Any good books on this? Basically Slavs went from not existing to dominating entire Eastern Europe.
I've read Florin Curta "The Making of Slavs", and it was good, but he's an archeolog, he shows what might be concluded from evidences, doesn't give out theor(ies)y.
Also, what are accepted theories on Slavic migrations?
Other urls found in this thread:
academia.edu
eupedia.com
twitter.com
This thread will be mostly Polish ultranationalist revisionism.
I'm tired of franks, germanics and roman threads.
bump
Genocided the Finnic peoples, reparations when?
Not really, they mostly get assimilated. Slavs assimilated a lot. Question is why, why would it happen so fast on such a big area?
That's quite mysterious imo.
Slavs had a unique culture which was very open to outsiders yet also warlike to the max.
>warlike
not really. slavs didn't have huge empires beside russia. slavs were conquered by other countries.
Being warlike doesn't mean being good at warfare.
Slavs obviously resorted to violence when they took Poland, it just happens that it was easy to take since it was mostly abandoned by Germanics.
>Be Czechs
>Live with proto-Poles (Vislans)
>wars.png
>"It's too harsh in here, we cannot take this, going to west, bye"
>"warlike"
B-but muh legends
m8 slavs went all the way down to athens to the south, and the rine to the west, they sure as fuck weren't bad at chasing other people away
and while we can't know for sure, i doubt it was with bribes and persuasive arguments
This.
Can we argue that G*rmans are just confused Poles larping as Anglo Saxons?
The infamous Slav squat is well known to enhance male fertility.
>slavs
>not subhuman
pick one
bump
Slavic tribes migrated into depopulated regions, settling among the remaining native population. Armed conflict between them and the locals was minimal, the latter dissapeared through assimilation and intermarriage.
>Florin Curta
A gypsy claiming Slavs aren't real.
...
East Germans have quite a sizeable Wendish admixture.
I can tell you what happened with the eastern slavs.
Eastern Slavs mixed with the Finnic people, who stretched all the way to Moscow and then some at that time. The cultural meme of Finnic people was to assemble into kingdom sized confederations without taking the final step of becoming kingdoms. You know, this kind of Elder Circle kind of thing.
Eastern Slavs adopted this Finnic meme. They also started making confederations. However, Eastern Slavs were so far south that they had regular interactions with the more developed Byzantine Empire. From them, they learned the more imperialistic memes.
This resulted in them putting the 1 + 1 together and turned their multi-ethnic(mainly slavic + finnic) confederations into kingdom-ish things with some sort of centralized leadership. It also helped that they were sitting right on top of the Fur Road. As it is with the Fur Road, the one who hold most of it, can make the most profit. So, that enticed for them to take up conquests along the route.
Of course, after the adoption of confederation meme, these slavs turned over time into a mixture of finnic and slavic people. These FINNO-SLAVS were effectively like anglo-saxons in their own region. This mixing took place long before they had cities up north.
TL;DR - Eastern Slavs, in essence Russians, are moderately distant relatives of Slavs. Those "Eastern Slavs" are actually Finno-Slavs, a separate kind of peoples, who are the result of finnic and slavic merge.
>w-we wuz role models n shiet
>t. Pekka
Russian imperialism comes from the Tatar horde, pre-Mongol Russia was not imperialist.
>"let me bullshit you on how Poleshits are a little different than Russhits"
>pre-Mongol Russia was not imperialist.
>were smacking tributary demands left-right-up-down since Rus Khaganate
>they were peaceful before m-mongols
prove me wrong then, faggots
>We successfully assigned haplogroups to sixteen individuals. Eight belonged to haplogroup I1 (I-M253). Three of them belonged to the sub-branch I1a3a1a1a (I-L1237) and one to I1a2a (I-Z59). I1 is the most common haplogroup in present day Scandinavia, and it is found in all places invaded by ancient Germanic tribes and Vikings. Four samples belonged to haplogroup G2a (G-P15) which is spread uniformly throughout Europe. Other individuals were assigned to I2a2 (I-M436), R1a (R-M420), R1bl (R-L278), E1b1 (E-P2). The next portion of samples is under investigation. With this study we hope to shed new light into the genetic structure of populations inhabiting lands of contemporary Poland during the Roman Iron Age and the Middle Ages.
So this says that the indigenous Germanic people of Poland weren't ancestral to modern day Poles to a large extent. Poles are pretty much fully Slavic invaders from Ukraine.
In light of this discovery, Germans now have full rights to tell Poles to go home and give back their land.
Okay, so you say Slavic speaking people created kingdoms in the east and assimilated all other people. That makes sense. But how fast did it take to achieve assimilation?
If we say that Slavs always lived in what is today Ukraine, how did they spread so quickly? Like one user said today's Poland was inhabited by Germanic people. Since Germanics moved away I can understand Slavs replaced them.
But what about rest of Europe? South Slavs? Czechs&Slovaks?
Why is Romania not Slavic? Is Hungary non-Slavic because they ruled over Slavs and assimilated them?
>But what about rest of Europe? South Slavs? Czechs&Slovaks?
eupedia.com
Start reading from #95.
These are the only early Slavic samples that I'm aware as of today. Of course the oncoming Slavs mixed with populations inhabiting prior them thus resulting in various genetic drifts depending on area they came to.
So, what was the relationship between Slavs and Avars exactly?
I don't like haplos. It shows something, but usually it makes blood=nationality, and it doesn't work like that 100%.
I like theory that Avar Khaganate used Slavic as lingua franca on its territory, which explains Slavic expansion. Rather than genetical expansion, it was linguistical expansion mostly.
Friends and sex partners just like the Bulgars.
Autosomal DNA is nothing like haplogroups, my little stupid friend. Autosomal DNA shows your overall genetic makeup, haplogroups only shows up your Y-DNA marker or mtDNA marker that you inherited from your father's or mother's line but it tells absolutely nothing about your overall genetic makeup.
>Rather than genetical expansion, it was linguistical expansion mostly.
Believe what you want but it doesn't fit into archaeological perspective and genetic data.
So, Slavs just expanded on everyside from Ukraine, mostly genetical? I have no knowledge or will to interpret "not-haplo" data.
>So, Slavs just expanded on everyside from Ukraine, mostly genetical?
More or less yes, though not in same proportions everywhere, in case of South Slavs it was not as severe as in Poland for example which was sparsely populated after migration of Eastern Germanics or whatever Germanic like population that was there.
okay, now more important question, which is more interesting.
Why? How come Slavs assimilated and expanded so much? ignore Russia and Asian part. It's still more than half of Europe. There are no great Slavic invasions, no great Slavic kingdoms in that time, no reports of Slavs pillaging (beside Byzantines). Hell, even word for a slave comes from Slav.
Slavs weren't prestigious people like Huns, Turks, Germanics, Mongols, Avars etc., people who were warlike and conquered a lot.
Poles are not Slavic or Germanic, they're kikes.
>no Great Slavic invasions
>no reports of Slavic pillaging
Wrong.
Because most of East Europe was depopulated after migration of Germanics, in Russia's case it was not very sparsely populated either. In case of Balkans slavic like admixture isn't as high, but whatever the reasons were Slavic tookover as lingua franca there.
>>no Great Slavic invasions
>>no reports of Slavic pillaging
yeah, there are reports on invading Balkans. Tell me about Slavic invasion. Which kingdom was invaded by Slavs?
Entire Illyria got overrun by them.
>Illyria
it is a region, not a kingdom. Slavs settled there, and assimilated Romans who assimilated Illyrians. Except for Albanians, who somehow survived. And Romanians, who were even more influenced by Slavic language in 19th century.
>settled there
Through an invasion.
Albanians arrived in 11th century AD from the Indian peninsula, they're Romani gypsies.
It was already inveded by Ostrogoths and Avars. I think Slavs came with Avars, but stayed when Avars retreated.
they're Illyrian leftovers, 99%
>came with the Avars
AKA invaded
>Illyrian leftovers
Hardly. They're gypsies.
Did African Americans invade America?
no, I don't think it was an alliance. Avars ruled over Slavic people.
>they're Illyrian leftovers, 99%
lol
Africans were slaves in chains while the Slavs constituted 90% of the Avar khaganate. Outside of the few ruling clans it was a Slavic country.
lemme guess, Macedonian or Greek?
American. Are you Albanian?
>American
of which ancestry?
>Albanian
nope
Not Balkan if you're trying to imply that.
why would you think Albanians are from India? There are absolutely no evidence for that.
Have you ever seen what they look like?
Some are darker, since many Gypsies settled round, especially in Kosovo. But they look like Balkanian people.
See
>so you say Slavic speaking people created kingdoms in the east and assimilated all other people
No I didn't.
I said that the Finnics and Slavics melded to form the "Rus" identity - "Rus" meaning(in this particular context) Finno-Slavic.
>But how fast did it take to achieve assimilation?
Many of the original tribes held their original identity(in some shape or form) up until 18th century - 18th century being the time when the massive Russofication started.
>If we say that Slavs always lived in what is today Ukraine, how did they spread so quickly?
Dunno about the spread to the west. However, the spread to north and east of Ukraine I do know about. It would be very generous to call it "spread". Slavs themselves did little spreading. Cosmopolitan merchants were the ones who did the spreading. The spreading itself manifested as founding cities along the riverways. Those cosmopolitan merchants would rarely leave those cities, well except for venturing forth to go and trade with another city. Most of the assimilation happened into this cosmopolitan trader "class". This class was not Slavs nor Finnics, but rather a mixture of both, since individuals of both wanted to reap the riches of the Fur Road and to trade along the Road, one had to be versed in many different cultures that inhabited it.
However, those who never went to become traders, those kept their ethnic identity.
Ahh yes the old country X from the Balkans is gypsie cause you saw a few over there.
A classic meme but very outdated considering they are literally everyhwhere now.
Though this raises a few questions wich shall be discussed in another thread.
So, what about connection between Slavs and Scythians/Sarmatians? Is there some genetic evidence about some shared lineage between them?
Slavs were basically formed from 3 groups: the Venedi, basically the West-Slavs, the Sclaveni and the Antes, the latter being of Scytho-Sarmatian descent.
Before Atilla the Hun, what was know as the influence sphere of the Sarmatians (and their tributaries such as the Venedi and Bastarnae) corresponds well with the centum/satem language barrier today. It was basically a regrouping of said Sarmatians, which formed the elite, a society of horse archer nomads, and their tributaries, which farmed the land, and paid tributary tax and intermarried with the Iranic nomads.
>pic
maybe unrelated, but where the hell did balts originate from anyway?
are they half-slav half-finn or something?
Tacitus also notes that the Venedi, while having a Germanic life-style (i.e. were not nomads like the Sarmatians they resembled and intermixed with), like to go on plundering forays and were used to travel great distances on foot for that.
That is where the name Venedi aka Wends comes from, it's an obvious Germanic exonym, meaning "wanderers".
Germanics basically used 3 terms for stranger/foreigner:
-Waal/Gaul for their neighbours of Celtic and later Gallo-Roman descend
-Wend for the "wanderers" to the east, i.e. the proto-Slavs.
-Finn for the hunter-gatherers of the north (literally means "finder"). These were likely the Saami, Lapps. See also Finnmark in Norway.
Balts and Slavs have the same origin. They indeed intermixed with Finno-Ugrics a lot. (a bit like the East-Slavs I guess)
Given rather strong similarities in mythologies of Slavs and Balts, I would say Slavs had more intermixing with Scythians and/or Sarmatians.
Are "Waal" and "Welsh" connected, given that Wales is from Anglo-Saxon naming?
Nonsense. Take the Vandals for example, next to the Romans they were the only foreigners to create settlements on Sardinia (together with the Alans).
So what do we find there? An increased amount of a specific West-Slavic (Polish) subclade of R1a, from which can be calculated that the Vandals were composed of 35% of Polish R1a-M458, 29% of I2a2a, 24% of R1b, 6% of I2a1b and a mere 6% of North-Germanic-associated I1.
There is another rare R1a-Z93* subclade for the area on the south of Sardinia, and this is usually found in the Caucasus and associated with the Alans which were of Scytho-Sarmatian descent.
Source: Francalacci et al. 2013
Also if you look for East-Germanic remnants throughout their migration path and settlements in Europe, eg. the Goths in Spain, you will find very little if you look for I1* (50% in Gotland), but you will find markedly elevated levels of R1a* in regions such as Cantabria.
Pretty normal considering that 1/3th of the population of the small island of Gotland migrated to the Polish coast around 1AD, and they remained in Poland and Ukraine during 4 centuries while absorbing a lot of natives.
Same story for the Burgundians. Their lore tells about a handful of families from the tiny Danish island of Bornholm (old name Burgundarholm) soouth of the Swedish coast, who crossed the sea in hollow tree-trunks after a tribal feud. They were a very small population yet after 4 centuries they were a force to be reckoned with, thanks to intermixing with the (Venedic) natives.
I think not that much other than both being Satem groups. But pretty much every scholar up until the 19th century believed that Slavs descend from Scythians, so there must be something to it.
Yes they are the same, eg. Old Flemish "Waalsch" -> "Welsh"
And so is the term "Vlach" (Wallach) used for Romanians and pre-Slavic natives in the Balkan.
>genetic studies done by Poles are nonsense
Polish aboriginals had I1, deal with it.
Certainly. Scythian burial remains tested were mostly R1a-M458 (West-Slavic/Polish) and Z280 (Central Asian).
>Polish szlachta believed they are descended from Sarmatians
>Hrvat is apparently a word with Iranic roots
>White Croatia was a region that included part of Little Poland/Małopolska (pic related: Chrobatia region)
Also a lot of Polish immigrants from that region to the USA in the 19th century identified theirselves as "bielohorvaty" to the authorities.
I didn't knew that part and find it really interesting.
Also, while it is pretty much quite likely that Croats came from White Croatia region, what about Serbs and Sorbs? Is there definite proof of shared ancestry?
>arrived in the 11th century
>from India
Hahahaha.
Stop being a retard. Albanians are already set in stone as native Balkan people with genetic evidence to back it up. Albanians are hardly gypsies either, more of title for the Serbian neighbors who actually did migrate from around Pakistan.
Lol what a retard, probably a gypsy yourself. I've never once as an Albanian heard of the gypsy misclassifcation placed on us from non-Balkan people. Only time I've heard of it was shit flinging from obvious Balkanfag Serbs or Greeks who consequently get called gypsies themselves.
Btw Albanians arent any darker than any other people from southern or Balkan Europe. In fact we're whiter than a lot of Southern European groups, both racially/genetically and appearance wise. Get mad faggot.
>genetic evidence
Albanians are just average Balkan shits just like Serbs or Greeks, any difference between them is minute.
t. mad gyppo, who did you steal the internet from?
Obviously bait. Albanian myself and clearly the ones that look gypsy are gypsies not Albanians, I know but memes be damned. Lots of hate and jealousy by neighbours for obvious reasons so slander and falsehoods are constantly thrown at us but not without retaliation.
I've never heard anyone ever being jealous of Albanians.
>gets called a gypo
>likely from a gypo(probably Serb)
Yes, Serbs with(out) Kosovo kek.
...
>pointless meme arrow
The name origin of Serbs isn't native to the Balkans but Serbs are mostly native, mostly. They're still scum.
Serbs came from Pakistan, perhaps Rajasthan.
Everyone south of Hungary is scum, that much is obvious.
Not accurate at all.
Croats too?
I guess so.
Only if you have a problem with what they did at jasnovec.
>t.have no problem with that myself
Croats are the only good people in the Balkans objectively speaking.
he says as Golden Dawn rejuvenates by example Euro nationalism
Kys
>slavs are not subhuman
My favorite meme ever
Can you post some examples?
I am curious what my fellow Polish wewuzers came up with.
>They indeed intermixed with Finno-Ugrics a lot.
>a lot
Lithuania has no attested Finnic hydronyms or even archaeological or historical data of any Finnic inhabitants, the only ones that actively mixed with them were northern Latvians who assimilated Livonians.
The mixing might have happened in Russia, around Moscow which has both Baltic and Finno-Ugric hydronyms. No reason why Baltic languages should be native to the Baltic region as they lack Germanic loans.
Going by that logic no language is native to anywhere. Baltic N1c has TMCRA of 2800~ years old and it peaks in Lithuania and Latvia plus some East Slavic countries like Belarus and Ukraine also somewhat in north/eastern Poland. Also Latvians and Lithuanians lack any Siberian admixture that Estonians and Finns have. Also there's already attested Baltic archaeological cultures by around Kalinigrad centuries BC. The same West Balts also had same mutation of N1c and they do have Germanic loans though not as much. Baltic genomes were barely altered if altered at all. Early Slavs can basically be modelled as Lithuanians autosomally, if they were Finnic admixed that wouldn't make much sense, wouldn't it? Most of Polish/Belarusian/Ukrainian N1c falls under this clade which might as well came from Balts.
Finnic people might have acquired additional Siberian/East Asian admixture in the last 2000 years.
The older types (pre-Baltic N1c-L1025) are found mainly in Finland, Sweden and Estonia so clearly it's linked with Finnic people.
I don't know why or where it crossed over to the Balts but Moscow seems like the most logical place as it's also not far from where Finnic people expanded to the Baltic.
That still doesn't fit what you've said about "actively mixing". Autosomally they're nothing like Finnic peoples, haplogroups don't mean shit in this regard basically, just means that guy was successful at having offsprings.
And in case of Finns I'd agree that they could have acquired some Siberian admixture from Saami assimilation, but that doesn't answer Estonian question as there were no Saamis there.
Either proto-Finnics were autosomally indistinguishable from Balts or Slavs were Finnic admixed too, or likely scenario they didn't alter anything. Look at early Slavic samples.
Markowice7 (Early Medieval Poland) in Eurogenes K15:
>Mixed Mode Population Sharing:
# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 98% Lithuanian + 2% Sardinian @ 8.58
RISE568 from Czech Republic
# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 72.9% Lithuanian + 27.1% French_Basque @ 15.79
Niemcza18 (Early Medieval Poland)
# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 77.4% Lithuanian + 22.6% French_Basque @ 25.17
If they got Slav'd they wouldn't have R1a-Z93 since Slavs don't have that, except a handful of Cossacks who have been breeding with Turkic friends.