Sarmatians

Oh please, it is not a map from 125AD! It was made few years ago on a computer by someone!
Do you know where I can find original? Vatican library?
You assumed, again, that this map is from long time ago, because it says on it 125AD.
And even if it was copied from 125AD map, everything outside Roman Empire is an approximation, and in many cases big approximation. Did you think the Rome send their geodetic guys to Baltic sea or other places to trace it so exactly, as we know it today? Look they even got the elevations right!

Now, this is how the real maps look like: Europe 1569
http://collections.lib.uwm.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/agdm&CISOPTR=855&CISOBOX=1&REC=17

Russian Empire 1757
http://collections.lib.uwm.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/agdm&CISOPTR=278&CISOBOX=1&REC=20
We are talking 250 years ago, not 2000 years ago. How much did the Russians knew about their own land, not mentioning their neighbor Japan?!!!

So if you show me the real map from 125AD we'll know it's a real one because it'll be really geographically screwed up. ;)
 
Oh please, it is not a map from 125AD! It was made few years ago on a computer by someone!
Of course it is not...
I made a lapse there...
what I meant is map showing state in 125 AD
and the map is of course drawn much later, but based on history records...
here is another map based on historical records that also shows that Veneti/Venedi are nowhere near west Poland before 5th centrury... in fact also in 500 AD Veleti appear there while Veneti are still southeast of Veleti... but due to proximity and similar name it may be the case that Veleti are part of Veneti....

http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/1/entity_2750.html

my point is that Vistula Veneti cannot be that R1b - U152 simply because they were south east from the hotspot of U152 in west Poland...and there is no R1b southeast of the hotspot...

nice try though...

btw. good historical map (althoug it seems to be actually made in 13th century only, perhaps based on some older maps), I will take a look at it... it seems to capture Sarmatians there..
here is complete version
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/TabulaPeutingeriana.jpg

first interesting issue in map is that what is now Slavonia in Croatia is called Norico (look above Liburni and to east from Histria) in the map, which is some offset from Roman province of Noricum that was Slovenia of today and part north of it...
Vindobona (Wien) is somewhere quite north, which shows no interest for areas north of Roman empire...
hence from this map you will not really find position of Veneti, though you can see that Sarmatians dwell in area north-northeast of Moesia superior (Serbia/north Bulgaria) which you already know...
 
Now explain 5th century depopulation and drastic change of cultures in former land of Veneti. If Veneti are Slavs then why they changed their culture to the simpler one? Who the heck made them change their traditions and arts?
Veneti didnot change...
as I said they were just not in Poemerania at the time of the cultures you describe...they settled there only after 5th century... there lived Germanic Ruggi, Lemovi, Vandals, Goths and Scirii (Scirii lived east of Goths, west of Balts and north of Veneti, which in fact might point out to proto-Serbs of Balkans since they had to pick up somewhere haplogroup N before bringing it to Serbia ... this is not too probable though since Scirri are considered east Germanic, but than again so are Veneti...thing is to early Greek and Roman historians Germanic vs. Sarmatic was about way of living, not about origin, to simplify it it was about living in house or being nomads... than again I2a2 might have originally been Germanic as other clades of haplogroup I were

anyway, look at the map showing reconstructed positions of tribes for around 1 AD:
http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/1/entity_2750.html
Secondly the name changes you exampled are the autochthonous changes. Jordanes is a forein historian writing about foreign land.
So, what do you want me to say that Jordanes who lived in time when that was happening has no clue what he writes about, but that you and some biased 19th century historians who had very limited access to information (e.g. I can today click few links and get to read Jordanes Gethica while for them it was not easy to get to any of the manuscripts) know what have happened...
sorry, but I don't buy that...from you speaks your bias...
Goths "just" went through the Veneti land, and they know this land as Veneti.
they didnot just went through that land...
they first lived for awhile north of those people, than they moved slowly for like 100 of years through that land, then they lived south of Veneti but among Sarmatians...among Antes as well...
so, no, saying that Antes are of Venetic race just can not be a mistake..
Do you know country name Magyarorszag? Why foreigners call it Hungary???!!!
Nearby countries actually do not call it Hungary...it's a name in english...
Name Hungary is used because kingdom of Hun left strong impression and all following invaders(Avars, Magyars) were condsidered to be of similar turkic origin... there is no similarity with Venets who were not aggressive or well organized empire with strong reputation...
in fact, it was also called Turkia... But Hungary is not called Hungary in neighbouring nations, there the name for that country is related to the name of Magyars...
and Gothi were for long time in neighbourhood of Veneti and Sarmatians (note that Antes that Jordanes says are of Venetic race were previously always counted as Sarmatians, which is in fact probably because Veneti and Sarmatians are single race)...
Ah, to add a twist to it, the half of Hungary population is R1a! Now that's a history behind that, right?
Country was obviously populated with Slavs before Magyars...
in fact you can also see that east and west Hungary actually form cluster with Serbs, Croats, Romanians, and central Ukraine... while central Hungary is cluster for itself... which indicates that Magyars have settled in central part of today Hungary and did subjugate and assimilate previous inhabitants east and west of them...

from "Geostatistical inference of main Y-STR-haplotype groups in Europe"
Amalia Diaz-Lacavaa, Maja Waliera, Sascha Willuweitb, Thomas F. Wienkera, Rolf Fimmersa, Max P. Baura, and Lutz Roewerb


Quote:
In Southeastern Central Europe and the Balkans several clusters were alternatively predominant. Two circumscribed and densely sampled areas stood out from the surroundings: central Anatolia (cluster 5) and central Hungary (cluster 14). It is worth mentioning that while a genetic differentiation of central Anatolia is in accordance with previous studies [17] and [18], a reliable characterization of the not sampled surrounding areas may require further evaluation. Two clusters were assigned to large areas of the Balkan Peninsula: (1) Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Romania, Western and Eastern Hungary, and Central Ukraine: cluster 18; (2) continental Greece, Bulgaria, and Macedonia: cluster 2. Cluster 13 was assigned to Albania and to the western area of the Balkans and cluster 11 to the Caucasus.
cluster 18 - Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Romania, Western and Eastern Hungary, and Central Ukraine


but judging by clustering it is due to I2a2... meaning that much of R1a might have come with Magyars..
I do not know why you expect that all people speaking uralic languages share N haplogroup... as I said, cultures and languages change, but haplogroups stay and tribal names tend to stay with majority of people...

I can imagine that Magyars were Scythian R1a tribe living in close proximity to uralic tribes of Asia and that their cultural development was influenced by uralic people... they might have had N elite, since there is like 1% of N in Hungary (which is much less than in Serbia and Bosnian Serbs or in Balts and Belarus, and Rus)

in fact, in research above, cluster 14 (central Hungary) is closest to cluster 4 which is western Fenno-Scandianvia and not to cluster of west and east Slavs or to a cluster of Finland and Baltic, which points out that Magyars might have been originally same R1a population that did settle Scandinavia, but were under domination of Uralic tribes...
 
in fact, besides showing the link between illyrian Dalamtae and iranian Zaza/Daylamites that is based on spread of I haplogroup, and beside plenty of Serb-alike tribal names, some other tribes that were often classified as Illyrians might have in fact been Sarmatians... let me explain...
Celts_in_Illyria_%26_Pannonia.png

In Pannonia, you can see Iazi
and explanation in text
Jasi
Jasi was the name of an Illyrian tribe[88][116] subtribe of Pannonians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrian_tribes

almost same place (pushed a bit on east by spread of Roman empire) some time later

757px-Roman_Empire_125.svg.png


Iazyges
The Iazyges (Jazyges is an orthographic variant) were a nomadic tribe. Known also as Jaxamatae, Ixibatai, Iazygite, Jászok, Ászi. They were a branch of the Sarmatian people who, c. 200 BC, swept westward from central Asia onto the steppes of what is now Ukraine.[1] Little is known about their language, but it was one of the Iranian languages.
The name of the Romanian city Iaşi likely comes from the name of the Iazyges or the Jász (Iazones), who traveled through the region from the Ukrainian plains to the Carpathian Basin (Hungarian plain).

so, we have same tribal name on two nearby relations, classified by unknown scholars:
1) in pre-roman tribe as illyrian
2) in Roman empire time as Sarmatian !!!

with those matches, can we conclude that it is possible that some tribes previously considered to be Illyrians were in fact Sarmatians? perhaps real Illyrians were just south of Dardani as in this picture where position of Illyrians actually matches position of Albanians of today, while position of tribes that seems to have link to Sarmatians are in fact areas settled by Serbs, Croats and other south Slavs of today...

Celts_in_Illyria_%26_Pannonia.png


take a good look at position of Oseriates tribe....
it is exactly this place

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plitvice_Lakes_National_Park

250px-Plitvice_lakes.JPG

magnificent set of 16 lakes with lot of waterfalls... really beautiful

Oseriates, right?

words for lake:
russian - ozero
Ukrainian - ozero
serbo-croat - jezero
czech - jezero
german - see
italian - lago
french - lac
greeks - λίμνη
estonian - järv
albanian - liqen

so, who do you think Oseriates are related to in terms of nations of today?
 
Do you realize that if what you are saying is true all professional historians that have ever existed should be considered fools for not seeing all this "obvious" stuff.
 
Do you realize that if what you are saying is true all professional historians that have ever existed should be considered fools for not seeing all this "obvious" stuff.

no, they belong to two categories:
1) biased politically motivated with agenda to push Slavs out of Europe...
2) lazy and naive repeaters of history lessons that were made by 1) ...

anyway, let me go back to Russian primary chronicle:

Among these seventy-two nations, the Slavic race is derived from the line of
Japheth, since they are the Noricians, who are identical with the Slavs.
Over a long period the Slavs settled beside the Danube, where the Hungarian and Bulgarian lands now lie. From among these Slavs, parties scattered throughout the country and were known by appropriate names, according to the places where they settled. Thus some came and settled by
the river Morava, and were named Moravians, while others were called Czechs. Among these same Slavs are included the White Croats, the Serbs, and the Carinthians. For when the Vlakhs attacked the Danubian Slavs, settled among them, and did them violence, the latter came and
made their homes by the Vistula, and were then called Lyakhs. Of these same Lyakhs some were called Polyanians, some Lutichians, some Mazovians, and still others Pomorians.
Certain Slavs settled also on the Dnipro, and were likewise called Polyanians. ...

this tells us that Slavs living around Danube were pushed out by spread of Roman empire so do they went to north...

in fact, if you carefully look at this map, and try to envision what was going on, what you can see is in fact two Sarmatian tribes Iazyges and Roxolani halting further spread of Roman empire...
757px-Roman_Empire_125.svg.png
 
no, they belong to two categories:
1) biased politically motivated with agenda to push Slavs out of Europe...
2) lazy and naive repeaters of history lessons that were made by 1) ...

Then you should write a book called "The Real History" and become a rich man.
 
Then you should write a book called "The Real History" and become a rich man.
I will not write a book because I am not historian and not genetic expert...
But as my hobby, I can write "possible history based on genetic clues" on pages of a forum, can't I?

well, correct me if I am wrong, but in my view forums like this should be used for proposing alternative views, new theories, exchanging ideas... If you find the ideas that I propose not realistic than you should point out why, that is all... use arguments, not authorities.. be researcher and not ideologist
 
no, they belong to two categories:
1) biased politically motivated with agenda to push Slavs out of Europe...
2) lazy and naive repeaters of history lessons that were made by 1) ...

And this is not ideology?
 
And this is not ideology?
no, that is somewhat paranoic opinion that may or may not be correct... it is my right to see it that way until proven wrong...

I just do not believe in fairy tales of big populations disappearing without trace and new big populations appearing with same names...
 
lol, you cannot be proven wrong, because you're ignoring archaeological/cultural facts. I guess, just to push your agenda. You have your names and ancient historians sentence or two work on a subject, who never traveled and surveyed areas they were writing about, and used second or third hand information. You have your maps, made by (who knows who) someone, slapping labels (somewhat around there), with question marks too. On top of it, not being a geneticist you trace tribal movements all over the world, often inventing your own haplogroups number, with an attitude that no one knows better than you.
Honestly I don't mid, it's your work in progress, and I take it as such. What is killing my good humor is that your are so sure of the your logic, so sure of your hypothesis, so sure of everything you say, like it's the truth of the truths. I know you're working on it, and your passion for this is admirable, but for god sake, don't you know words like perhaps, maybe, most likely, possibly, I wonder if it's true, etc...
I would suggest that you work on something a little longer before you post it. It should make sense from historic, archaeological, genetic point of view. Then you'd know you're closer to the truth. Jumping to conclusions, with strong assurance, basing your hypothesis only on name relations and throwing at hock couple of haplogroups, is only make you look s... funny.
Other than that I love arguing, lol.
 
Jumping to conclusions, with strong assurance, basing your hypothesis only on name relations and throwing at hock couple of haplogroups, is only make you look s... funny.
Other than that I love arguing, lol.
you know the saying - beauty (or lack of it) is in eyes of the observer...
 
Sarmatian tribal names being confused with Illyrian tribal names hmm interesting.
 
Sarmatian tribal names being confused with Illyrian tribal names hmm interesting.

yes, and also Slavic tribal names confused with Illyrian tribal names...

Celts_in_Illyria_%26_Pannonia.png


take a good look at position of Oseriates tribe....
it is exactly this place

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plitvice_Lakes_National_Park
250px-Plitvice_lakes.JPG


magnificent set of 16 lakes with lot of waterfalls... really beautiful

Oseriates, right?

words for lake:
russian - ozero
Ukrainian - ozero
serbo-croat - jezero
czech - jezero
german - see
italian - lago
french - lac
greeks - λίμνη
estonian - järv
albanian - liqen

so, who do you think Oseriates are related to in terms of nations of today?

well, this was not all we know about Oseriates...
few centuries later tribe with identical name broke down in Roman Empire and settled in Peloponnese in Greece...
This time tribe was identified as Slavic...

The Ezeritai (Greek: Ἐζερῖται) were a Slavic tribe settled in the Peloponnese in southern Greece during the Middle Ages.
Southern Slavs (Sclaveni) settled throughout the Balkans following the collapse of the East Roman (Byzantine) defenses of the Danube frontier in the early 7th century, with some groups reaching as far south as the Peloponnese.[1] Of these, two groups are known by name from later sources, the Ezeritai and the Melingoi, both having settled on the slopes of Mount Taygetos. The Ezeritai were apparently settled in the area known as Helos (Greek for "swamp"), from which their name derives (South Slavic ezero means "lake").[2]
The Ezeritai are mentioned in the De administrando imperio of Byzantine emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (r. 945–959), who records that they paid a tribute of 300 gold nomismata. The emperor further records that they had rebelled, along with the Melingoi, during the reign of Romanos I Lekapenos (r. 920–945), but defeated and forced to pay double tribute as a consequence. They are not mentioned thereafter, except for a reference to a bishopric of Ezera in the area, dating to 1340.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezeritai

Macodnian_Sklavinia.png


This might not be the same tribe. If it is not the same tribe it still clearly shows Slavic origin of the name. If it was the same tribe, logical scenario is that with spread of Roman empire the tribe has moved north, and with crisis of Roman empire it has pushed back into the Balkans...However, before it was classified as Illyrian (although with clear Slavic tribal name), later it was recognized as Slavic.... in between it was probably considered Sarmatian...

in fact, I think that all "barbarians" who were "attacking" Roman empire were in fact trying to defend their current settlements and get back to areas from which they were pushed out by the spread of Roman empire.....
 

This thread has been viewed 42024 times.

Back
Top