|
Post by AWAR on Dec 31, 2003 9:07:04 GMT -5
3. The Thracians and the Serbs were not related......they're only related in the minds of some Slavs! If the Thracians were related to the Serbs, then the Greeks, Illyrians and Italiacs were related to the Serbs in the same way. Serbs, Greeks, Illyrians and Itals are related, they all belong to the IE group of people. The only difference is that Slavs and Thracians were more closely related because the area in which these peoples lived was overlapping in several places. This is why most Thracian words are still same or extremely similar to Slovenian language!
|
|
Andrea
Full Member
IM ROY JE DA JEST TO VESNIYO - May they all have a paradise this springtime
Posts: 119
|
Post by Andrea on Dec 31, 2003 14:09:36 GMT -5
AWAR, slaven showed some translations of the 5 Early Thracian inscriptions (8-4 BC). They were translated not only as words, but as sentences with its morphology, inflectiones, syntax and semantics. That is much more than just similarities in words (even if they are extreme) .
|
|
|
Post by Artemisia on Dec 31, 2003 17:29:30 GMT -5
Serbs, Greeks, Illyrians and Itals are related, they all belong to the IE group of people. The only difference is that Slavs and Thracians were more closely related because the area in which these peoples lived was overlapping in several places. We all know that Serbs, Greeks, Illyrians, and Italics were Indo-Europeans! This is why most Thracian words are still same or extremely similar to Slovenian language! That's because the invading Slavs borrowed some vocabulary from the indigenous Thracians. In fact, they probably also borrowed words from the Illryians (just like they borrowed from Greek) and this doesn't mean that the languages themselves were related. Furthermore, there are very few Thracian inscriptions so we still don't know what the language was like; it's difficult to reconstruct its grammatical system.
|
|
|
Post by Zetaman on Dec 31, 2003 21:31:34 GMT -5
have been following this thread for a while since I am extremely interested in what people have to say about it. Let me address this topic by dissecting it piece by piece and crushing in process Slavic mitomaniac claims (after this I will not reply to simple opinions only to facts, reasonable facts); -------- Since that site was influenced (especially in the topic of existence of slavized illyrians) by me and it was created by my friend and Serb brother - Highduke. My viewed can be found in www.geocities.com/zakus_1999/Illyria.htmlabout this although they are not updated and there is certain mistakes in regard to racial anthropology that will be corrected in the next year. Many more updated ideas can be found in my sites forum regarding the issues of Illyria at pub18.ezboard.com/fbalkansillyriaforum In summary (although it will be a veryyy long summary cause of vastness of the topic) there is no doubt in my mound that vast majority of so called south Slavs are in fact slavized Natives. Reasons are bellow; 1) One proof is that majority of non-Balkan Slavs belong to Neodanubian racial type (created as a mixture of older Nordic Danubian and Lappoid-like Lagodan type) and to Lagodans which is not the case with majority of Balkans Slavs. Bulgarians, Serbians from E Serbia and Macedonian 'Slavs' are mainly Pondid Meds as Thracians and many of Greeks. Regions bellow River Sava and Danube are mainly Dinaric by race which was the same type that Illyrians prior to Slavic invasion were. Slavic Neodanubian type is present in minority degree in Pannonia and Slovenia and even here it is present in rather unusual form for this type (as compared with non-Balkan eastern-European regions) which is called dinarized Neodanubians which means that it is influenced by Dinarics. This site has racial data on former Yugoslavia as well as rest of Europe. www.racialcompact.com/nordishrace.html and it states that former Yugoslavia has 75% Dinarics and 10% light Dinarics called Nordics (thus 85% Dinarics) and 10% Meds and only 5% MIXED Slavic Neo-danubians (mainly placed in Pannonia and Slovenia which are the actual places where Slavs left racial and genetic mark and names such as Slavonia, Zagorje and Slovenia tell us who lived there although major toponym's are non-Slavic (see link bellow) www.geocities.com/zakus_1999/toponyms.html This means that Neodanubians are not only a minority in Pannonia but exist in altered form. Reason for this is that all the Slavs that attacked Balkans numbered 100,000 (thus including Thrace and Macedonia). Illyria could not have had more than 50,000 of these Slavs at the time when Byzantine Haimos (Balkans) had 3-4 million people and Illyria had between 700,000 and 1,000,000 people. Data for numbers www.geocities.com/zakus_1999/numbers.html 2) Now question is how how could smaller (much smaller !!) number of barbarian Slavs force their identity on much bigger number of Illyrians. Before answering this let me state that original Serboi and Horuvatos are not Slavs but Sarmatians that forced identity on majority Baltic populations of eastern Europe (exactly the way 'Slavs' were formed as freed Sarmatian Slaves by 5 century AD as eastern Europe has been greatly disrupted by Huns that caused Barbarian invasions). Baltics lived in a much wider territory than they do today (most of eastern Europe) and closest cousin to Slavic languages are Baltic ones who are closest racially and culturally to Slavs. There is no doubt that Balts are much older than Slavs and this can be seen from the fact that Lithuanian language is 70% derived by Sanskrit (Pondid Aryans forced it on Nordic-UP Baltics). Poland was called Sarmatia in middle ages and both Serbs and Croats come from its proximity. Most of the barren and practically mainly frozen eastern European regions are inhabited by Slavs (Siberia was conquered only in the past several centuries where many Mongoloid-like nations had been slavized while Russians made a great attempt to slavize Turkics of central Asia thus Slavs certainly have a record of slavization, forced slavization). The fact that Slavs live on a vast stretch of land doesn't mean much since most of it is undesirable and comparable to most of Canada or Alaska, which is vast but thinly populated as is vast majority of Russia. Back to Illyria, as Barbarians were devastating Illyricum and other Roman provinces they were making ground for further destruction tat is to follow by Slavs and making their job easier. List of people that attacked and devastated Illyria before Slavs did is as following; -Marcomans, Goths,Gepids, Bastarns, Vandals, Langobards, Heruls, Kuads, Sarmats, Alans, Huns, Avars, and source is www.balcanica.org/history/lostInvaders.htmlso now it becomes little more cleared as far as what kind of shape could have Illyria been in. The fact is that (forced and later gradual) slavization was a process that lasted for centuries and it was mainly finished by around 15 century when Dalmatian Latin coast become mainly linguistically Slavic with the coming of Turks. Link bellow 92.1911encyclopedia.org/D/DA/DALMATIA.htm talks about that and about that fact that many Serbs and local Slavs are most similar to local Illyrian Vlachs (romanized Illyrians pub18.ezboard.com/fbalkansillyriaforum.showMessage?topicID=385.topicwho fled to southern mountain regions such as Montenegro and Hercegovina and become Slavized later by mainly already slavized Rascia and not to be confused with other Vlachs). To give you a flavor of how much blood and destruction was cause by early Slavs read this pub18.ezboard.com/fbalkansillyriaforum.showMessage?topicID=387.topic. Also it can be stated that it is not only that these Illyrians become assimilated into something else but that most of the Populations of Hungary (assimilated Pannonians/Celts/Slavs), Bulgaria (assimilated Greeks/Thracians/Slavs), Turkey (assimilated Byzantine Greeks/Armenians/Iranians), Austria and Bavaria(assimilated northern Illyrian kin peoples), Czech(mainly assimilated Celts) and all of this can be concluded by being aware of the racial makeup and history of the countries (and racial history or being aware what people were of what type like many continental Celts were Alpines).
|
|
|
Post by Zetaman on Dec 31, 2003 21:32:44 GMT -5
Server doesnt take big pieces that why I devided the text ------ 3) Blood type distribution has also showed a great divergence between Balkan Slavs and among the purest of all the non-Balkan Slavs such as Polish and Russians (while it has showed that populations like Montenegro/Hercegovina are even unique like which corresponds with Montenegro having a unique like racial Borreby-like Dinaric type) in this link www.geocities.com/zakus_1999/bloodtypes.html while the somewhat closeness with Slovaks (many Dinarics, Illyrian settlers) and Ukrainians (Dinarics and many Greek derived Pondids on the coast) are not of Slavic origin. 4) Genetics studies such as that of Sforca have showed that Yugoslavs are as far as genetic distance among the furthest apart from non-Balkan-Slavs while studies done on Bosnians and Slovenians are even showing that Slavic genetic influence is of minor importance as can be seen by the link bellow pub18.ezboard.com/fbalkansbosnahercegovinaforum.showMessage?topicID=268.topic In fact a number of genetic studies I have seen mainly come to the same conclusion and that there has not been any major alteration of population in Balkans in the past several thousand years (fully concurent with Coon who for example states that there is in efefct no difference between todays and ancient Greeks as far as race goes just like there is no major difference between most of the present Balkan population and ancient one). (Even Turks would not have had much impact since they are mainly turkemized Greeks as can be seen in following link www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=200436&messageid=1022912334&lp=1043124157 and it is interesting to note that Turkic nomads 1000 years ago were mainly Iranian by race and even language to a greater extent and no more than 1/3 of them was of Turanid type associated with Turkics in Central Asia that only 1/5 of todays Turks belong to.) Back to Illyrians, I must state that Illyrians by no means are a uniform population. Southern Illyrians are in effect part of Hellenistic world (Greek language was used, Greek culture, Greek titles, Greek inscriptions) and this goes as far as Daorson which is southern Hercegovina of today. Dardanians were also fully Hellenistic. Istriot tribes were also advanced (not as much as southern Illyria which could rival Greece) as a result of proximity of Italy while more isolated tribes such as Dalmates and Pannones were much more primitive. Data on this can be found in following link (with summary in English at the bottom of the page) www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=63400&messageid=1055880898&lp=1055880898 Only alteration can be found in places like Slovenia, Pannonia, parts of Romania (such as NE part that is inhabited by mainly Slavic derived neodanubians which is interesting to note are more numerous in Romania and not to mention Hungary than in former Yugoslavia while Bulgaria is not even in the picture). Thus it can be concluded that Slavs didn't slavize big portions of Balkan peninsula by sheer numeric superiority but because they were the final benefactors of almost systematic barbarian destruction of Thrace, Macedonia and Illyria (which also means cultural destruction which minimized even further the likely re-hellenization or re-latinization in case of mainly latinophil northern and western Illyria where it was finally stopped by coming of Turks in 15 century, of course I am speaking about culturally advanced Dalmatian coastal cities whose primarily byproduct was a later Ragusa) that Slavs benefited the most from and difference is that these other Barbarians left whereas Slavs stayed. Make no mistake this slavization or all these barbarian invasions were in no way positive of an event for they in effect represent destruction of vastly more culturally superior element in certain regions by vastly more primitive cultures such as Slavs were (equivalent would be in few centuries African blacks multiplying so much and then overwhelming all America with a form of ghetto culture that later on under the influence of American regions that were not concurred was recivilized and re-cultured as Byzantines did with Bulgaria and Serbia). In anyone has audacity to even state that Slavs of eastern Europe (which whom Veneti and Eneti have NO CONNECTION except in similarity of name Veneti/Eneti/Wends that are centuries and regions apart and this similarity is the only told these pathetic mitomaniacs have at their disposal) here even close to being culturally advanced at 5 century AD or earlier I want facts (*such as what city did they build, remains, cultural artifacts,etc). Now Veneti is the subject. Veneti came from northern Illyria and claim Trojan descent. Their language is clearly Italic as most of northern Illyrian languages appear to be (including Messapic which in effect is a cross between proto-hellenic and italic languages which came from vicinity of Dalmatia) and worshiped Hellenic gods such as Zeus. Venets are from Illyria as there is ample of archeological evidence of Illyria towards Italy population movements. Venetic left sentences that have NO connection with Slavic (link bellow) and have been classified as Italic language (in the bellow link note that thracian words and illyrian words are mainly merely personal names and represent a pathetic attempt by mitomaniac 'scholars' and it merely a guessing game on subject such as Illyrian and Thracians since neither left ANY remains of their language since neither had their own since most used Greek) pub18.ezboard.com/fbalkansillyriaforum.showMessage?topicID=335.topicexample of Venetic sentence (and clearly no connection with Slavic) is bellow "eik goltanos doto louderai kanei. Goltanus sacrificed this for the virgin Kanis." (bottom of the link page) pub18.ezboard.com/fbalkansillyriaforum.showMessage?topicID=335.topicAs I said the only thing these Slavic mitomaniacs (highly reminiscent of Afrocentrists and Nordicists) have a similarity between names Venetes (~5cen.BC, North.Italy), Eneti (time of Homer in Anatolia, thus another 300 or so years further back in time) and what Germans called Slavs around 1000 years ago which was Wends (did I mention that Venetos in Latin I believe means Blue).
|
|
|
Post by Zetaman on Dec 31, 2003 21:33:29 GMT -5
Ancient quotes on Greek speaking Thracians link bellow pub18.ezboard.com/fbalkansillyriaforum.showMessage?topicID=447.topic for Thracians (at least southern ones) were like southern Illyrians and Macedonians - Greek speaking and all three were the main reason why Helenism was spread over western Asia and in Egypt since these there were the core of Alexander's troops. The similarity that exists between some of these names and Slavic can be found pub18.ezboard.com/fbalkansillyriaforum.showMessage?topicID=335.topic except there is a little problem it is not Slavic but Lithuanian they are using. As I mentioned earlier Lithuanian is 70% derived from Sanskrit thus these connections are in effect a connection with one of the PIE languages which again are no news in itself since Thracian region would be an IE region and some similarities will exist between names (since they were probably digging all the Greek text from Thrace which means tens of 1000s of Greek words to find 2 or so dozen that appear similar to some Sanskrit word, as I said pathetic and sneaky since they keep on mentioning Slavic instead of Baltic Lithuanian as far as the minuscule similarity goes). This was found from taking names, again NAMES since that was the only thing that might differentiate some Thracians from other Greeks. Poor Greeks are attacked from all these regions without history but as they say in my Montenegro ('za dobrim konjem se i prasina dize' which means 'good horse raises dust'). The only unfortunate thing is that there is kids that are tricked and brainwashed by this propaganda which some want so desperately to believe (since apparently being descended from assimilated natives is not enough for 'knowing' that ones ancestors in IDENTICAL form had always been present here where I am). --------- Ancient quotes on Greek speaking Thracians pub18.ezboard.com/fbalkansillyriaforum.showMessage?topicID=447.topic---------- a. "When Seuthes heard all that, he said that he trusted all Athenians, because he knows that between him and them there is a kinship, and thus he considers them as his dear friends." [Seuthes was the King of Southern Thrace] (Seuthes' ancestor Teres, and First King of the Thracian Odrysians, was in fact Tereus who married the daughter of the Athenian King Pandion and had lands in Phocis. This happened in the remote antiquity. Events described here take place ca. 400 B.C.) Source: --------- Xenophon, Êýñïõ ÁíÜâáóéò-Anabasis: Book VII, Chapter II, 31 ---------- b. (Seuthes replied:) Maisades was my father, and he ruled the Melanditae, the Thynians and the Tranipsae.[Thracian tribes]. (The Thracian Tribal names are all Greek etymologically.) Source: --------- Xenophon, Êýñïõ ÁíÜâáóéò-Anabasis: Book VII, Chapter II, 32 ---------- c. (Xenophon said:) We intend to go to a place where the soldiers will be able to find food for themselves. There, we will hear what Aristarchus the Spartan has to say and what you have to propose, and we shall choose to go with whomever proposals' sound more beneficial to us. (King Seuthes replied:) I know many villages that are not far away one from the other, where food can be found in abudance. (Seuthes could speak and understand Attic Greek, thus he was able to converse with Xenophon, an Athenian, directly without the intervention of an itepreter.) Source: --------- Xenophon, Êýñïõ ÁíÜâáóéò-Anabasis: Book VII, Chapter III, 8-10 ----------- d. When they were close at the gates, and they were preparing themselves to enter and dine, they met a certain Heracleides from Maronia. (Maronia was a Greek City on the Thracian Coast between Abdera and Doriscon Lt. Doriscum. Heracleides was King Seuthes' aid-de-camp.) Source: --------- Xenophon, Êýñïõ ÁíÜâáóéò-Anabasis: Book VII, Chapter III, 16 ----------- e. Then Seuthes arose, and drunk along with Xenophon all the wine in their cups, and then, together, they shed the last drops of the wine on the ground, as a "sponde". (A "Sponde", was an Archaic Greek Custom, documented to be practised at least from the time of the Trojan War. Achilles, Menelaus, Patroclus, Agamemnon, Diomedes, Odysseus, Hector, Paris, Priamus, in short terms everybody as early as 1260 B.C. to honour the Gods. The practicing of the same custom by the Thracians means that, they had common customs with the Greeks.) Source: --------- Xenophon, Êýñïõ ÁíÜâáóéò-Anabasis: Book VII, Chapter III, 32 ----------- f. (Seuthes said:) Prepare yourselves and wait. When the time is right I shall come with my Peltasts take you and lead you with the help of the Gods. (Greeks and Thracians had the same Gods, i.e. the twelve Olympian Gods.) Source: --------- Xenophon, Êýñïõ ÁíÜâáóéò-Anabasis: Book VII, Chapter III, 36 ----------- g. And [thus] as a password, they set the name of the Godess Athena, because of the kinship between Athenians and Tracians. Source: --------- Xenophon, Êýñïõ ÁíÜâáóéò-Anabasis: Book VII, Chapter III, 39 ----------- h. (The Thynians, one of the Thracian tribes Seuthes and Xenophon wage war against, attack the Greco-Thracian Army. Book VII, Chapter IV, 12-19) (And) they even called out the name of Xenophon as well, and challenged him to step out of the (keep) to kill him, otherwise they threatened him that they would burn him where he stands. (It is clear that even the Thynian tribesmen, commoners in other words, spoke Greek. Knowledge of the Greek language was not limited to Noblemen only.) Source: --------- Xenophon, Êýñïõ ÁíÜâáóéò-Anabasis: Book VII, Chapter IV, 15 ----------- i. Because many of the Odrysians left their mountain homes to take part in his [Seuthes'] military operations because they have learned of his achievements. (Seuthes was the son of the King of the Odrysians, a Thracian tribe that lived in the Thracian mountains, not in the Thracian coast.) Source: --------- Xenophon, Êýñïõ ÁíÜâáóéò-Anabasis: Book VII, Chapter IV, 21 CONCLUSION: ----------------- There were clearly many ties, linguistic, cultural, racial, as well as religious between the Thracians and the Greeks. As the evidence of the Archaic Thracian King Tereus tells us, contacts between the mainland Greeks and the Thracians are as old as at least 8th cent. B.C. Of course there is even more evidence in the Iliad, which is much more difficult to read and extract quotations, due to the highly poetic language of Homerus. You may use the above quotations freely, as the translation is mine from the original Attic Greek text, and thus is not copyrighted or anything else. 15-9-2003 Kveldulf
|
|
|
Post by Artemisia on Dec 31, 2003 22:54:19 GMT -5
Ancient quotes on Greek speaking Thracians link bellow pub18.ezboard.com/fbalkansillyriaforum.showMessage?topicID=447.topic for Thracians (at least southern ones) were like southern Illyrians and Macedonians - Greek speaking and all three were the main reason why Helenism was spread over western Asia and in Egypt since these there were the core of Alexander's troops. The similarity that exists between some of these names and Slavic can be found The Thracians and Illyrians were not Hellenic and neither were they Greek-speaking. Some southern Thracians and Illyrians acquired the Greek language during Hellenistic times as many Anatolians did. Most of Alexander's troops were from Macedonia and other parts of Greece (Macedonia was a Greek kingdom, like Epirus) with minor Illro-Thracian elements (something like 15%). That's becacause Suethes was married to an Athenian woman and the Athenians were his allies. Yeah, there was kinship between the Greeks and Thracians but they were just not the same nation. (Seuthes could speak and understand Attic Greek, thus he was able to converse with Xenophon, an Athenian, directly without the intervention of an itepreter.) Maybe Suethes was educated in Greece or was part Greek himself. Many foreign rulers knew Greek well but that doesn't mean they were Greek. Emperor Hadrian (on my logo!) spoke perfect Attic Greek but he wasn't Greek himself, only educated in Greece. Yes, most of the gods were the same for Greeks, Thracians, and Illyrians but there were variations in the pantheon. This common pantheon reflects the descent of these three nations from an older single group of people.
|
|
Andrea
Full Member
IM ROY JE DA JEST TO VESNIYO - May they all have a paradise this springtime
Posts: 119
|
Post by Andrea on Jan 1, 2004 6:10:34 GMT -5
Zetaman, cool down pal. I know that Montenegrians are born orators, however you are extreme. Let me tell you first that I don't see myself on this forum as a theory developer. Those of us who like to develop theories should try to do that elsewhere. In scientific journals for instance. The very fact that there are different opinions on the ethnogenesis of Balkan populations, even among LEADING SCHOLARS, who, we must accept, have much more knowledge than us, shows that there are many things unsettled. I quoted two LEADING SCHOLARS (representing a bunch of others scholars with simmilar claims) who state that there were no migrations of Slavs in the early middle ages. Sorry, but I belive more in their words than in yours. No, offence, please. When Mario Alinei says that" today only a minority of experts support the thesis of the late migration of Slavs" he states it because he KNOWS the situation in the scholar world. You see, I do not comment those statements (whether they are thrue or false). I just say that things are going more and more interesting. And please, don't speak about that "Slavic propaganda" bullshit. Neither Mario Alinei nor Florin Curta are Slavs. For people with common sense it should be obvious fact. So, please, at least, don't be ridiculous. And about Veneti...I can quote many (hundreds) of deciphered inscriptions (using Slavic languages). For example my personal sentence on this post is in Old Brygian (Old Phrygian) .
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on Jan 1, 2004 10:44:13 GMT -5
Zetaman, You have obviously gone into a lot of trouble over this very interesting and huge subject. I have some points to make. a) I had a quick look at the site you provided a link to. www.geocities.com/zakus_1999/Illyria.htmlThe words you list as being commonly used in Montenegro and Greece only show the cultural interaction between Balkan nations in the last 15 centuries. A few examples: pirouni is a medieval Greek word for fork. Had it been used in Montenegro in ancient times it would probably have a slightly different form. The ancient Greek word is perone(pronounced peroni). It is more evident with the word fanari which comes from the medieval fanarion. The ancient Greek word is fanos. The word stani is slavic and is used by the Greeks, not the other way round. b) Your explanation as to why the indigenous people of the Balkans were Slavicised seems to work against your theory. It points to an already ruined and underpopulated or even semi-deserted area taken over by Slav newcomers. In this case the Modern Balkanians would be overwhelmingly descended from the newcomers. c) About linguistic ties, well there seems to be a lot of speculation. Although the translations that Slaven posted appear impressive I agree that they are not accepted by the vast majority of linguists. On the other hand there are no linguists who claim that the Illyrians, Thracians etc spoke Greek. I have copied a message and the answer to it which in my opinion give a good picture of the situation. "From: Eric Kinzel <ekinzel@hotmail.com> I've developed an interest in some of the extinct Indo-European language groups which played an important role in Greek and later Roman history (especially Illyrian and Thracian), and, by extension, in all such I-E and indigenous groups. What is the current thinking with regard to Thracian and Illyrian in terms of how they fit into the I-E language family? These are some of the theories I've read, some of which may fit into each other: 1. The descendant of the Illyrian group is Albanian. 2. Illyrian was part of a larger group, Italo-Celto-Veneto-Illyrian, at one time. 3. Illyrian, together with Thracian, formed a larger group, Thraco-Illyrian. 4. Thracian and Illyrian, together with Phrygian and Hellenic, formed the "Balkan" group at one time. 5. Thracian was once part of a larger group, Balto-Slavo-Germano-Thracian. 6. Dacian was a dialect of Thracian. 7. Messapic was a dialect of Illyrian. I realize that the word lists are small for these languages, mostly consisting of toponyms and personal names as reported by Greeks and Romans, but could you tell what the most current thinking suggests? Any reputable books on Thracians and Illyrians? thank you, Eric Kinzel" Reply: "I'm afraid your postring pretty much summarizes the state of our knowledge. All the languages you cite appear to be pretty definitely Indo-European, and there seems to be no good basis for assigning any of them to one of the well-recorded subgroups like Celtic, Italic or Hellenic. But at this point our material runs out, and no further conclusions can be safely drawn. There is scope only for speculation, and you have listed all of the principal speculations. We probably can't make any progress until such day as we are lucky enough to stumble across some substantial new texts in one or more of the languages. Larry Trask COGS University of Sussex Brighton BN1 9QH UK larryt@cogs.susx.ac.uk Tel: (01273)-678693 (from UK); +44-1273-678693 (from abroad) Fax: (01273)-671320 (from UK); +44-1273-671320 (from abroad)" d) There is of course anthropological and genetic evidence and from what I have seen, I am mostly on your side here. It is interesting to see Cavalli-Sforza's work on autosomal DNA. This is from Dienekes' site but there is more on Racial Reality's site. www.geocities.com/dienekesp/greekdna.htmlTo many this cline reminds of the ancient Greek colonization but the Greeks never colonized, expanded or migrated to Montenegro. The only possible interpretation is that it reflects pre-historic racial ties that are still present today. In other words, Montenegrins were probably not Dorians but were related to them and the other Hellenic tribes as well as the Thracians, Illyrians, Paeonians and their various offshoots. Like it or not we are not only neighbours but also relatives and that includes the Albanians and other Muslims of the region. Modern politics and rivalries aside we can all be proud of what the Balkans meant to the western world in the past and be optimistic for the future. It took the west Europens 1, 500 years of slaughter to sort things out. I don't think it will take us that long.
|
|
Andrea
Full Member
IM ROY JE DA JEST TO VESNIYO - May they all have a paradise this springtime
Posts: 119
|
Post by Andrea on Jan 1, 2004 13:42:17 GMT -5
Artemidoros, those translations of the Thracian and Brygian (Phrygian) inscriptions (that Slaven posted) are of very recent date (December 2002). So, we can not expect that they should be disseminated enough to enter in the linguistic internet sites. With time, however, it will be done. It is the same situation with the Venetic inscriptions.
They are very interesting. One can trace their italization - latinization in time. Much of them are understandable without high linguistics at all:
For instance: Inscription XXXV from Banassac:
Venetic :LUBI RUTENICA, ON OPIYA, TI YEDI ULAHNO, CELICNU...(weathered part).
Slovenian: LUBI RUTENICO, ON OPIYA, TI YEDI ULAHNO,CELICNU....(weathered part).
English: Enjoy Rutenica (a kind of wine), it makes you drunk, conzume it slowly, it heals.
On the other side the inscription from Marsac (Creuse): SACER PEROCO IEVRU DVORICO is obviously latinized: St Peter, when I die, (let me pass into your) yard. However DVORICO (C should be read as ts or k) is diminutive of DVOR (yard, gate, pass) in Slavic languages.
There are many more, and a large number of them are understandable without much linguistics.
Until now linguists were trying to decipher them by means of Italic - Latin or even Greek language, however unsuccessfully (exept for those highly latinized - the Zetaman case). That is why until recent times Venetic was classified as belonging to Italic branch of I-E languages and only by some linguists. Others were neutral.
Trying to translate them in Slovene solves the problem almost automatically.
|
|
Andrea
Full Member
IM ROY JE DA JEST TO VESNIYO - May they all have a paradise this springtime
Posts: 119
|
Post by Andrea on Jan 1, 2004 17:02:46 GMT -5
Here is the foreword to the book Veneti from Dr. Tareq Ismael (obviously a non - Slav ) a renown linguist from Canada. VENETIThe book VENETI (533 pages) is a contribution "to peaceful coexistence among the nations of Central Europe, all of whom, according to the authors, share to some degree in the cultural heritage of the Veneti." Tareq Y. Ismael, University of Calgary, Alberta ForewordThe solving of the mystery of Venetic and Etruscan inscriptions with the help of the Slovene language places before us the still open question regarding the initial formation of Indo-European languages. But before we examine this problem, we must recognize that the Venetic and Etruscan languages have to be included in this group. The Etruscan has till now been denied this right. How and why did Indo-European languages develop? We can say that they formed from a language widely distributed in central Europe. The reasons are unknown but we can draw some conclusions from the later development of Latin based languages; the internal and external causes creating these languages are known to us. We can infer that Indo-European languages also formed as a result of specific internal and external circumstances. The internal conditions of the time are unknown; however, we have some understanding of the extraordinary influence of the invasion and domination of a warring people from the area of the Caucasus in the Late Stone Age (Neolithic) between 3000 and 2000 B.C. Their Battle-Axe culture imposed itself on the predominantly agricultural indigenous peoples. These new circumstances demanded new, improved communications which meant new languages. The change first unfolded in Europe itself, and then because of migrations spread eastward to Persia and India. The dawning of the Indo-European era was the first major turning point in the historical development of Europe. There is also the question of the original language in Europe which served as the base for the first Indo-European languages. Among these we must count the Venetic and the Illyrian. I would venture to say that it was the Proto-Slavic language. A number of substantiations are presented later in this book. In the Middle Stone Age (Mesolithic), European people already had important material cultures with correspondingly well-developed languages. Among archaeological remains of the Vinca culture-the middle Danubian area during the 6th to 4th millenniums B.C.-the Etruscologist professor Dr. Radivoje Pesic found all letters of the Etruscan alphabet. Obviously their language was already relatively advanced. The Ice Man from the Tyrolean glacier, dating back to 3300 B.C., provides evidence of an important, orderly society existing in that area. Also in the excavations at Abensberg on the Danube in Bavaria there are strong indications of life in well organized settlements. The thousands of flintstone (Feuerstein) mines found there, dating from 5000 B.C., indicate a prosperous culture based on trade with this "steel of the Stone Age" and the production of a variety of tools. From the symbiosis of the old indigenous cultures and the new Battle-Axe culture, new societies and new languages formed. Around 1500 B.C., the Unetice (Aunjetitz) culture was known in central Europe. Within it the Indo-European components dominated, including the Kurgan or Mound-grave burial. There was a change around 1300 B.C. when the famous Lusatian culture established itself. Within this culture ancient indigenous elements prevailed; it was here that cremation of the dead and the burial of ashes in urns originated. This burial custom marks the beginning of the Urnfield culture, which spread its religious message with great speed through much of Europe. The important question at this point concerns the bearers of this culture. Who were they? And who were the first people in central Europe, or possibly all of Europe, who outgrew the narrow constraints of tribal community and developed a higher level of social organization? Until the Second World War researchers identified the people of the Urnfield culture as Proto-Illyrians. More recent archaeological and historical data have led them to the conclusion that these people were Proto-Veneti, since it is known that the Illyrians never occupied the region of central Europe. Numerous settlements of Urnfield people dating from 1200 B.C. were found around Ljubljana, Slovenia. We may conclude that the Veneti moved from this area farther south to Italy, a hypothesis that corresponds with the findings of the Italian scholar, Giuseppe Sergi, who presented evidence that the Veneti came to Italy from the north in the Bronze Age. It was this group of Veneti, inhabiting the territory between the Alps and the upper Adriatic, who founded the Este culture. Through this culture we are today best able to discover their identity and through them the identity of their predecessors. The Veneti were a Slavic people; that is, they were the earliest known Slavs in the new form of the Indo-European reality. As the Urnfield culture spread, so did the Venetic (Slavic) language. The most authentic components of the ancient Venetic language have been preserved by the Slovenes who are still living in the region of the Este culture. The aim of this book is to present evidence that will lead to fundamental changes in the contemporary views of European history. In the first part of this book Dr. Josko Savli presents a survey of the prehistory of central Europe. He then takes us on a journey through the remains of the Venetic culture and language, especially in the Alpine region and northern Italy between the Po River and the Alps. Hundreds of names of mountains, valleys, rivers, and villages still exist today in this region and witness the past presence of Veneti -- a nation living on in its descendants, the majority of whom have lost the Venetic language. In the second part of the book, the mysteries of the Venetic and Etruscan inscriptions are unveiled. These inscriptions belong to the oldest monuments of written language in Europe. Scholars had not been able to decipher them until linguist-academician Matej Bor found in the Slovene language the key to their translation. Although the Venetic inscriptions are more than 2000 years removed from contemporary Slovene, the similarities between the two languages are such that these important cultural monuments can still be understood. These surprising discoveries have attracted not only admiration and approval from scholars and laymen, but also sharp criticism from those who cannot accept the fact that they made wrong decisions in the area of historiography and archaeological legacy. The third part of the book was written as an answer to these critics, with the goal of dispelling false theories which have until now surrounded the Veneti and their identity. We would like to break the barrier of silence which surrounds the Venetic culture and to present the reader with an unobstructed view of the ancient past of Europe, which is to some degree still reflected in the Slovene nation. The principal purpose of this book is to determine those elements of material culture and historical events which link the nations of central Europe with their predecessors, the Veneti, regardless of the different languages involved. We would like to contribute to mutual understanding and recognition among the nations of Europe, to strengthen peace and friendship, especially among the nations living in the Alpine region, once the cultural and national centre of the Veneti.
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on Jan 1, 2004 20:30:36 GMT -5
Extremely interesting! I have always thought that IE languages originated or passed through the Balkans ever since I started thinking about the matter. I think Slovenes prefer to think of themselves as central Europeans but it makes no difference. This theory provides some good pointers. Of course it limits the contribution of the Venetic language to Eastern Europe by decidedly describing it as Slavic. I have some problems with the chronology. For example describing the 4th millenium BC as mesolithic when there is evidence of agricultural neolithic settlements at least 1,000 years earlier. Also I don't understand the role of the Kurgan culture. I think it is just mentioned in order to minimise opposition from the supporters of the theory that the Kurgan horsemen spread the IE languages.
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Jan 2, 2004 2:18:04 GMT -5
Slovenian language is very Slavic. Any Serb can understand Slovenian with just a little difficulty.
|
|
Andrea
Full Member
IM ROY JE DA JEST TO VESNIYO - May they all have a paradise this springtime
Posts: 119
|
Post by Andrea on Jan 2, 2004 4:27:09 GMT -5
I have some problems with the chronology. For example describing the 4th millenium BC as mesolithic when there is evidence of agricultural neolithic settlements at least 1,000 years earlier. Also I don't understand the role of the Kurgan culture. I think it is just mentioned in order to minimise opposition from the supporters of the theory that the Kurgan horsemen spread the IE languages. ;D ;D ;DCome on Artemidoros, Ismael is not a beginer to claim that 4000 BC is a Mesolitic era. Apparently, he just uses the second and the third sentence as a chronological continuation to the first one. As a full time university professor in linguistics, do you realy think that he would make such a mistake that I wouldn't do, though I'm neither a linguist nor historian or archaeologist? Your notice is just a malicious attempt to discard his reputation and the reputation of the text above. That is very transparent. However it is a FACT that Dr. Tareq Ismael is a full time professor in linguistics. And of course, again the Veneti: Well read my posts on page 3 of this thread and make a conclusion about the Veneti, their contribution to the eastern Europe and so on. Those quotes include some historical texts. I do not intend to repeat myself. AWAR, please tell our friend Artemidoros, do you understand the Rutenica inscription from the above post? Is it or is it not very simmilar to the Serbian (or any other Slavic) language?
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on Jan 2, 2004 6:53:33 GMT -5
They are in the same paragraph. I take it they are referring to the same era.
No, I do not think it is a mistake. It is a different classification, the reason for which I do not undertand.
Since I am so transparent, can you also see the motive(s) behind my malice? Please substantiate your accusation
You might have misunderstood something, because I do not see what they have to do with anything I said.
No need, your word is enough. I did not dispute the Slavic character of either Venetic or Slovenian. Not even the Etruscan, although the claim the Etruscan alphabet is older than those of the Middle East took me by surprise. I said that Prof. Ismael classifies Venetic as Slavic rather than Proto-Slavic, which he puts forward as a candidate for Proto-IE. By classifying it as Slavic he limits it to being an ancient form of Slavic rather than the source of modern Slavic languages. To further clarify things I believe that the Proto-IE language was that of European neolithic farmers and that it spread to the whole of the continent through the spread of agriculture. That is not incompatible with Venetic being Slavic or even equating Proto-Slavic and Proto-IE but I do disagree with the way Ismael sees the spread of languages in Europe. Since you seem to have a very high esteem for the authority of scientists (which I do not blame you for), this theory is not mine. It is supported by many eminent scientists.
|
|