Tweet
The first attestations of the word in the sense of “Slavic” can also be found in Greek, in the 6th century of ourera. According to Vasmer himself, for example, the attestation of sclavos in Agathias (6th century) already has the meaning of “slave” (Aebischer 1936, 485). How do scholars explain the semantic development from “Slavic” to “slave”?
There is a whole collection of medieval sources, studied by the three fundamental studies on the history of Lat. sclavus (Aebischer 1936, Verlinden 1943, 1955), which shows that the earliest attestations of the word sclavus date back to the Early Middle Ages: precisely when the Slavs, in the traditional scenario, should undertake their ‘great migration’.
The only evidence for a great migration of Slavs in historical times 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, in other words a matter of perspective. 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 immesurable expanses”, he does not give the slightest indication of a recent arrival of theirs, but simply describes a status quo.
All historical sources irrefutably show that the Slavic area was the main reservoir of slaves in the whole period of Early Middle Ages, beginning probably in the 6th century, and with a peak around the 10th. This preference for slaves of Slavic origin can be explained: in that period Slavic people were the only ones who were still pagan, and this detail is most important as it explains why, by choosing them, early medieval slave traders – mostly Venetian, Genoese and Jewish – did not violate the new principles of the “Societas christiana”, introduced by Pope Gregory the Great at the end of the 6th century, according to which baptized people must be excluded from slavery.
Now, as this period is precisely the one in which the supposed ‘great migration’ of the Slavs should take place, the question arises: how can huge migrating groups that were supposed to be aggressively busy occupying half of Europe, from the Arctic area to the Black Sea, submerging and extinguishing all previous populations, have at the same time been chosen as the European slaves par excellence? This would clash against all that we know – and that history abundantly shows – , about the characters of ethnic and racial groups systematically reduced to slavery. In fact, if Slavs in the Early Middle Ages became the historical slaves of Europe, this implies that in that period, rather than being migrating to new territories and exterminating pre-existing people, they were known to have been stable in their territories, to be hard workers, and especially to be without much possibility to defend themselves from slave raiders and slave owners.
The basis of massive slav migrations and replacements of all people almost seems to be based on a gut feeling and inturn meaning a vastly embarrassing oversimplification of human history involving half of europe. If assumptions of the great slav migrations are based so strongly on a few yet vague points of historic reference - then that to me is quite extraordinary to say the least. Especially when archaeology, genetics and liguistics doesn't supports the theory of the great slavic migrations - thus the theory should more or less be classified as an obscure theory.
Further;
According to Russian scholar Oleg Trubačev (who still holds some traditional aspects), even the historian Jordanes’ collocation of the Veneti to the North of the Sclaveni, and Anti to their East, implies the Slavic presence in the South (idem, 228).
Many scholars have anticipated Trubačev’s thesis: Budimir, supported by numerous ex-Yugoslavian scholars, is now claiming a greater proximity of Ancient Slavs to the Balkanic region than traditionally thought; Kopitar sought the Proto-Slavic homeland on the Danube and in Pannonia; Niederle admitted the existence of Slavic enclaves in Thracia and in Illyiria already at the beginning of our era; and both Niederle and Šafárik considered as Slavic terms like Vulka, Vrbas, Tsierna e Pathissus (s. further) (idem,223, 227, 229).
There is a whole collection of medieval sources, studied by the three fundamental studies on the history of Lat. sclavus (Aebischer 1936, Verlinden 1943, 1955), which shows that the earliest attestations of the word sclavus date back to the Early Middle Ages: precisely when the Slavs, in the traditional scenario, should undertake their ‘great migration’.
The only evidence for a great migration of Slavs in historical times 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, in other words a matter of perspective. 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 immesurable expanses”, he does not give the slightest indication of a recent arrival of theirs, but simply describes a status quo.
All historical sources irrefutably show that the Slavic area was the main reservoir of slaves in the whole period of Early Middle Ages, beginning probably in the 6th century, and with a peak around the 10th. This preference for slaves of Slavic origin can be explained: in that period Slavic people were the only ones who were still pagan, and this detail is most important as it explains why, by choosing them, early medieval slave traders – mostly Venetian, Genoese and Jewish – did not violate the new principles of the “Societas christiana”, introduced by Pope Gregory the Great at the end of the 6th century, according to which baptized people must be excluded from slavery.
Now, as this period is precisely the one in which the supposed ‘great migration’ of the Slavs should take place, the question arises: how can huge migrating groups that were supposed to be aggressively busy occupying half of Europe, from the Arctic area to the Black Sea, submerging and extinguishing all previous populations, have at the same time been chosen as the European slaves par excellence? This would clash against all that we know – and that history abundantly shows – , about the characters of ethnic and racial groups systematically reduced to slavery. In fact, if Slavs in the Early Middle Ages became the historical slaves of Europe, this implies that in that period, rather than being migrating to new territories and exterminating pre-existing people, they were known to have been stable in their territories, to be hard workers, and especially to be without much possibility to defend themselves from slave raiders and slave owners.
The basis of massive slav migrations and replacements of all people almost seems to be based on a gut feeling and inturn meaning a vastly embarrassing oversimplification of human history involving half of europe. If assumptions of the great slav migrations are based so strongly on a few yet vague points of historic reference - then that to me is quite extraordinary to say the least. Especially when archaeology, genetics and liguistics doesn't supports the theory of the great slavic migrations - thus the theory should more or less be classified as an obscure theory.
Further;
According to Russian scholar Oleg Trubačev (who still holds some traditional aspects), even the historian Jordanes’ collocation of the Veneti to the North of the Sclaveni, and Anti to their East, implies the Slavic presence in the South (idem, 228).
Many scholars have anticipated Trubačev’s thesis: Budimir, supported by numerous ex-Yugoslavian scholars, is now claiming a greater proximity of Ancient Slavs to the Balkanic region than traditionally thought; Kopitar sought the Proto-Slavic homeland on the Danube and in Pannonia; Niederle admitted the existence of Slavic enclaves in Thracia and in Illyiria already at the beginning of our era; and both Niederle and Šafárik considered as Slavic terms like Vulka, Vrbas, Tsierna e Pathissus (s. further) (idem,223, 227, 229).
Comment