Another view of "steppe" ancestry-Pagani et al

It would be a good study to see what CHG have different Js. By the way there was a north Eurasian refugium other than the Altai area?

Haplogroup_J_(Y-DNA)

Relatively speaking of course. We find EHG very far North and on the steppe. EHG appears to be a Holocene population so I don't think we need to talk about refugium.
 
No you missed my point as usual. But it doesn't matter I was just trying to amuse myself and you're trying to take it seriously and create some unprovoked argument and pretend like I'm stupid and don't know anyithing. Stop it.
 
No you missed my point as usual. But it doesn't matter I was just trying to amuse myself and you're trying to take it seriously and create some unprovoked argument and pretend like I'm stupid and don't know anyithing. Stop it.
Once we are at it, try also learning how to use "Reply With Quote" button, or nobody knows who you are talking too. We are not sitting in your head, you know. If you are joking or being sarcastic, make sure you communicate this too.
Communication!
 
Hey I got a question
How come south slavs speak a Slavic language which is part of IE group but south slavs have pretty small amount of R1a-R1b less than 30%... How does that happen? In those ancient times people didn't even read or write, there was no school.... How do 3 people teach 7 people a new language and their kids too?
Obviously I'm no expert at this stuff so I'm wondering does anyone have expert explanations that make sense for questions like this? You seem to think of yourself as "educated" so I thought maybe you could share something I might not know about.
 
Hey I got a question
How come south slavs speak a Slavic language which is part of IE group but south slavs have pretty small amount of R1a-R1b less than 30%... How does that happen? In those ancient times people didn't even read or write, there was no school.... How do 3 people teach 7 people a new language and their kids too?
Obviously I'm no expert at this stuff so I'm wondering does anyone have expert explanations that make sense for questions like this? You seem to think of yourself as "educated" so I thought maybe you could share something I might not know about.
Could be the same way like Turkey speak Turkish language although only 10% of genetic pool comes from Central Asia, the Turkish lands. Or like Hungarians speak hungarian in Central Europe, although genetically they are almost exactly like their neighbours who speak Slavic. It seems that sometimes it doesn't take many invaders to change the language.
 
Yeah I know about Hungary and Turkey, still doesn't explain how that happens. And I also know many other tribes have invaded and ruled territories but didn't change the language only melted into the society. Ottoman turks invaded and ruled the balkans for nearly 500 years, Bosnians especially adopted a lot of culture from them, fought in their Jannisarry army, yet no language change for Bosnians or any society in the Balkans. This subject is very mysterious to me and no one seems to have tangible answers for it.
 
Yeah I know about Hungary and Turkey, still doesn't explain how that happens. And I also know many other tribes have invaded and ruled territories but didn't change the language only melted into the society. Ottoman turks invaded and ruled the balkans for nearly 500 years, Bosnians especially adopted a lot of culture from them, fought in their Jannisarry army, yet no language change for Bosnians or any society in the Balkans. This subject is very mysterious to me and no one seems to have tangible answers for it.
First of all there were strong enclaves speaking Turkish language in Europe after Ottoman empire collapsed. Many migrated to Turkey afterwards, some are still present in Bulgaria for example. Many more people spoke two languages during Ottoman empire, one of them Turkish as the official language of empire. Also for the reason of convenience and privileges many changed religion from christian to muslim during this time, all around Balkans. If Ottoman empire had its priority about one language and one religion, all Balkans would have spoken Turkish and be Muslim by now. 500 years is long enough time. Seems like Ottomans didn't care much about this.
Looks at some of Latin American countries. In some of them Spanish were small percentage of population, after 4 or 5 centuries all speak Spanish now. There are still people speaking indigenous languages but not more than small minorities. We have no idea if exactly same process happened in Turkey or Hungary, but we can suspect it was similar.

Secondly, just because we don't understand all the processes exactly, it doesn't mean they or changes they cause are not real. For example, copernicus didn't understand gravity but he understood and mathematically explained that Earth goes around the Sun. He didn't know how, but he know it was real. Likewise, we know languages evolve or change completely but we don't know all the processes yet. Though we know enough to be sure that the change and evolution of languages are real.
 
You're comparing Spanish and Portugese imposing their religion and language on the indigenous South American population to Slavs bringing a new language to the Balkan population? Not a good comparison.
There are some linguists and even genetic researchers who don't agree with the idea that the Slavic language came from Northeast of Europe to Southeast Europe but rather other way around. Just like the Cyrillic alphabet.
For example in Old Russian the name for squirrel was the same as south Slavic "veverica or vjeverica", in modern Russian it's "belka"
Why would that be? Up north the squirrels have more of a white coat. Belka means white, belo, bjelo is white.
 
You're comparing Spanish and Portugese imposing their religion and language on the indigenous South American population to Slavs bringing a new language to the Balkan population? Not a good comparison.
I gave you an example of one of processes which points to possibility that minority can change language and traditions on conquered majority. Why is it not a good example, when Slavs imposed their language and religion over Balkans, in many cases not being majority? One needs to have an agenda and looking only for confirmation bias, to claim that these two are totally different things.

There are some linguists and even genetic researchers who don't agree with the idea that the Slavic language came from Northeast of Europe to Southeast Europe but rather other way around. Just like the Cyrillic alphabet.
And here is your agenda. You as Bosnian, don't want to hear that Slavic language and culture was not indigenous to Balkan. Tell us where Slavs were hiding in Balkans during Greek and Roman Empires if their historians, travelers and governors didn't even mention such group or describe slavic language being in Balkans. Where they blind for many long centuries?!!! On contrary, Slavs are mentioned first time during 5th century when they are starting to attack Byzantium. There is also archeological evidence of new culture entering Balkans at the same time.
For example in Old Russian the name for squirrel was the same as south Slavic "veverica or vjeverica", in modern Russian it's "belka"
It is still vieviurka in Polish. As for the Russian - languages evolve, you know.

Why would that be? Up north the squirrels have more of a white coat. Belka means white, belo, bjelo is white.
Are you basing your proof for slavic continuity in Balkans on one of few Russian words? Get real.
 
I gave you an example of one of processes which points to possibility that minority can change language and traditions on conquered majority. Why is it not a good example, when Slavs imposed their language and religion over Balkans, in many cases not being majority? One needs to have an agenda and looking only for confirmation bias, to claim that these two are totally different things.

There's also the prestige that Slavic had after it became a liturgical language. I don't outright conquest is always needed for language change to occur.

And here is your agenda. You as Bosnian, don't want to hear that Slavic language and culture was not indigenous to Balkan. Tell us where Slavs were hiding in Balkans during Greek and Roman Empires if their historians, travelers and governors didn't even mention such group or describe slavic language being in Balkans. Where they blind for many long centuries?!!! On contrary, Slavs are mentioned first time during 5th century when they are starting to attack Byzantium. There is also archeological evidence of new culture entering Balkans at the same time.
It is still vieviurka in Polish. As for the Russian - languages evolve, you know.

I don't believe that early Slavs lived in the Balkans, but ancient historians didn't notice the Albanians either, so I think they aren't too reliable in that sense. Perhaps the Albanian weren't there either at the time, but I consider it a distinct possibility that some isolate populations were simply too unremarkable for historians to take notice. That same argument has been used against a Danubian homeland - the mythic homeland of the primary chronicles - that Curta and others attempted to revive. The principal argument for a Central Ukrainian homeland is that it bypasses these issues.
 
There's also the prestige that Slavic had after it became a liturgical language. I don't outright conquest is always needed for language change to occur.

Slavic become liturgical language thanks to south slavs not Russians or Polish.
 
I gave you an example of one of processes which points to possibility that minority can change language and traditions on conquered majority. Why is it not a good example, when Slavs imposed their language and religion over Balkans, in many cases not being majority? One needs to have an agenda and looking only for confirmation bias, to claim that these two are totally different things.
real.

Your example with "Turkish" language and comparison is totally out of context,the administrative Ottoman that is was from 80% to 90% in it's peak Persian and Arabic words including Greek and so on,most borrowings we have from Ottoman empire time are Persian words by majority,Arabic then also Greek,so we could end up speaking this language by your conclusion and not modern Turkish. Turk was at times also a slur for Ottomans,they identified as Ottomans,modern Turkey is created bit later by Atatürk,you cant just jump that they came and imposed language just like that it was much longer and different process,take the dinasties that took over Persia and other countries with "Turkic" origin,completely Persianised Gaznavids or the Mongol Ilkhanates for example even some of them adopting Christianity,examples are many yet house of Osman(Ottomans) and then modern Turkey is another topic.
 
Last edited:
There's also the prestige that Slavic had after it became a liturgical language. I don't outright conquest is always needed for language change to occur.
Religion is a powerful force indeed.



I don't believe that early Slavs lived in the Balkans, but ancient historians didn't notice the Albanians either, so I think they aren't too reliable in that sense. Perhaps the Albanian weren't there either at the time, but I consider it a distinct possibility that some isolate populations were simply too unremarkable for historians to take notice. That same argument has been used against a Danubian homeland - the mythic homeland of the primary chronicles - that Curta and others attempted to revive. The principal argument for a Central Ukrainian homeland is that it bypasses these issues.
Very good point. It might be the case that linguistic Albanians conquerors also moved to Balkans at about same time beside Slavs. Or judging by size of Albanian homeland, Albanian tribe started rather small and could have been missed, or known by a different name. It is hard to say the same judging by big slavic armies fighting Byzantium. Starting from North of Balkans and moving South. On top of it Slavic countries are genetically shifted North compared to Albanians, pointing to rather substantial genetic flow from North, therefore Slavic invasion from North.
 
Yeah you'd rather take somebodies stories they wrote down thousands of years ago, who I'm sure were totally objective as human beings always are, than a clear example of linguistic difference.
I believe the original Slavic languages were formed in the Danube area and spread from there. This 19th century narrative of Slavs coming into central Europe and balkans in the middle ages is German/western propaganda. Just like the "Albanians are the true descendents of Ilyrians" nonsense is.
 
laguage transmission depends on a lot of things, and the balancing between these things so...? number, often but not always, cultural and economical level, commercial network, political organization (centralism, administration), diversity of languages in some place allowing to the best organized ones to impose their own as a lingua franca ... a survey about language shifts "rules" needs a lot of parameters; I would be glad to read something reliable about it, me too.
 
You're comparing Spanish and Portugese imposing their religion and language on the indigenous South American population to Slavs bringing a new language to the Balkan population? Not a good comparison.
There are some linguists and even genetic researchers who don't agree with the idea that the Slavic language came from Northeast of Europe to Southeast Europe but rather other way around. Just like the Cyrillic alphabet.
For example in Old Russian the name for squirrel was the same as south Slavic "veverica or vjeverica", in modern Russian it's "belka"
Why would that be? Up north the squirrels have more of a white coat. Belka means white, belo, bjelo is white.

some seldom examples are not enough to base a theory - the replacement of previous words by new words in a language is not something new, and it occrus in a lot of tongues - it depends on frequence of use, very often for animals, birds, fishes, plants there is a big variety of dialectal terms for the same reason: term forgotten, creation of a new one, or "pictural" new term without need - it doesn't depend on difference of origin of the speakers everytime - someones speak of taboos too for some replacements -
 
not all parts of the lexic evolve at the same speed in languages -
 
For Balkans I hno serious knowledge so I only think at loud voice: I wonder if it's not the "compartmentation" of this region in mountains which eased the Slavic language victory: billingual spotted pops (Illyrian, Venetic and other tongues speaking, weakened by partial Latin use), after loosing the Latin supported by the Empire, took on the Slavic, because I think Slavs at first occupied the big rivers network which eased communications, and the "meeting" language began the slavic? Only a try!
 
Hey I got a question
How come south slavs speak a Slavic language which is part of IE group but south slavs have pretty small amount of R1a-R1b less than 30%... How does that happen? In those ancient times people didn't even read or write, there was no school.... How do 3 people teach 7 people a new language and their kids too?
Obviously I'm no expert at this stuff so I'm wondering does anyone have expert explanations that make sense for questions like this? You seem to think of yourself as "educated" so I thought maybe you could share something I might not know about.

Are we even sure what were the proto Slavic levels of R1a? We need some confirmation about that and sadly there's no bone material. I also find it very strange the Balkans don't have a lot of R1a considering the migrations of Slavs and steppe people but it seems that the levels of R1a could have been lowered when the Slavs mixed with the local people. When the Ottomans came many people sought refuge in the mountains and that produced founder effects according to some people, boosting E-V13 and I2a-Din for some reason, especially in Bosnia and Monte Negro. Here in Bulgaria many people think that we are just some Thracians with a Slavic language but that's too simplistic explanation considering the info about Slavic migrations. I think we are a good 40/40 mixture between Slavs and locals + some other peoples that ended up in the Balkans. From what I've seen in the Bulgarian results most of the people have between 30 and 55% Eastern European admixture (info from FTDNA, Geno 2.0, Ancestry) and that could signify some higher amounts of R1a in the past or maybe is something else. I wonder about the results of Serbs, Croats and other Balkans people, I would like to see some averages from them.
 
It is hard to say the same judging by big slavic armies fighting Byzantium. Starting from North of Balkans and moving South. On top of it Slavic countries are genetically shifted North compared to Albanians, pointing to rather substantial genetic flow from North, therefore Slavic invasion from North.

Romanians are shifted more north than Slavic speaking Macedonians or Bulgarians not to mention Romance speaking Moldavians,just as shown by geography moving from south to north or opposite,take a brake.
 

This thread has been viewed 31783 times.

Back
Top