J2b-L283

[rafc]

Scholar Lazaridis provided on X an explanation that is useful to understand the Proto-Albanian and Proto-Greek formation processes:

https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/stat...9089957219

He replied to this post of another user:

reich group seems to be telegraphing anticipation of willerslev group finding later that balkan/greek IE groups were not founded by post-corded ware, but were direct yamnaya/catacomb ppl

by retweeting a 2022 post:

And 99% of Indo-European speakers stem from Corded Ware ancestors. It is only three small groups: Greeks, Armenians, Albanians who go up to the Yamnaya not via Corded Ware intermediaries. Many others were wiped out linguistically, e.g. Tocharians and most Paleo-Balkan speakers

and then by commenting:

Thus, our analyses resolve the question of the origins of the Late Bronze Age population by strongly supporting one of two previously proposed hypotheses (4)—that Mycenaeans were the outcome of admixture of descendants of Yamnaya-like steppe migrants with a Minoan-like substratum

If this reconstruction is accurate, it's important in that it says that literally Yamnaya-related people came to the Aegean, not the various Yamnaya-Balkan farmer mixtures that existed there for a thousand+ years before the earlier Mycenaeans. So it's Yam+Min not Yam+Min+Balk

This is great info, they should have just put that in their paper with the evidence behind.

[targaryen]

"targaryen

I'm sorry but you can't hoax IBD results or linguistics. When you have people in Holland or Scandinavia, hundreds of years later, even after admixing with EEF heavily, still sharing IBD with Yamnaya in Ukraine thousands of miles away, the proof is in the pudding.."

I suggest you read the papers because that's the exact verbiage they use. They are the "kurgan elites". And these IBD hits ARE hundreds of years apart. Meaning the closer you go back in time, the stronger those links would get."

This is actually right, this is why the IBD fine clustering of Early Albanians with a mystery group spanning a territory of Hungary/Slovakia/Moldova/Ukraine/North-Macedonia and not clustering together with all the ancient J2b-L283 samples on the adriatic coast is devastating, because it points, in your own words, to the fact that Early Albanians must be very intimately related to this non-Illyrian cluster.

It also points to the language of those J2b-l283 holdouts dying out and being Albanised by the proto-Albanian population.

Not understanding your point here. IBD is just spotting distant cousins. Plenty of Roman J2B2-L283, E-V13s, R1b-Z2103s, carriers etc... migrated all over Europe from the Balkans. I have IBD with Greeks, Macedonians, Bulgarians, Romanians, etc... even today. (Heck I even have IBD with Americans with Anglo-Saxon names that have distant Balkan ancestors). Doesn't mean I belong to those groups. Just means one of my, or their ancestors, moved between places.

This has nothing to do with ancient DNA thousands of years prior. That's not what IBD is for. There was no Roman Empire during the days of Yamnaya/CW. This is just to see if the 75% Yamnaya autosomal in CW is accompanied by gene flow, and it is.

[targaryen]

Scholar Lazaridis provided on X an explanation that is useful to understand the Proto-Albanian and Proto-Greek formation processes:

https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/stat...9089957219

He replied to this post of another user:

reich group seems to be telegraphing anticipation of willerslev group finding later that balkan/greek IE groups were not founded by post-corded ware, but were direct yamnaya/catacomb ppl

by retweeting a 2022 post:

And 99% of Indo-European speakers stem from Corded Ware ancestors. It is only three small groups: Greeks, Armenians, Albanians who go up to the Yamnaya not via Corded Ware intermediaries. Many others were wiped out linguistically, e.g. Tocharians and most Paleo-Balkan speakers

and then by commenting:

Thus, our analyses resolve the question of the origins of the Late Bronze Age population by strongly supporting one of two previously proposed hypotheses (4)—that Mycenaeans were the outcome of admixture of descendants of Yamnaya-like steppe migrants with a Minoan-like substratum

If this reconstruction is accurate, it's important in that it says that literally Yamnaya-related people came to the Aegean, not the various Yamnaya-Balkan farmer mixtures that existed there for a thousand+ years before the earlier Mycenaeans. So it's Yam+Min not Yam+Min+Balk

But Illyrians have nothing to do with Greeks at all......................Greeks "barely" fit with Epirote and Macedonians

where you going with his claim ?

I believe that's what Lazaridis is saying. There is no "Balkan intermediary" for Greeks. It was direct steppe migrations into the Aegean. 

This is obviously different than Illyrians, Thracians, etc...

[targaryen]

There seems to be people that don't understand how IBD works lol. David Reich (yes the world's leading archeogeneticist) explains exactly why Yamnaya -> CW with IBD analysis

https://youtu.be/QoGmPJJS3X8?t=2775

I mean if you want to argue against this, be my guest. I've nothing else to add. But the evidence is quite clear.

[Sephesakueu]

Scholar Lazaridis provided on X an explanation that is useful to understand the Proto-Albanian and Proto-Greek formation processes:

https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/stat...9089957219

He replied to this post of another user:


by retweeting a 2022 post:


and then by commenting:

But Illyrians have nothing to do with Greeks at all......................Greeks "barely" fit with Epirote and Macedonians

where you going with his claim ?

I believe that's what Lazaridis is saying. There is no "Balkan intermediary" for Greeks. It was direct steppe migrations into the Aegean. 

This is obviously different than Illyrians, Thracians, etc...

The only way to know that is if there were 100% core yamnaya samples in early mycenean greece, personally I haven't seen any.
By the way isn't this thread about super alpha y-dna J-L283? It has gone too far off topic already. 
Everbody get back at the" muh we wuz robust yamnaya letal bodybuilder and shit. And now we're but degenerated yankee office employees , but hey look at my y-dna".

[targaryen]

But Illyrians have nothing to do with Greeks at all......................Greeks "barely" fit with Epirote and Macedonians

where you going with his claim ?

I believe that's what Lazaridis is saying. There is no "Balkan intermediary" for Greeks. It was direct steppe migrations into the Aegean. 

This is obviously different than Illyrians, Thracians, etc...

The only way to know that is if there were 100% core yamnaya samples in early mycenean greece, personally I haven't seen any.
By the way isn't this thread about super alpha y-dna J-L283? It has gone to far off topic already. 
Everbody get back at the" muh we wuz robust yamnaya bodybuilder and shiet" and now we are degenerated yankee office  employee , but hey look at my y-dna.

David Reich, Anthony, Kristiansen are literally are stating these RZ2103 (and now J2B2-L283) kurganites dominated over all other European ancestors. And that J2B2-L283 was the biggest/strongest dude of them all.

[Rage]

I believe that's what Lazaridis is saying. There is no "Balkan intermediary" for Greeks. It was direct steppe migrations into the Aegean. 

This is obviously different than Illyrians, Thracians, etc...

The only way to know that is if there were 100% core yamnaya samples in early mycenean greece, personally I haven't seen any.
By the way isn't this thread about super alpha y-dna J-L283? It has gone to far off topic already. 
Everbody get back at the" muh we wuz robust yamnaya bodybuilder and shiet" and now we are degenerated yankee office  employee , but hey look at my y-dna.

Lol can't really blame people for pointing out stuff like that... It was stated in the paper. That Johan/Dreneu? guy kept complaining about Enver Hoxha's propaganda but all these findings would have made awesome propaganda

David Reich, Anthony, Kristiansen are literally are stating these RZ2103 (and now J2B2-L283) kurganites dominated over all other European ancestors. And that J2B2-L283 was the biggest/strongest dude of them all.

Explains where I got some of my height and strength from

[Desdonas]

https://genarchivist.com/showthread.php?tid=746

Now 4 L51 samples are also mentioned in Yamnaya. So L51 may also represent a movement from the steppe in an earlier stage.

From my point of view, Balkan IE, Tocharian, Bell Beaker and Indo-Iranian may be closer to a 4-furcate linguistically, which is the rapid diversification of post-Anatolian IE. Subsequently, there are some innovation hotspots and regional sharing.

[targaryen]

https://genarchivist.com/showthread.php?tid=746

Now 4 L51 samples are also mentioned in Yamnaya. So L51 may also represent a movement from the steppe in an earlier stage.

From my point of view, Balkan IE, Tocharian, Bell Beaker and Indo-Iranian may be closer to a 4-furcate linguistically, which is the rapid diversification of post-Anatolian IE. Subsequently, there are some innovation hotspots and regional sharing.

Anthony explained this a long time. Yamnaya was an oligarchy dominated by a small handful of males (RZ2103). But occasionally we will get I2, RL51, R1a, J2B2, etc... popping up. Either because of infidelity of their mothers or cultural/social mobility reasons.

But as for J2B2-L283, this was always a minor lineage. People that were expecting this to be all over the steppe were unrealistic, because even in Europe today it's not that much.

[Ushta]

Scholar Lazaridis provided on X an explanation that is useful to understand the Proto-Albanian and Proto-Greek formation processes:

https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/stat...9089957219

He replied to this post of another user:

reich group seems to be telegraphing anticipation of willerslev group finding later that balkan/greek IE groups were not founded by post-corded ware, but were direct yamnaya/catacomb ppl

by retweeting a 2022 post:

And 99% of Indo-European speakers stem from Corded Ware ancestors. It is only three small groups: Greeks, Armenians, Albanians who go up to the Yamnaya not via Corded Ware intermediaries. Many others were wiped out linguistically, e.g. Tocharians and most Paleo-Balkan speakers

and then by commenting:

Thus, our analyses resolve the question of the origins of the Late Bronze Age population by strongly supporting one of two previously proposed hypotheses (4)—that Mycenaeans were the outcome of admixture of descendants of Yamnaya-like steppe migrants with a Minoan-like substratum

If this reconstruction is accurate, it's important in that it says that literally Yamnaya-related people came to the Aegean, not the various Yamnaya-Balkan farmer mixtures that existed there for a thousand+ years before the earlier Mycenaeans. So it's Yam+Min not Yam+Min+Balk

But Illyrians have nothing to do with Greeks at all......................Greeks "barely" fit with Epirote and Macedonians

where you going with his claim ?

This explains that the languages of the branch labelled "Balkan Indo-European" by linguists (Albano-Messapic, Graeco-Phrygian, Armenian, and poorly attested Paleo-Balkan languages) and/or the close linguistic contacts between Armenian and all those languages predated the Yamnaya migrations into the Balkans. It rejects the theory of the Armenian and Greek diversification/dispersal from a common Indo-European branch within the Balkan Peninsula. So it rejects some theories postulated in the conference The Secondary Homelands of the Indo-European Languages (IG-AT2022), specifically the emergence of Proto-Albano-Messapic and Proto-Armenian from a common stage within the Balkans, and the period of close contacts within the Balkans between Albano-Messapic, Graeco-Phrygian, Armenian, and poorly attested Paleo-Balkan languages.

It is in accordance with some aspects of Kortlandt's theory, which postulated that the Balkan IE languages already diversified in the Pontic steppe. However, Kortlandt also includes Armenian within the Balkan languages, and his Thraco-Armenian grouping is uncertain and remains to be clarified.

The new papers by Lazaridis et al. (2022 and 2024) appear to confirm Hrach Martirosyan's conclusions in his paper "The place of Armenian in the Indo-European language family: the relationship with Greek and Indo-Iranian":

In recent years, the methodology of dealing with substrate words has been developed and applied by several scholars. It has been pointed out that an etymon is likely to be a loanword if it is characterized by some of the following features: (1) limited geographical distribution; (2) unusual phonology and word formation; and (3) specific semantics. The Armenian words that are frequently considered to be of Mediterranean origin are: gini ‘wine’, ewǻ/iwǻ ‘oil’, t‘uz ‘fig’, spung ‘sponge’, sring ‘pipe, fife’, sunk/g(n) ‘mushroom’. The actual number is much higher. In Martirosyan 2007 and 2010, I have applied the aforementioned methodology to a number of such words, mostly plant names, animal names and cultural words. In these cases, an etymon is attested in Armenian, Greek, Latin and/or another Indo-European language of south-east Europe (such as Albanian or Phrygian) or Anatolian, but the phonological or word-formative correspondences are irregular with respect to the Indo-European system, and they cannot be considered loanwords from one another. Bearing in mind that Greek and Latin on the one hand and Armenian on the other are historically located on the opposite sides of the Black Sea, as well as that in some cases Mediterranean words have related forms in the Caucasus and Near East, I prefer not to confine myself strictly to the notion of so-called Balkan Indo-European. I conventionally use a term Mediterranean-Pontic Substrate. In some cases (e.g. Arm. pal ‘rock’ vs. Gr. πέλλα ‘rock’, OIr. ail ‘cliff’ < *pal-i, MIr. all < *plso, OIc. fell ‘mountain, rock’, OHG felisa ‘rock, cliff’ prob. from *palis), an etymon is also present in other European branches, such as Celtic and Germanic, thus we are faced with the European Substrate in the terms of Beekes 2000. Whether the Mediterranean-Pontic and European substrata are identical or related is difficult to say with confidence. There are words belonging to the same semantic categories (plant names, animal names, cultural words) that may be treated as innovations shared by Armenian and Greek etc. For instance, the morphological agreement between Arm. kaǻin, ostem ‘acorn’ and Gr. βάλανος f. ‘acorn’ (vs. Lat. glāns, glandis f. ‘acorn, beech-nut’, Russ. žëlud’, SCr. žȅlūd ‘acorn’, Lith. gìlė, dial. gylė̃ ‘acorn’, Latv. zĩle ‘acorn’, etc.) may reflect a common innovation undergone jointly by Greek and Armenian (Clackson 1994: 135–136, 200/2372). Such words do not belong with the substrate since they are of Indo-European origin and do not reflect any phonological or morphological deviation. Nevertheless, these innovations are relevant to our topic in that they may be ascribed to the same Mediterranean-Pontic area and period. In other words, after the Indo-European dispersal, Proto-Armenian, Proto-Greek and some other contiguous language-branches (e.g. Phrygian and Thracian) may have remained in contact somewhere in the Mediterranean and/or Pontic areas, probably in the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC and have shared both IE innovations and substrate words...
...This implies that we have to deal with at least two chronological layers, and that the Proto-Armenians must have remained in or close to the Mediterranean-Pontic areas for a long period of time...
...These sketchy conclusions probably indicate that, after the separation of the Indo-Iranians, Proto-Armenian remained close to Proto-Greek and some other dialects and, approaching Mediterranean or Pontic regions, developed a high number of lexical agreements, both innovations and borrowings from neighbouring non-Indo-European languages, especially in the domains of agriculture and technology.

Preliminary conclusions
We may preliminarily conclude that Armenian, Greek, (Phrygian) and Indo-Iranian were dialectally close to each other or even formed a dialectal group at the time of the Indo-European dispersal. Within this hypothetical dialect group, Proto-Armenian was situated between Proto-Greek (to the west) and Proto-Indo-Iranian (to the east). On the northern side it might have neighboured, notably, Proto-Germanic and Proto-Balto-Slavic. After the Indo-European dispersal, Armenian developed isoglosses with Indo-Iranian on the one hand and Greek on the other. The Indo-Iranians then moved eastwards, while the Proto-Armenians and Proto-Greeks remained in a common geographical region for a long period and developed numerous shared innovations. At a later stage, together or independently, they borrowed a large number of words from the Mediterranean / Pontic substrate language(s), mostly cultural and agricultural words, as well as animal and plant designations. On the other hand, Armenian shows a considerable number of lexical correspondences with European branches of the Indo-European language family, a large portion of which too should be explained in terms of substrate rather than Indo-European heritage.

So the group of Indo-European speakers that trace their ancestry directly to Yamnaya (Albano-Messapians, Graeco-Phrygians, other ancient Balkan peoples, and Armenians) should not be labelled "Balkan Indo-European" but "Mediterranean-Pontic Indo-European". A "Balkan Indo-European" branch can be theorized only after the Armenian separation from the rest of the "Mediterranean-Pontic Indo-European". And the "Graeco-Albanian" (Graeco-Phrygian and Albano-Messapic) stage theorized by Hyllested and Joseph (2022) would have occurred only in the Pontic steppe, at a time before the migrations of the Yamnaya into the Balkans.

[corrigendum]

As far as J2b L283 origins:

-Not Bronze Age pirates from the Mediterranean who invaded the eastern Adriatic shoreline.
-Not mythical Black Sea Sky Pirates who sailed across the Black Sea from Iran to Romania during the Chalcolithic.
-Not an EEF lineage (no surprise here).
-Not Farmers from Sardinia who went hog wild during the Neolithic and invaded the western Balkans…

But…

-Descendants of Serednii Stih from the Dnieper/Don area. That’s it.




Perhaps this is the homeland?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhaylovka_culture

(I was thinking of replying to some very inaccurate posts by the people who have been wrong about everything concerning J-L283, but ultimately I think that it doesn't move the discussion forward as it's just a waste of time.)
Polska's description is exactly where things stand right now and Archetype has provided a very interesting review of the Caucasian landscape.
We know that all steppe-derived cultures in the territory of modern Ukraine and southern Russia between 3600-3000 BCE had EHG+CHG ancestry and it's certain that J-L283 is one of the lineages which was part of these groups either. Its "pre-steppe" period will be probably be located in a neighbouring North Caucasian (Eneolithic/Chalcolithic) culture.

A question which I find interesting:

1. When did the steppe period of J-L283 start? According to yfull, J-L283 formed c. 9700 ybp and has a TMRCA c. 5600 ybp which coincides with Serednii Stih and related steppe-derived cultures (including its descendant Yamnaya). The case might be that J-L283 really started to expand when it became a steppe lineage. I think that all steppe groupings like Mikhaylovka are good candidates for finding J-L283.

[Moeca]

Scholar Lazaridis provided on X an explanation that is useful to understand the Proto-Albanian and Proto-Greek formation processes:

https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/stat...9089957219

He replied to this post of another user:


by retweeting a 2022 post:


and then by commenting:

But Illyrians have nothing to do with Greeks at all......................Greeks "barely" fit with Epirote and Macedonians

where you going with his claim ?

This explains that the languages of the branch labelled "Balkan Indo-European" by linguists (Albano-Messapic, Graeco-Phrygian, Armenian, and poorly attested Paleo-Balkan languages) and/or the close linguistic contacts between Armenian and all those languages predated the Yamnaya migrations into the Balkans. It rejects the theory of the Armenian and Greek diversification/dispersal from a common Indo-European branch within the Balkan Peninsula. So it rejects some theories postulated in the conference The Secondary Homelands of the Indo-European Languages (IG-AT2022), specifically the emergence of Proto-Albano-Messapic and Proto-Armenian from a common stage within the Balkans, and the period of close contacts within the Balkans between Albano-Messapic, Graeco-Phrygian, Armenian, and poorly attested Paleo-Balkan languages.

It is in accordance with some aspects of Kortlandt's theory, which postulated that the Balkan IE languages already diversified in the Pontic steppe. However, Kortlandt also includes Armenian within the Balkan languages, and his Thraco-Armenian grouping is uncertain and remains to be clarified.

The new papers by Lazaridis et al. (2022 and 2024) appear to confirm Hrach Martirosyan's conclusions in his paper "The place of Armenian in the Indo-European language family: the relationship with Greek and Indo-Iranian":

In recent years, the methodology of dealing with substrate words has been developed and applied by several scholars. It has been pointed out that an etymon is likely to be a loanword if it is characterized by some of the following features: (1) limited geographical distribution; (2) unusual phonology and word formation; and (3) specific semantics. The Armenian words that are frequently considered to be of Mediterranean origin are: gini ‘wine’, ewǻ/iwǻ ‘oil’, t‘uz ‘fig’, spung ‘sponge’, sring ‘pipe, fife’, sunk/g(n) ‘mushroom’. The actual number is much higher. In Martirosyan 2007 and 2010, I have applied the aforementioned methodology to a number of such words, mostly plant names, animal names and cultural words. In these cases, an etymon is attested in Armenian, Greek, Latin and/or another Indo-European language of south-east Europe (such as Albanian or Phrygian) or Anatolian, but the phonological or word-formative correspondences are irregular with respect to the Indo-European system, and they cannot be considered loanwords from one another. Bearing in mind that Greek and Latin on the one hand and Armenian on the other are historically located on the opposite sides of the Black Sea, as well as that in some cases Mediterranean words have related forms in the Caucasus and Near East, I prefer not to confine myself strictly to the notion of so-called Balkan Indo-European. I conventionally use a term Mediterranean-Pontic Substrate. In some cases (e.g. Arm. pal ‘rock’ vs. Gr. πέλλα ‘rock’, OIr. ail ‘cliff’ < *pal-i, MIr. all < *plso, OIc. fell ‘mountain, rock’, OHG felisa ‘rock, cliff’ prob. from *palis), an etymon is also present in other European branches, such as Celtic and Germanic, thus we are faced with the European Substrate in the terms of Beekes 2000. Whether the Mediterranean-Pontic and European substrata are identical or related is difficult to say with confidence. There are words belonging to the same semantic categories (plant names, animal names, cultural words) that may be treated as innovations shared by Armenian and Greek etc. For instance, the morphological agreement between Arm. kaǻin, ostem ‘acorn’ and Gr. βάλανος f. ‘acorn’ (vs. Lat. glāns, glandis f. ‘acorn, beech-nut’, Russ. žëlud’, SCr. žȅlūd ‘acorn’, Lith. gìlė, dial. gylė̃ ‘acorn’, Latv. zĩle ‘acorn’, etc.) may reflect a common innovation undergone jointly by Greek and Armenian (Clackson 1994: 135–136, 200/2372). Such words do not belong with the substrate since they are of Indo-European origin and do not reflect any phonological or morphological deviation. Nevertheless, these innovations are relevant to our topic in that they may be ascribed to the same Mediterranean-Pontic area and period. In other words, after the Indo-European dispersal, Proto-Armenian, Proto-Greek and some other contiguous language-branches (e.g. Phrygian and Thracian) may have remained in contact somewhere in the Mediterranean and/or Pontic areas, probably in the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC and have shared both IE innovations and substrate words...
...This implies that we have to deal with at least two chronological layers, and that the Proto-Armenians must have remained in or close to the Mediterranean-Pontic areas for a long period of time...
...These sketchy conclusions probably indicate that, after the separation of the Indo-Iranians, Proto-Armenian remained close to Proto-Greek and some other dialects and, approaching Mediterranean or Pontic regions, developed a high number of lexical agreements, both innovations and borrowings from neighbouring non-Indo-European languages, especially in the domains of agriculture and technology.

Preliminary conclusions
We may preliminarily conclude that Armenian, Greek, (Phrygian) and Indo-Iranian were dialectally close to each other or even formed a dialectal group at the time of the Indo-European dispersal. Within this hypothetical dialect group, Proto-Armenian was situated between Proto-Greek (to the west) and Proto-Indo-Iranian (to the east). On the northern side it might have neighboured, notably, Proto-Germanic and Proto-Balto-Slavic. After the Indo-European dispersal, Armenian developed isoglosses with Indo-Iranian on the one hand and Greek on the other. The Indo-Iranians then moved eastwards, while the Proto-Armenians and Proto-Greeks remained in a common geographical region for a long period and developed numerous shared innovations. At a later stage, together or independently, they borrowed a large number of words from the Mediterranean / Pontic substrate language(s), mostly cultural and agricultural words, as well as animal and plant designations. On the other hand, Armenian shows a considerable number of lexical correspondences with European branches of the Indo-European language family, a large portion of which too should be explained in terms of substrate rather than Indo-European heritage.

So the group of Indo-European speakers that trace their ancestry directly to Yamnaya (Albano-Messapians, Graeco-Phrygians, other ancient Balkan peoples, and Armenians) should not be labelled "Balkan Indo-European" but "Mediterranean-Pontic Indo-European". A "Balkan Indo-European" branch can be theorized only after the Armenian separation from the rest of the "Mediterranean-Pontic Indo-European". And the "Graeco-Albanian" (Graeco-Phrygian and Albano-Messapic) stage theorized by Hyllested and Joseph (2022) would have occurred only in the Pontic steppe, at a time before the migrations of the Yamnaya into the Balkans.

So we still saying what von Hahn states from the past,  in that proto-Albanian is a Pelasgian branch of languages, which might fit with the salento peninsula, in Messapic lands italy........................while we all know the Duanians ( from 2021 findings) , who came from modern north croatia to Foggia peninsula italy in the bronze age did not speak a Pelasgian language , but in 200 years had converted to the language of their neighours . the Samnites who spoke a branch of the Umbri language similar to sabellic in southern Picean lands

Since the von Hahn theory is not accepted, then proto-Albanian must have a Phygian syntax which fits the Greek and Armenian and so will not fit with anything north of modern Montenegro  ( which I suspect spoke an off branch of proto-Umbri language) in regards to ancient tribes.

To confirm this , one needs to know what the ancient Dardanians and Paeonians spoke and was it close to ancient Macedonian language

[Polska]

I was planning to make a new post for the J2b2b2 (J-42942) boy who was buried in kurgan 1, burial 21 in Bursuceni, Moldova.  I believe he might be a direct descendant of the Maykop Novosvobodnaya people from the NW Caucasus.  This is a fascinating find in my opinion.

I will create a new thread under the J2b M102 subsection so I don’t create unnecessary distraction in this J2b-L283 thread. 

My question for you smart folk:  Is this branch (J-42942) closely connected also with the young brothers who were buried at Mentesh Tepe, who were part of the Shulaveri Shomu Culture?  I figured that might be an important detail to include, if true.

Thanks!

   

https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z42942/

[Ebizur]

In recent years, the methodology of dealing with substrate words has been developed and applied by several scholars. It has been pointed out that an etymon is likely to be a loanword if it is characterized by some of the following features: (1) limited geographical distribution; (2) unusual phonology and word formation; and (3) specific semantics. The Armenian words that are frequently considered to be of Mediterranean origin are: gini ‘wine’, ewǻ/iwǻ ‘oil’, t‘uz ‘fig’, spung ‘sponge’, sring ‘pipe, fife’, sunk/g(n) ‘mushroom’. The actual number is much higher.

Sorry for nitpicking, but why has the author listed both Armenian spung "(sea) sponge" and Armenian sunk ~ sung "mushroom"? Are these words not a doublet deriving from the same ancient Greek word (spongos ~ sphongos)? Also cf. Latin fungus, which probably also belongs to the same set.

[GHurier]

1. When did the steppe period of J-L283 start?

Most likely ~3600 BCE as a Maykop influence on the Steppe.
He probably didn't spent much in Maykop per-se and moved quickly (~1 century) after arriving from southern Caucasus.
Roughly the same for Italy and Hungary with an arrival ~3500 BCE.

In both cases, this influence is likely related to small groups invovlved in the spread of some Maykop cultural elements and Copper mettalurgy technology.
In the case of the Steppic branch, it seems that this J-L283 lineage failed to produced surviving descendents.
The other lineages have also been poorly successfull, saves J-Z597 that experienced a significant demogrphic boom under BB-influence around 2500 BCE.
Without that, J-L283 would have remained a rather "rare" lineage.

The large diversity of the autosomal profiles of the 5 attested J-L283 lineages during BA (being independant by ~3500 BCE) reinforce the idea that J-L283 didn't travelled with a large population (thus, he was unable to impose any autosomal signature) but rather as a specialist that was getting admixture-flooded anywhere he settled.

Places where J-L283 got "successfull" are places where he arrived with "technological adventages" increasing his "survivance" likelyhood.

Regarding ultimate origin during Early IVth millenium BCE, J-L283 was likely around north-western Iran.
Maybe J-L283 displacement toward northern Caucasus was triggered as a "edge-effect" of the Urukean expansion.

At 99% we have the final solution for J-L283 from ~4000 BCE to modern days, saves few poorly diffusive sub-lineages that remain a bit unclear.
As expected a CHG/Iran-N lineage, with the Moldovan sample favoring a route through Maykop and a rapid diffusion via small "infiltration" groups during mid-IVth millenium BCE.
Which fits with the long held "Kurganized" European CA cultures that unfolded WSH-less ... we can now say, with a high confidence, that J-L283 was among the vector of a Maykop influence in Europe during mid-IV millunium BCE.