Serbs and Croats origin from Germanic Scirii and Hirri?

yes, but that doesnot exclude them for being Celtic in culture....

if 2 of 3 brothers are considered Celtic, what is 3rd brother?

regarding your earlier post that Galicia in Ukraine is not related to Celts...

this is Galicia

800px-Ukraine-Halychyna.png


consider map based on archeologic finds of Celts
Celts_in_Europe.png


or look at you tube video that summarizes presence of Celts in Ukraine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2X99a4YkpQ

this is I2a hotspot in Ukraine...
so I2a Din in Ukraine is probably Celtic related....

Illyrians and Scordisci were Celtic I2a-Din in Balkans...

Serbs come from Serdi that are originally Celtic but became thrachanized....

as for Scirii, Skiroi is among little Venti, so they are not Germanic but Venethi in origin...

regarding little Venti, I need to add two more mappings to tribes...
"Circius or Thrascius, the north-north-west wind"
NNW Thrascius is Trausi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trausi

"Apeliotes, sometimes known to the Romans as Apeliotus, was the Greek deity of the southeast wind."

SE wind Apeliotes -> Apuli
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apuli



Venetic is italic language influenced by their neighbours Venethi and developed in region settled by R1a Venethi...that's why it is called Venetic...
it is not core settlement of Venethi race.... small tribal names and place names are always according to big tribal name not in their core areas but where their ethicity sets them apart from surrounding...

Haplogroup-R1a.gif




300px-Iron_Age_Italy.svg.png



for me case is closed....

early Slavs were indeed of Venethi race...
their name comes from free (slobodni) Venethi and Venethi is umbrella term for Thracians, Dacians, Moesians and north Dalmatia tribes....

those are free Dacians, joined by free Thracians and other related people of Venethi race...

as for Basternae or Peucini, they are Getho-Dacian people, hence part of Venethi complex
their name might come from "Pecina" = cave

look at link , date textiles and other stuff from 1050BC in italy for venetic people

http://www.academia.edu/497066/Text...1050_BC_-_AD_25_a_reappraisal_of_the_evidence

you saying the SLAVS where in italy in 1050BC....yes or no?


The bastanae are the proto-slavs...all history migration , land area, home territory, mixture with scythians and sarmatians...ALL indicate these Bastanae are the ONLY plausible and logical people that could be slavs.......UNLESS the SLAVS came in with the Scythians




There is plenty more on the venetics in Italy
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/people/research/perego


http://ucl.academia.edu/ElisaPerego/Talks
 
look at link , date textiles and other stuff from 1050BC in italy for venetic people

http://www.academia.edu/497066/Text...1050_BC_-_AD_25_a_reappraisal_of_the_evidence

you saying the SLAVS where in italy in 1050BC....yes or no?

that's not what i am saying...
i do not use name Slavs prior to 6th century.....
i speak of pre-Slavic people.....

and i follow Jordanes clue that they chiefly come from race of Venethi that is divided in many different nations and tribes.....i find in Greek myths a clue that this set of tribes includes Dacians, Thracians, Moesians and north Dalmatia tribes....and this assumption fits perfectly with Russian primary chronicle and Dalmil's chronicle....

now, I do not know when Venetic people separated from core of Venethi, nor how big in numbers were they in their new settlement, nor how fast did they adopt italic instead of some variant of pre balto-slavic that must have been spoken by Venethi complex around 1000 BC.....



The bastanae are the proto-slavs...all history migration , land area, home territory, mixture with scythians and sarmatians...ALL indicate these Bastanae are the ONLY plausible and logical people that could be slavs.......UNLESS the SLAVS came in with the Scythians
i do not see any valid reason for your claim above....

bastarnae are probably just one of many proto-Slavic tribes from Venethi complex...
if they are there at all... as they may be germanic....
they are classified as Getae-Dacians...
and while Dacians were part of Venethi complex, Getae were probably originally some old germanic element....


do you expect me to believe that a tribe whose largest lands were as on the map bellow from 300 AD did give the population of all east Europe and further? i guess every family had like 300 children and no one ever died from wars and diseases... or they had a factory and mold to print new people all the time...


entity_15231.jpg
 
that's not what i am saying...
i do not use name Slavs prior to 6th century.....
i speak of pre-Slavic people.....

they are never pre -slavic or proto-slavic , live with it..........you except proto to last 2000years?





do you expect me to believe that a tribe whose largest lands were as on the map bellow from 300 AD did give the population of all east Europe and further? i guess every family had like 300 children and no one ever died from wars and diseases... or they had a factory and mold to print new people all the time...


entity_15231.jpg

you clearly need to check your data, you give me a map when link clearly described the same year ( 300AD ) was the same end year of the bastarnae
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastarnae

read the lands they controlled in the link
 
you clearly need to check your data, you give me a map when link clearly described the same year ( 300AD ) was the same end year of the bastarnae
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastarnae

read the lands they controlled in the link

if they disappear in year 300 AD, how do you connect them to Slavs that appear around 600 AD?

Basternae

1 AD
entity_15231.jpg


100 AD
entity_15231.jpg


200 AD
entity_15231.jpg


to go to times when they had large state in Carpatians, you need to go to years 250 BC to 200 BC

[Schmidt, L. 1910 and 1911. Geschichte der deutschen Staemme. I. Die Geschichte der Ostgermanen. II. Die Geschichte der Westgermanen. Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, Berlin. 493 and 649 pp.]
 
@how yes3

Conclusions
The Slavic ethnogenesis (or ‘making’) was the result of three basic satem
amalgamation: South Baltic (conventionally ‘Proto‑Slavic A’), West Iranic
(‘Proto‑Slavic B’), North Thracian (‘Proto‑Slavic C’), with Germanic and early East
Romance (Proto‑Romanian) elements. My reconstruction is that this process of amalgamation
of the three A‑B‑C satem elements began some time after the 4th century A.D., and continued
‘in move’ (as Godłowski assumes) for about five centuries. A final phase, the literary
coagulation, began some time after 860 and continued in the long and complex process of
emerging new ethnika.
We have all the reasons to assume that the first satem groups beginning their expansion in
the 6th century A.D. did not have a consistent language, but rather spoke more or less related
satem idioms, some of them definitely spoke languages belonging to other linguistic families.
In the long run, the three main A‑B‑C satem groups merged into a more consistent and
congruent ethno-linguistic structure to be later known as Slavic. For sure, the term Sclavus
circulated at colloquial level, then the forms Sclavenus, Sclavinus, pl. Sclaveni, Sclavini
gradually became common in the Byzantine documents. The origin of Sclavus, hence
Romanian șchiau, pl. șchei ‘Slav(s)’, may be debatable, seemingly was deformed and/or
adapted from a form derived from Slověninъ, pl. Slověne. Disregarding the ultimate origin, it
is quite clear that the form Sclavus, Sclavenus, Sclavinus did not initially have an ethnic
meaning, at least not in the sense we are accustomed to use the term ethnonym. It rather had
social and military meanings, to a less extent a linguistic and scientific meaning as we should
expect. The same may be stated for the Arabic borrowing Ṣaqlab (Ṣiqlab, Ṣaqlāb), pl.
Ṣaqāliba, behind which we may find people belonging to completely different ethnic groups,
and whose common denominator was ‘blond Slave, a Slave with white skin’.
Sorin Paliga / Marginalia on Slavic Ethnogenesis
19 / 19
The amalgamated character of these groups is also proved by the same origin of the
Albanian forms derived from the same form Sclavus, i.e. Shqip ‘Albanian’ (adj.), Shqiptar
(*sklya-b-); Shqinikë < Sclavenica (Dardania, i.e. regio sclavenica); Shqa, Shkla, Shkle ‘a
Bulgarian’; these forms also suggest that sparse, non‑Romanised Thracian groups contributed
to the Slavic ethnogenesis, and also represented an important component of the Albanian
ethnogenesis: moving southwards, some of them merged with other satem speakers to
eventually become the Sclavini, and other groups moved south‑west and, in amalgamation
with the Dalmatian (formerly Illyrian) Romanised population led to the Albanian
ethnogenesis. I am inclined to consider Albanian a neo‑Thracian, rather than neo‑Illyrian
idiom, even if the Illyrian tradition was locally preserved, and some forms—mainly
place‑names—were later adapted to the new, emerging idiom later known as Albanian, or
gjuha shqipë. In North Danubian regions, the North Thracian groups known as Daci Liberi
(Free Dacians) were later assimilated by the already Romanised Thracian groups of the first
phase after the Roman conquest. It is probable that Thracian speakers survived in both North
and South Danubian areas until at least the 6th century A.D., if not even later.
Archaeologically they may be identified until the 7th century A.D., but their survival may be
postulated even later.
By the 10th century A.D., this long process of amalgamation and ethnic changes was
basically concluded, and the new Slavic groups began their new history in the new Christian
context. The Slavic ethnogenesis did not essentialy difer from other similar, but not identical,
complex processes. For sure, the century‑long Slavic expansion and ethno‑linguistic
consolidation was too vast and complex to be fully presented here, but the main issues have
been hopefully approached.

Sorin Paliga / Marginalia on Slavic Ethnogenesis

read this - Linguistic Marginalia on Slavic Ethnogenesis by Sorin Paliga
 
@how yes3

Conclusions
The Slavic ethnogenesis (or ‘making’) was the result of three basic satem
amalgamation: South Baltic (conventionally ‘Proto‑Slavic A’), West Iranic
(‘Proto‑Slavic B’), North Thracian (‘Proto‑Slavic C’), with Germanic and early East
Romance (Proto‑Romanian) elements. My reconstruction is that this process of amalgamation
of the three A‑B‑C satem elements began some time after the 4th century A.D., and continued
‘in move’ (as Godłowski assumes) for about five centuries. A final phase, the literary
coagulation, began some time after 860 and continued in the long and complex process of
emerging new ethnika.

this is saying exactly what I told you....

satem IE speakers Dacians and Thracians went to north where they merged with other satem people - south Balts and Sarmatians,,,,, except Sarmatians, those are various people from Venethi race as I pinpointed using Greek myth of Wind gods Anemoi/Venti that defines direction of some tribes looked from center and names winds after them....

so free Dacians and other free people of Venethi race merged and gave free (slobodni) Venethi or SloVenethi
original tribal name is preserved in Slovenci (Slovenians)... they are least military of all Slavs, which suggests that they were indeed from central tribe and not from border keepers Venedi and Anti
 
this is saying exactly what I told you....

satem IE speakers Dacians and Thracians went to north where they merged with other satem people - south Balts and Sarmatians,,,,, except Sarmatians, those are various people from Venethi race as I pinpointed using Greek myth of Wind gods Anemoi/Venti that defines direction of some tribes looked from center and names winds after them....

so free Dacians and other free people of Venethi race merged and gave free (slobodni) Venethi or SloVenethi
original tribal name is preserved in Slovenci (Slovenians)... they are least military of all Slavs, which suggests that they were indeed from central tribe and not from border keepers Venedi and Anti

from same author

Who were the Venedi? Tacitus located them east of the Germanic groups, which some
linguists took for a clear proof that they must have been the Proto‑Slavs. The Venedi were,
unlike the Sclaveni and the Anti, a kind of legendary people, historically with oldest
references regarding the location east of the Germanic groups. This ethnic name (ethnos) may
possibly be closer to our modern understanding of the meaning. For sure, some people used
this name, as proved by Greek venetikós, Romanian venetíc ‘non‑Christian’. Finnish venäjä
‘Russian’ also speaks of its old history. This does not mean the Venedi were Proto‑Slavs and
indeed there is no evidence they may have been so, it just means that, if not indeed some kind
of Proto‑Slavs, they were later acculturated, and held for a Slavic group. They may, or may
not, be a similar case like Vlakh by which the East Slavs refer to Romanians, while West
Slavs refer to Italians, even if – initially – they were a Celtic group, later Romanised2.
The presumed Proto‑Slavic Venedi were of course different from the Venedi, Veneti who
gave the name of the city of Venice. The Proto‑Slavic Venedi may have been a Celtic group
too, even if such a view has a major impediment: there are no proofs of Celtic influences in
Proto‑Slavic. If these Venedi were also Celts (as their name may suggest), then a minimal set
of Celtic words should be identified in Proto‑Slavic. There is no such example. Therefore,
assuming that Tacitus’ spelling was more or less correct or approximated the original form,
these Venedi had their legendary or semi‑legendary history as proved by preservation of
forms venetikós, venetíc in southern Europe, and venäjä ‘Russian’ in Finnish. As the Finns
witnessed, as neighbours, the long and complex process of Slavisation, one may credit
Finnish with a good proof that indeed an ethnikon Venedi was used for the people inhabiting
2 Etymologically, Vlakh is related to Welsh, Wales.
Sorin Paliga / Marginalia on Slavic Ethnogenesis
7 / 19
those areas, even if their contribution to the Slavic ‘making’ proper is obscure and
undecipherable.

BUT, the link below, the author writes EXACTLY your style....is it you.
He states the Venedi are proto-pomeranians, thus proto-franks

http://www.tribwatch.com/poles.htm

BUT, looking into italian archives, they at the time when the POLES pleeded the Church to aid them against the baltic -prussians, the Church in its writings called the Venedi, the prussians .


Who are the enetoi -I hope its not the fabled homer story of the eneti that came from anatolia, because there is no written record from homer on this - he stated - ,“And the rugged heart of Pylaemenes led the Paphlagonians, from the land of the Eneti, whence the breed of wild mules. The paphlagonians came from Sinope and not Samsun.

The city of samsun was once called Enete, there where no people/tribe by the name eneti from this city. There is no such thing.

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


But Zenodotus writes "from Enete,"15 and says that Homer clearly indicates the Amisus of today. And others say that a tribe called Eneti, bordering on the Cappadocians, made an expedition with the Cimmerians and then were driven out to the Adriatic Sea
 
Yeah but the I haplogroup factor in Slavs arrived later as they migrated closer towards the Balkans and mixed with local I2 ( 11,000-17,000 years ago origin point for i2) in the Balkans after which with time and diversification subclades such as I2a2 where born as they followed Slavs around thus these far more recent I subclades are "Slavic", they mixed with them and followed them around even if originally they had different origin point
 
Southern Balkans probably, the Bosnia-herzegovinans refuge, the big 60% circle in that region must be where they waited out the LGM. I also heard someone say the oldest dated I2 comes from Moldova which would support arrival via Caucasus hugging Black Sea coast until reaching Moldova but I seriously doubt this. To me it's one or the other but I'm currently inclined to the first hypothesis, it CERTAINLY did NOT arrive via Central Asia as R1a did.
 
No you know what lol, haplogroup I arrived via Anatolia to Balkans where I waited out the LGM. Then it spread north to Scandinavia, with minor branches like I2c in continental Germany which created a branch that went to Iberia then Sardinia. It strictly did not pass by Caucasus or originate in Moldova it's that simple according to my research.
 
Stop! No chance! Celts are R1b, proto-Slavs are R1a in general (+I2a).

who says so,

R1a exist in Greece 5000 years,
what slavic r1a? and after what conclusion?
Goths also had R1a and I Hg
Vikings also,
what makes believe that R1a is Slavic Indicator? cause it has high density around Baltic?
 
who says so,

R1a exist in Greece 5000 years,
what slavic r1a? and after what conclusion?
Goths also had R1a and I Hg
Vikings also,
what makes believe that R1a is Slavic Indicator? cause it has high density around Baltic?
Yes that is true, only certain branches of R1a are connected with Slavs.
 
what makes believe R1a is Slavic indicator. Because its found in highest frequencies in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Poland and some Baltic states such as Latvia, Lithuania and certain more Central European nations such as Czechs, Slovenians, also in Hungarians, Croats. It spread to those places via the Russian steppes to it arriving in the Ukrainian refuge. R1a is in Greece, correct it arrived there after arriving to the Balkan states slightly to the north that have more R1a such as Bulgaria or Romania maybe even Croatia or Slovenia but the point is it originally waited out LGM in Ukrainian refuge and then subsequently spread down and minority influenced the greek male population at 10-17% on a national level. It came from Russian states to Ukrainian refuge and then spreading to certain Balkans nations, Slavic, R1a , capish? : )
 
How do I delete a post the information I posted I believe was wrong lol
 
Last edited:
Vikings also,
what makes believe that R1a is Slavic Indicator? cause it has high density around Baltic?

Cannot you comprehend that Vikings were also Slavs? 1st rulers of Kievan Ruś were pure Vikings.
 
God no! Vikings where very predominantly I1a they later mixed with 20% of both Celtic and Slavic migrants that came later. Denmark for example was a meeting point of Nordic-Celtic with 40% R1b and 35-40% I1a. Sweden is more like 50-60% I1a with 20% R1a and 20% R1b, it's core I1a territory, a true Nordic country. Norway lags slightly behind with 40-50% I1a and 25% both R1a and R1b.
 
from same author

Who were the Venedi? ....

author argues that Venedi were not proto-Slavic but have assimilated into Slavic....

i do not think they were celtic or germanic...could have been Balts....

if you look position of Venedi, Sclaveni and Anti,
Venedi are mostly mapped to west Slavs

Dalmil's chronicle does say that Czechs came to existence among Poles in land Croatia in Serbian language....

so, perhaps west Slavs became Slavic via Serbs...

Jordanes doesnot really mention Venedi in Venethic race.. he said chiefly Anti and Sclaveni...

and as I have explained Venedi and Veneti origin from different PIE words

Venedi = border people (they were indeed border between Germania and Sarmatia)

Veneti is related to wind and Venti wind gods...


BUT, the link below, the author writes EXACTLY your style....is it you.
nope, my tribal origin madness was on repertoire only on this scene...

He states the Venedi are proto-pomeranians, thus proto-franks
sounds funny...
i would map origin of tribal names (and partially of genetics) Venedi to Veneti from Asia minor and Franks to Phrygians... so their distant ancestors might have been kind of neighbors in Asia minor 3500 years ago...

btw. regarding my theory of some or all of I2a-din being celtic prior to being slavic...
and related to Danubian Slavs with Serbs and Croats among them that Russian primary chronicle says have moved from Danube to Vistula due to spread of Roman empire

Bulgarian Dna shows elevated I2a-din in areas of Serdi and Crobizy

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...-civilizations?p=406445&viewfull=1#post406445
 

This thread has been viewed 140611 times.

Back
Top