Slavic Paganism

[Jarl]

I can search for some other literature like by Zbigniew Golab or Moszynski, however I know that linguistically Iranians and Balto-Slavs are considered to have been in a fairly close relation. The loanwords and lexical parallels in religion vocab are a frequently repeated argument.

[Cail]

Secondly, if Swar means heavens then dont you contradict yourself a bit saying his original function/meaning was that of fire?

Where did i say that? Swarg "means" sky. Swarog is a sky god. Swarozic is an epithet of Dadzbog, who is a solar/fire god.

Anyway I am not certain what you meant... If I understood correctly then Swarga and Swarog are two words with "unrelated meaning". Is this what you are trying to say? If so then you deny the Swarog-Swarga parallel.

I'll try to rephrase. Swarog and Swarga are undoubtedly of the same root. But they came to be used religiously among Slavs and Iranians independently. Swarog is literally "sky one", a natural name for a sky god. Swarga is literally "skies", a metaphor for heaven. One is not connected with another. The fact that they stem from the same root does not in any way imply semantical codevelopment.

Well then if raj is a loanword then there was some common base in the spirituality of those people.

Yes. First of all, ALL Indo-European paganisms have a common base. A lot of common myths and legends, common gods (often of the same name) were still preserved in the historical times among very distant nations. You can find parallels between mythologies of Celts and Singals. Let alone Slavs and Iranians who lived in a close contact.

Second, the fact that Slavs have religious loanwords from Iranic does not in any way mean common exclusive ancestry. Modern Slavic languages have innumerous Greek and Latin religious loans. All modern Christian nations have Semitic religion loans.

Here is the list of iranian loanwords collected from some literature by one Polish amateur:

Zapożyczeń irańskich jest przypuszczalnie sporo. Za takowe uchodzą przede wszystkim terminy związane z religią:

I know all of this perfectly well, i'm a slavist after all . Again, loans do not indicate any relation.

Here is a webpage devoted to Balto-Slavic-Indo-Iranian vocabulary:

Some of these are loans, but most are just common I-E. roots. Would it be a surprise if said that nearly ALL words in I-E. languages have cognates in other languages? What interests historical comparativistcs is a)common innovations b)semantical codevelopment. This is the initial step of determining the assumed relatedness. The next step is an attempt in reconstructing a common proto-dialect and finding it's place in the chronology of I-E. A proto-Germano-Balto-Slavic dialect is reconstructed with a very good degree of preciseness, and is placed quite a long time after the divergence of PIE, while a dialect that would be ancestral to both B-S. and I-I. is not much different from late Proto-IE itself, indicating that there was no common development after that time. Loans and areal reconvergence came much later.

What do you think? Author conlcudes that they probably are more numerous than Balto-Slavic and Germanic common vocab.

Author may conclude what he wants, but it is not so. Germanic shows way more commonalities with Balto-Slavic, both lexical, grammatical and semantical, and what is much more important - a lot of common innovations, unlike I-I.

2) Języki bałtosłowiańskie wykazują wyraźne zbieżności leksykalne z innymi językami satəm, zwłaszcza z indoirańskimi.

listing Baltic as the lingustically closest family to Slavic, and then the Indo-Iranian family. What do you think?

I repeat, Satem-Centum hypothesis is long since outdated. You can read about that in my previous post. Centum Greek is a close relative of Satem Armeno-Aryan, Satem Balto-Slavic is the closest relative of Centum Germanic.

...Iranians and Balto-Slavs ... fairly close relation. The loanwords and lexical parallels in religion vocab are a frequently repeated argument

*facepalm. Loans do not indicate relation.

[Jarl]

A proto-Germano-Balto-Slavic dialect is reconstructed with a very good degree of preciseness, and is placed quite a long time after the divergence of PIE,

That is interesting. I though Germano-Balto-Slavic was a lose concept, even much more controversial than the well evidenced Balto-Slavic. If this is so obvious then how about this study:

http://www3.isrl.illinois.edu/~junwa...Cladistics.pdf


Figure 7...

[Cail]

That is interesting. I though Germano-Balto-Slavic was a lose concept, even much more controversial than the well evidenced Balto-Slavic.

Balto-Slavic is actually not controversial any more, only marginals argue it. It has a huge solid base. Germano-Balto-Slavic is controversial to some extent indeed, but so are all theories above only very recent level of grouping (because of uncertainties arising exponentially with time depth). Still, it is a very viable, and probably the most rooted, theory to this date.

If this is so obvious then how about this study:

http://www3.isrl.illinois.edu/~junwa...Cladistics.pdf

I will read it more detailed later, but at first look-through it looks like a standard morphology-augmented mass comparison via computers, which is initially flawed, and doesn't account for A LOT of things. Things like this result in placing Old Prussian as a branch of Baltic, and Albanian in the broader Germanic branch. Old Irish and Welsh at the same depth as Latin and Oscan O_O??? Quite ridiculous.

[Jarl]

Balto-Slavic is actually not controversial any more, only marginals argue it. It has a huge solid base. Germano-Balto-Slavic is controversial to some extent indeed, but so are all theories above only very recent level of grouping (because of uncertainties arising exponentially with time depth). Still, it is a very viable, and probably the most rooted, theory to this date.

Germano-Balto-Slavic concept is afaik based on lexical arguments. Which like you said do not have to indicate genetic relationship. I also do not quite understand why if and why you reject Kentum-Satem as a genetic division? From what I read it has by no means been rejected, however it's importance as the main early branching has been questioned.

And from what I read on the website which I gave you the link to, there is no for broader lexical base of Germano-Balto-Slavic than Satem... there several such splits/groupings the priority of which is disputable:





...so what exactly do you mean that Centum Germanic is colses to Satem Balto-Slavic? Closest in what? The Germanic substrate hypothesis is also based on lexics and according to it, Germanic is a creole of IE and non-IE languages.

Things like this result in placing Old Prussian as a branch of Baltic, and Albanian in the broader Germanic branch. Old Irish and Welsh at the same depth as Latin and Oscan O_O??? Quite ridiculous.

This one clearly did not and in fact it clearly makes sense. I dont think it argues for any novelty or anything which you would strongly disagree with, perhaps with the exception that Germanic branches first and then there comes the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian split

And on one linguist forum I came across a remark its one of the better-evidenced IE trees ever constructed. Have a read and tell me why Germanic does not cluster closer to Balto-Slavic than the Indo-Aryan in their method.






Drawing from W. Anthony in „The Horse, The Wheel and Language”. He places Germanic either in e dialect continuum close to Balto-Slavic and Indo-Aryan, or a Italo-Celtic. He seems to support the theory thet proto-Germanic was some blend of:

The Germanic branch of Indo-European languages probably inherited more from the R1b cultures, although R1a is likely to have arrived earlier in Scandinavia, during the Corded Ware period. R1a people would have mixed with the pre-Germanic I1 aborigines to create the Nordic Bronze Age (1800-500 BCE). R1b would have reached Scandinavia later as a northward migration from the contemporary Hallstatt culture (1200-500 BCE). The first truly Germanic tongue could have been a blend of Hallstatt Proto-Celtic and the Corded-Ware Proto-Slavic with a few pre-Germanic loan words. The fact that present-day Scandinavia is composed of roughly 40% of I1, 20% of R1a and 40% of R1b reinforces the idea that Germanic ethnicity and language had acquired a tri-hybrid character by the Iron Age.

..."proto-Celtic" and "proto-Slavic". Or acquired its similarity to Celtic due to some early contacts prior to the Satem group differentiation. The authors of the paper I listed reach a similar conclusion - page 111. However, none of them gives Germanic a clear priority over Indo-Aryan.


I think genetics definitely supports this theory, as paternally Slavs are closer to Indo-Iranians than to most other Germanics, or indeed the whole Kentum branch/grouping.

[Jarl]

Kortland also places Germanic in a central cotinuum:

The earlier migrations yielded the peripheral languages (Tocharian, Anatolian, Italo-Celtic), which did not take part in the late Indo-European innovations of the central dialects (Indo-Iranian, Greek, Germanic, Balto-Slavic, etc.). Some innovations affected only a part of the central dialects, such as the assibilation of the palatovelars (which did not reach Greek and Germanic) or the loss of aspiration in the voiced stops (which did not reach Greek and Indic). Other developments had a more local character.

...

The Indo-Europeans who remained after the migrations became speakers of
Balto-Slavic. If the speakers of the other satem languages can be assigned to the
Yamnaya horizon and the western Indo-Europeans to the Corded Ware horizon,

...which then evolved more less in parallel sharing some innovations with some neighbours but not others.


So... if this is true:

1. Satem Balto-Slavic is the closest relative of Centum Germanic.

2. Germanic shows way more commonalities with Balto-Slavic, both lexical, grammatical and semantical, and what is much more important - a lot of common innovations, unlike I-I.

Then who advocates this Germano-Balto-Slavic theory today?

I'll try to rephrase. Swarog and Swarga are undoubtedly of the same root. But they came to be used religiously among Slavs and Iranians independently. Swarog is literally "sky one", a natural name for a sky god. Swarga is literally "skies", a metaphor for heaven. One is not connected with another. The fact that they stem from the same root does not in any way imply semantical codevelopment.

Don't quite understand what you tried to say here by "not connected" and why you pre-assume Swarog and Swarga arose independently? Especially if a similar deity/demon is present Iranian beliefs:

...Iranians and Balto-Slavs ... fairly close relation. The loanwords and lexical parallels in religion vocab are a frequently repeated argument

*facepalm. Loans do not indicate relation.

If there is a historical influence of Iranian religion over Slavic, documented in loanwords then how can you say it does not "indicate relation"? This is an argument raised by Gieysztor, Reczek, Gołąb and both Moszyński father and son:

http://sms.zrc-sazu.si/pdf/01/SMS_01_Moszynski.pdf

So what's the facepalm about? Finally you did not respond to this argument by Jakobson:




In Polish if its easier for you:




- replacement of IE dieus (deity) with the same word meaning heavens

- giving a new meaning to dieus

- same or similar meaning of ray, bog, wera, zertwa (sacrifice etc)

[Jarl]

More literature on Scythian (Iranian) influences over Slavic religion:




Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition + Britannica:

http://www.questia.com/library/encyc...c_religion.jsp

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...lk-conceptions

"Scythian Religion":

http://www.amazon.com/Scythian-Relig.../dp/6130543255

"Ancient Slavic Religion", M. Gimbutas:

http://books.google.com/books?id=fVQ...ranian&f=false

"Religious beliefs and ritual calendar of pre-Christian Russia", I. R. Vasilevsky on Indo-Iranian roots of some pre-Christian Slavic beliefs:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/0757245p145k6732/

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1579602


Other parallels in religious symbols in decorative art:

http://www.anthroglobe.info/docs/Ser...n-religion.htm


Here on the etymology of Swarog and Indo-Aryan Iranian paralells:

http://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/cgi-bi...09SKAAAA065913

http://www.ceeol.com/aspx/issuedetai...8-3e31764499d6



More on the possible dualism in Slavic religon:

http://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dsp...0000034018.pdf



And of course Roman Jakobson:

http://www.archive.org/details/selectedwritings01jako

[Cail]

Germano-Balto-Slavic concept is afaik based on lexical arguments. Which like you said do not have to indicate genetic relationship.

Nope. Germano-Balto-Slavic share lots of common innovations, both in lexic (and innovations in lexic are not the same as lexical loans, you can easily see which is which by the form, whether or not certain sound laws are applied et cetera) and, what is much more important, in morphology and grammar, common substrate words (which is also a strong indication to a common proto-dialect), common semantical developments et cetera et cetera.

...so what exactly do you mean that Centum Germanic is colses to Satem Balto-Slavic? Closest in what?

Closest in ancestry, stemming from a common proto-dialect. Acquired "closeness" (reconvergence) is quite not the same.

The Germanic substrate hypothesis is also based on lexics and according to it, Germanic is a creole of IE and non-IE languages.

Substration happened after the split, and the "creole" is an obvious overstatement.

Finally you did not respond to this argument by Jakobson:

Some of these arguments are very easily rebuked:

2), referring to "deiwos". First of all, Slavic semantic of this root is ambivalent, f.e. "diwo" (wonder) is positive. Second, and most important, if there was a relation, it would obviously be not Slavo-Iranic, but rather Balto-Slavic - Indo-Iranic. Neither Balts, nor Indians have this developments. "Dievas" is "god" in Baltic, "Devas" are Vedic gods.
3)Same as above. Not shared by Baltic = not genetic, but areal.

Argument about "svent"/"svętъ" is pure lol. This is a proto-IE root, shared by many I-E. languages. Santa Claus anybody?

Resume: author is not accustomed with most basic modern Balto-Slavic and PIE studies.

If there is a historical influence of Iranian religion over Slavic, documented in loanwords then how can you say it does not "indicate relation"?

So what's the facepalm about?

I fail to see logic in this. How does influence indicate relation?? Obviously it does not. It indicates contacts and interaction. Relation is common ancestry. Slavs and Iranians do have common ancestry of course, but not a closer one than with many others.

This is what facepalm is about (over and over again). Influence, loans, areal things =/= Genetic relation, common ancestry, descendance from common proto-dialect.

Don't quite understand what you tried to say here by "not connected" and why you pre-assume Swarog and Swarga arose independently?

There is no presumption of connectedness in linguistic, quite the contrary. There is not evidence that they arose to these meanings connectedly, while there are multiple examples of exactly same semantical shifts occuring independently.

Especially if a similar deity/demon is present Iranian beliefs:

Rarog is not present in any ancient Slavic monument. It appears to be a late, post-Christianization corruption of "Swarog". Absent from many Slavic cultures too.

I also do not quite understand why if and why you reject Kentum-Satem as a genetic division?

I reject it because it is an outdated XIX century theory, without any scientific basis, many times disproved by modern linguistics, that has several counter-examples (satemization arising independently in modern times). There is even no controversy about it today, even the proponent of B-S.+I-I. grouping base it on other things rather than Centum-Satem areal isogloss. Those very publication you posted (which places B-S. and I-I. together) also places Satem Albanian on the same branch as Centum Germanic (doesn't mean i agree with it, but it shows that even them do not take Centum-Satem seriously as a genetic feature).

[Jarl]

Nope.

1. Germano-Balto-Slavic share lots of common innovations, both in lexic (and innovations in lexic are not the same as lexical loans,

2. you can easily see which is which by the form, whether or not certain sound laws are applied et cetera) and, what is much more important,

3. in morphology and grammar,

4. common substrate words (which is also a strong indication to a common proto-dialect),

5. common semantical developments et cetera et cetera.

6. Closest in ancestry, stemming from a common proto-dialect. Acquired "closeness" (reconvergence) is quite not the same.

7. Substration happened after the split, and the "creole" is an obvious overstatement.

Ok. This is some list of statements. But who advocates these Germano-Balto-Slavic arguments?

Some of these arguments are very easily rebuked:

2), referring to "deiwos". First of all, Slavic semantic of this root is ambivalent, f.e. "diwo" (wonder) is positive. Second, and most important, if there was a relation, it would obviously be not Slavo-Iranic, but rather Balto-Slavic - Indo-Iranic. Neither Balts, nor Indians have this developments. "Dievas" is "god" in Baltic, "Devas" are Vedic gods.

3)Same as above. Not shared by Baltic = not genetic, but areal.

Argument about "svent"/"svętъ" is pure lol. This is a proto-IE root, shared by many I-E. languages. Santa Claus anybody?

Resume: author is not accustomed with most basic modern Balto-Slavic and PIE studies.

But that is the point of the discussion - Iranian influence over Slavic religion. The article I postes is NOT arguing for a close genetic relation between languages. Only for Iranian-Slavic commonalities in religion vocab. So it proves that there were some influences.

I fail to see logic in this. How does influence indicate relation?? Obviously it does not. It indicates contacts and interaction. Relation is common ancestry. Slavs and Iranians do have common ancestry of course, but not a closer one than with many others.

This is what facepalm is about (over and over again). Influence, loans, areal things =/= Genetic relation, common ancestry, descendance from common proto-dialect.

What do you fail to see? That Iranians and Slavs seem to share some common concepts in religious cult? I don't know why this thread turned into a discussion on linguistic affinity. The sources I used here focus on religion and beliefs.

So I am not certain now what are you arguing against - the linguistic proximity of Indo-Iranians and Slavs, or the similarities between religions? Indeed loans do not equate to genetic relation, but I get an impression we are going off-top here since none of the authors quoted by me argue for the genetic realtion between languages. Only for close parallels in religious cult. And religion can be also one great loan, just like vocabulary.

There is no presumption of connectedness in linguistic, quite the contrary. There is not evidence that they arose to these meanings connectedly, while there are multiple examples of exactly same semantical shifts occuring independently.

Rarog is not present in any ancient Slavic monument. It appears to be a late, post-Christianization corruption of "Swarog". Absent from many Slavic cultures too.

OK. Let's get the facts down shall we?



1. Swarog/Swarozyc is the only Slavic known from both the territories of Western and Eastern Slavs in historical sources.

2. Swarog and Swarga both stem from the same root meaning sky.

3. In Slavic folklore there is a sky demon Rarog - also from the same root. Rarog is a Slavic name for a bird of prey.

4. Sky bird-demons are also present in Iranian folklore, while Swarga is Hindu heaven.



Why there is "no evidence" they arose "conncectedly" and why there is evidence that they arose "independently"? What sense ofargument there is if they all retain common features and stem from the same word with the same meaning? It's obvious they did arise from some common concept of a sky-deity and heavenly world.

reject it because it is an outdated XIX century theory, without any scientific basis, many times disproved by modern linguistics, that has several counter-examples (satemization arising independently in modern times). There is even no controversy about it today, even the proponent of B-S.+I-I. grouping base it on other things rather than Centum-Satem areal isogloss. Those very publication you posted (which places B-S. and I-I. together) also places Satem Albanian on the same branch as Centum Germanic (doesn't mean i agree with it, but it shows that even them do not take Centum-Satem seriously as a genetic feature).

They do take it into account, they just do not treat it as the main genetic division. And indeed it's got have some weighing if them or Anthony put Indo-Aryan close to Balto-Slavic.





P.S.

But let's go back to the issues of Slavic religion or make another thread

[Jarl]

The whole discussion went off tangent here, when you introduced the problem of genetic relation:

This article touches an interesting topic, but the data is doubtful, sometimes outright bullshit. Most of these are just Pan-Indo-European things, not solely Slavic and Indo-Iranian.

(...)

Et cetera. In any case, there was no exclusive genetic relations between Slavic and Indo-Iranian, they belong to completely different branches of I-E. There are many loans though, undoubtedly.

I am not certain if (Balto-)Slavic and Indo-Iranian belong to "completely different branches" of IE. According to scholars like Anthony or Kortland they are as close as Balto-Slavic and Germanic....


....but what does the fact that there allegedly "was no exclusive genetic relations between Slavic and Indo-Iranian" has to do with similarities in cult?



These are two quite different issues. While the genetic relation seems close and some "innovations" were, like Kortland suggests, shared by Batlo-Slavs and Indo-Iran, it is the religion which is the subject of this discussion. And this takes us back to the issue I already mentioned on the last page. Of the similarities between Slavic and Iranian cult mentioned by Jakobson:

In Polish if its easier for you:




- replacement of IE dieus (deity) with the same word meaning heavens

- giving a new meaning to dieus

- same or similar meaning of ray, bog, wera, zertwa (sacrifice etc)

Is those ideas are not shared by the Balts is of no greater significance, for its not about linguistic affinity but about the Slavic cult possibly having common concepts with Iranian religions, as some authors point out.