Slavs are descendants of Sarmatians?

Agreed G.The Romans never went to Poland like they did to France or Britain.
TBH,there was probably not too much of interest there back in those times.

Some are just slow learner...Ptolemy for sure were collecting detailed info...HE MADE A MAP OF IT! The military for sure too...they planned to gulp down these lands too...of course they all would collect as many detailed info as possible!

And as we no know it wasn't only the military but the traders too...all getting their "detailed info" quite naturally through travelling, sight seeing and communicating. And there was alot of trade and hence conctact going on as we slowly learn.

Why you choose to ignore all that is your own mystery only...

this getting tedious but my last post.

not all Scythians and Sarmatians were nomadic. Many of them became sedentarised as they were pushed westward from pressure of nomads from the east.

Chernyakov was basically the Gothic empire of east Europe, a centralized rule over a diverse community of people, which `provided impetus for unification of the culture over a large area' and `where the sarmatians made a transition from nomadic life to agriculture.'

Under the Gothic rule in this area and time period lived, `mainly Sarmatians, Venedi Sarmatae (Slavs) but also Dacians, Hellenized remnants of Scythians, romanised Greeks, along with the German occupants.'

The culture was uniform and a hybrid of all these elements.

Whoever the Sarmatae Servi were, these `Sarmatians' were not nomads but serfs or slaves and Serboi/Sporoi/Servi must be the short form of them.

HUNS abruptly ended this culture but after this invasion and period of rule, `Slavs appeared in the former Chernyakov territory' and spread west south and north.

France (Galia) or Britania were provinces in the Roman Empire in case you did not know, so they would not in any measure be comparable to the present-day Poland in this case.


In fact, this is proof that they were indeed. Since the collection of the artefacts found is so immense and unique, it cannot be atributed to someone bringing them to this place from a battle. Single items, yes, but so many of them? What for? Besides, the discovery is so recent that it hasn't been fully "digested" by archeologists yet.


Indeed. Making up for the mistakes he made in the grid system, his map is amazingly accurate which means that the ancient world was not so ignorant about the barbarian world as some would like to believe. It is also worth noting that many ancient sources did not survive to our times and even those which did, did it by some kind of miracle like the book "De Origine et situ Germanorum" ("Germania" for short) by Tacitus which survived in only one copy found in Hersfeld Abbey in 1425.

Not to forget that only a few years back there was no archeological find like the Sky Disc of Nebra, or the proof of roman settlements in what is now Poland. I'm quite sure the future will hold many more of such new discoveries, because the interest has sparkled and the number of archeologists searching has increased dramatically. It's like a new chapter...

@Classic34

I find it hard to believe that a people would continue to call themselves "Serfs". I think the word "Serb" originated either from "Sarban", the person whom the Pashtun tribe Sarbani is named after, or it may have started as "Sarv", a corruption of "Harv" (or Harv is a corruption of Sarv). Srbin, the Serbo-Croatian word for a Serbian man, sounds almost identical to Sarban. The Serboi are mentioned in 150 Ad, but the Sarmatian servi are mentioned in 390.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serboi

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limigantes

The german wiki points to something else:


de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serben#Etymologie

Translation mine:
The name Serb stems probably from the indo-european root word "srp". This means probably "kin" or "belonging to the same tribe (clan).
Also the polish "Pasierb" (Pasierbica) and the slovenian (Paserbok) for half brother, step son, half sister, step daughter belong there. Also the ukrainian "priserbity".
Related would be also the russian "serbat" for suckling and the latin sorbie for flowing, drinking...

@Classic34

Sorry if I'm being repetitive. I'm not sure what's already been said on here. I've read some of it, but not all, and not much made sense to me on initial reading. I have been reading a bit more about the Sclaveni and Antes as well though, and they are said to be the kin of the Veneti. They all probably referred to themselves as "Harvati" but were different tribal names or something. Ante is today a very popular first name for a boy in Croatia.

The Veneti are mentioned as the ancestors of the Sclaveni and Antes. The Slavs and Antes were apparently called Veneti in their earlier years, but then started calling themselves Slavs and Antes.

So my guess is: a group of people who called themselves Harvati began to call themselves "Slaveni". They had their kin Veneti in Poland, and then the name Slav spread North to Poland/Slovakia, and after that became the name of all Slavic people. This is probably because the other people all had similar culture and language already. In other words, the Veneti/Antes/Sclaveni probably already belonged to a much larger group of people that was by that time speaking the same language and had similar traits, which is why the name Slavs was used for all of them.

Again, sorry if I'm saying what's already been said. But I'm just putting everything together myself now and trying to make sense of it.

The whole problem with this topic and enquiry is that the Slavs of antiquity had too many names which confuses things.

First they were most likely Scythian farmers 1200BC or 700BC-200BC

Then they were called Veneti or Spori, depending on the historian (Tacitus, Jordanes or Procopius)

There is also Venedi Sarmatae and Servi.

Why would a people designate themselves `Serbs/Serfs?' I am only quoting that this was the generic name for proto-slavs according to some people like Safarik, Niederle and Dvornik and Gimbutas. If you lookup Wiki it also staTES IT MIGHT MEAN `guardsmen or shepherds'

The Sarmatae servi were mentioned in 330's AD during a civil war against their masters in present day Hungary, and later in 360'sAD. They were a servile people whom some think were a portion of proto-slavs. Some historians including Slavicists translate the Sporoi (Procopius's ancestors of the Antes and Sclavi) as Srboi/Servi.

Both Jordanes and Procopius wrote that they were formerly the veneti or Spori but are now chiefly the Antes and Sclavi.
After the Hun empire broke up, many Slavs migrated from their homeland in an area between the upper vistula to the Dniepr and down to the Danube. One portion who broke off from the main group were migrating towards the Danube and western Balkans and called themselves Slavi or were named Sklaveni (Slaves?) by Byzantine observers. Those that moved northwards from that group, towards former German lands, Germans named Wends. The Slavs that remained in the Ukraine were assimilated by the Yancai or Antae .

Some of the Antes were interspersed with the Sclavi branch in the east Balkans as they rampaged right down to Greece.

As far as Croats are concerned, they were originally White Croats, and apparently one of the tribes of the Antes. They moved into Poland from

the east or south with the Antes as they were expanding their territory 450's-550'sAD

In the 620'AD, White Croats were invited into the west Balkans by Heraclius to fight and expel the Avars. There were already probably Sclavi living in part of the western Balkans by then but the White Croats dominated them when they moved there.

Serb being a corruption of Xarv or Harv is also quite possible but Maria gimbutas believes that from corruption is derived the same meaning `to guard or protect.'

There was ethnic name `Slavs' in the classical period and no `Sarmatians' by the middle ages

sorry,
No ethnic name `Slavs' in antiquity either

The Croats are said to have ruled over the early Slavic tribes - they appeared to have some sort of leadership or nobility role. The presence of White Croats in Poland explains Sarmatism very well. The fact that the Czech coat of arms contains the red and white checkerboard, as do some parts of Poland, suggest that the early Croats had a role in forming the early states of Poland/Czech republic - again indicating some sort of leadership or nobility role. Also, the Sarmatian armour I linked to has an obvious checkerboard pattern on it - again more evidence that Harvat = Sarmat.

The fact that the Vistula Veneti were called Sarmatian Veneti and the fact that Wends appear in exactly every spot that the name Horvat appears frequently means Sarmatian Veneti = Horvat Veneti. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_Republic

My guess is, amidst all the confusion and movement and wars, Sarmatian became replaced with Slav.

This convinced Croat have obsession of ruling over Serbs. Even now, indirectly, considering how Poles in past were known as Szczerbi (local version of Sarmatian/Serbian name), he wants to prove how are Poles (Szczerbi) inferior and that we Serbs needed Croats to rule us. Even in time when Vatican didn`t exist. Now, in era of Vatican, obviously we have to conclude how are Croats God given ruling necessity.

Beware Poles. Convinced Croats aren`t just Catholics. They are bigger Catholics then Pope.

Hey Crow, I'm a girl. Also, the Serbs are said to have ruled over parts of Poland too. I'm not sure of the details of it. I just read here and there that it's probable the two groups formed some sort of ruling class.

@Classic34

Did you also think I was a guy?

Is there any evidence that refutes the theory that Harvat = Sarmat? My guess is they started calling themselves Slaveni, and that's the name that stuck, and that's why the name Sarmatian disappeared.

Don`t be confused. Serb name absolutely overlap with Sarmatian name and with appearance of Sarmatians. When Croat name appeared, occasionally, its always side by side with name Serb. It depended from author of records, what to pick, Serb or Croat name. To one from Rome, sometimes, only sometimes, closer was term Croat. But only sometimes, because Serb name absolutely dominates in old sources.

To explain you. Croatian name is Roman version of Sarmatian (Serbian) name. Hrvat is softened version of Chroat.

Ask linguists. Croatian language is Serbian language.

I'm not sure if that makes sense. I'm having a hard time finding information about it. For whatever reasons, the two groups seem to have been together for a long time.

Its just confusion with names. Much much later, during AH, came idea to form Catholic nation from name of Hrvat and to make it by convincing Serbs how are they Croats.

Ok Crow, I don't have time to keep this up for now.

Yeah here it goes:

external-preview.redd.it/Q1BSFfaMhkPj61wSsNT94mNPhspMwXxCmjnMbyn6ww8.png?auto=webp&s=f0d59844306806b134d469b513510a91afed1ee8


But you seem to know everything about it already :))

So I've been reading some more, and the Sarmatians are frequently mentioned as inhabiting the Pannonian plain, where modern day Croatia and Hungary are. Again in Croatia and Hungary, last name Horvat is very, very common. This all means Sarmat = Harvat. My guess is the Croats there began to call themselves "Venetian Croats" similar to how they call themselves "American Croats" or "Austrian Croats" etc. and that's how the name Sarmatae Veneti began. This explains why the Wends go all the way from the Pannonian plain up to Slovakia.

The Sclaveni may have been Croats who called themselves "literate" (slovo - sloven) or "glorious/illustrious" (slavan), maybe indicating some sort of higher status or nobility among them. I know this has been mentioned before so sorry for being repetitive, just trying to make sense of it all, and maybe shed some light to other people too.

There's been some debate about where the name Sarmatian comes from, and Oleg Trubachyov suggested it means "xar - vat", meaning "rich in women" or "ruled by women". This gives harvat in Iranian.

I disagree. I think it comes from the ancient region Arachosia, which was called Harauvati by the people who lived there. This explains why the original of Sarmati was Sauromati - it was a corruption of Haravauti. It also explains why the name "Horoat" is written on the two Tanais tablets which were found by the Don river, the earliest mention of the Sauromatae. The people who lived in Harauvati were Pashtuns, and the largest tribe of Pashtuns is called Sarbani.

The people of Harauvati were very close to or belonged to the Indus valley civilization, and the Indus valley civilization people had a habit of making pottery with checkerboards on it, or pottery that uses repeating lines as patterns, similar to the "Croatian interlace" and other early Croatian art.

google.ca/search?q=indus+valley+pottery&rlz=1C1CHBF_enCA769CA769&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjppLbOt__dAhWJtVkKHQZhBz4Q_AUIDigB&biw=1366&bih=657

google.ca/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enCA769CA769&biw=1366&bih=657&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=1c-_W6mzD5agjwSlja_ABg&q=croatian+interlace&oq=croatian&gs_l=img.3.0.35i39k1l2j0l6j0i67k1j0.11854.12873.0.13915.8.8.0.0.0.0.139.903.1j7.8.0....0...1c.1.64.img..0.8.900....0.oL8NvYkz8Ac#imgrc=_

The pottery even has patterns that I would describe as the "scale-like armour" that the Sarmatians used.

I have a theory about why the term Sauromatai came to designate all the large tribes, including the Goths. My theory is similar to how the word Slav came to be used.

The Sauromatai (Harauvati) and Sarbani were probably part of a much larger group of people, which included the Goths (the word Goth is thought to be related to the word Jat in India). The Sauromatai were not particularly dominant and may have been a very small group, but the similarity of their culture to the other Iranian peoples around them led to the adoption of the word "Sauromatai" for all of them.

This explains why Horoathos is present in Tanais, it explains the Serboi and the Goths, and the relations between all of them.

It also explains why all the Slavic countries are so obsessed with chess. lol

So Slavs were possibly part of the Indus valley civilization - one of the cradles of civilization.

But we do know that in last glaciation, in last 12.000 years, our ancients, formed already as Slavs (ie Sarmats) started to re-populate available lands and at one point of time existed from Scottish islands via entire Europe, Anatolia, Near East and Eurasia all to the Ind river. So, we do have idea of ancients in Ice age refugiums on/around Balkan and on/around Crimea and then also about ancients after Ice age finished and all to the our time, in last 12.000 years.

What we can only guess is what was situation of ancients prior to last glaciation, prior to last Ice age. What was their realm before last Ice age started. See, Czech Jandacek says that ancients were already formed 40.000 years ago. It would mean that they endured 3-4 Ice ages in Europe, retreating always in European zones that were never covered with glacial ice (Balkan/Crimea). We know that in Europe existed one more Ice age refugium but its disputed was it refugioum for our Slavic (ie Sarmatian) ancestors. Its very much possible but, its open question.

Sorry Crow, I don't know anything about that.

Here is an article which talks about the common origins of Serbs, Croats, and Jats (Goths).

iranchamber.com/history/articles/common_origin_croats_serbs_jats.php

I think parts of this article are not correct, but it has been mentioned that they have a similar origin.

Always have in mind how is topic on Serbs/Srbi-Croats/Hrvati heavily involved with politics in last 150-200 years when branch of Catholic Church in Austria decided to form Croatian nation as tool of Germanization in its final extent, with first aim to separate Catholic from Orthodox Serbs. They then made Zagreb to be Catholic religious center and then started Croatization of Serbs. But facts are facts. Name `Horvat` is also archaic personal name and surname among Serbs.

You know that in middle ages many Serbs migrated in back then Poland, Russia and what is now Ukraine. Spot this >> One of famous Serbian cavalry colonels that led one large group of Serbian refugees to Russia was Captain Horvat >>> Not Hrvat/Croat but he was Serbian with surname Horvat and he was Orthodox >>> on page 64 >>>> so some 250 years ago >>>>

books.google.rs/books?id=DemoCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=serbian+horvat+cavalry&source=bl&ots=rH-eHWt3w-&sig=HDy1e-5xORN83LqVVcc5bBF0ItI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj38Zzyh4HeAhXE_SwKHbKiB-sQ6AEwDHoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=serbian%20horvat%20cavalry&f=false

and that`s just one of examples of `Horvat` being Serbian surname. Among Orthodox and Catholic Serbs.

I don't care. Today Horvat = Croat and it applies to people who call themselves Croats, and they originated from a land called Harauti.

Have you seen the article on Croats/Serbs/Jats before? So maybe Sauromati actually means sun worshippers, so the Serbs, Croats, and Goths were sun-worshippers who came from the Indus valley.

It seems more likely that Sarmatian or Sauromati means sun-worhippers and is not a corrupted form of "Harauvati". But in any case, very strong links between Croats, Serbs, Goths and Sarmatians!

But intrusion of ancients onto the Ind river is recorded from direction West to East. Its about Scythians (ie nomadic Sarmatians)/hyperboreans that invaded black peoples of India and then were later forced to retreat again to the west, being for long period weakened by drought, famine, constant caunter-attacks by blacks and finally gigantic flood.

Here you see how Srbinda (demon of solstice in Rigveda) was described as foe of Indra (black Indians) >>>>

RG VEDA (Indian manuscript wrote 1500 and 1200 BC)
HYMN XXXII. Indra.
books.google.rs/books?id=XhxaDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA355&lpg=PA355&dq=Strong+God,+he+slew+Anarsani,+Srbinda,+Pipru,+and+the+fiend,&source=bl&ots=OJ18JLRbsw&sig=srdks4fYtMbmxIYdEBXDh4Vn76I&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjWrN-8joHeAhXnlIsKHZIbCoQQ6AEwAXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Strong%20God%2C%20he%20slew%20Anarsani%2C%20Srbinda%2C%20Pipru%2C%20and%20the%20fiend%2C&f=false

``2. Strong God, he slew Anarsani, Srbinda, Pipru, and the fiend,
Ahisuva, and loosed the floods.``


I also don`t care for `Horvat` as archaic Serbian surname. I taking that just as fact from history.

But let us also don`t care when those who are forced or once seduced to become Croats, again decide to be Serbs, Catholic Serbs. Maybe even Pope allow for that and give up to insist on Croats.

This Francis looks to be normal. But one can`t never bet

Horse Lords: A Brief History of the Scythians

youtube.com/watch?v=-IAxEtT3lfA

Yes, I read a bit about Srbinda. I don't have time now to discuss this though.

The servile class of Sarmatians were sometimes either used as

- `pressed ' auxiliary troops for Sarmatian cavalry' (e.g rebellion against Geberic and his Goths in 334AD)

- or as serfs tied to the land as agriculturalists

- or to guard and protect flocks of animals

further linguistic evidence of early Slavic names traced back to Servi, Serboi/Sporoi or the servile class of Sarmatians;

`Sarbia' encountered in the area between little Poland and Pomerania

Zeruiani to peoples living between Czarnkow and Znin western Poland.
Sorbs in Lusatia.

If we also trace the same meaning according to some linguists to hrvat/Xarvat/Xarv; names of a Croatian character are known from;

eastern Galicia, upper Vistula, Saxony, the Saale river valley, the upper Elbe, vicinity of Olomouc in Bohemia,
Styria and Carinthia and territory of present day Croatia.

Some tribes kept the self designation `guardians or protectors' like the Sorbs, Serbs and Croats.

This shows that during `the early stages of expansion original Slavic tribal names were very widely dispersed and the same names repeat in many different areas.' (Gimbutas)

abc123 - it is possible that;

In the early middle ages `Sklavinia,' the land named north of the Danube and the `sclavi' some historians believe may mean the `glorious' or `illustrious'

Nonsense. Servile class of Sarmatians (ie Serbians) didn`t exist. Sarmatians ruled their realm and as they were known as dominant their name was always used in superlative. In Rg Veda it is Srbind- superlative for grand deeds, on British islands we got `Ser` as memory on Sarmatians- designation for masters and ruling nobility, in Panonia in Hungray people used to say `Serbus` as salute.

But when Sarmats were subjugated by Romans, their name started to be used to designate so called lesser things: Serf and Servant.

Nonsense. Serbians today are pig piking peasants and red neck trash who would stab anyone in the back given the chance. NEVER trust a Serb!

The whole of that nation are of the peasant class and were servile all their history right up to the last Turkish rule there.

And afterwards, Serbia was a terror cell in late 19th century/early twentieth Europe.

Let me see. So Serbs are not trustworthy peasants that live as terror cell? That`s how Serbs stand in you head?

Well, thank you for contributing to this thread. Please go to nearest psychiatrist

I agree with Crow that Serb = Serbin = Sarban. The word Srbinda in the Vedic texts I think is evidence of that. Srbin specifically means Serbian man.

I don't think Serbs are not trustworthy. I think Croats have a stereotype as being untrustworthy or something (that's what I read but that might have been Serb propaganda).

Crow, what's your story? Why are you on here all the time? Why do you have so much free time?