Re: That old Ariovistus scenario.

--- On Sat, 6/27/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>

> > How would you account for the movement of Croats from Tanais to

> > Southern Slavland?

>

> GK: In the first place one cannot even prove that there was any

> such movement. The Bosporan inscription refers to an individual

> with a hellenized Iranic name. We have no other evidence of

> "Croats" in that area at that time (3rd c. AD).


> > GK: My view is that defensive set-ups ("croatias")

>

> GK: I don't have my notes on hand, but remember that that there

> is a Slovak verb where "croat" (something like "khorovaty se" if

> memory serves) means "to defend" one's self

http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ cybalist/ message/59285



Gol/a,b:

The Origin of the Slavs, pp. 323-328

'In the above discussion of the Iranian loanwords in Slavic I have

omitted proper names, because their etymology usually entails more

difficulties and uncertainties than that of common nouns. There is

however, an ethnicon that for serious phonemic and morphologicical

reasons seems to be of Iranian origin: the ethnicon *XUrvate/i, i.e.,

S-C Hrváti, Hrvate in older sources (nom. plur.), Hrvâtâ (gen.

plur.), and Hrvatin (nom. sing. in older sources).

Since the Iranian etymology of this ethnonym is only a hypothesis, on

equal footing with other hypotheses about its Slavic and Germanic

origin, I feel obliged to devote a separate excursus to this problem.

****GK: Golomb's interesting hypothesis has nothing to do with your notion that Charudes=Croats=Slavs (he holds Bastarnian to be Germanic BTW). I agree with him in positing the "Croat" phenomenon as originating north of the Carpathians, but associate it with Avar state-building.****

> > were organized by the Avars along their northern borders (in the

> > Carpathians and beyond) against the looming Turkic threat.

>

> GK: Sometime in the 570's.

>

> > The leading elements were imported from the east and settled

> > among Slavs. Their ethnicity is open to debate: you can try

> > etymologizing the names of the rulers' ancestors from the account

> > in Constantine Porphyrogenitus.

>

> GK: (from memory) There were five names (3 "brothers" and two

> "sisters) None seemed particularly Slavic.

We've been there. I didn't make much headway with them.

****GK: Correction. FIVE brothers (Kluk, Lobel, Mukhlo, Kosjenc, Horvat) The sisters were Tuga and Buga. I have a feeling one might find Turkic meanings in some of these.****

>

> After the crisis of the 630's some of these "Croats" moved south.

> Many however remained north and subsequently fused with Czechs,

> Poles, and Ukrainians.

> >

> > When? The communis opinio of Slavic infiltration in the 6th-7th

> > centuries has no archaelogical match-up.

> >

> > GK: I haven't studied the archaeology except for Bulgaria and

> > Greece, which is ample.

>

> Aha. Does the ample archeology of Bulgaria and Greece support your

> scenario?

>

> > But the historical documentation seems sufficient.

>

> So screw the lack of relevant archaeological data? Remind me now,

> what is it that makes you think your scenario is more tenable than

> mine?

>

> GK: My scenario of what? Slavic arrival in the Balkans? AFAIK

> then "archaeological problem" in Croatia is the absence of evidence

> for the "Croats" arriving at the time postulated by Constantine P.

> But there is ample evidence for a Slavic presence in the northern

> "croatias" and for Slavic movement into the Balkans in the 6th

> century. I doubt these early arrivals were called "Croats" (just as

> the early Slavs of Bulgaria weren't called "Bulgars"). But a small

> contingent of "croats" from northern Avaria need not have left

> archaeological traces (the 3 brothers and two sisters). In any case

> there is a good deal of evidence for Croats as of the 7th c.

> onwards, and the logic of their name and presence is infinitely

> preferable to your "Harudes" scenario, which makes no sense

> whatever in Slavic history terms.

So the absence of archaeological evidence is not your, but someone

else's problem, and in spite of that (or therefore) your scenario is

'infinitely preferable' because it makes sense in terms of Slavic

history?

****GK: There is no lack of archaeological evidence for a Slavic presence in the Balkans from the 6th c. onwards, including Croatian territory. What is lacking is evidence of a massive "Croatian proper" invasion at the time postulated by Constantine Porphyrogenitus. Or as matter of fact for any time between the 630's and the 9th c. when Croatian kings are attested there. The assumption of a Croatian conquest from the north in the 630's is inbdeed preferable to your notion of Harudes=Croats=Slavs which is totally without acceptable foundations, and is another instance of your fantasizing proclivities.****



Torsten