Hello guest, if you read this it means you are not registered. Click here to register in a few simple steps, you will enjoy all features of our Forum.

Check for new replies
Stolarek et al: Genetic history of East-Central Europe...
(05-25-2024, 08:15 AM)ambron Wrote: plz282

Over 3 thousand years ago, lexical innovations distinguished the Baltic branch from the Slavic one. These innovations were mainly the result of the assimilation of the local Neolithic linguistic substrate - other by the Balts, other by the Slavs. Therefore, the Baltic homeland and the Slavic homeland lay far from each other.

Almost nothing happened between Baltic and Slavic until the common era. And they lived in the area almost without the substrate non-IE population.

The number of words that may be of substratum origin, and that are preserved only in Balto-Slavic, is very limited (perhaps as few as 14, but probably not more than 20). It is significantly smaller than the number of words of substratum origin that can be attributed to Proto-Celtic, or to Insular Celtic (see EDPC), and it is also much smaller than the number of substratum words in Greek, for example. This is probably due to the fact that, during the Balto-Slavic period, speakers of that proto-language were surrounded by speakers of other, more peripheral Indo--European dialects (especially Germanic and Celtic) that were exposed to more intensive contacts with speakers of non-IE languages. Consequently, during the period when Balto-Slavic separated from the other NW European dialects as an individual idiom, borrowing from non-IE substrata was minimal.

[Image: NwFCwCO.png]
Vinitharya likes this post
Reply
(05-25-2024, 06:24 AM)plz282 Wrote: Large, but realtively young, Slavic Y-DNA subclades have TMRCAs before 250 CE, for example R-L1029 has TMRCA estimated as 390 BCE according to FTDNA Discover, R-Y1392 as 330 BCE and I-S20602 as 396 BCE, so more than 500 years before 250 CE.

For example why subclades like R-L365 (estimated TMRCA 116 BCE) or R-YP1018 (estimated TMRCA 58 BCE) are popular in Pomerania, in Poland relatively close to the Baltic Sea? Both R-L365 and R-YP1018 are deeper under R-YP237, which is under R-Z280>CTS1211>Y35>CTS3402 (R-CTS3402 has TMRCA estimated as about 4000 ybp by FTDNA Discover). Were they remnants of certain Balts who were slavicized early? Was R-CTS3402 one of major lineages of Trzciniec Cultural Circle from 2nd millennium BCE? If "non-Baltoid" ancestor of Slavic languages started to form only about 250 BCE, then what sounded the speech of ancestors of R-L365 and R-YP1018 during the times of Trzciniec Cultural Circle? Did something intelligible with modern Slavic languages exist in 2nd millennium BCE (if proto-Slavic proper started to form only about 1250 years after 1000 BCE, then the answer obviously appears to be "no")?

[Image: XkOrhJj.png]
R-M458 and I-Y3120 existed long before, but not in any significant numbers. Their diversification starts with Zarubnitsy (2nd/3rd century BCE) and peaks with Late Zarubnitsy and Proto Prague Culture formation (2nd to 4th century CE)
Reply
ph2ter

"If we take away the innovations that characterize Baltic and Slavic as individual branches, we are left with a language that is both phonologically and morphologically still quite close to reconstructed Proto-Indo-European. If the Balto-Slavic proto-language is associated with the (earlier phases of the) Middle Dnieper culture, which seems reasonable, the split between Baltic and Slavic can be dated no later than the beginning of the second millennium BCE. The period of shared innovations would then have been up to 1,500 years, which does not seem to be too short or too long for the number of innovations that must have taken place. After the split, Baltic and Slavic developed independently for over two millennia, which accounts for some of the striking differences between Baltic and Slavic that prompted Meillet to doubt the existence of a shared proto-language in the first place (Reference RozwadowskiRozwadowski 1912: 17–18, 33). This is also the period during which speakers of Baltic and Slavic shifted to a more agriculture-based mode of subsistence, as is shown by their distinct agricultural terminology (Reference Pronk, Pronk-Tiethoff., Kroonen, Mallory and ComriePronk & Pronk-Tiethoff 2018). West and East Baltic remained in each other’s vicinity for a longer time, which would explain how they borrowed the same words for certain woodland animals, as mentioned above. Eventually, Baltic and Slavic came into contact again as speakers of Slavic started to move north in the early Middle Ages."

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/ind...65BC40B943
Reply
Was there earliest Proto-Slavic language at the end of 3rd millennium BCE (about 2100 - 2000 BCE) which was not Proto-Balto-Slavic, but in fact only Proto-Slavic or Proto-Slavic diverged from Baltic later, for example around 1500 BCE?

FTDNA Discover estimates TMRCA of R-Z280 as about 2638 BCE, so could MRCA of R-Z280 be not just Proto-Indo-European or Proto-Balto-Slavic, but Proto-Slavic? R-CTS1211 has TMRCA estimated as 2361 BCE and was found in samples more or less older than 500 BCE from Czechia, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Were BA R-CTS1211 people from Baltic countries Proto-Slavs or just Proto-Balto-Slavs, Old Balts or non-Slavic Para-Balts?

Interesting question: what were Y-DNA haplogroups of people who lived in Belarus about 2250 BCE in your opinion? R-Z282 people? And what was their language? Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Balto-Slavic, Proto-Slavic, Proto-Baltic or other? More east there were people with Y-DNA R-Z93 from Fatyanovo culture near Moscow or Yaroslavl, who were estimated as living about 29th - 25th century BCE, but R-Z93 is rare in comparison to R-Z280 or R-PF6155 in Poland, Belarus or even (despite long presence of Iranic people there) Ukraine now and most of R-Z93 samples in FTDNA Discover from these countries belong to very young Ashkenazi Levite subclade (R-Y2619).
Reply
Google translate:

The treasures from Gąski are back after 40 years

Researchers from the Faculty of Archeology of Adam Mickiewicz University are rediscovering the secrets of a fascinating cemetery and settlement in Gąski in Kujawy. The world will soon learn about the unique monuments and burial customs found there in the Przeworsk culture.

Dr. Paulina Suchowska-Ducke and Dr. Milena Danielewska-Teska decided to resume research on the archival site, which was discovered in the 20th century. In the years 1984-1991, archaeologists from the Kujawy Research Team at Adam Mickiewicz University under the supervision of prof. Aleksandra Cofta-Broniewska, Dr. Barbara Stolpiak and M.A. Małgorzata Andrałojć conducted excavations there, including part of the cemetery and settlements dating back to the pre-Roman period and Roman influence (2nd century BC - 5th century AD). Many relics were recovered, including a hoard of 140 coins, and specialized analyzes were carried out, modern for those times. Unfortunately, not many publications followed this work. Because the place itself and what was found there are very promising, archaeologists from Adam Mickiewicz University want to recall them and include them in the circulation of contemporary knowledge. The ladies continue the research of the previous team, collaborating with Dr. Stolpiak, Andrałojć, M.A. and Dr. Józef Bednarczyk, who conducted emergency inspections here with a metal detector until 2020.

A unique clasp

The researchers started their work by taking stock of artifacts collected in the warehouses of the Faculty of Archeology of the Adam Mickiewicz University in Inowrocław. They spent months meticulously reviewing the monuments. The next stage is the interpretation of verified materials. Archaeologists want to obtain funding for broader research, but to make this possible, they must convince funders to support their project - and for this they need publications. Since it is too early for a work summarizing what was discovered in Gąski, they choose issues that can already be developed in the form of scientific articles. 

– We submitted several articles for publication. We hope that they will be published this year, or next year at the latest, says Dr. Milena Danielewska-Teska. – These will include two works devoted to the unique leontomorphic clasp. We used various research methods, including isotope analyzes carried out in the United States, thanks to cooperation with the National Center for Nuclear Research in Otwock. 

The intricately made fibula depicting two lions with their backs to each other, one of which holds a human head and the other a bull's head, is one of two brooches of this type ever found in Poland. 

– Such fibulas were produced in Gaul, i.e. today's France. Single copies appeared in the British Isles, in Spain, Switzerland, Germany, Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is a unique find, says Dr. Danielewska-Teska.

Birds in graves

The brooch was in the grave of a child who was buried in an Iron Age cemetery (2nd century BC - 1st century AD). The people who lived in Gąski represented the Przeworsk culture, but strong regionalism is noticeable here. It manifested itself in different funeral practices.

– Kujawy is specific to ritual practices such as biritualism, i.e. burying the dead, both burned and unburned – explains Milena Danielewska-Teska. – In Gąski, however, the largest number of skeletal graves in the entire region was recorded. Preliminary analyzes showed that there were 39 of them. Only in Lower Silesia were similarly numerous exceptions noticed. Moreover, the people of Gąski used strange practices. For example, there are burials that indicate that the deceased were bound, some of them are missing individual elements - hands or skulls, the bodies were placed in various positions. Symbolic burials were also found, containing all the classical elements except... corpses. Interestingly, these people also placed birds in their graves. We think she liked cats because a burial of this animal was discovered in the cemetery. It is assumed that the oldest domesticated cats in Poland come from Kujawy. However, the cat from the Gąsec cemetery may be even older, which would indicate that domesticated cats appeared earlier than previously assumed.

It is worth adding that children's burials in the cemetery constitute approximately 49 percent - the highest rate in Kujawy, which may indicate the high mortality rate of the youngest in Gąski. Researchers assume that the child buried with the previously mentioned leontomorphic brooch came from a family of high status. 

– There are voices in the literature saying that such pins could have been an apotropeion, i.e. a talisman guaranteeing care, also in the afterlife. This indicates that the people of Gąsiek were very creative and, taking into account other features of the burials, had an extensive symbolic culture, said Dr. Suchowska-Ducke.

Treasure of Roman coins

Quite a lot of older people were also buried in Gąski, including a woman with amber, who died at the age of about 60, with visible traces of numerous births on her bones. In those days, a woman of that age was already an old woman.

– It seems to us that the lives of these people could have been subordinated to the exchange of amber, as well as relations with Roman provinces, as evidenced by the imports found in the settlement. This guaranteed a good existence, archaeologists believe. 

It seems that the settlement was important in the context of amber trade. This conclusion comes from the discovery of large quantities of this raw material, as well as glass vessels, beads, luxurious terra sigillata ceramics and denarii from the Roman provinces. In one of the houses, presumably belonging to a merchant, a treasure of 140 such coins was discovered.

– The people who lived here realized what benefits they could derive from the amber trade and got involved in this process. Amber workshops were also discovered in the settlement, emphasizes Dr. Suchowska-Ducke. – There are many similar sites near Gąski. This shows how important a role amber played in trade at that time. 

The treasure from Gąski is being processed again by prof. AMU Katarzyna Balbuza from the Faculty of History. The researcher determined that the coins were minted during the reign of the emperors Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, Commodus, and Septimius Severus. Their condition indicates that they were in circulation for a very long time, until the end of the 4th or even the beginning of the 5th century AD. Additionally, the fact that there was a ceramics workshop in the settlement that produced good quality ceramics proves that the town occupied a high place in the hierarchy of Kujawy centers.

The geese will surprise us yet

The geese are certainly worth further research, if only because what archaeologists have discovered so far is only part of the material found underground. Prospective studies have shown this. Over a thousand artefacts were discovered in an area of several hectares. It would be worth thinking about starting new excavations, but then non-invasive tests would have to be repeated, but that's not all.

– We intend to apply for a European project that would allow for the development of previously discovered material in a new version, i.e. using currently available methods: metal science, anthropology, archaeometric, genetic – plans Dr. Suchowska-Ducke. – They can provide a lot of new information. There is a lot to explore in Gąski, and it certainly won't end with just one grant. There is a lot of competition, I don't guarantee that we will succeed right away, but we will apply.

Archaeologists sent 25 samples for genetic analysis. It turned out that DNA was isolated in all of them, which is rare. Perhaps this will allow researchers to take a step further and try to determine the kinship of the buried individuals.

– I think this position will still surprise us – says Dr. Suchowska-Ducke.

– We can't have complexes because the material doesn't allow it. He is extremely interesting. This year marks 40 years since the beginning of the excavations. Therefore, there is no point in delaying. The collected collections must be carefully processed. However, it should be remembered that this is work for the entire team of specialists, which we are trying to build, and not for one person - sums up Dr. Danielewska-Teska.

https://uniwersyteckie.pl/nauka/skarby-z...-40-latach
Orentil, ph2ter, okshtunas And 1 others like this post
Reply
(05-25-2024, 03:44 PM)ambron Wrote: ph2ter

"If we take away the innovations that characterize Baltic and Slavic as individual branches, we are left with a language that is both phonologically and morphologically still quite close to reconstructed Proto-Indo-European. If the Balto-Slavic proto-language is associated with the (earlier phases of the) Middle Dnieper culture, which seems reasonable, the split between Baltic and Slavic can be dated no later than the beginning of the second millennium BCE. The period of shared innovations would then have been up to 1,500 years, which does not seem to be too short or too long for the number of innovations that must have taken place. After the split, Baltic and Slavic developed independently for over two millennia, which accounts for some of the striking differences between Baltic and Slavic that prompted Meillet to doubt the existence of a shared proto-language in the first place (Reference RozwadowskiRozwadowski 1912: 17–18, 33). This is also the period during which speakers of Baltic and Slavic shifted to a more agriculture-based mode of subsistence, as is shown by their distinct agricultural terminology (Reference Pronk, Pronk-Tiethoff., Kroonen, Mallory and ComriePronk & Pronk-Tiethoff 2018). West and East Baltic remained in each other’s vicinity for a longer time, which would explain how they borrowed the same words for certain woodland animals, as mentioned above. Eventually, Baltic and Slavic came into contact again as speakers of Slavic started to move north in the early Middle Ages."

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/ind...65BC40B943

The Middle Dnieper culture belongs to the Corded Ware horizont. It formed about 2500 BC. Fatyanovo is 2700 BC and probably represents Proto-Indo-Iranian branch.
The split into Proto-Italo-Celtic, Proto-Germanic and Proto Balto-Slavic happened a little later. GAC ceased to exist about 2400 BC.
If Proto Balto-Slavic started about 2500 BC then 1500 years of common development yields 1000 BCE, but 500 BCE is more realistic scenario for the dissolution of Proto Balto-Slavic.
It seems most likely that, after the dissolution of Proto-Balto-Slavic, West and East Baltic remained a single unit for a relatively short period. There may have been a few shared innovations between East Baltic and Slavic during this same period, although the evidence is not very robust. If this is indeed the case, however, the dissolution of Balto-Slavic could be seen as a gradual process with increasing dialectal differences, “with East Baltic as an intermediate dialect between West Baltic and Slavic”
And after 500 BCE Y3120 and M458 start their integration into Proto-Slavic (presumably joining the original CTS1211 common with other Baltic people) and the move away of the Proto-Slavic from the Proto-Baltic language accelerates at the beginning of the common era.
Vinitharya and leonardo like this post
Reply
The semantic & vocabulary differences between ancestral dialects of East Baltic and Slavic are old.
(Main) Phonetic differences are relatively young.

Baltic & Slavic at turn of eras could be a parallel to Russian & Bulgarian today. Close languages phonetically (almost mutually comprehensible) but with part of vocabulary innovated on spot/ borrowed from neighbours. Meaning they were split for some time (to create this vocabulary).

What vocabulary & semantics that could be dated was different?
1) Baltic loanwords in Finnic show few things > herne (pea) from zirnis (pea) shows Baltic pea semantic innovation not PIE & Slavic grain (zerno/ grain). All wood working terms are Baltic innovations. Advanced wood working in Baltics & Russia developed likely with wooden hillforts (~ 1200 BCE). People in those hillfort cultures would be linguistic ancestors of modern East Balts and ancestors of loanword donors to modern Baltic Finns.
2) Scythian mediated Dorian Greek words in Slavic, showing no traces in Baltics (Scythians were ~500 BCE thing).
3) then there are whole lot of agriculture terms that differ. But that is more tricky to date.
4) and term for iron which entered Baltic and Slavic after they phonetically split at least in dialects.
ph2ter, ambron, Vinitharya like this post
Reply
"In the area of the ancient Slavic homeland itself, in the basin of the upper Oder, Warta, Vistula, West Bug and Upper Dniester, it lists a number of tribes that can be divided into two groups. The first would include those who still kept their old names and ancient tribal identities The second group includes tribes, which, judging by their names, were new, territorially based tribes, composed of members of various tribes that during the migrations stayed at their homes."

https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=889889
Vinitharya likes this post
Reply
(Yesterday, 07:47 AM)ambron Wrote: "In the area of the ancient Slavic homeland itself, in the basin of the upper Oder, Warta, Vistula, West Bug and Upper Dniester, it lists a number of tribes that can be divided into two groups. The first would include those who still kept their old names and ancient tribal identities The second group includes tribes, which, judging by their names, were new, territorially based tribes, composed of members of various tribes that during the migrations stayed at their homes."

https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=889889

And this:

the dissolution of Balto-Slavic could be seen as a gradual process with increasing dialectal differences, “with East Baltic as an intermediate dialect between West Baltic and Slavic

If Eastern Baltic was an intermediate dialect between Western Baltic and Slavic then ancient Slavic homeland cannot be placed next to Western Baltic:

[Image: DAoQFVW.png]
Bukva_, Alain, Orentil like this post
Reply
"The speakers of pre-Proto-Slavic would originally have occupied the area between the Middle Dnieper and Upper Dniester. Before their spread across Central and Eastern Europe after 500 CE, they can be most probably located to the north-east of the Carpathian mountains."

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/ind...65BC40B943
Reply
ph2ter

"the dissolution of Balto-Slavic could be seen as a gradual process with increasing dialectal differences, with East Baltic as an intermediate dialect between West Baltic and Slavic"

You misunderstand this sentence. This means that the West Baltic branch and the Slavic branch were more innovative (each in their own way) in relation to the Balto-Slavic language than the East Slavic branch. Therefore, the East Baltic branch, being more conservative, occupies an intermediate position between these two branches.

This does not mean that the Slavs were neighbors with the eastern Balts, who separated them from the Western Balts. In order to produce innovations unique to each other, the Baltic branch and the Slavic branch had to be deprived of mutual contact - they had to be, or at least their innovation centers, significantly distant from each other.
Reply
(Yesterday, 03:25 PM)ambron Wrote: ph2ter

"the dissolution of Balto-Slavic could be seen as a gradual process with increasing dialectal differences, with East Baltic as an intermediate dialect between West Baltic and Slavic"

You misunderstand this sentence. This means that the West Baltic branch and the Slavic branch were more innovative (each in their own way) in relation to the Balto-Slavic language than the East Slavic branch. Therefore, the East Baltic branch, being more conservative, occupies an intermediate position between these two branches.

This does not mean that the Slavs were neighbors with the eastern Balts, who separated them from the Western Balts. In order to produce innovations unique to each other, the Baltic branch and the Slavic branch had to be deprived of mutual contact - they had to be, or at least their innovation centers, significantly distant from each other.

This what you just wrote here is characteristic of your way of distorting the facts when they do not please you.
You are clearly not right.

Kortland:
There is little or no evidence for a period of common West and East Baltic innovations after the period of common Balto-Slavic developments before the separation of Slavic from the Baltic languages. The terms “Proto-Baltic” and “Proto-Balto-Slavic” refer to the same thing, and Slavic may alternatively be called “South Baltic”.
The words for ‘nine’ and ‘third’ indeed support the view that Balto-Slavic split into three identifiable branches, with East Baltic as an intermediate dialect between West Baltic and Slavic. OPr. newīnts ‘ninth’ shows that the substitution of de‑ for ne‑ in Lith. deviñtas and OCS devętъ belongs to the dialectal Balto-Slavic period. The same holds for the subsequent development of *eu to *iou before consonants in East Baltic and Slavic (cf. Kortlandt 2009, 45f.; Derksen 2010). Similarly, OPr. tīrts ‘third’, acc. tīrtian, tirtien, Vedic tṛtyas for earlier *triyo‑, is archaic in comparison with Lith. trẽčias and OCS tretii, which have tre‑ from *treies ‘three’. Another common development of East Baltic and Slavic not shared by West Baltic is the elimination of ‑s‑ in the pronominal dat. sg. and loc. sg. forms Lith. tãmui, tamè, tái, tojè, OCS tomu, tomь, toi, OPr. stesmu, stessiei, Vedic tásmai, tásmin, tásyai, tásyām (cf. Kortlandt 2009, 139f.)...


The common development of East Baltic and Slavic means that they have been in direct contact some period, and not that they independently gave the same linguistic results different from the West Baltic. Intermediate dialect means the dialect spatially located in between the two others.
Bukva_ likes this post
Reply
(Yesterday, 09:53 AM)ph2ter Wrote: And this:

the dissolution of Balto-Slavic could be seen as a gradual process with increasing dialectal differences, “with East Baltic as an intermediate dialect between West Baltic and Slavic

You are using a map from V. N. Toporov's (famous Russian linguist) book "Languages of the World: Baltic Languages" 2006 (Языки мира: Балтийские языки. / Институт языкознания РАН. Ред. колл.: В. Н. Топоров, М. В. Завьялова, А. А. Кибрик и др. — М.: Academia, 2006. — ISBN 5-87444-225-1), drawn by I. B. Koryakov (famous Russian cartographer and linguist).

He analyzed the hydronyms of Eastern Europe and proposed the following scheme for splitting the Balto-Slavic language:
* Balto-slavic
** Central-baltic
*** East-baltic (Lithuanian, Latvian, Zemgalian, Selonian) - now they are living on the Baltic coast, but previously they lived further south (Belarus) and did not border the sea, i.e. occupied a central position in the Balto-Slavic world.
** Peripherial-baltic
*** West-periferial (Prussian, Jatviagian, Kurshian)
*** East-periferial or Dnieper-Oka (Goliadian) - river tributaries of the Dnieper (mainly Berezina, Sozh, Pripiat, Desna) and Oka.
*** Slavic (somewhere on the South)

[Image: T5zNRzizEJk.jpg?size=699x538&quality=95&...type=album]


Where is the "somewhere on the South"? The "culture of the Carpathian mounds" (late II - early V) is most similar to the future Slavs (V-VIII):
1) burial rite - cremation under the mound
2) dwelling - half-dugout 3*4m with gable roof and with a stove in the corner
3) main crop - rye
4) ceramics - bell-shaped
5) settlements - large, but without fortifications
Also, it is quite close to the Balkans, where the I2a-Din (CTS10228) branch comes from.

I would suggest this scheme:
[Image: fw50IDFh50o.jpg?size=2560x1973&quality=9...type=album]
Vinitharya likes this post
Reply
(9 hours ago)Daemon2017 Wrote:
(Yesterday, 09:53 AM)ph2ter Wrote: And this:

the dissolution of Balto-Slavic could be seen as a gradual process with increasing dialectal differences, “with East Baltic as an intermediate dialect between West Baltic and Slavic

You are using a map from V. N. Toporov's (famous Russian linguist) book "Languages of the World: Baltic Languages" 2006 (Языки мира: Балтийские языки. / Институт языкознания РАН. Ред. колл.: В. Н. Топоров, М. В. Завьялова, А. А. Кибрик и др. — М.: Academia, 2006. — ISBN 5-87444-225-1), drawn by I. B. Koryakov (famous Russian cartographer and linguist).

He analyzed the hydronyms of Eastern Europe and proposed the following scheme for splitting the Balto-Slavic language:
* Balto-slavic
** Central-baltic
*** East-baltic (Lithuanian, Latvian, Zemgalian, Selonian) - now they are living on the Baltic coast, but previously they lived further south (Belarus) and did not border the sea, i.e. occupied a central position in the Balto-Slavic world.
** Peripherial-baltic
*** West-periferial (Prussian, Jatviagian, Kurshian)
*** East-periferial or Dnieper-Oka (Goliadian) - river tributaries of the Dnieper (mainly Berezina, Sozh, Pripiat, Desna) and Oka.
*** Slavic (somewhere on the South)

[Image: T5zNRzizEJk.jpg?size=699x538&quality=95&...type=album]


Where is the "somewhere on the South"? The "culture of the Carpathian mounds" (late II - early V) is most similar to the future Slavs (V-VIII):
1) burial rite - cremation under the mound
2) dwelling - half-dugout 3*4m with gable roof and with a stove in the corner
3) main crop - rye
4) ceramics - bell-shaped
5) settlements - large, but without fortifications
Also, it is quite close to the Balkans, where the I2a-Din (CTS10228) branch comes from.

I would suggest this scheme:
[Image: fw50IDFh50o.jpg?size=2560x1973&quality=9...type=album]

According to Koryakov the Slavs are not in your green area, but inside the Proto-Prague-Korchak and Kiev culture (orange and light orange area).
And Western peripheral on your map and diagram cannot be grouped with Eastern peripheral according to Kortland and other lingusts.
Your green area was occupied by Bastarni and Geto-Thracian populations. Lipitsa Carpathian Tumuli culture was probably Dacian.
Dacians were Geto-Thracian group of people and they were not Slavs.
Reply
(8 hours ago)ph2ter Wrote: According to Koryakov the Slavs are not in your green area, but inside the Proto-Prague-Korchak and Kiev culture (orange and light orange area).
And Western peripheral on your map and diagram cannot be grouped with Eastern peripheral according to Kortland and other lingusts.
Your green area was occupied by Bastarni and Geto-Thracian populations. Lipitsa Carpathian Tumuli culture was probably Dacian.
Dacians were Geto-Thracian group of people and they were not Slavs.

Please never forget that 
language != genetics != nationality != archaeological culture.

Here is the original map from Toporov's 2006th year book (Koriakov is only mapper!): Slavs are not mentioned here at all, but only archaeological cultures, so "According to Koryakov the Slavs are not in your green area, but inside the Proto-Prague-Korchak and Kiev culture (orange and light orange area)." is a lie - this is your opinion, not his.
[Image: sBQZwBDq6ac.jpg?size=1370x970&quality=95...type=album]

You are using a map of hydronyms made by Toporov, so I've guessed we are talking about Toporov's theory, not Cortlandt's theory Wink  As far as I know, Cortland's theory is very conservative:
* Balto-slavic
** Baltic
*** East-baltic
*** West-baltic
** Slavic

Proto-slavic language was monodialectal (it was divided already during the great migration of peoples), so it's impossible that slavs were both in Proto-Prague-Korchak and Kiev culture. You need to choose only one of two options.

In addition, the Proto-Prague-Korchak culture did not have the features inherent in the Slavs: no  bell-shaped ceramics, no half-dugout 3*4m with gable roof and with a stove in the corner, no cremation under the mound and so on. Only after contact with the Culture of the Carpathian mounds in V century, the Proto-Prague-Korchak culture acquires all Slavic features and turns into the mature Prague-Korchak culture.
Reply

Check for new replies

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: Daemon2017, Orentil, 2 Guest(s)