Encounters of the Third Kind

[Ed Anger]

I don't believe Alexandru H. is not a troll. He has a relatively good command of English and has an access to the internet - it's impossible for someone to hold so many totally insane views and factually incorrect opinions.

You exist however.

[The Minsky Moment]

Not arguing place names; key words have Indo-Iranian etymologies, as do most of the Deities and many words regarding pastoral lifestyle.  The word Bog, God, has clear Indo-Iranian origins, as do words relating to hunting (pjos, dog, interestingly this competes with a Turkic borrowing in Russian, sobaka).  The Slavic languages also experienced Satemization, typical of areas with intense exposure to later-ur-Indo-European/early-Indo-Iranian peoples.  The Balto-Slavic languages interesting in that it seems simultaneously quite closely related to the Indo-Iranian AND the Germanic branches of the tree.   

The point here is that loan words can be taken up without there being any substantial direct ethnic connection, or even cultural absorption. 

Halogroup R1A is generally associated with the Indo-Europeans, and is strongest among Indo-Iranian speakers in former Bactria and the Slavic world.[/url]
Considering that Bactrians and Scytho-Sartmatins are of the same stock, I'd take this as a given.

i am in no position to evaluate this claim, but it seems as stated somewhat less than conclusive.

Slavs, Goths, Proto-Vlachs and Alans were all running away from the Huns at more or less the same time, and in to the the same general area.  Besides the obvious impact of a millennium of Iranian rule followed by a few by the Goths, the Slavs were already a heterogeneous bunch by the time of the Migrations/Invasions.  Obviously the migration of the Eastern Germanic peoples made things a lot easier. 

This claim is anachronistic.  The Slavs don't show up in the historical record until the 6th century; the Huns first show up on the scene about 150 years earlier.  The Romans -- who naturally dominate all the actual writing about the Huns -- played up their terrible character, but from the point of view of an ordinary farmer or herder, it is not clear that Hunnic dominion was any worse than "Gothic" rule, and thus there would be no particular reason to run.  Certainly there is no evidence in the Roman accounts of massive population movements of the kind you are referencing here.

I do agree with the characterization of Slavs as "heterogeneous" -- this is consistent with their origin simply being people on the ground across a large area that happened to share roughly a rudimentary material culture and came to share linguistic affinity.

[Queequeg]

The point here is that loan words can be taken up without there being any substantial direct ethnic connection, or even cultural absorption. 

The word for God and the entire pantheon and most of the traditional arts?   

I fail to understand the reason for your skepticism.  I am not claiming that the Scythians were Slavs.  I'm claiming that some of them were absorbed by the Turks, some of them became a part of the conquering Germanic armies, and some of them migrated in to Slavic areas-which they had traditionally dominated anyway.  The ones who became Turks ended up having a huge impact on Russia as well.    The Slavic urheimat in Western Ukraine-Belarus-Eastern Poland is literally right next to the Pontic-Caspian steppe.  The Slavs adopted a ton of Steppe imagery and traditional art, even more than the other Northern European peoples.

Besides that, there is a ton of evidence of Alan-Russian contact going in to the actual historical record anyway.  Quite a few of the great Cossack hosts had Ossetian origins.

This claim is anachronistic.  The Slavs don't show up in the historical record until the 6th century; the Huns first show up on the scene about 150 years earlier.

150 years is not a huge amount of time.  I was arguing that assimilating/ migrant Germanic/Scytho-Sarmatians were important in the later expansion of the Slavs, as is indicated by the disproportionate number of Indo-Iranian names of peoples/tribes. 

The Romans -- who naturally dominate all the actual writing about the Huns -- played up their terrible character, but from the point of view of an ordinary farmer or herder, it is not clear that Hunnic dominion was any worse than "Gothic" rule, and thus there would be no particular reason to run.

I don't think the archaeological record backs this up.  Europe beyond the Roman frontier was materially 'Romanizing' to a certain extent as far as the Ukraine.  Far more advanced economies and kingdoms were set up then was known before the establishment of Roman dominance in Western Europe.  The Barbarian Germans-previously little more forest-folk, like early Medieval Balts-were baking bread, had developed a taste for wine, and were far more competent metalsmiths by the Late Empire then they were during the Principate, let alone during the Republic. 

This is indicated by the vocabulary-much of the Slavic terms relating to reasonably complex societies (bread, king, yard, etc...) are from Germanic languages. 

The Huns, however, were a great deal less advanced materially than many of the previous Steppe people.  There is little indication that they were goldsmiths or artists like the Scythians, and their style of warfare was far less metallurgy-dependent than any Steppe people of the last thousand years.  Gone were the Cataphracts (which obviously require a great deal of skill and money) of the Sarmatians, replaced in large part by leather, fur and recurve bows.   

From what I have read, the Hunnish invasion is associated with a dramatic decline in the level of civilization of most of Eastern and Central Europe, as the Gothic towns were annihilated or abandoned, and the Steppe passed from an older mixed pastoralism to the far purer parasitic nomadism typical of many (though not all) later Altaic and Uralic peoples.  The Avars and Magyars a bit later on were in the same mold, though IIRC the Bolgars were quite a bit different.    Seems very odd that you'd mention the lands 'emptying', but appear to think that they came to Western Europe out of pure conquest-lust rather than attempt to avoid the very brutal (even by the period's standards) Huns. 

Certainly there is no evidence in the Roman accounts of massive population movements of the kind you are referencing here.

All the Eastern Germanic peoples move in to the Roman Empire.  So do several other Germanic peoples.  That's a ton of people from areas that were presumably nowhere near as densely populated as the Roman Empire. 

[The Minsky Moment]

The word for God

Which they also share with modern Americans and Englishmen.
Religious concepts and pantheons are often systems for elite control; the simple peasant cares about his local shrine and the forces of nature, and not much else.  If the origin of the Slavs is simply the "negative" event of the flight of a pre-existing warrior elite, it would have left a void of organized religious systems.  Would it be conceivable that the reconstruction of such a system would involve a borrowing from the outside?  Sure - that is a common phenomenon.  Does that imply direct ethnic affiliation?  No.

I fail to understand the reason for your skepticism.  I am not claiming that the Scythians were Slavs.  I'm claiming that some of them were absorbed by the Turks, some of them became a part of the conquering Germanic armies, and some of them migrated in to Slavic areas-which they had traditionally dominated anyway.  The ones who became Turks ended up having a huge impact on Russia as well.    The Slavic urheimat in Western Ukraine-Belarus-Eastern Poland is literally right next to the Pontic-Caspian steppe.  The Slavs adopted a ton of Steppe imagery and traditional art, even more than the other Northern European peoples.

Almost every word you have written begs the question of what is being referred to.  "Scythian" is a just a generic label that Greco-Romans gave to nomads who rode horses.  What is "Turk" supposed to be referring to in the 4th century?  What does it mean to say "Scythians" were "absorbed" by Turks?  What conquering "germanic" armies are being referred to and in what time?  (note that "germanic" is a linguistic characterization, not an ethnic one, in this time period).  What does it mean to talk about people "migrat[ing] in to Slavic areas" at a time before either written records or archaeology attests to the existence of what later are called Slavs.  Where is the evidence for these migrations?  How would a mass migration of a large agrarian population even be possible?

I concede that geographically, the Western Ukraine is not far from the steppes.  I concede that certain steppe people, being migratory and at times predatory, likely came into contact with peoples living in these areas, certainly in the time frame of late antiquity, and probably later as well.  That contact can easily explain the spread of loan words and iconography. 

Quite a few of the great Cossack hosts had Ossetian origins.

More anachronism.

150 years is not a huge amount of time.  I was arguing that assimilating/ migrant Germanic/Scytho-Sarmatians were important in the later expansion of the Slavs, as is indicated by the disproportionate number of Indo-Iranian names of peoples/tribes. 

150 years is an enormous amount of time.  Imagine making a similar argument in the context of late antique Britain.
I have no idea what a "Germanic/Scytho-Sarmatian" is but certainly I have never observed such a chimera.

I don't think the archaeological record backs this up.

The archaeological record provides no evidence for large mass migrations, period. 

Moreover, archaeology can provide only limited evidence about material culture and burial practices, none of which necessarily correlate directly with ethnicity or political cohesion.  The dangers of using archaelogy and linguistic evidence like tribal names, place names and loan words to trace movements of people and identify specific "peoples" has now long been an emphasis in the scholarly literature, and there are precious few serious academic historians in the field who make ethno-cultural identifications based on such evidence, without at least carefully pointing out their highly speculative nature.

Europe beyond the Roman frontier was materially 'Romanizing' to a certain extent as far as the Ukraine.  Far more advanced economies and kingdoms were set up then was known before the establishment of Roman dominance in Western Europe.  The Barbarian Germans-previously little more forest-folk, like early Medieval Balts-were baking bread, had developed a taste for wine, and were far more competent metalsmiths by the Late Empire then they were during the Principate, let alone during the Republic. 

True to a certain extent but exaggerated.  The Roman frontiers had a transformative effect on the peoples on the other side.  But most of that impact was felt in the area immediately close to the borders, which was integrated into the trading system with the Roman legionary fort-towns (particularly the cattle trade and later of course the insatiable demand for fighting men).  But even in the border regions, there is no evidence of "advanced kingdoms".  There are warleaders and chieftains and various kingroup alliances but nothing resembling a high medieval kingdom, much less anything like the sophisticated Roman state.  That happened only later, when Goths and Franks came into the imperial boundaries and took over the pre-existing adminstrative apparatus.

From what I have read, the Hunnish invasion is associated with a dramatic decline in the level of civilization of most of Eastern and Central Europe, as the Gothic towns were annihilated or abandoned, and the Steppe passed from an older mixed pastoralism to the far purer parasitic nomadism typical of many (though not all) later Altaic and Uralic peoples.  The Avars and Magyars a bit later on were in the same mold, though IIRC the Bolgars were quite a bit different.    Seems very odd that you'd mention the lands 'emptying', but appear to think that they came to Western Europe out of pure conquest-lust rather than attempt to avoid the very brutal (even by the period's standards) Huns.   

See below.

All the Eastern Germanic peoples move in to the Roman Empire.  So do several other Germanic peoples.  That's a ton of people from areas that were presumably nowhere near as densely populated as the Roman Empire.

That is a long discredited myth.  There is no evidence of mass migration of peoples.  There is evidence of large warbands and associated camp followers and retainers engaging in periodic incursions.  The error lies in assuming that (eg) "Goths" refers to a defined group of people like "Russians" or "French".  The Goths don't become a ethne in this sense until *after* they settled within the empire and became a new ruling elite.   Only then do they acquire a sense of people-hood (or perhaps more accuarately - an ideological need to assert such a sense) and invent a ethnic tradition for themselves. 

The 4th century "Goths" are just an amalgam of people who had been gradually transformed by interaction with the Roman economy and military system.  The empire generated a powerful demand for warriors (ie mercenaries) and the frontier regions responded by creating a supply.  The more successful participants in this system could amass large followings, wealth, prestige and Roman titles.  They then could use that power and prestige to create settlements for their followers, and to lord it over the local peasants.  What makes one a Goth in this system is neither language, culture, ethnicity nor kinship, but simply a willingness to adopt a warrior lifestyle and a connection to some chief or warband.  (even Roman renegades and deserters could and did become "goths")  These Goths are not a people nor a kingdom - they are more like a very loose association of condettiere companies and associated families, reatainers, and servants.

The Huns follow the same path.  Whatever their steppe origins, by the time they arrive at the borders of the empire, they are just another warband - albeit a large, violent one, and with their key leaders still holding to aspects of the steppe nomad lifestyle.  (Indeed - by the time the Huns face off against Aetius in Gaul, the "Hunnic" army is a regular rainbow coalition of Gepids, Goths, Thuriangian, Burgundians etc etc that appears to have fought primarily on foot).  The Goths "flee" because the Huns are supplanting their role - the supply of free warriors is growing and the Huns want to monopolize the position.  But is there any basis to postulate mass migrations of the subject populations?  None that I have seen or know of. 

[citizen k]

And some Scythians made it all the way back to Mongolia.

[citizen k]

Center for the Study of Eurasian Nomads

http://www.csen.org/

[Queequeg]

Does that imply direct ethnic affiliation?  No.

How are we defining ethnic affiliation?  I'm an American largely of English ancestry, but judging by my appearance and where my family is supposed to be from in England, it is likely that I am in large part of Saxon and Danish stock.  Do  I have an ethnic affiliation with Denmark and Schleiswig-Holstein?  I'm mostly arguing that the relationship between Slav and Scythian would be similar to the relationship between, say, Etruscan and Roman; genetic, material, cultural impact, not 'direct' descent. 

"Scythian" is a just a generic label that Greco-Romans gave to nomads who rode horses.

In a lot of the literature I've read there is a distinction to be made between 'true' Scythians of Classical Antiquity and a general term for Eastern Iranians who spread from Mongolia to Hungary.  I'm using it in the latter sense. 

What does it mean to say "Scythians" were "absorbed" by Turks?

During the golden age of the Roman Empire, there is a very massive exodus from the Steppe of Indo-Iranian and Tocharian peoples as the Turkic peoples begin to expand west and south.  I mean that the Turkic peoples (I used "Turks" as a generic term for Turkic nomads here, including very distant relatives like Bolgars).

(note that "germanic" is a linguistic characterization, not an ethnic one, in this time period)

When dealing with pre-history this is of course necessary; we can at best speculate through a combination of later written history, physical archaeology, genetics and linguistic evidence on the ethnic composition of the early Slavs.

More anachronism.

Alans and Tatars had close relations throughout the prurient period, and the already heterogeneous Tatar population fused with the already heterogeneous Russian population to provide a mixture that is about as heterogeneous as you get outside of Brazil.

150 years is an enormous amount of time.  Imagine making a similar argument in the context of late antique Britain.

Late antique Britain is marginally literate.  Western Ukraine isn't at this point. 

I have no idea what a "Germanic/Scytho-Sarmatian" is but certainly I have never observed such a chimera.

I am not suggesting they were the same thing or a fused people, though obviously they mixed quite a bit during this period (IIRC the Vandal kingdom of Spain was half-dominated by Alans).  Just speaking of general non-Slavic influences on Slavs.

Moreover, archaeology can provide only limited evidence about material culture and burial practices, none of which necessarily correlate directly with ethnicity or political cohesion.  The dangers of using archaelogy and linguistic evidence like tribal names, place names and loan words to trace movements of people and identify specific "peoples" has now long been an emphasis in the scholarly literature, and there are precious few serious academic historians in the field who make ethno-cultural identifications based on such evidence, without at least carefully pointing out their highly speculative nature.

I agree this is largely based on speculation.  I disagree that it somehow manages to flirt with being a-historical as I have, at no point, insisted that the Slavs were Scythians, or that they have some exclusive claim on the heritage, or that they are the special inheritors of an Indo-Iranian heritage.  I am simply arguing that the relationship is there, and that it is more obvious in the case of the Slavs than it is in most non-Indo-Iranian peoples, like, say, Romanians. 

There is no evidence of mass migration of peoples.

Over what time frame?


Some elements of the Hunnish horde are described as beardless, with broad, flat faces and pressed noses.  Now, the beardlessness might be in part due to ritual scarring, and maybe cranial deformation could change parts of the face I wouldn't think it would, but this would *appear* to be the first time that what was in 19th century physical-anthropology terms called the "mongolian type" moved in to Europe, at least as anything other than a substrate of the most easterly Indo-Iranian peoples. 

Go to Eastern Europe today, and you'll see evidence of this phenotype everywhere. 

Now,granted, a lot of this was later, and I think there is some really interesting, very convincing evidence that there was initially a greater amount of continuity genetic-physical continuity between the first westerly Turks and the previous Indo-Iranian peoples (several Turkic people are described as blonde, for example).  But this is undoubtedly evidence of recent mass migration.   

Thus while the Huns were no doubt a confederation of peoples, I think it is important to note that they are the beginning of long-standing trend of westwardly Steppe migration expanding to include people from the Chinese frontier who, while culturally and materially similar, were still very distinctive physically and linguistically. 

Similarly, the English are just different from what they were before the Saxons and Danish.  I am 6'4 and blonde.  How many 6'4 blonde Welshmen are there?  How many Danes and Germans fit this description?  Why is it that those awful Istanbul bazaaris assume that I'm either Dutch or Norwegian instead of, say, Irish, as a pre-migration period inhabitant of what would become Northumbria might look? 

The 4th century "Goths" are just an amalgam of people who had been gradually transformed by interaction with the Roman economy and military system.  The empire generated a powerful demand for warriors (ie mercenaries) and the frontier regions responded by creating a supply.  The more successful participants in this system could amass large followings, wealth, prestige and Roman titles.  They then could use that power and prestige to create settlements for their followers, and to lord it over the local peasants.  What makes one a Goth in this system is neither language, culture, ethnicity nor kinship, but simply a willingness to adopt a warrior lifestyle and a connection to some chief or warband.  (even Roman renegades and deserters could and did become "goths")  These Goths are not a people nor a kingdom - they are more like a very loose association of condettiere companies and associated families, reatainers, and servants.

I don't disagree with anything here.  In fact, it is stated far better than I'd ever likely manage, as I've already argued several times IRL with Turks that before the modern age "Turk" was far more a job description than some kind of national identity. 

I state my previous point poorly; what I should have said was that important elements of the Eastern Germanic peoples migrate, leaving the land depopulated enough to make the Slavic migration in to the modern Western Slavic lands relatively easy compared to the expansion South, and resulting in a collapse of authority among the Slavs, both of which I think you yourself have stated previously. 

That said, over the last 1700 years Eurasia has seen a ton of war bands come and go, resulting in eventual cultural and genetic change.

[The Minsky Moment]

Does that imply direct ethnic affiliation?  No.

How are we defining ethnic affiliation?  I'm an American largely of English ancestry, but judging by my appearance and where my family is supposed to be from in England, it is likely that I am in large part of Saxon and Danish stock.

We've never met, so I can't really say, but I feel pretty OK in saying you are not a "Saxon".  As in- you are neither a cautious Lunebergian burgher, nor are you a wild maritime reaver.  If you are tall and have blue eyes that could mean a number of things, but it doesn't really define anything about you than what is entirely superficial.  Just as the fact of my grandmother's blue eyes or my own green eyes does not change the fact that I am a Jew.

I won't comment further about your post, b/c I don't think we have any real disagreement other than points of emphasis; if I am cautious in the way I approach ethnic labels it is because of the dubious and fetishistic way these have been used in the past and present.

[derspiess]

People come up to me & tell me I look Frisian.  I'm usually too polite to tell them I'm nearly pure Angle.

[Alexandru H.]

[jimmy olsen]

People come up to me & tell me I look Frisian.  I'm usually too polite to tell them I'm nearly pure Angle.

Frisian? What American, asides from an academic would use that term?

[Tamas]

Just a tiny nitpicking: altough "scythian" "roxolani" "goth" were surely used as a broad term by the Romans to define people they did not really care about apart from their price on the slave market, surely they did not also pull the names out of their arse, so there had to be a "scythian" tribe for example

[Tamas]

I don't believe Alexandru H. is not a troll. He has a relatively good command of English and has an access to the internet - it's impossible for someone to hold so many totally insane views and factually incorrect opinions.

You exist however.

[The Minsky Moment]

Just a tiny nitpicking: altough "scythian" "roxolani" "goth" were surely used as a broad term by the Romans to define people they did not really care about apart from their price on the slave market, surely they did not also pull the names out of their arse, so there had to be a "scythian" tribe for example

Taking your example, "Scythian" is not the name of a tribe known to the Romans; the word comes from Herodotus' Histories.  It is probably not a tribal name; it appears to be a Hellenization of a Persian word describing nomadic peoples dwelling to the north of the Persian Empire.  "Scyth" would quickly become a generic label in the Greco-Roman world for any nomadic people utilizing cavalry, regardless of their precise origin, culture or political identity.

"Goth" I have already discussed above.  For centuries, scholars uncritically accepted the history of Jordanes (written in the era of Justinian) as a true history of the Goths, and thus made a spurious connection between the Goths and the Scandinavian Gutae or Gutones of Tacitus.  In fact, it is pretty clear that Jordanes' account is myth and invention; Walter Goffart among others has written extensively about the problems with Jordanes' account. 

The first clear mention of the people who came to be Goths in the written Roman sources in the late 4th century account of Ammianus Marcellinus, who recounts a incursion into Thrace in 365 AD by the "Gothorum", adding that "who up to that time had never come into collision with us."    Later, Ammianus refers to the "Greuthungi" who according to Jordanes are the forebears of the Ostrogoths, a claim still accepted in some degree by some scholars (Herwig Wolfram most notably) but is treated far more skeptically by others.   Ammainus also refers to the "Theruingi" -- which is often associated with the later Visigoths, although in Ammianus' account, he seems to distinguish the "nobles of the Goths" who ally with the Theruingi chieftain from the Theruingi themselves.   In any event, it is an alliance of "Gothorum", "Greuthingi", and "Theruingi" who fight and defeat Valens at Adrianople.  These groups then fight intermittant battles with Roman forces for the next six years until at least some of them are settled within the imperial borders as federates.  When Alaric begins to act up about 15 years later or so, there is no more mention of "Theruingi" and "Greuthingi", just Goths.  Clearly there is some connection with the Goths as we know them and the various peoples that Ammianus talks about, although whether we are dealing with a people with a distinct ethno-cultural identity is open to question.

[derspiess]

People come up to me & tell me I look Frisian.  I'm usually too polite to tell them I'm nearly pure Angle.

Frisian? What American, asides from an academic would use that term?

Ohhhh, Tim...