The Illyrians

[Constellation]

The one gentleman that did respond to these questions was posed with another set of introductory questions.

Why do you think Slavic writers in the 1500s and 1600s (e.g. Vinko Pribojevic, Mauro Orbini) espoused the theory that Slavic originated in the Balkans? I'm not looking for an answer in the sense that both men were Pan-Slavists or propagandists. Or why they are wrong from a technical or scholarly argument. What I would like to know is why this tradition (if I may call it that) exists among northern Slavs that Slavic originated in the Balkans?

Do you think it strange if northern Slavs brought Slavic to the Balkans, that tradition (again, if I may use that word) would exist among northern Slavic writers that Slavic originated in the Balkans?

Thank you again,

I was hoping that I could explore this topic in depth with this PhD, but he never responded to the questions put forth above.

[Nikolaj]

The one gentleman that did respond to these questions was posed with another set of introductory questions.



I was hoping that I could explore this topic in depth with this PhD, but he never responded to the questions put forth above.

Well said constellation, thanks for sharing the emails.

I'm sure we could find a PhD who is not afraid to contest or disagree with what other historians generally believe.

[Sovius]

It used to just be considered self-evident during the Renaissance Period, until scholars started chasing their tails. Or would that be tales?


'Kup' and 'Kup(a)' mean pile or stack in the Croatian and Czech languages, similar to 'cuppa' in Latin, which meant barrel or tub. 'Kupah' means pit in the Sansksrit language. Beggars 'cup' their hands to receive change and tax collectors do the same when we pay for our politicians' vacation homes. I believe the ancient Achaeans carried cargo on ships referred to as 'kypes'. Cup is 'kaupas' in Lithuanian and 'kupu' in the Macedonian ecclesiastical language, often referred to as "Old Church Slavonic" by Slavists and Pan-Germanics. 'Kupu' is more conservative than' kaupas' in terms of vowel sharpness. The Sanskrit form also diverges into a relaxed ending, as with the Latin form.

'Kup' is a pre-agrarian term that came to be used in bartering economies, possibly after the advent of farming or in tandem with it, though, the early fishing economies of Southeastern Europe would have also likely engaged in bartering. Villages would trade stacks of wheat for piles of fish and so on. The use of 'kup' evolved during the development of currencies. 'Kupljeno' means bought in the Serbian language and 'koupeno' means bought in the Czech language. It's important to pay attention to the consonant grouping in the middle of the Serbian word, because it preserves the 'kup' root in a more conservative manner than the Czech form. The Latin term further demonstrates the Venetic substratum in existence in the region during the rise of the Roman Empire and the Greek form represents a divergence in usage out of the Thracian substrate that it evolved out of. There is theory and there is irreducible actuality.

[makedonche]

It used to just be considered self-evident during the Renaissance Period, until scholars started chasing their tails. Or would that be tales?


'Kup' and 'Kup(a)' mean pile or stack in the Croatian and Czech languages, similar to 'cuppa' in Latin, which meant barrel or tub. 'Kupah' means pit in the Sansksrit language. Beggars 'cup' their hands to receive change and tax collectors do the same when we pay for our politicians' vacation homes. I believe the ancient Achaeans carried cargo on ships referred to as 'kypes'. Cup is 'kaupas' in Lithuanian and 'kupu' in the Macedonian ecclesiastical language, often referred to as "Old Church Slavonic" by Slavists and Pan-Germanics. 'Kupu' is more conservative than' kaupas' in terms of vowel sharpness. The Sanskrit form also diverges into a relaxed ending, as with the Latin form.

'Kup' is a pre-agrarian term that came to be used in bartering economies, possibly after the advent of farming or in tandem with it, though, the early fishing economies of Southeastern Europe would have also likely engaged in bartering. Villages would trade stacks of wheat for piles of fish and so on. The use of 'kup' evolved during the development of currencies. 'Kupljeno' means bought in the Serbian language and 'koupeno' means bought in the Czech language. It's important to pay attention to the consonant grouping in the middle of the Serbian word, because it preserves the 'kup' root in a more conservative manner than the Czech form. The Latin term further demonstrates the Venetic substratum in existence in the region during the rise of the Roman Empire and the Greek form represents a divergence in usage out of the Thracian substrate that it evolved out of. There is theory and there is irreducible actuality.

Sovius
I always enjoy your posts here.....don't always agree, but always enlightening in a refreshing well scripted manner!

[Philosopher]

7.3.5 The diagnostic value of the etymological semantic change from Slav
to slave

A last argument against the traditional view of the Slavic ethnogenesis, and in my opinion just as strong as it is new, can be found in the historical events involving Slavs in the very period of their historical appearance in Europe. As is known, most western European words designating the notion of “slave” derive from the Latin word sclavus, originally meaning “Slavic”: not only English slave, but also German Sklave, Dutch slaaf, Danish slave, Swedish slaaf, Welsh slaf, Breton Sklav, French esclave, Spanish esclavo, Portuguese escravo, Italian schiavo,
Albanian skllaf, Modern Greek sklavos, etc. The word has also entered Spanish Arabic, where it has become saklabi or siklabi, plural sakaliba, with the meaning of “eunuch”. In Italy, Lat. sclavus has developed into schiavo in the dialect of Florence, which eventually has become standard Italian. But in Northern Italian dialects, in particular in the dialects of Veneto, through regular phonetic developments, sclavus ‘Slav’ as well as ‘slave’ has become first sciavo, then sciao, and finally ciao, the Italian informal greeting, now internationally known 3 . As to the semantic change from the notion of “slave” to a simple greeting, it can be easily explained by comparing the very similar development by which in certain parts of central Europe the word servus, originally meaning “servant”, has become a common greeting. Why is all of this important for the traditional theory of the ethnogenesis of the Slavs? Because of the passage from the meaning of ‘Slav’ to the notion of ‘slave’, and its great historiacl significance. Let us see this in greater detail. There is a whole collection of medieval sources, which would take too long to list, but which have been systematicaly studied by the three fundamental studies on the history of Lat. sclavus (Aebischer 1936, Verlinden 1943, 1955), which shows that the earliest attestations of the word sclavus date back to the Early Middle Ages: precisely when the Slavs, in the traditional scenario, should undertake their ‘great migration’. Indeed we find the meaning ‘slave’ associated to the word sklavos sklavus generally used in Byzantine Greek and Late Latin documents of the 10 th century of our era, and most philologists and historians who have discussed the problem are inclined to read “slave” instead of “Slav” in many earlier attestations. Still earlier, the first attestations of the word in the sense of “Slavic” can also be found in Greek, in the 6 th century of our era. According to Vasmer himself, for example, the attestation of sclavos in Agathias (6 th century) already has the meaning of “slave” (Aebischer 1936, 485). How do scholars explain the semantic development from “Slavic” to “slave”? All historical sources irrefutably show that the Slavic area was the main reservoir of slaves in the whole period of Early Middle Ages, beginning probably in the 6 the century, and with a peak around the 10th. This preference for slaves of Slavic origin – so strong as to make Slavs the slaves by anthonomasia – has been easily explained: in that period Slavic people were the only ones who were still pagan, and this detail is most important as it explains why, by choosing them, early medieval slave traders – mostly Venetian, Genoese and Jewish – did not violate the new principles of the “Societas christiana”, introduced by Pope Gregory the Great at the end of the 6 th century, according to which baptized people must be excluded from slavery. So we obtain a safe dating for the word sclavus, in the sense of “slave”, which will be approximately the period between the sixth and tenth centuries. Now, as this period is precisely the one in which the supposed ‘great migration’ of the Slavs should take place, the question arises: how can huge migrating groups that were supposed to be aggressively busy occupying half of Europe, from the Arctic area to the Black Sea, submerging and extinguishing all previous populations, have at the same time been chosen as the European slaves par excellence? This would clash against all that we know – and that history abundantly shows – , about the characters of ethnic and racial groups systematically reduced to slavery. In fact, if Slavs in the Early Middle Ages became the historical slaves of Europe, this implies that in that period, rather than being migrating to new territories and exterminating pre-existing people, they were known to have beeen stable in their territories, to be hard workers, and especially to be without much possibility to defend themselves from slave raiders and slave owners.

It is rather interesting indeed how the conquerors of the half of Europe were also the slaves of Europe. Here we are to believe that this monolithic group subdued all the peoples in eastern and south eastern Europe and incredibly enough did so while being the slaves of Europe.

This is an enormous feat.

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

[Amphipolis]

I believe the ancient Achaeans carried cargo on ships referred to as 'kypes'.

The most common form in Greek is cypellon (κύπελλον) but also cype (κύπη). Cypellon is found in Homer and is used in the same form continuously until today. As of cype it's called coupa now in demotic.

[Sovius]

Sovius
I always enjoy your posts here.....don't always agree, but always enlightening in a refreshing well scripted manner!

Then, of course, we have the word 'coupon', which we owe to the thriftiness of ancient Illyrian shoppers and Roman "Big Box" stores. They would store their clay jars in cupboards known as 'kupes', which evolved out of 'kupahs'. Then there are chicken coops. A cooper, oddly enough, makes barrels. Before that, they must have certainly dug holes for a living. According to Pliny the Elder, barrel making developed in the alpine valleys to the north of the Roman lowlands, which were inhabited by Venetians (Veneti), which, of course, leads us back to the origin of the Roman term for barrel.

[Sovius]

The most common form in Greek is cypellon (κύπελλον) but also cype (κύπη). Cypellon is found in Homer and is used in the same form continuously until today. As of cype it's called coupa now in demotic.

Thank you for the elaborating.

[Sovius]

This is an enormous feat.

An enormous something, but I wouldn't use the term feat to describe it.

[George S.]

qoute"Do you think it strange if northern Slavs brought Slavic to the Balkans, that tradition (again, if I may use that word) would exist among northern Slavic writers that Slavic originated in the Balkans?"I think the language developed in the balkans,macedonia is one place.One theory places the 6-7 century as slavic invasions and that the slavic hordes were illiterate and they asopted the macedonian language.In other words they were macedonized.The development of the macedonian language could perhaps be explained by the various historical development of macedonian words.There are words that are similar to slavic so called words basic words that developed into a indo european language.One thing that i would like to know that there was a common language spoken on the earth?Did that have any "slavic"words?Also how did the slavic words originate ,how far back?

[Constellation]

Well said constellation, thanks for sharing the emails.

I'm sure we could find a PhD who is not afraid to contest or disagree with what other historians generally believe.

I do not think I will ever receive an email response from this PhD on the questions proposed to him. The problem, I suspect, is that he thinks me, my questions, and statements, are outside the mainstream. Thus, I am not worthy of the response.

Most academic scholars have a very low opinion of non-scholars. He was taught the standard commonly accepted origin of Slavic. I am not a scholar and yet I am questioning this. He thinks I am a nobody, perhaps a conspiracy theorist, as he labeled Alinei, and thus unworthy of attention. In his mind, and here I am speculating, is that I cannot be taken seriously because I am not one of "them"; I am not a scholar and yet I am calling into question the commonly accepted origin of Slavic.

[Constellation]

New Evidence Regarding theMiddle Eastern origins of R1a

Abstract

R1a-M420 is one of the most widely spread Y-chromosome haplogroups; however, its substructure within Europe and Asia has remained poorly characterized. Using a panel of 16244 male subjects from 126 populations sampled across Eurasia, we identified 2923 R1a-M420 Y-chromosomes and analyzed them to a highly granular phylogeographic resolution. Whole Y-chromosome sequence analysis of eight R1a and five R1b individuals suggests a divergence time of ~25000 (95%*CI: 21300–29000) years ago and a coalescence time within R1a-M417 of ~5800 (95%*CI: 4800–6800) years. The spatial frequency distributions of R1a sub-haplogroups conclusively indicate two major groups, one found primarily in Europe and the other confined to Central and South Asia. Beyond the major European versus Asian dichotomy, we describe several younger sub-haplogroups. Based on spatial distributions and diversity patterns within the R1a-M420 clade, particularly rare basal branches detected primarily within Iran and eastern Turkey, we conclude that the initial episodes of haplogroup R1a diversification likely occurred in the vicinity of present-day Iran.

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...hg201450a.html

I do not wish to restart this thread, but I would like some clarification from you Sovius. Say R1a entered the Balkans from the Middle East. How do you explain the upstream of R1a when the R1a in the south is low and yet the R1a is so high up north?

Let me explain. Under the traditional theory, Slavic migrants expanded southward into the Balkans. As the Slavs migrated these regions, they intermixed with the indigenous peoples. This downward expansion of the Slavs is apparently documented from the diminishing R1a levels. The further south the Slavs migrated, the less R1a is present. The Slavs of the north have high R1a (50% or so) and as they migrated south, the R1a decreased to under 20%.

Under the theory that R1a was brought to the Balkans from the Middle East, what explains the low levels of R1a in Albania, Macedonia, and Greece, and the increase of R1a in populations further north? Where did this extra R1a originate?

If Balkan people have under 20% R1a, and these people migrated north, what explains the origin of the high R1a in Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Ukraine, Russia, etc?

Where did this extra R1a come from? You believe the people of the south migrated north and that these people are your ancestors. But I am puzzled how the low levels of R1a in the south greatly increased as the southern migrants migrated north.

This would indicate that there must be another source for the R1a in northern countries.

[George S.]

sovius thats good article that.

[Sovius]

I do not wish to restart this thread, but I would like some clarification from you Sovius. Say R1a entered the Balkans from the Middle East. How do you explain the upstream of R1a when the R1a in the south is low and yet the R1a is so high up north?

Let me explain. Under the traditional theory, Slavic migrants expanded southward into the Balkans. As the Slavs migrated these regions, they intermixed with the indigenous peoples. This downward expansion of the Slavs is apparently documented from the diminishing R1a levels. The further south the Slavs migrated, the less R1a is present. The Slavs of the north have high R1a (50% or so) and as they migrated south, the R1a decreased to under 20%.

Under the theory that R1a was brought to the Balkans from the Middle East, what explains the low levels of R1a in Albania, Macedonia, and Greece, and the increase of R1a in populations further north? Where did this extra R1a originate?

If Balkan people have under 20% R1a, and these people migrated north, what explains the origin of the high R1a in Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Ukraine, Russia, etc?

Where did this extra R1a come from? You believe the people of the south migrated north and that these people are your ancestors. But I am puzzled how the low levels of R1a in the south greatly increased as the southern migrants migrated north.

This would indicate that there must be another source for the R1a in northern countries.

Before a bird was a bird, it was a dinosaur. The first dinosaur became many different kinds of dinosaurs through the phenomenon of genetic mutation, but all dinosaurs were related to the first dinosaur. R1a is simply a simple way to group a number of different, but related, mutations into a single group for simplicity's sake. We're obviously talking about extremely minor, but still, very discernible mutations, night and day to a molecular biologist. Within R1a there is a hierarchy of ancestry. The earliest known R1a mutation was M198, though relic mutations are also thought to exist. Regardless of how pre-historic populations carrying M198 migrated to the Balkans or if the mutation first occurred in the Balkans and expanded in to the Middle East, it is simply the original subclade that all other subclades or groups that continue to make up European R1a developed out of.

Many of these people are still found in Northwestern Europe and share a common ancestry with Macedonians carrying the M198 marker. This marker is less common in Central Europe than Macedonia now because, for whatever reason, they got outbred by populations carrying other markers, including R1a markers descended from M198. Populations carrying Z283 mutated out of populations carrying M417, which developed out of populations carrying M198, as well. Wherever you find Z283, whether in Scandinavia, Germany, Russia or France, you find toponyms that can be squarely associated with the Slavic languages. In fact, comparative analysis conducted a couple of decades ago showed that Slavic had more in common with Bretonic "Celtic" than Baltic, which was supposedly in Europe before "Slavic". Sadly, for R1a exclusivists, populations carrying I2a in Iberia, like the Basques, also continue to preserve "Slavic" words in their languages. They are descended in part from Southeastern European populations who would go on, later on in time, to be referred to as Illyrians in the ancient creole language of the Mediterranean. So, what we have been taught to think of as Slavic is actually a group of languages, not a people. It came to be dreamt of as a tribal group by migrationist theorists during various periods in history.

Because M458 developed in Central Europe out of people carrying Z283, Z283 populations had to have already been present in the area. Regardless of the exact area where Z283 developed, M417 populations had to have been present during the rise of Z283, as well. Populations carrying Z283 in Scandinavia migrated there from Central Europe as demonstrated by populations who continue to be defined by Z283 in Central Europe. I2a populations went right along with them for the journey across the Venetic Gulf, after there became a gulf and not a frozen desert, where pioneers inevitably died. Their descendents simply fared better than families carrying M198 in the area and other haplogroups, so there is now a greater frequency of M458 in Poland and Z283.

M458 is a Sarmatian marker. If you place a M458 frequency map transparency over the two Sarmatias (Europa and Asia), you'll see that I am discussing a biologically and historically defined set of populations and not an apparition born out of the misuse of a term. The Sarmatian languages came to be referred to as the Slavic languages over time and were also grouped with the Illyrian languages before being re-classified as Slavic. Please remember it was the Swiss who grouped these languages together during the Renaissance Period, not me pulling things out of that place of which we do not speak.

To summarize: a population possessing people defined by a number of different haplogroups lived in Southeastern Europe during the Last Glacial Maximum and then they simply followed the receding ice sheets North and West. R1b appears to be a late entry at this point, but basically people went where they could and got smacked down hard by Mother Nature when they made poor choices or suffered the fate of bad luck, despite their capabilities. The Slavic languages simply preserve the characteristics of languages spoken by people in the region prior to advent of the Mediterranean hybrids that continue to convolute traditional Indo European historical linguistics. They also greatly contrast the Indo-Europeanized" languages of Western Europe like Gaelic and what has come to be referred to as Germanic due to a lack of frequency in contacts.

This response is incomplete on the surface, but it should address most of what your questions entail. I do not typically state beliefs, whether personal or otherwise; I only make statements based on empirical evidence or, at least, put forth my best effort to do so. It would be against my professional training to do otherwise.

[Sovius]

sovius thats good article that.

Glad you enjoyed it George. Hope you're doing well.