Four questions for those who still believe in prehistoric Slavs and other fairy tales

[Taranis]

You are making a fallacy right in the begining,let me point you where;
The Sclavenes weren't called Sclavenes because they spoke Slavic,the authors tell as they spoke a barbarous language without giving as name,so yes clearly you apply modern linguistic term on a historical name that in the written records had no such meaning.

You've getting me completely wrong here, beause I'm not making a fallacy at all. I did not imply that the Sclavenes were called Sclavenes because they spoke Slavic - that would be circular logic. I did imply that the Sclavenes were Slavic because they are the first ethnic group where Slavic names are recorded. Big difference.

If Antes spoke Slavic and is linguistic term why would they have been called Antes,or the Wends-Wends?the name had no linguistic connotation in historical sources,therefore we should't twist it
You however can apply the term in modern linguistic sense today,but in anyway you can no describe people that weren't called Sclavenes as such due to historical accuracy.

I can very well do that, because ethnicity and linguistic affiliation are distinct concepts. If I can do that - determine the linguistic affiliation - for Celtic or Germanic ethnic groups, why should I be forbidden from doing this for a clearly (or probably, or possibly) Slavic ethnic group?

No it is not valid due to it's conotation and no they weren't both "Slavs" Sclavenes see the obvious names,the Avars then can be called Slavs too because with time they becomend Slavic speakers according to most linguists,about origin of the Antes some propose earlier Iranic origin,so i really don't see difference between them and Avars and their supposed "Slavicity".
As for the conglang claim you are just again twisting words.

I'm not twisting words, I'm just pointing out the consequence of Curta's theories: he says, and I'm quoting the title, he says "prehistoric Slavs" are "fairytales". The consequence is that he asserts that everything that linguistics (with validity, mind you) have to say about prehistoric Slavs are basically nonsense (i.e. "fairytales"). If that was the case, then you have to assume that Proto-Slavic was a conlang invented ad-hoc in the 500s in the Danubian basin. At that point, I cease to take Curta seriously.

It is just as silly as to imagine a "homeland" and some people supposedly "Slavs" without archeological/historical proof that they were migrating from Ukraine to Czech republic then come back later to Romania then to the Balkans.That answer was in consequence to adherents to that "theory".
He so far explained that;
1.No great flood of "Slavs" occured in the Balkans or Central Europe,something that your own theory you follow was embracing,with which you seem to agree with him,so obviosly good job.
2.He pointed that the name Sclavenes arose in the Danube basin and not anywhere else,or where our wishes want the name to be.You seem not to agree but on his side are historical and archeological sources,to the contrary on your is imagination and supposedly "most archaic river names" to which different linguists or Slavists had different things to say but the name you will never find there.
3. He done great job on the collapse of the Danube limes(Roman tactical withdrawal)

One point I do see is that we have a clear discontinuity / shift of language in a large part of Europe during the Migration Period. If you say such a migration did not happen, you have to come up with other ways to explain why, and where all of a sudden the Slavic languages came from. Curta's model essentially says "migration did not happen, Slavs do not have a prehistory", but it doesn't explain the situation in any way.

Finaly he recieved an award on his researches about early Slavs,the emotionaly attacks on him are irrelevant.

I'm not being emotional about it, but I've ceased to take him seriously years ago. At the start of this thread, I've made parallels between Florin Curta and folks like Paul Wexler, Quentin D. Atkinson, Theo Vennemann or Mario Alinei who adhere to ideas "out there".

And question to you,do you have a reason to drag the origin of the Marcomanni in northern Europe if they were located in Central Europe,

I never said that the Marcomanni came from northern Europe. The Marcomanni (before their conquest of Bohemia) were definitely in Central Europe, in my opinion somewhere in Central Germany (Mittelgebirge region).

why Sclavenes should be dragged from Romania (Danube basin) to Ukraine or Belorusia?

That's precisely the question I have directed at anybody who thinks that the Danube basin was the Slavic homeland.

What are those river names?

I'll get back to that.

Strabo thought that the name 'Germani' was an exonym and that it pretty much meant something like 'Genuine Celts'

Even if tribe is labeled Germanic by an ancient source it doesn't mean that it was. It might have been Celtic or even Slavic. Tacitus classifies Veneti as Germanic. It was more of a term used for inhabitants of a certain region with a more or less similar way of life than anything else.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Here's the issue (this is going somewhat off-topic): I do not take the statements of ancient authors for gospel with regards for ethnic/linguistic affiliation - it is more useful to read between what they say. Many of the allegedly "Germanic" tribes along/near the Rhine (Eburones, Nemetes, Tribocci, Treveri, Tungri, etc.) have overtly Celtic names associated with them. In my opinion, the name "Germani" is indeed Celtic in origin, but can be thought better of as "Near Ones".

With the Veneti (*Baltic Veneti, that is), if we follow Tacitus, he says that the Bastarnae speak Germanic, the other discussed tribes (Veneti, Fenni) do not, but the Veneti have a sedentary lifestyle as opposed to the nomadic Sarmatae. My personal hunch is that given the position (Gdansk Bay? Masuria?) they indeed were Balto-Slavic, but given the scarcity of data, it is impossible to tell beyond that. Wether they were the same ethnic group was the later "Wends" (Polabian Slavs) or wether this is merely the case of a (Germanic?) exonym drifting (see "Wallach", "Walloon", "Welsh") is impossible to tell from the data.

 

[LeBrok]

Here is your fallacy: I do not take a 21st century meaning and apply it to the 6th century without proof, I apply it with proof. I just think that the same rules apply all the time. If for example, I take the language families of Western and Central Europe, that question is very clear from the linguistic side:

"who is Celtic?"> someone who speaks a Celtic language.

"who is Germanic?"> someone who speaks a Germanic language.

"who is Basque?"> someone who speaks a Vasconic language.

For the Celtic languages, we have extensive evidence for much of Central and Western Europe in the Antiquity (including some written texts). For the Germanic languages, we also have a fair bit of evidence in Central Europe in Antiquity. For Basque the situation is a lot weaker, we have the Aquitanian (Old Basque) place names and personal names from Antiquity. Basically, why should this approach be different for Slavic languages? Because Slavic languages are special snowflakes for which the rules of linguistics do not apply? Hardly. So in my opinion, someone cannot be a Slav without speaking a Slavic language. Were the Sclavenes and Antes were thus Slavic? They were the earliest recorded people to be unanimously identifiable as Slavic. And when Curta makes the (condescending) statement that Prehistoric Slavs are 'fairytales', he does not solve anything with it. The Slavic languages have to come from somewhere. In my opinion, the question "who is a Slav" (read: who speaks a Slavic language) is just as valid in the 21st century as it is in the 6th century or the 1st century. Only that we do not know with certainty who were the Slavic speakers in the 1st century (unless you follow Curta's fallacious postulates to the end and make the ridiculous claim that no one spoke Slavic in the 1st century because it was an invented conlang). Well, that is an obviously silly (but in my opinion educative) example that you pick Spain for the Slavic homeland: we cannot just claim that. But we have evidence to disprove that idea, because we have several lines of evidence: first, we have place names and ethnic names from the Antiquity (the Roman period), and we have no evidence for Slavic place names there (we do have Celtic, Iberian, Punic and Greek names attested for Spain, in approximately that order of frequency from most numerous to least numerous). The other line of evidence comes from the modern Slavic languages themselves (see loanwords, comparative method and internal reconstruction for further reference), not to mention the fact that the most closely related languages inside the greater Indo-European family are the Baltic languages, which places the language family firmly into eastern Europe.The reconstructed homeland based on river names is still valid in my opinion (and not easily overturned), because the error is not in the methodology. What other explanation do you have that the most archaic Slavic river names are found precisely there? According to Curta's ideas, they shouldn't be there. To me, asking these questions is not tied with 'modern nationalism' in any way. Linguistics do not violate archaeology. Archaeology has to be interpreted differently to be compatible with the linguistic evidence.In my opinion, it would be more sensible to assume that it is a feature that developed in-situ on the western Balkans.My problem is that Curta does not explain anything. He basically declares (and its a declaration, and a fairly arbitrary one) that linguistics has it all wrong, but I do not see any reason to assume so. If the methodology works for any other language or language family, why should it not work for Slavic? The error is not in the methods (see above), the error is not in the data (see above). In science, if you want to replace an existing model, you need to come up with a better model that incorporates the existing evidence and explains it in a more satisfying, more accurate fashion. When you say (like Curta seems to imply) "existing evidence is worthless", that is not coming up with a better model, that is dogmatism.Little evidence: yes. No evidence: that would be wrong. Here's a (non-exhaustive) list of tribes (somewhat anachronistic):

Beautifully said. 1-0 for Taranis.

 

[Milan]

You've getting me completely wrong here, beause I'm not making a fallacy at all. I did not imply that the Sclavenes were called Sclavenes because they spoke Slavic - that would be circular logic. I did imply that the Sclavenes were Slavic because they are the first ethnic group where Slavic names are recorded. Big difference.

I can very well do that, because ethnicity and linguistic affiliation are distinct concepts. If I can do that - determine the linguistic affiliation - for Celtic or Germanic ethnic groups, why should I be forbidden from doing this for a clearly (or probably, or possibly) Slavic ethnic group?

You can call them Slavic in linguistic sense if there is proof for it,but in historical context Sclavenes are Sclavenes,Wends are Wends and Antes are Antes,their histories,place of dwelling not the same.
The name Slav come from Sclavene.

I'm not twisting words, I'm just pointing out the consequence of Curta's theories: he says, and I'm quoting the title, he says "prehistoric Slavs" are "fairytales". The consequence is that he asserts that everything that linguistics (with validity, mind you) have to say about prehistoric Slavs are basically nonsense (i.e. "fairytales"). If that was the case, then you have to assume that Proto-Slavic was a conlang invented ad-hoc in the 500s in the Danubian basin. At that point, I cease to take Curta seriously.

You don't understand corectly there,the name Sclavene appear in the 6th century on the border with Roman empire-Danube basin,Romania and simultaneosly on Balkans,not in Ukraine,Belorusia,yes it is fairytale if you want to point otherwise,you have no proofs for such claims but imagination and twisting of written data.

One point I do see is that we have a clear discontinuity / shift of language in a large part of Europe during the Migration Period. If you say such a migration did not happen, you have to come up with other ways to explain why, and where all of a sudden the Slavic languages came from. Curta's model essentially says "migration did not happen, Slavs do not have a prehistory", but it doesn't explain the situation in any way.

Again the name Sclavene(Slav) appear in 6th century for whatever circumstances in the Danube basin,yes the name itself is not pre-historic,you can not find data about it prior,and you can not make or construct pre-history out of it,despite that you want to tell that the name itself was applied or used by the people even in Milograd culture 7 B.C to 1.A.D? hence they migrated into Danube basin with that name,no that is fallacy.

I'm not being emotional about it, but I've ceased to take him seriously years ago. At the start of this thread, I've made parallels between Florin Curta and folks like Paul Wexler, Quentin D. Atkinson, Theo Vennemann or Mario Alinei who adhere to ideas "out there".

Mario Alinei generaly the theory of Slavs is much better than the laughable one from the 19th century.
Also Quntin Atkinson have his own models,haven't heard about the rest.

I never said that the Marcomanni came from northern Europe. The Marcomanni (before their conquest of Bohemia) were definitely in Central Europe, in my opinion somewhere in Central Germany (Mittelgebirge region).

That's precisely the question I have directed at anybody who thinks that the Danube basin was the Slavic homeland.

Then why you push the Sclavenes to have migrated in the Danube basin from current Ukraine,despite the name was never recorded there,nor you have proves that they migrated from there.
That is one big misconception.
I can claim the same way that Marcomanni came from Scandinavia or elsewhere "just because we find there the most archaic river names of Germanic origin",whether is true or not,despite we know them from central Europe,just as we does know the Sclavenes in the Danube basin.

 

[Nik]

You can call them Slavic in linguistic sense if there is proof for it,but in historical context Sclavenes are Sclavenes,Wends are Wends and Antes are Antes,their histories,place of dwelling not the same.
The name Slav come from Sclavene.

You don't understand corectly there,the name Sclavene appear in the 6th century on the border with Roman empire-Danube basin,Romania and simultaneosly on Balkans,not in Ukraine,Belorusia,yes it is fairytale if you want to point otherwise,you have no proofs for such claims but imagination and twisting of written data.

Again the name Sclavene(Slav) appear in 6th century for whatever circumstances in the Danube basin,yes the name itself is not pre-historic,you can not find data about it prior,and you can not make or construct pre-history out of it,despite that you want to tell that the name itself was applied or used by the people even in Milograd culture 7 B.C to 1.A.D? hence they migrated into Danube basin with that name,no that is fallacy.

So similarly we can conclude that because the Romans came into contact first with a group of people they called Graeci in Southern Italy, that means they are the only true Graeci despite the fact that the Hellenes spoke the same language, therefore either the Graeci and Hellenes are different people or the Hellenes came from Magna Graecia.

Before trying to monopolize the ethnogenesis of the Slavs, perhaps u can take a minute to reflect and consider the fact that ancient authors applied the name of the first tribe they encountered to all the other related/similar tribes beyond them, although they knew of Antes and Wends.

As I've mentioned before in previous posts, you can't really argue on the true ethnicity of the Sclavenes as they absorbed many people into their society. Personally, I believe that in the Balkans the absorption was rather voluntarily as we know from various cases that many subjects of the Roman Empire during this era were not really happy with it and would rather join the "cause" of the Goths (recorded proof) and Slavs (based on the proof they were joined voluntarily in many).

What comes to mind is the Slavic tribe of Rhynchinoi, sometimes referred to as Vlachorhynchinoi and the fact that in many Ragusan and Venetian sources mention Vlachs in Bosnia & Herzegovina, Lika (Croatia), Montenegro, Albania, and not because of the usual story where Serbs were called Vlachs cause of Orthodoxy, as they clearly mentioned both and knew the difference. Similarly, haplogroup I2a-Din peaks among many Vlachs from Albania and could be attributed to the southern migration of the Vlachs in Epirus and Thessaly, places were Slavs were recorded to have settled as well. So why is it that the Slavs disappeared due to Hellenization/Albanization in these areas and the Vlachs didnt?

 

[Taranis]

You can call them Slavic in linguistic sense if there is proof for it,but in historical context Sclavenes are Sclavenes,Wends are Wends and Antes are Antes,their histories,place of dwelling not the same.
The name Slav come from Sclavene.

So you're forbidding me to call them "Slavic" (even if, in a linguistic sense) because I am in a historic context?

You don't understand corectly there,the name Sclavene appear in the 6th century on the border with Roman empire-Danube basin,Romania and simultaneosly on Balkans,not in Ukraine,Belorusia,yes it is fairytale if you want to point otherwise,you have no proofs for such claims but imagination and twisting of written data.

You are talking about the name Sclavene. I wouldn't disagree with that. But I am talking, and have been talking all the time, about speakers of Slavic languages. The earliest recorded Slavic names are amongst the Sclavenes. And what you are saying, in consequence is, because Slavic languages are not recorded before (because as you say, I have no proofs, and it must be a fairytale), Slavic languages did not exist before. Which goes back to what I said before: the consequence of this insistence on the Sclavenes in the Danube region as the first and only real Slavs, and your denial of any kind of movement into the region is that the Slavic languages were a conlang invented in the 500s.

Again the name Sclavene(Slav) appear in 6th century for whatever circumstances in the Danube basin,yes the name itself is not pre-historic,you can not find data about it prior,and you can not make or construct pre-history out of it,despite that you want to tell that the name itself was applied or used by the people even in Milograd culture 7 B.C to 1.A.D?

I can very much construct a prehistory out of it. The name appears in the 6th century, and I never said that it was used by people of the Milograd culture. I said in the past that the Milograd culture is one of the cultures that are suitable as possible candidates for speaking early Proto-Slavic. If that hypothesis is correct, then I can verymuch call them "Slavs" (in a linguistic sense, and I insist on that). I do not see any necessity to assume that they have called themselves "Slavs"/Sclavenes. But due to the associated methods (internal reconstruction, comparative method and the Proto-Slavic loanwords), I have to assume that such a prehistory exists.

hence they migrated into Danube basin with that name,no that is fallacy.

I did not say that (and you complain about me twisting words?). I'm not ruling out that the name "Sclavenes" (detached from the Slavic languages, big distinction) is a new identity that arose in the Danubian basin. That part I could buy. But it is clear, from a linguistic perspective, because we have data from the previous centuries in the Danubian basin, that the Slavic languages were not present in the area (something I have written several times over in this thread). And this is not a fallacy, but a fact. The consequence is that the Slavic languages were introduced from somewhere else (or invented as a conlang, and I don't need to tell you how nonsensical that is).

Mario Alinei generaly the theory of Slavs is much better than the laughable one from the 19th century.
Also Quntin Atkinson have his own models,haven't heard about the rest.

Mario Alinei's ideas of extreme language immobility (and PIE as a Paleolithic language) are laughable. Aktinson's proposals for when languages split up are completely unrealistic, and his map of the PIE expansion is completely counterfactual. The other authors have not written about Slavic languages (which would explain why you haven't heard of them), but are cranks in similar ways to the others. I mentioned them for the sake of completeness because Curta is in good company with his assertion that prehistoric Slavs are a "fairytale".

Then why you push the Sclavenes to have migrated in the Danube basin from current Ukraine,despite the name was never recorded there,nor you have proves that they migrated from there.
That is one big misconception.
I can claim the same way that Marcomanni came from Scandinavia or elsewhere "just because we find there the most archaic river names of Germanic origin",whether is true or not,despite we know them from central Europe,just as we does know the Sclavenes in the Danube basin.

Again, I did not say that the Sclavenes migrated to the Danube from the area of the Ukraine (or Belarus). I said that the Slavic languages were most probably introduced from that area. If you say that they were not introduced through people migrating (Curta's postulate), you have to explain why and how they were introduced by another mechanism (cultural diffusion?). To me the question of the Sclavene identity (or not) is at the end of the day completely irrelevant in this.

 

[Milan]

So similarly we can conclude that because the Romans came into contact first with a group of people they called Graeci in Southern Italy, that means they are the only true Graeci despite the fact that the Hellenes spoke the same language, therefore either the Graeci and Hellenes are different people or the Hellenes came from Magna Graecia.Before trying to monopolize the ethnogenesis of the Slavs, perhaps u can take a minute to reflect and consider the fact that ancient authors applied the name of the first tribe they encountered to all the other related/similar tribes beyond them, although they knew of Antes and Wends.

There is no true Graeci or true Slavs,there is just Graeci and Slavs,both of them are true,it doesn't matter to what "haplogroup" they belong or where do they dwell.
Graeci is totaly different term,of different origin and different historical circumstances and both come to be synonymous with Hellen or denoting Greek speaker whatever.Antes and Sclavenes if i understood you correct can not be the same with your example>>Antes were Roman allies most of the time,Sclavenes were Roman enemies,they were engaging in wars between eachother,Antes siege to exist as polity,the Sclavene name survived to this day.
You obviosly failed to understand what i was implying and that is the importance of their location,the people of historical sources we consider to be Slavs-Sclavenes,Antes,Wends.
Slav in later times came to represent a much broader term.

Or you want to say that all of them called themselves Sclavenes(Slavs) but the historians atributed them somehow different names?
Maybe but we have no such data,moreover the name appeared not to be used in ethnic context,more of linguistic or religious kin as some propose.

As I've mentioned before in previous posts, you can't really argue on the true ethnicity of the Sclavenes as they absorbed many people into their society. Personally, I believe that in the Balkans the absorption was rather voluntarily as we know from various cases that many subjects of the Roman Empire during this era were not really happy with it and would rather join the "cause" of the Goths (recorded proof) and Slavs (based on the proof they were joined voluntarily in many).

What comes to mind is the Slavic tribe of Rhynchinoi, sometimes referred to as Vlachorhynchinoi and the fact that in many Ragusan and Venetian sources mention Vlachs in Bosnia & Herzegovina, Lika (Croatia), Montenegro, Albania, and not because of the usual story where Serbs were called Vlachs cause of Orthodoxy, as they clearly mentioned both and knew the difference. Similarly, haplogroup I2a-Din peaks among many Vlachs from Albania and could be attributed to the southern migration of the Vlachs in Epirus and Thessaly, places were Slavs were recorded to have settled as well. So why is it that the Slavs disappeared due to Hellenization/Albanization in these areas and the Vlachs didnt?

This belong in other thread

 

[Nik]

There is no true Graeci or true Slavs,there is just Graeci and Slavs,both of them are true,it doesn't matter to what "haplogroup" they belong or where do they dwell.
Graeci is totaly different term,of different origin and different historical circumstances and both come to be synonymous with Hellen or denoting Greek speaker whatever.Antes and Sclavenes if i understood you correct can not be the same with your example>>Antes were Roman allies most of the time,Sclavenes were Roman enemies,they were engaging in wars between eachother,Antes siege to exist as polity,the Sclavene name survived to this day.
You obviosly failed to understand what i was implying and that is the importance of their location,the people of historical sources we consider to be Slavs-Sclavenes,Antes,Wends.
Slav in later times came to represent a much broader term.

Or you want to say that all of them called themselves Sclavenes(Slavs) but the historians atributed them somehow different names?
We have no such data,moreover the name appeared not to be used in ethnic context,more of linguistic or religious kin as some propose.

I don't intend to play games by being sarcastic all the time but ur reasoning that because the Antes were Roman allies and Sclavenes enemies, therefore they're not the same people, is like saying that Rhodians were not Greeks because they were allies with Rome.

I didnt say they all called themselves Sclaveni as I even consider the possibility that maybe even the Sclaveni didn't call themselves as such and most probably were identified by the subtribes they belonged to. Sclaveni could have been a non ethic term comprised of various ethnicities that used what we call nowadays Slavic as a lingua franca, just like what happened with all the other barbarians that pillaged Rome at the time (eg Huns).

All I was saying was that probably the Romans first came into contact with these new people in Danube basic whom they called Sclaveni and due to their similarity with the Antes and Wends, they decided to group them altogether under the same name of the Sclaveni again.

To simplify it, let's call all 3 tribes as Slavs and when u read Taranis posts about the homeland theories, think of the Slavs and not only their off-shot the Sclaveni.

I am trying to understand ur last sentence but I wanna make sure I got it right. Are u saying that the Sclaveni, Antes and Wends were ethnically different but linguistically the same? If yes, who is the first bearer of the Proto-Slavic language then?

 

[Milan]

I don't intend to play games by being sarcastic all the time but ur reasoning that because the Antes were Roman allies and Sclavenes enemies, therefore they're not the same people, is like saying that Rhodians were not Greeks because they were allies with Rome

Same people mean what to you,speaking same language? being in one and same polity,using the same name? you are not sarcastic but your comparisons are out of context,time and place.

I didnt say they all called themselves Sclaveni as I even consider the possibility that maybe even the Sclaveni didn't call themselves as such and most probably were identified by the subtribes they belonged to. Sclaveni could have been a non ethic term comprised of various ethnicities that used what we call nowadays Slavic as a lingua franca, just like what happened with all the other barbarians that pillaged Rome at the time (eg Huns).

............

All I was saying was that probably the Romans first came into contact with these new people in Danube basic whom they called Sclaveni and due to their similarity with the Antes and Wends, they decided to group them altogether under the same name of the Sclaveni again.

Well generally the term Sclavene replaced other terms.
Wend name as well survive to this day probably exonym,see Finish-Venaja(Russia)

To simplify it, let's call all 3 tribes as Slavs and when u read Taranis posts about the homeland theories, think of the Slavs and not only their off-shot the Sclaveni.

I am not imagining thought,i am myself more realist.

I am trying to understand ur last sentence but I wanna make sure I got it right. Are u saying that the Sclaveni, Antes and Wends were ethnically different but linguistically the same? If yes, who is the first bearer of the Proto-Slavic language then?

I can't say who is proto-slavic,but obviosly their polities were different as well places of dwelling etc.

 

[Milan]

So you're forbidding me to call them "Slavic" (even if, in a linguistic sense) because I am in a historic context?

No i just meant to point out on their early history and geography how it looked in historic context of people we consider Slavs,before we have the picture of Slavs as we have now which sometimes is misleading,especialy given the theories of migration.

You are talking about the name Sclavene. I wouldn't disagree with that. But I am talking, and have been talking all the time, about speakers of Slavic languages. The earliest recorded Slavic names are amongst the Sclavenes. And what you are saying, in consequence is, because Slavic languages are not recorded before (because as you say, I have no proofs, and it must be a fairytale), Slavic languages did not exist before. Which goes back to what I said before: the consequence of this insistence on the Sclavenes in the Danube region as the first and only real Slavs, and your denial of any kind of movement into the region is that the Slavic languages were a conlang invented in the 500s.



I can very much construct a prehistory out of it. The name appears in the 6th century, and I never said that it was used by people of the Milograd culture. I said in the past that the Milograd culture is one of the cultures that are suitable as possible candidates for speaking early Proto-Slavic. If that hypothesis is correct, then I can verymuch call them "Slavs" (in a linguistic sense, and I insist on that). I do not see any necessity to assume that they have called themselves "Slavs"/Sclavenes. But due to the associated methods (internal reconstruction, comparative method and the Proto-Slavic loanwords), I have to assume that such a prehistory exists.



I did not say that (and you complain about me twisting words?). I'm not ruling out that the name "Sclavenes" (detached from the Slavic languages, big distinction) is a new identity that arose in the Danubian basin. That part I could buy. But it is clear, from a linguistic perspective, because we have data from the previous centuries in the Danubian basin, that the Slavic languages were not present in the area (something I have written several times over in this thread). And this is not a fallacy, but a fact. The consequence is that the Slavic languages were introduced from somewhere else (or invented as a conlang, and I don't need to tell you how nonsensical that is).



Mario Alinei's ideas of extreme language immobility (and PIE as a Paleolithic language) are laughable. Aktinson's proposals for when languages split up are completely unrealistic, and his map of the PIE expansion is completely counterfactual. The other authors have not written about Slavic languages (which would explain why you haven't heard of them), but are cranks in similar ways to the others. I mentioned them for the sake of completeness because Curta is in good company with his assertion that prehistoric Slavs are a "fairytale".



Again, I did not say that the Sclavenes migrated to the Danube from the area of the Ukraine (or Belarus). I said that the Slavic languages were most probably introduced from that area. If you say that they were not introduced through people migrating (Curta's postulate), you have to explain why and how they were introduced by another mechanism (cultural diffusion?). To me the question of the Sclavene identity (or not) is at the end of the day completely irrelevant in this.

Taranis we exchausted this thread,you have your arguments with which i doesn't disagree,i am not that kind of expert in the field so to answer them,obviosly much better haven't answered them yet..
We have many hypothesis,among them the general Indo-European hypothesis,so why not Slavic hypothesis.
What i like about Curta is not because i think he is always right,or got it all right,because he have critical thinking and he challenge some previous theories,especialy if are build out of wishful thinking(romanticism),even thought as i said, i do not consider that holy scripture,generally he has knowledge about medieval South-East Europe.

 

[Nik]

So basically u support Curta's theory because it fits ur interest (nations pride) and u will never accept that ur just a victim of assimilation like all we humans are. Not only ure special in this sense, but u end up counter attacking and claiming that it's u south Slavs who assimilated the northern wannabes. Interesting and unique.

So far I only knew Serbs proud of Mother Russia or proud Illyrians. Now I know indigenous Daco-Thracians that assimilated the numerous Scythians, Sarmatians, Germanics and Balts. And before u say anything, I know in ur last post u puzzled on the real Proto-Slavic speakers but u have made it clear what u really believe/want to believe and won't change it no matter what.

Well in that case there's no arguing with u as ure here to impose theories and not debate or learn.

 

[Taranis]

There is no true Graeci or true Slavs,there is just Graeci and Slavs,both of them are true,it doesn't matter to what "haplogroup" they belong or where do they dwell.
Graeci is totaly different term,of different origin and different historical circumstances and both come to be synonymous with Hellen or denoting Greek speaker whatever.Antes and Sclavenes if i understood you correct can not be the same with your example>>

I'd like to note that we have Greek (in various stages) attested from the 15th century BC, and if we disregard the Greek dark age (ca. 1200 BC to about 800 BC), this record is continuous.

Antes were Roman allies most of the time,Sclavenes were Roman enemies,they were engaging in wars between eachother,Antes siege to exist as polity,the Sclavene name survived to this day.
You obviosly failed to understand what i was implying and that is the importance of their location,the people of historical sources we consider to be Slavs-Sclavenes,Antes,Wends.
Slav in later times came to represent a much broader term.

Or you want to say that all of them called themselves Sclavenes(Slavs) but the historians atributed them somehow different names?
Maybe but we have no such data,moreover the name appeared not to be used in ethnic context,more of linguistic or religious kin as some propose.

This belong in other thread

I'd like to note that it is not relevant what they called themselves (even if I concede that the "speaker" versus "mute" dichotomy is quite suggestive). But what is pivotal that they spoke early Slavic. As for your claim that "there is no such data": if you had read my posts more thoroughly about the various methods of linguistics, even if the ancient (prehistoric) Slavs were iliterate, we do have such data.

No i just meant to point out on their early history and geography how it looked in historic context of people we consider Slavs,before we have the picture of Slavs as we have now which sometimes is misleading,especialy given the theories of migration.

Taranis we exchausted this thread,you have your arguments with which i doesn't disagree,i am not that kind of expert in the field so to answer them,obviosly much better haven't answered them yet..
We have many hypothesis,among them the general Indo-European hypothesis,so why not Slavic hypothesis.
What i like about Curta is not because i think he is always right,or got it all right,because he have critical thinking and he challenge some previous theories,especialy if are build out of wishful thinking(romanticism),even thought as i said, i do not consider that holy scripture,generally he has knowledge about medieval South-East Europe.

We can agree to disagree, but I'd like to note that I am not driven by any form of "romanticism" (not to 19th century ideas) or ethnocentrism on the field. The only concept that I am attached to is that I believe that the same methods by which we judge languages should apply everywhere. My problem with Curta's position is that he appears to live in denial (a denial which I find reckless) about the linguistic data we have about the centuries before the Σκλαβηνοι appear on the stage of history.

Lastly, there's one question which you haven't answered yet: if Slavic languages, as a sub-branch of the greater Indo-European family, did not originate in the forest zone of Eastern Europe (which I still see as the most sensible option), where did they come from?

 

[A. Papadimitriou]

I can very much construct a prehistory out of it. The name appears in the 6th century, and I never said that it was used by people of the Milograd culture. I said in the past that the Milograd culture is one of the cultures that are suitable as possible candidates for speaking early Proto-Slavic. If that hypothesis is correct, then I can verymuch call them "Slavs" (in a linguistic sense, and I insist on that). I do not see any necessity to assume that they have called themselves "Slavs"/Sclavenes. But due to the associated methods (internal reconstruction, comparative method and the Proto-Slavic loanwords), I have to assume that such a prehistory exists.

I don't believe the loanwords can prove anything. If a loanword is attested in OCS it could have been a loan in that particular South Slavic dialect alone.

 

[Taranis]

I don't believe the loanwords can prove anything. If a loanword is attested in OCS it could have been a loan in that particular South Slavic dialect alone.

Well, what you do not know, if you believe that, is that loanwords are subject to sound laws, and borrowed words cannot be retroactively subject to sound laws in the past, before the borrowing took place. If you have words that are apparently related in two languages but cannot be derived through the languages' respective sound laws, then you have a very clear evidence for a borrowing.

 

[A. Papadimitriou]

Well, what you do not know, if you believe that, is that loanwords are subject to sound laws, and borrowed words cannot be retroactively subject to sound laws in the past, before the borrowing took place. If you have words that are apparently related in two languages but cannot be derived through the languages' respective sound laws, then you have a very clear evidence for a borrowing.

Ι believe you didn't understand. The loans in the link are mostly loans found in OCS. I don't believe that you can prove that these loanwords existed in other unattested contemporaneous Slavic dialects or in earlier dialects or in 'Proto-Slavic'.
If you can, I would like to learn how it's done.

 

[Taranis]

Ι believe you didn't understand. The loans in the link are mostly loans found in OCS. I don't believe that you can prove that these loanwords existed in other unattested contemporaneous Slavic dialects or in earlier dialects or in 'Proto-Slavic'.
If you can, I would like to learn how it's done.

I very well understand. I'm aware that in the link, they use Old Church Slavic mostly for sample cognates because it is the oldest attested Slavic language for which there is extensive literature (it thus occupies a somewhat similar position as Old Irish has for the Celtic languages, or maybe Gothic for the Germanic languages). However, these loans can be generally found in all branches of Slavic (in particular because OCS is a South Slavic language, it is not the ancestor of the West Slavic and East Slavic languages). Even if we had OCS completely unattested, thanks to the comparative method we could reconstruct that these words would have been 1) part of the common vocabulary 2) borrowed from elsewhere, in particular if you compare the "native" vocabulary of Slavic (the vocabulary the language family has inherited from from earlier Balto-Slavic and earlier common IE). It can be demonstrated that way that these loanwords must have existed in the past (or more accurately, entered the lexicon of the language in the past).

For example, one word listed there is the word for 'bridge' (e.g. modern Polish "most"), cognate with the English "mast" and German "Mast" (which both have a somewhat different meaning, i.e. the pole of a ship). The Proto-Slavic language made a sound shift by which earlier (short) *a regularly became *o, and by that we can conclude that the word for bridge was borrowed before the shift took place. Another example are Latin loanwords, such as the words for 'donkey' and 'cat' (Polish "osioł" and "kot" versus Latin "asellus" and "cattus" - and note that the former entered via a Germanic mediation, because the *e > *i shift did not happen in Slavic, while it was a regular sound change in Late Proto-Germanic). Had these words been borrowed after the sound shift had taken place, they could not become retroactively shifted from *a to *o. Instead, the *a would have been preserved An example for this would be the word for 'copper' in Serbo-Croatian ("bakar"), which was borrowed from Ottoman Turkish (compare modern Turkish "bakır"). Another aspect in the Slavic languages that are useful for a relative chronology are the different stages of palatalization that took place.

As you can see, its not black magic nor hocus pocus.

 

[Tomenable]

This is very interesting:

http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=69428

http://file.scirp.org/pdf/AA_2016080315161595.pdf

 

[Nik]

This is very interesting:

http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=69428

http://file.scirp.org/pdf/AA_2016080315161595.pdf

A conclusion drawn from 3 words and 1 ethnonym.

 

[Milan]

I very well understand. I'm aware that in the link, they use Old Church Slavic mostly for sample cognates because it is the oldest attested Slavic language for which there is extensive literature (it thus occupies a somewhat similar position as Old Irish has for the Celtic languages, or maybe Gothic for the Germanic languages). However, these loans can be generally found in all branches of Slavic (in particular because OCS is a South Slavic language, it is not the ancestor of the West Slavic and East Slavic languages). Even if we had OCS completely unattested, thanks to the comparative method we could reconstruct that these words would have been 1) part of the common vocabulary 2) borrowed from elsewhere, in particular if you compare the "native" vocabulary of Slavic (the vocabulary the language family has inherited from from earlier Balto-Slavic and earlier common IE). It can be demonstrated that way that these loanwords must have existed in the past (or more accurately, entered the lexicon of the language in the past).

For example, one word listed there is the word for 'bridge' (e.g. modern Polish "most"), cognate with the English "mast" and German "Mast" (which both have a somewhat different meaning, i.e. the pole of a ship). The Proto-Slavic language made a sound shift by which earlier (short) *a regularly became *o, and by that we can conclude that the word for bridge was borrowed before the shift took place. Another example are Latin loanwords, such as the words for 'donkey' and 'cat' (Polish "osioł" and "kot" versus Latin "asellus" and "cattus" - and note that the former entered via a Germanic mediation, because the *e > *i shift did not happen in Slavic, while it was a regular sound change in Late Proto-Germanic). Had these words been borrowed after the sound shift had taken place, they could not become retroactively shifted from *a to *o. Instead, the *a would have been preserved An example for this would be the word for 'copper' in Serbo-Croatian ("bakar"), which was borrowed from Ottoman Turkish (compare modern Turkish "bakır"). Another aspect in the Slavic languages that are useful for a relative chronology are the different stages of palatalization that took place.

As you can see, its not black magic nor hocus pocus.

I meant to leave this thread for a while,but apparently you raised other questions,so before i answer them and ask questions to you,let me comment on this.
You completely disregard the speakers of South-Slavic and some of the West Slavic languages by concluding that this is "Proto-Slavic" borrowing.
Take your example for cat.The word for cat is "mačka" (machka) in South-Slavic including some of the West-Slavic languages (Slovak) and Lower Sorbian,itself surely non borrowed word.Interestingly "matse" is found in Albanian too for cat.
OSЬ̀LЪ (donkey).OCS in church usage the word come from Latin via Gothic? However the word for donkey that is used is Magare/magarac(donkey) in South-Slavic are shared or borrowed words from some other Balkan languages(Romanian,Albanian).Does this tell us that at the time this "borrowings" occured speakers of this languages were located in different areas?
I guess this has to do with linguistic zones.
I can give a number of examples that some linguists will count as borrowings from other languages but in reality are found only in few modern Slavic languages.
One such example is "sobaka" a dog in Russian an Iranian borrowing supposedly Schythian,but such word is not attested anywhere else.
Such things are forced even upon mythology supposedly "Svarog" or Hors found among East Slavs has cognates among Indo-Iranian language or were borrowings,but i can not accept this "gods" as part of South-Slavs since were never attested among us.
The word for "god" - bogъ is counted by some for Iranian borrowing see Sanskrit bhaga,we find such theonym in Phrygian "baga" so why this can't be supposedly "borrowing" from some other southern-language instead Iranic?
Bakar for copper was disscused among some Yugoslav linguists however is another matter.

For your supposed borrowing for "bridge" from Germanic this is what wiktionary give me;
Etymology

• From earlier *mosstъ < *mozdtъ, from Proto-Indo-European masd-to-s ‎(“aggregate of timbers/boards”), from *masd- + *tos ‎(“collective”). Morphologically *mos- +‎ *-tъ.Cognate with Latin mālus ‎(“mast, pole”) (< *masdos and l < d), Old Irish maide ‎(“mast, stick”) (< *masdyos), Proto-Germanic *mastaz (> English mast)

• From earlier *mottъ ‎(“something what is dropped, thrown over”), from *mesti ‎(“to throw, to drop”)

 

[Milan]

I'd like to note that it is not relevant what they called themselves (even if I concede that the "speaker" versus "mute" dichotomy is quite suggestive). But what is pivotal that they spoke early Slavic. As for your claim that "there is no such data": if you had read my posts more thoroughly about the various methods of linguistics, even if the ancient (prehistoric) Slavs were iliterate, we do have such data.

However i want to ask a couple questions;
1.Do you speak of a hypothesis in any way or a well established and final conclusion about Slavic languages?
2.I want to see your data on which you are so sure,i.e river names or whatever arguments you have about the Proto-Slavic homeland? since you are the one that you insist on that.

We can agree to disagree, but I'd like to note that I am not driven by any form of "romanticism" (not to 19th century ideas) or ethnocentrism on the field. The only concept that I am attached to is that I believe that the same methods by which we judge languages should apply everywhere. My problem with Curta's position is that he appears to live in denial (a denial which I find reckless) about the linguistic data we have about the centuries before the Σκλαβηνοι appear on the stage of history.

Again please bring the arguments you have about the Proto-Slavic homeland since you insist on that.

Lastly, there's one question which you haven't answered yet: if Slavic languages, as a sub-branch of the greater Indo-European family, did not originate in the forest zone of Eastern Europe (which I still see as the most sensible option), where did they come from?

As i said i can not be conclusive in this and in anyway i will not bring such conclusion,however the Slavic languages are tight to the greater Indo-European family so it all depends..

What cought my attention was this so shouldn't be left unanswered.

I can very much construct a prehistory out of it. The name appears in the 6th century, and I never said that it was used by people of the Milograd culture. I said in the past that the Milograd culture is one of the cultures that are suitable as possible candidates for speaking early Proto-Slavic. If that hypothesis is correct, then I can verymuch call them "Slavs" (in a linguistic sense, and I insist on that).

A fundamental proposition of historical anthropology is that human genes, language, and culture represent distinct systems of inheritance. The three systems are distinct and have no necessary relationship because each bears a different relation to population history.

If you think that you can write a history on linguistic hypothesis,including migrations,then please you or other linguist that insist on that,wrote a Indo-European history,so all of us Indo-Europeans can have a common history at least we gonna have something in common and then to all other according to our respective languages.

Which hypothesis you are going to use?

After all everything starts and ends with a language.

 

[kosmonomad]

This is very interesting:

http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=69428

http://file.scirp.org/pdf/AA_2016080315161595.pdf

Posted slightly earlier
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...er-fairy-tales?p=491218&viewfull=1#post491218