|
Post by Artemisia on Dec 26, 2003 22:02:25 GMT -5
Byzantine influence on local populations probably weakened the further north one travels in the Balkans. In Greece, Byzantine authority was reestablished after invasions by Slavs, Avars, Goths, Huns, etc. It's been written that some of these peoples traveled in small armies with the sole aim of conquest whereas the Slavs invaded and settled. Even still, this apparently hasn't eradicated the genes of indigenous populations in the Balkans. It seems incredibly odd to me that some scholars even theorize about the extinction of indigenous people. I mean, what happened to the Thracians when the Slavs, Goths, and Bulgars settled in BUlgaria? Were they all killed? Of course not! They gradually mixed with the invaders. The same must be true of the Illyrians.
|
|
Andrea
Full Member
IM ROY JE DA JEST TO VESNIYO - May they all have a paradise this springtime
Posts: 119
|
Post by Andrea on Dec 27, 2003 9:51:00 GMT -5
Well, as I understand, the question that slaven put is the obvious condradiction of "the dominance of the ruled". How did the "newcomers", the ruled Slavs, managed to impose their language (to make it dominant) on the vast Balkan teritory? That is a real puzzle. He is correct in his claim that the language can be imposed either by the elite dominance (usually the ruling class imposes the language because the administration and communication among various peoples in the empire is conducted in that language) or by cultural flow( example: the hellenization of cicummediterranean peoples) from the culturally powerful centers towards the peoples who find that culture cooptive. Of course, sometimes both can be present. In the "Slavic case" neither is present. The Slavs (as the story goes) were ruled and they were backward people. So, neither they were able to impose their language by elite dominance (they were ruled) nor they were able to do that through the cultural flow (they were backward people). Hence... or maybe or even
|
|
Andrea
Full Member
IM ROY JE DA JEST TO VESNIYO - May they all have a paradise this springtime
Posts: 119
|
Post by Andrea on Dec 27, 2003 10:24:02 GMT -5
Maybe the Theory of continuity gives the answer (please read the thread "The Continuity theory" on this forum). Here is what the eminent linguist Mario Alinei states in his two volumes, published in 1996 and 2000:
"I have to commence by clearing away one of the most absurd consequences of the traditional chronology, namely, that of the 'arrival' of the Slavs into the immense area in which they now live. The only logical conclusion can be that the southern branch of the Slavs is the oldest and that from it developed the Slavic western and eastern branches in a differing manner and perhaps at different times."
"Today only a minority of experts support the theory of a late migration for the Slavs... because none of the variant versions of such late settlement answers the question of what crucial factor could possibly have enabled the Slavs to have left their Bronze-Age firesides to become the dominant peoples of Europe. The southwestern portion of the Slavs had always bordered on the Italic people in Dalmatia, as well as in the areas of the eastern Alps and in the Po lowlands."
"The surmised 'Slavic migration' is full of inconsistencies. There is no 'northern Slavic language', it is rather only a variant of the southern Slavic... The first metallurgic cultures in the Balkans are Slavic... and connected with Anatolia... Slavic presence in the territory, nearly identical to the one occupied by them today, exists ever since the Stone Age... The Slavs have (together with the Greeks and other Balkan peoples developed agriculture... agriculturally mixed economy, typically European, which later enabled the birth of the Greek, Etruscan, and Latin urbanism. Germanic peoples adopted agriculture from the Slavs... The Balkans is one of the rare regions in which a real and true settlement of human groups coming from Anatolia is proven...].
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Dec 27, 2003 11:53:22 GMT -5
I'm not so sure about 'Backwards', we're talking about Dark Ages Eurasia here, and a semi-nomadic people, plus a people who's history has been significantly altered/destroyed/forged by the Austro-Hungarian historians ( because it suited their interests with Russia and the Balkans, just like the false theories that modern Greeks have no connection to the Ancient Greeks ).
From what I've seen, the differences between Thracian and Slavic languages weren't that great.
I guess that if today England invaded Holland, the dutch would abandon their old language pretty fast. Also, you have to consider that most peoples at those times did NOT have the idea of nation, they probably weren't too attached to their 'traditions'.
Similar to modern USA where immigrants abandon their traditional names, language etc. in a matter of 2-3 generations, just so they can more easily integrate into the American society.
Let's also not forget various Turko-Mongol or Caucasian ethnicities in Russia. Many of them like to refer to themselves as being Russian, even though they are of Turkic origin.
|
|
Andrea
Full Member
IM ROY JE DA JEST TO VESNIYO - May they all have a paradise this springtime
Posts: 119
|
Post by Andrea on Dec 27, 2003 14:54:19 GMT -5
AWAR dear, people become migrants and learn English because Amerika is rich and it is cooptive for those migrants. The English language today is cooptive (attractive) because of its cultural and economic power. If you are an author in poetry, prose, science, philosophy... and you like more people to understand you (and buy your book or other product), you have to learn to write and communicate in English. We both communicate in English...as you can see...don't we? So, today the English language is a lingua Franka of the world. It was Greek in the antiquity. It was Latin language in the Middle Ages. Don't compare the English language and Anglo - American cultural influence in modern times and the Slavic cultural influence in the dark ages. In those times Slavic cultural influence was a far cry from todays Anglo -American cultural influence. If something can be compared, than it is the Roman and Byzantine cultural power and impact and todays Anglo - American influence. Nobody will change his /her mother's tongue just for aesthetical reasons or because his/her life is dull...(you know...it sounds better, Mom... I'll change it. ). The theory of continuity is the best explanation, by my opinion. P.S. I don't belive in the Austro - Hungarian story about the Slavs, that is the reason why I write this. That story (about massive migrations) is a bullshit...if you please. So, I'm supporting the continuity for all peoples in Europe....and the Greeks including. Don't try to put words into my mouth that I haven't said. AWAR....AWAR....you bad boy...he...he...he.
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Dec 27, 2003 18:56:42 GMT -5
I wasn't speaking about the influences of economic migration, I was speaking about the necessity of speaking the language that is most useful for survival. The Slavs who entered the Balkans were probably a great military strength opposed to the indigenous settlers who were probably not that tough. For the indigenous population, it'd be infinitely wiser to just learn and gradually adopt the language of the conquerors, especially if there already isn't a huge difference between the indigenous language and the newcoming language.
|
|
|
Post by Artemisia on Dec 27, 2003 20:57:13 GMT -5
P.S. I don't belive in the Austro - Hungarian story about the Slavs, that is the reason why I write this. That story (about massive migrations) is a bullshit...if you please. So, I'm supporting the continuity for all peoples in Europe....and the Greeks including. Whoever doesn't believe that the modern Greeks are mostly( if not fully for some Greeks) descended from ancient Greeks is only trying to fool himself and is a victim of bad politics. If they were not, the Greek language and certain Greek customs would not have survived until today and the modern Greeks would be speaking another language. You can also see some identical faces between ancient and many modern Greeks. There are also lots of other indications that prove this. Also, I do believe that the Slavs migrated southward into the Balkans. Otherwise, the Romans (and Greeks) would have mentioned encounters with Slavic people in their histories and such mentions are absent. The Illyrian and Thracian people were not the same "nations" as the Slavs, no matter how convincing some modern (mostly Slavic) theories seem. It is likely that the migrating Slavs settled in the Balkans and interbred with the Illyro-Thracians. Perhaps they were slightly larger in number and imposed the Slavic language on the indigenous population. There is also the possibility that migrating Slavic males interbred with indigenous females and imposed their culture on the indigenous element. You must remember that a large part of the Roman army was composed of Illyro-Thracians and if these men were not killed in wars, they were often settled elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Dec 27, 2003 21:51:27 GMT -5
All that, but you have to admit that there is a too much similarity between Slavs and Thracians, also Slavs and steppe Iranians ( Scythians, Sarmatians ).
I say that these similarities have come from the fact that these peoples lived relatively close to eachother, and probably overlapped in many places.
I must remind you that at those times, the various lands and provinces didn't have names, various populations had more than one name ( one name they used for themselves, other names for outsiders, another name used by the outsiders etc. )
There were no clear borders, no clear nations, no clearly distinct religions etc. ( every village/tribe had it's own deity ).
So, I wouldn't be very surprised if many tribes that Greeks or Romans thought were Thracian, or Scythian, were in fact Slavs.
|
|
|
Post by Artemisia on Dec 27, 2003 21:59:06 GMT -5
All that, but you have to admit that there is a too much similarity between Slavs and Thracians, also Slavs and steppe Iranians ( Scythians, Sarmatians ). I say that these similarities have come from the fact that these peoples lived relatively close to eachother, and probably overlapped in many places. I must remind you that at those times, the various lands and provinces didn't have names, various populations had more than one name ( one name they used for themselves, other names for outsiders, another name used by the outsiders etc. ) There were no clear borders, no clear nations, no clearly distinct religions etc. ( every village/tribe had it's own deity ). So, I wouldn't be very surprised if many tribes that Greeks or Romans thought were Thracian, or Scythian, were in fact Slavs. AWAR, baby, You make perfect sense but I must remind you that the Slavs were not part of the classical world. Yeah, they were neighbors of the Thracians and Dacians (a Thracian sub-tribe) and they must have borrowed words and other cultural items from each other, but Thracian and Phrygian languages (and most of the people) clearly descended from an un-attested Paleo-Balkan language (Illyrian may also be included in this). The similarities between Greek and Phrygian are striking and Thracian does not sound entirely foreign to the Greek ear. By the way, the Scythians were an Iranian tribe. Check out the names of their sub-tribes.........they are similar to many Iranian ones.
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Dec 27, 2003 22:09:53 GMT -5
Except for Greeks and Persians, I don't know of any other Eurasian group that had a sense of belonging to a certain "ethnicity" in classical times.
I think that at those times, most of the peoples just overlapped on certain areas, and were influencing eachother every day.
The Thracian language stirkes me as an intermediate between Greek-Anatolian and Ancien Slavic languages.
On the other hand, there were Slavic tribes with Iranian names ( Serbs and Croats ), but there is no clue of them speaking an Iranian language. There were even some tribes which spoke Iranian, but at some time converted to Ugro-Finnic, and then again to some IE language etc.
This all points to Europe and Eurasia being a big mish-mash of tribes who had no 'higher' allegiance.
This is why I think that it's not so weird that there is a continuity in the genetic makeup of certain areas.
On the other hand, there have been a lot of areas which were very weakly settled for no apparent reason.
At those times, there were no maps, so I guess that a lot of areas in Europe just stayed empty because tribes missed them. So, it isn't very weird to see some DNA 'pockets' of difference left over from the ancient times.
|
|
|
Post by Artemisia on Dec 27, 2003 22:21:45 GMT -5
Except for Greeks and Persians, I don't know of any other Eurasian group that had a sense of belonging to a certain "ethnicity" in classical times. I think that at those times, most of the peoples just overlapped on certain areas, and were influencing eachother every day. The Thracian language stirkes me as an intermediate between Greek-Anatolian and Ancien Slavic languages. On the other hand, there were Slavic tribes with Iranian names ( Serbs and Croats ), but there is no clue of them speaking an Iranian language. There were even some tribes which spoke Iranian, but at some time converted to Ugro-Finnic, and then again to some IE language etc. This all points to Europe and Eurasia being a big mish-mash of tribes who had no 'higher' allegiance. This is why I think that it's not so weird that there is a continuity in the genetic makeup of certain areas. On the other hand, there have been a lot of areas which were very weakly settled for no apparent reason. At those times, there were no maps, so I guess that a lot of areas in Europe just stayed empty because tribes missed them. So, it isn't very weird to see some DNA 'pockets' of difference left over from the ancient times. You said it well! My theory is that Greek and Phrygian (maybe also Thracian) should be "grouped" with the Anatolian branch. Greek is the only language that doesn't have sibling languages and cannot be grouped in a branch. If Carian (which may not be an Anatolian language at all), Lydian, and Lycian are fully and properly deciphered, it will be clear that Greek also belongs to their sub-branch. It is doubtful that Greek is just a single language. Also, since at least 30% of the Greek language is said to be of "Pelasgian" origin, it is likely that neiboring languages (incuding Thracian) also share some strong Pelasgian traits. The place names in W Anatolia and Greece are strikingly similar and this points to a similar sub-stratum in both regions. On the other hand, I've read a few articles which state that Illyrian is related to the Balto-Slavic family. From the surviving inscriptions and words, Illyrian seems to be somwehat close to the Italic branch......but that may only be because we have so few surviving inscriptions.
|
|
skord
Full Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by skord on Dec 27, 2003 23:09:45 GMT -5
physically speaking, southern slavs have more in common with other slavs than say Albanians or Romanians(supposed indigenous Balkan peoples)
|
|
|
Post by Artemisia on Dec 27, 2003 23:43:37 GMT -5
physically speaking, southern slavs have more in common with other slavs than say Albanians or Romanians(supposed indigenous Balkan peoples) Of course they do! That's because most Albanians are not indigenous at all. They are a mixture of various peoples with the Turkish/Iranian element being predominant. Don't bother to read what some "scholars" say about the Albanians' supposed Illyrian descent (there are political motives behind many of these scholars' claims and I'm sure the Serbians know this well!) If you live in Albania just for one day, it will be clear to you that these people belong to the Middle East, not Europe. Not only are many of the of Turkish and/or Iranian origin, but their culture is also somewhat alien to, say, that of Greece and Serbia. I can't speak for the Romanians because I don't know them well, but from what I read, many Romanians also have some Slavic origin.
|
|
Andrea
Full Member
IM ROY JE DA JEST TO VESNIYO - May they all have a paradise this springtime
Posts: 119
|
Post by Andrea on Dec 28, 2003 6:00:47 GMT -5
Artemisia and AWAR dear,
You say Slavs are not classical people because they do not exist as Slavs in the ancient texts. Well, .... yes they do not exist as Slavs... but they exist as Veneti for instance. The labels and names are not so firm basis to draw conclusions solely on that component:
Here is what the archaeologist Florin Curta says (The Making of the Slavs, p. 13.):
"Archaeological research has already provided an enormous amount of evidence in support of the idea that the Venethi were Slavs"
1. Homerus mentiones them in the Iliad as Enetoi, allies of the Troyans.
2. Apian (Bellum Mithrid. C.I.V.) writes:
"Enetois kai Dardaneas, kai Sintois, perioikia Makedonion ethne"(Veneti as well as Dardanians and Sinti are neighbours of the Macedonians).
3. Herodotus (Enetoi, I, 196),
talks about the similarities between the Paflagonian and the Adriatic Veneti. Also he locates them as people living in Thrace.
4. Plinius. N.H., III, 130-131:
"Venetos troiana stirpe ortos". (Veneti are descendants of the Troian stem). Of course, this statement has not to be true, but he mentiones them.
5. Abbot Jona Bobbiensis, disciple and successor of St. Columban, 543-615 CE.,
"... Veneti qui et Sclavi dic*ntur..",...(the Veneti who are also called Slavs.)
6.Jordanes, Goethica, pp. 34 -35, IV cent. AD):
... in this vast territory (Dacia) live the numerous people Veneti. Their names are subject to change with respect to the various filla and locations, however they usually call themselfs Slavs and Antae.
and further on...
... "As told above in the text, at the begining of our discussion, as well as in the list of tribes, they are of the same origin, but now they appear under three names: Veneti, Slavs and Antae."
There are many more....
As you see the Slavs (known as Veneti) were major players in the ancient and classical times. They are attested very well as inhabitants of the Balkan peninsula, Paflagonia and the Adriatic coast...to say at least.
Also, I have to remind you that:
The Lusatian Serbs living in southern Germany and Poland are called by the Germans as Venedi or (derogatory) as Venedili. Their language in German folk slang is known as Vindish = Venetish.
The Slovenian and Serbo-Chroat language is called by Hungarians as Venedek.
In Estonian slang Russia is called Vendelainen and in Finish Venaia.
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Dec 28, 2003 12:42:28 GMT -5
Andrea, you probably got the wrong idea from my posts. Yes, I do know all about the mentions of Veneti ( etc. ) in classical times, that's exactly what I was saying with my theory on various names for just one tribe/people, and the use of the same name for various tribes/peoples.
|
|