What are your thoughts on the origins of the SLAVS? Support Dr. Florin Curta and his work above! Support this channel below! Celebrate the birthplace of civilization and get our Sumerian Shirt | Hoodie | Coffee Mug today! CLOTHES: teespring.com/Sumerian-Clothing?pid=212&cid=5818 COFFEE MUGS: teespring.com/sumerian-coffee-mug?pid=658&cid=102908 Check out our new store! teespring.com/stores/the-history-shop Get your Sea Peoples | Late Bronze Age Merch below! Mugs: teespring.com/new-sea-peoples-mediterranean?pid=658&cid=102950 Hoodies | Shirts | Tank Tops: teespring.com/get-sea-peoples-mediterranean?pid=212&cid=5819 Get your Hittite Merch below! Mugs: teespring.com/HittiteEmpireMug?pid=658&cid=102950&sid=front Shirts | Tank Tops | Hoodies: teespring.com/hittite-empire-shirt?pid=2&cid=2397 Trojan War Merch Below! Mugs: teespring.com/trojan-war-coffee-mug?pid=658&cid=102950 Tank Tops | Shirts | Hoodies: teespring.com/TrojanWarShirt?pid=2&cid=2397 To support the channel, become a Patron and make history matter! Patreon: www.patreon.com/The_Study_of_Antiquity_and_the_Middle_Ages Donate directly to PayPal: paypal.me/NickBarksdale Enjoy history merchandise? Check out affiliate link to SPQR Emporium! spqr-emporium.com?aff=3 *Disclaimer, the link above is an affiliate link which means we will earn a generous commission from your magnificent purchase, just another way to help out the channel! Join our community! Facebook Page: facebook.com/THESTUDYOFANTIQUITYANDTHEMIDDLEAGES/ Twitter: twitter.com/NickBarksdale Instagram: instagram.com/study_of_antiquity_middle_ages/ Facebook Group: facebook.com/groups/164050034145170/
It is very odd very few ruminants are found in clay tablet form or ay other form of written military plans of attack from the Greek world back in time!!
Volcanoes changing landscapes epidemics disease are a few of the things that cause migration of animals and livestock also wild migrating food sources which could lead to migrations of peoples!!
The symbolism of the male lion and the attributes of mal lions oon entering other prides are very prominent images of animals in the past and even heraldry of the middle ages etc etc.
Romanians call Germans ,neamtz' too. That derives from Dacian word , neam'/ tribe + ,tz' phonetic so often heard in german language. Therefore neamtz', a nickname. Compare "neam"( tribe, people) with other similar Romanian words about people, family Nea and Nenea ( a polite term for older man) Nana (a polite term for older women) Neaos ( indigenous) Etc.
@D J the SUPERSTRAIGHT I know. But calling Germans , mute or dumb people' because supposedly they didn't understand the slavas is a forced etymology. The Truth is that , niemcy' or others derivates comes from the Dacian nickname that I mentioned above. And that etymology stands on concrete foundation.
I was talking to this Polish guy recently his last name was Niemcicz something like that .. SO I was thinking how his last name meant German... But I didn't realize that it also could had the meaning of DUMMY... Which being Polish would make more sense (sorry stupid 80s USA joke on rebellious freedom-loving warsaw pact Poles lol)
@@nestingherit7012 Termenul "neamț" este un exonim pentru german foarte vechi, chiar stravechi, si este un termen românesc/protovlah preluat si de protoslavi pentru a-i numi pe germani. Termenul inseamna "neam uț", adica din neamul lui Uț - Uț fiind un personaj biblic, fiu al lui Aram (vezi Facerea cap. 10).
Iar pentru a-i numi pe asa-zisii slavi, noi românii, am avut "moscali" sau "muscali", care ii numeste mai corect dar care, mai tarziu, a capatat o nuanta peiorativa din pacate
"Niemiec" doesn't mean "dummy". It come from "niemy" which means "mute". I Polish word "Niemiec" was used not only to name Germans but every foreigners till even XIX century.
I was told it comes from an older word for 'speak' in Polish, and means literally 'no speak' - the Germans are the ones that don't speak. I was expecting Dr. Curta to say that as it fits into what he was saying perfectly, but instead he took it in a rather disconnected direction.
The "Slavs" (a medieval term simply denoting speakers of the same language understandable to us all - sloviti - to speak) who are the largest ethnic group in the world with approx. 350 million people, speaking one of the most difficult languages, which has almost 40% similarity to Sanskrit, came from a few small tribes somewhere in the Russian marshes, with no technology or civilizational infrastructure, no state or superior technology, simply assimilated incredible amounts of populations in a little over a few centuries, yet somehow, called ourselves Illyrians, Macedonians, Sarmatians up to the 19th century with the Illyrian National Movement, the Polish Sarmatian Renaissance and the Macedonians to the present day?! Dr. Curta uses the USA to make us imagine this, so let me turn the tables, where in the Americas did a group conquer another ethnic group, assimilate them by language, religion and customs yet call themselves by their name? Which regiment of the English or Spanish conquerors took on the name Cherokee? None of course since it is completely stupid to even think that way. Yet somehow, some "Slavs" came in the 7th century and took on us the music and clothing of the Illyrians and Thracians and placed on our traditional houses and clothing the same patterns as are found on Stone Age pottery? And the descendents of a ethnic group larger then the Roman, Greek or Gaelic populations of Europe have achieved nothing significant in antiquity and prehistory? What a joke! The Thracian goddess Semela iz Zemela - Slavic for Earth! The Illyrian god Vidasus is Svetovid, second name for Perun who simply means perkunati (thundering) and in Macedonia in Antiquity a city called Bylazora - White Dawn - again understandable to all so called "Slavic" populations! Calling us "Slavs" is like us calling you "Speakers" because you understand each other, and claiming you never existed before the Early Middle Ages since we do not have a document where it says some "Speakers" lived somewhere or did something! That is completely crazy! But hey, if its peer-reviewed science then it has to be true.
Бураз, пола је налупетао појма нема о језику, а тумачи историју словенских народа питем словенских језика, притом не помиње или врло мало помиње његову струку археологију, ко зна да ли је икада био на археолошком налазишту у Европи.
Svetovid/Świętowit was four headed god. Those 4 heads were gods of four seasons and N,W, S,E. We should not seak comparison in Greek gods as we are Indo-European people and our believe were similar to Hindu Brahmans. Svetovit is equivalent of four headed god Brahma and he was a one of triple deity - Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu. Slavs also had a triple deity called Triglav - one of the triple deity was Svetovit, we also had a god called Żywie/Ziva and I am not sure about the third one but in Poland define have a river named Wiszna.
The Polish word for science is "nauka" which is pronounced exactly as he pronounced Russian word. In Polish there is also word "nieuk" which is pronounced like the Romanian word for dummy he mentioned. The difference is: "na" - over, on, atop + "uka" - from "uczyć" - to teach; it is like "done" verb (perfect tense) of "to teach" - "nauczać" and "nieuk" is "nie" - no, non + "uk" - same from "uczyć" - to teach.
There maybe aren't folk tales about the origin of Slavs as Slavs, but there are tales about the origin of various Slavic ethnic groups and there is correspondence between them. They mention brothers who part ways from a common homeland to eventually found Czechia, Poland, Kievan Rus.
@@horouathos8199 Turns out he wasn't, his direct paternal descendant, Gleb Sviatoslavich was recently genotyped, carried I2a1b-Din, and had only predominately Slavic genetics with "Southern European" input from his Greek mother Kilikiya.
@@numenoreaneternity6682 I know, but doesn't necessarily mean Rurik wasn't a Viking. It raises a question, though, of whether Rurik was originally a Slav (therefore I2a-Din as a Slavic marker) or if there was a non-paternity event somewhere in-between.
Slavic peoples use the word “Sloven / Slaven” that -en suffix explains a lot. For example: Blagosloven = one who is blessed pismen = one who knows how to write uhapšen = one who is arrested skriven = one who is hidden So, in an archaic form Sloven would mean “one who knows how to speak”. Which coincides with the term Slavs coined for Germanic people “Nemac”, which translated to “one who can’t speak”.
@Rom_troy no slavic people use the form “sKlavi”, besides I think nobody used “slaven” or “sloven” to describe his ethnicity, most early tribal Slavic peoples were named according to the area where they settled - by river name, or ancient city name etc. Only Serbs and Croats have names of completely unknown origins.
@@ezzovonachalm7534 Do you speak any Slavic language? Why do you call idiot someone who does and knows the meaning of the word "Nemac", Nemec" "Nijemac" = German. Anyhow, it could denote someone who does not speak the same language and not somebody who cannot speak at all.
@@ajmedosadno8131 apparently You did not read my phrase with the due attention. I call " idiot" a human being who defines another juman being nemetz , slov nemac " he who cannot speak" because the human being does NOT understand his - the jumans- language. Nemetz signifies "Unmensch" .The Slavs call the Germans Unmenschen. I learned russian and polish and am a descendent of the Piast dynasty that is a bit of a Slav myself.
@@bojovic78The first is obviouse.Slavse named themself with tribal names.Italians,romans,misionarys used the term slav and slavs adopted it when chrisitanized. Serbs may have originate from an old rusian word serb wich means brother!Also there is SRB an old slavonic word for river source i think. It is interesting that serbs and croats were corelated in their migrations trough out the whole eastern europe where they setteled more than once and established neighboring states more than one time.They are definetly somehov conected.In earliest times Croats were the biger people of those 2 and serbs could benn a group of variouse slav tribes that foloved the biger croatian group therfore Croats called them brothers-Serbs! Croats or Hrvati could have iranian origin. I dont think slavs named them self after rivers in etnic term but in a regional. Bulgars were named by their ruling clas same as the Russians. Polaks after the word polje wich means field. Interesting that slavs with names actualy had the first states. Croats had a kingdom when only bizantines,franks and a croatian crown existed in whole europe and were recognized by the pope. Bulgarians were an empire but serbs were under bulgaria,slovenes under franks,slovaks i dont know but they never had a state.
St. Cyril (Constantin) did not invent the Slavic language, he invented the alphabet, the letters by which to write it. He standardized it. And he translated The Bible to that already existing language (from Greek), so that the people who spoke it , can understand the sermon, given by the Christian priest. And that became Old Church Slavonic.
By "standardizing" it he did create it. There were related dialects not the pan-slavic language, just like every other modern linguistic group. In the standardization process you are fundamentally destroying the vulgate dialects and imposing a new language. French, Italian, Spanish, English, Sanskrit, Cantonese etc...its true of all dogmatic languages
@@TheEvolver311 Boris I commissioned a new script, the Early Cyrillic alphabet, to be made at the Preslav Literary School in the First Bulgarian Empire, which would replace the Glagolitic script, produced earlier by Saints Cyril and Methodius. Glagolitic and Cyrillic are different - one created in Byzantium the other in Bulgaria.
@@TheEvolver311 This is an ambivalent question. There is the term of Koine Greek too -- was it created? Was "hochdeutsch" created, while the common people talked dozens of dialects. I would not use the word "create" without lots of additional explanations.
@@predamihailescu6820 codification of language isn't a radical concept "selecting, developing, and prescribing a model for standard language usage" it has a massive impact on spoken language not just written.
Cyril and Method are greek invention and with the help from the Austro Hungarian Empire, Berlin and Vatican they manage still today to falcify the history. The original settlers of Grece and Crete were Vinca Civilisation and The Vinca script was just recently used to decifre a Etruscan writing on a stone found in Tuscany . So I'm confused; but than again.............but have few questions; who and when /where invented metalurgy,,slavery, genocide and everything else that comes with it.. What were the "greek" gods called originaly before the Greeks / new commers renamed them ,changed few letters they cant pronounce and we call it ancient greek.Even the stone age arms are better than farming tool made from Copper in Bor /Serbia with added arsenic for making it harder,but its farming tools not arms!!
Cyril created a new alphabet that was used to write Old Church Slavonic text for religious purposes. He did not invent a Old Church Slavonic. Old Church Slavonic was probably a standardized and formal version of existing Slavic dialect from that era.
Ahaha! "Nemcy" doesn't mean "dumb", i means "mute", i.e. "not able to speak". At least one Slavic tribe, in North Western Russia, was known as "Slovene", which sort of suggests the word "slovo", a "a word", i.e., able to speak.
@@gingazhawthorn2984 in english maybe but nemac(prounanced- nematz) , at least in Serbian which is slavic language, it means mute(nem-the one who can't speak). Dumb is glup(prounanced - gloop)
@@milanradovanovic3693 Yeah, but the point is, in English, dumb and mute mean the same thing. Dumb to mean stupid is actually a recent development of the word, which originally meant mute. So really, dumb (with its original English meaning) = nem, and stupid = glup. Dr Curta was using the word Dumb to mean mute, or nem.
@@willmosse3684 Yes, Florin Curta used this word correctlly. But few commentators have linked it with the word dumb implying that Slavs called them dumb, which at least to me doesnt seem so but mute seems more likely.
He's presenting a lot of ideas but not much in terms of evidence and actual studies, some of what he says is mainstream, some is not. What bothers me the most is that he says "linguists say" and then he claims Dacian language is VERY similar to Slavic even though we do not have enough evidence to properly classify and reconstruct the Dacian language in the first place. He pulled this Slavic-Dacian connection out of his ass. Slavic languages do not exhibit typical features of koine or creolisation process, complex declination is the first thing that goes out the window once languages start to merge so this is clearly not how it went down.
Why do you ask Curta on Slavs origin? According to his thesis there were no Slavs but people with no common ethnicity and only with common Slavic language (being in his thesis common language of Avar Kaghanate). Wrong. And Slavs were made in fact by Bizanthium which created borders against them and calling with one term Slavs different tribes on that border. Which is completely wrong - if there were no Slav threat there would be no militarized border in first place. Moreover - if Slavic language was a common language it would become pidgin characterized with simplicity. We observe something quite opposite: Slavic is as far from simplicity as possible with those rules common to the whole Slavic area. With one exception - Bulgaria where it was simplified as in fact kind of pidgin language for Slavs and ProtoBulghars. Thesis that Slavs were completely unaware of their Slaviness is complete bullshit - Cyril and Methodius exactly knew that Slavonic was common language for Slavs and they knew that using it in Thessaloniki and going to Moravia speaking the same language and translating the Bible into Slavonic. Thesis that Cyril and Methodius "created" common Slavonic language is also berserk - there are Slavic languages (Polish, Czech, Croat, Slovene) that are not in Orthodox legacy and are the same similar to those from Orthodox legacy. He is also completely wrong about Slavs origin - it is not a need of XIX nationalists to find out who were the first Slavs but the need for explanation for why such vast amount of people were using almost the same language (which was not pidgin) in such vast area: from Rus to Elbe, from Baltic and Meditarrean. The explanation seems to be one: migration initiated from quite small area. "At no point in history, at no point on Planet Earth group of people preserved intact langage" :D :D :D Bald statement talking to English-speaking American :D :D :D In fact, Slavs migration looked probably similar to American migration on wagons - farmers with simplified culture (Prague culture) taking land as opposed to Germanic people who were in fact nomadic tribes with primitive farming methods forcing them to move along Europe during Migration Period. Curta is a Romanian so he doesn't understand that Slavs to this day can understand their languages quite easily. The are 2 issues with Prague Culture Curta is missing: 1st - those ugly hand-made pottery is found where cremation funerals were found. Funeral culture is not NIKE shoes everyone can wear, it is very deep rooted in societies so it can be linked with ethnicity in areas with different funeral culture. 2nd - pottery is simple and ugly (no potter's wheel) because it is culture of migrants on wagons. 2 centuries later Slavs were exporting their pottery in Baltic area, almost monopolizing the market. "Ethinicity is cultural not genelogical" :D :D :D That's complete bullshit ignoring traditional societies reality. BTW. "Lech, Czech And Rus" is a popular Slav nations origin story in medieval Poland and Czechy "Kiy, Shchekh, Horiv and Labedz" - on origin of Kiev by Nestor "Two sisters Buga and Tuga and five brothers Kluk, Lobel, Muhlo, Kosjenc, Horvat" - on origin of Croatia "Dummy" comes from word "Nieuk" not "Nauka" - I think that summarizes Curta's ignorance
Keep in mind, from 6th up to 11th century on whole today’s Romania we had the same culture as in Balkan and Moravia. I.e. Slavic archeological culture. It is even named after the first site example of this culture found in modern day Romania. So it is understandable, why he is proponent of “no culture, no language, no ethnicity” and artificial Slavic language, created by St. Kiril.
@@nikolaydsyou make a lot of sense. The guy went to school all his life to study and ralk about slavs just to prove that his romanian origin is Latin, not Slavic. Makes a lot of sense. You're funny
Pročitaj Kurtine knjige. Apsolutno se ne slažem sa njim oko nastanka Slovena, ali taj čovek ako nije potpuno srušio teoriju o migraciji Slovena tokom prvog milenijuma onda ju je barem ozbiljno uzdrmao.
Love history magazines? Check out Ancient History and Medieval History Magazine and Ancient and Medieval Warfare Magazine below! www.karwansaraypublishers.com?tap_a=88561-7cbe2d&tap_s=1562085-46f5e5 Disclaimer, the above link is an affiliate link which means we will receive a small commission from your purchases at no additional cost to you. Just another way to support the channel!
Cyrillic writing system was not invented by Cyrill. He did create writing system which still exists in Bulgaria and is called Glagolic. But unfortunately Mr Florian lecturing on the subject he himself doesn't know much about.
We cannot blame the producer of the video because official history is fake! The real name of the cyrrilic alphabet is the Bulgarian alphabet and the real name of old Church Slavonic is old Bulgarian but the names were erased for propaganda purposes. Bulgarian is the oldest Slavic language and the Slavic language group can't have originated in another place than Thrace because Thracian is old Bulgarian. But they hide all this and feed us big lies. One example is that the Bulgarians are called "Slavs" but not the Romanians, while genetically we are close to Romanians but not close to Poles that are also "Slavs" . You see what fake history leads to. Only nonsense. The Dacian language is Thracian and in the Slavic group too. But there are videos where they call it latin or vanished. Nothing vanishes, they just change the name of the people and places. Academia is hiding many things from us. Use common sense and ancient sources before the 17th -18th century, when history was rewritten.
And what are Bulgarians? You are not a homogeneous people. Half of you are of Slavic origin, and half are Tatars! The part in Bulgaria is celebrating slava, and that is a feature of the Serbs! The Šopi are originally Serbs and that is known.
@@user-ls8us2pg5l firstly, homogeneity is non-existent in any nation. And secondly, genetic diversity existed thousands and thousands years before the first nations. In other words, your views are extremely primitive, and I'm being polite here.
@@user-ls8us2pg5l What about Bulgarians? We are Bulgarians(Thracians). What you say is old propaganda, see an update on Encyclopedia Britanica and bulgars. They were Thracian Scythians. We don't celebrare Slava, what is this?
In the “Making of the Slavs", the author takes great liberties in interpreting preliminary archaeological data and primary historical sources - which were, unlike the former, selectively subjected to ambiguous scrutiny (and only depending on whether the paragraphs or their general information supports the author's work), which is ironic and contradictory, because as its author, Florin Curta is forced to rely on the aforementioned sources, while unwarrantedly scrutinizing their validity whenever it suits him. After he had realized that the Antes and the Sclavenes - who've formed the bulk of the Early Slavs and were led by their own rulers, and were never under the suzerainty of the Avars, like Dervan, Dobreta or Dauritas (trans. Daurentius), Radogost (trans. Ardagast), Muzok (trans. Musokios) and Mezamir, didn't fit his "definition" of Slavs, he then portrayed them as "just numerous tribes of heterogeneous origin" who were merely "hastily and "erroneously" (unsubstantiated thesis) defined by Greek chroniclers and historians as "supra-tribal" entities of the Early Slavs, and that’s only because the records regarding the aforementioned groups of Early Slavs are the strongest rebuttal to one of his core beliefs - that those Pannonian tribes of Wends who were few in numbers and subjugated by the Avars were the “original” Slavs, even though the overwhelming majority of what we know of Early Slavs stems from the aforementioned writings of Greek historians, who’ve based all of their work off of the language, traditions, history and beliefs of the Sclavenes and Antes. This particular detail was recorded by Procopius and Pseudo-Maurice, and both have stated that the Sclaveni and Antes are two barbarian peoples with the same institutions and customs since ancient times and that they're numerous people, who did not allow enslavement and conquest, and were resistant to hardship, bearing all weathers. who's led a primitive life and was henotheistic, believing in the god of lightning (Perun), the ruler of all, to whom they sacrificed cattle? Matter of fact, Menander Protector refers to the Slaves and their supreme leader Daurentius as "Slavs" and states that he and all of his Sclavene chieftains refused Bayan's demands for tribute and submission, and in the following diplomatic meeting between the Sclavenes and As the Avars, Menander writes the following: "This movement of Avars against the Slavs did not only result from Emperor's envoys and the wish of Bayan to return the courtesy unto Romans for all the gestures of friendship and help that he had received from the Emperor but also because he held great hate for them (the Slavs) out of personal sentiment as well. The Avar leader has, therefore, sent envoys to Daurentius (Δαυρίτας) himself, and to his chieftains, calling on for their submission and enlistment among tribute-payers. Mauritius and the leaders alongside him replied: "Who is, then, the man which basks in sunlight that threatens to conquer our strength? We are used to ruling over others, not to being ruled over - of that, we are certain for as long as wars are waged and swords are forged". Since the Slavs acted so haughtily, the Avars were no different in boasting. Then the scolds and insults resulted from that, being that the barbarians are of a narrow and proud mind, and the fight broke out. The Slavs, unable to control their anger, killed the envoys, as Bayan found out from another source. Because of that Bayan has long since raised accusations against the Slavs, fueling a secret hatred against them, mad for they refused him, and angry that from them he received an unforgivable insult, in the same time he thought he would do a favor to Caesar and likewise *find a rich land to plunder, for far too long has the land of Romans been plundered by Slavs, and theirs (Slavic) - never by any of other peoples*." This excerpt is important as well: “(Strategikon of Maurice: "...being freedom-loving, they are in no way inclined to become slaves or to obey, especially in their own land." (Strategikon of Maurice, ed. prep. V. V. Kuchma. SPb., 2004, p. 189). Just from these mere excerpts, we can attest to the following facts: 1. That the Antes and the Sclavenes are undoubtedly Slavic, and they've shared the same institutions, customs, language (Sclavene chieftains like Radogost serving under kings of Antes like Muzok), and beliefs (henotheism and the worship of Perun, the chief Slavic god), which refutes Curta’s theory of a Slavic identity being introduced to them at a later stage. 2. That the land the Greeks have considered as "Slavic" weren't subdued, raided, or ruled by others, that the Slavs are freedom-loving and that they’re in no way inclined to become slaves, and that steps should be taken against them sometime after the meeting between Bayan's emissaries and Daurentius, which contradicts his thesis of the Early Slavic tongue being a small, isolated language, and that the territory where it was spoken was vast, to begin with. 3. That his theory of Proto-Slavic originally being a language of a relatively small ethnic group, which was then spread as "Lingua Franca" only thanks to the existence of the Avar Khaganate has no substantiation whatsoever, especially not in primary sources, which is the reason why he has taken steps to scrutinize their content, but only selectively, meaning only the parts that refute his theories - like the fact that the Sclavenes and the Antes were defined as Slavs for more than a hundred years earlier than the Wends were (in Fredegar's Chronicle, where even he discerns that the Wends were merely one of three groups of Slavs, the other two being the Sclavenes and the Antes), which gives credence to the following postulations: a) He’s making a name for himself in a poorly understood field of Western historiography by publishing sensationalist interpretations of Slavic history that barely differ from the well-known, imperialist, and dehumanizing anti-Slav premises that were normalized in Western academia for centuries. b) The "Making of Slavs" was written in English - a language which has replaced German as the chief expropriator of anti-Slavic sentiment and premise in the media and academia alike, and was only translated into Romanian and Bulgarian, which is extremely suspicious, given the Fascist and anti-Slavic pasts and policies of Romania and Bulgaria, which still persist in some of their right-leaning parties and communities, even to this day. The fact that his aforementioned authorship is one of the chief booklets of modern-day Balkan fascists and nativists - who deny the existence of Slavs and are actively deconstructing this identity, is damning evidence of the aforementioned. Last but not least, we have evidence that proves that Proto-Slavic was spoken as early as the 4th century and that its unstoppable expansion into the surrounding areas was a well-noted phenomenon even as early as the 5th century. It should also be mentioned that Jordanes provides us with the name of the first Slavic king ever to be recorded by name - Bozh (most likely a shortening of “Bozhidar”, he’s mentioned in the “Lay of Igor’s Host”), who fought, initially was winning but was then taken prisoner and crucified with his sons and many nobles by the Goths in the late 4th century. Aside from that, even if his theory had some merit to it, it still fails to rationalize why Proto-Slavic was being spread to Eastern Germany, Baltic, Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia decades before the Avars even arrived in the northern basin of the Danube in 562 (on the invitation of a Greek emperor to act as allies against Slavs), why there are no Avar toponyms in Southeastern Europe, while it’s full of Slavic toponyms, or to explain why all Slavs (barring some groups of Bulgarians), whether they’re West, East or South Slavic, still boast Early Slavic autosomal DNA as their major genetic heritage and are predominately bearers of Y-DNA lineages that have expanded in all directions with the migration and invasion of Slavs, which further refutes his assessment of the Antes and Sclavenes “being heterogeneous tribes that were hastily and erroneously” described as Slavs by primary sources, and reaffirms their identity as Early Slavic peoples.
Procopius, Book V, XXVII, 134: "(...) This exploit, then, was accomplished by the Goths on the third day after they were repulsed by the assault on the wall. But twenty days after the city and harbor of Portus were captured, Martinus and Valerian arrived, bringing with them sixteen hundred horsemen, the most of whom were Huns and Sclaveni and Antae, who are settled above the Ister River not far from its banks. (...)" Procopius about Slavic invaders capturing and enslaving a lot of Romans: Procopius, Book VII, XIII - describing events in the year 545 AD: "(...) For a great throng of the barbarians, the Sclaveni, had, as it happened, recently crossed the Ister, plundering the adjoining country and enslaving a very great number of Romans. (...)" Procopius of Caesarea: "(...) In Illyria and Thracia, from the Ionian Gulf to Byzantine surrounding cities, where Hellas and Chersonese regions are situated, (...) the Sclavenes and the Antes, penetrating practically every year since Justinian administering the Roman Empire, were inflicting irreversible damage to their inhabitants. In each invasion, I estimate 200,000 Romans were either taken as prisoners or killed (...)" Procopius about Roman attempts to stop the Slavic invasion: "(...) the Empire wasn't able to find just one only man just as brave to undertake this task." Pope Gregory I in a letter to the Exarch of Italy from the year 599: "(...) It deeply afflicts and disquiets me the Slavic nation that menace us. It afflicts me from what I already suffer from you, it disquiets me because they have already started to penetrate into the Italic peninsula through Istria. (...)" And according to Priscus, 610 Slavic tribes flooded into Greece. Procopius of Caesarea: "(...) Nay further, they [the Slavs] do not differ at all from one another in appearance. For they are all exceptionally tall and stalwart men, while their bodies and hair are neither very fair nor blond nor indeed do they incline entirely to the dark type (...)". Procopius of Caesarea: "(...) In more or less the same time [549 - 550] a Slavic army (...) gathered itself together and after crossing without encountering any resistance from anyone the river Ister [Danube], and later with similar ease the river Heuros, it divided itself for two parts. (...) Commanders of Roman garrisons in Illyria and Thrace fought against both those parts and even though they had already separated from each other, the Romans suffered - contrary to their expectations - a defeat and some of them fell dead on the spot, while others found salvation in escaping. (...) After all, garrisons had suffered such defeats at the hands of either one or the other of barbarian armies, one of the enemy bands fought against troops of Asbadus. He was a member of Emperor Justinian's personal guard (...) and he led a numerous and elite force of cavalry, which had been garrisoned for a long time inside the Thracian stronghold of Tdzurulon. But also, they were forced to retreat by the Slavs and most of them, shamefully escaping, got slaughtered, while Asbadus himself was captured and temporarily left alive, but soon after that the Slavs skinned him alive and threw him into a burning campfire. After that, the Slavs were plundering all neighboring Thracian and Illyrian lands without any obstacles and both of their two units captured many strongholds. (...) And those who had defeated Asbadus, later plundered, in turn, everything up to the sea coast, and captured in an assault the coastal city of Toperus (...) And they slaughtered 25,000 men, plundered everything, and enslaved all the children and all the women. (...)" John of Ephesus: "(...) In the third year after the death of Emperor Justin, during the reign of victorious Tiberius, the damned nation of the Slavs has risen, and marched through entire Hellas, through lands of Thessaly and Thrace, captured many cities and strongholds, plundered, burned, and robbed, seized the land and settled there with full ease, without fear, like in their own land. (...) they were plundering the country, burning it, and robbing, as far as the Great Walls [of Constantinople], and this is how they captured many thousands of cattle, as well as many other kinds of booty. (...) Until today, that is until year 584, they still continue to live in peace in the lands of the Rhomaioi, without fear and concern, plundering, murdering and burning, getting rich and highjacking gold and silver, capturing horses and plenty of weapons; and they have learned to fight better than the Rhomaioi. (...)" Menander Protector: "(...) About the fourth year of the reign of Caesar Tiberius Constantine, some hundred thousand Slavs broke into Thrace and pillaged that and many other regions. As Greece was being laid waste by the Slavs, with trouble liable to flare up anywhere, and as Tiberius had at his disposal by no means sufficient forces, he sent a delegation to the Khagan of the Avars. (...)" Strategikon of Maurice: "(...) They do not keep prisoners in perpetual slavery-like other peoples, but they demarcate for them a limited period of time, after which they give them a choice: they can return home after purchasing their freedom or stay among them as free people and friends. (...)" “Strategikon of Maurice: "...being freedom-loving, they are in no way inclined to become slaves or to obey, especially in their own land." (Strategikon of Maurice, ed. prep. V. V. Kuchma. SPb., 2004, p. 189)” Jordanes: "(...) These people, as we started to say at the beginning of our account or catalog of nations, though off-shoots from one stock, have now three names, that is, Venedi, Antes, and Sclaveni. (...) they now rage in war far and wide, in punishment for our sins (...) Though their names are now dispersed amid various clans and places, yet they are chiefly called Sclaveni and Antes. (...)" Procopius of Caesarea: "(...) Belisarius was eager to capture alive one of the men of note among the enemy, in order that he might learn what the reason might be why the barbarians were holding out in their desperate situation. And Valerian promised readily to perform such a service for him. For there were some men in his command, he said, from the nation of the Sclaveni, who are accustomed to concealing themselves behind a small rock or any bush which may happen to be near and pounce upon an enemy. In fact, they are constantly practicing this in their native haunts along the river Ister, both on the Romans and on the barbarians as well. (...)" Abraham ben Jacob (a 10th-century Sephardic Jewish traveler from Muslim Spain): "(...) Slavic countries extend from the Mediterranean Sea to the Northern Ocean. (...) Generally speaking, Slavs are warlike and violent, and if not for their internal discord and lack of unity, no other nation would be able to match them in strength. (...)" And about the arrival of the Croats and Serbs (but it was much later - not during the 500’s, but during the 600’s): Constantine Porphyrogennetos, "De Administrando Imperio": "(...) their ancestors were Pagan Croats and Serbs, known also as White [Croats and Serbs]. Great Croatia, called also White [Croatia], until today is still Pagan, just like neighboring [Lusatian / West Slavic] Serbs [Sorbs] (...)" And another excerpt - "De Administrando Imperio": "(...) Therefore everyone, who would like to do research about Dalmatia, can read herein about the way how the Slavic peoples took it. The Croats with their families came to Dalmatia and found the Avars in possession of that land. After fighting against each other for some time, the Croats defeated the Avars, partially murdered them, and partially forced them to submissiveness. Since that moment the country was seized by the Croats. (...)" Daurentius is the first Slavic chieftain to be recorded by name, by the Byzantine historian Menander Protector, who reported that the Avar khagan Bayan I sent an embassy, asking Daurentius and his Slavs to accept Avar suzerainty and pay tribute because the Avars knew that the Slavs had amassed great wealth after repeatedly plundering the Byzantine Balkan provinces. Daurentius reportedly retorted that "Others do not conquer our land, we conquer theirs [...] so it shall always be for us.” Daurentius (to the Avar envoy): "Who is, then, the man who basks in sunlight that threatens to conquer our strength? We are used to ruling over others, not to being ruled over - of that, we are certain for as long as wars are waged and swords are forged". I've extracted the most relevant quotes from the primary sources and DAI.
In terms of material culture, we have substantial information on the following: Slavic material cultures are divided into the following groups, Early Slavic (group a), partially Slavic (group b), and Proto-Slavic (group c) archaeological cultures: a) Penkovka culture, Prague-Korchak culture, Sukow-Dziedzice culture, Feldberg culture, Slavic Tornow culture, Mogilla culture, Volyntsevo culture, Kiev culture, Ipotesti-Candesti culture. b) Chernyakov culture, Long Barrow Culture. c) Zarubintsy culture, Przeworsk culture. Further on, the Franks, Avars, and Magyars have only influenced the military and administrative history of the Pannonian Wends, and they're the ancestors of the Slavs of Balaton, Nitra, Great Moravia, and Slovakia, and they've never formed the bulk of the Early Slavs, but merely a portion of the Wends (the Early West Slavs). To interpret the history of the rest of the Slavs through their particularity is rather tendentious, and even ignorant of the full extent of the history of the Early Medieval Slavs, whether they're West, East, or South Slavic. Matter of fact, the bulk of the Early Slavs was made of the Sclavenes and the Antes, and the overwhelming majority of primary sources from that era were based on peaceful and hostile interaction with them. Further on, the military and administrative history of the Antes and the Sclavenes was strictly a mixture of Slavic traditions and East Roman/Greek influences, which was reflected in the First Bulgarian Empire as well, where Slavic and Bulgar tribal and administrative traditions were integral parts of the state, yet the latter would be entirely ousted by the Slavo-Roman model as early as during the reign of Boris I. In terms of sheer aDNA, Yugoslavs score predominately in Early Slavic ancestry (ranging from 55-70% on average), the reason why they're more southern-shifted is not that they're "Greek farmers", but because they've assimilated populations that harbored a predominately Neolithic autosomal DNA, thus them clustering not as close to modern Western and Eastern Slavs, who've historically mixed with peoples who were of a similar genetic composition as the Eastern and Western Slavs.
Those who attribute the success of the Slavic invasion and colonization of Roman territories to the Avars omit the following: a) Serbs didn't invade in the 6th, but in the mid-7th century, and in toe with the Croats, and were tasked with exterminating all Avars south of the Danube and ruling all the provinces they’d liberate at the request of emperor Heraclius. b) The Slavs who've invaded, conquered, and colonized Southeastern Europe were the Sclavenes and Antes, not the “Avaroslavs”, who were noted to have been Pannonian Wends, and were, aside from the Greeks/Romans themselves, also distinguished from other Slavs on that very basis by Fredegar, and were mentioned only twice in all primary Greek sources, during the Siege of Constantinople in 626, and during one of the many Slavic sieges of Thessaloniki, where Saint Demetrius states they arrived to assist the already present Sclavenes who've besieged the city, lured by promises of the city’s wealth. c) By the time the Avars arrived at the Danubian basin at the invitation of emperor Tiberius, who had invited them for the sole purpose of waging war against the Sclavenes, Antes, and Kutrigurs, the Slavs were already invading and raiding Southeastern Europe for roughly forty years, and as deep as Southern Peloponnesus, Crete and the outer walls of Constantinople. d) All primary sources, like Jordanes, Procopius, Saint Demetrius, John of Ephesus, Theophylact of Simocatta, and Menander Protector state that the Sclavenes and the Antes were under the rule of their rulers like Mezamir, Muzhok, Dervan/Daurentius, and Radogost, and weren't subdued by the Avars, and distinguish them from the aforementioned Avaroslavs (Pannonian Wends). e) Attributing the success of the Slavic invasion and colonization of Southeastern Europe to the Avars is, aside from being contradictory to all primary Roman/Greek sources, since the very purpose of the invitation of the Avars was to wage war against the Slavs and the Kutrigurs, which is exemplified in the joint Avar-Roman invasion of Daurentius' realm, also a textbook example of 19th and 20th-centuries German, Italian, Greek, Hungarian and Austrian anti-Slavism designed to undermine the legitimacy of Slavic history, the geopolitical realities of Slavic territories, and to portray Slavs as a subsidiary mass of naturally subordinate peoples. Sources: Jordanes, Procopius, Saint Demetrius, John of Ephesus, Theophylact of Simocatta, and Menander Protector, De Administrando Imperio, Sima Cirkovic, Tibor Zivkovic, Dimitry Obolensky, and Frederick Hamilton Jackson.
The war with Persia in 600-614 strained the Roman resources and thus denuded the coast of soldiers, therefore the Avars and Slavs inroads were ravaged as they pleased under Heraclius (610-640), who had called in the latter to drive out the Avars; Narona, Salona, Epidaurus, Burnum, and Rhizinium were destroyed. In 641 Pope John IV., a Dalmatian by birth, sent Abbot John to Istria and Dalmatia to ransom prisoners and collect relics. The Croats and Serbs exterminated the Avars in the middle of the seventh century and delivered the province, the Croats occupying the west to the river Cetina, the Serbs the east from the Cetina to Albania. A century and a half later, Wonomyrus Sclavus/Vojnomir, the duke of all Slavs of Lower Pannonia and a vassal of the Franks, would devastate Avar dominions between the Danube and Tisza in 795 and is responsible for defeating the Avars a year later, and delivering nearly all of Pannonia to the Franks.” Sources: The Royal Frankish Annals, De Administrando Imperio, an Outline of the Early History and Migration of the Slavs by Karl Heinrich Menges, the Land Between: Slovenia by Oto Luthar, and the Shores of the Adriatic by Frederick Hamilton Jackson.
@@numenoreaneternity6682 You sure it wasn't the Justinian plague and the never-ending war between Byzantine and Germanic tribes in Italy? Those 2 concurrent events created massive needs and employment opportunities for any mercenaries or even people just to work the fields.
I live in Istra/Croatia, we speak Croatian, but the language was under strong influence of ruling powers. So, we have many words that are German (Austria ruled), Italian (...), Hungarian, Turkish etc in the root. We may distorted them, but i recognize it while watching foreign films. My region is strongly influenced by Italian, our dialect sounds very unique for Croatian (Slavic) standards
@@user-xb2el6ko8zprijatelju mi to pismo ne mozemo citati, ja bi ti preporucia da vidis ko ima starije zapise i pisce. I kojim jezikom ti pisci govore da pisu. Faust Vrancic naprimjer ili Vuk Karadzic 400 godina nakon njega. Razmisli i kani se sranja drevni srbi bili polabijasnki slaveni dok smo mi hrvati puno blizi bili izvornoj zemlji. Srbi su dapace bili puno ratoborniji narod i spadali su u kos s bugarima sto se tice mentaliteta. Dok smo mi puno vise slicni cesima i poljacima. Bar sto se tice rane povjesti. Ali sada svi mi pricamo istim jezikom ali niposto se ne moze zvat srbski jer je 400 godina mladi od dokumentirana 3 hrvatska dialekta. Zato nazovimo ga illirksi ili naski i baci mitomaniju u kos. Tesla je srbin
@@mikedawson6417 same with the dalmatians croatians that spoke some kind of italioslavic language, they assimilated when venice fell because they only lived in the citys just like in istra. Italian control of croatian lands was purely economic and we where colonys to be exploited, half of venice is made from trees cut down near my apartment. As a dalmatian myself I reject latin herritage but accept latin influence. Im sure there are some islands in croatia that proudly speak the dialect that you discribed in your coment. Prestige followed latin and slavic was the word of wild europe, from slovenia to novgorod. So in that time learning latin/venecian/greek was like learning german/ english/spanish today. Just made a lot of seance for trade. Venice is evil, slave trading filth. No one with croatian blood likes venice. Italy sure, venice no🤣
Hey! I'm a Slav. This should be interesting (FD: Mum says there may be some Austrian in there too?) Thanks, this was really interesting. I'm always keen to find out my "people's" origins. And I'm fascinated by language. My Mum speaks Slovene, Italian (born under Italian domination from the old Austro-Hungarian Empire), English and can understand Spanish, Croatian and Serbian. I dabbled in French at school, I studied Slovene formally at Uni and now I'm learning Russian. Thanks for this Nick, I wouldn't mind hearing Dr. Curta again.
Well if you paid attention to the entire segment you would learn that according to Curta there is no such thing as a Slav. We are just a non-related population of illiterate and unremarkable people who got a language and a religion from the Greeks and spent much of our time being slaves or fighting. There is no origin story, no mythology, no common heritage. The first Slav kingdom was founded by a Frank. You are not a Slav. Slavs do not exist.
@@tommyslavic898 You forgot to tell him, as the distinguished professor said, that we were subjugated to germans also, and borowed grammar from them, also Avars slept with our women, daughters, mothers and sisters during the winter, and in spring time they lead us to pillage Romanoi, and we never rode horses, but raised them for our masters. Strangely, slavs, who were slaves since they appeared in the world (south of marshes of pripjatje), are biggest ethnolinguistic group of Europe, 400.000.000-450.000.000 people non existing, non cultivated, nation of slaves mixed, but all spoke lingua franca that was written by a greek priest.
@@BubaIGunga This prof is a Romanian. Romanians don't speak or understand any Slavic language. Does he? Majority of Western and Eastern Slavs have haplogroup R1A, as opposite to R1B among Western Europeans. R1A people lived in Poland, Belarus and Ukraine for thousands of years. Their DNA been has preserved in ancient burial places.
Majority of Western and Eastern Slavs have haplogroup R1A, as opposite to R1B among Western Europeans. R1A people lived in Poland, Belarus and Ukraine for thousands of years. Their DNA been has preserved in ancient burial places.
Until 10,000 years ago, there was an ice age in Europe, and permafrost was up to the southern borders of Hungary. This means that there were no living conditions for people north of that line. All life in Europe was on three peninsulas, Iberian, Apennine and Balkan. It must have taken several thousand years for the flora and fauna to spread to the north, followed by humans. So those peoples in the north came mainly to the north from the south of Europe, and not the other way around.
Interesting info, but I am not sure pertinent to this particular debate. There have been many more migrations since that time. The theories being discussed here are about theoretical migrations taking place about 1,500 years ago. So people will have moved around A LOT in the intervening 8,000 years since the initial migrations you are discussing.
@@rrn7769 There may have been settlements near the Black Sea, so the inhabitants ate fish. Or those settlements are older than the beginning of the ice age
umbrella or not, all Slavs can still communicate between themselves some without any problem, some with some struggle. Slovo (slava) Sloven (Slaven) it is clear that Slavs mean people who can speak, communicate between themselves opposite of Nemci, Niemci (Germans) who cant speak. Furthermore, if you look at tradition and pagan influence on Serb, Croats, Slovenes and Bosniaks you can see clear parallel with other Slavs living further north and on east. Then you have names in various Slavic nations that contain word "slav" in it Branislav, Rastislav, Miroslav, Boleslav, Ceslav, Jaroslav, Dragoslav, Krunoslav, Mieczyslaw, Stanislav etc. I see clear bondage here between all Slavic people which you can't see with many groups of other people/nations
Bosniaks are new-age imaginary nationality. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, you have Croats Catholics and Serbs Orthodox, and you have both ethnic groups as Muslims.
I find it quite strange that the subject of Sanscrit and/or Persian languages connotations to Slavic was not emphasized in the narration. The similar genetic makeup of these respective group of people as well as their traditions, legends would be also worth mentioning. We are talking here about history predating the Greek/Roman era by thousands of years. It looks like the interlocutors were still bathing in the historic river canalized by English and Germans in the last few centuries... and the church for much longer.
@@dmitrykozhin5316 Every Slavic language is more closer to Sanskrit than Latine. Latine language has arose from proto-Celtic and proto-Slavic languages.
@@dmitrykozhin5316 As I know, proto Slavic was before 7th century BC. Also when you look at old Roman mythology - Aeneus from Troy, also was Antenor in Troy, king of Venetos, who has led his tribe form Troy to the north of Adriatic. Venetos were predecesor of Slavic.
Perhaps some of us are unaware that Caucasians have only been on the planet for six thousand years according to science and our records and have no history or heritage of their own. Everything they have was stolen from a particular group of Black people over centuries. Example. Caucasians want us to believe that two Africans came into Russia and that the Russians allowed these foreigners to codify their language or that an African is the father of Russian letters. These mental gymnastics and outright lies by Caucasians are meant to hide the fact that they have no history and are literally incapable of inventing civilization and culture are so ghoulish that they are pretending to be Black people. I'm an historian who has had the privilege to study history from primary sources available to serious academics and I can assure you that socalled white people are literally savages pretending to be human.
Short clarification for the linguistic bit, which prof. Curta somehow simplified too much thus introducing a little confusion. Koiné is not a contact language, it’s an effect of a deliberate choice of certain type of linguistic code, that takes it above other similar dialects, usually identified through written sources only. Most national/official languages of today are koiné types. Lingua franca is not a contact language although it’s used for inter-cultural contacts. It’s an ethnolect of one dominating linguistic group, that spreads through trade, diplomatic and political contacts among different groups. Latin had been lingua franca at one point, so had Niederdeutsch, Greek or Arabic. The real contact languages are so called creoles or pidgins, created on the basis of two quite similar or totally different languages. Grammar of one can get mixed with lexicon of the other one or vice versa starting a code, that might survive time, but very often does not and dies sooner or later with its speech community. Slavs never had one single language, but multiplicity of dialects or ethnolects. Some grew due to their prestige and underwent koinéisation, this today we call them Russian, Czech, Slovenian or Polish. But the fact is that speech communities still exist and they tend to use dialects or sociolects, which diverge from the purified standard.
This is only a tip of the iceberg of his lingustic mistakes, he basically claims Slavic is a very recent creole even though the structure of proto-Slavic looks nothing like a creole nor does it contain a large body of vocabulary or grammar that can be identified with another language group. He somehow connects it to Dacian when Dacian cannot even be fully reconstructed or classified. He just doesn't seem to know what he's talking about.
Outside Slavs were known as Wends (called like that by Germanic tribes and Romans). Wends were actually just one of the tribes but name was used to address all Slavic people. Romans didn't pay much attention to complexity of tribes outside of the Empire.
In Poland we have the legend of "Lech Czech and Rus". They were three brothers living in a small village deep in the forest. As the population expanded there was not enough food so they set of on horses to find a new settlement until they saw a sign from the lord where they should settle. Lech saw his sign first and settled there calling the place "gniezno" which in Polish means "nest" and was Polands first capital. That later became Poland. Czech was second settled and that became the Czech Republic. Rus was third and that became the land of the Rus, present day Kiev the source of the Russians. According to this legend the Poles Czechs and Russians all came from one village and were brothers
That is dalimil chronicle, its story about origin of Czech nation it say origin is from balkans... also prof of this are name SrB because srbe we can find in balkan and in germany (where was limes serbicus)
The oldest recorded character of this is Czech, in Kosmo Chronicle from 12th century, in 13th century in polish chronicle there starting show up lech and Rus, all autors of this chronicles take this stories from normal people, like old man stories, sooo it can be older than chronicle time's
I’m sorry, though I respect Mr. Curta, I’m a critic of some of his thesis. A specially his concept of the Slavic “Koine”. I think that’s part of a new revisionist approach on history which become en vogue in the recent years. It has gone so far, that some historians deny major historical events of ancient history, like the barbarian Invasion on western Rome during the late antiquity, saying that there were never big migrations, just minor groups, or even little groups out of bigger groups, searching for new spaces and somehow magically assimilating other people around them. No Sir, I still belief that people spread language. Southeastern Europe was dominated by the Slavic people, not because their language spread invisibly to people living there. I’m sure that it had spread because people, actually being real Slavs themselves, overcome (violently) the Danube-Border to eastern Rome in big, not to say huge numbers, an conquered that land. That’s why many people in that area were later on assimilated. But not because some “Koine” Typ of Slavic slipped over the border and stroked everyone to forget their own language and becoming Slavs 😝
@@user-sm5rt5ic6e Bulgarians are Turkic people, todays Bulgarians are descendants of seven Slavic tribes, and earlier Balkan inhabitants that were enslaved by the Turkic Bulgars.
What about the Freising manuscripts? They are dated around 972 ad, are considered to be oldest preserved Slavic literature, are writen in Slovene language and I, as a Slovene can read and understand their meaning. Also, the State of Samo had an actual name - Caranthania and is still a country, divided between Slovenia and Austria and is also being accepted as the "birthplace" of modern Slovene nation.
Different Slavic tribes were making their settlements in region of Pannonia as well as in Adriatic- Dinaric region. For example, area of early Croatian settlment in Adriatic-Dinaridic region is clearly visible even today: Croats in that region are even today ikavian speaking population. Only other ikavians among Slavic peoples are Ukranians. This is visible for example in words: "body" in ikavian Croatian as well as in Ukrainian language is: tilo, while in Serbian is: telo, in standard Croatian: tijelo, in Polish: ciało; "wind": in ikavian Croatian and Ukrainian: vitar, Serbian: vetar, Slovenian and kaikavian: veter, Polish: wiatr; river: ikavian: rika, Polish: rzeka, standard Croatian: rijeka, Serbian: reka, Slovenian and kaikavian: reka, and so on ... Also, specific subclades of I2a haplogroup, most numerous among Croats, have their origins in territory of Ukraina, and were transfered via "founder effect"to Adriatic- Dinaridic region of modern Croatia. Also, Nestor from Kiev (Kiiv), in his chronicle, mentions Hrvati (Croats) three times as one of 8 important tribes in ancient Ukraina during 9th and 10th century events. Origin of Croats (proper endonym in Croatian language: Hrvati) is definitively in territory of Ukraina. And the name "Hrvati" (national name in Croatian language) is, according to the most of linguists, of Iranophonic origin, what would sugest the stepp influences in ancient Croatian ethnogenesis. In support to this direction of development it goes 2 stone tablets found in location of ancient city Tanais, near the mouth of Don river into Sea of Azov (part of Black sea). In these tablets (originals are today in museum in Sanct Petersburg) among clearly Iranophonic names we can find names as: Horouatos and Horoathos [read as: Horvatos and Horathos], what is strikingly similar to Croatian national name: Hrvat (singular), Hrvati (plural). Horvat is today very common last name, derived from Croatian ethnic name. As a last name, there is more than 1500 individuals bearing it in Czech, in Slovakia (often in form: Chorvat, Charvat, Chorvát), in Poland: Horwat, in Romania, in Ukraina, in Russia (mostly in region between Don river and Volga river and from Kabardin Republic in Caucassus up to Tatarstan region). I was surprised when I found last name Horvat in Turcic Uzbekistan, borne by cca. 260 individuals. It is important to notice that last names derived from ethnic are not common and often in area where specific ethnic is majority population, but this type of last names is most frequent in neighbouring areas.
I wonder if it's true that they were all different tribes who spoke the same language as there were Sorbs, Serbs(maybe same as Sorbs?), Horvats, Veneti, Spori (could be Sorbs), Antes.
I'm not a specialist on this topic, but I was surprised when Dr. Curta said that Poles do not have an origin story. As a Pole I was always told about a legend of Lech, Czech and Rus who were respectively the founders of Poland, Czechia and Rus. Doesn't it count as a origin story? It's a pretty common tale in Poland :)
I have never thought about it. There is a theory that it's a transformed version of an older name "Lestek" which came from "lście" meaning "cunning" or "slyness", but there are also some other opinions. I know that Poland is sometimes called "Lechia" or "Lechistan". I'm not sure but I think that this name is still used in some Eastern European or Middle East countries. Nevertheless, almost every child in Poland was thought about the legend of Lech, Czech and Rus @@frostflower5555
Instead of an episode about the Slavs we got an episode about how to deconstruct the Slavs. Next time invite somebody that actually knows what he's talking about, aside from merely possessing the credentials. Preferably someone that is Slavic as well. And, yes, we do also consider ourselves Slavic. We're not like Hispanics and whatnot.
The problem is that proper, Slavic, and even Western Slavicists and Byzantologists (like Michel Kazanski and Obolensky) are diametrically opposed to his theses, but Westerners aren't interested in the factual realities of Slavic history, but to rationalize their premises and deeply rooted anti-Slavism.
@@numenoreaneternity6682 We have similar crap here in the Balkans, those old Yugo dinosaurs. They often peddle similar stuff, except for them it is about Yugoslavism or whatever.
In Polish slawa has a meaning of being famous or known by and that is visible in Polish names eg. Mieczyslaw, Wieslaw, Miroslaw, Stanislaw etc. so the names are indicating for what they were famous same like with surnames all over the world such as English Smith or Polish Kowal, Kowalski
In Serbia we celebrate SLAVA which means SAINT DAY & we also have a lot of those days throughout the year. Each family in Serbia has one SLAVA or a Saint Day that they choose to celebrate something like a Patron who looks after & protects that family. Only Serb families have a lot of Patron Saint Days that they’re celebrating from the beginning of a year in January to the end of the year in December. No other Slavic nation has as many Saint Days or Slava as Serbs do.
In Serbia: Miroslav, Stanislav, Dragoslav, Radoslav, Vladislav and so on.... many thing in this story are without any logic. Is Florin Curta Romanian name?
@@slavkas.6552 That’s interesting and in all Polish word “sławić” also means worship and praise the God. I believe that is another meaning of this term being God worshippers.
Thanks You SAMA for this video! I'm far from the perspective of some "horray" slavic nationalist, but I must say that Dr. Curta is (un/intentionally) making the topic of Slavic origin seem much more confusing than it really is. The Slavs from the beginning identified themselves as an linguistic group. Even Cosmas of Prague (1045- 1125) called himself "European-educated Czech Slav". Sloven, Slověnin, ment kinsman (likewise German "Deutch" or Netherland "Dutch"). All the tribes and clans had their own names which is natural for the society at this tribal level. The term "Němci" for Germanic people is present all around the Slavic world, from Czech to Russian languages. Baltic and Slavic languages were present on the ancient teritorry of Corded-Ware culture and genetically they match very well. Baltic languages seem to preserve bit more archaistic form, while Proto-Slavic language evolved as its southern dialect, due to significant contacts with Iranian and other languages. Some of the Iranian tribes, such as Antes even merged with Slavs. Over the time, this Proto-Slavic dialect spread across former Balto-Slavic territory. Even though the language took place on huge land, it preserved its mutual intelligibility up to the middle ages (it's said that in 12th century Slavic languages were still just sort of dialects) and even today it's not very hard to learn other Slavic languages if you speak one. It's simple as that. I think Western scholars should finally abandon this 19th century Anglo-German "messed Slavs" feel.
Don't forget that this guy is a Romanian. He is being intellectually dishonest, especially regarding language and religion. Slavic languages have a very complex and conservative grammar, much of the connections with other satem-group languages like Sanskrit and Iranian languages, religion definitely wasn't animistic, or copied from Greeks or Romans. The field of archeology of religion have reconstructed the PIE religion, roughly speaking, but it's based on the same principles as archeology of linguistics, on which the PIE language was reconstructed. Slavs and Baltics are people living near the PIE Urheimat, and Baltic and Slavic religions, especially Baltic are the closest to the reconstructed PIE religion, with the Diewas pater, or Heavenly Father being the foundational God, making it almost monotheistic, Him being a parallel of Brahman, or Iupiter, which is actually a contracted form of Dieus Pater. There are parallels with minor deities as well of course, which is well documented. We are simply PIE that more or less did not migrate). Not saying that we don't have loanwords from Germanic or Turkic languages, of course we do, this was an area of dynamic history, but to claim that we were unwashed peasants, who had to copy their religion, is simply intellectually dishonest. Slavic may as well have emerged as a lingua franca made from similar dialects spoken in the area, that would explain its internal uniformity at a relatively late age in history, but it's, at the same time extremely conservative, and complex, linguistically speaking, with Baltic languages being the most conservative, of course. To cut the story short, there is no need for an origin story when you're living in your Urheimat, and Huns may as well have left a "hole in the history", having created a large state entity that possibly used a unified lingua franca that may have emerged spontaneously as a koine language of the local dialects spoken in its (Hunnic) domain, created as late as 5th century as its lingua franca. Another comment pointed to the fact that Croats have rich archeology because they migrated to a land where stone was in free supply (I'm from Croatia and I know how "stony" it is here), while Slavs, and possibly Baltics as well, created their sacral sculptures or inscriptions in wood, which doesn't preserve nearly as well. Also, the structure of Glagolitic, being much less abstract than both Latin or Greek alphabet (we have our own word azbuka based on the first two letters, with the second one meaning just that, a letter), could point to the possibility that it wasn't invented by the saint Cyril (him inventing a Cyrillic script makes much more sense, it's basically Greek/Latin alphabet adapted for Slavic languages, WHICH also raises a logical question, why invent two scripts instead of one?) to spread Christianity, but was much older, and was brought to Balkans with Croats and other Slavs during migrations, possibly after the Justinian plague which made Balkans pretty vacant, while still being a pretty decent place to live :).
@@Miculjka exactly. Also Romanian people were just Romanized Slavs, they have the same genetics as Serbs. Also Romanian language is still full of Serbian words. ( they are also neigbours and share Timocka krajina.
@@Miculjka Cyrillic is simplified Glagolytic symbols. Same phonemes and logic, different shapes. Glagolytic was infact called Cyrillic in early preserved sources, only later was the distinction made that the first cyrillic is called glagolytic. Previously It is described how Byzantine emperor (Manuel) searched and searched for a Slavic script but could not fins us having any. And then later the initiative to design a Slavic scripture was made, to much oposition in proud Greek people and it is known that it spread from south to north. Cyrill possibly designed it while still in Thessaloniki. You seem to lack these information, but are quick to judge a professor as "dishonest". Impolite.
@@miloshp7399 I'm well aware of that, it's basic common knowledge. I'm just amusing my imagination with this idea because Glagolitic script is much less abstracted than its supposed predecessor, Greek script. Honestly, Cyrillic script looks like an offspring of Greek and Glagolitic (if scripts could have sex). Anyway, Slavs originated in the area of PIE Urheimat, along with Balts. Our languages could be considered the last remnant of the PIE stem that didn't branch off of it. Also, that was an area of constant trade, steppes were close, what are the chances we didn't have any script. What did happen in the territories where Slavic originated is Hunic invasion that could've destroyed a civilization,similarly to what the Mongols did to Kievan Rus.The mixed Iranian and Baltoslavic population gave rise to the new emergent Lingua Franca based on those local dialects, but completely mixed up because of migrations. It eventually became official language of invaders as well, so both Huns (probably) and Avars (almost certainly) used it as a language of their states, or, better said, tribal confederations. In any case, that would explain how Slavic languages were so uniform as late as 6th century, while still retaining really conservative properties inherited from PIE (mostly grammar, but also prosody, vocabulary etc.). So the most recent language group with really archaic features. Regarding my impoliteness, professional help is being sought. I'm probably projecting and having delusional grandiose fantasies because of the unwashed peasant complex.
About his book flaws... "Professor Curta's book is interesting for its various tables, categorizations, comparisons and other "analytics". It is also useful for the lists of sources it gives. On the other hand, it is an academic book in that it does not provide or attempt to provide a narrative but rather breaks various topics down along the lines of academic debates on the same. (In other words, beginners beware). In lieu of a narrative it provides various claims and assertions for those subtopics that then work to support a thesis and produce a conclusion. The problem is that, while some of this information is interesting, the synthesis is problematic. Essentially, the claim is that Slavs did not originate in an Urheimat and walked into Europe (but the autochtons shouldn't get excited yet) but rather the Slavic identity was essentially given by Byzantine authors to existing groups or mixes of group that always lived on the edges of the empire but, presumably, under various names, speaking different languages and following different cultures. This is a bizarre claim for a whole host of reasons (e.g., how did the Slavic language spread?, how did the DNA spread (e.g., why do Russians and Czechs look so similar)? Did Byzantines cause all that?) that would require a broader response. Moreover, in order to make some of these claims, Professor Curta attacks the veracity of certain sources (Jordanes mostly) but does so in a way that is hardly effective. E.g., he claims that Jordanes must have been using maps which, incorrectly, showed the river Vistula going West to East (because the Slavs lived south of the Vistula according to Jordanes). This is a strange assertion and a major stretch of the imagination. Europeans clearly live "north" of the River Nile in that they live in an area that is north of both of the sources and endings of the Nile. To place the Slavs in Moravia would, in effect do the same for them in respect of the Vistula. This hardly shows a lack of familiarity with geography or using "wrong" maps. Elsewhere, he discusses the major and, in his own words, "unprecedented" construction of fortifications along the Byzantine border - but then goes on to say that Slav raids did not constitute a threat, at that time, to the Byzantines as their numbers were few (he has to show that Slav bands were small because otherwise they could be seen as movements of the presumably larger "peoples" a la Germanic lines). So what was the purpose of these major, unprecedented public works then? Were they union pork projects? One could, of course, say that Slavs were numerically few but then one would have to show that Byzantines did not take them seriously. That would require showing that they did not construct significant fortifications but to do that Professor Curta would have to ignore the archeological record and that he is not willing or able to do. So we end with a bunch of contradictions. Other examples of this kind of lack of analysis or skewed analysis abound. Nonetheless, the book is well organized and should be read to see what the current thinking is on these topics, at least in Florida."
My thought was this. Fur traders. The slavs were on the outskirts of the Byzantine Empire. Now the way early Russians traded was for international trade cattle. But for smaller denominations, they traded in furs. One of these furs being the Kuna. A weasel-like creature. Kuna is the former currency of Croatia (before the Euro). So there is a connection between Danubian/Sava Slavs and the Russians. What is the connection FUR. Byzantine would pay cash for furs. SO these people living on the Danube had a monetary incentive to spread out into the forests of Poland and Russia and set up towns, and villages. Hunt furs. Trade. Live life.
I am 97% Slavic with 3% Wendish which is still Slavic. The maps that I received from my DNA do not equate to what this man has said. And around 900 AD we started being made slaves. The core root of the word Slave is Slav. I have found his information very lacking in origins. www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-middle-east-studies/article/what-does-the-slave-trade-in-the-saqaliba-tell-us-about-early-islamic-slavery/EDDD35D8FD593AB8D576D11550CF62C6
@@slavicgypsy5535 Modern Western interpretations of medieval sources would indicate the Slavic area as being the main reservoir of slaves in the whole period of the Early Middle Ages, beginning probably in the 6th century, and with a peak around the 10th. This preference for slaves of Slavic origin - so strong as to make Slavs the slaves by antonomasia - has been easily explained: in that period Slavic people were the only ones who were still pagan, and this detail is most important as it explains why, by choosing them, early medieval slave traders - mostly Venetian, Genoese and Jewish - did not violate the new principles of the “Societas Christiana”, introduced by Pope Gregory the Great at the end of the 6th century, according to which baptized people must be excluded from slavery. What should be noted is that aside from this being a mere theory, it is also historically and etymologically inaccurate, and unconvincing. After all, the Medieval Latin words for “Slav” and “Slave” are not etymologically related. The Medieval Latin word for “slave”, and with it, its root as well, predates the first sightings and contact of mainland European civilization with the Slavs. The evolution of the name of Slavs "Sloveni/ Slaveni" comes from PIE *klew (to hear) evolving into proto-Slavic *slovo/ *slava (word/ fame), finally evolving into Sloveni/ Slaveni (those glorious/ those who understand each other). Meanwhile, the English word for "slave" comes from the Latin word "clavis/ clavus" (a key/ nail), which bore the Latin word "inclavare" (to lock in), ultimately giving rise to the word "sclavus" (slave - "a locked one"), which most likely entered the English language, along with a major portion of Romance words, with the Norman invasion. In 1881, a proper etymology was expressed, according to which the Greek word Σκλάβινοι does not stem from the self-name of the Slavs, but from the Greek verb σκυλεύο - "to extract spoils of war", and resonates in the manner in which Slavs and other ethnicities were enslaved - as prisoners of war. The aforementioned etymologies are free of politicization, are accurate, and are firmly rooted in history and linguistics. Based on this, the self-name of the Slavs and their Modern Helleno-Latin name coincided phonetically purely accidentally (F. Kluge, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache 1881/1989/2002), and the thesis where the modern word for “Slave” is not rooted in the self-name of the Slavs, and is refuted.” (Gerhard Kobler - Deutsches Etymologisches Wörterbuch 1995, Korth Georg - Zur Etymologie des Wortes 'Slavus' (Sklave) 1970, and Daniel Scholten - Deutsch für Dichter und Denker: Unsere Muttersprache in neuem Licht, 2020). The aforementioned theory and etymology are furthered by Korth Georg, Friedrich Kluge, Gerhard Kobler, and Daniel Scholten (and Grimm’s German Dictionary). Further on, the cognate with Sloveni/Slaveni is the word Sclavinii/ Slabini, a Latin that denotes Slavic ethnic groups. From a purely historical perspective, Greece and Gaul were Rome’s main reservoir of slaves for centuries, while the Irish were the main reservoir of slaves for their Normano-English oppressors for more than half a millennium, and before them, to Norsemen as well. Dublin was the largest slave market in Western Europe. Its main sources of supply were the Irish hinterland, Wales and Scotland, while in the Far and the Middle East, the Turkmen tribes would supply the largest portion of Eurasia with innumerable slaves for nearly a millennium. Aside from that, just during the earliest stage of the Slavic invasion of Roman territory south of the Danube (6th century), a fifth of a million Roman citizens (Procopius) were enslaved by the Sclavenes (early South Slavs) in just one Roman province, and just during a single raid, the number of their slaves kept growing as more and more provinces and their capitals fell to the aforementioned Slavs. In reality, the majority of slaves in the 6th and 7th centuries were the Christian Romans, not their Slavic captors. Granted the Slavs didn't enslave their enemies permanently, but they've enslaved them nonetheless, and in numbers that are substantially greater than the number of Slavs who were enslaved by non-Slavs during the entirety of the middle ages, and it renders the aforementioned non-Slavs as being more fitting to have their ethnonyms made “synonymous” with slavery The Western terminology for "slave", to a certain extent, is similar in form to the self-designation of the Slavs ("Sloven", "Slavjan" etc.) Their existence served as the basis for numerous anti-Slavic statements, theories, and consecutive waves of propaganda, which have sometimes acquired the scope of genuine mythologies. Moreover, these ideas were even given an academic platform. As it happened more than once, when “not entirely” adequate premises gained an academic platform and were entrenched there since. The premise of "Slavs" is the root of words for "slaves" found a permanent foothold in Western Academia, giving rise to a series of pseudoscientific, inform, but questionable, in essence, representations and statements. The essence of these premises is that these words are related to the ethnonym of the Slavs, allegedly, "due to the fact that in the Early Middle Ages, the Slavs became objects of the slave trade, which led to the use of their ethnonym as a designation for slaves." Sometimes, it was even argued that Western Europeans, whose languages contain these words, directly, massively, and regularly turned the Slavs into slaves, and in general, other far-reaching conclusions were made, such as that the "Slavs are slaves" and the Western Europeans are "their masters." Moreover, in the 18-19th century in Western European journalism, the idea was persistently exaggerated that even the word "Slav" itself comes from the Latin or Greek word for "slave". This was the “think tank” of an 18th-century French historian and publicist. Polemics regarding this myth and premise are found even in Dostoevsky’s "Diary of a Writer". As for the idea of the origin of the word "Slav" coming from the word for slaves - at the present time, it is not considered scientific and has long been recognized as erroneous, or even deliberately Slavophobic. The birthplace of this terminology is the ERE. In the Early Middle Ages, in the so-called Medieval Greek, the word "σκλάβος" (read as "sklavos" - "slave") appeared. Further - from the ERE and Medieval Greek, this word found its way to Medieval Latin (and from there to Medieval French) - the official, as well as international legal, political, commercial, and scientific language of Western Europe. Moreover, in different languages, it appears in different timelines. In accordance with Webster's Dictionary, the word appears in English only in the 14th century, while Webster gives an etymological origin of the basis of the premise of this stream of Slavic slaves dating back to the 10th century, specifically during the reign of Henry the Fowler and Otto I, therefore moot and chronologically off by several centuries. Thus, the direct appearance of these words in Western European languages, for reasons allegedly of the abundant trade in Slavic slaves, is excluded. Since the word has a clearly traceable and understandable history. And it did not arise in the West, but in ERE. The word for “slave” in Medieval Greek derives from the Greek verb skyleúo - meaning “to get spoils of war”, the first-person singular of which looks like skyláo. This etymology is established thanks to the following sources: F. Kluge, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der Deutschen Sprache. 1881/1989/2002, siehe Sklave: “... zu gr. skyleuein, skylan, V. zu gr. Skylon ", Gerhard Köbler, Deutsches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, 1995, Sektion "Slaven" and Daniel Scholten, Deutsch für Dichter und Denker: Unsere Muttersprache in neuem Licht, Sklave und Slawe “. Thus, it is proven that the Greek word "sklav", "slave" - comes from the abovementioned Med. Greek word, the original meaning of which was "seized in war".This etymology, and Georg Korth’s "Zur Etymologie des Wortes 'Slavus' (Sklave)" refutes the premise that the Med. Greek and modern Western word for “slave” derived from the self-name of the Slavs. This etymology is furthered by Korth Georg, Friedrich Kluge, Gerhard Kobler, and Daniel Scholten (and Grimm’s German Dictionary). Furthermore, it turns out that the "Slavs" and all these numerous Western European "sklavas" are only homonyms. There are innumerable examples of such consonant coincidences (both within the same languages, and between words from different languages). This is a fairly common occurrence, especially among Indo-European languages. Thus, in the ERE, a new word was found and associated with the verb that means "to seize trophies of war", which was from then on used to denote slaves. At the same time, the previous word for slave, which previously meant slaves, was repurposed to denote indentured serfs attached to the land they’ve toiled.
@@numenoreaneternity6682 thank you for your input. I read the diary of an Arab slave holder of why they chose Slavics. It was noted in his diary that once castrated they were obedient workers. And they were 10 times more valuable castrated and made eunuchs because of their work ethic. They could have cared less if they were pagan according to that man's diary. So I disagree with you there. They even were enslaved so they could fight for the Ottoman Empire against the Byzantine from what I've seen. Again ..... I'm beginning to realise that all history is up to interpretation. And I am going by the definition of slave that is out there. "Slave - Origin Middle English: shortening of Old French esclave, equivalent of medieval Latin sclava (feminine) ‘Slavonic (captive)’: the Slavonic peoples had been reduced to a servile state by conquest in the 9th century." "Sla·von·ic /sləˈvänik/ adjective relating to or denoting the Slavic language family. noun the Slavic language family." That's in the dictionary.
At 43:15 Dr. Curta mentioned "strange things that Romanians do to the Slavic language" and he mixes "nauka" (science) with "neuk" (uneducated, not dummy). The root in both is some archaic word like "uk" (or apparently "oko" or an eye, as someone below already mentioned) which survived in a derivate "učiti" (pronounced "uchiti" = to learn). So, "nauka" would be something like "learning on" ("na" means "on", hence "na-uka"...."naučnik" = scholar). "Neuk" however is "ne-uk", here we have a negation in front of the word, as a prefix and it literally means "un-schooled" or uneducated. Btw., the first word is a noun and the second is an adjective. Otherwise, very interesting topic, since we know very little about the Slavs. Those were excellent questions and very informative answers from Dr. Curta. Thank you.
@@malaxes Thanks for your comment. Sure, the root is obviously "oko" (eye in eng.). Nauka means "to the eye" in some sense (na+oka). In south slavic language we have a verb "uciti" ("uchiti"). It was probably in some point of time "očiti" (ochiti, which is "okjiti", whereby "k"+"j" form a "č" through palatalisation), which was modified trough pronounciation into "uchiti" (učiti). Polish phonetic form or transliteration made it probably into a verb "uczyć". I'm not a linguist, but the languages and script change over time. Thanks for your input and don't mind my attempt of explanation. 😊 Cheers.
@erazmo Све што си написао и дан данас постоји у СРБСКОМ језику!!!"УК" је двоглас, основа, као и РК, РГ.."РГ" Веда-најстарији запис филозофски космологијски на свету! Све је поменуо, СРБЕ не😅О СРБИМА се ради у овом видеу!!
I speak Slovenian, Croatian and Serbian and I can tell you that all three languages are heavenly influenced by Ottoman, Roman and Germanic languages. Very interesting and mysterious history of my peoples. Thank you!
@@1914inheaven Totally off base, but is ancient Latin or Italic (not sure of the difference) in anyway similar to ancient greed with similar word or sentence structure or sounds used, ie hard C or K or 'sh" sounds? Language is its own deep science, like math, music, biology, zoology, to me.
Linguistic analysis provides clues based on native words for types of environment, flora, fauna, tools, etc. This is widely accepted in Indo-European studies. If we identify the Slavic people with the language they speak, then it IS possible to to locate the origins of the language in time and space. As far as I've read, that location is somewhere south of the Baltic speakers, East of the Germanic/Celtic speakers, West/South of the Finno-Ugric speakers, North of the Indo-Iranian (Scythian) speakers. So probably somewhere roughly in modern day Belorus/Eastern Poland/Western Ukraine.
Yes. What Mr Curta is saying is that Slavic language became lingua Franca, common languages among lots of tribes all mixed up under Huns north of Danube and all of them became slavic speaking thus Slavs, so in a way that Slavic identity was forged but Slavs existed prior too. Slavs suddenly appear after fall of Hunnic empire and suddenly live in much of eastern Europe while not being know to even exist prior so this is one of manny explanations to this phenomena of sudden expansion
@@kristijangrgic9841 but what about generic data and culture? If slavs prior to adoption of proto slavic language were different quasi ethnicities then why do they share common genes and culture?
@@DoubleDwarf well all europeans share them :9 a beter question is why those identity is much wider than avaric teritories? explain the baltic people who are almost slavs and for sure slav related :)
Also, we can not accept prof. Curta's claim that Slavic peoples developed their cavalry under influence of Avars. This statement it could be correct and valid maybe for some Slavic groups in Pannonian basin, especially for the Moravians in the west, the political and military state in area between Franks in the west and the Avars Khaganat in the east. Information from the Byzantine sources that we have is the first dated mention of "Sklavenoi" as the people for year 532. It is written that in this year emperor Justinian I. shipped cavalry unit of 1600 men to Italy, with purpose of providing military assistence to general Belizarius in war against Ostrogoths. This unit of 1600 cavalrymen was made mostly of Sklavenoi and Antai. So, this is proof that some groups of Sloveni were cavalry mercenaries even before Avars arrived in Pannonia (area of todays Hungary mostly). It is logical conclusion that Slovene tribes living in the stepp area developed and accepted cavalry in an early stages in conntact with Scythians and later with Sarmatians.
@@studyofantiquityandthemidd4449 Sir::: How would like to do some interviews on Apollo-Moon-Hoaxes, may be starting with an interview with the producer of MoonHoax--DOT--com who found absolutely NO evidence that Apollos even existed!!!!!!!
@@twonumber22 Just watch that free-documentary, funded by the State-of-Michigan, which set out to visit NASA, and its people involved in the so called "Apollo-Program", but everywhere he went, he was told that NO originals, NOR copies, of anything Apollos existed, and that:: ("We-Lost-Them") !!!! Worse yet, the Moron-Majority of the world population believe that they actually happened !!!!!!!!
@@kareemsalessi Well then the State of Michigan sure knows how to waste taxpayer money on something absolutely and profoundly incorrect. Not only are they not fake, you couldn't even possibly fake them. When thousands of people in person and millions on television watch the astronauts all load up into the top of the Saturn 5 rockets and blast off into space, where do they go?
The professor mentioned Glagolitic in Croatia and the fight to preserve it through centuries , I would just like to add that in the northwest of the country there is a revival of interest in it and it will be around for many centuries to come .
@@markomaksimovic1846I don't hate cyrillic, I can read and write in it and historically it was also used. The problem is that modern people think that these were writing systems of people 1000 years ago, in reality most people couldn't read or write so those who could either used it for the purpose of correspondence, liturgy or chronology.
@@docikr5961 Оригинал је аутентични оригинал и потиче из Винчанског периода и прва је филозофска мисао која је спојила човека, Створитеља, законе кретања, транслацију и ротацију, природне појаве кишу, ветар и Сунце и круг као најсавршенији геометријски облик али и Закон Универзума-непрекидно кружно кретање-ништа у систему Планете земље није линеарно- и тако сунастала слова АзБуке=Винчанско писмо.Слова латинице су такође део Винчанског писма. Свако слово има своје смислено значење.
Florin Curta is indeed a historian with interesting insight and ideas. However, several of his theories are shattered by linguistic and genetic studies (there was a vivid discussion in this field and his ideas were in its general applicability widely dismissed, much of ethnographic data is also contradicting his linguistic ideas). Also, the problem is in generalizing of interpretations drawn from south Slavic and Balkan archaeology, where he faces a lot of difficulties when applying to areas in central European territory (Czech, Slovak, Polish) and also in the area of present-day Belarus and western Ukraine. The ethnic reality of those areas was way different from that in the south.
Listen, his only goal is to prove Romanian continuity in the region. He will lie, omit or falsify when analyzing other subjects, only to serve his secret propaganda.
@@dokangelThis is the dumbest comment I have read so far. The fact that you may be anti-Romanian is not an issue in itself, but your comment is not informative in anyway. It is meant to discredit and spread hateful information. Shame on you!
Moravia was a warrior-state that endured almost for 3 centuries (from cca. 620-ies to the late 9th century) between Franks and Avars, fighting constantly against Franks coming from the west and against Avars from east. Also, Sloveni which went in the area around Laba (Elba) river were not under influence of Avars. By the way, Croats migrated to Dalmatia and defeted Avars. And stone inscription tablet in glagolitic that you have in video is from Croatia, year cca. 1100.Also, the relief in video showing horseman killing the Dragon by spear is also from Croatia. The most of other Slavic peoples made their artefacts from wood, and Croats made their inscriptions, reliefs and other in stone because in country to where they migrated and created state (classical Dalmatia and Liburnia) there is a lot of stone as a material.However, first Croatian inscriptions with Croatian ethnonym were not written in glagolitic scripture, but in Latin languge (middle of 9th century). Glagolitic scripture in Croatia was more and more used from 11th century on, even having the printed editions of books before the year 1500 (glagolitic printing-house was established in region of Lika in 1490-ies).
To su sve falsifikati, naknadno urezivani natpisi u vrijeme hrvatske megalomanske povjesne skole. U srednjem vijeku nemate ni jednog pisca, ni jedan roman, ni jedan zakonik.
Very interesting although I do not agree with the linguistic parts. Some definitions and concepts presented are not entirely correct and I believe it would be better to leave them out or to have an actual linguist present them.
According to a Serbian researcher living in Great Britain, he discovered and listed more than 7,000 words that were similar or had the same roots between Serbian and English. At this level according to certain linguists, contact or transmission is obligatory. For example, I remember that my grandmother, born in 1909 and having never been to school and never abroad, when one of my questions or requests for confirmation answered me, "jes" ( yes) which is an abbreviation of the word "jeste" (yeste). The English dates from the 16th century, say Henry VIII. The Serbian can be said to belong to the Njemanjic dynasty and for some researchers even before. Which makes me say that the influence could only be in a certain direction. I would also like to raise another point. According to official history, the Slavs invaded Eastern Europe, reaching contact with the Germans and the current Balkans, which the Serbs call Helm by the way. So they were warriors. But then you get stuck into the usual litany of how these same warriors became slaves whose wives were abused by others.... Once and for all, Slave, otherwise known as Sloven, comes from the word "slovo" which means letter...which speaks the same language. These same Sloveni still call the Germans today by the term "Nemci" from the word "nemi" which literally means mute...who cannot be understood or does not speak the same language. Stop denigrating and don't always take seriously certain columns which only did that because they were powerless in those times. And finally I would like to address a line of research to Florin Curta, which consists of asking questions about the true origins of certain warrior emperors of ancient Rome such as Trajan and above all studying the origins of his name. Perhaps then he will ask questions about the true meaning and origin of the expansion of the Slavs. PS: the Sloveni have never been slaves and especially not the Serbs.
Especially the Serbs who were taken over by the powerful Bulgarian Khanate early. The ones who escaped to the powerful Croatian Kingdom nearby were given freedom and rights.
@@mattbarbarich3295 Of course.....History revisited, the Serbs are used to it. Everyone was always more powerful than the Serbs and they all had kingdoms that the great powers didn't mention. Charlemagne only knew the Serbs, the Ottomans also strangely only mention the Serbs and the Austro-Hungarians. Obviously it is well known that the uprisings of 1805 and 1815 were always these other so powerful "kingdoms" which ejected the Ottomans from the Balkans.....and also 1914-18 they also gave "freedom" to the people Serbian...... Yes Yes of course. Freedom and recognition takes place under the protection of the powerful who give “democratic rights” as under the EU today. It's so true I forgot. Croatian free speech, for example, is so esteemed in the European Parliament.... 😉
I agree with you, but keep in mind that 'slave' is an english word. I concluded that it was coined by vikings which regularly invaded russia and probably made them into slaves, and of course brought many words with them into Britain when they settled there. So, Slav DOES mean slovo, or pismen, but it can also in english and scandinavian mean slave, refferring to russians, the only slavs they knew.
@@deansusec8745 You know, this story of vikings infiltrating deep into hostile territory with two or three longships, each of which has only 50 men at most, leaves me perplexed. For what ? Because out of slave Slavs they manage to make warrior invaders from the East.... You should know. For the moment I note that the Slavs are much more numerous than all the others combined and that despite all the attempts the Western peoples have never succeeded in winning by force. So they wrote great stories about the Vikings, but they're still just stories. I ultimately think that the Vikings were more traders than we think. The Sloveni did not leave much writing because the transmission was mainly oral. This is a problem because ultimately our history and our myths are the ones who wrote them, and given how the current situation is, it may very well have been the same. And since we read their writings about us, we are fooled by falsehoods or intended distortions. I don't trust them.
@@georgytodorov7947 He did learn something about Slavs.. from Mein Kempf.. written by one of most popula historians and intellectuals from the "West". :)
@@piotrwiara1564 I know brother.. i must say that i love one of Slavic Origins story, from chronicle of dalimil .. dont know why i love that. Do you know. :P This is of course one of 100 Origin stories of Slavs. Literaly writen by a Slav.
@@zoranlakic5954 got that spot on brother! But then again... why is he calling us Bulgarians Slavs? Everyone knows thah back then we pretendet to be ... something (noone knows exactly what) to get in that particular historian and inrellectual's good graces... Fuckin' polititians man!!! Cheers! Rakia's on me.
Old Church Slavonic is not an artificial (invented) language. This is the old Bulgarian language. Cyril didn't invent new language, he has designed the alphabet, and he has translated the Bible into Bulgarian language of his time, since it was his native language! It is very naïve to think that one man can invent a language and then teach it the whole peoples! That's crazy bullshit!
And again... the professor NEEDS to actually learn the languages he's talking about! Slavic languages have a tendency to use the same root word and add prefixes to it to alter the meaning slightly. In the case of science the root word is roughly translated as "to learn/study" the prefix "na-" as in "nauka" can be assigned a meaning of "of" or "on" depending on how abstract you need to get. So in the end the word "nauka" (which to my knowledge generally has the same meaning in most slavic languages not just in russian) can be translated as "of/on study" or perhaps "of/on knowledge". The prefix "ne-" on the other hand is ALMOST UNIVERSALLY a negation. If you haven't followed so far i'll sum it up for you "neuk" is not a bastardization of the slavic word for science but rather a direct LOAN WORD with it's ORIGINAL meaning of "illiterate/not well studied".
True. In Croatian the word for science is znanost - directly connected to word znanje for knowledge and the suffix -ost signifies an activity. So it directly translates as collecting/gathering knowledge. I do understand 'nauka' too of course since the Serbs use that word, although in Croatian; nauka, nauk and naučavanje are related to the more specific activity of teaching.
Slovenians are named from "slava" which means glory. Vast majority of slovenian historians agree to that. From sources as early as 7th century that was the name of the majority of the population that lived in the territories of Slovenia, Slovakia, western Hungary and Austria. Slightly less consensus is whether Slovenians and Slovakians were the same people before the Magyars came to the Balkans. The closest language to Slovenian language is Slovakian.
Each haplogroup is divided into subclades according to mutations. R1a has 20 subclades.. Slovenians have a West Slavic subclade like Czechs, you don't have Slovak genes, which is quite interesting
My sister recently did a genetic ancestry test and the results came back.with a genetic link to That found with ancient Sarmatians. The tribes of the Eurasian Steppes. This culture encompasses such a wide range of culture types from the Danube to the Alti mountains. And from the Black Sea to the Baltic coast. So many of the ancient historic peoples considered as invaders such as the Goths, Visigoth ,Vandals, and many that have settled in places within this region could be considered as Slavs. Poles, Belarus Czech , Lithuanian Hungarian and possiblyGeorgian as there was ancient migration over the Caucasus, Along. With the Horse culture and Light ,spoked wheel Chariot.
Judging by your name I think you are male. Then you'd better do your own test. Because your sister does not have a Y chromosome. The Y chromosome is always inherited directly from father to son and changes only slightly every few generations.
Mr Walter_Ulasinksi : Goths, Visigoth ,Vandals are just 3 out of about 20 GERMANIC {roman or latin name for the "theutonic people" as they called themselves} people, other being Saxons, Frisian, English, Franks, Schwevi, Alans, Allemands, Suabi, Jutes, und so weiter ..... Goths and Visigoths went west and south and conquered Spain; Suabi conquered "Lusitania" or Portugal today. I doubt very much "Sarmatian" ancestry, steppe and horsemen, do belong to germanic tribes inhabiting marshes and forest lands.
@@augustoenriquebarretoreyes6735 While I will not dispute your comment, What I was pointing out, occurred circa 3-5000 BCE the lTe neolithic these tribes also included the Botai, the first horse culture. Ancient migration patterns were diverse much differently from today’s patterns. It is inly through genetics that we will be able to get an approximation of archaic and ancient patterns of the spread of humanity.
All this talk about Slavs and not one mention of the Rosetta Stone and how the middle text of the three languages which included Egyptian and greek turned out to be ancient Macedonian and how advanced it was at that point of time in aprox 200Bc. The same text can be found in the place called Kokino in Macedonia which has been carved into stone and dated to around 6000Bc, I'm not aware of any published papers on the Kokino texts as of yet but I do know that it has been looked at by many linguists from around the world! Although a paper has been released on the ancient Macedonian text decipher which was quite easy to find on the net... What I find amazing is that being of Macedonian background myself, how little the spoken Slavic word's have changed over the last 2200 years! The ancient Macedonian alphabet is rather foreign to me but the continuum in the design of words is present even back then as it is today, for example... A Buk (pronounced Book) is a tree found along the Aegean coast and it's bark is used to write a letter of the alphabet called a Bukva, to create a sentence you need an alphabet or Azbuka and to teach the alphabet, you need a book that contains the teachings of the alphabet and that's called a Bukvar! So you can clearly see that it starts with Buk, then the Bukva, then the Azbuka till the Bukvar. The Macedonian alphabet was already well advanced in 200Bc, possibly more so than any other at that time! As can be seen on the Rosetta Stone, the Macedonian language and literature at that time is anything but greek! There's a lot of good papers available on Macedonian language, god's and religion (before Jewish Christianity existed) and many other topics about Macedonia and it's people by Basil Shulev. To find out where the Slavic people oriented from, I think that you have to look further south and in particular at Macedonia! There's further evidence in Hunza which can be found in Pakistan, the people of Hunza are the ancient descendants of Alexander's Macedonian army! Their existence has only been discovered possibly in the late 20th century... Fascinating stuff for anyone interested in early history...
As a central european Slav and student of history i disagree with the part where he says the name "Slavs" is probably an exonym. How could Slovaks and Slovenes adopt the very same exononym (Sklaveni/Sloveni) as their very distant cousins (Novgorod) on the exact oposite side of the huge Slavic world??? Does not make sense. Sklaveni/Sloveni is clearly an endonym that means literally "those who speak words" in opposition to Nemci (Germans) - literally "those who can´t speak". I know my native language.
I had completely wrong opinion about this guy. He is pseudo historician. A lot of crap in his "expose" a l o t! And what was that on the end about modest roots?
If it is the tribes living on the borders with other languages called themselves (or were called) 'slavs' - to me it would clearly support the 'word' (the peoples of the common word) hypothesis. Those living deep inside the Slavic territory would not even have thought there might exist any other languages, but those on the fringes must have had the awareness of the language barrier and reflected it in the way they described themselves and 'the others': us - people of common word, them - the mutes (Niemcy). Also pls. note that both Slovaks and Slovenians call themselves 'Slov----' rather than 'Slav----' . 'Slav' seems to be a foreign distortion, which became popular and sometimes even reabsorbed by the Slavs themselves, but the vast majority of original names, created by the Slavs themselves has he 'slov-' element in them.
Yeah. And if they were using the same term to describe themselves at very widely distributed points around the edge of the territory occupied by “Slavs”, it seems to me that that would even indicate that all speakers must have had some concept of themselves under this name. Because otherwise, why would the people on the far Western edge use the same word to describe themselves as the people of the Far Eastern edge?
We kind of have to try to feel as those times people maybe....? Why would name Muhammad mean Or have a root that means glory or to be praised? Back then Why most of the names of the slavs Ended with the name slav? Glory or be praised......and at the similar times....religions were a fashion.....praised be aka praising Worshipping a word..... ??? Becoming a knowers of the word? The onnes that speak?
regarding the origin (including myths) of the Slavs: what about the "Slavic-Aryan-Vedas"? It is said, that the famous Hindu Vedas are not original, but an offshoot from the older Slavic original. Also some tribes (not sure if they are said to be Ukraine) can understand the content of the Sanskrit Vedas, if read to them (they cannot read the signs, of course).. but the language connection is still existing. The original was written in runes of the Slavs/Aryan. I am surprised, that those texts have not been mentioned. Sadly most information is only found in Russian language, because there has been a huge effort in Europe to destroy every trace of this old knowledge. The more it would be interesting to find out, what that was all about. Other than that: very interesting presentation, thx!
Ту се ради о СРБСКОМ језику и Србском освајању Индије или 'земље бхарата'= што је србски назив за брата/браћа! Веде наСрбском значе 'Проповедање' -причање народних знања! Тип брбља сат времена али СРБЕ НЕЋЕ ДА ПОМЕНЕ!!! Наука је СРБСКА реч, јер у Румуни живе Срби које је Ватикан у 19в прогласио за некакве Румуне!! А то су Срби!! Веде су Србска Космологија.Срби имају загонетке, питалице у народном наслеђу као у Ведама и принцип тројичности! Санскрт=Србски! Ми све речи Санскрта разумемо и њихов смисао, који је филозофски.
There is no such thing as "Russian Chronicle" just like there is no such thing as "Romanian Empire". The very fact that he doesn't understand how stupid it sounds casts the shadow of logical doubt on every single word of this gentleman, who thinks that he can lecture on the history of Slavs.
@@kareemsalessi No the winning religious authorities and Royals blue bloodlines create the illusions. Only shill historians side with the power structure.
@@kareemsalessi Historians dont “dig up” anything. Archaeologists do. You’re right, there are a lot of corrupt historians, especially in Egypt but there is always someone telling the truth. Even if they are considered fringe.
The ancient Balkan people of Thrachians, Dacians, Macedonians. Illyrians, Tribals etc. are the protoslavic people who eventually moved north after roman arrival and then mixed with small numbered scythians and this is how slavs were born
This has got to be one of the best RU-vid history videos I've watched in this past year. Thank you for uploading it in full length instead of editing it down to suit the algorithm. I would love for you to have this guest on again in the future, he's a really engaging and insightful speaker!
Why? What really satisfies you so much about this? It can't be science, this jerk is not accepted at all in European scienticic world. Look in the mirror in your cabin on the Titanic
look up the Vinca Culture... the discovery and further understanding of these people might throw some wrenches in what we thought Slavs were & where their origins might be from.
42:30 It is more likely that the Romanian "nauk" - "dummy", comes not from Slavic "nauka" ie "science" but from "nEuk" which means someone who is not educated, illiterate. "Ne" means "no" and "-uk" comes form "to learn"
A lot of what this professor says is suspect. It's also quite interesting how Slavic peoples are supposed to allow themselves to be defined by non-Slavic 'scholars' since it's presumed that the Slavic peoples aren't intelligent enough to know where they came from.
Dimitar Dobrinov I don't know if there is a Slavic etymology for ,vesti'( news) but in romanian means a Vei( you'll)+sti ( know) from latin ,scio' It is news in general. b Stiri( news on tv) This time ,sti' is up front. c Vestiri( annocements) ,sti' is in the middle.
It is true, nobody can prove the origin of the term Slavic. But dySLexia is a Greek word, so saying that it is difficult for Greeks to pronounce SL is another lie pulled by Mr Florian out of his bum.
The oldest in europe are Macedonians not greeks, macedonia and macedonians are mentioned in the Bible 28 times, separate from the greeks. Bulgars are not mentioned in the Bible, they didnt existed back then..
but you are slav not macedonian,modern slavomacedonians have nothing in common with ancient macedonians,you are bulgarian.nothing annexed,in 1913 you did not exist you were bulgarian
In 10th century in Pliska old-Bulgarian writing system was developed, not a language. Unfortunately Mr Florian doesn't understand the difference between language and the writing system.
"Nobody wants to accept the truth that all of Europe originates from the Balkans. It is intriguing how the South Slavs conquered the Illyrians, who were the best Roman mercenaries. Where did the approximately one million Illyrians go? There is no evidence of any battle or conflict."Am very sure that Vatican have all answers we will know on judgment day
Artificial language? What?! This guy is a university professor? LoL St. Conatantine (Cyril) and his brother St. Metodius lived in the area populated by the Slavs and full of Slavic toponimes. There is a theory that their mother Maria was a Slav. Both brothers definetely knew the language. The Cyrilic letters existed in Vinca centuries before St. Cyril and Metodius and before the ancient Greece. Also, recently the Serbian government purchased a ring of Prince Stojimir in Munich (stolen goods are always in the West, aren't they? ) that proves that someone in Serbia knew how to write in "the artificial" language few decades before St Cyril and Metodius. The ring had a double cross and the propaganda says that St. Cyril and Metodius spred the Christianity among Slavs. Why is a Romanian profesor researching Slavic history? Is he paid by the Jesuits? What exactly is "the Byzantium"? History is full of BS. Slavs are the most populus linguistic group in Europe. And how many Slavs have been Germanized? There is so many Slavic words in German, English and not to mention Sanskrit. Most Indians don't know what they call "the oldest language in the world". Most Slavs could easily learn it. Slava rodu!
Not so far in history we were one big civilization/ Check Vechyaslav Kulanov and his Abc of truth he has the proofs/ Rus is not Russia/ we had knowdleges of astrophizics/ an the churches are not made for worship but for obsevation of our solar sistem and ecliptics. Also we knew reincarnation as a fizical fact thos knowledges were almost erased and burried in lies by the new world order.
I have a theory. No one discusses the invasions of Steppe peoples and the impact of invasions by Goths, Huns, Avars, and Magyars. I believe that a Slavic Culture developed from the many peoples who inhabited the area north of the Danube, into the Pontic Steppes, and into the woodlands and swamps. These invasions smashed previous cultures, mixed up populations, and created a new situation. People who were descended from Iranic Scythians, Greeks, Goths, Thracians, Uralic peoples, etal mixed and formed new cultures. Slavic languages were the new lingua franca for an area linked by rivers… The Huns, Avars, and Magyars all enslaved millions. Untold numbers hid in swamps and forests. Some joined in with the invaders and others resisted. Slavic languages emerged from all this.
What I learned from this was that “Spanglish” is actually a real thing. In Sweden we use the term “Swenglish” as a joke. For example, if a Swede, when speaking English, accidentally uses a Swedish “false friend” word instead of the proper English one, eg “My kock was feeling very stiff after he slipped in the kitchen and hurt his neck. I gave him a week off”. I always assumed Spanglish was similarly used as a joke.
Spanglish is a Mexican, Chicano dialect from the South West ( formerly known as Northern Mexican territories before the annexation ). We Chicanos call it " Calo " which is a combination of spanish/english talking, exchanging or incorporating different words into a conversation. It's based off Mexican spanish, dialect which is also a combination with the language of our Native American ancestors. Many today like to label this a Latino or Hispanic concept but we Mexicans are neither. Which is why our spanish is the most unique phonetically compared to all other spanish speaking countries. Regards 👋🏼👋🏽🇲🇽
From what i've gathered the Romans in the 2n century did write about Slavs (or the people that would become Slavs) creating a bunch of city states along the river deltas in Ukraine and were worried about their potential as raiders. The Avars seemed to have destroyed those towns after conquering the area and enforced a strict caste system. More on the Avars. They themselves seem to be a Turanic people from modern day Kazakhstan but diplomatic correspondence between Romans and the local Caucasus tribe also calling them selves the Avars marks them as a subjugated group that split of from them (fled from servitude) instead. One of the popular theories on how the Croats started out as a people was that they were originally male children forcefully taken from Slavic families by the Avars who then trained them as something akin to the Jannisaries of the Ottoman empire (which would be funny because all accounts attribute the Croats with the genocide of the Avars).
Very interesting info. Not totally sure the word “funny” sits terribly comfortably with the rest of the sentence being about genocide - that jolted me a bit 😂. But very interesting
Slavs are not only a related ethnic group. These are peoples united by one faith. Slavs-people glorifying their ancestors, and the pagan Slavic faith united them.
So this man is saying that both the Rus' and the Moravians (peoples separated by a thousand miles) could somehow fully understand this "invented" "fake" language created out of thin air by Cyril, but that there is no proof that their languages were at all similar... Is this for real, or are we getting trolled here?
In the book "The Kingdom of Slavs" by Marvo Orbini a 15. century priest from Dubrovnik the name Sloven is derived from Slava which was given to them by them selves after there descent from Scandinavia, they gave themselves this name because they were simple people who were primarily warriors and they were constantly in wars of some sort against other people's and they were mostly victorious.
Oh my God ! What about Sklavini which name started in Roman Time Province Macedonia ! It is Indo-European word "Kleo" , today still "clean " in English . Or Kleopatra the "clean one " . That Kleo becomes Sklevos on Latin and Sklavini ! Still today in Latin is Slavios ( famous ) .
There is part of Marvo Orbini book that was forbiden. To prevent questions of censurship, cripled book was left in the print and is there in catholic libraries in west. But we haw that was in redacted part. Simply said Slavs are in Europe much longer than western propaganda says. Its known tha ancient greeks where enslaving slavic people on the shores of Black sea much before BC...
The guy is disseminating not a science, but his own fantasies and ignorance. Unfortunately it says a lot about education system in US that this guy happens to be a professor.
There’s more to being Slavic then commonality of language although that’s something that clearly makes us a group … Theres so much overlap in music, dance, clothing etc. … just get a group of Slavic people from different regions together and start talking about national dishes … there’s so much overlap. One of the most interesting things I’m starting to explore is folklore and origin stories, particularly around the oldest cities. I’m from former Czechoslovakia . One of our most famous stories is the founding of Prague by Princes Libuše and her husband Přemysl. They founded the Přemyslid dynasty (800-1300 AD )consolidating the Bohemian State. The story has a historic geographical basis , but the legend involves a lot of mystical mythology, and it’s interesting to note that other Slavic nations are not only familiar with this legend, but lay claim to some of the characters for themselves. Another is the historic Jánošík . Again theres a legend around this character that transcends the historic geographical basis , and there again are other Slavic nations who lay claim to him as part of their group. I always thought that these were so quintessentially Czech and Slovak stories! It came as surprise to me how interconnected Slavs are on so many levels.
Love this video. As a Slav (Croat) it is really interesting for me. There are stories how Slavs come to Adriatic written in 12th century but they were written 500 years after the event so they are probably more legends than the history but one them (there are two sources) is very interesting because it is written by Latin liveing in Split and he hates the Slavs so much that it is a funny read😃
@@volek6264 Haplogroup I (I1 Nordic and I2 Dinaric) is a genetics that was dominant throughout Europe during the Neolithic. Haplogroup I has been in Europe for at least 30,000 years. What most historians agree is that after the last ice age, life could have developed from south to north, which is confirmed by the Vinca culture, which later emerged in today's Ukraine through the Cucuteni-Tripilian culture, which is even more developed. It was here that more extensive encounters of I2 people with R1a people and the spread of culture, language, metallurgy to the east took place. This is where the ethnogenesis of Proto-Slavs originates.Those Proto-Slavs and their culture and trade have reached China and India. And the fact that mummies in China are an R1a haplogroup speaks in favor of that, and that there are more than 100 million people in India today who have an I2 haplogroup. We could state the facts that are supplemented with new ones every day. History is multidisciplinary.. Culture, language, records, genetics, folklore ... For example, Sanskrit is the most similar to today's Serbian language of all modern languages.👋
@@volek6264 No, you didn't understand or you can't understand, you better read what is written again. I said that the Haplogroup I was in Europe for at least 30,000 years and that it was the dominant Haplogroup during the Neolithic in Europe as well. It split into two subclades I1 and I2 about 17,000 years ago. Proto-Slavs can be talked about only from the later phase of Vinca culture, Vucedol culture and the first phase of Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, which is approx. 4500BC. ))
First, historians must explain where the Thracians, the second most numerous people in the world after the Indians, according to the father of history Herodotus, disappeared "without a trace" and then write about the fictional Slavs, who did not exist in any historical source before the 16th century.
one can argue that this myths survived through the native line of minority people like the tribals etc... but this is doubtful.. there are additionally as many similar myths among slavic population in Bulgaria and Macedonia related to roman, thrachian, ancient macedonian rullers or events that predates the "slavic invasion" .. Immagine how much europain american folclore is influenced by native american (indian) original myths ? i think none that predates the invasion... in conclussion it is very possible that the thraco-illyrians were the proto-slavic people
About the origin story, that is not true. I am Bulgarian and we do have an origin story. Also, the Chrch Savonic language is not artificial language. It is based on the existing Slavic/Bulgarian language and it was enhanced for liturgical purposes. The Cirilic alphabeth was created, (not the language ) by Cyril and Methodyi by Bulgarian king Boris the First for the purpose of translatinv the Gopels in Bulgarin in8 century.
Science in Slav is Nauka, "na oko", which means "what you see". Just like in English "to see is to know/learn". Nieuk, means "without science", or blind. The doctor needs to look into Sanskrit and Slav language connection as the oldest and least polluted. The stronger word for nauka is 'wiedza", viedza, which is Sanskrit word for knowledge, which also in Slav means "to see". How about them apples?
@@luminography He is not a linguist and he gets the linguistic stuff incorrectly (definition of koine, lingua franca or even calling sociolinguistics and contact linguistics new branches - they both exists for several decades and he really simplifies what they are doing and what insight they can give). I would rather listen to him speaking about the material evidence than a science he is not an expert in.
This is a really difficult topic, I am Polish, looking at the genetic map of Europe, we have the most genes in common with Nordic people, Belarusians and Ukrainians, of course R1a is dominant, you could say that we have the most of it, but there is no N3, which Russians have about 25 percent, and Serbs are also Slavs, but they are only slightly related to us. However, Western Europe, apart from the Nordic people, has R1b dominance everywhere and there is a greater genetic order there.
Dalimil's chronicle, Nestor's chronicle? Other Slavic authors? Curta doesn't tell anything and talking some bullshit stories about Bohemian and Polish origin without any real foundation. How can anyone speak about Slavic people without telling what Slavic scientist are saying? Also, Curta, as Romanian, even doesn't say when Romanians start using nowadays romanian language and wich language they spoke before. Until 1861. Romania was Wallach and Moldavia. You can see by your own eyes what language they spoke from middle age till 1861. Also look at the names of their kings. About DNA haplogroups, he doesn't now or doesn't tell us is that in 2018. we got an results from analysis of 39 samples of skeletons in Vinca, Lepenski Vir and Starcevo( prehistoric archeological sites - 9500- 5500 bc) and it shows the fact that almost 40% of the nowadays people in Serbia have the same I2 haplogroup.Simple, they didn't came to Balkan in 6 century.
This was one long confused mess. No,the Slavs cannot be compared to the Celts, because there are today more than a half dozen Slavic States and maybe one and a half Celtic States. Ireland and the province of Galicia in Spain. So why couldn’t our brilliant historian pick one Slavic State , the earliest one, and talk about how it was organized? And when?
Why not use a SLAVIC historian? Curta regurgitates the usual propaganda - Slavs came from nothing and nowhere. Yet somehow Slavs are the largest linguistic/cultural group in Europe. Curta is Romanian, which claims that - `Romania is a LATIN (Roman) island in a Slavic sea'. The Celts and Goths were in Europe 1,000+ years BEFORE the `Slavic Migration; of 600 AD, yet they did not expand to such a vast territory as the Slavs. Why? Maybe because the Slavs have existed far longer than historians admit? It takes a long time to settle 7.6 million square miles of land.
In fact, at least by the middle ages, the alphabet was a luxury. Alphabets and writing systems varied greatly between areas, principalities, etc. Old Church Slavonic may have shared Christianity but there were many other writing systems. Not to mention extraordinary scripts like Georgian and Armenian. One point of interest is that creators of alphabets have been sanctified in Slavic cultures. I think this might tell us a lot about the languages and culture. There are Saints Cyril and Methodius but also Saint Mesrop Mashtots, said to have created the Armenian alphabet around the fifth century. It is wonderful to have saints created because they aided language and writing. Croatian Glagolitic cursive is fascinating. IMO there is Turkic influence in this. The cursive is very different from regular glagolitic. My research into these subjects is what led me to studying antiquity. I love mysteries and writing and few years ago I started investigating the Voynich Manuscript. I real and write Cyrillic and keep personal notes in Cyrillic adapted to English language. The manuscript seemed to me to be something like this. I found Croatian Glagolitic cursive and tables from the sixteenth century showing many ways to write certain letters. I once spent half the night looking at about 30 different ways to write B. I have found some truly amazing transliterations which I believe are fairly correct. The VM seems to have originated in Slavic areas and was in possession of kings of Croatia and Hungary. One of my ancient in-laws was somehow involved in procuring the manuscript. In March, 2018, the Ardic family of Calgary devised a Turkic translation for some of the Voynich. I very much respect their work. Their system, which I do not fully understand, translates parts of the manuscript where my system does not work well. In December 2019, my household of nine people at that time, and I, had COVID. We all recovered fairly well but chronic, severe genetic migraine which I have, became daily. This has had a devastating effect on my ability to think and I have no idea if I will ever again look at the VM, or if I remember half of what I found.
Re migraine. I also suffer from migraines always caused by allergies to various things. It's almost a year i have been taking a combination of meds as a prevention, every morning after food. I hardly ever have them now, unless there is a very strong allergen or a virus irritating my sinuses. The meds are: Synflex 1/2 of 275mg tablet and Cafergot 1/4 tablet. If you live in EU you can't get Cafergot because it contains something that causes problems to lungs. I have been taking it for 20 years now and have no problems. I just moved from Malaysia to Italy and bought a lot if it to last me a long time. Hope you can find it. Very important to take it after food since Synflex causes gastritis if taken on an empty stomach.
He is inventing theories, but also speaking many truths that last few years genetics had proven. For example Slavs are Illyrians, something albanians and western "scientists" just simply refuse to addmit, even tho science had proven it 100%.@@Nepetita69696
This is hilarious. A Greek created language for Slavs. Unbelievable what people come up with. And than his statement, there were no Slavs before Slavs. So Dr Curta has never been to any of the Slavic countries and doesn't speak any of the Slavic languages. Can't watch this rubbish.