Who are the Slavs? - Citations and Sources

[Sovius]

Originally Posted by Voltron

I hope your kidding.

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

[Soldier of Macedon]

Originally Posted by Voltron

I hope your kidding.

About what exactly?

Originally Posted by Sovius

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Sovius

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.

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?

[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?

[Onur]

Originally Posted by 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?

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

[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.

[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]

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]

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.