How "Slavic" are South Slavs?

[Alexandra_K]

Yes, I know this. Thessaly still is the place of origin of many of the Greek Vlachs. So in general I do tend to think that except for the Arvanite contribution, which according to my understanding is very considerable throughout mainland Greece and some islands, especially Thessaly (accompanied by all the areas belonging to the Pindus) must all have a very characteristic Vlach genetic contribution.

 

[Dibran]

It depends on where do you see the Proto-Slavic homeland.

We can reasonably assume that people who live in the closest proximity to the original Slavic homeland should be the most genetically similar to Proto-Slavs, unless the area in question has been affected by significant migrations during the last centuries.

The most widely accepted theory as of now, is that the Proto-Slavic homeland was somewhere in Ukraine or Moldova.

The South Belarusian theory (Pripyat Marshes theory) has been debunked because the Marshes were uninhabited according to archaeologists. Perhaps they were under Slavic control, but the bulk of Slavic population had to live outside of that area.

Central and North Belarus was occupied by Balts according to most scholars - so areas north of Pripyat have to be excluded.

If we are to assume Proto-Slavic ethnogenesis occurred in Moldova/Ukraine, would we not assume they are descended from a combination of Dacians/Bastarnae/Sarmatians/Scythians?

Unless of course we are to presume that The Proto Slavic ancestors moved in and displaced these peoples in this area. Otherwise, if the assumption is they arose from this region, they would have had to descend from a base population, being Dacian, mixed with a combination of the other folk. Much the same as Albanian ethnogenesis occurred from a combination of Illyrians with a mixture of other peoples.

Considering the oldest M417 is in Ukraine, do you believe then, that the more recent clades descended from a hodge podge of Dacians with the other converging elements? Otherwise where did they move from initially if they arose from this area?

Some have surmised they were east of the Proto-Balts. Somewhere eastward of Poland/Belarus, which would put them in Russia.

Assuming your theory is correct, do you believe they arose from a mixture of tribes in Moldova with a Dacian base?

 

[etrusco]

Slavic has no ethnic meaning....it is just a linguistic family shared by many ethnicities. There's not a slavic race. Please read this book of florin Kurta

The making of the slavs : history and archaeology of the Lower Danube region, ca. 500-700"

This book offers a new approach to the problem of Slavic ethnicity in south eastern Europe between c. 500 and c. 700, from the perspective of current anthropological theories." "The conceptual emphasis here is on the relation between material culture and ethnicity. The author demonstrates that the history of the Sclavenes and the Antes begins only at around A.D. 500. He also points to the significance of the archaeological evidence, which suggests that specific artifacts may have been used as identity markers. This evidence also indicates the role of local leaders in building group boundaries and in leading successful raids across the Danube. The names of many powerful leaders appear in written sources, some being styled "king". Because of these military and political developments, Byzantine authors began employing names such as Sclavenes and Antes in order to make sense of the process of group identification that was taking place north of the Danube frontier. Slavic ethnicity is therefore shown to be a Byzantine invention."-

 

[Tomenable]

Slavic has no ethnic meaning....it is just a linguistic family shared by many ethnicities.

There is more IBD segment sharing between Slavic-speaking peoples than between Germanic-speaking or Romance-speaking ones. If Slavic has no ethnic meaning then neither has Germanic, Celtic, and especially not Romance. Not to mention Uralic (Estonians and Hungarians are not so closely related in terms of genetics) or Turkic.

 

[Tomenable]

If we are to assume Proto-Slavic ethnogenesis occurred in Moldova/Ukraine, would we not assume they are descended from a combination of Dacians/Bastarnae/Sarmatians/Scythians?

Not exactly, because there is no evidence that Proto-Slavic was a creole language that emerged from a mix of several languages, or that Proto-Slavic emerged from some other branch of Indo-European languages (rather than from its own branch which can be traced all the way back to PIE). On the other hand it is possible that early Pre-Proto-Slavic or Early Proto-Slavic speakers absorbed and assimilated some of those tribes you mentioned.

Much the same as Albanian ethnogenesis occurred from a combination of Illyrians with a mixture of other peoples.

But Albanian is also not a creole language, or is it? Is Albanian langauge equally descended from languages of all of those peoples? Or was Proto-Albanian spoken only by one population, which later mixed with and absorbed other peoples?

The goal of the study on Slavic origins is - and has always been - to find out where did the community which spoke Proto-Slavic and Pre-Proto-Slavic languages live. It is not about finding the homelands of all the different tribes which have contributed their DNA to present-day (or even to Early Medieval) Slavic-speaking populations.

Some have surmised they were east of the Proto-Balts. Somewhere eastward of Poland/Belarus, which would put them in Russia.

Rather to the south or south-west of them. Isn't this also implied by fact that modern Balts are genetically more north-eastern than any of modern Slavic populations (except for Northern Russians, who are heavily mixed with Finno-Ugric populations).

Assuming your theory is correct, do you believe they arose from a mixture of tribes in Moldova with a Dacian base?

If true, that would basically mean that Dacian language was Proto-Slavic language (these terms would be synonyms). We don't know much about Dacian language, but from what we know, I don't think we can derive such a conclusion.

Anyway, Dacians lived in what is today Romania - and not in what is now Ukraine. But modern Romanians are not descended from Dacians, but from Vlachs, who settled there during the Middle Ages, probably in the late 1100s and early 1200s.

Dacia was evacuated by Emperor Aurelian and became a deserted, uninhabited land.

Considering the oldest M417 is in Ukraine

That is so old that it was probably before the differentiation of PIE into its descendant languages.

And remember that it was found in the Steppe zone of Ukraine, in Sredny Stog II culture.

Proto-Slavic people were not nomadic anymore, they probably lived in the Forest zone of Ukraine.

 

[Dibran]

Not exactly, because there is no evidence that Proto-Slavic was a creole language that emerged from a mix of several languages, or that Proto-Slavic emerged from some other branch of Indo-European languages (rather than from its own branch which can be traced all the way back to PIE). On the other hand it is possible that early Pre-Proto-Slavic or Early Proto-Slavic speakers absorbed and assimilated some of those tribes you mentioned.

But Albanian is also not a creole language, or is it? Is Albanian langauge equally descended from languages of all of those peoples? Or was Proto-Albanian spoken only by one population, which later mixed with and absorbed other peoples?

The goal of the study on Slavic origins is - and has always been - to find out where did the community which spoke Proto-Slavic and Pre-Proto-Slavic languages live. It is not about finding the homelands of all the different tribes which have contributed their DNA to present-day (or even to Early Medieval) Slavic-speaking populations.

Rather to the south or south-west of them. Isn't this also implied by fact that modern Balts are genetically more north-eastern than any of modern Slavic populations (except for Northern Russians, who are heavily mixed with Finno-Ugric populations).

If true, that would basically mean that Dacian language was Proto-Slavic language (these terms would be synonyms). We don't know much about Dacian language, but from what we know, I don't think we can derive such a conclusion.

On your first point, if Proto-Slavs developed in Romania, then who did they develop from is the question? We know it was Dacian territory. Are you suggesting an undocumented minimalist tribe living with Dacian eventually absorbed them and became the Proto-Slavs? Otherwise how does one reconcile the ethnogenesis of a people in a region occupied wholely by another people?

What I mean by combination is that modern Albanian is not completely made up of Proto-Albanian elements. There are borrowings of words from other languages due to the assimilation and integration of other peoples. The further back we track through Proto-Albanian to Proto-proto-Albanian, we would surmise it being closer to one of the Illyrian surviving dialects.

This is what I meant by mixing of peoples. In that, Proto-Slavic occupying the Dacian territory per chance had a dialect of a Dacian tribe that could possibly be identified as Proto-Balto-Slavic, and through assimilation of other converging elements, be they Scythian, Sarmatian, Germanic etc, that this hodge podge would later develop into Proto-Slavic and again Slavic much later through integration and assimilation of others after their spread.

So in short if we assume Proto-Slavs occupied historical Dacian territory, are we under the assumption they and their language came originally from a Dacian base the further back you treck, or a loosely unrelated tribal network that may have lived in the same area and been undocumented?

Everyone comes from somewhere. Proto Slavic ethnogenesis started as early as 500BC if I am not mistaken. If that is the case, Moldova was occupied by Dacians at this time.

 

[Tomenable]

Dibran,

if Proto-Slavs developed in Romania

I did not say that Proto-Slavic developed in Romania, but in Ukraine (either Central or Western).

We know it was Dacian territory.

Before the Roman conquest, yes. But Dacia was evacuated in 274 AD and became a deserted territory.

After 275 AD numerous tribes settled in that area, but Dacians no longer lived there. See for example:

https://i.imgur.com/dHD4Ypa.jpg

What I mean by combination is that modern Albanian is not completely made up of Proto-Albanian elements. There are borrowings of words from other languages due to the assimilation and integration of other peoples.

Of course there are borrowings in every language. In Proto-Slavic there were also foreign borrowings.

But we can't say that it was a creole language.

And borrowings can result from assimilation of foreigners, but also simply from contacts with them.

 

[Tomenable]

If that is the case, Moldova was occupied by Dacians at this time.

Yeah. But when Slavs were first noticed by Byzantine observers, they occupied more or less this area:

http://slavicchronicles.com/history/antes-and-sclavenes-around-500-ad-according-to-jordanes/

Quote:

The earliest detailed description of Slavic territory as it was around year 500 AD comes from Procopius and Jordanes, but it is quite possible that they did not have full knowledge about the extent of Slavic lands – especially in the north, north-west and north-east.

However, their precise description of the extent of Slavs in the immediate borderland/neighbourhood of the Byzantine Empire is probably reliable. Procopius wrote that they lived north of the Danube, and Jordanes provided even more details, as he wrote:

"Within these rivers lies Dacia, encircled by the lofty Alps [Carpathians] as by a crown. Near their left ridge, which inclines toward the north, and beginning at the source of the Vistula, the populous race of the Venethi dwell, occupying a great expanse of land. Though their names are now dispersed amid various clans and places, yet they are chiefly called Sclaveni and Antes. The abode of the Sclaveni extends from the city of Noviodunum and the lake called Mursianus to the Danaster, and northward as far as the Vistula. (…) The Antes, (…) dwelling above the curve of the sea of Pontus, spread from the Danaster to the Danaper, rivers that are many days’ journey apart."

​

Lake Mursianus was in fact, according to the majority of researchers, the vast marshes at the juncture of the Drava and the Danube; the lake or marshes in question might have extended as far as to the juncture of the Tisza and the Danube. The lake’s name was derived from the town of Mursa(present-day Osijek). The Alps are what we today call the Carpathians. The source of the Vistula is located close to the present-day Bielsko-Biała. Danaster refers to Dniester, Danaper refers to present-day Dnieper. And “the curve of the sea of Pontus [Black Sea]” was the coastline (which forms a nice curve) in the region of present-day Odessa.

 

[etrusco]

I think "proto-slav" was born out of a baltoid like language spoken by dacians ( if you see the king burebista dacian empire it seems pretty well matching the future slav speaking zone) that became creolized by influence from celtic/germanic from the west and scytians from the east to become the lingua franca of the Avar empire and so imposing itself over the vast territory of central eastern europe. And after came the final seal with the pastoral action of Cyril and Methodius that reinforced this lingua franca alla over its expansion zone.
I do not buy the thesis of a slavic horde coming out of the pripjet swamps and storming half of europe.

@tomenable

Of course you are right celtic, germanic and romance are not an ethnicity.....we romance speaking know it well....the link is cultural not genetic. So called slav speaking people were of different ethnic clans: germanic ( bastarnae and maybe goths from crimea) celtic ( many celtic tribes in eastern europe and in west ukraine too) thracian, ancient dacians, scytians even roman renegades that flee the empire because of heavy taxation ....all took part in the so called "slav ethnogenesis"

 

[Sile]

There is more IBD segment sharing between Slavic-speaking peoples than between Germanic-speaking or Romance-speaking ones. If Slavic has no ethnic meaning then neither has Germanic, Celtic, and especially not Romance. Not to mention Uralic (Estonians and Hungarians are not so closely related in terms of genetics) or Turkic.

Depends if you think that sarmatian people have mostly slavic ethnicity.
.
The first slavs apart from ukraines and russians to head west would have entered via modern Slovakia ............but you already known this ...and you already know that the Veleti would also be the main slavs to push into Germany from their original homeland in upper Vistula lands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veleti
.
do not confuse Veleti with Venedi or Veneti
Veleti = slavs
Venedi = west Balts
Veneti = Italian

 

[DarknessC]

Depends on the population

 

[Dibran]

Yeah. But when Slavs were first noticed by Byzantine observers, they occupied more or less this area:

http://slavicchronicles.com/history/antes-and-sclavenes-around-500-ad-according-to-jordanes/

Quote:

The earliest detailed description of Slavic territory as it was around year 500 AD comes from Procopius and Jordanes, but it is quite possible that they did not have full knowledge about the extent of Slavic lands – especially in the north, north-west and north-east.

However, their precise description of the extent of Slavs in the immediate borderland/neighbourhood of the Byzantine Empire is probably reliable. Procopius wrote that they lived north of the Danube, and Jordanes provided even more details, as he wrote:

"Within these rivers lies Dacia, encircled by the lofty Alps [Carpathians] as by a crown. Near their left ridge, which inclines toward the north, and beginning at the source of the Vistula, the populous race of the Venethi dwell, occupying a great expanse of land. Though their names are now dispersed amid various clans and places, yet they are chiefly called Sclaveni and Antes. The abode of the Sclaveni extends from the city of Noviodunum and the lake called Mursianus to the Danaster, and northward as far as the Vistula. (…) The Antes, (…) dwelling above the curve of the sea of Pontus, spread from the Danaster to the Danaper, rivers that are many days’ journey apart."

​

Lake Mursianus was in fact, according to the majority of researchers, the vast marshes at the juncture of the Drava and the Danube; the lake or marshes in question might have extended as far as to the juncture of the Tisza and the Danube. The lake’s name was derived from the town of Mursa(present-day Osijek). The Alps are what we today call the Carpathians. The source of the Vistula is located close to the present-day Bielsko-Biała. Danaster refers to Dniester, Danaper refers to present-day Dnieper. And “the curve of the sea of Pontus [Black Sea]” was the coastline (which forms a nice curve) in the region of present-day Odessa.

Interesting. Just saw the response now. Have you read "The Making of the Slavs"? I am just in the process of reading the book. It actually brings into question the prime authorities of Slavic tribes. Mentions a lot of inconsistencies in their accounts. Passages of time between actual events and their documentation, usually exaggerated and pulled from earlier sources. In other words, many of these accounts need to be taken with a grain of salt until actual science confirms things. Like material cultures. Time accurate accounts etc. I am very early into the book though. Its nearly 400-500 pages.

 

[Dibran]

I think "proto-slav" was born out of a baltoid like language spoken by dacians ( if you see the king burebista dacian empire it seems pretty well matching the future slav speaking zone) that became creolized by influence from celtic/germanic from the west and scytians from the east to become the lingua franca of the Avar empire and so imposing itself over the vast territory of central eastern europe. And after came the final seal with the pastoral action of Cyril and Methodius that reinforced this lingua franca alla over its expansion zone.
I do not buy the thesis of a slavic horde coming out of the pripjet swamps and storming half of europe.

@tomenable

Of course you are right celtic, germanic and romance are not an ethnicity.....we romance speaking know it well....the link is cultural not genetic. So called slav speaking people were of different ethnic clans: germanic ( bastarnae and maybe goths from crimea) celtic ( many celtic tribes in eastern europe and in west ukraine too) thracian, ancient dacians, scytians even roman renegades that flee the empire because of heavy taxation ....all took part in the so called "slav ethnogenesis"

Part of what you surmise is possibly true. You should read "The Making of the Slavs".

 

[markod]

I think "proto-slav" was born out of a baltoid like language spoken by dacians ( if you see the king burebista dacian empire it seems pretty well matching the future slav speaking zone) that became creolized by influence from celtic/germanic from the west and scytians from the east to become the lingua franca of the Avar empire and so imposing itself over the vast territory of central eastern europe. And after came the final seal with the pastoral action of Cyril and Methodius that reinforced this lingua franca alla over its expansion zone.
I do not buy the thesis of a slavic horde coming out of the pripjet swamps and storming half of europe.

@tomenable

Of course you are right celtic, germanic and romance are not an ethnicity.....we romance speaking know it well....the link is cultural not genetic. So called slav speaking people were of different ethnic clans: germanic ( bastarnae and maybe goths from crimea) celtic ( many celtic tribes in eastern europe and in west ukraine too) thracian, ancient dacians, scytians even roman renegades that flee the empire because of heavy taxation ....all took part in the so called "slav ethnogenesis"

Ridiculous. Slavic isn't a creole. We know that the Slavic expansion wiped out in excess of 60% of the paternal haplogroups everywhere. In some groups like Bosnian Croats that replacement was close to 100%. We're talking about something totally different from Celtic/Germanic/Latin expansions.

 

[Tomenable]

We know that the Slavic expansion wiped out in excess of 60% of the paternal haplogroups everywhere.

A significant portion of Polish R1a-Z280 belongs to old "West Baltic" subclades, with TMRCA much, much older than the historically attested Slavic expansion. So not all of Polish R1a-Z280 originates from the Slavic expansion. In case of R1a-M458, probably all of it is Slavic though (and you can see that all of the most numerous and most widespread subclades under M458 have much more recent TMRCA, than these old subclades of Z280). As for I2a-Din, as you know it is not as common among West Slavs, as it is among East Slavs and South Slavs.

 

[Tomenable]

In some groups like Bosnian Croats that replacement was close to 100%. We're talking about something totally different from Celtic/Germanic/Latin expansions.

How is it totally different if Weale and Capelli estimated that the Anglo-Saxon contribution to modern English Y-chromosomes is between 50% and 100% (links)?:

https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/19/7/1008/1068561

https://www.cell.com/current-biolog...m/retrieve/pii/S0960982203003737?showall=true

Another study estimated 50% of Germanic Y-DNA in England.

In some areas like East Anglia it is over 70%.

====

If you are talking about Germanic migrations which did not change the language in destination areas - unlike in case of England - then we can agree. But these Germanic expansions should be compared only to these Slavic expansions, which also did not permanently change the language - so for example Slavic settlement in Greece, Albania, Asia Minor and Bornholm (see Magdalena Naum's research; about 1/6 of Bornholm's population was once Slavic).

 

[Srbadija]

Part of what you surmise is possibly true. You should read "The Making of the Slavs".

No, no, no.

There is a work which debunk Florin Curta of Slovenian archaeologist. (If you want it, i can send to PM)

Slavic is not a creole It developed naturally from the proto-Balto-Slavic, and there is no "agreement" which would support the Florin Curta book. This book is just horse in vacuum and nothing serious about it.

Curta is obsessed with Slavs since they influenced Romanians so much, so now even he wants to make theory that Slavs originate from Dachians, which is ridiculous.

 

[Srbadija]

Term "proto-Slavic" have different meanings and the stages through the time. It is formed long before even "Bastarns" came in Eastern Europe.

There was proto-Slavic even in Milograd culture, perhaps even in Lusatian culture, also possible Trzciniec culture. But the latest common ancestors of modern Slavs are mixing of Trzciniec culture with Milograd culture, which gave birth to Zarubintsy culture.

 

[Dibran]

No, no, no.

There is a work which debunk Florin Curta of Slovenian archaeologist. (If you want it, i can send to PM)

Slavic is not a creole It developed naturally from the proto-Balto-Slavic, and there is no "agreement" which would support the Florin Curta book. This book is just horse in vacuum and nothing serious about it.

Curta is obsessed with Slavs since they influenced Romanians so much, so now even he wants to make theory that Slavs originate from Dachians, which is ridiculous.

I am not that far into the book so nothing I have read so far suggests what you claim. I don't think Slavs are Dacians. However, theres always a possibility South Slavs, or rather Proto-Slavs could have been related to the more wild and primitive Getae. This label was even applied to Sklavenoi in many sources. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the Getae were closest to the Proto-Slavic domain, or at least overlapped it, so perhaps there was some shared relation via ancestry.

Additionally, I am open to reading all positions and seeing which is more logical/supported by facts and reason. You can inbox me what you read. I will still finish his book though. It is interesting so far.

 

[50cal]

Rather to the south or south-west of them.
Isn't this also implied by fact that modern Balts are genetically more north-eastern than any of modern Slavic populations (except for Northern Russians, who are heavily mixed with Finno-Ugric populations).

The modern Baltic-speaking area is a fraction of what it was when compared to around
600-800 AD. Western Russians and Belarusians are also heavily mixed with Baltic populations. The Slavic expansion and the arrival of Krivichs, Vyatichs and Radimichs essentially split the Baltic tribes in half. Most Balts were assimilated, but there was also some Baltic westwards backflow.
The entire area from Pskov in the North up until Moscow to the East, Kursk to the South and Pinsk to the West was originally inhabited by Balts.
Galindians were based around modern-day Moscow and most likely were the last East Baltic refuge after the Slavic expansion. They survived for several centuries as a cultural group and there were Russians identifying with the Golyad up until the 19th century. There's also a Russian last name relating to them.
In other words, proto-Slavs most definitely weren't East of the Balts. They came from the South.