Slavic homeland and ethnogenesis

So according to you and what you are trying to convince me is that some Slavs emerged and Slavicized the warlike Thraco-Illyrians the warlike Scytho-Sarmatians,the warlike Goths,expelled the Germans from elsewhere,how can this theory hold?


Well, I can tell you that you haven't read my posts. I have argued that Germanic-speaking peoples in particular were absorbed (somebody else might say, "acultured") by the early Slavic speakers. Which is precisely what we see in the linguistic perspective, because the Slavic languages have multiple strata of Germanic loanwords, especially relating to the semantic fields of agriculture, pastoralism and trade. This, in my opinion, does not show that the contact with between the Germanic and Slavic speakers was a particularly warlike one. I should also remind you that by the time of the Migration Period (which according to you never happened, apparently), the Balkans was already heavily romanized and the "warlike tribes" that you refer to were at that point long-since defeated (a cynic might say, 'pacified') and latinized (and hellenized in the case of Thrace).


especialy if not only archeology doesn't agree with this,but now even genetics and all other fields,Akkadian and Sumerians borrowed from eachother languages,not that Sumerians went extinct,their alphabet were used,in north Africa there is people that keep their languages,as well their faith,not to mention how brutal were the Muslim Arab conquests,same goes for Anatolia and the Muslim Turkish conquest,appart from that Turkish has heavy borrowings from Persian and Arabic,all this people were overhelemed and conquered,which base on genetics and archeology we doesn't find in South east Europe,


Archaeology does not actually disagree with me: I should add, there's another, more recent example precisely from the Danube region: Hungarian. Hungarian is an Uralic language, actually most closely related with Uralic languages spoken near the Ural mountains (Khanty and Mansy), and inside Uralic it is not closely related with the Finnic languages. Further, there is no evidence for Uralic languages to have been spoken in Central Europe (Alinei, again, thinks otherwise, he believes that Etruscan was early Hungarian, which, bluntly, Uralicists find hair-raising). If I pick up your idea, its completely unthinkable that an Uralic language would emplace itself in the middle of the Pannonian basin, which is precisely what happened historically (from the 9th century onward). Is it really so completely unthinkable for you that the Slavs could have done the same a couple of centuries earlier? Why is language change and language replacement so utterly unthinkable when it is the norm in history?


if Romanians speak Romance doesn't tell as a lot,Latin being official as well soldiers spoke it and many others cause was lingua franca,also they keep many Slavic words,arround 20% of it's vocabulary if im not mistaken,


Romanians aren't the only one, there is an entirely family of Romance languages (French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian...), which took the place of the plethora of pre-Roman languages that went extinct (Celtiberian, Gaulish, Osco-Umbrian languages, Etruscan, to name but a few). I find it presumptuous that this pattern would be different on the Balkans.


Albanian origin is disputed,regardless you are pointing here otherwise.


What is disputed is which of the Paleo-Balkan languages was the ancestor of Albanian (because all of them are poorly attested), but the general consensus is that Albanian borrowed heavily from Latin (as well as ancient Greek, to a lesser extend).
 
Where did I say that R1a or Polish nationality is more Slavic?!!!
Because you said that bosnia is more right like being more Slavic of them all,so i ask kind question,by what we determine who is more Slavic than other to you?
 
Taranis said:
I have argued that Germanic-speaking peoples in particular were absorbed (somebody else might say, "acultured") by the early Slavic speakers. Which is precisely what we see in the linguistic perspective, because the Slavic languages have multiple strata of Germanic loanwords, especially relating to the semantic fields of agriculture, pastoralism and trade. This, in my opinion, does not show that the contact with between the Germanic and Slavic speakers was a particularly warlike one.

There is one problem with this theory in archaeological record, though - namely the lack of archaeological record. Entire area to the east of the Elbe River looks like it was totally depopulated shortly before history started to see Slavic tribes living there. There are only very few archaeological findings. So we have "Invisible pre-Slavic substrate". Of course one possibility is that the population vastly declined but that the number of immigrants was also not high. There is actually a similar problem in pre-Anglo-Saxon Britain - look up "Invisible Britons". There is an archaeological gap there too.
 
Well, I can tell you that you haven't read my posts. I have argued that Germanic-speaking peoples in particular were absorbed (somebody else might say, "acultured") by the early Slavic speakers. Which is precisely what we see in the linguistic perspective, because the Slavic languages have multiple strata of Germanic loanwords, especially relating to the semantic fields of agriculture, pastoralism and trade. This, in my opinion, does not show that the contact with between the Germanic and Slavic speakers was a particularly warlike one. I should also remind you that by the time of the Migration Period (which according to you never happened, apparently), the Balkans was already heavily romanized and the "warlike tribes" that you refer to were at that point long-since defeated (a cynic might say, 'pacified') and latinized (and hellenized in the case of Thrace).





Archaeology does not actually disagree with me: I should add, there's another, more recent example precisely from the Danube region: Hungarian. Hungarian is an Uralic language, actually most closely related with Uralic languages spoken near the Ural mountains (Khanty and Mansy), and inside Uralic it is not closely related with the Finnic languages. Further, there is no evidence for Uralic languages to have been spoken in Central Europe (Alinei, again, thinks otherwise, he believes that Etruscan was early Hungarian, which, bluntly, Uralicists find hair-raising). If I pick up your idea, its completely unthinkable that an Uralic language would emplace itself in the middle of the Pannonian basin, which is precisely what happened historically (from the 9th century onward). Is it really so completely unthinkable for you that the Slavs could have done the same a couple of centuries earlier? Why is language change and language replacement so utterly unthinkable when it is the norm in history?





Romanians aren't the only one, there is an entirely family of Romance languages (French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian...), which took the place of the plethora of pre-Roman languages that went extinct (Celtiberian, Gaulish, Osco-Umbrian languages, Etruscan, to name but a few). I find it presumptuous that this pattern would be different on the Balkans.





What is disputed is which of the Paleo-Balkan languages was the ancestor of Albanian (because all of them are poorly attested), but the general consensus is that Albanian borrowed heavily from Latin (as well as ancient Greek, to a lesser extend).
Latinizied and Hellenized that idea is bit doubtfull,but many were in fact Roman allies of those people and some helped that empire to be established,we had many of them emperors of Thraco-Illyrian origin,while others didn't submit to the Romans,some even migrated North,just one being Constantine the Great,Europe had the Roman Christianity thanks to him lol Well if is not weird to you Albanian to have survived on the Balkans,why should be weird some other to have survived whatever that language might be.
 
Not only archaeology indicates depopulation, but also palynology does - it shows decline in farming activity:

For example this palynological data from West-Central Poland: http://s1.postimg.org/3y6b88zov/Lednica.png

It actually shows not one, but two depopulations - the first one before Ancient Germanic expansion:

Lednica.png


Lusatian Culture was not Germanic, while according to many scholars Przeworsk Culture were Vandals.
 
Because you said that bosnia is more right like being more Slavic of them all,so i ask kind question,by what we determine who is more Slavic than other to you?
And in what way Bosnia is high in R1a and Polish nationality?!!!

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Милан М.

By what token we declare one being more Slavic over other?by R1a haplogroup or one being from Poland?.

I'm sorry to say that but I have doubts in your ability to understand and follow logical consequences. Now I understand why you started this thread and think it makes sense.

To be clear on Bosnia plotting more Eastern than the rest of Balkans. This might point to higher Slavic admixture. More genetic material brought by Slavs who came from North-East.
 
There is one problem with this theory in archaeological record, though - namely the lack of archaeological record. Entire area to the east of the Elbe River looks like it was totally depopulated shortly before history started to see Slavic tribes living there. There are only very few archaeological findings. So we have "Invisible pre-Slavic substrate". Of course one possibility is that the population vastly declined but that the number of immigrants was also not high. There is actually a similar problem in pre-Anglo-Saxon Britain - look up "Invisible Britons". There is an archaeological gap there too.
Some archaeologist estimate that only 10% of population remain in place during depopulation period. Though, I don't remember what they said about proportion of new comers to locals at the time of migration. I think population count remained rather low till medieval warm period, when density increased, thanks to which, first slavic states appeared in central Europe.
 
Not only archaeology indicates depopulation, but also palynology does - it shows decline in farming activity:

For example this palynological data from West-Central Poland: http://s1.postimg.org/3y6b88zov/Lednica.png

It actually shows not one, but two depopulations - the first one before Ancient Germanic expansion:

Lednica.png


Lusatian Culture was not Germanic, while according to many scholars Przeworsk Culture were Vandals.

In the area of Holstein (Eastern part of which was inhabited by Slavic Obodrites and Slavic Wagrians during the Early Middle Ages - only western part of Holstein was inhabited by Germanic Saxons at that time) palynological data also indicates significant depopulation during the 500s:

Schleswig_Holstein.png


And Schleswig was the area from which large part of Anglo-Saxons emigrated to Britain during that time.

So depopulation is confirmed also by historical accounts which say about Anglo-Saxon-Jute emigration.

They emigrated and left the land empty. Later Danes from the north and Slavs from the east occupied it.
 
Latinizied and Hellenized that idea is bit doubtfull,but many were in fact Roman allies of those people and some helped that empire to be established,we had many of them emperors of Thraco-Illyrian origin,while others didn't submit to the Romans,some even migrated North,just one being Constantine the Great,Europe had the Roman Christianity thanks to him lol Well if is not weird to you Albanian to have survived on the Balkans,why should be weird some other to have survived whatever that language might be.
So we have Thraco-Illyrian emperors from Balkans, but there was never a Slavic one? Suspicious!
 
We see this depopulation everywhere around Baltic Sea in 6th century.
Everywhere but Finland to be precise.
 
And in what way Bosnia is high in R1a and Polish nationality?!!!



I'm sorry to say that but I have doubts in your ability to understand and follow logical consequences. Now I understand why you started this thread and think it makes sense.

To be clear on Bosnia plotting more Eastern than the rest of Balkans. This might point to higher Slavic admixture. More genetic material brought by Slavs who came from North-East.
How can one understand people that doesn't understand how to separate language from genetics.
 
So we have Thraco-Illyrian emperors from Balkans, but there was never a Slavic one? Suspicious!
Yes indeed imagine that,they were Roman emperors but from Thraco-Illyrian origin,one should even study identity transformation,need recomendation?
 
And in what way Bosnia is high in R1a and Polish nationality?!!!



I'm sorry to say that but I have doubts in your ability to understand and follow logical consequences. Now I understand why you started this thread and think it makes sense.

To be clear on Bosnia plotting more Eastern than the rest of Balkans. This might point to higher Slavic admixture. More genetic material brought by Slavs who came from North-East.
You can anyway delete this thread,do me a favor.
 
Latinizied and Hellenized that idea is bit doubtfull,

You know, the French might have a word with you. Why should the situation on the Balkans have been any different from the situation in Gaul?

but many were in fact Roman allies of those people and some helped that empire to be established,we had many of them emperors of Thraco-Illyrian origin,while others didn't submit to the Romans,some even migrated North,just one being Constantine the Great,Europe had the Roman Christianity thanks to him lol

Isn't it a little weird that for you these "Thraco-Illyrians" were the disseminators of Christianity? :wary2:

Well if is not weird to you Albanian to have survived on the Balkans,why should be weird some other to have survived whatever that language might be.

We've been there before: Proto-Slavic did not evolve inside the boundaries of the Roman Empire. Proto-Slavic did not evolve from Thracian (nor any one of the Illyrian languages, certainly not from Liburnian, which definitely was a Centum language more closely tied with the Italic languages). The reason I brought up Albanian is precisely because based on its internal evidence, it matches up with a language that survived inside the borders of the Roman empire (Proto-Slavic, in contrast, doesn't match). Thrace was incorporated into the Roman Empire around the 1st century AD, and it was inherited as a part of the Byzantine Empire until the Bulgars wrestled it away. The Bulgars, it should be added, were originally a Turkic people (there's still a related Turkic ethnic group, the Balkars, living in the northern Caucasus) that got Slavicized during Christianization. At that point I should probably mention that Proto-Slavic also borrowed from Turkic languages, and speakers of Turkic languages decisively did not enter Europe until the Migration Period.

You can anyway delete this thread,do me a favor.

We don't do that.
 
We see this depopulation everywhere around Baltic Sea in 6th century.
Everywhere but Finland to be precise.

Is there any good study about this ???

Ideally one with a map showing estimated level of depopulation in each area?
 
You know, the French might have a word with you. Why should the situation on the Balkans have been any different from the situation in Gaul?



Isn't it a little weird that for you these "Thraco-Illyrians" were the disseminators of Christianity? :wary2:



We've been there before: Proto-Slavic did not evolve inside the boundaries of the Roman Empire. Proto-Slavic did not evolve from Thracian (nor any one of the Illyrian languages, certainly not from Liburnian, which definitely was a Centum language more closely tied with the Italic languages). The reason I brought up Albanian is precisely because based on its internal evidence, it matches up with a language that survived inside the borders of the Roman empire (Proto-Slavic, in contrast, doesn't match). Thrace was incorporated into the Roman Empire around the 1st century AD, and it was inherited as a part of the Byzantine Empire until the Bulgars wrestled it away. The Bulgars, it should be added, were originally a Turkic people (there's still a related Turkic ethnic group, the Balkars, living in the northern Caucasus) that got Slavicized during Christianization. At that point I should probably mention that Proto-Slavic also borrowed from Turkic languages, and speakers of Turkic languages decisively did not enter Europe until the Migration Period.



We don't do that.
I do agree on that,i also ask myself that question,what would be the difference between Iberian peninsula,Gaul and the Balkans when it comes to language and the Roman empire,i should first give my opinion on the migration cause you say i deny it, i just think it is inappropriate term to use,will quote Curta on this;Modern studies have shown that migration is a structured aspect of human behavior, involving a more or less permanent change of residence. Historians, however, generally treat migration as chaotic and inherently not explicable through general principles. Recent formulations of migration as a structured behavior have established that migrations are performed by defined subgroups (often kin-recruited) with specific goals, targeted on known destinations and likely to use familiar routes. Most migratory streams develop a counterstream moving back to the migrants’ place of origin.The problem with applying this concept of migration to the sixth- and seventh-century Slavs is that there is no pattern of an unique, continuous, and sudden invasion. Moreover, until the siege of Thessalonica during Heraclius early regnal years, there is no evidence at all for outward migration, in the sense of a permanent change of residence.They (Emperors) were disseminators of Christianity cause the empire would have fallen appart back then.
Let's go back what happened in the Balkans,in every "invasion" happened similar things,when Slavs took over the Balkans Romance speakers at begining went in mountains or took refugee somewhere mostly at least in areas Slavs dominated,Albanian appeared later mostly doing the same,they avoided Slavicisation with this,parts of Greece was Slavizied and Hellenized again,we have the Ottoman conquest then Slavs mostly went in the mountains,villages and many migrated out,become the Hussars with the Hungarians,Hungary was conquered,later they went in Poland,being at Vienna gates later all together,Austro-Hungary was putting them at the border with Ottomans there was yet migrations out,some reaching Russia,while mostly people that converted to Islam were land owners and had more privilegies according to Muslim law,Albanians converted the most and the region of Bosnia the latest stronghold of Bogomils they despised the official church because of persecution against them therefore the most easy converted to Islam,some maybe does for personal gains,most military in the Balkans were natives themselves only Islamized either taken as children or else like (Janissaries) some people organized in bands were raiding making their living,but still was perhaps coexistance,Montenegrins and other "impenetrable" regions never submited to the Ottomans,division often being religious and political,if from this we can make some comparison for which i doubt then ok ,i never said that Slavic developed in the Roman empire or within the Balkan,predates the Roman empire however and we study Proto-Slavic,i guess cognates should be found among all Slavic language,if you choose South Slavic or dialects let's say some Slavic Macedonian or Bulgarian dialect and forget about rest Slavic languages you will have same opinion the one you have about Albanian,Albanian is language isolate some considered to have formed in present day Romania merging with Latin speaking people,Slavic span is much bigger,don't get me wrong i neither propose anyone to be "tied" to Balkans which was often the research more anachronistic will not be afraid to say politicaly motivated specialy in 19th century,however we never had problems with it,will just put some words with Greek which not necesesarily are all Greek,plus i don't have the dialects in front of me,will only put words which i have heard of;

Slav (kinisa) Anc.Greek(kinisa) Eng(move, start, arouse)
Slav (odi) Homeric (oudos) Eng(threshold road, path, way) common Slavic (hodu)
Slav (oro) Greek (horo) This however is the most important South East Europe dance especialy to Slavic peoples,perhaps Romanians or Aromanians too,most probably originate from ritual dances,depicting is found in Samothrace where most important temples had been dated from 4 B.C.
Slav(drum) Anc.Greek (dromos) Eng (roadway, road, street, way)
Slav(magdonos) Ancient Greek (μακεδονήσι) Armenian(maladanos) Eng(parsley) compare Mygdones Thracian tribe,reffered as Macedonian herb.
Slav-storm(bura) Anc.Greek-north wind(boreas)
Slav(kokala)Anc.Greek(kokkalos) Eng(bone)
Slav(kit) Anc.Greek(ketos)Old Armenian(kēt) Eng(whale) common Slavic (kit)
Slav(kamata)Anc.Greek(kamatos)Eng(finance-interest)
Slav(dodola) compare Anc.Greek(dodona) Boettian(doedala)some of oldest sanctuary,also ritual Dodola performed by South Slavs and Romanians.
Slav(lamnja)Anc.Greek(lamia)faboulous monster in mythology that eat man flash.
Slav(korab)Anc.Greek(karabos) Eng(ship,vessel) found in Russian and Polish too.
Slav-payment(plata)Anc.Greek-wealth(ploutos)
Slav(hiljada) Anc.Greek(khiliados) Eng(thousand)
Slav(komad) Anc.Greek(kommation) Eng(piece,part)
Slav(klisura) Anc.Greek (kleisoúra) Eng(narrow pass, defile)
Slav (blato) Greek (valto) Eng(mud)
Slav(talas) Anc.Greek(thalassa)
Slav(tetratka) Anc.Greek(tetradion) Eng(notebook)
lipsvam "to miss" - λειπω (lipo) "to miss"
kato "like, as" - καθως (kathos) "like, as"
hora "people" - χωρα (hora) "country"
haresvam "to like" - αρεσω (areso) "to like"
 
Last edited:
@Milan
are all these words in all slavic dialects?
do we know the first date of their apparition in languages?
do we know the direction of flow?
some of these words are cognates
it's of some weight in historic linguistic - fauna, flora, degree of culture and politic organization have an imput upon loanwords
 
So we have Thraco-Illyrian emperors from Balkans, but there was never a Slavic one? Suspicious!
Don't know whether anyone was using the Slav in self designation i never noticed.Basil who found the Macedonian dynasty of Roman(Byzantine) empire maybe Armenian or Armeno-Slavonic or Slavonic speakers was simple using "Basil the Macedonian" due to the region(theme) he is coming from,did he come from theme of Thrace he could be Thracian?some regents of Slavonic speaking families were just simple Romans,patriarch Nikita was Roman although of Slavonic ancestry,Cyril and Methodius were Romans too but spoke Slavonic how weird,Thomas was not called anything but Thomas being Roman and working on it's politics,so he must be one,does we mix Roman political organizations,post and present day ethnicities a bit?i guess we does,don't know how you look on the ethnic?stem Slav or how shape shifted it's meaning in your lands,but you must be wrong,although i can much better explain our self-named словѣ́ньскъ ѩзꙑ́къ, slověnĭskŭ językŭ and the stem Sloven instead.
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 157205 times.

Back
Top