Archaeological reconstruction of the Slavs

[Bratot]

Article of Polish archaeologists explaining the process of Slavic ethnogenesis:


Piontek J. 1992.
Using paleodemografic model for reconstruction of the historical process of Slavic ethnogenesis.

Acta Universitatis Lodziensis, Folia Archaeologica, 16, p. 285-299 Instytut Antropologii
ul. Fredry 10 61-701 Poznań



The problem of the Slavs ethnogenesis still remains a matter of great interest to researchers representing various fields of general anthropology.

The Ethnogenesis produced many fierce discussions, guided within a given field, or between representatives of different fields of history, biology, sociology, etc..

At present, we see a very difficult debate between archaeologists, who led a sharp dispute of Slavic ethnogenesis.
I believe that the dispute only superficially touches on the issues of the Slavic Ethnogenesis.

This is primarily a dispute about how to use modern archeology, or maybe prehistory.
This is a dispute about what should be taken on the basis of methodological analysis of archaeological data, how to build a synthetic and analytical approach, and then how to confirm or to combine information obtained from the results of other disciplines in the verification of ancient societies and early history.

For this reason, physical anthropologists - and I think also other representatives of disciplines that traditionally work with archeology - as recipients of research results and findings based on archeology are interested in what happens in modern archeology, and how these changes could facilitate mutual cooperation.

For the reasons above, I believe, that the vision created by archaeologists about the process of ethnogenesis of the Slavs are just a few of the many proposals, and must compete with the proposals offered by representatives of various disciplines of anthropology in general.

Moreover, neither the initial solutions accepted by archaeologists, neither the findings presented in the final conclusion on the reconstruction process of the origin of the Slavs can not be contradictory to the findings of other fields of researches about the old societies, which unfortunately happens.

Godłowski K. (1979): "... Demografia, jak antropologia są tymi dziedzinami studiów nad początkami Słowian, w których wnioskowanie jest obciążone zbyt wielką liczbą hipotetycznych niesprawdzalnych założeń, żeby można było z tego wywieść argumentację w pełni rozstrzygalną" (M. Parczewski 2000, s. 468).

translation:
Godłowski K: "... Demography, and anthropology are those areas of study of the origins of the Slavs, in which conclusions are burdened with too many unverified hypothetical assumptions, in order to be posibile to derive a strong argument" (M. Parczewski 2000, p. 468).

The main argument in the concept of Godłowski K. is:

"until their appearance the Slavs did not play a major role, ie people who lived in a small geographical area suddenly made an astounding historic career that spread in a very fast speed in geographycal areas several times larger than their original area of residence". (K. Godłowski 1979, s. 7).


From the standpoint of demographic changes we have to ask:

What factors (biological, cultural, social) contributed to the ability of such numerical growth that suddenly increases?

What exactly happened with the biological reproduction? - according to Godłowski - a group of 300 thousand Slavs - to be capable in period of 400-500 years to reach the figure of 7 million and 300 thousand people according to Hon. Łowmiański.

This question was made in connection with the research of Kurnatowski S. (1977).
In assessing the results of these studies, K. Godłowski (1979, p. 6) note that: "... Opierają się one na zbyt wielkiej ilości niepewnych danych i założeń, jeśli chodzi o obliczenie gęstości zaludnienia w oparciu o źródła archeologiczne, jak również w odniesieniu do mechanizmów rządzących rozrodczością populacji ludzkich znajdujących się w okresie gwałtownej ekspansji oraz ich zdolności asymilacyjnych"

translation:
"... They rely on too much unreliable data and assumptions regarding the calculation of population density on the basis of archaeological sources, as well in relation to the mechanisms that regulate the fertility of the human population in a period of rapid expansion and their ability for assimilation."

The theory of "rapid expansion" of Slav population is highly speculative and can not be obtained from the analysis of historical sources, since these studies do not indicate how from the arheometrical analysis we came to the level of structural and explanatory analysis. This transition requires, to build a theoretical model of investigation of this phenomenon (process), or reference to existing theoretical explanations in this case, the tests based on human ecology(Biodemography).

Godłowski K. (1979, p. 6) in a summary assessment of paleodemografic analysis concludes that: "W chwili obecnej mamy tu więc do czynienia z równaniem o wielu niewiadomych niż z argumentami, jakie mogą poważnie zaważyć na szali dyskusji na temat pierwotnych siedzib Słowian"

translation:
"... Currently, we are facing an equation on too many unknowns of the arguments that can seriously affect the point of debate about the original land of origin of the Slavs."

Such arguments should be submitted, which will explain the reasons for changes in the reproductive system of the Slavic population, how these sudden changes allowed such increase in the biological dynamics and the possibility of territorial expansion.

Unfortunately, these arguments can NOT be found in the reconstruction process of migration and settlement of the Slavs.

http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~anthro/slavia/f6.html

[Bratot]

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


- 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 withits 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.


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.


- 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.


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 andSlovenia?

Unless we associate this late migration to a gigantic genocide – a
phantascientific hypothesis – this hypothesis does not belong to serious scientific thinking.



- 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.

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

[Bratot]

"…In prehistoric times, antiquity, and the Middle Ages, migrations were very rarely, if ever, accompanied by a complete replacement of population.
With very few exceptions, those epochs were not acquainted with genocide, reservations, or mass deportations. Normally there was some kind of continuity between aborigines and newcomers. This is true in particular, of many people of the USSR – Azerbaijani, Khakass, Ossets…."

A.M. Khazanov – Institute of Ethnography, Academy of Sciences of the USSR

[Bratot]

A Test of a Migration Hypothesis: Slavic Movements into the Karst Region of Yugoslavia [and Comments and Reply], by Gloria Jean y'Edynak, Brad Bartel, Carl B. Compton, Robert W. Ehrich, David A. Fredrickson, Alexander Gallus, Leo S. Klejn, Matthias Laubscher, Tadeusz Malinowski, Raymond R. Newell, Ari N. Poulianos, Milan Stloukal, Susan C. Vehik and Robert A. Benfer
© 1976 The University of Chicago Press.



Abstract

The paper presents the thesis that migration hypotheses must be tested on skeletal populations as well as on other information spheres: subsets of material culture, linguistics, historical records, and toponyms. It tests the null hypothesis that a population of Slavs replaced the indigenous population of Illyrians in the karst region of Yugoslavia after the middle of the 6th century A.D.
The null hypothesis is rejected by univariate and multivariate craniometric analyses of time-successive populations in the karst zone: (1) Pre-Slavic, (2) Early Medieval, (3) Late Medieval, and (4) Recent.
The conclusion is that there is little morphological difference between the Pre-Slavic and Slavic populations of the karst zone.

The explanation for Slavicization in the karst zone must be sought in the cultural linguistic sphere and
not in a phenomenon of population replacement.

"….Frequently, population (biological) is assumed or inferred from the appearance of change in the cultural domain, cultural change need not however, imply population change." This is a similar notion based on archaeological evidence that Curta was highlighting, although I'm not sure to what extent.

[Bratot]

"...The population of these areas (Macedonia) more than 10,000 years has NOT changed its basic genetic material."

Ph.D Srboljub Zivanovic, director of the European Institute for Ancient Slavic Studies in London and fellow of the Royal Anthropological Institute.

[Bratot]

CONCLUSIONS

"Mathematical analyses of Pre-Slavic and Early Medieval populations of the karst and Dinaric zones of Yugoslavia show virtually no difference between them. This implies that the indigenous population of this region was not exterminated or replaced by a new population; rather, the new group seems to have contributed less in terms of genes and more in terms of language and other aspects of culture. The other possibility is that the Slavs exterminated and replaced the indigenous population in the karst and Dinaric zones but possessed almost exactly the same material culture. The former model seems the more appropriate."

Gloria Jean y'Edynak

Current Anthropology, Vol. 17, No. 3. (Sep., 1976), pp. 413-428.





Despite the high level of mtDNA variation in
Poles and Russians, both populations exhibit a
similar pattern of mtDNA haplogroup distribution,
which is also typical for many European
populations studied. Moreover, the analysis of
distribution of CR haplotypes and subclusters
shared between Poles and Russians has shown
that both Slavonic populations share them
mainly with Germans and Finns. These data
allow us to suggest that Europeans, despite their
linguistic differences, originated in the common
genetic substratum which predates the formation
of the most modern European populations.
Ann. Hum. Genet. (2002), 66, 261-283
Mitochondrial DNA variability in Poles and Russians
B. A. MALYARCHUK, T. GRZYBOWSKI, M. V. DERENKO, J. CZARNY, M. WOZNIAK and D. MISCICKA-SLIWKA
(650 probands)

[Bratot]

Наиболее ранние научные гипотезы о прародине славян можно обнаружить в трудах русских историков XVIII – XIX вв. Н.М. Карамзина, С.М. Соловьева, В.О. Ключевского. В своих изысканиях они опираются на «Повесть временных лет» и делают вывод о том, что прародиной славян были р. Дунай и Балканы. Сторонниками дунайского происхождения славян были многие русские и западноевропейские исследователи. Более того, в конце XX в. российский ученый О.Н. Трубачев уточнил и развил ее. Однако на протяжении XIX – ХХ вв. у этой теории было и немало противников.

О.Н.Трубачев в своих работах отвергает и висло-днепровскую гипотезу, и ее висло-одерский вариант. Как альтернативу он выдвигает так называемую «неодунайскую» гипотезу прародины славян. Местом первичного их расселения он считает Среднее Подунавье – территорию стран бывшей Югославии (Словении, Хорватии, Боснии и Герцеговины, Сербии и Черногории), юг Чехословакии и земли бывшей Паннонии (на территории современной Венгрии).

На какое-то время около I в.н.э. славяне были вытеснены кельтами и уграми на север, в Повисленье, и на восток, в Поднепровье. Связано это было с великим переселением народов. Однако уже в середине I тыс.н.э. славяне, «храня память о своих прежних местах обитания», «снова занимают Подунавье, земли за Дунаем, Балканы». Таким образом, «движение славян на юг было возвратным»[13].

Свою гипотезу О.Н.Трубачев аргументирует лингвистическими и экстралингвистическими фактами. Он считает, что, во-первых, продвижение славян сначала на север, а затем на юг вписывается в общий процесс переселения народов в пределах Европы. Во-вторых, подтверждается записями летописца Нестора: «По мнозэхы же времянэхы». В-третьих, именно у южных славян, которые жили по р. Дунаю, раньше всех появилось самоназвание *slověne – словэне, которое постепенно утверждается в трудах византийских историков VI в., готского историка VI в. Иордана (склавины). В то же время западных и восточных славян они именуют венедами и антами, то есть чуждыми славянам названиями. Сам этноним славяне О.Н.Трубецкой соотносит с лексемой слово и толкует его как «ясно говорящие», то есть говорящие на понятном, не чуждом языке[14]. В-четвертых, в фольклорных произведениях восточных славян очень часто упоминается р. Дунай, что О.Н.Трубачев считает сохранившейся живой памятью о Подунавье[15]. В-пятых, он считает, что Угры, придя на территорию Подунавья и основав в I в.н.э. свое государство, застали там славянское население и славянские топонимы: *bъrzъ, *sopot, *rěčina, *bystica, *foplica, *kaliga, *belgrad, *konotopa и др.[16]

Таким образом, О.Н.Трубачев считает, что «южный висло-одерский ареал… приблизительно совпадает с северной периферией среднедунайского ареала»[17], а район первичного расселения славян совпадает с районом первичного расселения носителей общеиндоевропейского языка.

http://slawianie.narod.ru/str/ishod/ishod02.html

[Daniel the Great]

"...The population of these areas (Macedonia) more than 10,000 years has NOT changed its basic genetic material."

So that means we Macedonians must be indigenous to the area of Macedonia? that's fantastic stuff Bratot.

[indigen]

Наиболее ранние научные гипотезы о прародине славян можно обнаружить в трудах русских историков XVIII – XIX вв. Н.М. Карамзина, С.М. Соловьева, В.О. Ключевского. В своих изысканиях они опираются на «Повесть временных лет» и делают вывод о том, что прародиной славян были р. Дунай и Балканы. Сторонниками дунайского происхождения славян были многие русские и западноевропейские исследователи. Более того, в конце XX в. российский ученый О.Н. Трубачев уточнил и развил ее. Однако на протяжении XIX – ХХ вв. у этой теории было и немало противников.

О.Н.Трубачев в своих работах отвергает и висло-днепровскую гипотезу, и ее висло-одерский вариант. Как альтернативу он выдвигает так называемую «неодунайскую» гипотезу прародины славян. Местом первичного их расселения он считает Среднее Подунавье – территорию стран бывшей Югославии (Словении, Хорватии, Боснии и Герцеговины, Сербии и Черногории), юг Чехословакии и земли бывшей Паннонии (на территории современной Венгрии).

На какое-то время около I в.н.э. славяне были вытеснены кельтами и уграми на север, в Повисленье, и на восток, в Поднепровье. Связано это было с великим переселением народов. Однако уже в середине I тыс.н.э. славяне, «храня память о своих прежних местах обитания», «снова занимают Подунавье, земли за Дунаем, Балканы». Таким образом, «движение славян на юг было возвратным»[13].

Свою гипотезу О.Н.Трубачев аргументирует лингвистическими и экстралингвистическими фактами. Он считает, что, во-первых, продвижение славян сначала на север, а затем на юг вписывается в общий процесс переселения народов в пределах Европы. Во-вторых, подтверждается записями летописца Нестора: «По мнозэхы же времянэхы». В-третьих, именно у южных славян, которые жили по р. Дунаю, раньше всех появилось самоназвание *slověne – словэне, которое постепенно утверждается в трудах византийских историков VI в., готского историка VI в. Иордана (склавины). В то же время западных и восточных славян они именуют венедами и антами, то есть чуждыми славянам названиями. Сам этноним славяне О.Н.Трубецкой соотносит с лексемой слово и толкует его как «ясно говорящие», то есть говорящие на понятном, не чуждом языке[14]. В-четвертых, в фольклорных произведениях восточных славян очень часто упоминается р. Дунай, что О.Н.Трубачев считает сохранившейся живой памятью о Подунавье[15]. В-пятых, он считает, что Угры, придя на территорию Подунавья и основав в I в.н.э. свое государство, застали там славянское население и славянские топонимы: *bъrzъ, *sopot, *rěčina, *bystica, *foplica, *kaliga, *belgrad, *konotopa и др.[16]

Таким образом, О.Н.Трубачев считает, что «южный висло-одерский ареал… приблизительно совпадает с северной периферией среднедунайского ареала»[17], а район первичного расселения славян совпадает с районом первичного расселения носителей общеиндоевропейского языка.

http://slawianie.narod.ru/str/ishod/ishod02.html

Russian to English translation

http://translate.google.com/

The earliest scientific hypotheses about the ancestral home of the Slavs can be found in the writings of Russian historians of the XVIII - XIX centuries. NM Karamzin, SM Solovieva, VO Klyuchevsky. In his research, they rely on the "Tale of Bygone Years" and concluded that the ancestral home of the Slavs were [river] Danube and the Balkans. Supporters of the origin of the Slavs of the Danube were many Russian and Western scholars. Moreover, at the end of XX century. Russian scientist, ON Trubachev refined and developed it. However, during the XIX - XX centuries. in this theory was a lot of enemies.

O. Trubachev in their work and rejects the Vistula-Dnieper hypothesis, and the Vistula-Oder option. As an alternative, he proposed a so-called "neodunayskuyu" hypothesis of the ancestral homeland of the Slavs. Place of the primary settling them, he believes Middle Danube - the territory of the former Yugoslavia (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro), the south land of the former Czechoslovakia and Pannonia (in modern Hungary).

At some time near the I century AD Slaves were forced out by the Celts and Ugrians north to Povislene, and east to the Dnieper. It was connected with the great migration of peoples. However, even in the middle of I millennium AD Slaves, "the memory of their former habitats," again took Danube, the land beyond the Danube and the Balkans. " Thus, the "movement of the Slavs to the south was returnable" [13].

His hypothesis ON Trubachev argues linguistic and extralinguistic facts. He believes that, firstly, the advancement of the Slavs, first north and then south fits into the overall process of resettlement of peoples within Europe. Secondly, the endorsements of the chronicler Nestor: "By the same mnozehy vremyanehy. Thirdly, it is at the southern Slavs, who lived in p. Danube, before anyone appeared self * slověne - slovene, which was gradually adopted in the writings of Byzantine historians VI., The Gothic historian VI. Jordan (sklaviny). At the same time the western and eastern Slavs, they called Wends and antami that is alien to Slavic names. Same ethnonym Slavs O. Trubetskoy correlates with the token word and interprets it as "clearly speak", that is, speaking in an understandable, is not alien to the language of [14]. Fourth, in works of folklore of the Eastern Slavs is often referred to [river] Danube that considers O. Trubachev preserved alive the memory of the Danube [15]. Fifth, he believes that the Ugra, coming into the territory of Danube and founded in the I century AD their state, found there the Slavic population and the Slavic toponyms: * brz, * sopot, * rěčina, * bystica, * foplica, * kaliga, * belgrad, * konotopa et al [16]

Thus, O. Trubachev believes that "the southern area of the Vistula-Oder ... roughly coincides with the northern periphery The mid-range" [17], and the area of primary settlement of the Slavs coincides with the area of primary settlement carriers Common Indo-European language.

[indigen]

Originally Posted by Bratot
"...The population of these areas (Macedonia) more than 10,000 years has NOT changed its basic genetic material."

So that means we Macedonians must be indigenous to the area of Macedonia? that's fantastic stuff Bratot.

Do you doubt that we are Indigenous?

Macedonia: 10,000 years of Macedonian history, culture and heritage - cradle of European and world civilization!

Britannica: "Macedonia...Old European civilization flourished there between 7000 and 3500 BC."

-----------
Nice work, B.! I do like Mario Alinei's take (PCT) on the matter and it makes good sense to me.

[Bratot]

Нов текст на македонски, наскоро и на англиски:

http://www.macedonianspark.com/mk/istorijaideologija/makedonskaistorija/445