Four questions for those who still believe in prehistoric Slavs and other fairy tales

[Yetos]

I would actually agree that the term 'pre-Greek' as a whole is better (and I would also agree with your point that the labelings of "Eteocretan" and "Eteocypriot" are fairly arbitrary, but then again, note how technically the names "Hittite" and "Tocharian" are just as arbitrary), but that proves my point: there was no homogenous pre-Greek language.

Greek is not a language,
but a linguistic family,

so according the 'era' you can find another Greek as primary,
but that does not mean that the other 'family members' did not exist,

so we know that Mycenean was a kind of proto-Greek,
but we also know that Greek started to be spoken away from Mycenae, at today NW parts of Greece,
considering that lake Lychnis Λυχνις which today is not in Greece, (Ochrida, Ohrid Ωχρις) was a an area of proto-Greek spoken,
and also adding that Arcadians might originate from Arzawa-Assuwa, you can understand how evolution of language happened,
just think that Aeolians had aspirations that today is found in other IE languages,
anyway, by understanding the earlier form Διας-ος, compare with Brygian Tios, and then with attic Θεος,
but Makedonians kept the older Δια, although with koine, the word stabilize to Θεος,
so by seeing Greek as only one language, you will have wrong results,
but by understanding that Greek was a linguistic family that at North was close to Brygian, and at south evolute to Mycenean, and also add the unknown, yet easy to find some Pelasgian, and the Arzawa/Assuwa adds/mix
then you have we know about Greek language,
for example from Homer till Herodotus how many centuries?
and from Herodotus till Xenophon which is a typical pure South Greek writer, how many?
in 3 centuries we have Homer to Herodotus, and 3 centuries from Herodotus to Xenophon, and we loose numbers, cases, voices, aparemphat, etc
and yet in Makedonia 8 centuries after Homer kept a primitive Greek dialect,
and 3000 years after Homer we found that Pontic Greek original uses +1 aparemphat than Homer, and older syntax of dative case than koine, when rest Greek have only 1 aparemphat and 4 cases today,
my grand mother still say, να σοι δωσου μιά σ'ην κεβαλή, as ancient Makedonians, not κεφαλη which is accepted 2500 years now,
a pontic Greek will say διγω σε εναν σ'ο κιφαλ',
a Cretan will say να σου δωκω μια στην κεφαλη
α modern one να σε/σου δωσω μια στο κεφαλι
and at koine would be, σοι δωσω μιαν εις την κεφαλην
so some older styles still remained milleniums

it is like comparing Norwegian with Austrian, and say I am not sure there was a homogenous Germanic language

 

[Taranis]

Greek is not a language,
but a linguistic family,

so according the 'era' you can find another Greek as primary,
but that does not mean that the other 'family members' did not exist,

so we know that Mycenean was a kind of proto-Greek,
but we also know that Greek started to be spoken away from Mycenae, at today NW parts of Greece,
considering that lake Lychnis Λυχνις which today is not in Greece, (Ochrida, Ohrid Ωχρις) was a an area of proto-Greek spoken,
and also adding that Arcadians might originate from Arzawa-Assuwa, you can understand how evolution of language happened,
just think that Aeolians had aspirations that today is found in other IE languages,
anyway, by understanding the earlier form Διας-ος, compare with Brygian Tios, and then with attic Θεος,
but Makedonians kept the older Δια, although with koine, the word stabilize to Θεος,
so by seeing Greek as only one language, you will have wrong results,
but by understanding that Greek was a linguistic family that at North was close to Brygian, and at south evolute to Mycenean, and also add the unknown, yet easy to find some Pelasgian, and the Arzawa/Assuwa adds/mix
then you have we know about Greek language,
for example from Homer till Herodotus how many centuries?
and from Herodotus till Xenophon which is a typical pure South Greek writer, how many?
in 3 centuries we have Homer to Herodotus, and 3 centuries from Herodotus to Xenophon, and we loose numbers, cases, voices, aparemphat, etc
and yet in Makedonia 8 centuries after Homer kept a primitive Greek dialect,
and 3000 years after Homer we found that Pontic Greek original uses +1 aparemphat than Homer, and older syntax of dative case than koine, when rest Greek have only 1 aparemphat and 4 cases today,
my grand mother still say, να σοι δωσου μιά σ'ην κεβαλή, as ancient Makedonians, not κεφαλη which is accepted 2500 years now,
a pontic Greek will say διγω σε εναν σ'ο κιφαλ',
a Cretan will say να σου δωκω μια στην κεφαλη
α modern one να σε/σου δωσω μια στο κεφαλι
and at koine would be, σοι δωσω μιαν εις την κεφαλην
so some older styles still remained milleniums

it is like comparing Norwegian with Austrian, and say I am not sure there was a homogenous Germanic language

Sorry to say this Yetos, but you've been getting me completely wrong here. I was explicitly talking about "pre-Greek" languages (plural), or substrate influences in Greek. Milan quoted Duridanov and his proposal that "Pelasgian", just like Thracian, was a Balto-Slavic language. I made the point that there that considering that it can be demonstrated easily that there was more than one source for non-Greek elements in Greek, which takes Duridanov's proposal ad absurdum.

 

[Nik]

Milan, perhaps u fail to understand/accept the fact that languages and ethnicities do not spread in the same pattern.

Just because u fail to see the possibility of a massive migration from the "Slavic homeland" to the Balkans does not mean that the language was always spoken there. There happened many migrations during that period in the Balkans, but most of them were simply movements of tribes within the Roman Empire or its immediate neighbors (not Slavs) crossing the Danube to possibly escape the actual migrations. That said, these events caused a southward movement of many Carpathian I2a tribes (Dacians, Bastarnae, Scythians, u name it) which would eventually be later assimilated (and not as fast as it is thought).

So we could be dealing with a normal southward shift of Balkanic and Carpathian tribes first and Slavicization later.

As for the relation of Thracian to Pelasgian, ur finding a few similar words and calling 2 entire languages (I'm being generous with 2) related. It could be that Pre-Greeks and Pre-Thracians shared many common words or where related languages, therefore the Hellenic and Thracian new arrivals coincidentally adopted the same ones in some cases or simply didn't rename some rivers or place names even better.

 

[Yetos]

@ milan

if we accept that Pelasgian = Tracian then pre-Greeks=Polish,
do you find this correct?

 

[Milan]

Sorry to say this Yetos, but you've been getting me completely wrong here. I was explicitly talking about "pre-Greek" languages (plural), or substrate influences in Greek. Milan quoted Duridanov and his proposal that "Pelasgian", just like Thracian, was a Balto-Slavic language. I made the point that there that considering that it can be demonstrated easily that there was more than one source for non-Greek elements in Greek, which takes Duridanov's proposal ad absurdum.

Taranis the problem with conversation with you is that you twist words in order to discredit people,multiple times i noticed this,i will post the same and tell me where does he say Thracian is Pelasgian; and where he use that "Pelasgian" is one and same language? he apply (pre Greek) plus is just a quote not entire book of his research.

The number of Thraco-Baltic (resp. Thraco-Balto-Slavic) parallels is impressive. Some isoglosses show Thracian was also related to German, on one hand, and to Indo-Iranian, on the other hand. Similar relations to "Pelasgian" (pre-Greek) can be only supposed on the basis of phonetic similarities.
in earlier times – probably in the III-th millennium BC, and before the realisation of the aforementioned sound shifts, – the Thracian language formed a close group with the Baltic (resp. Balto-Slavic), the Dacian and the "Pelasgian" languages. More distant were its relations with the other Indo-European languages, and especially with Greek, the Italic and Celtic languages, which exhibit only isolated phonetic similarities with Thracian; the Tokharian and the Hittite were also distant.

He speak of III-th millennium BC,also perhaps we should find out what and which region he have in mind when talk about "pre Greek" (Pelasgian) and those place names because he sure don't apply that to Lemnian or something similar.I am however not interested in that subject.

This is like saying for example; the Greek language formed close union with Indo-Aryan,Armenian ... some isoglosses show close relation to Italic-Celtic,more distant to it's relation were Balto-Slavic,the Thracian languages which exhibit only isolated phonetic similarities and so on..

 

[Milan]

@ milan

if we accept that Pelasgian = Tracian then pre-Greeks=Polish,
do you find this correct?

In order to accept this perhaps you follow what Taranis have to say instead Duridanov,and perhaps you even know Duridanov and Georgiev better than me.

 

[Volat]

Lowest quality of information on Slavic history and ethnogenesis I've encountered for quite sometime .

 

[Milan]

If you're of the opinion that Thracian material is closer to Balto-Slavic than anything else, be our guest and post it here.

Quick link with googling can brought you here;
The Language of the Thracians, Ivan Duridanov

IX. The place of the Thracian among the Indo-European languages

1. Phonetical similarities:
​

Phonetical features

Thrac.

Dacian

Alban.

Balto-Slavic

"Pelasg."

German

Indo-Iranian

Greek

Phryg.

Armen.

Italic

Celtic

Hittite

Tokhar.

IE o>a

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

–

–

–

–

–

+

A + B –

IE , > ur(or), ul (ol); ir, il

+

(+)

(+)

+

+

(+)

–

–

–

–

+

–

–

–

IE , >um(om), un (on); im, in

+

+

+

+

+

+

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

IE k , g , g h > k, g (k), g

+

+

+

+

+

–

Ind. ± Iran. ±

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

IE k', g', g'h > s (þ), z (d)

+

+

+

+

+

–

Ind. s,j,h Iran. +

–

+

+

–

–

–

–

IE p, t, k > , ,

+

–

–

–

+

–

–

–

+

+

–

–

+

+

IE b, d, g > p, t, k

+

–

–

–

+

+

–

–

+

+

–

–

+

+

IE bh, dh, gh > b, d, g

+

+

+

+

+

+

Ind. – Iran. +

–

+

–

–

+

+

+

IE sr > str

+

+

+

+ (Lith. –)

?

+

–

–

–

–

–

–

?

–

IE tt, dt > st

+

–

?

+

?

–

Ind. – Iran. +

+

?

?

–

–

?

?

2.3. Thracian and Baltic
There are many Thraco-Baltic lexical parallels with similarities both in the stems and in the suffixes which impress greatly [See Thracisch-dakische Studien. I. Teil: Die thrakisch- und dakisch-baltischen Sprachbeziehungen. Balkansko ezikoznanie, XIII, 2, Sofia, 1969]. Here are some examples:
(VN - village name; PN - personal name; PlN - place name; RN - river name; FM - family name)

Thracian	Baltic
VN Batkúnion	Lith. VN Batkunai
VN Clasus	Latv. PlN Kalsi, Kals-strauts
VN Kýpsela	Lith. VN Kupšēliai from kupsēlis 'a hillock'
VN Rumbo-dona	Old-Pruss. PlN Rumbow (a ford), Latv. rum̃ba 'river rapids'
VN Sártē	Lith. RN Sar̃tė from sar̃tas 'bright-red'
VN Scretisca	Lith. VN Skrētiškė
VN Strambai	Old-Pruss. strambo 'a stubble-field' Latv. VN Strũobas
PN Sautes	Old-Latv. FN Sautte Latv. sautis 'a lazy man'
PN Skilas	Lith. PN Skyle
PN Sparkē	Old-Pruss. PN Sparke
midne 'a village'	Latv. mītne 'a place of stay'
zibythides 'the noble Thracians'	Lith. žibùtė 'light; something shining'
VN Zburulus	Lith. žiburỹs 'light'

His opinion however was that Thracian is firstly most close to Baltic languages so i won't post other language cognates there;

Something from Thracian mytholgy for comparison; one of the most freuquent epithets of the Thracian rider god is "Perkon"
Perun (Slavic sky god) Perkunas (Baltic sky god)in South-Slavic root-per,perk-meaning "to hit"

Duridanov again;
The epithet Pyrumērulas (variants: Pyrmērulas, Pyrymērylas, Pirmerulas), which occurs as an epithet of the Thracian deity of Heros, is obviously a two-component word. The first component is linked to the Greek pӯrós ‘maize, corn’ from the IE *pūro-, compare also to the Lith. pūrai ‘winter maize’, the Latv. puri ‘maize’, the Church Slavonic pəiro ‘spelt’, etc.; the second component is an extension of the stem of the IE verb *mēr- ‘big, great’ in Slavic personal names, ending in -mērə (Vladimer)


Everyone know that "Mir/Mer" is one of the most frequent component in Slavic names i guess "Gothic" too.

Another deity common to Thracians and Phrygians was Semelē, a goddess of the earth, Dionysus’s mother. The name is related to the Phrygian zemelō ‘mother-earth’, related to the Old-Bulg. zemlja, the Russ. zemlja ‘land’, the Lith. zeme, the Latv. zeme, etc., and its initial form must have been *zeml’a with an epenthetic l, as the Slavic word from the IE *g’h(d)ma.


South Slavic goddess Dodola
Also spelled Doda,Dudulica, Dudulya and Didilya D. Decev compared the word "dodola" (also dudula, dudulica, etc.) with Thracian anthroponyms (personal names) and toponyms (place names), such as Doidalsos, Doidalses, Dydalsos, Dudis, Doudoupes.
While Paliga say the custom is Thracian,is found among Romanians,as far in Poland as Dzidzileya.
They connect it to Lithunian-dundulis (thunder)

"Ktistai" the Thracians that live in celibacy,monks,South Slavic-"čisti" meaning clean/pure, both physically and spiritually,Greek alphabet has no "č" so we encounter "kt".

This doesn't belong here in this thread.

 

[Milan]

Taranis@
For all this separate thread need to be open or send this in another thread i guess Garrick has one "Thracians spoke Balto-Slavic"
Here is the four general questions on Slavic ethnogenesis for which i recieved for now only insults and emotionaly attacks from nationalists instead of answers,while i was accused being one;
And do not move that discussion with Volat in other thread please so people can see how i am attacked cause i doesn't agree with their ideas,i am "traitor" non Slav and everything else if i don't embrace their opinion,more of ideology;
This is Volat post from Belorusia about me,you can repost mine also,and is general opinion on ordinary people there on history(North Slavs) but he somehow opened his heart to speak,which is good,so is good to be here,cause we also talked about biases and objectivity here;

I am not trying to be rude, but you don't strike me as a Slav after having read your numerous comments. In all likelihood, you are an indigenous person of the Balkans, such as Albanians, whom our Slavic ancestors had done full frontal lobotomy reversal , so they began to speak a Slavic language. You eat non-Slavic cuisine having Turkish names. You wear non-Slavic clothes. You don't have Slavic physical appearance and genetics as 80% of the Slavs. Even your intellect is that of a typical person living in the Balkans.

Here is the thread;
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32878-(offtopic-locked-thread)

 

[Nik]

Milan, do u realize that all u have been doing is stating again after many decades of proof that IE languages are related to each other and that's why they're grouped together in the first place? So according to ur logic, if Thracian has cognates with Baltic, and Baltic is closely related to Slavic, therefore Thracian = Slavic? Ur pride forbids u to admit that ur assimilated, doesn't it?

And +1 to Volat's post, he's got it right although it's obvious he despises Albanians.

 

[Yetos]

In order to accept this perhaps you follow what Taranis have to say instead Duridanov,and perhaps you even know Duridanov and Georgiev better than me.

Duridanov although has done a good work with original thracian vocabulary,
he is stacked in the idea of Baltic as homeland of European IE languages,
tha is why mainly he is using baltic synonyms, in words that passed in modern Greek and used only by Greeks today.
even in his work, that is obvious,
for example the Greek word polis (πολις πολιτεια) comes from baltic poljie,
the word kalamindar which in modern Greek is straw of rivers/lakes anc Gr (συριγγα) modern καλαμις-ια, and also the emptiest bone of the feet, Greek κνημη, alternative modern καλαμι)
he is claiming that it was a tree like the elm Gr Ιτια.
that is why Duridanov is strange and pecculiar,

or you prefer Thracian muca (male children, boys of a wider family) which Duridanov connects it with Armenian, but not with Scottish Mac,

 

[Milan]

Milan, do u realize that all u have been doing is stating again after many decades of proof that IE languages are related to each other and that's why they're grouped together in the first place? So according to ur logic, if Thracian has cognates with Baltic, and Baltic is closely related to Slavic, therefore Thracian = Slavic? Ur pride forbids u to admit that ur assimilated, doesn't it?

And +1 to Volat's post, he's got it right although it's obvious he despises Albanians.

Another expert to tell me who i am,thanks for your effort guys
Both of you seem to be more obscure about your own origins than myself obviously.You are what you think you are,it is very simple,certainly i am not Russian neither Albanian.
No,not all languages were related the same way,with time some become much more distant to eachother,even though they have same root.
Have nothing to do with my pride,i started totaly different thread but obviously some people draged it this way,assimilated mean what? let's start from our first ancestors and see who they where,what language they spoke,with whom they mixed,who assimilated them and opposite,with whom they join in tribes,all this is absurd,to the final question,however there is reason why a Russian,Albanian and German will always agree with this theory,even if i get infraction i couldn't care less.

And no our scholars mainstream never said that Thracians spoke a Slavic or even Balto-Slavic,in contrary for example in Albania entire school system is based that you are Illyrians,but again no proves for such claims,so can you compare that?

The first to challenge so called migration movement was therefore not South-Slav but Romanian,Florin Curta recently,the one that wrote the article.
There is only one non biased person in this thread and that is A.Papadimitriou,not because he agree with me,i do not see that he does,but he is objective person and apply critical thinking at least.

 

[Volat]

I am not trying to portray myself as a Slav who knows everything about original Slavs. In this topic, several people are far-fetched from what our leading scholars wrote about Slavic origins, language, culture, physical appearance, genetics.


In a nutshell, Slavic homeland considered in every Slavic country - in every school of Slavic country - is what is present day north-western Ukraine, south-eastern Poland, south-western-Belarus. Scholars came to the conclusion after analysing hydronyms, archaeolgocial cultures, historic records, languages of Slavs and Balts and other things.

 

[Milan]

I am not trying to portray myself as a Slav who knows everything about original Slavs. In this topic, several people are far-fetched from what our leading scholars wrote about Slavic origins, language, culture, physical appearance, genetics.


In a nutshell, Slavic homeland considered in every Slavic country - in every school of Slavic country - is what is present day north-western Ukraine, south-eastern Poland, south-western-Belarus. Scholars came to the conclusion after analysing hydronyms, archaeolgocial cultures, historic records, languages of Slavs and Balts and other things.

There is no Slavic physical appearance,those that claim that are pseudo scientists,however there is description how Sclavenes looked by early authors;
1. Procopius of Caesarea (6th century):


- "(...) Valerian chose one of the Sklaveni who are men of mighty stature. (...)"


- "(...) Nay further, they do not differ at all from one another in appearance. For they are all exceptionally tall and stalwart men, while their bodies and hair are neither very fair or very blonde, nor indeed do they incline entirely to the dark type, but they are slightly ruddy in color. (...)"


2. Theophilact Simokatta (describing events from year 595):


"(...) The Emperor was with great curiosity listening to stories about this tribe, he has welcomed these newcomers from the land of barbarians, and after being amazed by their height and mighty stature, he sent these men to Heraclea. (...)"


3. Theophanes the Confessor (describing the same event from year 595):


"(...) The Emperor was admiring their beauty and their stalwart stature. (...)


As you can see that they weren't "blonde" as most nordicist(north Slavs) lovers will say today and were tall of mighty stature and stalwart,perfect description of a South-Slav and Danube basin dweller where they stem from,Belorusians,Russians and all other Slavs are much shorter than South-Slavs,neither is there genetic Slav,when some will test some of the "Sclavenes" we can say this,rest all are nationalist claims.
Well Nords were your leaders,Nestor say East Slavs were leaderless until they came yet they had power to make war with Roman empire and make lobotomy reversal on Thracians,Illyrian,Greeks,logic?

 

[Volat]

You have little to with the Slavs - genetically, anthropologically, culturally. Take a look at you cuisines. Take a look at your traditional clothing. Take a closer look at your anthropology and genetics. All you know is our language.

 

[Milan]

You have little to with the Slavs - genetically, anthropologically, culturally. Take a look at you cuisines. Take a look at your traditional clothing. Take a closer look at your anthropology and genetics. All you know is our language.

Why you edited your comment prior calling me Mongrel? is it admin here around to check?
Again there is no Slavic culture,neither genetics(R1a in your case?),neither appearance,there is only some that are prevalent among certain groups in our case Slavs R1a and I2 with other haplogroups among them,that's it.Central Europe dances resemble eachother,Balkan dances resemble eachother regardless ethnicities,language groups,take your pseudo claims back home.Why don't you take a look at yours first,what is wrong with our traditional clothing,what's wrong with our cuisine? what a pitty there is people like you yet around.
There is Slavic language!
Slavic ethnogenesis to certain extend and again when one test those we know in historical sources as Sclavenes first,we can say their haplogroups.

 

[Volat]

Why you edited your comment prior calling me Mongrel? is it admin here around to check?
Again there is no Slavic culture,neither genetics,neither appearance,there is only some that are prevalent among certain groups,that's it.Central Europe dances resemble eachother,Balkan dances resemble eachother regardless ethnicities,language groups,take your pseudo claims back home.Why don't you take a look at yours first,what is wrong with our traditional clothing?
There is Slavic language!
Slavic ethnogenesis to certain extend.

I am calling you mongrel, because you are one in the eyes of many Slavic and non-Slavic people -- Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenes, Balts, Germans, Scandinavians. Even English are genetically more similar to us than certain southern Slavs such as yourself. We'd have accepted you if you wanted to be part of us. But you are talking about Thracians and Dacians about whose languages we only know from toponyms. You are definitely a confused mongrel . I am telling you this as a Belarusian -- buzz off, mongrel, with your Thracian and Dacian agenda.

 

[A. Papadimitriou]

The Slavs of the Greek sources (Sclavenes, Sthlavenes, which is the equivalent of Slovenes) appear to be more similar to Adriatic Slavs, Western Balkan Slavs in terms of appearance. I won't say that the Proto-Slavs were like that but placing the homeland in a certain place is more of a political choice in reality.

There are assimilated people in every country. North Slavs have assimilated different Uralic, Tatar, Baltic, Germanic groups.

Tacitus Veneti were in 'Germania', that means at least West of Vistula, and they were unlike 'Sarmatians' in every respect. They had permanent settlements, they didn't live in wagons. Greeks, Romans, Germanics and the Veneti apparently had permanent settlements. They weren't 'Sarmatian'-like.

I'm not interested on who is more Proto-Slav, so I won't comment on that, though.

 

[Nik]

Another expert to tell me who i am,thanks for your effort guys
Both of you seem to be more obscure about your own origins than myself obviously.You are what you think you are,it is very simple,certainly i am not Russian neither Albanian.
No,not all languages were related the same way,with time some become much more distant to eachother,even though they have same root.
Have nothing to do with my pride,i started totaly different thread but obviously some people draged it this way,assimilated mean what? let's start from our first ancestors and see who they where,what language they spoke,with whom they mixed,who assimilated them and opposite,with whom they join in tribes,all this is absurd,to the final question,however there is reason why a Russian,Albanian and German will always agree with this theory,even if i get infraction i couldn't care less.

I wasn't trying to tell u who u r ethnicity wise as u r what u want to be. Thousands of ethnic groups disappeared or arouse in the course of history, so the question is who you were, and that I dont know nor I do care. Im talking about genetics, and Serbs are clearly a Central-Northern Balkan people without a doubt.

And no our scholars mainstream never said that Thracians spoke a Slavic or even Balto-Slavic,in contrary for example in Albania entire school system is based that you are Illyrians,but again no proves for such claims,so can you compare that?

What ur saying is true, our scholars do claim that we are Illyrians when back then they didnt even have much proof, but luckily/coincidentally for them not only Anthropology but also modern genetics proved that that's the only thing we can be. The Illyrians were E-V13, I2a, J2b, R1b, J2a, R1a, G, etc. and thats what we are as well

With regards to the ancient description of Slavs, I believe u r right in thinking that they resembled modern day South Slavs and those are indeed very interesting, but do not hold much weight as scientific proof.

Ancient authors described the ancient Thracians as red-haired and blue eyed people, but now we know they were Dinaric-Mediterraneans. Ancient authors described the Vikings as giants but unfortunately now we know that they're average height was around 170cm. Ancient authors described a Scythian as a very educated, well mannered and very well dressed man with a perfect Greek speech, but since they had the chance to ask him about this strange case they added that he was actually an ethnic Greek taken hostage from them who later married a wealthy Scythian women and chose to be a Scythian rather than a Roman/Greek as he had a way better life.

Similar accounts are reported several times for the Goths, Slavs, etc. that living among them was better than under the rule of Rome, and Slavs particularly were known for peacefully absorbing into their society many hostages or tribes who joined them voluntarily to plunder the Roman territories. That said, we can never know who was what but only under which banner he served at the time.

The reason why your theory confuses me is that I cannot see a possible scenario of having 2 completely separate Slavs, those "non-Slavic" blonde Baltids of the North and the very tall darker Slavs of Dacia and Thrace.

Do u mean that these 2 different groups used to be neighbours initially but were then cut off by the Bastarnae, Scythians and Sarmatians?

Or u actually believe that the Southern ones are the only real Slavs? But then who assimilated the ones in the North?

To avoid unnecessary future posts, are u familiar with the physical anthopology of the Western Balkans? Are u at least aware that the modern people living there share the same characteristics of the ancient ones (pre-Slavs and pre-Illyrians)? Im just saying this in case ur theory is that these very tall darker Slavs came to Western Balkans and replaced an entire population which looked nothing like them.

 

[Angela]

Nik: The Illyrians were E-V13, I2a, J2b, R1b, J2a, R1a, G, etc. and thats what we are as well

According to which ancient samples?