www.jassa.org

torino #dunning-kruger #racist #wingnut jassa.org

Stralsund is a town originally founded by the Slavic Rani. It makes its first historical appearance in 1234 as Stralowe in a document issued by Vislav I, the duke of Rugia (one of those Slavic chieftains who gave in and got themselves new jobs as imperial dukes) in Charenz/Charenza.

Stralowe was clearly named after the Slavic word for arrow (*strěla). It supposedly comes from a proto-Slavic word *strěla.

Predictably, there are also those who believe that it was then borrowed into Slavic. The people who believe that are, of course, unbothered by the fact that the Slavic version appears in all Slavic languages. They are also unbothered by the fact that the Germanic languages also have:

arrow, Pheil/pil, quarrel, bolt, and others.

Were the situation reversed (many different names in Slavic but one of those also found in Germanic), most academics would argue that the Slavic word also found in Germanic would necessarily be of Germanic origin (i.e., import into Slavic). And yet, here some still argued that the Slavic came from Germanic.

This is the same reasoning as the one that:

allows for –mir to be a Slavic suffix but also lays a potential Germanic – depending on the context – claim to some appearances of it,

but reserves –mar and -mer exclusively for the Germanic sphere.

You can see where this is going, of course. Since the Germanics were the warrior group, it, of course, makes sense that they would have “invented”their own word for “arrow”. You can also use this to prove that Slavs did not know arrows until they learned of their existence from Germanics. Perhaps, in your mind’s eye, you can even see a cohort of Slavic peasants servicing a Germanic lord’s bow by quickly grinding out arrows for his upcoming campaign against the Romans, Persians or whatever else his testosterone driven brain set its sights upon. You might even try to prove that the very concept of “rubbing” became known to Slavs by way of testosterone-infused Germanics… 🙂

torino #crackpot #wingnut jassa.org

The Veneti lived in Paphlagonia. It is possible that it was the Veneti that before the Trojan War spread as “Arians” into India. This would explain the Mount Demawend, R1a in Afghanistan and the various “Venetic” names in India.

We can assume that the Veneti spoke a language akin to Slavic (names of places in Anatolia that include Prusa suggest that). But it is possible that they got Slavicized.

At some point after the Trojan War, they went over the Ister and ended up spreading their “Slavic” language (or adopting the Slavic of the autochtones they encountered) all the way up to the Adriatic. It is for this reason that the Slovene city of Ljubljana has Jason feature in its founding myth. It’s likely that Jason was in fact a Venetic fertility God that found His way into Greek myth.

The Veneti went further ending up in today’s Poland as well as Eastern Germany and Noricum/Vindelicia, today’s northern France and southern portions of Italy and even northern Spain/Portugal. And they may have reached present day Denmark and southern Sweden and perhaps even Britain.

The Trojan War has been dated to the 13th or 12th century BC. It is curious that the recently discovered remains of an ancient battle at Tollensee have been both dated to approximately 1250 BC and said to have contained dNA similar to that of present day Poles/Scandinavians but also southern Europeans. A tempting construct would see these as the “locals” and the “Venetic” arrivals.

It is possible that at this point Slavic was carved out of Baltic with the former a “Venetic” language or a mixture of Venetic and Baltic. The Veneti became Slavs – from Trieste through Noricum, possibly Suevia and up to the Baltic. The remaining Balts stayed Balts now designated Aestii.

torino #dunning-kruger #pratt #wingnut jassa.org

IX. How is it that all these tribes turn out to be Slavic?

Although the word “Slav” – in that form – does not appear before the 6th century, many of the tribes which we call Slavic do appear before the 6th century:

Rani

Rarogi

Rugians

Wagri

Svarini

Legii (Lugii)

Mugilones

Veltae

Hevelians

probably most of the Veneti and others

The common explanation is these were “Slavicized”. But this is strange. After hundreds of years of Germanization the Slavic Sorbs persist till this day. If the Slavs really Slavicized all these Germanic tribes they did so extraordinarily quickly.

But then why preserve the names of the original tribes? Elsewhere, when a small group of conquerors (Bulgars, Rus) take over a tribe quickly, they may become Slavicized but they keep the name and impose it on the rest of the population. If the group were larger, wouldn’t it be even more likely that they would have imposed their names on the various peoples in question?

X. If the above tribes could have been Slavicized, why not the Suevi?

Historians are ok with pointing out connections between Germanic and Slavic tribes. At least so long as theses tribes are small and insignificant. No one has suggested a Slavicization of the Suevi. It seems that that would make too many uncomfortable.

XI. And why if one can derive the name Slav from the name of a river, that river cannot be Solawa?

We know why. Because, we are told, the Slavs came from the East.

Solawa is particularly problematic because not only could its name be used etymologically to derive the name of the Slavs but it also occupies the region where the ancient authors found the river Suevus. That river, in turn, is associated with the Suevi and so the circle closes.

torino #dunning-kruger #pratt #wingnut jassa.org

XII. Was Grimm wrong in claiming that “Suevi” and “Slavs” Are Cognates?

Jacob Grimm was an excellent linguist. Yet his claim of the two words being cognates is almost embarrassingly swept under the carpet. Brueckner called it “unfortunate”. Curiously, Brueckner did not say that Grimm was wrong (presumably because then he’d have to explain why).

XIII. Why are so many the ancient German river names ending in -awa? and place names in -owa?

XIV. What do the Niemcy have to do with the Nemetes and the Slavs with the Suavi?

There is the old theory about the Slavic word for Germans – Niemcy – being a reference to the Niemcy not speaking Slavic (i.e., the “mutes”) and the Slavs being people of the “word” (slovo), i.e., being the ones who do speak a mutually understandable language. And yet, this theory seems to be based on nothing and to be based on a Volksetymologie.

At the same time the Nemetes just so happened to live right next to the Suevi.

XV. How can Suo-vene/Sla-vene have nothing to do with Vene-ti and nothing to do with Sue-vi either!?

There is a description of a Slav linguist conference where one of the participants raised the Suo-veni and Vene-ti link. The reference to this event goes on to explain that it was quickly explained to the overly curious linguist why he can’t be right. This recollection was brought up by the author of the book presumably to discredit any similar notion.

Yet the remarkable thing is that the book never says what the explanation given to the linguist was!

torino #crackpot #dunning-kruger #pratt #wingnut jassa.org

It is telling that no one has ever answered Wojciech Ketrzynski when he raised questions about the ethnicity of the Suevi.

The mainline teaching is:

Suevi occupied most of Germania

After Suevi disappeared, they were replaced by Slavs who came somewhere from the East

Slavs have nothing to do with the Suevi because the latter were “Germanic”.

Several questions come to mind:

I. How is it possible that this giant tribal union devolved into nothing?

The Suevi of later years are:

the smallest contingent crossing the Rhine in 405/406;

the Suevi of Swabia;

the Suevi of Vannius;

The first group was small. As to the second group, German writers have went out of their way to draw an equal sign between the Schwaben and Alemanni. And yet the entry of the Alemanni suggests that the later Schwabia has as much to do with the Suevic Suavia as 19th century Prussia with 13th century one. The Suevi may well have left years before the Alemanni got there. The same claim is made about Bohemia with the Czechs taking the name of the Bohemians who had been driven out years before (or were the Czechs just coming back?).

II. How is it possible that when the “fog of war” clears, the Suevic area is entirely occupied by Slavs?

If the Suevi left the area, they did not leave it empty. And if they did then plenty of other invaders who would have kept portions of the country. But there are only Slavs.

What happened to Ockham’s Razor? Did historians leave it at home?

VIII. If the Slavs borrowed terms from “Iranian” languages, why couldn’t they have borrowed them from the Jazyges?

Because the Slavs did no live next to the Jazyges. The Suevi did. If they spoke an Iranian language, then the Danube Suevi-Jazyges connection could have provided all the materials needed.

torino #conspiracy #crackpot #pratt #wingnut jassa.org

III. How do we know that the Suevi were “Germanic”?

Because they lived in “Germania”? But so do the Turks, Poles, Portuguese, Croats, Serbs and Syrians today.

The Langobards and Angles bear Nordic names. But the origin myth of the former speaks of the far north when the Suevi were in the south. It is not improbable that they simply took over the local Suevic tribes.

The names of Suevic rulers (e.g., Ariovistus) or sorceresses (e.g., Veleda) have Slavic explanations and many sound Slavic.

IV. Why German writers insist on writing Suevi as Suebi? And Legii/Lougii as Lugii?

The sources speak of the SueVi almost exclusively so why all the effort to write Suebi? Because it sounded more like Schwaben?

Sources speak of Legii or Lougii, the German scholarship tries to use the spelling of Lugii. Is that because Lechy is a commonplace nickname for the Poles and that would suggest population continuity?

V. Why do all Slavic languages have “słaby” as “weak”?

Shouldn’t someone ask whether this may be a reference to the Schwaben, the weak Suevi that let themselves be taken over by the Alemanni?

VI. Isn’t it strange that the Suevi of the Danube suddenly become Suavi in the 6th century?

Just before the Sclavi show up the Suevi become Suavi. Curious.

But note also that the very first mention of the Suevi may already have been in the form Suavi [see L. Cornelius Sisenna]

VII. If the Slavs appear, as per their own records in Pannonia, isn’t it convenient to find the Suevi there right before?

Slavs record their beginnings in Pannonia. We know there were Suevi (Suavi) there right before the Slavs appeared. Isn’t that odd?

MARK STASIK #crackpot #racist #wingnut jassa.org

Kid gloves and a skeptics touch? Nevertheless you invite a more vigorous inquiry to dissect and analyze the other so-called “peoples” of Rome’s passing mention, especially the “presumably” germanic oddities, like the Suevi, or the Allemans or the particularly non-germanic sounding, and clearly slavic-derived Cherusci.

Wends and Vandals, and “Ostrogoths” also seem almost transparently slavic, or at the least confederational with considerable slavic elements.

This could be its own blog, since the R1a genepool has been in place in central Europe since 1500 b.c., so lots of this talk about “identity” seems so much after-the-fact politics that historians need to sober up about and finally shed the Nazi brainwash.

Europe is a Slavic continent, either because of superior fertility or because of superior delivery. Europe’s fathers are R1a, since 1500 b.c. The Romans seem a blip on the map genepool-wise. Everyone else appears just an also-ran. Is my math wrong? The Veneti appear to have spread far and wide. Mislabelled? misunderstood? over-attributed? Lots of syllables that miss the point. Europe wasn’t born in 475 A.D.

I’d sure love to hear some input about “Suevi” (slavs) in Iberia with a capital named “Braga” (Prague??) and some good arguments why “Cossacks” didn’t also occur in 100 A.D. or 200 A.D. or 300 A.D.

This might be the egg nog talking, but Merry Christmas, and thanks for this excellent, excellent website.

BORIS #conspiracy #crackpot #wingnut jassa.org

You seem to have bought the Vatican nonsense of the Serb & Croat migration from Belarus or wherever.

Serbs are native to the Balkans. Poles, Czechs, Russians, etc… all independently state they came from Serbia.

There is literally ZERO evidence for the 7th century Slav migration theory. Absolutely none. It’s based on a single Vatican forgery from the 16th-17th century, credited to Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, which states something like “…and then I allowed the Slavs to settle there.”

Not only is there no evidence for it, but it is both logistically and logically impossible.

The genetic, archeological, written, anthropological, behavioural and cultural evidence for Serbs being indigenous to Europe is overwhelming.

Why did the Vatican decide to erase the Serb name from external records? As revenge for Despot Branković not recognising the Pope in the 15th century, and thusly having other Orthodox kingdoms pull their recognition as well, having already sent their respective recognitions.

The Albanians are from modern day Azerbaijan. They were brought over to Serbia by the Byzantine General George Maniakis via Arabia and then Sicily in the 11th century, and were allowed to stay to raise livestock for the Serb royalty.

Dalimil’s Chronicles are correct if you study actual history, not the German-Vatican propaganda that you find in schools.

DEJAN #crackpot #wingnut jassa.org

First of all that assertion is crap. Matter of fact I pointed out to one of your equally upset Croat brethren that Servium was a city in the Balkans many years before any Slavs were registered suggesting a more ancient European presence for the Serbs (and frankly Croats probably too) – perhaps tied to the Jazyges. Second, keep conspiracy theories – whether regarding the “Vatican” or Azeri Albanians or whatever – out of this.

As mentioned in Chronicles language is Serbian for all Slavs. And it, indeed started from Balkans, from Vinča civilization centered around present day Belgrade.

This was a cradle of European civilization from more than 7000 years ago. Language was proto-Slavic or Serbian that was with migration spread through Russian steppes all the way to India where it was known as Sanskrit.

BTW Dalimil Chronicle starts with chapter
1. Babylonian Tower, Serbian (Babilonska Viež, Srbove) – Story about how Serbs have built a tower in Babylon aiming to reach for heaven and were punished by God to be dispersed and for Serbian language that was universal at the time to be changed into many languages including Greek and Roman/Latin.

torino #crackpot jassa.org

Semones

An interesting question arises as to why the lands previously occupied by the Suevi (but later Suavi) were subsequently occupied by the “Sclavi”. A curious coincidence. Per Tacitus, Semnones claimed to have been the most ancient of the Suevi. Some 19th century historians identified some of the Suevi with the later Slavs. To explain the tribal name Semnones, they pointed to the Slavic words for the “Earth”:

zem (Slovak) země (Czech) ziemia (Polish) zemlya (Russian etc.)

But it says Semnones not Semones comes the objection. Not to worry. The manuscripts do not agree upon the correct spelling and Semones does indeed appear more than once. To support this view, those historians invoked the Semnonian passage in Tacitus and its preoccupation with the Earth:

No one enters it unless bound with ligatures, thus professing his subordination and power of the Deity there. If he fall down, he is not permitted to rise or be raised, but grovels along upon the ground.

Whether there is enough to suggest that the Semnones viewed themselves as born of “the Earth” is debatable. However, another interesting coincidence comes to light when we take a look at where scholarship locates the Semnones:image

Fast forward eight hundred years and we find the following tribe, or at least the name of a local province that refers to a tribe, in the same area:

Zemcici

The word is clearly Slavic. Did the Slavs merely “repurpose” a local Teutonic name? Possibly but, if so, why not repurpose the names of the Burgundians, Goths and others that at some point occupied what was later Slavic territory? We’ll likely never know the answer but the above is suggestive to say the least.

torino #conspiracy #wingnut jassa.org

Politicizers of the Past

Here is a quote from 1991 (when the fear of Eastern European nationalism filled the pants of most academics who studied the area). Published, we kid you not, by a German (Austrian, but that’s a fake country always on the brink of not being around in a few years) who decided to apply the training he received on deconstructing German nationalism (indeed the concept of the German nation which still exists, barely) to other European nations. An individual well-schooled in criticizing his own people might find no trouble in criticizing other “lesser” (this time as regards their sensitivity/multiculturalism/spirit of tolerance) peoples when called upon to do so. And this proves true here.

He thinks our nationalism could be just like his so now that his people have stopped killing us, he thinks it’s time to start to lecture us. He says:

“existence of Romans, Germans or Slavs in the 5th or 7th centuries became important arguments in an endless series of national struggles…”

There it is – he is saying history should be a tool of current politics, to ensure the Slavs do not cause another holocaust… wait, what!? So, if in fact you come across claims that the Veneti are not Slavs or that something “definitely is not Slavic” or similar stuff, take them with a grain of salt, because the person may just be an ideologic propagandist who tailors his work to fit his preconceived political needs.

Not with a tinge of irony we note that in the 19th century the Slavic-Veneti connection was questioned by German nationalists – now it seems the very existence of Slavs prior to some period is being questioned by German “citizens of the world”. Someone asked whether we thought this individual was a covert German nationalist. We do not think so. Sincere lunacy though is no less problematic.

Next page