dekumatland schrieb:
Da Florin Curta in diesem Faden so oft erwähnt wird, darf nicht verschwiegen werden, dass seine hier schon mehrmals erwähnten und zitierten Publikationen als Nachweis für Slawen entlang der oströmischen Donaugrenze schon in der 1. Hälfte des 6. Jhs. Slawen verwendet werden. Zu dieser Zeit gab es in dieser Gegend noch keinen awarischen Druck, keine awarische Dominanz.
Man sehe:...
man schaue dort in die Fußnoten...
Das ("als Nachweis für Slawen" -Wikipedia) ist Unsinn. Sicher "saß" wer entlang der oströmischen Grenze, ethnische Konturen dieser Gruppe sind jedoch nicht nachzuzeichnen, die archäologische Fassbarkeit noch begrenzt, und sprachliche Differenzierungen der einzelnen literaisch etikettierten Gruppen (soweit es "Slawen" betreffen soll) sind unmöglich.
Wikipedia ist außerdem keine Basis für das Nachzeichnen solcher Fachdiskussionen, das hatten wir oben schon.
Wikipedia schrieb:
Scholar M. Kazanski identified the 6th-century Prague culture and Sukow-Dziedzice group as Sclaveni archaeological cultures, and the Penkovka culture was identified as Antes.
Sclaveni und Antes sind keinen archäologisch fass- und abgrenzbaren Gruppen zuzuweisen. Der zitierte Kazanski weist lediglich darauf hin, dass Prokops geographische und zeitliche Antes-Hinweise auch zur Pen'kovka-Zone passen würden. Da wird nichts "identifiziert".
Außerdem ist das ein alter Hut.
Curta dazu:
"Soviet historians and archaeologists imagined an enormous Slavic homeland stretching from the Oka and the Volga rivers, to the east, to the Elbe and the Saale rivers to the west, and from the Aegean and Black Seas to the south to the Baltic Sea to the north. A professor of history at the University of Moscow, Boris Rybakov, first suggested that both Spicyn’s “Antian antiquities” and the remains excavated by Khvoika at Chernyakhov should be attributed to the Slavs, an idea enthusiastically embraced after the war by both Russian and Ukrainian archaeologists.
The 1950s witnessed massive state investments in archaeology and many large-scale horizontal excavations of settlements and cemeteries were carried out by a younger generation of archaeologists. They shifted the emphasis from the Chernyakhov culture to the remains of sixth- and seventh-century settlements in Ukraine, particularly to pottery. Initially just a local variant of Borkovsky ́’s Prague type, this pottery became the ceramic archetype of all Slavic cultures. The origins of the early Slavs thus moved from Czechoslovakia to Ukraine. The interpretation favored by Soviet scholars became the norm in all countries in Eastern Europe with Communist-dominated governments under Moscow’s protection.
The “Prague-Korchak type,” as this pottery came to be known, became a sort of symbol, the main and only indicator of Slavic ethnicity in material culture terms. Soviet archaeologists now delineated on distribution maps two separate, though related, cultures. The “Prague zone” was an archaeological equivalent of Jordanes’ Sclavenes, while the “Pen'kovka zone”was ascribed to the Antes, fall-out curves neatly coinciding with the borders of the Soviet republics.
The new archaeological discourse did not supersede the old search for the prehistoric roots of Slavic ethnicity. In the late 1970s, Valentin V. Sedov revived Safárik’s old theories, when suggesting that the ethnic and linguistic community of the first century BC to the first century AD in the Vistula basin was that of Tacitus’ Venedi. According to him, the Venedi began to move into the Upper Dniester region during the first two centuries ad. By the fourth century, as the Chernyakhov culture emerged in western and central Ukraine, the Venedi formed the majority of the population in the area. As bearers of the Przeworsk culture, they assimilated all neighboring cultures, such as Zarubinec and Kiev. By 300 ad, the Antes separated themselves from the Przeworsk block, followed, some two centuries later, by the Sclavenes. The new ethnic groups were bearers of the Pen'kovka and Prague-Korchak cultures, respectively.
Sedov’s theory was used by others to push the Slavic ethnogenesis back in time, to the “Proto-Slavo-Balts” of the early Iron Age, thus “adjusting” the results of linguistic research to archaeological theories. The impression one gets from recent accounts of the Slavic ethnogenesis is that one remote generation that spoke Indo-European produced children who spoke Slavic. "
Die ganzen übrigen Curta-Zitate sind auf seine Darstellung der Ereignisse
direkt anhand der Schriftquellen bezogen, und haben nichts mit seinen Schlüssen oder der archäologischen oder ethnischen Debatte zu tun. Mit seinen Untersuchungen der frühen Slawen als "byzantinisches Konstrukt", einem zusammenfassenden Etikett für "Grenz-Barbaren", ohne archäologisch fassbare ethnische Abgrenzungen, mit diffusen literaischen Beschreibungen, hat das nichts tun.
Der Wiki-Autor hat hier schlicht seine (Curtas) Quellen-Kapitel (ohne Aussagen) zusammengeschnipselt vermutlich, weil es schön einfach und übersichtlich war.