I didn't say Florin Curta did (though Mario Alinei does), but this is a question that came up in that past thread about the origin of the Slavs. In a way, this is a logical question to ask: if you place the Slavic homeland onto the Balkans, it would make sense looking for a historic candidate language that matches up with this - hence Dacian and Thracian. Alinei who has this theory of extreme language immobility and he likewise places the origin of the Slavic languages onto the Balkans. The problem why this makes no sense is twofold: first, the internal history of the Slavic languages does not favour on origin on the Balkans, second, you have a close relationship with the Baltic languages. Or let me word it differently: Proto-Slavic was one of the Balto-Slavic languages. Which in turn it is sensible to propose that the original homeland of the Slavic languages was in vicinity of the Baltic language area. Now Dacian in turn left a tremendous impact on the Romanian language, however.
You make your point,and this is to be expected,language is more difficult to explain,any before attested in my opinion.
Let me say that so far from what i have read he make the most sense to me, and i think that his questions are reasonable at least to me,and not because i have agenda,wishful thinking or whatever,will try to explain more further.Different people have different opinions regardless their place of origin.
By his words on the Sclavenes-As community elites rose to prominence, they came to "embody a collective interest and responsibility" for the group. "If that group identity can be called ethnicity, and if that ethnicity can be called Slavic, then it certainly formed in the shadow of Justinian's forts, not in the Pripet marshes.
So tracing them he is merely using historiography and archeology which for me is right.
He is also saying that Sclavenes is name Byzantines gave to this people to make sense politically.Even if used by themselves for language community but not more than this,since there is no proofs.
That they(Sklaveni) were located what is today Romania is not invented but is simply how it is.
No, the 'most archaic river names' points to an area for the original Slavic homeland, where we find two archaeological cultures that - in the right time and right space - are viable as potential homelands: the Milograd and Zarubintsy cultures. I elaborated on that extensively in the other thread.
He is saying that the material culture is not the same from those cultures and where Sclavenes were located and have considerable gap;
"Moreover the obvious cultural discontinuity in the region raises serious doubts about any attempts to write the history of the prehistoric Slavs as one of the continuous occupation of one and the same region between the late Iron Age and the early Middle Ages. Nor is any evidence of material remains of the Zarubyntsi. Kiev, or Prague culture in the southern and southwestern direction of the presumed migration of the ethnos Slavs towards the Danube frontier of the Roman Empire".
You're missing my point here entirely: the suffix "-dava" is clearly connected to Dacian place names.
Just said it cause is explainable trough some Slavic dialects.
I do not think that archaeology should be dismissed, but archaeology delivers us plenty of linguistic data from the ancient Balkans. This is why for me, the scenario "Slavs lived on the Balkans in blindsight of Greek and Roman authors all along" doesn't work out. By the same logic you would have to argue that the West Slavic-speaking peoples lived in blindsight of Roman authors in Germania all along (modern eastern Germany, western Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia).
That is perhaps true and from historical sources the name Sclavene itself is new,which make much more difficulties for researches,after all is where the name Slav itself is coming.
But in that sense if in the Balkans can be spread without making genetic change,what make it difficult the same to happen in other areas?
What you're doing is adhering to a logical fallacy: the first point is that if you compare the modern West Slavic, South Slavic and East Slavic countries in their genetic makeup, it becomes apparent that there is no such thing as a 'genetic Slav'. Nor should we expect such a thing to exist in the first place, since Slavic is above all else a linguistic classification. As regards the South Slavs and the genetic similarity to the other ethnic groups of the Balkans, the solution is obvious: for the greater part, the inhabitants of the South Slavic countries (and the Balkans in general) today are actually Pre-Slavic in their genetic makeup. You can make a similar case about the modern Hungarians (who are mostly pre-Magyar), who are in their genetic makeup little different from neighbours - yet Hungarian (an Uralic language) is a clear newcomer to the region - later in fact than the Slavic languages.
Florin Curta is Romanian, and he has a very Balkano-centric / South-Slavic-centric view of the Slavs. There are however three branches of the Slavic languages as a whole, the West Slavic and the East Slavic languages in addition to South Slavic. Florin Curta's model pretends to be completely ignorant of the existence of the West Slavic and East Slavic peoples, and that is why I dismiss him. Since the Central European homeland is just as implausible as the Balkans homeland (because we have linguistic data there too), we have to assume that the Slavs were hiding 'in blind sight'. Which doesn't mean that the pre-Slavic population of these areas didn't contribute to Slavic ethnogenesis. I actually think the opposite, that remnants of the Germanic tribes in these areas contributed substantially to the genesis of the new West Slavic tribes, which is also reflected in the fact that Proto-Slavic has a large amount of Germanic loanwords in it.
It is lingusitic group,but historically some interpret it as a ethnic.
I asked that kind of question because majority of people are not interested in history,they often learn it in school just the basics.
I can give you example about Yugoslavia;The history was made up on Pan-Slavism,in short made all man to understand and have collective unity,the Slavic ethnos all Yugoslavs came in 6th and 7th century from behind the Carphatians as one ethnos,we had common past and in turn common future,
How much this is true?
I don't think Curta has Balkano-centric views,he didn't choose this people to be there,and if in Soviet time he publish such book and if he was in Romania who know how will end up,simple they have their history with which their hegemony should be explained,likewise in Yugoslavia will ruin their political establishment.
So from the above i think history=politics for good part.
Good luck hunting your genetic South Slavs, who 2000 years ago probably would have been Dacians, Illyrians, Thracians, a few Celts, the occasional Greeks and Sarmatians for good measure...
Well most of the above are exonyms,if that will be the cause and if the Thracians were called from the base of θράσσω (thrássō, “to trouble, stir”) by the Greeks, by contrast i will call them friends
