Slavic migrations happened? or is there a continuity since the Paleolithic?

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Racowie

Georgia represented part of Sarmatian realm. If we then follow scientific conclusions in case with Polish Sarmatism and in case with Serbian (Balkan and Lusatian) name which is eventualy close to once original universal name for all Slavs- `Sarmatian name`,... in front of us is one amazing and almost forgotten story. Almost

'Sarmatism' was more a political and ideological movement, originating from the theory that Polish nobility descended from the Sauromates, than an ethnic denomination. It is very possible that the Iranic-speaking tribal confederations left deep marks on the ethnic structure of the proto-Slavs they encountered and their traditions and military practices. It is also highy plausible that Slavs were taught the means of assimilation by the Sarmatians/Schytians, which led to even more successful Slavic expansion from their original homeland.


It is needless to say that the assimilation of indigenous populations was most successfull in the former Roman provinces of Illyricum, Pannonia and Moesia.

Regarding the Sarmatian name and its influence on the Slavic identities, it is most commonly associated with both Serbian and Croatian ethnonymes.

[Racowie]

Originally Posted by Monolith

above map is false and could eventualy serve only to show internal Slavic migrations, on vast Slavic territory

i suggest you to forget on `theories` of great Slavic migration. Such a theories represent classical examples of political involvement in science.

Here is what well known Italian historian Mario Alinei, said about Slavs...

The Paleolithic Continuity Theory (PCT)

The Paleolithic Continuity Theory on Indo-European Origins
The Paleolithic Continuity Theory: An Introduction

(e) The totally absurd thesis of the so called ‘late arrival’ of the Slavs in Europe must be replaced by the scenario of Slavic continuity from Paleolithic, and the demographic growth and geographic expansion of the Slavs can be explained, much more realistically, by the extraordinary success, continuity and stability of the Neolithic cultures of South-Eastern Europe (the only ones in Europe that caused the formation of tells) (Alinei 2000, fc.b)

Originally Posted by Monolith

It is needless to say that the assimilation of indigenous populations was most successfull in the former Roman provinces of Illyricum, Pannonia and Moesia.

old native pre-Greak and Roman populations of Ilirya, Pannonia and Moesia could be only Proto-Slavic (read Sarmatian) population. There was no mass assimilations, forget on that. There was only mixing of different Slavic tribes, encounters between farming population with horsemans/hunters/getherers (nomadic tribes).

Originally Posted by Monolith

Regarding the Sarmatian name and its influence on the Slavic identities, it is most commonly associated with both Serbian and Croatian ethnonymes.

Serbian (Lusatia, Balkan,...) and Croatian ethnic names are just two different variations of Sarmatian name. While Serbian name is original ethnic name (not given by foreigners), Croatian ethnic name represent foreign designation, foreign interpretation of Sarmatian name... i`m not linguist but it was something like this...

Sarmatians >>> Carmatians (Romanized version, in the spirit of Latin langauge) >>> Croatians

but, ethnic name `Hrvat` is original ethnic designation and real ethnic name of one particular South Slavic ethos, which deepest historical traces could be followed from the regions of Zagreb, Krizevci and Varazdin (in Croatia in general, Serbia,...) to the Karpatian mountains in today`s Romania, to the modern day Poland (same as Serbian ethnic name).


Here must be said that ethnic designations `Serbians` and `Croatians` aren`t only Slavic ethnic names which could be connected with Sarmatian name.

Name of Celtic Boii tribe (or Boii tribal alliance) lead us also to Sarmatian name. Connection goes via name of Serboi which is in old chronicles mentioned as great Sarmatian tribe. For sure, Boii represent just short form of Serboi.

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Racowie

above map is false and could eventualy serve only to show internal Slavic migrations, on vast Slavic territory

How do you know it's false?

i suggest you to forget on `theories` of great Slavic migration. Such a theories represent classical examples of political involvement in science.

But you're doing just that - presenting far-fetched theories.

Here is what well known Italian historian Mario Alinei, said about Slavs...

Then what about the absence of slavic-derived words on the pre-slavic territories I've mentioned? What about the strong genetic and anthropometrical differences between the Slavs who arrived in the late 6th century, and the pre-Slavic population of the area?
Question for the anthropologists
Anthropologists clearly distinguish between the Croat Slavic population that arrived from the north, and thus had clear similarities with other Slavic populations (most notably with the population of the Cedynia site in the north-western Poland), and the indigenous paleo-balkanic populations who had an altogether different appearance. What about that? Those people spoke languages unrelated to Slavic one (though connected by the proposed Proto-Indo-European language), had different cultures and most certainly looked differently than Slavs, and yet you keep reffereing to them as Slavs. And no, the differences were not caused by environmental modifications or adaptations, because it would require thousands of years of allelic drift, so you might claim as well that Proto-Indo-Europeans were also Slavs.

old native pre-Greak and Roman populations of Ilirya, Pannonia and Moesia could be only Proto-Slavic (read Sarmatian) population. There was no mass assimilations, forget on that. There was only mixing of different Slavic tribes, encounters between farming population with horsemans/hunters/getherers (nomadic tribes).

On what ground exactly do you base that?

Serbian (Lusatia, Balkan,...) and Croatian ethnic names are just two different variations of Sarmatian name. While Serbian name is original ethnic name (not given by foreigners), Croatian ethnic name represent foreign designation, foreign interpretation of Sarmatian name... i`m not linguist but it was something like this...

Sarmatians >>> Carmatians (Romanized version, in the spirit of Latin langauge) >>> Croatians

Ok. Where's the proof? What's the meaning of the ethnonym 'Croat', or 'Serb' for that matter? You don't know that because nobody does. You can only assume or theorize. Anyway, how can you pretend to understand it when you're not a linguist?

but, ethnic name `Hrvat` is original ethnic designation and real ethnic name of one particular South Slavic ethos, which deepest historical traces could be followed from the regions of Zagreb, Krizevci and Varazdin (in Croatia in general, Serbia,...) to the Karpatian mountains in today`s Romania, to the modern day Poland (same as Serbian ethnic name).

Do you have any proof for that, aside from your own personal bias and theories?

Here must be said that ethnic designations `Serbians` and `Croatians` aren`t only Slavic ethnic names which could be connected with Sarmatian name.

Name of Celtic Boii tribe (or Boii tribal alliance) lead us also to Sarmatian name. Connection goes via name of Serboi which is in old chronicles mentioned as great Sarmatian tribe. For sure, Boii represent just short form of Serboi.

Proof?

[Aramis]

Originally Posted by Racowie

above map is false and could eventualy serve only to show internal Slavic migrations, on vast Slavic territory

i suggest you to forget on `theories` of great Slavic migration. Such a theories represent classical examples of political involvement in science.

Here is what well known Italian historian Mario Alinei, said about Slavs...

old native pre-Greak and Roman populations of Ilirya, Pannonia and Moesia could be only Proto-Slavic (read Sarmatian) population. There was no mass assimilations, forget on that. There was only mixing of different Slavic tribes, encounters between farming population with horsemans/hunters/getherers (nomadic tribes).

This all might be right we take that Alinei's theory is the only true one. But bear in mind that today's archeology mostly accepts the Kurgan theory of Marija Gimbutas, for Indo-european (and therefor also Slavic) orgins as it is the only one backed up by both archeology and linguistics.

Nothing is yet proved, but the one of Gimbutas (the map posted by Monolith fits' into this theory) seems the most realistic so far.

So, such statements of yours are redicilious:

i suggest you to forget on `theories` of great Slavic migration. Such a theories represent classical examples of political involvement in science.

And who are you? You are obviously (as I saw in your other posts) also ideologicly oriented to a certain side (as most human beings), and lack the pure scientific objectivity as would to expected from a person who searchs for the "truth".

In addition, you are neither a historian nor archeologist. You didn't make first-hand experience's on archaeological sites, or at least not on these wich would you make your statements on this issue relevant. All informations you gathered in your head are, due to this, the product of other people's minds. To make it even more worse, I guess that almost all of it you've gotten via the internet.

Therefor, even if we take your mission to be honest and fully objective, no one will ensure us about the accuracy of informations, theories of some scientist you present.
But if we want to progress we can't condemn everything as flase (even if I am sure that most of it is based on this or that ideology). We have to accept at least some of it as truthful, or honest at best. And this decision my friend, is purely subjective. Throughout time everyone of us will try to back it up with arguments, with empirical proof's of course, and then we will see what's real and what not.

At this point I have to inform you that you failed so far, as I haven't seen any evidences, only atempts of explanations coined in your brain, using the data gathered by other people.

Name of Celtic Boii tribe (or Boii tribal alliance) lead us also to Sarmatian name. Connection goes via name of Serboi which is in old chronicles mentioned as great Sarmatian tribe. For sure, Boii represent just short form of Serboi.

There is no such thing as "for sure" in serious scinece, evidence must be provided. Moreover, the data you stated above is more of a possible assumption, not even an elaborated theory.

[Racowie]

finaly interesting thread

[Jacob Le Bin]

Were there ancient Slavic migrations or there is a continuity since the Palaeolithic?

The 6 and 7th century Slavic migrations are very well attested.

[Racowie]

Originally Posted by Savorgnan

The 6 and 7th century Slavic migrations are very well attested.

woa... and, that`s it? you finished with this subject?

well, thank you for repeating to Slavs that they aren`t on their own but, no thanks. I won`t buy that

Slavs aren`t newcomers in Europe but those who initiated `drang nach osten`

[Jacob Le Bin]

Originally Posted by Racowie

woa... and, that`s it? you finished with this subject?

Sorry, but this can't really be argued. Slavic migrations are among the most massive in European history. And there's more to it. This late migration seems to be a perfect explanation for the low differenciation level of the Slavic languages.

[ArMakedon]

There were NO Slavic migrations.

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by ArMakedon

There were NO Slavic migrations.

I guess it was aliens then, who taught the southern Slavic peoples to speak their languages.

[ArMakedon]

Originally Posted by Monolith

I guess it was aliens then, who taught the southern Slavic peoples to speak their languages.

ThatSlavic migration is a big lie or propaganda as you like.

[Jacob Le Bin]

Originally Posted by ArMakedon

There were NO Slavic migrations.

Originally Posted by ArMakedon

ThatSlavic migration is a big lie or propaganda as you like.

Denying the Slavic migrations is pure propaganda as well as historical negationism.

[Yago]

Originally Posted by ArMakedon

There were NO Slavic migrations.

Originally Posted by ArMakedon

ThatSlavic migration is a big lie or propaganda as you like.

Congratulations! You've just turned a thread which was highbrow, into lowbrow.

If you have something to support your assertion, by all means do it. But do not expect that because you typed "no" in upper case, oversized and in red colour, makes it a case to be worth of any consideration.

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by ArMakedon

ThatSlavic migration is a big lie or propaganda as you like.

Are you saying that all those historical records, DNA studies and archaeological excavations are somehow forgeries?

[Austrvegr]

Russian historians now tend to consider the Kiev archeological culture (2nd-5th centuries AD) as the earliest Slavic culture.

The Kiev culture is an archaeological culture dating from about the third to fifth centuries AD, named after Kiev, the capital of Ukraine. It is widely considered to be the first identifiable Slavic archaeological culture. It is contemporaneous to (and located mostly just to the north of) the Chernyakhov culture, which corresponds to the multi-ethnic Gothic kingdom, Oium, that was established in south-western Ukraine in the second century and ended by the invasion of the Huns in late fourth century. The Gothic historian Jordanes mentions the subjugation of the Slavic people by the Goths in The origin and deeds of the Goths: the location of the Kiev culture (which in places overlaps with the Chernyakhov culture) matches his text well.

Settlements are found mostly along river banks, frequently either on high cliffs or right by the edge of rivers. The dwellings are overwhelmingly of the semi-subterranean type (common also in later Slavic cultures and similar to earlier Germanic and Celtic types of dwellings), often square (about four by four meters), with an open hearth in a corner. Most villages consist of just a handful of dwellings. There is very little evidence of the division of labor, although in one case a village belonging to the Kiev culture was preparing thin strips of antlers to be further reworked into the well-known Gothic antler combs, in a nearby Chernyakhov culture village.
The Kiev culture ends its existence with the invasion of the Huns, and after a turbulent period in European history, its descendants—the Slavic Prague-Korchak, Penkovo and Kolochino cultures—are re-established in the sixth century in Eastern Europe. There is, however, a substantial disagreement in the scientific community over the identity of the Kiev culture's predecessors, with some historians and archaeologists tracing it directly from the Milograd culture, others, from the Chernoles culture (the Scythian farmers of Herodotus) through the Zarubintsy culture, still others (mostly Polish) through both the Przeworsk culture and the Zarubintsy culture.

Kiev culture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



This seems to be corroborated by the latest discoveries of genetics:

Not surprisingly, Belorussians and Ukrainians who, together with Russians, form the eastern branch of Slavic language speakers, show also the closest similarity with the central-southern Russian paternal heritage (Figures 7 and 8), whereas the NRY variation among Poles lies, in the MSD plot, in their immediate vicinity. This closeness in the patterns of variation of the respective Y chromosomes allows speculation that unlike in the (later colonized) Russian North, the eastward wave of Slavs from their putative homeland to the present day Central Russia approximately 1000 years ago (Figure 1), did not involve extensive assimilation of local populations, at least with populations, markedly different in their paternal lineage variation. But the result can be interpreted also differently—it lends credence to those theories, which suggest that early Common Era Zarubintsy and Chernyakhov cultures, extending from the upper-central basins of Prut to Don, used already Slavonic languages—i.e., Slavic-speaking tribes were present in a considerable part of the later southern-central part of the historic Russia considerably earlier than better-documented Slavic migrations in approximately the 6th–9th centuries. It could then explain why there is a remarkable patrilineal continuity within West and East Slavonic-language speaking populations, although there are still signs of some admixture of the central-southern Russians with Finnic-speaking (or Baltic-speaking) populations, testified by NRY hg N.

Two Sources of the Russian Patrilineal Heritage in Their Eurasian Context

AJHG - Two Sources of the Russian Patrilineal Heritage in Their Eurasian Context

[ArMakedon]

Originally Posted by Monolith

Are you saying that all those historical records, DNA studies and archaeological excavations are somehow forgeries?

No Slavic historical records in Macedonia.
Only Macedonian and Roman

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by ArMakedon

No Slavic historical records in Macedonia.
Only Macedonian and Roman

What? Between 675 and 681 the Slavs unsuccessfully besieged Thessalonica four times. What about the historical accounts of various Slavic tribes on the soil of modern Macedonia, such as Smoljani, Dragoviti, Rinhini etc.? When I last checked, Macedonian was a Slavic language. Anyway, even Serbs had initially settled Thesally, before migrating northwards.

Is it possible to identify which haplogropus ( all above) mentiones tribes belong?

This could be the only way to decover migrations of Slavics tribes?

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by alfabetagamadelta

Is it possible to identify which haplogropus ( all above) mentiones tribes belong?

It is not, because the aforementioned tribes were not genetically homogeneous, thus having members who carried different markers (be it Y-DNA or mtDNA) than one which was dominant in their group/tribe.

So is it possible that in one family we have diff gens? I thought Y hr is static not changeble?