Serbs and Croats origin from Germanic Scirii and Hirri?

This white Serb/white Croat/white insert nationality here is repeated so frequently that it must mean something.

Could this tie into Merlin and his prediction of the Red side beating the White side in the British Isles? What if the Red represented haplogroup R (or more specifically R1b) and the White represented haplogroup I?

Kind of makes you ponder...

White means North, Red means South - these are old Slavic meanings. So Belarus (White Ruś in Polish) is on the North from Ukraine (Red Ruś in Polish). There was a period in history when Croatian (Chrobatian in Polish) tribe was on the run into the South from the modern part of Poland and Slovakia and therefore the land they left used to be called White Chrobatia meaning that the Red Chrobatia is already near the Adriatic Sea on the South. Polish national flag is white-red with white on the top (North), meaning the unification of Slavic tribes under one state.
 
do not bother replying to yes and no , his agenda is;
you pose as italian but you are not one...
your agenda is anti-slavic, anti-serb, and anti-greek
that explains well your real background

1 - serbs created slavic language
correct
according to Dalmil's chronicle (historical source of Czechs) the language spoken by Poles and Czechs was called Serbian (this doesnot mean that it was the same as modern Serbian, but that at the time of early Slavs proto-Slavic was called Serbian)

2 - All R1a are slavs
I have never ever claimed anything alike and you are well aware I didnot

3 - Slavic is older than germanic
Slavic is not older than Germanic
but closer to PIE
Baltic languages are even closer

4 - mixes venedi with veneti indicating same people
there is in my opinion clear continuity of tribal names...
but only partial continuity regarding genetics and language

original Veneti from Asia minor spoke some variant of PIE language
in later Venedi of central Europe this has developed into Balto-Slavic (= more or less Baltic languages)
but with admixture of Danubian Slavs who settled areas around Vltava river part of Venedi changed language to proto-Slavic (Serbian according to Dalmil's chronicle)

5 - baltic race was originally slavic
there is no Baltic race and Slavic race - those are languages
there is R1a race and I1 race and I2a race....

6 - russians are slavs ethnically even though russians say they are not
Russians are Slavs ethnically, so are Serbs and Czechs and Croats and Poles...
yet genetically all these people, like any nation, have mixed origins...
I was trying to interpret possible origins...

7 - Believes Jordanes and his fabricated lies,
Jordanes is respectable historical source, unlike internet sites you keep posting...

8 - claims sarmatians, alans, roxlani, antes and scythians are all slavs
etc etc
they are not Slavs
but most or some of them have completely or partially genetically contributed to Slavs of today..

He starts history at he time of the roman empire ( as if nothing was before this ) and has always failed to clarify a tribal name for slav from BC times......Ask him to name one tribe from pliny or any other historian times to reference as being slav - he cannot
i never tried to find tribal name Slav before 5th century...
its a new name
is there EU name prior to year 1993?
is there USA name prior to year 1776?
but do you claim there were no Europeans prior to year 1993?
were there no Americans prior to 1776?


Fails to understand that Kvens, Vends, Vendae are finnic or baltic peoples
there is a world of difference between Finnish and Baltic...
both genetically and linguistically

one of those nations has dominant R1a and other N haplogroup
one of those nations speaks indo-europen langage other uralic

saying Venedi are Finnish or Baltic is like saying they were either Spanish or Swedish, or saying they were either Zulu or Eskimos

or to translate it - what you are communicating is that you have no clue who Venedi were ethnically but you are somehow sure they could not ever had any possible relations with any Slavic people...

IMO the truly original and only tribe I found to be slav is the Carpi and even with this I am unsure
Carpi are Dacians for your information...
you keep using strange sources of information
use historical books and not internet sites....
 
you pose as italian but you are not one...
your agenda is anti-slavic, anti-serb, and anti-greek
that explains well your real background

I am dual citizen, australian and italian .....no more to say.
at least one good thing the italians did was to recognise by law that there where no italians before March 1866. They do not associate people like the slavs do, ....oh you know slavic language, then you must be slavic...how pathetic.

correct
according to Dalmil's chronicle (historical source of Czechs) the language spoken by Poles and Czechs was called Serbian (this doesnot mean that it was the same as modern Serbian, but that at the time of early Slavs proto-Slavic was called Serbian)
crap...if it was serbian, then you have a date for this language create dby serbs...what is it?

Slavic is not older than Germanic
but closer to PIE
Baltic languages are even closer
Baltic ethnicity is older than Slavic and Germanic, why deny this?
The balts where sailing the baltic sea centuries before anyone else..

there is in my opinion clear continuity of tribal names...
but only partial continuity regarding genetics and language
association by language ..are very dangerous and inaccurate concept..already explained to you hundreds of times.

original Veneti from Asia minor spoke some variant of PIE language
in later Venedi of central Europe this has developed into Balto-Slavic (= more or less Baltic languages)
but with admixture of Danubian Slavs who settled areas around Vltava river part of Venedi changed language to proto-Slavic (Serbian according to Dalmil's chronicle)

you believe Homers tales, and also cato in saying Veneti are trojans OR are you saying these same veneti became the Venedi on the baltic...more word association!

What is a danubian slav?...someone who over time absorbed the remaining illyrian, thracian, getae and dacian people?


there is no Baltic race and Slavic race - those are languages
there is R1a race and I1 race and I2a race....

so there is no ethnic baltic or slavic, so why do you associate language with ethnics?
By your concept, then because we are communicating to each other in English, then we BOTH are ENGLISH ethnically! is that how it works!

Russians are Slavs ethnically, so are Serbs and Czechs and Croats and Poles...
yet genetically all these people, like any nation, have mixed origins...
I was trying to interpret possible origins...
Russians are slavs linguistically and not ethnically, only true slavs are in poles and ukraines and not the full 100% of people.

Jordanes is respectable historical source, unlike internet sites you keep posting...

Your biggest error...his works have already been destroyed by many, many historians as fabricated after steeling the work of cassiodorus .

i never tried to find tribal name Slav before 5th century...
its a new name
is there EU name prior to year 1993?
is there USA name prior to year 1776?
but do you claim there were no Europeans prior to year 1993?
were there no Americans prior to 1776?

Because they did not exist at the time , yet you try to destroy the history of the original inhabitants by making them some form of Proto-slavic

there is a world of difference between Finnish and Baltic...
both genetically and linguistically

yes there is , and both are older than slavic and their history in the bronze and iron ages should not be removed due to some slavic nationalistic ideas.

or to translate it - what you are communicating is that you have no clue who Venedi were ethnically but you are somehow sure they could not ever had any possible relations with any Slavic people...

Venedi are baltic people as per genetic studies by russians, poles and germans. they existed from 350BC to 200AD and where then absorbed into Goth society before the goths marched to the black sea. the venedi have no written language and only left behind the "flat grave mounds" which are baltic in style


Carpi are Dacians for your information...
you keep using strange sources of information
use historical books and not internet sites....

Maybe, although I do not recall any dacians on the north side of the carpathian mountains
 
White means North, Red means South - these are old Slavic meanings. So Belarus (White Ruś in Polish) is on the North from Ukraine (Red Ruś in Polish). There was a period in history when Croatian (Chrobatian in Polish) tribe was on the run into the South from the modern part of Poland and Slovakia and therefore the land they left used to be called White Chrobatia meaning that the Red Chrobatia is already near the Adriatic Sea on the South. Polish national flag is white-red with white on the top (North), meaning the unification of Slavic tribes under one state.

That fits better, but not perfectly. How do you explain the white Anglo-Saxon association (being located almost due East of the Welsh population)?

The white/red combination is on many flags (including the U.S. Stars and Stripes, and also on the Republic of Croatia Coat of Arms). Of course the red is atop the white on the U.S. flag though.

I don't mean this to be a serious debate, I only made this observation because I've seen it repeat so frequently with tribes linking to white and also the White/Red colors seen on so many flags today. It would make some sense for differing haplogroups to hold on to ancient associations (such as hg I to the color white) as a form of DNA preservation and support. Something to keep in the back of your mind anyway.
 
at Nordicwarbler

Donald A. MacKenzie - Myths of Pre-Columbian America (1923)
In India the north is white and the south, being Yama's gate and Yama the god of death, is coloured black. Southern India is no darker than the north. The Chinese coloured their north black, their south red, their east green or blue, and their west white. In Gaelic the north is black and the south white, the east purple-red and the west dun or pale.

Interesting but wouldnt read too much into it.
 
at How yes no 3

You do realise that Pliny never claimed that the Venedi were Sclavish.
Those assumptions and your theory are based on the interpretations of M. Parisot, not of any classical author.

Pliny - Natural History (79 AD)
"Some writers state that these regions, as far as the river Vistula, are inhabited by the Sarmati, the Venedi, the Sciri, and the Hirri, and that there is a gulf there known by the name of Cylipenus, at the mouth of which is the island of Latris, after which comes another gulf, that of Lagnus, which borders on the Cimbri. The Cimbrian Promontory, running out into the sea for a great distance, forms a peninsula which bears the name of Cartris"

Pliny is describing the Baltic coast, the gulfs he mentions are the Frische Haff and Kurisches Haff with the peninsula Cartris being Samland. And he clearly states that the Sciri and Hirri are next to (not amongst) the Venedi.

Map_of_East_Prussia_1648.jpg


your theory only makes sense if:
1.) the Venedi are Slavic/proto-slavic
2.) the Sciri and Hirri are Venedic tribes.

But no classical author states that, Pytheas (4th cen BC/the first) only mentions Teutones and Guttones [on the Baltic coast] and Strabo, Ptolemy and Pliny all mention Venedi but none claim them to be slavic or proto-slavic. And acc. to the testimony of Tacitus one can consider the Venedi as Balts not Slavs
And the Sciri and Hirri have nothing to do with the Venedi in the first place (just neighbours and prob. Germanic [Sciri and Heruli]).
 
White means North, Red means South - these are old Slavic meanings. So Belarus (White Ruś in Polish) is on the North from Ukraine (Red Ruś in Polish). There was a period in history when Croatian (Chrobatian in Polish) tribe was on the run into the South from the modern part of Poland and Slovakia and therefore the land they left used to be called White Chrobatia meaning that the Red Chrobatia is already near the Adriatic Sea on the South. Polish national flag is white-red with white on the top (North), meaning the unification of Slavic tribes under one state.

Sory,

North is Black,

and is not coinsidence,

Noir and Nor(th)
White and West (weiss, west)

that is from old Iranian or (Turkic system?)

for example black sea= North sea = Axein (Aryan black) sea= AΞεινος (Ευξεινος) Ποντος

black is North,
red is south
white is west,
yellow is east
 
As we can see, there are multiple opinions on the compass point/color association. What seems far more consistent is that the groups referring to themselves as white something (ie. white Croats, white Russians, etc.) have a strong haplogroup I representation.

Colors on a flag usually have layer after layer of meaning-- often geared to more than one audience-- and maybe one of these point back to ancient tribal membership (which might even go far back enough to touch upon y-haplogroup divisions). We know from the "royal haplogroup" (R1b) that those in the know have played close attention to these sorts of things for some time now because of their extremely high rate of occupation of seats of power, well before any genetic tests were available through the modern postal services. Please refer to any and all of the Royal Houses of Europe for evidence.

I'm not going to comment any more about this possible color coded connection because it is a bit far fetched, but it did make me think twice when I noticed the pattern.
 
According to Julius Pokorný, the ethnonym Venetī (singular *Venetos) is derived from Proto Indo-European root *u̯en- 'to strive; to wish for, to love'. As shown by the comparative material, the Germanic languages may have had two terms of different origin: Old High German Winida 'Wende' points to Pre-Germanic *u̯enétos, while Lat.-Germ. Venedi (as attested in Tacitus) and Old English Winedas 'Wends' call for Pre-Germanic *u̯énetos.
The ethnonym would then be etymologically related to words as Latin venus, -eris 'love, passion, grace'; Sanskrit vanas- 'lust, zest', vani- 'wish, desire'; Old Irish fine (< Proto-Celtic *venjā) 'kinship, kinfolk, alliance, tribe, family'; Old Norse vinr, Old Saxon, Old High German wini, Old Frisian, Old English wine 'friend'.
"Tacitus, writing in AD 98 did not refer to the Vistula as a boundary, but simply locates the Veneti among the peoples on the eastern fringe of Germania. He was uncertain of their ethnic identity:
The Veneti have borrowed largely from Sarmatian ways; their plundering forays take them all over the wooded and mountainous country that rises between the Peucini and the Fenni. Nevertheless, they are to be classed as Germani, for they have settled houses, carry shields and are fond of travelling fast on foot; in all these respects they differ from the Sarmatians, who live in wagons or on horseback."
 
zanipolo, I will not waste my time discussing things with you, because your purpose is not to understand what I write but to attack it and often with very ill arguments or by twisting what i said and without actually reading core of theories that I propose....

I think that theory I propose makes lot of sense under certain assumptions

at How yes no 3

You do realise that Pliny never claimed that the Venedi were Sclavish.
Those assumptions and your theory are based on the interpretations of M. Parisot, not of any classical author.
I do realize that...
and I have cited text with numbered remarks and explained "it is suggested that Scirii and Hirri are tribes of Sclavish Venedi"


Pliny is describing the Baltic coast, the gulfs he mentions are the Frische Haff and Kurisches Haff with the peninsula Cartris being Samland. And he clearly states that the Sciri and Hirri are next to (not amongst) the Venedi.
he speaks in short text of very large area including "island" of Scandinavia and Finland...also of Cimbri (Denmark)...

he does not pinpoint where those 4 tribes exactly live except that some writers "as far as Vistula"...which is probably "as close as Vistula" since core of these tribes is on other side of Vistula....

but in any case those gulfs are just east of Lithuania and whole area south of them all the way to Slovakia is Vistula with its tributaries...

300px-Vistula_river_map.png


why is this important?
Vistula is birth place of Slavic people...
Russian primary chronicle says proto-Slavs moved from Danube area (Hungary and Bugaria in time of writing translates more or less to north Serbia both above and bellow Danube which are at that time settled with Scor+disci and possibly Pannonian plane with Slavonia and north Bosnia - where Pannonians lived) to Vistula due to Roman empire expanding....

....also lower Vistula and upper Vistula is where key I2a-Din South hotspots are apart from Serb settled areas and their previous location in Bohemia....

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/I2aHapGroup/default.aspx?section=ymap

your theory only makes sense if:
1.) the Venedi are Slavic/proto-slavic
2.) the Sciri and Hirri are Venedic tribes.

not really
what I claimed is that Venedi are originally Baltic language speakers of R1a carpathian branches...

but that around 1st century there is settlement wave in Vistula region from Danube area described by Russian primary chronicle ...

what I claim is that due to this settlement wave genetics and language of Venedi in Vistula region is affected.....

so before the settlements they were Baltic speakers, some time after it they are proto-Slavic speakers.....

these new waves are genetically: R1a-M458 (ancient old in area of Serbia, which shows likely earlier location) and I2a-Din (which shows clear trend of spreading along Danube)

these are proto-Slavic speakers...they move to live among original Venedi and their culture and language become dominant...

for neighbouring tribes such as Germans and Finnish there is no big difference as proto-Slavic is more or less branch of Baltic languages.....


But no classical author states that, Pytheas (4th cen BC/the first) only mentions Teutones and Guttones [on the Baltic coast] and Strabo, Ptolemy and Pliny all mention Venedi but none claim them to be slavic or proto-slavic. And acc. to the testimony of Tacitus one can consider the Venedi as Balts not Slavs
none of them states what they are by language..
Tacitus claims they are Germanic because they live in houses and hence are not Sarmatians who are nomads... but he recognizes that they borrow on Samatian ways in many things...

but as I said I believe that early Venedi were speaking Baltic-alike languages which have changed with settlement wave of Pannonians...

And the Sciri and Hirri have nothing to do with the Venedi in the first place (just neighbours and prob. Germanic [Sciri and Heruli]).

Scirii are very likely Serians of Seneca that rule over scattered Scythians....

east Europe area where Sarmatians and Venedi live is Scythia....

and Scythians were rulling whole east Europe prior to conquest of Sarmatians....
so Venedi are probably same people as Scythians...
(Carpathian R1a branches)


Seneca is explicit that Serians are not Sarmatians (because they also dare to live in Caucasus unguarded from Sarmatians which could be about Serboi of Asian Sarmatia living next to Alans those Serboi are thought to be the same people as later Siraces) ...

so if Serians rule over Scythians but they are not Sarmatians
who is left in area except Scirii?

same Serians he mentions in relation to Danube...

this is clear overlap with claim of Russian primary chronicle that puts early Slavs in Danube area (described area matches Scordisci and Pannonians) and describes movement from there to Vistula...

also, Bavarian geographer speaks of "Zeruiani whose state was so big that all Slavs come from it"



Scirii are classified as Alans by Jordanes...and he being educated Goth from influential family should know which tribes are Germanic and which are not....he is not guessing whether tribes are germanic based on whether they live in houses - like Tacitus does.... he knows which tribes are Germanic and which not as it is part of his personal history...maybe they were not Alans, but if Jordanes claims they are something else than Germanic than you can be 100% sure they were not germanic...
 
Last edited:
zanipolo, I will not waste my time discussing things with you, because your purpose is not to understand what I write but to attack it and often with very ill arguments or by twisting what i said and without actually reading core of theories that I propose....

I think that theory I propose makes lot of sense under certain assumptions

I challenge you because you make no sense , no timing of age and the rubbish that everyone that the slavs absorbed was proto-slavic


I do realize that...
and I have cited text with numbered remarks and explained "it is suggested that Scirii and Hirri are tribes of Sclavish Venedi"
You suggest they where sclavish ....are you a historian? I can suggest something as well!


he speaks in short text of very large area including "island" of Scandinavia and Finland...also of Cimbri (Denmark)...

he does not pinpoint where those 4 tribes exactly live except that some writers "as far as Vistula"...which is probably "as close as Vistula" since core of these tribes is on other side of Vistula....

but in any case those gulfs are just east of Lithuania and whole area south of them all the way to Slovakia is Vistula with its tributaries...

I do not know where you get your text about Pliny from, but here is another historian

(a) Ptolomaeus (A.D. 161-182), the famous ancient geographer, mathematician and astronomer, in his treatise Geogr. lib. 3. cap. 5. writes:

Elattova de eunh vemetai Saomatian, paoa men ton Ouistoulan potamon. Upo touj Ouenedaj, Guuwnej. Eita Finnoi. Eita Boulanej. Uf ouj Foougondiwvej. Eita Auaohnoi, paoa thn cefalhn tou Ouistoula potamou.

This, when translated into English, means: "The less significant people abide in Sarmatia, near the mouth of the Vistula river. Beyond the Venedi are Guthones. Then the Finns. Then the Boulanes (= Poles). Beyond them are the Frugundians. Then the Avarens, near the head of the Vistula river". Here we notice, that Ptolomaeus enumerated different nations starting from north southward. Hence his statement "beyond the Venedi, are Guthones" is correct. Venedi were the ancient people living near Vindau, in Latvia; and the Guthones living alongside Venedi surely could be no other people but the inhabitants of old Lithuania.



300px-Vistula_river_map.png


why is this important?
Vistula is birth place of Slavic people...
Russian primary chronicle says proto-Slavs moved from Danube area (Hungary and Bugaria in time of writing translates more or less to north Serbia both above and bellow Danube which are at that time settled with Scor+disci and possibly Pannonian plane with Slavonia and north Bosnia - where Pannonians lived) to Vistula due to Roman empire expanding....

....also lower Vistula and upper Vistula is where key I2a-Din South hotspots are apart from Serb settled areas and their previous location in Bohemia....

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/I2aHapGroup/default.aspx?section=ymap

from polish historians 2008



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Map of Wielbark Culture with divisions on zones and periods (I can't see well # near letter of periods)
a (orange) - Zone A (200 BC - and of 4th century AC)
b (blue) - Zone B (150 BC - 200 AC)
c (yellow) - Zone CN "Gothiskandza" (abt. 70-200 AC)
d (light yellow) - Zone CS (abt. 80-200 AC)
e (green) - Zone D (abt. 100-350 AC)

Clearly there is no slavs in lower of middle vistula if the goths are there....you must mean only the Upper vistula. All these colours are for movement of the Goths, clearly the venedi are further east...in the middle of old baltic prussian lands

not really
what I claimed is that Venedi are originally Baltic language speakers of R1a carpathian branches...

but that around 1st century there is settlement wave in Vistula region from Danube area described by Russian primary chronicle ...

what I claim is that due to this settlement wave genetics and language of Venedi in Vistula region is affected.....

so before the settlements they were Baltic speakers, some time after it they are proto-Slavic speakers.....

these new waves are genetically: R1a-M458 (ancient old in area of Serbia, which shows likely earlier location) and I2a-Din (which shows clear trend of spreading along Danube)

these are proto-Slavic speakers...they move to live among original Venedi and their culture and language become dominant...

for neighbouring tribes such as Germans and Finnish there is no big difference as proto-Slavic is more or less branch of Baltic languages.....

impossible the Venedi where absorbed and became the Vidivarii....from your beloved Jordanes
The Vidivarii are described by Jordanes in his Getica as a melting pot of tribes who in the mid-6th century lived at the lower Vistula:[1][2]
Ad litus oceani, ubi tribus faucibus fluenta Vistulae fluminibus ebibuntur, Vidivarii resident ex diversis nationibus aggregati.[3]
Though differing from the earlier Willenberg culture, some traditions were continued,[2] thus the corresponding archaeological culture is sometimes described as the Vidivarian or widiwar stage of the Willenberg culture. The bearers of the Willenberg culture have been associated with a heterogeneous people comprising Vistula Veneti, Goths, Rugii, and Gepids.[4] One hypothesis, based on the sudden appearance of large amounts of Roman solidi and migrations of other groups after the breakdown of the Hun empire in 453, suggest a partial re-migration of earlier emigrants to their former northern homelands.[2]


but as I said I believe that early Venedi were speaking Baltic-alike languages which have changed with settlement wave of Pannonians...

at the time in question Pannonia was a mix of illyrian and celtic people, which pannonians moved north?



Seneca is explicit that Serians are not Sarmatians (because they also dare to live in Caucasus unguarded from Sarmatians which could be about Serboi of Asian Sarmatia living next to Alans those Serboi are thought to be the same people as later Siraces) ...

so if Serians rule over Scythians but they are not Sarmatians
who is left in area except Scirii?

word association .....very bad

same Serians he mentions in relation to Danube...

this is clear overlap with claim of Russian primary chronicle that puts early Slavs in Danube area (described area matches Scordisci and Pannonians) and describes movement from there to Vistula...

which russian I will check, please name him/them


Scirii are classified as Alans by Jordanes...and he being educated Goth from influential family should know which tribes are Germanic and which are not....he is not guessing whether tribes are germanic based on whether they live in houses - like Tacitus does.... he knows which tribes are Germanic and which not as it is part of his personal history...maybe they were not Alans, but if Jordanes claims they are something else than Germanic than you can be 100% sure they were not germanic...

and 40 years ago the slovenians claimed the scirii as settling in stryia.
Alans where people form the north of the black sea and where replaced by the bulgars....where you going with this


Pytheas writes
Pytheus who sailed the baltic in 320BC states

Pytheas credidit Guttonibus Germaniae genti, accoli Aestuarium oceani, MENTO NOMON nomine, spatio stadiorum sex millium. Ab hoc die navigatione
insulam abesse Abalum. Illo vero fluctibus advehi et esse concreti maris purgamentum.

as translated -"Pytheas believed that the Guttones were of German race, living by the Aestuarian sea (Baltic sea), at the mouth of the river named NOMON, at the stretch of 6,000 stadii. Sailing a day. Pytheus never knew of baltic people, so called them germanics, but the river Nomon is stated.
native land of the Goths was by the Aestuarian sea (by the Baltic sea), exactly where the Aestians (Aestii = Lithuanian ancestors) lived. The same author is still more definite when he points out that they lived nowhere else but at the mouth of NEMON river. And in the original Greek manuscript would be Men to Nouon. Hence the word "MENTO" equals the Greek people, to which means "MOUTH of the RIVER"; --- and the word "NOMON" means "NEMON" (= Niemen).


looking at old prussian lands and there markers in ftdna - where venedi and aestii lived
they comprise of the following markers

R1a: 11%
R1b: 33%
N: 35%
I1: 18%
others: 3%

which is the slavic ones?
 
I do realize that...and I have cited text with numbered remarks and explained "it is suggested that Scirii and Hirri are tribes of Sclavish Venedi"

Correct, but its not suggested by Pliny, its suggested by M. Parisot who translated Pliny [Histoire Naturelle de Pline - Ajasson] in the 19th cen. Thats important to note.

he speaks in short text of very large area including "island" of Scandinavia and Finland...also of Cimbri (Denmark)...

No, Pliny doesnt mention Cimbric Jutland (Denmark), he mentions the peninsula Cartris. Jutland was known as Cimbria or Chersonesus Cimbrica. Not Cartris.

he does not pinpoint where those 4 tribes exactly live

Correct, but he clearly separates them form one another. As does Tacitus, Ptolemy and Strabo

I agree with you that Tacitus is guessing about the Venedi but he clearly locates them between the Peucini and the Fenni [poss. baltic origin]. with the Peucini having a strange kinship with the Bastarnae further south.

Y-DNA = Dead End

I would leave Y-DNA out of it, Y-DNA is a good indicator for modern day regional affiliations, but not for ancient internal Indo-European migrtaions. R1a was already found west of the Elbe river as early as ~2,600 BC [Corded Ware Culture]
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/47/18226.long

And apparantely the I-M438 complex is Pre-Indo-European to begin with.

The Sciri

You connect the Scirii to alot of other Peoples, so lets take a look at the Scirii proper.
Zosimus and Sidonius inform us that the Scirii are vassals of the Huns and part of the invasions of Uldin (defeated) and into Gaul 451 AD.
Jordanes (great source) informs us that after Attila's death [453 AD] the Scirii take refuge by the Romans in Scythia Minor and Moesia Inferior.
Jordanes also tells us about two Scirian uprisings against the Ostrogoths [Valamir], which end in desaster for the Scirii.
And last but not least, Procopius asserts the Scirii to be a Gothic nation.

Procopius - De Bello Gothico (550 AD)
Now it happened that the Romans a short time before had induced the Sciri and Alani and certain other Gothic nations to form an alliance with them;

Jordanes was a Byzantine of Alani ancestry his father was a certain Alanoviimuthes

I have a diff. theory of the Slavic origin, and its pretty simple.
 
The Sciri

You connect the Scirii to alot of other Peoples, so lets take a look at the Scirii proper.
Zosimus and Sidonius inform us that the Scirii are vassals of the Huns and part of the invasions of Uldin (defeated) and into Gaul 451 AD.
Jordanes (great source) informs us that after Attila's death [453 AD] the Scirii take refuge by the Romans in Scythia Minor and Moesia Inferior.
Jordanes also tells us about two Scirian uprisings against the Ostrogoths [Valamir], which end in desaster for the Scirii.
And last but not least, Procopius asserts the Scirii to be a Gothic nation.

Procopius - De Bello Gothico (550 AD)
Now it happened that the Romans a short time before had induced the Sciri and Alani and certain other Gothic nations to form an alliance with them;

Jordanes was a Byzantine of Alani ancestry his father was a certain Alanoviimuthes

I have a diff. theory of the Slavic origin, and its pretty simple.

correct me if I am wrong, but did'nt the Goths hate the scirii so much that they nearly wiped them out as a tribe in and around 100AD. I further recall, the remnants later on , joined the huns for protection as the huns warred the Goths

Let me know, your slav theory as the map I uploaded early on in the thread is what the current slav historians claim as original slav lands.
I beleive it makes sense to a degree as well as knowledge of river names in germanic lands was taught to them by the Bastanae.....there might even be a union between bastanae and slavs over time.
 
Correct, but its not suggested by Pliny, its suggested by M. Parisot who translated Pliny [Histoire Naturelle de Pline - Ajasson] in the 19th cen. Thats important to note.
i thought it is clear as remarks with numbers in historic books are always by editor/translator not by author
but still it is suggested....

No, Pliny doesnt mention Cimbric Jutland (Denmark), he mentions the peninsula Cartris. Jutland was known as Cimbria or Chersonesus Cimbrica. Not Cartris.

Cartris is part of Jutland

point was that he gives in few sentences overview of very large area from Cimbri to Finnish areas...
"Some writers state that these regions, as far as the river Vistula, are inhabited by the Sarmati, the Venedi21, the Sciri, and the Hirri22, and that there is a gulf there known by the name of Cylipenus23, at the mouth of which is the island of Latris, after which comes another gulf, that of Lagnus, which borders on the Cimbri. The Cimbrian Promontory, running out into the sea for a great distance, forms a peninsula which bears the name of Cartris24.
...
24 The modern Cape of Skagen on the north of Jutland.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper...999.02.0137:book=4:chapter=27&highlight=sciri


Correct, but he clearly separates them form one another. As does Tacitus, Ptolemy and Strabo
I separate as well...
as I claim based on Seneca's statement that Serians/Scirii rulled over Venedi... they were separate tribe but also rulled over Venedi influencing their genetics and language (and gene flow also went other way around as well)....

e.g. I2a-Din south is younger than I2a-Din north and is found only where proposed locations of Scirii proper are - on Vistula first close to Baltic, later closer to Carpathians and Black sea...
while I2a-Din north is found all over Scythia...


Y-DNA = Dead End
I would leave Y-DNA out of it, Y-DNA is a good indicator for modern day regional affiliations, but not for ancient internal Indo-European migrtaions.
without enough clear historic data, YDNA is only clue to what actually happened..


R1a was already found west of the Elbe river as early as ~2,600 BC [Corded Ware Culture]
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/47/18226.long
there are different branches of R1a...they are waves of different people..
the one you talk about expanded to Europe much earlier and is called "old Scandinavian branch"
http://r1a.org/3.htm#13



The Sciri
You connect the Scirii to alot of other Peoples, so lets take a look at the Scirii proper.
Zosimus and Sidonius inform us that the Scirii are vassals of the Huns and part of the invasions of Uldin (defeated) and into Gaul 451 AD.
Jordanes (great source) informs us that after Attila's death [453 AD] the Scirii take refuge by the Romans in Scythia Minor and Moesia Inferior.
Jordanes also tells us about two Scirian uprisings against the Ostrogoths [Valamir], which end in desaster for the Scirii.
And last but not least, Procopius asserts the Scirii to be a Gothic nation.

Procopius - De Bello Gothico (550 AD)
Now it happened that the Romans a short time before had induced the Sciri and Alani and certain other Gothic nations to form an alliance with them;
are Alani Gothic nation?
they are known to be iranian people
so for Procopius Gothic nation prob means living under rule of Goths or being tightly connected to them


Jordanes was a Byzantine of Alani ancestry his father was a certain Alanoviimuthes
Jordanes is in many sources said to be of Gothic origin...
e.g. http://books.google.nl/books?id=1piMMqjAf1MC&lpg=PA589&dq=Jordanes%22gothic%20origin%22%20%20Croke&pg=PA589#v=onepage&q=Jordanes%22gothic%20origin%22%20%20Croke&f=false

I have a diff. theory of the Slavic origin, and its pretty simple.
can you share it?
 
I challenge you because you make no sense , no timing of age and the rubbish that everyone that the slavs absorbed was proto-slavic[
nope, you make no sense.. you keep quoting some suspicious sources...and discrediting known historical sources...
I do not claim that all people absorbed by Slavs are proto-Slavic...


You suggest they where sclavish ....are you a historian? I can suggest something as well!
its clear that it is not my suggestion, but a suggestion of a historian who translated book of Pliny..
visit the link and read...
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper...0137:book=4:chapter=27&highlight=sciri#note24


I do not know where you get your text about Pliny from, but here is another historian

(a) Ptolomaeus (A.D. 161-182), the famous ancient geographer, mathematician and astronomer, in his treatise Geogr. lib. 3. cap. 5. writes:

Elattova de eunh vemetai Saomatian, paoa men ton Ouistoulan potamon. Upo touj Ouenedaj, Guuwnej. Eita Finnoi. Eita Boulanej. Uf ouj Foougondiwvej. Eita Auaohnoi, paoa thn cefalhn tou Ouistoula potamou.

This, when translated into English, means: "The less significant people abide in Sarmatia, near the mouth of the Vistula river. Beyond the Venedi are Guthones. Then the Finns. Then the Boulanes (= Poles). Beyond them are the Frugundians. Then the Avarens, near the head of the Vistula river". Here we notice, that Ptolomaeus enumerated different nations starting from north southward. Hence his statement "beyond the Venedi, are Guthones" is correct. Venedi were the ancient people living near Vindau, in Latvia; and the Guthones living alongside Venedi surely could be no other people but the inhabitants of old Lithuania.
don't know how credible source this is, but:

this is order on Vistula from north to south...
there is no Finnish haplogroup N anywhere in mid Vistula...
Finnoi are not Finnish, but Fenni
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenni

keep in mind that Estonians and Finish people call Russia Vennema and Venäjä respectively
in my opinion this Fenni/Venni are root word for Slo-veni
slo could come from "slobodni" = free
perhaps ancestors of Slovaks and Slovenians...
iBoulanes expand to nortwest and Slo-Fenni to south

300px-Vistula_river_map.png





Clearly there is no slavs in lower of middle vistula if the goths are there....you must mean only the Upper vistula. All these colours are for movement of the Goths, clearly the venedi are further east...in the middle of old baltic prussian lands
Goths are not all population of all areas they keep under control...
this is also why Procopius mistakenly counts Alani (and Scirii) in Gothic nations...
it is like saying Kurds are turkish nation, because majority of them lives in Turkey....





at the time in question Pannonia was a mix of illyrian and celtic people, which pannonians moved north?
don't mix Roman province ofIllyricum with actual Illyria...
actual Illyria most likely never extended much further north than Montenegro....

naming of provinces in Roman empire was intended to create melting pots in which actual ethnical identities would be weakened and eventually lost....e.g. province of Macedonia was more north than actual Macedonia.....its like if you would name half of Turkey and of Iran - Iranian province, and half of Turkey and half of Greece - as Turkic province, and half of Greece and half of Albania - Greece province... and everywhere only official language is latin... so you deliberatelly confuse national identities and create melting pot that speaks latin as that is only language both ethnicities in misnamed province will understand....

Pannonians are neither Illyrians nor Celts...

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

Pannoni that migrate northeast (towards Dacia) can easily be the same people as Fenni in Vistula region where Russian primary chronicle says Danubian Slavs settled...
do you see the similarity in tribal names Pannoni and Fenni?
and similarity with Finnish and Estonian words for Russians (Venni)
I do not say tribal name changed..
its just written down differently in different times and languages...




which russian I will check, please name him/them

Russian primary chronicle is medival russian document that captures their memory about their origin
it is written down in year 1113
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Primary_Chronicle
here's the text
http://www.utoronto.ca/elul/English/218/PVL-selections.pdf

and 40 years ago the slovenians claimed the scirii as settling in stryia.
Alans where people form the north of the black sea and where replaced by the bulgars....where you going with this
Alani are iranian (sarmatian) nation from Caucasus..
they were also living all over Europe..
went to Spain with Suebi and Vandali

iranian speaking Ossetians are considered to origin from Alani
their main haplogroup is G, which is in accordance with origin from Alani

interestingly in north Ossetians there is some I2a-Dinaric
and Serboi tribe was just northeast of them in Asian Sarmatia

this is why Serboi are considered Alanian/Sarmatian in origin...
but I make claim that Serboi/Serbi that Ptolomeus captures in Caucasus are those Serians that Seneca mention as living unguarded among Sarmatians...
such an expression strongly suggests that they are not Sarmatians...
also its clear that they are not Alani but just their neighbours

Jordanes puts Scirii in Alani... i think he does that because they are alies and have nearby settlements in Caucasus and perhaps elsewhere..
that is Serians like Alani have settlements in various not directly connected locations....

whole point of such a strategy is in trading...
Serians/Seres are known as traders across Asia...
Siraces on east shores of Black sea are traders....


800px-Map_of_Colchis%2C_Iberia%2C_Albania%2C_and_the_neighbouring_countries_ca_1770.jpg

click for larger map
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M...a,_and_the_neighbouring_countries_ca_1770.jpg

looking at old prussian lands and there markers in ftdna - where venedi and aestii lived
they comprise of the following markers

R1a: 11%
R1b: 33%
N: 35%
I1: 18%
others: 3%

which is the slavic ones?
this is non-sense...
I am speaking about Vistula river area...
 
nope, you make no sense.. you keep quoting some suspicious sources...and discrediting known historical sources...
I do not claim that all people absorbed by Slavs are proto-Slavic...



its clear that it is not my suggestion, but a suggestion of a historian who translated book of Pliny..
visit the link and read...
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper...0137:book=4:chapter=27&highlight=sciri#note24



don't know how credible source this is, but:

this is order on Vistula from north to south...
there is no Finnish haplogroup N anywhere in mid Vistula...
Finnoi are not Finnish, but Fenni
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenni

keep in mind that Estonians and Finish people call Russia Vennema and Venäjä respectively
in my opinion this Fenni/Venni are root word for Slo-veni
slo could come from "slobodni" = free
perhaps ancestors of Slovaks and Slovenians...
iBoulanes expand to nortwest and Slo-Fenni to south

300px-Vistula_river_map.png






Goths are not all population of all areas they keep under control...
this is also why Procopius mistakenly counts Alani (and Scirii) in Gothic nations...
it is like saying Kurds are turkish nation, because majority of them lives in Turkey....






don't mix Roman province ofIllyricum with actual Illyria...
actual Illyria most likely never extended much further north than Montenegro....

naming of provinces in Roman empire was intended to create melting pots in which actual ethnical identities would be weakened and eventually lost....e.g. province of Macedonia was more north than actual Macedonia.....its like if you would name half of Turkey and of Iran - Iranian province, and half of Turkey and half of Greece - as Turkic province, and half of Greece and half of Albania - Greece province... and everywhere only official language is latin... so you deliberatelly confuse national identities and create melting pot that speaks latin as that is only language both ethnicities in misnamed province will understand....

Pannonians are neither Illyrians nor Celts...

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

Pannoni that migrate northeast (towards Dacia) can easily be the same people as Fenni in Vistula region where Russian primary chronicle says Danubian Slavs settled...
do you see the similarity in tribal names Pannoni and Fenni?
and similarity with Finnish and Estonian words for Russians (Venni)
I do not say tribal name changed..
its just written down differently in different times and languages...






Russian primary chronicle is medival russian document that captures their memory about their origin
it is written down in year 1113
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Primary_Chronicle
here's the text
http://www.utoronto.ca/elul/English/218/PVL-selections.pdf


Alani are iranian (sarmatian) nation from Caucasus..
they were also living all over Europe..
went to Spain with Suebi and Vandali

iranian speaking Ossetians are considered to origin from Alani
their main haplogroup is G, which is in accordance with origin from Alani

interestingly in north Ossetians there is some I2a-Dinaric
and Serboi tribe was just northeast of them in Asian Sarmatia

this is why Serboi are considered Alanian/Sarmatian in origin...
but I make claim that Serboi/Serbi that Ptolomeus captures in Caucasus are those Serians that Seneca mention as living unguarded among Sarmatians...
such an expression strongly suggests that they are not Sarmatians...
also its clear that they are not Alani but just their neighbours

Jordanes puts Scirii in Alani... i think he does that because they are alies and have nearby settlements in Caucasus and perhaps elsewhere..
that is Serians like Alani have settlements in various not directly connected locations....

whole point of such a strategy is in trading...
Serians/Seres are known as traders across Asia...
Siraces on east shores of Black sea are traders....


800px-Map_of_Colchis%2C_Iberia%2C_Albania%2C_and_the_neighbouring_countries_ca_1770.jpg

click for larger map
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M...a,_and_the_neighbouring_countries_ca_1770.jpg


this is non-sense...
I am speaking about Vistula river area...


why don't you concentrate on something more real like the article below

http://balkancelts.wordpress.com/tag/peucini-tribes/

Who Were The Bastarnae ? Filed under: Archaeology, History, Numismatics5 Comments
August 3, 2012


Mac Congail




‘…the Bastarnæ, the bravest nation of all.
(Appianus, Mithridatic Wars. 10:69)



The most enigmatic ‘barbarian’ people to appear in southeastern Europe in the late Iron Age are undoubtedly the Bastarnae (Βαστάρναι / Βαστέρναι).
While archaeological/numismatic evidence indicates that the Bastarnae tribes had reached the Danube Delta as early as the second half of the 4th c. BC (see ‘Bastarnae Coinage’ and ‘Peucini’ articles), they first appear in historical sources in connection with the events of 179 BC as allies of Philip V of Macedonia in his war with Rome (Livy 40:5, 57-58), and remain a constant factor in the history of southeastern Europe for over 500 years.
Due to the fact that archaeologists have failed to associate a particular archaeological culture with the Bastarnae, the ethnic origin of this people has hitherto remained shrouded in mystery, with a lack of clarity on whether they were initially of Scythian, Germanic or Celtic origin. However, as illustrated below, a chronological analysis of the ancient sources relating to the Bastarnae in general, and archaeological, numismatic and linguistic evidence from the territory of the Bastarnae Peucini tribe in particular, enables us to finally shed some light on this question.





Silver Bastarnae tetradrachma of the Huşi-Vovrieşti type.
Obverse: bearded head of Zeus right; reverse: horseman riding right, star before, symbols below (see ‘Bastarnae Coins’ article)






The Sources

Later authors such as Dio Cassius (3rd c. AD – Dio LI.23.3, 24.2) and Zosimus (late 5th/early 6th c. AD – Zosimus I.34) define the Bastarnae as ‘Scythians’, and to a great extent this is true. By the late Roman period the Bastarnae tribes had been living in the region vaguely referred to as ‘Scythia’ for over half a millennium, and mixing with the local tribes (‘mixed marriages are giving them to some extent the vile appearance of the Sarmatians’ – Tac. Ger. 46).


instead of talking to yourself about the venedi when they are proto-letts/latvian Venedi who came from the vends

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vends

more slavic destruction of the baltic people...is that what you want?

The venedi clearly are shown to be by the sea, they would definetly would have been sailors and also as per you fenni article - The Fenni are first mentioned by Cornelius Tacitus in Germania in 98 A.D. Their location is uncertain, due to the vagueness of Tacitus' account:"they (Venedi) overrun in their predatory excursions all the woody and mountainous tracts between the Peucini and the Fenni".[1][2]
fought against the incursion of the fenni and peucini. The fenni according to some historians are also present on the eastern banks of the middle vistula opposite the gepids on the west bank
 
there are different branches of R1a...they are waves of different people..
the one you talk about expanded to Europe much earlier and is called "old Scandinavian branch"
http://r1a.org/3.htm#13

Good point
But unfortunately the exact R1a branch of Eulau is not known; but acc. to the Strontium isotope analyses (Teeth) the Males and Children were locals.

I claim based on Seneca's statement that Serians/Scirii rulled over Venedi... they were separate tribe but also rulled over Venedi influencing their genetics and language (and gene flow also went other way around as well)....

You would have to post a link to that claim, im not familiar with Seneca claiming that the Scirii are the Serians and that they (the Serians) rule over the Venedi (the Baltic Venedi?).

from what i know:
1.) Jordanes places the Scirii amongst the Alani
2.) Procopius places the Scirii amongst the Goths [with the Alani]
3.) Pliny places the Scirii on the Baltic

None claim any connections to the Venedi.

Slavic Origin theory

Very simple,

Procopius and Jordanes [both 6th cen AD] are the first to mention the Slavs [Sclaveni and Antes]
Procopius considers the Antes and the Sclaveni to be the ancient Spori and considers them to be Nomads.
Jordanes claims that the Antes and Sclaveni are both peoples of the ancient Baltic Venedi and together inhabit the land between Vistula, Dniester and Dnieper.

Jordanes - Getica (~550 AD)
Within these rivers lies Dacia, encircled by the lofty Alps as by a crown. Near their left ridge, which inclines toward the north, and beginning at the source of the Vistula, the populous race of the Venethi dwell, occupying a great expanse of land. Though their names are now dispersed amid various clans and places, yet they are chiefly called Sclaveni and Antes.
The abode of the Sclaveni extends from the city of Noviodunum and the lake called Mursianus to the Danaster, and northward as far as the Vistula. They have swamps and forests for their cities. The Antes, who are the bravest of these peoples dwelling in the curve of the Sea of Pontus, spread from the Danaster to the Danaper, rivers that are many days' journey apart.


So from Procopius and Jordanes we are informed that the Slavs are Antes and Sclaveni and if Jordanes is correct that the ancient baltic Venedi of Pliny, Ptolemy and Tacitus; are indeed the Proto-Slavs and the Antes and Sclaveni the off-springs; than the entire Balto-Slavic (Indo-European) complex is well explained and historically attested.

Some open questions remain:
1.) What does Tacitus mean by calling the Venedi [proto-slavs] Germanic and Sarmatian ?
Is Tacitus informing us that the proto-slavs [Venedi] are a mix of Germanic and Sarmatian ?
which would explain Polish Sarmatism and Sarmatian origin theory
2.) Who are the Peuceni and Bastarnae ? are they equally proto-slavic ?
3.) Who are the Vandals (Vindili) ? and the Slavic Wends of Adam von Bremen ? - This is the real interesting Question!
4.) What role do the Sarmatians play in total in the Slavic origin ???
they are neighbours of the Venedi [Pliny] and "the Veneti have borrowed largely from Sarmatian ways" - Tacitus.

The Sarmatians couldnt just have disappeared, especially not between Dniester and Dnieper.
 
correct me if I am wrong, but did'nt the Goths hate the scirii so much that they nearly wiped them out as a tribe in and around 100AD. I further recall, the remnants later on , joined the huns for protection as the huns warred the Goths

Not in 100 AD, much later.
Jordanes states that after the Scirii killed king Valamir the Ostrogoths went to war and annihilated the Scirii, Valamir was killed ~465 AD.
 
instead of talking to yourself about the venedi when they are proto-letts/latvian Venedi who came from the vends

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vends

more slavic destruction of the baltic people...is that what you want?

The venedi clearly are shown to be by the sea, they would definetly would have been sailors and also as per you fenni article - The Fenni are first mentioned by Cornelius Tacitus in Germania in 98 A.D. Their location is uncertain, due to the vagueness of Tacitus' account:"they (Venedi) overrun in their predatory excursions all the woody and mountainous tracts between the Peucini and the Fenni".[1][2]
fought against the incursion of the fenni and peucini. The fenni according to some historians are also present on the eastern banks of the middle vistula opposite the gepids on the west bank

well, let me point out the following from the link that you have used:

The Vends were a small tribe who lived in the twelfth-sixteenth centuries in the area around the town of Wenden (now Cēsis) in what is now north-central Latvia
...
Prior to their arrival in the area of Wenden in the 12th century, the Vends are believed to have settled in Wynda county (Latvian: Ventava) by the Venta River near the present city of Ventspils in western Latvia. Their proximity to more numerous Finnic and Baltic tribes inclined the Vends to ally with the German crusaders
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vends

Existence of Vends is in fact proof that tribal name Venedi is not Balt related.

Because those Vends:
1) are small tribe surrounded by Baltic and Finnish
2) they feel jeopardised from Balts and Finnish and allie with Germans
3) name of their town is completely changed when it was overtaken by Balts, suggesting that name Vend was completely foreign to Balts

the glotochronolgy shows that .Bulgarian is estimated to separate from proto Slavic around 130AD and east Slavic at 270 AD..method shows that serbo-croat branch splits from west Slavic around 670 AD which fits with known historical facts....
[Starostin, presented in Santa Fe, 2004]

Baltic languages are very similar to Balto-Slavic and Slavic languages start of like dialect of this language
this implies that Baltic community has continued living in isolation, while proto-Slavic area was exposed to interaction with tribes of different languages and was therefore changing faster....

furthermore east Slavic (language of Anti) spliting from proto-Slavic branch as early as 250 AD tells us that Slavs were at that time already in central Europe....

So, Venedi = proto-Slavs
and I believe they have migrated to central Europe from Pannonia and Balkan as Russian primary chronicle and Dalmil's chronicle suggest... as this migration was caused by spreading of Roman empire, we can set the time frame of the movement to the beginnng of first century AD or somewhat earlier

as I have explained, this is in genetics represented with displacement of R1-M458 out of its high diversity area (ex-Yugoslavia) and with appearence of I2a-Din in Venedi and Sarmatian area but not in Baltic areas...

considering that Antes have somewhat different tribal names but still with recognizable derivation from original tribal name Veneti, we can postulate that Ants lived north of Danube near Black sea coast even before Danubian Slavs moved to north... they spoke the same language with Danubian Slavs suggesting that there was continuity of proto-Slavs along Danube (that is north of it in east parts) for long period of time ....

this fits well with Jordanes saying all of early Slavs (Venedi, Sclaveni and Antes) are from Venethi race...
and with account of Russian primary chronicle saying
Over a long period the Slavs settled beside the Danube, where the Hungarian and Bulgarian lands now lie

the only reason you try so much to undermine Venethi origin of Slavic people, is that it rightfully puts strong question mark on who were actually Illyrians...

I am fine with idea that they were not proto-Slavic, but I believe their actual spread was never more north from Montenegro...
 
You would have to post a link to that claim, im not familiar with Seneca claiming that the Scirii are the Serians and that they (the Serians) rule over the Venedi (the Baltic Venedi?).

[369] Though kings should gather themselves together, both they who vex the scattered Scythians and they who dwell upon the Red Sea’s marge, who hold wide sway o’er the blood-red main with its gleaming pearls, they who leave unguarded26 the Caspian heights to the bold Sarmatians; though he strive against him, who dares on foot to tread the Danube’s waves27 and (whersoe’er they dwell,) the Serians28 for fleeces famous – ‘tis the upright mind that holds true sovereignty. He has no need of horses, none of arms and the coward weapons which the Parthian hurls from far when he feigns flight, no need of engines hurling rocks, stationed to batter cities to the ground. A king is he who has no fear; a king is he who shall naught desire. Such kingdom on himself each man bestows.

Seneca - Thyestes
27. i.e. the frozen surface.
28. The poet here conceives of the Serians as near by Scythia.

http://www.theoi.com/Text/SenecaThyestes.html

Seneca says that Serians live around Danube and also rule over Scythians and have outpost in Caucaus among Sarmatians (hence they are not Sarmatians) and even on red sea....
"for fleece famous" - is reference to the area of Seres in south Siberia / northwest China where silk was made...

I claimed that Scirii is same tribal name as Serians
because if Sclaveni = Sloveni
than Scirii/Scirians = Sirians or Serians

but my interpretation that Venedi are Scythians is probably wrong...

Venedi are probably also Serians (as I have explained this is probably religion oriented name related to Dagon worship and name of his wife Ishara/Ishtar/Danu(Asura)/slavic Zorya ) and according to Russian primary chronicle they move from Danube (river related to godess Danu ... it is also known as Isthar) area to the area of Vistula in times when Roman empire spreads to their areas (first century AD)...

in fact, I make mistake trying to relate Serians to I2a-Din... Scirii might be I2a-Din, but Serians in general are more likely to be R1a


Serians trading routes and settlements in Asia fit well with spread of R1a... this happened long time ago...

and corresponds to eastern eurasian branch of R1a
http://r1a.org/3.htm#11

e.g. subbranch of eastern eurasian branch found in modern Kyrgiz is dated to have separated from main branch in 1000 BC
which is exactly when the trading center Sayram came to existence together with town of same name in northwest China... those are Seres or "Serians for the fleece famous"..Seres is in narrow sense area in northwest China where silk was made...in wider sense, it is an arc from that place to India....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayram_(city)




Slavic Origin theory

Very simple,

Procopius and Jordanes [both 6th cen AD] are the first to mention the Slavs [Sclaveni and Antes]
Procopius considers the Antes and the Sclaveni to be the ancient Spori and considers them to be Nomads.
Jordanes claims that the Antes and Sclaveni are both peoples of the ancient Baltic Venedi and together inhabit the land between Vistula, Dniester and Dnieper.

ancient Spori might be same thing as with Sciri - corruption of name Serian

J]

So from Procopius and Jordanes we are informed that the Slavs are Antes and Sclaveni and if Jordanes is correct that the ancient baltic Venedi of Pliny, Ptolemy and Tacitus; are indeed the Proto-Slavs and the Antes and Sclaveni the off-springs; than the entire Balto-Slavic (Indo-European) complex is well explained and historically attested.
exactly,Jordanes clearrly pinpoints that they are all from the race of Venethi, but many people on this forum keep denying any link of proto-Slavs with Venedi and Venethic race...
reason to that is political... Albanian current conquest towards north is based on them learning that they are Illyrians and that their country was destroyed by Slavic invaders....so they cannot allow that proto-Slavs are in any relation to Venethi as there are speculations of Illyrians being Venethi related...


Some open questions remain:
1.) What does Tacitus mean by calling the Venedi [proto-slavs] Germanic and Sarmatian ?
Is Tacitus informing us that the proto-slavs [Venedi] are a mix of Germanic and Sarmatian ?
Tacitus has no good criteria.... his criteria is not language, but whether people live in houses (= germans) or as nomads (=Sarmatians)

which would explain Polish Sarmatism and Sarmatian origin theory
2.) Who are the Peuceni and Bastarnae ? are they equally proto-slavic ?
3.) Who are the Vandals (Vindili) ? and the Slavic Wends of Adam von Bremen ? - This is the real interesting
4.) What role do the Sarmatians play in total in the Slavic origin ???

good questions

they are neighbours of the Venedi [Pliny] and "the Veneti have borrowed largely from Sarmatian ways" - Tacitus.

what he says is that their culture is alike to sarmatian, but they live in houses so they cannot be Sarmatians and hence must be germans...

The Sarmatians couldnt just have disappeared, especially not between Dniester and Dnieper.
maybe they were just warriors and rulling elite....
so their iranian language was lost with time...

many ancient people disappeared...
Alani were Sarmatians...
today iranic speaking Osetians claim origin from Alani and I think rightfully...
 

This thread has been viewed 141133 times.

Back
Top