Slavic homeland and ethnogenesis

Милан М.

Regular Member
Messages
247
Reaction score
16
Points
0
Original home and migrations

There are two mostly debated theories in regard to the original home of the Slavs.One theory considers the region of the Danube as the original home of the Slavs,they spread northeast over the Carpathians as far as the Volga River, Lake Ilmen. The other theory regards the districts between the Vistula and the Dnieper as their original home they spread southwest over the Carpathians to the Balkans and into the Alps, and towards the west across the Oder and the Elbe.


  • Milograd culture hypothesis: The pre-Proto-Slavs (or Balto-Slavs) were the bearers of the Milograd culture (7th century BC to 1st century AD) of northern Ukraine and southern Belarus.
  • Chernoles culture hypothesis: The pre-Proto-Slavs were the bearers of the Chernoles culture (750–200 BC) of northern Ukraine, and later the Zarubintsy culture (3rd century BC to 1st century AD).
  • Lusatian culture hypothesis: The pre-Proto-Slavs were present in north-eastern Central Europe since at least the late 2nd millennium BCE, and were the bearers of the Lusatian culture (1300–500 BC), and later the Przeworsk culture (2nd century BC to 4th century AD).
  • Danube basin hypothesis: postulated by Oleg Trubachyov; sustained at present by Florin Curta, also supported by an early Medieval Slavic narrative source – Nestor's Chronicle
The meaning of the term Slav depends upon the context in which it is used. This term refers to a culture (or cultures) living north of the River Danube, east of the River Elbe, and west of the River Vistula during the 530s CE. In addition, Slav is an identifier for the common ethnic group.Furthermore, Slav denotes any language with linguistic ties to the modern Slavic language family (which has no connection to a common culture or shared ethnicity).Despite the various notions of Slav, it is unclear whether any of these descriptions add to an accurate representation of that group's history, since historians, such as George Vernadsky, Florin Curta, and Michael Karpovich have called into question how, why, and to what degree the Slavs were cohesive as a society between the 6th and 9th centuries.When discussing the evidence that specialists use to construct a plausible history of the Slavs, the information tends to fall into three avenues of research: the archeological, the historiographic, and the linguistic.

The Russian primary Chronicles were perhaps some of the older texts where Eastern Slavs themselves write about "their homeland" will post the text regarding the "Slavic homeland" on the Danube Laurentian text:
Over a long period the Slavs settled beside the Danube, where the Hungarian and Bulgarian lands now lie. From among these Slavs,parties scattered throughout the country and were known by appropriate names, according to the places where they settled. Thus some came and settled by the river Morava, and were named Moravians, while others were called Czechs. Among these same Slavs are included the White Croats,the Serbs, and the Carinthians. For when the Vlakhs attacked the Danubian Slavs, settled among them, and did them violence, the latter came and made their homes by the Vistula, and were then called Lyakhs.Of these same Lyakhs some were called Polyanians, some Lutichians, some Mazovians, and still others Pomorians. Certain Slavs settled also on the Dnieper, and were likewise called Polyanians. Still others were named Derevlians, because they lived in the forests. Some also lived between the Pripet' and the Dvina, and were known as Dregovichians. Other tribes resided along the Dvina and were called Polotians on account of a small stream called the Polota, which flows into the Dvina. It was from this same stream that they were named Polotians. The Slavs also dwelt about Lake Il'men', and were known there by their characteristic name. They built a city which they called Novgorod. Still others had their homes along the Desna, the Sem', and the Sula, and were called Severians. Thus the Slavic race was divided, and its language was known as Slavic.
This text might be Anacrhonistic it is ascribed to monk Nestor,starting with the Biblical land like in the Bible something and then Slavs settled on the Danube,my sources treat them this way,his goal was clearly not just to link the Slavic Rus’ to the lands where the Slavs had received the Word in their own language(Church Slavonic became sacred language after Greek,Latin,Hebrew) but also to advance the idea of a new Chosen People,when writing that with the Russian Primary Chronicle another story begins, namely that of the«national» use of the Slavs «for claims to ancestry.

Florin Curta archeologist in South East Europe further argue that the Balkans witnessed sharp demographic decline in 6th-7th century and that the Sclavenes were the product of Justinian fortification plan on the Danube limes,reffering to the traditionalist theory he adds Cultures as one archeologist noted do not migrate. It is often only a very narrowly defined, goal-oriented subgroup that migrates. “To speak of the Prague culture as the culture of the migrating Slavs is therefore a nonsense. earliest archaeological evidence of settlement assemblages postdating the general withdrawal of Roman armies from the Balkans. This suggests that there was no “Slavic tide” in the Balkans following the presumed collapse of the Danube frontier. In addition, the archaeological evidence confirms the picture drawn from the analysis of written sources, namely that the “Slavs” were isolated pockets of population in various areas of the Balkans, which seem to have experienced serious demographic decline in the seventh century. The discussion in Chapter has been based on the concept that the disintegration of the military system in the Balkans, which Justinian implemented the result not so much of the destruction inflicted by barbarian invasions, as of serious economic and financial problems caused both by the emperor’s policies elsewhere and by the impossibility of providing sufficient economic support to his gigantic building program of defense. This conclusion is substantiated by the analysis of sixth-century Byzantine coin hoards, which suggest that inflation, not barbarian raids, was responsible for high rates of non-retrieval.Johanna Nichols not long ago placed the locus of the Slavic language in the vicinity of the Western Danube plain.Oleg Trubachev had similar proposals,Sclavenes had their power base in the Danube and Pannonia none wrote they came from somewhere else whoever they might be in Procopious eyes,Byzantines reffered to Avar military elite as Sclaveni with Slavic "lingua franca" which according to Horace Lunt further spread Slavic,however Sclaveni or Sklabenoi the original Greek word is not cognate with the Slavic word "Sloveni" and is not self designation word of "Slavic tribe" has a different meaning,many times missinterpreted in historical usage,while in the Western sources they were dealing with Wends.

Traditional Scenario:The Globular Amphora culture stretches from the middle Dnieper to the Elbe in the late 4th and early 3rd millennia BCE. It has been suggested as the locus of a Germano-Balto-Slavic continuum (compare Germanic substrate hypothesis), but the identification of its bearers as Indo-Europeans is uncertain. The area of this culture contains numerous tumuli – typical for IE originators.The Chernoles culture (8th to 3rd centuries BC, sometimes associated with the "Scythian farmers" of Herodotus) is "sometimes portrayed as either a state in the development of the Slavic languages or at least some form of late Indo-European ancestral to the evolution of the Slavic stock.The Milograd culture (700 BCE – 100 CE), centered roughly on present-day Belarus, north of the contemporaneous Chernoles culture, has also been proposed as ancestral to either Slavs or Balts. The ethnic composition of the bearers of the Przeworsk culture (2nd century BC to the 4th century AD, associated with the Lugii) of central and southern Poland, northern Slovakia and Ukraine, including the Zarubintsy culture (2nd century BCE to the 2nd century CE, also connected with the Bastarnae tribe) and the Oksywie culture are other candidates.The area of southern Ukraine is known to have been inhabited by Scythian and Sarmatian tribes prior to the foundation of the Gothic kingdom. Early Slavic stone stelae found in the middle Dniester region are markedly different from the Scythian and Sarmatian stelae found in the Crimea.The Wielbark Culture displaced the eastern Oksywie part of the Przeworsk culture from the 1st century AD. While the Chernyakhov culture; 2nd to 5th centuries CE leads to the decline of the late Sarmatian culture in the 2nd to 4th centuries, the western part of the Przeworsk culture remains intact until the 4th century, and the Kiev culture flourishes during the same time, in the 2nd to 5th centuries AD. This latter culture is recognized as the direct predecessor of the Prague-Korchak and Pen'kovo cultures (6th–7th centuries AD), the first archaeological cultures the bearers of which are indisputably identified as Slavic.Proto-Slavic is thus likely to have reached its final stage in the Kiev area; there is, however, substantial disagreement in the scientific community over the identity of the Kiev culture's predecessors, with some scholars tracing it from the Ruthenian Milograd culture, others from the "Ukrainian" Chernoles and Zarubintsy cultures and still others from the "Polish" Przeworsk culture.
Migrations
According to eastern homeland theory, prior to becoming known to the Roman world, Slavic-speaking tribes were part of the many multi-ethnic confederacies of Eurasia – such as the Sarmatian, Hun and Gothic empires. The Slavs emerged from obscurity when the westward movement of Germans in the 5th and 6th centuries CE (thought to be in conjunction with the movement of peoples from Siberia and Eastern Europe: Huns, and later Avars and Bulgars) started the great migration of the Slavs, who settled the lands abandoned by Germanic tribes fleeing the Huns and their allies: westward into the country between the Oder and the Elbe-Saale line; southward into Bohemia, Moravia, much of present day Austria, the Pannonian plain and the Balkans; and northward along the upper Dnieper river. Perhaps some Slavs migrated with the movement of the Vandals to Iberia and north Africa.Around the 6th century, Slavs appeared on Byzantine borders.After a military movement even the Peloponnese and Asia Minor were reported to have Slavic settlements.This southern movement has traditionally been seen as an invasive expansion. By the end of the 6th century, Slavs had settled the Eastern Alps regions.
What is your opinion what happened in Europe from 6th to 9th century when Roman empire was crumbling transforming in Byzantine and new countries,empires and elite emerged,when look up also in genetics?
 
Last edited:
Milan, did you write this yourself or you copy/past it from somewhere else? If it is copied please post a link, giver credit to the author, otherwise it is plagiarism and will need to be deleted.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14042a.htm
 
Milan, did you write this yourself or you copy/past it from somewhere else? If it is copied please post a link, giver credit to the author, otherwise it is plagiarism and will need to be deleted.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14042a.htm
Majority is copy past and i gave authors names for example:
 
Last edited:



  • Milograd culture hypothesis: The pre-Proto-Slavs (or Balto-Slavs) were the bearers of the Milograd culture (7th century BC to 1st century AD) of northern Ukraine and southern Belarus.
  • Chernoles culture hypothesis: The pre-Proto-Slavs were the bearers of the Chernoles culture (750–200 BC) of northern Ukraine, and later the Zarubintsy culture (3rd century BC to 1st century AD).
  • Lusatian culture hypothesis: The pre-Proto-Slavs were present in north-eastern Central Europe since at least the late 2nd millennium BCE, and were the bearers of the Lusatian culture (1300–500 BC), and later the Przeworsk culture (2nd century BC to 4th century AD).
  • Danube basin hypothesis: postulated by Oleg Trubachyov; sustained at present by Florin Curta, also supported by an early Medieval Slavic narrative source – Nestor's Chronicle
Of these, the Danube basin hypothesis makes the least sense. In the antiquity, the area was predominantly Celtic and Iranic (plus others, Dacian, at least in the eastern parts of the basin), and there is no evidence for Slavic names in that area. Personally, I find Curta's hypothesis completely hair-raising, because it is ignorant of all the linguistic evidence that we do have from the Pannonian basin from Antiquity. The Lusatian culture makes also little sense to me because its way too far in the west, far away from the Baltic coastal area that was recorded to have been inhabited by Baltic tribes (Galindians, Sudovians) in Antiquity. As inside Indo-European, the Slavic languages are most closely related with the Baltic languages, it would make sense if the Proto-Slavic homeland wasn't too far away from the Baltic-speaking areas. The bearers of the Lusatian culture were more likely to have been Centum speakers (early Celtic, perhaps? After all, Lusatian culture is associated with the Urnfield complex). There's also the issue that we do have names from the formerly Lusatian area from the Antiquity, and they are overwhelmingly Germanic, as well as vestigially Celtic (the Cotini of the western Carpathians, in particular). The Slavic languages are also rich in loanwords from the Germanic languages, and in my opinion its plausible that the Proto-Slavs absorbed large numbers of Germanic-speakers during the Migration period. If we say the Lusatian culture was the original, early Slavic homeland, we're reversing the expansion direction of the Slavic languages against the evidence that we have from the languages themselves. For me, both the Chernoles and Milograd culture hypotheses seem viable, in terms of what we have of linguistic knowledge about the Slavic homeland. I'm personally more in favour of the Milograd culture, since it fits decisively better with the evidence.

Having said this, I'm not ruling out the possibility (rather the opposite: I think its quite likely) that modern inhabitants of Slavic countries (above all else, the West Slavic-speaking countries) have a fair deal of genetic continuity with the bearers of the Lusatian culture. Its just that their language probably didn't originate with these peoples. :wink:
 
Of these, the Danube basin hypothesis makes the least sense. In the antiquity, the area was predominantly Celtic and Iranic (plus others, Dacian, at least in the eastern parts of the basin), and there is no evidence for Slavic names in that area. Personally, I find Curta's hypothesis completely hair-raising, because it is ignorant of all the linguistic evidence that we do have from the Pannonian basin from Antiquity. The Lusatian culture makes also little sense to me because its way too far in the west, far away from the Baltic coastal area that was recorded to have been inhabited by Baltic tribes (Galindians, Sudovians) in Antiquity. As inside Indo-European, the Slavic languages are most closely related with the Baltic languages, it would make sense if the Proto-Slavic homeland wasn't too far away from the Baltic-speaking areas. The bearers of the Lusatian culture were more likely to have been Centum speakers (early Celtic, perhaps? After all, Lusatian culture is associated with the Urnfield complex). There's also the issue that we do have names from the formerly Lusatian area from the Antiquity, and they are overwhelmingly Germanic, as well as vestigially Celtic (the Cotini of the western Carpathians, in particular). The Slavic languages are also rich in loanwords from the Germanic languages, and in my opinion its plausible that the Proto-Slavs absorbed large numbers of Germanic-speakers during the Migration period. If we say the Lusatian culture was the original, early Slavic homeland, we're reversing the expansion direction of the Slavic languages against the evidence that we have from the languages themselves. For me, both the Chernoles and Milograd culture hypotheses seem viable, in terms of what we have of linguistic knowledge about the Slavic homeland. I'm personally more in favour of the Milograd culture, since it fits decisively better with the evidence.

Having said this, I'm not ruling out the possibility (rather the opposite: I think its quite likely) that modern inhabitants of Slavic countries (above all else, the West Slavic-speaking countries) have a fair deal of genetic continuity with the bearers of the Lusatian culture. Its just that their language probably didn't originate with these peoples. :wink:
Curta is archeologist and historian for Middle Age South-East Europe not Lingustic,he rather propose that the idea of "migrationism" doesn't make sense in his own archeology research,he also argue that the name Sclavene was missused and raised a lot of questions rightly so,the migration period is not supported today like before unless we base the same 'Slavic" migration on gigantic genocide of half Europe which doesnt make a lot of sense,we could see archeological proves mostly,could be linguistic spread whatever else or homogenity whilst their language was strengthen from 6th-9th century,Balto-Slavic or Slavic is in Europe we see that on toponyms,also Thracian toponyms are striking similar and some same, Baltic is maybe even more similar with Thracian then Slavic and one are living on the Baltic sea the others were living on the Aegan,regardless time span languages change trough history,Germanic loanwords are mostly by the neighboring Slavs with Germans,we don't have any linguistic knowledge in any of those areas and cultures until 10th century were they Slavic speaking or not,if we speak for a proves but we can raise hypothesis.However Slavic infiltration wasn't first in the 6th century in Pannonia based on written sources-Byzantine ambassadors were offered a drink called medos (Proto-Slavic medǎ ‘drink produced with honey”) the Byzantine ambassadors directed to the court of Attila (king of the Huns), and that a part of the funeral rituals for Attila’s death was called strava (medieval name of a Slavic funeral ritual),only biased reader could say otherwise,Hungarian place names, in Pannonia and on the Tisza, are Slavic, as J. Stanislav has demonstrated. The region’s river names, such as Tisza (Rum. Tisa, Germ.Theiss, to be compared with Plinius’ place name Pathissus, composed with the Slavic prefix po-; Maros (Rum. Mureú, in Herodotus Máris, from PIE *mori ‘sea’, but with aSlavic suffix); the suffix -s, common to river names such as Szamos (Rum. Someú) and Temes, certainly derives from a Slavic suffix -sjo.The Slavo-Latin isoglosses, appearing in the social sphere (Lat. hospes ~ Slav.*gospodƱ, Lat. favere ~ Slav. *govČti), in the construction terminology (Lat. struere ~Slav. *strojiti), in that of landscape (Lat. paludes ~ Slav. *pola voda); of agriculture(Lat. pomum < *po-emom ~ Slav. *pojmo (Russ. pojmo ‘handful’) (idem, 216. And seealso 217: gǎrnǎ, kladivo, molty)The Slavo-Illyrian isoglosses (Doksy, Czech place name, Daksa, Adriatic island, and Hesichius’ gloss: Epirotic dáksa; Dukla, mountain pass in the Carpatians, Duklja in Montenegro, Doklea (Ptolemy); Licicaviki, Polish tribal name, to be compared to Illyr.*Liccavici (Illyr. anthroponym Liccavus, Liccavius) and Southern Slavic place name Lika (Trubaþev 1985, 217-8)Thracia and in Illyiria-Vulka, Vrbas, Tsierna e Pathissus,
 
Last edited:
Of these, the Danube basin hypothesis makes the least sense. In the antiquity, the area was predominantly Celtic and Iranic (plus others, Dacian, at least in the eastern parts of the basin), and there is no evidence for Slavic names in that area. Personally, I find Curta's hypothesis completely hair-raising, because it is ignorant of all the linguistic evidence that we do have from the Pannonian basin from Antiquity. The Lusatian culture makes also little sense to me because its way too far in the west, far away from the Baltic coastal area that was recorded to have been inhabited by Baltic tribes (Galindians, Sudovians) in Antiquity. As inside Indo-European, the Slavic languages are most closely related with the Baltic languages, it would make sense if the Proto-Slavic homeland wasn't too far away from the Baltic-speaking areas. The bearers of the Lusatian culture were more likely to have been Centum speakers (early Celtic, perhaps? After all, Lusatian culture is associated with the Urnfield complex). There's also the issue that we do have names from the formerly Lusatian area from the Antiquity, and they are overwhelmingly Germanic, as well as vestigially Celtic (the Cotini of the western Carpathians, in particular). The Slavic languages are also rich in loanwords from the Germanic languages, and in my opinion its plausible that the Proto-Slavs absorbed large numbers of Germanic-speakers during the Migration period. If we say the Lusatian culture was the original, early Slavic homeland, we're reversing the expansion direction of the Slavic languages against the evidence that we have from the languages themselves. For me, both the Chernoles and Milograd culture hypotheses seem viable, in terms of what we have of linguistic knowledge about the Slavic homeland. I'm personally more in favour of the Milograd culture, since it fits decisively better with the evidence.

Having said this, I'm not ruling out the possibility (rather the opposite: I think its quite likely) that modern inhabitants of Slavic countries (above all else, the West Slavic-speaking countries) have a fair deal of genetic continuity with the bearers of the Lusatian culture. Its just that their language probably didn't originate with these peoples. :wink:
Mario Alinei Specialist in Geo-Lingusitics proposal-Thracian problem and hypothesis:Herodotus was calling Thracians second most numerous in the world after the Indians,we can advance hypothesis that Thracians was the name that Herodotus gave to the Slavs, owing to the fact the Thracians were one of the most powerful and representative elites of Eastern Europe,seen with Herodotus’ inevitably colonialist eyes. In a first approximation, then, the Thracians would appear to be a Southern Slavic geo-variational group, out of which came a Bronze age elite, first dominating then extinguished. This hypothesis could be further developed and refined in the light of the results of research on the Thracian language which, with the caution due to the scarcity of materials, can be so summarized:
(1) Thracian is an IE satem language, like Baltic and Slavic;
(2) as discovered by Trubachev (see above), Thracian place names show a surprising
similarity with the Baltic ones;
(3) in some cases, however, Thracian affinities seem stronger with Slavic: the Thr.
place-name suffix -dizos e -diza, for example, to which the meaning of ‘fortress’ has
been attributed on the basis of the comparison with Gr. teƭkhos ‘wall’ (IEW 244), has a
much closer counterpart in the metathetic forms of OSl. ziždom, zydati ‘to build’ zydǎ,
zidǎ ‘wall’, than in the Baltic ones (also methatetic), meaning ‘to form’. And the
vocalism of the Thr. river name Strymon and place name Stryme seems closer to Pol.
strumien ‘brook’ and OSlav. struja ‘stream’ than to Latv stràume ‘stream’ (IEW 1003).
The most plausible hypothesis would be then that Thracian was a conservative type of
Slavic, still preserving Baltic features and spoken by a peripheral group of Southern
Slavs, somehow parallel to the Northern peripheral Balts. Following the geolinguistic
well-known rule, according to which the center innovates (Danube basin) and the periphery preserves.
The areal asymmetry of the Slavic areal distribution As a specialist in geolinguistics, I have always been surprised by the fact that Slavic specialists have failed in noticing or appreciating the extraordinary diagnostic value – from a geolinguistic point of view – of the asymmetric configuration of the Slavic area. Even more so since the cause of this asymmetry is quite well-known, and explicitly stated in all handbooks for first-year students of Slavic: Northern Slavic does not form a single unit, but each of its two branchings – the Western and the Eastern – shares different features with Southern Slavic. Now, from a geolinguistic point of view, there is just one explanation possible for this peculiar and transparent areal configuration: Southern Slavic must form the earlier core, while the two Northern branchings must be a later development, each with its proper history and identity. No other explanation is possible, unless one challenges the very raison d’etre of IE and Proto-Slavic reconstruction, besides common sense.
 
With each new development in the field of genetics that has connection with the topic of this thread, there is more and more evidence that I2a-CTS10228, R1a-M458 and R1a-Z280 were not present in Southeast Europe 2000 years ago. When people recognize that, it will be much easier to discuss about "Slavic homeland and ethnogenesis".
 
With each new development in the field of genetics that has connection with the topic of this thread, there is more and more evidence that I2a-CTS10228, R1a-M458 and R1a-Z280 were not present in Southeast Europe 2000 years ago. When people recognize that, it will be much easier to discuss about "Slavic homeland and ethnogenesis".

How sure you are?

do you know about R1a combined with HBO arab? considering the inner mariagge in a tribe seems like more possible to be more than 3500 in Rodope mt
exists in South Balkans, mountains Greece and Bulgaria and surely is older than 2000 years for most, where is the highest HBO in area and surely pre-Slavic, since HBO arab is not common in North of Istros
search mountain Pomak populations, they have their own language, which for some is pure Thracian, although looks like today as a mix of an ancient language, Bulgarian and little Greek,
in fact due to that some claim that R1a came in Balkans from elsewhere, from East not from North,
strange is n't it, what possibilities we can extract by crossing 2 variants, although are possibilities, right?
 
Mario Alinei Specialist in Geo-Lingusitics proposal-Thracian problem and hypothesis:Herodotus was calling Thracians second most numerous in the world after the Indians,we can advance hypothesis that Thracians was the name that Herodotus gave to the Slavs, owing to the fact the Thracians were one of the most powerful and representative elites of Eastern Europe,seen with Herodotus’ inevitably colonialist eyes. In a first approximation, then, the Thracians would appear to be a Southern Slavic geo-variational group, out of which came a Bronze age elite, first dominating then extinguished. This hypothesis could be further developed and refined in the light of the results of research on the Thracian language which, with the caution due to the scarcity of materials, can be so summarized:
(1) Thracian is an IE satem language, like Baltic and Slavic;
(2) as discovered by Trubachev (see above), Thracian place names show a surprising
similarity with the Baltic ones;
(3) in some cases, however, Thracian affinities seem stronger with Slavic: the Thr.
place-name suffix -dizos e -diza, for example, to which the meaning of ‘fortress’ has
been attributed on the basis of the comparison with Gr. teƭkhos ‘wall’ (IEW 244), has a
much closer counterpart in the metathetic forms of OSl. ziždom, zydati ‘to build’ zydǎ,
zidǎ ‘wall’, than in the Baltic ones (also methatetic), meaning ‘to form’. And the
vocalism of the Thr. river name Strymon and place name Stryme seems closer to Pol.
strumien ‘brook’ and OSlav. struja ‘stream’ than to Latv stràume ‘stream’ (IEW 1003).
The most plausible hypothesis would be then that Thracian was a conservative type of
Slavic, still preserving Baltic features and spoken by a peripheral group of Southern
Slavs, somehow parallel to the Northern peripheral Balts. Following the geolinguistic
well-known rule, according to which the center innovates (Danube basin) and the periphery preserves.
The areal asymmetry of the Slavic areal distribution As a specialist in geolinguistics, I have always been surprised by the fact that Slavic specialists have failed in noticing or appreciating the extraordinary diagnostic value – from a geolinguistic point of view – of the asymmetric configuration of the Slavic area. Even more so since the cause of this asymmetry is quite well-known, and explicitly stated in all handbooks for first-year students of Slavic: Northern Slavic does not form a single unit, but each of its two branchings – the Western and the Eastern – shares different features with Southern Slavic. Now, from a geolinguistic point of view, there is just one explanation possible for this peculiar and transparent areal configuration: Southern Slavic must form the earlier core, while the two Northern branchings must be a later development, each with its proper history and identity. No other explanation is possible, unless one challenges the very raison d’etre of IE and Proto-Slavic reconstruction, besides common sense.

hmm

NO,
Thracian vocabulary by the little we know seems also to be connected with East languages, even Celtic and Scottish
no matter many Slav linguists try to 'show' it as a Baltic language, they did not manage
in fact might be older than Baltic and surely older than Slavic, even older than Celtic for me since is connected with Cotofeni in Arsenic bronze road (yamnaa to Vucocar)
Thracian tomps also shown some H Hg!!!
so it is more possible that Balts and Slavic sprunk from Thracian, possible after Scythian entrance
in Yamna Hypothesis for me Thracian is the oldest IE language in Europe,
known even to Egypt, where they consider it as the oldest language in the world!!!
 
With each new development in the field of genetics that has connection with the topic of this thread, there is more and more evidence that I2a-CTS10228, R1a-M458 and R1a-Z280 were not present in Southeast Europe 2000 years ago. When people recognize that, it will be much easier to discuss about "Slavic homeland and ethnogenesis".
When people realize that Slavic is lingustic group and that there was no "Slavic tribe" conquering most of Europe in 100 years without proves whatsoever it will be easier for them to distinguish certain things.
 
hmm

NO,
Thracian vocabulary by the little we know seems also to be connected with East languages, even Celtic and Scottish
no matter many Slav linguists try to 'show' it as a Baltic language, they did not manage
in fact might be older than Baltic and surely older than Slavic, even older than Celtic for me since is connected with Cotofeni in Arsenic bronze road (yamnaa to Vucocar)
Thracian tomps also shown some H Hg!!!
so it is more possible that Balts and Slavic sprunk from Thracian, possible after Scythian entrance
in Yamna Hypothesis for me Thracian is the oldest IE language in Europe,
known even to Egypt, where they consider it as the oldest language in the world!!!
EHHH Celtic is Centum-Thracian Satem.Mario Alinei wrote the PCT theory of IE,he is not Slavic lingustic,really Balts and Slavs sprunk from Thracian,first time i hear this but let it be this way,and what if they prove otherwise the sun still will shine in Greece.
 
EHHH Celtic is Centum-Thracian Satem.Mario Alinei wrote the PCT theory of IE,he is not Slavic lingustic,really Balts and Slavs sprunk from Thracian,first time i hear this but let it be this way,and what if they prove otherwise the sun still will shine in Greece.

either this either that Sun always shine when is not cloudy,

you can search Duridanov's work and Georgiev's, Itrust them a lot,
I could also give you some Greek thracologist, who search Thracian in Greek language, but these 2 are enough,
anyway I wrote in many previous threads about, so i am not going to repeat,
by the little true Thracian we know, they even are connected with Armenian and Scottish,
the myth of Balto-Slavic origin of Thracian seems anachronistic, they are either brother languages or sprunk from Thracian
it is rather the oposite,
in Fact sometimes I believe that even Gothic/Germanic sprunk from Thracian, but many linguists in forum show me not

remember thracian was spoken even in Kaspian sea and minor Asia as historians say

Tios Bakchos (Phrygian Thracian) become Θεος compined with Dios, and Bog
Thracian Muca = tribe Scottish Mac = clan Slavic Muscι Μuscarat = man Iran Muka =son
bekos = food Bread goes peka pekara in Slavic
mezena horseman exists only in Albanian Romanian
ostas river water Bulgarian uostije
saldas gold Slavic Zalta Zlata
as you see you can not put Thracian in modern, or connected with just one group,
they are even connected with Avestan Homeric and Indian
 
When people realize that Slavic is lingustic group and that there was no "Slavic tribe" conquering most of Europe in 100 years without proves whatsoever it will be easier for them to distinguish certain things.

Do you actually know what I2a-CTS10228 is ? Plus, I did not mention Slavic tribe in my post...
 
Do you actually know what I2a-CTS10228 is ? Plus, I did not mention Slavic tribe in my post...
So what did you mentioned how did you explain the developments,I do know but go ahead tell me what you mean by I2a-CTS10228?
 
Last edited:
So what did you mentioned how did you explain the developments,I do know but go ahead tell me what you mean by I2a-CTS10228?

I2a-CTS10228 is:
- haplogroup found in Eastern Europe only (if we exclude modern day migrations)
- haplogroup which has highest frequency in the Balkans compared to other haplogroups
- its older branches and closest relatives are found in Northern Europe only (NOT in the Balkans)
- closest ancient DNA haplogroups were found in Northern Europe only (NOT in the Balkans)
- frequency of this haplogroup in Italy can be neglected, and at the same time there is a great similarity in distribution of other haplogroups in Italy compared with Southeast Europe (E-V13, R1b-L23, J2, G2a)
- TMRCA of that haplogroup is estimated to be very young compared to other haplgroups in Southeast Europe

What I've learned is that when I write conclusions, they are rarely taken as they are. So maybe it is better if I leave it to you to make some conclusion based on the points from above.
 
I2a-CTS10228 is:
- haplogroup found in Eastern Europe only (if we exclude modern day migrations)
- haplogroup which has highest frequency in the Balkans compared to other haplogroups
- its older branches and closest relatives are found in Northern Europe only (NOT in the Balkans)
- closest ancient DNA haplogroups were found in Northern Europe only (NOT in the Balkans)
- frequency of this haplogroup in Italy can be neglected, and at the same time there is a great similarity in distribution of other haplogroups in Italy compared with Southeast Europe (E-V13, R1b-L23, J2, G2a)
- TMRCA of that haplogroup is estimated to be very young compared to other haplgroups in Southeast Europe

What I've learned is that when I write conclusions, they are rarely taken as they are. So maybe it is better if I leave it to you to make some conclusion based on the points from above.
Haplogroup found among Slavic countries we can say,can be connected with Slavs.
The Dinaric region where this haplogroup is the most frequent comprises some of the most impenetrable regions in Europe,Italy has nothing to do with this haplogroup to me it's not weird if it's not present there,Most recent common ancestor doesn't prove anything to the contrary.
If we exclude all this even the haplogroup itself,again many historical,archeological,linguistical questions aren't answered which were "mistakes" from the past,Romaniticism times later Communist made even bigger mess which yet affect scholarly,because someone push without proves whatsoever to be father of the "Slavs" regardless up until 10th century we have no knowledge was there spoken Slavic at all or was they learning from the OCS how to speak.
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 154664 times.

Back
Top