ETHNOGENESIS OF THE SLAVS IN THE LIGHT OF LINGUISTIC STUDIES
Halina Popowska-Taborska
Linguistic investigation of early Slav history base on the study of names of rivers, streams and other water bodies (hydronym), analysis of ethnic names noted in early written historical sources (ethnonyms), reconstruction of early Slav phonetic change and Slav lexical material examined from the point of view of its affinities and differences with the lexicon of other European and Asian languages. To key question is concerned with processes of differentiation of the proto-Slav dialect from the common Indo- European language and the earliest contacts of proto-Slavs with other Indo-Europeans peoples. Given that the majority of names of major rivers found in the areas at present settled by Slavs are not directly Slavic in origin the value of hydronymic material is much less appreciated than in the past.
Similarly, ethnonyms cited in early historical sources largely fail to provide data on the linguistic affiliation of peoples defined those names. Up to the 6th century AD the region between Danube and the Baltic sea registers no presence of an unmistakably Slav names, even of their name proper - Słowianie, (Slav which only makes it appearance in the 6th century. Earlier eth names identified with Slavs (as for instance Neuri noted Herodotus, Silingi recorded by Ptolemy, and Lugii know to Tacitus and Ptolemy) linguistically cannot be accepted as Slav.
The etymology of the name Słowianie (Slavs) may interpreted in a variety of ways. Most frequently it is derived from the Indo-European root kleu - 'trickle, flow'. The name is then interpreted as 'people of the wet, marshy ground' (J. Rozwadowski, T. Lehr - Spławiński, S. Rospond), or, just the opposite, as 'people of the open fields, i.e., steppes' (K. Moszyński). The farmer theory linking the Name Słowianie from the proto-Slav slovo (word) is supported by J. P. Maher, O.N. Trubacev and L. Moszyński. In such case the original ethnonym Slovene would have been understood as the people speaking in a language which can be understood. Under this interpretation it bas to be assumed that the ethnonym developed in an environment of long-lived linguistic proximity of all Slavs and ease of communication between various tribes.
Remarkable similarity of Slavic and Baltic languages leave little doubt that the two groups lived very close to each other. However, linguistic evidence is insufficient to determine with all conviction the precise location of Slavs in relation to Balts in their original homeland.
Similarly linguistic data at band also strongly suggest that there must have been secondary connection between ancestors of Slavs, Italic tribes and Germans. Again, where and at what time ibis occurred is much less clear.
The view on the long-lived (at least until AD 500) linguistic unity of Slavic people is being increasingly accepted among linguists. There is no doubt that the language of the proto-Slavs before ibis unity began to dissolve bad been highly uniform and that the first processes of differentiation in general coincide with the great migrations of the Slavs.
The terminus a quo of the duration of Slav linguistic unity transposed against a broader historical background bas a major significance for all manner of further speculation. Assuming the prolonged duration of the Slav linguistic unity one should suppose simultaneously that ibis ethnos
occupied in that period a relatively small area. Any expansion farther a field must have precipitated same kind of linguistic fragmentation.
The key question is where to lo ok for the homeland of those still linguistically homogeneous Slavs tram which they spread so remarkably over Europe in the second half of the first millennium AD. Even the most recent linguistic studies raił to provide a definitive answer.
According to the three current widely different linguistic theories the Slavs originated from:
- areas to the south of the Tatras in the basin of the Danube,
- areas to the west of the middle Danube,
- or areas between the Oder and Vistula rivers.
Slavs as such (not to speak of phoney Slavs concealed in the sources under the names of Neuri, Silingi or Budini) are recorded in the written sources only early in the second half of the first millennium AD (in Getica by Jordanes and theDe bellis by Procopius of Ceasarea where the name Sclaveni (Sclavonians) is noted for the first time); first texts written in a Slavic language date only to the 9th century. Consequently when investigating proto-Slav language - and carefully avoiding the sphere of undocumented hypotheses - one may back in time no farther that the first half of the first millennium AD. Putting aside the new somewhat obsolete concept of the original Slav homeland" it may be assumed that Slavs were definitely present in the first half of the 1st millennium AD somewhere in Central- Eastern Europe and that true to the written records they spread to the south, southwest and north-east. Without support from other disciplines of study the linguist is helpless to answer this question.
In the light of the recent reassessment of chronological classification of linguistic facts the splitting off of western, eastern and southern Slavic tribes from their common proto-Slav stock was more or less contemporary.
The Slavs, previously concealed from the eyes of historians make their appearance at the close of the 1st millennium AD already settled securely over wide regions of Central-eastern Europe.