1
OK.Originally Posted by rothaer
It would hardly make sense for them to acquire some knowledge about the ancient Greek religion and start practicing it themselves, as Byzantine influence was obviously Christian.I meant after they penetrated the Byzantine areas south of the Jirecek line including Greece itself.
Interesting or not, they seem completely out of place.That I know and that is understandable in the context of Christianity. But I wonder whether also their pagan scholars may have adopted one or another thing, idea and term. The Kunstmann elaborations on Arkona and Rethra are at least interesting. I don't know if you can read them.
Since I am too lazy to search for it myself I'm just gonna post what someone else has posted on one of polish main historical forum:I myslef can not assess these things but if I get scholars right they claim this linguistic proximity for the very early times already, not after any Czech reign of Lusatia but also regarding the Sorbs in the whole area depicted in this Polish map.
The linguistic diversification of the Slavic dialects/languages:
The common theory is that the Czechs (or should I say people who became Czechs after settling there) encountered the Celts in Bohemia. Also, moving through the Central European plain from the Vistula to Połabie is much simpler due to there being no mountain ranges in the path than moving through Moravia, Bohemia and then though the Sudetes/Ore mountains into Połabie. And it would make no sense for people to acquire Germanic genetic influence in Bohemia and not in Połabie.Czechs encountered lots of Germanics in Bohemia and it has changed the genetics of this Slavs and this may well have been restricted to those early Slavs who stayed and mixed there and not to those moving on further. So that genetic difference is zero disproval.
Slavs most likely spread out in waves following the Hunnic invasion (which pushed the Germanics west and among others led to the destruction of the Ermanaric's state empire).Yes, and also when Avars defeated Franks in 566 in Thurigia (as a kind of revenge for having been there in a battle at abt. 562) there is a more intense Slavic settlement visible east of the Saale river and if we think of where the Avars were based it's not that far fetched that they more dirigated Slavs that were closer to them in Pannonia than some far away "virgin" Lechitc Slavs from the middle Vistula.
It's highly unlikely noone before would see such an obvious mistake. On top of this (like I've said) the assumption that "White Croats" means one group of people - or that it is actually a proper name for any people - and that there's one basic source for the name is most likely wrong.I know that this is unheard of and thus I did not ask if anyone heard of it. I asked if someone knows what exactly is written in the Greek sources that all do refer to.
I know but this is also irrelevant to me. I wanted to check this point of Kunstmann for seeing if he's reliable when referring to facts and I thought it should be possible to simply check this thing.
But it very much sounds like a typical "what if we claim that something should be read differently" folk etymologies.A lingusitic comparison does not require that things are contemporarily used. Just if you say that vel(k)o did only later get the referred to meaning it would de-legitimise the consideration.
Like I've said, it's not only Greek spelling you would have to look at.It's not about abt. b-v change but about a possible - I don't know, this is why I ask - b/v ambigousity in Greek spelling.
The problem is that even "Great Croatia" means really nothing. It does not make it any more obvious which place would it allude to.No, he states it's written correctly and it is written Vel(k)o-.
So - like I've said - the whole theory sounds like typical "what if".
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks