the city “Durrëq”, since the /kj/ of Latin loans gave the palatalized velar consonant q (= kʲ). For example:
    commercium > kumerq
    facies > faqe
    ericius > iriq
    socius > shok/shoq
    cocceus > kokju > kuq

    Instead, the Albanian /s/ in the word Durrës comes from the change tš [= č]>s. Therefore, the early Albanian name of the city was Durrëtš and this /tš/ couldn’t have come directly from the Greek Dyrrachion or the classical Latin Dyrrachium, because in that case the Albanian name would be Durrëq. So, the Albanian language needs a linguistic mediator that can take the Greek-Latin /kj/ and depalatalize it to /tš/ = /č/ or /ts/. The obvious candidate is Slavic, which during the first Slavic palatalization between 350-550 CE made the change *kj> tš = č. More about it here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_first_palatalization. In the tongue of the Slavs Dyrrachion/Dyrrachium became Dŭràčĭ. The Slavic Dŭràčĭ [=Dŭràtšĭ] developed into Duràtš > Dùrrëtš > Dùrrës in the Albanian language. Some other early Slavic loans in the Albanian lexicon showing the Slavic /tš/ = /č/ ending up as Albanian /s/ are the following:
    *penkwe > penk’we > pentswe > pentše > pensë > tosk. pesë ~ gheg. pêsë
    *kwērs-na > k’wērsna > tswērsna > tšērsna > tšārna > tšornë > tšorrë > sorrë
    Interestingly, even the change of the stress/accent from the penult to the antepenult is typical of the former western Bulgarian (current Macedonian Slavic) dialects.

    For example, Methodius > Metòdi (east of Axios river), Mètodi (west of Axios river). Listen closely at 1:35 of the following video the Slavomacedonian saying Mètodi and the Bulgarian Metòdi, namely Methodius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saints_Cyril_and_Methodius). Sidenote; the rest of the video shows the Bulgarian journalist trying to explain to his fellow Slavomacedonian that his ancestors were Bulgarians, which the latter refuses (ironically they are able to communicate perfectly with each other).

    Therefore, the Slavic language is the source of the Albanian Dùrrës, which means that the Albanians learned Dùrrës from the Slavs. I should also emphasize (clear up) something since you mentioned /u/. First of all, “y” in Dyrrachion was originally pronounced as /u/ by the Greeks themselves , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upsilon#Pronunciation, and it was also passed to Latins, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upsilon#Correspondence_with_Latin_Y. In Proto-Slavic loans from other languages, the foreign /u/ follows the fate of the genuine Proto-Slavic /u/ which turned into yer /ŭ/, which depending on whether it is in a weak or strong position, it was either lost or voiced. More about it here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yer. Some examples from Proto-Slavic German loans:
    PGmc *kuningaz (tribal leader, king) > PSlv *kŭnę(d)zĭ > South Slavic knez, East Slavic knjaz’ etc. (here u>ŭ was lost because it was in a weak position).
    PGmc *dulgaz > PSlv *dŭlgŭ > Old Church Slavonic dlŭgŭ > *dl.g (loss of yer) Mac. dolg, Bgr. dălg, Srb/Cr. dug (just like in the native term *vĭlkŭ > OCS vlĭkŭ (wolf) > *vl.k > Mac. volk, Bgr. vălk, Srb/Cr. vuk).
    Likewise, Slavic Duràtš/Duràč which is preserved in Old Church Slavonic, ended up being Drač in all the South Slavic languages after ~1000 CE. Namely it was lost due to its weak position, just like the aforementioned German loan *kunignaz > *kŭnę(d)zĭ > knez/knjaz.

    At this point however, we must find out when the Slavs settled in present-day Albania. Even though the first Slavic raids in the Balkans are dated after 518 CE, Procopius says that in 548 CE the Slavs invaded the area of ​​Epidamnos (alternative name of Dyrrachium), conquering fortresses that up until then were considered impenetrable, but instead of settling in the area they returned to their trans-Danubian homeland. These first Slavic invasions in the area before 550 CE explain why the name managed to undergo the first Slavic palatalization (kj> tš = č). Instead, we have to move around 600 CE to find the first evidence of a Slavic settlement in Albania. From a letter of Pope Gregory I around 600 CE we learn that the Slavs had already occupied the city of Lissos (modern Lezhë; 72 kilometers north of Dyrrachium) in northern Albania and its bishop had taken refuge in Italy shortly before the fall. Gregory had temporarily appointed him bishop of Squillace (in Calabria) and ordered him to return to his original diocese, if and when Lissos returned to Roman hands.

    In other words, around 600 CE the Slavs had begun to settle in Albania, and the Albanians learned the name of Dùrrës from the already settled Slavs, which means that the Albanians first entered Albania sometime after 600 CE, making this date their “terminus post quem” (the earliest time an event may have happened) in terms of their arrival.

    And since i made all this elaborate analysis on Durres, i should also mention some things that relate to its ancient and medieval era. Regardless of if Latin Romans colonized it as well, it was originally a Greek colony developed in a region that was inhabited by Brygians, who are seemingly related to Phrygians, and we already know from the table i shared in my first comment (https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.31826/jlr-2019-173-407/html ; page 239) that Phrygian has an insignificant number of isoglosses with Albanian and none that are exclusively between Phrygian and Albanian (contrary to Greek). Even long after, in the medieval era that Albanians were to be found in Albania, Durres wasn’t inhabited by them, but by Venetians, Greeks, Jews, and Slavs, as Robert Elsie writes in his Historical Dictionary of Albania.

    Also, an additional point about the religious affiliation of the area. Aside of the Jireček line, we also have an approximate religious boundary of the medieval era in this very same region, namely the zone of Durres-Kruje, as a result of religious jurisdiction following the tide of political power. When the Orthodox forces strengthened their position (Nicaea, Despotate of Epirus, Byzantium under Palaeologos), the Catholic bishops were expelled and Orthodox settled down. As soon as the Catholic forces of the region prevailed in power (Manfred of Sicily, Charles I of Anjou, etc.), the Orthodox bishops were expelled and the Catholics were restored. To the south of this line Orthodoxy was more or less permanent, and to the north of this line Catholicism. See the history of the diocese of Kruje to see this tide, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruj%C3%AB#Religion.
    10th century: The diocese of Kruje belongs to the Orthodox metropolis of Durres.
    1167: The Catholic Diocese of Kruje is founded.
    1284: Paleologian Byzantium expels the Catholic Bishop of Kruje and replaces him with an Orthodox one.
    From then on, the Catholic Church began to take root.
    At this point it should be noted that when the Albanians are first mentioned in the early 11th century, they are “all” described as Catholics (half-believers; non-Orthodox Christians in the mind of the Bulgarian Orthodox writer) in the context of the Balkans, such as the Croats. This information comes from a Bulgarian text from the time of Tsar Samuel. Here is a page from Robert Elsie’s book, “Early Albania: A Reader of Historical Texts 11th-17th Centuries”, describing this first mention of Albanians.

    This additional point gives more credit to the view that the ancestors of Albanians inhabited a region that had strong western (Latin language and later Catholicism) influence, in contrast to eastern (Greek language and later Orthodoxy), and thus they must have been above the Jireček line or the Durres-Kruje religious zone, not on top of it.

    Your aristocratic example can also be used to support the opposite. For example, Mycenaeans only possessed around 21% of Europe_LNBA autosomal ancestry, yet an Indo-European elite minority managed to Hellenize the majority of the pre-Greek population. Let me also remind you that in previous discussions you have claimed that Turkic influence upon the Turkish population was quite small (if i recall correctly you had claimed around 1-3%; though it is actually much higher as i argued), yet they speak a Turkic language. But besides this, you seem to forget the Slavic presence of medieval Romania, and this can even be traced through the haplogroups of Romanians. Now, all these come second, because if you review again what i wrote in my previous comment you will see that it is more likely for the Eastern Balkan Romance languages to have formed below the Danube than north of it. The 6 centuries latinization room, instead of the 1.5 century. Or aside of the common Albanian/Romanian pre-Latin substrate, the existence of more recent Latin innovations shared between the two, as well as the the existence of Late-Proto-Albanian loans in Romanian shows that they were still in contact around 500 CE. As for the Romanian frequency of J2a, we would indeed need to study their subclades to see whether there is any Italian connection, i personally haven’t studied them, but i do consider Roman/Italian influence a possibility as you write. But still, just because modern Romanians possess J2a in a notable frequency (some 13.5%; not too much), this doesn’t mean that it’s because of Roman establishment in modern-day Romania or ancient Dacia. There was far more Roman presence below the Danube than north of it and for a longer period of time. If Roman-related, it is more likely that it came from the south for all the aforementioned reasons. Plus, take note that Aromanians (Vlachs) who belong to the same Eastern Balkan Romance group, happen to have almost double the frequency of J2a at 24.5%, yet they migrated south of what would be their proto-homeland in the central Balkans. Though the latter’s frequency could also be due to some Greek influence. As for Neolithic J2a in Europe, i am actually aware of only 7 samples. Namely:
    1) J2a-Z6055 sample from Neolithic Hungary
    2) J2a-Z6048 sample I5068, from Neolithic Austria
    3) J2a-Z6048 sample I5207, from Neolithic Austria
    4) J2a-Y13128 from Neolithic Hungary, Sopot Culture
    5) J2a-Z6057 from Neolithic Croatia, Lengyel Culture
    6) J2a-Y29673 from Neolithic Italy
    7) J2a-S11842 from Neolithic Italy
    But probably more exist, haven’t checked in a while. Though it should be noted that it was indeed a minor Neolithic haplogroup in the context of Europe. G2a and I were far more important.

    As for Albanian J2, take note that the respective high frequency pertains to J2b, not J2a. J2b is the other branch of haplogroup J and it likely arrived during the Bronze Age in the Balkans. Globally it peaks among Gheg Albanians (northern) who are far more conservative than Tosks (southern), as you can easily judge from their haplogroup frequencies. You can see some very elaborate pie charts in this following webpage, http://www.gjenetika.com/statistikat/. It’s in Albanian but you can easily understand through automatic translation what each pie stands for. In short, the first pie pertains to all the Albanian samples from throughout different countries, the second to Gheg Albanians specifically, and the third to Tosk Albanians. After those the rest of the pie charts pertain to the Albanians of specific countries.

    As for the classification of Thracian, i respect your opinion. Personally i haven’t focused very much on the archaeological aspect of the region and thus i cannot disregard what you say. But regardless of that, i tend to agree with the academic consensus that considers it Indo-European. That of course doesn’t mean that it didn’t have a pre-Indo-European element as well, but then again Greek does as well. Aside of linguistics, we also have some ancient relative samples that have been published. Here is a PCA based on the Eurogenes K15 algorithm. I have included a number of ancient samples as well for comparison, including Neolithic ones. Each sample actually takes some time to add on this PCA, it’s a process. As you can see, the Bronze Age Bulgarian sample is clearly Indo-European and a recent one from the looks of him, while the Iron Age Bulgarian sample (same as the one i shared in the previous comment) appears already blended with pre-Indo-European populations, but still not clustering with the Neolithic samples. The Iron Age Dalmatian is also included, as well as a Bronze Age Dalmatian who isn’t that much different, and both are close to northern Italy, as the previous image showed (by the way, Albanians don’t compare well with it as you write in the last paragraph, in contrast to the Moesian sample). Take note that Albanians, even though not shown below, are mostly located between Bulgaria and Thessaly from other PCAs that i have seen.

    Luis, -deva/-dava/-dova as explained in the previous comment, aren’t related to the Indo-Aryan term for “deity, god”, “deva”, or to Latin “Deus”. They come from Proto-Indo-European *deywós (god, the celestial one); Greek “Zeus” comes from Proto-Indo-European *dyḗws (sky god, sky, heaven). Instead, Dacian -deva originates from PIE dʰeh₁- (place), https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/d%CA%B0eh%E2%82%81-, which even has a clear relative meaning contrary to *deywós (deity) or “ate-ba” (under the pass). If anything, the rivers you mention seem to be traced to the *deywós (deity) root, due to deification of rivers in antiquity, just like two additional rivers in Ourense and Pontevedra of neighboring Galicia (part of the same Roman province; Hispania Tarraconensis), https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Deva#Galician. Galicia certainly had a Celtic presence as the name suggests and stems from the local tribe Gallaeci/Callaeci. Furthermore, the respective Wikipedia articles contradict what you say about the Celtic presence of Asturias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astures) and the Basque Country (more vague; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caristii). This is probably a sensitive issue to you, and i respect that, but let’s not expand on it.

    You write, “By extending the Dacian “deva” placenames to Thracia you are strecthing the evidence beyond recognition, sorry.”.
    Read the last paragraph of “Etymology”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plovdiv#Etymology. Aside of what i mentioned, there is also the view that “pulpa” could be a Thracian word meaning “lake” (i assume related to one of the roots beginning with the letter “P” recorded here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reconstructed_Dacian_words). Anyway, Dacian-related toponyms weren’t only found in trans-Danubian Dacia, hence why the linguistic designation Daco-Moesian. Here is also a map that relates, even though not complete and with “Thermidava” (down left) placed in Epirus being totally wrong (as aforementioned Claudius Ptolemy places it between Scodra and Ulpiana, namely around the border between Kosovo and northern Albania).

    On the Carpathian mountains, other than the etymology that i shared, there are also some additional related views, as seen in the following links.
    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Carpathians
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpi_(people)#Name_etymology

    Let me close here. If you have a different opinion for some of the above i respect it, but again, let’s wrap it up and not expand.

    Me gusta

  9. Demetrios, hopefully I’ve approved the correct post (deleted the older version per your instructions).

    Re. Dacian and Albanian, all I can say is that Albanian was spoken in Albania in the Middle Ages but probably not or only limitedly so in Kosova. The genetics also support a «recent» Albanian colonization of Kosova, surely in Ottoman times. That’s what we can say about historical Albanian.

    The possible Dacian root would only correspond to the ancestry of Albanian, assuming it’s correct (in my tree it’s only a conjecture, an educated guess), for a pre-historical period and would be present in Albania as «Illyrian» (because nobody seems to know what Illyrian was or if it was one or many languages, etc.)

    There’s certainly one documented Illyrian tribe called Albanoi, which is probably at the origin of the exonym Albania(n). This anchors the Albanians in Roman times and thus surely in pre-Roman times as well. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanoi

    The only question is if and how the Albanoi, Southern Illyrians in general or even all Illyrians more in general were Dacianized, if they were at all.

    Alternatively Albanian has nothing to do with Dacian (if so extinct) and is instead some other Indoeuropean branch, maybe it’s part of Greco-Armenian even. I cannot solve such Balcanic conundrums on my own, really.

    This is an open question but there’s a lot of evidence backing Albanian established in Albania in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, and the evidence is at least much more dubious for Kosova instead.

    There’s even an antique disctinction between Dalmatians and «Illyrians proper», first used by Greeks but later also by some Romans like the very respectable Pliny using «Illyrii proprie dicti» only to those south of Dalmatia. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrian_language

    To the north there was the also very obscure Liburnian language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liburnian_language

    In the 4th century St. Jerome attests the persistance of Illyrian language, along with Latin. To me there’s no question that «Illyrian proper» is proto-Albanian. The question is where does Illyrian come from and which are its phylogenetic connections within Inodoeuropean, almost necessarily the rather confusing Balcanic Indoeuropean?

    Me gusta

  10. @Demetrios: E1b has NOTHING to do with Celts nor any other migration from Central Europe (what the heck is «proto-Celtics»?) E1b (at least the V-13 subclade) is clearly a Vasconic Neolithic lineage brought to Europe from West Asia by the first farmers (along with the more common G2a). Those lineages have been in Greece, Albania and even (at lower frequencies) in distant places like Frisia since many millennia ago.

    The Celtic or «proto-Celtic» (Italo-Celtic) expansion is associated to Urnfields culture (Italo-Celtic) and its Celtic-specific successors Hallstatt and La Tène. Urnfields seems to penetrate somewhat into Pannonia but not Illyria, La Tène did send some historical Celtic bands to the Balcans but the Greeks kicked their ass and only sparse mercenary bands remained very scattered. The Celts are almost irrelevant in the making of the historical or modern Balcans.

    Yes, I’m aware that most of the known Neolithic samples are G2a (or I2a) but I’m also aware that E1b-V13 could only have arrived to Europe via West Asia and NOT via Iberia (M81 is another very different story however but it’s restricted to Iberia in Europe, unlike the very common E1b-V13).

    E1b and G2a are the main legacy markers of the first European Neolithic in what regards to imported haplogroups, while I2 and R1b are borrowed aboriginal European lineages.

    «… the high frequency of E-V13 in the Balkans seems to be the result of a more recent founder effect since it lacks from Iron Age samples for the moment».

    Almost nothing has happened since the Iron Age. Some Roman colonization, especially in Baetica, little more. The Iron Age is yesterday. This only shows that more archaeogentic research is needed. What kind of «founder effect» could even be that one? The same peoples stay put with the oddball Roman, Serbian or Turkish settler for these two millennia, we know it: it’s history.

    How many Greek and Albanian ancient Y-DNA samples exist? I’m getting rusty but two years ago it was none.

    «Latin loans are up to 60 times more in Albanian».

    Makes all sense to me considering that it was the first piece of the Balcans Rome ever conquered. I question the Jireček line at the very least in Albania. In Roman times the legions and administration spoke Latin (often bad Latin, Vulgar Latin, in the case of the Army but Latin nevertheless). Greek was still a language of culture but that was above the scope of the common peasant (>90% of population anywhere). Only after Justinian’s failed attempt to restore the Roman Empire, Greek had a comeback, as it was convenient as official language for the shrunk self-called «Roman Empire» we usually call Byzantium. Albania was usually part of Byzantium but it was a remote area nevertheless.

    Also after Byzantine power collapsed in the 4th crusade, Albanian proto-nationalists often adopted Catholicism and sought the backing of Latin powers against Serbia at its height, powers that were mostly uninterested but there went the Navarrese (basically paving the way to Venice).

    So most of the time Albania was under the influence of Italy, either as Rome or as Venice (Naples even at some point), and of Catholicism (and don’t forget that until the mid 20th century the Catholic Church was all about Latin).

    Dürres is NOT «very useful for determining a “terminus post quem” for the arrival of Albanians in Albania». First because Albanians appear to have been all the time in Albania (E1b-V13 proves it and I’m knee jerk about that because I am confident of knowing European genetics very very well). Albanians did not arrive from anywhere in general terms, not after the Neolithic, but they were at some point Indoeuropeanized in a way that is distinct from other nearby groups like Greeks or Liburnians. That’s the conundrum: when and how were Albanians Indoeuropeanized?

    Dürres is clearly the original Illyrian name.

    «Although the name Epidamnos/Epidamnus was more commonly used among Ancient Greek authors, the coinage of the city only used the abbreviations for the name Dyrrhachion/Dyrrhachium».

    So very clear: *Dyrrach- (something like that: *Dyrrakhi?) was the original name even if the Greeks tried to rename the city Epidamnos.

    «… the early Albanian name of the city was Durrëtš and this /tš/ couldn’t have come directly from the Greek Dyrrachion or the classical Latin Dyrrachium, because in that case the Albanian name would be Durrëq».

    Are you making a claim on a single consonant’s evolution? This is where I miss emoticons of uncontrolled laughter. Linguistics is extremely complicated and often leads to false conclusions. Watch your step!

    Not watching the video: the linguistic discussion on the pronunciation of a single consonant is well beyond the scope of this article, of my mind and of my patience, really. Even if you’d be right about Serbian influence it’d be utterly pointless, because the Albanians were there long before.

    «Slavic presence of medieval Romania (…) can even be traced through the haplogroups of Romanians»…

    NO! Slavic demographic influence in the Balcans appears to be exactly the same as Magyar demographic influence in Hungary or Turkic demographic influence in Turkey: ZERO!

    It’s probably not exactly «zero» but so close to that that is undetectable: https://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2015/09/negligible-genetic-flow-in-slavic.html

    J2b is absolutely concordant with the Pelasgo-Tyrsenian expansion, even if it is a distinct branch from the «Roman» (Etruscan) J2a. Both J2 in Europe are almost certainly originated in the Pelasgo-Tyrsenian invasion of c. 5000 BCE (and later Etruscan and Roman scatter westwards).

    That J2b is concentrated in Albania and West Greece (and less common elsewhere) does suggest a founder effect of some sort but I still think it must be Pelasgo-Tyrsenian (unless it is First Neolithic residue, which would be older, but I doubt it).

    In any case only half of Albanian J2 is J2b, a less common clade: https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J2_Y-DNA.shtml

    You’re just trying to exoticize Albanians, what is funny because I see Albanians and Greeks as pretty much the same thing (genetically speaking): if Albanians are exotic, then so would be Greeks. And that’s not my opinion at all.

    Stop being Balcanizing, be Athenian illustrate! It really taunts my patience, really!

    Me gusta

  11. @Demetrios (last bloc):

    I have absolutely no problem with elite domination being the driving force of Indoeuropeanization of Albanians, but that must have happened prior to historical times. I see zero reason not to consider Albanian language derived from «Illyrian proper». But how was the region Illyrianized? Was Illyrian a (creolized?) branch of Dacian? That’s what I don’t know.

    For a moment I even considered: what if Albanians (Albanoi) were a deported Dacian group after the Roman conquest of Dacia? But it doesn’t work at all: their genetics are all from the Vasconic Neolithic and the Pelasgo-Tyrsenian secondary wave. Would they be deported Dacians they should have other lineages, notably more R1a. Unless they almost totally replaced the natives a defeated and deported people could have never changed the linguistic landscape, so no way.

    So the Albanians (by whichever name) must have been in Albania, speaking proto-Albanian (Illyrian), prior to historical times. The open question is how they arrived to that situation: which Indoeuropean elite conquered the region?, when?, where did they originate? My best guess is Dacia but it’s only a guess as of yet.

    Re. Thracian: I don’t claim that it’s not Indoeuropean but that, in terms cultural-archaeological, the culture seems not typical Indoeuropean (kurgan) but still integrated in the Indoeuropean expansion process.

    This leaves open the question as for the affiliation of Thracian language but suggests that it was probably (if Indoeuropean) a bit distinct, more divergent, more creolized with Dniepr-Don pre-Indoeuropean (some form of Paleoeuropean surely). It could still be also ancestral to Albanian instead of Dacian, who knows?, but I’d rather avoid the Daco-Thracian category in any case, as there’s no clear relation other than joint arrival to the Eastern Balcans and the usual «sprachbund» of neighboring languages.

    I leave the option of «not Indoeuropean» open because my knowledge of the matter is insufficient and I tend to distrust (with some good reasons) the assignment of unclear stuff to Indoeuropean. But it’s systematic doubt, not claim.

    «As you can see, the Bronze Age Bulgarian sample is clearly Indo-European». — What I see in that plot is that he aligns well with modern Belgorod, which AFAIK is not a good proxy for proto-Indoeuropeans. There’s no Yamna/Khvalynsk sample I can see anywhere in that plot. Belgorod was of course in the Dniepr-Don area but anyhow modern people from that area surely represent also backflows from Corded Ware, etc.

    «Dacian -deva originates from PIE dʰeh₁- (place)» — Can of worms. Not willing to delve onto this labyrinth of words, which on shallow inspection often seem unrelated. Maybe…

    Galicia had indeed a Celtic presence, it was conquered (by the Lusitani and neighboring non-Celtic Turduli apparently) between c. 700 and c. 500 BCE. It still has lots of Vasconic toponimy however, all Iberia has (well, all Europe actually, but Iberia is quite dense and easier to discern often because of phonetics).

    «Furthermore, the respective Wikipedia articles contradict what you say about the Celtic presence of Asturias (…) and the Basque Country (…). This is probably a sensitive issue to you, and i respect that, but let’s not expand on it».

    That’s because propagandists with a Celticist agenda take over prehistory. It seems it’s rather a sensitive issue to Indoeuropeanized people with an Indoeuropeanist agenda. It’s very annoying because it’s extremely clear that Celts never penetrated in Asturias nor Cantabria. They did penetrate in parts of the Basque Country (Iron Age Urnfields in Araba/Álava) but seem: (1) a form of Urnfields that is very much «aquitanized» and (2) they were clearly not there anymore by historical times, when they apparently still retained parts of La Rioja however (Berones or Belones tribe). The Upper Ebro is certainly confusing because that’s how the Celts penetrated into the Central Plateau (and NW Iberia), so there seems to have been a lot of conflict, but the Caristii (not mentioned by all authors, Ptolemy makes them all Varduli or Alabanenses already) had this city of Veleia where lots of shards inscribed in various languages but mostly in what seems an old form of Basque have been found. The Indoeuropeanists and Basque-isolationists of the Academia (of the Linguistic Academia, concerned on their own careers based on nothing but speculation) managed to orchestrate an Inquisitorial campaign against the archaeologists that has been (thanks to the powers that be in Madrid and Gasteiz) successful and utterly shameful (the shards are obviously authentic: they are covered here and there in thick cement-like crust that can’t be falsified).

    Basque legend says that when everything is full of crossroads it’ll be the end of the world. I wonder if roundabouts count. I have little to no faith in Humankind after witnessing anti-scientific atrocities like that, really. The Caristians were clearly Basque speaking of some sort, ours were the Aquitani tribes that, taking advantage of winter, never surrender to Crassus Jr. (Caesar dixit), but to no avail because they’d be conquered in a later period by obscure proconsuls.

    We live very dark times.

    Me gusta

  12. Yeah Luis, thanks and sorry for the inconvenience. I simply had to replace a link. You can now also delete the first comment that is still pending from February 5th (be careful not to delete the one already posted). Wow, a month has passed. I saw the comments weeks ago, but i didn’t have time to reply back then and intended to do so when i found some time, yet i totally forgot about it. In any case, i would appreciate if we could wrap it up.

    You write, «Re. Dacian and Albanian, all I can say is that Albanian was spoken in Albania in the Middle Ages but probably not or only limitedly so in Kosova. The genetics also support a “recent” Albanian colonization of Kosova, surely in Ottoman times. That’s what we can say about historical Albanian.»
    I didn’t object that Albanian was spoken in Albania during the Middle Ages. Albanian was indeed probably spoken in northern Albania, or more precisely in the vicinity of Durres, since around the beginning of the Middle Ages as already explained.

    As for the tribe Albanoi and their settlement Albanopolis, more or less around modern-day Kruje (very close to Durres), you shouldn’t make the mistake of associating it with medieval Albanians in an anachronistic manner, or even with any of the palaeo-Balkan peoples such as Illyrians. For example, Albanoi/Albanopolis aren’t mentioned at all before or after Claudius Ptolemy wrote about it in 150 CE, and that is a very important note showing that it was a rather recent establishment, and that we don’t know much about it after that. Of course those ancient Albanoi are rather ambiguous in terms of their ethnicity, and it would be a stretch to call them Illyrians exactly because we aren’t aware of any prior Illyrian tribe under such or a similar name. I mean, it would be far more likely for them to have been of Celtic background rather than Illyrian. For example, we do know that Celts inhabited the Balkans and also that descendants of them in other parts of Europe, such as the Scottish people, have an identical endonym for their country; namely «Alba» in Scottish Gaelic and «Albania» in Latinized form. Read this as well, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alba. The medieval toponym Arbanon seems etymologically related with the Albanoi that inhabited it in antiquity. Though again, this ancient tribe of Albanoi (of whom we don’t know their actual ethnicity) should not be associated with medieval Albanians. The first ones left their name in an area from which the second ones were named after, since both the term Arbanitis and the Latin Albanensis etymologically mean «inhabitant of Arbanon/Albanon» – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Arbanon (e.g. Milano, Bologna > Milanese, Bolognese). The Latin Albanensis, from the which the Italian Albanese came, is the base of the old Tosk endonym Arbëreshë that clearly stems from the late Latin Albanese through typical change /a/>/ë/ prior of /n/ and subsequently Tosk rhotacization of this middle /n/, namely Albanese> Arbanese > Arbëneshë > Arbëreshë (e.g. Latin cantare > këndoj and Avlon > Vlonë (Gheg) > Vlorë (Tosk). Such anachronisms were not that uncommon by medieval authors. Let me remind you of the use of «Triballi» to describe medieval Serbs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triballi#Exonym_of_Serbs), or Moesi to describe medieval Bulgarians, or even the designation of «Illyrian» to describe the South Slavic languages, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrian_(South_Slavic). As we read in Laonikos Chalkokondyles’ «Histories», Page 44 (original Greek), page 45 (translation in English), https://www.scribd.com/document/397107471/Laonikos-Chalkokondyles-Anthony-Kaldellis-Ed
    «……ἀναπυνθανόμενος εὑρίσκω, ὡς ταύτῃ Βουλγάρους μὲν τούτους, οὕς γε Μυσοὺς ὀνομάζομεν, Σέρβους δὲ ἐκείνους, οὓς καὶ Τριβαλλούς, διακεκρίσθαι ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων ἐς τοὔνομα ξυνηνέχθη ἀπὸ τούτου. τούτω δὲ ἄμφω τὼ γένεε ὡς παντάπασιν ἑτέρω ὄντε ἀλλήλων, καὶ διεστηκότε νομίζεσθαι.»
    «……I have discovered from my inquiries, that this was how the Bulgarians, whom we call Mysians (he means Balkan Moesi), and the Serbs, whom we call Triballians, came to be distinguished from each other with regard to their names from then on. These two peoples are regarded as entirely different from each other and separate.»

    Initially it was Dacian, while now there is no question that it was Illyrian proper? Later, in the third comment you also question it and suggest that Illyrian proper and Dacian might have been related. In any case, i have already explained why Illyrian proper is a weak hypothesis in terms of the origin of proto-Albanian. It is commonly agreed today, at least academically, that proto-Albanian formed far more inland and away from the coast (where Illyrian proper was spoken). Forget the fact that Illyrian proper speakers would have become hellenized by the time proto-Albanian began forming, as i will touch upon later. In any case, there is no need to repeat certain information and expand on this again. Furthermore, you cannot call any of the palaeo-Balkan languages such as Dacian, Moesian, Illyrian, etc. proto-Albanian, because proto-Albanian began forming when it came into contact with Latin. The appropriate designation is pre-proto-Albanian, whichever the hypothesis.

    My reference to proto-Celtic E-V13 pertained exactly to specific subclades of it, namely E-Z5017 and E-Z5018. Again you are generalizing on E-V13, a clade that has a formation age estimation of 7800 ybp and a TMRCA of 4900 ybp. Let’s agree that E-V13 was originally a Neolithic line, heck, i even alluded to it with my Avellaner cave (Spain) reference in the previous comment. That is unrelated though to later downstream subclades of E-V13 and of course doesn’t exclude adoption of E-V13’s downstream clades and their expansion to other regions by post-Neolithic people, such as Indo-Europeans or Italo-Celts more precisely. Hence my reference to «proto-Celtic migrants during the Late Bronze Age in the Balkans», essentially associating E-Z5017 and E-Z5018 archaeologically with the expansion of the Urnfield cultural tradition and some objects that relate. Sample variance, sample distribution, and TMRCA of the two respective subclades clearly point to an LBA expansion from central Europe that can rationally be associated with Italo-Celts, or just proto-Celts. This is even suggested by SNP tracker models. These models shouldn’t be viewed as absolutely precise, but they are meant to give you an approximate idea, based on sample distribution and their age estimations in the databases, thus they are very useful. For example:
    E-Z5017 > Z5016 > Y3762 > CTS6377 > CTS9320 is one of the most common E-V13 lines among Albanians. You can see here a relevant tree pertaining to Albanian samples and following a respective SNP tracker model from https://phylogeographer.com/mygrations/. Around 1100 BCE it was still in central Europe.

    E-Z5017 > Z5016 > Y3762 > CTS6377 > CTS9320

    E-Z5018 > S2979 is one of the most common E-V13 lines among Albanians. You can see here a relevant tree pertaining to Albanian samples and following a respective SNP tracker model from https://phylogeographer.com/mygrations/. In 1600 BCE that line was still in central Europe, and wouldn’t reach the Balkans until the LBA as we can see with the E-FGC33614 (also known as E-FGC33621) example below it.

    E-Z5018 > S2979

    E-Z5018 > S2979 > E-FGC33614/FGC33621 (again, don’t see its presence in northern Albania literally but approximately, since modern variance/frequency is taken into account and this peaks among Albanians who are TODAY concentrated in Albania, hence the location)

    It is also a misconception that the Urnfield cultural tradition didn’t reach deep into the Balkans and even all the way to Greece. LBA expansion of urn graves is commonly associated with the expansion of the Naue II type swords as well. Naue II swords are part of a broader cross-cultural communication phenomenon that had began from much earlier than the LBA and therefore they cannot be strictly associated with a mere invasion. To understand their distribution, you first have to understand the contact between the Mycenaean civilization and the societies of Europe which occurred within different types of established networks. In some cases, contacts were indirect, as systems of connected «networks of networks» allowed objects and ideas to travel via middlemen. In other cases, they were direct and occurred within smaller networks that provided particularly efficient links. Once established, these connections inevitably became catalysts of cultural exchange in many forms that eventually led to profound social change throughout the European continent. In the Bronze Age, networks for the supply of raw materials, and later more refined commodities, created incentives for individuals to move across the mainland, taking on many different roles, such as those of travelling craftsmen and traders, warriors and mercenaries, emissaries and perhaps explorers. The evidence for Mycenaean contacts with Europe in the mid 2nd millennium BCE is rich and diverse. Of the items that speak of cross-cultural communication, one may find amber, bone and antler horse harnesses, dress fasteners, personal ornaments and jewelry, weaponry and tools, as well as Handmade Burnished Ware made of local clay. The published data clearly indicates that long-distance communication between the societies of Central Europe, northern Italy and the Aegean had already taken shape at the beginning of the Mycenaean civilization, dated approximately to 1700-1650 BCE. Nonetheless, it was the transition from the 13th to the 12th century BCE when these relations became particularly intense. According to Jan Bouzek, at that time one might speak of a koine (common market) in material culture between the Aegean, the Balkans, northern Italy and Central Europe. Here is also an approximate reconstruction of the aforementioned pan-European communication network based on the geographical distribution of archaeological objects that relate. The structure of this network is largely determined by natural pathways such as rivers and navigable coasts, as well as barriers such as mountain ranges and rugged coastlines.

    In the case of weapons, we have examples of both Mycenaean and European origin. For instance, at least 23 rapiers and 42 swords of Mycenaean type have been found in the Balkans and in the Carpathian Basin, mostly dated to the Early Mycenaean period. There are also some (disputed) examples which possibly indicate analogies with Mycenaean forms and technologies from Central, Northern and Western Europe. These include finds from Nürnberg-Hammer (Germany), Ajak (Hungary), Dollerup and Ørskovhede (Denmark), Adliswill (Switzerland), Saône (France), Surbo (Italy), Pelynt (Britain) and Spišský Štvrtok (Slovakia), most of which date from the 14th to 11th centuries BCE. As you might expect, a different group of weapons is represented by the Central European cut-and-thrust flange-hilted swords of the Naue II type that appeared in the Aegean at the end of the 13th and throughout the 12th century BCE. The earliest specimen come from Mycenae, Langada on Kos and Enkomi on Cyprus. In the beginning, Naue II swords occurred with Mycenaean counterpart swords. However, since Central European swords were more efficient in combat, they quickly replaced the Mycenaean types. Aegean craftsmen rapidly adopted Central European types of swords and began manufacturing them locally in modified forms. Naue II turned out to be so versatile that in the 12th and 11th centuries BCE it became the only type of sword used in Europe, the Aegean and the Near East. In total at least 50 swords of Naue II type have been found in the Aegean and around 29 in the Near East. Here is a detailed distribution map of Naue II type swords. The isolines represent the average number of swords within a radius of 250km. The highest density (c. 180) occurs in Jutland. The dots represent one or more Naue II finds. Compare with the pan-European communication network shared above.

    During the 13th and 12th centuries BCE, several flange-hilted Peschiera type daggers appeared in Mycenaean Greece as well, mostly on Crete. They originated in northern Italy and it seems that they were imitations of Mycenaean models. Peschiera daggers spread all over Europe, from the Carpathians to France and from Italy and the Balkans to Denmark. Their distribution can therefore be interpreted as an indication of a wider bronze working tradition embracing Central Europe, northern Italy and the Aegean. While none of the Aegean Peschiera daggers are datable by context, their European parallels belong to the 13th and 12th centuries BCE. Alongside swords and daggers, new spearheads of so-called «northern origin» appeared in the Aegean during the 13th and 12th centuries BCE. They were mostly found in the Argolid, Achaea, Attica, Epirus, Crete, Kephalonia, Ithaca, Boeotia, Corinthia, Phocis and Elis. Many of these spearheads came from burials and were associated with Naue II swords as well as with Mycenaean spears, which suggests that they belonged to the standardized equipment of the Late Bronze Age warriors.
    You can read more about these in the two following papers. Much of the above i shared is cited in the second paper below.
    https://www.academia.edu/21306979/The_Dissemination_of_Naue_II_swords_a_Case_Study_on_Long_distance_Mobility
    https://www.academia.edu/26343962/The_Mycenaeans_and_Europe_Long_distance_networks_and_cross_cultural_communication

    With all that said, it indeed seems that the most predominant clades of E-V13 in Greece are associated with central Europe and this cross-cultural communication phenomenon. It could have arrived around that LBA time, but that doesn’t necessarily pertain to either an invasion or a mass migration. It could be a small number of mercenaries that chose to stay in Greece instead of returning back to their respective homes, as is suggested by the first paper above where it says:
    «There remains, then, the intriguing issue of how returning warriors/mercenaries changed their home societies, bringing back new ideas, innovations and, of course, material wealth. With reference to later historical parallels, such as the Celtic and Germanic mercenaries who, after their service had ended, returned home with Roman weapons and prestige goods, it seems justifiable to interpret finds of Greek armour in eastern Central Europe during the 14th to 12th century BC as similar evidence of warriors returning from Mycenaean service (where Central European and also Italian flange-hilted swords testify to their presence during the same period, cf. Jung and Mehofer 2008). Thus, the exceptional richness of the Danish burial mounds may have been more intimately linked with the political fate of the Aegean, and the societies of Bronze Age Europe more tightly connected, then is commonly acknowledged.».

    As for the burial traditions (namely the LBA/EIA cremation burials that relate to the above), you can read about here, http://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576_0x002debf4.pdf. We actually do have expansion of such burial traditions both via Italy and the Balkans.

    Hence my view that it was likely due to a founder effect or even a bottleneck phenomenon that caused the contemporary high frequency of E-V13 (downstream lines) in the Balkans. In the case of Albanians specifically we know that they have a high amount of identity by descent (IBD) sharing, suggesting that Albanian-speakers derived from a relatively small population that expanded recently and rapidly in the last 1500 years. Anyway, the initial population that introduced E-Z5017 and E-Z5018 in the southern Balkans couldn’t have been big, because there isn’t any notable autosomal affinity between southern Balkan populations and central Europeans or descendants of Celts, nor do they have any Celtic substrate in their languages to justify the modern frequency of the haplogroup.

    How many ancient Greek samples exist? Well a little more than a dozen males and females from the Mycenaean civilization, Empúries, and Ambracia (preliminary). With the exception of one sample in Ambracia that is R-P297, all the rest of the males belong to subclades of J2a.

    There is no such thing as ancient Albanian, unless you mean it from a geographical perspective. The answer in that case would be none, unfortunately. But we have found relative clades that are common to modern Albanians, namely from the ancient north-central Balkans as was recently shown with the samples from the preprint of the «Kinship, acquired and inherited status, and population structure at the Early Bronze Age Mokrin necropolis in northern Serbia» paper, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.18.101337v1. Here is a list of the samples:
    MOK19A: R1b-Z2103>Z2106>Z2108>Y14415>Y14420*
    MOK22: R1b-Z2103>Z2106>Z2108 (Z2110-)
    MOK24A: R1b-Z2103>Z2106>Z2108>Z2110 (CTS1450-)
    MOK27: R1b-Z2103>Z2106>Z2108>CTS7556*
    MOK12: I2a-M423-L161>Y13336
    MOK18A: I2a-M423-L161>Y13336
    MOK29A: I2a-S21825>Y4213
    MOK32: I2a-S21825>Y4213
    MOK15: J2b-L283>Z600>Z615*
    From the above, we can see that Albanians have common subclades of Y-haplogroups with the ones that are observed in the Mokrin necropolis of the ancient Maros culture, namely under R1b-Z2103> CTS7556 and J2b-L283> Z615. Here is a map of the region for reference.

    You write, «“Latin loans are up to 60 times more in Albanian”. Makes all sense to me considering that it was the first piece of the Balcans Rome ever conquered.»
    Mate, that is a very irrational view. First of all, you only base this on the assumption that Albanians inhabited Albania during the 2nd-1st century BCE, yet as shown in the previous message, Albanians would only begin to migrate towards north Albania at about 600 CE. Second, much of Albania was hellenized by the time of the Roman period, and would even get assigned the provincial names of «Epirus Vetus» (Old Epirus) to denote the original Greek-speaking Epirus in the south, and «Epirus Nova» (New Epirus) or «Illyria Graeca» (Greek Illyria) in the north to denote the hellenized southern part of Illyria who are also the ones who spoke Illyrian proper originally.

    Thus other than important ports like Durres, you don’t have that much of a Latin influence inland and south of that Jireček line. You would need to have far more ancient Greek loans in the Albanian language to justify their presence there during that time period, not just 10-30 in contrast to the 636 Latin loans. And then there are the other points i mentioned previously as well. Furthermore, Greek was also an administrative language in the eastern part of the Roman Empire, not just Latin. And besides, that 90% of the population would have known Greek as it was the lingua franca in the eastern part, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_East_and_Latin_West, and that can be traced back to prior of the Roman conquest (let alone Justinian). Again, the ratio of Greek/Latin loans is crucial when you take all these into account.

    The Catholic Church had nothing to do with the Latin loans in Albanian. Those Latin loans were introduced during the Early Proto-Albanian era of the language, that is traced to approximately between 167 BCE to 600 CE by historical linguists. And besides, again, most of Albania (namely below Kruje/Durres) was under Orthodox Byzantine influence for much of the medieval era. It’s no coincidence that one of the three successor States of the Byzantine Empire that arose after the Fourth Crusade, was the Despotate of Epirus (the other two were the Empire of Nicaea and the Empire of Trebizond).

    You write, «Dürres is NOT “very useful for determining a “terminus post quem” for the arrival of Albanians in Albania”. First because Albanians appear to have been all the time in Albania (E1b-V13 proves it and I’m knee jerk about that because I am confident of knowing European genetics very very well).».
    Seriously mate. I don’t feel like repeating the same things all over. Please go read again what i wrote above and in prior messages. E-V13 proves it? Why, have we found any ancient samples with E-V13 in Albania of all places, let alone a subclade of E-V13 that is also found in modern Albanians? The answer is no. Furthermore, you disregard the numerous subclades of E-V13 and their individual relevance.

    Durres is clearly the original Illyrian name? And then you share an unrelated quote from Wikipedia. Maybe you should have included the Greek etymology of the name as well which makes perfect sense. Also, the earliest so-called coins of Epidamnos/Dyrrachion that have been found are dated to 350-280 BCE, namely 3 centuries after the colony was first created, and most of the coins are actually contemporary to the arrival of Romans in the region. You can see here a list of relevant coins, https://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/roman-and-greek-coins.asp?vpar=2805&pos=0&iop=50&sold=1. So it is natural for earlier Greek authors beginning with Thucydides (5th century BCE) to have used Epidamnos. You obviously also read that Titus Livius at the end of the first century BCE wrote that at the time of the Illyrian Wars (roughly 200 years earlier) the city was not known as Dyrrachion, but as Epidamnos. As for the rest, everything else i shared about the etymology/evolution of the Albanian loan is supported by actual historical linguistics which i elaborately cited, while your claims of the original name being an unattested and meaningless Illyrian word such as «Dyrrakhi», is unsubstantiated, and even in that case, it wouldn’t explain the evolution to proto-Albanian «Durrëtš» since you need a linguistic mediator that can take the Greek-Latin /kj/ and depalatalize it to /tš/ = /č/ or /ts/, as explained in the previous comment. You are missing emoticons of uncontrolled laughter? I began all this discussion for your benefit and it has digressed to this?

    You write, «NO! Slavic demographic influence in the Balcans appears to be exactly the same as Magyar demographic influence in Hungary or Turkic demographic influence in Turkey: ZERO!».
    That is false and has already been discussed with data and studies i have shared in the past. There is a reason modern Turks and South Slavs don’t cluster close to any of the ancient samples that have been studied. For example, here are the distances between a number of ancient Anatolian samples (2700-900 BCE) and a modern Turkish average, based on Eurogenes K13.

    Nor are they close to Greek Cappadocians by the way, which is probably a population that is close to pre-Turkic medieval Anatolians.

    No wonder they cluster far closer to the ancient samples.

    Furthermore, here is an image showing the East Asian admixture, which can be used as an accurate autosomal indicator for determining Turkic influence in the context of Anatolia and the Balkans. Below the map, there are boxes that also include the respective frequencies of certain Greek and Turkic (not Turkish) populations.

    Also, an image showing additional admixtures and their frequencies. The Eastern influence of the modern Turkish population is very obvious. These results also compliment the results of the two Ottoman Anatolian samples that were published in the «The First Horse Herders and the Impact of Early Bronze Age Steppe Expansions into Asia» (2018) paper, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6748862/.

    Last, if you fail to see the Slavic origin of the relatively young I-Y3120’s patrilineal branches (excluding the Y18331 branch) and its absence from the ancient Balkans, there is no reason to continue this topic.

    You write, «That J2b is concentrated in Albania and West Greece (and less common elsewhere)»
    No it’s not. J2b is concentrated in northern Albania. It is so low in southern Albania that even J2a subclades are more frequent at 7.7%. J2b is just the 7th most frequent haplogroup in southern Albania at 7%. Don’t take the Eupedia map of J2b very seriously. We have a more updated database, than what the outdated Eupedia articles present many times. So it’s only half and half in southern Albania. In northern Albania J2a is just at 2.2%, while J2b at 24.4%. Last, in Greece it’s actually found all over, not just the western part of the country, with a similar frequency to southern Albania at 6.45%, based on the Greek DNA Project of FTDNA.

    You write, «You’re just trying to exoticize Albanians, what is funny because I see Albanians and Greeks as pretty much the same thing (genetically speaking)».
    Exactly, genetically speaking Albanians and mainland Greeks, both of whom are palaeo-Balkan descendants with a similar Slavic influence (hence their differentiation from the «Mediterranean genetic continuum»), are very similar. Nothing out of the ordinary. But linguistically they differ, and that’s where our difference lies in terms of pre-proto-Albanian identification and proto-Albanian evolution. It’s not possible to be exoticizing them when i agree that they are pre-Slavic and descending mainly from palaeo-Balkan populations, BUT in a Balkanic context (the Balkans aren’t limited to modern-day Albania).

    You write, «For a moment I even considered: what if Albanians (Albanoi) were a deported Dacian group after the Roman conquest of Dacia? …. Would they be deported Dacians they should have other lineages, notably more R1a.»
    Relocation of Dacians during the Roman era is also possible. First of all because as explained in a previous comment, it is favored historically; namely, in the 1st century CE Rome allowed two mass relocations of more than 150,000 Geto-Dacians (trans-Danubian branch of Daco-Moesian) to Moesia Superior and Moesia Inferior (50,000 in the years of Augustus and over 100,000 in the years of Nero). Second, we do have actual common subclades (not haplogroups in general) shared between modern Albanians and the ancient north-central Balkans (Maros culture) as mentioned above.

    You write, «So the Albanians (by whichever name) must have been in Albania, speaking proto-Albanian (Illyrian), prior to historical times.».
    Again, there was no proto-Albanian in the pre-historical era. Proto-Albanian began its formation when pre-proto-Albanian (one of the palaeo-Balkan languages; attested or unattested) came into contact with Latin between approximately 167 BCE to 600 CE. That period of Latin influence is considered by historical linguists as the «Early Proto-Albanian» phase. It was followed by «Late Proto-Albanian», namely a phase that is characterized by early Slavic loans at around 600-700 CE and some other important changes.

    You write, «This leaves open the question as for the affiliation of Thracian language but suggests that it was probably (if Indoeuropean) a bit distinct, more divergent, more creolized with Dniepr-Don pre-Indoeuropean (some form of Paleoeuropean surely).».
    The same can be stated for Greek, yet that doesn’t mean it’s not Indo-European. Here is a very interesting answer that relates, by a historical linguist in Quora, https://www.quora.com/If-only-30-of-the-ancient-Greek-vocabulary-is-Indo-European-then-where-does-all-the-rest-come-from/answer/Neeraj-Mathur-13.

    I added a random Yamnaya individual from Kalmykia for comparison. What i tried to show with that Bronze Age Bulgarian was that he was obviously exotic and most likely associated with a recent arrival of Indo-Europeans in the Balkans from the north. I am not looking at him as an ideal example of a PIE.

    You write, «That’s because propagandists with a Celticist agenda take over prehistory. It seems it’s rather a sensitive issue to Indoeuropeanized people with an Indoeuropeanist agenda.».
    I would rather not expand on this, though i have no reason to disagree with what you presented.

    You write, «Stop being Balcanizing, be Athenian illustrate! It really taunts my patience, really!».
    I am not Balkanizing mate, nor exoticizing anyone as aforementioned. I simply cited/shared some information purely for your benefit (i doubt anyone else is following this discussion other than us two). Again, let’s try and wrap it up please. When in disagreement, there is no reason to be repeating ourselves. I am not here to win an argument. Instead of us arguing for the sake of argument let’s focus on more productive stuff. Take care for now.

    Me gusta

  13. Let me be clear: I don’t believe in academic or Y-Full age estimates, I generally think in terms of «double them or at least 50% older», I am positive that the mainline academic «molecular clock» is utterly miscalibrated, because instead of recalibrating it to updated archaeology and paleontology, they insist on using outdated calibrations from decades ago. So if a «clock» says «7000 years», it must be at least 10,000 years and maybe as much as 15,000. This is my rule of thumb that seems to work reasonably well to correct the academic bias of genetists.

    We know for a fact that more than 7000 years ago E1b-V13 was already in Western Europe and that it had arrived here with the Cardium Pottery and general Vasconic Neolithic migration: Anatolia > Balcans > Italy > Western Europe. We know also that Epirus (near Albania) was crucial in the formation of the Cardium Pottery branch of the Vasconic Neolithic (while the Painted Ware branch surely has a more direct derivation from Thessaly or Anatolia instead). We know that E1b-V13 and related E1b-M78 arrived to Europe with that wave from West Asia, where it existed since at least the Natufian Mesolithic of Palestine.

    This is very different from the only loosely related E1b-M81 haplogroup, typical of NW Africa and present also in Western Iberia (but not elsewhere in Europe).

    I have absolute trust in E1b-V13 being one of the main markers of the Vasconic Neolithic along with the more common G2a and the more localized R1b-V88. In the Western Mediterranean I2-Sardinian is also important and probably comes from the Balcans, where a related clade is still quite dominant. E1b-M78 spread from Africa to West Asia either in the Mesolithic or earlier (as part of the Upper Paleolithic Asian-African exchange and the matrilineal E1b-M78, with mostly Asian mtDNA and autosomal DNA, as well as with Y-DNA J1 probably, founder effect in and around Egypt). From Palestine it probably spread northward with the Pre-Pottery Neolithic and from Syria it may have migrated to Southern Anatolia, where we can safely locate the proto-Vasconic «urheimat» (and the domestication of the cow).

    Because of founder effects Greece and Albania incorporated it in greater amounts but it is scattered through nearly all Europe since the very first Neolithic for sure.

    Now, which specific documented resettling episode do you propose for the Albanians? How do you explain they are so similar in terms genetics to Greeks (but not to Romanians or any other candidate source population)? If there was no massive demographic replacement, then which elite could have imposed their language and how?

    I see nothing of all that: I see a people who somehow retained their language from a pre-Roman period. And that pre-Roman period is what we call Illyrian (even more emphatically «Illyrian proper», as opposed to Northern Illyrians or Dalmatians/Liburnians, apparently not so clearly Illyrian).

    Why did those Illyrians began to be called Albanoi? No idea but it happened in Roman times. If those Albanoi would be immigrants we’d see in the genetics, they are just a renaming of another tribe or group of tribes. There was in any case no possible elite domination under Roman occupation (and later Byzantine, etc.) than by those Romans, Greeks or later Romance peoples like the Venetians. You claim that they would be Hellenized but apparently they were not or not enough: among them they seem to have insisted on speaking Illyrian or whatever Albanian is, what is absolutely normal considering that other than being the main port for Romans traveling between Italy and Greece (especiallya armies) it was always a mountainous backwater nobody cared much about, as we see in Wales-Cornwall, in the Basque Country, in the Berber countries, etc.

    Actually we see a lot of persistance of pre-Roman (and pre-Hellenistic) languages in the Roman Empire: Egyptians kept speaking Coptic, Syrians spoke Aramean, Armenians never quit their language either, etc. It’s not just the West or the backwaters, some very central areas like Egypt and the Levant retained their specificity. Albanians may be a somewhat perplexing pocket but not so much: it’s backwater and mountainous enough to retain their specificity, much like Vasconia.

    Me gusta

  14. You say (re. Thracian archaeological and possibly linguistic strangeness) that «the same can be stated for Greek». Well, nope: my stand is that probably Thracian was almost as distinct as Luwio-Hittite (Anatolian) or Tocharian, based on archaeological reasoning that suggests cultural hybridation and hence early and intense linguistic creolization. Greek, no matter if we see it as closest to Armenian (Atkinson) or to Albanian (Bouckaert) is still a more recent and somewhat less differentiated branch of Indoeuropean (that’s even more apparent when we consider Mycenaean Greek with its «ekwos» instead of «hippos», etc.)

    I’m not sure what you mean with your Yamnaya graph, all I see is that IE Greeks and Bulgarians cluster with modern Italians, which are high in Balcanic ancestry (J2 and all that). RISE522 is too distant from everyone else to be of use, if anything an Admixture graph could help here but a PCA is way too ambiguous.

    By «Balcanizing» I meant trying to depict obviously locally-rooted Albanians as exotic and intrusive, presumably giving Greeks a stronger claim of some sort. I think you’re being biased because of some sort of nationalist prejudice. However Albanians and Greeks are strongly related and are related by pre-Indoeuropean substrate and (in spite of your protests) by the strong presence of E1b-V13 in both populations, presence that must be Neolithic and Vasconic ultimately.

    For me the case is very clear: Albanians are at least pre-Roman in the area and thus almost certainly «Illyrians proper». My tentative connection to Dacian would refer to older flows, which are a bit mysterious to me. Maybe Albanians are rather Brygo-Macedonian than Illyrian? I can go as far as that but I don’t see any chance of Albanian language having arrived to the country after Roman conquest, not one at all.

    Me gusta

  15. Haven’t forgot you mate. Will try and keep it short as well so we can wrap it up. A sidenote. I did inform you in my email of that pending comment from February 5th which i said to delete since it was almost identical to the second comment i made on February 5th. Now two large identical comments exist. If possible delete the first of the two, since there is no reason to have two identical comments. The only thing i changed in my second February 5th comment was an image link (the one with the minorities). Please be careful not to delete both of the February 5th comments though, only the first one of the two.

    Even with your independent age estimation of making the mainstream estimated ages at least 50%-100% older, the relevant Albanian subclades (downstream of E-Z5017 and E-Z5018) still don’t fit with your Cardium Pottery migration (first settlements are found in Greece and date to 6400-6200 BCE, not 7000 BCE in western Europe), but then again you only think like that because you continue to generalize on major haplogroups failing to assess downstream clades and their individual relevance. At best, your revised dates would only be able to compliment the EMBA Indo-European migrations in the Balkans. I personally base my hypotheses on actual methodologies, such as YFull’s which is explained in detail here, https://www.yfull.com/faq/what-yfulls-age-estimation-methodology/. At least there is some reasoning behind it. Furthermore, the earliest E haplogroup found in the Balkans (and Europe for that matter), Dalmatia (within that Cardium Pottery expansion) to be precise, is dated to 6005-5814 BCE using the mainstream age estimation methodology. Suffice to say that the mainstream age estimation methodology perfectly compliments radiocarbon dating of the relevant material culture in Dalmatia (http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/forenbaher305/). According to your revised dating though that individual with the E haplogroup belongs to the period of 12000-9000 BCE, millennia earlier than when the Neolithic began in the Eastern Adriatic. Let me also clarify that this Dalmatian was actually tested negative for the V13 SNP and belonged to upstream E-L618. So, no E-V13 in Cardium Pottery western Balkans at 6000 BCE. We do in fact have E-V13 in western Europe (not the Balkans) as aforementioned in prior comments, and it is dated to 5050 BCE (the second oldest E we have in Europe after the one aforementioned in Dalmatia), so indeed as you wrote, around 7000 years ago (5000 BCE).

    You write, «How do you explain they are so similar in terms of genetics to Greeks (but not to Romanians or any other candidate source population)?».
    I have already answered that. But in short, both Greeks and Albanians are autosomally mostly palaeo-Balkan people, with minor Slavic influence from the medieval era. This is contrary to all other modern Balkanites, including Romanians. For example:
    Thraco-Moesian (northern Bulgaria, namely close to Romania)

    Mycenaean Greek

    Early Czech Slav (Bohemia)

    Medieval Sunghir Slav

    You write, «And that pre-Roman period is what we call Illyrian (even more emphatically “Illyrian proper”, as opposed to Northern Illyrians or Dalmatians/Liburnians, apparently not so clearly Illyrian).».
    Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I respect yours, but i don’t agree as i have already stated. By the way, Liburnians aren’t classified as Illyrians, they are considered distinct.

    You write, «If those Albanoi would be immigrants we’d see in the genetics».
    There are no such genetics in bibliography. We don’t even know their ethnicity or the actual region they settled. Even Albanopolis being located near Kruje//Durres is an assumption. The only thing we know for certain is that Ptolemy (the only one who wrote of it) placed it within Macedonia (Roman province). Here is the only thing he wrote:

    Furthermore, the first (and only as far as i am aware of) mention of Albanopolis in an inscription is on an ancient funerary stele at Scupi (near Skopje – North Macedonia).

    You write, «You claim that they would be Hellenized but apparently they were not or not enough».
    There is no not enough in the case of Albanians, there is, not even close to notable. That is the point, that you cannot be living under such heavy Greek influence in the region since antiquity and not being able to count more than 30 Greek loans in the original lexicon of Albanian. Compare that to the 5000 or so in the Coptic language that you brought up, https://www.academia.edu/6188610/Greek_Loanwords_in_Coptic. And once again, no mention of Albanians whatsoever prior of the 11th century anywhere, but we do know of Slavs, Byzantines, and Latins in the region, and we also have plenty of their toponyms complimenting the historical record.

    I never wrote they were immigrants from some far-away place. The region of the central Balkans is not that far, and as shown above with the Thraco-Moesian sample from central-eastern Balkans, not that different from modern-day Albanians and Greeks.

    You write, «Greek, no matter if we see it as closest to Armenian (Atkinson) or to Albanian (Bouckaert) is still a more recent and somewhat less differentiated branch of Indoeuropean (that’s even more apparent when we consider Mycenaean Greek with its “ekwos” instead of “hippos”, etc.)».
    I don’t understand what you mean by this. You say that Greek diverged later or earlier from the IE nucleus?

    You write, «I’m not sure what you mean with your Yamnaya graph, all I see is that IE Greeks and Bulgarians cluster with modern Italians, which are high in Balcanic ancestry (J2 and all that). RISE522 is too distant from everyone else to be of use, if anything an Admixture graph could help here but a PCA is way too ambiguous.».
    I only added that Yamna/Khvalynsk sample because you asked for it. Ι believe you wanted to compare it with the BA Bulgarian sample that i mentioned in the initial PCA i shared.

    You write, «Maybe Albanians are rather Brygo-Macedonian than Illyrian? I can go as far as that…».
    I believe you seem to forget how this whole discussion began, namely with me referencing the different isoglosses of Phrygian, with other languages such as Greek, Armenian, Albanian, and Indo-Iranian. It is evident that Phrygian has very little in common with Albanian, contrary to Greek. Hence why the foremost experts on Phrygian favor a Graeco-Phrygian grouping. In the case of Macedonian, modern consensus views it as either a Greek dialect or a distinct Hellenic language, not as a Phrygian descendant.

    Hopefully we can keep it short and wrap it up as aforementioned.

    Me gusta

  16. Hi again, Demetrios.

    Re. «Cardium Pottery migration (first settlements are found in Greece and date to 6400-6200 BCE, not 7000 BCE in western Europe)» – I meant 7000 years ago, c. 5000 BCE in, for example, the Basque Country (Epicardial already), c. 5700 BCE in Provence and East Iberia (Cardium proper). There’s no discrepancy but an error (BCE vs BP confusion of some sort).

    Re. «According to your revised dating though that individual with the E haplogroup belongs to the period of 12000-9000 BCE, millennia earlier than when the Neolithic began in the Eastern Adriatic». – It still makes sense because those lineages originated ultimately in West Asia, not in Europe, and Neolithic in West Asia is much older than in Europe, not to mention that E was dominant in Mesolithic Natufian of Palestine, and that’s very probably at the origin of all European E (excepted E-M81 in Iberia, which has North African roots).

    Re. «both Greeks and Albanians are autosomally mostly palaeo-Balkan people» – I’m sorry but no E detected ever in Paleo-European populations: it is very clearly a Neolithic lineage, as is G (while J2 is post-Neolithic). They correspond to mtDNA X2, J, T, N1/I and N2/W (and maybe some HV variants as well), which are also undocumented in Paleolithic Europe. All them show clear patterns of expansion from West Asia. I don’t think there’s a lot of Paleoeuropean in Greeks and Albanians, and what there is is almost certainly brought by Indoeuropeans from further North and Northeast.

    I have no idea what your maps may mean, sorry, but if they represent something genetic, there’s no way that «Mycenaean Greek» could be so strong in Italy… unless it’s not Mycenaean but a local mix of Pelasgo-Tyrsenian (Etruscan mainly) and Western Indoeuropean (proto-Italics) that just happens to produce a similar combo to that of Greece and Albania. The «Slavic» maps also make me raise eyebrows, honestly, how do you discern «Slav» from Indoeuropean? It’s not so easy!

    Re. «You write, “If those Albanoi would be immigrants we’d see in the genetics”. (…) There are no such genetics in bibliography». – What I mean is that we’d see some genetic connection between Albanians and the root population, for example Romanians (at least partly Dacians by ascent). We don’t: Albanians are distinct from everyone else except for Greeks and to some extent Italians, this points to the same Pelasgo-Tyrsenian distinctive layer (J2) but also (E1b) to Early Neolithic founder effects. You say «Paleo-Balcanic» but it’s clearly Neo-Balcanic instead.

    Re. «And once again, no mention of Albanians whatsoever prior of the 11th century anywhere»… – What happened to the Roman Era Albanoi? Just because they shifted ethnonym, it doesn’t mean they weren’t there, they were just called Illyrians.

    Re. «I don’t understand what you mean by this. You say that Greek diverged later or earlier from the IE nucleus?» – I meant that Greco-Armenian diverged from the IE core after Thracian (assuming Thracian is Indoeuropean), because I think that Thracian should be as diverged as Luwio-Hittite or Tocharian, while Greek and most other Indoeuropean is a bit more recently diverged instead (c. 3000 BCE instead of c. 4000 or 3500 BCE). Look at the «archaeo-linguistic» graph again for a better understanding. Also glottochronological trees back a more recent divergence of Greek than earliest divergent branches of Indoeuropean, among which I’d include Thracian (if Indoeuropean) and Dacian.

    Re. «I only added that Yamna/Khvalynsk sample because you asked for it. Ι believe you wanted to compare it with the BA Bulgarian sample that i mentioned in the initial PCA i shared». – Did I ask for it? Not sure, I lost track, too convoluted and scattered in long spans of time, sorry.

    Re. «I believe you seem to forget how this whole discussion began, namely with me referencing the different isoglosses of Phrygian, with other languages such as Greek, Armenian, Albanian, and Indo-Iranian. It is evident that Phrygian has very little in common with Albanian». — Yes, I forgot. Too many details and too long intervals of time, sorry. In any case some linguists (Bouckaert) think Greek and Albanian are closest relatives. I’ve been using the Greco-Armenian model so far but maybe it’s simpler if we adopt these other model?

    Cheers.

    Me gusta

  17. Hello again mate, and sorry for the late reply. I still have dozens of unanswered emails, including the one notifying me of your reply, and is taking me a while to respond to each one due to my limited time.

    «I meant 7000 years ago, c. 5000 BCE in, for example, the Basque Country (Epicardial already), c. 5700 BCE in Provence and East Iberia (Cardium proper). There’s no discrepancy but an error (BCE vs BP confusion of some sort).»
    ————————————
    Yeah, my mistake. I should have corrected that but i didn’t proofread my comment. I did treat your quote correctly towards the end of the paragraph though, namely when i wrote «so indeed as you wrote, around 7000 years ago (5000 BCE).».

    «It still makes sense because those lineages originated ultimately in West Asia, not in Europe, and Neolithic in West Asia is much older than in Europe, not to mention that E was dominant in Mesolithic Natufian of Palestine, and that’s very probably at the origin of all European E (excepted E-M81 in Iberia, which has North African roots).»
    ————————————
    The thing though is that the respective age doesn’t pertain to the patrilineal branch of E-L618 in general, but specifically to the sample found in Dalmatia. Thus this reasoning is irrelevant. The conventional age estimation methodology produces a formation age of 11900 ybp or 9900 BCE for E-L618, which with your independent age estimation approach goes back to 23800-17850 ybp or 21800-15850 BCE. Thus the conventional estimated age (6005-5814 BCE) of the sample in question, namely I3948 (Zemunica cave), compliments the Cardium pottery material culture perfectly. The Zemunica cave where he was found even includes Cardium pottery fragments dated to the same period. More about the chronology of the aforementioned cave in this following paper, https://www.academia.edu/26384180/Late_Upper_Paleolithic_Early_Mesolithic_and_Early_Neolithic_from_the_cave_site_Zemunica_near_Bisko_Dalmatia_Croatia_. But regardless of that, we know that haplogroup E must have arrived in Europe only during the Neolithic, and expanded with the Cardium pottery culture. I believe we both agree on that. Thus claiming that this earliest E sample (not the branch in general) of Europe should be dated to 12000-9000 BCE (50-100% older than the conventional date) is contradicting to your views.

    «I’m sorry but no E detected ever in Paleo-European populations: it is very clearly a Neolithic lineage, as is G (while J2 is post-Neolithic). They correspond to mtDNA X2, J, T, N1/I and N2/W (and maybe some HV variants as well), which are also undocumented in Paleolithic Europe. All them show clear patterns of expansion from West Asia. I don’t think there’s a lot of Paleoeuropean in Greeks and Albanians, and what there is is almost certainly brought by Indoeuropeans from further North and Northeast.»
    ————————————
    Luis, i wrote palaeo-Balkan, not palaeolithic, nor palaeo-European. There is a difference. The first term pertains to the ancient Indo-European people of the Balkans, while the second term to a period in human prehistory that ended at approximately 9,650 BCE. Furthermore, i wrote autosomal (atDNA), not patrilineal (Y-DNA) or matrilineal (mtDNA). Here is my quote that you yourself included in your answer: «both Greeks and Albanians are autosomally mostly palaeo-Balkan people». And again, concerning E Y-DNA in the context of Greek and Albanian ancestry, it isn’t even of Neolithic, but mostly of Iron Age origin.

    «I have no idea what your maps may mean, sorry, but if they represent something genetic, there’s no way that “Mycenaean Greek” could be so strong in Italy»
    ————————————
    The Mycenaean Greek, and even Classical Greek (of what samples we currently have available) autosomal profile shares the highest similarity with southern Italy (including Sicily) and certain western Jews such as the Ashkenazim. This is a clear fact. Besides my PCA, there are PCAs from actual genetic papers which prove this. Such as the following from the paper «Ancient human genome-wide data from a 3000-year interval in the Caucasus corresponds with eco-geographic regions» (2019). In the second image below i encircled the broader modern Greek (including Cypriots) cluster in blue, and the Mycenaean-SouthernItalian-Ashkenazim cluster in black. Take note that the four orange triangles looking right pertain to the four Mycenaean samples of the bibliography.


    It’s not out of the ordinary considering «Magna Graecia» (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Graecia), and the fact that southern Italians weren’t affected by the Slavic migrations like the Balkans were (including mainland Greece; not so much the islands).

    «The “Slavic” maps also make me raise eyebrows, honestly, how do you discern “Slav” from Indoeuropean?»
    ————————————
    These maps refer to specific samples. Here is a different view of the same samples.
    CZE_Early_Slav-RISE569


    RUS_Sunghir_MA-Sunghir6


    The individual who created them, using Eurogenes’ Global 25, also made one with a Yamnaya reference sample. Here it is for comparison.


    If you are interested, he has also shared maps on Srubnaya, Afanasievo, Sintashta, Maykop, and Poltavka, among many others.

    «You say “Paleo-Balcanic” but it’s clearly Neo-Balcanic instead.»
    ————————————
    I elaborated on that above.

    «What happened to the Roman Era Albanoi? Just because they shifted ethnonym, it doesn’t mean they weren’t there, they were just called Illyrians.»
    ————————————
    We don’t know much about the Roman Era Albanoi, as aforementioned. Neither if they were Illyrian, or Thracian, or Dacian, or Celtic, or even Italian (what about the «Albans» of Latium, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alban_people?). Shifted ethnonym? Mate, these are all assumptions.

    «Did I ask for it? Not sure, I lost track, too convoluted and scattered in long spans of time, sorry.»
    ————————————
    Yeah, kind of. You had written:
    «What I see in that plot is that he aligns well with modern Belgorod, which AFAIK is not a good proxy for proto-Indoeuropeans. There’s no Yamna/Khvalynsk sample I can see anywhere in that plot. Belgorod was of course in the Dniepr-Don area but anyhow modern people from that area surely represent also backflows from Corded Ware, etc.»

    «I’ve been using the Greco-Armenian model so far but maybe it’s simpler if we adopt these other model?»
    ————————————
    In my opinion, based on what i have read, Greek, Phrygian, and Armenian belonged to the same group in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, with Greco-Phrygian diverging from it first, and then Armenian quickly after.

    But you are right. This discussion has become too convoluted and scattered in long spans of time to follow properly. I understood this as i sat down to write this. Hopefully we can close this discussion properly, and even if we disagree on something, just agree to disagree.

    Me gusta

  18. But the sample has an archaeological date, not a molecular clock age. My quarrel is only against molecular clock estimates, not against actual samples. It cannot be, I’m actually begging for more direct calibration with actual archaeology/paleontology, and not, as mainstream molecular clock goes (because of scholastic inertia in academia, dating to two decades ago and frozen in time ever since) to the obsolete archaeology/paleontology of around the year 2K, when prehistorians imagined that H. sapiens went almost directly from Africa to Europe, when now we know it was in Asia for a very long time without arriving to Europe at all (or when paleontologists had not yet considered the chimp-bonobo split as determined by the formation of the Congo basin c. 1700 years ago, or when Sahelanthropus tchadiensis was not yet a known fossil, etc.) In those days the Skhul & Qafez individuals were imagined as an inconsequential expansion to Palestine, now we know that they were part of a much larger colonization of North Africa and Arabia and that prelude the arrival to India and almost certainly also Southern China and Australia but not long, so the OoA migration can’t be dated to c. 60 Ka BP, it must be c. 125-100 Ka BP, the Pan-Homo split can’t be c. 5-6 Ma ago but at least 8 Ma (and per some papers anything up to 17 Ma). That’s my contention with a molecular clock scholastic tradition of two decades that insists on placing the OoA at c. 60 Ka BP, when we know for a fact that by those dates our kin had already reached Australia.

    Me gusta

  19. «i wrote palaeo-Balkan, not palaeolithic, nor palaeo-European» — Maybe you did but how could I even figure you were not using the term to mean Paleolithic from the Balcans? I know that «paleo» just means «old» but for consistency reasons I strongly prefer to use it for Paleolithic (for example Paleoeuropeans vs Neoeuropeans, i.e. those stemming from the Neolithic), even when using the term «Paleosardinian», which J.M. Elexpuru arbitrarily chose to use for Neolithic, Bronze and Iron Age Sardinian language (similar to Basque), I frowned on that choice and either use it with careful quotation marks or use «Eteosardinian» or some other phrase like «pre-Indoeuropean Sardinian» instead.

    «Here is my quote that you yourself included in your answer: “both Greeks and Albanians are autosomally mostly palaeo-Balkan people”.» — Well, you got me confused at «Paleo-Balkan» certainly. Now (but only now) I know I must read that as Neobalcanic or Neoeuropean instead.

    «It’s not out of the ordinary considering “Magna Graecia”» — But Magna Graecia was a chain of coastal enclaves, much like the Phoenician colonization of North Africa (outside of NE Tunisia) and South Iberia. The Interior of South Italy was peopled by non-Greeks such as the Samnites. Anyhow, by now I have forgotten what was it about. It’s very difficult to follow a conversation that jumps two months across each time, sorry.

    «what about the “Albans” of Latium» — The natives of Alba Longa (literally «the large white one»?) It’s like mentioning Alba = Scotland or Aghbania (sometimes «Albania») of the Caucasus, or mixing Caucasian Iberia with the Iberian Peninsula or even Hibernia (Ireland). Mudding things with nonsensical unrelated similar sounding names is borderline cheating and a bit annoying, to be frank.

    What matters is that the ancestors of some Albanians were called Albanoi already in Roman times and that, per the anthropological literature of the time the people of what is now Albania (roughly) were considere «true Illyrians», as discussed previously. So I conclude that the Albanoi were Illyrian and were ancestral to modern Albanians (although it’s probable that the name shifted to mean one sub-ethnicity to mean all the ethnicity already in the Middle Ages). This totally contradicts (along with «paleo-Balcanic» genetics) the possibility that Albanians have any other origins than ancient Illyrians and/or that they arrived to Albania after the collapse of the Roman Empire (they may still have settled Kosova in the Modern Age, in the Ottoman period, there’s some indications both historical and genetic, Kosovars are much more bottlenecked than core Albanians, that it may well be the case).

    «just agree to disagree»

    Always, of course. Cheers.

    Me gusta

  20. «But the sample has an archaeological date, not a molecular clock age.»
    ————————————
    Conventional radiocarbon dating was performed on the bone remains to get these results, as is seen in the supplementary information of the paper, «The Genomic History of Southeastern Europe» (2018), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6091220/bin/NIHMS937437-supplement-Sup_Tables_1-6.xlsx (it will download a document if you press); the sample designation is I3948. The original paper which published the dating is this following one https://www.academia.edu/36573711/Stable_Isotope_Palaeodietary_and_Radiocarbon_Evidence_from_the_Early_Neolithic_Site_of_Zemunica_Dalmatia_Croatia (haven’t gone through it). It seems i misunderstood the dating methods used; it’s not the same as the one presented on the paper by Adamov et al. (2015), also used by YFull.

    «Maybe you did but how could I even figure you were not using the term to mean Paleolithic from the Balcans?»
    ————————————
    Fair enough, but i had to elaborate.

    «But Magna Graecia was a chain of coastal enclaves, much like the Phoenician colonization of North Africa (outside of NE Tunisia) and South Iberia. The Interior of South Italy was peopled by non-Greeks such as the Samnites.»
    ————————————
    Can’t recall where, but i either read or watched somewhere that the reason it was called «Magna Graecia» was because more Greeks lived there than in Greece proper, thus the Greek population of Magna Graecia must have been significant. Indeed, the large cities were mostly situated at the coastal areas, but that is irrelevant millennia later. Eventually the population must have dispersed inland as well. By the way, Samnites were actually mostly in central Italy, and geographically above the Greek colonists; they inhabited Samnium.

    «The natives of Alba Longa (literally “the large white one”?) It’s like mentioning Alba = Scotland or Aghbania (sometimes “Albania”) of the Caucasus, or mixing Caucasian Iberia with the Iberian Peninsula or even Hibernia (Ireland). Mudding things with nonsensical unrelated similar sounding names is borderline cheating and a bit annoying, to be frank.»
    ————————————
    Why is it cheating? It was just a suggestion, based on names that share the same root, during the same period of time. The name of «Albanopolis» only appears around three centuries after the Romans/Latins reached the area, not before, hence why i seriously consider an Italic association as well. You are doing the same with modern-day Albanians, even though that’s not even their endonym, and appeared in the area a millennium later. You assume we know much about Albanopolis, but we don’t. These are all assumptions in the end of the day.

    «What matters is that the ancestors of some Albanians were called Albanoi already in Roman times and that, per the anthropological literature of the time the people of what is now Albania (roughly) were considere “true Illyrians”, as discussed previously. So I conclude that the Albanoi were Illyrian and were ancestral to modern Albanians (although it’s probable that the name shifted to mean one sub-ethnicity to mean all the ethnicity already in the Middle Ages). This totally contradicts (along with “paleo-Balcanic” genetics) the possibility that Albanians have any other origins than ancient Illyrians and/or that they arrived to Albania after the collapse of the Roman Empire»
    ————————————
    No, we don’t know what Albanoi were to assign an Illyrian identity to them so easily, let alone associate them with «some» modern-day Albanians. Albanopolis ceased to exist long before Albanians appear in the historical record. Also, the available palaeo-Balkan genetic results favor more an Albanian association with Daco-Moesians, than Illyrians. I have elaborated in prior comments, no reason to repeat. You may disagree with me, and i will respect your opinion, but at the very least don’t treat assumptions as facts; i am not treating my assumptions as facts.

    Me gusta

  21. We don’t know for sure where the word «Graecia» comes from, it’s very likely that it was some sort of Italian-specific (or at least Ionian Sea area) development. It’s speculated that it might come from ancient ethnonyms/toponyms in Epirus or Boetia but we really don’t know. Some have even argued that Graecia was originally meant to be a term for South Italy and that it spread from there to mean all Greeks (Hellenes) in Latin (and other Italian languages). In any case, you can’t build a theory out of it, much less one that magically includes all South Italy instead of only the areas the Greeks inhabited, which is the historical usage of Magna Graecia. Nobody doubts of the influence of colonial expanded Greece in Italy and even further west all the way to Iberia, much like nobody doubts of the influence of colonial expanded Phoenicia in North Africa, parts of Sicily, Sardinia and South Iberia (and to some extent also Italy via the anti-Greek alliances they had with Etruscans and even Romans), but that doesn’t make all South Italy automatically Greek: it wasn’t. We know of many different peoples who lived in those areas, even the ones more heavily colonized by the Greeks, there’s no way that Greek influence could ever be as massively all-pervading as you imagine, sorry.

    «It was just a suggestion, based on names that share the same root, during the same period of time» (Re. Albanoi and Alba Longa). They don’t clearly share the same root, while we know Alba Longa is almost certainly meaning «the large white [city]» (it’s Latin after all, a well known language, we still don’t know what «Roma» or «Latini» meant originally however), we don’t know the root behind the Balcanic Albanoi, just the name. It sounds like maybe being from «albus» («white» in Latin) but it’s not certain and it can well be a coincidence. While there are many other Indoeuropean albus-related words, none of them means exactly the same (swan, elf, bright, vitiligo, etc.) and I can find no Albanian cognate anyhow. Does the nickname Albion (also from those same antique days) makes Britain related to Alba Longa or is just Celto-Italics using the word «white» again and again for many different things.

    Oh, BTW, I just realized that «alba longa» can also mean «long dawn» because «alba» (the white one, fem.) also means «dawn» (as in Lluís Llach’s famous anti-fascist song «al alba»). Could it mean that in the case of the Albanoi it just meant «those from the dawn», as opposed to coastal Illyrians «from the dusk»? Who knows? It could also be a reference to the color of the snowed mountains, whatever. It’s not something we can draw conclusions about, really.

    «we don’t know what Albanoi were to assign an Illyrian identity to them» — We do know that the people of the region were generally considered not just Illyrians but «true Illyrians». We have no particular reason to exclude the Albanoi from that category, Occam’s razor does matter.

    Me gusta

  22. PS – checking the word «alba» in Wikitionary, I realize that «alba» was not «dawn» yet in classical Latin but it must have been in Vulgar Latin or proto-Romance, because it has that meaning from Portugal to Romania, so it fits the description after all.

    Me gusta

  23. The autosomal affinity between ancient Greeks (such as Mycenaeans and certain Classical samples from Iberia) and southern Italians is there. Whether it is because of the Greek colonization of southern Italy, a largely similar (excluding the Yamnaya component) pre-Indo-European profile between Greece proper and southern Italy, or a mix of both, makes little difference. Of course, what i wrote was just a suggestion, not a proven fact. Additional studies are required, mainly in regards to Y-DNA and mtDNA, in order to support or refute this suggestion.

    Indeed, we don’t know for sure whether they share the same root; this is an assumption of mine. But don’t focus only on Alba Longa. The people who inhabited it were called «Alban» (i checked Titus Livius’ Ab Urbe Condita, and he calls them Albanos in plural), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alban_people. Anyway, again, these are all assumptions and i am not treating them as facts. What i tried to say, was that there is no factual basis for associating the actual Roman-era inhabitants of Albanopolis with medieval or modern-day Albanians.

    You write, «We do know that the people of the region were generally considered not just Illyrians but “true Illyrians”. We have no particular reason to exclude the Albanoi from that category, Occam’s razor does matter.»
    ————————————
    But i am not excluding the possibility that Roman-era Albanoi could have been Illyrians, same way i am not excluding a Celtic or an Italic association. My emphasis from the very beginning was that we do not know for sure. By the way, this region (we don’t know the exact location of Albanopolis) wasn’t only inhabited by Illyrians proper, but also by Latins, Brygians, Greeks, and Paeonians.

    Me gusta

  24. Not sure what exact «autosomal affinity» is there. Sicilians tend to Syria-Lebanon, not to Greece, ancient Etruscans arguably tend to Asia Minor (not to Greece). it may seem similar (towards the East) but it’s not the same. That’s why I argue for strong «Sea Peoples» (but not specifically Greek, rather Teresh and Shekelesh, Anatolian Tyrsenians and some sort of «proto-Phoenicians» leading to Sicels). The Sicilian case is particularly clear and IMNSHO it clearly points to a BA-IA transition invasion from the Levant (Shekelesh, circumcised mystery people whose name seems to mean «mercenaries» or «pirates», from shekel = weight unit or coin). You can’t explain the massive «orientalization» of Italy in this period with historical Magna Graecia (nor the even more limited Phoenician colonization of Western Sicily), some other more dramatic change is needed, affecting the interior of the Peninsula, Etruscans, Italics even somehow.

    It’s very obscure becaue not much archaeogenetics has been done in peninsular Italy (only Sardinia and Ötzi are references) but my train of thought is as follows:

    1. The pre-Urnfields Bronze Age population (archaeologically derived from Cardium Neolithic and related groups) was like Ötzi, like Sardinians and like many other European populations (EEF, Vasconic 1).

    2. Since c. 1300 or 1200 BCE Urnfields culture (Celto-Italic) descended over North Italy (and also a branch headed to the Eastern Pyrenees, later conquering much of Central and West Iberia, producing Iberian Celts) and led to Celts in Lombardy and Italics in Veneto and Old Latium (Osco-Umbrians are more obscure), as well as (somewhat contradictorily) to Etruscans in Etruria (which included modern North Lazio and much of the Po Valley for a while).

    3. Dyonisos of Halycarnassos claims that Sicels were very influential in mainland Italy (or specifically in Latium), from where they were expelled by the Latins or Romans (he associate these with some mystery «Greek» allies who may or not be real but that he imagined Arcadian, what is not plausible in the 9th to 7th century BCE, or who may be Etruscan on reason of their Aegean origins and cultural-historical relations with Rome, incl. IMO the Aeneas legend).

    4. Later the other Italics (Osco-Umbrians, who have no apparent roots in Urnfields but practiced burial in regular tombs) expanded southwards somehow. I’m a bit puzzled at the formation of Osco-Umbrians, who seem archaeologically more directly related to pre-Indoeuropean Italy, but for linguistic reasons I must assume they are an offshoot of the other Italic groups: Veneti and Latins. They may have been only «Italized», i.e. Indoeuropeanized, and most of its ancestry originating in some other group, either Vasconic or Oriental or even a mix of both. More research is needed.

    In any case no Greeks are apparent before the 8th century anywhere (most are much more recent arrivals rather), the very important orientalization of the genetics of Iron Age Italians must be rather sought in the other two «Sea Peoples» we can reasonably identify instead: Sicels-Sekelesh and Etruscan-Teresh. The Sherden or pre-Indoeuropean Sardinians were also a Sea People (as were maybe the Ausones = Weshesh?) but they seem to have been in the losing end and in any case they could not directly bring Eastern genetics to Italy, being native Italian of the EEF or Vasconic 1 type. They might still have played an indirect role by temerarily or desperately «inviting» some Eastern Sea Peoples to Italy, maybe to fight against the Indoeuropeans. Hard to say.

    These Eastern groups, which were mostly not Greek (but in the case of Etruscans genetically similar, excepting the Indoeuropean layer) are almost certainly the core carriers of Oriental genetics and notably Y-DNA haplogroup J2, which was never attested among EEF/Vasconics nor among core Indoeuropeans either but is clearly associated to Pelasgo-Tyrsenians and Semites (in this case we should also expect some J1, so mostly Pelasgo-Tyrsenian).

    So I argue very strongly for Etruscan or Etruscan-like association with the Italic Indoeuropean invasion, at least after some early confusion. And that’s what you may be confusing with Greek-like autosomal DNA (Pelasgo-Tyrsenian + Indoeuropean = «Greek» or rather something that looks like Greek but in this case is not).

    Re. «Albans», what was first, the chicken or the egg? The Latin name was not «Albanos» but «Albenses» (lit. those from Alba, much like my Alabanenses (Varduly, Bardyetas) ancestors were those from Alaba, modern Araba/Álava — in this case it may mean «(the) daughter» because that’s what «alaba» means in modern Basque, son is «seme» arguably seminal, pun intended, to Latin semen = seed, documented in ancient slabs as «senbe» possibly but «nb» may stand for /m/). I had to go to the Italian version of Wikipedia to find out: the oldest such toponym is the holy complex of Mons Albanus, the Alban Hills (Colli Albani) and Lake (Lacus) Albano, which obvioulsy pre-date Alba Longa’s foundation, probably also in name. The name either means white or whitened (albus, albanus) or, less likely, «oriental» because of alba = dawn in later Latin/Romance. Neither looks particularly white however, except maybe in winter.

    Whatever! In any case there’s no reason to relate the Latin Albenses with the Illyrian Albanoi of much later times and different geography. If you could at least locate some sort of Roman colony that brought the name to Albania… but even there it would only explain the name, not their ethnicity. AFAIK there was no particularly notable Roman colonization in that mountainous backwater.

    The Celtic buzzword is all kinds of meaningless. Celts only penentrated somewhat in the Danubian lowlands, excepted their (foiled) raids against Greece and their mercenary colony in Galatia. Celts were maybe a hill people at times but generally not a mountain people and their overall settlement patterns show they preferred the plains. I have absolutely no reason to imagine Celts as related to the Albanoi, it just seems a name shift for some Illyrian peoples under Roman rule. Why? Who knows!

    Me gusta

  25. You are expanding again mate. I am trying to close this.

    «Not sure what exact “autosomal affinity” is there. Sicilians tend to Syria-Lebanon, not to Greece, ancient Etruscans arguably tend to Asia Minor (not to Greece).»
    ————————————
    Aside of what i have already shared above. From «Ancient and recent admixture layers in Sicily and Southern Italy trace multiple migration routes along the Mediterranean» (2017), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5434004/:
    *In particular, Sicily and Southern Italy (SSI) appear as belonging to a wide and homogeneous genetic domain, which is shared by large portions of the present-day South-Eastern Euro-Mediterranean area, extending from Sicily to Cyprus, through Crete, Aegean-Dodecanese and Anatolian Greek Islands. We will refer to this domain as ‘Mediterranean genetic continuum’.
    *…the Greek-speaking communities of both Apulia (Griko) and Calabria (Grecani) show no clear signs of a recent (i.e. from the late Middle Ages) continental Greek origin, instead resembling the ‘continuum’ populations of Southern Italy and the Greek-speaking islands…
    *Population expansions during the Middle Ages, for instance those related to the Slavic migrations, could have affected Albania and Continental Greece at least indirectly as a result of subsequent population contacts. We may therefore hypothesize that present-day mainland Greek and Southern Balkan populations detached from a genetic background originally shared with the ‘Mediterranean genetic continuum’ (i.e. Southern Italy and the Mediterranean Greek-islands) after these recent events which interested the Balkan Peninsula in historical times.
    *…whereas Italian Greeks are related to the Mediterranean ‘genetic continuum’ (i.e. to Southern Italians and the Greek-speaking islands)…
    As for Etruscans tending towards Asia Minor. Look at «Ancient Rome: A genetic crossroads of Europe and the Mediterranean» (2019), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7093155/.

    «(he associate these with some mystery “Greek” allies who may or not be real but that he imagined Arcadian, what is not plausible in the 9th to 7th century BCE,…»
    ————————————
    Arcadocypriot Greek (aka Achaean proper), is the only true descendant of Mycenaean Greek. Furthermore, i bet more interesting relevant information exists in the book «Mycenaeans in early Latium» (1980) by Emilio Peruzzi, though unfortunately i don’t have full access to it; only limited through Google Books. But through this limited access i managed to find this excerpt from page 30: «To sum up, the tradition about the Arcadian settlement on the Palatine cannot be dismissed as pure fiction. Indeed, none of its many specific details may be rejected prima facie as intrinsically unacceptable.».

    «Y-DNA haplogroup J2, which was never attested among EEF/Vasconics nor among core Indoeuropeans either but is clearly associated to Pelasgo-Tyrsenians and Semites»
    ————————————
    It’s also found in the following:
    2/3 Minoan male samples belong to J2a
    1/1 Mycenaean male sample belongs to J2a
    3/3 Aegean cluster (Empúries2 in the supplementary) samples from the Greek colony of Empúries (Iberia) belonged to haplogroup J

    «The Latin name was not “Albanos” but “Albenses”»
    ————————————
    I just shared what Titus Livius’ «Ab Urbe Condita – Periochae» writes; «Tullus Hostilius Albanos diripuit.», which translates as «Tullus Hostilius plundered the Albanians.». I am not really that familiar with Latin grammar.

    «AFAIK there was no particularly notable Roman colonization in that mountainous backwater.»
    ————————————
    Again, we don’t know the exact location of Albanopolis. It could be coastal, or it could be more inland, closer to modern-day North Macedonia. Regardless, notable or not, there seem to have been a number of Roman coloniae in the region, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonia_(Roman). Also, don’t forget the Roman construction of Via Egnatia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Via_Egnatia. From Wikipedia, «The Via Egnatia was constructed in order to link a chain of Roman colonies stretching from the Adriatic Sea to the Bosphorus.»

    «Celts only penentrated somewhat in the Danubian lowlands, excepted their (foiled) raids against Greece and their mercenary colony in Galatia.»
    ————————————
    By Danubian lowlands you mean the Celts of Tylis, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tylis, and the Serdi, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serdi, in Thrace? The latter were located in modern-day Sofia (capital of Bulgaria) which in Roman times was known as Serdica, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serdika. By the way, let’s not forget Galatia also, in Anatolia.

    «Celts were maybe a hill people at times but generally not a mountain people and their overall settlement patterns show they preferred the plains. I have absolutely no reason to imagine Celts as related to the Albanoi…»
    ————————————
    And how do you know that Albanoi were mountain people? This is again an assumption. Frankly, the only thing we can safely hypothesize is that they lived in a town or a city, namely Albanopolis.

    Let’s try and close this mate; no reason to expand. I tried to do it with my previous post, which was the shortest i have made, but you expanded again.

    Me gusta

  26. I’m not closing in false but feel free to quit the discussion at any time.

    I’m not buying the Sarno et al. IBD calculation because it contradicts the PCA, their own PCA (fig. 2, more clear in fig S1, better quality image): it’s extremely clear that Sicilians tend strongly and anomalously to Levant and not to Greece+Danube. There must be some sort of error somewhere but the Balcans are «more European» than Sicily in terms genetic, so there’s no way that Sicily can be the mere sum of two Balcan subpopulations, it necessarily requires also a significant Levantine input (or at the very least Cypriot-like).

    Similarly Fig. S2 clearly shows that they do have a «Near Eastern-like» component, which amounts to around 20% in the supervised four population model (S2b) and is much greater than in Greeks and Albanians (5% or less). This same component is around 60% in Syrians, so Sicilians may have some 30% Syrian-like admixture or maybe a bit more, let’s say 1/3, seems reasonable and fits the PCA quite well.

    Not dismissing the Arcado-Roman story in full but I’d rather interpret it as either early Magna Graecian or Etruscan. Non Arcadian Peloponese was already Dorian by the time of the founding of Rome (and much earlier, IMO the Dorian conquest happened c. 1130 BCE).

    Low Danube Celts: their core was in Moesia (modern core Serbia) but fair enough what you say (they were re-Thracianized anyhow, by will or force). I did mention the Galatians, woe on me if I didn’t, the celticist hordes of the world would haunt me like the Santa Compaña (a weird galician legend characteristic of Celtic warlike pessimism, similar to other legends further north — totally weird to a Basque that the dead or generally the spirits are not fundamentally friendly).

    Re. J2 – nice extra info. It fits my model because Greeks got that J2 from the Pelasgian layer obviously, be it in Greece or further north in Vinca era Serbia. In modern Greece it’s most stronly associated however with Thessaly and Crete, the two regions legendarily most strongly associated to the Pelasgoi.

    “Ab Urbe Condita – Periochae” writes; “Tullus Hostilius Albanos diripuit». — Primary source, fair enough. I accept «Albanos».

    However Albanos can’t be translated as «Albanians» but as «Albans». There’s no «Albania» (a perfectly valid country name in Latin) and thus no Albanians («Albanienses» probably in Latin). The apparent evolution is Albanoi > Albania.

    You can still speculate about Albanos and Albanoi being the same (different declension however) but there’s nothing but a loose coincicence in name and thus I can’t accept it. You can beat the dead horse all you want but you’ll need more evidence to be persuasive.

    Not sure how the Via Egnatia illuminates anything in the Albanoi discussion, sry.

    «how do you know that Albanoi were mountain people?» — Well, most of Albania is mountainous so it’s a fair guess but, more specifically (from Wikipedia): «Their central settlement was called Albanopolis (Ἀλβανόπολις) and was located roughly between the Mat and Shkumbin rivers, in central Albania». Any cursory look to the locations shows it’s a very steep mountain area (but, as I said before most of Albania is anyhow).

    Me gusta

  27. «I’m not closing in false but feel free to quit the discussion at any time.»
    ————————————
    I don’t want you to close it in false, but i am trying to close the discussion properly, due to limited time.

    «it contradicts the PCA, their own PCA (fig. 2, more clear in fig S1, better quality image): it’s extremely clear that Sicilians tend strongly and anomalously to Levant and not to Greece+Danube.»
    ————————————
    Their PCA shows southern Italians and Sicilians being part of the «Southern European» cluster, and far closer to Greek islanders and mainlanders than the Levantine populations.

    «There must be some sort of error somewhere but the Balcans are “more European” than Sicily in terms genetic»
    ————————————
    There is no error. The Balkans, and specifically the mainland Greeks, have a larger frequency of European-like component due to the medieval Slavic migrations that didn’t reach the Greek-speaking islands or SSI to the same extent, if at all. If you read the paper you will see the following:
    «The Near Eastern-like ancestry is more frequent in SSI [Sicily and Southern Italy] and the Greek-speaking islands (i.e. the ‘Mediterranean continuum’), whereas increasing frequencies of the European-like component are observed in Albanians and mainland Greeks as well as in the rest of the Balkan Peninsula (Supplementary Fig. S2b).»
    «The emerging patterns have been further explored with the fastIBD analysis, by comparing values of IBD-sharing between the Southern Italian and Southern Balkan analysed populations (Fig. 4, Supplementary Information). Overall, patterns of IBD-relatedness suggest that ‘continuum’ populations (i.e. both Southern Italy and the Mediterranean Greek islands) share relatively more segments with the Caucasus and the Near East, while Albania and continental Greece appear significantly more related with Central and Northern Balkans, as well as Eastern Europe.»
    «Population expansions during the Middle Ages, for instance those related to the Slavic migrations, could have affected Albania and Continental Greece at least indirectly as a result of subsequent population contacts. We may therefore hypothesize that present-day mainland Greek and Southern Balkan populations detached from a genetic background originally shared with the ‘Mediterranean genetic continuum’ (i.e. Southern Italy and the Mediterranean Greek-islands) after these recent events which interested the Balkan Peninsula in historical times.»
    But regardless of this, you won’t and don’t see SSI and Greek-speaking islanders clustering with Levantine populations on PCA. Their admixture differences with mainland Greeks are relatively small, and they still have similar frequencies for the Caucasus-like and Sardinian-like components which make up 75-80% of their profiles in the supplementary figure S2b.

    «Not sure how the Via Egnatia illuminates anything in the Albanoi discussion, sry.»
    Via Egnatia was mentioned in conjunction with what i wrote about the Roman coloniae, since it was constructed to link them together. Furthermore, Via Egnatia passes through, and ends close, to where Albanopolis was allegedly located.

    «Well, most of Albania is mountainous so it’s a fair guess but, more specifically (from Wikipedia): “Their central settlement was called Albanopolis (Ἀλβανόπολις) and was located roughly between the Mat and Shkumbin rivers, in central Albania”. Any cursory look to the locations shows it’s a very steep mountain area (but, as I said before most of Albania is anyhow).»
    A guess, fair enough. But the region between the rivers Mat and Shkumbin isn’t that mountainous.


    Furthermore, even the site of Zgërdhesh which has been hypothesized as a possible location of Albanopolis, seats at an elevation of ~125 meters.

    Me gusta

  28. Sicilians are very clearly «farther east» than Greeks in terms genetic, unles you consider Cypriots (who are genetically much more similar to Anatolian Turks in fact). That’s the issue with the Sicilian anomaly: they should be (neutral expectation) «further west» than Greeks but they are not. This requires an explanation and the only one I can make sense of is Shekelesh migration leading to Sicels (and maybe Sicani as «half-Sicel»?, «Sicel-ized»?)

    I guess you may imagine something else like Romans bringing lots of Hebrew slaves to Sicily but what we know of the Sicilian slave revolts rather point to Thrace and the like being the main source of slaves, not the Levant. Also, much as in the slave plantations of America, (agricultural and mining) slaves lived often short lives and had no or few descendants, needing to be replenished again and again. In general no obvious slave-descendant signature is detectable in modern Sicilians, if it exists it is very unspecific (pointing to nowhere in particular) and not overly dominant.

    You say: «The Balkans, and specifically the mainland Greeks, have a larger frequency of European-like component due to the medieval Slavic migrations». — I beg to strongly disagree, more so when Southern Slavs themselves have been demonstrated to be essentially natives to the Balcans (Slavized but almost not genetic Slavs): https://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2015/09/negligible-genetic-flow-in-slavic.html

    What you perceive as «Slavic» is actually (at least most of it) older Indoeuropean input from either early Greek or Macedonian (or other more obscure maybe) arrivals. In this sense it’s notorious that there is more characteristic Indoeuropean marker R1a in Greek Macedonia than in any of the South Slavic countries (except Slovenia, which should rather be considered Western Slavic and is anyhow very exceptional).

    Re. «mountainous» you’re looking at Dürres, I’m looking at Tirana. In any case it’s not important.

    Me gusta

  29. There is a new paper coming out soon. Here is the pre-print, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.458211v1. Haven’t gone through the whole paper to have a full image; i am waiting for the original to come out before i do. But, through a quick look i noticed the following:
    » Present-day Serbs, Croats and the rest of central/northern Balkan populations yielded a similar ancestral composition as the Kuline individuals, with approximately 50% Northeastern European-related ancestry [according to the paper likely associated to Slavic-speakers] admixed with ancestry related to Iron Age native Balkan population (Figure 3), implying substantial population continuity in the region over the last 1,000 years. This ancestry signal significantly decreases in more southern groups, but it is still presents in populations from mainland Greece (~30%) and even the Aegean islands (7-20%).»

    Here is Figure 3. Proportions of Northeastern European-related ancestry (in black) for present-day Balkans populations; 10th century CE Kuline individuals are indicated with a red outline.

    Also, by looking at the Supplementary Table 1, i see that the «Balkans IA cluster» (dated to about the first 500 years of CE) corroborates what i wrote in prior posts about the proto-Albanian region likely being in the central Balkans, since the Balkans IA group is full of haplogroups also shared by modern-day Albanians; though i haven’t checked exact subclades at the moment.

    Me gusta

  30. On first sight, it seems almost meaningless: the «NE European» component is about the same in Slavs and non-Slavs (Romanians, Albanians, Hungarians, even Macedonian Greeks). Only non-Macedonian Greeks seem to have been more sheltered from this component’s intrusion. Also no extra-regional comparisons, at least in the linked map.

    On second sight, I browsed the whole paper already, with some attention to the graphs, the NE component may be real but almost certainly not Slavic, rather Eastern Germanic and various steppe groups (Avars, Magyars, etc.) This may or not include Slavic ancestry (as in Slavic-speakers of diverse origins, Slavs were very ecclectic and assimilationist before they were divided across church lines, that’s almost certainly the key to their success) but it’s not ancestry we can relate to Western Slavs, if anything it rather seems Eastern Slavic or just Eastern in general.

    Anyhow notice that it is a weak displacement because most of it (fig. 1 C) happens in PC 2 (between the Iron Age Balcan cluster and Sarmatians, i.e. Iranics) and only some of it shows a tendency towards Ingria IA (Uralics). This last tendency is dominated by the Hungarians, what is all kinds of interesting but looks non-Slavic and rather Uralic to me (Hungarians are after all Finno-Ugrians in language).

    It may be the result of various waves, none of which seems particularly Slavic. There is a uniform Sarmatian tendency, which may well be Gothic (plus others, «Dniepr-Don» in any case by geographic origin), and then a Hungarian-led cluster towards Ingria which may explain the origin of Magyars but doesn’t seem to relate to Slavs in any obvious way.

    This last is more important a shift, because it happens in the PC1, which always weights more than PC2, in this case almost x2.5, so to visualize the real shift you need to stretch the graph x2.5 in the horizontal direction (or compress similarly in the vertical one, it’s not «to scale» in any case). Other than hungarians the «Ingrian» shift affects peri-Hungarian groups: Croats, Serbs and Romanians, and only them (three Bulgarians are also included but not most Bulgarians).

    Granted that it can be argued that some of that «Ingrian» shift happened already in the Dark Ages, because Langobards are also shifted in that approximate same direction, but Langobards went to Italy, not to the Balcans, hence at best they are proxy for other East Germanics like Goths.

    The Kuline twins are intringuing because they seem Catalans. However 10th century is late for them being Hungarian slaves captured in their raid of Catalonia (as far west as the Magyars reached in their incursions) so there’s probably some other reason for their presence there, I’m guessing that early crusaders who only made about one third of their journey but whatever (if so, plausibly Occitans rather than Catalans, probably from the peasants’ crusade and not the knights’ crused, which in the Occitan case went via Italy if my memory is correct).

    Me gusta

  31. Let’s wait for the original paper to come out; personally i haven’t gone through it properly.

    But, on the Northeastern European component that you mentioned, we read the following in Supplementary section 12.8:


    Me gusta

Deja una respuesta

Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de WordPress.com

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de WordPress.com. Salir /  Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Salir /  Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Salir /  Cambiar )

Conectando a %s