Recent genetic data[edit]

Recent DNA data from Patterson et al. 2021 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04287-4) shows that the population of Illyria (for the Croatian Adriatic coast) carries the following Y-DNA haplogroups: 1500-1000bc : one sample J2b, one sample R1b, and one sample I2a. 1000-500bc : 7 samples J2b (under J-Z38240 for 6 of them). 500-0bc : 1 sample R1b (R-V88). Maybe a subsection should be added to the article to present these results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.132.76.18 (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, will first check the paper and other ancient DNA samples possibly related to the Illyrians.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Section added, with more papers and information. For some samples location references mentioned Illyrian tribes (Iapydes, Liburni), for some tribal identity (Histri, Daorsi) can be assumed based on the location. I excluded the I2a sample (1500-1000 BCE) because not all samples from the supposed Proto-Illyrian period neccesarily are related to Proto-Illyrians, references didn't mention any Illyrian connection and seems to be a controversial & unreliable ancient sample (lack of radiocarbon dating for the skeleton. There was a detailed analysis and debate in population genetics community, it hasn't a complete and best quality RAW file, Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroup not found in local ancient DNA but rather in Central-Eastern-Northern Europe, subclades age estimation and TMRCA as well as IBD and admixture comparison to ancient and modern nations don't correspond with Bronze Age but much younger maybe even modern period).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Miki Filigranski: Thanks for the edits! I've have trimmed some sections because they don't mention Illyrians. It's almost certain that the ultimate source is Proto-Illyrian from many of them, but unfortunately the studies don't mention Illyrians. I changed some descriptions to broader geographical ones. While I agree that the samples from Iapodean territories are likely to be Iapodes, the study doesn't mention their origins or tribal affiliation.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Maleschreiber: thanks for the edit on Mokrin sample! In the supplementary material of Patterson et al. 2022 study are mentioned Iapodes (6 Smiljan, 1 Skradnik-Sultanov grob, 1 Mala Metaljka) and Liburni (3 Velim Kosa-Smiljan), so 11 samples are surely from Illyrian necropoles. The sample from Jazinka cave could be added to Liburni; while older from Gudnja cave (J2-L283) cca. to Proto-Daorsi and from Mušego to Proto-Histri. In short, we have 16 or more (Proto-)Illyrian samples while examined overall were 18 and not 8. I don't understand the reasoning for removal of sourced information about their predominant J2-L283 subclade outside Balkans. The papers state to be mainly unique to the Bronze Age Balkans and Middle East, but it gives context and shows additional connection with Italian Peninsula and else.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Miki Filigranski: I usually avoid writing about archaeogenetic studies on wikipedia because there is a gap between a)what can be inferred with certainty from sources by individuals who are familiar with bibliography and genetic anthropology and b)what the studies explicitly mention. Outside the context of wikipedia, J-L283 in many of these cases can be securely attributed to Illyrians, but in the context of wikipedia we have to report only what the sources explicitly discuss. The autosomal profile of the Etruscan J-L283 is almost identical to the profile of EIA samples from Croatia but the study doesn't say anything about Illyrians, so the sample doesn't belong in this article. On the opposite side, when I have written that most samples from Ordona and Salapia date to the Daunian period and some samples from San Giovanni Rotondo date more broadly to the Iron Age. Paternal haplogroups of seven Iron Age samples were identified. Three paternal lineages of the Iron Age samples belong to J-M241, one of them could be further processed as J-L283+. Two samples belonged to I-M223, one could be further processed as I-Y3670. Two samples belonged to R-M269 and R-P312. I know with certainty that the R-P312 individual is in fact an Oscan/Samnite. Nonetheless, I have included the sample in the article because the study mentions it as one of the samples from sites in Daunia. The studies I removed do not mention Illyrians, hence even though it's certain that J-L283 in Sardinia came with Proto-Illyrians, these samples and the Etruscan ones can't be mentioned in this article. Even the Mokrin study doesn't mention Illyrians and in terms of wikipedia I only included it for a broader archaeological context.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Maleschreiber: we are here reporting only the results and not all studies explicitly discuss all results (in the case of the study of Patterson et al. 2022 the immediate focus of the paper was Great Britain). It is a published and peer-reviwed paper so it can be cited. They don't need to explicitly mention Illyrians when the Croatian & Balkan Bronze Age samples referred to are the same which can be deduced from the references, and it is not certain neither is implied in the section that J-L283 in Sardinia came with Proto-Illyrians. I included information of non-Balkan J-L283 samples exactly because of broader archaeogenetic context.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Miki Filigranski: I have removed all tribal affiliation comments. The MBA samples predate any IA tribe, so it's impossible for them to have belonged to IA formation. Some of the IA samples are from the territory of Iapodes (but not all) and none of the samples is from Liburnian territory. Jazinka cave is to the south of IA Liburnian territory. In both cases, we're actively injecting into the article our own opinions by mentioning speculative tribal affiliations which aren't discussed in the sources. There are certain standards which we must preserve on wikipedia. I think that some of these samples come from the Iapodes and this will be shown in future studies, but we can't do propagate this as a fact on wikipedia. There are platforms where theories and citizen science can be discussed, but wikipedia is where we report studies and nothing more. All main points of what we write have to be such that readers can verify them by reading the relevant studies. If what they read here, doesn't match the studies then as editors we have failed.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Maleschreiber: Anyway, the removal is fine with me for now, but there's no active injection of anything. That are archaeological facts. For the sake of evidence here, see Supplementary Information (SI Section 1: Archaeological context):
Mala Metaljka, references: Balen-Letunić, D. 1999/2000. Japodske nekropole s ogulinskog područja. Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu 32/33: 23–61; Balen-Letunić, D. 2004. Japodi. In: Balen-Letunić, D. (ed.), Ratnici na razmeđu istoka i zapada. Starije željezno doba u kontinentalnoj Hrvatskoj, 212–54. Zagreb: Arheološki muzej; Zavodny, E., Culleton, B.J., McClure, S.B., Kennett, D.J. and Balen, J. 2017. Minimizing risk on the margins: insights on Iron Age agriculture from stable isotope analyses in central Croatia. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 48: 250–61; Zavodny, E. Under review. Life and death in the Iron Age Ogulin-Plaški region: new AMS 14C dates from burial and settlement contexts. Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu.
Skradnik–Sultanov grob, references: Balen-Letunić, D. 1999/2000. Japodske nekropole s ogulinskog područja. Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu 32/33: 23–61; Balen-Letunić, D. and Perkić, D. 2017. Onostrani ili transalpinski gradovi/Transalpine cities, or cities on the far side of the Alps. In: L. Bakari (ed.), Japodi – Zaboravljeni Gorštaci/Iapodes – The Forgotten Highlanders, 69–82. Zagreb: Arheološki muzej u Zagrebu; Božičević, J. 1898/1899. Iskopavanje starina u Šušnjevom selu i Čakovcu: izvještaji muzejskih povjerenika i prijatelja. Viestnik Hrvatskoga arkeologičkoga družtva 3: 233–6; Tonc, A. 2015. Protopovijesne Zajednice na Sjevernom Dijelu Istočne Obale Jadrana i Njezinu Zaleđu. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Zagreb; Zavodny, E. 2017. New Approaches to Cultural Change and Continuity at the Bronze-Iron Age Transition in Lika, Croatia. Unpublished PhD thesis, Dept. of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University; Zavodny, E., Culleton, B.J., McClure, S.B., Kennett, D.J. and Balen, J. 2017. Minimizing risk on the margins: Insights on Iron Age agriculture from stable isotope analyses in central Croatia. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 48: 250–61; Zavodny, E. Under review. Life and death in the Iron Age Ogulin-Plaški region: new AMS 14C dates from burial and settlement contexts. Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu.
Smiljan, references: Bakarić, L. 1986. Rezultati novih istraživanja u Smiljanu. Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu 19: 129–40; Drechsler-Bižić, R. 1983. Japodska kulturna grupa. In A. Benac (ed.), Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja IV – Bronzano doba, 374–89. Sarajevo: Svjetlost – Akademija nauka i umjetnosti BiH, Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja; Drechsler-Bižić, R. 1987. Japodska kulturna grupa. In A. Benac (ed.), Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja V – Željezno doba, 391–441. Sarajevo: Akademija nauka i umjetnosti BiH, Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja; Hoffiller, V. 1905. Prethistorijsko groblje u Smiljanu kraj Gospića. Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu 8: 193–203; Zavodny, E. 2017. New Approaches to Cultural Change and Continuity at the Bronze-Iron Age Transition in Lika, Croatia. Unpublished PhD thesis, Dept. of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University; Zavodny, E., Culleton, B.J., McClure, S.B., Kennett, D.J. and Balen, J. 2017. Minimizing risk on the margins: insights on Iron Age agriculture from stable isotope analyses in central Croatia. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 48: 250–61; Zavodny, E., Culleton, B.J., McClure, S.B., Kennett, D.J. and Balen, J. 2019. Recalibrating grave-good chronologies: new AMS radiocarbon dates from Late Bronze Age burials in Lika, Croatia. Antiquity 93(376): 113–27.
Velim-Kosa, text "Four Liburnian culture tumuli (stone burial mounds), located relatively close to each other (c. 20m away on average), were investigated", references: Čondić N. 2015. Velim–Kosa (Proizvodna zona Stankovci). Hrvatski arheološki godišnjak 11/2014: 513–5.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Miki Filigranski: I have reverted the additions from Yugoslav archaeology. It is not just old but outdated and pointless to discuss about any longer. There is no debate about Urnfield and Illyrians when we know that Illyrians carried J-L283 as a major haplogroup which existed as far south as Albania in the MBA. About Bezdanjaca cave, you'll find in the supplementary files that two distinct cultural groups at different times lived there. None of the two groups are related to Illyrians.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Urnfield debate was over long ago before these genetic studies, but neverthless it shouldn't be removed because it was important part of theorization about the origin of Illyrians neither is constructive removing theories by Yugoslavian and international archaeology which are still relevant and mainstream today. You removed sentence on J-L283 based on the very paragraph from the study regarding J-L283 (pg. 322). Regarding the B. cave check Supplementary Materials as well (pg. 265, "The Bronze Age samples (Fig. S 57) are grouped into three labels: (a) HRV_BA which includes two samples from Veliki Vanik(3) and five new samples one from Koprinovo, Matkovici, Zavojane-Ravca, Bogomolje, and D. Ostrvica-Pasičine (b) 19 new samples from Cetina valley from the Middle Bronze Age (c) 35 new samples from Bezdanjača Cave from the Middle-to-Late Bronze Age. The three groups are extremely similar in their ancestral makeup which we have discussed above."), and being part of Bronze Age they are basically "Proto-Illyrian" hence shouldn't be ignored completely.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 04:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two Illyrian samples from Velim-Kosa (Liburni) are J-L283 > J-PH1602 like in Bronze Age samples from D. Ostrvica-Pasičine, Koprivno and Cetina valley.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 04:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wrong[edit]

Albanians are the most related descendants to the Illyrians. Revise and refer to the Albanian language for facts and proof please fix this. 2601:80:4600:E1A0:E033:8345:EC4C:C79A (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maps[edit]

I have replaced the southern Illyria map and its mistakes with the southern Illyria template which is what has replaced this map in all relevant articles. As it is the product of many discussions about consensus and doesn't make any reference to ethnicity, it's something which shouldn't be a matter of dispute.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both maps you removed are one worse than the other. It would be good to have a proper map for this article, if there is someone willing to work on it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of sourced and "outdated" information[edit]

@Maleschreiber: please stop removing reliably sourced and important information which is not outdated as modern genetic studies confirmed it. You aren't expanding the content from the recent genetic study properly either. Please make a revert. Miki Filigranski (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Miki Filigranski: I'm not going to add back information which repeats issues which aren't a subject of speculation today: Rather, archaeologists from former Yugoslavia highlighted the continuity between the Bronze and succeeding Iron Age (especially in regions such as Donja Dolina, central Bosnia-Glasinac, and northern Albania in Mat river basin), ultimately developing the so-called "autochthonous theory" of Illyrian genesis. The "autochthonous" model was most elaborated upon by Alojz Benac and B. Čović.They argued, following the "Kurgan hypothesis", that the 'proto-Illyrians' had arrived much earlier, during the Bronze Age as nomadic Indo-Europeans from the steppe From that point, there was a gradual Illyrianization of the western Balkans leading to historic Illyrians around 1000 BCE, with no early Iron Age migration from northern Europe. There is no debate because nobody is arguing that Illyrians arrived in the Iron Age from northern Europe. This "reply" would make sense in an era when no genetic studies existed. I strongly suggest that you do not add back anything about the Bezdanjaca cave. The study doesn't call it Illyrian, it doesn't have a single J-L283 sample and it's a very different population from the Illyrians of Cetina valley. It is WP:OR to add information which doesn't exist in the study Only a part of Croatia was Illyrian, not all of Croatia and even that part not in all eras.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This doesn't make any sense. You didn't provide a single valid reasoning for the removal of this very reliably sourced and important mainstream information regarding archaeological theorization on the origin of Illyrians. Readers must be informed about that. What's the point in removing that because of some genetic studies which, even more strangely for your argumentation, are supporting the archaeological mainstream theory. Autosomally there's almost no difference between Bezdanjaca cave and Cetina valley people, and both belonging to Bronze Age cultures they would be identified as "Proto-Illyrian" according to Benac, Stipcevic, Wilkes and others hence should be mentioned at least partly the most important part (as R1b and R1b-L2 subclades weren't only found in the cave in Croatia). --Miki Filigranski (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They're not related at all and you can see that with any method that you choose to process the raw data. But I won't explain this any further as personal research is prohibited in the context of wikipedia. The Bezdanjaca cave is treated as two distinct groups in the study and none of them is related to Illyrians. There are also two misdated samples in this site. The study itself doesn't say a word about Illyrians. It is certain that Illyrians did carry R1b, but there's no reason to mention all R1b wherever it was found in the western Balkans regardless of the context. There is R1b in Çinamak, Albania and in Cetina itself and I have mentioned it, but I did so because in these sites there is also J-L283 and the context is very specific. I really don't consider noteworthy the reproduction of Yugoslav debates which the article itself treats as closed. I've had my say and you've had yours, maybe we can wait for others to voice their opinion. I might agree to a trimmed version in the section about archaeology. In general, I want to reduce several parts of the article and remove all confusing/outdated information.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Discussion about genetic data is in discussion above. Yes, seems there are several misdated samples from Europe in general. However, that's beyond the point of this discussion. Study mentions Illyrian language and indirectly Proto-Illyrians regarding the emergence of Bronze Age Balkans which is completely and directly related to removed paragraph on mainstream archaeological theory. Study in Supplementary Materials once again mentions Liburni. The sentence about Bronze Age Croatia, Montenegro, Albania and Iron Age Croatia which you removed i.e. edited and expanded was based on Supplementary Materials. Your expansion into details ignored factual data and once again you're ommiting to mention a name of one Illyrian tribe - which is mentioned in the study and important to be mentioned in the article to show Proto-Illyrian > Illyrian genetic continuity.
There's no point in having the section named "Archaeology and archaeogenetics" if the most important paragraph regarding archaeology is removed and reader isn't given basic theoretical understanding about their origin. Why didn't you remove the paragraph about the outdated "Urnfield-Lusatian culture" origin? Section now is a mess (also the paragraph about new study shouldn't be the last one in order, your reference style shows wrong or not all pages etc.). You removed great amount of text which was on the article for years, but the removal was reverted as per WP:BRD (and edited to make it more clear to a common reader). That text should be put back until you gain consensus for the removal. Also, "Archaeogenetics" should be a separate sub-section of "Origins" section.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All 20th century research should be replaced with research carried out in the last two decades. This is obvious, since new archaeological and archaeogenetic data emerged, especially through new methodological approaches applied in the last years. Old theories could be included with due weight if updated publications discuss them and consider them still relevant in current scholarship on this topic. – Βατο (talk) 08:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
50 or 30 years old scientific literature is not old per se. The paragraph was mainly based on John Wilkes's The Illyrians (1992/1996) which isn't old scholarship & literature by any standard. Removal didn't provide a single replacement (the only sentence which could have been trimmed or removed was "Aleksandar Stipčević raised concerns regarding Benac's all-encompassing scenario of autochthonous ethnogenesis, raising the following questions: "can one negate the participation of the bearers of the urn-field culture in the ethnogenesis of the Illyrian tribes who lived in present-day Slovenia and Croatia" or "Hellenistic and Mediterranean influences on southern Illyrians and Liburnians?"."). Archaeogenetic studies don't have a single word about archaeology of Illyrians neither can be used as replacement for archaeological literature and theorization. Yes, WP:AGE MATTERS and still can be included if new theories have been proposed, but "old" theory still is mainstream and made important paradigm shift from outdated "Urnfield-Lusatian" origin theory which is mentioned in the section (see for e.g. Dzino "Constructing Illyrians : Prehistoric Inhabitants of the Balkan Peninsula in Early Modern and Modern Perceptions", 2014). Only because it is outdated it doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned as well because the section dealing with their origins should mention the main theorizations about it and especially if mentioned in modern literature (which are). --Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The consensus is that the IA people known under the name Liburni are not Illyrians. Illyrians did live in Liburnia too but Liburnians and Illyrians are not the same people. The people in Bezdanjaca are not similar to Illyrians in the way that you have represented in the article. Posusje and Cetina are similar but the Bezdanjaca are not close to IA Croatia, but to IA Slovenia. The authors write "extremely similar" in the sense of broad basic components, but further examination shows that they are just more similar to each than EBA Bulgaria is to BA Croatia.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well they are J-283 and if there's such modern consensus on their Illyrian identity & ancestry can be mentioned among other people & cultures in the last paragraph. When checked literature, both primary historical sources and secondary scientific sources aren't completely clear on Liburni not being Illyrians. As for genetics, I did not represent anything, I directly quoted the study.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wrong source: The term "Illyrians" last appearence.[edit]

The passage:

--The term "Illyrians" last appears in the historical record in the 7th century, referring to a Byzantine garrison operating within the former Roman province of Illyricum.-- seems to have a wrong reference. It cites Schaefer 2008, p.130 as reference source.

But Schaefer 2008, "Encyclopedia of Race Ethnicity and Society" at page 130, writes only about the ethnic composition of the balkans: ""The mountainous terrain also allowed minority peoples to take refuge to escape conquerors and thereby retain their identities rather than be assimilated. Examples include the retreat of Illyrians and Dacians into the mountains at the time of the Slavic invasions (7th century) and their later reemergence as Albanians and Vlachs.""

makes no reference about the last time the term Illyrian was used, no reference to any Byzantine garrison whatsoever. JøllyRøger321 (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Proto-Illyrians"[edit]

The claim by Bogdan Brukner is old and outdated. Greeks had that, naming, habit everywhere they went. Egyptians, Gauls, Persians, Sclavenoi, the list of Greek names with no historic value abound. There was never such a group of people. One that self-identified as Illyrians. We should stop promoting it as it really means nothning. Just as there was never a region called "Balkan". The name was invented by an English writer in 19th century after he travelled through the region. How is that a valid reason for calling the southeastern corner of Europe by a turkish name that was never in any form of official use? 220.158.190.180 (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

== Pellazgo Illirët

I believe it's time to tale the truth,,,Pelazgians,Illyrians, Arbanians,, Albanians are the same people,,, Greek's never was illyrian,,,they call the Illyrians barbar, because they speak different language,and not Greek Dritani 1980 (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories