Назад      Главная страница    Оглавление    Далее.

   Russia's original ...

Settlement of the Slavs.

1. Preface.

   Linguistics goes hand in hand with history. To understand history, one must understand linguistics, and in order to understand linguistics, one must understand history, True History, and not the bullshit that was used by Judo-Anglican historians.
   The Slavs are a special people. They harness too long. And after that they try to drive too fast. As a result, they often find themselves in roadside ditches, a laughing-stock to Western observers.
   Maybe a separate article, or maybe a consequence of the above, goes through the thesis that we do not like deep preliminary studies, and hope for the Russian "maybe". The relief expressions of Russian "maybe" are such pearls as "they wanted it better, but they got it as always" and "catch a random phrase and take it as an indestructible criminal law."
   To characterize the Slavic society, the author offers the following pearls of his own production:
- Russia is a country of aggressive thoughtlessness.
- The Russians do not do well, but they do it well.
   That's what happens in science. That's right, with kondachka, in the 30s, maybe sooner or maybe later, a conditional Russian scientific system was invented. Its essence lies in the fact that the scientific level, the scientific contribution of the scientist, his place in the scientific hierarchy, are trying to be determined at best by his memory, and more often and as a rule - by some personal qualities of contact, adaptability, penetration, the ability to lie and steal others' results. Well, how else? There are no objective and rigorous ways to assess the significance and usefulness of scientific developments. Of course, there is public recognition, but this matter is easy to manipulate, which is what the powerful of this world are using. So, in the current Duma and the Government, only a small part of the deputies and ministers are not doctors of science, because they are lazy. And these "doctors", unfortunately, do not fall out from the general list of scientific doctors, because in the majority they are of the same level and on the same principles of "passability" become.
   This system of "imitation" in the USSR was adopted in many intellectual spheres. They imitated composers, writers, artists. There were unions of writers, artists, composers, there was the Academy of Sciences. But what is strange, real, beloved people, readable writers, respected artists, popular musicians could not become members of the corresponding union. And those who got there somehow seeped, getting acquainted. for communication recommendations from the same, but already members of the union, they for some reason could not create anything interesting in their field of activity. The same applies to science. The passers-by received recommendations and positive feedback on their thwarted dissertations and became the same hackneyed doctors, candidates and academicians.
   They simulated the foremost producers, miners. Lies, it does not disappear anywhere from society, even with changing formations, it simply goes from one species to another. That, the Soviet lie of "imitation" has passed into the present lie on the fooling of the poor part of the population. Starting from pre-election promises and ending with roughly advertised "increases" of pensions and social benefits by 3% with inflation of 15%.
   Our science is organized in this way, in many areas our society is stretching in the tail of Western civilization. Therefore, the main part of the general lie is still in the field of imitation. Imitates activity, reforms, freedom, entrepreneurship, etc. But in reality everything flows as it flows, nothing changes, corruption, embezzlement, export of capital, tax evasion thrive.
   That's in science. For several years, freedom lasted, the abolition of censorship. And that's all, reviewed all the publications. It's like in the mainstream of "fighting with alternatives." But in fact - in the mainstream of obscurantism and obscurantism. Here the bastards in the academy settled, piled up on friendship, on connections, on extra-scientific channels, and build themselves colliders, declare themselves the front of science, and all the rest are declared amateurs. But if they simply announced, so no, they poison, smother, banish, exterminate. It's a pity they forbade bonfires. Burnt alternators with bright fire.
   So in linguistics. Prosperous rascals. Here is a fresh example, from a famous academician. Italian language. The author claims that there is no connection between the words:
- cervi (ce = che, worms) "deer"
- certi (devils) "some"
- This is his level of thinking.
- And here is our level.
- cervi (ce = che) - originally, very ancient - tsar's. Compare our: cow. So, the tsars - the cow - means with a crown on the head, or with horns. That is, Italian worms (deer) are equal to the Russian cow, which is quite obvious in their appearance.
- certi 'some' - originally, very ancient - tsarits. This is reflected in the playing cards. Hence the very name: maps. That is, the tsarits are elected, and therefore tsarits = some. That's where the legs grow. Both of them ascend to the King, to the royal family or species.
   For more about playing cards, see below.
   But, alas, it is impossible to fight the system if you are outside the system. Only being inside the system, having passed all the stages (like Gorbachev in the CPSU), one can reach the very top, and then this system is betrayed and destroyed. Only to become a dragon yourself to defeat another dragon.
   Another example of complete insanity, when our primordially Russian is under the influence of foreigners. There is such a stone, a mineral of red color, called the Carnelian. A learned source, the encyclopedia of Cyril and Methodius, writes about the origin of the name of this stone. The name CERDOLIC comes from the ancient city of Sardix, which was once the capital of Ancient Lydia ... not far from the Turkish coast of the Aegean Sea. Is it not idiocy to write this about a word consisting of two Russian words of Serdo and LIC, that is, having LIC HEART, that is, just red ?! HEART - the organ that is in the first place in the middle of the body is the Russian word. And secondly, HEART = Tsarid by his royal role in the body. LIK - a person - are there any doubts about the Russianness of this word?
   One more word: KATORGA. Again in the encyclopedia attracts some Greek word. But there is an obvious Russian word STRUG. It was on them sent sentenced, riveted to the oars. (Type of Greek galleys). Hence, write this word in Latin, and it turns out KATORGA.
   Another quote from somewhere: "I drive out pain, sadness" - so the Greek word is supposedly translated, from which our word BANYA comes. - So it's E @ ANYA, the Russian word and the purpose - to wash and, while pure, have sex. Although, probably, the Greek women badly expelled both pain and sadness in these rooms.

 2. Settlement of the Slavs. Using the materials of Anatoly Klyosov.

   Anatoly Klyosov writes.
   Traditionally, the Slavs are divided into three groups - Eastern Slavs, western and southern. Eastern Slavs are Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians. Western Slavs - Poles, Czechs, Slovaks. Southern Slavs are Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Macedonians, Bulgarians, Slovenes. This is not an exhaustive list, one can recall Sorbs (Lusatian Slavs), and others, but the idea is clear. Actually, this division is largely based on linguistic criteria, according to which the Slavic group of Indo-European languages ​​consists of the eastern, western and southern subgroups, with approximately the same subdivision by country.
   In this context, the Slavs are "ethno-cultural communities", which includes languages. In this form, it is believed, they were formed by the 6th - 7th centuries AD (!!! - P.S. - remember these dates). And Slavic languages, according to linguists, dispersed about 1300 years ago, again around the 7th century (!!! - P.S. - remember these dates). But the genealogically listed Slavs belong entirely to different genera, and the history of these genera is completely different.
   Therefore, Western and Eastern Slavs as "ethno-cultural communities" are somewhat different concepts. Some in the mass of Catholics, others - Orthodox. Language is noticeably different, there are other "ethno-cultural" differences. And within the framework of DNA genealogy, it is one and the same, one genus, the same label in the Y chromosome, the same migration history, the same common ancestor. One and the same ancestral haplogroup, finally.
   So we came to the notion of "ancestral haplogroup," or "haplogroup of the genus." It is defined by labels, or a picture of mutations in the male sex chromosome. Women also have them, but in a different coordinate system. So, the Eastern Slavs are the genus R1a1. They are among the inhabitants of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus - from 45 to 70%. And in the old Russian and Ukrainian cities, towns, villages - up to 80%. (P.S. in Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, the Baltic countries is not less), and in Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Croatia and Austria - not much less).
   Conclusion - the term "Slavs" depends on the context. In linguistics, "Slavs" - one thing, in ethnography - another, in DNA-genealogy - the third. Haplogroup, the genus was formed when there were no nations, no churches, no modern languages. In this respect, belonging to the genus, to the haplogroup, is primary.

   Since belonging to the haplogroup is determined by completely specific mutations in certain nucleotides of the Y-chromosome, it can be said that each of us has a definite label in the DNA. And this mark in the male offspring is indestructible, it can only be exterminated together with the offspring. Unfortunately, there have been many such cases in the past. But this does not mean that this label is an indicator of a certain "breed" of man. This label is not related to genes and has nothing to do with them, namely genes and only genes can be associated with the "rock" if desired. Haplogroups and haplotypes in no way determine the shape of the skull or nose, hair color, physical or mental characteristics of a person. But they forever bind the bearer of a haplotype to a certain human race, at the beginning of which there was a patriarch of the genus, whose offspring survived and lives today, unlike millions of other broken genealogical lines.
  (PS, however, in our opinion, the influence of the Y-chromosome on the phenotype is.) Otherwise, how can one explain that without a Y-chromosome a woman is obtained, and with a Y-chromosome a man ?! And it does not matter that the Y-chromosome contains few genes. the effect on the phenotype is radical, then even the slightest differences in the structure of the Y chromosome give radical differences in the phenotype of the man. Since only 46 chromosomes, then approximately by 1/46 or 2% the differences in male phenotypes depend on the Y chromosome. "Russian bear" and "Russian hero" - this is just the manifestation of the Russian chromosome R1a1.)
   As will be shown in this study, members of the genus R1a1 in the Balkans, who lived there 12 thousand years ago, over two hundred generations emerged on the eastern European plain, where 4500 years ago the ancestor of modern Russians and Ukrainians of the genus R1a1 appeared. Five hundred years later, 4,000 years ago, they, the Proto-Slavs, reached the southern Urals, after another four hundred years they went to India, where about 100 million of their descendants, members of the same genus R1a1, now live. The genus of the Aryans. Aryans, because they called themselves so, and this is recorded in the ancient Indian Vedas and Iranian legends. They are descendants of the Proto-Slavs or their closest relatives. There was no "assimilation" of haplogroup R1a1 and no, and haplotypes are almost the same, they are easily identified. Identical to Slavic. Another wave of Aryans, with the same haplotypes, went from Central Asia to Eastern Iran, also in the 3rd millennium BC, and became Iranian arias.
   Наконец, еще одна волна представителей рода R1a1 отправилась на юг и достигла Аравийского полуострова, Оманского залива, где сейчас находятся Катар, Кувейт, Объединенные Арабские Эмираты, и тамошние арабы, получив результаты тестирования ДНК, с изумлением смотрят на сертификат тестирования с гаплотипом и гаплогруппой R1a1. Арийской, праславянской, «индоевропейской» - назовите как хотите, но суть та же. И эти сертификаты определяют границы ареала походов древних ариев. Приведенные ниже расчеты показывают, что времена этих походов в Аравию – 4 тысячи лет назад.

P.S. In terms of word research, hikes of the Slavs to Arabia and Africa.
ЕГИПЕТ = Е-ЦАРИТ;  
КОПТЫ (the people of northern Africa) = ЦАРИТЫ;  
КАИР = ЦАРЬ; 
СИРТ (Ливия) = ЦАРИТ;
МИСЮРАТ (Ливия) = МОЙ ЦАРИТ;
АРАВИЯ (АРАБЫ) = АРИИ, that is, the name goes from there, although the people have changed significantly and forgotten all their past, etc.
   There are many traces of the Tsarites in North Africa. It seems that the destruction of Gadhafi, a supporter of the secular system of the state, is partly motivated precisely by the desire to completely destroy traces of the stay of Proto- Slavs in North Africa).
   So, when we say "Slavs", we in this study will refer to the Eastern Slavs, people of the genus R1a1, in terms of DNA - genealogy. Until very recently, science did not know how to label them in "scientific terms." What objective, measurable parameter unites them? Actually, the question was not raised that way. According to a huge amount of data accumulated by linguistics, comparative analysis of languages ​​is a kind of "Indo-Europeans", "arias", aliens from the north (to India and Iran), they know the snow, the cold, they know birch, ash, beech, they are familiar with wolves, bears , the horse is familiar. Now it became known that these are people of the genus R1a1, to which up to 70% of the population of modern Russia belong. And further to the west, to the Atlantic, the share of the Aryan, Slavonic genus R1a1 falls steadily, and the inhabitants of the British Isles make up only 2-4%.
With this issue sorted out. And "Indo-Europeans" - then who?
   From the above, it is inevitable that "Indo-Europeans" are the ancient genus R1a1. Arias. Then everything, or in any case, much falls into place - and with the arrival of people of this kind in India and Iran, and the spread of people of the same kind across Europe, and hence - the emergence of the Indo-European group of languages, since this is in fact theirs, Aryan, or its dialects, and the appearance of the "Iranian languages" of the Indo-European group, since this is the Aryan languages. Moreover, as we will see below, the "Iranian languages" appeared after the arrival of the Aryans in Iran, and more precisely - not "after", but were the result of the arrival of the Aryans, in the 2nd millennium BC.
   And how do modern sciences look at "Indo-Europeans" today? "Indo-Europeans" they have - it's kind of a weed. "Indo-Europeans," in modern linguistics and a little in archeology are the ancient (as a rule) people who later (!), In millennia (!), Came to India, and somehow made Sanskrit, literary Indian language, was in one linguistic connection with the main European languages, except the Basque and Finno-Ugric languages. And besides the Turkic and Semitic languages, which do not belong to the Indo-European languages. How they, Europeans, did this, how and where they found themselves in India and Iran - linguists and archaeologists do not explain. Moreover, those who did not come to India and those who did not seem to have access to Sanskrit, seem to have been included in the "Indo-Europeans" too, but apparently they spread the language. The Celts, for example. But at the same time they argue who was an Indo-European, and who was not. Criteria apply a wide variety, including the shape of the dishes and the nature of the patterns on it.
   Another complication - since many Iranian languages ​​also belong to the Indo-European, and many also do not understand why, then often "Indo-Iranian" is used instead of "Indo-European" languages. Worse still, "Indo-Europeans" are often called "Indo-Iranians". And there are monstrous designs that, for example, "on the Dnieper in ancient times lived Indo-Iranians." This should mean that those who lived on the Dnieper produced through the millennium the descendants who came to India and Iran, and somehow made it so that the languages ​​of India and Iran became to a certain extent close to many European languages ​​- English, French, Spanish , Russian, Greek, and many others. Therefore, those ancient, who lived on the Dnieper millennium before, "Indo-Iranians." You can go crazy! Moreover, they said "in Iranian languages"! This despite the fact that the "Indo-European" ancient Iranian languages ​​appeared in the 2nd millennium BC, and those on the Dnieper, lived 4000-5000 years ago. And they spoke a language that would appear only after hundreds or even thousands of years.
   They spoke the Aryan, dear reader. But this is simply scary among the linguists. They do not mention it. They are not accepted that way. Apparently, the command, the order was not received. And it's scary.
   Currently, three candidates are considered more or less seriously as candidates for the homeland of the "Indo-Europeans" or "Proto-Indo-Europeans". One option is Front Asia, or, more specifically, Turkish Anatolia, or, more specifically, the area between the lakes of Van and Urmia, just south of the borders of the former USSR, in western Iran, it is also western Azerbaijan. The second option is the southern steppes of modern Ukraine-Russia, in the places of the so-called "Kurgan culture". The third option is eastern or central Europe, or, more specifically, the Danube valley, or the Balkans, or the northern Alps.
   The time of distribution of the "Indo-European" or "proto-Indo-European" language also remains uncertain, and varies from 4500-6000 years ago, if we accept the representatives of the barrow culture as its bearers, up to 8000-10000 years ago, if its carriers are the then inhabitants of Anatolia. Or even earlier. Supporters of the Anatolian theory believe that the main argument in its favor is that the spread of agriculture across Europe, North Africa and Asia began from Anatolia between 8,000 and 9,500 years ago, and reached the British Isles about 5,500 years ago. Supporters of the "Balkan theory" use the same arguments about the spread of agriculture, however, from the Balkans towards Anatolia.
This question has not been resolved to this day. There are lots of arguments for and against each of the three options.
   The same is true of the ancestral home of the Slavs. Since no one has so far connected the Slavs (the Proto-Slavs), the Aryans, and the Indo-Europeans, and the more so did not put the sign of identity between all three, the ancestral home of the Slavs is a separate, unresolved issue. This issue has been discussed in science for more than three hundred years, but there is no agreement, even minimal. It is generally accepted that the Slavs enter the historical arena only in the 6th century AD (P.S. !!!). But these are new times. And we are interested in the ancient Slavs, or Proto-Slavs, say, three thousand years ago and earlier. And this is generally bad.
   Some believe that the "ancestral home of the Slavs" was in the area of ​​Pripyat and the Middle Dnieper. Others believe that the "ancestral home of the Slavs" was the territory from the Dnieper to the Western Bug, which the Slavs occupied two or three thousand years ago. And where the Slavs were before, and whether they were at all - consider the issue "insoluble at this stage." Still others suggest that the Slavs' ancestral homeland, like the "Indo-Europeans" in general, were the steppes of the south of present-day Russia and Ukraine, but the fourth is dismissed indignantly. Fifth believe that the forefathers of the "Indo-Europeans" and Slavonic homelands still have to coincide, because the Slavic languages ​​are very archaic and ancient. Others correct that they are not "Indo-Europeans", but one of their large groups, thus hinting that "Indo-Europeans" should be different. Which is not usually explained.
   From time to time a certain "Indo-Iranian community" is mentioned, which for some reason spoke on the "Baltic-Slavic proto-language". From this already the head begins to spin. Sometimes some "Black Sea Indo-Aryans" appear. Why they suddenly "Indo", in the Black Sea region, it is not explained. Linguists say that it is so accepted.
   Anthropology is attracted, and it is said that the Slavs in this respect are close to the pre-Alpine zone - modern Hungary, Austria, Switzerland, Northern Italy, Southern Germany, the northern Balkans, and therefore the priests moved from west to east, and not vice versa. But to point out the time of this movement anthropologists and archaeologists can not, because the Slavs usually burned corpses, and did not bury them, which deprived scientists of the material for two and a half millennia. Some believe that the settlement of the Proto-Slavs along the territory of Eastern Ukraine is associated with the spread of the Kurgan archaeological culture, and hence from the east to the west. Almost unanimously believe that the population of Andronovo culture was "Indo-Iranian" in its language, that in the Southern Urals, in Arkaim, lived "Indoarians", and created it again, "Indo-Iranians." There are expressions "Indo-Iranian tribes on the way of migration to India". That is, they were already "Indo-Iranian", although they had not yet moved there. That is anything, up to the point of absurdity, only that the word "arias" should not be used.
   Finally, "pseudo-scientific" literature hits the other extreme, and claims that "the Slavs-Ruses were the progenitors of almost all European and parts of the Asian peoples," and "from 60% to 80% of the English, northern and eastern Germans, Swedes, Danes, Norwegians , Icelanders, 80% of Austrians, Lithuanians - these are assimilated Slavs, Slavs Russ. "

 

Назад      Главная страница    Оглавление    Далее.

Страница размещена на сайте в 2011 году.