Re: That old Odin scenario ...

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
>
> > > GK: Some archaeologists did think that the mixed
> > > culture which evolved out of the interplay of
> > > Przeworkers, Dacians, and incoming Zarubinians (in
> > > Galicia) after 50 CE (called the "Zubretska" culture)
> > > was Slavic, but Shchukin's analysis has likely
> > > eliminated the scenario. He argued very persuasively
> > > that the "Slavic" settlements allegedly found there
> > > (originally dated as of the 3rd and 4th century) were
> > > actually much later, and contained archeological
> > > "rubbish" from earlier epochs. Zubretska BTW changed
> > > into Chernyakhiv in Gothic times...
> > > And the Zarubinians of the Pripet did migrate
> > > southward. This is proved 100%.The evidence is
> > > overwhelming.
> > > >
> > That would be the Southern Slavs, known as Antes?
>
> ****GK: Not possible. The "Antes", first mentioned in
> the 6th century, were carriers of the "Penkivka
> culture" (one of the offshoots of the Kyivan culture,
> itself a product of the "Late Zarubinian +others
> 'ethnic goulash'). The reason why some thought the
> Zubretska culture might have been an early "Slavic"
> culture is that many typically "Slavic" dwellings
> (familiar from 6th/7th century sites elsewhere) were
> discovered there, and dated from objects of the 3rd
> and 4th cs. Some archaeologists (e.g. Kozak) then
> concluded that the typical "Slavic" dwelling was first
> developedin the context of this Zubretska culture, and
> thus that the Slavs were a component of the Gothic-led
> Chernyakhiv. The criticism of this view was that the
> "early objects" did not relate well to the attested
> Slavic culture of the classic period of Slavic
> emergence. The current solution is that the Slavic
> settlements (dwellings)found in the Zubretska area
> were built by incomers of the mid-to late 5th c. and
> that the earlier objects were stratigraphically mixed
> in. It is also argued that the incoming Slavs found
> the remnants of a Chernyakhov population there(as they
> did elsewhere),and assimilated them. This solution is
> now the dominant view.****
> >

Too bad. It would have been nice and symmetrical to let the
Venethi/Wends, Sclaveni and Antes be the ancestors of Western, Eastern
and Southern Slavs, respectively. I know there is a lacuna in the
archaeological record corresponding to the devastated wasteland after
the Hunnic etc invasions, so its convenient to assume Slavic arrival
in the next layer, but is there not a possibility that the areas were
repopulated ftom the few survivors? People tend to get very fretie
under those circumstances; also I find it difficult to reconcile
putative Slav migrations with the fact I read somewhere that they
didn't do distant trade.

> >
> > If we accept the concept of 'ethnic goulash' in principle (and I
> > can't see why we shouldn't) couldn't Western Slavs have emerged by
> > demographics in such a goulash in the local sequence Zrubetska >
> > C^ernyakhov (and be named Wend from the previous demographically
> > dominant ethnic group)?
>
> ****GK: The only variant possible is that remnants of
> the Z/Ch were incorporated into the masses moving in
> from the north. The Slavic culture of the incipient
> historical period could not have developed from either
> Zubretska or Chernyakhiv, but only from the "Kyivan
> culture".

Hm. How so?

> As for the Germanic designation of Slavs as
> "Wends",that is explainable in a fashion similar to
> the European designation of American natives as
> "Indians" (mutatis mutandis}. The Slavic reality
> substituted for an earlier territorial reality and was
> given the same name.****

That simile is a bit strained. I don't think the Germani calling the
Western Slavs Wends was caused by some failure on their part to
compute correctly the diameter of the earth.


BTW if the migration of the Slavs was actually with Ariovistus, we
might have another identity: Xorvati = Charudes.


Torsten