Talk:Early Slavs/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Constructionist bias?

There is to much constructionism in this article. Seriously, people have sex, have children, then teach their children THEIR language, which is the medium through which culture flows. This is not some kind of conspiracy by a group of "ruling elites." Certainly, there are political influences, but to suggest that politics came before people-groups? That leaders could create an ethnic group where there are pre-existing familial and linguistic ties, that is to much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.16.148.171 (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don;t think it has been given undue weight. It doesn't negate the basic clan/ family unit, but provides theories about much larger 'tribes', suggesting they were rather mixed, not a homogeneous nation of people with a common biological origin Hxseek (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is just fine, in synch with modern scholarship (for the most part, AFAICS). "ethnic groups" are ipso facto political constructs that get "reinvented" throughout history, on the basis of dominant cultural meme. That can't be more obvious than in the case of Balkans (Illyrians became Romanized and then Slavicised). In ancient times, the concept of "ethnicity" was much more mobile and fluctual, and within a few generations one language/identity could spread across immensely large territory. Just look at the spread of Latin (a language of one small town in Latium, with zero dialectal differentiation) that within few centuries became a language of entire Apenine peninsula, and a few centuries more of the entire "civilised" Europe. Very similar model occurred with the spread of Slavic language/identity (just with much less reliable records, and with a host of modern nations seeking to fabricate their "ancient" roots to legimise their territorial pretensions). One must be very careful when using terms such as ethnic group or familial and linguistic ties in times where the only real "cultural" ties were of the ruling political/tribal entity. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no mention of Alinei PCT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.245.201 (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's mentioned Hxseek (talk) 03:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Slavic genetics

Genetic structure of ancient Slavs was reconstructed from genetic structure of modern Slavs in similar way that Proto-Slavic language was reconstructed from modern Slavic languages. Also ancient homeland of Proto-Slavs was determined from genetic evidence. From this reason I believe that section about genetic evidence of Slavic origin is necessary. Til

Paper about genetic origin of Slavs based on population-of-origin approach based on the AMOVA was published in respected peer-reviwed journal by group of professional scientists. Opinion of Hxseek about it has all signs of original research in this field. I propose to Hxseek to publish refutation of their investigation in peer-reviwed journal also. Til

Sorry, could you possibly post a link on the article you are talking about? Thanks! MAG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.96.242.153 (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't "refute' the study, but I refute its inclusion on ancient Slavs. The study was performed, obviously, on living Slavs. Just becuase the authors believe they can 'reconstruct' the place of origin of ancient Slavs based on their data, it nevertheless does not represent actual ancient DNA from early Slavs. In contrast, for example, we do have ancient mtDNA from Scythians or Thracians. I don't believe that it would be accurate to present a genetics section in this article, whilst, by all means, it should be included in the modern Slavs article. Hxseek (talk) 06:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Moving discussions

On Talk:Costoboci there have been many digressing endless discussions between me, User:Slovenski Volk and User:EraNavigator (EN is the "IP author" - usually from the 31.* and 178.* ranges). However at least the two sections below are fully within the scope of this article, namely they are about Early Slavs - their language as lingua franca in Eastern Europe (and especially within the Avar qaganate), the Venedi-Slavic connection, the interpretation of contemporary material culture as evidence for/against migration and ethnic groups. I believe and hope they can be used to improve this article, so here they are. Daizus (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Buyla inscription

• Astonishingly, Daizus, in the process of trying to support the view that the Avars were Slavic-speakers, has instead proved that the Avar elite (at least) continued to speak their own Turkic language into the later Avar era, as I contended above. The Buyla inscription is dated 650-800 and, it is generally agreed, in a Turkic language. Given the splendour of the Nagyszentmiklos Treasure, it is likely that it was created for the Avar khan himself, or at least for one of his highest-ranking barons (the inscription is most likely a dedication to the owner). If by this stage the Avars were Slavic-speaking, the inscription would have been in Slavic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.106.125.150 (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it might well be Oghuric, and yes it likely belonged to someone wealthy/ important. However, there is no reason that a high-ranking Gepid or Sklavene didn;t own it, it does not follow that the person who owned it must have had Mongolid features and spoken Turkic. The medal's worth was its gold and decorative appeal, and the Turkic runes embue it with mystical / magical properties. Whoever owned it, it's purpose wasn;t to read things in sua linga in a proud display of nationalism. Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• On the basis of the Buyla inscription, it is clear that the sua lingua mentioned by Paulus Diaconus was indeed Turkic. This continued to be spoken by the Mongoloid elite and those closely associated with them: leaders of their subject peoples, senior administrators, regular soldiers, servants etc. The mass of the peasantry in Hungary and Transylvania would have continued to speak their existing language, Gepido-Gothic German. The latter was probably the real second language of the Avar elite, used by the Avars to communicate with their subjects (as the Normans used English). The toponymic evidence of Slavic settlement in Hungary/Transylvania is far from conclusive. The paper indicated by Daizus makes it clear that it is impossible to date the Slavic placenames with sufficient accuracy to establish a major Slavic presence during the Avar era. The Slavic-speakers may have entered the region at the same time as the Magyars, or if earlier, during the the century-long interim between the Avars and Magyars (804-895). Contrary to Slovenski's statement, there is no direct evidence that Slavic was the language of the Avars. The argument advanced by Curta from Life of St Pancratius, where Slavs were used as interpreters with some Avar prisoners in southern Italy, is speculative: the Slavs very likely understood Gothic German, the lingua franca of the entire Transdanubian region for several centuries (300-800) (including Wallachia and Moldavia, which had been occupied by Slavic-speakers from at least 300), as did the Avars. The point is that Gothic, being an East Germanic dialect, would have been incomprehensible to the Lombards of Italy, who spoke a West Germanic tongue.

As above, the inscription doesn't necessarily mean that that was the language of its user. Your linguistic theory isn;t supported by the archaeology. By the 2nd Avar period, there is a marked increase in number of weapon-containing/ 'warrior" burials, meaning power spread from a few to a more substantive number. These burials show a diversity of pehnotypical features, predominantly Europoid. These were the military leaders and they came from different ethnic and linguistic groups. Hence the need for a lingua franca. That is why scholars have suggested that Slavic was used; and this wasn;t first espoused by Curta, a multitude of scholars had already proposed it including Omeljan Pritzak and Geroge Holzer. You're correct, we have no decisive evidence for this, however, the totality of philological studies show a heavy concensus of scholars, perhaps excepting 'oriental'-leaning Hungarians, that Slavic was spoken in Pannonia-Carpathian region pre-Magyars (that is why Hungarian administrative terms derive from Slavic - meaning long-established instituionalised use). Moreover, as I said above, the previous view that Slavic spread by an outmigration of Slavs from the Pripet marshes or elsewhere in Ukraine is simply impossible. The Pripet marshes were not even inhabited from mid c 1 - late 7th c AD, and there simply wasn't enough of them to (?re-)populate half of Europe. Therefore, the spread of Slavci must have had a strong economic-political-military impetus: ergo - the Avar realm. I am not saying the Avar's "native language" was Slavic (if there was such thing as native "Avar" given that the Avars themselves were just a political confederacy), but Slavic was spoken in their realm. If it was Gothic, then Serbs, Croats, Czechs, Moravians and Poles would be speaking East Germanic, not Slavic.

• There is nothing surprising about the Avar elite remaining largely endogamous for a long period. Studies of the Norman aristocracy in England show that that they mainly married each other for at least 200 years, and in their case there was no racial barrier with the indigenous people. Obviously, some intermarriage occurred, but the fact that skulls with clear Mongoloid features turn up in late Avar graves proves that intermarriage was restricted. The portrayal of an Avar warrior on a plate of the Nagyszentmiklos treasure is clearly that of a Mongoloid steppe horseman, holding a hapless Caucasian captive by the hair. This highlights the fact, documented by Diaconus (IV.37) that the Avars always fought on horseback, while the Slavs provided foot-soldiers.

it is a bit worrying that you automatically equate Mongolids with "native Turkic speakers", especially in absence of any convincing evidence. A person's phenotype doesn't dictate what language they must natively speak; unless they have bird-like mouths which are unable to make certain sounds :) Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Straw man after straw man. Curta's theory (actually this theory was mainly promoted by linguists such Johanna Nichols, Horace G. Lunt and Georg Holzer) is that Slavic was a lingua franca, i.e. a second language for Avars and most of their subjects. Just because I write in English here it doesn't mean this is the only language I know. So an inscription in Turkic doesn't prove the Avars didn't speak or know Slavic. As for EN's theory that Gothic/Gepidic was a lingua franca, that's contradicted by all linguistic evidence. The impact of Gothic on languages in Eastern Europe is non-existent or minimal. There are virtually no Gothic toponyms in Eastern Europe (in northern Italy, France, etc. there are Germanic toponyms, even though the main language is Romance). In Avar cemeteries the Mongoloid skulls are mixed with the other skulls which is evidence for intermarriage. Daizus (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

For those of us who can't sprachen da Deutsch, whats the basic premise of Holzer's argument ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It's mostly a summary of previous research (especially p. 552):

- Lunt's hypothesis explains both the unity and the sudden wide spread of Slavic in Avaria

- Some scholars believe that Slavic was a Kommandosprache in Avar armies (like Latin in early Byzantine armies) and Holzer cites Herbert Galton, Der Einfluss des Altaischen auf die Entstehung des Slavischen (1997)

- Holzer further argues for no dialectal differences around 600 p.Chr. but he concedes that migration of speakers can also neutralize dialects.

Holzer holds a similar position here. He quotes Nichols on "here is no reason to assume the Slavic expansion was primarily a demographic event. Some migration took place, but the most parsimonious assumption is that the Slavic expansion was primarily a linguistic spread. […] Slavic ethnic identity […] spread more or less simultaneously with Slavic speech" (p. 134) and then again claims the Slavic language around 600 p. Chr was a lingua franca in the Avar qaganate (citing his own work from 1995, "Die Einheitlichkeit des Slavischen um 600 n. Chr. und ihr Zerfall" an article published in Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch, 41). Daizus (talk) 08:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dz that Heather is inconsistent on the material culture=ethnic group issue. After strongly endorsing the "New Archaeology"'s rejection of this fallacy, he then falls into exactly that trap: his attempt to use the distribution of "Korchak" materials (the word "culture" hardly applies to these pathetic quasi-troglodytic remains) to track the advance of Slavic people is ludicrous: I cannot see how such simple and commonplace (half-sunken huts, rudimentary hand-made pots) remains can be interpreted as having any ethnic connotations whatever. Nevertheless, there is little doubt that the advance of Slavic speech into Moldavia/Wallachia in the East and Slovakia/Poland in the West PRECEDED the arrival of the Avars in the Hungarian Plain and thus had nothing to them. The Venedi/Sclavenoi (Ptolemy's Stavanoi are clearly a corruption of Sklavanoi prob by a medieval monk) were located in central European Russia/Ukraine, both Tacitus and Ptolemy agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.102.91.47 (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC) From this region, one migration-flow of Venedi was along the eastern side of the Carpathians into Moldavia and Wallachia, most likely exploiting the vacuum left by the Roman genocide/ evacuation of the Carpi, prob a pre-Indo-European-speaking people, from this region in the period 270-318: the Tabula Peuteringiana confirms the presence of Venedi in E Wallachia in the 4th c. (Contrary to Slovenski's trendy view, I believe that the conversion of this region to Slavic speech was achieved by substantial migration, not simply by elite transfer or by proximity transfer). The spread of Slavic speech in the West is more difficult to date, but was also already in place by 550. This map shows the position then broadly accurately:

File:Slavic peoples 6th century historical map.jpg

(note that the core region of the Avar empire, Hungary/Transylvania, was outside the Slavic-speaking zone, being German-speaking at the time of the Avar conquest). So Curta's bizarre theory (what I call "Curtavski Slavic"), that Slavic speech arose in Wallachia as a result of Byzantine fort-construction, and spread elsewhere as a result of being adopted by the Avars, is clearly just nonsense. And we don't need to assume that the Avars used Slavic as a military language: it is far more likely that they used their own Turkic language for this purpose, or possibly a rudimentary Gothic).

Curta did not say that Slavic langauge arose in 6th century Wallachia. He states that the Sklavenes ethnic grouping arose there. This is a big difference. Of course languages do not just "pop out of the ground" like Tolkien's Dwarves :) It evolved over thousands of years like all other languages. However, he rejects the implicit equation that just because some form of Slavic was spoken in EE it doesn;t mean that a Slavic ethnicity also existed, at least not until the 6th century. The two are not inseparable, rather, related to entirely different processes, although as that Slavic language played a role in Slavic ethnicity is certainly a prevailing paradigm in scholarship (eg Nichols) but not Curta.

Secondly, you argue that "there is little doubt that the advance of Slavic speech into Moldavia/Wallachia in the East and Slovakia/Poland in the West PRECEDED the arrival of the Avars in the Hungarian Plain and thus had nothing to them." What is this based on ? The dating of Slavic in more westerly regions is difficult to establish, and has largely been based on texts (eg Fredegar, etc) and the typology/chronology of hand-made -> wheel made pottery. On a purely visual basis, with added later "statistics" archaeologists presumed that handmade pottery (the earliest Slavic phase) is dated to, say 550 AD (based on the texts) and later more complicated pottery is from 700, which tracks their final spread into the west and north-west. Therefore the arguements are entirely circular and not indepedntly corroborated. More recent analysis has shown that Slavic hand made pots co-existed with wheel made wars, and the hand made post from west Balkan / east Alpine region had nothing to do with hand -made ware from Ukraine , but were based on sinmplified forms of the late Antique Roman wares. Dendrochronological dating from the Elbe region does not yield anything before 7th century; and S Brather's work suggests that there was no 'migration' into that region. The "Slavic" cord-ornamented pottery of the Danubian tradition (which became prevalent throughout balkans and west Slav areas) developed during the middle Avar period, precisely from the middle danube/ Pannonia reigon.

Thirdly, again, there is a difference between arguing that the Avars "native" langauge was Slavic, or that Slavic was native to the Carpathian basin; with Slavic expanding from that region and with that Empire. Where Slavic "arose" is of less importance, and the question itself meaningless given that we have no records. What we do have strong evidence for is that Slavic spread from the Carpathian basin during the Avar period Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You have largely ignored what I said above. First, when will you get it, that you can NOT track the movements of Slavic-speakers (and even less the spread of Slavic speech) through archaeology? That is the fallacy that a "material culture" (as defined by archaeologists) can be equated with a particular ethnic group. There is no such thing as a "Slavic material culture", just as there is no "Dacian material culture" either (unless you use the term "Dacian" in a purely geographical, as opposed to ethnic, sense): there are only remains which may (or may not) have (partly) belonged to Slavic-(or Dacian-) speakers. So forget archaeology and look only at literary evidence as well as (with caution) personal names/placename evidence. If I am right, that Ptolemy's Stavanoi are a corruption of Sklavanoi, then the Venedi=Sclavenoi equivalence was probably accepted at least as early as the 2nd c and was not invented by Jordanes: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.97.143.175 (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you ignore much of what others say. Your map above depicts the Slavic-speakers based on the works of historians and archaeologists (Boris Rybakov, Volodymyr Baran). That territory is defined by Korchak antiquities and other similar cultures. The reason there are no Slavic-speakers on the map in the Carpathian Basin is because in that region there's a different culture, the "Avar culture". So if you forget archaeology you have no map.

As for Ptolemy, he did not connect Stauanoi to Ouenedai but to point out they are geographically close, so there's no equivalence between the two. The Stauanoi = Sclavenoi equation has no arguments, it is just wishful thinking. It has been said that Σταυανοί is a corrupted rendition of Σθλαυανοί which is a reasonable Greek form for a *Slav-/*Slov- ethnonym (cf. the Slavic name Svętoslavъ which was rendered in Greek as Σφενδοσθλάβος; the Greek name of the Sclavenes, Σκλαβηνοί / Σκλαυηνοί, displays a similar epenthesis as the sl- cluster was not familiar to the native Greek speakers). However there's no evidence or actual argument to support this hypothesis, it is just an attempt to push the "Slavic history" as early as possible. Daizus (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

RE literary evidence, whilst one might argue that Curta is a bit hasty to dismiss Fredegar, eg; he argues that it was a political work revolving around the Frankish royal family. And whilst that's true, it deosn;t mean that it renders untrues everything in it about Wends and Slavs in central europe. This is where I think Curta is a bit rash. Whilst it is true that the literary evidence is problematic in the sense that it has long chronologic intervals and deos not distinguish much the difference between settlements and raids. I didn;t mean to ignore your position, its just that, in the absence of clear history, one turns to archaeology. Even if we entertain the idea that Sloveni/ Sclaveni is related to Stavanoi/ Soubenoi, it doesn;t necessarily follow that this implies cultural/linguistic/ethnic identity between the groups. As for Venedi, the use is too imprecise; denoting large and rather undefined area of europe spanning several centuries gap. Plenty of time for significant change inter alia Slovenski Volk (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The map may be based on archaeology (spuriously, if so), but an analysis of the literary and placename evidence would produce much the same result. According to Godlinski, the oldest Slavic river-names are found in northern and E Ukraine, while Tacitus' Venedi and Ptolemy's Stavanoi are also located here. Thus, it is likely that Slavic developed in this region originally. We know from the Peutinger map that the Venedi had reached Wallachia by the 4th c. We also know from Fredegar that the Venedi/Sclavi had reached the eastern borders of the Frankish dominion by the 6th c (SV is quite right that Curta's dismissal of Fredegar's evidence has no valid basis). The Avars thus played no part in the expansion of Slavic groups into these regions. They did play a critical role in the penetration and settlement by Slavic groups of the Balkans South of the Danube from 550 onwards, providing the leadership and cavalry necessary to overcome East Roman resistance. In this episode, the Slavs played the role of military serfs of the Avars, forced to hand over the lion's share of booty. PS: Further support for the Venedi/Slav connection comes from the traditional word used by northern Finno-Ugric speakers to denote Slavs: Vene: the Finns call the Russians Venaja, the Estonians Vene: linguists consider that this word developed independently of German Wenden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.102.121.97 (talk) 09:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Some ancient literary sources on Veneti/Venedi:

• Caesar, De bello Gallico III, 34: At the same time he was informed by Publius Crassus, whom he had sent with one legion against the Veneti (ad Venetos), the Venelli, the Osismi, the Coriosolitae, the Esuvii, the Aulerci, and the Redones, which are maritime states, and touch upon the [Atlantic] ocean (quae sunt maritimae civitates Oceanumque attingunt), that all these nations were brought under the dominion and power of the Roman people.
• Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, I, 1: Antenor sailed into the furthest part of the Adriatic, accompanied by a number of Enetians (cum multitudine Enetum) who had been driven from Paphlagonia by a revolution and after losing their king Pylaemenes before Troy were looking for a settlement and a leader. The combined force of Enetians and Trojans defeated the Euganei, who dwelt between the sea and the Alps and occupied their land. The place where they disembarked was called Troy, and the name was extended to the surrounding district; the whole nation were called Veneti. (gens universa Veneti appellati)
• Strabo, Geographica, IV, 4, 1: After the nations mentioned come those of the Belgae, who dwell next the ocean. Of their number are the Veneti (Ὀυένετοι), who fought a naval battle with Caesar. [...] In my opinion these Veneti were the founders of the Veneti in the Adriatic (τοὺς Ὀυενέτους οἰκιστὰς εἶναι τῶν κατὰ τὸν Ἀδρίαν), for almost all the other Keltic (Κελτοὶ) nations in Italy have passed over from the country beyond the Alps, as for instance, the Boii and Senones. They are said to be Paphlagonians merely on account of a similarity of name. However, I do not maintain my opinion positively; for in these matters probability is quite sufficient.
• Strabo, Geographica, V, 1, 4: This is a superb plain variegated with fruitful hills. The Po divides it almost through its midst, one side being denominated Cispadana, and the other Transpadana. Cispadana comprehends that part next the Apennines and Liguria, and Transpadana the remainder. The former [division] is inhabited by Ligurian and Keltic nations, the former inhabiting the mountains and the latter the plains; and the latter [division] by Kelts and Heneti (τῶν Κελτῶν καὶ Ἑνετῶν). These Kelts are of the same race as the Transalpine Kelts. Concerning the Heneti there are two traditions, some saying that they are a colony of those Kelts of the same name who dwell by the ocean. Others say that they are descended from the Heneti of Paphlagonia, who took refuge here with Antenor after the Trojan war; and they give as a proof of this the attention these people bestow on rearing horses; which, though now entirely abandoned, was formerly in great esteem among them, resulting from the ancient rage for breeding mules, which Homer thus mentions: “From the Eneti for forest mules renowned.” (Iliad II. 857)
• Pliny, Naturalis Historia, III, 130: In the interior of the tenth region are the colonies of Cremona, Brixia in the territory of the Cenomanni, Ateste belonging to the Veneti, and the towns of Acelum, Patavium, Opitergium, Belunum, and Vicetia (Venetorum autem Ateste et oppida Acelum, Patavium, Opitergium, Belunum, Vicetia); with Mantua, the only city of the Tuscans now left beyond the Padus. Cato informs us that the Veneti are descendants of the Trojans (Venetos Troiana stirpe ortos), and that the Cenomanni dwelt among the Volcae in the vicinity of Massilia.
• Pliny, Naturalis Historia, IV, 97: Some writers state that these regions, as far as the river Vistula (ad Vistlam), are inhabited by the Sarmati, the Venedi (a Sarmatis, Venedis), the Sciri, and the Hirri, and that there is a gulf there known by the name of Cylipenus, at the mouth of which is the island of Latris, after which comes another gulf, that of Lagnus, which borders on the Cimbri.
• Pliny, Naturalis Historia, VI, 5: Beyond [the river Billis] begins the nation of Paphlagonia, by some writers called Pylaemenia; it is closed in behind by the country of Galatia. In it are Mastya, a town founded by the Milesians, and then Cromna, at which spot Cornelius Nepos also places the Eneti (quo loco Enetos adicit), from whom he would have us believe that the Veneti of Italy , who have a similar name, are descended. (a quibus in Italia ortos cognomines eorum Venetos)
• Tacitus, Germania, 46: As to the tribes of the Peucini, Veneti, and Fenni (Peucinorum Venedorumque et Fennorum nationes) I am in doubt whether I should class them with the Germans or the Sarmatae [...] The Veneti (Venedi) have borrowed largely from the Sarmatian character; in their plundering expeditions they roam over the whole extent of forest and mountain between the Peucini and Fenni. They are however to be rather referred to the German race, for they have fixed habitations carry shields, and delight in strength and fleetness of foot, thus presenting a complete contrast to the Sarmatae, who live in wagons and on horseback.

Drawing a map with ancient Slavic speakers living in north-eastern Italy or on the Atlantic coast is ludicrous (but there are nationalist autochthonist theories like the Venetic theory, which claims the Slovenes descend from the ancient Veneti). Moreover the Venetic language is attested on several inscriptions. [1] [2] Text samples: mego donasto śainatei reitiiai porai egeotora aimoi ke louderobos and eik goltanos doto louderai kanei. Certainly not a Slavic language!

Thus Johanna Nichols assumed a Venetic language spread (see her chapter "The Eurasian spread zone" in Archaeology and Language II, pp. 243-4): "these attestations suggest that the Veneti occupied most of northern Central Europe, i.e. much of the territory of present-day Poland and eastern Germany [...] and where subsequently Slavicized (or Celticized in part)" while "a group of Gauls in the vicinity of modern Brittany called Veneti by Caesar" was interpreted "as indicating that some Veneti became Celticized and migrated with the Celtic spread".

One can say the Vistula Veneti/Venedi were Slavs (none of these sources locate this tribe on the territory of modern Ukraine where most scholars search for the 'Slavic homeland'!), the other Veneti/Venedi weren't. One can say that Samo's Wends/Winidi were the Vistula Veneti/Venedi, but not the Italian Veneti. One cay say the Slavs were attested as Stavanoi by Ptolemy, but to deny all these Veneti/Venedi were part of one and the same tribe/"nation", or that they had one and the same language. All such separations are arbitrary.

It's also arbitrary to take Jordanes' claims at face value when he equates the Sclavenes and Antes with the Venedi. Jordanes also claims the Goths fought against the Egyptian pharaoh Sesostris (Getica, 44). If we trust Jordanes this must be also true! It's illogical to trust Jordanes on accounts we cannot verify (because we have no information about the history and languages spoken in Poland and Ukraine in that period), and to distrust him only on the accounts we can verify (ancient history in Mediterranean).

The same argument applies to Tabula Peutingeriana. In the region bordered by rivers, sea and Alpes Bastarnice there is a town, Porolisso (the ablative of Porolissum), and then the tribes of Piti, Gaete, Dagae and Venedi. If Venedi are properly located here, between the Carpathians and the Danube, then so must be Porolissum, but this is undoubtedly false! Actually the road running from W to E on TP was actually running from S/SE to N/NW: Patavissa/Potaissa - Napoca - Optatiana - Largiana - Certiae - Porolissum.

The same argument applies to Fredegar. He wrote of Sclavos, cognomento Winidos and also of Avares, cognomento Chunos. Were the Avars Huns? The characters in his story are the Venedi and the Huns: Winidi Befulci Chunis fuerant and filii Chunorum, quos in uxores Winidorum et filias generaverant, etc.Daizus (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

When Europeans discovered America, they called the inhabitants Indians. In 1500 did the natives view themselves as Indians? Did they speak an "Indian language"? Did they even have only one language? Now there are also names such as Red Indians or Amerindians or American Indians, all derived from the same misidentification. Ironically in time the natives adopted this name, as well. Thus in the Native Americans in the United States article we find out that "according to a 1995 US Census Bureau set of home interviews, most of the respondents with an expressed preference refer to themselves as American Indians or Indians". Daizus (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Much of the above rant is irrelevant to the issues under discussion.

No, much of the discussion is irrelevant to the article, irrelevant to the section topic (the Buyla inscription) - it's just an recurring theory of yours about the history of Eastern Europe. And the "above rant" just disproves it. Daizus (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• The coincidence of the Balto-Slavic Venedi (or Venedae, Venethi, Veneti) name with that of the Italic Veneti and the Celtic Veneti is purely fortuitous: the barbarian names Latinised as Veneti (Wenden, Vened, and Guened respectively) happen to be similar, but there is no doubt from their location and description that we are dealing with completely separate ethnolinguistic groups. As for Wenden, this was a Germanic rendition of what was probably an endonym, in view of the Finno-Ugric similar, but independent, name for them (Vene). Since we are dealing with an endonym, Dz's "analogy" with American "Indians" is spurious, as the latter is an exonym.

As pointed above, it's illogical to consider "Balto-Slavic Venedi" (can you quote at least one "Balto-Slavic" word in their language?) - Italic Veneti a coincidence, but at the same time to equate Stavanoi with Sclavenes, Venedi with Wends and so on. When the names are most similar you say it's a coincidence, and all the other less similar instances are not coincidences, but genuine attestations of this "nation"? You want the Slavic speakers (and Porolissum :))!) in Wallachia in the 4th century (to the detriment of Thracians, Dacians or Romance speakers), that's why you articulate and embrace this theory. All your theories support the same obsessive ideas about the ancient and modern nations of Eastern Europe. Daizus (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

My analogy is not spurious, Wends is an exonym, even Slavs is an exonym for many centuries (according to Curta until 12th century). To speak of an endonym you have to prove the Wends or the Slavs called themselves with these names when they were attested by Jordanes and Fredegar. Daizus (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• All the sources suffer from accuracy and consistency issues (to varying degrees). So the historian must draw the most likely conclusion from the available scraps of evidence. The case for the Venedi being Slavic-speakers is substantial, but not conclusive. But the other options (Baltic, Germanic, Finno-Ugric and Sarmatian) fit the evidence less than Slavic. There is also the question: if the Venedi were not Slavic-speakers, then who did speak Slavic? As SV rightly states, Slavic cannot just have appeared out of nowhere. Curta suggests that the Sclaveni of Wallachia may have adopted Slavic speech via the Avars, but if so, who did the Avars get it from? It is far more likely that the Sclaveni had been Slavic-speaking all along. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.100.230.40 (talk) 09:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.100.230.40 (talk) 08:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

yes, but that's where the precise details are at variance. Slavic must be referred to as the language spoken. How it came to be spoken throughout eastern Europe, and how it 'emerged' from Indo-European are separate and entirely more complex issues than that of the Sklavenes (=various 6th century groups of fighters/ Byzantine merceneries/ Avar foot-soldiers, or the Venedi (=a generic exonym used by Roman sources to refer to the little known communities in the forest zpne of E.E., an entirely generic term which did not presuppose any ethnic, political or even linguistic unity; and one later adopted by Germans, and through them, the Finns). Did some of these people which were all called "Venedi" speak some form of pre-Slavic in the 2nd century AD, or even 2nd BC (?), yes quite probably. Did they call themselves Venedi, recognize themslevs as such, and were aware that they spoek a language called "Slavic"? Unlikely. And the evidence from rivernames you sight is far from conclusive. In fact, the evidence of rivernames to establish 'homelands' is based on a false premise - that languages developed in distinct, definable areas; and these could in turn be 'discovered' by analysing words, rivernames, and loans, etc. Moreveover, even if you accept rivername evidence, you;d have to be aware that there is no universal agreement where the 'oldest' occur; Trubachev posited Pannonia, Polish scholars placed it between Oder & Vistula, Shchenker in middle Dnieper, Rostafanski in Polesie, Udolph in North Carpathian region, etc, Slovenski Volk (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Map of North-American languages at the earliest time of European contact. Read the lucid presentation from image's description.

As my analogy with the American Indians proves, there's no reason why all the Venedi or all the Sclavenes to speak only one native language. In US and Canada there are about 300 distinct native languages grouped in almost 30 families, and there are also some unclassified languages/isolates. With all that, all these tribes once were considered part of the same "nation", the Other. The language of the Vistula Venedi can be Germanic, Finno-Ugric, another Indo-European language (as J. Nichols suggested), another non-Indo-European language, but also they can be a group of tribes speaking different languages, Indo-European and non-Indo-European. It's fallacious to build arguments based on lack of imagination constrained by modern linguistic maps. Many languages disappeared in the past 2000 years, many languages changed their territory. In Archaeology and Language III, Daniel McCall and Harold C. Fleming list 22 language groups in ancient Mediterranean and Near East, "most of which are not known to have direct descendants" (pp. 232-3). True, Greek shows twice with Mycenaean and the Greek dialects spoken in Western Mediterranean, but at the same time one group contains "various poorly known specimens of early-Indo-European in northern Italy and the Balkans, e.g. Ligurian, Venetic, Messapic, Illyrian, Thracian et. al." noting also that "Illyrian may be ancestral to Albanian" and "Phrygian should also be listed here" Daizus (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

And to test EN's "method", here's an exercise. Authors such as Pliny and Strabo mention many tribes in the Indus basin. What is the ancient name of the Burushaski speakers? Daizus (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Fibulae. The third one from the left belongs to a type often found through the "pathetic quasi-troglodytic remains" of the Eastern European cultures.

And Curta certainly did not suggest that "Sclaveni of Wallachia may have adopted Slavic speech via the Avars". As SV alluded, Curta does not even address the question who spoke Slavic before the 6th century. According to Curta "language shifts were inextricably tied to shifts in the political economy in which speech situations were located." There was no Sclavene unity before the Avars, their local identities had different ways of expression. The dissemination of "emblemic styles" is coincidental with the rise of local elites (Dauritas, Samo) "creating" new groups and acting in their name. What languages were spoken by these groups, what names these groups had for themselves, these are things which we probably will never know for sure. Daizus (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• It is not surprising that Fredegar conflates Huns and Avars. Both groups were Mongoloid, Turkic-speaking, nomadic steppe horsemen with a very similar culture and possibly mutually intelligible languages. They also ruled over much the same transdanubian territories. It is likely that the Avars, on their way to, and on, the Hungarian Plain, "co-opted" and integrated the remnants of Hunnic groups to ensure that the nomadic elite had the numerical strength to effectively terrorise the sedentary majority. (They probably did the same with Sarmatian relics, which may account for the Caucasian element in high-status burials). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.107.40.109 (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Curta devotes an enormous amount of time and effort to analysing fibulae in Hungary/Dacia. What he achieves is to show how little archaeology can tell us about ethnic differences. To begin with, his sophisticated analytical techniques are little use since his samples are so small (a handful of fibulae) that they are not statistically significant. Even if one accepts that his results are significant, all he can tell us is that Hungary was divided between Lombards and Gepids - which we know already from the chroniclers.

Again, you're discussing about things you don't know. Curta's analysis covers hundreds of bow fibulae of Werner classes from Central and Eastern Europe. Here you'll find about:

IH (2004): 30 specimens from lower Danube, Crimea, Middle Dnieper, Mazuria, Belarus, Moldavia

ID (2006): 73 specimens from lower Danube, Crimea, Middle Dnieper (also on the middle/upper course of Desna in today Russia), Mazuria, Belarus, Carpathian Basin, Moldavia, Greece, Pergamum

IG (2006): 32 specimens from Crimea, Middle Dnieper, Mazuria, Carpathian Basin

IC (2008): 87 specimens from lower Danube, Middle Dnieper, Mazuria, Carpathian Basin, southern Russia, Moldavia, Albania, Greece, Pergamum

IIB (2009): 40 specimens from Middle Dnieper, Crimea, Carpathian Basin

IF (2008, 2009): 44 specimens from Middle Dnieper, Mazuria, Carpathian Basin (but also on the southern edge of the Carpathians)

IJ (2009): 10 specimens from Middle Dnieper, Mazuria, Carpathian Basin (but also on the southern edge of the Carpathians), eastern Lithuania (Curta argues IJ is a copy of IF)

IIA (2010): 28 specimens from lower Danube, Crimea, Middle Dnieper (also on the middle/upper courses of Desna and Seim in today Russia)

In most cases the distributions are exclusive and there are no fibulae in the vast spaces between Crimea, Mazuria, Lithuania, Belarus and Carpathians and lower Danube. For some classes there are no fibulae between Middle Dnieper and Carpathians as well. The distributions and the cluster analyses indicate the presence of Werner bow fibulae is not evidence for mass migrations (of "Slavs"), but for elite "migrations" (matrimonial alliances, mercenaries, gifts - these are high status items, showing up in few numbers in each community).

As for the role of these items as "emblemic styles" (and thus ethnic markers), Curta provided numerous proofs, intra and inter-site analyses. I cannot summarize thousands of pages in few paragraphs to someone who is obstinately refusing to get some basic facts straight and read a bibliography which is mostly freely available online. Every time you write "Curta is wrong about X" eventually we find out you simply have no idea what this author is saying. Daizus (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Winidi befulci Chunis fuerant: this has been mistranslated as "the Wends were the soldiers of the Huns"; in fact the tense is pluperfect and befulci is best translated as herdsmen, i.e. grazing-serfs. Thus, the correct translation is: "the Wends had been herdsmen for the Huns". Here Fredegar appears to understand the distinction between Huns and Avars and the fact that the former ruled over the Wends before the Avars did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.107.40.109 (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Cute. But wrong! The context is: Winidi Befulci Chunis fuerant jam ab antiquitus, ut cum Chuni in exercitu contra gentem quamlibet aggrediebant, Chuni pro castris adunato illorum exercitu stabant, Winidi vero pugnabant. So the Wends were not "herdsmen for the Huns" but fighting soldiers, as the Latin text so clearly explains. I'm afraid this pastoral fantasy is against all evidence. The term befulci is probably cognate with the word fulcfree from the Edict of Rothari. According to one theory they derive from the Old German felhan = "to guard, to entrust" (and I guess also with Gothic filhan = "to hide, to conceal"). I think more probable is a derivation from the PGmc *fulka- which was inherited in almost Germanic languages (OHG folc, OE folc, ON folk, etc.) with the meaning "army, host, people, crowd, etc.". This word was also borrowed in Latin as fulcum. (ad fulco was a command in the Late Roman army) Daizus (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If the term derives from felhan, then "herdsmen" is consistent with that, in the sense of "guarding the Huns' herds of animals", the latter being the nomads' most important assets. Fredegar is using befulci to mean simply "serfs". In battle, the Wends were used as "cannon-fodder": the Avars would watch while the Wends did the fighting, presumably only intervening if they were losing. The Romans often used their auxiliary troops in this way against backward enemies: the auxiliaries would be sent forward to fight, while the legionaries watched from the rear, ready to engage if things started to go wrong eg the Battle of Mons Graupius. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.110.152.183 (talk) 07:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Anon. (who are you by the way?), back to what you said earlier Curta suggests that the Sclaveni of Wallachia may have adopted Slavic speech via the Avars, but if so, who did the Avars get it from? It is far more likely that the Sclaveni had been Slavic-speaking all along.

That's not what he surmises. He states in his "Slavic Lingua Franca" paper that the Sclavenes and Antes might have spoken Slavic (although we do not really know what they spoke, apart from the evidence of a few Sklavene chiefs' names, if they spoke a single language at all - they probably spoke a several different languages, some of which were possibly related, some not - eg Latin). In turn the Avars continued to use this language as a koine. It then spread farther to Moravia, western Balkans, etc due to the influence of their Empire. You need to differentiate SKlavenes from all (later) Slavs.

To use a an anology - take Celtic. The Celts (Gallatoi) were first specifically a tribe in southern Gaul known by the GReeks (correct me if my details are wrong). Later, the term was adapted to refer to multitudes of different tribes in late Iron Age central Europe (just like the Sklavenes -> Slavs situation). On the other hand, the La Tene archaeological style is generally accepted as being first 'developed' farther north, to the northwest of the old Halstatt 'chiefdoms'. As for Celtic language - well no one know exactly where this arose, some suggest the Atlantic facade (Koch, Cunliffe), others Pannonia (Schmidt), some place it in the Iron Age, others Bronze. Renfrew, goes to say that it developed gradually and converged to "Celtic" over the entirety of central Europe and Britain. So clearly, language is the most difficult to get a concensus on, and whats more, the 'ethnic', 'linguistic' and 'archaeological' do not match. Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The IP guy is EraNavigator who apparently doesn't own or know how to handle a computer :) Just check his style and arguments, they are always the same.

As for his last comment, he pushes his theory to the ridicule. The Roman auxiliaries were soldiers not shepherds. Fredegar uses befulci to mean "soldiers" (or as some scholars put it "border-guards"), as proven by the Latin text: ut [...] pugnabant. Daizus (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Curta's fibulae

Curta's herculean investigations into the styles and distribution of bow fibulae in the Balkans cannot sustain his conclusions. The distribution patterns in no way exclude the possibility of mass migrations. And "emblemic" material remains have no value as ethnic markers, as their meaning cannot be deciphered by archaeologists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.109.211.180 (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure they do. How could the fibulae-wearers migrate in masses between Mazuria (NE Poland) and Carpathians leaving absolutely no trace in the 600km+ in between (fibulae show in graves as luxury dress ornaments)? And not only that, why sometimes the earlier fibulae show in Carpathians/lower Danube area, and the later fibulae on Middle Dnieper on Mazuria (i.e. the "migration" is from south to north)?

As for "emblemic style", is just like the ethnic traditions we see today, which no one denies. Curta proved his method on Western (Lombards) vs Eastern (Gepids) Carpathian basin separated by a no man's land (between Danube and Tisza). There's no difference in the construction of male identity in burials (same dress, same military gear - swords, shields), but there was a visible difference in the female graves. Women graves with earrings with polyhedral cubes are known only in the Gepidia (no such burials are known in Lombardia), artificial cranial deformation was maintained in Gepidia - probably from Huns (unknown in Lombardia), women graves with straps with fastened jewels are known only in Lombardia (none in Gepidia, though occasionally produced reliquaries attached to the belt), and of course, there are the brooches (Fig. 18 on p. 202 in The Making of the Slavs): "completely different, but coexisting, types of brooches were in use and fashion on each side of the "no man’s land" between the Danube and the Tisza river". However no type is specific to Lombards or Gepids, they all occur in Germany, France, Italy, Crimea, Mazuria (in short the similar specimens can be found at great distance, but not in the neighboring territories). Their exclusive use on each side of the border is what makes these brooches "Lombardic" or "Gepidic" in this context. And that's how archaeology proves it, because independently from the written sources it can identify two exclusive groups (we can use the written sources to give a name to our already identified groups). It's not even important if the wearers were conscious of their "emblemic style", they expressed it nevertheless and their groups are exclusive and that's what the researchers care to know.

As for the "Slavic" bow fibulae, they are not Curta's, they are Werner class fibulae. But as pointed above, you know too little about Curta's work and about archaeology and anthropology in general, for your opinion to count. After all, you're spamming a Wiki talk page, you're not publishing an article ;) Daizus (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as interesting as all the topics are, this has gotten off topic; and as above, get a user ID so we can at least 'know' who we are directing our discussions to. Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Should I move the last two topics (or more?) to the Early Slavs talk page? Daizus (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

possibly, might be appropriate. Slovenski Volk (talk) 11:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)