Many formerly Baltic teritories became
According to Baltic hydronyms described by Toporov and Ivanov? Those toponyms are still "horse in vacuum", nothing more. Why not include Slavs in those archaic hydronyms?
For example, you have "Jelgava" city in Latvia. Also, you have river "Jihlava" in Czechia. So, if Toporov (for example) didn't know that Slavs lived there (In Czechia), how would he classified river "Jihlava"??? I guess it would be today classified as "Baltic hydronym" as all in Eastern Europe which ends in "-ava", "-eva"... etc... The question is why? Why not drag Slavs into this hydronyms?
For example, see this text:
"Fully sharing the opinion of Rassadin about Prague culture as the first archeological manifestation of the Slavic ethnos itself, as well as about its Kiev origins, it is necessary to consider the preceding Venetian ethnos of the carriers of the Late Zarubine and Kiev cultures as Slavic, and not Balto-Slavic. The ethnogenesis of the Western Balts, a well-documented chain of archaeological cultures (the Mazury-Warmian group of the Lusatia culture — the culture of the Western Baltic kurgans — the rich culture and the related groups of soil burials — the commonness of the caged ceramics), did not have a relationship. Moreover, the formation of the Eastern Balts (Lithuanians and Latvians) can be explained by the impulse from the cultures of perched ceramics. [17] Thus, all cultures that have continuity with cultures of historical Balts of the XIII century. (Kurshey, Zemgals, Latgals, Zhemayts, Lithuania, Yatvyagov, etc.), are derived directly from the culture of the Western Baltic kurgans that originated in the 1st millennium BC. under the influence of common fields of burial urns. Those cultures that are not derived from it, there is no reason to consider the Baltic cultures - contrary to the concept of the “Dnieper Balts”, which is still widespread among archaeologists. The only basis for it is the similarity of hydronymy at the site of these cultures with the Baltic one, but an alternative explanation has already been proposed for it above. hitherto widespread among archaeologists. The only basis for it is the similarity of hydronymy at the site of these cultures with the Baltic one, but an alternative explanation has already been proposed for it above.
If the undifferentiated Balto-Slavic unity ever existed (with which not all linguists agree), then the Lusatian culture seems to be the best match for it, and the beginning of its disintegration corresponds to the isolation of the Pomorian and Mazury-Warmian groups of this culture.In this case, the ethnonym "Veneta" at an early stage of its existence could relate to ancestors not only of the Slavs, but also of the Balts. "