arvistro
Elite member
- Messages
- 1,004
- Reaction score
- 187
- Points
- 0
I think they are all from Kvens. Just different Kven clans.. But that is just my non-scientific theory.That is probably from Kvens (some of them could be Swedicized Kvens).
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I think they are all from Kvens. Just different Kven clans.. But that is just my non-scientific theory.That is probably from Kvens (some of them could be Swedicized Kvens).
"So Slavs started migrating towards the Volga River in times before Christ."
First, there was no Christ and second, there was no major migration of Slavs, ever.
"There is no doubt that Slavs had contact with Goths, because there are Gothic loanwords in LCE (Late Common Slavic) language."
I can give you 500 Slovene words which have identical Lingual roots to Akkadian and above 300 words from Egyptian-Slovene-Punic-Sanskrit... Another example is the use of the Egyptian word KMT or "Khemet" in Croatian Slavonic & Slovenian Prekmurian, as "Kmica" (Kmitsa) which means "black" and "Kmični" as "darkened"... Egypt literally means "Black" in those 2 Slavic languages. So how would you explain it? With allegedly Vandals who came back from Africa and settled down in Pannonia and in (V)Andalusia? So your theory about some major migration from Karphatian mountains, Volga & Dnieper area (only) fails already here and language is the best indicator of this failed theory "out of 1 source only". Another indication are newest archeological discoveries in Slovenia, in region of Prekmurje. Archeologists themselves told me, there is no proof of any major migration of Slavs in 6th century and that they have found the same artifacts , which even predate the 4th century AD ("Scythians" who used same pottery already in 1st century AD) and drive a cultural correlation with the same people who "came" later, after 6th century. But those migrations are unrecognizable (from 1st to 6th century AD, there are no differences). That's why they've concluded, that those minor migrations probably happened because eastern men (probably nomads, soldiers) were seeking brides in the Pannonian basin...
For me it is interesting the link between Thracians and Balto-Slavic peoples, because there are reputable scientists who find closeness between Thracian and Balto-Slavic.
According to haplogroups Serbs (as South Slavic people) are similar to Romanians, but and Romanians spoke one version of Thracian language (they were Dacians) before they romanized and received Latin.
There are scientists who say that language of Slavic people in the South of Europe (Serbian/Bulgarian) was basis for North (East and West) Slavic people, and not vice versa.
Of course, certainly need more research about Thracian and Balto-Slavic.
Also, scientists should determine exactly haplogroups of Thracians (whether I2a, R1a, E-V13, J2, etc ...).
Little is known for certain about the Thracian language, since no phrase beyond a few words in length has been satisfactorily deciphered, and the sounder decipherments given for the shorter phrases may not be completely accurate. Some of the longer inscriptions may indeed be Thracian in origin but they may not reflect actual Thracian language sentences, but rather jumbles of names or magical formulas.[5]
Thraco-Dacian in turn has been hypothesized as forming a branch of Indo-European along with either Albanian[citation needed], Baltic,[14] or Greco-Macedonian[citation needed]. No definite evidence has yet been found that demonstrates that Thracian or Daco-Thracian belonged on the same branch as Albanian or Baltic or Balto-Slavic or Greco-Macedonian or Phrygian or any other IE branch. For this reason textbooks still treat Thracian as its own branch of Indo-European, or as a Daco-Thracian/Thraco-Dacian branch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracian_language
Generally I agree with you. Evidence is needed and strong facts.
It is interesting that there are scientific papers where researches find examples from which something can be done.
One scientific article :
Pavel Serafimov
New Reading of the Thracian Inscription on the Golden Ring from Ezerovo
http://www.korenine.si/zborniki/zbornik07/serafimov_ezer07.pdf
The most interesting part of text is from page 180 to 182
New interpretation
In Latin alphabet, Thracian Inscription (originally in Greek):
ROLISTENE AZ NERENEA TILTEANIS KOA RAZEA DO MEAN TI LEZI PTA MIHE RAZIL TA.
Inscription written 2.500 years ago.
For author (and me) it seems quite Slavic/South Slavic (Bulgarian, Serbian etc..., according to author Old Bulgarian is closest).
1.
Rolistene
It is Thracian personal name, Rolisten. In Slavic languages (Bulgarian, Serbian, Czech...) vocative has added e.
For example:
Ivan
Vocative: Ivane
Stanislav
Vocative: Stanislave
Etc.
2)
Az
It is as Old Slavic:
(j)azъ = I (English)
In Bulgarian is: Az (in Serbian is: Ja)
3)
NERENEA
Thracian female name
It is similar as Bulgarian name Neranza. In text there are more explanations.
4)
TILTEANIS
Thracian family name
TIL + TEANIS
a)
Bulgarian, tilište: human, person (Slavic: čeljade)
In Slavic languages there are words containing "tilište", for example: in Serbian: svetilište: sanctuary.
b)
Bulgarian name Tehan; Bulgarian and Serbian name: Dejan etc.
5)
KOA
Bulgarian/Serbian: koja (j as y in English), similar in another Slavic languages
Sanskrit: kah (Eng. who), etc.
6)
RAZEA
Bulgarian verb: reža (Serbian: rezati) (Eng. to cut, to carve)
Bulgarian none: rez (Serbian: rez, recka) (Eng. notch)
Etc., similar in another Slavic languages
Here is meaning in English: I make lines, I draw.
7)
DO
Bulgarian: Do, Serbian: Do and same or similar in another Slavic languages(Eng. beside, next)
8)
MEAN
Bulgarian: men, mene, me; Serbian: mene, me, and similar in another Slavic languages (Eng., me)
9)
TI
Bulgarian: ti, Serbian: ti, and same or similar in another Slavic languages (Eng. you)
10)
LEZI
Bulgarian: leži; Serbian: leži (imperativ: lezi), and similar in another Slavic languages (Eng. lay)
11)
PTA
Old Bulgarian: Bat; (Eng. Master)
Modern Bulgarian: Bate, Serbian: Bata (Eng. brother)
12)
MIHE
Slavic (general): moj (j as y in English) (Eng. my)
13)
RAZIL
Old Bulgarian: raziti sja; Serbian: razići se; Russian:razoitis; etc. (Eng. go away)
Root: Raz has a lot of words in Bulgarian, Serbian and another Slavic languages
14)
TA
Bulgarian: tuk, Serbian: tu, similar in another Slavic languages (Eng. here)
...
In English: Rolistene, me Nerenea Tilteanis (is the one) who wrote this: lay beside me
my master, (husband) released here (in the grave).
Author concludes:
"Thracian language was nothing more but arhaic Slavic language."
(Did he conclude this too early or no let everyone judges?)
Here is the first version of my hypothesis on the ethnogenesis of Slavs (I also posted it on one Polish history forum, together with more extensive description - but I described it in Polish so I need time to translate - but I mostly mentioned this in this thread):
Direct link to map (its a "working" version, it took me 10 minutes to make it): http://s29.postimg.org/kusjgwefb/Slavic_Ethnogenesis.png
Since N1c did not participate (in large amounts) in ethnogenesis of Slavs, I assumed that only north-eastern Balts of forest zone cultures had large amounts of it. Dark green is the farthest extent of Lusatian culture; light green - extent of the Late Lusatian culture.
Of course haplogroups listed for each area are only dominant haplogroups.
For example, IMO Mesolithic survivors from the Pripyat Marshes had also some (but not that much) of I1 haplogroup, not just I2.
So other HGs could also be present there, but dominant ones were - IMO - M458 for "Lusatians", Z280 for "Balto-Slavs", etc.
I don't know what exactly could be the haplogroups of Old Prussians (West Balts), so I did not hypothesize this.
Who lived in Latvia/Lithuania then?
So, what time period do those borders represent?
For the record I also believe Balts got N1C1 from Norse varyags after 500 AD.
Oh, man. You are the one always bringing up that I want to see Baltic influence there, Germanic there
Based on what I read from you, Slavic identity is strong in you. You tend to assign things to Slavs whenever in grey area
after 500 AD.
Rurik and Gediminas had common ancestor 2200 years ago. 200 BC.
a man, who lived somewhere in Finland/North Sweden,
lso Lithuanians lack East Asian admixture, which is present in Finns, Estonians, Swedes, etc
I asked since it is mainstream that IE people arrived and settled for good in modern Latvia (South of Daugava) and Lithuania already 2000 BC.
But ok, maybe those were some other IE folk
If Rurik (Scandinav N1C1) and Gediminas (Baltic N1C1) had common ancestor 2200 years ago, then all Balts had their common ancestor a bit later, most likely AD.
That was reply to your previous statementI post the rest of it in "Poland" thread because here my post doesn't show up:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29632-Poland-more-Germanic-or-Slavic/page10
Did you look in the mirror? No? So let's refresh your memory:
On 03-11-14, 07:34 you wrote:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...anic-or-Slavic?p=443448&viewfull=1#post443448
Through analysis of DNA extracted from ancient Scandinavian human remains, we show that people of the Pitted Ware culture were not the direct ancestors of modern Scandinavians (including the Saami people of northern Scandinavia) but are more closely related to contemporary populations of the eastern Baltic region. Our findings support hypotheses arising from archaeological analyses that propose a Neolithic or post-Neolithic population replacement in Scandinavia.
Would you be so kind as to point to my post where I disagreed to extinct IE languages or language group in Poland before using big words?Balts migrated to the Baltic coast in two waves - first were West Balts, and that was long BC.
Second wave were East Balts, and that migration was much later - rather in the CE (AD).
First you were arguing with me against the existence of extinct "Venedic" (or other name) IE language group in Poland, but now you have no problems with accepting that some unknown extinct IE group existed in Lithuania and Latvia since 2000 BC, before arrival of the Balts? Really double standards.
L550+ is common for Rurik and Gediminas. L550+ has son L1025+ (that was thought to be South Baltic until recently), and L1025+ had son M2783+ (M2783+ is South Baltic, M2783- is FennoScandian). If L550 age is X, then M2783 age is less than X, or you disagree?I don't get why this should be the case - why allegedly Balts should have their common ancestor later?
Another thing is that common ancestor of Rurik and Gediminas lived much earlier, not 2200 years ago (see above).
This thread has been viewed 149910 times.