What is Slavic?

[Ariets]

Oh btw. I remember a talk with Hoh (produ) about Slavics, from that I can give conclusion: big, tall and generally large, mustached or bearded, hairy eastern macho varienty

[Ostrogorski]

Originally Posted by Monolith

Since Marulus has already replied to your post, I'll only say that Slavic languages had to be spread by people of ancient Slavonic stock. Nevertheless, during countless centuries, these Slavs intermixed with in some cases more numerous indigenous and/or conquering peoples, making the Slavic "blood" minor in newly formed ethnic substrata. In some cases, the language is all that is left.

Sure, people mixed everywhere, there's not a single "pure" population in the world probably... but I really don't understand the point of your post... why don't you name that population in which "all that is left of Slavdom is language" so we can discuss further in a proper way...

Originally Posted by Monolith

So? There are various R1a mutations.

So... nothing... it's not Y chromosome haplogroups that define someone's identity...

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

Sure, people mixed everywhere, there's not a single "pure" population in the world probably...

True, that's why Slavs are a linguistic group. It is indisputable that Slavs have contributed to the gene pool of all contemporary Slavic populations, but the observed genetic diversity in these populations means that language is almost the only connection between them.

...but I really don't understand the point of your post... why don't you name that population in which "all that is left of Slavdom is language" so we can discuss further in a proper way...

Population? What exactly are you implying? I thought of indigenous populations of the Balkans, who genetically assimilated the Slavs, but were culturally assimilated into larger Slavic ethnicities. But if you ask me about certain population, I'd say that Bulgarians are least alike the original Slavs.

So... nothing... it's not Y chromosome haplogroups that define someone's identity...

I couldn't agree more. Y-chromosome and mtDNA studies are just an interesting asset to our general knowledge concerning ancient migrations, but they can as well be indicative and be used to "measure" proximities between targeted populations.

[Ostrogorski]

Originally Posted by Monolith

True, that's why Slavs are a linguistic group. It is indisputable that Slavs have contributed to the gene pool of all contemporary Slavic populations, but the observed genetic diversity in these populations means that language is almost the only connection between them.

Originally Posted by Monolith

Population? What exactly are you implying? I thought of indigenous populations of the Balkans, who genetically assimilated the Slavs, but were culturally assimilated into larger Slavic ethnicities. But if you ask me about certain population, I'd say that Bulgarians are least alike the original Slavs.

And you base your criterion of what is originally Slavic on what? Physical appearance? Y chromosome DNA haplogroups? Anything else?

So why are Bulgarians less Slavic than, let's say, Poles? Because Poles are closer to some imaginary and idealistic Slavic look? Or because Poles have more R1a, which is consider to be the original Slavic haplogroup?

How do we know what was the original Slavic look and haplogroup? The problem here is because you obviously imagine Slavs to be some "Nordic gods" like this guy RedSkull do, and just because Russians and Poles are closer to this imaginary idealist appearance you think that we here in the Balkans are less Slavs than them. I don't agree with that.

What if we are the original Slavs and they're the one who are assimilated? I mean who is the one who draws the line here what is Slavic and what is not based solely on outside of human being.

It's the inside that matters and inside is what creates certain folklore and other ethno-psychic constant patterns, like music, dance, legends, myths, various symbols ( Kolovrat f.e.), clothings, paintings, sculptures, customs, beliefs etc, that repeat in each of Slavic nation.

That's what makes us Slavic - the folkish or ethno-cultural basis. Language is just one small part of it. And that's why Slavs are meta-ethnicity not linguistic group...

[Kalevi]

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

So why are Bulgarians less Slavic than, let's say, Poles? Because Poles are closer to some imaginary and idealistic Slavic look? Or because Poles have more R1a, which is consider to be the original Slavic haplogroup?

How do we know what was the original Slavic look and haplogroup? The problem here is because you obviously imagine Slavs to be some "Nordic gods" like this guy RedSkull do, and just because Russians and Poles are closer to this imaginary idealist appearance you think that we here in the Balkans are less Slavs than them. I don't agree with that.

I would add that too many people are projecting human groups of the past to be homogenous and everything what we see today as results of mixture between them, in a simplistic, dualistic way. In reality, while they might have been somewhat more homogenous than we are, it is far more likely that they were essentially just similar to modern populations in the way that they hadn't got just one haplogroup or phenotype, etc., but a mixture like us. If an expanding population has a similar mixture of genes with the surrounding populations, it may not even possible to clearly detect the expansion from their genes.

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

And you base your criterion of what is originally Slavic on what? Physical appearance? Y chromosome DNA haplogroups? Anything else?

Common sense.

So why are Bulgarians less Slavic than, let's say, Poles? Because Poles are closer to some imaginary and idealistic Slavic look? Or because Poles have more R1a, which is consider to be the original Slavic haplogroup?

No, it's because there's abundance of historical records which can tell us what ancient ethnicities took major role in the Bulgarian ethnogenesis(i.e. Thracians,Bulgars etc.) Let's disregard R1a for a second here. Let's say Bulgarians are, genetically speaking, most closest to the original Slavonic populations. Wouldn't that make all other Slavs somewhat different, and distant to them? If you don't count culture, of course.

How do we know what was the original Slavic look and haplogroup?

We don't.

The problem here is because you obviously imagine Slavs to be some "Nordic gods" like this guy RedSkull do...

Originally Posted by Monolith

My guess is robust UP types, but that's subject to mistake since ancient populations weren't homogeneous either.

...and just because Russians and Poles are closer to this imaginary idealist appearance you think that we here in the Balkans are less Slavs than them. I don't agree with that.

That would be Sorbs, Poles and Ukrainians. I never said we are less Slavs because of that. It's culture that makes a Slav. There's no solid proof about the Slavic place of origin and that creates space for different theories and opinions, but to place all Slavs in the same pot, except when speaking about culture and language, is just plain ignorance. It's our culture and language that connects us, not our blood.

What if we are the original Slavs and they're the one who are assimilated?

My point exactly. What if? It would just show that Slavic genetic diversity is indeed great.

I mean who is the one who draws the line here what is Slavic and what is not based solely on outside of human being.

No one can argue that.

It's the inside that matters and inside is what creates certain folklore and other ethno-psychic constant patterns, like music, dance, legends, myths, various symbols ( Kolovrat f.e.), clothings, paintings, sculptures, customs, beliefs etc, that repeat in each of Slavic nation.

Sure. But let's imagine Chinese come here(in numbers larger than our overall population) and mix with us, creating some half-breed population that still cherishes culture and ways of their(partly) Slavic ancestors. Would you say they are still Slavs? I wouldn't. I'd think of them as aliens in the Slavic culture. I use this solely as a comparison, and I don't think that there is(are) Slavic people(s) that correspond to this description.

That's what makes us Slavic - the folkish or ethno-cultural basis. Language is just one small part of it. And that's why Slavs are meta-ethnicity not linguistic group...

What is a meta-ethnicity if not a mere level of commonality between certain peoples? And the main commonalities between Slavic peoples are language and cultural similarities, with each Slavic nation having its own unique culture which is to some degree similar to other Slavic cultures.

[Ostrogorski]

Originally Posted by Monolith

What is a meta-ethnicity if not a mere level of commonality between certain peoples? And the main commonalities between Slavic peoples are language and cultural similarities, with each Slavic nation having its own unique culture which is to some degree similar to other Slavic cultures.

And what is family if not the same? Clan, tribe, folk, race, profession? All mere level of commonality between the peoples, but on various degrees?

I'm Cromagnoid, my brother is more Dinarid, first cousin is Mediterranid, second is Norid, we're obviously all of different biological origin, perhaps even ethnic, so therefore only thing that bring us together is language and culture? Is that what you want to say?

Pardon me, but that's squared bullshit... quad bullshit!

To me various Slavic nations are just a peripheral variants of one ideal imagined Slavic proto-model, which doesn't exist and probably never existed in the past. Of course it includes Slavs being European Caucasoids, obviously if they're half-Chinese they can't be Slavic in proper sense.

Also contribution of certain non-Slavic folks to certain Slavic folks is over exaggerating. If they ever had any real impact to Slavic soul, many Slavic nations of today wouldn't be Slavic. This is obvious in the Balkans, where Slavic ethnic element was so dominant that it even pressed out Roman and Greek element that dominated the area before Slavs

This is reply to all of your question above, but in shorter form...

[Aramis]

What if what if... Monolith is a good friend of mine, but I think I'll go with Ostrogorski here. The past is a very misty thing (especially the Slavic one, their orgins), and there are no solid proofs wich could support any theory about their orgins, how they looked and other factors wich made them Slavs.

What is important is the here and now. Or? If Ostrogorski finds some binding elements between all nations who call themself slavic these days, who am I, Monolith or anyone else to disagree there? Where is the point in even discusing this matter? 'Russians, Poles, Serbs... etc. are all Slavs, and not only by their language', and Ostrogorski feels close to them because of this. And? I didn't see any valuable comment so far who could disproof his claims. If he, and other can see common cultural elements, they obviously exsist then. For others they are maybe not proof enough. Well, why not? But arguing who's right and who not is pure nonsense I believe.

I said all this just to bring some order in this topic wich has become a mess, IMO. And my personal opinon about the topic? I dont' really have one.

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

And what is family if not the same?

If you're really comparing Slavic peoples with a family, that's totally misguided and false comparison.

All mere level of commonality between the peoples, but on various degrees?

Yes it is. That's a level of commonality based on different levels of importance, having that your kin is most important, followed by your ethnicity, meta-ethnicity etc.

I'm Cromagnoid, my brother is more Dinarid, first cousin is Mediterranid, second is Norid, we're obviously all of different biological origin, perhaps even ethnic, so therefore only thing that bring us together is language and culture? Is that what you want to say?
Pardon me, but that's squared bullshit... quad bullshit!

The only bullshit here is that you're putting your words in my mouth.
Ever heard of genetic recombination? That's why you and your brother look different, even though you're of the same blood. That's basic genetics, and differences caused by gene recombination between siblings cannot be compared with much more complex process of ethnogenesis that took place in the process of creation various Slavic nations.
Furthermore, anthropological traits cannot be used to determine certain ethnic affiliation. Neither can Y-DNA or mtDNA haplogroups. Since South Slavic ethnogenesis is long complete, it is pretty damn obvious that there were other significant non-Slavic inputs into Slav gene pools, thereby changing these Slavic populations permanently. And that's the reason why even siblings can have different appearance. Various elements(Slavic and non-Slavic as well) were present in Slavic ethnogenesis, and these elements can and most certainly will appear in our children. Dominant and recessive genes also play a significant role in this process. If, for some reason, genes of the indigenous Balkans populations are dominant to their Slavic counterparts, generations of people will begin to look different and more alike indigenous peoples and vice versa. There's also environmental influence that can "favour" certain genes that are responsible for traits favourable in certain conditions. It's much more complicated than your neat "me-brother-cousin" oversimplification.

To me various Slavic nations are just a peripheral variants of one ideal imagined Slavic proto-model, which doesn't exist and probably never existed in the past.

Imagined? Says who? Perhaps the original Slavs weren't homogenous in both appearance and genetics, but they were most certainly much more homogenous than contemporary Slavic populations.

Also contribution of certain non-Slavic folks to certain Slavic folks is over exaggerating. If they ever had any real impact to Slavic soul, many Slavic nations of today wouldn't be Slavic.

Does the term "cultural domination" ring a bell?

This is obvious in the Balkans, where Slavic ethnic element was so dominant that it even pressed out Roman and Greek element that dominated the area before Slavs

Slavic element was dominant solely because Slavs were pretty numerous back then, as they are now. Pressed out? They were either killed or assimilated, and some of them maintained their language for a while and are still present on the Balkans(Vlachs). In addition, Slavic cultures of the Balkans have absorbed many Roman and Greek cultural elements, as well as adopted fair share of their words.

[Slavni]

Originally Posted by Buery

What? Slavic a race??? It is the same if you say that Romans are race and Germanics are race! Can you tell me what are the features of that slavic race?
Slavic is only a linguistic group, nothing much, nothing less.
Kan Yuvigi Asparukh answered the question about traditions, etc very correctly.
Anyway, the question about who were the slavs is very wide and unclear. According to some "slavs" on the Balkans were just Thracians or a mix of Thracians and steppe peoples like Skythians. The difference between the so called eastern, western and southern slavs is obvious. According to me the main resemblance between these nations were the strong relations in the past and some common ancient roots of origin (indo-european, for instance).

BTW, there is a possibility that Baba Yaga actually comes from "yanga". Yanga was called the wife of the Ancient Bulgarian high priest Colobar. These women were also considered as high priestes and practice "witchcraft", herbal medicine and so on.

You said it all.We Serbs love Russians,for same religion,same Church calendar,I met a lot ot them.My point of wiew is next,Celts/Irish people are rebelian,and much closer for Serbian mentality than Russians,who are sad,melancholich and cry for their bad luck in life and singing Rusian blues songs when they get drunk... No offense,Russian brothers,we have same religion,but you betrayued us so many times in history...we are Dinaric people,fighters,...I wish to you all the best,but do not act our older brodther who will help us,any more please...

[Slavni]

Monolite,brate,sklanjaj tu cirilicu iz potpisa,meni ne smeta,naprotiv,nego ce ti neko drugi zamjeriti...

[edit by Marulus: Please write in English in general forums or at least provide translation]

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Slavni

Monolite,brate,sklanjaj tu cirilicu iz potpisa,meni ne smeta,naprotiv,nego ce ti neko drugi zamjeriti...

Translation:

Originally Posted by Slavni

Monolith, bro', take this phrase written in Cyrillic script out of your signature, I have no objections against that, but others might have..

Mistaking Glagolitic script for Cyrillic?

[Ostrogorski]

Originally Posted by Monolith

If you're really comparing Slavic peoples with a family, that's totally misguided and false comparison.

Is it? Well, Auguste Comte, if I remember correctly, first defined family as a basic cell of the nation, so it's not hard to conclude that nation or ethnicity is family on the larger scale, while meta-ethnicity is ethnicity on a larger scale.

It goes something like this - few families make gens, few gentes make clan, clan becomes tribe, tribes become folk or ethnos, ethnos becomes meta-ethnos. And they're all related. With basis in family, as I said.

But we've came to the point where what matters are personal beliefs. This is how I see it, perhaps you see it different, but my opinion won't change, and there's no point in arguing about the basic personal beliefs.

That's a level of commonality based on different levels of importance, having that your kin is most important, followed by your ethnicity, meta-ethnicity etc.

Indeed. But the problem here is in the word mere that you used.

I understood that word mere as something of bare, pathetic or loose relevance.

Perhaps the family, ethnic or meta-ethnic relations are of mere importance to you, but it happens to be one of the most important things in my life and my identity, and that's something that's absolutely no arguable!

The only bullshit here is that you're putting your words in my mouth. Ever heard of genetic recombination? That's why you and your brother look different, even though you're of the same blood. That's basic genetics, and differences caused by gene recombination between siblings cannot be compared with much more complex process of ethnogenesis that took place in the process of creation various Slavic nations.

No need to flame here, I didn't meant any offense.

I wasn't talking about the genetics, which I'm not interested in to be honest, I was talking about the differences that exist in one family, but all of us are still at the same time the part of one family.

So why should it be any different at the ethnic or meta-ethnic level? Having in mind what I said about the family and personal beliefs in the beginning of my reply.

Furthermore, anthropological traits cannot be used to determine certain ethnic affiliation. Neither can Y-DNA or mtDNA haplogroups.

We already agreed dozens of times about that...

Since South Slavic ethnogenesis is long complete, it is pretty damn obvious that there were other significant non-Slavic inputs into Slav gene pools, thereby changing these Slavic populations permanently

Changing in what way? You're not answering the basic question, and just opening the new ones. I wasn't talking about the genetics. Absolutely never. Genetics and physical appearance is of no importance to me.

If we're producing the same ethno-culture, then genes and/or physical appearance play absolutely no role. Why? Because we're talking about the people who are all European Caucasoids, not about 2 different races.

And I won't describe how this ethno-culture manifest itself, because I already wrote about that in some other post here.

And that's the reason why even siblings can have different appearance. Various elements(Slavic and non-Slavic as well) were present in Slavic ethnogenesis, and these elements can and most certainly will appear in our children.

And you still don't answer the question in what way does this non-Slavic elements manifest in current Slavic population, except perhaps in the field of genetics and/or physical appearance?

Dominant and recessive genes also play a significant role in this process. If, for some reason, genes of the indigenous Balkans populations are dominant to their Slavic counterparts, generations of people will begin to look different and more alike indigenous peoples and vice versa. There's also environmental influence that can "favour" certain genes that are responsible for traits favourable in certain conditions. It's much more complicated than your neat "me-brother-cousin" oversimplification.

Perhaps, I don't know much about genetics, so I don't deal with it, so I can't give you any precise answer to this...