Not Ancient Greeks nor Romans

Originally posted by cavalry4ever Interesting question: Who was in Europe before Indo-Europeans settled in?

Well, some say that a sort of Basque-like language
was spoken in western Europe, while eastern Europe
was Ugric speaking.

I disagree, because we're speaking about times
when Europe's population was very small
and far apart. These people also didn't have writing.

This all gives fine prerequisites for having a large number
of very different languages.

Interesting question:
Who was in Europe before Indo-Europeans settled in?

Originally posted by Rava 1. Sclaveni migrated to Balkans governed by Bulgar Bans  (Avars gave them this role), and their language and culture was not "oh, so attractive" that 80% accepted it immediately. Especiall there in Illirycum. Perhaps old-church-slavonic was kind of a linqua latina for many populations but not for the Romans and Greeks.

Get your facts straight.

1. Bulgars came after Slavs.
2. Romans and Greeks geopolitical influence at the time was out of the picture.
3. Old-Church Slavonic was some 3 centuries in the future at the time.

2.This kind of research could easily proof (if needed politicaly) that American WASP's are in fact Indian aborigenes and have rights to this land. It's easy to find the same genes in both populations thousands years ago. I do appreciate your knowledge but I have distance to genetic and linguistic theories as well.

Because you have political agendas.
A teritory belongs to the one who conquers it. Perhaps this seems unfair to you,
but it's the only realistic view.

Sure, people can whine about everything, but it doesn't change anything in the long run.

First of all, the spread of IE isn't covered in the maps I provided,
because it happened a lot later than that.

There's a map of today's situation in Y-lineages of Europe,
I provided it, look at it. You can see that not much has changed
since 8000 years ago. This topic isn't about the spread of IE.

Greece is still a mix of Neolithic and Palaeolithic lineages as it was
8000 years ago, meaning, it's same/similar to what it was 3200 years ago,
2000 years ago etc. etc.

The migrations weren't large in that time ( 18.000 - 8000 yrs ago ),
but the populations weren't large either, so migrations made
a much larger impact on the genetics.

Originally posted by Hellinas OK, lost you once again, what about the Slavs, weren't they a "large scale" migration? I'm sure that in order to give that amount of hell to the well organized Byzantines they must have been much more than a simple army and if they were just a simple army how large should this army have been in order to later populate the area? Since everysource I've seen agrees that the Slavs only "arrived" some time around the 7th cent. to their current location.

It's simple.  The Slavs brought their military influence in the Balkans, together with culture and language. 

Genetically speaking, 80% of Slavic-speaking Balkans is local Balkanoid.
The other 20% which are genetically Eastern European are mostly located north of the Danube.

Besides, you're relying on 19th century histrorians who have had
a lot of agendas regarding the Balkans. Trying to prove that
all the population in the Balkans are just some nomad savages who don't rightfully belong there was one of the points in their agenda.

Look at the spread of populations.
18.000 years ago:



12.000 Years ago:


8000 Years ago:


today:

Originally posted by Scythian Real large scale migrations happened 8000 years ago. Everything after that was minor in comparison. It's because the populations back then were sufficiently small so that migrations actually made a lasting impact. After that, the migrations weren't as effective. The only things that migrated were armies, languages and cultures. Sure, you can find an individual here or there who's "out of place" in terms of genetics, but that's just an exception that confirms the rule.

OK, lost you once again, what about the Slavs, weren't they a "large scale" migration? I'm sure that in order to give that amount of hell to the well organized Byzantines they must have been much more than a simple army and if they were just a simple army how large should this army have been in order to later populate the area? Since everysource I've seen agrees that the Slavs only "arrived" some time around the 7th cent. to their current location.

Jealousy, and the unability to realize that transportation back then was too ineffective to support  large scale migrations.

Even today, it would be a next to impossible task to just move around a large population ( which would go willingly, and not like Stalin moved them ).

By large, I mean large enough to cause a lasting impact on the structure
of a population. Today, it would take moving of millions of people, and exterminating millions of other peoples to replace a population.

Back then, walking on foot, by cart, and some horses, armed with spears...
simply no chance of successful removal of the old population, and placing the new.

Originally posted by Scythian It's not fascinating, it's crap. Real large scale migrations happened 8000 years ago. Everything after that was minor in comparison. It's because the populations back then were sufficiently small so that migrations actually made a lasting impact. After that, the migrations weren't as effective. The only things that migrated were armies, languages and cultures. That's how for example, the Irish are mostly genetically indigenous, pre-Celtic, pre-Anglo-Saxon, pre-Viking. Sure, you can find an individual here or there who's "out of place" in terms of genetics, but that's just an exception that confirms the rule.

I think, we are mixing two things here. We can probably agree by now that all Europenas are virtually undistinguishable from the genetic standpoint. However, large scale migration did happen at the beginning of first millenium CE. It may have been done within the same gene pool, but cultures have changed. Population in Europe was not that large. Estimates are that in year 1 CE worlwide population was only 150 million people. In Europe, most of it was in the south on the shores of Meditterranean. Do Normans and Francs are related? Yes
But Normandy is not populated by the same people as Paris.

Originally posted by Scythian I have brown hair, blue eyes and light skin. Some people call me 'blond'... that's just a local perception of what blond is. You just have to be lighter pigmented than the average.

Excellent point!

When talking about Hellas all researchers/scholars/historians have been proven to support exactly what the money tells them to support, there are more than a few examples.

The very fact that Homer's Illiad is an epic poem, is more than enough to support any objections to this stupid German/Nordic hoax that are based on the poem alone.
We know as a fact that the color blue is mentioned in many Hellinic texts as "kuanos" but Homer mentions the sea as "wine dark", what the hell is a "wine dark sea"? Probably a metaphor for "dangerous" something like we use "black" to present "evil".
Or what about "grey-eyed Athena" and "rosy-fingered dawn"?
Simple, it is a poem nothing more nothing less.(even though it does describe a real history event)

Anyway, Homer describes Hera grabbing Achilles from his blond hair, when we take a look at Achilles' life we find that while living in the court of Lycomedes, he was given the name "Pyrrha" = red from "pyr" = fire.
But when we look at the Mycenean artifacts, they all portray him as "dark", not one artifact presents him as "blond" or "red-head".
So we see that archaeological reality does prove the Illiad to be just a poem and that this "german/nordic origin" theory belongs in a dumpster.

Look up :
New Rules for Historical Instruction in Germany (in Discussion and Correspondence), American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 36, No. 1. (Jan. -Mar., 1934), pp. 139-141.

Since my attachments have some prob. I'll try to locate the site again.


Edited by Hellinas