Hello guest, if you read this it means you are not registered. Click here to register in a few simple steps, you will enjoy all features of our Forum.

Check for new replies
Albanian Discussion Thread
(04-07-2024, 01:18 PM)Genarchivist Staff Wrote: Perhaps this thread has run its course.  The constant bickering and attacks.  One user posts, the others report them for moderation and then vice versa.  It's getting old and now we're being asked to moderate what are factual statements.  This is a small active user thread, but is dominating our moderation team's time.

The administrative staff will be discussing the closure of this thread.

The thread doesn't have to be closed because this would effectively mean that an entire subject could not be discussed in its own separate thread.

Most users have no issues with each other's views, whether they agree or disagree with them. Most issues stem from the fact that a single user (Dreneu) spams the thread with twitter images and goes back to the same same topic about which he has received countless replies from all others who are involved in the thread. This user should accept that this is not the thread for him to spam the same opinion again and again and allow the thread to be what it was originally intended to be : a thread about genetic anthropology in relation to Albanians.
timaeus likes this post
(04-07-2024, 03:11 PM)corrigendum Wrote:
(04-07-2024, 01:18 PM)Genarchivist Staff Wrote: Perhaps this thread has run its course.  The constant bickering and attacks.  One user posts, the others report them for moderation and then vice versa.  It's getting old and now we're being asked to moderate what are factual statements.  This is a small active user thread, but is dominating our moderation team's time.

The administrative staff will be discussing the closure of this thread.

The thread doesn't have to be closed because this would effectively mean that an entire subject could not be discussed in its own separate thread.

Most users have no issues with each other's views, whether they agree or disagree with them. Most issues stem from the fact that a single user (Dreneu) spams the thread with twitter images and goes back to the same same topic about which he has received countless replies from all others who are involved in the thread. This user should accept that this is not the thread for him to spam the same opinion again and again and allow the thread to be what it was originally intended to be : a thread about genetic anthropology in relation to Albanians.

I want the thread to continue because it's a very informative thread, and we need a thread where DNA results about Albanians can be discussed. What I definitely don't want is Dreneu spamming the thread with his old, off topic, repetitive posts. He has a history of doing this on othe forums as well.

This is the only problem in the thread. In order to read all other comments, I have to scroll through oversized images of 3-4 lines of text which Dreneu has reposted again and again simply because he can't accept that his views aren't part of the academic consensus.
Archetype0ne likes this post
(04-07-2024, 03:06 PM)corrigendum Wrote:
(04-07-2024, 01:29 PM)Ushta Wrote: Please, explain why you are propagating the "Daco-Mysian" hypothesis by citing Matzinger, despite the fact that this scholar never supported such baseless hypothesis and in his most recent conference about the Indo-Europeanization of the Balkans he clearly rejected it.

From Matzinger's 2022 presentation in the Leiden conference about the Southern Arc results:

[Image: M21.png]
[Image: M19.png]
[Image: matzinger.png]

Yes, exactly right. Matzinger doesn't support a western balkan origin for Albanian. 

Thank you for providing the image from his 2022 presentation in the Leiden conference about the Southern Arc results. 

Its clear here that the proto-Albanians were not a west balkan group at all:

[Image: Fb5ROMqXEAY0j68?format=jpg&name=medium]
Moeca likes this post
(04-07-2024, 03:20 PM)timaeus Wrote:
(04-07-2024, 03:11 PM)corrigendum Wrote:
(04-07-2024, 01:18 PM)Genarchivist Staff Wrote: Perhaps this thread has run its course.  The constant bickering and attacks.  One user posts, the others report them for moderation and then vice versa.  It's getting old and now we're being asked to moderate what are factual statements.  This is a small active user thread, but is dominating our moderation team's time.

The administrative staff will be discussing the closure of this thread.

The thread doesn't have to be closed because this would effectively mean that an entire subject could not be discussed in its own separate thread.

Most users have no issues with each other's views, whether they agree or disagree with them. Most issues stem from the fact that a single user (Dreneu) spams the thread with twitter images and goes back to the same same topic about which he has received countless replies from all others who are involved in the thread. This user should accept that this is not the thread for him to spam the same opinion again and again and allow the thread to be what it was originally intended to be : a thread about genetic anthropology in relation to Albanians.

I want the thread to continue because it's a very informative thread, and we need a thread where DNA results about Albanians can be discussed. What I definitely don't want is Dreneu spamming the thread with his old, off topic, repetitive posts. He has a history of doing this on othe forums as well.

This is the only problem in the thread. In order to read all other comments, I have to scroll through oversized images of 3-4 lines of text which Dreneu has reposted again and again simply because he can't accept that his views aren't part of the academic consensus.

For a member that espouses such duress, you've been here six months have only four posts of which two are today.   Something seems amiss.
Dreneu, Southpaw, Rober_tce like this post
(04-07-2024, 03:26 PM)AimSmall Wrote:
(04-07-2024, 03:20 PM)timaeus Wrote:
(04-07-2024, 03:11 PM)corrigendum Wrote: The thread doesn't have to be closed because this would effectively mean that an entire subject could not be discussed in its own separate thread.

Most users have no issues with each other's views, whether they agree or disagree with them. Most issues stem from the fact that a single user (Dreneu) spams the thread with twitter images and goes back to the same same topic about which he has received countless replies from all others who are involved in the thread. This user should accept that this is not the thread for him to spam the same opinion again and again and allow the thread to be what it was originally intended to be : a thread about genetic anthropology in relation to Albanians.

I want the thread to continue because it's a very informative thread, and we need a thread where DNA results about Albanians can be discussed. What I definitely don't want is Dreneu spamming the thread with his old, off topic, repetitive posts. He has a history of doing this on othe forums as well.

This is the only problem in the thread. In order to read all other comments, I have to scroll through oversized images of 3-4 lines of text which Dreneu has reposted again and again simply because he can't accept that his views aren't part of the academic consensus.

For a member that espouses such duress, you've been here six months have only four posts of which two are today.   Something seems amiss.

I've been a member of anthro forums since 2014, and I have never been active in terms of posting, this was the case in Anthrogenica and other forums as well. If you look through the thread (not just this one) I have been active on almost every single page through liking posts, I've always been more of a reader than poster. With this in mind you have a better context of my discontentment because this user is disrupting the quality of this thread with his off topic, unscientific, debunked theories and his lack of engagement with the replies that he gets. It's worth keeping in mind that this user has done this on previous forums as well, where he always got banned and returned with sockpuppets.
Archetype0ne likes this post
(04-07-2024, 03:23 PM)Dreneu Wrote: Yes, exactly right. Matzinger doesn't support a western balkan origin for Albanian. 

(04-07-2024, 03:23 PM)Dreneu Wrote: Yes, exactly right. Matzinger doesn't support a western balkan origin for Albanian. 

Thank you for providing the image from his 2022 presentation in the Leiden conference about the Southern Arc results. 

Its clear here that the proto-Albanians were not a west balkan group at all:

Matzinger clarified in his lecture that Proto-Messapic/Proto-Albanian moved from the position of the map to a more western position around 2200-2000 BCE with Proto-Messapic fusing with Cetina culture (according to Matzinger) and moving to Italy around 1700 BCE.

So, what's the counter-argument about Matzinger's views? That the Albano-Messapic branch may have been western Balkan "only" 1500 years earlier before the attestation of the historical Illyrians and Iapygians? Is Messapic, a language which was spoken along the eastern Adriatic as early as 1500 BCE, west Balkan or not?

Your original argument which Ushta replied to tried to make Matzinger's opinion sound as if he claimed that Albanian was a "Daco-Thracian" branch and this isn't supported by Matzinger.

Quote:Messapic: J-L283, R-Z2103, I-P78, R-PF7562>PF7563 (unpublished)
Proto-Albanian: J-L283, R-Z2103, I-P78, R-PF7562>PF7563
Proto-Armenian: R-Z2103, R-PF7562

These are the links which connect this group of languages. If we manage to find specific E-V13 clades which connect them, maybe we can add them to in this early phase of Proto-Albanian. If we don't find them, they weren't there, but E-V13 as a whole is unrelated to the early phase of Proto-Albanian or any other IE language, simply because E-V13 has few major branches before the LBA.

You oppose what is emerging as a clear consensus and correlation between aDNA data and linguistic theories simply because E-V13 as a whole can't fit in any theory, hence you're posting debunked theories about Daco-Thracians. E-V13 among Albanians is confined to specific clades and has specific MIA or post-MIA MRCAs. As soon as this gets accepted, everyone can move on and align themselves with the data.
timaeus likes this post
(04-07-2024, 03:34 PM)timaeus Wrote:
(04-07-2024, 03:26 PM)AimSmall Wrote:
(04-07-2024, 03:20 PM)timaeus Wrote: I want the thread to continue because it's a very informative thread, and we need a thread where DNA results about Albanians can be discussed. What I definitely don't want is Dreneu spamming the thread with his old, off topic, repetitive posts. He has a history of doing this on othe forums as well.

This is the only problem in the thread. In order to read all other comments, I have to scroll through oversized images of 3-4 lines of text which Dreneu has reposted again and again simply because he can't accept that his views aren't part of the academic consensus.

For a member that espouses such duress, you've been here six months have only four posts of which two are today.   Something seems amiss.

I've been a member of anthro forums since 2014, and I have never been active in terms of posting, this was the case in Anthrogenica and other forums as well. If you look through the thread (not just this one) I have been active on almost every single page through liking posts, I've always been more of a reader than poster. With this in mind you have a better context of my discontentment because this user is disrupting the quality of this thread with his off topic, unscientific, debunked theories and his lack of engagement with the replies that he gets. It's worth keeping in mind that this user has done this on previous forums as well, where he always got banned and returned with sockpuppets.

I posted a myriad of sources that highlight contempary linguistic consensus against Albanian being a west balkan language and migrating into Albania in the post roman period. This is the linguistic and archaeological consensus on proto-albanians origins.
(04-07-2024, 03:44 PM)Dreneu Wrote: I posted a myriad of sources that highlight contempary linguistic consensus against Albanian being a west balkan language and migrating into Albania in the post roman period. This is the linguistic and archaeological consensus on proto-albanians origins.

Many replied to you that this isn't the case with specific sources and arguments and you just moved to the next point without ever addressing anything. The consensus also argues that Albanian is not a language related to Daco-Thracian languages and that it's related to Messapic, which you didn't want to accept either. And the genetic data and especially Y-DNA phylogeny shows no links between Albanians and any eastern Balkan population.

You can continue to disagree and you can continue to post your opinions wherever you find it suitable to post them and whoever reads your posts can decide for himself, but you also have to allow this thread to move on. You can't post again and again the same rehashed points.
timaeus and Archetype0ne like this post
(04-07-2024, 03:39 PM)corrigendum Wrote: You oppose what is emerging as a clear consensus and correlation between aDNA data and linguistic theories simply because E-V13 as a whole can't fit in any theory, hence you're posting debunked theories about Daco-Thracians. E-V13 among Albanians is confined to specific clades and has specific MIA or post-MIA MRCAs. As soon as this gets accepted, everyone can move on and align themselves with the data.


Not true, it's your biased word vs third party person who observes things.

Quote:To obtain insights on the ethnogenesis of modern Albanians, we plot the mean Y-full TMRCAs of Albanian-specific subclades of E-V13, J2b-Z600, R1b-BY611 and other palaeo-Balkan haplogroups (R1b-PF7562, I-M223) (Fig. 10). Remarkably, a majority of these haplogroups (J2b-Z600, R1b-BY611, R1b-PF7562, I-M223) experience a sudden and steep increase in subclade diversity between 500-800 CE (Fig. 10), which coincides with the timing proposed by linguistic and historical hypotheses on the origins of Albanians and their language (33–35, 64, 84), as well as IBD-sharing analyses (72). The low number of diversifying subclades prior to 500 CE is likely caused by missing data, probably due to significant loss of diversity associated with the demographic turmoil of the Migration Period.
Unlike the abovementioned haplogroups, E-V13 exhibits continuous subclade diversification from the Bronze Age to the Roman period (Fig. 10), suggesting that populations with a high frequency of E-V13 may have followed a different demographic trajectory from those with J2b-Z600, R1b-BY611, R1b-PF7562, and I-M223. The rate of E-V13 subclade diversification increased steeply from 500 CE onwards, following the pattern of the other haplogroups found in modern Albanians (Fig. 10). Based on the above, it is possible that currently unsampled populations from the Central-West Balkan interior that were characterised by high frequencies of E-V13 may have entered the region of modern Albania around 500 CE, where they merged and co-expanded with local groups. This may also explain the absence of E-V13 from the aDNA transect of Albania, despite being the commonest haplogroup in the modern Albanian population.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/...790v1.full
Dreneu likes this post
Latin influence does not necessitate the early Albanians being to the west along the coast; the Byzantine Emperor Justinian was born outside what is now Skopje to a Latinophone family; he was believed to be the last emperor to speak Latin as a mother tongue.
(04-07-2024, 03:23 PM)Dreneu Wrote:
(04-07-2024, 03:06 PM)corrigendum Wrote:
(04-07-2024, 01:29 PM)Ushta Wrote: Please, explain why you are propagating the "Daco-Mysian" hypothesis by citing Matzinger, despite the fact that this scholar never supported such baseless hypothesis and in his most recent conference about the Indo-Europeanization of the Balkans he clearly rejected it.

From Matzinger's 2022 presentation in the Leiden conference about the Southern Arc results:

[Image: M21.png]
[Image: M19.png]
[Image: matzinger.png]

Yes, exactly right. Matzinger doesn't support a western balkan origin for Albanian. 

Thank you for providing the image from his 2022 presentation in the Leiden conference about the Southern Arc results. 

Its clear here that the proto-Albanians were not a west balkan group at all:

[Image: Fb5ROMqXEAY0j68?format=jpg&name=medium]

The location of the area of Proto-Albanians by Matzinger & Ackermann & Gavranovic in that map actually is in the south-western Balkans. And as explained by Corrigendum:

Quote:Matzinger clarified in his lecture that Proto-Messapic/Proto-Albanian moved from the position of the map to a more western position around 2200-2000 BCE with Proto-Messapic fusing with Cetina culture (according to Matzinger) and moving to Italy around 1700 BCE.

Every Proto-Albanian area in the maps presented by Matzinger & Ackermann & Gavranovic is in the western Balkans, either in the south-western Balkans or in the central-western Balkans depending on the historical period. But they never placed Proto-Albanian in the eastern Balkans, where they locate the Proto-Thracians and Proto-Dacians, clearly distinguished from Proto-Albanians.
corrigendum and timaeus like this post
(04-07-2024, 03:39 PM)corrigendum Wrote:
(04-07-2024, 03:23 PM)Dreneu Wrote: Yes, exactly right. Matzinger doesn't support a western balkan origin for Albanian. 

(04-07-2024, 03:23 PM)Dreneu Wrote: Yes, exactly right. Matzinger doesn't support a western balkan origin for Albanian. 

Thank you for providing the image from his 2022 presentation in the Leiden conference about the Southern Arc results. 

Its clear here that the proto-Albanians were not a west balkan group at all:

Matzinger clarified in his lecture that Proto-Messapic/Proto-Albanian moved from the position of the map to a more western position around 2200-2000 BCE with Proto-Messapic fusing with Cetina culture (according to Matzinger) and moving to Italy around 1700 BCE.

That's not true. Again, Messapic is not Proto-Albanian, Proto-Albanian was not part of the Cetina culture. This is wildly misleading and misrepresentative.

This is where Matzinger says Proto-Albanian should be sought out:

"es muss ein Gebiet sein, das ausreichend gross war, um auch noch den späteren romanischen, ‘urrumänischen’ Bevölkerungsteilen nach der Eroberung der Ebenen durch die Slawen Platz und Auskommen zu bieten. Daraus ergab sich in der Folge eine noch engere Symbiose zwischen Uralbanern und Urrumänen, die sich auf sprachlicher Ebene niedergeschlagen hat.(18) Die sprachlichen Gemeinsamkeiten erklären sich jedenfalls nur über unmittelbare Kontakte! Damit eng verknüpft ist die Frage nach dem Entsthehungsgebiet der rumänischen Sprache, für die ernsthaft nur Gebiete südlich der Donau in Frage kommen (Provinz Moesia Superior, bzw. später Dacia ripensis, Dacia mediterranea).

Joachim Matzinger


Die albanische Autochthoniehypothese
aus der Sicht der Sprachwissenschaft


So we have Matzinger here explicitly saying Proto-Albanian must be sought out in Dacia Ripensis and Dacia Mediterranea.

So to synthesise with the earlier stage this is what Matzinger argues:

Proto-Albanian is a non-West balkan langauge that was at an earlier stage in the circled area around greek macedonia / paeonia and that moved north into Moesia Superior/Dacia Ripensis/Dacia Mediterranea, whereas Messapic moved more west.

So the proto-Albanian homeland according to Matzinger is around Dacia Ripensis and Dacia Meditterranea
[Image: 800px-Balkans_6th_century.svg.png]
Southpaw likes this post
(04-07-2024, 04:13 PM)Dreneu Wrote:
(04-07-2024, 03:39 PM)corrigendum Wrote:
(04-07-2024, 03:23 PM)Dreneu Wrote: Yes, exactly right. Matzinger doesn't support a western balkan origin for Albanian. 

(04-07-2024, 03:23 PM)Dreneu Wrote: Yes, exactly right. Matzinger doesn't support a western balkan origin for Albanian. 

Thank you for providing the image from his 2022 presentation in the Leiden conference about the Southern Arc results. 

Its clear here that the proto-Albanians were not a west balkan group at all:

Matzinger clarified in his lecture that Proto-Messapic/Proto-Albanian moved from the position of the map to a more western position around 2200-2000 BCE with Proto-Messapic fusing with Cetina culture (according to Matzinger) and moving to Italy around 1700 BCE.

That's not true. Again, Messapic is not Proto-Albanian, Proto-Albanian was not part of the Cetina culture. This is wildly misleading and misrepresentative.

This is where Matzinger says Proto-Albanian should be sought out:

"es muss ein Gebiet sein, das ausreichend gross war, um auch noch den späteren romanischen, ‘urrumänischen’ Bevölkerungsteilen nach der Eroberung der Ebenen durch die Slawen Platz und Auskommen zu bieten. Daraus ergab sich in der Folge eine noch engere Symbiose zwischen Uralbanern und Urrumänen, die sich auf sprachlicher Ebene niedergeschlagen hat.(18) Die sprachlichen Gemeinsamkeiten erklären sich jedenfalls nur über unmittelbare Kontakte! Damit eng verknüpft ist die Frage nach dem Entsthehungsgebiet der rumänischen Sprache, für die ernsthaft nur Gebiete südlich der Donau in Frage kommen (Provinz Moesia Superior, bzw. später Dacia ripensis, Dacia mediterranea).

Joachim Matzinger


Die albanische Autochthoniehypothese
aus der Sicht der Sprachwissenschaft


So we have Matzinger here explicitly saying Proto-Albanian must be sought out in Dacia Ripensis and Dacia Mediterranea.

So to synthesise with the earlier stage this is what Matzinger argues:

Proto-Albanian is a non-West balkan langauge that was at an earlier stage in the circled area around greek macedonia / paeonia and that moved north into Moesia Superior/Dacia Ripensis/Dacia Mediterranea, whereas Messapic moved more west.

So the proto-Albanian homeland according to Matzinger is around Dacia Ripensis and Dacia Meditterranea
[Image: 800px-Balkans_6th_century.svg.png]

That Proto-Albanian location by Matzinger is during the Roman period, not in the Bronze Age. And those Roman provinces are all in the central-western Balkans, not in the eastern Balkans. Don't cite Matzinger because he rejects each of your baseless speculations.
corrigendum, timaeus, Archetype0ne like this post
Can mods do something about Dreneu? Have whatever opinion you want, but constantly spamming a thread and ruining it for others while at the same time refusing to listen to any arguments is not what forums should be for.
corrigendum, timaeus, Archetype0ne like this post
THREAD CLOSED FOR NOW

   

Members:  Until such time as we can find a knowledgeable moderator for this thread or have confidence members can have productive civil discussions, we'll be closing this thread for a while.

Please enjoy the other threads in the forum. 

Do not attempt to start a side thread on the same subject or we'll block your account for a few days if not outright ban it.
Dreneu and Capsian20 like this post

Check for new replies

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)