The Thracian people and language

[momce]

It seems pretty obvious to me ancient Macedonian was part of the paleo-Balkan family and not hellenic. The Etruscan angle needs more research, maybe ancient Macedonian had the same development as Messapian and/or the northern paleo-Balkan languages.

[momce]

Interesting there is also an Italic-Celtic bridge, some say the Thracians were related to the Celts also but it would also add light on the Illyria-Macedonia-Thracian bridge. My view is modern developments of these ancient bridges took new forms so we have Daco-Thracian bridge, and the Romanian-Albanian bridge, with peoples like the Vlachs springing up etc. I think the view of the greeks in these areas hasnt changed much since archaic times, that they are outsiders. I think a thorough study of the relation between ancient Macedonian(or what we have evidence of) and paleo-Balkan languages is needed; also, a study of modern Macedonian and paleo-Balkan languages should be conducted thoroughly. Also, differentiatinng between proto-Hellenic, Hellenic and languages related to the Hellenic group would be illuminating as all these phenomenon are usually incorrectedly categorised as "greek language". These errors usually cloud the debate. The view somehow that the relatively small hellenic cultural zone of the Balkan somehow defined the area historically I think has been abandoned by most researchers. My view is that the hellenic was largely an external culture and even had no continuity in itself even in the ancient world, and the "hellenic" was always a parasitic culture and history in the Balkan.

[momce]

I think the term "slav" just was a generic term for pagans.

[momce]

It wouldnt surprise me if the names of all the peoples and regions of the area are greekisms and not originals.

[momce]

"[quote=Pelister;15286]This is a great thread.

If, according to Herodotus, Thrace is the most populated region of the world, and Macedonia had been "occupied by Thracians" since some dark age in the past - the question is where did all the Thracian go? How could they disappear without leaving a trace? I believe this idea pushed by the New Greeks that the 5th century constitutes "a clean break" is a cunning way of blind siding people from the fact that there are little or no traces of the ancient Thracians because the are indistinguishable from the current Slavic (Thracian) speakers living their today."

This is an excellent observation. Perhaps all the ancient tribes that mysteriously vanisheed actually became the "Slavs"? For example we have evidence of ancient tribes up to the period just prior to the emergence of the socalled "Slavs" and then we never hear from them again. And if I am not mistaken the socalled "Slavs" were the only pagans in Europe in that period so pagan continuity can be established as well. So yes it may have been part of the homogenising propaganda of the Byzantines and then the neo-Byzantines.

[George S.]

i did explain many posts ago where the yjracians went.The whole 24 tribes dispersed sll over europe mostly went to sweden.

[Nexus]

Were the thracians and the illyrians close peoples? In term of languages, culture etc ...

[momce]

They seem to have been. Interesting, though the greek element has always been "intrusive"-linguistically, culturally(what does intrusive mean to us? being where youre not suppose to be hence making yourself a legitimate target for a rifle shot, for my wolves and dogs etc, being on or trying to steal other peoples property manipulating things etc) although its presented as the norm in the graeco-roman model of history. Thats why there can be no peace between us and the greekoids just war to the end until we drowm them in the oceans from where they came into our lands like a rat infestation. So yes we have been taught history upside down and the greekoids are definately a thorn in everyones collective butt. They are enemy.

[Chakalarov]

I have been following this post and other Thracian-related posts carefully, and it certainly presents an interesting new perspective. However, I am a little confused by the various terms used when describing the origin of the 6th century Slavs. From what I have pieced together they were most likely of Getic (Thracian) origin, but I have also seen the terms Scythians and Sarmatians used as well. Can anybody clear up for me what exactly is meant by the terms Getae, Scythian, Sarmatian?

[Soldier of Macedon]

Originally Posted by Chakalarov

.....I am a little confused by the various terms used when describing the origin of the 6th century Slavs. From what I have pieced together they were most likely of Getic (Thracian) origin, but I have also seen the terms Scythians and Sarmatians used as well. Can anybody clear up for me what exactly is meant by the terms Getae, Scythian, Sarmatian?

The Getae or Dacians were Thracians who lived in regions around the eastern part of the Danube, which is where some of the earliest references may have located the so-called 'Sklavenes'. This may be why some authors made the connection between them. Scythians and Sarmatians were heterogeneous groups who probably consisted of peoples that spoke Slavic (or perhaps Proto Slavic or Balto-Slavic), Iranic and Turkic languages. From what remains of the Thracian language, it can be demonstrated that it shares more affinities with Balto-Slavic than any other linguistic group.