Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 154

Thread: How to divide Slavs from Balts, and vice-versa before 6th century?

  1. #51
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    arvistro's Avatar
    Join Date
    06-08-14
    Posts
    1,004
    Points
    13,128
    Level
    34
    Points: 13,128, Level: 34
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 222
    Overall activity: 7.0%


    Country: Latvia



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    I sincerely can't reconcile with an assumption that even before their total divergence into many language families Italic and Venetic would already be near Italy, Celtic already near Southern Germany, Balto-Slavic already near the Pripyat marshes and so on, exactly as we saw them in the Iron Age.
    Agree on this. Usually it would not work like this.
    Probably there were quite a lot more now dead IE languages in Europe like Temematic, etc.

    As to Balto-Slavic in particular, idea of it to expand at the expense of some IE languages (rather than non-IE languages) I could agree with. Had they expanded with CW, then a lot more non-IE words would be absorbed, we could speak of strong non-IE substrate in Slavic/Baltic. But we dont have that. We have strong non-IE substrate in Germanic (at least there is this theory), but not for Balto-Slavic.

  2. #52
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    23-10-17
    Posts
    62
    Points
    1,598
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,598, Level: 11
    Level completed: 16%, Points required for next Level: 252
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Bosnia & Herzegovina



    Quote Originally Posted by arvistro View Post
    Agree on this. Usually it would not work like this.
    Probably there were quite a lot more now dead IE languages in Europe like Temematic, etc.

    As to Balto-Slavic in particular, idea of it to expand at the expense of some IE languages (rather than non-IE languages) I could agree with. Had they expanded with CW, then a lot more non-IE words would be absorbed, we could speak of strong non-IE substrate in Slavic/Baltic. But we dont have that. We have strong non-IE substrate in Germanic (at least there is this theory), but not for Balto-Slavic.

    Yes. But still, those differences are interesting. In declination, morphology and other things. Linguist should study and determinate it in future. :) Until now we have only assumptions.

  3. #53
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1 year registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    03-09-16
    Posts
    44
    Points
    2,429
    Level
    13
    Points: 2,429, Level: 13
    Level completed: 93%, Points required for next Level: 21
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Country: Poland



    I think that Balts did not have M458 (at least its young and most frequent today clades like L1029 or L260) about 1500 ybp. Y-DNA of Balts was N and R1a-Z280 (especially Z92?). West and South Slavs have no or really little R1a-Z280-Z92. Maybe Z92 people among East Slavs are slavicised Balts? Ancient Balts should not also have I2-Din. In Latvia I2*/I2a is only about 1% of male population, while in Lithuania it is 6%. Modern Lithuanians may have relatively large Slavic ancestors. On the other hand, proto-Slavs could not carry Y-DNA N (which is common in Balts).

  4. #54
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,723
    Points
    26,307
    Level
    49
    Points: 26,307, Level: 49
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 243
    Overall activity: 39.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by arvistro View Post
    Agree on this. Usually it would not work like this.
    Probably there were quite a lot more now dead IE languages in Europe like Temematic, etc.

    As to Balto-Slavic in particular, idea of it to expand at the expense of some IE languages (rather than non-IE languages) I could agree with. Had they expanded with CW, then a lot more non-IE words would be absorbed, we could speak of strong non-IE substrate in Slavic/Baltic. But we dont have that. We have strong non-IE substrate in Germanic (at least there is this theory), but not for Balto-Slavic.
    Exactly. I'm still very open to the idea of an association of Balto-Slavic (and maybe also the first steps of Indo-Iranian or pre-Indo-Iranian) with Corded Ware, but the territory of CWC was huge and I don't think the dating for a common origin of Baltic and Slavic languages, as late as 1,500 BC, fits well the notion that all CWC languages were Balto-Slavic or very similar to it. It's most probable, in my opinion, that Balto-Slavic represents yet another among many east-to-west expansions from present-day Russia, sweeping over other Indo-European languages of the CWC culture and other cultures including non-IE ones like Globular Amphora (probably the "west" and "central, non-Balto-Slavic CWC were languages with more non-IE substrate, since the eastern parts of CWC were almost certainly much less settled by Neolithic agriculturalists and were thus certainly much more thinly inhabited).

  5. #55
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    23-10-17
    Posts
    62
    Points
    1,598
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,598, Level: 11
    Level completed: 16%, Points required for next Level: 252
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Bosnia & Herzegovina



    Quote Originally Posted by lyakh View Post
    I think that Balts did not have M458 (at least its young and most frequent today clades like L1029 or L260) about 1500 ybp. Y-DNA of Balts was N and R1a-Z280 (especially Z92?). West and South Slavs have no or really little R1a-Z280-Z92. Maybe Z92 people among East Slavs are slavicised Balts? Ancient Balts should not also have I2-Din. In Latvia I2*/I2a is only about 1% of male population, while in Lithuania it is 6%. Modern Lithuanians may have relatively large Slavic ancestors. On the other hand, proto-Slavs could not carry Y-DNA N (which is common in Balts).
    I share your opinion about M458 among Balts, but, it's almost sure that Slavic language comes from R1a-Z280 people, since it's very similar with Baltic. The question will still be: Which language was spoken by M458 people?!

    Abouz Z92, there are some samples even among South Slavs, especially in Serbia.

  6. #56
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    23-10-17
    Posts
    62
    Points
    1,598
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,598, Level: 11
    Level completed: 16%, Points required for next Level: 252
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Bosnia & Herzegovina



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Exactly. I'm still very open to the idea of an association of Balto-Slavic (and maybe also the first steps of Indo-Iranian or pre-Indo-Iranian) with Corded Ware, but the territory of CWC was huge and I don't think the dating for a common origin of Baltic and Slavic languages, as late as 1,500 BC, fits well the notion that all CWC languages were Balto-Slavic or very similar to it. It's most probable, in my opinion, that Balto-Slavic represents yet another among many east-to-west expansions from present-day Russia, sweeping over other Indo-European languages of the CWC culture and other cultures including non-IE ones like Globular Amphora (probably the "west" and "central, non-Balto-Slavic CWC were languages with more non-IE substrate, since the eastern parts of CWC were almost certainly much less settled by Neolithic agriculturalists and were thus certainly much more thinly inhabited).
    Do you think those languages (Baltic and Slavic) were divided already in 1500 BC ? Or perhaps later?

  7. #57
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Zeus10's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-07-12
    Posts
    226
    Points
    4,667
    Level
    20
    Points: 4,667, Level: 20
    Level completed: 5%, Points required for next Level: 383
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Canada



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by RajvoSa View Post
    How to divide Slavs from Balts, and vice-versa before 6th century, i mean in genetical and (archeological) sense?
    Their R1a is almost the same mutations. This ones which have Balts usually have the Slavs as well. And opposite.

    Discuss.
    You can't. What joins Slavs and Balts, under the same family, is the affinity of their languages not the genes. Even within Slavs, there is little resemblance in their genes, but almost identical languages. The Slavic languages used today among the Slavic people is undoubtedly dedicating their origin, to the OLD CHURCH SLAVONIC, the language of the theocratic elite, who were the masters of those large communities, who later will become Slavic nations. It's nothing ethnic, nothing genetic connecting what we call Slavic nations today. Some Medieval sources, say that Slavs, or otherwise known as Sclavonians, were slaves(servants) from different origins of the Byzantine Masters. The theory, which makes them a big branch of IE people, migrating in different direction all over Europe, is not correct.

  8. #58
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    23-10-17
    Posts
    62
    Points
    1,598
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,598, Level: 11
    Level completed: 16%, Points required for next Level: 252
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Bosnia & Herzegovina



    Quote Originally Posted by Zeus10 View Post
    You can't. What joins Slavs and Balts, under the same family, is the affinity of their languages not the genes. Even within Slavs, there is little resemblance in their genes, but almost identical languages. The Slavic languages used today among the Slavic people is undoubtedly dedicating their origin, to the OLD CHURCH SLAVONIC, the language of the theocratic elite, who were the masters of those large communities, who later will become Slavic nations. It's nothing ethnic, nothing genetic connecting what we call Slavic nations today. Some Medieval sources, say that Slavs, or otherwise known as Sclavonians, were slaves(servants) from different origins of the Byzantine Masters. The theory, which makes them a big branch of IE people, migrating in different direction all over Europe, is not correct.
    Slavic urhemeit was somewhere in the triangle eastern Poland, western Ukraine and South-West Belarus. South Slavic languages are result of migrations of those Slavs, and they were moved by Avar Khaganate. The East Slavic language is the result of well-known East Slavic expansion to the Finnic populations where they mixed with them.

  9. #59
    Regular Member Achievements:
    100 Experience Points7 days registered
    /Serg/'s Avatar
    Join Date
    08-03-18
    Location
    Moscow Area
    Posts
    26
    Points
    227
    Level
    2
    Points: 227, Level: 2
    Level completed: 77%, Points required for next Level: 23
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    My ancestors were farmers near the Black Sea.
    Country: Russian Federation



    0 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeus10 View Post
    Some Medieval sources, say that Slavs, or otherwise known as Sclavonians, were slaves(servants) from different origins of the Byzantine Masters.
    The origin of the word is just "Sloboda", a village or place to live in ("s-" as a prefix, "life" as a root of word, this gives a village).

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeus10 View Post
    The theory, which makes them a big branch of IE people, migrating in different direction all over Europe, is not correct.
    Although you're right about the whole Europe, there are many facts of archeology about Eastern Europe, Baltic Region and Northern India, which would help to trace our origins and roots. I tried to clarify it in the neighbour thread, https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...plogroup-R1a1a

    There are many artifacts which proves that ancestors of Northern Indians, Balts and Slavs started from the agricultural areas near the northern bank of the Black Sea, when it was a freshwater lake, then came to the North to establish a Dnieper-Donetsk agriculture, which includes cities Kiev and Zhitomir ("Key" was a name of the knight who was the governor, "zhito" means wheat), and then, — as bricks and big white "Russian" stoves has been invented, — continued to move to the North, i.e. to the sourthern bank of the Baltic Sea, when others came to the East, i.e. to the country now known as Russia.

    There was a huge role of Scandinavian people to establish a state. "Varyagi" or just warriors, came from the far far North, probably from Sweden. They were part of Kiev city inhabitants and known as "Varangian Guards". Living in Russia you could read folk tales about them. Some names, including Igor (Ingvar) and Olga (Helga), are Scandinavian ones.

    As years passed by, most of Russians and Balts in those areas became a mixture of Slavonic and Finno-Ugric people, except for Estonians who are 100% Finno-Ugric people. There are many folks inside the country who still speaks in Finno-Ugric languages, especially in villages. Mari music is a gem for those Russians who can play musical instruments.

    Northern India was conquered by people who started from the same region, the fruitful, rich, fertile banks of the Black Sea. Both Krishna and Arjuna spoke in "Old Church Slavonic", also known as... Sanskrit.

  10. #60
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,329
    Points
    110,111
    Level
    100
    Points: 110,111, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by /Serg/ View Post


    "zhito" means wheat
    nope, zhito is rye in english not wheat. Rye was a pretty late invention/domestication, mostly suitable for Northern European climate. Unheard of in North India.
    Both Krishna and Arjuna spoke in "Old Church Slavonic", also known as... Sanskrit.
    lol, this is simply nuts! Could you site same sentence in old church Slavonic and Sanskrit? Just for the heck of it.
    Be wary of people who tend to glorify the past, underestimate the present, and demonize the future.

  11. #61
    Regular Member Achievements:
    100 Experience Points7 days registered
    /Serg/'s Avatar
    Join Date
    08-03-18
    Location
    Moscow Area
    Posts
    26
    Points
    227
    Level
    2
    Points: 227, Level: 2
    Level completed: 77%, Points required for next Level: 23
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    My ancestors were farmers near the Black Sea.
    Country: Russian Federation



    Could you site same sentence in old church Slavonic and Sanskrit
    Numericals, for example:
    First — "perviy" — "purva"
    One — "odin" — "adi"
    Two — "dva/dve/dvoe" — "dva/dve/dvaya"
    Three — "tri/troe/tretiy/troyka" — "tri/traya/treba/trika"
    Four — "chetyre/chetvero" — "chatur/chatvara"
    Ten — "desyatero" — "dashatara"

    Verbs:
    To be — "byt" — "bhu"
    To stand — "stoyat" — "stha"
    To dry — "sushit" — "shush"
    To cook — "varit/pech" — "var/pach"
    To fall — "padat" — "pad"
    To cry — "revet" — "rav"
    To swim to — "proplyvayet" — "praplavate"
    To swim across — "pereplyvat" — "pariplavate"

    So...
    234 — "dwesti tridsat chetire" — "dwishata tridasha chatwari"
    There is your home, there is my home — "Tot vash dom, aetot nash dom" — "Tat vas dham, etat nas dham".

    Although in old church language the sentence should be "To vash dom, se nash dom".

    — from:
    http://новости.ru-an.info/новости/чт...ий-язык/
    http://www.econet.ru/articles/70238-...orme-sanskrita
    https://www.kramola.info/video/zamal...ju-k-sanskritu
    https://www.kramola.info/books/letop...s-sanskritskim
    http://www.krivandino.ru/index.php?o...=120&Itemid=59

  12. #62
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,329
    Points
    110,111
    Level
    100
    Points: 110,111, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by /Serg/ View Post
    Numericals, for example:
    First — "perviy" — "purva"
    One — "odin" — "adi"
    Two — "dva/dve/dvoe" — "dva/dve/dvaya"
    Three — "tri/troe/tretiy/troyka" — "tri/traya/treba/trika"
    Four — "chetyre/chetvero" — "chatur/chatvara"
    Ten — "desyatero" — "dashatara"

    Verbs:
    To be — "byt" — "bhu"
    To stand — "stoyat" — "stha"
    To dry — "sushit" — "shush"
    To cook — "varit/pech" — "var/pach"
    To fall — "padat" — "pad"
    To cry — "revet" — "rav"
    To swim to — "proplyvayet" — "praplavate"
    To swim across — "pereplyvat" — "pariplavate"

    So...
    234 — "dwesti tridsat chetire" — "dwishata tridasha chatwari"
    There is your home, there is my home — "Tot vash dom, aetot nash dom" — "Tat vas dham, etat nas dham".

    Although in old church language the sentence should be "To vash dom, se nash dom".

    — from:
    http://новости.ru-an.info/новости/чт...ий-язык/
    http://www.econet.ru/articles/70238-...orme-sanskrita
    https://www.kramola.info/video/zamal...ju-k-sanskritu
    https://www.kramola.info/books/letop...s-sanskritskim
    http://www.krivandino.ru/index.php?o...=120&Itemid=59
    I hope that by now you have realized that these are two separate languages. You know, such close similarities of basic vocabulary exist throughout all IE language family. Same roots, but separate languages. Most likely a common ancestor of these two languages and all IE was Yamnaya culture.

  13. #63
    Regular Member Achievements:
    100 Experience Points7 days registered
    /Serg/'s Avatar
    Join Date
    08-03-18
    Location
    Moscow Area
    Posts
    26
    Points
    227
    Level
    2
    Points: 227, Level: 2
    Level completed: 77%, Points required for next Level: 23
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    My ancestors were farmers near the Black Sea.
    Country: Russian Federation



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    Most likely a common ancestor of these two languages and all IE was Yamnaya culture.
    Yes, it's proven by archaeologists.

    Yamnaya started when water from Mediterranean Sea broke through Bosfor and raise the water level in Black Sea. People who already had an overpopulation in the region (the land was very fruitful, plus they had an ability to drink cow milk, as can still) starten to move away from their ancestral fatherland.

    Yamnaya.png

  14. #64
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,723
    Points
    26,307
    Level
    49
    Points: 26,307, Level: 49
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 243
    Overall activity: 39.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by /Serg/ View Post
    Yes, it's proven by archaeologists.

    Yamnaya started when water from Mediterranean Sea broke through Bosfor and raise the water level in Black Sea. People who already had an overpopulation in the region (the land was very fruitful, plus they had an ability to drink cow milk, as can still) starten to move away from their ancestral fatherland.

    Yamnaya.png
    This has not been proven by archaeologists at all. It's still a (very plausible and sensible) hypothesis, with genetic and cultural consequences that haven't been sufficiently demonstrated, but anyway it has nothing to do with Yamnaya. Instead it's related to the development of much earlier cultures. The Black Sea Deluge hypothesis is dated to have taken place some 7,600 years ago, i.e. around 5,600 BC.

    That was more than 2 milennia before the earliest attestations of undeniably Yamnaya culture by 3,300 BC. You're missing a lot of time of certain cultural, social and economic changes, and also migrations of people. Not even the most likely direct ancestors that contributed to the formation of Yamnaya, Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk, existed by 5,600 BC.

    There may be some association of the very distant ancestors of Yamnaya (some of them, certainly not all) and those peoples who once inhabited the Black Sea territory, but it's at best a very indirect relationship with a gap of 2,300 years between the two cultures, a gap which needs to be detailed and explained.

  15. #65
    Regular Member Achievements:
    31 days registered100 Experience Points

    Join Date
    08-02-18
    Posts
    25
    Points
    152
    Level
    2
    Points: 152, Level: 2
    Level completed: 2%, Points required for next Level: 98
    Overall activity: 23.0%


    Country: Australia - Coral Sea Islands



    Quote Originally Posted by /Serg/ View Post

    Northern India was conquered by people who started from the same region, the fruitful, rich, fertile banks of the Black Sea. Both Krishna and Arjuna spoke in "Old Church Slavonic", also known as... Sanskrit.
    You must be joking. Erm... Right?

  16. #66
    Regular Member Achievements:
    31 days registered100 Experience Points

    Join Date
    08-02-18
    Posts
    25
    Points
    152
    Level
    2
    Points: 152, Level: 2
    Level completed: 2%, Points required for next Level: 98
    Overall activity: 23.0%


    Country: Australia - Coral Sea Islands



    This post is just so I'm able to post links

  17. #67
    Regular Member Achievements:
    31 days registered100 Experience Points

    Join Date
    08-02-18
    Posts
    25
    Points
    152
    Level
    2
    Points: 152, Level: 2
    Level completed: 2%, Points required for next Level: 98
    Overall activity: 23.0%


    Country: Australia - Coral Sea Islands



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    I hope that by now you have realized that these are two separate languages. You know, such close similarities of basic vocabulary exist throughout all IE language family. Same roots, but separate languages. Most likely a common ancestor of these two languages and all IE was Yamnaya culture.
    Yamna might be only R1a related and not even origin. While QR - I mean P might have origins in China, but R and Q would have split around area of lake Baikal, where Q was still present and Ket people were speaking Amerindian related language. IE(that includes also R1b) origins most likelly might come nearer to that direction and away from Europe, where R1a originated.

  18. #68
    Regular Member Achievements:
    31 days registered100 Experience Points

    Join Date
    08-02-18
    Posts
    25
    Points
    152
    Level
    2
    Points: 152, Level: 2
    Level completed: 2%, Points required for next Level: 98
    Overall activity: 23.0%


    Country: Australia - Coral Sea Islands



    Quote Originally Posted by RajvoSa View Post
    Please, don't spread disinformations on such serious forum, picture down:



    This "pre-Slavic" or whatever you want to call him was already divided from Baltic-speakers!

    I wouldn't speak about Germanic language if i am not well informed!
    PLEAS put links to wiki, if you use it as a source. Now, I will do this dis FOR YOU:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Slavic

    here is the problem with the wiki text:
    you gave 2 conflicting dating systems for something that has nothing to do with slavic, but proto slavic, which is fictional.
    According to:
    1st dating system you can't talk about slavic, because slavic did not exist prior 6th AD
    2nd dating system it says same but with different words: "As there are no dialectal distinctions reconstructible from this period or earlier, this is the period for which a single common ancestor (that is, "Proto-Slavic proper") can be reconstructed."

    So, both of them are mentioning time period, which was NOT slavic. You can't mark people who spoke baltic, germanic, celtic or greek as slavic, because they were not slavs at proto-slavic period. What is it so hard to comprehend here?



    So, to answer your question in TOPIC:

    "How to divide Slavs from Balts, and vice-versa before 6th century?"

    You can't divide Slavs from Balts, because they did not exist before 6th century. Balts did exist prior 6th century without *any* Slavs around.
    Last edited by qtr; 13-03-18 at 13:16.

  19. #69
    Regular Member Achievements:
    31 days registered100 Experience Points

    Join Date
    08-02-18
    Posts
    25
    Points
    152
    Level
    2
    Points: 152, Level: 2
    Level completed: 2%, Points required for next Level: 98
    Overall activity: 23.0%


    Country: Australia - Coral Sea Islands



    Frankly, I'm done with this topic.

    I've only recently found this link, and blog solves all the answers I wanted to find:
    http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2017...plogroups.html


    I had a further read in link:
    http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2017...bvious.html(it also contains other information, that might be interesting)

    What it says, is that Baltic region(5800 years ago?) had already earliest R1a variants. R1a1 is R-SRY1532.2(https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/phy...oups.shtml#R1a) - it is ancestor of ALL discussed R1a variants. That also includes ancestors of M458, so I would abandon any ideas about Slavic as paralel development, as it is unsound. Since Slavic language(and language is the only thing that differ it from other groups) is very young development, it is most probably, that ancestors of R1a spoke either Baltic or proto-Baltic language(or whatever it means). The problem with term proto-Baltic is that it is very wrong, as there was nothing prior Baltic language in Baltic area and Proto-Baltic = Proto-Indo-European(or because it looks like originated in Europe - Proto-European).


    Note that M558 which is currently regarded as "Baltic" is present not only in Baltic region, but also exactly in the same mentioned places (from previous picture) of oldest samples of R1a and M417 and also Z93:



    There is also very big problem of Baltic substratum in Balkans, that raises question if Thracian-Dacian and Illirian ancestors were originally speaking in Baltic language, which with more work in this area might be true. I've mentioned before, that modern Latvians and Lithuanians share teeth characteristics with people from Balkans - this is usually one of the answers to people in Latvia or Lithuania why they have bad teeth and prominent fangs and why I have urge to suck blood(ok, that is made up).

    As for most of Slavic languages - main Slavic language spread happened in very recent times - with Church Slavonic. It made Slavic speaking not only Baltic and Finnish people, but also Greek and that is why we have now Slavic speaking Macedonians in FYMR(and why usage of Macedonian name is pain for Greeks, just as it was for Baltic people in the case of German Prussians), as their ancestors in Aleksander time certainly did not spoke Slavic, but Greek(if we regard ancient non-slavic Macedonian as Greek). Magyars in Panonia with R1a are not exception - people in Pannonia spoke Slavic(who replaced Avars) right before arrival of Magyars or whatever groups of people who settled in that region.


    /Serg/ mentioned about similarities of Sanskrist and Slavic... well, actually some of his provided examples sound more modern Baltic than Slavic, but I assume, that he does not know Latvian or Lithuanian and want to judge about this topic purely with knowledge of russian and nothing more. Baltic forms are regarded as more archaical and Sanskrit contains them, but Slavic languages do not contain those forms, that were preserved in Sanskrit same way as they are preserved in Baltic. Besides - Sanskrit was long out of use and heavily changed(from classical, where those archaical forms are preserved) before Slavic emerged, so hardly Sanskrit could be regarded as something that formed Slavic and Slavic, as we established did not appear in 2000BC. So, what /Serg/ is citing is at best classical Sanskrit, which was also influenced by other Aryan languages. And btw - classical Sanskrit evolved from Aryam(Vedic Sanskrit) and that language evolved from Avestan, so we come full circle to Indo-Iranian languages, which influenced each other which were influenced by local languages - mainly Dravidian.

    If Slavic languages contain any archaical forms, that can be regarded as Slavic(because they are not Germanic or Celtic), then they are also found in Baltic. It does not work around other way.

    If Prussian would emerge from time capsule and spoke to modern Baltic speakers, they would regard it as Slavic without blinking an eye, because they are not really well in these linguistic topics(as I am). But, since Prussian is not Slavic, but is just a variation of Baltic, so are Slavic, who are not developed far from Baltic languages as are Germanic or Celtic. In linguistics we can at best speak about Slavic branch of Baltic languages, as dialect forms, that were between Slavic and Baltic languages have died out, but if they were still alive and in use, this would be no topic to discuss about. And I must mention again - modern Baltic languages appeared in Baltic region only 1500 years ago. If we strictly have to speak about Baltic languages as regional languages, then Baltic became extinct in 16th century when Prussian, Curonian and other local Baltic languages died out. Latvian and Lithuanian can be regarded as Russian and Belorussian, as these countries is where they came from originally.

  20. #70
    Regular Member Achievements:
    31 days registered100 Experience Points

    Join Date
    08-02-18
    Posts
    25
    Points
    152
    Level
    2
    Points: 152, Level: 2
    Level completed: 2%, Points required for next Level: 98
    Overall activity: 23.0%


    Country: Australia - Coral Sea Islands



    Btw, since author is from Balkan area, I have question:

    How nonslavic R1a differs from slavic in Balkans?
    I would be interested about:
    Albanians or how they are called in native - Shqiptarët
    Greeks or Ellines
    Romanians


    This is very important question, before dwelling into battle of dividing slavic from baltic. Those people in Balkans most probably have more common R1a y-dna(not to mention - R1b) among themselves, than rest of slavic and baltic among themselves. And I am also interested how would you divide macedonian slavs from greeks. Just curious.

    If they are very similar to each other, why would you even suggest, that I would look on balts and neighbouring slavs as if they are genetically different people? Even if some, like /Serg/ are with limited knowledge and brain power... still, they are retards of mine or finnish - not yours ;)
    Last edited by qtr; 13-03-18 at 19:28.

  21. #71
    Regular Member Achievements:
    31 days registered100 Experience Points

    Join Date
    08-02-18
    Posts
    25
    Points
    152
    Level
    2
    Points: 152, Level: 2
    Level completed: 2%, Points required for next Level: 98
    Overall activity: 23.0%


    Country: Australia - Coral Sea Islands



    from the same blog:
    http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2017...e-suggest.html

    So, if we put together, then Uralic people and other who represent N1c came to Europe 3500 years ago. R1a was present in Baltic 5800 years ago or maybe even more, so at least 2300 years prior N1c appeared in Europe.

  22. #72
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    23-10-17
    Posts
    62
    Points
    1,598
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,598, Level: 11
    Level completed: 16%, Points required for next Level: 252
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Bosnia & Herzegovina



    Quote Originally Posted by qtr View Post
    You can't divide Slavs from Balts, because they did not exist before 6th century. Balts did exist prior 6th century without *any* Slavs around.
    Only in your fairytale. First Baltic text is recorded in 14th century, and you are speaking about some Baltic language. I am sorry to you, Slavic didn't come from Baltic. And even modern Baltic languages themself are not familiar, Latvian and Lithuanian. They have many disagreements. Also is mostly possible that modern Baltic languages are just intermediate between dead language - West Baltic and Slavic. Your claims are clear nonsense without proofs. While linguists are arguing still about it, you think you are sure, while you aren't. You say : "Balts did exist prior 6th century without *any* Slavs around. Based on what? Who are Balts now? In genetical sense they're half Finno-Ugric half Indo-European, while West and East Slavs aren't in such combination. This propaganda that Balts were already "formed" when Slavs arrived is nonsense.

    You said: "because they did not exist before 6th century."

    Really? How then Zarubintsy culture si directly connected with proto-Slavs? Read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zarubintsy_culture

    Now, you should try to change wikipedia, becouse they don't agree with you that Slavs are from 6th century, but from 3rd century BC. :) Evil wikipedia.

  23. #73
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    23-10-17
    Posts
    62
    Points
    1,598
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,598, Level: 11
    Level completed: 16%, Points required for next Level: 252
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Bosnia & Herzegovina



    Quote Originally Posted by qtr View Post
    Btw, since author is from Balkan area, I have question:

    How nonslavic R1a differs from slavic in Balkans?
    I would be interested about:
    Albanians or how they are called in native - Shqiptarët
    Greeks or Ellines
    Romanians


    This is very important question, before dwelling into battle of dividing slavic from baltic. Those people in Balkans most probably have more common R1a y-dna(njot to mention - R1b) among themselves, than rest of slavic and baltic among themselves. And I am also interested how would you divide macedonian slavs from greeks. Just curious.

    If they are very similar to each other, why would you even suggest, that I would look on balts and neighbouring slavs as if they are genetically different people? Even if some, like /Serg/ are with limited knowledge and brain power... still, they are retards of mine or finnish - not yours ;)
    Macedonians are mainly slavicized natives. Why is that weird for you? While my country for example mainly descent from Slavic migrations to Balkan (I2a + R1a) and our ancestral clades are today in Western Ukraine which proves Slavic migrations to Balkan.

  24. #74
    Regular Member Achievements:
    31 days registered100 Experience Points

    Join Date
    08-02-18
    Posts
    25
    Points
    152
    Level
    2
    Points: 152, Level: 2
    Level completed: 2%, Points required for next Level: 98
    Overall activity: 23.0%


    Country: Australia - Coral Sea Islands



    Quote Originally Posted by RajvoSa View Post
    First Baltic text is recorded in 14th century, and you are speaking about some Baltic language..
    So, what is the issue there? Are you arguing, that Baltic languages did not exist before 14th century because of writing? Well, so were most of modern languages, who had their writing established only by 18th century - it is not news.

    No one argues, that there are a lot of finnish genes in modern baltic people, as there was a massive influx of finnish people and quite a lot of them were assimilated into Baltic people. Most of that influx happened after 6th AD, so Baltic people of 6th AD had a lot less N1c than now, however most modern south slavic people probably had none R1a and also did not used slavic language, unlike baltic who used baltic, when they branched off PIE.

    I have no problems regarding finnish part, as I believe in only one solution(and that is not gas camera - I'm not that evil) for them on my quest to reunite baltic with slavic, as this stupid russian evilmongery and lie distribution business has to stop and if it ends with russian dissolution, as they are doing now with belorussians(which is also part of my heritage), then why would I care? That is my fairytale, after all - who really cares, if that is your nightmare, if you act as indians, who have problems accepting, that India was invaded by people from steppes of Europe and which also created caste system as a result. Well - segregation is not good, but neither is extermination of locals, what some IE tribes practiced towards early noneuropean looking Uralic people, for example.

    As for wiki - it says exactly, that I mentioned, that there are no slavic language prior 6th century. And we can only argue about language here - nothing else. if you don't like your own sources or actually don't understand them - just don't use them. No one forces you to do so.



    Before Zarubnitsy culture was Milograd culture(it is souther orange), which was baltic:



    Listen, wiki does not say that Zarubintsy culture was slavic or even proto slavic. It says, that it is connected to proto-slavic. From what I understand it is still baltic, just as Milogrady culture is baltic. Let me explain how it is connected to proto-slavic. Zarubnitsy culture is connected to Kiev culture, as Kiev culture is descendant of Zarubnitsy culture(maybe, possibly).

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

    English wiki says, that: "It is widely considered to be the first identifiable Slavic archaeological culture"
    According to wiki rules, this is very bad text, as widely in russian wiki version translates 4+ versus 2(and I mentioned before - science is not a democracy - either those 4+ are dead wrong or 2 and I would not put my money on most scientists, that they are right):

    "В вопросе этнической принадлежности носителей киевской культуры нет единства мнений. В. Н. Даниленко, П. Н. Третьяков, В. Д. Баран, Р. В. Терпиловский и ряд других исследователей относят её к славянам[3], предполагая, что на основе киевской возникают последующие славянские культуры раннего средневековья: пеньковская и колочинская. В. В. Седов и И. П. Русанова считают её балтской[4]. При этом Седов рассматривает славянство колочинской культуры как результат взаимодействия с пеньковской, а киевскую культуру как субстрат для пеньковской и колочинской культур. "

    So, NO - we can't still consider Kiev culture as slavic - not in my dreams or even nightmares. Choose what you want.

    I will use map for later connected cultures:



    Kievan culture branches into two:
    1. Kolochinskaya culture, which is related to penkovka culture, though it countains also baltic, so it is not real culture, but mix in process. I sure would not call them slavic and neither you or anyone else.
    2. Penkovka culture or as we know about them from history - as antes. Yellow on this map. This is the culture, where it is identified as slavic people and I would agree, and we would end this discussion with some result. However, this is what russian wiki says about antes(both sources seems like very recent - 2012, which means, that they also are more trueful, than older unprecise sources):


    1. Специалист по археологии древних славян И. П. Русанова отрицала славянскую атрибутацию пеньковской культуры, поскольку пеньковские древности совершенно не похожи на памятники достоверно славянской пражско-корчакской культуры. По её мнению местное население носящее название «анты» возможно уже с VI в. говорило на славянском языке, но сохраняло еще свои этнографические особенности, а в VII веке уже полностью растворилось в славянской среде[10].
    (Possibly, that nonslavic antes, who wildly differ from venedi(which are considered really slavic culture) spoke in slavic language from 6th AD already, but were different from slavic and by 7th AD were fully dissolved in slavic environment)


    2. По мнению кандидата исторических наук Алексахи А. Г. эта точка зрения подтверждается на основании критерия бездиалектности славянского языка, из которого следует, что никакая археологическая культура, синхронная пражской, не может быть славянской. По его мнению анты были западными балтами, но были ассимилированы славянами лишь в VI веке[11][12].
    (It says, that on the basis of nondialectial nature of slavic language no archeological culture, that is sinchronous with Prague-Korchak Culture can be slavic. He has an opinion, that antes were western baltic, that were assimilated by slavic only in 6th century).

    So, what it follows, is that we can for sure say, that only Prague-Korchak culture(in map it is orange Venedi) was slavic(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague-Korchak_culture) and rest were baltic, who were assimilated by slavs.

    Here is the thing about Prague culture. It is late 5th century(most probably all the other cultures on this map also have the same dates) - more like 6th century culture and it collerates with proto-slavic ideas hypothesis. But from what I read in wiki, name of Veneds most certainly point to prussian Baltic origin(even in lithuanian name of water of vanduo), and if that is true, that more likelly means, that originally veneds were baltic as it is unlikely, that slavs might have tribe name of nonslavic origin, as their own and had venedi bay in southern shores of Baltic sea, as all the bays in the area were baltic up to invasion of Germans, who were employed by Bohemian king Ottokar I. Linguisticaly it makes more sense that slavic have much more linguistical similarities with prussians, than rest of baltic, because rest of baltic encountered slavs much later. Prague culture was also influenced by goths and when they left it did not need to migrate to become slavic. Quite possibly, that proto-slavs are very late development of gothidfied prussians, as I have read before that prussian people could talk and understand each other - also people who were considered slavic, it is only currently hard to understand why, because we do not have live prussian language to compare and live venedians as well for that matter. Also, if we take into account, that prussians had words, that sound very slavic to rest of baltic, slavic might be just dialect of prussians which developed even more differences after visit of goths. I only claimed that eastern slavs are balts so far, but with venedo prussian branch as proto-slavs, slavic languge is baltic as well. Very f*cked up baltic language, but still - it is baltic.



    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AD...B3%D0%B8%D0%B8

    This is the list of approved cultures, as slavic:

    КорчакскаяПражскаяСуковско-дзедзицкая (лехитская)Ипотешти-кындештскаяВолынцевскаяРоменско-борщёвскаяНовгородских сопокРюсенская (сербо-лужицкая)Лука-райковецкаяФельдбергскаяКарантанская


    Related, but still - under question(which actualy means - should not be considered as slavic, but these are cultures, that are identified as the ones, that participated in ethnogenesis of slavs):
    ЧернолесскаяМилоградскаяПоморскаяПодклёшевых погребенийПшеворскаяЗарубинецкаяПочепскаяКиевскаяЧерняховскаяКолочинскаяПеньковскаяИменьковскаяБраслетообразных сомкнутых височных колецПсковских длинных кургановСмоленско-полоцких длинных курганов

    I APOLOGISE IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND CYRILIC AND RUSSIAN, BUT READING WIKIPEDIA IN ENGLISH DOES NOT REALLY GIVE YOU MUCH KNOWLEDGE ABOUT SLAVIC TOPIC. Despite not being russian, I do read russian and actually my only source about baltic are in russian, and I trust them when they come out with sensational breakthroughs, as much of the history are lies, that includes any slavic sources, that were redacted couple of times, just like Bible. Spread of slavic languages truly bloomed only in 9th century, after "work" of Cyril and Methodius.

    Something similar happened to Livonia, where lettish language was used as liturgical language in southern part of Livonia and made into demise at least two finnish tribes: livonian and south estonians in modern Latvia, not to mentioning that there were settled captured votians and other people(even russians) who dissolved into latvians.


    TL;TR You can search for other solutions for the rest of your life, but you will come to this eventually: Proto-slavic language is prussian branch, which developed with the help of goths.
    Last edited by qtr; 13-03-18 at 19:33.

  25. #75
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    23-10-17
    Posts
    62
    Points
    1,598
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,598, Level: 11
    Level completed: 16%, Points required for next Level: 252
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Bosnia & Herzegovina



    Quote Originally Posted by qtr View Post
    So, what is the issue there? Are you arguing, that Baltic languages did not exist before 14th century because of writing?
    No, but that ethnicity for sure didn't exist. Word Balt was started to use in 19th century for Letto-Lithuanians.

    Even if we come to conlusion (somehow) that proto-Balto-Slavic language is equal term to proto-Baltic, than you need to understand some things. So, if this theory (hypothesis) is true than we have such situation; Baltic continuum of languages (not an ethnicity Balts). So this continuum of languages was made from 3 dialects: West Baltic (dead), East Baltic (Letto-Lithuanian) and Slavic (which can be call alternatively South Baltic dialect. But that what today means BALTS are exclusively Letto-Lithuanian dialect, and their dialect is defined as Baltic in 19th century. So when you see "Baltic" cultures, what do you mean? That Slavs come from Lithuanians and Latvians? That they spoke their dialect or what? It would be retarded claim. West Balts are one, East Balts are second and the Slavs (alternatively South Balts) are third thing. So your claim "There are no Slavs before 6th century" is nonsense. You are using (incorrect) term Baltic languages, for Balto-Slavic which would be more correct. Since Baltic languages are, i must say again modern Lithuanian and Latvian, who were always different dialects than the Slavic one. So this is the thing of terminology, and you are using the term "Balt", then i can use the term "North Slavs" for Balts, and it would not change anything. The sense is same.

    Spread of slavic languages truly bloomed only in 9th century, after "work" of Cyril and Methodius.
    I see you are proving your unknowledge. When Cyril and Methodius started to work, there was already many many dialects of Slavic languages. South Slavs already had their dialect, West Slavs already had their dialects, and East Slavs already had their dialects (which was quite similar to the West Slavic one). You are delusional if you are thinking that Cyril and Methodious made half Europe to speak Slavic. It's funny.

    You can search for other solutions for the rest of your life, but you will come to this eventually: Proto-slavic language is prussian branch, which developed with the help of goths.
    Hahahah. It's incorrect and supported just by few linguists. Main modern statement is that Slavic is Southern Baltic dialect (dialect of Baltic continuum not of the ethnicity Balts - modern Letto-Lithuanians).

    For example, you can read it from Frederik Kortlandt, from Toporov, from Ivanov etc...

    Part of Kortlandt's work:

    There is little or no evidence for a period of common West and East Balticinnovations after the period of common Balto-Slavic developments before theseparation of Slavic from the Baltic languages. The terms “Proto-Baltic” and “ProtoBalto-Slavic”refer to the same thing, and Slavic may alternatively be called “SouthBaltic”. The opposite view is taken by Miguel Villanueva Svensson (2014) and EugenHill (2016). Here I specify the differences which underlie the disagreement.

    Part of Villanueva's work (who thiks otherwise):

    According to Villanueva (2014: 173), the “most serious problem for Baltic unityis the apparent existence of non-trivial isoglosses between East Baltic and Slavic (e.g.thematic genitive singular, “nine”, ”third”, etc.)”. He opposes gen.sg. Lith. vil̃ko andOCS vlъka < *-ãd to OPr. deiwas (2014: 163). In fact, the ending Lith. -o, Slavic -arepresents *-ōd and can be identified with the Latin ablative ending -ōd, not **-ād, forwhich there is no evidence whatever. The Lithuanian reflex is -o because the endingwas unstressed in all accent classes (cf. Kortlandt 2009: 6, 46). Prussian added ananalogical -s to the Balto-Slavic ending in accordance with the other flexion types, allof which had a genitive in -s (cf. Vaillant 1958: 30, Kortlandt 2009: 192). The originalending was preserved in the Old Prussian proverb Deues does dantes, Deues doesgeitka ‘God give teeth, God give bread’ (cf. Sjöberg 1969) and in the Basle epigramnykoyte pēnega doyte ‘you do not want to give money’, where an emendation to -an or-as is unsatisfactory (cf. Kortlandt 2009: 215f.). There is no ancient isogloss betweenEast Baltic and Slavic here.The words for ‘nine’ and ‘third’ indeed support the view that Balto-Slavic splitinto three identifiable branches, with East Baltic as an intermediate dialect betweenWest Baltic and Slavic. OPr. newīnts ‘ninth’ shows that the substitution of de- for neinLith. deviñtas and OCS devętъ belongs to the dialectal Balto-Slavic period. Thesame holds for the subsequent development of *eu to *iou before consonants in EastBaltic and Slavic (cf. Kortlandt 2009: 45f., Derksen 2010). Similarly, OPr. tīrts ‘third’,acc. tīrtian, tirtien, Vedic tṛtī́yas for earlier *triyo-, is archaic in comparison with Lith.trẽčias and OCS tretii, which have tre- from *treies ‘three’. Another commondevelopment of East Baltic and Slavic not shared by West Baltic is the elimination of-s- in the pronominal dat.sg. and loc.sg. forms Lith. tãmui, tamè, tái, tojè, OCS tomu,tomь, toi, OPr. stesmu, stessiei, Vedic tásmai, tásmin, tásyai, tásyām

    slavic languge is baltic as well
    Slavic language is from Baltic continuum, not Baltic language (modern Letto-Lithuanian family).

    Before Zarubnitsy culture was Milograd culture(it is souther orange), which was baltic:
    Who proclaim it as Baltic? You, or some relevant archeologists? Names? Quotations?

    Those are official informations about Milograd culture:

    "The Milograd culture (also spelled Mylohrad, also known as Pidhirtsi culture on Ukrainian territory) is an archaeological culture, lasting from about the 7th century BC to the 1st century AD. Geographically, it corresponds to present day southern Belarus and northern Ukraine, in the area of the confluence of the Dnieper and the Pripyat, north of Kiev. Their ethnic origin is uncertain."

    Link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milograd_culture

    I came here and opened a thread searching for someone who will post just proven things. You are posting your personal assumptions, and i respect this, but i don't respect that you are representing it as official and real. While nobody proved it yet. Do you see that even Balts (Letto-Lithuanians) on this forum don't have such statements as you have?

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •