|
Post by berschneider on May 2, 2004 9:37:55 GMT -5
The Varangians were invinted and went back home. No large scale mixing occured. Yes, and you know that for sure since you were there? How did they go home, take a train from St. Petersburg to Helsinki and then Silja or Viking Line ferry or they flew instead? Bizarre....
|
|
|
Post by berschneider on May 2, 2004 9:38:53 GMT -5
Rus= blonde or rufous ( depending on the region ). Ras was the name of the first Serbian states back in early medieval times. didn't the Serbs also found Egypt?
|
|
|
Post by berschneider on May 2, 2004 9:41:59 GMT -5
The word 'ver' ( vera, verovati, veriti, veruj etc. ) also means 'faith' in south-Slavic languages ( which had absolutely nothing to do with Swedish or Russian in the last 1500 years ). The word 'Varjag' could have a meaning in Serbian, that could be translated as 'Loyal' or 'strong in faith', 'trustworthy'. 'Rus' also has the same meaning in Serbian as in other Slavic languages. So, I think it's more probable that these words which appear in both Russian and Serbian are as old ( or older ) than 5th century AD which is some 400 years BEFORE the 'call of Varangians'. I think it's much more probable that Russians and Scythians/Sarmatians had an influence on Scandinavians, than the other way around. In fact, the Iranians of the Russian steppes were a very developed people ( for their nomad needs ) during the time when Scandinavia wasn't even properly settled. It's much more logical that these influences from the Steppe were transfered into Scandinavia via Slavic peoples. Scandinavians are also much more influenced genetically by DNA coming from eastern Europe, their cultures developed later than those in eastern and central Europe etc. etc. Even the genetic search for Viking ancestry in Britain was conducted by searching for eastern European DNA, not Scandinavian. I agree with you, oh AWAR, actually the similarity between Slavic/Slavonic languages - be it Russian or Serbian or Polish is quite remarkable - considering geographical and political separation and the time since all those groups broke apart and found their own langauges.
|
|
|
Post by berschneider on May 2, 2004 9:47:59 GMT -5
1) Name of the state – “Russia”: There are (at least) 3 explanations – a) from finnish “ruotsi”; b) from IE or iranian “rox-, ruhs-“ which means “white”, ”main”; c) from slavic “rus-“ which has 2 meanings – first connected with colour: “blond, fair”, and second connected with water – like “rusalka”=”water-nymph”, “ruslo”= “waterway, bed of river”. incredible stuff really - I would never link rusalka or mermaid to ruslo or to rus but of course similarity and logic of connection are striking. Origins of the word Russia/Rossia are known. It is Latinized Russ + ia and, in what is Russia proper, the term Ross+ia came into wide usage in the late 1600s. Citizens of Republic of Novgorod considered themselves Rus or Ros, a wider linguistic or ethnic community but never ever did they think of themselves as Russians or as of their state being political part of some Russia. Germans suffered from similar identity ambiguity until mid 1800s. I guess the Italians did too.
|
|
|
Post by symmakhos on May 2, 2004 13:41:08 GMT -5
It's much more logical that these influences from the Steppe were transfered into Scandinavia via Slavic peoples. Scandinavians are also much more influenced genetically by DNA coming from eastern Europe, their cultures developed later than those in eastern and central Europe etc. etc. Even the genetic search for Viking ancestry in Britain was conducted by searching for eastern European DNA, not Scandinavian. This you will have to substantiate. From the website ScienceNow (http://bric.postech.ac.kr/science/97now/03_5now/030527a.html): DNA Untangles Britain's Past Over the last 2000 years the British Isles, original home of the Celts, were repeatedly ravaged by invading hordes from the continent including the Romans, Vikings, Angles, Saxons, and Normans. Now the most extensive molecular study yet attempted shows that these invasions have had a significant effect on the genetic heritage of the British people. The findings, detailed today in Current Biology, reveal remarkable levels of regional variation of Y chromosome markers in small towns across the U.K. and confirm archaeological evidence that men from Scandinavia and Germany replaced or contributed to indigenous populations. Y chromosomes are only present in men and are thought to be passed on 95% unchanged from father to son. In this way, they provide a unique record of male ancestry. The survey was completed by population geneticists led by David Goldstein and Cristian Capelli at University College London and the British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC). The BBC first approached Goldstein in 2001 to collaborate on a genetic survey for the television documentary series Blood of the Vikings. Using the BBC's resources to market the project, the team enlisted more than 1700 male volunteers from 24 small towns across the nation. These men, who had to be able to trace their ancestry back several generations in the same town to qualify for the study, donated blood samples via mobile units of the National Blood Service or by submitting cheek-cell swabs through the mail. The scientists compared these data with 400 DNA samples collected in Denmark, Germany, and Norway. The analysis revealed that 60% of men in northern Scottish islands have Norwegian Viking ancestry. It also revealed that the majority of men in some parts of east and central England show some Danish Viking or Anglo-Saxon ancestry. Y chromosomes from Wales and Ireland suggest that little continental DNA made it that far west. Surprisingly, the analysis revealed that men in southern England have almost as much Celtic ancestry as the more typically Celtic Scots. It is a well-known fact that Scandinavians of the 8th-10th century went abroad, trading and/or pillageing. The Danes and Norwegians went westward, the Swedes eastward. Thus, naturally, they made an impact, culturally as well as genetically, on the places they visited. As far as I know, Slavs of the Iron and Middle ages did not get around much. BTW, the etymology of "slav"/"slave" in Scandinavian and English is rather clear-cut.
|
|
|
Post by berschneider on May 2, 2004 14:43:22 GMT -5
BTW, the etymology of "slav"/"slave" in Scandinavian and English is rather clear-cut. Of course it has nothing to do with Scandinavians but with Latin of the Charlemagne era.
|
|
|
Post by symmakhos on May 2, 2004 14:47:38 GMT -5
Of course it has nothing to do with Scandinavians but with Latin of the Charlemagne era. Yes, the medieval Latin used "sclavus". But it is probable that the Latin borrowed the term from contemporary Germanic, not the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by berschneider on May 2, 2004 14:50:20 GMT -5
BTW, the etymology of "slav"/"slave" in Scandinavian and English is rather clear-cut. No Joke - I would really love to see Scandinavian or English "clear cut" origin of the word slave. From what I get the word slave appeared in English in late 1200s, long after so called Vikings were gone and when the British Parliament spoke - or parlayed? - exclsuvely in French. Batelby.com WORD HISTORY: The derivation of the word slave encapsulates a bit of European history and explains why the two words slaves and Slavs are so similar; they are, in fact, historically identical. The word slave first appears in English around 1290, spelled sclave. The spelling is based on Old French esclave from Medieval Latin sclavus, “Slav, slave,” first recorded around 800. Sclavus comes from Byzantine Greek sklabos (pronounced sklävs) “Slav,” which appears around 580. Sklavos approximates the Slavs' own name for themselves, the Slovnci, surviving in English Slovene and Slovenian. The spelling of English slave, closer to its original Slavic form, first appears in English in 1538. Slavs became slaves around the beginning of the ninth century when the Holy Roman Empire tried to stabilize a German-Slav frontier. By the 12th century stabilization had given way to wars of expansion and extermination that did not end until the Poles crushed the Teutonic Knights at Grunwald in 1410. •As far as the Slavs' own self-designation goes, its meaning is, understandably, better than “slave”; it comes from the Indo-European root *kleu–, whose basic meaning is “to hear” and occurs in many derivatives meaning “renown, fame.” The Slavs are thus “the famous people.” Slavic names ending in –slav incorporate the same word, such as Czech Bohu-slav, “God's fame,” Russian Msti-slav, “vengeful fame,” and Polish Stani-slaw, “famous for withstanding (enemies).”
|
|
|
Post by berschneider on May 2, 2004 14:55:20 GMT -5
Yes, the medieval Latin used "sclavus". But it is probable that the Latin borrowed the term from contemporary Germanic, not the other way around. This is fantastic. Now, English is recorded and written language since the early days of Christianity in England. English important literary works - Beowulf for example were written between 700 and 750 AD. The word slave (in whatever variation) does not appear until late 13th century or 600-700 years later. Now, the term first appears as a French word. Contact with Scandinavians existed throughout all these centuries. As the Evil Ones say - where is the beef?
|
|
|
Post by symmakhos on May 2, 2004 15:12:24 GMT -5
No Joke - I would really love to see Scandinavian or English "clear cut" origin of the word slave. From what I get the word slave appeared in English in late 1200s, long after so called Vikings were gone and when the British Parliament spoke - or parlayed? - exclsuvely in French. Batelby.com WORD HISTORY: The derivation of the word slave encapsulates a bit of European history and explains why the two words slaves and Slavs are so similar; they are, in fact, historically identical. The word slave first appears in English around 1290, spelled sclave. The spelling is based on Old French esclave from Medieval Latin sclavus, “Slav, slave,” first recorded around 800. [...] The spelling of English slave, closer to its original Slavic form, first appears in English in 1538. Slavs became slaves around the beginning of the ninth century when the Holy Roman Empire tried to stabilize a German-Slav frontier. Of course the ethnical designation "slav" has existed for a long time, but, as you say yourself, the use of the word as a designation for "slave" (= "thrall", "träl") appears first in the Medieval Latin of about 800. The late medieval written sources are really not relevant.
|
|
|
Post by berschneider on May 2, 2004 15:23:24 GMT -5
Of course the ethnical designation "slav" has existed for a long time, but, as you say yourself, the use of the word as a designation for "slave" (= "thrall", "träl") appears first in the Medieval Latin of about 800. The late medieval written sources are really not relevant. but it comes into English usage in around 1300s (since you brought English up). I am sure the word is of Scandinavian origin or whatever you say but we have a major discrepancy on our hands here:)
|
|
|
Post by symmakhos on May 2, 2004 15:31:20 GMT -5
Yes, people in Northern Europe didn't write very much until the High Middle Ages. Anyway, I am amazed to see a good smiley from you Bershy. You don't give out those very often.
|
|
|
Post by berschneider on May 2, 2004 16:08:41 GMT -5
Yes, people in Northern Europe didn't write very much until the High Middle Ages. Anyway, I am amazed to see a good smiley from you Bershy. You don't give out those very often. No, I don’t normally give precious smilies away because i am a somber and melancholic character and smilies are expensive. By the way, did you have anything good to drink tonight?
|
|
|
Post by symmakhos on May 2, 2004 16:38:35 GMT -5
Yes, Bershy, as a matter of fact I did have a few drinks with a friend on an uteservering (didn't find a translation in my archaic ordbok.) Anyway is this board as slow for you as it is for me?
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on May 3, 2004 10:52:43 GMT -5
symmakhos, "the British Isles, the original home of the Celts.." You lost me there, with that BS. The Kelts were immigrants from the continent, not native sons of the soil. The true homeland of the Kelts is Central Europe - the area from France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria.., not Britain. Britain is where Goidelic Gaelic developed, everywhere else it was Brythonic including Gaulish.
Your DNA information was not news. The Scottish Islands have and are populated by people who came from Scandinavia. No Kelts there except immigrants from Scotland proper. Southern England was not the main point of immigration of Scandinavians, it was not in the Danelaw area. It is also reasonable that Southern English have Keltic admixture as did their progenitors the Angles and Saxons. Not all the Kelts jumped ship and headed to Britain.
|
|