I thought that was just something that super-nationalistic Poles who are obsessed with the "Sarmatian mythos" talk about. You know, cause the Saurometai theoretically "all" spoke some kind of Iranian language.
What do you think about Poland?
- Thread starter TheLastOne36
- Start date
Didn't that went out of fashion in the 19th century?
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Being a super-nationalistic Pole? That's when it started!
So did being Polish. It's apparently made a comeback?
TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
So did being Polish. It's apparently made a comeback?
But it makes lots of sense given how we think Slavs migrated from originally.
I don't find anything strange in Slavs being close relatives of Iranians. Our closest linguistic relatives are Balts (Lithuanians, Latvians, extinct Prussians), then Iranians (Persians, Tadjiks, Ossetians, Kurds, Zaza, Luri, etc). Allegedly we also share similar DNA with some central asian crowd (which used to be iranian before it got mostly turkified). I simply accept it, if someone will prove otherwise, I'll accept it as well.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Really? I find that hard to believe given how strange written Lithuanian looks to me. Then again, the connections between German and English aren't that apparent either..
TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
Well, they aren't that close. Just the closest. Plus you have to remember that the modern Baltic languages had massive influences from it's neighbors.
Florin Curta DISAGREES
But it makes lots of sense given how we think Slavs migrated from originally.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Who? And do we really know where slavs originated? From what I seem to remember we always used to party in Poland, until some of us went south and some of us went east (for some reason).
Various Slavic linguists and historians have attempted to locate the "genesis" of the Slavs anywhere from the Pripyat Marshes to the forests of northern European Russia. Curta, who has done some of the most recent good revisionism on the whole thing, has argued that, rather like the model for the genesis of groups like the Goths, Alamanni, Burgundiones, and so on, the "Sklaveniai" originated as groups in the shadow of Roman fortifications on the lower Danube. This has of course been challenged by people like Peter Heather (who seems to love this stuff), and it's very much an open argument.
Curta's model fits better with the actual textual evidence and to a degree with the archaeological evidence (lack of material-cultural connections between the attested Slavs on the lower Danube, which we know were there, and the alleged homelands of the Slavs anywhere from Poland to Northern Russia), but it makes the linguistic side of things seem even more confusing. This is to be expected, because there is a great deal of confusion as to what constituted a "Slav" in the sixth century. Is this merely a linguistic label or a political label? The way the Greeks used the word Sklaveniai it seems to refer to frontier groups requiring a new military classification and means of dealing with them, as opposed to Avars, Huns, Gepids, Lombards, and the like. And, of course, we must consider the hilarious unreliability of linguistic evidence in determining historical facts.
Of course, none of the extant theories, as far as I am aware, have the "Slavs" migrating from the Central Asian steppe, so yeah, TLO's just out to lunch as far as that goes.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Interesting. And what of the "Northern Africa" origins theory?
Virote_Considon
The Great Dictator
There is no "Northern Africa" origins theory. Certain tribes of Slavs (most notably the Poles) migrated to North Africa and set up the Polish state.
Bah! We care not what your capitalist historians have to say about the issue. Their only goal is to demean the importance of the glorious Slavic civilization, whose achievements are unparalleled in human history! Seriousely though, the guy may have a point. According to the legend mentioned in the Tale of the Years Gone By, the Slavs originated from Danube, and later were driven out from there by certain Volohs, who are usually identified as Romans.
However, Venedai, Sklavenoi and Antae were mentioned by various antique autors way earlier than direct documented contacts between Slavs and Rome took place in VI century.
Toponymics suggests that the Slaviс core lies between Upper Vistula and Upper Dniepr.
Mhm. So the question is, do you identify Jordanes' Venedai with Slavs, or don't you? One of the things that mystifies me about Peter Heather is that the man has done more work on showing that Jordanes' Getica is essentially a work of sixth-century Ostrogothic propaganda to demonstrate "ancient lineage" than anyone else; he knows Jordanes' utter unreliability better than anyone. So why does he agree with the identification of the Venedai with the Slavs, a case which turns on the reliability of Roman authors in general and Jordanes specifically on the issue of ethnography for groups hundreds and thousands of miles away from Rome's frontiers?
I'd be careful about citing toponyms as evidence for historical migration; other than being hilariously unsystematic, the identification of certain things as "Slavic" or "Germanic" or whatever is notoriously fraught. Witness the old argument over the name of York in England, which was originally thought to have been a "new" Saxon name (Eoferwic), but which, as it turns out, can also plausibly be connected to the Brythonic name for the Roman city of Eburacum (Evrawg). I imagine that this case is even more fraught in places such as eastern Poland, where the written evidence for names is essentially nil until centuries after the supposed migrations and settlements happened.
If it's my opinion you're interested in, I've got to say yes, I do identify them as early Slavs. Though it's rather a matter of faith to me than factually-backed knowlege.
However, there are two things:
1. Germanics until recently refered to Western Slavs as Wends. Other neighbours, the Finns, do still refer to Slavs, Russians in particulary, as Vene or Venelainen. This name may have come from native ethnonym of Northern Slavs - Slovene.
2. The aforementioned Primary Chronicle mentiones a Slavic tribe of Viatichi who are said to come to Oka basin from the Liahi in the north. On some occasions their name is spelt as Ventichi.
There's also a Polish legend of princess Vanda, after whom a tribe was called, though I don't remember the whole story.
This of course cannot constituate a theory, but it may be rather convinceing for those who want to be convinced.
Never heard of this dood, so will restrain from commenting. Did hear about the propogative nature of Getica though.
Dat's tru to an extent. Again, it's more a matter of faith to me. I'm no historian, so somtimes will accept pretty explanations not necesarily backed with facts.
Only heard the latter version. When it comes to issues like that I usually side with Celts.
That's true of course. However, there also may be no reasons to suggest that toponymics changes completely with the new masters of territory. We have an example of Eastern Germany, where after a thousand years the occupied territory still retains plenty of original Slavic toponymics. Same with the Finno-Ugric part of Russia.
Well, the problem is that we don't know what those places were called "before" the "Slavs" got there, so we can't say that they were "original" names at all. Assuming that one attempts to make a connection between the furthest-back "original" place-name and large-scale repopulation and/or settlement - an extremely dubious claim in and of itself - the total lack of good evidence on what the "original" name was in a period quite relevant to the supposed Slavic settlement of these areas is rather noteworthy, hmm?
Relatively original, of course
This is a matter of how deep you're willing to dig. On a grander scale of things, of course, no ethnic group can claim autochtonity on any territory. The "ethnic group" itself is too vague a term. This is especially true for Indo-Europeans.
But on a smaller scale, for research and ego-boosting purposes, we can say that a territory held a certain period of time by certain people is "their". We can take first written accounts of toponyms as a base. What was before we don't know. Who knows what Leipzig was called before? But one thing we know - in German language this name doesn't make sense. It's a pronounciation of a perfectly understandible to any Slavic-speaking person name Lipetsk, meaning place of linden-trees. Or Brandenburg, which also doesn't translate to German iirc, but is a Slavic Branibor, meaning a pine grove of battle.
This of course doesn't imply that the land should be regained or something. Only in EU maybe.
Hopefully, we'll become a global united humanity withing our lifespan. Or die out all together.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I was under the impression that the names of certain cities/places in Brandenburg/Pommerania/eastern Germany have well understood slavic/sorbic origins. Maybe not
Prior to the conquest of the Charlemagne and the Wendish Crusade it was a territory of Slavic tribes of Bodrichi, Lutichi and Sorby.
Similar threads
