Slavic Chronology discussion

[Bukva_]

Looks like there are two main shifts in Early/Proto Slavs, one is more Celto - Germanic, other one Aegean. Both point to the area around Carpathian and Black Sea.

Celto-Germanic could also be Przeworsk culture, I'm very sure that's what Przeworsk will turn out when we finally have some valid data.

I would agree, and Zarubintsy culture colud be the Baltic component (R-Z280). Any E1b branch that spread exclusively with Slavs? Those could come from Aegean component (Thracians, Dacians or Pontic-Greek?).

[Gordius]

Center of Kyiv culture and area of Baltic hydronyms?

There are no Baltic hydronyms in most of that area according to the maps I posted (see post #11).

You put the word Slavs in the north-east of Ukraine, it is the area of Kyiv culture (its part situated in Desna valley). If you mean a wider area, then you have mixed together many different archaeological cultures, for example, in the middle of the Dnieper - the Chernyakhiv culture, in the territory of Belarus - the culture of hatched ceramics, in the territory of Russia - various Finno-Hungarian cultures. Where are the actual Slavs here, which specific culture from the above?

BTW, Baltic hydronyms could also appear there after Slavs emigrated to areas vacated by Goths. It is possible that Balts moved into formerly Proto-Slavic territory.

That is, do you think that the Proto-Slavs (Kyiv culture) were pushed out of the Desna valley by the Proto-Balts (Kolochyn culture)? Is this somehow proven archaeologically? As far as I know, Kolochyn culture evolves from Kyiv culture. And how did it happen that the Slavs emigrated exclusively to the southwest, where the Prague culture was formed? The Carpathian version of the Slavs is more suitable, because the Carpathians are located right in the center of Prague culture. And the Chernyakhiv sites of the Cherepin-Teremtsi type (from which Baran derived the Prague culture) are precisely located there, in the valley of the upper and middle Dniester, there is also a fairly high density of archaeological sites. And here it is more logical - after the departure of the Goths, the Proto-Slavs spread from the Carpathians to the east and north (Volhyn, Polissia and Podillya), to the south (Balkans), to the west (Czech Republic, Slovakia, southern Poland), i.e. in all directions.

[Tomenable]

"(...) You put the word Slavs in the north-east of Ukraine (...)"

Actually it was user Radko who did this, as it is his map. Here is the original map:

https://i.imgur.com/kWsNIdm.jpeg

[leonardo]

I also note on Davidski's blog where David and blogger Matt discuss - dated March 17 - the possibility that the modern Pole is substantially influenced by the Goths.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2024/02/b...mment-form

How should this work with haplogroup I1 decreasing from 41.3 % to 3.5 % and R1a jumping from 8.6 to 57.5 % (if we take the Stolarek numbers from Wielbark/Poland MA as a proxy)? Total replacement of the men? I don't get this Goths-Poles theory.

I can only speculate: maybe it's a multi generational development, as in the Goths moved into what is now northern Poland in the 1st or 2nd century and the period I am referencing is the late 4th. That's hundreds of years for autosomal dna to do its thing while the y-dna may have eventually shifted. I can' say what the bloggers at Davidski have in mind.

[ambron]

Tomenable

This is a map of Baltic champleve enamel sites. The oldest finds come from Masuria and the Suwałki region. Therefore, if the Slavs spread together with champleve enamel, as Radek claims after Vyazov, then their homeland was the Suwałki region. Absurd!

[Tomenable]

Tomenable

This is a map of Baltic champleve enamel sites. The oldest finds come from Masuria and the Suwałki region. Therefore, if the Slavs spread together with champleve enamel, as Radek claims after Vyazov, then their homeland was the Suwałki region. Absurd!

So where would you place the Proto-Slavic homeland? I can add a second area to my map.

[Jaska]

I just point out that it would be clearer to mention when one talks about Proto-Slavic language and when about Proto-Slavic population or culture. Linguistically Late Proto-Slavic (the last unified proto-stage before the disintegration of Slavic) is dated to CE. Of course it is only the end point of long Slavic development, beginning already two millennia earlier, when Slavic separated from Baltic. It is possible to call Proto-Slavic all this long continuum, but then it would be clear to add Early, Middle or Late in front of Proto-Slavic.

Another point worth noting is that the survived Baltic and Slavic languages seem to be only a bottle-necked portion of earlier Balto-Slavic diversity. There are traces of several other early Balto-Slavic vernaculars (Archaic Balto-Slavic, easternmost Baltic, and Para-Slavic), from which loanwords were borrowed into West Uralic languages.
https://www.academia.edu/75917854/Recurr..._loanwords

Naturally the homeland speculation is strongly affected by the delimitation of languages taken into consideration.
(1) If the only extant Slavic language was Sorbian spoken in Germany, and the only extant Baltic language was Prussian spoken in Poland, one might easily assume that Proto-Balto-Slavic was spoken in around these westernmost reaches of this IE branch.
(2) The now extant Baltic and Slavic languages give different center of gravity.
(3) Yet different center of gravity is achieved when taking into consideration also the easternmost, now extinct Balto-Slavic languages in or around the Upper Volga Region.

[Vinitharya]

I fail to comprehend why my assertion is contradictory. A smaller, compact community that expands outward begins to differentiate their language much later than a diffuse, broad community. At any rate, I can only state that you can look at autosomal evidence and uniparental evidence, and from the latter the evidence states this: L1029 has its greatest diversity in Poland. Either the Proto-Slavic community evolved there or very close to Poland, or L1029 was not part of the Proto-Slavic community and was assimilated later (save for the Pan-Slavic subclades YP263 and YP417).

[ambron]

Tomenable

You know that I have been repeating for several years that the most probable is the Slavic homeland, indicated by Baran and Udolph.

[FR9CZ6]

Tomenable

This is a map of Baltic champleve enamel sites. The oldest finds come from Masuria and the Suwałki region. Therefore, if the Slavs spread together with champleve enamel, as Radek claims after Vyazov, then their homeland was the Suwałki region. Absurd!

The map/slide in question is a little bit out of context, but I don't think that anyone suggested that the "Slavs spread together with champleve enamel". It's much more complicated than that. As far as I know the Eastern European champleve enameling tradition reflects the adoption of the roman enameling techniques. It was facilitated by the intensification of cultural contacts between the Roman world and Northeastern Europe, mainly via the amber trade routes after the romanisation of provinces like Pannonia or Noricum. New roman artifacts and techniques were introduced to the Baltic region, and the local elite adopted new customs very quickly. I'm unsure if champleve enameling technique then later started to spread from the Baltic coast, or different centers developed indepently but we know for sure that roughly around the same time many local variants appeared and the Dnieper region was an important center of these products . I'm sure we're dealing with a new regional trend which spread via cultural contacts and not through some massive demic diffusion. In my interpretation the map simly suggests that during this period there were intensive contacts between various archaeological cultures of Northeastern Europe and that these sporadic slavic genetic outliers in different locations were found in places which are somehow connected to these Eastern European enamelled products which might suggest that the slavs of the time lived somewhere where these artifacts were "trending".

[ambron]

FR9CZ6

In other words: champleve enamel tells us as much about the Slavic homeland as dozens of other similar speculations.

[Tomenable]

Tomenable

You know that I have been repeating for several years that the most probable is the Slavic homeland, indicated by Baran and Udolph.

So you don't consider Przeworsk a Slavic culture? And what about Slavic presence in Wielbark?

[FR9CZ6]

FR9CZ6

In other words: champleve enamel tells us as much about the Slavic homeland as dozens of other similar speculations.

I think you missed the point. I just tried to explain what this particular map suggests in my opinion, I'm sure the team's reasoning is much more complex than that. But like I said, this slide is out of context I guess it was a part of a presentation. I would say based on the evidence they've found they probably argued that the slavs are connected somehow to the Kiev culture. You might not agree with that, but this theory has quite a rich literature and it's not more speculative than any other theory. Because at the moment we all can just speculate. McColl and his colleagues wrote it for a reason:

" ...Polish Wielbark individuals, to be modelled primarily as Eastern Scandinavian. However, most later individuals associated with the originally East Germanic-speaking groups, the Ukrainian Ostrogoths and the Visigoths of Iberia, appear to be locals. Two exceptions are from Goths from Iberia, who genetically fall on the Northeast-Southeast Baltic cline (one of which carries a Northern European Y haplogroups), suggesting an origin in North East Europe, but not Eastern Scandinavia specifically. This cline includes populations related to the spread of Slavic populations in Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic and are to be related to the Baltic Bronze Age ancestry originating in North East Europe. With the current sampling, determining a more precise homeland of the Slavic migrations is not yet possible."

[Gordius]

Tomenable

You know that I have been repeating for several years that the most probable is the Slavic homeland, indicated by Baran and Udolph.

So you don't consider Przeworsk a Slavic culture? And what about Slavic presence in Wielbark?

The question is not addressed to me, but I will answer: Przeworsk culture does not in any way contradict the Carpathian ancestral homeland of the Slavs, since the Chernyakhiv population of the Upper Dniester and Western Bug valleys arose on the basis of the Przeworsk population (with the influence of Lypytska culture and migrants of the Zarubinets culture from the Pripyat valley)

[Tomenable]

(...)

According to some linguists, Slavic languages are basically South Baltic languages.

So the presence of Baltic hydronyms in Kiev culture's area should not be surprising.