G (including G2a), E1b, T1, H2, J (including J2) were haplogroups which came to Europe from the Near East with first Neolithic farmers. And those Neolithic farmers did not speak Indo-European languages. They spoke Non-IE languages related to those mentioned above.
So your hypothesis is incorrect.
Prove with genetics
White Serbia is not mentioned anywhere
Prove with genetics
Prove with genetics
Prove with genetics
You can not prove
Can you give me archeological,linguistic,genetic and written sources prove,how supposedly happened the migration in the 6th century according to you?It must be noted that TMRCA is not the same as migration time.
TMRCA shows when the number of people with a given mutation started to rise in numbers.
They could be initially increasing in numbers in one region, without migrating to other areas yet.
So claiming that I2a-Din didn't come with Slavs because it's TMRCA precedes the Slavic migration by some centuries, is erroneuous.
It actually SHOULD precede the Slavic migration. Because if it didn't, then that would mean that only ONE Slavic person with I2a-Din came.
And that was most likely not the case. I2a-Din increased in numbers to some thousands individuals, and only then started to migrate.
=======================================
BTW - check my thread on prehistoric distribution of Y-DNA haplogroups in Europe:
Page 8 (R1a versus R1b maps):
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...arly-Iron-Age-Y-DNA-landscape-of-Europe/page8
Page 1 (maps of all haplogroups):
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...thic-Early-Iron-Age-Y-DNA-landscape-of-Europe
Are you serious Dude?!!! There are multiple Roman and Byzantine documents about Slavic invasion of their terrorists. We have archaeological material change after 5th century all over the area, consistent with the timing of Slav invasion. We have geographical name changes in the area occupied by Slavs.Can you give me archeological,linguistic,genetic and written sources prove,how supposedly happened the migration in the 6th century according to you?
If we believe Herodotus then the Androphagi and the Budini were some remnant groups of hunter-gatherers.
I'm not sure about the Androphagi (what did Herodotus write about them?), but I remember that he described the Budini as foragers.
So they probably spoke some sort of Old European. Or they could be those Finno-Ugrians who still had not switched to farming.
Are you serious Dude?!!! There are multiple Roman and Byzantine documents about Slavic invasion of their terrorists. We have archaeological material change after 5th century all over the area, consistent with the timing of Slav invasion. We have geographical name changes in the area occupied by Slavs.
Do you have a problem finding the information, or you are subscribing to the idea that Slavs always lived in Balkans?
I am serious,migration theory of Slavs is a theory however not a fact,with politicized agendas,like which archaeological prove?demographic collapse in the peninsula, abandonment rather then mass migration?material culture has changed in the coin struck for Constantinople people were free from that matter rather they created their own respective economies and rulling class,the Sclavenes emerge cause of the starving and abandonment of the same population in the region because of imperial policies,could survive like marauders quite better,military conquest or re-conquest by a group of people,but mass migration seem unlikely,after all Romans were nothing but invaders in the Balkans,I can find you many Slavic names of cities in the Balkans since B.C era written in Greek,all call the cities in their respective languages,if the Greeks write for them they are hellenized and opposite,after 19th century there was major toponym change in non Slavic countries of Slavic origin the same way and you can't write in sence of Slav invasion,cause Slav is new western term with tottaly different meaning nowadays then when Romans were writing at that time about Sclavenes,Scyths,Getae etc raids.Are you serious Dude?!!! There are multiple Roman and Byzantine documents about Slavic invasion of their terrorists. We have archaeological material change after 5th century all over the area, consistent with the timing of Slav invasion. We have geographical name changes in the area occupied by Slavs.
Do you have a problem finding the information, or you are subscribing to the idea that Slavs always lived in Balkans?
I am serious,maybe you are not aware but couple scholars emerge lately which quite demolished the national romanticism and communists myths of Slavic origin created by unscientific people with politicized agendas,like which archaeological prove?demographic collapse in the peninsula, abandonment rather then mass migration?material culture has changed in the coin struck for Constantinople people were free from that matter rather they created their own respective economies and rulling class,the Sclavenes emerge cause of the starving and abandonment of the same population in the region because of imperial policies,could survive like marauders quite better,after all Romans were nothing but invaders in the Balkans, century there was major toponym change in non Slavic countries of Slavic origin the same way and you can't write in sence of Slav invasion,cause Slav is new western term with tottaly different meaning nowadays then when Romans were writing at that time about Sclavenes,Scyths,Getae etc raids.
On this base you can go through Indian maps and find some names that could potentially sound Slavic. Unless these names in Balkans are confirmed to be Slavic by professional linguists, and few of them, forgive me but I will take it as a figment of your imagination. You know that extraordinary ideas need extraordinary proofs.I can find you many Slavic names of cities in the Balkans since B.C era written in Greek,all call the cities in their respective languages,if the Greeks write for them they are hellenized and opposite,after 19th
Oh, raids, so they were invaders into Balkans. Where did they come from then?then when Romans were writing at that time about Sclavenes,Scyths,Getae etc raids
The part of problem is in opinions that haplogroup R1a is equated with the Slavs. Scientific sources tell us that R1a came to the Balkans much much before Slavs. And some forum members wrote about it. After all Thracians, Getae, Dacians, Scytians, Sarmatians etc., among other, were R1a carriers.
We can find several group of different opinions:
1. R1a were in the Balkans long before Slavs, Slavs who came to the Balkans were I2a carriers
2. I2a were in the Balkans long before Slavs, Slavs who came to the Balkans were R1a carriers
3. Both R1a and I2a were in the Balkans long before Slavs, Slavs who came to the Balkans were both R1a and I2a carriers (and other) but they didn't contribute much to the change of haplogroups.
4. Both R1a and I2a were not in the Balkans before Slavs.
Sometimes, the choice of one of the options is due to putting on own side. For example, some Albanian members tell that R1a didn't exist in the Balkans before Slavs, but these are no facts.
And today we can see all Balkan countries have significant R1a, and nonSlavic, for example Greece 11,5% and Albania too: Albania 9%.
I think, when we have identified haplogroups in the Balkans from different epochs things will be clearer.
First of all let's clear with the word "Slav" itself which is a term with a heavily politicized connotations,I would recommend you a book "Making of the Slavs" by Curta he explains good what the Authors meant by Sclaveni or Sklabenoi-original Greek,what become later and what is the meaning of Sloven to the very Slavs,they aren't same neither have the same meaning although many think they are,but i can try to explain what to the very Sloveni speaking group the word Sloveni mean,The word "Slav" is ultimately corrupted form of Sloveni which is what the Slavic tribes called the literate members of their communities.However the two terms are not synonymous,Slav is proper noun representing an ethnicity.Sloveni is a descriptive noun that is a relational term,it equates itself to an imagined or real kinship by way of linguistic and or writing similarities between at least two different populations.In other words Russian cannot be Sloven by oneself,Russian and Serbian can be Sloveni because they both speak a similar tongue and or write with the same script.In fact,the very word Sloveni come from the Slavic word "Slovo" meaning word,thus people who call themselves Sloveni were people who could mutually understand eachother to a degree,just like Westerners were "Nemtsi" meaning deaf man, the one who can't talk,who is on mute, especially Germans,Structural linguistic show that if two words do not carry the same meaning,they cannot be cognates,such as in the case between "Slavs" and Sloveni,especially if we know the background of the word Slav itself should be banned from historical usage cause is derogatory and has confused meaning in historical usage.Wait a minute. Romans and Greeks dominated Balkans for hundreds of years and they missed Slavs living there? We have some words written in Dacian and Thracian but somehow Slavic was totally missed. That's weird.
Now comes Milan, an amateur historian, and tells us to ignore all the ancient and current historians and ancient records and trust him (you) and his hypothesis on this subject?! I hope you realize how ridiculous your statement is!
On this base you can go through Indian maps and find some names that could potentially sound Slavic. Unless these names in Balkans are confirmed to be Slavic by professional linguists, and few of them, forgive me but I will take it as a figment of your imagination. You know that extraordinary ideas need extraordinary proofs.
Oh, raids, so they were invaders into Balkans. Where did they come from then?
I have ask a kind question but after all you don't have answer,it seems you are ridiculous,having in mind that Slavic homeland wasn't find,Slavic urheimat wasn't solved,Balkan sprachbund also,just obsolote hypothesis.Romans and Greeks "dominated" Balkans for hundreds years,Romans conquered Balkans with Greek help to a degree,but it was Latin language that dominated and was lingua franca and state language,Roman empire was multi ethnic,we had Illyrian,Thracian,Syrian emperors but all wrote in Latin.Thracian language show striking similarities with Baltic and Slavic, so negative.Therefore i want to learn from non amateur historians like you,I just represent a theory of Oleg Trubachev doctor in philology,he was an academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences.His works are on the etymology of Slavic languages and on East Slavic onomastics,also B.A Rybakov,currently Florin Curta,Mario Alinei, Kopitar sought the Proto-Slavic homeland on the Danube and in Pannonia; Niederle admitted the existence of Slavic enclaves in Thracia and in Illyiria already at the beginning of our era,all ignorants they all maintained Danube basin and that "Sloveni" speaking group were always there,that's why we have Thracian problem,Slavic "homeland" problem,what is next Getae are from Scandinavian Goths,while they were Thracians,i was not aware that Scandinavians were in the Balkans since B.C era but from 19th century they become due to "Gothicism"“Wait a minute. Romans and Greeks dominated Balkans for hundreds of years and they missed Slavs living there? We have some words written in Dacian and Thracian but somehow Slavic was totally missed. That's weird.
Now comes Milan, an amateur historian, and tells us to ignore all the ancient and current historians and ancient records and trust him (you) and his hypothesis on this subject?! I hope you realize how ridiculous your statement is!
On this base you can go through Indian maps and find some names that could potentially sound Slavic. Unless these names in Balkans are confirmed to be Slavic by professional linguists, and few of them, forgive me but I will take it as a figment of your imagination. You know that extraordinary ideas need extraordinary proofs.
Oh, raids, so they were invaders into Balkans. Where did they come from then?
That's how I see the roots for Slovianie/Slovene, too.tongue and or write with the same script.In fact,the very word Sloveni come from the Slavic word "Slovo" meaning word,thus people who call themselves Sloveni were people who could mutually understand eachother to a degree,just like Westerners were "Nemtsi" meaning deaf man, the one who can't talk,who is on mute, especially Germans,Structural linguistic show that if two words do not carry the same meaning
Derogatory? You have some issues dude.,they cannot be cognates,such as in the case between "Slavs" and Sloveni,especially if we know the background of the word Slav itself should be banned from historical usage cause is deregatory and has confused meaning in historical usage.
I can't believe that it is so hard for you to realize, that what you are saying is what you wish for, and has nothing to do with science trying to decipher where Slavic Homeland was. You are a Croat and a Slav, isn't it romantic, and feels good, if Slavic Homeland was always in the same area. It would mean that Slavs are indigenous to this area, that your ancestors always spoke the language and your genetic was always Slavic. How convenient and romantic for you. I'm sure that these cozy feelings are clouding your judgment.I have ask a kind question but after all you don't have answer,it seems you are ridiculous,having in mind that Slavic homeland wasn't find,Slavic urheimat wasn't solved,Balkan sprachbund also,just obsolote hypothesis.Romans and Greeks "dominated" Balkans for hundreds years,Romans conquered Balkans with Greek help to a degree,but it was Latin language that dominated and was lingua franca and state language,Roman empire was multi ethnic,we had Illyrian,Thracian,Syrian emperors but all wrote in Latin.Thracian language show striking similarities with Baltic and Slavic, so negative.Therefore i want to learn from non amateur historians like you,I just represent a theory of Oleg Trubachev doctor in philology,he was an academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences.His works are on the etymology of Slavic languages and on East Slavic onomastics,also B.A Rybakov,currently Florin Curta,Mario Alinei, Kopitar sought the Proto-Slavic homeland on the Danube and in Pannonia; Niederle admitted the existence of Slavic enclaves in Thracia and in Illyiria already at the beginning of our era,all ignorants they all maintained Danube basin and that "Sloveni" speaking group were always there,that's why we have Thracian problem,Slavic "homeland" problem,what is next Getae are from Scandinavian Goths,while they were Thracians,i was not aware that Scandinavians were in the Balkans since B.C era but from 19th century they become due to "Gothicism"“
As for the Getae, that is to say the herds of Sclavenes, they were fiercely ravaging the regions of Thrace-Theophylact Simocatta
All these above happened at the end of Roman Empire, when the first information about Slavs are written. There is no mention before these times. It means they came from somewhere, and this somewhere wasn't in Balkans.also Gothic (Germanic language) was lingua franca in the Hun empire but wierd from three words that historians wrote from there all are Slavic:medos: a beverage from honey that was offered to them,they celebrated "strava-Slavic funeral ritual on Attila dead,then this Gothic must be Slavic or not? first "Slavic" infiltration was in the 6th century only perhaps,as for the raids they had many collaborators within the empire and tribes attested by names which created so called Sclavinia which none wrote for their "migration" but simple just living there,Sclavinia was something like Enclava,Romans later Byzantines,they were nearly bankrupt which affect their own citizens making them to look within other circles for survival,but we can intepret things how we like,therefore some historical non sense will stay as they are while claiming it is 'scientificaly proven"
That's how I see the roots for Slovianie/Slovene, too.
I'm not against calling anyone by a name of his choosing, or in his native language. If it is a wish of most Slavs to be called Slovanie or Slovo, I'm for it. However I would be shocked if all Slavs can agree on one spelling and pronunciation.