sea peoples

[zanipolo]

I was refering purely to linguistics, actually.

you are correct, i as well

Are you saying Proto-indo-Europeans refers to both linguistic and genetic terminoly and so proto-slavic is only confirned to the steppes area?

 

[zanipolo]

Let me say this: Common Slavic (Proto-Slavic, if you will) must have been spoken very late. Specifically, there's a few borrowings from Gothic (or otherwise East Germanic) which are common to the Slavic languages. If we consider the development of the Germanic languages (consider that Common Germanic itself was spoken relatively late, which I elaborated in the "Celtic and Pre-Germanic" thread). This kind of narrows down the timing of Common Slavic to circa 400-600 AD. However, what is less clear is when Common Balto-Slavic was spoken: the split between the Baltic family and Pre-Slavic must have been earier.



.

I agree, I was making the point that slavic in those areas did not appear until after the birth of christ, your years of 400AD would seem far better than my choice of 200AD.

And again, you are correct , it would be a celtic and later on a germanic language ( but old finnic , pre-ugralic union would be the norm for the baltic areas until around 100-200AD. I am still trying to find when they joined

 

[Taranis]

you are correct, i as well

Are you saying Proto-indo-Europeans refers to both linguistic and genetic terminoly and so proto-slavic is only confirned to the steppes area?

Well, first off, the case for R1a1a being associated with early Indo-Europeans (or, at least, one early branch of Indo-European speaking peoples) is reasonably plausible. I think it's possible to argue for both genetic and linguistics, but one should be cautious to not mix things up because you make very different statements for very different times there. In my opinion, you can correlate genetics and archaeology, and you can correlate linguistics and archaeology (in particular, you can make statements when a certain word must have entered the vocabulary of a language, because it does conform to certain sound laws, but not to others), but you cannot directly correlate genetics and linguistics.

Secondly, I'm not convinced that the Proto-Slavs lived in the steppe, primarily because Proto/Common Slavic, although lacking maritime terminology, apparently has a lot terms for lakes and forests, which is not consistent with steppe peoples.

 

[how yes no 2]

btw. again please note that I do not speak of languages but about origin of people...about haplogroups, tribal identities... from the point of language it is not correct to call those people proto-Slavic as we cannot know how close/distant to Slavic language it was...as far as we know it might have not been IE even...

well, let me compare... French are sometimes called Gauls even though their language is not really Celtic.... we may speak of proto-Mexican people as Mayas and Aztecs even though languages of those ancient people were not Spanish

in that sense, it is perfectly correct to speak of proto-Slavs when trying to trace origin of Slavs in past and to talk about proto-Serbs when trying to trace origin of Serbs in past...

now, I answer here on post from topic about thracians
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showth...t-Thracian-DNA&p=371354&viewfull=1#post371354

You keep quoting eneti from the anatolia. Have you read homers books, the passage refers to Pylaemedes and the Paphalgonians from the lands of the eneti. It does not say eneti people moved anywhere, they did not even fight at troy. Did they ( the eneti) exist?

it was not like world war you know...
it was war between Greek people mostly... between 2 groups that were tied with allies bonds and cousin relationship between rulers of towns...

Paphlagonia is not so near Troy as it seems...there was no reason for them to participate...especially if they were not Greeks and thus not related to any of the sides by royal bonds or allies made...

at that time Greeks probably lived only on coasts of Asia minor near Greek islands...but not deep inside Anatolia... the spread deep into anatolia probably came after conquest of sea peoples...perhaps Mycenean Greeks were the ones who pushed Veneti out...

again order of attack was: Hatti, Kode, Carchemish, Arzawa, Alashiya

Paphlagonia would be northeast part of Assuwa
Paphlagonia Eneti were most notable among Paphlagonians...but were expelled after expedition with Cimmerians short after Troyan war...

only expedition in that area and in that time was sea peoples..
.
I have already explained many times why I think Cimmerians are Serians and related to Paphlagonia Eneti...in fact, I think that Cimmerians and Eneti originate from same tribe that originally spread around Black sea, in times preceding sea peoples conquest I guess that Cimmerians are mostly along north, northeast and west shores of Black sea and Eneti mostly along south shores...

so, if Cimmerians came from direction of Colchis and Iberia and Veneti pushed from Paphlagonia, together they brought easily Hatti down...as they had it surrounded....but when both were busy running conquest to south as far as Egypt, Myceneans probably used opportunity and pushed Veneti out from their lands... so Greek influence spread on big part of Anatolia...

Veneti being pushed out of Paphlagonia easily corresponds to hole in R1a spread there .. so, it is possible that Paphlagonia Eneti were perhaps already mix of R1a and I2a2...

but it is questionable whether Papphlagonia Eneti were exactly the same tribe as Adriatic Veneti... I think it is more likely that Paphlagonia Eneti were pushed to the east... also we find today I2a* exactly and only in the locations matching Celtic Veneti and Adriatic Veneti areas which may indicate old settlements... btw. note that in ancient times different branches of Veneti perfectly match description of sea peoples - Britanny Veneti, Baltic Veneti, Adriatic Veneti, Paphlagonia Veneti - all on seas !!

prospect that Adriatic Veneti were on their place much before Paphlagonia Eneti were kicked out indicates that they may have been related to I2a1 Sardinians same as Paphlagonia Eneti were related to Cimmerians....if those people spoke same language than Sherdana could have easily been Sardinians who joined conquest of related people from Asia....

anyway when Etruscan settled in between Sardinians and Adriatic Veneti, they probably cut the cultural bond between them...... on other hand it makes sense that Etruscans were allowed to settle next to Adriatic Veneti cause they knew each other well from Asia minor...as supposed movements happened roughly in same period - short after Trojan war

 

[how yes no 2]

to analyze origin of spread of a YDNA branch it is useful to look at spread of parent branch

I2a* is so far found only in 2 locations - one matches Adriatic Veneti and other matches Britanny Veneti...
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/I2aHapGroup/default.aspx?section=ymap


its parent branch I2 is however found in several areas:
1) around Black sea
1a) north of it
1b) south of it
2) a line from Baltic to Black sea with part branching towards Slovakia
3) a line from north Italy to Denmark with branch to Britanny and Btitain

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/I2nosubcladeM170P215/default.aspx?section=ymap

I have been talking about I2a Veneti being sea people, but already I2 is clearly strategic oriented people.... they hold roads between key seas... their spread is in lines while one would expect spreading in circle...

from this spread I can imagine different branches of Veneti race came to existence ..
from 1a) come Cimmerians
from 1b) come Paphlagonia Eneti
from 2) come Baltic Veneti and Cimmerians
from 3) come people such as I2a1 Sardinains, Adriatic Veneti and Celtic Veneti, but also Germanic I2b people... and perhaps Cimbri if they were not later spread of Thraco-Cimmerians (which would place them in 1a and 2)

looking at
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/I2aHapGroup/default.aspx?section=ymap

perhaps I2a2 Dinaric North maps to Paphlagonia Eneti
and I2a1 Dinaric-South to Cimmerians and Baltic Veneti as it shows traces to Denmark (perhaps related to Cimbri who are thought to be Cimmerian) and through Germany, and also settlement in Baltic area...

if Paphplagonia Eneti had lot of R1a as indicated by the lack of R1a exactly on the place where they used to live before being kicked out of Asia minor and Cimmerians were in wars with R1a Scythians,
that can explain why east and west Slavs have dominant R1a and I2a2-Dinaric North while south Slavs have dominant I2a2-Dinaric south...R1a in north Slavs also comes from Scythians....

it is not really clear where to map Sarmatians... perhaps it could be same name as Cimmerians... but Sarmatian Alans were probably haplogroup G and Sarmatians originating in Greek legend from group of Scythians intermarrying group of Amazones would make them likely to be R1a...

 

[sparkey]

to analyze origin of spread of a YDNA branch it is useful to look at spread of parent branch

I2a* is so far found only in 2 locations - one matches Adriatic Veneti and other matches Britanny Veneti...
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/I2aHapGroup/default.aspx?section=ymap


its parent branch I2 is however found in several areas:
1) around Black sea
1a) north of it
1b) south of it
2) a line from Baltic to Black sea with part branching towards Slovakia
3) a line from north Italy to Denmark with branch to Britanny and Btitain

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/I2nosubcladeM170P215/default.aspx?section=ymap

To be clear, I2a*-Alpine has a quite similar haplotype to I2a-Western, so it's more of a brother to I2a-Western than it is a parent to I2a-Din. I2a*-F is the weird outgroup that you could view as representative of a parent population.

Also, I've looked at I2* very closely and I find that the center of diversity for I2*-A and I2*-C are both in Germany, and I2*-B (the one that stretches across Europe into Asia), is too tough to pin down, but it seems likely to me that it could easily have spread Eastward rather than Westward. The center of diversity for I2c-ADR, which is on the same branch of I2 as the I2*'s, is around Italy, but its data is currently deficient. (Also note that admin Bob May of the I2* Project currently has some I2*-B misclassified as I2c-ADR... I have already contacted him about that).

Just thought I'd throw that out there... I don't know how it would affect your analysis here.

 

[how yes no 2]

To be clear, I2a*-Alpine has a quite similar haplotype to I2a-Western, so it's more of a brother to I2a-Western than it is a parent to I2a-Din. I2a*-F is the weird outgroup that you could view as representative of a parent population.

note that I have placed Adriatic Veneti in same group with I2a1 Sardinians and Celtic Veneti... and with Germanic I2b spread... I do wonder whether I2a2-Isles might be introduced by migrations of Celtic Veneti to UK...

btw. this reminds me on Germanic and Celtic languages being more related than to Slavic....
could it be that I2 spread IE?

Also, I've looked at I2* very closely and I find that the center of diversity for I2*-A and I2*-C are both in Germany, and I2*-B (the one that stretches across Europe into Asia), is too tough to pin down, but it seems likely to me that it could easily have spread Eastward rather than Westward. The center of diversity for I2c-ADR, which is on the same branch of I2 as the I2*'s, is around Italy, but its data is currently deficient. (Also note that admin Bob May of the I2* Project currently has some I2*-B misclassified as I2c-ADR... I have already contacted him about that).

hm, Germany...
could it be that I2*-B is from people who went from there along Danube to Black sea?
that area was heavily influenced by movement of peoples so it makes it harder to see...

is I2a2 closer to I2*-B than to others?
perhaps some I2*-B and early I2a2 went from Germany along Rhine to north Sea and Britain giving I2a2-Isles?

 

[sparkey]

note that I have placed Adriatic Veneti in same group with I2a1 Sardinians and Celtic Veneti... and with Germanic I2b spread... I do wonder whether I2a2-Isles might be introduced by migrations of Celtic Veneti to UK...

btw. this reminds me on Germanic and Celtic languages being more related than to Slavic....
could it be that I2 spread IE?

So does I2a-Western go together with this group in your theory? Along with Alpine, it's off on its own genetically, but I haven't looked at its distribution closely.

hm, Germany...
could it be that I2*-B is from people who went from there along Danube to Black sea?
that area was heavily influenced by movement of peoples so it makes it harder to see...

is I2a2 closer to I2*-B than to others?
perhaps some I2*-B and early I2a2 went from Germany along Rhine to north Sea and Britain giving I2a2-Isles?

I2*-B must have been seafaring peoples of some sort... they ended up as the dominant strain of Haplogroup I in Crete. Traveling along the Black Sea eastward would also explain why they pop up significantly in Georgia and Armenia. Genetically, they are most closely related to I2*-A and I2*-C, and then to I2c-ADR. None of these are unusually closely related to I2a2... although a population could have shared different distantly related I2's.

 

[how yes no 2]

So does I2a-Western go together with this group in your theory? Along with Alpine, it's off on its own genetically, but I haven't looked at its distribution closely.

not sure.. I think I2a3-L233-western might have been separate people...
it is very sea oriented as various Veneti are...
but it goes more north than any I2a...
Norway, Finland, Frisia, UK
if I need to map it to some fairly recent people, it would be Vikings...

I2*-B must have been seafaring peoples of some sort... they ended up as the dominant strain of Haplogroup I in Crete. Traveling along the Black Sea eastward would also explain why they pop up significantly in Georgia and Armenia.

hm, along Black sea...Georgia and Armenia...sounds very much as if it was spread by Cimmerians..

regarding Crete, it may be related to Tjekker and Peleset who were part of land invasion of sea peoples...

This situation is confirmed by the Medinet Habu temple reliefs of Ramesses III which show that:[30]
the Peleset and Tjekker warriors who fought in the land battle [against Ramesses III] are accompanied in the reliefs by women and children loaded in ox-carts.

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

Two of the peoples who settled in the Levant have traditions that may connect them to Crete: the Tjeker and the Peleset (Philistines). The Tjeker may have left Crete to settle in Anatolia and left there to settle Dor.[39] According to the Old Testament,[40] the Israelite God brought the Philistines out of Caphtor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples
*Capthor = Crete

Is there any genetic research regarding Palestinians? if they origin from Peleset and if the theory from this thread is correct, they should have at least some I2...

while searching for that... I found this

A follow-up study by Oppenheim found that in addition to being closely related to Israeli and Palestinian Arab populations, Jews are even more closely related to the peoples living in the north of the Fertile Crescent, such as the Kurds.[113]

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

in my opinion, Kurds partly descend from sea peoples conquest...
perhaps Palestinians and Jews do as well...

 

[sparkey]

hm, along Black sea...Georgia and Armenia...sounds very much as if it was spread by Cimmerians..

regarding Crete, it may be related to Tjekker and Peleset who were part of land invasion of sea peoples...


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


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples
*Capthor = Crete

Is there any genetic research regarding Palestinians? if they origin from Peleset and if the theory from this thread is correct, they should have at least some I2...

while searching for that... I found this

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

in my opinion, Kurds partly descend from sea peoples conquest...
perhaps Palestinians and Jews do as well...

Obviously, Haplogroup J is the one that is common to Palestinians and Jews, but what Haplogroup I is present in them could be telling. Data for Palestinians is deficient AFAIK. Much I in Jewish populations could have been picked up from later migrations of Jews. Put together, we don't have much... although there is a significant cluster of I2*-B people, known as I2*-B(J), which is entirely Jewish, mostly Eastern European Jewish in recent origin. Whether that is from some I2*-B that has been in Europe for a long time or from I2*-B introduced by Philistines in the early Middle Eastern Jews that subsequently expanded into Eastern Europe, it's hard to say.

I think the Crete connection of the Sea Peoples is interesting, and makes me think that I2*-B is probably the I clade most associated with the two populations you mention. Their MRCA dates back to about the right time for that to make sense (~3000 years ago). Perhaps they descend from some stray ancestral I2*-A/B/C who traveled by sea every which way, and got incorporated into the Philistines. I'm still hesitant to make any I2 a principle marker of these peoples, however... the concentrations in the places they are thought to have spread to are too low, aren't they?

 

[how yes no 2]

well, relations of Palestinians and Jews to sea people is purely hypotetical and based on similarity of names Peleset, Philistines and Palestinians... but note also that sea peoples were heterogeneous...

on other hand I am pretty convinced that Kurds largely origin from actual sea peoples...

Kurds clearly stand out from environment by haplogroup I

Region/Haplogroup

Armenia 4%
Azerbaijan 3%
Egypt 1%
Georgia 3.5%
Iran 3%
Iraq 5%
Kurdistan (Iraq) 17%
Kurdistan (Turkey) 25%
Lebanon 3.5%
Morocco 0%
Syria 5%
Tunisia 1%

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml


this big difference comapred to environment is indicator of settlement wave probably via conquest from northern areas... sea peoples seems fairly good option and joint conquest of Veneti and Cimmerians makes lot of sense as explanation of that story... and various locations of both Cimmerians and Veneti in general correlate quite well with I2 spreads


judging by the order of the conquest (Hatti, Kode, Carchemish, Arzawa, Alashiya), the location of Kurds is most likely area of land invasion and settlement... the story about Paphlagonia Eneti being kicked out from Asia minordue to joint expedition with Cimmerians shortly after Trojan war fits perfectly in sea peoples scenario.. as it explains why sea peoples are said to be northerners, explains land invasion, explains order of conquest, explains easiness of bringing Hatti down (as it was more or less surrounded), explains I2 in Kurds....

location of Kurds was very important strategic area that is bridge between two seas...for sea peoples conquest that is crucial....because attack from sea alone can hardly penetrate deep in land and allow stable basis for further progress...

again, as we have seen I2* branches do exactly the same thing in Europe - they spread around sea and make land bridges between seas..

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/I2nosubcladeM170P215/default.aspx?section=ymap

taking over strategic routes gives them natural role of merchants..

-In india there is a city called Ayodhya and the area of this city is called Vendhia. the venets of india where called the carriers.

-In latin, Vendes means a seller of goods a merchant, trader

- Where the adriatc veneti just a trading people of mixed tribal races, did they make the 2 amber roads for trade . Are the venetians who where great merchants and traders have these genes from ancient times.

you know that I relate Cimmerians with Serians mentioned by Seneca... e.g. Cimmerians are thought to have settled in cappadocia and later Strabo calls Cappadocians white Syrians:

the words“the Cauconians were led by the noble son of Polycles— they who lived in glorious dwellings in the neighborhood of the Parthenius River, ”for, he adds, the Cauconians extended from Heracleia and the Mariandyni to the white Syrians, whom we call Cappadocians, and the tribe of the Cauconians round Tieium extended to the Parthenius River, whereas that of the Heneti, who held Cytorum, were situated next to them after the Parthenius River, and still today certain "Cauconitae"7 live in the neighborhood of the Parthenius River. [6]

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper...98:book=12:chapter=3&highlight=thracian,eneti


Serians, according to Seneca, live in in Europe, in Caspian highlands among Sarmatians, in Serica (northwest China where they produce silk, and in wider sense Serica is also arc from China to India), on Red sea ..

keep in mind that manuscript of Bavarian geographer says that state of Zeruiani was so big that all Slavs origin from it....Zeruiani is same tribal name as Serians, agree?

in 6th century AD Jordanes says that Slavs are of Veneti race...

in the land of Scythia to the westward dwells, first of all, the race of the Gepidae, surrounded by great and famous rivers. For the Tisia flows through it on the north and northwest, and on the southwest is the great Danube. On the east it is cut by the Flutausis, a swiftly eddying stream that sweeps whirling into the Ister's waters. (34) Within these rivers lies Dacia, encircled by the lofty Alps as by a crown. Near their left ridge, which inclines toward the north, and beginning at the source of the Vistula, the populous race of the Venethi dwell, occupying a great expanse of land. Though their names are now dispersed amid various clans and places, yet they are chiefly called Sclaveni and Antes. (35) The abode of the Sclaveni extends from the city of Noviodunum and the lake called Mursianus to the Danaster, and northward as far as the Vistula. They have swamps and forests for their cities. The Antes, who are the bravest of these peoples dwelling in the curve of the sea of Pontus, spread from the Danaster to the Danaper, rivers that are many days' journey apart. (36) But on the shore of Ocean, where the floods of the river Vistula empty from three mouths, the Vidivarii dwell, a people gathered out of various tribes. Beyond them the Aesti, a subject race, likewise hold the shore of Ocean.

Jordanes - the origin and deeds of Goths
http://people.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/texts/jordgeti.html

one important thing to note is that in 1st century AD Seneca's Serians of Europe rule over scattered Scythians...we know that Scythians are R1a people... reference to Veneti (same as Serians) race of early Slavs in 6th century AD is thus perhaps about dominant I2 origin, while R1a is more about Scythians or Saka (note that medieval name of Arabs for Slavs is "sakaliba")...

question of whether Slavic language comes from Serians or Scythians is hard to resolve... note that some of Slavic R1a comes from Veneti/Serians because hole in R1a spread in Paphlagonia indicates that Eneti had strong R1a as well... same probably holds for Serians...

[369] Though kings should gather themselves together, both they who vex the scattered Scythians and they who dwell upon the Red Sea’s marge, who hold wide sway o’er the blood-red main with its gleaming pearls, they who eave unguarded26 the Caspian heights to the bold Sarmatians; though he strive against him, who dares on foot to tread the Danube’s waves27 and (whersoe’er they dwell,) the Serians28 for fleeces famous– ‘tis the upright mind that holds true sovereignty. He has no need of horses, none of arms and the coward weapons which the Parthian hurls from far when he feigns flight, no need of engines hurling rocks, stationed to batter cities to the ground. A king is he who has no fear; a king is he who shall naught desire. Such kingdom on himself each man bestows.

Seneca - Thyestes
27. i.e. the frozen surface.
28. The poet here conceives of the Serians as near by Scythia.

http://www.theoi.com/Text/SenecaThyestes.html

now Serica in wider sense as arc of Serians from northwest China to India - clearly trade road - on one side silk on other spices

Serica, the land of the Seres, was the name by which the Greco-Romans referred to a country in Central Asia.
Ancient Mediterranean knowledge of this nation was indistinct and distorted by fables and myths. Ptolemy and Pliny the Elder present more precise descriptions. Serica was described by Ptolemy as bordering "Scythia beyond the Imaum mountains (Tian Shan)" on the West, "Terra Incognita" to the North-East, the "Sinae" or Chinese to the East and "India" to the South. This would correspond with modern Xinjiang province in North-Western China.

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

Seres (Gr. Σῆρες, Lat. Sērēs) was the ancient Greek and Roman name for the inhabitants of eastern Central Asia, but could also extend to a number of other Asian people in a wide arc from China to India.[1] It meant "of silk," or people of the "land where silk comes from." The country of the Seres was Serica.

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

comapare where haplogroup I arc makes turn with settlement of Pastun Sarbans... pay attention to location of turn from NW-SE direction to SW-NE direction.. (Herat area). perfect match with turn in spread of Pashtun Sarbans...

now check this out too - Seneca speaks of Serians of Caspian highlands in Sarmatia...look for Serbi in the map made following Ptolomey's records..

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

The Siraces (Greek: Sirakoi, Latin: Siraci, also Siraceni and Seraci[1]) were a hellenized Sarmatian tribe that inhabited Sarmatia Asiatica; the coast of Achardeus at the Black Sea south of the Caucasus mountains, Siracena[1] is mentioned by Tacitus as one of their settlements.
...
They and the Aorsi were merchants who traded with goods of Babylonia and India through the Armenians and Medes, with camels. They profited greatly from this, seen in their clothing attributed with much gold.[2]
...
They are believed to be the same or connected to the Serboi.

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

Seneca speaks also of Serians on Red sea...they are again merchants:

The Sabaeans, like the other Yemenite kingdoms of the same period, were involved in the extremely lucrative spice trade, especially frankincense and myrrh.[2]

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

 

[zanipolo]

you know that I relate Cimmerians with Serians mentioned by Seneca... e.g. Cimmerians are thought to have settled in cappadocia and later Strabo calls Cappadocians white Syrians:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper...98:book=12:chapter=3&highlight=thracian,eneti


Serians, according to Seneca, live in in Europe, in Caspian highlands among Sarmatians, in Serica (northwest China where they produce silk, and in wider sense Serica is also arc from China to India), on Red sea ..

keep in mind that manuscript of Bavarian geographer says that state of Zeruiani was so big that all Slavs origin from it....Zeruiani is same tribal name as Serians, agree?

in 6th century AD Jordanes says that Slavs are of Veneti race...


Jordanes - the origin and deeds of Goths
http://people.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/texts/jordgeti.html

one important thing to note is that in 1st century AD Seneca's Serians of Europe rule over scattered Scythians...we know that Scythians are R1a people... reference to Veneti (same as Serians) race of early Slavs in 6th century AD is thus mostly about I2 origin, while R1a is about Scythians...



Seneca - Thyestes
27. i.e. the frozen surface.
28. The poet here conceives of the Serians as near by Scythia.

http://www.theoi.com/Text/SenecaThyestes.html

now Serica in wider sense as arc of Serians from northwest China to India - clearly trade road - on one side silk on other spices


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


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

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

You are wrong about jordanes, he said venedi and not veneti


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11427175
T in the alps
J in the plains
K in venice and the lagoons, BUT, the bavarians where in venice from 1200 to 1800, the greeks/cretans from 1300 to 1800, the armenians from 1400 to 1800, the illyrian dlamatians, from 1100 to 1800

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...&resnum=9&ved=0CEQQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false
check venedi and veneti

actually he said venethi
In 551 AD Gothic author Jordanes claimed that the Antes and Sclaveni [Slavs] stemmed from the Venethi

It has been argued that the Veneti were a centum Indo-European people, rather than Baltic-speakers. Zbigniew Gołąb considers that the hydronyms of the Vistula and Odra river basins had a North-West Indo-European character with close affinities to the Italo-Celtic branch, but different from the Germanic branch, and show resemblances to those attested in the area of the Adriatic Veneti (in Northeastern Italy) as well as those attested in the Western Balkans that are attributed to Illyrians, which suggests points to a possible connection between these ancient Indo-European peoples.[8] However, according to Steinacher, the Adriatic Veneti, the Veneti of Gaul and the North Balkan/Paphlagonian Enetoi mentioned by Herodotus and Appian were not related to each other,

 

[zanipolo]

on gomer

within the Torah at Genesis 10, representing an ethnology from an Iron Age Levantine perspective. Japheth was one of the sons of Noah. Japheth's first son was Gomer. Gomer's first son was Ashkenaz. Ashkenazi Jews are descended from the medieval Jewish communities of Germany. Ashkenaz was the Medieval Hebrew name for Germany and German-speaking borderland areas. It was also the Hebrew name for the land of the Phrygians. The Jews knew there was a connection between the Germanic peoples and the Phrygians. During the Trojan War the region by Lake Ascania (aka Lake Ascanius) was held by the Phrygians, who sent troops to the aid of the Trojans. In Greek mythology several Trojans have the name Ascanius. Ashkenaz was maybe the Hebrew interpretation of "Ascania".
The Veneti are linked to the trade with amber. The Veneti lived in northern Poland along the rivers of Oder and Vistula. This was the beginning of the Amber Road. The Veneti also lived in Veneto in northeastern Italy. This was the end of the Amber Road. Ancient writers connect the Veneti with the Trojans. According to Livy the Veneti were formed by a merging of the Eneti and the Trojans. Homer speaks of the Eneti as descendants of the Trojans. Pliny the Elder indicates the Veneti ancestry as being Trojan. The Vistula Veneti are believed to have been a centum Indo-European people dwelling in the area of contemporary Poland. Their heritage is attributed to Pre-Finnic hydronyms found in the Vistula and Odra river basins. Hydronyms attributed to the Vistula Veneti seem to show resemblances to those attested in the area of the Adriatic Veneti as well as those attested in the Western Balkans that are attributed to Illyrians, all of which may point to a possible connection between these ancient Indo-European peoples.

 

[how yes no 2]

1) Veneti and Venedi are clearly tribal names of same origin......

well, let me draw it to you: while in english one reads 'G' of Germani like in George, in Serbian 'G' of Germani is like in goverment.. that doesn't mean those are different people... does it?

Jordanes is clear that it is about race that is now scattered in many tribes.... it is quite plausible that different Veneti tribes, being separated from each other and living in different cultural and language environments, ended up with different languages...

2) I speak of tribal identity and genetics and and not of languages...
you seem to be stucked to recent times and linguistics...

- do you understand that centum and satem do not make any sense if you go back in time of e.g. 2000 years more from your reference point around time of Adriatic Veneti, while genetics and tribal identities still do have lot of sense?

- do you understand that many linguists agree that centum and satem are just one of the features that can be used for classification?

- do you understand that according to Seneca in 1st century AD Serians were ruling over Scythians.... thus, till time of early Slavs in 6th century their language may have merged with the language of Scythians resulting in Slavic languages...

- do you understand that latin was 2500 years ago spoken only in small village called Rome and langauges derived from it are now spoken in latin America and big part of Europe..... do you think that all the Mexicans, Chileans, Peruvians, Brazilians. and so on origin from that village called Rome? do you think that Sioux or Cherokee who speaks mostly english is not Sioux or Cherokee and that his ancestors were cowboys because he speaks english?

- do you understand that people of same origin and same genetics can come to situation to speak different languages?

- do you understand that Adriatic Veneti is not = all Veneti but just one branch of Veneti... split time of originally I2 Veneti into tribes could have been 2500 to e.g. 7000 years ago.... we are not in position to make claims about languages, as there is no reliable data regarding that, but point is that there is continuity of tribal name and I am pretty sure that the facts I have written indicate pretty well that there is also continuity of genetics

- do you understand that all I say does not exclude possibility (that you urge for) that Adriatic Veneti (due to mixing with other people) were in the times they are recorded by history dominantly some other group e.g. J2 ... point is that original carriers of the tribal name Veneti were very likely I2a/R1a people

- and do not start again story about 13tth century Venetians being probably J2 and about their language not being Slavic... it is silly argument against reconstruction I made.. and btw. Venetians from 13 th century and Adriatic Veneti did not speak same language and might as well have been quite different people because the area suffered from many settlement waves and ancient Veneti were not mentioned in history for more than 1000 years before area is named after town of Veneto...and people took name of area... I think there is some genetic continuity between Adriatic Veneti and Venetians, due to sharing same location, but it's not like it can be exactly the same genetics after gap of more than 1000 years in existence of tribal continuity... the genetic continuity I see in I2a* found only in locations of north Italy and Britanny, thus only in Celtic Veneti and Adriatic Veneti settlements.. this doesnot exclude possibility that Adriatic Veneti were dominantly some other haplogroup... it says that their tribal identity likely origin from I2 people

 

[zanipolo]

1) Veneti and Venedi are clearly tribal names of same origin......

well, let me draw it to you: while in english one reads 'G' of Germani like in George, in Serbian 'G' of Germani is like in goverment.. that doesn't mean those are different people... does it?

Jordanes is clear that it is about race that is now scattered in many tribes.... it is quite plausible that different Veneti tribes, being separated from each other and living in different cultural and language environments, ended up with different languages...

2) I speak of tribal identity and genetics and and not of languages...
you seem to be stucked to recent times and linguistics...

- do you understand that centum and satem do not make any sense if you go back in time of e.g. 2000 years more from your reference point around time of Adriatic Veneti, while genetics and tribal identities still do have lot of sense?

- do you understand that many linguists agree that centum and satem are just one of the features that can be used for classification?

- do you understand that according to Seneca in 1st century AD Serians were ruling over Scythians.... thus, till time of early Slavs in 6th century their language may have merged with the language of Scythians resulting in Slavic languages...

- do you understand that latin was 2500 years ago spoken only in small village called Rome and langauges derived from it are now spoken in latin America and big part of Europe..... do you think that all the Mexicans, Chileans, Peruvians, Brazilians. and so on origin from that village called Rome? do you think that Sioux or Cherokee who speaks mostly english is not Sioux or Cherokee and that his ancestors were cowboys because he speaks english?

- do you understand that people of same origin and same genetics can come to situation to speak different languages?

- do you understand that Adriatic Veneti is not = all Veneti but just one branch of Veneti... split time of originally I2 Veneti into tribes could have been 2500 to e.g. 7000 years ago.... we are not in position to make claims about languages, as there is no reliable data regarding that, but point is that there is continuity of tribal name and I am pretty sure that the facts I have written indicate pretty well that there is also continuity of genetics

- do you understand that all I say does not exclude possibility that you urge for that Adriatic Veneti were in times they are recorded by history dominantly some other group e.g. J2 due to mixing with other people... point is that original carriers of the tribal name Veneti were very likely I2a/R1a people

don't you read my links

-when you clarify your terminolgy of veneti and venedi and venethi is when progress will be made.

here is the centrum language for venetic

[FONT=&quot]Figure 3.1[/FONT]​

Finnic Language Descent suggested by Inessive, Partitive, and Illative​

You say to me to refer to ancient times and yet you only quote jordanes who was from 551 AD, What does he have to do with ancient times?
Quote tictinus, pliny, polybius , strabo and many many more............or do you ignore them because there is no slavic in their venetic terms !!

 

[how yes no 2]

on gomer

within the Torah at Genesis 10, representing an ethnology from an Iron Age Levantine perspective. Japheth was one of the sons of Noah. Japheth's first son was Gomer. Gomer's first son was Ashkenaz. Ashkenazi Jews are descended from the medieval Jewish communities of Germany. Ashkenaz was the Medieval Hebrew name for Germany and German-speaking borderland areas.

you do not read my posts carefully, do you?

Gomer was not living in times when Adriatic Veneti are mentioned, but much much earlier....

Gomer was thought to be ancestor of all Germanic people... of haplogroup I people (do not forget that besides I1 also I2b is important marker of Germanic people of today) .... I2 people are part of that...

in time of Gomer speaking of Germanic, Slavic , Celtic languages has no sense at all, as that split happens only much much after him........ but as you see some tribal identities are already there and haplogroups are already there... btw. tribal identity Gomer is interchangeable with Cimmerian/Serian... e.g. key Germanic tribes such as Suebi and Swedes have tribal names related to Sarbans, Sardinians, Serbs, Scordisci, Serdi, Sherdana.... among Kurdish Sorani are people of Garmiani... Garamantes of Africa areas gave towns Germa and Sebha... and so on...


....if you are not able to understand that with passage of time (and we talk about lot of time) languages change and that tribal names too often change to some extent, than we do not have what to talk about...

 

[zanipolo]

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...Bg#v=onepage&q=polybius on the veneti&f=false

strabo and polybius , these are ancient writers and not jordanes

 

[how yes no 2]

again, I am not speaking of Slavic language...
I speak of continuity of genetics and tribal name of Zeruiani/Serians/Seres/Siraces/Sarbans/Serboi/Serbs...(probably also Scirri/Scordisci/Serdi) about tribal name Serian very likely to be interchangeble with Cimmerian (while Gomer is wider term) and about Veneti being people of same I2 race... I explain it with example of conquest of sea peoples clearly being same as expedition of Veneti and Cimmerians, with Kurdish people being reminders of that conquest....

those linguistics ëvidences of yours are so lame in their basis (as they have absolutely no meaning in so distant past) that it is ridicilous that someone can believe in them...point is we do not have clue about languages of those times... from what I can see you are extremely biased because you somehow cannot stand idea that early Slavs could have been of Veneti race (race = genetics and not necessarily language)...

reconstruction that I gave here is way way more based on facts than any of linguistic and arbitrary assumptions of some mediocre authorities like Steinacher that you keep quoting as a proof that Veneti and Venethi tribal names could not have had the same origin.....

do you understand that e.g. Serbs and Sorbs of today are unrelated people with different languages, but that their tribal name has same origin.... do you understand that same thing was likely for different Veneti tribes 2000 years ago... in the eyes of historians who were looking only the present times they were different tribes, but in eyes of someone looking distant past they have tribal name of same origin... but I claim that for Veneti origin of tribal name is coupled with genetic imprint of I2 YDNA haplogroup....

 

[zanipolo]

again, I am not speaking of Slavic language...
I speak of continuity of genetics and tribal name of Serians/Siraces/Sarbans/Serboi/Serbs... about Serian likely being interchangeble with Cimmerian (while Gomer is wider term) and Veneti being people of same I2 race... I explain it with example of conquest of sea peoples clearly being same as expedition of Veneti and Cimmerians, with Kurdish people being reminders of that conquest....

those linguistics ëvidences of yours are so lame in their basis (as they have absolutely no meaning in so distant past) that it is ridicilous that someone can believe in them...point is we do not have clue about languages of those times... from what I can see you are extremely biased because you cannot stand idea that early Slavs could have been of Veneti race (race = genetics and not necessarily language)...

reconstruction that I gave here is way way more based on facts than any of linguistic and arbitrary assumptions of some mediocre authorities like Steinacher that you keep quoting as a proof that Veneti and Venethi tribal names could not have had the same origin.....

You misunderstand completly what is the issue, its about genetics.

- slovenian scholars ( 50% ) say thet are not slavic . why is that?

- tictinus says the first encounter of sarmatians with the fenni people ( called them finnic) was 150AD. this is genetic and linguistic movements

- the Venedi where I2a because they where either of gothic or finnic stock ( scandinavian)

- the veneti are not I2a but R1b with some R1a and are either celtic or rhaetic stock and these people are still in the area.

the true terminology for the slovenians are that they ( of the western area) are of venetic stock that they where slavirtized and NOT that they where slavic stock which adopted a name of venetic , when you know the slavs have never said in there entire history that theuy where venetic. The slavic claims came about in the 1980s when slovenians where trying to find a legitimate genetic of their past, be it slavic or non-slavic . At that time they said that they where both venedi and vandals.
Since the vandal issue has been put to rest, they would not acceot that venedi where related to the baltic genetic vandals/goths and thus not of any slavic link

since the Ladins ( rhaetic people) still reside in the veneto and they are ancient in genetics. what haplogroup are they ?
Since they also have found saami genetics in this group, what does that indicate?
Is the T and J of mtdna not to your liking?

 

[zanipolo]

below genetics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_T_%28Y-DNA%29



Ladins below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_L_(Y-DNA)
L haplgroup


more on T
http://malyarchuk-bor.narod2.ru/AHG_99.pdf
note the finnic, baltic and suebi notes
Also note 75% of ladins in the veneto ( an ancient race) are T