The Illyrians

[Constellation]

The Eastern Roman 'Sklabenoi' term is proof that the ancient Macedonians, Thracians and Illyrians spoke languages that were similar to those of the various peoples to the north of them. Think about it for a moment. There never were any "Slavs" during the 6th Century AD. This is a Germanic slang term that came to be used to de-humanize Vindelicians and Venetian populations in the eyes of Frankish subjugates around the 8th Century or so, if memory serves. There never was a tribe of people who were known as " the people who can kind of understand each other " tribe, so 'Sklabenoi' had to have been a descriptive term. As 'sklabenoi' meant 'sloveni', it had to have been known and used by those who recorded Eastern Roman history. 'Sklabenoi' was simply 'sloveni' in the lingua franca of the Eastern Roman Empire, an adaption that conformed to the limitations of the Greek language by Illyro-Thracian speaking chroniclers writing in the language of the Roman state. People to the south of Macedonia referred to Sarmatians as Sarmatians, while Macedonians, used both terms. Eventually, historians who thought, wrote and spoke exclusively in the Eastern Roman lingua franca adopted the term, as well. Mistranslations are not translations; they are myopic miscommunications.

Sovius, please answer these questions.

1. What serious scholar believes the invading Slavs of the north, regardless of their real name or the Germanic slander involved, spoke languages similar to the indigenous Balkan people?

2. Can you cite me a specific document or ancient historian that suggests this or states this?

3. If these people spoke similar languages, how did this happen? Do you believe in the distant past they descended from the same ethnic tribes, but split into north and south branches, only to make contact again in the future? Do you believe Macedonians, Illyrians, and Thracians shared an ethnic connection with all Slavic speaking peoples? Do you believe that all Slavic speaking people today share a common ethnic ancestry?

4. Or do you believe that these peoples are ethnically unrelated? If so, do you think the northern or southern branch of "Slavic" is older? In what point of time in history do you think this language migrated? And how and why was this new language adopted by people who seemingly spoke another language prior to adopting something resembling "Slavic"? Put differently, we know why the ancient Egyptians adopted Arabic. We know why the Phoenicians adopted Arabic. What was the reason that today's northern Slavs adopted Slavic or today's Balkan people adopted Slavic in ancient times.

Again, ignoring the issue of terminology and semantics.

[Sovius]

1. What serious scholar believes the invading Slavs of the north, regardless of their real name or the Germanic slander involved, spoke languages similar to the indigenous Balkan people?

This observation is intrinsically linked to Alinei's primary argument in favor of cultural continuity. You can't have one state (condition) without the other. Cultural continuity also implies that, as the Sklabenoi term did not appear in records until the 6th Century or so, that the word form was a new addition to the vocabulary for populations already present in the regions being analyzed in one particular language that was preserved in the written record. When Alinei says "Slavs" he means people who came to be referred to as Slavs at a later period in time, not "Slavs" in the sense that you seem to be inferring (assuming), which is an anachronistic construct of poor (self-serving) Western and Eastern European scholarship from two centuries ago. As there were never any historical Slavs (again, this is a product of indoctrination), there was never an invasion of these so called Slavs you have brought up. There were Sarmatians who came to be referred to as Sklabenoi by the locals who invaded the region, but, as Sklabenoi did not mean Slav, you are simply propelling the myth further by way of social convention, which everyone does when they use the "Slav" term in the way you are using it without a more complete understanding of the term, itself. 'Sloveni' had to have existed before 'Sklabenoi'. We have the case of a term that is apparently being treated as a proper noun in one language that was based on a complex adjectival with a very basic meaning in another set of languages.

I should mention that the notion of Paleolithic Continuity is starting to give way to Late Mesolithic-Early Neolithic Continuity . Alinei's earlier work was based on first generation genetic evidence. I suspect that he is in the process of revising dates and other aspects of his theory to reflect the new data that is available, as he is a consummate professional. It's an exciting time to be an anthropologist. New discoveries are being made every day, forcing "serious scholars" to re-think that which was previously taken for granted.

You are free to continue referring to my ancestors as Slavs, but I shall remember them as Sarmatians. It's been over 1,000 years now, perhaps, it's time to move on.

2. Can you cite me a specific document or ancient historian that suggests this or states this?

By virtue of contemporary genetic evidence in relation to empirical linguistic evidence (structural linguistics, not soft bellied historical linguistics) every instance of the 'Sklabenoi' term that appeared in primary source historical documents can be used to support Vinko and Alinei's views. Vinko was a Pan-Illyrianist, not a Pan-Slavist. 'Sklabenoi' did not mean Slav; it meant someone who spoke a kindred language, the same as 'sloveni'. It didn't get treated as a supposed ethnic or tribal designation until the Pan-Slavic movements much later on in time. Misconstruement of meaning and intent is a misrepresentation of the past for political gain in the present. e.g. You're erroneously transferring a modern re-definition of the term to past usages of a different term, because others have wrongly done the same, as well.

3. If these people spoke similar languages, how did this happen? Do you believe in the distant past they descended from the same ethnic tribes, but split into north and south branches, only to make contact again in the future? Do you believe Macedonians, Illyrians, and Thracians shared an ethnic connection with all Slavic speaking peoples? Do you believe that all Slavic speaking people today share a common ethnic ancestry?

Contemporary genetic geneology has demonstrated that populations in SE Europe carrying the R1a and I haplogroups are upstream of Central and Eastern European populations carrying these same haplogroups. R1a may no longer be as frequent in SE Europe, but it is older, meaning, populations in Central and Eastern Europe are largely the descendents of Southeastern European migrants who followed the receding ice sheets north as the Last Glacial Maximum started to wane. Klyosov is an excellent source for further research. We may have not gotten a Christmas card from you guys since the early Bronze Age, but we are related.

4. Or do you believe that these peoples are ethnically unrelated? If so, do you think the northern or southern branch of "Slavic" is older? In what point of time in history do you think this language migrated? And how and why was this new language adopted by people who seemingly spoke another language prior to adopting something resembling "Slavic"? Put differently, we know why the ancient Egyptians adopted Arabic. We know why the Phoenicians adopted Arabic. What was the reason that today's northern Slavs adopted Slavic or today's Balkan people adopted Slavic in ancient times.

The northern block of languages descend from the southern block as do the populations. The populations in this part of the world are culturally and biologically related, but similar is not the same thing as being the same. There had to have been different ethnicities in SE Europe before the expansion north. There were likely other people living to the north, as well, who merged with people coming from the south in greater numbers, providing some degree of differentiation or another, because we have been left with three distinctly different groups within the same language family, four if you consider that Polish is just way out there in relation to the other languages in the family. Roads and trade increase contact frequency between different regions and these interactions increase the likelihood of language retention and further linguistic homogenization. Baltic is very different from the Illyro-Sarmatian group due to having less frequent contacts during the period of Neolithic urbanization in my opinion. Illyro-Sarmatian languages are also more condensed in many ways, which reflects a pick up in the pace of life, similar to how acronyms have come to replace groups of words (while texting and making dinner at the same time, for instance). The closer people live to one another, the more similar their languages become. Roads are a bridge between time and space, so to speak.

Again, ignoring the issue of terminology and semantics.

Isn't this the core of the problem? The only acceptable conclusion is the one that does not contradict any form of empirical evidence. Please re-read my initial post, as it may be clearer to you now. It can be a confusing subject.

[Constellation]

This observation is intrinsically linked to Alinei's primary argument in favor of cultural continuity. You can't have one state (condition) without the other. Cultural continuity also implies that, as the Sklabenoi term did not appear in records until the 6th Century or so, that the word form was a new addition to the vocabulary for populations already present in the regions being analyzed in one particular language that was preserved in the written record. When Alinei says "Slavs" he means people who came to be referred to as Slavs at a later period in time, not "Slavs" in the sense that you seem to be inferring (assuming), which is an anachronistic construct of poor (self-serving) Western and Eastern European scholarship from two centuries ago. As there were never any historical Slavs (again, this is a product of indoctrination), there was never an invasion of these so called Slavs you have brought up. There were Sarmatians who came to be referred to as Sklabenoi by the locals who invaded the region, but, as Sklabenoi did not mean Slav, you are simply propelling the myth further by way of social convention, which everyone does when they use the "Slav" term in the way you are using it without a more complete understanding of the term, itself. 'Sloveni' had to have existed before 'Sklabenoi'. We have the case of a term that is apparently being treated as a proper noun in one language that was based on a complex adjectival with a very basic meaning in another set of languages.

I should mention that the notion of Paleolithic Continuity is starting to give way to Late Mesolithic-Early Neolithic Continuity . Alinei's earlier work was based on first generation genetic evidence. I suspect that he is in the process of revising dates and other aspects of his theory to reflect the new data that is available, as he is a consummate professional. It's an exciting time to be an anthropologist. New discoveries are being made every day, forcing "serious scholars" to re-think that which was previously taken for granted.

You are free to continue referring to my ancestors as Slavs, but I shall remember them as Sarmatians. It's been over 1,000 years now, perhaps, it's time to move on.

Thank you for your time and comments. I respect your comments and research. I am not propelling the use or misuse of Slavs, nor do I mean disrespect to your or your people. I am merely going by terms that are in common use today, which though historically not accurate, nonetheless makes it easier for everyone reading this thread to understand. Macedonians are also called Slavs, so again my intention is no disrespect. However, I must state that I do not find your argument convincing at all. The problem I have with your argument is that it is an argument based on assumptions. In addition, you are making a semantics argument, and it is heavily based on your reading of history. You are arguing names and people were misunderstood. You are making the argument that because of the ignorance and poor scholarship in the last few centuries, the historical record has been misconstrued. Fine. But what I am asking from you is evidence. What evidence do you have that would corroborate that those who were identified as invaders of the north, a phrase you obviously disagree with, spoke a similar language to the indigenous people of the Balkans? Alinei's research is great, but his research (as far as I know) does not state that the invaders of the north spoke a similar language as those of the south. He merely states that Slavic originated in the south and that at some point in history it migrated north. When this happened, if it even did happen, is not known. It is based on speculative theory. Apart from a very small minority of scholars, no one believes Slavic originated in the south. This does not mean it cannot be true. But there is little evidence that it is true. We do have evidence, however, that people we would now call “Slavs” migrated from the north to the Balkans and that this language was introduced in the Balkans. We have historic and possibly genetic evidence of this. We do not have evidence that the people of the south migrated north and intermixed with the people of central and eastern Europe and spread their language there.

By virtue of contemporary genetic evidence in relation to empirical linguistic evidence (structural linguistics, not soft bellied historical linguistics) every instance of the 'Sklabenoi' term that appeared in primary source historical documents can be used to support Vinko and Alinei's views. Vinko was a Pan-Illyrianist, not a Pan-Slavist. 'Sklabenoi' did not mean Slav; it meant someone who spoke a kindred language, the same as 'sloveni'. It didn't get treated as a supposed ethnic or tribal designation until the Pan-Slavic movements much later on in time. Misconstruement of meaning and intent is a misrepresentation of the past for political gain in the present. e.g. You're erroneously transferring a modern re-definition of the term to past usages of a different term, because others have wrongly done the same, as well.

Vinko Pribojevic's book was about the glory of the Slavs, not on the glory of the Illyrians. While I have no doubt he discusses Illyrians, there is no justification to state he was a Pan-Illyrianist, and not a Pan-Slavist. His research was based on the erroneous belief that there is a common ancestor to Slavs, which, contrary to what you wrote, is not buttressed by scientific data. As for your actual comments, you cite no examples. Your argument rests on semantics. Regardless of how ancient historians may have fabricated, misunderstood, or misconstrued those who they described as invaders, there is no historical evidence that remotely suggests that these people spoke a language similar to the indigenous peoples of the Balkans. Please cite me an ancient or modern historian that conveys this. Please cite any historic record of the time. It is not a logical argument to state because the invaders were misunderstood, had different titles, were politically different, and possibly culturally different, as soldier stated, that no historian at the time could possibly understand or record that these invaders curiously spoke a language similar to the indigenous Balkan people.

Contemporary genetic geneology has demonstrated that populations in SE Europe carrying the R1a and I haplogroups are upstream of Central and Eastern European populations carrying these same haplogroups. R1a may no longer be as frequent in SE Europe, but it is older, meaning, populations in Central and Eastern Europe are largely the descendents of Southeastern European migrants who followed the receding ice sheets north as the Last Glacial Maximum started to wane. Klyosov is an excellent source for further research. We may have not gotten a Christmas card from you guys since the early Bronze Age, but we are related.

First, R1a is not necessarily “Slavic”. It can be Asian. Some have speculated that the R1a in Bulgaria may not be Slavic at all, but Asian.

Maybe the bulgarian R1a is not slavic R1a - which is possible as not every R1a is slavic. Roman C. Scholz from the iGENEA Institue.

The same could be true with the people of Macedonia and other Balkan people. We don't know. We assume it is Slavic because of the historical record which states people of the north, now known as Slavs, migrated/invaded the Balkan peninsula. But in fact it may have nothing to do with them at all. Second, R1a is common in Eastern Europe, and R1b in Western Europe, but this argument does not prove in the least a common ancestor of Slavic speaking today.

All European nations are mixed, so the R1a argument is very weak, as R1a is found virtually everywhere in very small proportions. In addition, at best, one can argue there was a small R1a admixture in some time in history in the southern Balkans, which is seemingly supported by the historic record, but this may or may not be Slavic. In addition, one must understand that many non-Slavic speaking nations have more R1a than some Slavic speaking nations in the Balkans, including Austria and Romania.

The theory that central and eastern European people are descendants of southeastern European migrants is not consistent with any scientific evidence. You have not cited any evidence at all. You have not cited any specific studies. R1a is very different between those in Macedonia, Bulgaria, Greece, and even Serbia compared to central and northern European Slavic speaking peoples. E1b1b or E3b is very different. J and J2 are very different. I2a is also very different. There is very little genetic similarity between these peoples. Macedonians are more similar to Greeks than other Slavic speaking people. This should not be if your theory of history is right. Therefore, contemporary genetic genealogy does not demonstrate in the least that populations in SE Europe are the forefathers, however mixed, of the populations of central and eastern Europe. This has no basis in science.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/europe...logroups.shtml

The northern block of languages descend from the southern block as do the populations. The populations in this part of the world are culturally and biologically related, but similar is not the same thing as being the same. There had to have been different ethnicities in SE Europe before the expansion north. There were likely other people living to the north, as well, who merged with people coming from the south in greater numbers, providing some degree of differentiation or another, because we have been left with three distinctly different groups within the same language family, four if you consider that Polish is just way out there in relation to the other languages in the family. Roads and trade increase contact frequency between different regions and these interactions increase the likelihood of language retention and further linguistic homogenization. Baltic is very different from the Illyro-Sarmatian group due to having less frequent contacts during the period of Neolithic urbanization in my opinion. Illyro-Sarmatian languages are also more condensed in many ways, which reflects a pick up in the pace of life, similar to how acronyms have come to replace groups of words (while texting and making dinner at the same time, for instance). The closer people live to one another, the more similar their languages become. Roads are a bridge between time and space, so to speak.

It is possible that the block of northern languages does descend from the south, but the populations did not. While I do not discount the fact individuals and perhaps small families have moved north, this cannot possibly be used as evidence that these two groups of people are culturally and biologically related. Most Macedonians on this forum do not believe there is culture unity between these peoples at all. And I am one of them. It is not inconsistent with history to believe a language spread to other parts of the earth with very little genetic admixture. Modern day Egyptians, for example, are genetically closer to north African Berbers than Arabs. Lebanese people are not close to Arabs, but Mediterranean people. There is no reason to assume that if the language did develop from the south, that both the people and language gave birth to central and eastern European people, culture, and language.

Isn't this the core of the problem? The only acceptable conclusion is the one that does not contradict any form of empirical evidence. Please re-read my initial post, as it may be clearer to you now. It can be a confusing subject.

I do not disagree with you that terminology is important, however, it is ultimately of little value in this instance. The problem as I see it is that you make a lot of broad statements based on unprovable theories. You need evidence. You have presented no evidence. All you have done is made broad statements based on bland evidence. Please cite specific genetic studies proving your points. Please cite specific ancient documents as well. Otherwise, this discussion is a waste of time.

[Sovius]

The effects of Eupedia on your brain are intriguing. Equally fascinating is your assumption that I was waxing theoretical or attempting to construct some kind of argument for your benefit. I was simply drawing your ignorance out into a brighter light, which you have effortlessly demonstrated. I've addressed all this Victorian Era slop before in other threads. Read it. Don't read it. Agree or disagree. Not a concern.

Evidence? An ironic response to be sure. If you'll permit me a real assumption, it would appear as though you have not taken the time to actually study Alinei's work, yet, I believe, you started a thread regarding some of his past material.

http://www.continuitas.org/texts/alinei_interdisciplinary.pdf

As I've already examined the passage, that just leaves you to do so. Again, just an assumption.

"Slavic languages have also a unique, asymmetric areal distribution: while
Southern Slavic languages (Slovenian, Serbian, Croatian, Macedonian and
Bulgarian) form a homogeneous bloc, sharing several common features, for
Northern Slavic languages it is necessary to distinguish between a Western
branch (including Czech, Sorbian and Polish), and an Eastern one (including
Russian, Ucrainian and Belo-Russian), as each of the two branches shares
different features with Southern Slavic. "

There is only one conclusion that can be drawn from the empirical evidence mentioned in these statements. It is not an opinion. It is not an assumption. It is a set of immutable facts that provides the clarity necessary to understand the significance of other forms of empirical evidence such as genetic and archeological evidence.

You claim that this is an assumption. I claim that this is the very foundation of structural linguistics concerning the Illyro-Sarmatian language family (Conrad Gessner's term, not mine) or what you've been trained like a monkey to refer to as the Slavic languages without giving so much as a thought as to why these languages were reclassified after the Renaissance Period.

So, I have provided you with one of four things you have requested and I am happy to deliver on the other three, but first, as you've unfairly painted my ancestor's work regarding the Illyrians to the point of libel, I would like you to provide the evidence used to justify the re-classification of these languages and the evidence you are using to treat the 6th Century Slavic migration myth as if it were an actual occurrence, since you insist on using the term and treating it as if it were significant somehow to the topic of this thread. It works the same way in an interdisciplinary discussion as it does when the media uses the term Slav-Macedonians. What the hell is a Slav Macedonian? A Macedonian of Sarmatian descent? Someone who carries the M458 genetic marker who lives in Macedonia? Furthermore, prove to me that Vinko was, indeed, writing about these Slavs you keep mentioning and treating as if they were real. If I have to provide evidence, should you not have to as well?

[Soldier of Macedon]

If both groups descend from the same ethnic stock, then regardless of the cultural and political differences between the two, if they intermixed, they would produce a pure Slavic race.

Pure in which way?

Even if they were culturally and politically different, it still does not explain why the ancient historians would not have pointed to the obvious, which is to say, the invading Slavs spoke a language similar to the people of the region.

Why must they make mention of this? How many historians specifically cited the common linguistic origin of the Anglo-Saxons and the Scandinavian Vikings at the time the latter were invading Britain? My guess would be few if any. And the reason for that is not because they didn't speak Germanic languages, but because they were perceived as being politically and culturally different.

We do have evidence, however, that people we would now call “Slavs” migrated from the north to the Balkans and that this language was introduced in the Balkans.

Can you please elaborate on this evidence by demonstrating where exactly from the north these people allegedly migrated from and where this newly introduced language was formed?

Regardless of how ancient historians may have fabricated, misunderstood, or misconstrued those who they described as invaders, there is no historical evidence that remotely suggests that these people spoke a language similar to the indigenous peoples of the Balkans.

There are contemporary sources which refer to the Sclavenes as Getae, a tribe that lived around the Danube and spoke a language cognate with Thracian. While they can be interpreted in different ways depending on the narrative and perspective of an individual, they are strengthened by the fact that the Thracian language shares more similarities with Balto-Slavic than any other language group.

[Constellation]

The effects of Eupedia on your brain are intriguing. Equally fascinating is your assumption that I was waxing theoretical or attempting to construct some kind of argument for your benefit. I was simply drawing your ignorance out into a brighter light, which you have effortlessly demonstrated. I've addressed all this Victorian Era slop before in other threads. Read it. Don't read it. Agree or disagree. Not a concern.

Evidence? An ironic response to be sure. If you'll permit me a real assumption, it would appear as though you have not taken the time to actually study Alinei's work, yet, I believe, you started a thread regarding some of his past material.

http://www.continuitas.org/texts/ali...sciplinary.pdf

I hesitate to respond to your comments, as I do not believe it edifying or constructive to do so, but...

I must thank you for drawing my ignorance into a brighter light. For I must admit now I see much more clearly.

Yes, I posted a link to a website having a portion of Alinei's work. And no, I have never read Alinei's works beyond those snippets.

"Slavic languages have also a unique, asymmetric areal distribution: while
Southern Slavic languages (Slovenian, Serbian, Croatian, Macedonian and
Bulgarian) form a homogeneous bloc, sharing several common features, for
Northern Slavic languages it is necessary to distinguish between a Western
branch (including Czech, Sorbian and Polish), and an Eastern one (including
Russian, Ucrainian and Belo-Russian), as each of the two branches shares
different features with Southern Slavic. "

There is only one conclusion that can be drawn from the empirical evidence mentioned in these statements. It is not an opinion. It is not an assumption. It is a set of immutable facts that provides the clarity necessary to understand the significance of other forms of empirical evidence such as genetic and archeological evidence.

Well, where should I start? First, I am well aware of the argument that the southern branch is considered by some to be the original, and that the northern branch is not. And I am not here to dispute this. The problem I have is that it is not a “set of immutable facts”. Most scholars do not believe this. Most scholars generally place the homeland of so-called “Slavs” near Ukraine, and some, like Florin Curta, north of the Danube. It would make sense that a so-called “Slavic” language would have also emerged and developed near the historic homeland of these peoples. Apart from Alinei and a few minority scholars, no one believe Slavs are indigenous to the Balkans. I am not arguing that this theory is right, nor am I arguing it is wrong. I'm merely pointing out what the consensus interpretation of history on this issue is.

In 2007 Rębała and colleagues studied several Slavic populations with the aim of localizing the Proto-Slavic homeland. The significant findings of this study are that:

Two genetically distant groups of Slavic populations were revealed: One encompassing all Western-Slavic, Eastern-Slavic, and few Southern-Slavic populations (north-western Croats and Slovenes), and one encompassing all remaining Southern Slavs. According to the authors most Slavic populations have similar Y chromosome pools — R1a. They speculate that this similarity can be traced to an origin in the middle Dnieper basin of Ukraine during the Late Glacial Maximum 15 kya.

However, Southern-Slavic populations including the Bosnians, Croats (excluding north-western Croatia), Serbs, Bulgarians and Macedonians are clearly separated from the tight DNA cluster of the rest of the Slavic populations. According to the authors this phenomenon is explained by "... contribution to the Y chromosomes of peoples who settled in the Balkan region before the Slavic expansion to the genetic heritage of Southern Slavs ..."

Of course, there are many non-Slavic speaking nations with more R1a than Macedonians, Bulgarians, and Serbians, In fact, Greeks, including Cretans, may even have more than Montenegrins. The amount of R1 in Greece, on average, is about the same as in Macedonia.

You claim that this is an assumption. I claim that this is the very foundation of structural linguistics concerning the Illyro-Sarmatian language family (Conrad Gessner's term, not mine) or what you've been trained like a monkey to refer to as the Slavic languages without giving so much as a thought as to why these languages were reclassified after the Renaissance Period.

Thank you for the polite epithet. But again, I am not arguing the southern branch is not the oldest. What I am arguing is that it is not an immutable fact. And it is in fact a controversial minority interpretation of the data.

So, I have provided you with one of four things you have requested and I am happy to deliver on the other three, but first, as you've unfairly painted my ancestor's work regarding the Illyrians to the point of libel, I would like you to provide the evidence used to justify the re-classification of these languages and the evidence you are using to treat the 6th Century Slavic migration myth as if it were an actual occurrence, since you insist on using the term and treating it as if it were significant somehow to the topic of this thread. It works the same way in an interdisciplinary discussion as it does when the media uses the term Slav-Macedonians. What the hell is a Slav Macedonian? A Macedonian of Sarmatian descent? Someone who carries the M458 genetic marker who lives in Macedonia? Furthermore, prove to me that Vinko was, indeed, writing about these Slavs you keep mentioning and treating as if they were real. If I have to provide evidence, should you not have to as well?

First, Vinko believed that there was a common ancestor of Slavic people. This is not possible on so many levels.

Of the seven sons of Japhet, four were easily ruled out because of their connection to nations geographically too far away to have any connection to the Slavs, such as the Iberians, Capadocians and Meds, or otherwise unlinkable to the Slavs as was the case with the Gomer-Gaul combination. The fifth possible choice, that of Magog, as was already stated, although not without roots in medieval historiograpohical tradition was unacceptable to Pribojevic because he did want to count the Goths among the Slavs, but did not wish them to be the root from which Slavic tree sprang forth, but rather to be only one branch of it. This narrowed choice to only two brothers: Thyras and Javan.

And

Pribojevic's final choice fell on Thyras, the youngest of the sons of Japhet. Thyras was the father of the Thracians, a long forgotten people who lived in the regions today inhabited by the Slavs. At first glance this choice does not seem as the most promising, but a closer investigation of Pribojevic's final result reveals not only Pribojevic's creativity in compiling various ancient authors, but also the fruitfulness of this choice.

Even if you believe the biblical narratives are myth and legend, one has to wonder why Pribojevic completely ignored the fact that Macedonians did not descend from Tiras, but from Javan? Why would Pribojevic postulate that all Slavs descend from Tiras? Because it had to fit within his own historic narrative, which is to say, all Slavic speaking people have a common ancestor. But the Macedonians did not descend from Tiras. Second, it does not appear that, even if the biblical narrative is taken to be absolutely true, that Slavs descended from Tiras, but Magog. If so-called Slavs descend from Magog, then Illyrians, Thracians, and Macedonians do not. This is a serious problem to Vinko's thesis.

Second, I am not arguing that Slavs migrated en mass to the Balkans. However, it is an indisputable fact that people whom we now identity as “Slavs”, wrongly or rightly, invaded the Balkans, and contributed to the genetic gene pool of the indigenous people of the region. This is not contested.

[Sovius]

The problem I have is that it is not a “set of immutable facts”.


Then please provide evidence to support your statement or withdraw it. This sentence carries the weight of a hot air balloon. I also recommend re-reading my previous post. Better yet, read the entire study. Empirical evidence is not the same thing as theoretical inference. Arguments based on empirical evidence are not bound by theory and the limitations of speculation. Most scholars must be idiots then, to ignore that which is self-evident to researchers who actually study language structure. I don't believe most scholars are idiots, but forming professional opinions without accounting for evidence from all available disciplines tends to produce irrelevant research and "professional opinions" when speaking about something so broad as half of Europe's populations. I have a sneaky suspicion that you're reading research made prior to the age of population genetics. Look up the definition of Copernican. Curta's making progess. No doubt he'll eventually trip over what's been staring him in the face for quite a while now. Like so may scholars in the West, he's just now seeing the benefits of inter-disciplinarianism over specialization. I believe Dr. Savli out of Slovenia sent him a letter regarding the matter a number of years ago. May he rest in peace. It's up to Curta now to use the information to further his understanding of his chosen field or to continue on down the path that he has erroneously chosen. Not that I don't appreciate his effort, but he is still out in left field, regardless of the evolutionary leap in understanding amongst "Westerners".

no one believes Slavs are indigenous to the Balkans

So what you're saying is that the opinions of poorly educated people are more important to you than the research of trained professionals who have tirelessly worked their whole lives to reconstruct the past in a manner that leaves no room for contradiction. Again, fascinating, and, my apologies, very Greek-like. The source region of Haplogroup I2a and its universal presence throughout Southeastern Europe is enough to refute these dingbats' archaic nonsense. Cultures are genetically heterogeneous and evolve in a stationary manner. Cultures grow where they are planted. This is not my opinion, this is what genetic research clearly demonstrates and always has.

Of course, there are many non-Slavic speaking nations with more R1a than Macedonians, Bulgarians, and Serbians, In fact, Greeks, including Cretans, may even have more than Montenegrins. The amount of R1 in Greece, on average, is about the same as in Macedonia.*

R1a alone is not a "Slav" gene, nor areI2a or E3b1. The source regions of I2a and R1a now provide migration paths to other regions through the chronology of their mutations. Language follows genes and genes follow languages. One set of evidence is practically worthless without the other. Frequency is less important than where a subclade is within a haplogroup's chain and its geo-spatial relationships to older subclades and new subclades. I recall reading a passage that stated that the Romans crucified around 200,000 Macedonian soldiers after the fall of the Macedonian Empire. That event alone would have had the potential to wipe out an as yet discovered haplogroup subclade from the Macedonian gene pool or dramatically reduce any of the still existent haplogroups that contemporary Macedonian populations continue to carry, although it is still a massive victory to find high frequencies of a certain subclade in a source region amongst sets of earlier mutations that gave rise to that subclade. This is called an intra-haplogroup validation and if you can find an even earlier divergence to the preceding subclade in the same general area, it's even more significant. It is an anthropological triple crown. It changes the way researchers see the past of a certain area, regardless of what "the cool kids in school may think". The truth of things isn't a popularity contest.

Thank you for the polite epithet.

Vinko is not here to defend himself and you are dodging the question. The fact that you are using the term "controversial" means you lack evidence to support your argument. I realize people educated according to the Victorian Age Model of historical and anthropological interpretation tend to see the world in a certain way. I am on record as stating that they suffer from an involuntary form of ethnocentric retardation. Now genetic evidence is forcing scholars to re-evaluate their previous conclusions or learn to navigate their local landfill. During the Renaissance Period it was common knowledge among Polish scholars that Alexander of Macedon and his father spoke a language similar to but not the same as Polish (the essence of what slavjani or slovenskii mean and meant during the period in time in question). What evidence did the cultural negationists use to discount the prior consensus? If Alexander the Great spoke the language of the commoners, what did the Macedonians that followed him on his campaigns to end Greek encroachment into sovereign Macedonian territory speak?

First, Vinko believed that there was a common ancestor of Slavic people. This is not possible on so many levels.

Vinko's belief's regarding some supposed ethnogenesis of the Illyro-Sarmatian populations of Europe are not what is important about his work, I assure you. I can find no better source than the Bible for moral guidance, but will require a DNA sample from this Magog fellow to evaluate Vinko's beliefs versus historical and pre-historic reality. Vinko's work regarding the linguistic similarities of neighboring populations reflects what was common knowledge at the time, as it ran parallel with many other authors' documentation regarding a number of different cultures and documentation from previous periods, as well. Just like newscasters report the news, Vinko recorded what was commonly understood during his period in time.

all Slavic speaking people have a common ancestor?

All populations who continue to speak an Illyro-Sarmatian language have ancestors who spoke an Illyro-Sarmatian language and these languages had to have held together so well throughout the millenia due to what geo-linguists refer to as high frequency contacts. Translate this to mean roads, economic and political cooperation at some point in time for a very long time. I would like to take this brief moment to stress "a very long time". After taking a very long time to consider the significance of Professor A's evidence (most certainly not some subjectively stunted opinions or assumptions), please take a very long look at what you've yet to comprehend regarding his research.

it is an indisputable fact that people whom we now identity as “Slavs”, wrongly or rightly, invaded the Balkans, and contributed to the genetic gene pool of the indigenous people of the region. This is not contested.

If this is not contested then please provide the evidence necessary to prove it, because I can prove that your ancestors, if you are Macedonian, migrated north and became my ancestors (in part and broadly speaking, of course). Kind of Biblical, but not so Biblical, really. What R1a subclade are you using to push this "Slav" gene concept that you're positioning as a supposedly valid assertion?

Do you have the educational background necessary or access to evidence to address anything that I've requested of you from my previous post or to refute any new ground that I've made against you? If you do not, I might be able to help you out, but, then again, there's a reason why I have responded the way I have. Please remember that we are still only on exhibit 1. I've promised you four distinct proofs. Alinei was using 1st Generation genetic evidence when he wrote that paper, but you need to catch up before we can move on in a meaningful way. Brushing aside evidence without support is a sign of weakness. Producing no relevant evidence at all, but continuing to rest on your "laurels" is potentially a sign of a modern Greek upbringing. Yes, you can still be a Macedonian, but still be a "Greek". It's all a matter of who you're willing to die for in the end. Indoctrination is a huge problem in Greece and if contemporary Macedonians have fallen victim to such a cruel event, then you as a Macedonian, I would hope, would be working tirelessly to provide a "new" set of facts to consider.

[Constellation]

Then please provide evidence to support your statement or withdraw it. This sentence carries the weight of a hot air balloon. I also recommend re-reading my previous post. Better yet, read the entire study. Empirical evidence is not the same thing as theoretical inference. Arguments based on empirical evidence are not bound by theory and the limitations of speculation. Most scholars must be idiots then, to ignore that which is self-evident to researchers who actually study language structure. I don't believe most scholars are idiots, but forming professional opinions without accounting for evidence from all available disciplines tends to produce irrelevant research and "professional opinions" when speaking about something so broad as half of Europe's populations. I have a sneaky suspicion that you're reading research made prior to the age of population genetics. Look up the definition of Copernican. Curta's making progess. No doubt he'll eventually trip over what's been staring him in the face for quite a while now. Like so may scholars in the West, he's just now seeing the benefits of inter-disciplinarianism over specialization. I believe Dr. Savli out of Slovenia sent him a letter regarding the matter a number of years ago. May he rest in peace. It's up to Curta now to use the information to further his understanding of his chosen field or to continue on down the path that he has erroneously chosen. Not that I don't appreciate his effort, but he is still out in left field, regardless of the evolutionary leap in understanding amongst "Westerners".

Your argument rests in the fact that certain linguists have theorized that the southern Slavic branch is the oldest. Mario Alinei believes there is no northern Slavic, and in fact derives from southern Slavic. This cannot qualify as an immutable fact. It qualifies as linguistic analysis. This is theory, and a theory held by a very small amount of scholars. If this were an objective, measurable, quantifiable fact, no one would question it. No University Slavic language department, however, recognizes the validity of this theory. I have never seen information apart from a small number of scholars who believe this. How can so many experts on Slavic languages not see this immutable fact? The answer is because it is not an immutable fact. It is a theory buttressed by a minority's interpretation of linguistic evidence, but it is not widely accepted. The theory that the Slavic language originates in the south also seemingly contradicts all known historic and genetic evidence.

There may be a rational explanation for these contradictions, however, and it may be possible to reconcile them.

If we start with the premise that Slavic is the oldest branch, and that it originated in the Balkans, we have to work on the assumption that this language was never called Slavic. The next thing we have to figure out is how was this language spoken in much of the Balkans? The traditional theory is that so-called Slavs migrated into the region, and introduced Slavic to the indigenous people. This theory makes sense only from the perspective that it explains how today's Balkan people generally speak a common Slavic language. It is grossly deficient in many other respects. Vinko Pribojević hypothesized that all Slavic speaking people descended from a common ancestor, Tiras. If true, this would provide the framework necessary to argue for a common ancestor of Slavs and a common Slavic language long before Slavic migrants migrated the Balkans. Science has conclusively established that Pribojević was wrong, however.

In 2007 Rębała and colleagues studied several Slavic populations with the aim of localizing the Proto-Slavic homeland. The significant findings of this study are that:

Two genetically distant groups of Slavic populations were revealed: One encompassing all Western-Slavic, Eastern-Slavic, and few Southern-Slavic populations (north-western Croats and Slovenes), and one encompassing all remaining Southern Slavs. According to the authors most Slavic populations have similar Y chromosome pools — R1a. They speculate that this similarity can be traced to an origin in the middle Dnieper basin of Ukraine during the Late Glacial Maximum 15 kya.

However, Southern-Slavic populations including the Bosnians, Croats (excluding north-western Croatia), Serbs, Bulgarians and Macedonians are clearly separated from the tight DNA cluster of the rest of the Slavic populations. According to the authors this phenomenon is explained by "... contribution to the Y chromosomes of peoples who settled in the Balkan region before the Slavic expansion to the genetic heritage of Southern Slavs ..."

Based on this study, it would appear that so-called southern Slavs share genetic similarity with each other, not because of migrating Slavs from the north, who are genetically distant, but because of “contribution to the Y chromosomes of peoples who settled in the Balkan region before the Slavic expansion to the genetic heritage of Southern Slavs”. In other words, the haplogroup I2a seems to be most common in the Balkans, though there are exceptions, including the population of Sardinia. Northern Slavs, however, are very low in I2a.

This study seems to suggest that northern Slavs contributed to the gene pool of southern Slavs, and one can argue Albanians and even Greeks in fairly same proportions, though in this study only Slavic speaking people were sampled. There is no genetic study that suggests southern Slavs contributed to the gene pool of northern Slavs, though I do not doubt that people of Greek, Albanian, Macedonian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Bosnian, and Croatian heritages have intermixed with northern Slavic people in the past and do so even in the present. These are generally isolated examples, however, and they do not measurably affect the northern Slavic gene pool. If you have studies that document otherwise, please, by all means, forward me the links.

The problem I have with Rębała et al., is that they used a broad stroke to define southern Slavs. However, southern Slavs are not one broad lump of people. Southern Slavs differ broadly in I2a, E3b1, J and J2 haplogroups, for example. In addition, studies such as the Rębała et al., seem to suggest that the Balkan Slavs are primarily of ethnic Slavic descent (from the Slavic migration theory), but differ from northern Slavs because they inherit genes of the indigenous Balkan people. When in fact it is the opposite. We are a Balkan Mediterranean people with predominately Balkan Mediterranean genes with some northern Slavic admixture, namely R1a, and in fairly similar proportions in the whole southern Balkans, including Albania and Greece.

Another problem I have with the study by Rębała et al., is the ignorant assumption that because Greeks and Albanians do not speak Slavic, the Slavs in those regions were smaller in numbers and were absorbed by the indigenous people. However, the Slavs in Macedonia and elsewhere were allegedly more dominant, a fact not supported by any genetic study, and because of this dominance, the indigenous people were absorbed by the Slavs. How could nearly the same level of Slavic proportion in today's Greek, Albanian, and Macedonian populations produce three different linguistic results? And how is it that Romanians, who have more R1a than most Balkan Slavic people, did not adopt Slavic? Yet in Montenegro, where there is very little R1a, even less than Albania and Greece, Slavic prevailed?

So there are problems here. Not with genetic studies, but the historical interpretation of the data. Before the advent of genetic studies, for example, virtually all historians and anthropologists assumed that today's Balkan people descended from migrating Slavs because they speak Slavic. Unfortunately, much of the world still thinks this, even though it is unquestionably a myth of history. The Slavic Migration Theory has long been used to deny the unique nations of the Balkans, and has been used to deny the claims of modern Macedonians. However, assuming the historic record of the Byzantine authors is accurate, or even fairly accurate, it cannot be denied that people of the north contributed to the gene pool of the indigenous Balkan people.

So what alternative theory exists? Was there a common proto-Balkan language before the Slavs migrated to the Balkans? If so, what can account for a common proto-Balkan language? If a common language was spoken in much of the Balkans before the Slavs migrated, and that Slavic in fact originated in the Balkans, how can this be explained?

Was it because all the Balkan nations who spoke this language were kinsmen? Or was it because the language developed in one Balkan nation and spread throughout the Balkans? If so, how did this happen? By conquest? Again, as previously stated, Vinko Pribojević hypothesized that all Slavic people descended from a common ancestor, Tiras. This theory, however, is not correct, as previously stated, because the Macedonians did not descend from Tiras. Moreover, today's northern Slavs descend from Magog, not Tiras. This fact is corroborated by the genetic studies which show today's Balkan people genetically inherit the Thracian, Illyrian, and Macedonian gene pools, but the gene pool was “muddied” with Magog DNA, namely, northern Slavs.

The Slavic speaking people of the north are genetically distant from the Slavic speaking people of the south. In addition, genetically speaking, the Balkan people are fairly similar, as one would expect from neighboring peoples, but they are obviously not the same, with considerable differences between northern Balkan people and southern Balkan people.

So if “Slavic” did originate in the Balkans, as some linguistic experts believe, it would have to mean, when understood in the context of genetics and history, that this language was never called Slavic and the people in the Balkans were never called Slavs, and that this language was adopted by unrelated peoples. If these statements are true, the question is: what language did today's Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, etc speak in the distant past? Was it Slavic? And if so, when did the southern branch migrate north? And why was it adopted by the north? If these events took place in the distant past, long before Byzantine writers referenced the “cursed” Slavs, which by all accounts were not flattery, why did they not make no reference to the similarity in language and appearance (if genetically related) to the people of the south? Could an argument be made that when the Slavs invaded the Balkans that it was at this point in time of history that they first learned Slavic, and prior to this, spoke another language? How plausible is this theory?

So what you're saying is that the opinions of poorly educated people are more important to you than the research of trained professionals who have tirelessly worked their whole lives to reconstruct the past in a manner that leaves no room for contradiction. Again, fascinating, and, my apologies, very Greek-like. The source region of Haplogroup I2a and its universal presence throughout Southeastern Europe is enough to refute these dingbats' archaic nonsense. Cultures are genetically heterogeneous and evolve in a stationary manner. Cultures grow where they are planted. This is not my opinion, this is what genetic research clearly demonstrates and always has.

The scholars who disagree with your thesis are not poorly educated. They are highly educated. They may be wrong, and history is replete with examples of where the interpretation of historic and scientific data by the preponderance of scholars has been wrong. No one doubts this. However, to make the statement that scholars who disagree with this thesis are poorly educated and that people who do agree with this thesis are trained professionals is inappropriate. This is not a scholarly argument.

I2a is considered the southern counterpart of the northern R1a. Whereas R1a is common in northern Slavs, southern Slavs are high in the haplogroup I2a, but the frequency of this haplogroup varies considerably in the Balkans. I do not think this proves your point. I think it works against the argument for a common origin. The scientific data clearly establishes that northern and southern slavs are distantly related because the haplogroup R1a is ubiquitous in northern Slavs and the haplogroup I2a is ubiquitous in southern Slavs. Other haplogrups also suggest genetic distances between these peoples. E1b1b or E3b1, J and J2, for example, confirm not only distances between northern and southern Slavs, but considerable differences between northern Balkan Slavs and southern Balkan Slavs.

In addition, Central and southern Greece, for example, has similar I2a levels to Poles, Russians, and Ukrainians. Should we assume that northern Slavs are related to Greeks?

Haplogroup I2 is the most common paternal lineage in former Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria and Sardinia, and a major lineage in most Slavic countries. Its maximum frequencies are observed in Bosnia (55%, including 71% in Bosnian Croats), Sardinia (39.5%), Croatia (38%), Serbia (33%), Montenegro (31%), Romania (28%), Moldova (24%), Macedonia (24%), Slovenia (22%), Bulgaria (22%), Belarus (18.5%), Hungary (18%), Slovakia (17.5%), Ukraine (13.5%), and Albania (13.5%). It is found at a frequency of 5 to 10% in Germanic countries.

It is also found in high numbers in northern Greece.

R1a alone is not a "Slav" gene, nor areI2a or E3b1. The source regions of I2a and R1a now provide migration paths to other regions through the chronology of their mutations. Language follows genes and genes follow languages. One set of evidence is practically worthless without the other. Frequency is less important than where a subclade is within a haplogroup's chain and its geo-spatial relationships to older subclades and new subclades. I recall reading a passage that stated that the Romans crucified around 200,000 Macedonian soldiers after the fall of the Macedonian Empire. That event alone would have had the potential to wipe out an as yet discovered haplogroup subclade from the Macedonian gene pool or dramatically reduce any of the still existent haplogroups that contemporary Macedonian populations continue to carry, although it is still a massive victory to find high frequencies of a certain subclade in a source region amongst sets of earlier mutations that gave rise to that subclade. This is called an intra-haplogroup validation and if you can find an even earlier divergence to the preceding subclade in the same general area, it's even more significant. It is an anthropological triple crown. It changes the way researchers see the past of a certain area, regardless of what "the cool kids in school may think". The truth of things isn't a popularity contest.

All national identifications are social constructs. There is no Slavic gene, any more is there a Greek or Russian gene. R1a is not Slavic, but in European populations, is heavily concentrated in northern Slavic speaking people, and indeed even in some non-Slavic speaking people. I2a is concentrated in the Balkans. And E3b1 is concentrated in the Mediterranean.

Outside Europe, E1b1b is found at high frequencies in Morocco (over 80%), Somalia (80%), Ethiopia (40% to 80%), Tunisia (70%), Algeria (60%), Egypt (40%), Jordan (25%), Palestine (20%), and Lebanon (17.5%). On the European continent it has the highest concentration in Kosovo (over 45%), Albania and Montenegro (both 27%), Bulgaria (23%), Macedonia and Greece (both 21%), Cyprus (20%), Sicily (20%), South Italy (18.5%), Serbia (18%) and Romania (15%).

I would point out that these numbers differ from iGENEA's database. In that database, measuring the Y-Haplogroupgs, Albania has E1b1b at 16%, and Macedonia is at 25%. In addition, I2a, the so-called Slavic Balkan gene, is 30% in Albania, and 32% in Macedonia. The differences could be the result of Y-Haplogroups and differences within in populations. However, I would not rule out the falsification of data either, as genetics and politics do not mix.

Vinko is not here to defend himself and you are dodging the question. The fact that you are using the term "controversial" means you lack evidence to support your argument. I realize people educated according to the Victorian Age Model of historical and anthropological interpretation tend to see the world in a certain way. I am on record as stating that they suffer from an involuntary form of ethnocentric retardation. Now genetic evidence is forcing scholars to re-evaluate their previous conclusions or learn to navigate their local landfill. During the Renaissance Period it was common knowledge among Polish scholars that Alexander of Macedon and his father spoke a language similar to but not the same as Polish (the essence of what slavjani or slovenskii mean and meant during the period in time in question). What evidence did the cultural negationists use to discount the prior consensus? If Alexander the Great spoke the language of the commoners, what did the Macedonians that followed him on his campaigns to end Greek encroachment into sovereign Macedonian territory speak?

Well, first, my educational backgrounds are in very different fields than linguistics and anthropology. Second, I am not dodging your question. You are entitled to believe the thesis that Slavic is the original branch. You are also entitled to believe the thesis as advocated by Slavic thinkers throughout the centuries of a common ancestor of Slavs. The veracity of the first thesis I am not sure on. The veracity of the second thesis is not in question: it is bogus.

Third, I am well aware that so-called Slavic writers in the past have written of their opinion that the ancient Macedonians were Slavs and spoke Slavic. Vinko and Orbini are among the most well known advocates of this theory. The problem we have, however, is that very few written words of the ancient Macedonians have been preserved. Some of these words are loan words from the Hellenic language. Others appear to be Macedonian. No one is certain what this language was, though scholars in the past have blindly assumed it was Greek (and unfortunately many still do). Donski believes that the ancient Macedonian language is similar to today's Macedonian language, and that some of these words are still used today. This is widely considered to be pseudo science. Personally, I do not think it is a pseudo science, but I do believe more research is needed.

The theory held by Orbini is that, similar to Vinko, all Slavs descend from a common ancestor. These writers were writing at a time when a people calling themselves “Macedonian” spoke a “Slavic” language, and deduced from this, and from the historic record that the Macedonian language was a barbarian tongue to the Greeks, that the Macedonians have always spoken this language. A lot of assumptions were made by these writers, assumptions which are not widely accepted by mainstream scholars. Theologically speaking, it is not accurate. Genetically speaking, it is not accurate. Linguistically, when examined in the proper framework, it may be accurate, but more research is needed.

Vinko's belief's regarding some supposed ethnogenesis of the Illyro-Sarmatian populations of Europe are not what is important about his work, I assure you. I can find no better source than the Bible for moral guidance, but will require a DNA sample from this Magog fellow to evaluate Vinko's beliefs versus historical and pre-historic reality. Vinko's work regarding the linguistic similarities of neighboring populations reflects what was common knowledge at the time, as it ran parallel with many other authors' documentation regarding a number of different cultures and documentation from previous periods, as well. Just like newscasters report the news, Vinko recorded what was commonly understood during his period in time.

I do not think you understand the point. I am not arguing Vinko's writings are of no value or his understanding on the origins of Illyro-Sarmation populations is what is most important or even important about his writings. What I am trying to convey is that Vinko's fundamental premise regarding the common origins of Slavic speaking people is historically, theologically, and genetically inaccurate.

All populations who continue to speak an Illyro-Sarmatian language have ancestors who spoke an Illyro-Sarmatian language and these languages had to have held together so well throughout the millenia due to what geo-linguists refer to as high frequency contacts. Translate this to mean roads, economic and political cooperation at some point in time for a very long time. I would like to take this brief moment to stress "a very long time". After taking a very long time to consider the significance of Professor A's evidence (most certainly not some subjectively stunted opinions or assumptions), please take a very long look at what you've yet to comprehend regarding his research.

I do not entirely agree with the first statement. I think Slavic began somewhere and spread to unrelated peoples who in different times and seasons adopted this language for different reasons.

If this is not contested then please provide the evidence necessary to prove it, because I can prove that your ancestors, if you are Macedonian, migrated north and became my ancestors (in part and broadly speaking, of course). Kind of Biblical, but not so Biblical, really. What R1a subclade are you using to push this "Slav" gene concept that you're positioning as a supposedly valid assertion?

Please provide evidence that Macedonians migrated north and intermixed with today's northern Slavic speaking people? When did this happen? And why is it not reflected in the historic and genetic records?

Do you have the educational background necessary or access to evidence to address anything that I've requested of you from my previous post or to refute any new ground that I've made against you? If you do not, I might be able to help you out, but, then again, there's a reason why I have responded the way I have. Please remember that we are still only on exhibit 1. I've promised you four distinct proofs. Alinei was using 1st Generation genetic evidence when he wrote that paper, but you need to catch up before we can move on in a meaningful way. Brushing aside evidence without support is a sign of weakness. Producing no relevant evidence at all, but continuing to rest on your "laurels" is potentially a sign of a modern Greek upbringing. Yes, you can still be a Macedonian, but still be a "Greek". It's all a matter of who you're willing to die for in the end. Indoctrination is a huge problem in Greece and if contemporary Macedonians have fallen victim to such a cruel event, then you as a Macedonian, I would hope, would be working tirelessly to provide a "new" set of facts to consider.

My educational background is not in linguistics and anthropology. I think I have provided plenty of evidence – objective scientific evidence – to support my thesis that northern Slavs are genetically distant from southern Slavs and that northern Balkan Slavs are genetically distant from southern Balkan Slavs. Your whole argument up to this point has consisted of a minority interpretation of the origin of the Slavic language which may or may be accurate. As I wrote earlier, I am not arguing against this, as I do believe it is possible under the proper framework. What I am arguing, however, is that it is not an immutable fact, and to dismiss the consensus of scholars because they do not agree with this thesis is not logical.

[George S.]

con you need to cooberate more evidence on the slvs not simply generalising.

[Sovius]

Constellation,
You're going all over the place here. You've even skipped right past SoM's post. After you've addressed his comments, let's try to stay focused. I've presented you with evidence. You now need to invalidate that evidence or cast sufficient doubt on it using evidence. Do you need help with this? I believe Alinei mentioned a hold out from Germany whose work you might want to consult. Trust me, we can discuss the differences in importance between haplogroup frequencies and mutational chronologies and the joys of Renaissance Period migration myth building, but evasion is not a suitable rebuttal when presented with empirical evidence. Never mind the PC Theory. Focus on the evidence presented in the document and explain what it means to you at the very least.

Theory defined:

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

Fact defined:

A thing that is indisputably the case.

A re-examination:

"Slavic languages have also a unique, asymmetric areal distribution: while
Southern Slavic languages (Slovenian, Serbian, Croatian, Macedonian and
Bulgarian) form a homogeneous bloc, sharing several common features, for
Northern Slavic languages it is necessary to distinguish between a Western
branch (including Czech, Sorbian and Polish), and an Eastern one (including
Russian, Ucrainian and Belo-Russian), as each of the two branches shares
different features with Southern Slavic. "

Fact:

The languages of the Northern group emanate from the languages of the Southern group in two distinctly different ways. It would be impossible for the Western bloc to have formed the Eastern bloc due to the fact that it is lacking intrinsic features found in the Southern and Eastern blocs and impossible for the Eastern bloc to have formed the Western and Southern blocs for this very same reason.

Factual Consequences:

Any theory or seemingly valid historical observation that has ever contradicted this evidence has never been relevant to begin with. There is no argument here. Again, highlighting the ignorance of Victorian Age Model researchers is not a valid rebuttal to what you are erroneously perceiving to be an argument. Your only options are either to accept reality or demonstrate how an erroneously held belief has more merit than the truth. Any peripheral theories made using an invalidated theory as a basis for relevance are also of no consequence to serious researchers who have taken the time to expand their knowledge of what they have been tasked to study. Those who can admit they were in error will move on to produce relevant work and those who choose to stay behind will be left behind. You're confusing what is a fact and what represents a theory and when that which is only theoretical has erroneously been treated as factual (e.g. Eupedia's narrative concerning "The Slavs" and a number of other popularized Victorian Era assumptions). This is how the Victorian Model gained academic ground and what ultimately defeated it. Alinei is regarded as one of the greatest geo-linguistics who ever lived by the way.

Now, please refute the evidence instead of dancing around it.

[Bill77]

Sovius........you have spent a lot of your time and effort on this subject which I am thoroughly enjoying the education.........but when it comes to constellation clearly you are in an intellectual knife fight with an armless man.

[Constellation]

Sovius........you have spent a lot of your time and effort on this subject which I am thoroughly enjoying the education.........but when it comes to constellation clearly you are in an intellectual knife fight with an armless man.

Your bias and ignorance, Bill, once again has shown bright as the sun. I see after your masterful thoughts were written down in the "Who were the Sons of Javan" thread that you have moved on to more important subjects.

[Constellation]

Constellation,
You're going all over the place here. You've even skipped right past SoM's post. After you've addressed his comments, let's try to stay focused. I've presented you with evidence. You now need to invalidate that evidence or cast sufficient doubt on it using evidence. Do you need help with this? I believe Alinei mentioned a hold out from Germany whose work you might want to consult. Trust me, we can discuss the differences in importance between haplogroup frequencies and mutational chronologies and the joys of Renaissance Period migration myth building, but evasion is not a suitable rebuttal when presented with empirical evidence. Never mind the PC Theory. Focus on the evidence presented in the document and explain what it means to you at the very least.

Theory defined:

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

Fact defined:

A thing that is indisputably the case.

A re-examination:

"Slavic languages have also a unique, asymmetric areal distribution: while
Southern Slavic languages (Slovenian, Serbian, Croatian, Macedonian and
Bulgarian) form a homogeneous bloc, sharing several common features, for
Northern Slavic languages it is necessary to distinguish between a Western
branch (including Czech, Sorbian and Polish), and an Eastern one (including
Russian, Ucrainian and Belo-Russian), as each of the two branches shares
different features with Southern Slavic. "

Fact:

The languages of the Northern group emanate from the languages of the Southern group in two distinctly different ways. It would be impossible for the Western bloc to have formed the Eastern bloc due to the fact that it is lacking intrinsic features found in the Southern and Eastern blocs and impossible for the Eastern bloc to have formed the Western and Southern blocs for this very same reason.

Factual Consequences:

Any theory or seemingly valid historical observation that has ever contradicted this evidence has never been relevant to begin with. There is no argument here. Again, highlighting the ignorance of Victorian Age Model researchers is not a valid rebuttal to what you are erroneously perceiving to be an argument. Your only options are either to accept reality or demonstrate how an erroneously held belief has more merit than the truth. Any peripheral theories made using an invalidated theory as a basis for relevance are also of no consequence to serious researchers who have taken the time to expand their knowledge of what they have been tasked to study. Those who can admit they were in error will move on to produce relevant work and those who choose to stay behind will be left behind. You're confusing what is a fact and what represents a theory and when that which is only theoretical has erroneously been treated as factual (e.g. Eupedia's narrative concerning "The Slavs" and a number of other popularized Victorian Era assumptions). This is how the Victorian Model gained academic ground and what ultimately defeated it. Alinei is regarded as one of the greatest geo-linguistics who ever lived by the way.

Now, please refute the evidence instead of dancing around it.

Sovius, I do thank you for spending the time to educate me and for pointing out my dancing around.

Are you, by profession, a linguist? I confess that I am not.

I also confess that I have known of the thesis you are presenting long before I joined this forum. This is not new information. However, I am not qualified to make a definite pronouncement on the validity of this thesis.

I would have to contact professors and professional linguists and do more independent research to verify this immutable fact and why this immutable fact is only entertained by such a small minority of experts.

[Bill77]

Your bias and ignorance, Bill, once again has shown bright as the sun. I see after your masterful thoughts were written down in the "Who were the Sons of Javan" thread that you have moved on to more important subjects.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. That's all mine was in that thread you mentioned, just my thoughts. I was just putting up an alternative perspective and would be more than happy to be corrected which I would then move on.

Oh.....And atleast we can now both agree that there are more important subjects.....unlike some of the worthless threads you start such as the "who were the sons of Javan" thread.

But you my man......remind me of that scene from the Monty Python movie "The Holy Grail" where the Dark knight looses one by one, his arms and legs and just dosen't concede no matter how incapacitated he is. It's clear Sovius and yourself are way apart on intellectual levels and by entirely relying on and harping on about what he said....she said and you don't use free thinking, shows how debilitated you are.

Anyway carry on.........it's just another opinion of mine.

[DraganOfStip]

But you my man......remind me of that scene from the Monty Python movie "The Holy Grail" where the Dark knight looses one by one, his arms and legs and just dosen't concede no matter how incapacitated he is.

Hahaha,one of my personal favorite scenes of all-time (I'm a big Python fan).




"All right,let's call it a draw"