The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered [7]  |  Archives [1] 
 
Witamy, Guest  |  Members
Home / Genealogy   198

Slavs are descendants of Sarmatians?



Ironside 46 | 8,406    
30 Nov 2017  #181

a lot of data

when, time you were attending a school 20 years ago? Anyway read what I have written on the subject in this thread rather than fall back on some outdated mussing fed to kids at school.

genetic assesments seem to strongly suggest that contemporary Poles have been living on the territory of the present-day Poland for a period of time stretching far beyond the 6th century

Yes, that one. You have a lot of peasant-commie traits but I can overlook it if you actually say something of merit. Good job!


gumishu 11 | 4,661    
30 Nov 2017  #182

On the other hand, genetic assesments seem to strongly suggest that contemporary Poles have been living on the territory of the present-day Poland for a period stretching far back beyond the 6th century AD.

it may mean actually that people of similar genetic make-up to current Poles (and the original Slavs) inhabited the land

appart from "pustka osadnicza" - there is also the issue of toponomastic - most river names in Poland don't mean a thing in Polish or Slavic - it's pretty obvious that Slavs were newcomers here at some point - and archeology makes it more precise

and no I was not taught that Biskupin was not a Slavic settlement in school - quite the contrary - I just can gather information that points to late coming of Slavs to Poland - it is your choice if you want to deny it Ironside
kaprys - | 588    
30 Nov 2017  #183

@gumishu
I know Biskupin was a Lusatian settlement.
But as far as I know there's no solid evidence the people were either proto- Germanic or proto-Slavic.
What, in fact, do we know about the ethnicity of the people who lived thousands of years ago? So I've been wondering if anyone could direct me to any confirmed data.

As for migration of different peoples, it's kind of obvious.
gumishu 11 | 4,661    
30 Nov 2017  #184

But as far as I know there's no solid evidence the people were either proto- Germanic or proto-Slavic.

they were probably neither proto-Germanic nor proto-Slavic - the term used by Germans for Slavs ( a misnomer btw) was Wended (Vends) which is very similar to Veneti known from Roman and Greek sources - it most probably retains the name of the people who inhabited the area of Poland before Germanic tribes - Slavs entered Poland after it was emptied of most Germanic inhabitants in the times of Great Migrations
Crow 137 | 5,910    
30 Nov 2017  #185

Biskupin was not Slavonic.

utter nonsense. Sure it was Slavic (ie Sarmatian). Everything was Sarmatian. From land of Picts in what is now Scotland, via Biskupin, entire Europe and Eurasia, all the way to the Ind river.

times of Great Migrations

Italian scientist Mario Alinei in his Paleolithic Continuity Theory proved that `Great Migration` never happened.
gumishu 11 | 4,661    
30 Nov 2017  #186

never happened.

hahahah - written history doesn't matter - those idiot historians simply confabulated - and no Indoeuropean languages spread has nothing to do with movement of people - people just started using Indo-european languages because they somehow stopped liking their previous languages appart from those stubborn Basques - and the Anglo-Saxon inavasion of Britain? no never happened - the Celts have just acquired a taste for Germanic language an culture and imported it - probably they watched a lot of Viking films on the TV :)
Crow 137 | 5,910    
1 Dec 2017  #187

On the edges of Sarmation world due to foreign influences and, also great trade centers on the coasts became first seed of dramatic change of culture on the fringes and within the very Sarmatin realm. With time, on the borders of Sarmation world new hybrid cultures appeared. Trade centers turned to be cities with their own specific interests and sub-culture. Add to it foreign invasions and leftover influences of it, such are penetration of foreign population, religion and ideological influences. That is how Hellenes and Romans come to existence. They then contributed to fastening of ruination of Sarmation world by speeding now their own newly formed culture, influence and interests. Formation of new ethoses followed: Germanics, Romano-Brits, Saxons, Franks, Hungarians, etc, etc. Not to mention cruel onslaughts and kidnapping of Sarmatian rural population and turning them into slaves. Especial target for the Hellenes and Romans, for all hostiles after all, were urban Sarmatian centers. Just for example, cities like Bylazora, Sarmizegetusa, Sindidun or Alesia. It was important for foreigners to destroy centers capable to unite wast Sarmatian world, capable to give military and religious elite and leaders. Enormous ethno and cultural genocide was committed on Sarmats (is Slavs).

We Serbians, last bearers of Sarmatian name, endured to talk about it. We, children of Sindidun, shall not die in silence.
jan34    
4 Dec 2017  #188

Everybody,
I am sorry to insult Slavs. I am a Slav too . I lost my cool and was immature. I came out racist as a result.

I am sorry.
For all its faults, Poland is a GREAT nation, along with Czecks and others. Great writers, musicians, Greatest culture in Europe.
A GREAT BIG SORRY.

Scythian ploughmen were pre-Slavs according to Paul Magocsi and other writers.
According to him the bulk of European Scythians were made up of pre or proto Slavs. (circa 1000BC-700BC)
This was the Chernoles culture - arose from a contact between proto Balts? and proto-Scythians? in the Dniepr region maybe? (Dniepr Balts)

I am sorry to knock Slavs and Poles. No nation is perfect but Germans have done horrible things and THEY invented concentration camps in Africa in the 1880's Namibia. Poland has done a lot for Europe in the past.

once again, I am sorry for my denigrating comments on Slavs. I am denigrating myself really because I am a Slav. Unfortunatley Slavs were oppressed by Germans and other people in history - that does not mean they cannot rule themselves. I take that comment back.
TheOther 5 | 3,017    
5 Dec 2017  #189

Germans have done horrible things and THEY invented concentration camps in Africa in the 1880's Namibia.

Here, learn something: quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-first-concentration-camps-were-a-British-invention-during-the-Boer-War

The Spanish were the first, the Americans the second and the Brits the third who set up concentration camps.
jon357 70 | 12,793    
5 Dec 2017  #190

The Spanish were the first,

This is true, in Cuba.

Hard to figure how this relates to the rather romantic Eighteenth Century theory of Sarmatian descent.
classic34    
8 Dec 2017  #191

To draw conclusions that Slavs were descended from Sarmatians is difficult to do.

I think it is hard to ignore Sarmatae when examining early Slav history though. The ancients (Romans especially) used `Sarmatae" to apply to people living east of the Vistula as far as the Don. The name Sarmatae became vague and general over time. Did they generally imply Aryan Satem speakers?

Some historians do not include the Massagetae (Alans) as Sarmatians as they were andronovans from central asia and were influenced by Aechemind Persia. They were of a Pamiro Ferghana racial type also.

They (Sarmatae) are very often misunderstood people but there IS a lot of information from reliable impartial sources on them, if you look hard enough.

Some Sarmatian federations may have been partly or wholly Slavic.
Crow 137 | 5,910    
9 Dec 2017  #192

This was the Chernoles culture - arose from a contact between proto Balts? and proto-Scythians? in the Dniepr region maybe? (Dniepr Balts)

Main mistake that people often makes is to separate Balts from Slavs (ie Sarmatians). So, I will tell only few words here.

Think logically. If one people inhabit island, what is the origin of that people? Logically, same people that inhabit closest landmass is ancestral people of people on that island. That is as a rule. See, same is with coasts. If one people hold coast, it is impossible to separate that people from nearest people deeper in the inland. Logically, its one and same people. Again, its a rule.

So, that about origin of the Balts. They were Sarmats, pure and simple. Difference, if existed, was only conditional and still any difference don`t change fact about Sarmatian origin of the Balts.

But, if we insist to underline difference between Balts and rest of Sarmats, that difference could come only as result of gradual influence on Balts by foreign elements that are usually present on the coasts due to trade and influx of foreign ideas, languages and people thanks to that trade. Sure, theoretically, something also could happen (invaded, natural catastrophe, etc) with the bulk of population in the inland while people on the coasts may stay isolated from the event and that way start to differ from their ancestral population.

Its nothing new. It happened all-around Europe with Sarmatians. And not only in Europe. On the coasts, some islands, on the fringes of realm of our ancestors, people started to change, to differ from their original ancestors.

And its alright. Its evolution. What isn`t right is that those who changed, in many cases, tried/tries to annihilate those who refuse to change. And no, we don`t speak about refusing to change in the sense refusing to progress. Its not that. Those who stayed to exist as Sarmats until our times are those who, for some reason, decided to stay loyal to the ancestral culture and language. And it was and is their right.

If we Europeans refusing truth about our past and history for political reasons, what future do we have? Shall we falsify science itself to satisfy politics? Is there any future for any sentient species in the universe, if decide to ignore scientific facts? No. Not of course.

So what shall be? Truth must prevail. Sure, that truth, political consequences of that truth, suit to somebody more and to somebody less. With time, we will learn to live with it. We will invent new reasons to support and explain our different paths.
jan34    
1 day ago  #193

sounds like you have a bad case of Sarmatitis.
Crow 137 | 5,910    
1 day ago  #194

I ate sarma two days ago
Ziemowit 8 | 2,637    
1 day ago  #195

sarma

What is sarma? A Sarmatian dish?
Crow 137 | 5,910    
13 hours ago  #196

Sarma is minced meet wrapped with cabbage (or vine leaves!), formed in rolls. Very testy. Etymologically, word `sarma` could come from `Sarmatrains`, especially considering that `sarma` represent national dish of Serbians and science confirmed that Serbian ethnic name represent remain of original `Sarmatian` name. After all, it was favorite dish of Serbian medieval nobility. So its confirmed, Sarmats ate sarma in past and they eat sarma today.

s

s

s

s

As Serbians says- `One who didn`t eat sarma in a life on this Earth, his life is wasted`

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarma_(food)

It is found among Slavs and on the Middle East.

DominicB - | 2,413    
13 hours ago  #197

Etymologically, word `sarma` could come from `Sarmatrains`

No, it doesn't. It comes from the Turkish word for "to wrap", and the word is a Turkish Turkish word, not one borrowed from another language.
Crow 137 | 5,910    
13 hours ago  #198

Listen Dominice, if Slavs (ie Sarmats) were under Turkish occupation for some period of time, its not alright to declare Slavic traditional eating to be Turkish. Its abominable. That is how also `cevap`, during Turkish occupation was spread from Balkan Slavs onto the Anatolia and to the Arabs. So you got `kebab`, while all thing started with `cevap` what literally in Serbian mean `cev` > `tube`. Meat in tube. `cev` means nothing in Arabic or Turkish. Same is with Serbian ethnic name that is correlated to word `sarma`, not to mention that Serbians ate that even before they encountered Turks. Turks were and are wild horde. Consumers, not inventors.

End of elaboration.




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.