The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered [12]  |  Archives [1] 
 
Witamy, Guest
Home / Genealogy   289 posts

Slavs are descendants of Sarmatians?


classic34    
5 May 2018  #271

The only archeological site that corresponds with proto-slavs is the Chernoles and Zarubintsy areas which was a section of the preceding Trziniec culture.

Classic34    
20 May 2018  #272

The language of Scythians is also debated - not as Iranian as is mistakenly supposed but as a dialect of proto Indo-european.

they were thought to be the last speakers of this language which is by some historians identified as a pure archaic Sanskrit.

that would explain the language of neighbours of the Scythians and Sarmatae to the north, the ancestors to Balts - their language is similar to Sanskrit.

the Scythian ploughmen may have spoken late Indo European also. Even if they're regarded as the remote ancestors of the Slavs.
Lyzko 17 | 4,617    
20 May 2018  #273

The story though that Lithuanian peasants are able to understand Sanskrit prayers spoken ever so slowly is nonetheless a MYTH!!
Classic34    
20 May 2018  #274

Thanks Lyzko,

Lithuanian and Latvian have evolved since then but retain most of the original proto Indo-european, compared to other European languages.

it is also nonsense to compare the `vedic' Sanskrit to modern Lithuanian because,

- Vedic Sanskrit had undergone much change from its proto Indo-European ancestor and

- modern Lithuanian is also undergone change from proto Indo-European
Lyzko 17 | 4,617    
21 May 2018  #275

Correct!
Classic34    
3 Jun 2018  #276

so then the Sarmatians (The Romans seem to refer especially to Roxolani) replaced the Royal Scyths rule of the Ukraine and Russia.

The Royal Scyths flee to Dobrudja area and establish Little Scythia.

After that the Sarmatians are divided into a larger Ukrainian branch (Spali?) and a Danubian branch (Acaragantes and Limigantes) as well as the smaller Iazyges group in Pannonia. Then they are conquered by Goths and later Huns.
Rodeo    
12 Jun 2018  #277

Maybe some of the western pre-Slavs were interacting with Lusatian people and were connected to it somehow as well.
Szczeszcz    
14 Jun 2018  #278

To be honest most Czechs look far less Slavic and more Germanic than Poles and Slovaks, especially those from around Prague. And Slovaks have a heavy Hungarian component in the southern parts like the capital. Poles seem purer Slavic with a touch of Baltids here and there. Russians have lots of finnish or asian. You could say Poles are the purest Slavs really!
Lyzko 17 | 4,617    
14 Jun 2018  #279

You're onto something with your remark about the Balts. I know any number of Polish women who look as though they might be either Latvian or Lithuanian.

Naturally no surprise if you know the history:-)
classic34    
15 Jun 2018  #280

I think the Slavs appearance reflects a lot on depending who their neighbours are. From the earliest times Germans to the west of the Slavs, The balts to the north (They were once one group proto Balto-Slav) etc, and then especially at the migratory period in the Middle ages.
Lyzko 17 | 4,617    
15 Jun 2018  #281

True, quite true.
Crow 145 | 6,901    
15 Jun 2018  #282

But you people constantly disregard fact that when we speak of Slavs we speak of Sarmats. Next what you disregard is fact that Slavs (ie Sarmats) lived and live on intercontinental level since time immemorial. Therefore, Slavs (ie Sarmats), within their own realm, were and are exposed to different geographical and climatic influences what secured sub-racial differences within one and same people. Slavs (ie Sarmats) didn`t need strangers to have variations in color of eyes, skin and hair. All that was provided from within.

Just imagine meeting at Arkona, due to some religious reason, 4000 years ago, of Sarmats from what is now Scotland (Picts) with Sarmats from Baltics (Kashubs) and with Sarmats from Lusatia and Balkans. Do you expect them to be same in every respect? Add to it fact that 4000-3000 years ago Balkans, Lusatia and Balkans were very very heartland of Sarmatian (ie Slavic) realm. People there was absolutely (!!!) isolated from any racial mixing, totally encircled on all sides with other Sarmats. Especially on line along the Danube, from western Balkans to Lusatia (what is now line Serbia to Lusatia). Also along Visla, Volga, etc rivers. But still, internal sub-racial differences existed. Speaking of Baltics we know that Ptolemy wrote of it as of `Sarmatian ocean`. We have enough old data to know that only people that lived on Baltics deep in past was Slavic (ie Sarmatian) people. We can allow racial intermixing only in minor traces thru trade but those influences could be disregarded. Only when we add, for example, Sarmats from around Ind river we can imagine some serious genetic impact by foreigners. But wast majority of realm of ancients (I guess at least 70-80% of people consisted of population that actually wasn`t aware of any other race then White race). Only much much later with appearance of Jews, Egyptians, Romans and Huns in Europe, started formation of other peoples then Sarmatian people in Europe. But even those new peoples primarily were formed over cultural impact on Sarmatians and gradually separated from them under new name- for example, Germanics, Romano Brits, Saxons, Anglos, Franks, Hungarians, etc, etc, etc. All Europoid Whites came to existence from Sarmatians.

How you people know nothing. And then some ask me why is past important. See, one can`t comprehend modern reality without being aware of past.
Miloslaw 2 | 194    
15 Jun 2018  #283

I can't fault your Slav history,it ties in with what I've read too.But I'm no expert,maybe a true Slav historian could pick holes in your statements.

Our shared Slav history is important.
I believe that it is important to know where you came from so that you know your identity.
But in the end it is just roots and history.It is not where we are now.
Where we are now is having a shared Slav history,with many cultural similarities,but we now have different influences and interests.
Like ten siblings with the same parents.
They have roots and history that is shared.
But they might not see each other that often because they have different tastes and interests.
Crow 145 | 6,901    
16 Jun 2018  #284

I can't fault your Slav history,it ties in with what I've read too.But I'm no expert,maybe a true Slav historian could pick holes in your statements.

What I wrote is sum up of all what I ever encountered on internet on topic. Story made out of my conclusions on texts by non-Slavs and Slavs, linguists, historians, genetics, etc.

Anyway, holes in my above statement could be of technical nature. In sense, we DO KNOW that Sarmatians (or as they called themselves- Serbians- in many different local versions of that name) covered entire Europe, Eurasia, Near East and parts of Asia and Northern Africa deep in past. And when I say deep past it mean at least last 3.000-5.000 years and then most probable, considering that Sarmats needed time for geographical positioning, we actually speak of at least period between last two glacial periods (so minimum in last 12-15.000 years). Now, what we don`t know with certainty are only two things.

One question is were Sarmats alone, when they covered entire continent, when we speak of Europe? In my opinion, if I were to take my final conclusion it was them, Sarmats, their direct ancestors in lineage, who gave birth to Whites. So, it was most probable, what was White was Sarmatian. It was so in the beginning, in the morning of White race. Under that name- Sarmats (Serbs), Whites were born and plus, parallel with it went name ROS or RAS. That is another open question. Why we always in all old data about Sarmats have that dualism Sarmatian/Thracians for one and same people. Most recent example of it we see in the name of Serbian medieval state where we have Serbia and Rashka and old data confirms with certainty that when we say Rashka we speak of Thracia (pronounced by Greeks/Romans while original was Raska > Th-Rashka > Thracia).

Still, frankly, we can`t tell with certainty were Sarmats alone (only Whites) in deep past, say about 5.000-10.000 years ago and earlier. But, don`t be confused here. It is rather rhetoric question. If other Whites beside Sarmats ever existed it was so deep in past that no trace of them remained, for some reason and only Sarmats prevailed and remained solid in covering of entire Europe. It is also possible that they were also alone in Eurasia. Romans never mentioned other Whites then Sarmats (yes, Celts were Sarmats, too). Romans were specific and they said that Sarmats were within Roman borders and were outside barbarians. With tose within Roman borders Rome actually fell in symbiotic relationship and it is only reason that Rome even survived so long and stretched its rule so far.

So, that is about Sarmats (ie Slavs). Other today`s known Whites of Europe came from them. We know exact mechanism how that happened and it was not that deep in past. Main reason is Roman impact on Sarmatian Europe that led to deeper segmentation of Sarmats, their cultural (in some cases, genetic, too) mixing with foreigners delivered (settled) by Romans into the Sarmatian realm. Only Slavs (ie Sarmats)nstary in direct cultural and genetic lineage with old Sarmats. Sure, it is quite possible that in some cases, those newly formed ethoses have purer Sarmatian genetics then some today existing Slavs. For example, Irish are pure Sarmats by genetics and Bulgarians have foreign add-on in some extent. Still, in cultural sense Bulgarians preserved their direct cultural connection to their Sarmatian meta-culture, while Irish lost it under pressure of new emerged culture.
Szczeszcz    
16 Jun 2018  #285

I think Poles are culturally and maybe even genetically the purest Slavs - they usually match the hospitable Slav stereotype from the past for one thing. Southern Slavs are hospitable but that might be more due to climate or Latin/Thrachian influence. If Pokes are really more hospitable thantheir neighbours and most countries so up North it must be a Slavic thing. A thing that however is not so ingrained in ither Western Slavs as Czechs and even Slovaks are not as hospitable. Bielorussians and Ukrainians also seem friendlier than your average Russian. So curiously those three share some things that Czechs, Slovaks and Russians lack. Well those 3 are the most likely original Slavic lands! I find Eastern Slovaks much friendlier than Bratislava ones so somewhere around must be the original Slavic lands!

Czechs and Slovacs were more affected by Germany or Hungary than Poland. Many things in Slovak cuisine are of Magyar origin (gulas!). Halušky are typically Slovak however. But still they have so many Hungarian family names there (Kardos). Also maybe Poland has less Roma people than most if not all other Slavic lands?

I think many Ukrainians are our cousins (I'm Bulgarian) genetically while Russians are more distant. However we share a lot more words with Russians than with Ukrainians and Bielorussians. Surprisingly I find Polish has more common words with Bulgarian than Ukrainian and Bielorussian lol. Makes sense as we have lived in present day Romanian or Hungarian lands. We deffinitely might have had contact with Polish and Slovak at one time. Genetically, most Ukrainian girls are with darker hairs than Russian ones and stand out less here in Bulgaria, many could pass for local.

I find it curious Czechs and Slovaks say "a" for "and" but Poles say "i" like us and I assume the Eastern Slavs.

We use "a" for "and" with closer meaning "but" (as a variant of но = but) as in contrast, only in cases where we want to say sth like "He did this and (=but) she did that".

If we say "i" in this case it means "and" but the nuance is different - she did that as a result if his action.

I don't know if Poles have this nuance as English can use "and" in both cases.

For lists we always use "i" (и) for "and" like Poles do.
Crow 145 | 6,901    
16 Jun 2018  #286

Have in mind that Romans initiated great turmoil within Sarmatian (ie Slavic) realm. Many were forced to migrate, relocate and escape to avoid being exterminated or enslaved. Then, those who were captured as slaves finished in other parts of Europe or outside of Europe. In some cases Sarmats were forced to pay tribute to Romans in cavalryman or other warriors and then those were relocated in Roman military service all around back then known world.
Lyzko 17 | 4,617    
16 Jun 2018  #287

"A" in Polish is perhaps less specific than "i", e.g. "Spotkalem sie dzisiaj z moimi rodzicami i swoimi przyjaciolmi." = I met with my parents and their friends today.,

as opposed to "Od trzech lat pracowal jako tlumacz a potem zostal lektorem u wielkiego wydawnictwa w Warszawie." He worked as a translator/interpreter for three years and after a while became a reader with a large publishing house in Warsaw."

The first "and" begins the start of a potential series, whereas the second "and" is more of a filler word to link the two ideas:-)
Szczeszcz    
16 Jun 2018  #288

Thanks, so basically it works more or less like in Bulgarian ;) No wonder I find Polish just more intuitive. For your second example we also will not use "i" but either "a" or "но" (no), which I think is also found in Russian.
Lyzko 17 | 4,617    
17 Jun 2018  #289

Yes, I believe so too, if I recall.

Please back on the topic now




Home / Genealogy / Slavs are descendants of Sarmatians?
Click this icon to move up back to the quoted message. Bold Italic [quote]

 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary and unique username or login and post as a member.