Page 2 of 151 FirstFirst 12341252102 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 1504

Thread: The origin of the Slavs

  1. #11
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,148
    Sex

    If not for the Baltic hydronyms the homeland of the Slavs in Belarus would have been settled a long time ago. Two problems I can see with Baltic hydronyms in Belarus as the evidence against Slavic homeland.

    1. Hydronyms cannot be dated.
    2. Linguists reconstruct the words in analysing hydronyms. If one starts to reconstruct any Slavic word applying rules of phonetic changes he or she will likely to arrive to the Baltic root.

    PS. The region to which Shchukin pointed recently was found to have lots of R1a dated 4,000-6,000 ybp.

  2. #12
    Registered Users
    Posts
    610
    Sex
    Y-DNA
    I2a1b2a1b (A6105)
    mtDNA
    U5a1b3

    Canada Ukraine
    "Shchukin proposed that homeland of the Slavs could have been in what is present-day northern, central and eastern Belarus , as well as adjacent region of western Russia."

    Rather present-day north-central Ukraine and southeastern Belarus basically. With the Kyivan culture so called (ca. 200-450 AD) as its first distinct archaeological expression. Cf. pp. 25-26 of the text to which you've provided a link.

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to George For This Useful Post:

     Coldmountains (07-21-2015), Jean M (07-21-2015)

  4. #13
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,148
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by George View Post
    "Shchukin proposed that homeland of the Slavs could have been in what is present-day northern, central and eastern Belarus , as well as adjacent region of western Russia."

    Rather present-day north-central Ukraine and southeastern Belarus basically. With the Kyivan culture so called (ca. 200-450 AD) as its first distinct archaeological expression. Cf. pp. 25-26 of the text to which you've provided a link.
    In the final perspective he considers Stroke-ceramic, dniepro-dvinsk and Tushmlinsk archaeological cultures, which are in central, northern, eastern Belarus and adjacent western Russia (western Smolensk & southern Pskov). Shchukin does not place Slavic home-land in Ukraine.

    Shchukin writes:
    Если все это так, то носители культуры штрихованой керамики, Днепро-Двинской и тушемлинской культур суть какие-то иные балты, отличающиеся по своим психологическим установкам и, соответственно, по структуре культуры, от своих более западных сородичей. Поэтому и возникает, вероятно, тенденция называть их не столько восточными, сколько Приднепровскими балтами, особой группой.
    А не могла ли эта группа быть не столько балтской, сколько балто-славянской? По отношению к топонимам Верхнего Поднепровья такую трактовку уже предлагал Г.Бирнбаум (Birnbaum 1973). Если балто-славянский континуум, как полагают некоторые лингвисты, действительно имел место, то это позволяет достаточно легко преодолеть тот балтский барьер, о который спотыкался И.Вернер.
    Требуется, однако, конкретизация протекавших исторических и этнических процессов и их археологического отражения, историко-археологическая их реконструкция по всей Восточной и Центральной Европе, доступная на современном уровне знаний. Иначе и этнический аспект вряд ли может быть понят.
    Last edited by Volat; 07-21-2015 at 04:14 AM.

  5. #14
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,148
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by George View Post
    Both texts are in Russian. But Nosevych has many excellent accompanying maps and drawings which are basically understandable on their own.

    Both scholars favour a late emergence of Slavdom. In Nosevych btw, node 175 is just the introductory page. Scroll down and click on the link to the right at the bottom to proceed node by node.

    Nosevitch is a respected scholar. He published most his papers on history of Belarus of the last 1,000-1,200 years . He was also doing a lot modelling on population and demography of Paleolith. He is one of few old school professional historians who knows a great deal about population genomics in application to ethnogenesis of peoples. He wrote a good article on I2a-Din
    http://vln.by/node/262

    But he doesn't publish much on original homeland of the Slavs. I'd suggest Sedov's, Shchukin and Polish literature.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Volat For This Useful Post:

     Silesian (07-26-2015)

  7. #15
    Registered Users
    Posts
    610
    Sex
    Y-DNA
    I2a1b2a1b (A6105)
    mtDNA
    U5a1b3

    Canada Ukraine
    "In the final perspective he considers Stroke-ceramic, dniepro-dvinsk and Tushmlinsk archaeological cultures, which are in central, northern, eastern Belarus and adjacent western Russia (western Smolensk & southern Pskov). Shchukin does not place Slavic home-land in Ukraine."
    The subsequent quote from Schukin you give has nothing to do with the Slavic homeland, which is rather associated by him with the Kyivan culture. There, I've said it twice and won't be repeating myself any more. The cultures you have mentioned are those of the "Dnipro Balts", who were Slavonized at a later date.

  8. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by newtoboard View Post
    This entire post seems wrong.

    -Why invoke CT at all? Some gene flow into the steppe/forest steppe sure. But for all we know the autosomal signature of R1a was already present by 7000-4000 BC and is something like 80% Dnieper-Donets and 20% CT. It is clear the expansion of R1a into Central Asia is related to the invention of chariots and the creation of weaponry/metal working unheard of in the Yamanya period. And the most common lineage in Andronovo/Central Asian IE speakers (mt T) was already common in Dnieper Donets.

    -Yamnaya was never supposed to be early PIE. I have seen PIE dated to 4500 BC-4000 BC. I doubt it is even late PIE. PIE/Pre-PIE is better placed in Late Samara (R1b-M73+?), Sredny Stog (R1b-L23*?) and Dnieper Donets II/III (R1a-Z2645?). You are right that Yamnaya being the early source of IE and Indo-Europeanizing R1a is only your opinion. One that is wrong and the sort of biased, imaginary nonsense that is best restricted to a site like Eupedia.

    -Yamnaya looks Z2103 dominant. So in all likelhood Michal is right and Yamnaya-Afanasievo represents the speakers of the Balkan group of languages. Which is actually in line with the theories by numerous Finnish and Russian archeologists that Yamnaya represented the speakers of Greco(Balkan group)-Aryan(Indo-Iranian) with the forest steppe Abashevo group representing Indo-Iranian speakers as well. Only thing they were wrong on was that Indo-Iranian was restricted to the forest steppe rather than being split up between the forest steppe and Volga-Ural steppe (some Poltavka samples will obviously confirm this one way or the other).

    -It is unlikely R1b-L51 will be found in Yamnaya imo. But even if it is are you suggesting that Italo-Celtic-Germanic shared a node with the Balkan group so late in history. Unlikely. You are essentially suggesting there was no divergence between the Balkan group, the groups that led to Italo-Celtic and Germanic, Tocharian and three apparently Indo-Europeanized R1a groups (Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranian, Xiahhoe and possibly five or six if R1a-CTS4385, R1a-Z282-A and R1a-Z284 also spoke some extinct IE languages) between 3500-2800 BC. Unlikely. You might find some agreement with Jean here but I'll go with the linguists and archeologists who split up Iranian and Indo-Aryan by 2800-2500 BC.

    -Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic do not make a node. Never have, never will.I am sure some satemization arguments will follow. But that is rejected by most linguists. And it is clear that Satemization behaves differently in Indo-Iranian vs Slavic vs Baltic which confirms the areal nature of this feature that R1b guys are fixated on.

    -I think R1b is an EHG marker but we wil likely need some confirmation now that we know the Samara R1b EHG was M73+(although to be fair R1a will need some confirmation too given the Karelia guy belongs to R1a-M459). Michal's SE Caspian origin of R1b-M269 (in line with the distribution of M269(xL23) in Western Central Asia?) might be well and alive.
    The ringe et al phylogeny has nothing to do with Eupedia, and which is what I'm using. Also the main guy at Eupedia probably agrees with more or your points than mine.

    So given that I am working with the ringe phylogeny and David's basic outline that italo celtic broke off from yamnaya I think the following. Since italo celtic is derived from yamnaya and balto slavic/ indo iranian are further down the IE tree, the later two must also be linguistic descendants of yamnaya. Why invoke the collapsed CT? Because the collapsed CT could have had the interactions with yamnaya to gain IE, because they have the manpower to fuel the lineages leading to balto-slavic and indo-iranian, and because the collapsed CT started expanding into the steppes at the right time (after the yamnaya left and just after Italo Celtic broke off). CT is not the only candidate. CW is another candidate, at least the eastern CW. CW also has the manpower and could have acquired IE from the yamnaya a few different ways in my opinion.

    I think the L51 lineage come from western yamnaya. I don't see any other decent candidate for bringing the nicely fit trio of r1b, Italo Celtic, and Yamnaya like autosmoal dna other than the yamnaya. Its not the least bit difficult to imagine that the L51 lineage sat close to its brother at the western end of the yamnaya horizon. Also, notice that I say L51 lineage. I don't care if L51 was in yamnaya or not, i.e. I don't care where the L51 mutation occurred. my point is that the L5 lineage, in all likelihood, came from the yamnaya.

    The main source of our disagreement seems to be the linguistic tree. Yes I think Celtic, Germanic, and Balkan shared a node within the yamnaya. In fact i think Cel, It, Ger, Ba, B-sla, and indo iranian all shared a node within the yamnaya to the exclusion of anatolian and maybe tocharian. Again, I'm using ringe...

    A split of iranian and indo aryan around 2600bc does not seem inconsistent with davids interpretation of ringe et al. Imagine this. Yamnaya are late PIE. Italo celtic lineage leaves the steppe around 2900bc but they were already partially distinguished from the other yamnaya when they left. So in effect Italo Celtic broke off from the rest of the tree before 2900bc. Immediately after interactions between the yamnaya and the CW and/or CT that would give rise to the post Italo Celtic node, the Balto slavic, indo iranian, and balkan lineages start diverging from one which was further aided by some of the regional diversity of IE in the steppe in the wake of the yamnaya decline. That would still leave time for indo iranian and indo aryan to split.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to nuadha For This Useful Post:

     Silesian (07-26-2015)

  10. #17
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,148
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by George View Post
    "In the final perspective he considers Stroke-ceramic, dniepro-dvinsk and Tushmlinsk archaeological cultures, which are in central, northern, eastern Belarus and adjacent western Russia (western Smolensk & southern Pskov). Shchukin does not place Slavic home-land in Ukraine."
    The subsequent quote from Schukin you give has nothing to do with the Slavic homeland, which is rather associated by him with the Kyivan culture. There, I've said it twice and won't be repeating myself any more. The cultures you have mentioned are those of the "Dnipro Balts", who were Slavonized at a later date.

    It has everything to do with the original Slavic homeland in the context of Shchukin's discussion. The whole article on the homeland of early Slavs. He mentions expclicitely that Stroke-ceramic, Dniepro-Dvins and Tushemlinsk are most similar archaeological cultures to those of the earliest known Slavic cultural horizon known as Prague-Korchak. In addition, he is clear about original homeland of the Slavs being in the forest zone with many swamps and rivers. Most of Ukraine is in the steppes and forest-steppe zones. Please read Shchukin's concept as well as the discussions of his concept if you don't understand what Shchukin is proposing. Also reference relevant passages from his text appropriately.
    Last edited by Volat; 07-21-2015 at 05:46 AM.

  11. #18
    Registered Users
    Posts
    656
    Sex
    Y-DNA
    R1a-Z93
    mtDNA
    H28

    Quote Originally Posted by nuadha View Post
    Jean, were do you think the slavic lineage was between the time of the yamnaya and the time when the slavic lineage moved into poland, and how long do you think that time period was?

    Also, do you subscribe to the ringe phylogeny referenced by Anthony? If so, where and when do you think the balto slavic lineage separated from the indo iranian lineage?

    I rather like the idea mentioned by david anthony which is that the lineage for slavic and iranian (some kind of proto conglomerate at the time) resulted from a fusion of CT and minor yamnaya contribution, and then moved northward. I like it because it separates slavic lineage from yamnaya (you disagree I'm sure) and because CT offers the demographic power to result in widespread r1a movement and eventually slavic and iranian. Eastern CW could have been another source and a CW contribution is nearly a given.

    I really don't get this obsession with linking Slavs or other R1a-dominated IEs with CT. CT was a Neolithic farmer culture who in some way certainly contributed to the ancestry of most modern Slavs but Neolithic Farmer culture like CT had a bigger impact on all other European IEs except of Balts (EEF level). Proto Balto-Slavs seems to originate from the middle Dnjepr region and late Proto-Slavic originated in the most southern zone of the Proto-Balto-Slavic continuum somewhere in northern Ukraine (Kiev culture).
    Last edited by Coldmountains; 07-21-2015 at 05:52 AM.

  12. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Coldmountains For This Useful Post:

     DMXX (07-22-2015), George (07-21-2015), Jean M (07-21-2015), Michał (08-17-2015), rms2 (07-21-2015)

  13. #19
    Registered Users
    Posts
    656
    Sex
    Y-DNA
    R1a-Z93
    mtDNA
    H28

    Quote Originally Posted by Volat View Post
    If not for the Baltic hydronyms the homeland of the Slavs in Belarus would have been settled a long time ago. Two problems I can see with Baltic hydronyms in Belarus as the evidence against Slavic homeland.

    1. Hydronyms cannot be dated.
    2. Linguists reconstruct the words in analysing hydronyms. If one starts to reconstruct any Slavic word applying rules of phonetic changes he or she will likely to arrive to the Baltic root.

    PS. The region to which Shchukin pointed recently was found to have lots of R1a dated 4,000-6,000 ybp.
    There are not only just Baltic river names in Belarus but also other direct and indirect evidences for large presence of Baltic people there. The oldest typical Slavic river names are found in Ukraine. Proto-Slavic was closely connected to Baltic languages but had major Germanic and minor Iranian influences and a homeland in Ukraine east of Germanic west and north of Iranians would perfectly explain that.
    Last edited by Coldmountains; 07-21-2015 at 06:00 AM.

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Coldmountains For This Useful Post:

     Basta (07-08-2017), George (07-21-2015), Jean M (07-21-2015)

  15. #20
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,148
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Coldmountains View Post
    There are not only just Baltic river names in Belarus but only many historical sources which mention Baltic people there. The oldest typical Slavic river names are found in Ukraine. Proto-Slavic was closely connected to Baltic languages but had major Germanic and minor Iranian influences and a homeland in Ukraine east of Germanic west and north of Iranians would perfectly explain that.
    All historic sources that reference Baltic people in Belarus were written in the last 1,000-1,100 years. Ancient sources mentioned Sudovians and Galindians, who were west Balts settled in present day Kaliningrad oblast, Russia, south-western Lithuania, north-western Belarus. Furthermore, autochthonous Balts live in Belarus to present day. The institute of Lithuanian language found around 50-70 villages in northern and north-western Belarus during expedition in the 50s . What we are talking about is the area settled by so-called Dniepr Balts all over easter, northern and southern-eastern Belarus in early Iron Age.

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Volat For This Useful Post:

     Basta (07-08-2017), DMXX (07-22-2015), Silesian (07-26-2015)

Page 2 of 151 FirstFirst 12341252102 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Origin of E ?
    By #YoloSwag in forum E
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 08-16-2016, 01:28 PM
  2. Origin(s) of Y-DNA J
    By Agamemnon in forum J
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 09-04-2015, 12:08 AM
  3. What is the history and origin of I1
    By Fire Haired in forum I1-M253
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-27-2013, 02:29 PM
  4. DE/YAP+ origin?
    By Ezana in forum Other
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-14-2012, 04:31 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •