Palaeolithic Continuity Theory - European origins

**I of Macedon** · 09-08-2008, 08:45 AM

Paleolithic Continuity Theory - Marcel Otte, Alexander H�usler, and Mario Alinei

These are excerpts from Mario Alinei�s Theory of Continuity are being quoted:

�I have to commence by clearing away one of the most absurd consequences of the traditional chronology, namely, that of the �arrival� of the Slavs into the immense area in which they now live. The only logical conclusion can be that the southern branch of the Slavs is the oldest and that from it developed the Slavic western and eastern branches in a differing manner and perhaps at different times.�

�Today only a minority of experts support the theory of a late migration for the Slavs� because none of the variant versions of such late settlement answers the question of what crucial factor could possibly have enabled the Slavs to have left their Bronze-Age firesides to become the dominant peoples of Europe. The southwestern portion of the Slavs had always bordered on the Italic people in Dalmatia, as well as in the areas of the eastern Alps and in the Po lowlands.�

�The surmised �Slavic migration� is full of inconsistencies. There is no �northern Slavic language�, it is rather only a variant of the southern Slavic� The first metallurgic cultures in the Balkans are Slavic� and connected with Anatolia� Slavic presence in the territory, nearly identical to the one occupied by them today, exists ever since the Stone Age� The Slavs have (together with the Greeks and other Balkan peoples developed agriculture� agriculturally mixed economy, typically European, which later enabled the birth of the Greek, Etruscan, and Latin urbanism. Germanic peoples adopted agriculture from the Slavs� The Balkans is one of the rare regions in which a real and true settlement of human groups coming from Anatolia is proven�]. This was a sobering analysis by Anthony Ambrozic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithi ... ity_Theory

http://www.continuitas.com/

Sprachen des Onlinestudiums umfassen nicht nur Englisch und andere Weltsprachen. Onlinekurse werden weltweit zu jedem Thema angeboten und diese werden in der Landessprache, sowie in den wichtigsten, internationalen Sprachen, unterrichtet. (…) Weiterlesen

**I of Macedon** · 09-11-2008, 11:02 AM

As many studies have now shown, the foundation of scientific IE research in the 19thcentury was deeply influenced by the contemporary Arian, Pangermanic and colonialist ideology, as first expounded in Count Joseph-Arthur De Gobineau’s, Essai sur l’in�galit� des races humaines (1853-1855) and Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s, Die Grundlagen des XIX Jahrhunderts (1899), with their emphasis on Indo-Europeans racial superiority and their inclination to war and conquest (e.g. Poliakov 1974, R�mer 1985, Trigger 1989, Renfrew 1987 etc.).

Here is, for example, how Adolphe Pictet, the founder of the so called Linguistic Paleontology, in his book Les origines des Indo-europ�ennes ou les Aryas primitif. Essai de pal�ontologie linguistique, Paris, 1859-63, described the “Arian race”: �a race destined by the Providence to dominate the whole world… Privileged among all other races for the beauty of its blood, and for the gifts of its intelligence, … this fertile race has worked to create for itself, as a means for its development, a language which is admirable for its richness, its power, its harmony and perfection of forms�.

Within the Arian superior race, the German father-founders of IE studies preferred to see the Germanic people as the supermen, the purest and the closest to the original blessed race. This is also why the continental Germanic area for a long time was believed to be the Urheimat of the PIEs (Kossinna!).

In turn, the Pangermanic ideology and its political context gave rise to yet another important myth, the consequences of which are still dominating the field of IE studies: namely that of the extremely late arrival of the Slavs: if the Germanic people were the closest to the pure Arian race, then the Slavs must certainly be the farthest ones! Despite their enormous numbers (half of Europe is Slavic), the Slavs were thought of having hidden somewhere, magically leaving no archaeological trace whatsoever of their presence, until in the Middle Ages they unexplainably (and quite regretfully!) emerge and swarm over Eastern Europe…

After WW2, with the end of Nazi ideology, a new variant of the traditional scenario, which soon became the new canonic IE theory, was introduced by Marija Gimbutas, an ardent Baltic nationalist: the PIE Battle-Axe super-warriors were best
represented by Baltic �lites, instead of Germanic ones (Gimbutas 1963, 1970, 1973ab, 1977, 1979, 1980).

In so far as it explains why the founders of IE studies came to the preposterous idea of a recent invasions of Neolithic Europe by superior IE warriors, the above illustrated conclusion reached by history of archaeology and linguistics belongs in this survey.

As of now, no alternative theory has provided adequate evidence against the Paleolithic continuity paradigm. As a consequence:

(1) The ‘arrival’ of Indo-European people in Europe and Asia must be seen as one of the major episodes of the ‘arrival’ of Homo sapiens in Europe and Asia from Africa, and not as an event of recent prehistory.

(2) The differentiation of IE languages from the Proto-IE common language must have been an extremely slow process, associated with the varying episodes of the original migration from Africa, with the different course of development in the different settlement areas, and with the difference in climatic, ethnic and social contexts. For example:

...(C) The totally absurd, fairy-tale like thesis of the so called ‘late arrival’ of the Slavs in Europe must be replaced by the scenario of Slavic continuity from Paleolithic, and the demographic growth of the Slavs explained by the extraordinary success, continuity and stability of the Neolithic cultures of South-Eastern Europe (the only ones in Europe that caused the formation of tells).

Needless to say, these are just three examples: much more can be said on the European linguistic prehistory, utilizing the convergence of archaeological and linguistic data, as I have tried to do in the second volume of my recent book (Alinei
2000).

As is known, English and German land, as well as well as all their numerous cognates in the other Germanic languages, are connected with the Slavic names for ‘fallow land’, which in turn are the basis of the Slavic name for ‘Poland’ and ‘Polish’ – Ru. ljach ‘Polish’, Serb. Cr. (obs.) Leđanin ‘Polish’ (> Hung. Lengyel ‘Polish’) –, motivated as ‘opener of new fields’. As etymologists have recognized, the specialized meaning ‘fallow land’ of Slavic languages must have preceded the more general meaning of ‘land’ of Germanic ones. Now, while it is evident that this semantic sequence necessarily implies an
earlier Neolithic development for the Slavs than for the Germanic people, the traditional scenario makes this implication altogether unconceivable even for Germanic people (not to speak of Slavs!), as we have to assume the arrival of the PIE invaders only in the Copper Age! In Renfrew’s chronology, although it is not at all clear as to how and when

Slavic languages are formed, this priority of Slavic Neolithic over the Germanic LBK is at least possible.

**I of Macedon** · 09-11-2008, 11:04 AM

Interdisciplinary and linguistic evidence for Palaeolithic continuity of
Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic populations in Eurasia, with an
excursus on Slavic ethnogenesis
by Mario Alinei
Expanded version of a paper read at the Conference Ancient Settlers in Europe, Kobarid, 29-30 May
2003. � Forthcoming in �Quaderni di semantica�, 26.

EXTRACTS

Three preliminary remarks are in order:

(A) the Slavic area corresponds to almost half of Europe. As such it is the
continent�s largest, and the only one that includes three climatic zones (subarctic,
continental and Mediterranean) and almost all ecological zones: arctic,
tundra, coniferous forest, mixed forest, steppe-forest, steppe, semi-desertic,
Mediterranean, alpine.

(B) In spite of their huge extension, Slavic languages are much less differentiated
than, for example, the Germanic or the Romance.

(C) Slavic languages have also a unique, asymmetric areal distribution: while
Southern Slavic languages (Slovenian, Serbian, Croatian, Macedonian and
Bulgarian) form a homogeneous bloc, sharing several common features, for
Northern Slavic languages it is necessary to distinguish between a Western
branch (including Czech, Sorbian and Polish), and an Eastern one (including
Russian, Ucrainian and Belo-Russian), as each of the two branches shares
different features with Southern Slavic.

An adequate theory of Slavic ethnogenesis will have to provide a satisfactory
and coherent explanation for these three fundamental aspects of Slavic: enormous
extension, extraordinary homogeneity, and areal asymmetry between South and North.

Mallory concludes: �It is difficult to deny that
there existed a geographical centre weighted between the Vistula and Dnieper which is
most commonly agreed to be Proto-Slavic and which appears to display a continuity of
cultural development from about 1500 BC (or earlier) to the historical appearance of the
earliest Slavic peoples� (Mallory 1989, 81). In more general terms, Mallory admits that
�A long geographical stasis for the Slavs [...] is probably the model that would be most
readily accepted by linguists who see in the Slavic language group little reason to
assume that they have moved much since their development from Proto-Indo-
European� (Mallory 1989, 81)2.

As a specialist in geolinguistics, I have always been surprised by the fact that Slavic
specialists have failed in noticing or appreciating the extraordinary diagnostic value �
from a geolinguistic point of view � of the asymmetric configuration of the Slavic area.
Even more so since the cause of this asymmetry is quite well-known, and explicitly
stated in all handbooks for first-year students of Slavic: Northern Slavic does not form a
single unit, but each of its two branchings � the Western and the Eastern � shares
different features with Southern Slavic.

Now, from a geolinguistic point of view, there is just one explanation possible
for this peculiar and transparent areal configuration: Southern Slavic must form the
earlier core, while the two Northern branchings must be a later development, each with
its proper history and identity. No other explanation is possible, unless one challenges
the very raison d�etre of IE and Proto-Slavic reconstruction, besides common sense.
Needless to say, this simple remark demolishes the whole construction of the
Slavic homeland in Middle Eastern Europe and of the Slavic migration in traditional
terms, as well as all of its corollaries. But let us check the other two points, before
developing it further within the framework of the PCT.

The only evidence for a great migration of Slavs in historical times that traditional
scholars can possibly claim lies in a literal reading of the mentions of medieval
historians, such as the Thracian Priscus of Panion (5th century), the Greek Procopius of
Cesarea (6th century) and the Goth Jordanes (6th century), or those of the Church (e.g.
Conte 1990, 33-34). But it is quite evident that such mentions do not point
unambiguously to an �invasion� or �migration� of Slavs, but can just as simply be taken
as to refer to pre-existing Slavs, the presence of which even traditional scholars now
admit. When, for example, John of Ephesos, bishop of Constantinopolis under Justinian
(527-65) mentions the innumerable raids into the Bizantine territori by �the damned
people of the Slavs� he damns them because they were still pagan, and not because they
are �arriving�! And when, in his De rebus Gethicis Jordanes describes the location of
the Venedi, and writes that they inhabited the area �From the source of the Visla river
and on incommensurable expanses�, he does not give the slightest indication of a recent
arrival of theirs, but simply describes a statu quo. And I challenge Slavic specialists to
find any indication of a recent arrival of the Slavs in their area in other medieval
sources.

Not only, but when earlier historians, living in the centuries preceding the
supposed arrival of the Slavs, write that the population of the Carpatian Basin offered a
drink called medos (Proto-Slavic medŭ �drink produced with honey�) the Byzantine
ambassadors directed to the court of Attila (king of the Huns), and that a part of the
funeral rituals for Attila�s death was called strava (medieval name of a Slavic funeral
ritual), only a biased reader can find evidence in this for the �first infiltrations� of Slavs
in the Carpatian area, especially as they seem to have left not trace of their coming!
(Neustupn�-Neustupn� 1963, 196).

The much simpler truth is that the Slavs were there from remote times. For,
again, the first mention of peoples in writing depends on the birthday of writing, and not
on the birthday of peoples!

In short, if such an enormous expansion of the Slavs both to the South and to the
North from their alleged homeland in Middle-Eastern Europe had really taken place, the
most important evidence we should expect to find would be archaeological. Which is
entirely missing. Just as we miss any discussion of this point in Mallory�s book �and
certainly not by accident, given the fact that Mallory is an archaeologist. I fail to see,
then, how an archaeologist can advance the hypothesis of a massive expansion that
involves half of Europe, and is capable of entirely changing its linguistic identity,
without the slightest archaeological evidence: unless it is a curious case of
underestimation of one�s own science.

Another fundamental objection to this thesis lies in the fact that, following the
traditional scenario, we would have to assume that this �great migration� involved also
the Southern Slavic area: an absolute impossibility, as we have just seen. If there has
been a �migration�, it must have proceded from South northwards.
A third, fundamental objection to this thesis is the contradiction between the
idea of a medieval migration and the total disappearance of the presumed pre-existing
languages.Not even modern mass migration and colonization, despite the enormous
technological and cultural difference between the migrants and the indigenous people,
have caused the total extinction of all autocthonous languages in the New World. The
ideal of the extinction of all alleged pre-Indo-European languages because of a Copper
Age IE migration is already hard enough to admit, given the same reason, plus the fact
that research on pre-Indo-European has never produced any serious result (Alinei 1996,
2000). How can we accept such an idea for the Early Middle Ages, and for the highly
civilized areas of Southern Eastern prehistoric Europe? What and where would the pre-
Indo-European substrate be in Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and
Slovenia? Unless we associate this late migration to a gigantic genocide � a
phantascientific hypothesis � this hypothesis does not belong to serious scientific
thinking.

Unquestionably, the homogeneity of the Slavic languages, which contrasts so strikingly
with the internal differentiation of Germanic, Romance and Celtic, for example, can
only be explained in two ways: by positing: (A) a very high degree of cultural and
social stability for a very long period, or (B); a most rapid expansion of the Slavs, the
tempo of which would have prevented the original Slavic language (Proto-Slavic) from
changing in the new areas. Something like what happened, for instance, to the English
language of the Pilgrims when they migrated to America, for its rapid expansion into
the new continent produced much fewer dialectal differences � despite its enormous
area � than, say, British English shows in the island of England.
The traditional theory was indeed coherent with this approach, when it assumed
the �arrival� of the Slavs in historical times, following their �great migration�. This
scenario did indeed involve a sort of blitz-invasion of most Eastern Europe, which in
turn would explain the homogeneity of the Slavic languages as they are now. But in the
modified scenario now current for Slavic specialists, envisaging a chronological gap of
two millennia from the first �arrival� in the Bronze age, and the later �migration� of
historical times, how can this argument still hold? Rather than beeing stable, the two
millennia of the Bronze, Iron Age and the beginning of our era form � on the contrary �
one of the most turbulent periods of European prehistory, protohistory and history:
Celts, Greeks, Romans, Illyrians and other people (including Slavs themselves, if we
accept this theory!), were constantly on the war path, occupying other people�s
territories, and greatly influencing their languages and cultures, as the numerous Celtic,
Greek and Latin loanwords in the Slavic languages abundantly witness.

Neither version of the traditional theory can provide a satisfactory answer to the twofold
question underlying the hypothesis of the great Slavic migration in the Early Middle
Ages: What prehistorical or historical circumstances would have brought the Slavic
people first to their demographic explosion and then to their great migration, both of
which made them into the dominating population of Eastern Europe, from North to
South, and the most numerous group in Europe? Neither archaeology nor history gives
us the slightest piece of evidence for such events which, as we have already noticed,
would have caused nothing less than the almost total disappearance of the previous
populations and of their languages. Notice that we followed the traditional theory we
wold have to assume not only that the Proto-IE people would �arrive� with the kurgan
culture from the Ukrainian steppes, in the Copper Age, while the Slavs would �arrive�
in Central Eastern Europe in the Bronze Age; but also, and especially, that after their
arrival they would multiply like ants, and would then occupy almost the whole of
Eastern Europe, from the arctic area and the tundra to the shores of the Black Sea. Can
such a preposterous thesis be in all seriousness advanced, in the 21st century, with the
progress made in so many scientific fields such as archaeology, anthropology, general
linguistics, and without a single piece of evidence? If we then also recall that the core
area of the Slavs was the South and not the North � as the geolinguistic picture
irrefutably indicates � what remains of this construction?

The diagnostic value of the etymological semantic change from Slav
to slave

A last argument against the traditional view of the Slavic ethnogenesis, and in my
opinion just as strong as it is new, can be found in the historical events involving Slavs
in the very period of their historical appearance in Europe.
As is known, most western European words designating the notion of �slave�
derive from the Latin word sclavus, originally meaning �Slavic�: not only English
slave, but also German Sklave, Dutch slaaf, Danish slave, Swedish slaaf, Welsh slaf,
Breton sklav, French esclave, Spanish esclavo, Portuguese escravo, Italian schiavo,
Albanian skllaf, Modern Greek sklavos, etc. The word has also entered Spanish Arabic,
where it has become saklabi or siklabi, plural sakaliba, with the meaning of �eunuch�.
In Italy, Lat. sclavus has developed into schiavo in the dialect of Florence, which
eventually has become standard Italian. But in Northern Italian dialects, in particular in
the dialects of Veneto, through regular phonetic developments, sclavus �Slav� as well as
�slave� has become first sciavo, then sciao, and finally ciao, the Italian informal
greeting, now internationally known.

As to the semantic change from the notion of �slave� to a simple greeting, it can be
easily explained by comparing the very similar development by which in certain parts
of central Europe the word servus, originally meaning �servant�, has become a common
greeting.

Why is all of this important for the traditional theory of the ethnogenesis of the
Slavs? Because of the passage from the meaning of �Slav� to the notion of �slave�, and
its great historiacl significance. Let us see this in greater detail.
There is a whole collection of medieval sources, which would take too long to list,
but which have been systematicaly studied by the three fundamental studies on the
history of Lat. sclavus (Aebischer 1936, Verlinden 1943, 1955), which shows that the
earliest attestations of the word sclavus date back to the Early Middle Ages: precisely
when the Slavs, in the traditional scenario, should undertake their �great migration�.
Indeed we find the meaning �slave� associated to the word sklavos sklavus generally
used in Byzantine Greek and Late Latin documents of the 10th century of our era, and
most philologists and historians who have discussed the problem are inclined to read
�slave� instead of �Slav� in many earlier attestations. Still earlier, the first attestations
of the word in the sense of �Slavic� can also be found in Greek, in the 6th century of our
era. According to Vasmer himself, for example, the attestation of sclavos in Agathias
(6th century) already has the meaning of �slave� (Aebischer 1936, 485).
How do scholars explain the semantic development from �Slavic� to �slave�? All
historical sources irrefutably show that the Slavic area was the main reservoir of slaves
in the whole period of Early Middle Ages, beginning probably in the 6th century, and
with a peak around the 10th. This preference for slaves of Slavic origin � so strong as to
make Slavs the slaves by anthonomasia � has been easily explained: in that period
Slavic people were the only ones who were still pagan, and this detail is most important
as it explains why, by choosing them, early medieval slave traders � mostly Venetian,
Genoese and Jewish � did not violate the new principles of the �Societas christiana�,
introduced by Pope Gregory the Great at the end of the 6th century, according to which
baptized people must be excluded from slavery. So we obtain a safe dating for the word
sclavus, in the sense of �slave�, which will be approximately the period between the
sixth and tenth centuries.

Now, as this period is precisely the one in which the supposed �great migration� of
the Slavs should take place, the question arises: how can huge migrating groups that
were supposed to be aggressively busy occupying half of Europe, from the Arctic area
to the Black Sea, submerging and extinguishing all previous populations, have at the
same time been chosen as the European slaves par excellence? This would clash against
all that we know � and that history abundantly shows � , about the characters of ethnic
and racial groups systematically reduced to slavery. In fact, if Slavs in the Early Middle
Ages became the historical slaves of Europe, this implies that in that period, rather than
being migrating to new territories and exterminating pre-existing people, they were
known to have beeen stable in their territories, to be hard workers, and especially to be
without much possibility to defend themselves from slave raiders and slave owners.
Without leaving the traditional theory, we now move to the most recent variant
of it.

Criticizing the excessive restriction of the earliest Slavic area Trubačev finally
recalls Br�ckner�s humorous warning: �Don�t do to anybody what would not please
you. The German scholars would love to drown all the Slavs in the Pripet swamps, and
the Slavic scholars all the Germans in the Dollart [�] � a quite pointless endeavour:
there would not be enough room for them; better drop the matter and don�t spare God�s
light for either of them� (idem, 206).

Returning now to the strikingly low degree of differentiation of Slavic
languages, let us recall that one of the most conspicuous phenomenon of the Balkanic
Neolithic is the formation of the so called tells. As is known, tells are artificial hills,
typical of the Arab (whence the name) and Iranian (called then tepe) areas, produced by
the agglomeration of debris of prehistorical and proto-historical villages on the same
site. In the South-Eastern area, these formation are called, locally or as place names,
magula or tumba in Greece, mogila in Bulgaria, g�mila/m�gila in Serbia,
gam�le/m�gule in Albania. But the word, with the meaning of �tumulus�, �tumb�, is
diffused also in the rest of the Slavic area slava (Russ. mog�la, Ukr. moh�ła, Slovn.
gom�la, Czec. Slovk. mohyla, Pol. mogiła) and in Romania (Rum. măgură).
Unfortunately, its etymology is not certain. But given its areal distribution, Vasmer�s
proposal to connect it with Proto-Slavic *mogo, in the sense of �dominating site�, seems
quite plausible. Tell are, of corse, prehistoric sites of exceptional importance, not only
for the significance of theior stratigraphies, but also as signs of an uninterrupted
continuity, both cultural and ethnic (Lichardus-Lichardus 1985, 229). Continuity, of
course, that must have been also linguistic! While tells are very common in the Near
and Middle East, where Neolithic cultures have an extraordinary and well-known
duration and stability, in Europe they appear only in the Balkans, and only to the South
of the Danube (DP, s.v. tell), and thus only in the Greek, Albanian and Southern Slavic
area. In the last one, the tells are primarily Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbian and
Bosnian, but that does not imply that in the contiguous areas within the same cultural
orbit the situation would be different. Here then lies the reason for the little
differentiation of Slavic languages (and mutatis mutandis for Greek): the cultural
stability and continuity from Mesolithic and Neolithic to the proto-history of the
populations of these areas.

http://www.continuitas.com/interdisciplinary.pdf

Sprachen des Onlinestudiums umfassen nicht nur Englisch und andere Weltsprachen. Onlinekurse werden weltweit zu jedem Thema angeboten und diese werden in der Landessprache, sowie in den wichtigsten, internationalen Sprachen, unterrichtet. (…) Weiterlesen

**Delodephius** · 09-11-2008, 12:15 PM

I have virtually memorized the PCT in the last two or three years. It was the first subject I discussed on Maknews back in 2005. It is a very powerful and elegant theory.

**osiris** · 09-11-2008, 10:34 PM

recently i read about dna tests done in britian which confirmed that most modern english dna (65%) is pre anglo saxon, jute and viking invasions.

**I of Macedon** · 09-12-2008, 12:17 AM

What strikes me as surprising (all though not that much) that many Germans, French, British and Greeks believe they belong or did belong to some Aryan race, in other words a pure and superior race. Hitler came to believe in such things, in that only Germans were a pure race and thus Hitler even carried a copy of the Aryan scripture. Yet after the Nazi defeat, the Germans then started suggesting that all people actually belong to the Aryan race.

In the mid 19th century, it was commonly believed that the Aryans originated in the southwestern steppes of present-day Russia (not surprising given the expansion of the russian empire). However, by the late 19th century the steppe theory of Aryan origins was challenged by the view that the Aryans originated in ancient Germany or Scandinavia, or at least that in those countries the original Aryan ethnicity had been preserved. The German origin of the Aryans was especially promoted by the archaeologist Gustaf Kossinna, who claimed that the Proto-Indo-European peoples were identical to the Corded Ware culture of Neolithic Germany. This idea was widely circulated in both intellectual and popular culture by the early twentieth century.

Rudolf Virchow launched a study of craniometry, which prompted him to denounce "Nordic mysticism" in the 1885 Anthropology Congress in Karlsruhe, while Josef Kollmann , a collaborator of Virchow, stated in the same congress that the people of Europe, be they German, Italian, English or French, belonged to a "mixture of various races," furthermore declaring that the "results of craniology" led to "struggle against any theory concerning the superiority of this or that European race"

The Aryan race is quite synonymous (as many know) with current Greek nationalism, which inturn (through government initiatives) has created many Greeks into uncontrollable fanatics.

**I of Macedon** · 09-12-2008, 01:37 AM

Originally posted by Slovak/Anomaly/Tomas View Post

I have virtually memorized the PCT in the last two or three years. It was the first subject I discussed on Maknews back in 2005. It is a very powerful and elegant theory.

It is a powerful and elegant theory indeed.

Most importantly it looks closely at all the Slavic populace throughout Europe and from all angles and by using all available evidences and dedicated research to sufficiently allow thoroughness and completeness of our greatly distorted history. Such research can not be done by the negligent traditionalists (who have distorted our history only to further theirs), who seem to base their theories on a few vague old quotes and thus fill the gaps of history with their own assumptions, and as such with no evidence to back such assumptions. Therefore it�s quite frustrating and sad to read such negligence, to say the least.

On the upside at least researches are beginning to see the light and the absurdity of the so called �Great 6th century Slavic migration,� and those researches are now forming a majority rather than the minority they once were.

Therefore we are starting to see, if history has taught us anything (at least for the most part) that sound scholarship will eventually prevail.

**Soldier of Macedon** · 09-12-2008, 05:31 AM

Originally posted by Slovak/Anomaly/Tomas View Post

I have virtually memorized the PCT in the last two or three years. It was the first subject I discussed on Maknews back in 2005. It is a very powerful and elegant theory.

Slovak, your knowledge in Slavic linguistics is right up there, so I was wondering if you can help me out here because I am sure you will have a more defined understanding of some of the points Allinei makes. In relation to the part where Allinei speaks about the non-existence of Northern Slavic and how both East and West Slavic originate from South Slavic - Can you give us some visual examples of what he talks about there?

**Delodephius** · 09-12-2008, 07:12 AM

Hmm... where did I see it, where did I see it. I have couple of really big books on comparative Slavic linguistics. I'll try looking.

**Delodephius** · 09-12-2008, 09:19 AM

Damn, I can't find it. I found what are the distinct features of the three groups (East, West and South Slavic), but I don't know where I read about the similarities between them.

**Soldier of Macedon** · 09-12-2008, 09:29 AM

When you find it, or even before if you wish, start a new thread in this Macedonian History section, and call it something like Relationship between South, West and East Slavic. We put all research there where it would be dedicated specifically for that purpose.

**Daskalot** · 09-12-2008, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post

When you find it, or even before if you wish, start a new thread in this Macedonian History section, and call it something like Relationship between South, West and East Slavic. We put all research there where it would be dedicated specifically for that purpose.

I would really like to have Jus Divinium's work regarding the Genetic relationship added to our forum.

**Soldier of Macedon** · 09-13-2008, 03:37 AM

Jus has come up with some great research and initiative, viknigo ako ne e uste tuka.

**Pelister** · 09-16-2008, 02:10 AM

There is evidence to support this theory if they really look for it.

There is an ancient Greek Vase, with of course, Greek letters on it, which is non-sensical in ancient Greek, and makes perfect sense in of course, Slavic.

This is "one piece" of evidence of a Slavic language in the lower Aegean.

How are people being informed about the Macedonians? Alot of what people know (or, think they know) about the Macedonians is being produced by States that have Colonized Macedonia, and currently occupy it. Their reasons, or justifications for invading it in 1912, were at that time, flimsy at best. At the same time, those justification set the tone of the discourse. A basic assumption, of all Colonisers, was the Macedonians do not exist. It was of course, completely different in secret (as the German historian, Hans Lottar Steppan) has revealed. Having each Colonizer agreeing on that point, made for a stronger case against the Macedonians in Europe, and the reverberations of that lie are still being felt today of course.

A closer look at the particular and unique customs of a small Macedonian village in the Pirin region, for instance, could quite easily reveal some identifiable ancient "and" local customs, which suggests some form of continuity from ancient times.

Palaeolithic Continuity Theory - European origins

Palaeolithic Continuity Theory - European origins

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment