PDA

View Full Version : I2a-Din distribution among East Slavs



Tomenable
20-04-15, 02:13
I'm interested in data on frequency patterns of I2a-Din among East Slavic populations but especially Russians from western regions (including those living immediately to the east of Belarusian-Ukrainian-Russian borderland, all the way from the north to the south as far as the steppe, for example in areas such as Oryol and Belgorod) as well as in Ukrainians. Because I already have some data for Belarus.

Hauteville
20-04-15, 18:53
We need to have new maps, one for Balkan I2 and another for Sardinian I2.

mihaitzateo
20-04-15, 21:52
Would be nice to have a map of I2-din North and I2-din South.
That would make things more clear,I think.
Already written in another thread,Serbo-Croatians meaning Serbians,Bosnians,Croatians - Montenegrins (?) ,Fyromians (?) are I2-din South.
Romanians,Bulgarians,North Greeks,Poles,Ukrainians,Russians (?),Belarussians (?) are I2-din North.
Highest percentage of I2-din South is in Bosnia,highest percentage of I2-din North,in Romania.
It is clear that this kind of proto-Slavs,I2-din bearers originated in Romania and Balkans.
R1A-slavs originated on current day Ukraine and Poland lands.
I2-din Slavs are South Slavs&ancient Dacians.
Eastern Slavs are actually people that got first conquered by I2-din Slavs and after conquered by Baltic people,this is why Polish or Ukrainian are much more closed to Latvian/Lithuanian that Serbo-Croatian is.

Tomenable
21-04-15, 12:59
Mihaitzateo, you really like fairy tales!

Polish people or Poland were never conquered by Lithuanians, Poland signed a union with Lithuania and then Polish culture conquered Lithuania (practically all of Lithuanian nobles and many commoners adopted religion from Poland, as well as language, culture and identity).

As for Latvians:

Latvians were never independent in their history between the 1200s and the early 1900s, so how could they conquer anyone?

And stop posting Off-Topic things - I was asking about frequencies of I2a-Din among East Slavic populations.

Tomenable
21-04-15, 13:09
BTW - how did the Kurdish people (who are Iranic-speakers) acquire I2a-Din ???

Could that be due to Slavic settlement in Asia Minor since the 7th century?

Or maybe that stems from common ancestors of Slavic and Iranic peoples.


R1A-slavs originated on current day Ukraine and Poland lands.

Ukraine has lower % of R1a than West Russia (e.g. Oryol and Belgorod both have 60-62% R1a), Poland, Belarus and South Lithuania.

LeBrok
21-04-15, 16:40
BTW - how did the Kurdish people (who are Iranic-speakers) acquire I2a-Din ???

Could that be due to Slavic settlement in Asia Minor since the 7th century?

Or maybe that stems from common ancestors of Slavic and Iranic peoples.



Ukraine has lower % of R1a than West Russia (e.g. Oryol and Belgorod both have 60-62% R1a), Poland, Belarus and South Lithuania.
Yest this is intriguing to say the least. Perhaps on of East Iranic Sarmatians from Ukraine ended up in Kurdistan. I can picture this happening during great migration period. They could have been pushed into Balkans and farther from Balkans pushed to Anatolia by Bulgars and Slavs. Sarmatians might have been linguistically East Iranian but genetically mostly local from Ukraine.

Tomenable
21-04-15, 17:43
Do you read Polish LeBrok? IIRC you wrote somewhere that you do. Then check this:

http://www.historycy.org/index.php?showtopic=91111

Check part V of the article about Slavic migrations:

http://www.speedyshare.com/PaHRD/S-owianie-cz5.doc

And especially these excerpts from this part V:


"Społeczności słowiańskie, władza bizantyjska osadzała jako forpocztę oporu w pobliżu granicy z Arabami i – później – państewkami tureckimi."
"Szczególnie duże ich skupiska znajdują się jeszcze w IX stuleciu wokół miejscowości: al-Chusus (pogranicze arabsko-bizantyjskie), Hisn Salman (nieopodal Aleppo) i Hisn Zijad (nad górnym Eufratem). Proces zaniku wspomnianych grup słowiańskich na omawianych obszarach nie został odnotowany. Jeśli jednak uwzględnimy, że według niejakiego ibn Wahasziji, całkiem niedaleko bo w południowej Armenii jeszcze w IX wieku istniały enklawy wolnych Słowian, którzy nadal byli … poganami, to żywotności bliskowschodnim społecznościom słowiańskim można tylko pozazdrościć."
"Kilkadziesiąt lat później kolejna grupa Słowian, licząca tym razem około 20 000 osób pod wodzą niejakiego Nebulosa przeszła na stronę Arabów. W nagrodę kalif nadał im w północnej Syrii ziemie do zasiedlenia."

It is about settlement of Balkan Slavs in Asia Minor, including areas of modern Kurdistan.

Slavs were settled near Byzantine-Arab and later Byzantine-Turkish borders as military settlers. They also settled in northern Syria (20,000 settlers), near Aleppo, along the upper course of the Euphrates River and in southern Armenia.

Byzantine-Arab and later Byzantine-Turkish borders were for a long time roughly in the area of Kurdistan.

BTW - first mention of Slavs in Asia Minor is from 7th century AD, while first mention of Kurds is from 9th century AD, so it is possible that those Slavs - apart from various Iranic-speaking elements - took part in Kurdish ethnogenesis.

IIRC Kurds also have some R1a-Z282, even though Iranic R1a-Z93 is dominant among them.

sparkey
21-04-15, 18:30
BTW - how did the Kurdish people (who are Iranic-speakers) acquire I2a-Din ???

I don't think they have much I2a-Din. KurdishDNA (http://kurdishdna.blogspot.com/2014/10/kurdish-y-dna-part-xi.html) lists no Kurdish samples that have been tested specifically as I2a-Din. There is an interesting chunk of apparently I1 samples (mostly from one study though), a couple of I2-M223 samples, and an I2-L38 sample, but no I2a-Din in their data.

Alan
21-04-15, 18:33
Yest this is intriguing to say the least. Perhaps on of East Iranic Sarmatians from Ukraine ended up in Kurdistan. I can picture this happening during great migration period. They could have been pushed into Balkans and farther from Balkans pushed to Anatolia by Bulgars and Slavs. Sarmatians might have been linguistically East Iranian but genetically mostly local from Ukraine.

Parthians asked among the Sarmatians for help against the Romans and settled Sarmatian tribal groups on their Western borders. Those Sarmatian tribes ended up becoming Parthians themselves.



Adiabene had a mixed population. According to Pliny (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Elder), four tribes inhabited the region of Adiabene: Orontes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orontid_dynasty), Alani (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alani), Azones and Silices.
Based on names of the Adiabene rulers, Ernst Herzfeld (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Herzfeld) suggested a Saka (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saka_language)/Scythian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythian_language) origin for the royal house of the kingdom;[16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabene#cite_note-16)[17] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabene#cite_note-17) however, later progress in Iranian linguistic studies showed that these names were common west middle Iranian names.[18] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabene#cite_note-18) It has been suggested that the royal house of Adiabene after fleeing Trajan's invasion, established the later Amatuni (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amatuni) dynasty who ruled the area between lakes Urmia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Urmia) and Van (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Van).[19] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabene#cite_note-19)[20] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabene#cite_note-20)

The ruling tribe was Parthians.
Orontest were most likely a local Parthian tribe. Alani = Alans, Azones and Silices = also Sarmatian tribes. Unfortunately we can't rely more on Wikipedia because of allot of spammers who have turned the history of Adiabene into "little Assyria/Armenia" despite the locals beeing of Iranic origin and under Parthian rule.


It tells the tragic story of two young people in love. Mem, a young Kurdish boy of the "Alan" clan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan) & heir to the City of the West,

There is a famous Kurdish poem of Mem, a Kurdish boy of the Alan tribe and Zin a girl from the local Butan/Botan tribe, which is most likely the Buddi tribe of the Medes, since the people traditionally call themselves also Boti/Buti.
This poem stems from my home region. And the people there say we are descend of Mem the Alan. This should explain why I chose this Username.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mem_and_Zin

I have said it in the past and can only repeat myself. Kurds are descend of Parthians who themselves are the middle Iranic descend of the Medes. Medes=> Parthians=> Kurds.

BUT Iranic tribes were very mobile people. And during the Median, Parthian and even Sassanid periods many Iranic tribal groups moved and settled among their other Iranic cousins. For example some Medes/Parthians went so far and settled on the Balkans according to Heredotus and some other sources I have seen.

We have found many evidences for that for example Scythians and Cimmerians settled in Media and became Medes themselves. According to Carola Metzner-Nebelsick the Scythians and Cimmerians who became locals in Media started to call themselves Medes too.

We have to realize and see the relation between those tribes. They were close cousins and acted as such. Back than the linguistic difference between East and West Iranic must have been more like that what you find among dialects of some languages.


And about the Sarmatian, they came from East of the Caspian and settled above the Scythians. Genetically, just like Yamna they were most likely something in between North Caucasians, Udmurts,Mordovians, Ukrainians and ancient Central Asians, but in comparison to Yamna leaning stronger towards North Caucasus/Central Asia.

Tomenable
21-04-15, 19:00
Sparkey - I've seen in this thread you wrote that Kurdish I2a is Dinaric:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26619-I2a-origins-in-Kurdistan?p=374841&viewfull=1#post374841


(...) everything I've read has had Kurdish I2a as being I2a-Din, the same as Balkans-type, which has a very young TMRCA of something like 3000-2500 years ago. Have anything that suggests that Kurdish I2a might be of an older type?

Now I see that you wrote it back in 2011 - has this been debunked since?

BTW - YFull estimates I2a-Din TMRCA as 6600 years ago, so it might not be originally Slavic.

However, YFull also gives TMRCA of R1b-U106 as 5100 years ago (far too old to be originally Germanic).

These labels like "Germanic", "Italic" or "Celtic" are based more on modern distribution than on reality.

Tomenable
21-04-15, 19:16
Alan,

Do you have full data on Kurdish Y-DNA - how much R1a-Z93 and other R1a, how R1b (and what subclades), how much I2, etc.?

Sile
21-04-15, 20:28
BTW - how did the Kurdish people (who are Iranic-speakers) acquire I2a-Din ???

Could that be due to Slavic settlement in Asia Minor since the 7th century?


Ukraine has lower % of R1a than West Russia (e.g. Oryol and Belgorod both have 60-62% R1a), Poland, Belarus and South Lithuania.

Some say, it was cimmerian migration in the period of 700BC from the steppes into Cappodacia ( near current kurdish lands )

sparkey
21-04-15, 20:48
Sparkey - I've seen in this thread you wrote that Kurdish I2a is Dinaric:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26619-I2a-origins-in-Kurdistan?p=374841&viewfull=1#post374841



Now I see that you wrote it back in 2011 - has this been debunked since?

Pretty much, I was wrong in 2011. I think I was getting the idea of Kurds carrying I2a-Din from Maciamo, who I think was supposing it based on geographic patterns. Alan and others have presented much more specific data since then.


BTW - YFull estimates I2a-Din TMRCA as 6600 years ago, so it might not be originally Slavic.

However, YFull also gives TMRCA of R1b-U106 as 5100 years ago (far too old to be originally Germanic).

These labels like "Germanic", "Italic" or "Celtic" are based more on modern distribution than on reality.

YFull has 6600 YBP for the combined Disles+Dinaric branch (L621). For I2a-Din CTS5966+ specifically they have 2300 YBP. So quite possibly pre-Slavic, but definitely young enough to have a very strong connection.

Alan
21-04-15, 20:57
Alan,

Do you have full data on Kurdish Y-DNA - how much R1a-Z93 and other R1a, how R1b (and what subclades), how much I2, etc.?

No I don't have full data on how much z93 vs other. But have data that all kind of R1a subclades exist.
We have m420 in the study of Grugni et al and also a Kurdish user here (Goga). There is also m17 in the study.
We have sample results of R1a z283, m417, and m198.
So basically there is every kind of R1a. Down the line but the biggest group seems to be z93.

There is also R1* among Kurds.



And I have to agree with Sparkey it seems I* among Kurds is not pred. i2a-din but weirdly enough I2-M438, I2a2a-M223, I2a2b-L38 and some sort of I1*.

mihaitzateo
21-04-15, 21:58
Well since you ask about I2-din from East Slavs,I already gave a partially answer,all this I2-din from East Slavs is I2-din North,is not same I2-din as Serbo-Croatians are having,from what I am understanding.
I would be also interested to see a map of I2-din in Ukraine,Belarus,Russia.

matbir
22-04-15, 01:22
I'm interested in data on frequency patterns of I2a-Din among East Slavic populations but especially Russians from western regions (including those living immediately to the east of Belarusian-Ukrainian-Russian borderland, all the way from the north to the south as far as the steppe, for example in areas such as Oryol and Belgorod) as well as in Ukrainians. Because I already have some data for Belarus.
Which SNP defines Din subclade? I have never seen exact assignment. If you are interested in I2 subclades in Russia I recommend you to read:
"Two Sources of the Russian Patrilineal Heritage in Their Eurasian Context" (http://two%20sources%20of%20the%20russian%20patrilineal%2 0heritage%20in%20their%20eurasian%20context/) they tested for M170, M253, P37.2 and M223.
For deeper subclades:
"Y-Chromosome distribution within the geo-linguistic landscape of northwestern Russia" (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v17/n10/abs/ejhg20096a.html) they tested for M258, M253, M21, M227, M438, P37.2, M26, M423, M436, M223, M379 and M284. Interestingly every sample was M423 negative. Russian samples were collected in Arkhangelsk, Tver and Kursk. Furthermore there are some I2* lineages found only in Arkhangelsk.

Tomenable
22-04-15, 02:05
Some say, it was cimmerian migration in the period of 700BC from the steppes into Cappodacia ( near current kurdish lands )

If TMRCA of I2a-Din is only 2300 years ago (i.e. 300 BC), then it could not be spread by any Cimmerian migration around 700 BC.

Tomenable
22-04-15, 02:14
Which SNP defines Din subclade? I have never seen exact assignment. If you are interested in I2 subclades in Russia I recommend you to read:
"Two Sources of the Russian Patrilineal Heritage in Their Eurasian Context" (http://two%20sources%20of%20the%20russian%20patrilineal%2 0heritage%20in%20their%20eurasian%20context/) they tested for M170, M253, P37.2 and M223.
For deeper subclades:
"Y-Chromosome distribution within the geo-linguistic landscape of northwestern Russia" (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v17/n10/abs/ejhg20096a.html) they tested for M258, M253, M21, M227, M438, P37.2, M26, M423, M436, M223, M379 and M284. Interestingly every sample was M423 negative. Russian samples were collected in Arkhangelsk, Tver and Kursk. Furthermore there are some I2* lineages found only in Arkhangelsk.

Thank you Matbir! Yes I wanted mainly data for Russia. Kursk and Tver should be good.

gyms
22-04-15, 07:28
Well since you ask about I2-din from East Slavs,I already gave a partially answer,all this I2-din from East Slavs is I2-din North,is not same I2-din as Serbo-Croatians are having,from what I am understanding.
I would be also interested to see a map of I2-din in Ukraine,Belarus,Russia.
This is not true.

matbir
22-04-15, 20:57
Thank you Matbir! Yes I wanted mainly data for Russia. Kursk and Tver should be good. According to Maciamo I2a-Din is L621 positive if that is precise assignment, then all Russian samples from second study aren’t I2a-Din.

Sile
22-04-15, 21:11
If TMRCA of I2a-Din is only 2300 years ago (i.e. 300 BC), then it could not be spread by any Cimmerian migration around 700 BC.

I presume you got the numbers from yFull ........if that is the case, then realise than yfull has changed their numbers 3 times since 1st January 2015

Shetop
23-04-15, 06:54
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2253976/table/tbl2/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2253976/



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2253976/bin/gr4.jpg

hrvat22
21-05-15, 14:56
Croats I2a1b2a1a3 A356 are coming from the southern Poland or White Croatia I2a1b2a1a S17250 ...




I2a1b2a1a S17250/YP204
• • • • • • • • • I2a1b2a1a* -
• • • • • • • • • I2a1b2a1a1 Z16971
• • • • • • • • • I2a1b2a1a2 Y4882
• • • • • • • • • I2a1b2a1a3 A356/Z16983

http://isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpI.html

This means that all those who have mutation I2a1b2a1a S17250/YP204 are White Croatian or Croatian origin..

It is the logic.

Good part of Bosniaks, Serbs, Montenegrins, Slovenes, Romanians, Ukrainians, Bulgarians, who have an earlier mutation S17250 are White Croatian or Croatian origin ... It is irrefutably

LeBrok
21-05-15, 16:41
Croats I2a1b2a1a3 A356 are coming from the southern Poland or White Croatia I2a1b2a1a S17250 ...




I2a1b2a1a S17250/YP204
• • • • • • • • • I2a1b2a1a* -
• • • • • • • • • I2a1b2a1a1 Z16971
• • • • • • • • • I2a1b2a1a2 Y4882
• • • • • • • • • I2a1b2a1a3 A356/Z16983

http://isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpI.html

This means that all those who have mutation I2a1b2a1a S17250/YP204 are White Croatian or Croatian origin..

It is the logic.

Good part of Bosniaks, Serbs, Montenegrins, Slovenes, Romanians, Ukrainians, Bulgarians, who have an earlier mutation S17250 are White Croatian or Croatian origin ... It is irrefutably
According to distribution of R1a clades White Croatia fits better Czechs than Poland. We had extended discussion about this here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30760-Slavic-R1a-clades

hrvat22
21-05-15, 19:30
According to distribution of R1a clades White Croatia fits better Czechs than Poland. We had extended discussion about this here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30760-Slavic-R1a-clades



Croats have a major haplotype in a population I2a1b3a1a A356 which comes from southern Poland..

R1a haplotype is the second in the Croatian population, R1a Z280 CTS3402 type...

7257

LeBrok
22-05-15, 02:14
Croats have a major haplotype in a population I2a1b3a1a A356 which comes from southern Poland. We don't know that. I2a1b3a1a might as well come to Poland with population movements in ancient times. Till we have this confirmed by ancient samples, we don't know.



R1a haplotype is the second in the Croatian population, R1a Z280 CTS3402 type...

7257

There is historical problem with White Croatian location. There are no Polish records indicating that Southern Poland was called White Croatia ever. You are welcome to check pre 1780 maps and documents. The only records come from Austro-Hungarian Empire documents. It was a political chess game of A-H to justify occupation of Poland. It wasn't occupation but liberation of Croatian land, which was the rightful property of A-H Empire.

hrvat22
22-05-15, 06:51
LeBrok (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/members/27950-LeBrok)


We don't know that. I2a1b3a1a might as well come to Poland with population movements in ancient times. Till we have this confirmed by ancient samples, we don't know.

I'm not talking about I2a1b2a, I2a1b2a1, I2a1b2, I2a1b1, I2a1, I2a..

I'm talking about I2a1b3a1a which has the source and comes from southern Poland and southwestern Ukraine...what mentioned haplotypes have to do with time 1,500 years ago when they are older before is mentioned White Croatia...thus we can back to the Swiss cave or Asia Minor when we gather fruits before 20,000 years....



There is historical problem with White Croatian location. There are no Polish records indicating that Southern Poland was called White Croatia ever

What does that mean, that White Croatia does not exist because it does not mention by the Poles .... a little away from the southern Poland in southwestern Ukraine there are city Stiljsko where they lived White Croats....considering that the Poles in this area not mentioned White Croatia apparently in city Stiljsko lived aliens....

What does it matter whether the Poles something mentioned or not mentioned ... neither Serbs or Albanians mention Red Croatia in the Balkans .. and what does that mean...


Mother of Pope John Paul II was not White Croat because the Poles do not mention any White Croatia in southern Poland..

This is your logic..

LeBrok
22-05-15, 08:29
I'm not talking about I2a1b2a, I2a1b2a1, I2a1b2, I2a1b1, I2a1, I2a..

I'm talking about I2a1b3a1a which has the source and comes from southern Poland and southwestern Ukraine...what mentioned haplotypes have to do with time 1,500 years ago when they are older before is mentioned White Croatia...thus we can back to the Swiss cave or Asia Minor when we gather fruits before 20,000 years.... Exactly, this was the time of Great Migration. We have no idea at this moment if this subclade was already in South Poland or moved there with migration of Slavs.





What does that mean, that White Croatia does not exist because it does not mention by the Poles .... a little away from the southern Poland in southwestern Ukraine there are city Stiljsko where they lived White Croats....considering that the Poles in this area not mentioned White Croatia apparently in city Stiljsko lived aliens.... First of all it is not in Poland, secondly if the claim comes from documents of A-H Empire it might be due to their agenda, I mentioned above. They also occupied part of Western Ukraine, called Galicia.


What does it matter whether the Poles something mentioned or not mentioned ... neither Serbs or Albanians mention Red Croatia in the Balkans .. and what does that mean... You mean that till the time of A-H empire Polish chronicles, politicians, surveyors missed big population of White Croats? Mind you that Poland was part of multicultural Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth, there was no agenda to hid ethnicity. Tatars are mentioned my any authors, Ukrainians, Kashubians, Belorussians, etc, but not Croats. It must be anti Croatian conspiracy, don't you think?



Mother of Pope John Paul II was not White Croat because the Poles do not mention any White Croatia in southern Poland..

This is your logic.. She is mentioned as such in A-H documents. After 100 years of such lies, some people got confused, and don't know how it started.
If you present a document from before 1780, before A-H occupation of Poland, I will admit that you are right. Just one document or a map.
Every emigrant from Krakow area, A-H occupation zone, to USA till 1918, was classified as White Croat, not as Polish, because they arrived with documents issued by A-H Empire. They called all Polish people, from their occupation area, White Croats.
Because of this, not only Poles are confused about this issue now, but also many Croatians, like yourself.

gyms
22-05-15, 09:48
http://i2aproject.blogspot.se/

http://dienekes.blogspot.se/2015/02/estonian-biocentre-high-coverage-y.html

Sample #18440 from Russia (Chuvash) has a I-CTS10228* result. There are only two known I-CTS10228* people in the I-P37 project, one is from Poland and the other belongs to the "Jewish Dinaric cluster".

hrvat22
22-05-15, 11:34
LeBrok (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/members/27950-LeBrok)



Exactly, this was the time of Great Migration. We have no idea at this moment if this subclade was already in South Poland or moved there with migration of Slavs.


It does not refute fact that haplotype I2a1b2a1a3 A356 coming from south Poland and south-western Ukraine to Croatia...which tribe and groups of people belonged earlier haplotypes I2a1b2a1 and from which side and tribes come to Poland earlier or is there a native can not affect fact that Croats coming from White Croatia....I2a1b2a1 may have originated in Turkey and came with Slavs to south Poland, but 1,500 years ago they named Croats in southern Poland and southwestern Ukraine and as such came to Croatia..



You mean that till the time of A-H empire Polish chronicles, politicians, surveyors missed big population of White Croats? Mind you that Poland was part of multicultural Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth, there was no agenda to hid ethnicity. Tatars are mentioned my any authors, Ukrainians, Kashubians, Belorussians, etc, but not Croats. It must be anti Croatian conspiracy, don't you think?


Croats have 17 pages material of toponyms, place names, rivers etc... the same as in Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Ukraine...

Historia Salonitana 13th century

Croats coming from the Poland and Czech

Konstantina VII. Porfirogeneta (http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_VII._Porfirogenet) 10th century

The Croats at that time were dwelling beyond Bavaria, wherethe Belocroats are now..

That the Croats who now live in the regionsof Dalmatia are descended from the unbaptized
Croats, also called the‘white’, who live beyond Turkey(Hungary) and next to Francia

That the clan of the anthypatos and patrikios Michael, son of Visevitz, archon of the Zachlumians, came from the unbaptized inhabitants on the Visla River, called Litziki, and they settled on the river called Zachluma (South Dalmatia) ...

Alois Jirásek believed that this was the original homeland of the Slavs - north of the Tatra Mountains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatra_Mountains) and the basin of the Vistula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vistula). The first chapter of the Old Czech Legends begins: In the Tatras, in the plains of the river Vistula, stretched from time immemorial Charvátská country, the initial part of the great Slavic homeland

http://www.pgsa.org/images/AtlasMaps/Atlas2W.jpg


7258


She is mentioned as such in A-H documents. After 100 years of such lies, some people got confused, and don't know how it started.
If you present a document from before 1780, before A-H occupation of Poland, I will admit that you are right. Just one document or a map.
Every emigrant from Krakow area, A-H occupation zone, to USA till 1918, was classified as White Croat, not as Polish, because they arrived with documents issued by A-H Empire. They called all Polish people, from their occupation area, White Croats.
Because of this, not only Poles are confused about this issue now, but also many Croatians, like yourself.

80 percent of Croatian Serbs who came to America were declared themselves as Croats under the race because they come from Austro Hungary ..hhahaahha what about those who identified themselves as Serbs... people are not sheep that can not say who they are ...

gyms
22-05-15, 14:38
Haplogroup I2a1b2a1a3 is Bulgarian.Sample #18440 from Russia (Chuvash) has a I-CTS10228* result.

https://www.google.se/search?q=bulgarian+empire&biw=1093&bih=479&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=EiNfVaOYAcWvsQHnioHADA&ved=0CC4QsAQ

hrvat22
22-05-15, 15:41
Today people with I2a1b2a1a3 haplotype are Bulgarians, Serbs, Montenegrins, Bosnians, etc .. But if they have mutation I2a1b2a1a S17250 they are White Croatian origin...It is the logic.

Whether they come directly from White Croatia to Bulgaria or from Croatia remains to be determined....as well as some Czechs have earlier mutation I2a1b2a1a3 A356....these Czechs obviously come from Croatia...

LeBrok
22-05-15, 16:31
It does not refute fact that haplotype I2a1b2a1a3 A356 coming from south Poland and south-western Ukraine to Croatia...which tribe and groups of people belonged earlier haplotypes I2a1b2a1 and from which side and tribes come to Poland earlier or is there a native can not affect fact that Croats coming from White Croatia....I2a1b2a1 may have originated in Turkey and came with Slavs to south Poland, but 1,500 years ago they named Croats in southern Poland and southwestern Ukraine and as such came to Croatia.. Please present ancient A356 from Poland. Otherwise we only know it exists in Polish population now, but we don't know where it started. Can you see the difference?






Croats have 17 pages material of toponyms, place names, rivers etc... the same as in Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Ukraine... They are culturally and linguisticaly related. I'm just saying that we don't know where White Croatia was.


Historia Salonitana 13th century

Croats coming from the Poland and Czech Can you cite it?


Konstantina VII. Porfirogeneta (http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_VII._Porfirogenet) 10th century

The Croats at that time were dwelling beyond Bavaria, wherethe Belocroats are now.. Right, does it say it was in Poland?


That the Croats who now live in the regionsof Dalmatia are descended from the unbaptized
Croats, also called the‘white’, who live beyond Turkey(Hungary) and next to Francia There were Slavic tribes all over East Germany like Obodrici, Vieleci, Sorbes and few others. They were bordering with Francia. Czechs are closer to Francia than Poland too.


That the clan of the anthypatos and patrikios Michael, son of Visevitz, archon of the Zachlumians, came from the unbaptized inhabitants on the Visla River, called Litziki, and they settled on the river called Zachluma (South Dalmatia) ...

Alois Jirásek believed that this was the original homeland of the Slavs - north of the Tatra Mountains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatra_Mountains) and the basin of the Vistula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vistula). The first chapter of the Old Czech Legends begins: In the Tatras, in the plains of the river Vistula, stretched from time immemorial Charvátská country, the initial part of the great Slavic homeland

Is this about ethnogenesis of Slavs? I thought we were talking only about Croats. Unless you also claim that Croats were the original Slavs.



http://www.pgsa.org/images/AtlasMaps/Atlas2W.jpg


7258

Please don't insult my inteligence. This map was made in 2004 by someone from Polish Geographical Society of America. It says in left upper corner. I asked for pre 1780 map, before A-H propaganda messed things up.


80 percent of Croatian Serbs who came to America were declared themselves as Croats under the race because they come from Austro Hungary ..hhahaahha what about those who identified themselves as Serbs... people are not sheep that can not say who they are ... It doesn't matter what they said at the border, it mattered what was written in their documents. These people are dead now and can't tell you exactly their ethnicity. I know cases that grand grand children claim to be White Croats from Poland, because they have found A-H old document which says that their grandfather was White Croat. It is confusion for many people now. You got confused too.
I'm telling you that there are no pre A-H Empire documents or maps showing White Croatia in Poland. Give it up.

Tomenable
22-05-15, 16:56
Here you have the genealogy tree of John Paul II back to the 1700s:

The Genealogy Tree of Pope John Paul II: (http://s21.postimg.org/m9hj0l9mt/JPII_Genealogy.png)

http://s21.postimg.org/m9hj0l9mt/JPII_Genealogy.png

Going back just to great-great-grandparents shows that they were born in the following areas:

Czaniec
Bulowice
Datynie
Błędowice
Biała
Lipnik
Magnuszew
Cudnów
Godów

These are places from the regions of Lesser Poland, Silesia, Volhynia and Mazovia.

So they came from all over. But all of them were ethnic Poles.

hrvat22
22-05-15, 17:04
What does family tree with fact that his mother is White Croatian origin...

gyms
22-05-15, 17:26
"But if they have mutation I2a1b2a1a S17250 they are White Croatian origin...It is the logic."

What's the logic with that?There is only one logic :aDNA.

Tomenable
22-05-15, 17:30
What does family tree with fact that his mother is White Croatian origin...

There was no such a thing as White Croatians in the 1800s.

And her father was from Mazovia, born near Szczebrzeszyn.

BTW, Lithuanian nationalists claim that JPII's mother was Lithuanian (based on some of her great-great-great... grandparent born near the Latvian-Lithuanian boundary), Ukrainian nationalists claim that she was Ukrainian (based on her great-grandfather Jan Malinowski who was from Volhynia), Zionists claim that she had Jewish roots (based on surname of Jan Scholz), and you claim White Croatian.

In reality she was Polish and all of her ancestors from the 1700s onwards were ethnic Poles, who lived in various regions.

Tomenable
22-05-15, 17:46
Tatars are mentioned my any authors, Ukrainians, Kashubians, Belorussians, etc, but not Croats.

Kashubians were just a branch of Poles - read Klaus-Dieter Kreplin, "Über Kaschuben", 2001:

http://www.studienstelleog.de/download/HG1.pdf

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vRFbUpngiHoJ:www.studienstelleog.de/download/HG1.pdf+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=pl

"(...) Dr. Lorentz mag alle Danziger Archive nach imaginären einheimischen Kaszuben durchstöbern lassen, das Ergebnis wird gleich Null sein; wohl aber lesen wir in Handfesten Ausdrücke wie: Dutsche oder Polene (1341, Lauenburg), Gerichtsbarkeit über die polnischen Einwohner (1356, Pasitz und Rosenberg), unser polensche Leute (1438, Roslasin). Der ostpommersche Adel hatte in Bütow und Lauenburg „polenisches“ Ritterrecht, die „polenschen“ Dörfer leisteten ihre polnischen Dienste usw. R. Cramer, den man gerade wegen seines Pseudokaszubismus[11] in den Mitteilungen so überschwenglich gepriesen hat, erwähnt diesen tiefgehenden kulturellen Einfluß des Polentums zur Ordenszeit mit keiner Silbe, das phantastische „Cassubentum“ - ein Anachronismus - macht die Lektüre seines Werkes geradezu ungenießbar. (...)"

hrvat22
22-05-15, 18:00
mother of Pope John Paul II declaring white Croatian Women .. It is an irrefutable fact

Tomenable
22-05-15, 18:08
Number of people declaring Croatian ethnicity in southern Poland is... zero.

It is some fairy tale and you have not provided any evidence that she declared herself as Croatian.

hrvat22
22-05-15, 18:29
Please present ancient A356 from Poland. Otherwise we only know it exists in Polish population now, but we don't know where it started. Can you see the difference?

Czech which has mutation I2a1b2a1a3 A356 comes from Croatia and to prove this he would have to find bones in the Balkans aged 4 or 5000 years ...Your logic..



Can you cite it?

http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/historia_salonitana_maior


It doesn't matter what they said at the border, it mattered what was written in their documents. These people are dead now and can't tell you exactly their ethnicity. I know cases that grand grand children claim to be White Croats from Poland,..

According to the record of the US immigration service at that time about 500 thousand or less people who came from Poland declared as Poles....If someone declared as White Croat or Croat, i ask you to respect it and do not talk to me fairy tales about Austrians...I am not a sheep

hrvat22
22-05-15, 18:33
Number of people declaring Croatian ethnicity in southern Poland is... zero.

It is some fairy tale and you have not provided any evidence that she declared herself as Croatian.


Then you are probably vistulan ... it's better than become from Croats ... hahaha

Tomenable
22-05-15, 19:08
The U.S. "Dictionary of races and peoples" (link below) mentions "Bielochrovats" as one of subdivisions of ethnic Poles:

https://archive.org/stream/dictionaryofrace00unitrich#page/n0/mode/1up

Text about Polish people (http://s16.postimg.org/ew9g05183/Polish.png)

http://s16.postimg.org/ew9g05183/Polish.png

Here is the number of declarations of Polish ancestry in U.S. pop. censuses:

1980 census - 9,366,106
1990 census - 8,228,037
2000 census - 8,977,173
2010 census - 9,569,207

By contrast Croatian ancestry was declared only by 374,241 people in 2000.

So there are 24-times as many Poles in the USA as there are Croats.

=================================
=================================

The distribution of ethnic Polish people in the early 1900s:

Direct link to map (http://s3.postimg.org/q7627ydir/The_Poles_Map.png)

http://s3.postimg.org/q7627ydir/The_Poles_Map.png

================================
================================

And here text about Poland from "The new world problems in political geography" by Isaiah Bowman, New York, 1921:

Direct link to text (http://postimg.org/image/848n5n1p9/)

http://s14.postimg.org/fwzaxm7of/Poland_after_WW1_P_O.jpg

Garrick
22-05-15, 19:22
It is the logic.

Good part of Bosniaks, Serbs, Montenegrins, Slovenes, Romanians, Ukrainians, Bulgarians, who have an earlier mutation S17250 are White Croatian or Croatian origin ... It is irrefutably

Wrong.

Haplogroups have nothing with nations because nations are social constructions.

That haplogroup can be Croatian and Bosnian and Serbian and Romanian and Ukrainian, etc., it doesn't matter,

hrvat22
22-05-15, 20:39
Wrong.

Haplogroups have nothing with nations because nations are social constructions.

That haplogroup can be Croatian and Bosnian and Serbian and Romanian and Ukrainian, etc., it doesn't matter,

In southern Poland and south-western Ukraine does not mention Romania, Ukraine, Montenegro, Serbia, Bosnia ...

In Bosnia Serb, Croat and Bosniak who have same haplotype and common ancestor in White Croatia they could not at the same time from the same place come as Serb, Croat, Bosniak, Montenegrin, Slovenian, Romanian...They could come as a Croats who later become Bosnians, Montenegrin, Slovenian, Romanian, Serbian ... But there are still White Croatian origin... It is the logic ..

I say this for the parts of these nations not for entire populations..

Tomenable
22-05-15, 20:57
Serbs came to the Balkans from West Slavic areas. White Serbia is mentioned in Early Medieval sources.

You still have Sorbs in Germany today, they share some common ancestors with Balkan Serbs.

Slovenes also share some ancestors with Slovaks. The similarity of names is not accidental in this case.

Slovenes used to be called Winds, which is similar to the name for West Slavs (Wends).

All these groups of course mixed with and absorbed other Slavic groups which came via Moldova & Romania.

hrvat22
22-05-15, 21:17
Tomenable (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/members/49064-Tomenable)


Serbs came to the Balkans from West Slavic areas

Prove with genetics


White Serbia is mentioned in Early Medieval sources.

White Serbia is not mentioned anywhere


You still have Sorbs in Germany today, they share some common ancestors with Balkan Serbs.

Prove with genetics


Slovenes also share some ancestors with Slovaks.

Prove with genetics



All these groups of course mixed with and absorbed other Slavic groups which came via Moldova & Romania.


Prove with genetics


Prove with genetics

You can not prove

Sile
22-05-15, 21:18
Serbs came to the Balkans from West Slavic areas. White Serbia is mentioned in Early Medieval sources.

You still have Sorbs in Germany today, they share some common ancestors with Balkan Serbs.

Slovenes also share some ancestors with Slovaks. The similarity of names is not accidental in this case.

Slovenes used to be called Winds, which is similar to the name for West Slavs (Wends).

All these groups of course mixed with and absorbed other Slavic groups which came via Moldova & Romania.

The bulk or non-slavic component of genetic Serbs today are Thracian Triballi people

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

The percentage of slavic marker would be approx a quarter or less for modern serbs

One Thracian tribe called Triballi or Trivalli was situated near Danube river and in modern states of Serbia and Bulgaria. Byzantine writers called Serbs exactly by this name Triballi, and they called the rulers of the Nemanjić dynasty Triballian archonts. Great Prince of Serbia Stefan Nemanja was called archont of Triballi, king Milutin was called ruler of Triball

Yetos
22-05-15, 23:24
Serbs came to the Balkans from West Slavic areas. White Serbia is mentioned in Early Medieval sources.

You still have Sorbs in Germany today, they share some common ancestors with Balkan Serbs.

Slovenes also share some ancestors with Slovaks. The similarity of names is not accidental in this case.

Slovenes used to be called Windshttp://cdncache-a.akamaihd.net/items/it/img/arrow-10x10.png (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/#83528785), which is similar to the name for West Slavs (Wends).

All these groups of course mixed with and absorbed other Slavic groups which came via Moldova & Romania.


NO
only one group of Slavs enter from Moldova and Romania
the Severi, the allies of Bulgars,
the parallel route of Bal-Gurs and Severi is written down, maped etc, Severi were the numerous of all Slavs, 7 tribes from Lithuania Ruthenia to Bolga river
Severi used the mountain road through Romania, and finalize among modern Sofia till East Bulgaria, the center of modern Bulgaria, and then expand SW,
while Bulgarians of Asparuch took same time the parrarel sea shore road till their dwell in East parts of Bulgaria,
First Bulgarian Dynasty were Balgurs, and second possibly Severi

all the rest came through Hungarian planes and Moravia.

Slovenes also carry the name Carantani (black mountains people) and possibly have nothing to do with Slovakia but rather somewhere East or North of Austria

Even from the Linguistic someone can understand the origin and the road,
SerboCroatian share more Germanic in their language, and that not due to Austro-Hungarian empire, but from previous origin,
while Bulgaria shares more Latin, due to pass from Romania, and neighborhood Con/polis and Romania
offcourse than can be explained also by the previous sub-stractum.
I mean if not came from origin/home/ to destination/new-Home then it could be from a previous substractum, before Invasion/devastation/entrance
Bulgaria was among Flavia Felix bases and expand and New Rome

LeBrok
23-05-15, 02:41
mother of Pope John Paul II declaring white Croatian Women .. It is an irrefutable fact



According to the record of the US immigration service at that time about 500 thousand or less people who came from Poland declared as Poles....If someone declared as White Croat or Croat, i ask you to respect it and do not talk to me fairy tales about Austrians...I am not a sheep

No, they didn't declare, it was written in ID document by A-H Empire authorities. Under A-H Empire there were no Polish people around Krakow, they were all White Croats. Polish people in Poland Minor never called themselves Biali Chorwaci.

When emigrants came to USA from Poland they couldn't declare anything, because they didn't speak English. They showed their documents, A-H document, and in documents it said White Croats. Honestly, they were happy to be accepted in USA. Why would they argue about their nationality with immigration officer, and in language they don't understand? Do you see the confusion now?

Please present one historical note or a map showing White Croatia in Poland, pre 1800. Otherwise your arguments don't hold much water. All clues point to A-H Empire propaganda, as a culprit of this mess. Sorry if you fell a victim of it.

hrvat22
23-05-15, 07:01
No, they didn't declare, it was written in ID document by A-H Empire authorities. Under A-H Empire there were no Polish people around Krakow, they were all White Croats. Polish people in Poland Minor never called themselves Biali Chorwaci.

When emigrants came to USA from Poland they couldn't declare anything, because they didn't speak English. They showed their documents, A-H document, and in documents it said White Croats. Honestly, they were happy to be accepted in USA. Why would they argue about their nationality with immigration officer, and in language they don't understand? Do you see the confusion now?

Please present one historical note or a map showing White Croatia in Poland, pre 1800. Otherwise your arguments don't hold much water. All clues point to A-H Empire propaganda, as a culprit of this mess. Sorry if you fell a victim of it.


If you say that there are no maps or any data before year 1800 that in southern Poland ever existed White Croatia and White Croats how then Austro-Hungarians know about White Croatia and Croats in southern Poland and around Krakow if they not exist ..

This means that Austro Hungarians actually created White Croats and put them right in south Poland without any historical or genetic data and today it is confirmed by genetics...:laughing:

You've got problems my friend..

LeBrok
23-05-15, 08:09
If you say that there are no maps or any data before year 1800 that in southern Poland ever existed White Croatia and White Croats how then Austro-Hungarians know about White Croatia and Croats in southern Poland and around Krakow if they not exist ..

This means that Austro Hungarians actually created White Croats and put them right in south Poland without any historical or genetic data and today it is Finally, you got it!



confirmed by genetics...:laughing: Confirmed are the genetic links between Slavs, but not the geographical location of ancient White Croatia.

hrvat22
23-05-15, 09:27
Finally, you got it!

Are you kidding me..?

Why the Austrians not in southern Poland created Serbs, Slovaks, Slovenes, Bosniacs if they did not have information that there lived Croatians...

Since I first time hear that Austrians invented White Croats give me some link to read what it is about..

Austrians have created White Croats precisely at the point where is previous mutation Croatian I2a1b2a1a3 A356 haplotype... how they did it .... magic..

Of all the places in the Austro-Hungarian empire they created Croats right there....

Stop joking around...Croatians genetic coming from southern Poland and southwestern Ukraine or White Croatia .. it is genetically undeniable...Everything else you're talking about are stories for young children...

Reconstruction of the Stiljsko archaeological site of White Croats in Ukraine (a drawing from the publication Stiljsko gorodišče IX – počatku XI st., oseredok obščinnoji ta velikoknjazivs’koji vladi Shidnih Horvativ, see below)

A part of White Croatian site in Stiljsko, still investigated. The whole site, with environing settlements, had around 40,000 inhabitants in 9th to 11th centuries, which is more than the city of Kiev at that time!

http://www.slavorum.org/white-croats-migrating-slavic-tribe/

Austrians invented White Croats in 1800 while they had settlements and lived in the area 800 years earlier....


Nestor the Chronicler (http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/Nestor_the_Chronicler) 1113
After many years had passed, Slavic people settled on the Danube, where Hungary and Bulgaria are now. From those Slavic tribes they spread to many lands, calling themselves with many names which were from grounds they stayed on. And so, leaving on the Morava river, they called themselves Moravians, and anothers as Czech. Yet another Slavic people were White Croatians, and Serbians, and Korantans. Those, when oppressed by Italians who invaded that grounds, embarked towards Vistula and stayed there calling themselves Lendians, and later Polans,

Tomenable
23-05-15, 10:25
Most of Slavic tribes in the Balkans were East Slavs, who entered the region from Moldova-Romania (from the north-east):

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?131244-The-Slavs-in-Greece

We have quite a precise description of the area inhabited by Slavs in Byzantine neighbourhood around year 500 AD from Procopius (VII: 14, 30) - who wrote that they lived north of the Danube - and Jordanes (V: 30-37) - who provided more details. He wrote (V: 34-35):

"(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. (...) The Antes (...) dwelling above the curve of the sea of Pontus, spread from the Danaster to the Danaper, rivers that are many days' journey apart."

Marek Dulnicz, "The Lombard Headman Called Ildigis and the Slavs" (in English), identifies those geographical locations as follows:

http://opac.regesta-imperii.de/lang_en/autoren.php?name=Dulinicz%2C+Marek

http://s23.postimg.org/ilmk9f6q3/Slavs_500_AD.png

1) Noviodunum - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noviodunum_%28castra%29

2) lake Mursianus (citation from M. Dulnicz):

"Lake Mursianus was in fact, according to the majority of researchers, the vast marshes at the juncture of the Drava and the Danube; (...) the lake or marshes in question might have extended as far as to the juncture of the Tisza and the Danube. The lake’s name was derived from the town of Mursa (present-day Osijek)."

3) Danaster = Dniester river

4) Danaper = Dnieper river

5) "Alps" = Carpathians

Source of the Vistula is located close to the present-day Bielsko-Biała: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bielsko-Bia%C5%82a

And "the curve of the sea of Pontus [Black Sea]" was the coastline (which forms a nice curve) in the region of present-day Odessa.

So here is the area where those Slavs lived around year 500 AD, shortly before crossing the Danube and entering the Balkans:

http://s14.postimg.org/7u6vch8j5/Slavs_500_AD_c.png

=====================================

This map - from Zofia Kurnatowska's "Southern Slavs" - shows the distribution of Slavic tribes (red colour) in the Balkans in the 7th - 9th centuries:

http://s22.postimg.org/vot7dq1ch/North.png

http://s11.postimg.org/ynapmla9v/Boundaries.png

Clear version:

http://s24.postimg.org/dnglaj79h/North2.png

http://s21.postimg.org/sv442v3qv/Slavs_in_Greece.png

Milingowie (Μιληγγοί; Milengoi): Google Translate (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMilingowi e)

Jeziercy (Ἐζερῖται; Ezerītai): Google Translate (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FJeziercy)

Siedem Rodow: Google Translate (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSiedem_Ro d%25C3%25B3w)

Strumincy: Google Translate (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FStrumi%25 C5%2584cy)

Rynchyni: Google Translate (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FRynchyni)

Sagudaci: Google Translate (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSagudaci)

Draguwici: Google Translate (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDraguwici )

Welegezyci: Google Translate (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FWelegezyc i)

Berzici: Google Translate (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBrsjacy)

Smolanie: Google Translate (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSmolanie)

gyms
23-05-15, 10:37
Today people with I2a1b2a1a3 haplotype are Bulgarians, Serbs, Montenegrins, Bosnians, etc .. But if they have mutation I2a1b2a1a S17250 they are White Croatian origin...It is the logic.

Whether they come directly from White Croatia to Bulgaria or from Croatia remains to be determined....as well as some Czechs have earlier mutation I2a1b2a1a3 A356....these Czechs obviously come from Croatia...

http://yfull.com/tree/I-Y3111/

Tomenable
23-05-15, 10:40
Leszek Podhorodecki in "Dzieje Ukrainy" ("History of Ukraine") writes:

"(...) At the turns of the 5th and the 6th centuries the Slavs, living until that time at the Dniester River, attacked the borders of the Byzantine Empire. The whole reign of Justin (518-527) and that of Justinian (527-557) were filled with combats against the Slavs pushing south across the Danube. They were especially active in period 545-557, because at that time they started to settle en masse in conquered territories [south of the Danube]. Only the incursion of the Avars into the Black Sea steppe and the lands along the Danube [years 561 - 569], hampered - for some time - the Slavic migration. After victorious wars against [some of] Slavic tribes, the Avars penetrated into the Pannonian Basin, and established their realm there. (...)" - from page 18

And the Dniester River is here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/Dniester_map.png/640px-Dniester_map.png

===============================

These are Slavic tribes ancestral to Slavic Macedonians (red lines show borders of the region of Macedonia):

http://s24.postimg.org/ydwtn8jgl/Mac_Ancestors1.png

Some of those tribes became Hellenized, but Slavs were still the most numerous ethnic group in Macedonia:

Ethnic groups in Macedonia before WW1 (http://s1.postimg.org/sjq6x96hb/Ethnic_groups_of_Macedonia_before_WW1.png)

http://s1.postimg.org/sjq6x96hb/Ethnic_groups_of_Macedonia_before_WW1.png

http://s17.postimg.org/lgkrs5h0v/Salonika_Slavs.png

After WW1 at least 618,200 immigrant Anatolian Greeks settled in Macedonia (patterns of settlement of Anatolian Greeks throughout Macedonia and other regions of Greece can be seen in maps posted below, 1st map shows the proportion of Anatolian immigrants to local populations in each region):

Proportion of immigrants from Asia Minor (by region):

http://s17.postimg.org/950e2lsn3/105_2.png

And settlements of immigrants from Asia Minor (dots):

http://s30.postimg.org/i4mqwhsgh/181_6.png

Comparing the size of Greek population of southern Macedonia before WW1 (236,800) and the number of Anatolian Greek immigrants after WW1 (618,200) shows that Anatolian Greeks outnumbered Macedonian Greeks 3 to 1 in that area, and they significantly changed the ethnic makeup of that territory.

Simultaneously with the influx of at least 618,200 Anatolian Greeks, at least 130,010 of local Slavic inhabitants (out of 370,371 - rounded to 370,400 in my chart above) were deported from southern Macedonia towards northern regions of what later became Yugoslavia and to western Bulgaria. Deportations of Turks also took place. Jews (most of whom lived in the city of Salonica) were later wiped out in WW2, further decreasing the number of non-Greek minorities.

Possibly much more Slavic-speakers than 130,010 left that region after WW1 - but not all of them necessarily in organized deportations.

My next finding is that the exodus after WW1 was not the last one - because during and after the Greek Civil War (1946 - 1949) over 100,000 more Slavs from Greek Macedonia had to emigrate to Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, further decreasing the size of Slavic minority in Greece.

Yet some Slavic minority in southern (Greek) Macedonia still exists - for example according to the report of Human Rights Watch "Denying Ethnic Identity. The Macedonians of Greece", in 1992 over 65% of inhabitants of the district of Florina (Φλώρινα) described themselves as Slavic Macedonians.

Sile
23-05-15, 10:55
Most of Slavic tribes in the Balkans were East Slavs, who entered the region from Moldova-Romania (from the north-east):

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?131244-The-Slavs-in-Greece

We have quite a precise description of the area inhabited by Slavs in Byzantine neighbourhood around year 500 AD from Procopius (VII: 14, 30) - who wrote that they lived north of the Danube - and Jordanes (V: 30-37) - who provided more details. He wrote (V: 34-35):

"(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. (...) The Antes (...) dwelling above the curve of the sea of Pontus, spread from the Danaster to the Danaper, rivers that are many days' journey apart."

Marek Dulnicz, "The Lombard Headman Called Ildigis and the Slavs" (in English), identifies those geographical locations as follows:

http://opac.regesta-imperii.de/lang_en/autoren.php?name=Dulinicz%2C+Marek

http://s23.postimg.org/ilmk9f6q3/Slavs_500_AD.png

1) Noviodunum - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noviodunum_%28castra%29

2) lake Mursianus (citation from M. Dulnicz):

"Lake Mursianus was in fact, according to the majority of researchers, the vast marshes at the juncture of the Drava and the Danube; (...) the lake or marshes in question might have extended as far as to the juncture of the Tisza and the Danube. The lake’s name was derived from the town of Mursa (present-day Osijek)."

3) Danaster = Dniester river

4) Danaper = Dnieper river

5) "Alps" = Carpathians

Source of the Vistula is located close to the present-day Bielsko-Biała: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bielsko-Bia%C5%82a

And "the curve of the sea of Pontus [Black Sea]" was the coastline (which forms a nice curve) in the region of present-day Odessa.

So here is the area where those Slavs lived around year 500 AD, shortly before crossing the Danube and entering the Balkans:

http://s14.postimg.org/7u6vch8j5/Slavs_500_AD_c.png

=====================================

This map - from Zofia Kurnatowska's "Southern Slavs" - shows the distribution of Slavic tribes (red colour) in the Balkans in the 7th - 9th centuries:

http://s22.postimg.org/vot7dq1ch/North.png

http://s11.postimg.org/ynapmla9v/Boundaries.png

Clear version:

http://s24.postimg.org/dnglaj79h/North2.png

http://s21.postimg.org/sv442v3qv/Slavs_in_Greece.png

Milingowie (Μιληγγοί; Milengoi): Google Translate (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMilingowi e)

Jeziercy (Ἐζερῖται; Ezerītai): Google Translate (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FJeziercy)

Siedem Rodow: Google Translate (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSiedem_Ro d%25C3%25B3w)

Strumincy: Google Translate (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FStrumi%25 C5%2584cy)

Rynchyni: Google Translate (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FRynchyni)

Sagudaci: Google Translate (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSagudaci)

Draguwici: Google Translate (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDraguwici )

Welegezyci: Google Translate (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FWelegezyc i)

Berzici: Google Translate (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBrsjacy)

Smolanie: Google Translate (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSmolanie)

LOL...did you learn your history from

Srbi.......narod najtariji by Olga Lukovic-Pjanovic

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=fn_F3uZ7DTEC&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=Srbi.......narod+najstariji+by+Olga+Lukovic-Pjanovic&source=bl&ots=sHiGOwvGhR&sig=CrfUJi11IQSxctKdZ3wLiUsLqw8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pj9gVeamLJfv8gXT8IP4CA&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=Srbi.......narod%20najstariji%20by%20Olga%20Luko vic-Pjanovic&f=false




I have not read Srbi for a long while, but IIRC, it states the tower of Babel was build by slavs, the Pharaohs where slavs, the slavs ruled all of europe up to the rhine river and bordering Italy and other fantasy things
(https://books.google.com.au/books?id=fn_F3uZ7DTEC&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=Srbi.......narod+najstariji+by+Olga+Lukovic-Pjanovic&source=bl&ots=sHiGOwvGhR&sig=CrfUJi11IQSxctKdZ3wLiUsLqw8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pj9gVeamLJfv8gXT8IP4CA&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=Srbi.......narod%20najstariji%20by%20Olga%20Luko vic-Pjanovic&f=false)

Tomenable
23-05-15, 10:57
Sites of three Ancient cities - Pella, Salonica and Athens - had respectively Slavic, Jewish and Albanian majorities in the 1800s.

"(...) Athens, 25 years ago [in 1830], was only an Albanian village. The Albanians formed and still form, almost the whole of the population of Attica and within three leagues of the capital, villages are to be found where Greek is hardly understood. When King Otto [the Bavarian] of Greece arrived to Athens in 1830, he asked, where are the Greeks. (...)"

Source: "Greece of The Hellenes", Lucy M. J. Garnett, Page 32

Albanians were also the majority of inhabitants in large parts of the Peloponnese in the 1800s:

https://makedonika.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/pelopones_ethnic.jpg

Милан М.
30-05-15, 17:40
Herodotus was calling the Thracians second most numeorous people in the world after the Indians,if we take in mind that nowadays Baltic and Slavic language is the most close language to Thracian maybe we can answer some questions,just like Mario Alinei specialist in geo linguistics explained: we could then advance the hypothesis that Thracians was the name that Herodotus gave to the Slavs, owing to the fact the Thracians were
one of the most powerful and representative elites of Eastern Europe,
seen with Herodotus’ inevitably colonialist eyes. In a first approximation, then, the Thracians would appear to be a Southern Slavic geo-variational group, out of which
came a Bronze age elite, first dominating then extinguished.
This hypothesis could be further developed and refined in the light of the results
of research on the Thracian language which, with the caution due to the scarcity of
materials, can be so summarized:
(1) Thracian is an IE satem language, like Baltic and Slavic;
(2) as discovered by Trubachev (see above), Thracian place names show a surprising
similarity with the Baltic ones;
(3) in some cases, however, Thracian affinities seem stronger with Slavic: the Thr.
place-name suffix -dizos e -diza, for example, to which the meaning of ‘fortress’ has
been attributed on the basis of the comparison with Gr. teƭkhos ‘wall’ (IEW 244), has a
much closer counterpart in the metathetic forms of OSl. ziždom, zydati ‘to build’ zydǎ,
zidǎ ‘wall’, than in the Baltic ones (also methatetic), meaning ‘to form’. And the
vocalism of the Thr. river name Strymon and place name Stryme seems closer to Pol.
strumien ‘brook’ and OSlav. struja ‘stream’ than to Latv stràume ‘stream’ (IEW 1003).
The most plausible hypothesis would be then that Thracian was a conservative type of
Slavic, still preserving Baltic features and spoken by a peripheral group of Southern
Slavs, somehow parallel to the Northern peripheral Balts. Following the geolinguistic
well-known rule, according to which the center innovates (Danube basin) and the periphery preserves.He further more prove that Southern Slavic is older then Northern Slavic language,the migrations couldn't happen the way it is explained in the theory of 6th century,however Ken Nordvedt should give I2a din more time then just 3000 years i think is more old then that,simple doesn't fit in some recent discoveries of linguistics and archeologists,plus i does not think so I2a din can be one of the most dominant haplogroup in the Balkans and some other regions in just 3000 years,further more if I2a din was absent prior Slavic migration then who inhabit Western Balkans,was it just a waste land,i doubt so,it was pretty important Roman region,or did they genocide the previous population when they migrated,however archeological proves are missing from that kind of event,if Slavic language was first recorded in the 8th century in the Balkans doesn't mean they migrated then,it mean they start to write,Albanian is firstly attested in the 15th,Romanian in the 16th century but none mention any migrations or "invasions" plus Balkan Slavs has only 5% of R1a clades that dominate Northern Slavs,all rest of R1a is of much older migrations,how then was that migration happening.

Милан М.
30-05-15, 20:03
Serbs came to the Balkans from West Slavic areas. White Serbia is mentioned in Early Medieval sources.

You still have Sorbs in Germany today, they share some common ancestors with Balkan Serbs.

Slovenes also share some ancestors with Slovaks. The similarity of names is not accidental in this case.

Slovenes used to be called Winds, which is similar to the name for West Slavs (Wends).

All these groups of course mixed with and absorbed other Slavic groups which came via Moldova & Romania.

Not true at all,maybe not.

gyms
30-05-15, 22:44
" Ken Nordvedt should give I2a din more time then just 3000 years i think is more old then that,simple doesn't fit in some recent discoveries of linguistics and archeologists,plus i does not think so I2a din can be one of the most dominant haplogroup in the Balkans and some other regions in just 3000 years,"

This is absolutely impossible.Look at the TMRCAs:
http://yfull.com/tree/I-Y3111/

gyms
30-05-15, 22:59
The history of the Thracians started in the early Bronze Age when archaeology shows there was a change in culture due to peoples moving in from the Steppe lands to the east. These peoples entered lands which already had more than 3000 years of civilisation; sturdy square houses, towns, art, copper technology.

http://www.eliznik.org.uk/Bulgaria/history/thracian.htm

Милан М.
30-05-15, 23:44
To which cultures you are talking about precisely?the History of the Thracians and in case of every "barbarians" started when one wrote for them,when they formed a political ethnie,tribal organization name it however,those people surely have lived prior then that,maybe not in that form,same goes for Sclavenes (Slavs) their history doesn't start in the 6th century when Procopious of Caeserea(Palestine)name the people on the Danube by that name,surely they was arround and in Europe longer,just maybe by other names in Roman historiography.

Милан М.
30-05-15, 23:51
This is absolutely impossible.Look at the TMRCAs:

I2a din couldn't be one of the dominant haplogroup in just 2500 years in the Balkan peninsula and some other regions.

Милан М.
31-05-15, 10:36
Extension to South of the Proto-Slavic homeland Trubachev’s main thesis is that prehistoric Slavs occupied not only the middle area of Central Europe, but also the Danube basin. Several arguments, to be added to mine, have led him to this conclusion 1) “The version about the Slavs coming from ‘somewhere’ originated long time ago ina misunderstanding of the silence of the Greek and Roman authors about the Slavs as such” (Trubaþev 1985, 227). Trubaþev here refers to the old version of the traditional theory, according to which Slavs would have ‘arrived’ in the 6th century. 30(2) The absence of any memory of the ‘arrival’ of the Slavs in the Slavic written or oral record “may be an indication of their (and their ancestors!) original stay in Central Oriental Europe in large numbers” (idem, 206). (3) Both in the oldest, 12th century Russian chronicle (the so called “Narration of the past times”) (Conte 1990, 9), and in the oral tradition represented by Russian byliny, the permanence of Slavs on the Danube is remembered (Trubachev 1985, 204-5). “What else, if not a memory of the old stay on the Danube, appears [...] in the old songs about the Danube among the Eastern Slavs who, it should be remembered, never lived on the Danube [...] during their written history and never took part in the Balcanic invasions of the Early Middle Ages” (ibidem). More over, already B.A. Rybakov had maintained that the history of Eastern Slavs began in the South (idem, 225). The Middle Dneper area remains important, but “it is not excluded that in some previous period [...] [it] was only a [peripheral] part of a greater and otherwise shaped territory”. This would be also confirmed y the high percentage of anthropological Mediterranean types among Eastern Slavs and Poles (idem, 225, n. 20). In fact, in the middle of the first millennium the Right Bank Ukraine must already be a part of the periphery of the ancient Slavic area(idem, 242).(4) Many scholars have anticipated Trubaþev’s thesis: Budimir, supported by numerousex-Yugoslavian scholars, claimed a greater proximity of Ancient Slavs to the Balkanic region than traditionally thought; Kopitar sought the Proto-Slavic homeland on the Danube and in Pannonia; Niederle admitted the existence of Slavic enclaves in Thracia and in Illyiria already at the beginning of our era; and both Niederle and Šafárik considered as Slavic terms like Vulka, Vrbas, Tsierna e Pathissus (s. further) (idem,223, 227, 229).(5) According to Trubaþev, even the historian Jordanes’ collocation of the Veneti to the North of the Sclaveni, and Anti to their East, implies the Slavic presence in the South(idem, 228).(6) Hungarian place names, in Pannonia and on the Tisza, are Slavic, as J. Stanislav has demonstrated (idem, 228). The region’s river names, such as Tisza (Rum. Tisa, Germ.Theiss, to be compared with Plinius’ place name Pathissus, composed with the Slavic prefix po-; Maros (Rum. Mureú, in Herodotus Máris, from PIE *mori ‘sea’, but with aSlavic suffix); the suffix -s, common to river names such as Szamos (Rum. Someú) and Temes, certainly derives from a Slavic suffix -sjo- (idem, 228-9).(7) Trubaþev then underlines the importance of the contacts between common Slavic and the different IE linguistic groups, and of the respective isoglosses (often, however,without being able to exploit them owing to the traditional chronology!):(a) The Slavo-Latin isoglosses, appearing in the social sphere (Lat. hospes ~ Slav.*gospodƱ, Lat. favere ~ Slav. *govČti), in the construction terminology (Lat. struere ~Slav. *strojiti), in that of landscape (Lat. paludes ~ Slav. *pola voda); of agriculture(Lat. pomum < *po-emom ~ Slav. *pojmo (Russ. pojmo ‘handful’) (idem, 216. And seealso 217: gǎrnǎ, kladivo, molty). Within the PCT these isoglosses can be dated, at thelatest, to the beginning of Neolithic, when the contacts between the ‘Italid’ culture ofthe Cardial/Impresso Ware on the Adriatic Eastern coast and the South Slavic Starþevo culture were certainly very close.(b) The Slavo-Illyrian isoglosses (Doksy, Czech place name, Daksa, Adriatic island, andHesichius’ gloss: Epirotic dáksa; Dukla, mountain pass in the Carpatians, Duklja in Montenegro, Doklea (Ptolemy); Licicaviki, Polish tribal name, to be compared to Illyr.*Liccavici (Illyr. anthroponym Liccavus, Liccavius) and Southern Slavic place name Lika (Trubaþev 1985, 217-8).(c) Slavo-Iranian contacts, which, as we have seen, according to Trubaþev should not precede the middle of the 1st millennium (idem, 241).(8) Criticizing the excessive restriction of the earliest Slavic area Trubaþev finally recalls Brückner’s humorous warning: “Don’t do to anybody what would not please you. The German scholars would love to drown all the Slavs in the Pripet swamps, and the Slavic scholars all the Germans in the Dollart […] – a quite pointless endeavour:there would not be enough room for them; better drop the matter and don’t spare God’slight for either of them” (idem, 206).

gyms
31-05-15, 11:37
N. S. Trubetskoy prolongs the late Ancient Slavic period up to the latest common Slav
innovation, namely, to the drop-out of reduced vowels (ъ, ь
), as well as links it to
vocalization. The existence of autonomous Slavic languages can be presumed after this timelimit
only.
http://doktori.btk.elte.hu/lingv/fabicstamas/thesis.pdf


Before the Settlement of the Magyars in Hungary time of which is much disputed many
nations lived on this territory for shorter or longer periods. A part of these nations spoke
Ancient Slavic dialects. Slavs lived in this area in sparse settlements; it was due to dissected
landscape and also to the varied ethnic composition of the region's population at the time.

Милан М.
31-05-15, 18:55
N. S. Trubetskoy prolongs the late Ancient Slavic period up to the latest common Slav
innovation, namely, to the drop-out of reduced vowels (ъ, ь
), as well as links it to
vocalization. The existence of autonomous Slavic languages can be presumed after this timelimit
only.


Before the Settlement of the Magyars in Hungary time of which is much disputed many
nations lived on this territory for shorter or longer periods. A part of these nations spoke
Ancient Slavic dialects. Slavs lived in this area in sparse settlements; it was due to dissected
landscape and also to the varied ethnic composition of the region's population at the time.

Slavic enormous expansion the only evidence for a great migration of Slavs in historical times that traditional scholars can possibly claim lies in a literal reading of the mentions of medieval historians, such as the Thracian Priscus of Panion (5th century), the Greek Procopius of Cesarea (6th century) and the Goth Jordanes (6th century), or those of the Church (e.g. Conte 1990, 33-34). But it is quite evident that such mentions do not point unambiguously to an ‘invasion’ or ‘migration’ of Slavs, but can just as simply be taken as to refer to pre-existing Slavs, the presence of which even traditional scholars now admit. When, for example, John of Ephesos, bishop of Constantinopolis under Justinian (527-65) mentions the innumerable raids into the Bizantine territori by “the damned people of the Slavs” he damns them because they were still pagan, and not because they are ‘arriving’! And when, in his De rebus Gethicis Jordanes describes the location of the Venedi, and writes that they inhabited the area “From the source of the Visla river and on incommensurable expanses”, he does not give the slightest indication of a recent arrival of theirs, but simply describes a statu quo.Not only, but when earlier historians, living in the centuries preceding the supposed arrival of the Slavs, write that the population of the Carpatian Basin offered a drink called medos (Proto-Slavic medǎ ‘drink produced with honey”) the Byzantine ambassadors directed to the court of Attila (king of the Huns), and that a part of the funeral rituals for Attila’s death was called strava (medieval name of a Slavic funeral ritual), only a biased reader can find evidence in this for the “first infiltrations” of Slavs in the Carpatian area, especially as they seem to have left not trace of their coming! (Neustupný-Neustupný 1963, 196). The much simpler truth is that the Slavs were there from remote times. For, again, the first mention of peoples in writing depends on the birthday of writing, and not on the birthday of peoples! In short, if such an enormous expansion of the Slavs both to the South and to the North from their alleged homeland in Middle-Eastern Europe had really taken place, the most important evidence we should expect to find would be archaeological. Which is entirely missing.How do scholars explain the semantic development from “Slavic” to “slave” in Western sources? All historical sources irrefutably show that the Slavic area was the main reservoir of slaves in the whole period of Early Middle Ages. This preference for slaves of Slavic origin – so strong as to make Slavs the slaves by anthonomasia – has been easily explained: in that period Slavic people were the only ones who were still pagan, and this detail is most important as it explains why, by choosing them, early medieval slave traders – mostly Venetian, Genoese and Jewish – did not violate the new principles of the “Societas christiana”, introduced by Pope Gregory the Great at the end of the 6th century, according to which baptized people must be excluded from slavery. So we obtain a safe dating for the word sclavus, in the sense of “slave”. Now, as this period is precisely the one in which the supposed ‘great migration’ of the Slavs should take place, the question arises: how can huge migrating groups that were supposed to be aggressively busy occupying half of Europe, from the Arctic area to the Black Sea, submerging and extinguishing all previous populations, have at the same time been chosen as the European slaves par excellence? This would clash against all that we know – and that history abundantly shows – rather than being migrating to new territories and exterminating pre-existing people, they were known to have beeen stable in their territories...

Tomenable
31-05-15, 19:09
It must be noted that TMRCA is not the same as migration time.

TMRCA shows when the number of people with a given mutation started to rise in numbers.

They could be initially increasing in numbers in one region, without migrating to other areas yet.

So claiming that I2a-Din didn't come with Slavs because it's TMRCA precedes the Slavic migration by some centuries, is erroneuous.

It actually SHOULD precede the Slavic migration. Because if it didn't, then that would mean that only ONE Slavic person with I2a-Din came.

And that was most likely not the case. I2a-Din increased in numbers to some thousands individuals, and only then started to migrate.

=======================================

BTW - check my thread on prehistoric distribution of Y-DNA haplogroups in Europe:

Page 8 (R1a versus R1b maps):

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31250-Mezolithic-Neolithic-vs-Chalcolithic-Early-Iron-Age-Y-DNA-landscape-of-Europe/page8

Page 1 (maps of all haplogroups):

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31250-Mezolithic-Neolithic-vs-Chalcolithic-Early-Iron-Age-Y-DNA-landscape-of-Europe

gyms
31-05-15, 20:25
"So claiming that I2a-Din didn't come with Slavs because it's TMRCA precedes the Slavic migration by some centuries, is erroneuous."
So what?Tatars comes with Mongolians but they were not Mongolians.
1)I2a-"Din" is not Dinaric! 2.)I2a is not IE! 3.I2a is not Slavic! 4.) Language and ethnicity are different things.5.) Haplogroup frequencies has nothing to do with Hg origins.

Garrick
31-05-15, 20:47
"So claiming that I2a-Din didn't come with Slavs because it's TMRCA precedes the Slavic migration by some centuries, is erroneuous."
So what?Tatars comes with Mongolians but they were not Mongolians.
1)I2a-"Din" is not Dinaric! 2.)I2a is not IE! 3.I2a is not Slavic! 4.) Language and ethnicity are different things.5.) Haplogroup frequencies has nothing to do with Hg origins.

Hm, maybe it is the best that I2a-Din doesn't exist?

Knowledge about I2a-Din changed completely picture about Balkans. Today people in the Internet forums, books, media think and speak total different, comparing with the time 15 years ago.


Haplogroups by country:

http://s4.postimg.org/kji3ibznx/Dominant_YDNA.png

Милан М.
31-05-15, 22:23
"So claiming that I2a-Din didn't come with Slavs because it's TMRCA precedes the Slavic migration by some centuries, is erroneuous."
So what?Tatars comes with Mongolians but they were not Mongolians.
1)I2a-"Din" is not Dinaric! 2.)I2a is not IE! 3.I2a is not Slavic! 4.) Language and ethnicity are different things.5.) Haplogroup frequencies has nothing to do with Hg origins.

I2a is indeed Dinaric and have it's name because of Dinaric Slavs and Dinaric Alps,that's how South Slavs are known,so what is it if it's not IE?how can you claim I2a din is not Slavic?Slavs are ethnolingustic group,and you speak as you know which haplogroups are responsible for IE Speech or like it's proven, just because you read some link on Eupedia which represent Kurgan hypothesis of IE languages,i would say Autochtonous people of Europe and the agriculture are responsible for IE languages,Kurgan cultures was Turkic and Pastoral,horse herding in it's origin,Klyosov himself claim that R1b brought Turkic or Caucasian languages in Europe,prove for this are the Etruscans and the Basques with highest R1b yet Non IE languages,Pastoral vs Agriculture:Kathrin Krell (1998) finds that the terms found in the reconstructed Indo-European language are not compatible with the cultural level of the Kurgans. Krell holds that the Indo-Europeans had agriculture whereas the Kurgan people were "just at a pastoral stage" and hence might not have had sedentary agricultural terms in their language, despite the fact that such terms are part of a Proto-Indo-European core vocabulary.

Tomenable
01-06-15, 02:22
Language and ethnicity are different things.

Language and ethnicity are related.

Ethnicity is a cultural phenomenon, and language is a very important part of culture (though not the only part).

Race is genetic. And within races you have sub-races, or anthropological types.

Tomenable
01-06-15, 02:26
the Basques with highest R1b yet Non IE languages

So what? The Basques are a similar case as the Paraguyans, the Chippewa or the Cherokee. As Maciamo explained.

The Paraguyans have mostly R1b (Spanish subclades), but they speak Guarani language and they are genetically mixed race (Mestizos).

90% of Paraguyans speak Guarani, of them majority also speak Spanish, but in rural regions 52% speak only Guarani.

gyms
01-06-15, 10:27
I2a is indeed Dinaric and have it's name because of Dinaric Slavs and Dinaric Alps,that's how South Slavs are known,so what is it if it's not IE?how can you claim I2a din is not Slavic?Slavs are ethnolingustic group,and you speak as you know which haplogroups are responsible for IE Speech or like it's proven, just because you read some link on Eupedia which represent Kurgan hypothesis of IE languages,i would say Autochtonous people of Europe and the agriculture are responsible for IE languages,Kurgan cultures was Turkic and Pastoral,horse herding in it's origin,Klyosov himself claim that R1b brought Turkic or Caucasian languages in Europe,prove for this are the Etruscans and the Basques with highest R1b yet Non IE languages,Pastoral vs Agriculture:Kathrin Krell (1998) finds that the terms found in the reconstructed Indo-European language are not compatible with the cultural level of the Kurgans. Krell holds that the Indo-Europeans had agriculture whereas the Kurgan people were "just at a pastoral stage" and hence might not have had sedentary agricultural terms in their language, despite the fact that such terms are part of a Proto-Indo-European core vocabulary.

No."Dinaric" have it's name because Ken Nordtvedt gave the name "Dinaric" for this haplogroup.
"how can you claim I2a din is not Slavic?"
Do you have any ancient DNA prove to support your Slavic hypothesis?

gyms
01-06-15, 10:31
Language and ethnicity are related.

Ethnicity is a cultural phenomenon, and language is a very important part of culture (though not the only part).

Race is genetic. And within races you have sub-races, or anthropological types.

It's the opposite:ethnicity is biological and language is cultural fenomenon.

Милан М.
01-06-15, 11:57
[QUOTE=gyms;458272]No."Dinaric" have it's name because Ken Nordtvedt gave the name "Dinaric" for this haplogroup.
Do you have any ancient DNA prove to support your Slavic hypothesis?[/QUOTE
"how can you claim I2a din is not Slavic
For South Slavs or Dinaric Slavs since modern antropology exist,there is even sub type of Caucasian race in Europe called Dinaric race since 20th century which stretch even much further outside Dinaric Alps and Balkan peninsula,Denarius is name of Roman coins,Dinar was name of our money since 13th century,Dinar is the currency we nowadays use,don't be so smart bro it has much longer history and meaning then you think so,has nothing to do with Ken Nordvedt Lol

gyms
01-06-15, 12:49
Are we talking about Dinaric Alps or haplogroups?Don't mix upp things!Y haplogroup I2a has nothing to do with anthropology (Y chromosome is sex chromosome).Physical appearance is determined by autosomal genes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autosome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-determination_system

Tomenable
01-06-15, 13:05
It's the opposite:ethnicity is biological and language is cultural fenomenon.

RACE (!) is biological. Ethnicity is cultural. Language is... linguistic, and also part of culture (but only part of it).

The reason for correlation between ethnicity and ancestry is that parents transmit culture on their children (usually).


Do you have any ancient DNA prove to support your Slavic hypothesis?

So far there is no aDNA evidence that I1 or R1b U106 are Germanic, so why do you demand aDNA proof that I2a-Din is Slavic?

Maybe this will change by 2019:

"This year [April 2014] begins a major research program, the goal of which is to examine ancient DNA from several dozen archaeological sites from the area of Poland. This project is supposed to test ancient DNA of inhabitants of Poland from pre-Roman, Roman, early Medieval and Medieval times and compare it to DNA of modern inhabitants. Research is going to last at least 5 years, its authors are - among others - prof. Hanna Koćka-Krenz and prof. Janusz Piontek."

First of all you should understand that haplogroups may not be restricted to one ethnic group, but may be shared by many.

gyms
01-06-15, 13:30
The term ethnic (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ethnic) is derived from the Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek) word ἔθνος (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%94%CE%B8%CE%BD%CE%BF%CF%82) ethnos (more precisely, from the adjective ἐθνικός ethnikos,[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group#cite_note-3) which was loaned into Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) as ethnicus). The inherited English-language term for this concept is folk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People), used alongside the latinate people (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/people) since the late Middle English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Middle_English) period.
In Early Modern English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Modern_English) and until the mid 19th century, ethnic was used to mean heathen (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/heathen) or pagan (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pagan) (in the sense of disparate "nations" which did not yet participate in the Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christendom) oikumene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oikumene)), as the Septuagint (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint) used ta ethne ("the nations") to translate the Hebrew goyim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goyim) "the nations, non-Hebrews, non-Jews".[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group#cite_note-4) The Greek term in early antiquity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_Greece) (Homeric Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeric_Greek)) could refer to any large group, a host of men, a band of comrades as well as a swarm or flock of animals. In Classical Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Greek), the term took on a meaning comparable to the concept now expressed by "ethnic group", mostly translated as "nation (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nation), people"; only in Hellenistic Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_Greek) did the term tend to become further narrowed to refer to "foreign" or "barbarous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarians)" nations in particular (whence the later meaning "heathen, pagan").[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group#cite_note-5)
In the 19th century, the term came to be used in the sense of "peculiar to a race, people or nation", in a return to the original Greek meaning. The sense of "different cultural groups", and in US English "racial, cultural or national minority group" arises in the 1930s to 1940s,[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group#cite_note-6) serving as a replacement of the term race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)) which had earlier taken this sense but was now becoming deprecated due to its association with ideological racism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism). The abstract ethnicity had been used for "paganism" in the 18th century, but now came to [be] express the meaning of an "ethnic character" (first recorded 1953). The term ethnic group was first recorded in 1935 and entered the Oxford English Dictionary in 1972.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group#cite_note-7) The term nationality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality) depending on context may either be used synonymously with ethnicity, or synonymously with citizenship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship) (in a sovereign state). The process that results in the emergence of an ethnicity is called ethnogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnogenesis), a term in use in ethnological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnology) literature since about 1950.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group

gyms
01-06-15, 13:33
Since the second half of the 20th century, the associations of race with the ideologies and theories that grew out of the work of 19th-century anthropologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#19th_century) and physiologists has led to the use of the word race itself becoming problematic. Although still used in general contexts, race has often been replaced by other words which are less ambiguous and emotionally charged (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language), such as populations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populations), people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People)(s), ethnic groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups), or communities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communities), depending on context.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)#cite_note-18)[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)#cite_note-Keita3-19)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)

gyms
01-06-15, 13:38
Various modern cultural studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_studies) and social theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_theories) have investigated cultural identity. In recent decades, a new form of identification has emerged which breaks down the understanding of the individual as a coherent whole subject into a collection of various cultural identifiers. These cultural identifiers may be the result of various conditions including: location (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Location_(geography)), gender (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender), race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_human_beings)), history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History), nationality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality), language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language), sexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation), religious beliefs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_beliefs), ethnicity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicity), aesthetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics), and even food (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_identity#cite_note-2) As one author writes, recognizing both coherence and fragmentation:

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

gyms
01-06-15, 13:40
http://www.studymode.com/course-notes/Language-As-a-Cultural-Indicator-1732109.html

Милан М.
01-06-15, 13:51
[QUOTE=gyms;458277]Are we talking about Dinaric Alps or haplogroups?Don't mix upp things!Y haplogroup I2a has nothing to do with anthropology (Y chromosome is sex chromosome).Physical appearance is determined by autosomal genes.

For whatever you are talking about,i am just telling you how older is the name Dinar-Dinaric-Dinarides then Ken Nordvedt itself,and from where the name of the haplogroup is derrived from,because is the most frequent in that region,and yes that region is the most frequent for Dinaric race as well.

Милан М.
01-06-15, 14:06
Various modern cultural studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_studies) and social theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_theories) have investigated cultural identity. In recent decades, a new form of identification has emerged which breaks down the understanding of the individual as a coherent whole subject into a collection of various cultural identifiers. These cultural identifiers may be the result of various conditions including: location (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Location_(geography)), gender (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender), race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_human_beings)), history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History), nationality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality), language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language), sexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation), religious beliefs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_beliefs), ethnicity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicity), aesthetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics), and even food (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_identity#cite_note-2) As one author writes, recognizing both coherence and fragmentation:

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

You first deny I2a din being Slavic and being not Indo-European,what are Slavs,and what is Indo-European?The Slavs are an Indo-European (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans) ethno-linguistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnolinguistics) group living in Central Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Europe), Eastern Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Europe), Southeast Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Europe), North Asia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Asia) and Central Asia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asia), who speak the Indo-European (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages) Slavic languages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_languages), and share, to varying degrees, certain cultural traits and historical backgrounds.
Are you playing the smart guy here now?or proving the opposite,what is Slavic and Indo-European please enlighten me?

gyms
01-06-15, 15:05
The Gagauz language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gagauz_language) belongs to the Oghuz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oghuz_languages) branch of the Turkic languages, which also includes the Azerbaijani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijani_language), Turkish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_language), and Turkmen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkmen_language) languages. The Gagauz language is particularly close to the Balkan Turkish dialects spoken in Greece, northeastern Bulgaria, and in the Kumanovo and Bitola areas of Macedonia. The Balkan Turkic languages, including Gagauz, are a typologically interesting case, because they are closely related to Turkish and at the same time contain a North-Turkic (Tatar or Kypchak) element besides the main South-Turkic (Oghuz) element (Pokrovskaya,1964). The modern Gagauz language has two dialects: central (or ‘‘Bulgar’’) and southern (or maritime) (Pokrovskaya, 1964; Gordon, 2005).

They have 30-34% of I2a-"Din".Are they Slavs?

"Are you playing the smart guy here now?"

Please...don't.

gyms
01-06-15, 15:16
[QUOTE=gyms;458277]Are we talking about Dinaric Alps or haplogroups?Don't mix upp things!Y haplogroup I2a has nothing to do with anthropology (Y chromosome is sex chromosome).Physical appearance is determined by autosomal genes.

For whatever you are talking about,i am just telling you how older is the name Dinar-Dinaric-Dinarides then Ken Nordvedt itself,and from where the name of the haplogroup is derrived from,because is the most frequent in that region,and yes that region is the most frequent for Dinaric race as well.



The concept of a Dinaric race originated with Joseph Deniker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Deniker), but became most closely associated with the writings of Carleton S. Coon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carleton_S._Coon) and Nazi eugenicist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Eugenics) Hans F. K. Günther (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_F._K._G%C3%BCnther). The term was derived from the Dinaric Alps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinaric_Alps) (the western part of the Balkan Peninsula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkan_Peninsula)) which was supposed to be the principal habitat.
According to Jan Czekanowski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Czekanowski), the Dinaric race is a mixed type consisting of Nordic race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_race) and Armenoid race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenoid_race), what he proves by anthropological research involving geographical data, cephalic index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalic_index), and characteristic racial features (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)). He states:
"The Dinaric type is characterized by quite light skin, dark hair from dark brown to dark blonde, and a wide range of eye color; tall stature, a brachycephalic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalic_index) skull, long face, a very narrow and prominent nose, sometimes aquiline; a slender body type, and very big feet."
Characteristics were defined as very tall, mostly mesomorph bodily build (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatotype_and_constitutional_psychology), with relatively long legs and short trunk and a long arm span. The overall anatomy of the head was said to be brachycephalic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachycephalic) to hyperbrachycephalic (Cranial index: 81-86) whereby the condition is caused by both rather high breadth of the head and a medium length of the neurocranium, whose back part is often somewhat flattened (planoccipital).

Милан М.
01-06-15, 15:47
The Gagauz language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gagauz_language) belongs to the Oghuz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oghuz_languages) branch of the Turkic languages, which also includes the Azerbaijani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijani_language), Turkish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_language), and Turkmen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkmen_language) languages. The Gagauz language is particularly close to the Balkan Turkish dialects spoken in Greece, northeastern Bulgaria, and in the Kumanovo and Bitola areas of Macedonia. The Balkan Turkic languages, including Gagauz, are a typologically interesting case, because they are closely related to Turkish and at the same time contain a North-Turkic (Tatar or Kypchak) element besides the main South-Turkic (Oghuz) element (Pokrovskaya,1964). The modern Gagauz language has two dialects: central (or ‘‘Bulgar’’) and southern (or maritime) (Pokrovskaya, 1964; Gordon, 2005).


They have 30-34% of I2a-"Din".Are they Slavs?

"Are you playing the smart guy here now?"

Please...don't.

So if we trace haplogroups and language what we can construct out of that?there is bunch other haplogroups among Slavs and opposite in all people speaking different languages,why you mix haplogroups and languages??this are either the descendants of Cumans from which Vlad the Dracul,some Hungarian nobles Elizabeth the Cuman was later and second Bulgarian dynasty trace their roots from,some I2a din perhaps went among them lol known as Mamluks later in Egypt,many were employing them as soldiers during middle ages,quite skilled wariors,some migrated escaping the Mongol yoke accepted Christianity and stay there,they had ones empire stretching all over the steppe,or are just Turkified while Ottoman empire but keeping their faith,tell me now which haplogroup is SLAVIC? LOL

Милан М.
01-06-15, 15:48
[QUOTE=Милан М.;458285]



The concept of a Dinaric race originated with Joseph Deniker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Deniker), but became most closely associated with the writings of Carleton S. Coon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carleton_S._Coon) and Nazi eugenicist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Eugenics) Hans F. K. Günther (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_F._K._G%C3%BCnther). The term was derived from the Dinaric Alps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinaric_Alps) (the western part of the Balkan Peninsula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkan_Peninsula)) which was supposed to be the principal habitat.
According to Jan Czekanowski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Czekanowski), the Dinaric race is a mixed type consisting of Nordic race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_race) and Armenoid race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenoid_race), what he proves by anthropological research involving geographical data, cephalic index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalic_index), and characteristic racial features (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)). He states:
"The Dinaric type is characterized by quite light skin, dark hair from dark brown to dark blonde, and a wide range of eye color; tall stature, a brachycephalic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalic_index) skull, long face, a very narrow and prominent nose, sometimes aquiline; a slender body type, and very big feet."
Characteristics were defined as very tall, mostly mesomorph bodily build (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatotype_and_constitutional_psychology), with relatively long legs and short trunk and a long arm span. The overall anatomy of the head was said to be brachycephalic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachycephalic) to hyperbrachycephalic (Cranial index: 81-86) whereby the condition is caused by both rather high breadth of the head and a medium length of the neurocranium, whose back part is often somewhat flattened (planoccipital).
Yeah this is from Wikipedia perhaps,what is your point here?Even this is showing how the term Dinaric race precede the name of haplogroup I2a dinaric,given because of that region cause is the most frequent there,what is not clear?

gyms
01-06-15, 16:35
"what is not clear?"

Everything is clear...It can't be clearer !

Tomenable
01-06-15, 17:08
If I understand correctly, Gyms is claiming that R1a and I2a came from the east with Mongols or Turks.

Even though we have R1a and I2a in ancient DNA of hunter-gatherers who lived 8000 - 6000 years ago in Europe.

We also know that R1a expanded eastward from Europe during the Copper-Bronze Ages, as Indo-Iranians and Proto-Tocharians.

==================================

Karelian Mesolithic hunter-gatherer from 7500 years ago - the oldest R1a sample found so far - was R1a-YP1272. So he was not THE ancestor of Indo-European branch, but it is highly unlikely that he was alone in that region. Most certainly other hunter-gatherers lived not so far from Karelia (by "not so far" I mean not a few kilometers away, but in general - Eastern Europe; because hunters used to travel long distances, so any such hunter could travel hundreds or thousands of kilometers during his lifetime).

R1a-YP1272 was the direct ancestral subclade to R1a-M198. Later - some 8400 years ago - M198 begot M417. Then 5400 years ago (ybp) R1a-M417 branch (northern Proto-Indo-European) begot R1a-CTS4385 (north-western European) and R1a-Z645. Then 4900 ybp Z645 begot Z283 (north-eastern European) and Z93 (Indo-Iranian). No more than a few generations later (4900 ybp) Z283 begot Z282, and that 4900 ybp begot Z280 (Balto-Slavic), 4600 ybp it begot M458 (West Slavic) and 4500 ybp it begot Z284 (Scandinavian / Proto-Germanic). While 4700 ybp Z93 begot Z94 (Indo-Aryan - a marker of Aryans who invaded India).

Tocharians (Tarim Mummies) were not Z93, but another subclade. It is not certain yet what subclade they were, but it was under M198 - so it was Indo-European. They were tested positive for M198 and negative for Z93. Most certainly they were also under M417, but exact subclade has not been tested yet. Here is Tocharian Y-DNA (all seven out of seven males were R1a, and not Z93):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr5Kq56heIs

http://s10.postimg.org/t0umhibax/Tocharians.png

And a video about Tocharians (in case if Gyms starts claiming that they were "Mongoloid" or "Turanid" or something):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr5Kq56heIs

===============================

Милан М.
01-06-15, 17:19
If I understand correctly, Gyms is claiming that R1a and I2a came from the east with Mongols or Turks.

Even though we have R1a and I2a in ancient DNA of hunter-gatherers who lived 8000 - 6000 years ago in Europe.

We also know that R1a expanded eastward from Europe during the Bronze Age, with Indo-Iranians and Proto-Tocharians.

Of course.

Goga
01-06-15, 18:01
R1a people were those known like Aryans and created the greatest cultures in Persia,India at least today can be proven with genetics.No, it's NOT. The greatest cultures in West Asia (Media, Persia) and India were created mostly by J2a folks!

R1a-Z93 and J2a & G2a moved from Western Asia into CentralSouth Asia and found some Aryan civilization in Indus Valley, but those 'Aryans' came from West Asia, and were mostly Caucaso-Gedrosia folks!

Also, R1a in West Asia is NATIVE to West Asia.


The so called ancient 'Aryans' were most likely for the greatest part J2a folks. J2a is an 'Aryan' marker...

Милан М.
01-06-15, 18:40
No, it's NOT. The greatest cultures in West Asia (Media, Persia) and India were created mostly by J2a folks!

R1a-Z93 and J2a & G2a moved from Western Asia into CentralSouth Asia and found some Aryan civilization in Indus Valley, but those 'Aryans' came from West Asia, and were mostly Caucaso-Gedrosia folks!

Also, R1a in West Asia is NATIVE to West Asia.


The so called ancient 'Aryans' were most likely for the greatest part J2a folks. J2a is an 'Aryan' marker...
J2 haplogroup in the Middle East are Semitic speaking people,i am not denying the Semitic cultures but Indo-European speech was brought there by R1a people who migrated from the Kurgan cultures trough Abashevo culture in Iran and India,those people become known as Aryans.. Persia was found only later,at least how geneticists explain the migration of R1a and Indo-European language researchers,before that there wasn't any Persia,btw what about I2a among Kurds,is it Dinaric?
http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/R1a_migration_map.jpg

gyms
01-06-15, 18:45
If I understand correctly, Gyms is claiming that R1a and I2a came from the east with Mongols or Turks.
"

Claming?Where?You don't undestand me correctly.

Goga
01-06-15, 18:47
J2 haplogroup in the Middle East are Semitic speaking people,Indo-European speech was brought there by R1a people who migrated from the Kurgan cultures trough Eurasia in Iran and India, Persia was found only later,at least how geneticists explain the migration of R1a and Indo-European language researchers
http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/R1a_migration_map.jpgNo, some subclades of hg. E and J1 are Semitic. R1b folks who migrated from Maykop and Leyla Tepe into Yamnaya were FIRST Indo-Europeans IN Europe. R1b folks from West Asia Indo-Europized folks in Europe.

REAL Semites, like Arabs in Saudi Arabia and the Arabian Desert don't have much of J2a. They have E and J1.


Also, the first R1a was born in West Asia. the most oldest markers of R1a (like mine) have been found in West Asia. My R1a* marker is just native to my homeland.


Kurgan cultures in West Asia are OLDER than kurgan cultures in Europe. Kurgan in Europe is very young...

Goga
01-06-15, 18:52
J2a is an Aryan marker and found many civilizations, like Sumerian Mesopotamian Civilizations, Rome, ancient Greece, Egypt, Media, Persia, BMAC and other minor Aryan civilizations in CentralSouth Asia and Indus Valley.

Goga
01-06-15, 18:56
I still can't understand why some Slavic folks just can’t accept that Slavonic people don’t have ancient history at all. Just stop trying to steal ancient history form other races. Sometimes the attitude of the Slavonic people resemble me of the attitude of Turkic Turanic people, who also don't have any ancient history...

Милан М.
01-06-15, 19:14
No, some subclades of hg. E and J1 are Semitic. R1b folks who migrated from Maykop and Leyla Tepe into Yamnaya were FIRST Indo-Europeans IN Europe. R1b folks from West Asia Indo-Europized folks in Europe.

REAL Semites, like Arabs in Saudi Arabia and the Arabian Desert don't have much of J2a. They have E and J1.


Also, the first R1a was born in West Asia. the most oldest markers of R1a (like mine) have been found in West Asia. My R1a* marker is just native to my homeland.


Kurgan cultures in West Asia are OLDER than kurgan cultures in Europe. Kurgan in Europe is very young...
No they are not older you have on the map,R1a is better candidate for IE speech than R1b,IE was brought from Europe in Iran and India or might be from Anatolia with agriculture not other way arround,however it's not proven yet who is responsible for IE, might be from Anatolia and Old Europe later spread in the Kurgans with agriculture then there,Kurgans were mostly pastoral,R1b brought Etruscan and Basque language all non IE,but however Indo-Aryan R1a migrations were real.

Милан М.
01-06-15, 19:19
I still can't understand why some Slavic folks just can’t accept that Slavonic people don’t have ancient history at all. Just stop trying to steal ancient history form other races. Sometimes the attitude of the Slavonic people resemble me of the attitude of Turkic Turanic people, who also don't have any ancient history...
Kurd don't be mad we are talking about genetics here not about ethnolinguistic groups,the term Slav it's coined in 6th century and later in the 19th sure we have ancient history prior,even enough to steal from us and rename certain people and events,from Vladivostok to Germany then to Greece sure it's a history,get that independence there and don't whine.

Goga
01-06-15, 19:21
No they are not older you have on the map,R1a is better candidate for IE speech than R1b,IE was brought from Europe in Iran and India or might be from Anatolia with agriculture not other way arround,however it's not proven yet who is responsible for IE, might be from Anatolia and Old Europe later spread in the Kurgans with agriculture then there,Kurgans were mostly pastoral, R1b brought Etruscan and Basque language all non IE, but however Indo-Aryan R1a migrations were real.THe oldest known KURGAN in West Asia is the Göbekli Tepe, it's 12000 years old. I don't think we have got older Kurgans in Europe. Also, Kurrgans in Leyla Tepe and Maykop are older than Kurgans in the Yamnaya horizon. They found R1b in Yamnaya and not R1a at all. Indo-European languages IN EUROPE spread from Yamnaya. Yamnaya was just an area ( or a missing link) between West Asian and Europe. But Indo-European people in West Asia were much, much older than Indo-European speakers in Yamaya.

R1a in West Asia ad India is very different from R1a in Europe. R1a in Europe is nor really an Indo-European marker, it's just an Indo-Europized marker.

Goga
01-06-15, 19:26
Kurd don't be mad we are talking about genetics here not about ethnolinguistic groups,the term Slav it's coined in 6th century and later in the 19th sure we have ancient history prior,even enough to steal from us and rename certain people and events,from Vladivostok to Germany then to Greece sure it's a history,get that independence there and don't whine.Yeah, DNA and haplogroups don't lie! Just follow the patterns and migrations of R1b, J2a, R1a* etc. I thought that when others build civilization, great cities and empires, Slavonic or proto-Slavonc people still lived in swamps and were cannibals or something

Милан М.
01-06-15, 19:27
THe oldest know KURGAN in West Asia is the Göbekli Tepe, it's 12000 years old. I don't think we have got older Kurgans in Europe. Also, Kurrgans in Leyla Tepe and Maykop are older than Kurgans in the Yamnaya horizon. They found R1b in Yamnaya and not R1a at all. Indo-European languages IN EUROPE spread from Yamnaya. Yamnaya was just an area ( or a missing link) between West Asian and Europe. But Indo-European people in West Asia were much, much older than Indo-European speakers in Yamaya.

R1a in West Asia ad India is very different from R1a in Europe. R1a in Europe is nor really an Indo-European marker, it's just an Indo-Europized marker.
Of course it is different marker they separated long ago,that's a hypothesis of IE only,don't you understand it's not proven who was responsible for IE,maybe Autochtonous people of Europe and Anatolia was.

Милан М.
01-06-15, 19:33
Yeah, DNA and haplogroups don't lie! Just follow the patterns and migrations of R1b, J2a, R1a* etc. I thought that when others build civilization, great cities and empires, Slavonic or proto-Slavonc people still lived in swamps and were cannibals or something
You never had country and independence and talking about Slavonic people lol how many Kurds have R1a just like you,get a life frustrated kid and go fight ISIS.

Goga
01-06-15, 19:41
Of course it is different marker they separated long ago,that's a hypothesis of IE only,don't you understand it's not proven who was responsible for IE,maybe Autochtonous people of Europe and Anatolia was.R1a in Slavs is very different from R1a in Indians. Also, it's almost certain that the original R1a* was born in West Asia and not in Europe. The was no such thing as a massive migration out of Europe. We have only migrations INTO Europe.



according to Herodotus or Pliny the Elder, Slavs were cannibals!

" Androphagi (Ancient Greek : for "man-eaters") was an ancient nation of cannibals north of Scythia (according to Herodotus), probably in the forests between the upper waters of the Dnepr and Don. These people may have assisted the Scythians when King Darius the Great led a Persian invasion into what is now Southern Russia to punish the Scythians for their raids into the Achaemenid Empire."

Herodotus first wrote of andropophagi in his Histories, where he described them as one of several tribes near Scythia. An extra note indicates that the andropophagi are cannibals, as reflected in their name: "The manners of the Androphagi are more savage than those of any other race. They neither observe justice, nor are governed, by any laws. They are nomads, and their dress is Scythian; but the language which they speak is peculiar to themselves. Unlike any other nation in these parts, they are cannibals."

Pliny the Elder later wrote in his Naturalis Historia that the same cannibals near Scythia wore the scalps of men on their ches: "The Androphagi, whom we have previously mentioned as dwelling ten days' journey beyond the Borysthenes, according to the account of Isigonus of Nicæa, were in the habit of drinking out of human skulls, and placing the scalps, with the hair attached, upon their breasts, like so many napkins." "


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



When MY direct ancestors the Medes build an groundbreaking and very influential civilization for the whole mankind not even that long time ago, ancestors of the Slavonic people were Cannibals! FACT !!!

Goga
01-06-15, 19:46
So how many Kurds has R1a just like you lol get a life frustrated kid and go fight ISIS,good day.So, how many Slavonic people are carrying Aryan J2a or even R1b that got Indo-Europized almost the entire Europe? Because R1b FROM West Asia Indo-Europized R1a, I1, N1c1, I2a etc in Europe.


And now go and read what Herodotus wrote about Slavonic cannibal ancestors, what he wrote about my direct ancestors the Medes who were native to Kurdistan and then go crying to your mommy...

Goga
01-06-15, 19:52
It's very ridiculous to believe that some primitive CANNIBALS (according to Herodotus or Pliny the Elder, not according to me) from NorthEastern Europe were influential to the most advanced cultures (with high human values) in West Asia and CentralSouth Asia. But some people are FREE to live in their own world and believe in their own fairytales. These are grandiose delusions: grandeur delusionale, LMAO !



" Androphagi was an ancient nation of cannibals north of Scythia, probably in the forests between the upper waters of the Dnepr and Don. These people may have assisted the Scythians when King Darius the Great led a Persian invasion into what is now Southern Russia to punish the Scythians for their raids into the Achaemenid Empire."

"The manners of the Androphagi are more savage than those of any other race. They neither observe justice, nor are governed, by any laws. They are nomads, and their dress is Scythian; but the language which they speak is peculiar to themselves. Unlike any other nation in these parts, they are cannibals."

Милан М.
01-06-15, 20:08
So, how many Slavonic people carry J2a or even R1b that got Indo-Europized almost the entire Europe? Because R1b FROM West Asia Indo-Europized R1a, I1, N1c1, I2a etc in Europe.


And now go and read what Herodotus wrote about Slavonic cannibal ancestors, what he wrote about my direct ancestors the Medes who were native to Kurdistan and then go crying to your mommy...
Medes your ancestors lol frustrated Kurdish highlander Persian and Turkish slave without own country ever in history talking about history of Slavs LMAO

Goga
01-06-15, 20:16
Medes your ancestors lol frustrated Kurdish highlander Persian and Turkish slave without own country ever in history talking about history of Slavs LMAOYeah, the Medes are our DIRECT ancestors. My people have still the same culture, language and religion of the Medes. I have my own country, my country is called Ezdixan (Kurdistan). And it's true that Kurds are slaves of Turks, Persians etc. because of the USA, but for how long? In a very near future Persians, Arabs, Turks and the whole ISLAM in the ME will be defeated. But, in fact, ALSO Turks, Arabs are SLAVES of America. And do you really thing that your country is independent and not a slave of somebody?

At the end of the day, we are all slaves of America!



And no, Slavonic ancestors were not slaves, they were just CANNIBALS dude...

Sile
01-06-15, 20:17
[QUOTE=gyms;458272]No."Dinaric" have it's name because Ken Nordtvedt gave the name "Dinaric" for this haplogroup.
Do you have any ancient DNA prove to support your Slavic hypothesis?[/QUOTE
"how can you claim I2a din is not Slavic?"

Dinaric is name for South Slavs or Dinaric Slavs since modern antropology exist,there is even sub type of Caucasian race in Europe called Dinaric race since 20th century which stretch even much further outside Dinaric Alps and Balkan peninsula,Denarius is name of Roman coins,Dinar was name of our money since 13th century,Dinar is the currency we nowadays use,don't be so smart bro it has much longer history and meaning then you think so,has nothing to do with Ken Nordvedt Lol
What is your prove to support the theory of Slavic migration which was created in the 19th century National Romaniticism times?widely rejected today among non "ignorant" or non biased scholars.

Dinaric is a geographical term , same as Alpine, Iberian, Scandinavian etc..................it has nothing to do with which race, ethnicity, language or religion reside in the term

Sile
01-06-15, 20:19
RACE (!) is biological. Ethnicity is cultural. Language is... linguistic, and also part of culture (but only part of it).

The reason for correlation between ethnicity and ancestry is that parents transmit culture on their children (usually).



So far there is no aDNA evidence that I1 or R1b U106 are Germanic, so why do you demand aDNA proof that I2a-Din is Slavic?

Maybe this will change by 2019:

"This year [April 2014] begins a major research program, the goal of which is to examine ancient DNA from several dozen archaeological sites from the area of Poland. This project is supposed to test ancient DNA of inhabitants of Poland from pre-Roman, Roman, early Medieval and Medieval times and compare it to DNA of modern inhabitants. Research is going to last at least 5 years, its authors are - among others - prof. Hanna Koćka-Krenz and prof. Janusz Piontek."

First of all you should understand that haplogroups may not be restricted to one ethnic group, but may be shared by many.

Language is not culture, language is only a tool for communication..............you speak English and you are not classified as English culture are you!

languages evolve over time, English today is different to English 200 years ago, which is different to English 200 years before that etc etc ................how can it represent culture if it evolves and changes

LeBrok
01-06-15, 20:29
Language is not culture, language is only a tool for communication..............you speak English and you are not classified as English culture are you!
You always confuse culture with ethnic self designation. Furthermore, where did you get an idea that a person need to belong only to one culture?
One can also identify him/herself as belonging to more than one ethnicity.

gyms
01-06-15, 20:34
Culture is the characteristics and knowledge of a particular group of people, defined by everything from language, religion, cuisine, social habits, music and arts. The Center for Advance Research on Language Acquisition (http://www.carla.umn.edu/culture/definitions.html) goes a step further, defining culture as shared patterns of behaviors and interactions, cognitive constructs and understanding that are learned by socialization. Thus, it can be seen as the growth of a group identity fostered by social patterns unique to the group.
The word "culture" derives from a French term, which in turn derives from the Latin "colere," which means to tend to the earth and grow, or cultivation and nurture. "It shares its etymology with a number of other words related to actively fostering growth," Cristina De Rossi, an anthropologist at Barnet and Southgate College in London, told Live Science.


http://www.livescience.com/21478-what-is-culture-definition-of-culture.html

gyms
01-06-15, 20:43
Culture
Some definitions
Culture refers to the cumulative deposit of knowledge, experience, beliefs, values, attitudes, meanings, hierarchies, religion, notions of time, roles, spatial relations, concepts of the universe, and material objects and possessions acquired by a group of people in the course of generations through individual and group striving. Culture is the systems of knowledge shared by a relatively large group of people.
Culture is communication, communication is culture.
Culture in its broadest sense is cultivated behavior; that is the totality of a person's learned, accumulated experience which is socially transmitted, or more briefly, behavior through social learning.
A culture is a way of life of a group of people--the behaviors, beliefs, values, and symbols that they accept, generally without thinking about them, and that are passed along by communication and imitation from one generation to the next.
Culture is symbolic communication. Some of its symbols include a group's skills, knowledge, attitudes, values, and motives. The meanings of the symbols are learned and deliberately perpetuated in a society through its institutions.
Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behavior acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievement of human groups, including their embodiments in artifacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional ideas and especially their attached values; culture systems may, on the one hand, be considered as products of action, on the other hand, as conditioning influences upon further action.
Culture is the sum of total of the learned behavior of a group of people that are generally considered to be the tradition of that people and are transmitted from generation to generation.
Culture is a collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from Another.

https://www.tamu.edu/faculty/choudhury/culture.html

What is Culture?CARLA’s Definition
For the purposes of the Intercultural Studies Project (http://www.carla.umn.edu/culture/initiatives.html), culture is defined as the shared patterns of behaviors and interactions, cognitive constructs, and affective understanding that are learned through a process of socialization. These shared patterns identify the members of a culture group while also distinguishing those of another group.

Other Definitions of CultureBanks, J.A., Banks, & McGee, C. A. (1989). Multicultural education. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

"Most social scientists today view culture as consisting primarily of the symbolic, ideational, and intangible aspects of human societies. The essence of a culture is not its artifacts, tools, or other tangible cultural elements but how the members of the group interpret, use, and perceive them. It is the values, symbols, interpretations, and perspectives that distinguish one people from another in modernized societies; it is not material objects and other tangible aspects of human societies. People within a culture usually interpret the meaning of symbols, artifacts, and behaviors in the same or in similar ways."
Damen, L. (1987). Culture Learning: The Fifth Dimension on the Language Classroom. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

"Culture: learned and shared human patterns or models for living; day- to-day living patterns. these patterns and models pervade all aspects of human social interaction. Culture is mankind's primary adaptive mechanism" (p. 367).
Hofstede, G. (1984). National cultures and corporate cultures. In L.A. Samovar & R.E. Porter (Eds.), Communication Between Cultures. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

"Culture is the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one category of people from another." (p. 51).
Kluckhohn, C., & Kelly, W.H. (1945). The concept of culture. In R. Linton (Ed.). The Science of Man in the World Culture. New York. (pp. 78-105).

"By culture we mean all those historically created designs for living, explicit and implicit, rational, irrational, and nonrational, which exist at any given time as potential guides for the behavior of men."
Kroeber, A.L., & Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions. Harvard University Peabody Museum of American Archeology and Ethnology Papers 47.

" Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behavior acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of human groups, including their embodiments in artifacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional (i.e. historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values; culture systems may, on the one hand, be considered as products of action, and on the other as conditioning elements of further action."
Lederach, J.P. (1995). Preparing for peace: Conflict transformation across cultures. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

"Culture is the shared knowledge and schemes created by a set of people for perceiving, interpreting, expressing, and responding to the social realities around them" (p. 9).
Linton, R. (1945). The Cultural Background of Personality. New York.

"A culture is a configuration of learned behaviors and results of behavior whose component elements are shared and transmitted by the members of a particular society" (p. 32).
Parson, T. (1949). Essays in Sociological Theory. Glencoe, IL.

"Culture...consists in those patterns relative to behavior and the products of human action which may be inherited, that is, passed on from generation to generation independently of the biological genes" (p. 8).
Useem, J., & Useem, R. (1963). Human Organizations, 22(3).

"Culture has been defined in a number of ways, but most simply, as the learned and shared behavior of a community of interacting human beings" (p. 169).

http://www.carla.umn.edu/culture/definitions.html

epoch
01-06-15, 20:45
THe oldest known KURGAN in West Asia is the Göbekli Tepe, it's 12000 years old. I don't think we have got older Kurgans in Europe. Also, Kurrgans in Leyla Tepe and Maykop are older than Kurgans in the Yamnaya horizon. They found R1b in Yamnaya and not R1a at all. Indo-European languages IN EUROPE spread from Yamnaya. Yamnaya was just an area ( or a missing link) between West Asian and Europe. But Indo-European people in West Asia were much, much older than Indo-European speakers in Yamaya.

R1a in West Asia ad India is very different from R1a in Europe. R1a in Europe is nor really an Indo-European marker, it's just an Indo-Europized marker.

Kurgans are supposed to be grave mounts. Göbekli Tepe is not a grave mount in the same sense. It was some sort of ceremonial site, possibly associated with burials. The function seems different as it was used a long time, many centuries. I think calling it "the oldest kurgan" is not in the least warranted.

Милан М.
01-06-15, 21:12
[QUOTE=Sile;458331][QUOTE=Милан М.;458275]

Dinaric is a geographical term , same as Alpine, Iberian, Scandinavian etc..................it has nothing to do with which race, ethnicity, language or religion reside in the term[/QUOT

Dinaric race exist or have existed at least for physical anthropologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_anthropology) in the early to mid-20th century,and doesn't matter if he is from that region or beyond,Balkan peninsula or Western Balkans would be geographic term not Dinaric,that's name of mountains.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinaric_race

Милан М.
01-06-15, 21:19
Kurgans are supposed to be grave mounts. Göbekli Tepe is not a grave mount in the same sense. It was some sort of ceremonial site, possibly associated with burials. The function seems different as it was used a long time, many centuries. I think calling it "the oldest kurgan" is not in the least warranted.

Yeah Gobekli tepe are so called Tells,not Tumulus like in the Kurgans which later spread all over Europe,but quite interesting only in the Balkans appear Tells like in Anatolia and Mid East,in the Balkan sprachbund,Greek,Albanian,Romanian,Slavic the Tells are called Mogila also appear in other Slavic languages.

gyms
01-06-15, 21:25
Everyone knows what Dinaric is.
Haplogrup I2a is not native in the Balkan.The nickname "Din" was used for the first time by Ken Nordtvedt for pracical reasons.

Tomenable
01-06-15, 21:43
J2a is an Aryan marker and found many civilizations, like Sumerian Mesopotamian Civilizations, .... Egypt, ... Indus Valley.

Sumerian, Mesopotamian, Egypt and Indus Valley were NOT Aryan civilizations.

As for the origin of Indo-Iranians - read Keyser 2009:

http://hamagmongol.narod.ru/library/keyser_2009_e.pdf

Tomenable
01-06-15, 22:05
Sumerian was a... Sumerian civilization. Sumerian language was NOT Indo-European, neither was it Semitic. But Sumerians quickly integrated with Akkadians - who were Semitic. Most of civilizations that followed, were Semitic. This video nicely explains it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltYnG-V18Dk


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltYnG-V18Dk

Sile
01-06-15, 22:05
You always confuse culture with ethnic self designation. Furthermore, where did you get an idea that a person need to belong only to one culture?
One can also identify him/herself as belonging to more than one ethnicity.

I think you are confused
example:
there is British culture which has English culture and welsh culture and scottish culture and irish culture

inside english culture you have , cornish culture, wessex culture, anglian culture etc etc

and we can further drill down into these cultures

ethnicity and culture are different

a person can belong to a few cultures, but not many cultures

Goga
01-06-15, 22:07
Sumerian, Mesopotamian, Egypt and Indus Valley were NOT Aryan civilizations.

As for the origin of Indo-Iranians - read Keyser 2009:

http://hamagmongol.narod.ru/library/keyser_2009_e.pdf According to the ancient Greeks the Medes were 'Aryan' people. Ancient Greek wrtiers mentioned only the Medes Aryan. Slavic cannibal ancestors (Androphagi) were NEVER called Aryans by anybody. It is written, and it's TRUE history. The Medes were children of Mitanni. Mitanni predate people who wrote Rig Veda. People from West Asia gave birth to BMAC. And from BMAC Aryans invaded India. This is also a historic FACT. It was the first time ever when the Aryans were ever mentioned. Mitanni were descendants of the Sumerians. Sumerians were the very first ancestors of the Aryans who were mentioned by the ancient Greek writers. Sumerian civilization was the FIRST real "Aryan" civilization and it is from the Northern parts of the Mesopotamia.

Goga
01-06-15, 22:20
Sumerian was a... Sumerian civilization. Sumerian language was NOT Indo-European, neither was it Semitic. But Sumerians quickly integrated with Akkadians - who were Semitic. Most of civilizations that followed, were Semitic. This video nicely explains itI don't watch bull.

First of all, Indo-Europeans don't equal Aryans. Aryans were only known as those who spoke an 'Iranic' language, like Kurdish and Persian. The only people who still can call themselves the true descendants of the 'Aryans' are Kurds, Iranians (Persians, Gilaki and Mazandarani people) maybe some minor tribes like the Ossetians and nobody else, not even East Iranic tribes in CentralSouth Asia.

The first Sumerians lived 8000 years ago, maybe earlier, and pre-date any Indo-European speakers. At the time when the first Sumerians lived there was no such thing as an Indo-European group of languages. The Sumerians came from the MOUNTAINS and not from Africa, Levant or an Arab Desert. Semites are from Levant, Africa and Arab Desert.


Sumerians (Sumerian farmers) who went to the south were assimilated by African (Semitic, Afro-Asiatic) people. Sumerians who stayed home in Northern Mesopotamia/Kurdistan became (proto-)Iranic people (Mitanni, Kassites etc.).

Garrick
01-06-15, 22:24
Everyone knows what Dinaric is.
Haplogrup I2a is not native in the Balkan.The nickname "Din" was used for the first time by Ken Nordtvedt for pracical reasons.

Everyone knows:

Wikipedia (it is good to remind ourselves)

Y-DNA Haplogroup I-M170 is predominantly a European haplogroup and it is considered as the only native European Haplogroup.

I (I1, I2) carriers = Old Europeans

The TMRCA (time to most recent common ancestor) for the I clade was estimated by Karafet and colleagues in 2008 as 22.2 k.a. (22,200 years ago) with a confidence interval between 15.3-30.0 ka., placing the Haplogroup I-M170 founding event approximately contemporaneous with the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) which lasted from 26.5 ka to 19 or 20 ka.

It would seem to be that different episodes of populace movement had impacted Southeast Europe, as well as the role of the Balkans as a long-standing corridor to Europe from Southwestern Asia is shown by the phylogenetic unification of Hgs I and J by the basal M429 mutation. This proof of common ancestry suggests that ancestral Hgs IJ-M429* probably would have entered Europe through the Balkan track sometime before the LGM.
...

Haplogroup I is native to the Balkans. I carriers moved by the whole Europe.

Someone can ask what happened to the older clades, maternal to I2a Din, that inhabited the Balkans and the rest of Europe?

They are gone, no one knows why.

I2a Din, and I1 of course, and fewer I2 clades, are survivors. It is blessing, fortunate for humanity.

Once, I1 and I2 carriers inhabited the whole of Europe. Everyone can reads scientific studies and research's data.

With all due respect for you as an Albanian, we can agree that nobody can deny the contribution of the carriers haplogroups I (I1 and I2) to the development of Europe.

Maciamo in Eupedia created wonderful pictures. Here is one for Europe 6000-5000 BCE:

http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/old_neolithic_map.gif

You can see, in every European culture in this time I carriers gave contribution.

Милан М.
01-06-15, 22:29
Everyone knows what Dinaric is.
Haplogrup I2a is not native in the Balkan.The nickname "Din" was used for the first time by Ken Nordtvedt for pracical reasons.

Give us better explanation how and when appear in the Balkan,i will be glad to hear.

Милан М.
01-06-15, 22:35
According to the ancient Greeks the Medes were 'Aryan' people. Ancient Greek wrtiers mentioned only the Medes Aryan. Slavic cannibal ancestors (Androphagi) were NEVER called Aryans by anybody. It is written, and it's TRUE history. The Medes were children of Mitanni. Mitanni predate people who wrote Rig Veda. People from West Asia gave birth to BMAC. And from BMAC Aryans invaded India. This is also a historic FACT. It was the first time ever when the Aryans were ever mentioned. Mitanni were descendants of the Sumerians. Sumerians were the very first ancestors of the Aryans who were mentioned by the ancient Greek writers. Sumerian civilization was the FIRST real "Aryan" civilization and it is from the Northern parts of the Mesopotamia.

Who at the end care who Aryans was,it was name of people like any else,Hitler made big fame only out of it,i preffer the Romans over all,although im not Greco-Roman.

Goga
01-06-15, 22:45
Who at the end care who Aryans wasI DO care! Because my direct ancestors were the Medes. I still speak their language, I do still have their culture. I do still believe in their GODS (same religion), my people and the Medes share the same Iranic GODS.

And the Medes, my ancestors, were Aryan people and called themselves Aryans and were called by others Aryans. Why do I care? Because this is the source if my HISTORY. Their history is my history, I do care about history of my father, my grandfather, my great grandfather etc. that's why I do care. I care about my history!


Everybody can change his future/destination, but you CAN'T change your history! To change your future and destination you need to know who you really are, and to know who you are, you need to know who you were! So the future and history are related to each other.

Goga
01-06-15, 22:48
i preffer the Romans over all,although im not Greco-Roman.If the Italic European Romans were my ancestors I would be very proud too. Italians (children of the ancient Romans) are GREAT Europeans!

gyms
01-06-15, 22:59
Everyone knows:

Wikipedia (it is good to remind ourselves)

Y-DNA Haplogroup I-M170 is predominantly a European haplogroup and it is considered as the only native European Haplogroup.

I (I1, I2) carriers = Old Europeans

The TMRCA (time to most recent common ancestor) for the I clade was estimated by Karafet and colleagues in 2008 as 22.2 k.a. (22,200 years ago) with a confidence interval between 15.3-30.0 ka., placing the Haplogroup I-M170 founding event approximately contemporaneous with the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) which lasted from 26.5 ka to 19 or 20 ka.

It would seem to be that different episodes of populace movement had impacted Southeast Europe, as well as the role of the Balkans as a long-standing corridor to Europe from Southwestern Asia is shown by the phylogenetic unification of Hgs I and J by the basal M429 mutation. This proof of common ancestry suggests that ancestral Hgs IJ-M429* probably would have entered Europe through the Balkan track sometime before the LGM.
...

Haplogroup I is native to the Balkans. I carriers moved by the whole Europe.

Someone can ask what happened to the older clades, maternal to I2a Din, that inhabited the Balkans and the rest of Europe?

They are gone, no one knows why.

I2a Din, and I1 of course, and fewer I2 clades, are survivors. It is blessing, fortunate for humanity.

Once, I1 and I2 carriers inhabited the whole of Europe. Everyone can reads scientific studies and research's data.

With all due respect for you as an Albanian, we can agree that nobody can deny the contribution of the carriers haplogroups I (I1 and I2) to the development of Europe.

Maciamo in Eupedia created wonderful pictures. Here is one for Europe 6000-5000 BCE:

http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/old_neolithic_map.gif

You can see, in every European culture in this time I carriers gave contribution.
Legends from 2008.I know them.Nostalgic.Do you have any paper from 1908?
Check this forum:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1758-First-Mesolithic-ancient-Y-DNA-is-I*-I2-and-I2a1b*/page3

Tomenable
01-06-15, 23:53
I have made a simplified phylogenetic tree of R1a haplogroup to show you how (and WHEN) things were going:

http://s17.postimg.org/hsnaex6xb/R1a_tree.png

http://s17.postimg.org/hsnaex6xb/R1a_tree.png

Daco-Thracian is a hypothetical language family that was probably closely related to Balto-Slavic language family:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Classification_of_Thracian&redirect=no#Daco-Thracian

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacian_language

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracian_language

Garrick
02-06-15, 00:16
Legends from 2008.I know them.Nostalgic.Do you have any paper from 1908?
Check this forum:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1758-First-Mesolithic-ancient-Y-DNA-is-I*-I2-and-I2a1b*/page3

Nostalgic, or no, not nice to be spiteful.

Something awfully happened to the predecessors I2, before I2a din. Maybe a disease or other disasters. They disappeared.

Fortunately I2a din N and S continued lineage.

Милан М.
02-06-15, 01:08
I-L621 (http://www.yfull.com/tree/I-L621/)F3145/S22686 * S20938 * V3552/CTS9349... 60 SNPsformed 11200 ybp, TMRCA 6600 ybp

I-L621* (http://www.yfull.com/tree/I-L621*/)

id:YF02856


I-Y3110 (http://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y3110/)CTS4002 * FGC12086/Y3110 * CTS10936... 6 SNPsformed 6600 ybp, TMRCA 5600 ybp

I-Y3110* (http://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y3110*/)

id:YF02847
id:YF03513
POL [PL-SK]new


I-Y3111 (http://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y3111/)FGC12080/Y3105 * S12235 * CTS5996... 21 SNPsformed 5600 ybp, TMRCA 2300 ybp

I-Y3111* (http://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y3111*/)

id:YF01476
POL [PL-PK]


I-Z17855 (http://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Z17855/)A1221/Y12341 * Z17855formed 2300 ybp, TMRCA 1650 ybp

id:YF02018
UKR [UA-05]
id:YF02985


I-Y4460 (http://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y4460/)Y3106 * Y4460formed 2300 ybp, TMRCA 2300 ybp

I-Y4460* (http://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y4460*/)

id:YF02238
id:YF03145


I-Y8942 (http://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y8942/)Y8942 * S8201formed 2300 ybp, TMRCA 1450 ybp

I-Y8942* (http://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y8942*/)

id:YF01761


I-Y13498 (http://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y13498/)Y13498formed 1450 ybp, TMRCA 1150 ybp

id:YF02547
BLR [BY-HR]
id:YF03061
UKR [UA-07]



I-Y3118 (http://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y3118/)Y3118formed 2300 ybp, TMRCA 2300 ybp

I-Y3118* (http://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y3118*/)

id:YF01465
USA
id:YF01589
POL [PL-PK]


I-Y5598 (http://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y5598/)Y5598formed 2300 ybp, TMRCA 2300 ybp

I-Y5598* (http://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y5598*/)

id:YF02896


I-CTS5779 (http://www.yfull.com/tree/I-CTS5779/)Y5597 * CTS5779formed 2300 ybp, TMRCA 2200 ybp

I-CTS5779* (http://www.yfull.com/tree/I-CTS5779*/)

id:HG00360
FIN


I-Y10622 (http://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y10622/)Y10624 * Y10623 * Y10622... 5 SNPsformed 2200 ybp, TMRCA 1250 ybp

id:YF01920
id:YF02675
UKR [UA-05]

Милан М.
02-06-15, 01:08
Indo-Europeans rule the world lol

Tomenable
02-06-15, 01:13
And the Medes, my ancestors, were Aryan people and called themselves Aryans and were called by others Aryans.

The Medes were Indo-European, more precisely Indo-Iranian (a non-scientific name for them is Aryans indeed).

But the Sumerians - as I wrote before - were not, and all those Semitic civilizations like Assyria and Babilon were not.

Indo-Europeans came to the Middle East later, often conquering and dominating previous Semitic civilizations.

The Indus Valley civilization was also not Indo-European. It was most likely Dravidian. Indo-Aryans (the branch of Indo-Iranians that migrated to India) conquered remnants of that civilization (it had declined already before the Aryan invasion).

As for Dravidians - there is a theory that Dravidian language was brought to India by the Elamites (the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis).

Elamo-Dravidian is a proposed language family. But this Elamite-Dravidian connection is often disputed.

Anyway, the "most indigenous" people of India were Negrito foragers. All other groups probably came later as invaders.

Negritos were the first group of modern humans in India: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peopling_of_India#The_Negrito_migrations

After Negritos probably came Australoids. Only later various Caucasoid and other (mixed, Mongoloid, etc.) groups.

Goga
02-06-15, 02:11
Indo-Europeans are relatively speaking arrived just very late into history. It's a very recent phenomenon. Especially in Europe.

But there were already Indo-Europeans speakers in West Asia even before folks from the Yamnaya Horizon culture invaded Europe.

Assyria is very recent, Assyrians were descendants of the Akkadians who came from Africa, Levant and Arab Desert. Semites were the new immigrants in the land of the Sumerians. Sumerians predate Assyrians also by thousands of years.

Like I said, the Sumerians predate Indo-European speakers by thousands of years also. Before the so called Indo-Europeans arrived in Europe there were already civilizations and other high advanced cultures in the Mesopotamia. Do you really think that before the Indo-Europeans there was no life and there were no civilizations? Maybe in Europe the real advanced history started only after native Europeans got Indo-Europized, but history in West Asia is MUCH older than history of the Indo-Europeans.

History of the Indo-European speakers in Europe started after Indo-Europeans arrived in Europe, very recently. It is very young!

But history of Iranic speakers in West Asia started with the history and high advanced cultures of the Sumerians. Proto-Iranic languages were very different from Indo-European languages spoken in Europe. Proto-Iranic language had an ergative construction, like the Sumerian language did. There are 2 possibilities. Either Sumerian and proto-Iranic shared common roots and were cousins or even brother to each other or a Sumerian dialect evolved into a pro-Iranic dialect. I believe that Sumerians were ancestral to proto-Iranic people. But Sumerians and proto-Iranic speakers were RELATED to each other.

Mitanni, Kassites, Guti were the first known proto-Iranic speakers in the Mesopotamia and the Zagros Mountains. At that time in that area already lived other Indo-European tribes, like the Hittites. But Mitanni were different from those Hittites, since Mitanni had Sumerian roots, while the Hittites did not.

Mitanni were Aryan because Mitanni had Sumerian roots. The Hittites, who also spoke an Indo-European dialect and lived west of the Mitanni were not Aryans, because they were not descendants of the Sumerians. But I'm not sure, maybe the Hittites also had Sumerian roots?


To be short, Indo-European history in Europe started only after Indo-Europeans invaded Europe, but the Iranic civilization in West Asia was just a continuation of the Sumerian civilizations. Ancient Sumeiran and proto-Iranic language were connected to each other, think only about the ergativity. So Iranic civilization in West Asia was MUCH older than the Indo-European civilization in Europe, CentralSouth Asia and India. Iranic civilization in West Asia has no beginning. proto-Iranic = Sumerian + ?


That's why history of Iranic people predate the history of other Indo-European speakers in Europe and India!

Милан М.
02-06-15, 02:14
I have made a simplified phylogenetic tree of R1a haplogroup to show you how (and WHEN) things were going:

http://s17.postimg.org/hsnaex6xb/R1a_tree.png

http://s17.postimg.org/hsnaex6xb/R1a_tree.png

Daco-Thracian is a hypothetical language family that was probably closely related to Balto-Slavic language family:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Classification_of_Thracian&redirect=no#Daco-Thracian

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacian_language

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracian_language

Thracian is very little attested,however fit the best in Baltic and Slavic languages.

Goga
02-06-15, 02:38
Indo-Europeans are relatively speaking arrived just very late into history. It's a very recent phenomenon. Especially in Europe.

But there were already Indo-Europeans speakers in West Asia even before folks from the Yamnaya Horizon culture invaded Europe.

Assyria is very recent, Assyrians were descendants of the Akkadians who came from Africa, Levant and Arab Desert. Semites were the new immigrants in the land of the Sumerians. Sumerians predate Assyrians also by thousands of years.

Like I said, the Sumerians predate Indo-European speakers by thousands of years also. Before the so called Indo-Europeans arrived in Europe there were already civilizations and other high advanced cultures in the Mesopotamia. Do you really think that before the Indo-Europeans there was no life and there were no civilizations? Maybe in Europe the real advanced history started only after native Europeans got Indo-Europized, but history in West Asia is MUCH older than history of the Indo-Europeans.

History of the Indo-European speakers in Europe started after Indo-Europeans arrived in Europe, very recently. It is very young!

But history of Iranic speakers in West Asia started with the history and high advanced cultures of the Sumerians. Proto-Iranic languages were very different from Indo-European languages spoken in Europe. Proto-Iranic language had an ergative construction, like the Sumerian language did. There are 2 possibilities. Either Sumerian and proto-Iranic shared common roots and were cousins or even brother to each other or a Sumerian dialect evolved into a pro-Iranic dialect. I believe that Sumerians were ancestral to proto-Iranic people. But Sumerians and proto-Iranic speakers were RELATED to each other.

Mitanni, Kassites, Guti were the first known proto-Iranic speakers in the Mesopotamia and the Zagros Mountains. At that time in that area already lived other Indo-European tribes, like the Hittites. But Mitanni were different from those Hittites, since Mitanni had Sumerian roots, while the Hittites did not.

Mitanni were Aryan because Mitanni had Sumerian roots. The Hittites, who also spoke an Indo-European dialect and lived west of the Mitanni were not Aryans, because they were not descendants of the Sumerians. But I'm not sure, maybe the Hittites also had Sumerian roots?


To be short, Indo-European history in Europe started only after Indo-Europeans invaded Europe, but the Iranic civilization in West Asia was just a continuation of the Sumerian civilizations. Ancient Sumeiran and proto-Iranic language were connected to each other, think only about the ergativity. So Iranic civilization in West Asia was MUCH older than the Indo-European civilization in Europe, CentralSouth Asia and India. Iranic civilization in West Asia has no beginning. proto-Iranic = Sumerian + ?


That's why history of Iranic people predate the history of other Indo-European speakers in Europe and India!

+ Proto-Iranic people shared the same SKY Gods as the Sumerians. So there was not only a linguistic connection (ergativity), but also a theological and cultural one.


Sumerians -> Mitanni/Kassites -> Medes -> Ezdi/non-Muslim Kurds.



" Sumerian and Hindu Gods and Goddesses "

http://www.bhagavadgitausa.com/SUMERIAN%20AND%20HINDU%20GODS.htm


" Similarities between Sumerian Anki and Vedic Agni by Jean-Yves Lung "

https://auromere.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/similarities-between-sumerian-anki-and-vedic-agni-by-jean-yves-lung/

Tomenable
02-06-15, 02:58
but the Iranic civilization in West Asia was just a continuation of the Sumerian civilizations

Civilizations tend to borrow heritage from each other. When Germanic tribes invaded the Roman Empire, they borrowed much of its heritage and there was a continuation (contrary to the myth of "Dark Ages" - there was a crisis, but it started already in the 300s AD).

But from the Sumerians to the Iranians there was a loooong route.

And between those two, there were Semitic civilizations, who absorbed the Sumerians (the Akkadians did it first).

There is simply no way you can skip those new immigrations to the region and claim some sort of unbroken continuity.


Mitanni were Aryan because Mitanni had Sumerian roots

Mitanni did not have Sumerian roots. Mitanni had Indo-European roots, like other Iranic peoples.

And you cannot draw a straight connection from Sumerians to Indo-Europeans.

No more than to other people at least. The Sumerians are separated from the Mitanni by a few thousands of years.

Also check Eupedia's map of the spread of R1a and you will see that it shows also the Mitanni expansion.

Goga
02-06-15, 03:02
And between those two, there were Semitic civilizations.No, there was NEVER a Semitic civilization in Kurdistan/Zagros Mountains and the Iranian Plateau in the ancient times. Akkadians/Assyrians NEVER ruled Kurdish mountains, NorthWest Iran(ian Planteau) and Southern parts of the Caspian Sea. What are you talking about? Sumerians, proto-Iranians have alwasy been living in those parts of the world without new migrations in that area. Semites hate mountains and love desert...

Tomenable
02-06-15, 03:12
Like I said, the Sumerians predate Indo-European speakers by thousands of years also. Before the so called Indo-Europeans arrived in Europe there were already civilizations and other high advanced cultures in the Mesopotamia.

And who is claiming otherwise? It is mostly you who is claiming some sort of superiority and also unbroken continuity since Sumeri. There were also high advanced cultures in Europe - such as the Cucuteni-Trypillian or the the Vinca culture - which were Non-Indo-European. If you read Marija Gimbutas then she actually claimed that Neolithic cultures in Europe were in many ways more advanced than Indo-Europeans. But they were less patriarchal and less militaristic, which is why Indo-European cultures managed to conquer them.

Goga
02-06-15, 03:14
Mitanni did not have Sumerian roots. Mitanni had Indo-European roots, like other Iranic peoples.No. Mitanni spoke a proto-Iranic language and unlike other Indo-Eruopean languages in Europe it had ergativity. Mitanni/Kassites lived in the same area and land as the ancient Sumerians before them. Mitanni/Kassites (proto-Iranians) had even the same Gods. Mitanni civilization was a continuation of the Sumerians. And the Medes were a continuation of Mitanni.

Indo-European speakers are only connected to each other through some linguage/grammar, but not everybody shares the same roots! proto-Slavonic people, proto-Hellenic people, or even Hittites who lived close to the Mitanni/Kassites (proto-Iranic) people were already different people with different roots.

Tomenable
02-06-15, 03:16
No, there was NEVER a Semitic civilization in Kurdistan/Zagros Mountains and the Iranian Plateau in the ancient times. Akkadians/Assyrians NEVER ruled Kurdish mountains, NorthWest Iran(ian Planteau) and Southern parts of the Caspian Sea. What are you talking about? Sumerians, proto-Iranians have alwasy been living in those parts of the world without new migrations in that area.

^ This is all wrong and not true. You are blinded by some sort of chauvinistic nationalism.

In some way I understand this because Kurds have hard time now, under pressure of ISIS and without their own state.

But history is history. If you want independence then better use AK-47, not history books.

Goga
02-06-15, 03:21
And who is claiming otherwise? It is mostly you who is claiming some sort of superiority and also unbroken continuity since Sumeri. There were also high advanced cultures in Europe - such as the Cucuteni-Trypillian or the the Vinca culture - which were Non-Indo-European. If you read Marija Gimbutas then she actually claimed that Neolithic cultures in Europe were in many ways more advanced than Indo-Europeans. But they were less patriarchal and less militaristic, which is why Indo-European cultures managed to conquer them.All what I'm trying to say is that Sumerians who stayed in the Zagros Mountains and northern Mesopotamia evolved into proto-Iranic people (Mitanni/Kassites) and that proto Iranic people are from nowhere and are just natives of West Asia.

And here you see the differences. Indo-Europized Indo-Europeans are descedants of the Cucuteni-Trypillian, Vinca culture etc. folks.


While proto-Iranic peoples (Kassites/Mitanni) are (maybe partly?) descedants of the Sumerians, look at the linguistic (ergativity), theological (SKY gods) and cultural (human value and laws) connections. Sumerians were the cradle of human civilization and were the VERY first Aryans!

Goga
02-06-15, 03:27
^ This is all wrong and not true. You are blinded by some sort of chauvinistic nationalism.

In some way I understand this because Kurds have hard time now, under pressure of ISIS and without their own state.

But history is history. If you want independence then better use AK-47, not history books.Lol, it has nothing to do with the situation of my people. Facts are facts! Ancient Afro-Asiatic Semites from Levant, Africa and Arab Desert (Akkadians/Assyrians) NEVER invaded and ruled the Zagros Mountains and NorthWestern Parts (Southwest of the Caspian Sea) of the Iranian Plateau. Semites are desert people, not the mountain people. The original and native land of the Sumerians, Mitanni, Kassites, Medes was NEVER invaded by the Semitic tribes. Once again, what the f*** are you talking about?

Proto-Iranic race was born in the same mountains where the Sumerians came from and have been living until they disappeared, and right after the Sumerians were gone in their mountains proto-iranic people like the Kassites and Mitanni were born.

Fire Haired14
02-06-15, 03:34
The Medes were Indo-European, more precisely Indo-Iranian (a non-scientific name for them is Aryans indeed).

But the Sumerians - as I wrote before - were not, and all those Semitic civilizations like Assyria and Babilon were not.

Indo-Europeans came to the Middle East later, often conquering and dominating previous Semitic civilizations.

The Indus Valley civilization was also not Indo-European. It was most likely Dravidian. Indo-Aryans (the branch of Indo-Iranians that migrated to India) conquered remnants of that civilization (it had declined already before the Aryan invasion).

As for Dravidians - there is a theory that Dravidian language was brought to India by the Elamites (the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis).

Elamo-Dravidian is a proposed language family. But this Elamite-Dravidian connection is often disputed.

Anyway, the "most indigenous" people of India were Negrito foragers. All other groups probably came later as invaders.

Negritos were the first group of modern humans in India: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peopling_of_India#The_Negrito_migrations

After Negritos probably came Australoids. Only later various Caucasoid and other (mixed, Mongoloid, etc.) groups.


The classifications "Negritos" and "Australoids" are based on physical appearance, not DNA. The "Negriots" and "Australoids" of Eurasia are from the same stock as all Eurasians not Africans, and share some-type of extra ancestry with East Asians which they don't share with West Eurasians. They're not even very close to each other. For example Papuans and Onge, who both have the "Negriod" look, are only a little more related to each other than to East Asians. So, when talking about India we need to be more specific than "Negrit", because they're not all the same.

Modern South Asians who look very Middle-Eastern, actually have a lot of Onge-like ancestry. If Onge-type people were there first, they didn't die out. I've heard South Asians are a mix of West Eurasian-type ancestors called ANI(Ancestral North Indian) and Onge-type ancestors(Ancestral South Indian).

We shouldn't call migrations in Pre-History "Invasions" but instead "immigration". We don't know exactly how new-blood came into regions with native pops, because we don't have time-machines. The whole narrative some people play with the history African-looking people in Eurasia is raciest. They're not anymore original to Eurasia as anyone else, and they weren't "invaded" in a European-colonization-style like some people imagine by West Eurasians.

Goga
02-06-15, 04:43
Lol, it has nothing to do with the situation of my people. Facts are facts! Ancient Afro-Asiatic Semites from Levant, Africa and Arab Desert (Akkadians/Assyrians) NEVER invaded and ruled the Zagros Mountains and NorthWestern Parts (Southwest of the Caspian Sea) of the Iranian Plateau. Semites are desert people, not the mountain people. The original and native land of the Sumerians, Mitanni, Kassites, Medes was NEVER invaded by the Semitic tribes. Once again, what the f*** are you talking about?

Proto-Iranic race was born in the same mountains where the Sumerians came from and have been living until they disappeared, and right after the Sumerians were gone in their mountains proto-iranic people like the Kassites and Mitanni were born.


+ It's very retard to believe that some very few proto-Balto-Slavonic primitive cannibals (Androphagi, according to Herodotus) who 'just existed' from NorthEastern Europe came to West Asia and BMAC and were responsible for the high advanced Sumerian, Mitanni, Medo-Persian, BMAC (Aryans of CentralSouth Asia who invaded India) and Indus Valley Civilizations.

Well, I'm going to tell you a secret. All those so called Aryan (Mitanni/Kassites, Medo-Persian & BMAC) civilizations were built on and were a continuation of the Sumerian civilization. We have got mythology (Iranic vs. Sumerian), culture (archeology, pottery, laws & values) and language (ergativity in proto-Iranic, Avestan and Sumerian) and even genetics (J2a, G2a etc. haplogroups and auDNA) as evidence..

Fire Haired14
02-06-15, 06:26
+ It's very retard to believe that some very few proto-Balto-Slavonic primitive cannibals (Androphagi, according to Herodotus) who 'just existed' from NorthEastern Europe came to West Asia and BMAC and were responsible for the high advanced Sumerian, Mitanni, Medo-Persian, BMAC (Aryans of CentralSouth Asia who invaded India) and Indus Valley Civilizations.

We don't know what language those people spoke. They could have been Finno-Urgic. And no one said they went to West Asia. People say a common ancestor, went to Europe and West Asia, and is a source of IE languages in both regions.

A nation of stone-age people can turn into an advanced civilization in a few generations, if they were influenced enough by advanced foreigners. Culture can radically change in one generation. Indo-Iranian speakers having advanced civilizations in 1000BC or whatever doesn't mean, the first Indo Iranians were that advanced.

gyms
02-06-15, 08:30
This thread is about I2a-Din distribution among East Slavs!

Милан М.
02-06-15, 10:23
And who is claiming otherwise? It is mostly you who is claiming some sort of superiority and also unbroken continuity since Sumeri. There were also high advanced cultures in Europe - such as the Cucuteni-Trypillian or the the Vinca culture - which were Non-Indo-European. If you read Marija Gimbutas then she actually claimed that Neolithic cultures in Europe were in many ways more advanced than Indo-Europeans. But they were less patriarchal and less militaristic, which is why Indo-European cultures managed to conquer them.

Actualy in Vinca culture(Old Europe) has been found the oldest script in the world that predate even the Egyptian hieroglyphs,Marija Gimbutas point out some military conquest which is rejected today,people of those cultures were exchanging things,at the end how Cucuteni Tripolye emerge,early speakers of Balto-Slavic (Thracians,Dacians) which later developed in this modern languages,otherwise where the second most numerous people in the world after the Indians according to Herodotus have vanished,it was hybrid from old Europe and the Kurgans,however i don't support the Kurgan hypothesis of Indo-European languages,if they have come with R1a people they come trough Anatolia like Klyosov explain trough in the second Urheimat(Old Europe) then settled in the Kurgans,Balkans are the most diverse in R1a and with the Danube basin is a key for Slavic origin,however Kurgans had no agriculture yet they are part of Indo-European vocabulary.

Maleth
02-06-15, 10:49
Actualy in Vinca culture(Old Europe) has been found the oldest script in the world that predate even the Egyptian hieroglyphs,

If not mistaken Vinca symbols cannot be classified as script as they do not form sentences to explain a particular event or name. I believe even the symbols themselves are not very clear to what they represent. They would be some form of proto writing symbols. (some symbols were also found in China in the same millenium), but never developed into full script or writing.

However the Vinca culture is very fascinating in itself and probably there will be much more we would learn about it.

Милан М.
02-06-15, 11:02
If not mistaken Vinca symbols cannot be classified as script as they do not form sentences to explain a particular event or name. I believe even the symbols themselves are not very clear to what they represent. They would be some form of proto writing symbols. (some symbols were also found in China in the same millenium), but never developed into full script or writing.

However the Vinca culture is very fascinating in itself and probably there will be much more we would learn about it.
Is the Danube Valley Civilization script the oldest writing in the world?

The Danube Valley civilization is one of the oldest civilizations known in Europe. It existed from between 5,500 and 3,500 BC in the Balkans and covered a vast area, in what is now Northern Greece to Slovakia (South to North), and Croatia,Serbia to Romania (West to East).
During the height of the Danube Valley civilization, it played an important role in south-eastern Europe through the development of copper tools, a writing system, advanced architecture, including two storey houses, and the construction of furniture, such as chairs and tables, all of which occurred while most of Europe was in the middle of the Stone Age. They developed skills (http://www.academia.edu/3035626/Introduction_to_the_Danube_script) such as spinning, weaving, leather processing, clothes manufacturing, and manipulated wood, clay and stone and they invented the wheel. They had an economic, religious and social structure.
One of the more intriguing and hotly debated aspects of the Danube Valley civilization is their supposed written language. While some archaeologists have maintained that the ‘writing’ is actually just a series of geometric figures and symbols, others have maintained that it has the features of a true writing system. If this theory is correct, it would make the script the oldest written language ever found, predating the Sumerian writings in Mesopotamia, and possibly even the Dispilio Tablet (http://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-europe/dispilio-tablet-oldest-known-written-text-00913), which has been dated 5260 BC.

http://www.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/danube-script-artefacts-2.jpg

Danube Valley Civilization Artifacts (image source (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnADnlrwiYA))
Harald Haarmann, a German linguistic and cultural scientist, currently vice-president of the Institute of Archaeomythology (http://www.archaeomythology.org/), and leading specialist in ancient scripts and ancient languages, firmly supports the view that the Danube script is the oldest writing in the world. The tablets that were found are dated to 5,500 BC, and the glyphs on the tablets, according to Haarmann, are a form of language yet to be deciphered. The symbols, which are also called Vinca symbols, have been found in multiple archaeological sites throughout the Danube Valley areas, inscribed on pottery, figurines, spindles and other clay artifacts.

http://www.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/vinca-symbols.jpg

The Vinca Symbols (Source: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vincan_symbols.jpg))
http://www.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/danube-script-artefacts-1.jpgThe implications are huge. It could mean that the Danube Valley Civilization predates all other known civilizations today. Evidence also comes from thousands of artifacts that have been found, such as the odd-looking figure displayed on the left. However, the majority of Mesopotamian scholars reject Haarmann’s proposal, suggesting that the symbols on the tablets are just decoration. This is despite the fact that there are approximately 700 different characters, around the same number of symbols used in Egyptian hieroglyphs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Egyptian_hieroglyphs_by_alphabetization). Other scholars even suggested that the Danube Civilization must have copied signs and symbols from the Mesopotamian civilizations, despite the fact that some of the Danube tablets have been found to be older that the Mesopotamian ones.
It appears that this is another case of a theory based on solid research being outright rejected without appropriate consideration. Could this be because it conflicts with the accepted view of which nation holds claim to the ‘first civilization’? At the very least, Haarmann’s proposal deserves further research and serious analysis in order to confirm whether this is indeed the oldest known written language in the world.






Read more: http://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-europe/danube-valley-civilisation-script-oldest-writing-world-001343#ixzz3btStuumG
Follow us: @ancientorigins on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=d_9ocKDjqr5lbSacwqm_6r&u=ancientorigins) | ancientoriginsweb on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=d_9ocKDjqr5lbSacwqm_6r&u=ancientoriginsweb)

Maleth
02-06-15, 11:19
They should decode them probably and maybe should change the mainstream in Europe that's a problem,history is a bit connected to Nationalism sad but true.

I agree that, that is how things start off especially with new findings and discoveries with an inclination for nationalistic agendas to be put forward with amount of zest and energy. However luckily a group genuine historians, linguists and archaeologists will put the puzzle together and prevail with solid proof and logic arguments. It always need to take its course.

Sile
02-06-15, 12:09
No, there was NEVER a Semitic civilization in Kurdistan/Zagros Mountains and the Iranian Plateau in the ancient times. Akkadians/Assyrians NEVER ruled Kurdish mountains, NorthWest Iran(ian Planteau) and Southern parts of the Caspian Sea. What are you talking about? Sumerians, proto-Iranians have alwasy been living in those parts of the world without new migrations in that area. Semites hate mountains and love desert...

agree, no semetic in kurdish areas

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m153/vicpret/semetic_zps2yr7sjak.jpg (http://s103.photobucket.com/user/vicpret/media/semetic_zps2yr7sjak.jpg.html)

Tomenable
02-06-15, 13:14
Goga,

Asia Minor - including Kurdistan/Zagros Mountains - was then inhabited by speakers of Non-Indo-European languages.

Those Non-Indo-European peoples were the same group of peoples who also expanded into Europe as Neolithic farmers.

They spoke languages related to languages of the Caucasus. Such as for example the Hurro-Urartian language family:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurro-Urartian_languages

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

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

This extended family also includes the Ibero-Caucasian languages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibero-Caucasian_languages

==========================================

The Iranian Plateau was also inhabited by Non-Indo-Europeans before the Aryans came.

Those people were the Elamites, who spoke a Non-IE Elamite language:

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

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

Elamite language was related to Dravidian language, spoken in India (including the Indus Valley Civilization):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elamo-Dravidian_languages

Sumerian language could be related to Elamo-Dravidian or/and to Alarodian.

All of those were Non-Aryan languages.

Tomenable
02-06-15, 13:25
and even genetics (J2a, G2a etc. haplogroups and auDNA) as evidence..

G (including G2a), E1b, T1, H2, J (including J2) were haplogroups which came to Europe from the Near East with first Neolithic farmers. And those Neolithic farmers did not speak Indo-European languages. They spoke Non-IE languages related to those mentioned above.

So your hypothesis is incorrect.

Tomenable
02-06-15, 13:34
We don't know what language those people spoke. They could have been Finno-Urgic.

If we believe Herodotus then the Androphagi and the Budini were some remnant groups of hunter-gatherers.

I'm not sure about the Androphagi (what did Herodotus write about them?), but I remember that he described the Budini as foragers.

So they probably spoke some sort of Old European. Or they could be those Finno-Ugrians who still had not switched to farming.

Similar remnant groups of hunter-gatherers still exist in Asia and South-East Asia today:

http://s14.postimg.org/flkh0bstt/Modern_HGs.png

http://s14.postimg.org/flkh0bstt/Modern_HGs.png

For example the Paliyans in India, as well a some other Adivasi:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adivasi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paliyan


They are traditional nomadic hunter-gatherers, honey hunters and foragers. Yams are their major food source. In the early part of the 20th century the Paliyans dressed scantily and lived in rock crevices and caves. Most have now have transformed to traders of forest products, food cultivators and beekeepers. Some work intermittently as wage laborers, mostly on plantations. They are included in the List of Scheduled Tribes in India (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Scheduled_Tribes_in_India#Tamil_Nadu).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/26/Paliyan_women.jpg

The Paliyans today speak Dravidian - but this wasn't their original language, they probably adopted this language from Dravidians.

Just like Mbuti Pygmies adopted Bantu and Sudanid languages. By contrast Biaka Pygmies still speak the original Pygmy language:

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


Unlike the Mbuti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbuti) pygmies of the eastern Congo (who speak only the language of the tribes with whom they are affiliated), the Aka speak their own language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aka_language) along with whichever of the approximately 15 Bantu peoples they are affiliated.

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


Their languages are Central Sudanic languages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Sudanic_languages) (a family of the Nilo-Saharan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nilo-Saharan) phylum) and Bantu languages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantu_languages).

Милан М.
02-06-15, 13:48
Goga,

Asia Minor - including Kurdistan/Zagros Mountains - was then inhabited by speakers of Non-Indo-European languages.

Those Non-Indo-European peoples were the same group of peoples who also expanded into Europe as Neolithic farmers.

They spoke languages related to languages of the Caucasus. Such as for example the Hurro-Urartian language family:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurro-Urartian_languages

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

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

This extended family also includes the Ibero-Caucasian languages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibero-Caucasian_languages

==========================================

The Iranian Plateau was also inhabited by Non-Indo-Europeans before the Aryans came.

Those people were the Elamites, who spoke a Non-IE Elamite language:

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

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

Elamite language was related to Dravidian language, spoken in India (including the Indus Valley Civilization):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elamo-Dravidian_languages

Sumerian language could be related to Elamo-Dravidian or/and to Alarodian.

All of those were Non-Aryan languages.

What about the Hittite,first attested Indo-European language in Anatolia,who were they?

Tomenable
02-06-15, 13:59
The Hittites were speakers of the so-called Anatolian branch of Indo-European languages, which is today extinct:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Anatolian_language

The Hittites conquered the local Hurrians (part of Hurro-Urartic speakers), and formed the Hittite Empire in Anatolia:

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

The Mitanni were most probably also Indo-European speakers, who had conquered the Hurrians before.

But Non-Indo-European Hurrian language continued to be spoken by the majority of population in the Mitanni Kingdom.

Tomenable
02-06-15, 14:06
Proto-Anatolian and Proto-Tocharian were probably the oldest identifiable branches which split from the Proto-Indo-European continuum:

http://s2.postimg.org/wrmkvnyix/Tocharian.png

Indo-Iranian was rather more closely related to Tocharian than to Anatolian. So Indo-Iranians (such as Kurds) came to Asia Minor later:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31250-Mezolithic-Neolithic-vs-Chalcolithic-Early-Iron-Age-Y-DNA-landscape-of-Europe?p=458429#post458429

Anyway, the Indo-Iranian branch is younger than the Anatolian branch.

And Anatolian-speakers came to Asia Minor first, Indo-Iranian speakers much later. Today Anatolian branch of IE languages is extinct.

Tomenable
02-06-15, 14:22
^ That the language is extinct doesn't mean that all those people were exterminated, or something.

But denying new migration waves to the region, of people who brought in new languages, is simply chauvinism.

It was simply a melting pot of many ethnic groups and new immigrants were bringing in new elements.

Милан М.
02-06-15, 14:35
^ That the language is extinct doesn't mean that all those people were exterminated, or something.

But denying new migration waves to the region, of people who brought in new languages, is simply chauvinism.

It was simply a melting pot of many ethnic groups and new immigrants were bringing in new elements.
I guess most probably was replaced by some other IE,which migrations i am denying,from what time?

Tomenable
02-06-15, 14:44
which migrations i am denying,from what time?

Not you, Goga.

Sile
02-06-15, 20:59
G (including G2a), E1b, T1, H2, J (including J2) were haplogroups which came to Europe from the Near East with first Neolithic farmers. And those Neolithic farmers did not speak Indo-European languages. They spoke Non-IE languages related to those mentioned above.

So your hypothesis is incorrect.


your falsely merging all the Neolithic farmers into one group, if you read Haak and the supplementary papers after his paper, you realise that hungary and Germanys Neolithic farmers came from Anatolia ( some people also say western-yamnya as well ), the other Neolithic group, the Iberian group came from the levant and northafrican coast

Tomenable
02-06-15, 22:48
Ancient languages of the Middle East:

http://s18.postimg.org/bhimmtk3d/Ancient_ME_Languages.png

http://s28.postimg.org/idjbe34kd/Ancient_ME_Languages_B.png

Милан М.
02-06-15, 23:16
Prove with genetics



White Serbia is not mentioned anywhere



Prove with genetics



Prove with genetics




Prove with genetics



You can not prove

The thing is they are both non existent,White Serbia and White Croatia as well that homeland in the Pripet are myths,as much as you look there will never find them.
New theory the world for "Slavs" begins in the 6th century, when supposedly happened the "Great
Migration of Peoples", in which they allegedly came "from behind the Carpathians", although there is
nowhere to be found any mythical ancient "Slavic" homeland,
"Slavic" origins:
Most historians agree that if there wasn’t for the Porphyrogenitus Act,
then on the arrival of the "Slavs" on Balkan and the origin of "Serbs" and "Croats", and the meaning of
their names - we will know nothing. This absolute lack of any other "Slavic arival" historical
background to falsify the "De Administrando Imperio".
In order to put some light on the true origin of the "Croats" and their name, it is necessary to first check
existing interpretations and theories, which are all based on the parts of this Act, supposedly written by
the East-Roman emperor Porphyrogenitus. Indeed, it is enough to take a look at the official science
interpretations on the origin of the "Croats" and the name "Croat", and see that they are based solely on
this Porphyrogenitus act as the main source. That the said act is really a forgery on the origin of the
"Serbs" and "Croats" is showed by the very examples from the text. The first example talks about the
alleged origin of the name of the "Croats". Thus there is written: "Croat" (Khrobátoi) in "Slavic"
languages means "one who possesses a large territory." The supposed Porphyrogenitus act further says
that "Croats" were named so because they allegedly kept many countries and large territory in their
possession. But, it is obvious that the word "Croat" not in any "Slavic" language, nor in
any language in the world means "the one who holds a large territory." Not to mention the fact that
"Croats" never held any "large territory" anywhere. Moreover, the stem "Hrvat" used in the ethnic
designation of these "Croats" it appears to be Iranian in origin.
The official given explanation by the official science and church is that Porphyrogenitus allegedly wrote
such origin on the name of the "Croats" because that word was similar to the "Greek" word "hora",
which means "land"(?). Despite the fact that the "Greek" word in question means people (lat. Chorus,
from "Greek" khoros, colloquial modern "Greek" - horra). However, even in this case it is not clear why
the "Croats" name is not interpreted as "land" or "those-landers" and not as "those who hold a large
19 This was actually the 3rd great shift in known European history. First one occurred when the Roman empire
(later split in Eastern and Western) replaced the Macedonian empire (148 BCE); than the Holy
German/Roman empire (AD 800) has replaced the Western Roman empire; and finaly the Russian empire
which succeeded the Eastern Roman empire (AD 1510) of Constantinopolitana Nova Roma.
Nor it is clear why would’ve Porphyrogenitus thought that the "Croats" call themselves with
supposed "Greek" word.
All this commotion lies exposes the following question: How is it that the "Croats", who supposedly
moved together with the "Serbs" in the Balkans were named after a "Greek" word "hora" (which by the
way has to have the same meaning in "Slavic", even if it doesn’t…) , but the Serbs got their name from
the Latin word "Servus"? Both "Croats" and "Serbs" supposedly migrated together to the Balkans, but
the Byzantine emperor made a distinction between the "Serbs" after the Latin word and "Croats" after
the supposed "Slavic/Greek" word…? And why would a Byzantine emperor wrote a nonsense like this,
especially if we take into account that he was educated ruler who also knew how to write!? The only
plausible explanation is that these manipulations were inserted in the Porphyrogenitus work much latter,
or the whole act is pure falsification.
Also, the Porphyrogenitus mention of the Serbian name as derived from the Latin word "Servus"
(meaning "servant") - it is impossible for two more than obvious reasons. First is that in the time of
Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus Latin wasn’t anymore the official language of the East Roman Empire,
as it was abandoned - five centuries before.20 Second, and more important, is that the Serbs
(Sorbs/Sorabi) have been known by that name in Central Europe long before the time of
Porphyrogenitus. Central European Serbs (Sorbs from Sorabia, Besarabia), also mentioned in the
Frankish annals, are the Serbs (i.e. Sorabians) who have never been under the rule of the Eastern Roman
Empire, nor even close to the Balkans, so it was quite impossible for them to get this name from there.
So, if they were to be named after the Latin "Servus" - this must’ve come from the (west) Holy Roman
Empire and not from the Porphyrogenitus act. This issue was also addressed by the famous Croatian
historian, Ferdo Šišić who pointed out that the origins of the names "Croat" and "Serb" are unscientific
and mismanaged.

Милан М.
03-06-15, 08:45
Exonym of Serbs

The term "Triballians" appears frequently in Byzantine and other European works of the Middle Ages, referring exclusively to Serbs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbs).Some of these authors clearly explain that "Triballian" is synonym to "Serbian". For example, Niketas Choniates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niketas_Choniates) (or Acominatus, 1155–1215 or-16) in his history about Emperor Ioannes Komnenos: "... Shortly after this, he campaigned against the nation of Triballians (whom someone may call Serbians as well) ..."[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triballi#cite_note-23) or the much later Demetrios Chalkondyles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demetrios_Chalkondyles)(1423–1511), referring to an Islamized Christian noble: "... This Mahmud, son of Michael, is Triballian, which means Serbian, by his mother, and Greek by his father."[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triballi#cite_note-24) orMehmed the Conqueror (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmed_the_Conqueror) when referring to the plundering of Serbia.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bf/Praviteljstvuju%C5%A1%C4%8Di_sovjet_serbski.JPG/220px-Praviteljstvuju%C5%A1%C4%8Di_sovjet_serbski.JPG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Praviteljstvuju%C5%A1%C4%8Di_sovjet_serbski.J PG)

The Seal of the Serbian Parliament, 1805.


In the 15th century, a coat of arms of "Tribalia", depicting a wild boar with an arrow pierced through the head (see Boars in heraldry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boars_in_heraldry)), appeared in the supposed Coat of Arms of the Serbian Emperor Stefan Dušan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Du%C5%A1an) 'the Mighty' (r. 1331–1355).The motif had, in 1415, been used as the Coat of Arms of the Serbian Despotate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Despotate) and is recalled in one of Stefan Lazarević (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Lazarevi%C4%87)'s personal Seals, according to the paper Сабор у Констанци.Pavao Ritter Vitezović (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavao_Ritter_Vitezovi%C4%87) also depicts "Triballia" with the same motif in 1701 and Hristofor Zhefarovich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hristofor_Zhefarovich) again in 1741.With the beginning of the First Serbian Uprising (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Serbian_Uprising), the Parliament adopted the Serbian Coat of Arms in 1805, their official seal depicted
emblems of Serbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serb_heraldry) and Tribalia.
http://galabri.com/foto/pics/heraldic/thracia.jpg 7267
Exonyms

Rascia, Rascians

The state(s) anachronistically called Raška were first known collectively as Serbia.
The name Rascia (Serbian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_language): Рашка; Raška) is sometimes used by modern historiography to refer to the mainland region (known in Serbian as the hinterlands, in contrast to the maritime fiefs of the Adriatic coast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomorje)) of the Serbian Principality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Serbia_(medieval)) inhabited and ruled by Serbs; the seat of the early medieval state of Serbia. It is used to describe Serbia up to Stefan Nemanja (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Nemanja) (1166–1196) or the forming of the Kingdom of Serbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Serbia_(medieval)) in 1217. "Rascia" continued to serve as an exonym (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exonym) for Serbia in West European (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Europe) sources since late 12th century, along with other names such as Servia and Slavonia.
The name is derived from the name of the region's most important fort, Ras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stari_Ras) which first appears in the work de aedificiis of Byzantine Procopius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procopius) in its earlier form as Arsa (withoutliquid metathesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_metathesis)) prior to the forming of Serbia. Ras eventually became the capital district (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_district) and seat of the first bishopric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocese) of Serbia (871). In Constantine Porphyrogenitus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_Porphyrogenitus)' De Administrando Imperio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Administrando_Imperio), Ras is mentioned as an important town of Serbia (Σέρβια) under Časlav Klonimirović (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%8Caslav_Klonimirovi%C4%87) (927–960) near its border with the First Bulgarian Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bulgarian_Empire).
Constantine's Serbia is often identified as Raška by modern historiography to differentiate it from the other provinces ruled by the Serbs at the time: Zahumlje (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zahumlje), Travunia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travunia), Duklja (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duklja),Bosna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia_(region)) and Pagania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagania). Porphyrogenitus uses Serbia as a name for the mainland regions of Rascia; and Bosnia, although the name comes to denote "all of Serbian lands". Rascians was referring to the population of medieval Serb state Rascia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rascia) (the one and same people as the other tribes of Duklja (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duklja) (Dukljans), Travunija (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travunija) (Travunians), Pagania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagania)(Neretvians/Paganians), Zahumlje (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zahumlje) (Zahumlians) that all belong to the Serb ethnos.
The name of the bishopric (Ras bishopric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ras_bishopric), Raška episkopija) eventually started to denote the entire area under jurisdiction and later, under Stefan Nemanja (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Nemanja), Ras was re-generated as state capital and the name spread to the entire land. The first attested appearance of the name Raška is in a charter from Kotor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kotor) dated to 1186, in which Stefan Nemanja is mentioned as župan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%BDupan) of Rascia (Prince of Serbia). However, Rascia appears scarcely in Serbian and never in Byzantine works to denote the state.
Between the 15th and 18th centuries, the term Raška (Rascia, Ráczság) was used to designate the southern Pannonian Plain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pannonian_Plain) inhabited by Serbs (Raci (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rascians)), who settled there during the Great Serb migrations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Serb_migrations) from medieval Serbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Serbia), "Rácz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A1cz)" has survived as a common surname in Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary).
[COLOR=#252525][FONT=sans-serif]Other connections have been made with the Etruscan civilization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_civilization) (800 BC–264 BC, The Etruscans called themselves Rasenna, which was syncopated to Rasna or Raśna), the geographical name Ratiaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratiaria) (founded 4th century BC, near Archar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archar_River), in modern Bulgaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria)), and the personal names of Thracian kings Rhescuporis of Odrysia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhescuporis_I_(Odrysian)) (Ραισκούπορις, r. 240 BC - 215 BC) and Rhescuporis of Sapaea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhescuporis_I_(Sapaean)) (r. 48-41 BC. He also had a brother, [I]Rascus[

Милан М.
05-06-15, 14:31
It must be noted that TMRCA is not the same as migration time.

TMRCA shows when the number of people with a given mutation started to rise in numbers.

They could be initially increasing in numbers in one region, without migrating to other areas yet.

So claiming that I2a-Din didn't come with Slavs because it's TMRCA precedes the Slavic migration by some centuries, is erroneuous.

It actually SHOULD precede the Slavic migration. Because if it didn't, then that would mean that only ONE Slavic person with I2a-Din came.

And that was most likely not the case. I2a-Din increased in numbers to some thousands individuals, and only then started to migrate.

=======================================

BTW - check my thread on prehistoric distribution of Y-DNA haplogroups in Europe:

Page 8 (R1a versus R1b maps):

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31250-Mezolithic-Neolithic-vs-Chalcolithic-Early-Iron-Age-Y-DNA-landscape-of-Europe/page8

Page 1 (maps of all haplogroups):

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31250-Mezolithic-Neolithic-vs-Chalcolithic-Early-Iron-Age-Y-DNA-landscape-of-Europe
Can you give me archeological,linguistic,genetic and written sources prove,how supposedly happened the migration in the 6th century according to you?

gyms
05-06-15, 15:53
http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/setton.html

Byzantine writers in telling of events relating to the Huns, Bulgars, Avars, Antae, Slavs, and numerous other peoples, have created by general and careless descriptions much confusion in Byzantine and Balkan history, but in late years the valuable researches of Moravcsik and others have deepened our understanding of many important aspects of the early history of these peoples. Much doubt and much debate will, presumably, always attach themselves to particular peoples as well as to particular persons.

LeBrok
05-06-15, 16:40
Can you give me archeological,linguistic,genetic and written sources prove,how supposedly happened the migration in the 6th century according to you?
Are you serious Dude?!!! There are multiple Roman and Byzantine documents about Slavic invasion of their terrorists. We have archaeological material change after 5th century all over the area, consistent with the timing of Slav invasion. We have geographical name changes in the area occupied by Slavs.
Do you have a problem finding the information, or you are subscribing to the idea that Slavs always lived in Balkans?

Fire Haired14
05-06-15, 17:02
If we believe Herodotus then the Androphagi and the Budini were some remnant groups of hunter-gatherers.

I'm not sure about the Androphagi (what did Herodotus write about them?), but I remember that he described the Budini as foragers.

So they probably spoke some sort of Old European. Or they could be those Finno-Ugrians who still had not switched to farming.

Weren't some Finno-Urgics hunter gatherers? It would be hard to believe some Mesolithic-descended languages still existed in the Iron age. But we can be sure they weren't Sycthian or Indo European, right? The Fenni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenni) were another Iron age hunter gatherer people. They could all be Finno-Urgic.

gyms
05-06-15, 17:08
"Can you give me archeological,linguistic,genetic and written sources prove,how supposedly happened the migration in the 6th century according to you?"

No,he can't.There is no scientific evidence for that.I mean:SCIENTIFIC!

Garrick
05-06-15, 18:52
Are you serious Dude?!!! There are multiple Roman and Byzantine documents about Slavic invasion of their terrorists. We have archaeological material change after 5th century all over the area, consistent with the timing of Slav invasion. We have geographical name changes in the area occupied by Slavs.
Do you have a problem finding the information, or you are subscribing to the idea that Slavs always lived in Balkans?

The part of problem is in opinions that haplogroup R1a is equated with the Slavs. Scientific sources tell us that R1a came to the Balkans much much before Slavs. And some forum members wrote about it. After all Thracians, Getae, Dacians, Scytians, Sarmatians etc., among other, were R1a carriers.

We can find several group of different opinions:

1. R1a were in the Balkans long before Slavs, Slavs who came to the Balkans were I2a carriers
2. I2a were in the Balkans long before Slavs, Slavs who came to the Balkans were R1a carriers
3. Both R1a and I2a were in the Balkans long before Slavs, Slavs who came to the Balkans were both R1a and I2a carriers (and other) but they didn't contribute much to the change of haplogroups.
4. Both R1a and I2a were not in the Balkans before Slavs.

Sometimes, the choice of one of the options is due to putting on own side. For example, some Albanian members tell that R1a didn't exist in the Balkans before Slavs, but these are no facts.

And today we can see all Balkan countries have significant R1a, and nonSlavic, for example Greece 11,5% and Albania too: Albania 9%.

I think, when we have identified haplogroups in the Balkans from different epochs things will be clearer.

Милан М.
05-06-15, 19:35
Are you serious Dude?!!! There are multiple Roman and Byzantine documents about Slavic invasion of their terrorists. We have archaeological material change after 5th century all over the area, consistent with the timing of Slav invasion. We have geographical name changes in the area occupied by Slavs.
Do you have a problem finding the information, or you are subscribing to the idea that Slavs always lived in Balkans?
I am serious,migration theory of Slavs is a theory however not a fact,with politicized agendas,like which archaeological prove?demographic collapse in the peninsula, abandonment rather then mass migration?material culture has changed in the coin struck for Constantinople people were free from that matter rather they created their own respective economies and rulling class,the Sclavenes emerge cause of the starving and abandonment of the same population in the region because of imperial policies,could survive like marauders quite better,military conquest or re-conquest by a group of people,but mass migration seem unlikely,after all Romans were nothing but invaders in the Balkans,I can find you many Slavic names of cities in the Balkans since B.C era written in Greek,all call the cities in their respective languages,if the Greeks write for them they are hellenized and opposite,after 19th century there was major toponym change in non Slavic countries of Slavic origin the same way and you can't write in sence of Slav invasion,cause Slav is new western term with tottaly different meaning nowadays then when Romans were writing at that time about Sclavenes,Scyths,Getae etc raids.

Sile
05-06-15, 20:49
Ancient languages of the Middle East:

http://s18.postimg.org/bhimmtk3d/Ancient_ME_Languages.png




http://s28.postimg.org/idjbe34kd/Ancient_ME_Languages_B.png

interesting, but in anatolia - in the north you have Palaic language missing as well as Kaskian came originally from north-west caucasus ( proto-circassians )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaic_language

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/439117/Palaic-language

The Chalybes were the westernmost of the Kartvelian tribes. West of the Halys river lay the region of Paphlagonia, which extended westward to the Parthenius river (mod. Bartın Çayı). The Paphlagonians were an ancient people of uncertain ethnic affinities. They are mentioned in Greek sources as early as Homer, who lists them among the allies of Troy: “And the Paphlagonians did Pylaemenes of vigorous heart lead from the land of the Eneti” (Iliad II.851-52). The Eneti appear to have been a subdivision of the Paphlagonians, and were believed to have migrated from Asia Minor to the head of the Adriatic at the conclusion of the Trojan War, where they became known as the Veneti (Strabo, Geographica XII.iii.25). Although Venetic was one of the Italic dialects (and hence related to Latin), the original Venetic language is believed to have been non-Indo-European.

There are three main views as to the linguistic and cultural affiliation of the Paphlagonians. Cramer (1832) regards them “as being of the same race with the Bithyni, Mysi, and Phryges, that is, they were a Thracian people. Theopompus, indeed, as we learn from Strabo, classed them with the Mariandyni and Bithyni. (XII. P. 541.) Another circumstance which seems further to confirm this opinion is the name of Cotys, which is given by Xenophon to one of their chiefs, (Hell. IV. 1.) and which is so frequently found to occur in the nomenclature of Thracian sovereigns” (p. 217). If this is correct, then the Paphlagonians migrated from Europe to Asia Minor at the time of the Trojan War and their language, like Armenian, was part of the Thraco-Phrygian branch of Indo-European. A second possibility is that the Paphlagonians were the descendants of the Kashkai, who (as we have already noted) were a Northwest Caucasian people. A number of facts tend to support this hypothesis: first, Hittite sources confirm that the entire district between the Halys and Parthenius rivers was inhabited by the Kashkai during the second millennium B.C.; second, the region immediately to the south of Paphlagonia was originally occupied by the Hattians, another pre-Indo-European people whose language is believed to be connected to Northwest Caucasian. A third possibility is that the Paphlagonians were the descendants of an Anatolian people, since the region was known to the Hittites as Pala and was inhabited by speakers of Palaic, an Anatolian language related to Hittite (Diakonoff, 1984). This appears to be the least likely of the three hypotheses, however, since Pala was overrun during the 15th century B.C. by the Kashkai, who apparently migrated into the region from further west.
The important Milesian colony of Sinope was founded in Paphlagonian territory (631/630 B.C.), on the site of the old Hittite port of Sinuwa. The city was named for the Amazon Sinope, the mythical ancestor of the Leucosyri (Elderkin, 1935), and became an important entrepôt for goods from the upper Euphrates. Prior to Greek settlement, the promontory of Sinope was inhabited by Cimmerians (Kimme//rioi) (Herodotus, Historiae IV.12). Pseudo-Scymnus (Periegesis ad Nicomedem regem 992-993), in fact, reports that Abron ( ÂAbrwn), the leader of the Milesian colonists, was slain by the Cimmerians (Summerer, 2007). The Cimmerians are to be identified with the biblical Gomer, the eldest son of Japheth (Genesis 10), and were initially associated with the region north of the Black Sea, between the Tyras (Don) and Tanaïs (Dniester) rivers. They gave their name to the Cimmerian Bosporus (eastern Crimea / Strait of Kerch).



The supposed migration to the Italian alpine areas as noted by German and italian scholars for the "eneti" is 1280 BC , one hundred years before the trojan war

LeBrok
06-06-15, 04:07
I am serious,maybe you are not aware but couple scholars emerge lately which quite demolished the national romanticism and communists myths of Slavic origin created by unscientific people with politicized agendas,like which archaeological prove?demographic collapse in the peninsula, abandonment rather then mass migration?material culture has changed in the coin struck for Constantinople people were free from that matter rather they created their own respective economies and rulling class,the Sclavenes emerge cause of the starving and abandonment of the same population in the region because of imperial policies,could survive like marauders quite better,after all Romans were nothing but invaders in the Balkans, century there was major toponym change in non Slavic countries of Slavic origin the same way and you can't write in sence of Slav invasion,cause Slav is new western term with tottaly different meaning nowadays then when Romans were writing at that time about Sclavenes,Scyths,Getae etc raids.

Wait a minute. Romans and Greeks dominated Balkans for hundreds of years and they missed Slavs living there? We have some words written in Dacian and Thracian but somehow Slavic was totally missed. That's weird.

Now comes Milan, an amateur historian, and tells us to ignore all the ancient and current historians and ancient records and trust him (you) and his hypothesis on this subject?! I hope you realize how ridiculous your statement is!


I can find you many Slavic names of cities in the Balkans since B.C era written in Greek,all call the cities in their respective languages,if the Greeks write for them they are hellenized and opposite,after 19th
On this base you can go through Indian maps and find some names that could potentially sound Slavic. Unless these names in Balkans are confirmed to be Slavic by professional linguists, and few of them, forgive me but I will take it as a figment of your imagination. You know that extraordinary ideas need extraordinary proofs.


then when Romans were writing at that time about Sclavenes,Scyths,Getae etc raids Oh, raids, so they were invaders into Balkans. Where did they come from then?

LeBrok
06-06-15, 04:13
The part of problem is in opinions that haplogroup R1a is equated with the Slavs. Scientific sources tell us that R1a came to the Balkans much much before Slavs. And some forum members wrote about it. After all Thracians, Getae, Dacians, Scytians, Sarmatians etc., among other, were R1a carriers.

We can find several group of different opinions:

1. R1a were in the Balkans long before Slavs, Slavs who came to the Balkans were I2a carriers
2. I2a were in the Balkans long before Slavs, Slavs who came to the Balkans were R1a carriers
3. Both R1a and I2a were in the Balkans long before Slavs, Slavs who came to the Balkans were both R1a and I2a carriers (and other) but they didn't contribute much to the change of haplogroups.
4. Both R1a and I2a were not in the Balkans before Slavs.

Sometimes, the choice of one of the options is due to putting on own side. For example, some Albanian members tell that R1a didn't exist in the Balkans before Slavs, but these are no facts.

And today we can see all Balkan countries have significant R1a, and nonSlavic, for example Greece 11,5% and Albania too: Albania 9%.

I think, when we have identified haplogroups in the Balkans from different epochs things will be clearer.

I completely agree. Probably option 3 is the most likely. There was R1a (from corded ware) and I2a (from Neolithic Hungary) in Balkans and Slavs brought more of the same, though with few new subclades.

Милан М.
06-06-15, 09:57
Wait a minute. Romans and Greeks dominated Balkans for hundreds of years and they missed Slavs living there? We have some words written in Dacian and Thracian but somehow Slavic was totally missed. That's weird.

Now comes Milan, an amateur historian, and tells us to ignore all the ancient and current historians and ancient records and trust him (you) and his hypothesis on this subject?! I hope you realize how ridiculous your statement is!


On this base you can go through Indian maps and find some names that could potentially sound Slavic. Unless these names in Balkans are confirmed to be Slavic by professional linguists, and few of them, forgive me but I will take it as a figment of your imagination. You know that extraordinary ideas need extraordinary proofs.

Oh, raids, so they were invaders into Balkans. Where did they come from then?
First of all let's clear with the word "Slav" itself which is a term with a heavily politicized connotations,I would recommend you a book "Making of the Slavs" by Curta he explains good what the Authors meant by Sclaveni or Sklabenoi-original Greek,what become later and what is the meaning of Sloven to the very Slavs,they aren't same neither have the same meaning although many think they are,but i can try to explain what to the very Sloveni speaking group the word Sloveni mean,The word "Slav" is ultimately corrupted form of Sloveni which is what the Slavic tribes called the literate members of their communities.However the two terms are not synonymous,Slav is proper noun representing an ethnicity.Sloveni is a descriptive noun that is a relational term,it equates itself to an imagined or real kinship by way of linguistic and or writing similarities between at least two different populations.In other words Russian cannot be Sloven by oneself,Russian and Serbian can be Sloveni because they both speak a similar tongue and or write with the same script.In fact,the very word Sloveni come from the Slavic word "Slovo" meaning word,thus people who call themselves Sloveni were people who could mutually understand eachother to a degree,just like Westerners were "Nemtsi" meaning deaf man, the one who can't talk,who is on mute, especially Germans,Structural linguistic show that if two words do not carry the same meaning,they cannot be cognates,such as in the case between "Slavs" and Sloveni,especially if we know the background of the word Slav itself should be banned from historical usage cause is derogatory and has confused meaning in historical usage.

Милан М.
06-06-15, 13:37
Wait a minute. Romans and Greeks dominated Balkans for hundreds of years and they missed Slavs living there? We have some words written in Dacian and Thracian but somehow Slavic was totally missed. That's weird.

Now comes Milan, an amateur historian, and tells us to ignore all the ancient and current historians and ancient records and trust him (you) and his hypothesis on this subject?! I hope you realize how ridiculous your statement is!


On this base you can go through Indian maps and find some names that could potentially sound Slavic. Unless these names in Balkans are confirmed to be Slavic by professional linguists, and few of them, forgive me but I will take it as a figment of your imagination. You know that extraordinary ideas need extraordinary proofs.

Oh, raids, so they were invaders into Balkans. Where did they come from then?
I have ask a kind question but after all you don't have answer,it seems you are ridiculous,having in mind that Slavic homeland wasn't find,Slavic urheimat wasn't solved,Balkan sprachbund also,just obsolote hypothesis.Romans and Greeks "dominated" Balkans for hundreds years,Romans conquered Balkans with Greek help to a degree,but it was Latin language that dominated and was lingua franca and state language,Roman empire was multi ethnic,we had Illyrian,Thracian,Syrian emperors but all wrote in Latin.Thracian language show striking similarities with Baltic and Slavic, so negative.Therefore i want to learn from non amateur historians like you,I just represent a theory of Oleg Trubachev doctor in philology,he was an academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences.His works are on the etymology of Slavic languages and on East Slavic onomastics,also B.A Rybakov,currently Florin Curta,Mario Alinei, Kopitar sought the Proto-Slavic homeland on the Danube and in Pannonia; Niederle admitted the existence of Slavic enclaves in Thracia and in Illyiria already at the beginning of our era,all ignorants they all maintained Danube basin and that "Sloveni" speaking group were always there,that's why we have Thracian problem,Slavic "homeland" problem,what is next Getae are from Scandinavian Goths,while they were Thracians,i was not aware that Scandinavians were in the Balkans since B.C era but from 19th century they become due to "Gothicism"“
As for the Getae, that is to say the herds of Sclavenes, they were fiercely ravaging the regions of Thrace-Theophylact Simocatta
also Gothic (Germanic language) was lingua franca in the Hun empire but wierd from three words that historians wrote from there all are Slavic:medos: a beverage from honey that was offered to them,they celebrated "strava-Slavic funeral ritual on Attila dead,then this Gothic must be Slavic or not? first "Slavic" infiltration was in the 6th century only perhaps,as for the raids they had many collaborators within the empire and tribes attested by names which created so called Sclavinia which none wrote for their "migration" but simple just living there,Sclavinia was something like Enclava,Romans later Byzantines,they were nearly bankrupt which affect their own citizens making them to look within other circles for survival,but we can intepret things how we like,therefore some historical non sense will stay as they are while claiming it is 'scientificaly proven"

LeBrok
06-06-15, 17:41
tongue and or write with the same script.In fact,the very word Sloveni come from the Slavic word "Slovo" meaning word,thus people who call themselves Sloveni were people who could mutually understand eachother to a degree,just like Westerners were "Nemtsi" meaning deaf man, the one who can't talk,who is on mute, especially Germans,Structural linguistic show that if two words do not carry the same meaning That's how I see the roots for Slovianie/Slovene, too.



,they cannot be cognates,such as in the case between "Slavs" and Sloveni,especially if we know the background of the word Slav itself should be banned from historical usage cause is deregatory and has confused meaning in historical usage. Derogatory? You have some issues dude.
I'm not against calling anyone by a name of his choosing, or in his native language. If it is a wish of most Slavs to be called Slovanie or Slovo, I'm for it. However I would be shocked if all Slavs can agree on one spelling and pronunciation.

LeBrok
06-06-15, 17:54
I have ask a kind question but after all you don't have answer,it seems you are ridiculous,having in mind that Slavic homeland wasn't find,Slavic urheimat wasn't solved,Balkan sprachbund also,just obsolote hypothesis.Romans and Greeks "dominated" Balkans for hundreds years,Romans conquered Balkans with Greek help to a degree,but it was Latin language that dominated and was lingua franca and state language,Roman empire was multi ethnic,we had Illyrian,Thracian,Syrian emperors but all wrote in Latin.Thracian language show striking similarities with Baltic and Slavic, so negative.Therefore i want to learn from non amateur historians like you,I just represent a theory of Oleg Trubachev doctor in philology,he was an academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences.His works are on the etymology of Slavic languages and on East Slavic onomastics,also B.A Rybakov,currently Florin Curta,Mario Alinei, Kopitar sought the Proto-Slavic homeland on the Danube and in Pannonia; Niederle admitted the existence of Slavic enclaves in Thracia and in Illyiria already at the beginning of our era,all ignorants they all maintained Danube basin and that "Sloveni" speaking group were always there,that's why we have Thracian problem,Slavic "homeland" problem,what is next Getae are from Scandinavian Goths,while they were Thracians,i was not aware that Scandinavians were in the Balkans since B.C era but from 19th century they become due to "Gothicism"“
As for the Getae, that is to say the herds of Sclavenes, they were fiercely ravaging the regions of Thrace-Theophylact Simocatta I can't believe that it is so hard for you to realize, that what you are saying is what you wish for, and has nothing to do with science trying to decipher where Slavic Homeland was. You are a Croat and a Slav, isn't it romantic, and feels good, if Slavic Homeland was always in the same area. It would mean that Slavs are indigenous to this area, that your ancestors always spoke the language and your genetic was always Slavic. How convenient and romantic for you. I'm sure that these cozy feelings are clouding your judgment.





also Gothic (Germanic language) was lingua franca in the Hun empire but wierd from three words that historians wrote from there all are Slavic:medos: a beverage from honey that was offered to them,they celebrated "strava-Slavic funeral ritual on Attila dead,then this Gothic must be Slavic or not? first "Slavic" infiltration was in the 6th century only perhaps,as for the raids they had many collaborators within the empire and tribes attested by names which created so called Sclavinia which none wrote for their "migration" but simple just living there,Sclavinia was something like Enclava,Romans later Byzantines,they were nearly bankrupt which affect their own citizens making them to look within other circles for survival,but we can intepret things how we like,therefore some historical non sense will stay as they are while claiming it is 'scientificaly proven"All these above happened at the end of Roman Empire, when the first information about Slavs are written. There is no mention before these times. It means they came from somewhere, and this somewhere wasn't in Balkans.
Can you imagine that Greeks mentioned Keltoi (Celts) in far away lands, but they missed Slavs who lived in Balkans. That would be something!

Милан М.
06-06-15, 19:09
That's how I see the roots for Slovianie/Slovene, too.

I'm not against calling anyone by a name of his choosing, or in his native language. If it is a wish of most Slavs to be called Slovanie or Slovo, I'm for it. However I would be shocked if all Slavs can agree on one spelling and pronunciation.

If that is how you see the roots,then how can you say "Slavs" appear in the Balkans,Slavs are not ethnic group nor they ever was,every particular tribe had it's own name and orientation toward something,does all of the Slavs appear in the Balkans and Central Europe migrating from place to place and by which name? Lol if you meant the 6th century Sklabenoi to link with that then say so Lebrok :laughing:

Милан М.
06-06-15, 19:27
I can't believe that it is so hard for you to realize, that what you are saying is what you wish for, and has nothing to do with science trying to decipher where Slavic Homeland was. You are a Croat and a Slav, isn't it romantic, and feels good, if Slavic Homeland was always in the same area. It would mean that Slavs are indigenous to this area, that your ancestors always spoke the language and your genetic was always Slavic. How convenient and romantic for you. I'm sure that these cozy feelings are clouding your judgment.




All these above happened at the end of Roman Empire, when the first information about Slavs are written. There is no mention before these times. It means they came from somewhere, and this somewhere wasn't in Balkans.
Can you imagine that Greeks mentioned Keltoi (Celts) in far away lands, but they missed Slavs who lived in Balkans. That would be something!

Doesn't bother me where would be the " homeland" I taught that 'master' historian like yourself could come with some 'arguments" cause you said there are many proves and now you are saying they are trying to decipher Lol
who were the 'first Slavs" of yours,was the Sclavenes,Avars,Schyths,Getae,Huns,Antae,Cutrigurs ,was the far Veneti maybe,who spread that speech,there was bunch many of them in that period in Roman historiography,many time even confusing the names of particular tribe in their historiography,do you know which of them which language spoke exactly?you can guess only,all of them were doing raids,if we know that Balto-Slavic or Slavic language is present for 3000 years less or more,i think it's this way-The version about the Slavs coming from ‘somewhere’ originated long time ago in a misunderstanding of the silence of the Greek and Roman authors about the Slavs as such Trubachev 1985.

Sile
06-06-15, 20:47
Doesn't bother me where would be the " homeland" I taught that 'master' historian like yourself could come with some 'arguments" cause you said there are many proves and now you are saying they are trying to decipher Lol who were the 'first Slavs" of yours,was the Sclavenes,Avars,Schyths,Getae,Huns,Antae,Cutrigurs ,was the far Veneti maybe,who spread that speech,there was bunch many of them in that period in Roman historiography,all of them were doing raids,if we know that Balto-Slavic or Slavic and Baltic language is present for 3000 years less or more,i think it's this way-The version about the Slavs coming from ‘somewhere’ originated long time ago in a misunderstanding of the silence of the Greek and Roman authors about the Slavs as such Trubachev 1985.

The tribes you mentioned are who you mentioned, don't try to substitute sclavenes or slav or avar for clave or even balt etc .
I have never seen a language or script from ancient times on any stone, bronze items or even iron items, stating that they are slavs or anyone else...........if you have a link stating as an example, sclavenes script found, see this link, then link it. If you do not have anything , then you have no proof of what languages sclavenes or avars or Getae etc spoke and are only fantasy land.

By your theory, a theory of fantasy, I can call you an English person because we are communicating in English:good_job:

Милан М.
06-06-15, 21:14
The tribes you mentioned are who you mentioned, don't try to substitute sclavenes or slav or avar for clave or even balt etc .
I have never seen a language or script from ancient times on any stone, bronze items or even iron items, stating that they are slavs or anyone else...........if you have a link stating as an example, sclavenes script found, see this link, then link it. If you do not have anything , then you have no proof of what languages sclavenes or avars or Getae etc spoke and are only fantasy land.

By your theory, a theory of fantasy, I can call you an English person because we are communicating in English:good_job:

None called his tribe or people Sclaveni or Sklabenoi-(the original Greek name) in self desigantion for sure,that was my point too,they wasn't one people going from place to place from particular homeland,this were names that Romans gave to particular people in the Danube basin 6th century and some were from earlier times,Sloven (don't confuse the two even sound similar)is later term and i have explain the meaning,which was first stated in the 12th century in Russian chronicles,perhaps you didn't understood me well.

Sile
06-06-15, 21:51
None called his tribe or people Sclaveni or Sklabenoi-(the original Greek name) in self desigantion for sure,that was my point too,they wasn't one people going from place to place from particular homeland,this were names that Romans gave to particular people in the Danube basin 6th century and some were from earlier times,Sloven (don't confuse the two even sound similar)is later term and i have explain the meaning,which was first stated in the 12th century in Russian chronicles,perhaps you didn't understood me well.

The FIRST slav documented by scribes in any texts in central Europe was from the year 573AD..........it was from the VELETI tribe , who migrated to modern Mecklenburg germany on the coast.

All other tribes mentioned are who they are called,
goths = goths
avars = avars
lombards = lombards
etc etc

Yetos
06-06-15, 23:10
Doesn't bother me where would be the " homeland" I taught that 'master' historian like yourself could come with some 'arguments" cause you said there are many proves and now you are saying they are trying to decipher Lol
who were the 'first Slavs" of yours,was the Sclavenes,Avars,Schyths,Getae,Huns,Antae,Cutrigurs ,was the far Veneti maybe,who spread that speech,there was bunch many of them in that period in Roman historiography,many time even confusing the names of particular tribe in their historiography,do you know which of them which language spoke exactly?you can guess only,all of them were doing raids,if we know that Balto-Slavic or Slavic language is present for 3000 years less or more,i think it's this way-The version about the Slavs coming from ‘somewhere’ originated long time ago in a misunderstanding of the silence of the Greek and Roman authors about the Slavs as such Trubachev 1985.

in fact in Greek we find many many about Slavs,
only the 'chronicles of St Dimitri' or miracles of st Dimitri, gives many information, especially with Slavs who entered Greece,
there are others archbishopies chronicles explaining a lot,
you can learn a lot if you read them,
the problem is that Greeks many times gave a generic termination 'Scythian' to Slavs, Turks, etc above Istros,
by Cyrill/Method and their chronicles we find their nest/nobility in Great Moravia, and their homelands North and East of that,
the difference is with Bulgarians, Byzantines although mention the Turkish Balgur of Asparuch, they also mention the 7 slavic tribes, the Severi, and maybe that is the reason that Bulgaria is Slavic speaking,

Милан М.
07-06-15, 00:14
The FIRST slav documented by scribes in any texts in central Europe was from the year 573AD..........it was from the VELETI tribe , who migrated to modern Mecklenburg germany on the coast.

All other tribes mentioned are who they are called,
goths = goths
avars = avars
lombards = lombards
etc etc
I never mentioned any Goths but Getae Thracian tribe the two have nothing in common,the name come from Get perhaps Greek exonym.
.

LeBrok
07-06-15, 02:58
If that is how you see the roots,then how can you say "Slavs" appear in the Balkans,Slavs are not ethnic group nor they ever was,every particular tribe had it's own name and orientation toward something,does all of the Slavs appear in the Balkans and Central Europe migrating from place to place and by which name? Lol if you meant the 6th century Sclavenes to link with that then say so Lebrok :laughing: If we don't know something, it doesn't mean we need to invent history. The historical facts and archeology tells us that there were no Slaves in Balkans till 5th century, and they didn't settle for good and in great numbers till 6th. Your hypothesis and arguments need to be more convincing than your wishful thinking.

Милан М.
07-06-15, 09:05
If we don't know something, it doesn't mean we need to invent history. The historical facts and archeology tells us that there were no Slaves in Balkans till 5th century, and they didn't settle for good and in great numbers till 6th. Your hypothesis and arguments need to be more convincing than your wishful thinking.

I am not inventing i am debating but you are not competitive for a debate,nowadays science doesn't deal with that issue in such old fashion,there is neither of those and are far from "facts".As far for Slaves they came a bit later known Nemtsi-deafs and dumbs,sometimes Sasi,they were mostly working in the minning industry.

Cip
08-09-16, 14:59
I2a-Din originated in dacian population

Belmonde
25-10-16, 01:25
The highest I2a-Din in the North is in Vichin, Polesie, Belarus and 43%, the same as in Bosniaks. See the publication of Balanovsky ''ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОЕ НАУЧНОЕ УЧРЕЖДЕНИЕ«ИНСТИТУТ ГЕНЕТИКИ И ЦИТОЛОГИИНАЦИОНАЛЬНОЙ АКАДЕМИИ НАУК БЕЛАРУСИ''

gyms
25-10-16, 07:24
Cip:I2a-Din originated in dacian population

How do you know that?

Cip
28-01-17, 19:37
There are few clues:
1. There was a dacian (getae) migration from Romania to south Kazakhstan area. Google "masagetae" and see the map. Then see the map af Y Hg I in the world. You will see there is Hg I in exactly the same teritory. That mean when the getae left balkan area they already had hg I2a.
2. There are a lot of words in romanian language that are considered by romanian academics to by borrowed from slavs. For some of them is true, but for others phonetics makes it very improbably. The conclusion was that in the formation of slav people it was a big dacian/getae contribution, bouth lingvistc and genetic, especialy in south slavs

Sent from my SM-J500F using Eupedia Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

gyms
29-01-17, 12:08
Do you have any ancient dacian/getae y-haplogroups?

Atlantische
29-01-17, 13:30
I2a-Din originated in dacian population
Don't make us laugh.

Cip
29-01-17, 14:21
There is a project callled GENESIS, it is work in proress, for dacian samples the result are not avaleable yet. Until then it is only speculation.
Dacian, Thracian and Ilirian languages were in the same lingvistic family with Lituanian and baltic. Ethnogenesis of slaves was in the middle of them.
I2a Din- North was from the Dacians and I2a- Din South must have been spread by slavs

gyms
29-01-17, 17:01
"There is a project callled GENESIS, it is work in proress, for dacian samples ..."

Where?

Cip
29-01-17, 17:55
In Romania, it is done by The Romanian Academy - Institute of Biology of Bucharest sponsored by Romanian Goverment.

gyms
29-01-17, 20:56
Are you talking about this?
Ancient DNA from South-East Europe Reveals Different Events during Early and Middle Neolithic Influencing the European Genetic Heritage
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0128810

Cip
29-01-17, 21:45
I don't think so. Here is the link to the first part of project. The second part is stopped due to government finance disapproval and church opposition, they say it will continue, we will see.
http://www.ibiol.ro/proiecte/PNII/GENESIS/rezultate.htm

gyms
30-01-17, 12:07
Thanks,Cip! This is very interesting:

Preliminary mitochondrial DNA analysis of a 10th Century medieval population in Capidava (Constanta,Romania)

http://www.ibiol.ro/proiecte/PNII/GE.../IoanaRusu.pdf (http://www.ibiol.ro/proiecte/PNII/GENESIS/2014/IoanaRusu.pdf)

Conclusion
If...mutations will be confirmed for M3 and M4 it could possible reveal:
1. BothM3 and M4 originated from migrants of the Volga-Ural region.
2.

eastara
12-02-17, 12:53
I could not work out how old is this study, but their conclusions are not very correct.
First, as always Romanians fail to mention, that the region of Dobrudja was consistently a part of the Bulgarian Empire in 7-11th century. Moreover, Dobrudja and North Eastern Bulgaria were the hinterland of the Old Bulgars, the only place true pagan Bulgar burials are found, in fact. It was still too early for the Cumans, so we may presume those remains are connected to the Old Bulgars.

Second, the authors claim they could not find a match for the mutations of the individual M3 and think it is H, when it is most obvious J. There are at least several full HVR1 matches at FTDNA, for example 194665 who is Hungarian and assigned to haplogroup J1c2.
Here are his matches in FTDNA database, spreading all over Europe and no connection to Tartars.



Austria
1
1,163
0.1%



Italy
1
4,584
< 0.1 %



Sweden
3
5,190
0.1%



United Kingdom
2
7,680
< 0.1 %



The individual M4 haplogroup is ambiguous, as 16129 and 16267 are found in many different haplogroups, not only H, but HV, I, U2, etc. If it is really H, it needs testing the coding region to determine the real subbranch and relationship with current populations.

Tomenable
05-04-19, 14:04
Ukraine has lower % of R1a than West Russia (e.g. Oryol and Belgorod both have 60-62% R1a)

Oryol is located in the former territory of Kiev Culture, which was probably the homeland of Proto-Slavs:

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/38193-Huns-Avars-and-Hungars/page2?p=571893&viewfull=1#post571893

https://i.imgur.com/UtImtwe.png

https://i.imgur.com/DzKzPSk.png


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byONEV6i0VI