Who are the Slavs? - Citations and Sources

[Voltron]

ok, then next time I refer to your language or ethnos it will just be Slavonic, since Macedonian or Macedonians werent used back then either.

[Sovius]

Byzantine is an anachronous term that was never actually in use by anyone during Eastern Rome's existence and, therefore, it dilutes meaning. Just as with the language that came to be called Greek. Why call something by a name which was never used to describe it during the period when the associated language was active in an authentic sense? Why use it in translations?

Why is the Basque word for crap the same as the Czech word?

[Voltron]

Sovius, do you have an issue of stating simple obvious terminology such as Byzantine Empire, Greek language ? Whats with all this Eastern Roman crap, Hell you even had SOM confused on what you were trying to say.

[Sovius]

If what Allinei says is true, then the southern branch is closest to Proto-Slavic, which must have developed in or near the Balkans. What linguistic examples are there to support Allinei's assertion?

The southern language group is regarded by researchers as being far more heterogenous, possessing way more dialectical variation than either the western or eastern branches. Just like genes, homogeneity (lack of broad variation across a given area) indicates that they are both younger than the southern languages. Another reason researchers like Professor Allinei and Sergei Starostin, may he rest in peace, believe this to be the case is that the western and eastern groups contain differences unique to each different group that the southern branch still conserves. It’s a one way street in my opinion. Thirdly, it was largely your ancestors to the South who migrated North of the Danube to become my ancestors, as well. Back migration appears to be relatively minor at this point in terms of collective profiles.

Many people living in Lithuania, Latvia and Prussia (Northern Poland) are defined by the Z280 mutation, not Z283 which is available for review at r1a.org's splash page, 2,000 BC is simply an estimation based on this timeline.

Has any Basque influence been noted in either Italic or Celtic languages?

I recall finding a few lexical matches a long time ago, nothing too exciting. What's really interesting here is that large tracts of Western European populations are all descended from the same R1b (M269) source population and that their languages, which are regarded as being non-Indo-European to begin with or still considered non-Indo-European are so dramatically different from one another. Going back to linguistic heterogeneity, what can this tell us and what can the Indo-European elements in a language like Gaelic tell researchers about when those changes were introduced and by whom?

From the 9th century it was recorded as 'Slovenski' (Slavic) by those who actually wrote and spoke it. This doesn't mean it or local names weren't used before or after, but for the purpose of church literature (which was originally written in a Macedonian dialect) that is what it was called. Older names like Illyrian became popular once more after some time, but ultimately, the 'Slavic' term became commonly widespread, in both Slavic and foreign languages. The reason as to why can be argued.

I believe that these two different terms developed in cultural isolation from one another in two very different ways, terms which then came to be erroneously treated as representing the same meanings much later in history. "Slovenski" was and continues to be the tongue of the common people in SE Europe. It has a simple, concrete meaning based on "slovo". "Slaven", people who were targeted for extermination during the Wendish Crusade and Sklavenes, people who fought to end Roman rule and enslavement, were terms that arose out of hostile conflicts, proper nouns that appear to be based on sloveni, but did not convey the same meaning as sloveni. If a word does not carry the same meaning between languages then, by definition, they are not the same words, their apparent associations, then, being artificial in nature and grafted into interpretations that do not accurately reflect the past and, therefore, the present.

Can you cite some of those writers who wrote their own history? When you say 'eastern Roman language' you mean Greek, correct? Would that also mean the same Thracians, Illyrians and Macedonians - as Romans - recorded themselves as 'Sclavenes' and 'Sklavenes' in Latin and Greek respectively?

Any Eastern Roman citizen, not simply a writer or teacher, must have been of one ethnicity or another. Justinian the 1st was Thracian. Polyaenus, was a Macedonian writer. Anyone not from the Italic Peninsula or somewhere else beyond the Balkans in Eastern Rome must have been either Illyrian, Thracian, Macedonian or hailed from the City States to the South of Macedonia. They wrote in the lingua franca of the Eastern Roman Empire (Greek), but would have used their native language around the house so to speak. If they didn't refer to themselves as Sklavenes, they must not have thought of themselves as Sklavenes and, if other writers during that day and age didn't consider Justinian a Sklavene then they must not have thought of Thracians as Sklavenes either or as speakers of a "Sklavenetic" language. Yet we have Procopius referring to Northern Thracians as Sklavenes, so we have a evidence to support the use of Sklavene as a politically charged term for ethnic Thracians rebelling against the Roman establishment. Regardless of whether Sklavene is a corruption of Sloveni or not, I think it is inconsequential, because of its earliest use as a slang word for Sporoi and Getae.

The medieval placenames in the Peloponnese established by the 'Sklavenes' point to the presence of a language that was new to written record. It was also clearly related to the dialects spoken further north in Macedonia and beyond the Danube. I understand that many indigenous toponyms recorded in foreign languages have had their true forms corrupted, but the particular dialect which came to be spoken by most 'Sklavenes', if not foreign to the Balkans, did not appear prevalent prior to the 6th century.

I'd be interested in learning a little more about the evidence you're using to base your views on a proposed linguistic transformation in the Balkans that would necessitate a re-classification of the languages spoken in the area if you have the time.

[Onur]

Still,I can't see how a people of "pagan beliefs",and "far behind other peoples" could simply come out of nowhere,invade vast territories of Europe and Asia and defeat such mighty empires like Byzantine,Hunnic,and even Chinese,and now populate some good 40% of Europe?Just by fighting with stones and wooden sticks?!If they were so retarded how could this happen?Is there something fishy about this or is it just me?

Because that was a lie told by the Romans.

Those so-called pagan people was much more sophisticated than Romans in some ways. They had more powerful army, technologically more advance weaponry than Romans (composite bow, iron weapons). They were more advanced in observing the sky, movements of sun&moon, so they had better calendar system than Romans (Celtic calendar, Turkic animal calendar)

They just had different culture and way of life than Romans, thats all. Also they weren't pagans like ancient Greeks, they weren't worshiping to their self-made statues. They had beliefs which was harmonious with nature, respecting mother earth, herbalism etc. They had their own writing system (runic) and languages (Germanic, Turkic, Uralic)

Fighting with stones and wooden sticks? Mate, did you know that while Romans/Latins was only using bronze swords `till 12th century, Huns and Germanic people was able to forge iron and create superb swords which was much powerful than Roman swords but much lighter and more powerful composite bows since antiquity while Roman bow technology was much worse. Just think about that; Huns fought vs both eastern and western Romans and beat them both, Bulgars beat eastern Romans several times and settled in Balkans, Germanic peoples also beat western Romans. How they did that? with stones and wooden sticks vs 100.000 strong Roman armies?

Watch these documentaries;

Barbarians - The Primitive Celts - YouTube
Terry Jones' Barbarians - The Savage Goths - YouTube
Barbarians - The Brainy Barbarians - YouTube
Barbarians - The End of The World - YouTube

[DraganOfStip]

Still,I can't see how a people of "pagan beliefs",and "far behind other peoples" could simply come out of nowhere,invade vast territories of Europe and Asia and defeat such mighty empires like Byzantine,Hunnic,and even Chinese,and now populate some good 40% of Europe?Just by fighting with stones and wooden sticks?!If they were so retarded how could this happen?Is there something fishy about this or is it just me?

[Soldier of Macedon]

I haven't read too much about it. Any theory that doesn't include the Basque language, though, I believe, would be sorely in need of reworking, as, according to R1b gene flow amongst populations largely defined by the I Haplogroup, commonalities found in Basque and these languages would preserve important clues as far as what kind of language or set of languages R1b populations brought with them into Western Europe.

Interesting. Has any Basque influence been noted in either Italic or Celtic languages?

For me the contradiction comes in the way of structural linguistics. The Eastern and Western branches of the Slavic language group developed out of the Southern branch.........

If what Allinei says is true, then the southern branch is closest to Proto-Slavic, which must have developed in or near the Balkans. What linguistic examples are there to support Allinei's assertion?

I believe this belief, at least partially, comes from the formal reclassification of languages previously classified as either Illyrian or Sarmatian, as Slavic.

From the 9th century it was recorded as 'Slovenski' (Slavic) by those who actually wrote and spoke it. This doesn't mean it or local names weren't used before or after, but for the purpose of church literature (which was originally written in a Macedonian dialect) that is what it was called. Older names like Illyrian became popular once more after some time, but ultimately, the 'Slavic' term became commonly widespread, in both Slavic and foreign languages. The reason as to why can be argued.

It's still commonly accepted among academics to associate the Dacian (Slavic) push South with a massive cultural transformation that really only exists as a myth in my opinion. Almost all previous research has been done according to this interpretative model and so its often the only literature available to someone with an interest.

Well said, and I agree completely. The current predicament cannot last forever though, things will change.

If the region experienced a massive linguistic transformation during the 6th Century, I would think it would have been noted many times before the 16th Century. If there was a language of "The Slavs" or the Dacians, I believe it would have been recorded as such.

The medieval placenames in the Peloponnese established by the 'Sklavenes' point to the presence of a language that was new to written record. It was also clearly related to the dialects spoken further north in Macedonia and beyond the Danube. I understand that many indigenous toponyms recorded in foreign languages have had their true forms corrupted, but the particular dialect which came to be spoken by most 'Sklavenes', if not foreign to the Balkans, did not appear prevalent prior to the 6th century.

Genetic evidence indicates that an early form of the languages that would come to be thought of as Indo-Iranian was carried into Central Eurasia out of Eastern Europe via populations defined by the Z93 subclade of the R1a haplogroup. It looks like this happened well over 5,000 years ago. Z93 evolved out of R1a populations in Southeastern Europe. Persian and Sanskrit, therefore, must preserve the language that many of our ancestors used to speak in Europe by virtue of the fact that they were our ancestors, as well.

Although the spread of genetics doesn't always equate to the spread of languages, and vice versa, in the above case I think what you're suggesting is plausible. The Indo-Iranian languages also came into contact with Dravidian and other languages upon reaching their ultimate destination.

It looks like people who would wind up speaking an early form of the language group that would eventually be classified as Baltic pushed North about 1,000 years after that. Many of the differences between Baltic and Indo-Iranian would have to have occurred to the South of where they arrived during that span and preserved where they arrived due to their isolation away from speakers who at that time spoke a language that would during this period resemble Baltic more than Persian or Slavic, as well.

Baltic could also be considered a northern Thracian language. After the move north to their current location, those of them that remained were influenced by some Germanic and Iranic elements (the latter are not those who originally seperated from the Balto-Slavic area in south-east Europe, but their descendants), which are evident in Slavic languages. Although varying in degree, both of these elements had a presence in the areas around and north of the Danube, and even further south in Macedonia. Are you of the opinion that Slavic first gained prominence as a dialect/language in Macedonia or elsewhere in the Balkans? What is your reasoning behind dating the Baltic move north in 2,000 BC?

So, genetics explains the Iranian mystery quite well for me and I think German colonies along trade routes over the last couple of thousands of years can be used as a proof for at least some portion of linguistic admixture. Would you happen to have a list that I could study further? There might be more to this aspect of the language group, beyond that and beyond simply being neighboring peoples.

I don't have a proper list compiled yet, but I post things of interest and a bit of research on the 'paleo-balkan balto-slavic' thread.

During the later periods of this occupation, Thracians, Illyrians and Macedonians were the Romans and recorded their own history and wrote these accounts in the Eastern Roman language.

Do you believe there is a counter argument that would show this statement to be invalid, so far as being used as an explanation for the apparent appearance of Slavic place names in the Balkans during the later part of the Eastern Roman Empire within the scope of the above interpretative model?

A good question. Can you cite some of those writers who wrote their own history? When you say 'eastern Roman language' you mean Greek, correct? Would that also mean the same Thracians, Illyrians and Macedonians - as Romans - recorded themselves as 'Sclavenes' and 'Sklavenes' in Latin and Greek respectively?

[Sovius]

What is your opinion on the Italo-Celtic theory?

I haven't read too much about it. Any theory that doesn't include the Basque language, though, I believe, would be sorely in need of reworking, as, according to R1b gene flow amongst populations largely defined by the I Haplogroup, commonalities found in Basque and these languages would preserve important clues as far as what kind of language or set of languages R1b populations brought with them into Western Europe.

The study of linguistics doesn't need to be contradictory when comparing historical development and geography. I don't think Pelister has much of an appreciation for either though. As for your post from a few pages back:

For me the contradiction comes in the way of structural linguistics. The Eastern and Western branches of the Slavic language group developed out of the Southern branch. Being two unique extensions that preserved different aspects of the Southern language group, the causal events that formed the resultant languages had to have emanated from the South. While not the only postulation that historical linguistics has produced, many researchers continue to believe that these languages emanated from the East and pushed West and South. I believe this belief, at least partially, comes from the formal reclassification of languages previously classified as either Illyrian or Sarmatian, as Slavic. It's still commonly accepted among academics to associate the Dacian (Slavic) push South with a massive cultural transformation that really only exists as a myth in my opinion. Almost all previous research has been done according to this interpretative model and so its often the only literature available to someone with an interest. If the region experienced a massive linguistic transformation during the 6th Century, I would think it would have been noted many times before the 16th Century. If there was a language of "The Slavs" or the Dacians, I believe it would have been recorded as such.

I agree with the above, but I would also add that Thracian, like any other language, had its own dialects, just like the kindred Illyrian and Macedonian languages. Where it concerns the ancestor of Slavic languages spoken today, if it developed as a dialect of Thracian, Illyrian or a combination of both, it must have been in a region where Germanic and Iranic languages had some influence.

Genetic evidence indicates that an early form of the languages that would come to be thought of as Indo-Iranian was carried into Central Eurasia out of Eastern Europe via populations defined by the Z93 subclade of the R1a haplogroup. It looks like this happened well over 5,000 years ago. Z93 evolved out of R1a populations in Southeastern Europe. Persian and Sanskrit, therefore, must preserve the language that many of our ancestors used to speak in Europe by virtue of the fact that they were our ancestors, as well. It looks like people who would wind up speaking an early form of the language group that would eventually be classified as Baltic pushed North about 1,000 years after that. Many of the differences between Baltic and Indo-Iranian would have to have occurred to the South of where they arrived during that span and preserved where they arrived due to their isolation away from speakers who at that time spoke a language that would during this period resemble Baltic more than Persian or Slavic, as well.

Slavic is like a contracted form of Baltic in many ways and as "Balts and Slavs" are practically genetically identical and have existed in nearly the same places as collective populations since well before 3,000 BC or so, people speaking a language more similar to what we think of as Baltic came to eventually speak a language more similar to what is typically regarded as Slavic. This language was in use in Western Europe 1,000s of miles away from Dacia in places that lack any evidence of Dacian conquest or migration.

So, genetics explains the Iranian mystery quite well for me and I think German colonies along trade routes over the last couple of thousands of years can be used as a proof for at least some portion of linguistic admixture. Would you happen to have a list that I could study further? There might be more to this aspect of the language group, beyond that and beyond simply being neighboring peoples. Pella, as an early cultural center would have had both Persian and Nordic traders visiting regularly, as well, so I don't believe minor influences should be discounted either as far as any language's development. I think the key is roads and routes.

Can you cite some specific examples in support of the above?

Illyrian comes close. Sarmatian would then be a descendent language group of the Illyrian language group and jive with what Russian chroniclers knew or believed during the 9th Century, but Macedonian just sounds cooler.

During the later periods of this occupation, Thracians, Illyrians and Macedonians were the Romans and recorded their own history and wrote these accounts in the Eastern Roman language.

Do you believe there is a counter argument that would show this statement to be invalid, so far as being used as an explanation for the apparent appearance of Slavic place names in the Balkans during the later part of the Eastern Roman Empire within the scope of the above interpretative model?

[Soldier of Macedon]

I hope your kidding.

About what exactly?

Western European languages were not Indo-European to begin with. Contemporary computational linguistics research has made the case that what we today call the Germanic languages, a classification that a Roman Period computational linguist would likely find quite puzzling, developed out of the convergence of Celtic, Italic, Baltic and Slavic (Slovenian) language speakers.

What is your opinion on the Italo-Celtic theory?

Regarding your discussion with Pelister, I posted a few thoughts on the matter a page or two back in support of the counter argument for the sake of demonstrating the complexities involved. I'm not sure if you got a chance to read those yet or not. I imagine geo-linguists and historical linguists are having similar knock down drag out matches about the same subject. There's definitely a schism forming.

The study of linguistics doesn't need to be contradictory when comparing historical development and geography. I don't think Pelister has much of an appreciation for either though. As for your post from a few pages back:

If I may be permitted to offer up a few observations, prior to the Roman occupation of Southeastern Europe, Thracian place names, and, indeed, fragments of the Thracian language, itself, appeared in the written record through the eyes and ears of populations who were largely colonial in nature and hostile towards these populations, writers who recorded these phonetic combinations within the confines (pronunciation rules) of their own language.

I agree with the above, but I would also add that Thracian, like any other language, had its own dialects, just like the kindred Illyrian and Macedonian languages. Where it concerns the ancestor of Slavic languages spoken today, if it developed as a dialect of Thracian, Illyrian or a combination of both, it must have been in a region where Germanic and Iranic languages had some influence.

I'd say the Slovenian classification better represents these languages as a general classification, as Slavic is based on Sklavene, as far as how the term entered the Western Roman collective consciousness and the Western European territories.

I understand what you're saying, but Slovenian may clash with the exact same name of the language spoken in modern Slovenia.

If one wanted to bind indigenous geographic nomenclature to a non-contradictory Aristotelian argument as a universal designation to better represent the language group's area of origination, Macedonian (Matka Domija) would be a good candidate term.

Can you cite some specific examples in support of the above?

A short term Dacian occupation of Roman held lands alongside an insurrection of Illyrians, Thracians and Macedonians, yes.

That is a good way to look at it, although with that occupation also came the adoption of this Dacian (Slavic) dialect by others who spoke related languages.

I believe Slav is one of those terms where misleading connotations have come to outweigh its original denotations as far as the general public is concerned. It's not about what the writer thinks, its about what the reader comes to think.

I agree, that is why writers need to present their perspectives on the term 'Slav' in a clinical and logical manner, so that readers can easier follow and cut through the 'confusion'.

[Sovius]

I hope your kidding.

I believe I should be saying the same exact thing to you.

[chentovist]

Bill77, actually Chentovist indirectly answered your question. Aside from linguistics, The slavs means Varangian Vikings, Kypchak/Cumans, Germanic goths and various other peoples in case of Russia. It was more or less same for the other so-called slavic peoples too.

I gave the examples of 3 medieval Russian rulers but he asks for another "slavic nobility". Well, these 3 rulers were the slavic nobility too and the rest were their descendants. These Kypchak/Cumans, Tatars, Vikings has became the slavs of Russia both for the nobility and the ordinary folk.

Onur, aren't these very Slavs the ones who have made the Turks of today resemble Europeans? Remember the original Turks were a yellow race resembling the Chinese.

[Voltron]

If I recall correctly, according to Orbini, Alexander the Great was slovjanski; therefore, using this objective approach that conveys the true meaning of "sloveni" and not that of a "Sklavene", he was a Macedonian who spoke an early form of one of the Slovenian (Paleo-Balkan) languages, not a Slav, who spoke a Slavic language, as a western translator would be convention bound to regard him as, as far as, what he or she thought Orbini was trying to communicate.

I hope your kidding.

[Sovius]

Voltron:
R1a1 has been present in Central Europe since at least the Corded Ware Period or roughly 2,600 years ago, give or take a century. Scientists, even ones utilizing obsolete historical interpretative models, now know this because the closest living descendents of people who once lived at the Eulau archeological site in what is now Germany have been identified through DNA testing as still living in places like Poland, Slovakia, Norway and Czechia. The M458 marker, which defines a good number of Modern Polish people, evolved out of this Haplogroup. Why are there so many "Corded Ware" toponyms in places like Norway and Sweden? Why would a population carrying an evolved mutation still be living amongst the population that this mutation evolved out of in the first place? I'll give Onur a hint. Its not mass extinction or population displacement.

Your paper also forgets to mention that most of the oldest samples of the general R1a Haplogroup that have been discovered in Europe have been found in places like Macedonia, not Northern Europe. Would this not have made Elau a cultural extension of pre Corded Ware Period SE European cultures? What was Elau known as prior to the adoption of the Frankish lingua franca in the area? When you walk across the street, do you still continue to speak the same language that you did before you crossed it? If you answered yes, then you are living proof that languages follow genes. And if language follows genes, so does culture.

SoM:
Thanks. Hope you're doing well. Been following the press releases. Its good to see the MTO moving forward with a sharp knife.

I hold the same opinion as archeologist JP Mallory. Western European languages were not Indo-European to begin with. Contemporary computational linguistics research has made the case that what we today call the Germanic languages, a classification that a Roman Period computational linguist would likely find quite puzzling, developed out of the convergence of Celtic, Italic, Baltic and Slavic (Slovenian) language speakers. I'm putting my money on the Netherlands, as that's where researchers can still find Venetic toponyms. Given the computational analysis, the Germanic languages had to have developed as an initial creole language. DNA evidence also suggests that European prehistory witnessed a coming together of different peoples in a single place. The Iron Age Jasdorf Culture would then be an extension of a new material culture that was largely influenced by Halstatt or, rather, Slavstatt Culture, as well as, having originally been populated, in part, by these same populations.

Regarding your discussion with Pelister, I posted a few thoughts on the matter a page or two back in support of the counter argument for the sake of demonstrating the complexities involved. I'm not sure if you got a chance to read those yet or not. I imagine geo-linguists and historical linguists are having similar knock down drag out matches about the same subject. There's definitely a schism forming.

Every language goes through changes every day to some degree or another, but when does a language become something that it no longer once was? If Dacian (Slavic) originated out of the same parent language use area that Thracian and Illyrian did, then I believe Aristotelian logic dictates that the causal language is the correct language to use as a general classification of a specific dependent language. If you pour a drop of non-fat milk into a container of low-fat milk, you're still basically left with the same thing. I'd say the Slovenian classification better represents these languages as a general classification, as Slavic is based on Sklavene, as far as how the term entered the Western Roman collective consciousness and the Western European territories. We can associate the meaning of sloveni with the slavic term, but to truly make better sense of Europe's past, I think it would be beneficial for scholars to use the term Dacian when they refer to Dacians as a matter of principle as far as objectively communicating to others and that Dacian should be treated as a Slovenian, not a Slavic language. If I recall correctly, according to Orbini, Alexander the Great was slovjanski; therefore, using this objective approach that conveys the true meaning of "sloveni" and not that of a "Sklavene", he was a Macedonian who spoke an early form of one of the Slovenian (Paleo-Balkan) languages, not a Slav, who spoke a Slavic language, as a western translator would be convention bound to regard him as, as far as, what he or she thought Orbini was trying to communicate.




It's a tough stretch of trail to follow to be sure. If one wanted to bind indigenous geographic nomenclature to a non-contradictory Aristotelian argument as a universal designation to better represent the language group's area of origination, Macedonian (Matka Domija) would be a good candidate term. A short term Dacian occupation of Roman held lands alongside an insurrection of Illyrians, Thracians and Macedonians, yes. A sea of smelly, mud covered savages who just happened to have established the Odrysian kingdom (read civilization) during Herodotus' time engulfing the entire penninsula, no. I believe Slav is one of those terms where misleading connotations have come to outweigh its original denotations as far as the general public is concerned. It's not about what the writer thinks, its about what the reader comes to think.

[Soldier of Macedon]

I think we are overanalysing the substance of what is being said. In my reference to " Germans " although not as accurate for the reasons you pointed it out was a general comparison. If rephrasing it to Germanic vs Slavic makes it more accurate than that is what I meant.

Germanic is more accurately compared to Balto-Slavic, and as a descendant of the latter, Slavic did not spread in the same way as Germanic.

DNA it doesnt reflect an ethnos. Thats why I dont buy into DNA reasoning but I guess if it can point to a migration of certain peoples than its perfectly reasonable to use it as evidence.

If there is no evidence of genetical commonalities having only spread from the 6th century AD among the peoples between Slovenia and Russia, then it can't be used in support of a 'Slavic migration'.

[Voltron]

Germans are not a good analogy, and like I told you before, the German language (before going through a number of changes and stages of development) originated from Proto Germanic in the south of Sweden and the northern tip of Germany. The ancestors of modern Germans are not the original "ethnos" of all other peoples who speak Germanic languages today, for example, the people and language of Germany did not spread into Scandinavia. Even in the case of the Netherlands, people who spoke Germanic languages settled the area well before a specifically 'German' ethnic identity was established, even if a common linguistic and partly cultural identity had existed at the time. Therefore, you need cease equating German with Germanic, you shouldn't have to be continually reminded of such a simple distinction. I find it interesting when some people try to connect the spread of the term 'Slavic' with DNA results and the similarities shared by the populations between Slovenia and Russia. Is there any evidence suggesting that the relevant genetical markers spread from the 6th century AD?

I think we are overanalysing the substance of what is being said. In my reference to " Germans " although not as accurate for the reasons you pointed it out was a general comparison. If rephrasing it to Germanic vs Slavic makes it more accurate than that is what I meant. DNA it doesnt reflect an ethnos. Thats why I dont buy into DNA reasoning but I guess if it can point to a migration of certain peoples than its perfectly reasonable to use it as evidence.

Is there any evidence suggesting that the relevant genetical markers spread from the 6th century AD?

For that to happen wouldnt you need before and after "6th century AD" samples to compare ? I dont know how one would be able to figure out the timeline of when it was introduced.