Te qeshemi edhe ne pak ne imagjinatat Sllave
Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 2:00 pm
The Slavic ethnogenesis (or ‘making’) was the result of three basic satem
amalgamation: South Baltic (conventionally ‘Proto
‑Slavic A’), West Iranic
(‘Proto‑Slavic B’), North Thracian (‘Proto‑Slavic C’)
, with Germanic and early East
Romance (Proto‑Romanian) elements. My reconstruction is that this process of amalgamation of the three A‑B‑C satem elements began some time after the 4th century A.D., and continued ‘in move’ (as Godłowski assumes) for about five centuries. A final phase, the literary coagulation, began some time after 860 and continued in the long and complex process of emerging new ethnika.
We have all the reasons to assume that the first satem groups beginning their expansion in the 6th century A.D. Did not have a consistent language, but rather spoke more or less related satem idioms, some of them definitely spoke languages belonging to other linguistic families.
In the long run, the three main A‑B‑C satem groups merged into a more consistent and congruent ethno-linguistic structure to be later known as Slavic. For sure, the term Sclavus circulated at colloquial level, then the forms Sclavenus, Sclavinus, pl. Sclaveni, Sclavini gradually became common in the Byzantine documents. The origin of Sclavus, hence Romanian șchiau, pl. șchei ‘Slav(s)’, may be debatable, seemingly was deformed and/or adapted from a form derived from Slověninъ, pl. Slověne. Disregarding the ultimate origin, it is quite clear that the form Sclavus, Sclavenus, Sclavinus did not initially have an ethnic meaning, at least not in the sense we are accustomed to use the term ethnonym. It rather had social and military meanings, to a less extent a linguistic and scientific meaning as we should expect. The same may be stated for the Arabic borrowing Ṣaqlab (Ṣiqlab, Ṣaqlāb), pl.
Ṣ
aqāliba
, behind which we may find people belonging to completely different ethnic groups, and whose common denominator was ‘blond Slave, a Slave with white skin’.
The amalgamated character of these groups is also proved by the same origin of the
Albanian forms derived from the same form
Sclavus, i.e. Shqip ‘Albanian’ (adj.), Shqiptar(*sklya-b-); Shqinikë < Sclavenica (Dardania, i.e. regio sclavenica); Shqa, Shkla, Shkle ‘a Bulgarian’; these forms also suggest that sparse, non‑Romanised Thracian groups contributed to the Slavic ethnogenesis, and also represented an important component of the Albanian ethnogenesis: moving southwards, some of them merged with other satem speakers to eventually become the Sclavini, and other groups moved south‑west and, in amalgamation with the Dalmatian (formerly Illyrian) Romanised population led to the Albanian ethnogenesis. I am inclined to consider Albanian a neo‑Thracian, rather than neo‑Illyrian idiom, even if the Illyrian tradition was locally preserved, and some forms—mainly place‑names—were later adapted to the new, emerging idiom later known as Albanian, or gjuha shqipë. In North Danubian regions, the North Thracian groups known as Daci Liberi (Free Dacians) were later assimilated by the already Romanised Thracian groups of the first phase after the Roman conquest. It is probable that Thracian speakers survived in both North
and South Danubian areas until at least the 6th century A.D., if not even later.
Archaeologically they may be identified until the 7th century A.D., but their survival may be postulated even later.
By the 10th century A.D., this long process of amalgamation and ethnic changes was
basically concluded, and the new Slavic groups began their new history in the new Christian context. The Slavic ethnogenesis did not essentialy difer from other similar, but not identical,complex processes. For sure, the century‑long Slavic expansion and ethno‑linguistic consolidation was too vast and complex to be fully presented here, but the main issues have been hopefully approached.
Sorin Paliga / Marginalia on Slavic Ethnogenesis
‘Albanian’ is the word by which the Albanians discriminate themselves
against other ethnic groups; shqiptar is the noun (‘an Albanian’). It is not a rare case when a certain ethnic group uses another form than the foreigners. There are many similar examples: suomi, suomalainen ‘Finnish, a Finn’, hay, Hayastan ‘Armenian, Armenia’, euskara ‘Basque’; Deutsch is etymologically related to Dutch, but – in modern times – they refer to different nations, even if both of Germanic descent.
It is interesting to note how Albanian and Aromanian forms support, and are supported by,the others forms analysed in this context. I quote after Vătășescu 1997: 437: șchiau drom. S.m. ‘a Slav”, Arom. șcl’eáŭ ‘a servant, a slave’; [...] Șcheia (Suceava), Șchei Brașov), place‑names derived from șchiau. Lat. sclavus s.m.; preserved in Italian, French,Spanish, Portuguese with the meaning ‘a slave’. [...] Sclavinica, the Byzantine name of former Dardania, has been preserved in Albanian Shqinikë ‘Bulgaria’, which may be equated with Romanian place‑names derived from sclavus. Alb. Shqa s.m. ‘a Bulgarian; an Orthodox
Greek; a heretic’; also Shkla, pl. Shkle ‘a Bulgarian’; Old Geg dialect Shqeni ‘Schiavonia, Sclavonia’ < shqe pl.; Tosc is Shqeri. [V 437]
Albanian shqip must reflect the same original form sclavus;
for Albanian, the proto‑form may be reconstructed as *skljab, *skljap. It is immediately related to the already quoted Romanian șchiau, șchei. It also reflects the oscillating pronunciation of post‑classical b/v, which ultimately led to confusing them in Romanian: veteranus > bătrîn ‘old (man)’, and to their complete disappearance in inter-vocalic position in most cases (not all, though), as in sclavus, sclavi > șchiau, șchei. The preservation of this form in both Romanian and Albanianis, I think, the best proof that modern Albanian got its modern shape after a more northern influx which, amalgamating with the local Romanised population of Illyrian origin, ultimately led to the ‘making’ of a new ethnic group. This is in accordance with the views advocated mainly by some scholars during the last decades: the Neo‑Thracian, rather than
Neo‑Illyrian, origin of Albanian. Late prof. I. I. Russu also advocated this view in the 1980’s:the Albanians must reflect an ethnic move to south of some non-Romanised north Danubian Thracian groups, presumably the Carpians (who indeed had an important role among the Daci Liberi). These Thracian Carpian groups, the presumed ancestors of the Albanians(maybe also in congregation with some scattered, non‑Romanised southern Thracian groups, i.e. Those inhabiting the Haemus heights), came together with the Sclaveni and, for the Byzantines, they were militarily similar: enemies.
Linguistically, they spoke an unknown idiom, anyway not understandable by the Byzantines (incidentally, another satem idiom as most of those spoken in Central‑East and South‑East Europe). In other words, disregarding whether they spoke a kind of Proto‑Slavic or a late form of Thracian, they were, of course,
Sclaveni, as defined above:
1. Of (more) northern origin.
2. They were NON-Christian.
D.m.th. Sllavet mendojn se emri SHQIPTAR, gjenezen e ka te ai SLLAV, Sklav, Shka, SHKLA, SHQLA....
Komente ju lutem.
amalgamation: South Baltic (conventionally ‘Proto
‑Slavic A’), West Iranic
(‘Proto‑Slavic B’), North Thracian (‘Proto‑Slavic C’)
, with Germanic and early East
Romance (Proto‑Romanian) elements. My reconstruction is that this process of amalgamation of the three A‑B‑C satem elements began some time after the 4th century A.D., and continued ‘in move’ (as Godłowski assumes) for about five centuries. A final phase, the literary coagulation, began some time after 860 and continued in the long and complex process of emerging new ethnika.
We have all the reasons to assume that the first satem groups beginning their expansion in the 6th century A.D. Did not have a consistent language, but rather spoke more or less related satem idioms, some of them definitely spoke languages belonging to other linguistic families.
In the long run, the three main A‑B‑C satem groups merged into a more consistent and congruent ethno-linguistic structure to be later known as Slavic. For sure, the term Sclavus circulated at colloquial level, then the forms Sclavenus, Sclavinus, pl. Sclaveni, Sclavini gradually became common in the Byzantine documents. The origin of Sclavus, hence Romanian șchiau, pl. șchei ‘Slav(s)’, may be debatable, seemingly was deformed and/or adapted from a form derived from Slověninъ, pl. Slověne. Disregarding the ultimate origin, it is quite clear that the form Sclavus, Sclavenus, Sclavinus did not initially have an ethnic meaning, at least not in the sense we are accustomed to use the term ethnonym. It rather had social and military meanings, to a less extent a linguistic and scientific meaning as we should expect. The same may be stated for the Arabic borrowing Ṣaqlab (Ṣiqlab, Ṣaqlāb), pl.
Ṣ
aqāliba
, behind which we may find people belonging to completely different ethnic groups, and whose common denominator was ‘blond Slave, a Slave with white skin’.
The amalgamated character of these groups is also proved by the same origin of the
Albanian forms derived from the same form
Sclavus, i.e. Shqip ‘Albanian’ (adj.), Shqiptar(*sklya-b-); Shqinikë < Sclavenica (Dardania, i.e. regio sclavenica); Shqa, Shkla, Shkle ‘a Bulgarian’; these forms also suggest that sparse, non‑Romanised Thracian groups contributed to the Slavic ethnogenesis, and also represented an important component of the Albanian ethnogenesis: moving southwards, some of them merged with other satem speakers to eventually become the Sclavini, and other groups moved south‑west and, in amalgamation with the Dalmatian (formerly Illyrian) Romanised population led to the Albanian ethnogenesis. I am inclined to consider Albanian a neo‑Thracian, rather than neo‑Illyrian idiom, even if the Illyrian tradition was locally preserved, and some forms—mainly place‑names—were later adapted to the new, emerging idiom later known as Albanian, or gjuha shqipë. In North Danubian regions, the North Thracian groups known as Daci Liberi (Free Dacians) were later assimilated by the already Romanised Thracian groups of the first phase after the Roman conquest. It is probable that Thracian speakers survived in both North
and South Danubian areas until at least the 6th century A.D., if not even later.
Archaeologically they may be identified until the 7th century A.D., but their survival may be postulated even later.
By the 10th century A.D., this long process of amalgamation and ethnic changes was
basically concluded, and the new Slavic groups began their new history in the new Christian context. The Slavic ethnogenesis did not essentialy difer from other similar, but not identical,complex processes. For sure, the century‑long Slavic expansion and ethno‑linguistic consolidation was too vast and complex to be fully presented here, but the main issues have been hopefully approached.
Sorin Paliga / Marginalia on Slavic Ethnogenesis
‘Albanian’ is the word by which the Albanians discriminate themselves
against other ethnic groups; shqiptar is the noun (‘an Albanian’). It is not a rare case when a certain ethnic group uses another form than the foreigners. There are many similar examples: suomi, suomalainen ‘Finnish, a Finn’, hay, Hayastan ‘Armenian, Armenia’, euskara ‘Basque’; Deutsch is etymologically related to Dutch, but – in modern times – they refer to different nations, even if both of Germanic descent.
It is interesting to note how Albanian and Aromanian forms support, and are supported by,the others forms analysed in this context. I quote after Vătășescu 1997: 437: șchiau drom. S.m. ‘a Slav”, Arom. șcl’eáŭ ‘a servant, a slave’; [...] Șcheia (Suceava), Șchei Brașov), place‑names derived from șchiau. Lat. sclavus s.m.; preserved in Italian, French,Spanish, Portuguese with the meaning ‘a slave’. [...] Sclavinica, the Byzantine name of former Dardania, has been preserved in Albanian Shqinikë ‘Bulgaria’, which may be equated with Romanian place‑names derived from sclavus. Alb. Shqa s.m. ‘a Bulgarian; an Orthodox
Greek; a heretic’; also Shkla, pl. Shkle ‘a Bulgarian’; Old Geg dialect Shqeni ‘Schiavonia, Sclavonia’ < shqe pl.; Tosc is Shqeri. [V 437]
Albanian shqip must reflect the same original form sclavus;
for Albanian, the proto‑form may be reconstructed as *skljab, *skljap. It is immediately related to the already quoted Romanian șchiau, șchei. It also reflects the oscillating pronunciation of post‑classical b/v, which ultimately led to confusing them in Romanian: veteranus > bătrîn ‘old (man)’, and to their complete disappearance in inter-vocalic position in most cases (not all, though), as in sclavus, sclavi > șchiau, șchei. The preservation of this form in both Romanian and Albanianis, I think, the best proof that modern Albanian got its modern shape after a more northern influx which, amalgamating with the local Romanised population of Illyrian origin, ultimately led to the ‘making’ of a new ethnic group. This is in accordance with the views advocated mainly by some scholars during the last decades: the Neo‑Thracian, rather than
Neo‑Illyrian, origin of Albanian. Late prof. I. I. Russu also advocated this view in the 1980’s:the Albanians must reflect an ethnic move to south of some non-Romanised north Danubian Thracian groups, presumably the Carpians (who indeed had an important role among the Daci Liberi). These Thracian Carpian groups, the presumed ancestors of the Albanians(maybe also in congregation with some scattered, non‑Romanised southern Thracian groups, i.e. Those inhabiting the Haemus heights), came together with the Sclaveni and, for the Byzantines, they were militarily similar: enemies.
Linguistically, they spoke an unknown idiom, anyway not understandable by the Byzantines (incidentally, another satem idiom as most of those spoken in Central‑East and South‑East Europe). In other words, disregarding whether they spoke a kind of Proto‑Slavic or a late form of Thracian, they were, of course,
Sclaveni, as defined above:
1. Of (more) northern origin.
2. They were NON-Christian.
D.m.th. Sllavet mendojn se emri SHQIPTAR, gjenezen e ka te ai SLLAV, Sklav, Shka, SHKLA, SHQLA....
Komente ju lutem.