Re: Slavic migration - not true?
- Tom wrote:
>I ask if anyone knows of any archaeological evidence to supportAs noted previously, some archaeologists are interpreting the evidence as
>the Priapet origin theory?
suggesting that the Slavs as a group formed in the 4th-5th centuries
somewhere on the periphery of the Chernyakov culture in the Ukraine. My
knowledge of things east of the Carpathians is hazy at best, so whether this
near the Pripyet I don't know (and I'm too lazy to get the atlas out!!!).
>If there can be made a cogent argument for the Slavs simply traipsingYes there can. The earliest Czech settlers can be traced through Malopolska
>through eastern Europe,
and into Bohemia by the occurrence of Prague-Korc'ak type pottery, for
> to settle in what history and archaeology know to be alreadyPopulated? yes. Controlled? no.
>populated and controlled territories?
The area between the Merovingian Empire and the Avar Khaganate was in flux
in the sixth century, with no clear control being exercised by anyone.
Indeed, Bohemia - despite domination by Charlemagne and the Great Moravian
Empire - had no real centralised government until the 10th century
Pr'emyslids started bashing heads together.
Bear in mind, too, that much of Central Europe (Bohemia certainly) was
covered in dense forests at this time, making real "control" rather
>The Migration theory seems to have arisen within the last 150 years [snip]No, this is absolutely not the case.
Czech myths and folklore from as far back as the Middle Ages, for example,
have concerned the arrival of Forefather Czech, his brother Lech, and their
tribe in the lands around R'ip Mount (which, FWIW, I can see from my window
as I type this...). As I noted earlier, a 300-year old inscription added to
an earlier painting now in the Cheb (Eger) Museum confirms the acceptance of
History and archaeology have always been used as political tools,
everywhere, and by using only selected pieces of evidence can be employed to
support just about anything.
My personal (and perhaps subjective) inlcination is to agree that the
"Mother Russia" approach is still too prevalent, and is (& always has been)
a primarily political phenomenon.
>I am reading a very deeply-researched and extensively-footnotedBut what is the political background to this book, for example? Do the
>book, _VENETI_ by Jozko Savli, Matej Bor, and Ivan Tomazic,
>which presents in great detail a body of evidence suggesting a much
>older Slavic presence in central Europe
authors manage to be reasonably objective despite their nationality? Maybe
they are, but what of the sources they are using? When were these written?
What were the politics at the time?
(All sources must be looked at critically, and interpretaions even more so.
Even the internationally-admired and decorated Tr'es'tik, much as I like him
as a person, lapses into subjective nationalism occasionally, for instance.)
the Slavs would certainly have assimilated the less-organised inhabitants of
the territories into which they moved - so that some cultural traits of the
subsumed groups might crop up in Slavic culture later. If these traits were
assumed to ALWAYS have been Slavic because of their occurrence in later
Slavic contexts, then this would give the illusion of an earlier Slavic
presence... especially to someone who was looking for evidence of such.
Anyway, that's more than enough from me today. Must awa'.
Alastair Millar <alastair@...>
url: http:// www.skriptorium.cz