Ethnoreligious Atlas of Europe

[Windischer]

I asked this area:


According to the Ukrainian sources Ruthenes lived here between the 10-13th century era. Some Hungarian sources connected the local population to the Slovaks' (central Slovakians) ancestors. What is the Slovak scholars' opinion? Were they Catholics in this time? Their assimilated parts were Catholic Hungarians. But the others?

aah that one. okay ill try to provide in tomorrows evening.

old ruthenes did live there, but how many? some border guards with their families, scattered all around. and in 13th century some exiled duke of galicia as well, with his retinue. there were cultural contacts between this (and broader) area and galicia, rusyns borrowed a lot from slovyaks (potisian slavs) and since high middle ages galician rusyns have been settling among us in large numbers.

most slovak scholars are burdened by legacy of nationalism and especially romantic-nationalist štúr strain. slovyaks and slovaks do have common origins but while ancestors of slovyaks entered the carpathian area from northeast where mountains are lowest, ancestors of slovaks entered from northwest and later southwest. this is reflected in our languages. while "western" slovak language group is fragmented into many dialects it still holds a consistency, different from slovyak which isnt as fragmented and evolved faster than slovak. the line of division follows natural boundaries and ways of settlement: slovyak-speaking areas were settled from NE and E, slovak from NW, W and SW.
even in 19th century some slovak "scholars" considered slovyaks to be "polish-russian" or "polish-slovak" blend while slovyaks considered slovaks to be czechs even in 20th century .
slovak language has many south-slavic elements while slovyak is purely west-slavic language.

actually the map you posted shows it well, i added settlement routes (brown) and division line (black):


see the pattern?
shepherd colonization did see migration of slovyaks to central and western slovakia and as far as moravia and czech lands as well as laying foundation to modern gorals (with polish settlers) but it generally didnt change much.

[Comte Arnau]

What etnicity? They had a common civilization, nothing more, nothing less.

The Iberian ethnicity. Which was pretty much unified, given their extension and language unity.

Who care their languages? Yes, the Iberian language was the relative of the Aquitanian language presumably and their cultures were nearly relatives before the Indo-European migration. And? This does not modify the millennial oriental orientation of the Iberian peninsula.

Who cares? Language is clearly one of the main identitarian elements of an ethnicity, specially when it is linked to its ethnic history. And yes, the fact that the Iberian ethnicity has its likeliest origin, both historical, genetical, linguistical and cultural, in the Basco-Aquitanian-Iberian population coming along with the Urnfield Culture, is much more important than the simple artistic/commercial influence of other Mediterranean cultures which also had an effect on other southern European shores. Not to mention that you conveniently forgot about the Greek influence, which was much higher than the Phoenician in most of the Iberians' territory, and even gave birth to the Iberian syllabaries.

[blogen]

the Basco-Aquitanian-Iberian population coming along with the Urnfield Culture

The Urnfield culture was proto-Celtic, the Iberian language was not Indoeuropean. And there are no Urnfield artifacts in Southern Iberia. There was not a direct connection between them.

[blogen]

aah that one. okay ill try to provide in tomorrows evening.

old ruthenes did live there, but how many? some border guards with their families, scattered all around. and in 13th century some exiled duke of galicia as well, with his retinue. there were cultural contacts between this (and broader) area and galicia, rusyns borrowed a lot from slovyaks (potisian slavs) and since high middle ages galician rusyns have been settling among us in large numbers.

most slovak scholars are burdened by legacy of nationalism and especially romantic-nationalist štúr strain. slovyaks and slovaks do have common origins but while ancestors of slovyaks entered the carpathian area from northeast where mountains are lowest, ancestors of slovaks entered from northwest and later southwest. this is reflected in our languages. while "western" slovak language group is fragmented into many dialects it still holds a consistency, different from slovyak which isnt as fragmented and evolved faster than slovak. the line of division follows natural boundaries and ways of settlement: slovyak-speaking areas were settled from NE and E, slovak from NW, W and SW.
even in 19th century some slovak "scholars" considered slovyaks to be "polish-russian" or "polish-slovak" blend while slovyaks considered slovaks to be czechs even in 20th century .
slovak language has many south-slavic elements while slovyak is purely west-slavic language.

actually the map you posted shows it well, i added settlement routes (brown) and division line (black):

see the pattern?
shepherd colonization did see migration of slovyaks to central and western slovakia and as far as moravia and czech lands as well as laying foundation to modern gorals (with polish settlers) but it generally didnt change much.

Sot this was a transitional zone between the East and West Slavs and they were Orthodoxes. Then the map is good on this part.

[Comte Arnau]

The Urnfield culture was proto-Celtic, the Iberian language was not Indoeuropean. And there are no Urnfield artifacts in Southern Iberia. There was not a direct connection between them.

I didn't say they were the Urnfield culture.

You seem to be constantly confusing the Iberians as an ethnicity and Iberia as a Peninsula.

[blogen]

I didn't say they were the Urnfield culture.
You seem to be constantly confusing the Iberians as an ethnicity and Iberia as a Peninsula.

The Urnfield culture had an effect on area of Catalonia. This was the northeastern periphery of the Iberian areas. Unsignificant.

[Graham]

Is there any point in mentioning cultures like Urnfield? As it has nothing to do with Language.

It is difficult to trace what is proto-Celtic. To find old written evidence.

[Comte Arnau]

The Urnfield culture had an effect on area of Catalonia. This was the northeastern periphery of the Iberian areas. Unsignificant.

Sure. But it's not what we were talking about.

[blogen]

Sure. But it's not what we were talking about.

No, this is:

"the Basco-Aquitanian-Iberian population coming along with the Urnfield Culture, is much more important than the simple artistic/commercial influence of other Mediterranean cultures"

And this was not true, there was no "coming along". There were Iberians in Iberia and strange northern invaders on the northeast edge of Iberia.

[Comte Arnau]

And this was not true, there was no "coming along". There were Iberians in Iberia and strange northern invaders on the northeast edge of Iberia.

<< According to the existing evidence, it should be considered seriously that, if Basque, Aquitanian and Iberian are related languages, as the latest discoveries seem to prove, these linguistic family came into the Iberian Peninsula with the Urnfield culture. >>

La cultura ibérica desde la perspectiva de la epigrafía (Jesús Rodríguez Ramos)