Were I2a Slavs part of the same tribe?

[Who Cares?]

Definitively not. A couple of different branches of I2a among South Slavs are dominant. Its not just one.

 

[norbert]

All Slavic languages descend from Old Church Slavonic which was coined in Balkans, from where it spread north trough christianization.

Wrong. Old Church Slavonic is an artificial, literary language, created by the Byzantine missionaries Cyril and Methodius. They based it on the dialect spoken by the Slavs who had settled near Thessaloniki. No one actually spoke Old Church Slavonic. It remained in use as a liturgical language in the Orthodox Church.

 

[TaktikatEMalet]

Definitively not. A couple of different branches of I2a among South Slavs are dominant. Its not just one.

It's because these i2a were already in iron age central Europe before proto Slavs formed. When they mixed with Slavs they spread east, some south, some west etc so the lines diverged and ended up with different frequencies of i2a lines.

The i2a people were Urnfielders/Lusatians that remained in central Europe but became outnumbered when Urnfield ended, some of these assimilated into west Europe. Expansion of Hallstatt and La Tene from west, proto Germanics moving south from Denmark/Sweden and proto Slavs (r1a) from east decreased the i2a frequency in iron age central Europe which probably wasn't too widespread anyway - Urnfield became huge but the i2a core/elite wouldn't have been very populous

 

[Who Cares?]

It's because these i2a were already in iron age central Europe before proto Slavs formed. When they mixed with Slavs they spread east, some south, some west etc so the lines diverged and ended up with different frequencies of i2a lines.

The i2a people were Urnfielders/Lusatians that remained in central Europe but became outnumbered when Urnfield ended, some of these assimilated into west Europe. Expansion of Hallstatt and La Tene from west, proto Germanics moving south from Denmark/Sweden and proto Slavs (r1a) from east decreased the i2a frequency in iron age central Europe which probably wasn't too widespread anyway - Urnfield became huge but the i2a core/elite wouldn't have been very populous

From the way you explain it seems like Rome before Rome. If its true, its no wonder why it failed. Just too many different people at one spot.

 

[Dalmat]

Wrong. Old Church Slavonic is an artificial, literary language, created by the Byzantine missionaries Cyril and Methodius. They based it on the dialect spoken by the Slavs who had settled near Thessaloniki. No one actually spoke Old Church Slavonic. It remained in use as a liturgical language in the Orthodox Church.

They made standardisation of existing language for liturgical purposes, ie so the bible could be written.
Its artificial in a sense it was first codified and standardised language(as all standardised languages are fake, as people speak in varius dialects naturally), but all Slavic languages descend from it, exactly for that reason, it was codified and thus could be used as lingua franca for new Christians.
OCS was spoken in balkans, for instance, basis of Croatian language was Croatian iteration of OCS, basically OCS got modified depending where it was used, but it was official clergy and state language for a long time, and as I said before, basis of all Slavic languages today. It was originally in Glagolithic, but Byzantines modified the script into Cyrillic by mixing it with Greek letters.

Think of it as Latin, basis of all latin languages is latin, who got modified in french, spanish, italian...

So to answer an original question, term Slovin was coined around 1000 ad, in Balkans, it means men of word/letter, and is directly linked with development of OCS.
So tribes with lots of I2a were actually originators of Slavic meta ethnicity

 

[Who Cares?]

So to answer an original question, term Slovin was coined around 1000 ad, in Balkans, it means men of word/letter, and is directly linked with development of OCS.
So tribes with lots of I2a were actually originators of Slavic meta ethnicity

Uhmm, Jordanes, Procopius, and Pseudo-Maurice don't agree. They used the term Sclabenoi prior to 800 AD. The term was used for Slavs of Macedonia and Peloponnese during Byzantine period initially. They also identify another group called Antes, that lived elsewhere.

 

[TaktikatEMalet]

From the way you explain it seems like Rome before Rome. If its true, its no wonder why it failed. Just too many different people at one spot.

Failed in what sense? Urnfield lasted for almost 1,000 years - Romans didn't fail either unless you mean fail to spread their genes? Would have been impossible with the vast land they conquered, they recruited the locals they conquered

 

[Who Cares?]

Failed in what sense? Urnfield lasted for almost 1,000 years - Romans didn't fail either unless you mean fail to spread their genes? Would have been impossible with the vast land they conquered, they recruited the locals they conquered

Its widely thought that "offspring" of Romans are non-Romans, but mostly Germanic people, and to a pount some Greek related people. In the same way "offspring" of Urnfield were La Tene and others, ie. non-I2a Y DNA carriers. Means the original I2a failed (given that it is like you said).

 

[TaktikatEMalet]

Its widely thought that "offspring" of Romans are non-Romans, but mostly Germanic people, and to a pount some Greek related people. In the same way "offspring" of Urnfield were La Tene and others, ie. non-I2a Y DNA carriers. Means the original I2a failed (given that it is like you said).

I don't understand your point. By your logic the Romans failed? I already explained that i2a became outnumbered in iron age central Europe due to expansion of new groups from different directions and the ending of the Urnfield/Lusatian culture

 

[Who Cares?]

I don't understand your point. By your logic the Romans failed? I already explained that i2a became outnumbered in iron age central Europe due to expansion of new groups from different directions and the ending of the Urnfield/Lusatian culture

Yes, Romans as people don't exist anymore. Their descendents are either long dead or very mixed with various other people that came along so much that they completely change their way of life. From yout story the same happened to this Urnfield people.

On the other hand you have some successful fallen empires that recovered, like China, and I would also put there England, Russia and Netherlands, as in all of these countries native population did not disappear.

 

[norbert]

They made standardisation of existing language for liturgical purposes, ie so the bible could be written.
Its artificial in a sense it was first codified and standardised language(as all standardised languages are fake, as people speak in varius dialects naturally), but all Slavic languages descend from it, exactly for that reason, it was codified and thus could be used as lingua franca for new Christians.
OCS was spoken in balkans, for instance, basis of Croatian language was Croatian iteration of OCS, basically OCS got modified depending where it was used, but it was official clergy and state language for a long time, and as I said before, basis of all Slavic languages today. It was originally in Glagolithic, but Byzantines modified the script into Cyrillic by mixing it with Greek letters.

Think of it as Latin, basis of all latin languages is latin, who got modified in french, spanish, italian...

So to answer an original question, term Slovin was coined around 1000 ad, in Balkans, it means men of word/letter, and is directly linked with development of OCS.
So tribes with lots of I2a were actually originators of Slavic meta ethnicity

You got the first part right but that's about it. No, the Croatian language is not based on OCS. The Croatian redaction of OCS is not the Croatian language as spoken by the people. Take for example the Humac tablet (Humacka ploca) which was written in the Croatian variant of OCS and compare it to the Charter of Ban Kulin which was written in the actual language of the people in Bosnia.

The various Romance languages that emerged from Latin did not appear as the latter's "modified" versions. That's not how language develop. And the Slavic name is much older than OCS. It's odd to believe that the Slavs had no name for themselves before.

 

[TaktikatEMalet]

Yes, Romans as people don't exist anymore. Their descendents are either long dead or very mixed with various other people that came along so much that they completely change their way of life. From yout story the same happened to this Urnfield people.

On the other hand you have some successful fallen empires that recovered, like China, and I would also put there England, Russia and Netherlands, as in all of these countries native population did not disappear.

You are suggesting Roman empire failed and Dutch empire was more successful? Also you're wrong there because British empire didn't spread British genetics to India, Pakistan, Egypt

 

[Who Cares?]

You are suggesting Roman empire failed and Dutch empire was more successful? Also you're wrong there because British empire didn't spread British genetics to India, Pakistan, Egypt

Exactly, they didn't pretend to be some cosmopolitans. They conquered so their own population in their home core provinces could do even better.

 

[TaktikatEMalet]

Exactly, they didn't pretend to be some cosmopolitans. They conquered so their own population in their home core provinces could do even better.

Actually it doesn't get more cosmopolitan than British (or Dutch) empire because after they conquered some of these places they brought in thousands or millions of them to Britain

Urnfield was a religious/cultural conquest where they forced their ideology upon the locals and those that refused were destroyed, those Nau II swords weren't made for nothing. The photos I have attached basically confirm that the sea peoples were Urnfielders or traded with them (less likely)