Talk:Early Slavs

Bronze Age Slaws????

I found that is the wish of all Slavs, a bronze age culture. What for a absurd wikipedia article. really competent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:46:D73:23B:78C1:78E4:A9FD:4731 (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Chernoles culture

I synchronized the previous date with that in the special article, where it is backed up with sources. HJJHolm (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Weak concept of God?

Slavic pre-Christian religion was originally polytheistic, with no organized pantheon.[142] Although the earliest Slavs seemed to have a weak concept of God, the concept evolved[143] into a form of monotheism where a "supreme god [ruled] in heaven over the others".[144]

If they were polytheistic, they certainly had a concept of gods. However, as they weren't Christian, they couldn't have had a concept of "God" (I presume capital G here is meant to refer to Yahweh despite the link to god), weak or otherwise. Is this supposed to mean they had a weak concept of a supreme god? ("Weak concept" could also use some more context.) 93.136.15.96 (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Early Slavs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090704133414/http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/fcurta/lingua.pdf to http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/fcurta/lingua.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Contradictory claims - Written sources and Common Slavic (section Homeland)

These two sentences seem to contradict each other: "Although the former common language (known as Proto- or Common Slavic) is not attested in written sources, it can be reconstructed by studying its daughter languages.[25][26] The similarities among the daughter languages indicate that Common Slavic was spoken during recorded history, with its division into daughter languages beginning in the 9th century AD.[24][25]"

I cannot see how these two claims can be simultaneously true.

81.175.244.139 (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Where do you see a problem?

The (proto-)Slavic people in the early 9th century were obviously speaking a language. We don't have any sources of written Common Slavic, but that's true for countless languages (some didn't have a written form, others, there just aren't any writings that survived to this day); that doesn't mean those languages didn't exist. And in the case of Common Slavic, we know it exists, because we know that Czech, Russian, etc. all have a common ancestor that's distinct from the Baltic, Germanic, and Iranic languages, and we can (to a certain extent) even reconstruct it by the usual rules of language development.

Meanwhile, just because we don't have the Slavs' own written history doesn't mean the 9th century wasn't "during recorded history". Plenty of other people were recording history, including history about the Slavs, at that time, such as the Eastern Romans, so you can't call the 9th century "prehistoric". --173.228.85.220 (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistent use of Cyrillic and Latin

In the Linguistics section, some of the proto-Slavic words are given in Cyrillic script, others in Latin. In fact, the first two examples are "svekry" and "zъly".

Actually, there seem to be not two scripts, but three. What is *šelmъ? How is it pronounced? Am I supposed to recognize it well enough to be able to see that it's an obvious Germanic loanword? I think I've seen Czech linguists use something like this—basically Czech Latin, but with extra vowels borrowed from Polish Latin and from Cyrillic (and maybe a couple of Latin-based but IPA-invented forms?). But I have no idea what it's called or how to search for it, so, even if I'm right, that doesn't do any good.

Anyway, I think the article needs to standardize on one of the three. And if it's the third, it needs a note saying what this notation is called and where to look up the details. (And ideally, it should be whatever's used in Wikipedia's other articles related to proto-Slavic language.) --173.228.85.220 (talk) 09:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

After a bit of searching, I think the examples like *šelmъ are using the notation I mentioned above, and it seems to be common for discussing late proto-Slavic (although early proto-Slavic, and proto-Balto-Slavic, are usually written in normal PIE-style notation; maybe it has something to do with second palatalization?). Does this notation have an official name? Or, more importantly, a description somewhere on Wikipedia we can link to? --173.228.85.220 (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Apperance

Hi Jim1138, just added an image of a Sclaveni from the Otto's Gospel Book, which shows a depiction of an early Slav, the appearance is not what in the modern sense we would call 'Ginger', bright red hair with pale complexion, but 'Auburn' as seen in this picture [1]. But, yes Auburn is a sub-category of Red hair, though Ginger is more associated with Norther Europe while Auburn with Eastern Europe and Asia. --E-960 (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@E-960: The source only stated "red hair". From the complexion, I suspected auburn, but it wasn't in the source. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I do agree, the direct translation is indeed 'reddish' that's why in the italicized parentheses I included 'auburn' just to add modern context, but to retain the original wording in its direct translation. --E-960 (talk) 09:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Category:Slavic countries and territories

It is currently being proposed that Category:Slavic countries and territories be deleted. This article is related to that category. The relevant discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 8#Countries and territories by language family. The discussion would benefit from input from editors with a knowledge of and interest in Early Slavs. Krakkos (talk) 11:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Slavic peoples 6th century historical map.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 6 February 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Early Slavs → Ancient Slavs – WP:COMMONNAME, more used. See plain google search, google scholars etc. Heanor (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think an assessment of the quality of sources favours the current title. Srnec (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Recently published specialized works prefer the present form ([2], [3]). Borsoka (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unfortunately the request doesn't provide search data and from my own experience found more common usage of the term "early". Is there a substantial difference in the meaning of "early" and "ancient" in this context? Can both be used in the introductory sentence at the same time?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose  The proposed name is a misapplication of the subject-specific term ancient. In history, ancient has a specific meaning and ends around 500 AD. The subject of this article extends centuries later and is open ended. —Michael Z. 19:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Although admittedly "Ancient Slavs" is a term occasionally found in the literature, it is has either narrower range or not sufficiently precise in meaning. I am not sure it coincides with the range covered in the article. In French and other languages, "ancient" and "early" are basically interchangeable, but in English "ancient" tends to have a historically distinct meaning and carries expectations of a particular period which is only a small fraction of this article. In light of this, I'd stick to "Early". Walrasiad (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Toponymes

River Neman - Southern Slavs till this day use that word for monster.Maybe it is Balto-Slavic,or Slavo-Baltic,but most certainly not only Baltic. I have noticed that the general tendention on Wikipedia is to depict Slavs as lesser ones and that is really appalling practice. For example,today's Germany is full of Slavic toponyms,but in each article it is said that Slavs adopted Germanic culture,language,etc.Could it be the other way around?Maybe,in the real world,but on anti-Slavic Wikipedia surely not. 178.222.77.49 (talk) 06:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Citation needed to Homeland

Hi, Admins. Will you please add citation from Florin Curta to the para Homeland section marked citation needed. It is difficult to quote the whole chapter, so I specified the chapter and pages. Thank you in advance.

• Curta, Florin (2001). "Elites and group identity north of the Danube frontier: the archaeological evidence". The Making of the Slavs. History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region. Cambridge University Press. pp. 227–310. ISBN 9780511496295. {{cite book}}: no-break space character in |title= at position 18 (help)

---

Numulunj pilgae (talk) 07:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Ibn Rusta quote

E-960

Hi E-960. i added a quote to warfare from ibn rusta's writings, but then you removed it. I think it would be a good idea to keep it though as it gives good historical backup, mentioning weapons used, leadership, armour and the absence of cavalry. :) besides, other articles have similar quotes in them so it makes sense for this one too. there were other ancient quotes regarding slavs warfare but this one seems the least biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Flats 123 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Added text

Miki Filigranski, why are you inserting a seconday/minority point into the Origins section, which should only contian the universally accepted views on the origins of the Slavs. There are also minority views that the germanic Suebi (Souobenoi/Sovobenoi, Suobeni, Suoweni), were at least partily Slavs, but the Origins section is not the place to present it. I am familiar with the theory that some Slavs mixed with Sarmatian tribes and I think this is a legitimate view. However, the text you added makes it sound like Slavs are Iranian, and came for central Asia, in fact the the overwhelming majority of scholars to belive that the Slavs originated Polesia. Even the source you citied states that "we can easily imagie that some East Proto-Slavic tribes, or one particular tribe, in a close alliance with the nomadic and belligerant Alanians or under their hegemony accepted their life-style and got involved in their migrations in this case east of the Volga River. E-960 (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

User:E-960 please stop making tedious and disruptive edits, there's no section regarding "minority viewpoints" in the article neither the information from Ptolemy's Geography is a minority viewpoint neither belongs to that section because the first paragraph of "Origins" sections is connected to article Slavs (ethnonym), not to mention that's a mainstream viewpoint held by prominent scholars and easily confirmed in reliable sources. The text doesn't point the Slavs were Iranian or came from central Asia, you completely misunderstood what's written in the sources, incredible lack of knowledge and ignorance. Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski, then fix the text because it is poorly worded, if you can't write clearly and accuratley don't blame others for not understanding what you are trying to say, even your source says "we can easily imagie that some East Proto-Slavic tribes, or one particular tribe, in a close alliance with the nomadic and belligerant Alanians or under their hegemony accepted their life-style and got involved in their migrations in this case east of the Volga River". --E-960 (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• For example, what the heck does "in almost historical form" even mean??? --E-960 (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

As you said, not every article is place for explaining everything, but this could be the case. As you know now what's being said in the source, since cannot make more than one revert within 24 hours, you're free to make an edit with better wording partly citing the quoted part. You have my full support. The "historical form" indicates the historical or proto-type form. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Linguistics

User:Joe Flats 123, I've made a revert, please explain removal of sourced information. Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski The paragraph is unnecessary :) . The article constantly mentions germanic people, which is valid as they influenced the history of the slavs, just as the slavs influenced theirs. However, the Germanic authors only boast on on how they influenced us but never mention our effect on them, it clearly shows an anti slavic bias. Germanic certainly did influence slavic, especially words related to social structure as the slavs were democratic at first, but Slavs also made an important impact on both germanic language, culture and DNA, especially in eastern germany where people have up to 60% R1a. If we mention them in our history all the time, and they never mention us it seems like we have nothing of our own but owe everything to the germans! people get the wrong idea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Flats 123 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

This is not a good and constructive argument at all. Invalid substantiation for the removal of reliably sourced information. If there exist Slavic borrowings in Germanic languages then we should add that to those articles, but the absence of that information isn't a reason information about Germanic influence should be removed in this article.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Ethnogenesis

Ethnogenesis: "One of the theories used to explain language replacement is that a dominant Slavic elite diaspora managed to spread, conquer and slavicize various communities.[115][116][117][118]"

• [115] Renfrew, Colin (1987). Archaeology and language: the puzzle of Indo-European origins., pp. 131-136, London: Jonathan Cape. ISBN 0-521-38675-6.

Fails verification. Full book available here. Renfrew doesn't say anything about Slavs. These pages are a basic primer about the linguistic concept of elite dominance.

• [116] Dolukhanov, Pavel (2013). The Early Slavs: Eastern Europe from the Initial Settlement to the Kievan Rus. New York: Routledge. p. 167. ISBN 978-0-582-23618-9.

Page available here.

It does not exactly say what is implied in-Wiki, as Dolukhanov is saying that Slavic spread through cultural diffusion after migrations related to climate change and nomad aggressors, rather than Slavic elite dominance. As a secondary source, Bell-Fialkoff also offers criticism of this view:

From "The Role of Migration in the History of the Eurasian Steppe Sedentary Civilization", pp. 139-140 (link):

Extended content

"Dolukhanov suggests the following scenario for the earliest phase of Slavic migation in the fifth and sixth centuries: "The increasing aridity of the climate in the forest steppe zone caused a considerable decline of agricultural productivity in that area [but he also writes, on page 146, that this area saw an increase in participation!]. At the same time this area became the target of repeat invasions on the part of various nomadic groups (the Huns and many others)" (Dolukhanov 1996, 165-67). The nomads established an overlordship over the Slavs and imposed a harsh taxation on their agricultural resources." ... "In the process, once Slavs had "gained substanial political and military experience in their dealings with their warlike nomadic assailants, [they] emerged as a dominant force and established a new socio-political network in the entire area of central and southeastern Europe... One may suggest that economic power stood at the bottom of this newly emerged Slavic socio-political network. An extensive exchange of goods and communication, as in all similar cases, bound together various groups involved in this sociopolitical network. The Slavic languages functioned as a common information medium (Dolukhanov 1996, 165-67). This scenario is less than satisfactory for several reasons. Forest tribes did not carry on intensive trade with eachother because they produced the same or similar kinds of products. Their natural trade partners were areas of high civilization -- which would not promote cohesion among these tribes (witness Celts and Germans). That their language functioned as a "common information medium" for groups of impoverished swineherds fleeing the nomads also hardly matters. Its spread is much more easily explained by their numerical superiority, the low density of population in the areas where they expanded, and the lack of a strong imperial power." ... "Perhaps all one can say about the early Slavs is that their roots go all the way back to the Zarubintsy culture (whether its carriers were originally Slavs or not) and the Cheriniakovo complex, as well as a substantial scythian influence." ... "The Huns 'opened' Europe to the Slavs, although it is possible that some Slavs had arrived on the Hungarian plain as unwilling Sarmatian auxiluaries a century earlier (Ammianus Marcellinus; Zasterove 1966, in Gimbutas 1971, 98, n.1).

• [117] Geary, Patrick (2003). Myth of Nations. The Medieval Origins of Europe. p. 145 Princeton Paperbacks. ISBN 978-0-691-11481-1.

Geary in Chapter 5, page 145-146 says that Slavs did conquer and absorb populations in the Balkans, but that this was a disorganized and decentralized process, or one that even involved foreign leadership (notably Avar).

"Gradually, across the seventh century, Slavic warrior-settlers moved across the Danube and into the Balkans. The chronology is unclear and necessarily so. The process was so decentralized and fluid that it could hardly be dated or documented. Individual rehearsals at the hands of Byzabtine counteroffensives could not stop such a widespread process." ... "When large-scale hierarchical organization of Slavic groups did take place, it was almost inevitably done from outside. These might be Germanic or Central Asian leaders, whose model of ethnogenesis provided the possibility of greater concentration of power and greater subordination of individuals and groups. Fundamental to this process were the Avars."

• [118] Pohl, Walter (1998). "Conceptions of ethnicity in Early Medieval Studies". pp.15-26 In Rosenwein, Barbara; Little, Lester K. (eds.). Debating the Middle Ages: issues and readings. Wiley-Blackwell

It does not say anything about a Slavic dominant elite diaspora conquering anyone. All it says is on page 20:

The Slav way of life again represents a model complimentary to that of the Avars and Bulgarians. Slav traditions, language, and culture shaped, or at least influenced, innumerable local and regional communities: a surprising similarity that developed without any central institution to promote it. For the theory of ethnicity this constitutes an important example: should we spesk of one Slav ethnos (and we have reason to believe a certain consience of Slavic identity existed)? Apparently ethnicity operated on at least two levels: the "common Slavic" identity, and the identity of single Slavic groups, tribes, or peoples of different sizes that gradually developed, very often taking their name from the territory they lived in. These regional ethnogeneses inspired by Slavic tradition incorpororated considerable remnants of Roman or Germanic population ready enough to give up ethnic identities that had lost their cohesion."

I think this paragraph needs expanding to include more complex analayses about the ways Slavic languages spread according to different regions. - Hunan201p (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Such "analysis" is often ideological, not scientifically objective neither mainstream. It is related to the processual viewpoint similar to Vienna School of History, advancing same theoretical analogies of early Germanic people ethnogenesis now to early Slavic people. That the Slavic language and identity spread via cultural model and elite dominance, often related to Florin Curta whose also cited in those sources.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)