Page 67 of 152 FirstFirst ... 1757656667686977117 ... LastLast
Results 661 to 670 of 1516

Thread: New Samples from Migration Era and Early Medieval Moravia

  1. #661
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,092
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Indo-europeen
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1a-Y33 Kurgan/ CWC
    mtDNA (M)
    H76

    European Union Poland Germany Lithuania Romania Ukraine
    Quote Originally Posted by etrusco View Post
    just a clarification aside from the subject of the thread. There are many definitions of eastern europe and it is not clear where the border is because it is mainly due to which criteria you use for setting the border. There are definitions of eastern europe that include Poland ( along with all the other slavic speaking nations and Romania)for example. Others that consider eastern europe as the states of the former Soviet Union. Making the case of Italy the region you mentioned would be considered eastern Europe.
    In my opinion Poland is Central Eastern Europe and Romania South Eastern Europe, Eastern Poland, Belarus, Ukraine to the Urals are Eastern Europe geographically!

    But I think the origin of the early Slavs before secession is eastern Poland / western Ukraine and Belarus.


    https://m.scirp.org/papers/80315


    main-qimg-7229f4721aa22f41ccf6ae92b67a5761.png
    Last edited by Alain; 05-17-2021 at 08:36 PM.
    Alain Dad
    Y-DNA R1a-Y33 Eastern Corderd Ware Culture Baltoslavic/ old Pruzzen
    H76 czech Republic/England (Celtic tribes ?) W3a1d Yamnaya Culture, Samara /Pontic steppe
    Scytho-Sarmatian.

    YourDNAPortal Calculator ancient

    Baltic_Slavic 30%, Baltic_Suwalki: 23%, Gaul_Arverni: 20%, Germanic_Suebi: 10%, Alanic_Russia: 7%, Germanic_Baiuvari-Thüringi: 5%, Viking_Norse_Faroes: 5%

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

     etrusco (05-17-2021),  leonardo (05-17-2021),  Riverman (05-17-2021)

  3. #662
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,858
    Sex

    I think its possible that the Pre-Slavs and Proto-Slavs were in different places at different times. But somewhere between Very Eastern Poland-Belarus-North Western Ukraine-Western Russia sounds about right for the time before the migration period expansion. There is actually not that much of an alternative, regardless of where they lived before.

  4. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Riverman For This Useful Post:

     Alain (05-18-2021),  leonardo (05-17-2021),  Michał (05-18-2021),  parastais (05-18-2021)

  5. #663
    Registered Users
    Posts
    210

    So maybe I will repeat:

    Overall, I see that people often forget the essence of the problem. The Proto-Slavic homeland is an ethnolinguistic issue. This is a geographic area where Proto-Slavic linguistic innovations were born. Pots and genes do not talk, therefore linguistics has the decisive voice here, and archeology and genetics are only auxiliary disciplines.

    “Irregular” Sound Substitutions in the Substrate Toponymy. New Constribution to the Chronology and Processing of the Linguistic Slavicization of the Historical Slavia Orientalis.

    The paper deals with the problem of unexpected phonemic sequences encountered sometimes in East Slavic toponyms suspected of being borrowed from the extinct autochthonous Pre-Slavic languages of the Pripet and Upper Dnieper basins (and their vicinities), supposedly related to Balto-Slavic. These instances can be considered as exceptions to several Late Common Slavic sound laws (hushing spirants continuing IE palatovelars, as in Lithuanian, instead of whistling ones; the second palatalization of velars instead of the expected first one; velars not changed to affricates and / or spirants before the reflexes of the vocalisms *e, *ě or *ь), suggesting that the respective names were borrowed into East Slavic from local linguistic substrates after the sound laws in question had been completed. The most controversial issue are the apparently non-monophthongized diphthongs of various types (on, o etc. occurring before consonants), which do posit certain phonotactic problems.
    The results obtained in the paper support the view, expressed by some archaeologists, that the linguistic Slavicization of these areas (including Volhynia), earlier considered as the geographical point of departure of Slavic even by some linguists, was a long and continuous process which was not completed before the end of the 1st millennium AD.

    https://www.ejournals.eu/PKKS/2019/Vol-XV/art/15244/

    "Geographical names are extremely helpful in giving evidence of early settlements and their inhabitants due to their solid anchorage in the landscape, even in the case of population changes. Through the investigation of these place names, information can be gathered not only on the name giver, but also on the settlers who took on the names later on. Therefore, it is considered that any linguistic investigation has to start from the river and place names of a region. The utilization of geographical names yields the following findings: — The centre of Old Slavic names is situated on the northern slope of the Carpathian Mountains, approximately between Bukovina and Krakow; it is based on a substrate of older, Indo-European hydronyms. — The expansion of the East Slavic tribes bypasses the Pripyat Marshes and extends further through Central Russia and especially to the North and the East. — West Slavic settlers reach their new settlement areas through migration from Bohemia and further on to Saxonia and Thuringia, and also through Western Poland to Brandenburg and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. — The migration of the South Slavs takes place in two big, yet separate flows, on the one hand through the Moravian Gate to Slovenia, Hungary and Croatia, and on the other hand on the Eastern edge of the Carpathian Mountains to Serbia and Bulgaria".

    https://onomastica.ijp.pan.pl/index....ticle/view/214

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ambron For This Useful Post:

     etrusco (05-18-2021),  JoeyP37 (05-18-2021),  Riverman (05-18-2021),  Ryukendo (05-18-2021)

  7. #664
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,064
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    N - Z16980

    Quote Originally Posted by ambron View Post
    This is a geographic area where Proto-Slavic linguistic innovations were born
    Which linguistic innovations?
    There is a list of linguistic innovations from Balto-Slavic to Slavic (not shared by East Balts or West Balts). Some of them arrived really early, maybe even like 1000 BCE early. Some of them late. Would you point to those innovations that are of interest to you?

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to parastais For This Useful Post:

     leonardo (05-18-2021),  Michał (05-18-2021),  Ryukendo (06-03-2021)

  9. #665
    Registered Users
    Posts
    210

    I am not able to indicate specific Slavic linguistic innovations, because I am not that deep in this subject. I rely on linguists' explanations that the process of linguistic differentiation involves the accumulation of linguistic innovations in a given area.

    http://e-archaeology.org/wp-content/...6/06/Babik.pdf

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to ambron For This Useful Post:

     Ryukendo (06-03-2021)

  11. #666
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,021
    Sex
    Location
    lombardy
    Nationality
    italian

    Italy Portugal Order of Christ Russia Imperial Canada Quebec Spanish Empire (1506-1701) Vatican
    Quote Originally Posted by ambron View Post
    So maybe I will repeat:

    Overall, I see that people often forget the essence of the problem. The Proto-Slavic homeland is an ethnolinguistic issue. This is a geographic area where Proto-Slavic linguistic innovations were born. Pots and genes do not talk, therefore linguistics has the decisive voice here, and archeology and genetics are only auxiliary disciplines.

    “Irregular” Sound Substitutions in the Substrate Toponymy. New Constribution to the Chronology and Processing of the Linguistic Slavicization of the Historical Slavia Orientalis.

    The paper deals with the problem of unexpected phonemic sequences encountered sometimes in East Slavic toponyms suspected of being borrowed from the extinct autochthonous Pre-Slavic languages of the Pripet and Upper Dnieper basins (and their vicinities), supposedly related to Balto-Slavic. These instances can be considered as exceptions to several Late Common Slavic sound laws (hushing spirants continuing IE palatovelars, as in Lithuanian, instead of whistling ones; the second palatalization of velars instead of the expected first one; velars not changed to affricates and / or spirants before the reflexes of the vocalisms *e, *ě or *ь), suggesting that the respective names were borrowed into East Slavic from local linguistic substrates after the sound laws in question had been completed. The most controversial issue are the apparently non-monophthongized diphthongs of various types (on, o etc. occurring before consonants), which do posit certain phonotactic problems.
    The results obtained in the paper support the view, expressed by some archaeologists, that the linguistic Slavicization of these areas (including Volhynia), earlier considered as the geographical point of departure of Slavic even by some linguists, was a long and continuous process which was not completed before the end of the 1st millennium AD.

    https://www.ejournals.eu/PKKS/2019/Vol-XV/art/15244/

    "Geographical names are extremely helpful in giving evidence of early settlements and their inhabitants due to their solid anchorage in the landscape, even in the case of population changes. Through the investigation of these place names, information can be gathered not only on the name giver, but also on the settlers who took on the names later on. Therefore, it is considered that any linguistic investigation has to start from the river and place names of a region. The utilization of geographical names yields the following findings: — The centre of Old Slavic names is situated on the northern slope of the Carpathian Mountains, approximately between Bukovina and Krakow; it is based on a substrate of older, Indo-European hydronyms. — The expansion of the East Slavic tribes bypasses the Pripyat Marshes and extends further through Central Russia and especially to the North and the East. — West Slavic settlers reach their new settlement areas through migration from Bohemia and further on to Saxonia and Thuringia, and also through Western Poland to Brandenburg and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. — The migration of the South Slavs takes place in two big, yet separate flows, on the one hand through the Moravian Gate to Slovenia, Hungary and Croatia, and on the other hand on the Eastern edge of the Carpathian Mountains to Serbia and Bulgaria".

    https://onomastica.ijp.pan.pl/index....ticle/view/214
    Yes but I would like to double check all of this with as detailed as possible where and when of all the movements and presence of both R1a M458 and I2 slavic clades to be honest.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to etrusco For This Useful Post:

     ambron (05-18-2021),  Riverman (05-18-2021)

  13. #667
    Registered Users
    Posts
    210

    Me too, but I am aware of the serious limitations of archeogenomics. Until the beginning of the Middle Ages, the Slavs cultivated the cremation rite. But let us be of good cheer...

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ambron For This Useful Post:

     etrusco (05-18-2021),  JoeyP37 (05-18-2021)

  15. #668
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,086
    Ethnicity
    Venetharum natio populosa
    Nationality
    Polish
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-L1029>YP263>Y2912*
    mtDNA (M)
    H141,U5a1b1j(W)

    Poland Poland Pomerania
    Quote Originally Posted by ambron View Post
    Me too, but I am aware of the serious limitations of archeogenomics. Until the beginning of the Middle Ages, the Slavs cultivated the cremation rite. But let us be of good cheer...
    As Arza wrote: "Luckily we'll have plenty of samples from neighbouring groups."

  16. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Waldemar For This Useful Post:

     ambron (05-18-2021),  etrusco (05-18-2021),  leonardo (05-18-2021),  Riverman (05-18-2021),  Ryukendo (05-18-2021)

  17. #669
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,792
    Sex
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1a-L1280>FGC41205
    mtDNA (M)
    H2a2(b)
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1a-L1029>YP517
    mtDNA (P)
    H5a2

    Poland European Union
    Quote Originally Posted by ambron View Post
    Pots and genes do not talk, therefore linguistics has the decisive voice here, and archeology and genetics are only auxiliary disciplines.
    So it seems you are saying that it is the linguists who should have the final say regarding the Slavic homeland, and you are pointing specifically to Babik and Udolph, even though Babik who indeed questions the Dnieper-Pripyat homeland also openly admits that this very location is supported not only by the archaeologists but also by some linguists, and he also very strongly rejects the "Subcarpathian" homeland that has been proposed by Udolph whose theory has never become a consensus among the modern linguists. In other words, it is hard to follow your line of reasoning. Do you trust Babik and thus reject the Carpathian homeland of the Early Slavs, or maybe you are just saying that there is simply no consensus among the linguists (see the review by Popowska-Taborska, 2014), so the best way to answer the homeland question is to choose the multidisciplinary approach (as suggested by Piontek and others), thus trying to reconstruct the most likely scenario based on all available data, as provided not only by linguistics, but also by archaeology, history, anthropology and genetics, among others?
    Last edited by Michał; 05-18-2021 at 10:29 AM.

  18. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Michał For This Useful Post:

     Alain (05-18-2021),  Coldmountains (05-18-2021),  JMcB (05-18-2021),  leonardo (05-18-2021),  parastais (05-18-2021),  Riverman (05-18-2021),  Ryukendo (05-18-2021),  Tomenable (05-18-2021),  VladimirTaraskin (05-18-2021),  Waldemar (05-18-2021)

  19. #670
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,858
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Michał View Post
    So it seems you are saying that it is the linguists who should have the final say regarding the Slavic homeland, and you are pointing specifically to Babik and Udolph, even though Babik who indeed questions the Dnieper-Pripyat homeland also openly admits that this very location is supported not only by the archaeologists but also by some linguists, and he also very strongly rejects the "Subcarpathian" homeland that has been proposed by Udolph whose theory has never become a consensus among the modern linguists. In other words, it is hard to follow your line of reasoning. Do you trust Babik and thus reject the Carpathian homeland of the Early Slavs, or maybe you are just saying that there is simply no consensus among the linguists (see the review by Popowska-Taborska, 2014), so the best way to answer the homeland question is to choose the multidisciplinary approach (as suggested by Piontek and others), thus trying to reconstruct the most likely scenario based on all available data, as provided not only by linguistics, but also by archaeology, history, anthropology and genetics, among others?
    If we can't even say for sure where the Romanian people's origin was, considering they lived in a historical time, we have solid archaeological records and their place of origin alternatives are much more limited, how can anybody dare to say based on linguistics alone where Pre-Slavic was spoken in the Bronze Age with any given certainty? Its not even remotely possible, because otherwise all that "homeland debates" for many more people would have been sufficiently resolved long time ago. There is indeed absolutely no alternative to the combined, multidisciplinary approach and ancient DNA is so important because it can add completely new and fairly conclusive evidence to the old debates and knowledge. Linguistic research has to be considered, but it gave what it could, from my point of view, and it didn't suffice, obviously. Same goes for so many other people's origins, not just Slavs, Germanics, Romanians and Uralics. Even for some quite recent, new ethnicities, born in the historical time frame, much closer to our days. Even for those we have sometimes very little to nothing which qualifies as conclusive and decisive evidence. We depend on the results from ancient DNA to get closer to a meaningful interpretation.
    Last edited by Riverman; 05-18-2021 at 11:32 AM. Reason: Typo

  20. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Riverman For This Useful Post:

     JMcB (05-18-2021),  Michał (05-18-2021),  VladimirTaraskin (05-18-2021)

Page 67 of 152 FirstFirst ... 1757656667686977117 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Medieval Pashtun Samples
    By J Man in forum Central
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-28-2020, 05:37 AM
  2. G25 Distance Maps to selected Early Medieval Samples
    By ph2ter in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 05-09-2020, 02:33 PM
  3. Early Medieval Czech DNA (years 600-900 AD)
    By Tomenable in forum Central
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 04-19-2018, 01:07 PM
  4. Early Medieval Germanic barrow burials
    By JonikW in forum History (Medieval)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-31-2018, 12:34 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-27-2016, 06:50 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
  •