PDA

View Full Version : Southern Slavs : A Question



Huzar
Friday, June 10th, 2005, 09:13 PM
It's a long time i have a question about slavs : I've recently read some theories about southern slavs who sounds less or more so -:" Southern Slavs, like Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians are not REAL Slavs. At least not like Polish, Russian or Czech-Slovakians. Real Slavs were Nordics, while Balkanian populations are simply "slavicized" culturally , but not subracially. Dinarids aren't pure slavic at all.........":-

Could someone explain to me the thruth on the subject ? I already know that Meta-Ethnicity is something of totally different from the phenotypical anthropology, (in the sense that a Meta-Ethnicity can contain whatever subracial types), although the thing seems very strange to my eyes : i usually consider "slavic" a Serb exactly like a Polish..........please could someone enlight me ?


I realize this question could be very hurting for some people. I apologize in advance. My unique desire is learning more on the argument.

White Falcon
Friday, June 10th, 2005, 09:49 PM
Slav is a linguistic term.
Bulgarians and Serbs are not less Slavic than any northern-Slavic groups. (Romanians are not Slavs)

There is no such thing as "Real Slav" or more or less Slavic imho.




I already know that Meta-Ethnicity is something of totally different from the phenotypical anthropology
But you just connected the two when stating that Real Slavs were Nordics
and that Dinarids are not Slavic at all.

Huzar
Friday, June 10th, 2005, 10:09 PM
But you just connected the two when stating that Real Slavs were Nordics
and that Dinarids are not Slavic at all.
Stop, White Falcon, don't misinterprete my answer : i've only reported what i've read in other places, NOT my personal belief on the matter of course. In the last words of my previous post i wrote :"i usually consider a serb slavic exactly like a polish":- (read again my post ).

Personally i'm amazed of this "will of division" between slavs...............anyway i understand perfectly that the subject is a bit otraugeous. Sorry.

White Falcon
Friday, June 10th, 2005, 10:13 PM
Sorry, so what exactly is your question? :D

Huzar
Friday, June 10th, 2005, 10:22 PM
Sorry, so what exactly is your question? :D

AARRRGGHH :D , i'm in front of the TV a in this moment and i don't pay too attention to the words i write, Excuse me (i've used "answer", but i meant "question", but obviously you've already understood the mistake):D :D

europeanpride
Friday, June 10th, 2005, 10:35 PM
Hey Falcon,
could i ask you why you are anti-Balkan? Croatia, Slovenia, and other lovely nations of the Balkans are pure white countries with charming land-scapes and warm people... why are u against all them?
this is just a matter of curiosity; i dont mean to start a dispute or change your mind!

White Falcon
Friday, June 10th, 2005, 10:41 PM
Croatia and Slovenia are not on the Balkans,
I am against Balkan designation and all "benefits" that comes from it.

Huzar
Friday, June 10th, 2005, 10:47 PM
Croatia and Slovenia are not on the Balkans,
I am against Balkan designation and all "benefits" that comes from it.

Yeah, another point of misinterpretation for too many peoples : Croatia is not in the balkans. Serbia-Montenegro is in the Balkans, instead.

europeanpride
Friday, June 10th, 2005, 10:53 PM
Okey, then let me defend these poor white bastards living in Belgrade who have to fight every day against muslims in their own cities...!

White Falcon
Friday, June 10th, 2005, 11:01 PM
Okey, then let me defend these poor white bastards living in Belgrade who have to fight every day against muslims in their own cities...!
I didn't attacked anyone, I expressed wish of my people to agitate in direction opposite of what "Balkan" stands for.

To where will people of Serbia agitate, is not of my concern.

europeanpride
Friday, June 10th, 2005, 11:04 PM
okey

Vojvoda
Friday, June 10th, 2005, 11:33 PM
[western historian mode]Nobody is a real "Slav". Poles and Russians are Slavicized Balts and Finns, Ukrainians are Slavicized Scythians, Czechs and Slovaks are Slavicized Celts, southern Slavs are Slavicized Illyrians and Thracians and so on...[/western historian mode] :oanieyes :D

Telperion
Saturday, June 11th, 2005, 03:36 AM
There are a lot of lowbrow and off-topic posts on this thread. Everyone please stick to the issue at hand, and maintain an appropriate tone.

visigodo
Saturday, June 11th, 2005, 11:44 AM
I have found this information, I believe can help.


Origins of the Serb People

The name "Serb" is ancient. It even sounds ancient. It is non-Slavic in origin and more likely than not original Serbs were overlords of the Slavs. Tha name 'Serb' designates not only the population in the Balkan peninsula but of Lusatia as well. Lusatia, a region in Eastern Germany is inhabited by a nation the Germans call the Wends from which the Greeks derived the word Venedi. The name "Serb" is ibero-caucasian in origin. In comes from the word "Ser" meaning "man", with the "bi" added to make the plural form.

The proto-Serbs were part of the Caucasian Race (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7681/vocab.html) much like the Georgians, Mingrelians, Lezghians, Ingush, and spoke a language simmilar to these peoples. At some point in the history of the Serbs, this Old Serb language stood side by side with the Slavic language in White Serbia (Porphyrogenitus) and likely even in the first 300 years leading up to the formation of the Serb state on the Balkans in the 9th century. Even to this day, the Serb language has at least a third as many words in its vocabulary than other Slavic languages. This is because of the influence of Old Serb and Illyrian as well as Turkish on the Slavic language spoken by Serbs today. Here (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7681/table.html) is a list of Old Serb words which exist side by side with Slavic words in the modern Serb language.

The Serbs were mentioned by Plinius the Younger in the first century BC (69-75) as living on the Black sea and the Sea of Azov as Serboi (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7681/quotations.html) in his Geographica. In the 2nd century, Herodotus writes in his Persian Wars (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7681/herodotus.html) that Serbs (Serboi, Sirboi - Serboi, Sirboi) live behind the Caucasus, near the hinterland of the Black Sea. In the fourth century the Carpathians are mentioned as 'Serb mountains' by the Roman emperor Licinius.

In the Caucasus, the homeland of the Serbs, they left their traces around the river Volga (Araxes in Greek). In modern Georgian, that river is called "Rashki". This name was used by Balkan Serbs as a name for their first state and is found wherever the name Serb is found in clusters indicating settlements. It is often used to designate hydronyms and likely meant 'river' or 'water' in Old Serb.

The Serbs migrated in two directions from the Caucasus, nrothwest and northeast. Those who went northwest became overlords to the Slavs. There they established a mighty empire and became slavicized. Konstantine Porfirogenitus called this "White Serbia". Their descendants are known as Lusatian Serbs today and despite immense Germanization, there are still a few thousand left. These we will call 'White Serbs'.

The other branch moved northeast to the southern base of the Urals, settled there for a period of time and split into two. We will call them 'Volga Serbs'. One tribe moved west and eventually met up with the above mentioned White Serbs. The other moved east and went deep into Siberia and left its traces in the names of cities and towns along the coast of the Sea of Japan. They faded out with onslaught from the Mongols. These we will call 'Siberian Serbs'. It seems likely that Siberia was named after this Old Serb tribe.

It seems that the western branch of the Volga Serbs, upon their rendevous with the White Serbs did not stay long. They must have found the White Serbs completely Slavicized by then (6th century). The descendants of these Slavicized white Serbs are today's Lusation Sorbs. This would explain why Lusatian Sorbs did not pick up the Caucasian words of the original Serb language while Balkan Serbs retained theirs. The wetern Volga branch of the Serbs must have left White Serbia immediately upon thir own arrival, and according to Porfirogenitus, came to the Balkans (7th cent), invited by Heracleus, defeated the Avars (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7681/avars.html) and were given Macedonia to inhabit. There they took the already settled Slavs (who began arriving in the 5th and 6th cents) under their control and became Slavicized much as the White Serbs.

These Slavs who came before the Serbs had already assimilated the Illyrians, who were a Hellenic people, speaking a Hellenic language (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7681/illyrian.html) ie: Dorians. "Illyria" came from the Greek "Lyra" meaning a stringed instrument, much like the one used by Serbs in epic poetry. Its inhabitants were, however Dorian Greeks and Romans on the coast. Later Serbs would often refer to their language as 'Illyrian'. Travellers to the region from abroad caught on in these accounts (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7681/illyrian_name.html)




Thus modern Serbs (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7681/coon.html) are a hybird of three different peoples and races.

1. Caucasian (Caucasian Dinaric race): Old Serbs.

2. Slavic (Nordic race): from the Slavs with whom they mixed and lorded over in the Blakans.

3. Illyrian (Dinaric Race (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7681/dinaric.html)): from the Illyrians whom they assimilated when they came to the Balkans.

Most contemporary historians (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7681/historians.html) agree that the old Serbs were no Slavs, at all, but a non-Slavic caste ruling over Slavs.


More information here:


http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7681/index.html

Rhydderch
Saturday, June 11th, 2005, 12:24 PM
It's a long time i have a question about slavs : I've recently read some theories about southern slavs who sounds less or more so -:" Southern Slavs, like Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians are not REAL Slavs. At least not like Polish, Russian or Czech-Slovakians. Real Slavs were Nordics, while Balkanian populations are simply "slavicized" culturally , but not subracially. Dinarids aren't pure slavic at all.........":-I would have thought that any Slavic-speaking nation would be predominantly made up of people who are descended from an original non-Slavic-speaking population.

It's quite probable that (as is the case with Celts and Germanics) the original Slavic-speakers were of a distinct "sub-race", whether this was the Nordic type I don't know, but it does appear that they were blond like the Germans.

Now I'm no expert on Slavs, but it's likely that Southern Slavic nations have a higher percentage of people descended from the pre-Slavic populations than nations closer to the area whence Slavs originally dispersed in migration.

So certainly I don't think we could say 'Poles are real Slavs but Serbs are Slavicised .........s', but it may be that the former are 'more Slavic' in a sense than the latter, but I suppose it really depends on definition.

Huzar
Saturday, June 11th, 2005, 01:10 PM
I would have thought that any Slavic-speaking nation would be predominantly made up of people who are descended from an original non-Slavic-speaking population.

It's quite probable that (as is the case with Celts and Germanics) the original Slavic-speakers were of a distinct "sub-race", whether this was the Nordic type I don't know, but it does appear that they were blond like the Germans.

Now I'm no expert on Slavs, but it's likely that Southern Slavic nations have a higher percentage of people descended from the pre-Slavic populations than nations closer to the area whence Slavs originally dispersed in migration.

So certainly I don't think we could say 'Poles are real Slavs but Serbs are Slavicised .........s', but it may be that the former are 'more Slavic' in a sense than the latter, but I suppose it really depends on definition.

Interesting, Rhydderch. You think the same things i think on every point. (obviously mine are suppositions, cause this i've opened the thread)

Anatomia
Thursday, October 20th, 2005, 06:24 PM
Modern genetics strongly 'suggests' that the people in the Balkan peninsula in antiquity were genetically simmilar.

I don't know if the Illyrians were a Hellenic peoples as someone of you has mentioned. 'Hellenic' was a cultural factor. People that were civilized spoke the same language and believed in the same gods were considered Hellenes.

Illyrians like the Thracians were definately akin to the Dorians, but may have been considered barbarian to most Greeks at the time because they were less civilized.

And now to answer your question.

In the Balkans of today it is known that the people from Montenegro, most of Serbia, Albania, most of Bulgaria, Macedonia (Fyrom), Greece, Western-Turkey and Southern- Italy (Greek influence) are essentially genetically similar.

http://www.pnas.org/content/vol94/issue15/images/large/pq1671509002.jpeg

This means that the migrations in countries like Croatia were substantial enough to change the 'basic' ethnic character of the region.
So they can't be slavisized Illyrians.

The Bulgarians and Slav-Macedonians however are slavisized Thracians or Illyrothracians. Though clear elements of Slavic influence are present.

Albanians and Greeks are 'mostly' autochtonous.