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 13:31:09 GMT -5
O.K., but then you have to be more explicit in your statements that the Slavs were known under different name(s) in ancient and classical times. Apparently other people started to call them Sclavi and Antae somewhere in the period of the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of the Byzantum. However, from that fact we can not conclude that Slavs were absolute newcomers in the Balkans.
Actually, the quotes above and many other confirm the opposite.
On this subject one has to read Florin Curta's book "The Making of the Slavs". He is quite explicite in discarding the migrationist theory for the Slavs. YES, there were military raids by those Slavs living on north from Danube, but NO there were not massive migrations as the german historical school from the 19-th century claims.
And this again corresponds with Alinei's theory of continuity. Slavs as well as other people were present on the Balkans from time immemorial.
|
|
|
Post by Artemisia on Dec 28, 2003 14:36:39 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. As an Archaeology student specializing in Greek and Roman archaeology, I can tell you that the Veneti or Enetoi mentioned in ancient sources have no relation to the Slavs. Get this straight all of you: there is NO mention of Slavs or a Slavic people in ancient sources! There may be mentions of people related to Slavs, but the Slavs as a people were unknown. The Veneti living in north Italy were a people related to the Latins, therefore they were Italic (the previous theory that they were Illyrian is now disregarded). The Paphlagonians were an Anatolian people descended from the Palaic speakers. There were no Slavs living in their territory. There were no Slavs bordering Macedonia, only Thracians, Illyrians, and Paeonians (who were either Thracian or Illyrian) For the LAST time, there were no Slavs living in the Balkans prior to their 5th century migrations.
|
|
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 17:11:04 GMT -5
Well, my dear Artemisia, than you have to argue with your collegue the archaeologist Florin Curta about the Veneti. Here is the link: www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521802024/102-4685018-0856150?v=glanceHe explicitely states what he states. Sorry...... And also those quotes above are quotes from historical texts....I didn't dream them Maybe you should be less persuaded in the already learned "truths" than you are. You know... there are many possible truths. That is why science exists .
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Dec 28, 2003 17:25:27 GMT -5
Well, my dear Artemisia, than you have to argue with your collegue the archaeologist Florin Curta about the Veneti. Florin Curta thinks that "the Slavs" was a Byzantine invention grouping together various trans-Danubian groups who made inroads into the territory of the Eastern Empire. "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 500 AD. 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. Because of these military and political developments, Byzantine authors began employing names such as Sclavines 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."
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Dec 28, 2003 17:29:53 GMT -5
By the way, Florin Curta does not support indigenist theories of Slavs being present in the Balkans from "time immemorial". He thinks that the Slavic language spread as a lingua franca of the Avar khanate.
Of course, the south Slavs are (biologically) to a great part indigenous in the Balkans. However, their ethnic identity was formed via their interaction with the Roman Empire and their language was not indigenous in the Balkans.
|
|
|
Post by Artemisia on Dec 28, 2003 17:52:54 GMT -5
Well, my dear Artemisia, than you have to argue with your collegue the archaeologist Florin Curta about the Veneti. Here is the link: www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521802024/102-4685018-0856150?v=glanceHe explicitely states what he states. Sorry...... And also those quotes above are quotes from historical texts....I didn't dream them Maybe you should be less persuaded in the already learned "truths" than you are. You know... there are many possible truths. That is why science exists . For the last time (I'm tired of this topic already) ancient sources do not mention anything about the SLAVS. Maybe some Slavs want to justify their habitation in the Balkans and other regions by saying that they were there always. Some Slavs have even gone as far as to say that the ancient Macedonians were a proto-Slavic nation. They are just deluding themselves. In Hellenic and Roman times, there were various tribes with more than one name, but no ancient source mentions anything having to do with Slavs. You can say the Veneti (again, they were an Italic people!) the Thracians, and whoever else you please were proto-Slavs but there is clearly no evidence for this. And I don't care what Mr. Curta says because thoudands of other archaeologists (and the ancient sources) disagee with him. What you quoted from ancient sources doesn't necessarily demonstrate that the Slavs lived in the regions you mentioned. They are just names of different tribes which do not demonstarate any link with Slavs. I have nothing against the Slavs, by the way, but sometimes they overdo it with their Slavic propaganda.
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Dec 28, 2003 20:21:45 GMT -5
Saying that there is no ancient source about SLAVS is just like saying there is no ancient source about GREEKS.
GREEKS don't refer to themselves with that word, not now, not ever. How can you be so sure that there is no mention of SLAVS, just because nobody uses the word SLAVS.
I agree that there probably wasn't a sense of nationality between various tribes who spoke similar or same Slavic languages, but the fact that they were unaware of belonging to a larger group of peoples, and the fact that the historians of those times were unaware that the tribes they're describing belong to some larger group of people doesn't make the definite historical fact.
Look at modern Englishmen. Most of them don't have a clue they belong to the greater Germanic group of people, yet they do. Their DNA is probably predominantly Celtic, their culture is distinct from other Germanic peoples, their language isn't very Germanic either.
Do many hungarians know that they are in a way related to Finns ? I doubt that! Are they related ? Yes!
Also, the fact that ancient Greeks didn't write about Ainus and Eskimos doesn't mean that these people didn't exist, it only means that the Greeks didn't meet them.
I hope you see how much the darkness of distance, language and culture prevented early historians from actually knowing the big picture of some things.
I also hope that this discussion has nothing to do with Macedonians and their political interests, the modern daily politics should be forgotten when speaking about ancient events.
|
|
|
Post by Artemisia on Dec 28, 2003 20:48:45 GMT -5
Saying that there is no ancient source about SLAVS is just like saying there is no ancient source about GREEKS. GREEKS don't refer to themselves with that word, not now, not ever. How can you be so sure that there is no mention of SLAVS, just because nobody uses the word SLAVS. The Greeks refered to themselves as Hellenes but the word GREEK comes from the Hellenic tribe GREKOI in Thesprotia (NW Greece) and according to Aristotle, in very ancient times the Greek people were called "GREKOI who are now called Hellenes" (see Meteorologica). Therefore, the term is not a modern invention. It was first used by the Romans to refer to Hellenes because the GREKOI were the first Greeks with whom they came in contact in continental Greece. When ancient sources talk about Samnites, Latins, Picenes, Umbrians, etc., you KNOW that they are talking about Italic subtribes. Same thing for Greek and other (e.g., Thracian, Celtic) subtribes. There is no such mention of any subtribes in the classical world belonging to anything even remotely Slavic.
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Dec 28, 2003 21:01:33 GMT -5
The Greeks refered to themselves as Hellenes but the word GREEK comes from the Hellenic tribe GREKOI in Thesprotia (NW Greece) and according to Aristotle, in very ancient times the Greek people were called "GREKOI who are now called Hellenes" (see Meteorologica). Therefore, the term is not a modern invention. It was first used by the Romans to refer to Hellenes because the GREKOI were the first Greeks with whom they came in contact in continental Greece. When ancient sources talk about Samnites, Latins, Picenes, Umbrians, etc., you KNOW that they are talking about Italic subtribes. Same thing for Greek and other (e.g., Thracian, Celtic) subtribes. There is no such mention of any subtribes in the classical world belonging to anything even remotely Slavic. Thanks for the history lesson about something I already know About the Italics, they lived on a relatively small, easy accessable ( from the sea ) portion of the teritory. Ancient historians tend to know much less Whenever the tribe/people in question is more dangerous and lives on less accessible teritories ( Germans, Slavs, Brites, Picts etc. ). or on very huge teritories ( Eurasia, India, Sub-Saharan Africa etc. ).
|
|
|
Post by Artemisia on Dec 28, 2003 21:09:44 GMT -5
Thanks for the history lesson about something I already know Did you really? You seem to have just learned it....otherwise you wouldn't have said what you said in your previous post. Yes, but it's not like the early Slavs were scattered all over Europe and historians didn't know what to call them. Incorrect. The Greeks knew a lot about the Celtic tribes long before they invaded the Balkans/Asia Minor and at that time they did not live near the (continental) Greeks nor were they a threat. The Greeks of Massilia even knew about Britain and Ireland.....and they had no connection with those people nor were they living close to them.
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Dec 28, 2003 21:18:28 GMT -5
1.Nope, I never lie. 2.Don't make me post maps here. Just compare the distance between Marseilles and London to the distance between Danube and Volga.
|
|
|
Post by Artemisia on Dec 28, 2003 21:28:35 GMT -5
1.Nope, I never lie. 2.Don't make me post maps here. Just compare the distance between Marseilles and London to the distance between Danube and Volga. 1. Yeah, right! 2. I don't care about the distance between the Danube and Volga but Marseilles isn't close to London.......at least not by ancient Greek standards. I know my geography very well, thank you!
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Dec 28, 2003 21:37:06 GMT -5
The vastness of teritory in which the Slavs lived and live is not comparable to anything else.
|
|
|
Post by Artemisia on Dec 28, 2003 21:41:40 GMT -5
The vastness of teritory in which the Slavs lived and live is not comparable to anything else. Sure, sure, but that still doesn't mean that they lived in the BALKANS in classical times. They MOVED to the Balkans starting in late 400 to 500 AD.
|
|
|
Post by Gladstone on Dec 28, 2003 21:49:08 GMT -5
The Greeks of Massilia even knew about Britain and Ireland.....and they had no connection with those people nor were they living close to them. Something of an aside...but...What did the Greeks of Massilia know about Britain and Ireland...and when did they know it? I've read accounts for quite a while of the Phonecians having traded in Britain for tin and some sources from the 19th century (I find these interesting...as for veracity..cannot say) claim that the Phnecians even had colonies in Ireland. Did these Massilian Greeks know of Britain and Ireland thru the Phonecians or by their own contact. Have you heard of any Phonecian colonies in Ireland? (I do not discount those reports simply as they are old...I think sometimes people are too quick to do that)
|
|