I2a-Din distribution among East Slavs



G (including G2a), E1b, T1, H2, J (including J2) were haplogroups which came to Europe from the Near East with first Neolithic farmers. And those Neolithic farmers did not speak Indo-European languages. They spoke Non-IE languages related to those mentioned above.

So your hypothesis is incorrect.

your falsely merging all the Neolithic farmers into one group, if you read Haak and the supplementary papers after his paper, you realise that hungary and Germanys Neolithic farmers came from Anatolia ( some people also say western-yamnya as well ), the other Neolithic group, the Iberian group came from the levant and northafrican coast
 
Ancient languages of the Middle East:

http://s18.postimg.org/bhimmtk3d/Ancient_ME_Languages.png

Ancient_ME_Languages_B.png
 
Prove with genetics



White Serbia is not mentioned anywhere



Prove with genetics



Prove with genetics




Prove with genetics



You can not prove

The thing is they are both non existent,White Serbia and White Croatia as well that homeland in the Pripet are myths,as much as you look there will never find them.
New theory the world for "Slavs" begins in the 6th century, when supposedly happened the "Great
Migration of Peoples", in which they allegedly came "from behind the Carpathians", although there is
nowhere to be found any mythical ancient "Slavic" homeland,
"Slavic" origins:
Most historians agree that if there wasn’t for the Porphyrogenitus Act,
then on the arrival of the "Slavs" on Balkan and the origin of "Serbs" and "Croats", and the meaning of
their names - we will know nothing. This absolute lack of any other "Slavic arival" historical
background to falsify the "De Administrando Imperio".
In order to put some light on the true origin of the "Croats" and their name, it is necessary to first check
existing interpretations and theories, which are all based on the parts of this Act, supposedly written by
the East-Roman emperor Porphyrogenitus. Indeed, it is enough to take a look at the official science
interpretations on the origin of the "Croats" and the name "Croat", and see that they are based solely on
this Porphyrogenitus act as the main source. That the said act is really a forgery on the origin of the
"Serbs" and "Croats" is showed by the very examples from the text. The first example talks about the
alleged origin of the name of the "Croats". Thus there is written: "Croat" (Khrobátoi) in "Slavic"
languages means "one who possesses a large territory." The supposed Porphyrogenitus act further says
that "Croats" were named so because they allegedly kept many countries and large territory in their
possession. But, it is obvious that the word "Croat" not in any "Slavic" language, nor in
any language in the world means "the one who holds a large territory." Not to mention the fact that
"Croats" never held any "large territory" anywhere. Moreover, the stem "Hrvat" used in the ethnic
designation of these "Croats" it appears to be Iranian in origin.
The official given explanation by the official science and church is that Porphyrogenitus allegedly wrote
such origin on the name of the "Croats" because that word was similar to the "Greek" word "hora",
which means "land"(?). Despite the fact that the "Greek" word in question means people (lat. Chorus,
from "Greek" khoros, colloquial modern "Greek" - horra). However, even in this case it is not clear why
the "Croats" name is not interpreted as "land" or "those-landers" and not as "those who hold a large
19 This was actually the 3rd great shift in known European history. First one occurred when the Roman empire
(later split in Eastern and Western) replaced the Macedonian empire (148 BCE); than the Holy
German/Roman empire (AD 800) has replaced the Western Roman empire; and finaly the Russian empire
which succeeded the Eastern Roman empire (AD 1510) of Constantinopolitana Nova Roma.
Nor it is clear why would’ve Porphyrogenitus thought that the "Croats" call themselves with
supposed "Greek" word.
All this commotion lies exposes the following question: How is it that the "Croats", who supposedly
moved together with the "Serbs" in the Balkans were named after a "Greek" word "hora" (which by the
way has to have the same meaning in "Slavic", even if it doesn’t…) , but the Serbs got their name from
the Latin word "Servus"? Both "Croats" and "Serbs" supposedly migrated together to the Balkans, but
the Byzantine emperor made a distinction between the "Serbs" after the Latin word and "Croats" after
the supposed "Slavic/Greek" word…? And why would a Byzantine emperor wrote a nonsense like this,
especially if we take into account that he was educated ruler who also knew how to write!? The only
plausible explanation is that these manipulations were inserted in the Porphyrogenitus work much latter,
or the whole act is pure falsification.
Also, the Porphyrogenitus mention of the Serbian name as derived from the Latin word "Servus"
(meaning "servant") - it is impossible for two more than obvious reasons. First is that in the time of
Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus Latin wasn’t anymore the official language of the East Roman Empire,
as it was abandoned - five centuries before.20 Second, and more important, is that the Serbs
(Sorbs/Sorabi) have been known by that name in Central Europe long before the time of
Porphyrogenitus. Central European Serbs (Sorbs from Sorabia, Besarabia), also mentioned in the
Frankish annals, are the Serbs (i.e. Sorabians) who have never been under the rule of the Eastern Roman
Empire, nor even close to the Balkans, so it was quite impossible for them to get this name from there.
So, if they were to be named after the Latin "Servus" - this must’ve come from the (west) Holy Roman
Empire and not from the Porphyrogenitus act. This issue was also addressed by the famous Croatian
historian, Ferdo Šišić who pointed out that the origins of the names "Croat" and "Serb" are unscientific
and mismanaged.
 
Last edited:
Exonym of Serbs

The term "Triballians" appears frequently in Byzantine and other European works of the Middle Ages, referring exclusively to Serbs.Some of these authors clearly explain that "Triballian" is synonym to "Serbian". For example, Niketas Choniates (or Acominatus, 1155–1215 or-16) in his history about Emperor Ioannes Komnenos: "... Shortly after this, he campaigned against the nation of Triballians (whom someone may call Serbians as well) ..."[23] or the much later Demetrios Chalkondyles(1423–1511), referring to an Islamized Christian noble: "... This Mahmud, son of Michael, is Triballian, which means Serbian, by his mother, and Greek by his father."[24] orMehmed the Conqueror when referring to the plundering of Serbia.

The Seal of the Serbian Parliament, 1805.​

In the 15th century, a coat of arms of "Tribalia", depicting a wild boar with an arrow pierced through the head (see Boars in heraldry), appeared in the supposed Coat of Arms of the Serbian Emperor Stefan Dušan 'the Mighty' (r. 1331–1355).The motif had, in 1415, been used as the Coat of Arms of the Serbian Despotate and is recalled in one of Stefan Lazarević's personal Seals, according to the paper Сабор у Констанци.Pavao Ritter Vitezović also depicts "Triballia" with the same motif in 1701 and Hristofor Zhefarovich again in 1741.With the beginning of the First Serbian Uprising, the Parliament adopted the Serbian Coat of Arms in 1805, their official seal depicted
emblems of Serbia and Tribalia.
http://galabri.com/foto/pics/heraldic/thracia.jpg thracia.jpg
Exonyms

Rascia, Rascians

The state(s) anachronistically called Raška were first known collectively as Serbia.
The name Rascia (Serbian: Рашка; Raška) is sometimes used by modern historiography to refer to the mainland region (known in Serbian as the hinterlands, in contrast to the maritime fiefs of the Adriatic coast) of the Serbian Principality inhabited and ruled by Serbs; the seat of the early medieval state of Serbia. It is used to describe Serbia up to Stefan Nemanja (1166–1196) or the forming of the Kingdom of Serbia in 1217. "Rascia" continued to serve as an exonym for Serbia in West European sources since late 12th century, along with other names such as Servia and Slavonia.
The name is derived from the name of the region's most important fort, Ras which first appears in the work de aedificiis of Byzantine Procopius in its earlier form as Arsa (withoutliquid metathesis) prior to the forming of Serbia. Ras eventually became the capital district and seat of the first bishopric of Serbia (871). In Constantine Porphyrogenitus' De Administrando Imperio, Ras is mentioned as an important town of Serbia (Σέρβια) under Časlav Klonimirović (927–960) near its border with the First Bulgarian Empire.
Constantine's Serbia is often identified as Raška by modern historiography to differentiate it from the other provinces ruled by the Serbs at the time: Zahumlje, Travunia, Duklja,Bosna and Pagania. Porphyrogenitus uses Serbia as a name for the mainland regions of Rascia; and Bosnia, although the name comes to denote "all of Serbian lands". Rascians was referring to the population of medieval Serb state Rascia (the one and same people as the other tribes of Duklja (Dukljans), Travunija (Travunians), Pagania(Neretvians/Paganians), Zahumlje (Zahumlians) that all belong to the Serb ethnos.
The name of the bishopric (Ras bishopric, Raška episkopija) eventually started to denote the entire area under jurisdiction and later, under Stefan Nemanja, Ras was re-generated as state capital and the name spread to the entire land. The first attested appearance of the name Raška is in a charter from Kotor dated to 1186, in which Stefan Nemanja is mentioned as župan of Rascia (Prince of Serbia). However, Rascia appears scarcely in Serbian and never in Byzantine works to denote the state.
Between the 15th and 18th centuries, the term Raška (Rascia, Ráczság) was used to designate the southern Pannonian Plain inhabited by Serbs (Raci), who settled there during the Great Serb migrations from medieval Serbia, "Rácz" has survived as a common surname in Hungary.
Other connections have been made with the Etruscan civilization (800 BC–264 BC, The Etruscans called themselves Rasenna, which was syncopated to Rasna or Raśna), the geographical name Ratiaria (founded 4th century BC, near Archar, in modern Bulgaria), and the personal names of Thracian kings Rhescuporis of Odrysia (Ραισκούπορις, r. 240 BC - 215 BC) and Rhescuporis of Sapaea (r. 48-41 BC. He also had a brother, Rascus[
 
Last edited:
It must be noted that TMRCA is not the same as migration time.

TMRCA shows when the number of people with a given mutation started to rise in numbers.

They could be initially increasing in numbers in one region, without migrating to other areas yet.

So claiming that I2a-Din didn't come with Slavs because it's TMRCA precedes the Slavic migration by some centuries, is erroneuous.

It actually SHOULD precede the Slavic migration. Because if it didn't, then that would mean that only ONE Slavic person with I2a-Din came.

And that was most likely not the case. I2a-Din increased in numbers to some thousands individuals, and only then started to migrate.

=======================================

BTW - check my thread on prehistoric distribution of Y-DNA haplogroups in Europe:

Page 8 (R1a versus R1b maps):

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...arly-Iron-Age-Y-DNA-landscape-of-Europe/page8

Page 1 (maps of all haplogroups):

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...thic-Early-Iron-Age-Y-DNA-landscape-of-Europe
Can you give me archeological,linguistic,genetic and written sources prove,how supposedly happened the migration in the 6th century according to you?
 
http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/setton.html

Byzantine writers in telling of events relating to the Huns, Bulgars, Avars, Antae, Slavs, and numerous other peoples, have created by general and careless descriptions much confusion in Byzantine and Balkan history, but in late years the valuable researches of Moravcsik and others have deepened our understanding of many important aspects of the early history of these peoples. Much doubt and much debate will, presumably, always attach themselves to particular peoples as well as to particular persons.
 
Can you give me archeological,linguistic,genetic and written sources prove,how supposedly happened the migration in the 6th century according to you?
Are you serious Dude?!!! There are multiple Roman and Byzantine documents about Slavic invasion of their terrorists. We have archaeological material change after 5th century all over the area, consistent with the timing of Slav invasion. We have geographical name changes in the area occupied by Slavs.
Do you have a problem finding the information, or you are subscribing to the idea that Slavs always lived in Balkans?
 
If we believe Herodotus then the Androphagi and the Budini were some remnant groups of hunter-gatherers.

I'm not sure about the Androphagi (what did Herodotus write about them?), but I remember that he described the Budini as foragers.

So they probably spoke some sort of Old European. Or they could be those Finno-Ugrians who still had not switched to farming.

Weren't some Finno-Urgics hunter gatherers? It would be hard to believe some Mesolithic-descended languages still existed in the Iron age. But we can be sure they weren't Sycthian or Indo European, right? The Fenni were another Iron age hunter gatherer people. They could all be Finno-Urgic.
 
"Can you give me archeological,linguistic,genetic and written sources prove,how supposedly happened the migration in the 6th century according to you?"

No,he can't.There is no scientific evidence for that.I mean:SCIENTIFIC!
 
Are you serious Dude?!!! There are multiple Roman and Byzantine documents about Slavic invasion of their terrorists. We have archaeological material change after 5th century all over the area, consistent with the timing of Slav invasion. We have geographical name changes in the area occupied by Slavs.
Do you have a problem finding the information, or you are subscribing to the idea that Slavs always lived in Balkans?

The part of problem is in opinions that haplogroup R1a is equated with the Slavs. Scientific sources tell us that R1a came to the Balkans much much before Slavs. And some forum members wrote about it. After all Thracians, Getae, Dacians, Scytians, Sarmatians etc., among other, were R1a carriers.

We can find several group of different opinions:

1. R1a were in the Balkans long before Slavs, Slavs who came to the Balkans were I2a carriers
2. I2a were in the Balkans long before Slavs, Slavs who came to the Balkans were R1a carriers
3. Both R1a and I2a were in the Balkans long before Slavs, Slavs who came to the Balkans were both R1a and I2a carriers (and other) but they didn't contribute much to the change of haplogroups.
4. Both R1a and I2a were not in the Balkans before Slavs.

Sometimes, the choice of one of the options is due to putting on own side. For example, some Albanian members tell that R1a didn't exist in the Balkans before Slavs, but these are no facts.

And today we can see all Balkan countries have significant R1a, and nonSlavic, for example Greece 11,5% and Albania too: Albania 9%.

I think, when we have identified haplogroups in the Balkans from different epochs things will be clearer.
 
Are you serious Dude?!!! There are multiple Roman and Byzantine documents about Slavic invasion of their terrorists. We have archaeological material change after 5th century all over the area, consistent with the timing of Slav invasion. We have geographical name changes in the area occupied by Slavs.
Do you have a problem finding the information, or you are subscribing to the idea that Slavs always lived in Balkans?
I am serious,migration theory of Slavs is a theory however not a fact,with politicized agendas,like which archaeological prove?demographic collapse in the peninsula, abandonment rather then mass migration?material culture has changed in the coin struck for Constantinople people were free from that matter rather they created their own respective economies and rulling class,the Sclavenes emerge cause of the starving and abandonment of the same population in the region because of imperial policies,could survive like marauders quite better,military conquest or re-conquest by a group of people,but mass migration seem unlikely,after all Romans were nothing but invaders in the Balkans,I can find you many Slavic names of cities in the Balkans since B.C era written in Greek,all call the cities in their respective languages,if the Greeks write for them they are hellenized and opposite,after 19th century there was major toponym change in non Slavic countries of Slavic origin the same way and you can't write in sence of Slav invasion,cause Slav is new western term with tottaly different meaning nowadays then when Romans were writing at that time about Sclavenes,Scyths,Getae etc raids.
 
Last edited:

interesting, but in anatolia - in the north you have Palaic language missing as well as Kaskian came originally from north-west caucasus ( proto-circassians )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaic_language

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/439117/Palaic-language

The Chalybes were the westernmost of the Kartvelian tribes. West of the Halys river lay the region of Paphlagonia, which extended westward to the Parthenius river (mod. Bartın Çayı). The Paphlagonians were an ancient people of uncertain ethnic affinities. They are mentioned in Greek sources as early as Homer, who lists them among the allies of Troy: “And the Paphlagonians did Pylaemenes of vigorous heart lead from the land of the Eneti” (Iliad II.851-52). The Eneti appear to have been a subdivision of the Paphlagonians, and were believed to have migrated from Asia Minor to the head of the Adriatic at the conclusion of the Trojan War, where they became known as the Veneti (Strabo, Geographica XII.iii.25). Although Venetic was one of the Italic dialects (and hence related to Latin), the original Venetic language is believed to have been non-Indo-European.

There are three main views as to the linguistic and cultural affiliation of the Paphlagonians. Cramer (1832) regards them “as being of the same race with the Bithyni, Mysi, and Phryges, that is, they were a Thracian people. Theopompus, indeed, as we learn from Strabo, classed them with the Mariandyni and Bithyni. (XII. P. 541.) Another circumstance which seems further to confirm this opinion is the name of Cotys, which is given by Xenophon to one of their chiefs, (Hell. IV. 1.) and which is so frequently found to occur in the nomenclature of Thracian sovereigns” (p. 217). If this is correct, then the Paphlagonians migrated from Europe to Asia Minor at the time of the Trojan War and their language, like Armenian, was part of the Thraco-Phrygian branch of Indo-European. A second possibility is that the Paphlagonians were the descendants of the Kashkai, who (as we have already noted) were a Northwest Caucasian people. A number of facts tend to support this hypothesis: first, Hittite sources confirm that the entire district between the Halys and Parthenius rivers was inhabited by the Kashkai during the second millennium B.C.; second, the region immediately to the south of Paphlagonia was originally occupied by the Hattians, another pre-Indo-European people whose language is believed to be connected to Northwest Caucasian. A third possibility is that the Paphlagonians were the descendants of an Anatolian people, since the region was known to the Hittites as Pala and was inhabited by speakers of Palaic, an Anatolian language related to Hittite (Diakonoff, 1984). This appears to be the least likely of the three hypotheses, however, since Pala was overrun during the 15th century B.C. by the Kashkai, who apparently migrated into the region from further west.
The important Milesian colony of Sinope was founded in Paphlagonian territory (631/630 B.C.), on the site of the old Hittite port of Sinuwa. The city was named for the Amazon Sinope, the mythical ancestor of the Leucosyri (Elderkin, 1935), and became an important entrepôt for goods from the upper Euphrates. Prior to Greek settlement, the promontory of Sinope was inhabited by Cimmerians (Kimme//rioi) (Herodotus, Historiae IV.12). Pseudo-Scymnus (Periegesis ad Nicomedem regem 992-993), in fact, reports that Abron ( ÂAbrwn), the leader of the Milesian colonists, was slain by the Cimmerians (Summerer, 2007). The Cimmerians are to be identified with the biblical Gomer, the eldest son of Japheth (Genesis 10), and were initially associated with the region north of the Black Sea, between the Tyras (Don) and Tanaïs (Dniester) rivers. They gave their name to the Cimmerian Bosporus (eastern Crimea / Strait of Kerch).



The supposed migration to the Italian alpine areas as noted by German and italian scholars for the "eneti" is 1280 BC , one hundred years before the trojan war
 
I am serious,maybe you are not aware but couple scholars emerge lately which quite demolished the national romanticism and communists myths of Slavic origin created by unscientific people with politicized agendas,like which archaeological prove?demographic collapse in the peninsula, abandonment rather then mass migration?material culture has changed in the coin struck for Constantinople people were free from that matter rather they created their own respective economies and rulling class,the Sclavenes emerge cause of the starving and abandonment of the same population in the region because of imperial policies,could survive like marauders quite better,after all Romans were nothing but invaders in the Balkans, century there was major toponym change in non Slavic countries of Slavic origin the same way and you can't write in sence of Slav invasion,cause Slav is new western term with tottaly different meaning nowadays then when Romans were writing at that time about Sclavenes,Scyths,Getae etc raids.

Wait a minute. Romans and Greeks dominated Balkans for hundreds of years and they missed Slavs living there? We have some words written in Dacian and Thracian but somehow Slavic was totally missed. That's weird.

Now comes Milan, an amateur historian, and tells us to ignore all the ancient and current historians and ancient records and trust him (you) and his hypothesis on this subject?! I hope you realize how ridiculous your statement is!

I can find you many Slavic names of cities in the Balkans since B.C era written in Greek,all call the cities in their respective languages,if the Greeks write for them they are hellenized and opposite,after 19th
On this base you can go through Indian maps and find some names that could potentially sound Slavic. Unless these names in Balkans are confirmed to be Slavic by professional linguists, and few of them, forgive me but I will take it as a figment of your imagination. You know that extraordinary ideas need extraordinary proofs.

then when Romans were writing at that time about Sclavenes,Scyths,Getae etc raids
Oh, raids, so they were invaders into Balkans. Where did they come from then?
 
The part of problem is in opinions that haplogroup R1a is equated with the Slavs. Scientific sources tell us that R1a came to the Balkans much much before Slavs. And some forum members wrote about it. After all Thracians, Getae, Dacians, Scytians, Sarmatians etc., among other, were R1a carriers.

We can find several group of different opinions:

1. R1a were in the Balkans long before Slavs, Slavs who came to the Balkans were I2a carriers
2. I2a were in the Balkans long before Slavs, Slavs who came to the Balkans were R1a carriers
3. Both R1a and I2a were in the Balkans long before Slavs, Slavs who came to the Balkans were both R1a and I2a carriers (and other) but they didn't contribute much to the change of haplogroups.
4. Both R1a and I2a were not in the Balkans before Slavs.

Sometimes, the choice of one of the options is due to putting on own side. For example, some Albanian members tell that R1a didn't exist in the Balkans before Slavs, but these are no facts.

And today we can see all Balkan countries have significant R1a, and nonSlavic, for example Greece 11,5% and Albania too: Albania 9%.

I think, when we have identified haplogroups in the Balkans from different epochs things will be clearer.

I completely agree. Probably option 3 is the most likely. There was R1a (from corded ware) and I2a (from Neolithic Hungary) in Balkans and Slavs brought more of the same, though with few new subclades.
 
Wait a minute. Romans and Greeks dominated Balkans for hundreds of years and they missed Slavs living there? We have some words written in Dacian and Thracian but somehow Slavic was totally missed. That's weird.

Now comes Milan, an amateur historian, and tells us to ignore all the ancient and current historians and ancient records and trust him (you) and his hypothesis on this subject?! I hope you realize how ridiculous your statement is!


On this base you can go through Indian maps and find some names that could potentially sound Slavic. Unless these names in Balkans are confirmed to be Slavic by professional linguists, and few of them, forgive me but I will take it as a figment of your imagination. You know that extraordinary ideas need extraordinary proofs.

Oh, raids, so they were invaders into Balkans. Where did they come from then?
First of all let's clear with the word "Slav" itself which is a term with a heavily politicized connotations,I would recommend you a book "Making of the Slavs" by Curta he explains good what the Authors meant by Sclaveni or Sklabenoi-original Greek,what become later and what is the meaning of Sloven to the very Slavs,they aren't same neither have the same meaning although many think they are,but i can try to explain what to the very Sloveni speaking group the word Sloveni mean,The word "Slav" is ultimately corrupted form of Sloveni which is what the Slavic tribes called the literate members of their communities.However the two terms are not synonymous,Slav is proper noun representing an ethnicity.Sloveni is a descriptive noun that is a relational term,it equates itself to an imagined or real kinship by way of linguistic and or writing similarities between at least two different populations.In other words Russian cannot be Sloven by oneself,Russian and Serbian can be Sloveni because they both speak a similar tongue and or write with the same script.In fact,the very word Sloveni come from the Slavic word "Slovo" meaning word,thus people who call themselves Sloveni were people who could mutually understand eachother to a degree,just like Westerners were "Nemtsi" meaning deaf man, the one who can't talk,who is on mute, especially Germans,Structural linguistic show that if two words do not carry the same meaning,they cannot be cognates,such as in the case between "Slavs" and Sloveni,especially if we know the background of the word Slav itself should be banned from historical usage cause is derogatory and has confused meaning in historical usage.
 
Last edited:
Wait a minute. Romans and Greeks dominated Balkans for hundreds of years and they missed Slavs living there? We have some words written in Dacian and Thracian but somehow Slavic was totally missed. That's weird.

Now comes Milan, an amateur historian, and tells us to ignore all the ancient and current historians and ancient records and trust him (you) and his hypothesis on this subject?! I hope you realize how ridiculous your statement is!


On this base you can go through Indian maps and find some names that could potentially sound Slavic. Unless these names in Balkans are confirmed to be Slavic by professional linguists, and few of them, forgive me but I will take it as a figment of your imagination. You know that extraordinary ideas need extraordinary proofs.

Oh, raids, so they were invaders into Balkans. Where did they come from then?
I have ask a kind question but after all you don't have answer,it seems you are ridiculous,having in mind that Slavic homeland wasn't find,Slavic urheimat wasn't solved,Balkan sprachbund also,just obsolote hypothesis.Romans and Greeks "dominated" Balkans for hundreds years,Romans conquered Balkans with Greek help to a degree,but it was Latin language that dominated and was lingua franca and state language,Roman empire was multi ethnic,we had Illyrian,Thracian,Syrian emperors but all wrote in Latin.Thracian language show striking similarities with Baltic and Slavic, so negative.Therefore i want to learn from non amateur historians like you,I just represent a theory of Oleg Trubachev doctor in philology,he was an academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences.His works are on the etymology of Slavic languages and on East Slavic onomastics,also B.A Rybakov,currently Florin Curta,Mario Alinei, Kopitar sought the Proto-Slavic homeland on the Danube and in Pannonia; Niederle admitted the existence of Slavic enclaves in Thracia and in Illyiria already at the beginning of our era,all ignorants they all maintained Danube basin and that "Sloveni" speaking group were always there,that's why we have Thracian problem,Slavic "homeland" problem,what is next Getae are from Scandinavian Goths,while they were Thracians,i was not aware that Scandinavians were in the Balkans since B.C era but from 19th century they become due to "Gothicism"“
As for the Getae, that is to say the herds of Sclavenes, they were fiercely ravaging the regions of Thrace-Theophylact Simocatta
also Gothic (Germanic language) was lingua franca in the Hun empire but wierd from three words that historians wrote from there all are Slavic:medos: a beverage from honey that was offered to them,they celebrated "strava-Slavic funeral ritual on Attila dead,then this Gothic must be Slavic or not? first "Slavic" infiltration was in the 6th century only perhaps,as for the raids they had many collaborators within the empire and tribes attested by names which created so called Sclavinia which none wrote for their "migration" but simple just living there,Sclavinia was something like Enclava,Romans later Byzantines,they were nearly bankrupt which affect their own citizens making them to look within other circles for survival,but we can intepret things how we like,therefore some historical non sense will stay as they are while claiming it is 'scientificaly proven"
 
Last edited:
tongue and or write with the same script.In fact,the very word Sloveni come from the Slavic word "Slovo" meaning word,thus people who call themselves Sloveni were people who could mutually understand eachother to a degree,just like Westerners were "Nemtsi" meaning deaf man, the one who can't talk,who is on mute, especially Germans,Structural linguistic show that if two words do not carry the same meaning
That's how I see the roots for Slovianie/Slovene, too.


,they cannot be cognates,such as in the case between "Slavs" and Sloveni,especially if we know the background of the word Slav itself should be banned from historical usage cause is deregatory and has confused meaning in historical usage.
Derogatory? You have some issues dude.
I'm not against calling anyone by a name of his choosing, or in his native language. If it is a wish of most Slavs to be called Slovanie or Slovo, I'm for it. However I would be shocked if all Slavs can agree on one spelling and pronunciation.
 
I have ask a kind question but after all you don't have answer,it seems you are ridiculous,having in mind that Slavic homeland wasn't find,Slavic urheimat wasn't solved,Balkan sprachbund also,just obsolote hypothesis.Romans and Greeks "dominated" Balkans for hundreds years,Romans conquered Balkans with Greek help to a degree,but it was Latin language that dominated and was lingua franca and state language,Roman empire was multi ethnic,we had Illyrian,Thracian,Syrian emperors but all wrote in Latin.Thracian language show striking similarities with Baltic and Slavic, so negative.Therefore i want to learn from non amateur historians like you,I just represent a theory of Oleg Trubachev doctor in philology,he was an academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences.His works are on the etymology of Slavic languages and on East Slavic onomastics,also B.A Rybakov,currently Florin Curta,Mario Alinei, Kopitar sought the Proto-Slavic homeland on the Danube and in Pannonia; Niederle admitted the existence of Slavic enclaves in Thracia and in Illyiria already at the beginning of our era,all ignorants they all maintained Danube basin and that "Sloveni" speaking group were always there,that's why we have Thracian problem,Slavic "homeland" problem,what is next Getae are from Scandinavian Goths,while they were Thracians,i was not aware that Scandinavians were in the Balkans since B.C era but from 19th century they become due to "Gothicism"“
As for the Getae, that is to say the herds of Sclavenes, they were fiercely ravaging the regions of Thrace-Theophylact Simocatta
I can't believe that it is so hard for you to realize, that what you are saying is what you wish for, and has nothing to do with science trying to decipher where Slavic Homeland was. You are a Croat and a Slav, isn't it romantic, and feels good, if Slavic Homeland was always in the same area. It would mean that Slavs are indigenous to this area, that your ancestors always spoke the language and your genetic was always Slavic. How convenient and romantic for you. I'm sure that these cozy feelings are clouding your judgment.




also Gothic (Germanic language) was lingua franca in the Hun empire but wierd from three words that historians wrote from there all are Slavic:medos: a beverage from honey that was offered to them,they celebrated "strava-Slavic funeral ritual on Attila dead,then this Gothic must be Slavic or not? first "Slavic" infiltration was in the 6th century only perhaps,as for the raids they had many collaborators within the empire and tribes attested by names which created so called Sclavinia which none wrote for their "migration" but simple just living there,Sclavinia was something like Enclava,Romans later Byzantines,they were nearly bankrupt which affect their own citizens making them to look within other circles for survival,but we can intepret things how we like,therefore some historical non sense will stay as they are while claiming it is 'scientificaly proven"
All these above happened at the end of Roman Empire, when the first information about Slavs are written. There is no mention before these times. It means they came from somewhere, and this somewhere wasn't in Balkans.
Can you imagine that Greeks mentioned Keltoi (Celts) in far away lands, but they missed Slavs who lived in Balkans. That would be something!
 
That's how I see the roots for Slovianie/Slovene, too.

I'm not against calling anyone by a name of his choosing, or in his native language. If it is a wish of most Slavs to be called Slovanie or Slovo, I'm for it. However I would be shocked if all Slavs can agree on one spelling and pronunciation.

If that is how you see the roots,then how can you say "Slavs" appear in the Balkans,Slavs are not ethnic group nor they ever was,every particular tribe had it's own name and orientation toward something,does all of the Slavs appear in the Balkans and Central Europe migrating from place to place and by which name? Lol if you meant the 6th century Sklabenoi to link with that then say so Lebrok :LOL:
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 125538 times.

Back
Top