Origins of Slavs: Archaeology, Linguistics, Anthropology, History

Status
Archived
Joined Jan 2010
17,473 Posts | 16+
-
Such an intelligent person as you Beorna should not intentionally use such arguments ad absurdum. For me the message is clear, ancestors of Slavs who lived there adopted Slavic languages.
The ancestors of the Slavs are the proto-Slavs and they lived in the Zarubinsky and Kiev-culture. Recent Poles may have far ancestors among the populations of the Przeworsk, Wielbark, Lusation culture, corded ware culture etc. Germans can clam the same and who knows who else, too. germans could claim with the same right to be the ancestors of the megalith-builders, the cro-magnon and .... heidelbergensis.

It is alredy well known that invaders who spoke slavic were in minority on the areas where they settled. There was no invasion of millions of people who took over half of Europe.
It is absolutely not know for middle europe what happened. we have no linguistic sources, archaeological sources are late and there are as well just late written sources.

Its truth that slavic languages are young but it doesnt matter that God has created the Slavic people around 5th century out of nothing and that those people one day appeared in Europe. They were they before but spoke different languages. Who are the people living in Balkans? They are descedants of people who lived in those old Roman provinces but after slavic invasion started to use slavic language.
Yes, but this isn't meaning, that the Slavic ancestors are the Thracians, dacians, Illyrians, Greeks, Celts, because all those people lived were today live Slavs. That is something completely different. All the people who were assimilated may have had these ancestors,but they are not the ancestors of the Serbians, Croatians, bulgarians etc.
 
Joined Jan 2010
17,473 Posts | 16+
-
What kind of relics?

Geographical names origins of which are disputed and many of them date to Proto-Indo-European language (like origins of the name of the river Vistla / Wisła / Vistula)? There is no any hard proof that geographical names in this part of Europe have origins in Germanic languages.
there are several expressions, personal names and phrases. It is not that much, but compared with the Slavic evidence you suggest, huge.
 
Joined Dec 2009
5,558 Posts | 0+
Poland
Last edited:
And this is supported by linguistic, which places Germanic, Slavic and baltic into a common branch.
But Germanic branch separated from Balto-Slavic branch long before Baltic and Slavic separated from each other:

Tree.png


http://img.pokazywarka.pl/bigImages/355422/875959.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJSLBNACOS3UTO6HA&Signature=aLQKgAlA5bJWYeTJoXhtN2Mm9r4%3D&Expires=1376582400

875959.jpg
 
Joined Jan 2010
17,473 Posts | 16+
-
At least two, if you count also sword (meki).

Gothic language is for a long time extinct and we don't know entire language, only some parts of it.

We know only some part of words from original Gothic language today (and even this part is known mostly from just one book - from the 4th century CE Bible translation to Gothic by Bishop Wulfila, who lived between 310 and 383 CE).

From Ostrogothic dialect (which survived in Crimea much longer than Visigothic in Spain) we know only 70 words, mostly thanks to 16th century writings of Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq (while Visigothic language is known mostly from the 4th century Bible of Wulfila mentioned above).

Compare this to many thousands of Slavic words which are known nowadays (because unlike Ancient Gothic language, Slavic languages did not get extinct) - of which over 40 have Gothic origins.
meki is not Slavic.
Yes 40 words out of thousands of Slavic words and 1 single slavic term out of several hundreds Gothic words.
 
Joined Dec 2009
5,558 Posts | 0+
Poland
Last edited:
beorna said:
meki is not Slavic.

Meki is considered by some Polish or Russian scholars to be an originally Gothic word (meaning: sword) adopted by Slavs.

But since you claimed that meki was not originally Gothic, I assumed that it was inversely - Goths adopted it from Slavs.

You claimed that Goths used meki not very solidly and that it was not an originally Gothic word.

On the other hand, literally all modern Slavic words for swords originate from "meki".
 
Joined Jan 2010
17,473 Posts | 16+
-
There are theories which say that there was one, identical Balto-Slavic language, from which around 1500 - 1300 BC emerged two languages - Baltic and Old Slavic. Old Slavic language then divided at the latest in 6th - 7th centuries to West Slavic, East Slavic, South Slavic.
Balto-Slavic is neither baltic nor Slavic, it is an ancestor of both languages. The oldest slavic hydronyms are in an area, that is exactly in the region, where we have the Zarubinsky and Kiev culture! And exactly those culture are the best candidates for an proto-slavic ethnogenesis

Spoke or wrote?

Slavic written language - Old Church Slavonic - developed from just one dialect of Slavic, in Bulgarian-Macedonian area. In spoken languages there could be more differences, until Old Church Slavonic (written language) spread back into Slavic Europe, influencing also spoken languages.
as long as you have no disk, wrote. But slavic languages are still very similar. So it doesn't really that matter.
 
Joined Jan 2010
17,473 Posts | 16+
-
Meki is considered by some Polish or Russian scholars to be an originally Gothic word (meaning: sword) adopted by Slavs.

But since you claimed that meki was not originally Gothic, I assumed that it was inversely - Goths adopted it from Slavs.

You claimed that Goths used meki as just one of several words they had for "sword".

On the other hand, literally all modern Slavic words for swords originate from "meki".
It is neither Gothic expression nor Slavic, but somewhere from the south.
I don't know, why all slavic words originate from meki. But I am confident you find somebody with a pseudo-scientic thesis you like.
 
Joined Dec 2009
5,558 Posts | 0+
Poland
Yes 40 words out of thousands of Slavic words

But very important words! For example chleb (bread) - is of Gothic origin.

Slavs were described as farmers since the beginning of sources saying about Slavs.

So why their word for "bread" is of Gothic origin, or they have common origin, or Goths adopted it from Slavs?
 
Joined Dec 2009
5,558 Posts | 0+
Poland
Last edited:
But slavic languages are still very similar.
Anglo-Saxon language was identical to language of Saxons from area of modern Germany, when Anglo-Saxons invaded Britain.

Yet today English language is very different from German language (more different than for example Russian is from Polish).

Already at that time, East Slavic languages were more different from West Slavic languages than Saxon was from Anglo-Saxon.

As you can see, the extent of difference in language is not necessarily indicating the age of language.

Some languages can diversify more during the same time, while other languages can diversify less and remain more similar to each other.

The oldest slavic hydronyms are in an area, that is exactly in the region, where we have the Zarubinsky and Kiev culture!
There are no Ancient Germanic hydronyms in territory of modern Poland.

The oldest hydronyms (like Vistla / Wisła / Vistula) are indeed not Slavic, but also not Germanic.

Slavic hydronyms are younger than the oldest ones (mostly the ones for major rivers), but it is not possible to determine their exact age.

It is possible that Slavic hydronyms from area of modern Poland are as old or even older than hydronyms of Zarubinsky and Kiev cultures.
 
Joined Mar 2013
161 Posts | 0+
UK
Exactly! All of your points are correct. But it shows that the story about great migration of entire population, who left only deserted land behind them, and then was replaced by new (Slavic-speaking) population who came from the East - is wrong. Moreover, it shows that majority of Medieval Slavic-speaking population had ancestors in the same territory in the Roman era (which of course doesn't mean that those ancestors were also Slavic-speaking, but it denies the old theory of complete switch of population, with a period of totally deserted land in between).

By the way - genetic (haplogroups) research shows the same conclusion, and we already had a discussion about this on another forum.

Yes, the research doesn't say that those were Slavic skulls. But it says that those were skulls of descendants of Medieval Slavic population of the same territory, rather than of descendants of Medieval Germanic population of diffferent parts of Europe (where Goths and other Germanic tribes, who allegedly lived in large numbers in the area of modern Poland during the Roman era, migrated). In other words - when you want to look for Medieval descendants of people who lived at the Vistula during the reign of Emperor Augustus, you will find majority of them living in the same place (also at the Vistula) during the reign of Charlemagne - rather than somewhere else (for example in Italy and Spain, where the Goths migrated).

Yes, when you change language, the shape of your skull is not changing because of this. So there are many modern Germans who descend from Medieval Slavs of Vistula and Oder basins, who in turn descend from Ancient population of the same area (Vistula and Oder basins).

This research is not completely denying that some migrations of various ethno-linguistic groups took place.

But this research is showing that majority of population of Vistula and Oder basins was stationary between Ancient and Medieval times. This contradicts the old theory that entire population moved away to Western and Souther Europe, being replaced by new population from the East.

I would not be so sure about it. Take a look at eng.molgen.org . Actually the "great migration of entire population, who left only deserted land behind them, and then was replaced by new (Slavic-speaking) population who came from the East" theory is still on.

The Slavs - who were the first Slavs and what haplogroups?
A Genetic Genealogy Community ? View topic - The Slavs - who were the first Slavs and what haplogroups?
 
Joined Dec 2009
5,558 Posts | 0+
Poland
Last edited:
In other threads you claimed that names of some - allegedly Germanic - tribes, gave names to geographic regions. This is of disputed because there are also other theories regarding the origins of these names (and it is also disputed whether those tribes were Germanic or not).

Please note, that one of West Slavic, Lechitic tribes, was named Vistulans (Wiślanie).

By your logic, I could claim that this tribe gave name to the river, not inversely.

The same can apply to some, allegedly Germanic, tribes - they could be named after regions in which they lived, rather than regions being named after them. Also Polanie - as you even noticed in another thread - were named after plains / fields, in which they lived.

Śląsk (Silesia) in Old Slavic language meant "moist land" or "marshy land". The Medieval Slavic tribe of Ślężanie (Sleenzane - according to "Bavarian Geographer", Zlasane according to Czech sources)was named after "marshy lands" in which they lived. Despite this fact, you claim that it was named after a Germanic tribe of Silingians.

I disagree - in my opinion Silingians were also named after "moist land" or "marshy lands" in which they lived.

Actually, Ancient Silingians and Slavic Sleenzane / Zlasane could even be the same tribe, living in the same area few hundreds years later.

Please note that Silesia was a region inhabited by humans already since the Neolithic period. Góra Ślęża (Mount Ślęża), located in Silesia, was a place of some Ancient cult of some Pagan gods already in the Neolithic era, according to archaeological findings.

=======================================

Even today in Silesian dialect (gwara śląska), the word "śląpać" means "to cry" or "to have wet eyes".

In Early Medieval Slavic languages terms for "to cry" or "to have wet eyes" were: "ślęp", "ślęg" or "ślęga".

At the same time "ślęga" meant "wet weather", as well as "mud".

========================================

As for Mount Ślęża - there are three theories as to origins of its name:

1) From allegedly Germanic tribe of Silingians

2) From Early Slavic word ślęga (wet weather, mud)

3) even older, Indoeuropean origins

But first names of this mountain that are known from written sources, are as follows:


  • 1108 in monte Silencii ("mountain of silence" in Latin - but it could be phonetical translation, not translation of meaning)
  • 1149/50 ecclesia in monte Silentii
  • 1209 in monte Silencii
  • 1242 in monte Slenz
  • 1245 in monte Slez
  • 1260 circa montem Slezie
Place of Pagan cult in Mount Ślęża dating back at least to 5th century CE:

Bez_tytu_u.png
 
Joined Dec 2011
13,583 Posts | 5,948+
Iowa USA
Oh, it contradicts, because the thesis which is shown by domen is those of autochthonous Slavs in recent Poland. The "evidence" he presents shalll directly support this. The autochthonous Slavs were more than once used for political interests.


I question the accuracy of these research, the anthropological more than the genetic. I wrote above why. The difference between me and domen is, that he sees the population there as the direct forefathers of the Slavs and maybe as proto-Slavs. Genetically may this be, but these forefathers were neither Slavs nor proto-Slavs, they were germanics or celts or venetics or balts.

Perhaps what you write is accurate here given that as a matter of history research Roman and early Church writings are best understood sources. I understand why there should be a high standard of proof when data from biological metrics, either genetic or comparative anthropology, are used. However in the centuries in which there exist no written records, prior to later Roman era, I must say that there is no way to distinguish a 'balt' from a 'proto-slav'... so I do have difficulty understanding your last sentence above.

In other words if you agree that Proto-balt-slav was a language being spoken in the area of Domen's first map, I am still not able to detect the substance of the disagreement. You are attaching an agenda to another member's post it seems to me. So if you are okay "dishing it out" to members from the East it is just politeness to also "take it" occasionally.

I am no linguist, but the german language is full of words, for which in Latin exists only one expression. So I am not sure if high culture means more complex language. WE need our mate midas here.

Fascinating topic and Midas really has the ability to shine a light on most relevant evidence.

Every poulation has a neighbour population or more. The Slavic language changed e.g. to a satem-language by indo-iranian influence. If we look at the corded ware culture, we should expect, that the indo-european populations inside these culture had still close relations. And this is supported by linguistic, which places Germanic, Slavic and baltic into a common branch. The difference is, that the western germanic did not participate in the satem shift. So to answer your question, archaizisms may have different reasons.

Thanks for using some more specific language here, it is helpful to me. Will try to catch up on the background material before I add anything more to the thread.
 
Joined Apr 2012
402 Posts | 0+
Ahem, a few points:

Craniometry is a very inexact (and dangerous) science.
It is already hard enough to distinguish between western, central and eastern European populations, using it on already highly related population is extremely risky, especially given that cranial features easily can change via nutrition, lifestyle, age and even social aspects.
No serious Ethnologist uses it today.

Considering the genetic study Domen posted, it has several flaws(and I would like to remind what happened to other threats discussing genetics).
First, it speaks about of events that happened during the early Bronze Age. There were no Slavs, no Germanics, no Celts.
Secondly, it talk about mtDna HG H5, which is distributed over all of Europe. Even worse,
those "Slavic"(Can genes have an ethnolinguistic affiliation? No) HGs arenhighly polyphyletic. It´s the same as I would argue that modern Czech people are Germans because of their Dna. It is obvious why I do not.

People all to often forget that ethnicity is less dictated by genes then by their preference for cheese.

Now, for the parts that actually do count: What slaws should have come out of the Przeworsk culture? Exept for a really few pockets, the entire space was abandoned at a time that chronologically fits with the emergence of the Vandals. I could futher go on on the material culture that spread with that (fibula etc.), but that would probably be to much for a layman. Now later, there wasa new, intrusive culture that spread over the abandoned area, though it was clearly different from Przeworsk. It is called Prague-Korchak-Penkova culture.

From a historical perspective we know that the tribes settling on the area of the Przeworsk culture were regardes as Celts, Germans and sonme tribes that the authors were unsure off, like the Veneti, who lived on the eastern bank of the Vistula.
Now we know that some people that took part in the ethnogenesis of Slavs were called similar to that name, and that the early exonym "Wends" derives from it.

Thus it is most likely that the early Germanic people associated the Slavs with their earlier neighbours, who possibly participated in the ethnogenesis of the Slavs.

From a linguistic perspective, the oldest hydronyms found between Oder and Vistula are East Germanic.
 
Joined Dec 2009
5,558 Posts | 0+
Poland
Last edited:
theory is still on.
But it is rocking on its foundations after recent anthropological and genetic studies.

Craniometry is a very inexact (and dangerous) science.
It maybe was in the past but now they are using modern, better, more precise methods.

Remember the book I was quoting is from 2008 and other studies used by that book - from between 2007 and 2002.

No research older than 2002 was used for drawing conclusions by authors of that book, themselves experts in Anthropology.
 
Joined Dec 2009
5,558 Posts | 0+
Poland
Last edited:
Einharja said:
Even worse,
those "Slavic"(Can genes have an ethnolinguistic affiliation? No)
Read entire thread please, because nobody here was arguing that genes have ethnolinguistic affiliation.

Germanic, Slavic and Baltic languages - according to a commonly accepted theory at least - all have one, common ancestor language.

That archaic language is nowadays called the Balto-Slavo-Germanic language.

However, Germanic language separated from that original Balto-Slavo-Germanic language much earlier than the other two.

Later for a long time there existed a common Balto-Slavic language, before it finally divided for Baltic and Slavic:

http://historum.com/european-histor...y-history-etc-5.html#post1558428?postcount=43

Tree.png


====================================

What is disputed, is the place where the alleged Balto-Slavic speaking people lived.

And - naturally - where lived the Proto-Slavs, who - most likely - were originally part of Balto-Slavic ethnos.

And the answer provided by anthropology, is this:

http://historum.com/european-histor...logy-history-etc.html#post1557525?postcount=2

Urheimat.png
 
Joined Apr 2012
402 Posts | 0+
Anglo-Saxon language was identical to language of Saxons from area of modern Germany, when Anglo-Saxons invaded Britain.

This is not correct, unless you go back deep in time. Modern English derives from Anglo-Frisian while Low German(I hope you menat that, as the modern state of Saxony has not a lot to do with ancient Saxons) is a different branch(the problem here lies that Saxon was used for a multitude of people from the North Sea to Westphalia)

Already at that time, East Slavic languages were more different from West Slavic languages than Saxon was from Anglo-Saxon.

How do you know? And at what exact time? The Lord´s prayer in Old English is extremely different from the one in Heliand. East Germanic was even more distinct from Western, so I do not see your point.

As you can see, the extent of difference in language is not necessarily indicating the age of language.


That is debateable. As long as languages are not isolated and confined to small refugia, they change. The archaic nature of Slavic languages at their first attestations are a good indicator that they split in a rather recent time.

There are no Ancient Germanic hydronyms in territory of modern Poland.

This is a lie. I can post a paper from a Polish lingusits if you want.


The oldest hydronyms (like Vistla / Wisła / Vistula) are indeed not Slavic, but also not Germanic.

Accoding to Jan Dlugosz Vistula means white river, *Hwistaz is Germanic for white. It may also derive from *hweis, to flow, also found in other Germanic Hydronyms. So saying that it is not Germanic is unwarranted.

It is possible that Slavic hydronyms from area of modern Poland are as old or even older than hydronyms of Zarubinsky and Kiev cultures.

No, those from Zarubinsky and Kiev are more archaic, so your suggestion is counter intuitive.
 
Joined Dec 2009
5,558 Posts | 0+
Poland
Last edited:
as the modern state of Saxony has not a lot to do with ancient Saxons
I was not talking about the modern state of Saxony, but about Medieval Saxons.

The archaic nature of Slavic languages at their first attestations are a good indicator that they split in a rather recent time.
Yes, they split from Balto-Slavic language.

I don't claim that Wielbark, Przeworsk and Chernyakhovsk cultures were Slavic-speaking.

They were probably Balto-Slavic speaking cultures - which still means, that they were not Germanic-speaking cultures.
 
Joined Apr 2012
402 Posts | 0+
But it is rocking on its foundations after recent anthropological and genetic studies.

It maybe was in the past but now they are using modern, better, more precise methods.

Remember the book I was quoting is from 2008 and other studies used by that book - from between 2007 and 2002.

No research older than 2002 was used for drawing conclusions by authors of that book, themselves experts in Anthropology.

Yes and those methods explicitly are not craniometry. You absolutely do not need it when you have Genetics.
If you still persist on the fact that Craniometry is a good and exact science, can you tell which advancements were made since the 1940s?

And an argument from authority never is a good one. There are "expert anthropologists" which claim humanity arose in the Americas.
 
Joined Dec 2009
5,558 Posts | 0+
Poland
Last edited:
Accoding to Jan Dlugosz Vistula means white river,
According to Jan Długosz in the battle of Grunwald Polish forces lost just 12 knights dead.

So Długosz is sometimes mistaken as you can see.

The name Vistula (Polish: Wisła) has Proto-Indo-European origins.

It comes from two Proto-Indo-European words: vei ("flowing water") or veis ("water" / "liquid") and stla ("outstretched" / "wide").

So Proto-Indo-European Veistla / Veisstla means "outstretched flowing water". Later names of this river come from this original name.

And this how Wisła river was called in Latin during Roman times: Vistla, Vistula, Visculus, Vistlam, Vistillus, Visula, etc.

============================

Vistula - "wide flowing water":

wisla.gif
 
Joined Apr 2012
402 Posts | 0+
Read entire thread please, because nobody here was arguing that genes have ethnolinguistic affiliation.

A paper you posted called certain genes slavic.

Germanic, Slavic and Baltic languages - according to a commonly accepted theory at least - all have one, common ancestor language.

There are multiple theories on the realtionship of Germanic languages. They may aswell be more related to Italic or Celtic. We just know that they must fit somewhere in Northwestern IE

That archaic language is nowadays called the Balto-Slavo-Germanic language.

Yes, this hypothetical language is called so.

However, Germanic language separated from that original Balto-Slavo-Germanic language much earlier than the other two.

Yes, Baltic and Slavic are sister languages

Later for a long time there existed a common Balto-Slavic language, before it finally divided for Baltic and Slavic:

Well, we do not know when Balto-Slavic split and how long it was in its Proto phase
====================================
What is disputed, is the place where the alleged Balto-Slavic speaking people lived.

Most sources I read, in both English and others languages, speak of a homeland in Eastern Europe.



Which unfortunately is falsified by Linguistics, Archaeology and History.
Craniometry does not say a lot about ethnicity.
 
Status
Archived

Trending History Discussions

Top