I don't know whether the people of the Chernoles culture spoke Proto-Slavic.
Even if they did I don't think that the phrase "This territory is the Slavic
homeland" would be quite correct. In all probability Slavs and Balts parted
earlier than in the second quarter of the 1st mill. BC. Therefore Slavs
could have an earlier "homeland". Slavs started to divide in subgroups which
survived up to our days only in the middle of the 1st mill. AD. Therefore
Slavs should have one or a few later "homelands".
I think that to solve the problem of Slavic origin one has to suggest the
whole chain of cultures which lead from the common Balto-Slavic-Indo-Iranian
community to Slavic tribes attested historically. This chain of cultures
must satisfy a number of criteria:
- No one of cultures corresponding to any known language group must be
closer to Indo-Iranians than Balto-Slavic. [This suggest an eastern
localisation of the "earliest Balto-Slavic homeland"]
- Slavs (or Balto-Slavs) must be a member of a Sprachbund together with some
Proto-Germanic speaking tribes (these tribes need not be the direct
ancestors of modern Germanic folks, they could be just their "cousins").
[Eastern Corded Ware groups like Fatyanovo or Balanovo cultures seem to be
good candidates]
- After breaking the Balto-Slavic community Slavs must have contacts with an
Indoarian speaking population. Probably, Indoarians were the first who gave
to Slavs the iron metallurgy technology (this follows from the Svarog myth).
[Perhaps it were those Indoarians who are responsible for the specific
toponymy in the North Pontic region according to Trubachov]
- Slavs must have early contacts with a West IE (kentum) population (we can
consider Proto-Italic, Proto-Celtic, Proto-Venetic, perhaps Proto-Illyrian
as candidates).
- Slavs must have tight contacts with the Iranian population(s) - later than
with Proto-Germanic and West IE.
- Perhaps Slavic-Thracian contacts also should be provided.
- Slavs must have also relatively late contacts with Germanic (and perhaps
Celtic) population. And still Slaves remained not latenized!
- Despite of such a big number of contacts with advanced (for the
corresponding epoques) nations, Slaves (equally with Balts) succeeded to
remain in the middle of the 1st mill. AD actually the most archaic IE group
in technological (no pottery wheel !) and social aspects.
I'm sure some criteria can be added to this list.
Alexander
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Smith" <mytoyneighborhood@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 12:02 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: PIE's closest relatives
> What about Mallory's suggestion that proto-Slavic homeland can be
> identified with the Chernoles culture (750-200 B.C.) NW of the Black
> Sea and that this coincides with Herodotus' Scythian Farmers, who
> would be Iron Age Slavs, and that the Neuri mentioned by Herodotus
> are the Balts, as implied by the plague of snakes and werewolf
> legends he mentions among them? Mallory further states that
> Herodotus locates the Neuri north of the Scythian Farmers/possibly
> Slavs, which would equate the Neuri/Balts with the Milograd culture
> that he says falls within the Old Baltic hydronymic system.
>
> -Michael
>