Slavic Ethnogenesis

[brumi]

Thank you both.

Ok. The first (or so it is said) Macedonian king according to the legend was Caranus. Was this a real name for a king or did it have to mean something else? Let us look at it this way. He was a king. As we see from his name Caranus it resembles to the word crown (koruna) which is nothing suspicious since was a king and wore a crown on his head, so apparently only his title remained. It was written down by the Greeks, that’s why there is an –us on the end of his name, so we could presume when they asked a Macedonian: “who is that man?”, he would reply: “the king”, and so they wrote it down.
The second meaning of his name could be koren (root) since he was the first king.
You choose. They both fit.
Check the similarities between modern and ancient Macedonians (only a chapter).


Since my studies are mostly about Balkans and Western Slavs, I do not know much about the history of Eastern Slavs.
I know for example that the Varjags (Varangians) who is said to be Normans were actually Slavs. Such examples are that they spoke the Slavic language, they practiced Slavic culture and most importantly they fought against Normans. At the city of Novgorod Varjags killed over 10.000 Viking warriors. From that battle Vikings rarely attacked Eastern Europe, but concentrated on the west.
Varjags knew Slavic; they were Slavs and eventually they became Russian princes (Rurik, Oleg).
Varjags were actually western Slavs from what is now Poland, East Germany and Slovenia (Slovenia is no longer southern). According to the work of Nestor and Heinrich Kunstmann the Veneti, that is western Slavs, settled in the area of the Ilmen Lake south of Sankt Petersburg. What is now known as the Finnic Bay was once called Venetic Gulf (Sinus Venedicus). The Veneti called themselves Sloveni, and we still do (Slovenes, Slovaks), which is interesting since the old name of Novgorod was Slovensk. Also a minor river in the area now called Slavjanka was once called Slovenskaja reka.
The entire region of Novgorod could in fact be called Slovenia.

The Slovenich Dynasty:[/b]
• Sloven, Prince of Slovenia (Novgorod), 7th century AD
• Ivan the Glorious, Prince of Slovenia (Novgorod), 8th century AD
• Vandal, Prince of Slovenia (Novgorod), 8th century AD
• Burivoy, Prince of Slovenia (Novgorod), 8th century AD
• Randver, Prince of Slovenia (Novgorod), 8th century AD
• Ratibor, Prince of Slovenia (Novgorod), 9th century AD
• Gostomysl the Reasonable, Prince of Slovenia (Novgorod), 859 AD
• Vadim I the Brave, Prince of Slovenia (Novgorod), 859 - 862, 867, 870 AD


I hope you understood something. I’m not much of a writter.

[Яромip]

hrm!

Varyagi = Slavs?

With names like

Askol'd, Dir => Rulers in Kiev

Rurik, Sineus, Truvor => Rulers in Novgorod

The epic describes Rurik traveling down to Kiev and "recognizing his kin" forming a plot to assasinate them.

Plus names like Oleg, Igor' and Ol'ga don't sound slavic to me (Ratibor, Vladimir, Yaroslav...etc)

I'd need some serious proof to accept this.

------------------

Just like the claim that Atilla was a Kievan Prince would also needs some serious proof.
Why is his name Atilla? Why "the Hun"?

I am, however, willing and eager to listen.

[brumi]

First it depends who wrote down those names. For example the Persian kings Cyrus, Xerxes and Darius have Greek names. Were they Greek? Hell no, but the names with which Greeks called were taken over by western scholars.

If the name Attila doesn’t sound Slavic, you should know that such names which end with mir or slav are not only ones which are Slavic. As for the Varjag names I said that they were Slavs, but they were Veneti, and among the Veneti names which end with mir or slav are rare, so are they in Balkans. For example such ancient Macedonian names like: Ata, Bere, Caran, Daron, Dada, Dimno, Dita, Dud, Kopria, Lyka, Milo, Mamina, Myrcin, Mucati, Pita, Rumi, Sita, Sopol, Stasanor, Stamen, Sever, Sipa, Traizina, Zaika, Zaimina… are Slavic. Many of these are still used today.

Askold, Dir, Rurik, Sine(us), Truvor, Oleg, Igor… could be of any origin, but for example my name is Tomas, that’s a Jewish name. Am I a Jew? No!
These names could be Slavic, your just not looking at them correctly. Maybe Dir, Rurik is spelled wrong or Oleg is a nickname... you never know about such things.

The Varjags were Veneti, most importantly they were familiar with the way Vikings fought and they were known for their ‘Norman regiments’. In fact they were Slavs who came to Russia from the Baltic, what is now Poland and East German shore, but also from other parts of Europe. If you have read the PCT you would know that there is such a thing called ‘warrior elite’. This is not a nation, but a group of warriors who came from one land, but grew in numbers by accepting others into their ranks. Goths were such people. Varjags were too. God only knows from which Slavic lands they all came.

The epic describes Rurik traveling down to Kiev and "recognizing his kin" forming a plot to assasinate them.

I didn’t say he was a Kievan, nor any close to them. I said he was a Slav and Slavs fought each other all the time.


Oh and, why “the Hun”. I will use words from a Serbian scholar Antic to answer you.
It is a known fact that almost every Slavic war campaign that came from East Europe was treated by western, Roman and Greek historians as a mere “Tatar invasion”. Whether those warriors were Slavs or not, they were called Huns or other.
Was Attila a Slav? Who knows, but we do know he was a prince from Kiev which was even founded during his rule and his brother was called Vlad.


If you have any more questions….

[Яромip]

Askold, Dir, Rurik, Sine(us), Truvor, Oleg, Igor… could be of any origin, but for example my name is Tomas, that’s a Jewish name. Am I a Jew? No!

Point well taken. My given name is Danil(or Danilo) which is also of jewish origin.

My ancestors started using Greek and Jewish names because of religion (as misguided as that might be), what could prompt our ancient ancestors to accept foreign names?

To me, names like Igor' and Oleg are very comfortable but so are names like Konstantin, so I really can't go by internal feelings here.

I am quite relieved that harsher germanic names did not make it into the language. Imagine Slavic women named Ingred...brrrrr....nonetheless, slavic names for women have virtually disapeared among East-Slavs, and for man are something like 5% of the total. This complicates research.

Names like Reykyavik invoke a strange feeling, probably because suffix -ik denotes little/cute in Russian.
-
Point well taken about Balkan names, I can even understand some of them.
-
Any actual evidence that Goths were slavs???
-
Atilla had a son named Vlad? Well that would be pretty telling! Any more information?

[brumi]

No, not son, brother.

Goths were not Slavs, well the real Goths were not Slavs. They passed and fought wars in and against many Slavic lands and kingdom. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were many Slavs among their ranks or even them mixing with Slavic women and having many Slavic words in their vocabulary.

Vandals on the other hand were Slavs. Check these Vandal words:
stal (chair), baba (grandmother), ptach (bird), kobyla (mare), krug (circle), golubo (pigeon), klicz (key), zumby (teeth), mlady (young)...
The writer Mauro Orbini adduces in his book (1601) some Vandalic words thou the book was soon declared as heresy.
Modern Swedes are genetically closest to Slovenians. You can check if you like.

From Dr. J. Savli:

In my opinion, the main part of Vandal tribes remained in Scandinavia. They were the ancestors of the present-day Swedes. They adopted gradually a Germanic tongue, probably inherited from the Goths. But they conserved the ancient Vendic social organization. They also elected their king, and until today he bears the title "The King of the Vends and Goths". Quite naturally, these "Vends" are Swedes. But I was very surprised to discover that the Swedish king himself was installed on a Stone, like the Dukes of Carantania (Slovenia). After the election, the installation on the Stone took place. Thus, is there more than a genetic closeness between the Swedes and the Slovenians?!

Well, I could give you a lot of info but anything specific. I could go all the way to India. Which reminds me. The so called Aryan invasion of 1400 BC never did occurre. I’m not much into the subject but modern Indian historians have proved it to be a complete fiction put forward by the British colonizers. It reminds me of our situation, doesn’t it?

[Яромip]

The so called Aryan invasion of 1400 BC never did occurre. I’m not much into the subject but modern Indian historians have proved it to be a complete fiction put forward by the British colonizers. It reminds me of our situation, doesn’t it?

Yes, absolutely. I never took the Aryan invasion theory seriously. I find Aryan expulsion theory more plausible.

Must of accepted theory seems to have been custom-tailored to promote white supremacy myth.
-
Swedes geneticly slavs? Sheesh! What about Norwegians then? This is mind-shattering.

[brumi]

Nah, Norwegians are Germanic. Their closeness to the Swedes is only linguistical, and somewhat religious (Protestant) and cultural. Not to mention geographical. The Germanic area in Paleolith was more to the west than in the last 2.000 years, around the North Sea.
Even during Julius Caesar part of Swabia and Switzerland were Slavic (Veneti) and Bavaria was completely Slavic. You should read the work of Alexander Fomich Veljtman (Àëåêñàíäð Ôîìè÷ Âåëüòìàí): Indo-Germans or Slavs (Èíäî-Ãåðìàíû èëè Ñàéâàíå) where he questions Tacitus’ work: Germania. Here’s how he puts it: “If you would ask Tacitus to tell you the difference between Germanic, Celtic or Slavic population of Germany you can be sure he wouldn’t know.”
We could ask hundreds of ancient and classical authors similar questions and few would know the answer. How many times did Herodotus say in his work that he “could not tell you which ethnicity” some tribe was. He would usually just call them barbarians (foreigner; interestingly it is how ancient Greeks called Macedonians. Got the hint?), meaning he doesn’t know.

It is usually assumed that ancient peoples were ethnically homogenous. Well I can assure you that it is absurd. Take Egyptians for example: their Pharaohs were once Egyptian, then Nubian, Persian, Macedonian… their armies were from almost every nationality (at one point even Russian mercenaries could be found there) and the peasants were of those nations which were conquered not to mention immigrants who came to Egypt because it was wealthy.
Greeks were even more colorful: Egyptians, Phoenicians, Pelasgians, Anatolians, Italics...

So you see if I say that southern Sweden was once Slavic and that modern Swedes are genetically Slavic, it does not mean that they didn't teither mix with a Germanic population or coexisted on the same land.

Such modern un-Slavic European nations which are genetically Slavic are: Hungarians, Romanians, Moldovans, Austrians, east Germans, south Swedes, south French, north Italians, Cretans (pure Slavs), even some Turks.
When it comes to Turks they barely left any genetical marking on the population of Asia Minor and even less on the European one. Turks were warriors and they didn’t mix much with the peasant population, even though they imposed their language on it (much like Germans and Greeks did). As I remember even their most numerous soldiers, the Janissary were taken from the un-Turkish population. You could say that the Ottoman Empire wasn’t even Turkish.
You'd be surprised to know (especially if you are from Balkans) that the Turks in Asia Minor use more Slavic words than you use Turkish ones. There are even many words which people consider Turkish but are actually Slavic.

Interesting, isn’t it?

[Яромip]

It is very interesting, and if true, very troubling.

It indicates that we are LOSING territory and losing population to foreign agression and assimilation.

This is something that has to be reversed.

Btw, I found it interesting how the Western border of the Eastern Bloc was placed near the supposed limit of ancient Slavic expansion.

[White Cossack]

Were the Atlantis Slavic? I heard rumours the Neanderthals were as well.

[Danik]

White Cossack :-)

Brumi sorry brother but lots of things you say seems very strange to me. I get a feeling of slavic imperialism and a hunger for greater history. Ocourse we should not accept the false stories of our migration but coing up with conclusions like austrians are slavs, southern sweden are savs etc etc is just a big melting pot of extrem ideas that you got from different radical (that is those who want to stirr up things) writers.

Sorry!

[brumi]

Well first of all I'm not trying to be extreme. I'm just writing what is a fact. Austrian has Slavic genes, but he doesn't consider himself Slavic nor he respects any Slavic way, so screw him. I just told you what genetic studies have proven.

The same way I'm not trying to prove any greater history. That what I wrote just is.
There are those things which do not fit into some Slavic idea of who Slavs should be and what their history was, but if we ignore those facts which don't fit us we would be writing false history.
Is it my fault that Swedes are genetically Slavs? No, I don't think so. And I don't like the idea very much myself, but that is how it is.
Is it my fault that the one of the oldest civilizations on Earth were Slavic? No, that neither.

I don't know of what people are accusing me of. Did I kill someone by what I wrote? Did I steal something? Did I lye to you?
I don't think so.

[Яромip]

I am typicly very cautious about claims such as these, but Brumi is pro-Truth not pro-Agrandizement.

There are Norwegian historians who assert that Rurik, Truvor and Sineus were Slavs, though their emphasis is on previous inter-marriage between slavs and scandinavians.

So even Germanics question the "official" history.

[makedonskisloven]

Why is it so hard to accept that the 19th century view of history may be wrong. In science we accept new theories readily but somehow when it comes to history we want to cling to what we have learned even if it seems unreasonable.

I am still trying to get my head around how a whole group of nations like the Thracians can suddenly dissapear form Europe despite being one of the largest nations in Europe.

I am also perplexed how such a small geographic area can sustain such a huge population like the Slavs, who within a few centuries become the largest nation of people in europe.

Is it simple coincidence that when the ancient peoples like Thracians and Veneti disappear the Slavs appear. To me that simple problem of arithmetic and sustainbility plus the coincedence in time of the disappearance of one group and the sudden emergance of the other suggests something is not quite right with the traditional view.

Now when you factor into this equation the linguistic simmilarities of these two peoples then I believe the jigsaw starts to fall into place.

Brumi should be encouraged to post his perspective what are some people on this forum afraid of. That our history may be richer and more glorious than we have imagined or is it the inability to throw out knowledge we have become emotionally attached to for one raeson or another. If that is the case then it is a problem of individual egos not a rigorous search for historical truth.

Brumi has explained quite clearly to me that many of the names of the people of the past be it personal or tribal are not the actual names of those people but simply the particular version of the recorders of that history.

Even the name Jesus is not the real name of the person or god whatever you may believe he may have been.So if its been that easy to misname Jesus what hope to we have of exacting the real names of others from the past..

I for one feel qiite indebted to Brumi and his posts on this and other forums he has opened my eyes to many possibilities something that not many others on any forum have done.

[brumi]

Science
(Suhotra Swami: Substance and Shadow, Introduction, references)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still, students in schools throughout the world must pass examinations on theories that scientists themselves admit are unproven. Why? The answer is that a theory is accepted not on the grounds of its certitude, but on the grounds that nobody has yet disproved it. "The best anyone can say of a theory is that it has not been disproved". (Ferguson, page 26) This principle forms the basis of modern scientific knowledge. This same principle, ironically, is considered a fallacy in classical philosophy: *argumentum ad ignorantium*, the fallacy of argument from ignorance. An argument that says something is true because nobody has proved it false, or that something is false because nobody has proved it true, is held to be invalid according to this rule of fallacy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Яромip]

The Negative Evidence Principle is, of course, not foolproof. It is not a proof in itself, but is rather a guideline, a good rule of thumb. How useful and reliable it is, of course, is subject to debate among logicians. Here's how the N.E.P. works - it states that you have good reason for not believing in a proposition if the following three principles are satisfied:

-First-, all of the evidence supporting the proposition has been shown to be unreliable.

-Second-, there is no evidence supporting the proposition when the evidence should be there if the proposition is true.

-Third-, a thorough and exhaustive search has been made for supporting evidence where it should be found.

19th century is a fraud as it was largly devised with the purpose of enforcing the myth of Western superiority