Slavic Chronology discussion

[ambron]

Tomenable

According to which linguists?

Contemporary academic linguists tend to agree on the location of the Baltic and Slavic innovation centers. Due to the density of hydromimes, the Baltic one is located between the upper Dnieper and the upper Volga, and the Slavic between the upper Vistula and the middle Dniester.

So at most we can say that the Slavic branch it the south Balto-Slavic languages.

[ambron]

Tomenable

In Przeworsk times, Slavic isoglosses spread already to Odrowiśle.

[Jaska]

Tomenable

According to which linguists?

Contemporary academic linguists tend to agree on the location of the Baltic and Slavic innovation centers. Due to the density of hydromimes, the Baltic one is located between the upper Dnieper and the upper Volga, and the Slavic between the upper Vistula and the middle Dniester.

So at most we can say that the Slavic branch it the south Balto-Slavic languages.

Tijmen Pronk 2022: Balto-Slavic.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/ind...65BC40B943

15.3.2. Internal grouping
"Traditionally, Balto-Slavic has been divided into Baltic and Slavic, with a further split between West and East Baltic after a period of common Baltic innovations. The separate status of Slavic is evident, but the existence of a period of common Baltic innovations is more difficult to demonstrate;"
- -
"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” (Kortlandt 2018c: 176)."

[ambron]

Jaska

Pronk:

"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

[ambron]

Jaska

Pronk:

"Proto-Slavic was spoken east of the Carpathian Mountains until the beginning of the first millennium AD, when speakers of Slavic started spreading over Central Europe. On the basis of hydronyms, the homeland of the Balts has been located in the Upper Dnieper and Upper Volga basins."

https://www.tijmenpronk.nl/wp-content/up...ethoff.pdf

[Jaska]

Pronk:
"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

This part only considers the early separation of Slavic from Baltic. But this cannot prove that West and East Baltic continued together for a long time: as Pronk wrote in my quoting, it seems probable that just like there are features shared by Slavic and East Baltic, many of the features shared by West Baltic and East Baltic can also be considered contact-induced. He states that the two Baltic branches also separated soon after Slavic separated. 

This tripartite division, where the actual uniform Proto-Baltic phase (connecting only West and East Baltic) was apparently very short, has led some linguists to consider Slavic as "South Baltic" and to call Proto-Balto-Slavic as Proto-Baltic. 

From your second link:
"Archaeologically, the ancestors of the Balto-Slavs have been connected to the Middle Dnieper culture, which dates from 2800-2600 to 1900-1800 BC (Anthony 2007: 377). Spread of the Middle Dnieper culture in north-eastern direction in the mid-third millennium BC resulted in the Fatyanovo culture and has been connected to the initial stages of the separation of Baltic from Balto-Slavic. The area occupied by the Fatyanovo culture corresponds to that in which we find Baltic river names (Anthony 2007: 377). Both the people of the Middle Dnieper and Fatyanovo cultures had stockbreeding and cattle herding economies (Anthony 2007: 377-378). The picture of the Balto-Slavic economy that emerges from the reconstructed ProtoBalto-Slavic lexicon confirms this idea: while we find very few words relating to agriculture, the Proto-Balto-Slavic lexicon contains words in the semantic fields of stockbreeding, forest animals, fruit trees, (forest) beekeeping, and river fishing."

[Gordius]

Without addressing anyone in particular, I would like to focus on the following - perhaps it is sometimes worth moving away from stereotypes? For example - was there even a Balto-Slavic drift among the Proto-Slavs before the beginning of our era? For example, if we take the version of the origin of the Prague culture from the Carpathian region on the basis of the Przeworsk culture from the assimilation of the Lypytska culture and the migrants of the Zarubinets culture from the Pripyat Polissia, it is possible that those migrants of the Zarubinets culture gave the Balto-Slavic drift, and before that, the Proto-Slavs of the Przeworsk culture were genetically a mixture of the yamnaya component with European farmers (with all the ensuing consequences, such as the predominance of dark pigmentation)? Perhaps it is a mistake to look for populations with Balto-Slavic drift among the potential ancestors of the Slavs? Perhaps many people think that the significant Mediterranean component in the Balkan and Carpathian Slavs is solely the result of the assimilation of Dacians and Illyrians? Why couldn't this Mediterranean component be specific to the Proto-Slavs? Among the medieval Slavic samples from the territory of Ukraine west of the Dnieper, one of the anthropological components stands out quite clearly - mesomorphic with a medium width and high face height, a narrow and high nose and high orbits. Most likely, it belonged to the Mediterranean forms with mostly dark pigmentation. This type is not characteristic of more eastern and northern territories, but finds analogies among medieval samples of Croats and Moravians. Moreover, another type is characteristic of the Dacians (and late medieval Vlachs) - more graceful, with a narrower and lower face. By and large, even now, even in the depths of Zhytomyr Polissia, there are a lot of people who are indistinguishable from Serbs and Croats, while there are significant differences from Romanians or Greeks. Are the Mediterranean and Dinaroid types among the Serbs really similar to the Mediterranean and Dinaroid types of the neighboring Albanians, so that it can be said that it is the result of the assimilation of the Thracian and Illyrian populations? Are they similar to the types of Greeks?
And the territory of Ukraine west of the Dnieper, and the territory of the Serbs, Croats, Slovaks, etc., is the entire area of Prague culture.

[Tomenable]

I have added the extent of Przeworsk culture to my map:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?m...sp=sharing

[Tomenable]

Lithuanian Balts (Iron Age) have too much of East_Central_Euro admixture in K36 compared to Slavs:



And Scythian Farmers (Iron Age) have not enough of East_Central_Euro admixture in K36 to be Slavs:

[Gordius]

We have discussed a lot about the Balto-Slavic drift, that is, where the Slavs and Balts are heading in the direction of the "hunters" on the PCA plot. This is roughly the bronze of Latvia and Estonia. And what is the other end of this drift, that is, to which "farming" populations are the Balts and Slavs drifting, if counted from the bronze of Latvia?

[Jaska]

Some methodological points over here. We cannot just follow the majority autosomal ancestry back in time and claim that language followed it.
https://genarchivist.com/showthread.php?...1#pid15391