Who are the Slavs? - Citations and Sources

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sovius
    replied
    SoM:

    It is indeed used by those who support Pan-Slavic and/or Pan-Germanic theories and often results in the promotion of the fallacy you mention above. However, despite this unfortunate by-product, it doesn't discount the probability that the Greek, Latin and Germanic endonyms ultimately stem from an indigenous term.

    I wouldn't argue otherwise, but, I believe, it's imperative that we also take into account the circumstances and the changes in the associated connotations and denotations of the two different terms throughout each different period in history and the reality that the Sklavene word forms were not previously used for the same people who still largely existed where they did for numerous centuries of prior written history, people who were never referred to using any of these secondary appellations that we know of, but by their proper/traditional ethno-linguistic classifications. We have in one situation the downfall of the Eastern Roman Empire and another, the Frankish conquest of Vindelicia and the subjugation and enslavement of it's people. We have these two casual events and two resulting terms that only came to informally mean slave and those who spoke an indigenous language based on colloquial corruptions of an indigenous term. Sklabenoi was an informal secondary term for 'delos'. We're not looking at who we were or are; we are looking at how they viewed our ancestors during two isolated periods in two isolated regions which have come to supposedly and universally represent our peoples throughout time immemorial.

    The Roman Period 'Jew' term is another generalization that still clouds perspective. Samoyed is another. Most Western scholars no longer realize that they've allowed what they believe to be an authenticate anthropological classification into their books that is really only a Russian Imperialistic slang term for Uralic populations, which essentially means 'cannibal', those who eat themselves. I don't think it's important as far as whether or not the use of the Sklavene term was originally benign or not, as the end result and the re-classification of our languages by Westerners using a term based on this term helped them create a seeming disassociation between the historically relevant ethnolinguistic classifications and this new blight, which continues to produce the kind of scholarship that reinforces these disassociations, such as the article Voltron was kind enough to post. By disassociation, I mean, Sarmatians came to be regarded as an entirely different people than the Mythic Slavs nationalistic scholars conjured up during the 19th Century. Now, we have all these German nationalists running around all over the place with the idea in their heads that Poland was once German held land that got over run by Slavs during the 6th Century. We also have over 6 million Polish people who have lost their lives since the German Empire's original occupation of Poland during the late 18th Century and the continuation of this ethnic cleansing through their use of this term during this cold period.

    Ethnic cleansing is more than just shooting people dead and burning down their homes, it's also about changing international and intranational perceptions concerning a targeted people. What better "justification" could they have used, printing textbooks that magically produced the kind of information that would supposedly help justify the atrocities they committed? It makes great sense! Teach your school children to hate the other kids across the way and by the time they hit 18 they'll be more than happy to enlist. There is a purpose to this re-classification that many may find difficult to latch on to or accept due to socialization through their educational system and Western culture, in general, but, I believe, it's exactly what should be in the forefront of Macedonian minds at the moment, because, the way I see it, the Hellenic Republic is doing the same thing to Macedonia using the same tactics. They need more farm land. They need a ski resort or two to help with tourism during the winter months. They probably couldn't care less about the name, I think itís the rest of Macedonia they have their sights on. After integration comes assimilation.

    A possible scenario that mirrors Poland's period of foreign occupation and partition.



    There are probably a few, but one of the reasons why this happened is because the generic 'Slavic' description became more prevalent above ethno-cultural names, in written record at least, both among the people who spoke Slavic languages and the foreigners who wrote about them.

    If this is truly the correct line of reasoning, I believe Catholic institutions in Italy would have used the Slav term rather than Illyrian to classify what would later come to be regarded as Croatian well before the onset of the Renaissance Period. How did they miss the whole "Slavicization" of Central and Southeastern Europe across the way in Italy during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance Period? Why did the Austrians forbid the Croatians from publically identifying as Illyrians under penalty of death during the Austrian Occupation of Croatia?




    If it was based on the self-designation of the same people it was applied to, then it would only be considered cultural negation after the endonym became a synonym for a 'slave'. Otherwise, why would the endonym represent a slur before that period? When was it first used in reference to 'slaves'?


    That's a good question. I've never come across any research that's attempted to pinpoint a theorized transition point or documents that might provide an answer and I haven't really focused on it because itís the end result that we are seeing at this point in our people's histories, not what we may rightly or wrongly perceive as an original meaning. Could this assumed lack of evidence be used as a proof that there was no transition, if it turns out that a transition point can't be identified, only assumed? I believe this would then support the invalidation of the treatment of the Sklavene term as a benign term during the decline of the Eastern Roman Empire, as well. What evidence have you used to form your belief that the Sklavene/Slaven terms were originally benign and not purposeful generifications from a colonial point of view or from the opposition?



    The variances set the two examples apart. I haven't read the works of Adam of Bremen, but in that which you have provided, he is actually in support of the indigenous roots of the people and it can probably be argued that he used the term 'Slaven' as nothing more than an endonym. Is there another part of his works that give you the impression that he deliberately used the term in place of 'Vindelicians' for the purpose of negating the identity of the people?


    I'm strictly using what Westerners refer to as the Wendish Crusade to provide context for Adam of Bremen's statement so far as the transition from Vindelician to Slaven is concerned and the fact that more than a few Englishmen are now the descendents of these "Slaven" by way of Vindelicianry. I'd have to dig down a little further to see if a transition point was recorded. Nonetheless, a transition did occur. Again, cause gave way to effect a long time ago and we are flush with inaccurate history books that now treat the Vindelicians/Vandals and the "Slaven" as two different peoples. Worse yet, and fairly comical at times, if getting shot and thrown into an oven wasn't such a downer, we have a nation of people who have removed this aspect of their history in exchange for horned helmets at the expense of our own histories by pushing what it meant to be "Slaven" further East and changing what it meant and what it now means altogether.


    Is there a local or foreign source which employs the term 'Sarmatian' in reference to the language and/or peoples of Poland and surrounding areas?
    Sarmatian was an encyclopedic, geo-ethnolinguistic classification up to the Renaissance Period. The most notable surviving work being Mithridates de differentis linguis, written in 1555 by Conrad Gessner. Being Swiss, he may have been of Rhaetian descent, so he might have been a little biased. But this is inconsequential, as it was simply common knowledge. Encyclopedias collect that which is matter of fact and commonly held notions. Slavonians from Slavonia existed during his time near the Dalmatians and their language was accurately classified as Illyrian. Evidence clearly indicates that the idea of "Slavs" did not exist in a serious academic sense regardless of whether or not Germans still continued to refer to Vindelicians by a term that came to be treated as Slavs (slaven), as the term must have still been seen as a slang word, not a formal anthropological classification that scholars had any real use for.




    The generic and tribal terms were used interchangeably for a period of time before the former became more dominant.

    Again, Gessner's work provides us with evidence that the Western Slav Term wasn't regarded as a formal ethno-linguistic designation and was not dominant as Pan-Slavicists suggest, while using fragments of complete texts to support the illusion of a sound perspective. This reinforces the conclusion that the re-classification came about for reasons that weren't parallel with truly scientific thought or early English cartographers would have put Slav Land or Slavia on their maps instead of Sarmatia. Would this not be the case if the Sklavene term had, indeed, taken on a formal ethnolinguistic denotative value that replaced previous designations?


    I would think so, otherwise, why would he refer to non-Slavic-speaking peoples as 'Sklavenes' as late as the 10th century?

    Very simple, students and scholars have come to associate the later period artificial ethnolinguistic classification that was born out of the nationalist movements of the 19th Century with the socio-politically spawned designation from this earlier period, having been divorced from the original meaning of the term. I believe we are looking for meaning from the wrong end, which is why I believe context trumps anachronous extrapolation as far as what was going through Constantine's head when he used the term he did. Following context, we can generate meanings such as 'those we prey upon for slaves', slaves, those bastards, etc.. Whatever possible meanings context can generate, the basic understanding of peoples struggling in opposition to one another must be accounted for, as well as, the reasons.

    If Sklavene had no real connection to Slovenski as far as how it was being used by Constantine, and therefore language, even though it was based on a word relating to a quality of a language, then wouldn't he have regarded these sklavenes' language as Sarmatian? If Illyria was Sarmatized (Slavicized) during this period, why don't Modern Croatians speak a Western Sarmatic (Slavic) language? I believe this is evidence to support the conclusion that he wasn't using the Sklavene term ethno-linguistically. It supports the idea that he was speaking of populations who were allied with people in this part of the Balkans. Sklavene, then, could have possibly meant one who stands against us or one who stands (sides) with the slaves.


    I can understand if the 'Slovenski' term was not in existence during that time. But how does it obscure the event by translating a term used by the Sarmatians themselves?

    I believe that it wasn't a term that would've been used by the Sarmatians in the way scholars have come to believe it was being used. It's a term used in place of a term that seems likely was used by the Sarmatians not for themselves as a form of ethnolinguistic identification, but for their language in relation to the languages of the Romans and the Franks. Sloveni is not the same thing as Slav and has never carried the same meaning as Slav except during the Pan-Slavic Period, where meanings came to be merged for the purposes of de-nationalizing nations in Central and Southeastern Europe. Sklabenoi and Sklavene (Sklavus) are two different words that likely share the same or similar values. When a flag waving German nationalist uses the term Slav he's not thinking slovenski, he's thinking SLAVEN. We may allow our own formulated understandings of the term to creep into our perceptions, but its not about our perceptions, its about theirs and what they mean and meant by it.


    I don't necessarily disagree with that, but I don't think the original intent of using 'Sklavene' was meant as an insult. This developed later.

    The past is perceived in the present moment and, therefore, I believe 'Sklavene', an authentic term that was born out of political upheaval should be used as it was originally used so that we can produce more authenticate and objective translations of historical documents. The Slav term carries additional meanings that were not in place during the 10th Century.


    Genetics can demonstrate a movement of populations, but can it be used to determine the time frame of such a movement?

    The more people that are tested, the better the chance of finding out one way or another. This would make for an excellent experiment. Archeological grave sites are being tested too. The people who used to live in and around the Elau archeological site in Germany are ancestral to a number of people who still continue to live in and around the same area. We have an approximate date for this site, therefore, we have captured a point in time of a place that was occupied by a specific group of people with unique genetic signatures and, as more regions are tested, researchers should be able to improve upon this relative dating. The Central Asian Scythian grave sites that produced European DNA have also provided researchers with refined dates. Carbon dating can be associated with genetic profiles from the same stratum so long as tested articles match the same time frame.



    Worthy of further research, the problem is filling in the gap from the end of the Macedonian kingdom to the 6th century. The continued desire for freedom during 500 years of Ottoman rule can be used as an example of how such a spirit is able to last over a period of centuries.

    Amen to that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sovius
    replied
    This article is an excellent example of the effects of Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavism on Victorian Age and 20th Century Scholarship and the cultural negation of the Polish people. Genetic studies over the last decade have clearly and unequivocally demonstrated the eastward migration of populations out of Poland to places as far away as Ossetia. The M458 genetic marker mirrors the Sarmatian and Gothic sweeps, as well as, minor migrations into Ukrainia during later periods. There is no evidence of the theorized back migration of Iranic populations who are downstream of the Z93 marker into the region of Poland. These authors simply reinterpreted the past using a reinterpretation of the present; meaning, they based their assumptions on the 6th Century Slavic Migration Myth and the primitive idea that over 250 million people were the descendents of a tribe of people known as the Slavs and presented their findings as if they were of somehow relevant. Scientists no longer view this supposed event as an actual historical occurrence. So what does that make the associated idea of "The Slavs", themselves?

    Sarmatism was a breaking away from monarchistic rule, the rebirth of the military democracy, which granted land and a vote to those willing to defend their people. Kaiser Wilhelm had a different take on things in that he just wanted to take. Thousands of Polish anthropologists and scholars were murdered at the onset of the German occupation of Poland during World War II. Numerous libraries and artifacts were sacked and stolen and then the Soviets took over after that, leaving scholastic endevour in this area a little lifeless for the past few decades. Pardon, the sardonicism. Thank goodness Medieval maps mirrored ancient maps so that during the Renaissance they could still figure out what went where! Study up on English maps during the Middle Ages for verification. When the people of Sarmatia came to be politically organized under the Poljani, Sarmatia came to be called, let's see. It's coming to me. Nope. Nope. Just can't seem to recall what Sarmatia came to be referred to as after that event.

    Tsar Matija, those who watch over the motherland.

    Voltron, are you even capable of independent thought?!

    Leave a comment:


  • Voltron
    replied
    Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post
    Is there a local or foreign source which employs the term 'Sarmatian' in reference to the language and/or peoples of Poland and surrounding areas?
    Polish nobility thought of themselves as descendents of Sarmatians and there was even a term coined for it at the time. Sarmatism is the lifestyle, culture and ideology of Polish nobility from 16 to 19th century.

    Aside from this it is debatable if Poles indeed descended from them. Sarmatian means " lizard eye" from Greek Savro Mati.



    The term Sarmatism was first used by Jan Długosz in his 15th century work on the history of Poland.[5] Długosz was also responsible for linking the Sarmatians to the prehistory of Poland and this idea was continued by other chroniclers and historians such as Marcin Bielski, Marcin Kromer, and Maciej Miechowita.[5] Miechowita's Tractatus de Duabus Sarmatiis became influential abroad, where for some time it was one of the most widely used reference works on the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.[5]

    In reality, the alleged ancestors of the szlachta, the Sarmatians, were a confederacy of predominantly Iranian tribes living north of the Black Sea. In the 5th century BC Herodotus wrote that these tribes were descendants of the Scythians and Amazons. The Sarmatians were largely infiltrated by the Goths and others in the 2nd century AD, and may have had few strong and direct links to Poland. Yet such issues are not simple.[6] The legend stuck and grew until most of those within the Commonwealth, and many abroad, believed that many Polish nobles were somehow descendants of the Sarmatians (Sauromates).[5] Another tradition came to surmise that the Sarmatians themselves were descended from Japheth, son of Noah.[7]
    Sarmatians, westernmost of the Iranian peoples, ca.100 BC

    Some holding to Sarmatism tended to believe that as medieval Polish nobility they were the descendents in part of the ancient Sarmatian people. Accordingly their ancestors would have conquered and enserfed the local Slavs and, like the Bulgars in Bulgaria or German Franks who conquered Gaul (France), eventually adopted the local language. Such nobility might believe that they belonged (at least figuratively) to a different people (however remote and long ago) than the Slavs whom they ruled. One view would see in Sarmatism much that was "low brow" or uneducated in origin. "Roman maps, fashioned during the Renaissance, had the name of Sarmatia written over most of the territory of the Polish-Lithuanisn Commonwealth, and thus 'justified' interest in 'Sarmatian roots'."[8]

    Centuries later modern scholarship discovered evidence showing that the Alans, a late Sarmatian people speaking an Iranian idiom, did invade Slavic tribes in Eastern Europe before the sixth century, and that these "Sarmatians evidently formed the area's ruling class, which was gradually Slavicized."[9] Their direct political connection to Poland, however, would remain somewhat uncertain.[10] In his 1970 publication The Sarmatians (in the series "Ancient Peoples and Places") Tadeusz Sulimirski (1898–1983), a Polish-British historian, archaeologist, and researcher on the ancient Sarmatians, discusses the abundant evidence of the ancient Sarmatian presence in Eastern Europe, e.g., the finds of various grave goods such as pottery, weapons, and jewelry. Possible ethnological and social influences on the Polish szlachta would include tamga-inspired heraldry, social organization, military practices, and burial customs.[11]
    Last edited by Voltron; 03-06-2012, 03:14 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Soldier of Macedon
    replied
    Originally posted by Sovius
    This is one view adopted by Pan-Slavicists and Pan-Germanic scholars, but it promotes the fallacy that Slaven carried the same value as slovenski.
    It is indeed used by those who support Pan-Slavic and/or Pan-Germanic theories and often results in the promotion of the fallacy you mention above. However, despite this unfortunate by-product, it doesn't discount the probability that the Greek, Latin and Germanic exonyms ultimately stem from an indigenous term.
    Perhaps, a more pertinent question would be why did they no longer refer to them by a name they were historically known by?
    There are probably a few, but one of the reasons why this happened is because the generic 'Slavic' description became more prevalent above ethno-cultural names, in written record at least, both among the people who spoke Slavic languages and the foreigners who wrote about them.
    In my opinion, "Slaven" was being used as a term of cultural negation......
    If it was based on the self-designation of the same people it was applied to, then it would only be considered cultural negation after the exonym became a synonym for a 'slave'. Otherwise, why would the exonym represent a slur before that period? When was it first used in reference to 'slaves'?
    I see both instances as stripping a people of their identity and the attempt to write them out of history, regardless of these variances.
    The variances set the two examples apart. I haven't read the works of Adam of Bremen, but in that which you have provided, he is actually in support of the indigenous roots of the people and it can probably be argued that he used the term 'Slaven' as nothing more than an exonym. Is there another part of his works that give you the impression that he deliberately used the term in place of 'Vindelicians' for the purpose of negating the identity of the people?
    All historical references to Sarmatians intrinsically carry the notion that Sarmatians spoke the Sarmatian language as it is a historically recognized language that simply isn't classified as Sarmatian anymore among scholars following outdated nationalist narratives that have now been shown to contradict genetic evidence that has overwhelmingly demonstrated cultural continuity.
    Is there a local or foreign source which employs the term 'Sarmatian' in reference to the language and/or peoples of Poland and surrounding areas?
    Why did all these different populations, regardless of whether or not they spoke the same or similar languages come to be referred to as Sklavenes during the downfall of the Eastern Roman Empire and why were Western Roman Chroniclers still referring to them as Getae, Sarmatians, Huns, Vindelicians (Vandals), etc.?
    The generic and tribal terms were used interchangeably for a period of time before the former became more dominant.
    Did Constantine know them as Sloveni in his thoughts by virtue of his native language and, due to phonetic convention simply write Sklabenoi?
    I would think so, otherwise, why would he refer to non-Slavic-speaking peoples as 'Sklavenes' as late as the 10th century?
    Even if he was referring to Sarmatians as Sloveni in his native language, but writing Sklabenoi, we obscure the event by translating it using the Slav term.
    I can understand if the 'Slovenski' term was not in existence during that time. But how does it obscure the event by translating a term used by the Sarmatians themselves?
    This can be proven by simply using an online translation program. Sklavene was, in my view, a slang word for Sarmatians.
    I don't necessarily disagree with that, but I don't think the original intent of using 'Sklavene' was meant as an insult. This developed later.
    If Macedonian refugees did in fact migrate to that area in significant numbers during any period prior to the modern age, as geneticists refine our understanding of each individual haplogroup, we'll know for certain without having to rest on speculation.
    Genetics can demonstrate a movement of populations, but can it be used to determine the time frame of such a movement?
    The Romans enslaved and murdered thousands of Macedonians after the fall of the Macedonian Empire. I don’t believe that kind of injustice would've been forgotten too quickly. The intent to resist may have never left the will of the people. It may have been during this period that they were able to attain support from populations further north who must've realized that it wouldn't be too much longer before their lands and people would be encroached upon in the same way by those same violent savages.
    Worthy of further research, the problem is filling in the gap from the end of the Macedonian kingdom to the 6th century. The continued desire for freedom during 500 years of Ottoman rule can be used as an example of how such a spirit is able to last over a period of centuries.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sovius
    replied
    Isn't it because many of the people who actually spoke those languages referred to them as Slovenski? When did they stop classifying them as Illyrian and Sarmatian?
    This is one view adopted by Pan-Slavicists and Pan-Germanic scholars, but it promotes the fallacy that Slaven carried the same value as slovenski. Perhaps, a more pertinent question would be why did they no longer refer to them by a name they were historically known by? In my opinion, "Slaven" was being used as a term of cultural negation, not as an anthropologically relevant term or as a proof for re-classifying these languages centuries later. The term is still doing what it was designed to do. Vindelicians spoke the Vindelician language, not the language of the Slaven.

    I think the last Illyrian dictionary was published in Germany around 1838 or so. Not sure about the Sarmatian language, as the Frankish/Germanic ethnocide against Poland has been going on since around 800 AD, a series of events often dumbed down as the Drive East, a time that coincides with the assimilation of the Vindelicians into Frankish culture.





    Why did they choose the term 'Slaven', if not because a similar term was used by the Vindelicians themselves, at least in a broader sense?
    I believe that it was a derogatory term based on an indigenous term recognizing cultural affiliation intra-linguistically, but not reflective of cultural identity extra-linguistically, that before then was considered Vindelician. Breman wasn't researching the Vindelicians for the advancement of science. He and others have left us with a grim snapshot that has left many German Nationalists under the false impression that they are a Nordic people when, in fact, they are largely Vindelicians who now speak a Nordic language, a people who no longer remember their cultural legacy in an authentic manner, the descendents of victims of cultural cleansing and forced religious conversion during the Medieval Period.


    Adam of Bremen made it clear that despite the change of reference they were the same people. Greeks use a change of reference to suggest that they were different people, so it is not really the same thing.
    I see both instances as stripping a people of their identity and the attempt to write them out of history, regardless of these variances.


    Are there any records mentioning a Sarmatian language from the same period?

    All historical references to Sarmatians intrinsically carry the notion that Sarmatians spoke the Sarmatian language as it is a historically recognized language that simply isn't classified as Sarmatian anymore among scholars following outdated nationalist narratives that have now been shown to contradict genetic evidence that has overwhelmingly demonstrated cultural continuity.


    What was the meaning of Sklavene at that time, in your opinion?


    I think a more purposeful question might be, why was he not referring to Sarmatians as Sarmatians? Why did all these different populations, regardless of whether or not they spoke the same or similar languages come to be referred to as Sklavenes during the downfall of the Eastern Roman Empire and why were Western Roman Chroniclers still referring to them as Getae, Sarmatians, Huns, Vindelicians (Vandals), etc.? Did Constantine know them as Sloveni in his thoughts by virtue of his native language and, due to phonetic convention simply write Sklabenoi? Was Sklavene being used in a similar way as "Jerry" was used by the Allies to describe Germans during World War II? Even if he was referring to Sarmatians as Sloveni in his native language, but writing Sklabenoi, we obscure the event by translating it using the Slav term. Using Slav was a disingenuous embellishment on the part of the translator that was honestly made as a result of imperialistic expansionism and the academic conventions that came into being as a result of it. This can be proven by simply using an online translation program. Sklavene was, in my view, a slang word for Sarmatians.



    Are there other sources during the time in between that would support such a theory?
    I'm not sure, but validation of such a theory will undoubtedly come through a genetic database. If Macedonian refugees did in fact migrate to that area in significant numbers during any period prior to the modern age, as geneticists refine our understanding of each individual haplogroup, we'll know for certain without having to rest on speculation.

    There is a considerable gap between the fall of Macedonia and the loss of the Balkans by the East Roman Empire. How do you suggest that the latter began in Macedonia?
    The Romans enslaved and murdered thousands of Macedonians after the fall of the Macedonian Empire. I donít believe that kind of injustice would've been forgotten too quickly. The intent to resist may have never left the will of the people. It may have been during this period that they were able to attain support from populations further north who must've realized that it wouldn't be too much longer before their lands and people would be encroached upon in the same way by those same violent savages.

    Leave a comment:


  • Soldier of Macedon
    replied
    Originally posted by Sovius View Post
    I agree, but what were the reasons researchers gave to reclassify the Illyrian and Sarmatian language groups as the Slavic language group?
    Isn't it because many of the people who actually spoke those languages referred to them as Slovenski? When did they stop classifying them as Illyrian and Sarmatian?
    Frankish chroniclers began using Slaven instead of Vindelicians (Vandals, Wends, Veneti) to refer to Vindelicians. Adam of Bremen stated something to the effect that "we used to call them Vandals (Wenden), now we call them Slaven".
    Why did they choose the term 'Slaven', if not because a similar term was used by the Vindelicians themselves, at least in a broader sense?
    Today, we hear of Greeks calling Macedonians Slavophones in Aegean Macedonia. Itís the same thing.
    Adam of Bremen made it clear that despite the change of reference they were the same people. Greeks use a change of reference to suggest that they were different people, so it is not really the same thing.
    So, I believe we have evidence demonstrating yet again that Sklavene was not being used to define a people in an ethnic or linguistic sense, as the Sarmatian language was regarded as Sarmatian up to whenever it came to be regarded as Slavic.
    Are there any records mentioning a Sarmatian language from the same period?
    We can retrospectively cloud the liberation of Dalmatia by merging the specific meaning of Sklavene at the time with what it came to mean to scholars educated according to the Pan-Slavic classificatory system........
    What was the meaning of Sklavene at that time, in your opinion?
    This chronicler is obviously describing some significant events, but to apply the events of 6 or so groups of people to populations that now number over 250 million is a little hard to swallow for me too. It seems more likely to me that Nestor was taking testimonials of events specific to a migration to Ukrainija of a few groups of people who were related.
    I agree, he wouldn't have accounted for similar events that were unrelated to his homeland.
    Could it be that this account chronicles a migration of a few groups of Macedonian populations to the North after the fall of Pella? People who were also the descendents of refugees that lived along the Danube river that were recorded during the Roman occupation?
    Are there other sources during the time in between that would support such a theory?
    I believe Bratot provided an article not too long ago detailing a possible additional "landing" place in Northern Poland of Macedonian refugees. It may explain why some clans use red and gold in their tamgas. Or it may simply be a coincidence.
    If you come across it, post it here.
    Did the downfall of the Eastern Roman Empire begin in Macedonia? Why were these people who could have been Macedonians not living in Illyricum any more?
    There is a considerable gap between the fall of Macedonia and the loss of the Balkans by the East Roman Empire. How do you suggest that the latter began in Macedonia?
    Did they get kicked out for resisting assimilation into the new elitist culture that was coming into being? Were there previous less noteworthy revolts in the history of the region that would have brought these events on?
    Good questions and worthy of further research.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sovius
    replied
    I think it is unlikely that no changes took place at all.



    I agree, but what were the reasons researchers gave to reclassify the Illyrian and Sarmatian language groups as the Slavic language group? Can a treatise be produced for the purposes of analysis that can tell us why this change in how scholars viewed the past took place? Why doesn't the historical record preserve an account of this massive wave of "Slavicization" in an anthropological sense that can be analyzed and proven unequivocally using empirical evidence and not simply speculations made centuries after these events supposedly took place? If we are operating on belief alone, then are we not in danger of blinding ourselves with assumption?


    What about the fact that people from Macedonia to Moravia and elsewhere used the term 'Slovenski' to describe their language, and recorded it as such by the 9th century?



    Slovenski is a complex adjectival. It was originally and still is a relational term. It equates itself to a quality, not the essence of the language as far as what it should be classified as. When its used as a proper noun (Slav) in translations, as with translations based on ideologies such as Pan-Slavicism, it generates false impressions of what the authors were attempting to communicate. If one is to adhere to the major tenets of Objectivism, one cannot treat Slav and slovenskii as cognates. According to Objectivism, this association must be treated as an artificial contrivance whose apparent validity is reinforced through convention and convention alone.


    Rather than Slovenian, wouldn't Slavonic or Slovenic be more accurate and avoid the confusion?



    I believe Slavic is doing an excellent job of confusing people already. What's a little more confusion going to cause for the sake of clarity?


    If the term Sklavene ultimately derived from Slovenski, then aside from the derogatory 'slave' reference that developed later on, how was it used as a term of hatred prior to the 19th century? As for the term 'Slav', it is just a simplified form. Although Latin and ancient Greek used 'Sclav' and 'Sklav' respectively, both Italian and modern Greek use 'Slav', so it is not just in English or other Germanic languages.





    Frankish chroniclers began using Slaven instead of Vindelicians (Vandals, Wends, Veneti) to refer to Vindelicians. Adam of Bremen stated something to the effect that "we used to call them Vandals (Wenden), now we call them Slaven". This is evidence of using an informal, negative, colloquial term for a people who were targeted for ethnic cleansing and slavery during the Wendish Ethnocide. Itís the context of the situation that is key to understanding the term's use as it was being applied. Today, we hear of Greeks calling Macedonians Slavophones in Aegean Macedonia. Itís the same thing. What should one make of the trend of Western Europeans calling Macedonians Slav Macedonians?




    I think in this case it is more than likely in reference to people who spoke a Slavic language. He goes on to describe the Croats as a people who arrived from beyond the Danube and came to control one of the 'Sklaviniai' (Slavonic regions).

    We've discussed this in the past but I thought it timely to mention it again. The Primary Chronicle of Kievan Rus from the early 12th century is one of the first (if not the first) general histories written in a Slavic language, and one of the more accurate descriptions of where the people who spoke the language originated and subsequently spread out through Europe. In one passage it states:





    Adding both variables to the same equation yields a conclusion that the author was referring to Sarmatians as Sklavenes, as Byelochravatija (White Croatia) was in what was referred to as Western Sarmatia at the time or today's Poland. So, I believe we have evidence demonstrating yet again that Sklavene was not being used to define a people in an ethnic or linguistic sense, as the Sarmatian language was regarded as Sarmatian up to whenever it came to be regarded as Slavic. We can retrospectively cloud the liberation of Dalmatia by merging the specific meaning of Sklavene at the time with what it came to mean to scholars educated according to the Pan-Slavic classificatory system, but, in my opinion, this is the exact thing that historians shouldn't be doing. Sarmatians may have referred to their language amongst themselves by some form of the sloveni term (they still do), but in order to maintain historical clarity, which is the point of scholarship, I believe their language should be classified as Sarmatian or as one of the Sarmatian languages. A group of languages belonging to a larger language family.


    One of the problems with accepting the Primary Chronicle of the Rus as an account of ethnogenesis that I've heard brought up in discussions is that it doesn't account for remanents of the language throughout Western Europe like Trevez/Trebez, etc. This chronicler is obviously describing some significant events, but to apply the events of 6 or so groups of people to populations that now number over 250 million is a little hard to swallow for me too. It seems more likely to me that Nestor was taking testimonials of events specific to a migration to Ukrainija of a few groups of people who were related. But using the proper noun Slav in place of slovenskii (people who spoke the same language) lends itself to reinforcing the false notion that all the "Slavs" followed that same path. Could it be that this account chronicles a migration of a few groups of Macedonian populations to the North after the fall of Pella? People who were also the descendents of refugees that lived along the Danube river that were recorded during the Roman occupation? I believe Bratot provided an article not too long ago detailing a possible additional "landing" place in Northern Poland of Macedonian refugees. It may explain why some clans use red and gold in their tamgas. Or it may simply be a coincidence.

    Your observations point to another interesting historical event to explore. Did the downfall of the Eastern Roman Empire begin in Macedonia? Why were these people who could have been Macedonians not living in Illyricum any more? Did they get kicked out for resisting assimilation into the new elitist culture that was coming into being? Were there previous less noteworthy revolts in the history of the region that would have brought these events on?

    Some interesting things to think about, thanks.

    Leave a comment:


  • Soldier of Macedon
    replied
    Originally posted by Sovius View Post
    ..........we have a rational foundation for the conclusion that linguistic transformation either did not occur at all or that history witnessed only minor changes in how people spoke.
    I think it is unlikely that no changes took place at all.
    Neither case for me warrants the use of the newer Slavic terminology to describe anything in a truly relevant manner.
    What about the fact that people from Macedonia to Moravia and elsewhere used the term 'Slovenski' to describe their language, and recorded it as such by the 9th century?
    Would you favor ostrov? Astra comes from astro, but I suppose astra didn't necessarily represent astro. Good catch.
    The 'starry' or 'town of stars' suggestion for Astraion could just be an example of folk etymology based on an exonym. If that was the case, then the native name may have been related to the Thracian term 'Struma'.
    I think Slovenian would work from the Neolithic Period forward for languages that carry the Western 'Slav' term.
    I don't think using such a term would be an accurate description of the indigenous people living in the Balkans from the Neolithic Period.
    I believe Slovenian and Slovenian can co-exist when used with qualifying statements that would eventually become un-necessary due to people's propensity for discerning contextual agreement.
    Rather than Slovenian, wouldn't Slavonic or Slovenic be more accurate and avoid the confusion?
    Sklavene and Slav were colloquial terms born out of hatred and are still used by promoters of the Pan-Slavic and Pan-Germanic ideologies to pursue their goals. It's used as a perceptual reinforcer by the Greek government to maintain the appearance of a reality that never existed in the first place.
    If the term Sklavene ultimately derived from Slovenski, then aside from the derogatory 'slave' reference that developed later on, how was it used as a term of hatred prior to the 19th century? As for the term 'Slav', it is just a simplified form. Although Latin and ancient Greek used 'Sclav' and 'Sklav' respectively, both Italian and modern Greek use 'Slav', so it is not just in English or other Germanic languages.
    My personal take is that the translation of the Porphyrogenitus passage would provide much greater clarity if it used the Sklavene term, instead of the ambiguous Slav term, as Dalmatians were still considered Illyrians during this period in time across the Adriatic.
    I think in this case it is more than likely in reference to people who spoke a Slavic language. He goes on to describe the Croats as a people who arrived from beyond the Danube and came to control one of the 'Sklaviniai' (Slavonic regions).

    We've discussed this in the past but I thought it timely to mention it again. The Primary Chronicle of Kievan Rus from the early 12th century is one of the first (if not the first) general histories written in a Slavic language, and one of the more accurate descriptions of where the people who spoke the language originated and subsequently spread out through Europe. In one passage it states:
    ........in that region is Illyricum, whither Paul first repaired and where the Slavs originally lived.
    The place which Paul first arrived was Macedonia, often considered part of Illyricum duing Roman rule. The 'Life of Methodius', written in the 9th century, refers to people in the southern Macedonian city of Solun as speaking 'pure Slavonic'. This could point to Macedonia as the ancestral homeland of Slavic languages, further corroborated by the obvious northward spread described in the Primary Chronicle, cited again below:
    Over a long period the Slavs settled beside the Danube, where the Hungarian and Bulgarian lands now lie. From among these Slavs, parties scattered throughout the country............when the Vlachs attacked the Danubian Slavs, settled among them, and did them violence, the latter came and made their homes by the Vistula, and were then called Lyachs. Of these same Lyachs some were called Polyanians, some Lutichians, some Mazovians, and still others Pomorians. Certain Slavs settled also on the Dnipro, and were likewise called Polyanians. Still others were named Derevlians, because they lived in the forests. Some also lived between the Pripet' and the Dvina, and were known as Dregovichians.........

    Leave a comment:


  • Sovius
    replied
    @SoM


    I have read the same. Interesting how you classify Slovenian in the western group, I have also read about this too. Perhaps Zrinski can let us know if Croatian or Polish is easier for him to understand.


    I believe Sorbian, a remnant language once spoken throughout a larger expanse of what came to be known as Germany, would be the best candidate to analyze, based on what I've read.

    I believe this may have been the case in some instances, but not in all of them. However, I would be happy to see some more examples if you're able to provide them.


    I believe Malis and the Malian Gulf demonstrate cultural continuity in the region since losing the area to colonial expansion. According to Michael Grant, Malis was a small Greek district in close proximity to Thessaly on the Malian Gulf. When we consider that malo means small in what used to be formally classified as Illyrian and that the smulkus and mazas word forms continue to used in the Baltic languages to mean the same thing and compare the size of the Malian Gulf with other inlets in the region, we have a rational foundation for the conclusion that linguistic transformation either did not occur at all or that history witnessed only minor changes in how people spoke. Neither case for me warrants the use of the newer Slavic terminology to describe anything in a truly relevant manner. I think we are forced to use it because it's all people currently have to understand each other when discussing the language group and even history, itself.


    Astraion was an exonym used in Greek for the main city of the Paeonian tribe of Astrai, which was later known as Strumica. From where did you obtain the 'starry' etymology of Astraion? In the case of Bylazora, it may have also been an exonym itself which differed little from the original endonym. The reason I say this is because even with a Greek transliteration, I am not sure how much that particular placename would change in appearance.

    Would you favor ostrov? Astra comes from astro, but I suppose astra didn't necessarily represent astro. Good catch.

    The only problem is what to call this group. The term Illyrian doesn't quite cover all of the areas where these languages were spoken, nor does Thracian, Macedonian or Scythian. Once an appropriate name can be determined, for the sake of clarity each sub-group will also need an appropriate name. That is where terms like Slavic and Baltic (as the last living descendants of the broader group) come into the picture.


    I think Slovenian would work from the Neolithic Period forward for languages that carry the Western 'Slav' term. I believe Slovenian and Slovenian can co-exist when used with qualifying statements that would eventually become un-necessary due to people's propensity for discerning contextual agreement. Sklavene and Slav were colloquial terms born out of hatred and are still used by promoters of the Pan-Slavic and Pan-Germanic ideologies to pursue their goals. It's used as a perceptual reinforcer by the Greek government to maintain the appearance of a reality that never existed in the first place.


    the term 'Sklav' is equated with 'Slav', and there is no doubt that the people being referred to as 'Slavs' in this instance were the ancestors of Dalmatian Croats.



    My personal take is that the translation of the Porphyrogenitus passage would provide much greater clarity if it used the Sklavene term, instead of the ambiguous Slav term, as Dalmatians were still considered Illyrians during this period in time across the Adriatic. Their language was considered Illyrian, with the exception of some Latin speaking areas, so, what exactly did he mean? Rebels? Slaves? etc., etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • Risto the Great
    replied
    Originally posted by slovenec zrinski View Post
    And I do understand more slovakian and czech than I do polish.
    I know that Slovakians feel they can get the gist of what Poles are saying.

    Leave a comment:


  • slovenec zrinski
    replied
    To be honest I think polish is hard to understand for any slavic speaker except themselves I am probably not the right person to ask since I didnīt grow up speaking Slovenian. I have only learn some myself in the last years. Croatian is familiar to me since I have listened a lot to their music, so for me of course croatian is easier than polish. And I do understand more slovakian and czech than I do polish.

    Leave a comment:


  • Soldier of Macedon
    replied
    Originally posted by Voltron
    There is absoultly no evidence whatsover that say a migration never happened. People move all the time, how the hell do you think the Turks ended up in Anatolia ?
    Comparing the appearance of 'Slavs' to the arrival of Turks only highlights your deluded perception. You are not able to produce a shred of proof in support of a mass migration.
    Originally posted by Sovius
    I believe Macedonian leads the way among the southern group and Slovenian, which is the southernmost language spoken throughout the western group.........
    I have read the same. Interesting how you classify Slovenian in the western group, I have also read about this too. Perhaps Zrinski can let us know if Croatian or Polish is easier for him to understand.
    Or, conversely, why did people in the area favor using intranyms instead of exonyms when recording place names during this period?
    I believe this may have been the case in some instances, but not in all of them. However, I would be happy to see some more examples if you're able to provide them.
    Why did Bylazora (belo zora, a place where the dawn is white), a Slovenian place name and an indigenous place name in use during the Afro-Asiatic colonization of the southern Balkan region, appear alongside Astraion, meaning starry in the Greek language, an exonym, during a later period? They were both Paeonian place names.
    Astraion was an exonym used in Greek for the main city of the Paeonian tribe of Astrai, which was later known as Strumica. From where did you obtain the 'starry' etymology of Astraion? In the case of Bylazora, it may have also been an exonym itself which differed little from the original endonym. The reason I say this is because even with a Greek transliteration, I am not sure how much that particular placename would change in appearance.
    Why would settlers who were supposedly of Dacian descent call Strymon Strumica and not Slav Land?
    I have always found it interesting how a supposed 'migrating' tribe came to be named after an indigenous hydronym. The Strumjani may very well have been one of those local rebel groups that sided with their distant kinsmen from the Danube against the (east) Roman Empire.
    I don't see this is a re-classification, because, by definition, in my view, we're discussing a misclassification.
    Multiple classifications are required if we are to account for all of the stages of development. The broadest and most important one needs to include all of the Paleo-Balkan and Balto-Slavic languages. This is in line with your comment below:
    I believe the branch is dependent on the trunk. Itís the root and not the leaf that truly defines what something is or isn't.
    The only problem is what to call this group. The term Illyrian doesn't quite cover all of the areas where these languages were spoken, nor does Thracian, Macedonian or Scythian. Once an appropriate name can be determined, for the sake of clarity each sub-group will also need an appropriate name. That is where terms like Slavic and Baltic (as the last living descendants of the broader group) come into the picture.
    Suffix use changes much more rapidly or, should I say, rapidiously, than the roots of words. Slavic and Baltic are by no means the same language. I don't think the same could be said of Macedonian and Dacian, not to the point that researchers would have been warranted to put that divider in place.
    I would think that some of the Paleo-Balkan suffixes were closer to Baltic than Slavic equivalents. In other cases, I would allow for the possibility of Greek and Latin renditions of Paleo-Balkan words that had no such suffixes. In any case, I would like to thank you for conveying your point of view in a sensible and logical manner. You've added another dimension to this discussion and it has been very insightful. I hope you can continue to contribute.
    Originally posted by Pelister
    I think that SoM and Slovak should go back to the original sources in their original Greek.
    Just to follow up on this again, below is a text from Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who wrote during the middle of the 10th century. It relates to Dalmatia and how that region was lost by the Romans. On one page is the original Greek, on the other is the English translation. As you can clearly see, the term 'Sklav' is equated with 'Slav', and there is no doubt that the people being referred to as 'Slavs' in this instance were the ancestors of Dalmatian Croats.

    Leave a comment:


  • Voltron
    replied
    Originally posted by Sovius View Post
    Thanks Bill


    Look chipmunk brain. Most people's DNA in the Balkans is upstream from people who continue to live North of the Danube river. Most history books and anthropological textbooks based on interpretative models developed during the 19th Century concerning Central, Southeastern, and Eastern Europe are based on the outdated ideas of migration and population replacement. Population genetics has nothing to do with taking land away from what can be anthropologically defined as Greater Albania. Whoever conquers Greece next takes on Greece's debt. I think you'll be safe for a few millennia. The postulated 6th Century migration of a people known as the Slavs couldn't have happened. So, we have all these theories, ideas, research and speculation based on something that didn't happen and I ask you, what would Aristotle do? What would a scientist, student or scholar faced with such overwhelming evidence conclude? You speak of me, instead of we.
    There is absoultly no evidence whatsover that say a migration never happened. People move all the time, how the hell do you think the Turks ended up in Anatolia ? Just as the Turks move westward they absorbed the local inhabitants while the Turkish language and culture (somewhat) remained. We can use the same example with the Slavs, the futher north we go the stronger the Slav element. Further East we go the stronger Turkic element. Or is this to complicated for you ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Voltron
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill77 View Post
    Honesty and common sense backed by historical information (evidence), which is indisputable if one was honest to admit, and not be a lying delusional character.
    Well said, that is exactly how I see things myself.

    Speaking of delusional characters, Can you also hallucinate evidence to this claim? Or was it just a useless claim that has no meaning and only said because there was nothing else to reply (you know).
    Bill, Sovius made an comment regarding the betterment of Russian and Germanic expansion. Which in turn resulted in my reply, I was referring to the Treaty of San Stefano.
    Is this map a hallucination ?

    Last edited by Voltron; 02-29-2012, 05:14 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Soldier of Macedon
    replied
    Originally posted by Pelister View Post
    Don't you have the word order wrong, and the spelling of these terms all wrong? I think that SoM and Slovak should go back to the original sources in their original Greek.
    The terms are correct and the same as those in the original sources.
    It means whatever you want it to mean! Thats the magic of it.
    Yep, it is 'magic', you've hit the nail on the head!
    a bunch of vague semantic resemblances of people, places and events as varied and as unconnected, as distant and as far apart as two things could possibly be, that have no historical or natural association or connection......
    I can see why it may look this way to someone like yourself who smokes 'magic' for a living, but to those who have actually taken the time to open a book and read it, things are much clearer.
    Is this history 101, or has someone forgotten basic scientific rules of inquiry and evidence?
    Pelister, you don't understand my arguments, your own arguments make no sense, and you wouldn't know the first thing about scientific approach. Go back to that knucklehead who disappeared from this forum and now disrespects me from elsewhere, and ask him to provide you something of substance - and when I say substance, I don't mean the 'magic' you've been smoking.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X