Illyria

The Minoans of Crete I feel fell prey to natural/environmental conditions such as earthquakes/volcanoes, they would have been J2a. The superseding Mycenaeans of Crete and southern mainland Greece where a mix of J2 ( a and b) plus E3b. There was a tribe as well in all this in north-central Greece representing I2a as well which would eventually even migrate towards the Peloponnese in very small numbers (the haplogroup). The Dorians I believe were that more recent Celtic group that pushed from the north eventually laying waste to the southern Balkans and invading Galatia of turkey.
 
Yes. Slavs lived before dinosaurs. And when dinosaurs emerged Slavs used dinosaurs as domestic animals and for menu. However, when mammals emerged, Slavs changed the menu and dinosaurs were no longer needed.

Science knows at least three waves of comings of R1a carriers to the Balkans in very long periods. I told more time, R1a carriers is not equal Slavs. There are a lot of R1a carriers in the world, and they are not all Slavs.


Slavs are a linguistic group,that split from Balto-Slavic.
I do not think Slavic languages are older than 2000 years .
As for Balto-Slavic,no idea how old that language is.
The original land of Slavs is near Baltic Sea,a little lower on the map from where Lithuania,Latvia are now and were Old Prussia was,which were also Balts,lived and near.
Is clear that they moved mostly Eastern,where they mixed with Finnics and Ugrians and in lesser extent with Siberians and gave Russians.
In West,they could not move,since Germanics were there and these were hard to beat.
In North,no way,since Vikings were there and this were also a hard challenge.
Some of the Slavs that moved East,moved South,so they gave Ukraine.Some other Slavs,from Eastern part,allied with some Turkic tribes and moved to Balkans and they gave Bulgarians and some Slavs from Central Europe,that is Czech and Slovak and Poland moved South till Balkans,where they gave Serbians,Montenegrins,Croats,Bosnians and Slovenes.
I know that Slavs and Balts do not want to admit that they are coming from same people and language ,but this is the truth.
You can see clearly after paternal HGs how Slavs spread and with whom they mixed,in their road.
HG R1A1 shows that Slavs spread mostly East and South East,they could not spread in North or West,because the presence of Celto-Germanics there.
As for I2,yes,South Slavs have lots of it,but is not of Slavic origins,is from the people that lived in Europe before IE people came.

Is known there are also branches of R1A1 that are not Slavic,but Norse,but I think those people are coming from Balto-Slavic tribes that joined Germanics and got assimilated by those Germanic tribes.
 
Slavs are a linguistic group,that split from Balto-Slavic.
I do not think Slavic languages are older than 2000 years .
As for Balto-Slavic,no idea how old that language is.
The original land of Slavs is near Baltic Sea,a little lower on the map from where Lithuania,Latvia are now and were Old Prussia was,which were also Balts,lived and near.
Is clear that they moved mostly Eastern,where they mixed with Finnics and Ugrians and in lesser extent with Siberians and gave Russians.
In West,they could not move,since Germanics were there and these were hard to beat.
In North,no way,since Vikings were there and this were also a hard challenge.
Some of the Slavs that moved East,moved South,so they gave Ukraine.Some other Slavs,from Eastern part,allied with some Turkic tribes and moved to Balkans and they gave Bulgarians and some Slavs from Central Europe,that is Czech and Slovak and Poland moved South till Balkans,where they gave Serbians,Montenegrins,Croats,Bosnians and Slovenes.
I know that Slavs and Balts do not want to admit that they are coming from same people and language ,but this is the truth.
You can see clearly after paternal HGs how Slavs spread and with whom they mixed,in their road.
HG R1A1 shows that Slavs spread mostly East and South East,they could not spread in North or West,because the presence of Celto-Germanics there.
As for I2,yes,South Slavs have lots of it,but is not of Slavic origins,is from the people that lived in Europe before IE people came.

Is known there are also branches of R1A1 that are not Slavic,but Norse,but I think those people are coming from Balto-Slavic tribes that joined Germanics and got assimilated by those Germanic tribes.

Do you notice contradiction in your write?

You say haplogroup R1a is Slavic (Balto-Slavic).

And Slavic languages are not older than 2000 years.

Do you know when haplogroup R1a appeared?

R1a appeared 20,000-25,000 years ago.

And carriers of R1a didn't speak 18,000-23,000 years and they began to speak 2,000 years ago.

You can read scientific journals that linguists discovered earlier signs of pre-IE language (R1a carriers) in Anatolia 9,600 years ago +- some period.

But R1a is very big haplogroup and it is mistake that someone think it is Slavic haplogroup. Only in Europe R1a have 38 branches.

You can see the picture where R1a distributed. Do you really think that in South, Central and West Asia live Slavs?

indoeurpejczycy.jpg
 
Garry is correct; all R1a is indo-European from PIE homeland but certainly not all branches are Slavic; he is correct; the Slavic linguistic branch of indo-European sprung up 2000 or so years ago.
 
Yes I have said that Slavic languages are not older than 2000 years .
Till than people were speaking Balto-Slavic and around 2000 years ago,or later,Slavic split from Balto-Slavic and later Slavic expansion started,event which triggered the split of Slavic in 3 branches,South Slavic,Western Slavic,Eastern Slavic.
It is clear that the split was not that far away since South Slavic languages are still mutually intelligible.
As for the fact that Bulgarian migrated from today Russia to Balkans,that is shown by the strong mutual intelligibility between Russian and Bulgarian.
How Balto-Slavic speakers got on today land of Poland,Baltic countries,there is another story.
Thing is,Slavs got into Balkans around 1400-1500 years ago,not earlier than that.
The fact that they do not have borrowings from Latin language is showing that they were not in Balkans,in the period Roman Empire was present here.
 
Yes I have said that Slavic languages are not older than 2000 years .
Till than people were speaking Balto-Slavic and around 2000 years ago,or later,Slavic split from Balto-Slavic and later Slavic expansion started,event which triggered the split of Slavic in 3 branches,South Slavic,Western Slavic,Eastern Slavic.
It is clear that the split was not that far away since South Slavic languages are still mutually intelligible.
As for the fact that Bulgarian migrated from today Russia to Balkans,that is shown by the strong mutual intelligibility between Russian and Bulgarian.
How Balto-Slavic speakers got on today land of Poland,Baltic countries,there is another story.
Thing is,Slavs got into Balkans around 1400-1500 years ago,not earlier than that.
The fact that they do not have borrowings from Latin language is showing that they were not in Balkans,in the period Roman Empire was present here.

But we here don't speak about 5th - 7th centuries.

We speak about R1a, I2a, E-V13 and another haplogroups whose carriers are comprised Illyrian (and Thracian and another) tribes in the Balkans.
 
Yes I have said that Slavic languages are not older than 2000 years .
Till than people were speaking Balto-Slavic and around 2000 years ago,or later,Slavic split from Balto-Slavic and later Slavic expansion started,event which triggered the split of Slavic in 3 branches,South Slavic,Western Slavic,Eastern Slavic.
It is clear that the split was not that far away since South Slavic languages are still mutually intelligible.
As for the fact that Bulgarian migrated from today Russia to Balkans,that is shown by the strong mutual intelligibility between Russian and Bulgarian.
How Balto-Slavic speakers got on today land of Poland,Baltic countries,there is another story.
Thing is,Slavs got into Balkans around 1400-1500 years ago,not earlier than that.
The fact that they do not have borrowings from Latin language is showing that they were not in Balkans,in the period Roman Empire was present here.

Earlier than that. Albanian shows to have been spoken particularly close to Baltic but not Slavic. They were likely spoken separated by Baltic speakers. Keep in mind Baltic was more widspread then. Yet Albanians were included early in the Roman Empire which perhaps makes the similarities not so obvious. This was written in 1993 http://www.lituanus.org/1993_2/93_2_05.htm but it soon became outdated a few years later when Vladimir Orel said the oppostite of what's mentioned there. Specifically, he said what I said in the second sentence. He also put Proto-Albanian homeland somewhere in Central or South-Eastern Europe, which is basically what everyone agreed on already. That said, adding to the observation made in the beginning of the paragraph, where were the Slavic speakers?

Also these theories https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Balto-Slavic_theories.svg 2 and 3 look quite likely to me, 3 moreso
 
Yes I have said that Slavic languages are not older than 2000 years .
Till than people were speaking Balto-Slavic and around 2000 years ago,or later,Slavic split from Balto-Slavic and later Slavic expansion started,event which triggered the split of Slavic in 3 branches,South Slavic,Western Slavic,Eastern Slavic.
It is clear that the split was not that far away since South Slavic languages are still mutually intelligible.
As for the fact that Bulgarian migrated from today Russia to Balkans,that is shown by the strong mutual intelligibility between Russian and Bulgarian.
How Balto-Slavic speakers got on today land of Poland,Baltic countries,there is another story.
Thing is,Slavs got into Balkans around 1400-1500 years ago,not earlier than that.
The fact that they do not have borrowings from Latin language is showing that they were not in Balkans,in the period Roman Empire was present here.

Don't get me wrong but language and origin are two completely different things, and language is not prove of origin.

In the world there are a lot of natives in Asia, Africa, Latin America etc. whose language is English or Spanish but they have nothing with Europe nor with R1b, I1, etc haplogroups in Britain or Spain.

It is very logical, a tribe for thousands of years speaks own language. But in some time this tribe be conquered by invaders. For example and conqueror and tribe are same race.

If conqueror succeeded in imposing language and culture this tribe can change own native language in only two or three generations.

Imagine two or three thousand years passes and nowhere ex language is written.

Descendants can imagine that it is their long-time language and that they have same origin as conquerors.

However their origin can be completely different as evidenced by haplogroups.

I see you are Romanian. Romanians and Serbs speak different languages.

However, if you see Romanian and Serbian haplogroups you can see that Romanians and Serbs are very similar, you can compare percents different haplogroups in Eupedia (Eupedia is the best because Maciamo took data from all relevant studies in scientific Journals).

For example:
I2a
Serbs 33%, Romanians 26%
R1a
Serbs 16%, Romanians 17.5%
E-V13
Serbs 18%, Romanians 15%
I1
Serbs 8.5%, Romanians 4.5%
R1b
Serbs 8%, Romanians 12%

You can see for example Italian haplogroups by regions and see much more differences.

Of course, we can enter in dept and explorer further, but and now we can see similarity Serbs and Romanians.

But it should not surprising because Serbs are descended from Thracians, Illyrians, and even older settlers of the Balkans , etc. and Romanians are descedents from Dacians, Thracians, and even older settlers of the Balkans too.

Dacians were people similar with Thracians.

Yes, Serbs and Romanians have similar origin but Serbs and Romans speak different languages.

But Dacian language is not today's Romanian language, because Romanian language is adopted in process of Romanization during early centuries AD. Dacian language is not alive and there are very little written evidence.

But the origin is written in haplogroups, not in language.
 
yes

Yes. Slavs lived before dinosaurs. And when dinosaurs emerged Slavs used dinosaurs as domestic animals and for menu. However, when mammals emerged, Slavs changed the menu and dinosaurs were no longer needed.

Science knows at least three waves of comings of R1a carriers to the Balkans in very long periods. I told more time, R1a carriers is not equal Slavs. There are a lot of R1a carriers in the world, and they are not all Slavs.

Yes i agree with you that Y-R1a doesn't necessarily mean Slavic. Neither do other Y-HG necessarily mean a population, neither ancient nor actual.
 
Dear Dian,
I have some questions for You,
First, You have written to article before about berbers and albanian about: what similarities have albanian word `ik`english word `quick`, and japanese `ik`. I recommend you to learn more english then word `ik` can be translated in english with go away or exit and not quick! Japanese have not this same significance.
Second , Did You make any haplo group to greek populations and if `yes` are these greek the same with old greeks?
Third You said that as conclusion albanians are from transylvanian. Question is: what kind of albanian group did you have make analysis? (I think is taken to analysis a group from albanian vlahs, and that was the result) or not?
Waitng a honest answer
Pirro Prifti
 
Yes i agree with you that Y-R1a doesn't necessarily mean Slavic. Neither do other Y-HG necessarily mean a population, neither ancient nor actual.

I have question for You:
Which Haplo group have significance for ancient population, have significance for actual population, and which other haplo group have not significance for population (except Y-HG)?
 
But we here don't speak about 5th - 7th centuries.

We speak about R1a, I2a, E-V13 and another haplogroups whose carriers are comprised Illyrian (and Thracian and another) tribes in the Balkans.

CAN i ASK A QUESTION FOR YOU: What kind of haplo group are characteristic about actual albanians? because haplo groups: Y-R1a and Y-HG can be slavic...
 
the map is in correct, because of have no evidence to any `hellenic` tribues. All tribues You emphsed with black are in fact illyrian- pellasgean tribues. That s confirmed by significance of their naems , gods, and places with albanian language.
 
Chaonia - s labanian word- KA JON- NGA JONI- PRA NGA DETI jON- ine english language- (tribue) close to Jonian sea.
Mollosy- albanian-Malesi- in english- Montain. How is possible for this two tribues to be `greek`?! when word is albanian?
 
Chaonia - s labanian word- KA JON- NGA JONI- PRA NGA DETI jON- ine english language- (tribue) close to Jonian sea.
Mollosy- albanian-Malesi- in english- Montain. How is possible for this two tribues to be `greek`?! when word is albanian?

Don't know, ask Kevin Baugh.

"The name Molossia is derived from the Spanish word morro which means "small rocky hill". Baugh has stated that the ancient Greek tribe of Molossians is unrelated."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Molossia#cite_note-mo-4
 
According to the latest study on Eurasian genomes Bronze and Iron Age Montenegrin samples from Velika Gruda (Northern Montenegro not far from Dalmatia in Croatia) are autosomally just slightly east of Tuscans which on modern PCA maps coincides with North Greeks and Albanians. But i dont understand what culture do they belong too exactly, Illyrians were an iron age population right?

nature14507-f2.jpg
 

This thread has been viewed 298066 times.

Back
Top