UNIVERSITATEA BABEŞ–BOLYAI CLUJ-NAPOCA

FACULTATEA DE LITERE
DEPARTAMENTUL DE LIMBI ȘI LITERATURI SLAVE

STUDII DE LIMBĂ,
LITERATURĂ ŞI METODICĂ

Lucrările simpozionului internaţional

„100 de ani de slavistică la Cluj”

Cluj-Napoca, 30-31 mai 2019

XV

Editori

Katalin Balázs Sanda Misirianțu

1
Editura NAPOCA STAR
Piaţa Mihai Viteazul nr. 34/35, ap. 19
tel./fax: 0264/432547
mobil: 0740/167461
Director de editură: Dinu VIRGIL-URECHE

Culegere: Autorii
Tehnoredactare computerizată: Katalin BALÁZS
Redactor: Katalin BALÁZS

Referenți științifici:
Prof. univ. dr. Leonte IVANOV
Universitatea „Al. I. Cuza”, Iași, România
Specialist principal dr. Nikoleta HOLOVACH
Universitatea „Yurii Fedkovici”, Cernăuți, Ucraina

© Autorii, 2020
© UBB Cluj, Facultatea de Litere, Departamentul de limbi și literaturi slave,
2020

ISSN 1842-5585

2
 УНИВЕРСИТЕТ ИМЕНИ БАБЕША–БОЙАИ
ФИЛОЛОГИЧЕСКИЙ ФАКУЛЬТЕТ
ДЕПАРТАМЕНТ СЛАВЯНСКИХ ЯЗЫКОВ И ЛИТЕРАТУР

ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ ПО ЯЗЫКОЗНАНИЮ,
ЛИТЕРАТУРЕ И МЕТОДИКЕ

Материалы международного симпозиума

«100 лет Клужской славистике»

Клуж-Напока, 30-31 мая 2019 года

XV

Научные редакторы

Каталин Балаж Санда Мисирианцу

3
 Volum realizat pe baza materialului Simpozionului internaţional „100 de
ani de slavistică la Cluj”, desfăşurat în 30-31 mai 2019 la Cluj-Napoca.

Proceedings of the International Symposium “100 Years of Slavistics in

Cluj-Napoca”, held in Cluj-Napoca, May 30-31, 2019.

Настоящий сборник составлен на основе материалов Международного

симпозиума «100 лет Клужской славистике», проходившего в Клуж-Напоке
30-31 мая 2019 года.

Исследования по языкознанию, литературе и методике

Научные референты:
Леонте ИВАНОВ, д-р филол. наук, профессор, Ясский университет им.
Александру Иоана Кузы, Румыния
Николетта ГОЛОВАЧ, к.ф.н, передовой специалист, Черновицкий
национальный университет им. Юрия Федьковича, Украина

© Коллектив авторов, 2020

© Клужский университет имени Бабеша–Бойаи, Филологический факультет,
Департамент славянских языков и литератур, 2020

Издательство Напока Стaр, 2020

ISSN 1842-5585

4
 CUPRINS

Prefață ......................................................................................................................... 7

Lucrările simpozionului

I. Lingvistică

SANDA MISIRIANȚU, KATALIN BALÁZS (România), Galeria portretelor:

au fost profesorii noștri… .............................................................................9
JUDIT BARTALIS-BÁN (România), Исследования в области
фонетики в Клужской русистике .............................................................29
TAMARA BUDANOVA (Finlanda), Лингвистический
портрет десятилетия ...............................................................................36
JELIZAVETA BÁRÁNY (Ucraina), Дослiдження лiнгвоукраïнiстики в
науковiй спадщинi Ласло Деже ................................................................48
SERHII LUCHKANYN (Ucraina), Грамматика славянская Мелетия
Смотрицкого и румынская филология XVII-XVIII веков (к 400-летию
напечатания памятника) ..........................................................................58
ADRIAN CHIRCU (România), Consecvențe, inconsecvențe și subsecvențe în
tălmăcirile lui Teodor Corbea. Grupul consonantic slav [sv] .....................74
SORIN PALIGA (România), Albanians, Romanians, Slavs – ethnicity, change
and politics in the 2nd half of the first millennium C.E. ..............................88
CRISTINA SILAGHI (România), Conceptul CASĂ ca element al imaginii
lingvistice a lumii la români, ucraineni și ruși ..........................................124
KATALIN BALÁZS (România), Lexemele timp, vreme / время în limbile rusă
și română. Conceptualizarea timpului .......................................................131
VIKTÓRIA LEBOVICS (Ungaria), Нюрнбергский процесс – колыбель
синхронного перевода ..............................................................................140
OKSZANA TASKOVICS (Ungaria), Методи перекладу культурних реалiй
на прикладi угорсько-украïнського перекладу опер Ференца Еркеля
Ласло Гунядi i Банк Бан ...........................................................................151
MARIA BARŁOWSKA (Polonia), List dedykacyjny Jakuba Wujka do Stefana
Batorego z Koloszwaru – o retoryce mówienia do władców .....................159
VIKTÓRIA STEFUCA (Ungaria) – Власнi iмена угорського походження (на
матерiалах украïнсько-молдавських грамот XIV-XV столiть) ..........177

5
 II. Cultură și literatură

ADALBERT BÁRÁNY (Ucraina), Восприятие авторской позиции

В. Гроссмана и место его романа Жизнь и судьба в контексте русской
военной прозы XX века .............................................................................186
GALINA LESNAYA (Rusia), Історія українського модернізму в
інтерпретації Олександра Дорошкевича ..............................................204
TETIANA CHONKA (Ucraina), Фантастика i реальнiсть у повiстi Яни
Дубинянської Дружини привидiв .............................................................213
MIHAELA HERBIL (România), Fantasticul în nuvelele gogoliene
Portretul și Nasul ........................................................................................227
MARTA ZAMBRZYCKA (Polonia), Motyw choroby w prozie niepodległej
Ukrainy na przykładzie prozy Jurija Izdryka .............................................237
EVELINA BALLA (Ungaria// Ucraina), Фiлософський дискурс малоï прози
Степана Ткачука ......................................................................................250
AYTOLKYN ZHIENBAY (Kazahstan), Знаковая экспликация хронотопа в
лирическом цикле И. Бродского Часть речи ............................................262
GALIYA ARYNGAZYNOVA (Kazahstan), Магометанский (арабский)
восток в поэме А.С. Пушкина Бахчисарайский фонтан ........................270
RAFAŁ SZCZERBAKIEWICZ (Polonia), Odnaleźć siebie na zewnątrz.
Podróże literackie jako pozory otwarcia ....................................................277
ANDRZEJ NIEWIADOMSKI (Polonia), Od geopolityki…do geopolityki.
Najnowsza literatura polska wobec Europy (środkowo-wschodniej) ............. 293
BEATA GARLEJ (Polonia), „Naiwność” jako wartościowa estetycznie jakość w
Bolesława Leśmiana Urszuli Kochanowskiej ............................................310
MONIKA GRĄCKA (Polonia), Ze wspomnień polaków zaangażowanych w
rosyjski ruch narodnicki .............................................................................321
LUDMILA BEJENARU (România), Provocări ale multidisciplinarității în
investigarea textului urban ........................................................................335
SAGINTAY BERDAGULOVA (Kazahstan), Казахстан: территория согласия
и межкультурная коммуникация .................................................................. 350
KARLYGASH ABYLKHASOVA (Kazahstan), Формы межкультурного
диалога при изучении прозы Л.Н. Толстого в американской школе ......... 362

Lista participanților ...…….……………………………........................................ 373

6
 ALBANIANS, ROMANIANS, SLAVS – ETHNICITY,
CHANGE AND POLITICS IN THE 2ND HALF OF THE FIRST
MILLENNIUM C.E.

Sorin Paliga
University of Bucharest, Romania
sorin.paliga@lls.unibuc.ro

Abstract. Albanians, Romanians, Slavs – Ethnicity, Change and Politics in the 2nd Half
of the First Millenium C.E. The paper analyses various hypotheses regarding the ethnicity
of the Slavs as compared to other similar processes in the 2nd half of the first millennium
C.E., mainly with reference to the Romanians and Albanians, who developed a specific
ethnicity in the very vicinity of the Slavs (Sclaveni, also Sclavi in the documents of the 6th
century and later), but also to other groups. Ethnicity is a complex phenomenon, continuous
in history. The first millennium is just a period of faster developments. Other examples are
briefly analysed, i.e. the process of ethnicisation in the wake of the Yugoslav split, which
offers a very good, verifiable example of ‘ethnicisation’. Linguistic, historical and cultural
details are analysed in order to create a probable or, at least, plausible historical tableau.
The addenda briefly present some specific details, referring to the Germanic, Romance and
other ethnic groups. Anonymous’ Gesta Hungarorum and Gesta principum Polonorum are
also briefly presented as good examples of how ethnic groups were perceived and analysed
in the Middle Ages.
Keywords: Slavs, Sclaveni, Albanian, Romanians, ethnicity.

1. General considerations
An ideal approach to the complex problems surrounding
‘ethnogenesis’ would be interdisciplinary, giving consideration to the
linguistic, archaeological, historical and philological data available to us.
Such an approach would not be easy, as no research can cover at the same
time such vast areas of analysis. Nevertheless it is possible to put together as
much data as possible so that we may have at least a general tableau of the
main problems.
Let us try to first define the meaning of the syntagma ‘Early Slavs’.
According to a widely held opinion, already with a huge bibliography, the
first millennium C.E., particularly that period beginning with the end of the
4th c. to the end of the 10th, has been labelled the ‘period of great migrations’.
Migrations, in general, lead to (very) fast changes in the social and political
life of the peoples affected. The period in question is no exception. It is also

88
considered an ‘ethnic period’ (Raevskij 1988, introduction). It is assumed that
a given nation – a term with a long history, but with a specific use since the
Romantic period (nationalism is one of its frequent derivatives) – has a
beginning, a point of genesis. We all know that this is a largely conventional
view. In fact, ethnic groups never begin and never end. For Europe, the 1st
millennium C.E. is, therefore, one such conventional point of reference.
It should be also noted that terms like nation and people have
approximate equivalents in other languages, e.g. French nation and peuple;
or Czech národ and lid etc. For this reason, they have been avoided in this
analysis. The purpose of this relatively brief analysis is not to clarify the
various connotations and denotations of nation and people in the modern
literature. This will be hopefully done in another work with broader scope.
2. What is an ethnic group?
Since nation and people may be considered ‘Romantic terms’, it is
perhaps preferable to use a ‘technical’ and minimally generic syntagma
‘ethnic group’. But, once settling on this term, is the problem indeed simpler?
What, in fact, is an ethnic group? The answer seems obvious: a human group
characterised by common features may be labelled an ‘ethnic group’. There
is a series of tangent questions referring precisely to these features: what
features contribute to the contours and essence of an ethnic group, of
ethnicity?
Even if often considered ‘obvious’ (the Germans are German, the
English are English, the Poles are Polish etc.), ethnicity is not simple to define.
Why? Because it includes a large number of components or defining ele-
ments, with differing relevance. Variations occur over time, regionally, at the
individual level etc. It would perhaps be useful to see how ethnicity was
viewed in Antiquity, for example in Herodotus, whose work is a reference
point for those times (Janakieva 2015). In general, ethnicity is defined by, and
includes, several components. I will note the essential ones only:
Language, of course, is the most important component of ethnicity.
Yes, but not always. It would be dangerous to say that the English and the
Americans represent the same ethnic group, even if they speak the same
language. The violent split in the former Yugoslavia was accompanied by

89
atrocities and lack of communication among people speaking the same
language, conventionally labelled Serbo-Croatian or, alternatively Serbian-
Croatian. Starting from being the single common language of the Bosnian,
Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian groups, it has now become a language
split into four variants. It is a typical contemporary case where language does
not prove to be relevant at all.
One may argue that these are facts specific to our age only, and that
they do not automatically apply to older historical periods. Definitely, not
automatically, but – to a certain extent – yes, they do apply. The problem is,
which features apply and which don’t. I have in mind, for example, the long
lasting debate regarding whether the Thraeces (the Thracians) spoke the same
language over their entire conventional area (now represented by Romania
and Bulgaria, but also some neighbouring areas) or whether that was split
into more (2, 3…) ethnic groups, for which the ethnonym Thracian was a
conventional one. And, by the way, what is the relation between Thraeces, on
the one hand, the other two (or one?) ethnic group(s) labelled Daci, Dacisci
and (or?) Getae? Were they echt thrakisch, as Ivan Duridanov once used the
term, or (radically?) different ethnic groups, speaking different languages?
Were they aware that they formed, in the eyes of the Greeks and Romans, the
same ethnic group? This question gently moves the debate towards another
essential issue:
AWARENESS OF IDENTITY. This is a particularly complex issue
as it is affected by several variables, including the political component, but
also the personal attitude towards ethnicity. Narrowing the analysis to the
early Slavs: are the Sclaveni (Sklavenoi, later Sclavi), Anti and Venedi (Wendi,
Weneden, cf. Praga, Wenedorum magna urbs – Bláhová 1986, 78, see the
addenda) the same ethnic group? Or are they different? According to a largely
accepted view, it is sufficient to have two (or more) different forms referring
(sometimes) to what are apparently the same ethnic group to conclude that we
have as many ethnic groups as we have names recorded for them. This is not
true and, in many instances, this is an obviously wrong assumption. In the
case of the ancient groups or the groups of the Early and Mid Middle Ages
this is a particularly difficult and complicated issue, in which the arguments
for or against such a view may vary or alternate, depending on the attitude we

90
wish to adopt.
The answer is, perhaps unexpectedly to many, a political one.
Ethnicity is essentially (or to a large extent) A POLITICAL ISSUE. It is
political when referring to the Thracian groups, and it is of course political
when referring to the Slavs. The situations are not, of course, identical, but
the intrusion of politics into scientific discourse is not rare. I even wonder
whether there is an instance in the social sciences or humanities where the
political intrusion into scientific research is absent or, at least, minimal. We
are often unaware of such details, because we consider them ‘obvious’, but
they are obvious to some, and not at all obvious to others. I would remind the
reader here, as one example, of the polemical discussions mainly between
Romanian historians and archaeologists, on the one hand, and Bulgarian
historians and archaeologists, on the other, during the period known as
‘Ceaușescu’s régime’ and ‘Zhivkov’s régime’, respectively; or the view of
the history of Czechoslovakia during Gustav Husák or the history of Hungary
in Hungary itself – I hasten to add that the intrusion of politics into scientific
research is not limited to the so-called ‘dictatorial régimes’, where it is
obvious and – in most similar cases – brutal. I would mention here the
tendency among many young(er) historians in the former communist
countries to switch the analysis from the narrow clichés of the communist
régimes to new clichés, often based on a shallow approach to scientific
research. But this is a mere note en passant.
Any social or psychological detail can also serve as a component of
ethnicity: family relations, the relations between man and woman, social
relations, economic relations, religion and various other beliefs. This simple
list shows how complex the problems are, and how they melt into that tableau
of ethnicity. At first sight, religious beliefs would be second to language in
relevance. Yes and no. This depends on the importance of religion in a given
context, and the level of tolerance of the political élite toward religious
diversity as relevant or irrelevant in their society. In contemporary Europe
there are many political entities that are not religiously uniform. The current
assertion that the Yugoslav crisis was due to religious diversity is just a
pretext to justify the atrocities, not the real causes of the conflict. The purpose
of this paper does not allow a deeper analysis, but it is useful to mention the

91
issue when speaking about contemporary ethnicity and its rapid change within
a generation or even less.
Temporal variability is perhaps the most important matter when
analysing ethnicity. According to a cliché circulating in recent years, a
contemporary ethnic group A, located in Europe, has more in common with
another European group B, than with the ancestors of group A, say a
millennium ago: the Romanians and the Bulgarians have a lot more in
common now than with the ancestors of the same two ethnic groups living a
millennium ago. But, choosing the year 1,000 as the reference point, were the
Romanians indeed Romanian, and the Bulgarians indeed Bulgarian? In a
simplified, nationalist analysis: yes, of course. In a more rational analysis:
well, perhaps yes, but let us see what is the common denominator.
In an INTERIM CONCLUSION: Ethnicity is a complex human
reality, in which several components concur, at various levels, in delineating
a certain kind of group consciousness. How does it ‘begin’ (and does it in fact
begin?), and how does it change? As generally understood, ‘the beginnings
of ethnicity’ is just a conventional way to start the analysis from a reference
point onwards. The first millennium C.E. is just one reference point, not the
beginning of ethnicity.
3. The early Slavs. A definition
A step forward would be to define what ‘early Slavs’ means. Are they
different from other ethnic groups contemporary with them? What could this
difference be, and how can we maximise our understanding of the syntagma
‘early Slavs’? Before answering this question, let us try to delimit the issue
by briefly analysing similar situations.
The syntagma ‘early Slavs’ is a modern construct that attempts to
update the ethnonym Sclaveni, Sklavenoi, later Sclavi, the latter apparently an
constracted form of the former. The ethnonym begins to be used in Byzantine
sources around the year 550 C.E., and seemingly reflects an alteration that
occurred in Eastern Romance, i.e. among the Romanised groups, who came
to know the ‘Early Slavs’. The Slavic form (i.e. used by some Slavic groups)
Slověninъ, pl. Slověne was probably the source, since both the Slovaks
(Slovák, adj. slovenský) and the Slovenes (Slovenec, adj. slovenski) have

92
preserved this ethnic name. We cannot have many doubts that it really
circulated among (at least) some Slavic groups, precisely those people who
became involved with the Romanised population. Another ethnic name with
the same root is attested for a Slavic group located near the Baltic Sea, later
assimilated by the Russians in the course of their expansion (Kondratieva
2000, map on p. 31). These were undoubtedly the Central European groups
that settled in Pannonia and the neighbouring area, even if – theoretically –
the first Slavic groups to have met a Romanised population must have been
those following the rivers Siret and Prut southwards, and who then crossed
the Danube. The origin of the ethnonym Slověninъ, pl. Slověne has been
recently reviewed by Andersen (2017).
Can we ascribe a generic name to these groups seen from THEIR
perspective? Did they have, in other words, a group consciousness to be later
labelled slovanstvo or ‘slavicity’? It is certain that slovanstvo was a generic
term, with obvious political connotations, which developed gradually in the
Middle Ages prior to the Romantic period. It is rather a modern construct, as
in Skok’s reference book Slavenstvo i romanstvo na jadranskim otocima
(1950). That book is relevant not only from the perspective of place names,
but also from the perspective of ethnicity, i.e. how the author (Skok) views
slavenstvo (Eng. approx. Slavdom) as opposed to romanstvo (Eng. approx.
Romancedom).
What other ethnic groups did the ‘early Slavs’ meet when they began
their move southwards? One of them has been mentioned: the previously
romanised groups. Not all of these could be labelled ‘(Proto)-Romanians’,
even if many nationalist analyses in Romania would incline to such a view. I
would recall the famous paragraph in Anonymus’ Gesta Hungarorum, at the
end of ch. IX, in which the author refers to:
Sclavi, Bulgari, Blachi ac pastores Romanorum
and which has led to an avalanche of studies, many of dubious
scientific status. Bizarre as it may seem, the chaotic approach began with the
Hungarian historians themselves. They were apparently influenced by a
mistranslation of the phrase Blachi ac pastores Romanorum. For example,
Popa-Lisseanu (1934, 81) translated ac as Rom. adică = Eng. id est, i.e., that
is, which turned the four ethnic names into three! If we read that part of the

93
text carefully, and relate it to other parts, we easily reach the conclusion that
Anonymus was not confused at all, and that he had in mind not 3 ethnic
groups, but precisely FOUR, which Popa-Lisseanu rendered (adapting the
Romanian translation into English) as:
Slavs, Bulgarians, Romanians, i.e. the shepherds of the Romans.
There are in fact two errors here: Blachi translated as ‘Romanians’
and ac as an explanatory ‘that is, id est’.
The more recent translation by Tonciulescu is better in that the
translator respects the original, i.e. maintains the four ethnic groups, preserves
Blachi, and provided the footnote that they were ‘the Romanian people in
Pannonia’. That is almost correct, if the author had not slipped into the usual
nationalist view of the communist era used in the post-communist context
(Tonciulescu 1996, 29).
Curious too are the translations into other languages, e.g. into English
and Slovak, available to me: One belongs to Martyn Rady (English) and the
other to Vincent Múcska (into Slovak). They ‘translate’ Blachi as Vlakhs and
Vlasi respectively, which is at least as confusing and incorrect as Popa-
Lisseanu’s translation, though different:
Slavs, Bulgarians, Vlakhs/Vlasi and the shepherds of the Romans.
FOUR ethnic names indeed, but who are the Vlakhs/Vlasi and who
are ‘the shepherds of the Romans’?
Anonymus makes observations about circumstances before his own
life time. We can’t be certain when that was, other than that it was during the
time of one of the four Hungarian kings whose name was Béla, and therefore
in the period of the settlement of Panonia by the Magyars or some time after.
Nevertheless, is it so difficult to clarify to whom those ethnic groups refer to?
Sclavi, also Sclaveni, Greek Sklavenoi is the Medieval name of the
Slavs, a group which formed during the Middle Ages and continued into the
modern age. But to what Slavic group did Anonymus refer ? To all of them?
Of course not. He referred specifically to those groups which the Magyars
first met when they settled in Pannonia, i.e. THE CENTRAL EUROPEAN
SLAVS, the precursors of the Slovaks and Slovenes.
Bulgari were, of course, the SOUTH SLAVS, the precursors of the
modern Bulgarians. Anonymus thus carefully distinguishes the Central

94
European Slavs from the Balkan Slavs, as we would label them today.
Blachi seems the most difficult form in the paragraph, given its
relation to the next ethnonym, pastores Romanorum. As long as the author
feels the need to distinguish one from the other, the translator should be wary
of adding more confusion than is inevitable in interpreting a Medieval text.
Therefore, Blachi should be understood as the local Romanised population of
Pannonia, precisely the ethnic groups known as the Keszthely culture.
Beyond any doubt, when the Magyars settled in Pannonia, they represented a
distinct ethnic group. As a Magyar chronicler, Anonymus made what to him
must have been the obvious connection between what are now regarded as
speakers of Eastern Romance proper.
Finally, pastores Romanorum. Well, there is little doubt that the
author refers to the transhumant shepherds of the Carpathians. They must
have been (Proto-)Romanian groups, as they are located east of the Magyars.
In other paragraphs below, these Romanised groups are mentioned as Blasi
and their lands as terra Blachorum. It is obvious why: they were Blachi or
Blasi as well, because the ethnonym Blachi, Slavic Vlachъ, always referred –
in the early and mid- Middle Ages – to ANY romanised group. Later, it came
to refer to the Italians (as it still does in Polish) or to the Romanians (among
the Orthodox Slavs). As above, the author carefully distinguishes the Central
European Romanised groups (the Keszthely culture) from the Romanians
proper, i.e. pastores Romanorum.
The entire paragraph is entirely coherent, and in full accordance with
what Gesta Hungarorum mentions before and after this paragraph.
Anonymus gave us a good lesson on 11th or 12th c. C.E. ethnography. In the
given context, Anonymus correctly identifies the Central European Slavs,
Sclavi. The ethnic name of those precursors must have been borrowed as
Sclaveni, Sklavenoi, later Sclavi by the Byzantines, via an East Romance
intermediary, which may possibly explain the epenthetic -k- (-c-) in the Latin
and Greek spelling. Compare the non-etymological, epenthetic -g- is in the
case of Romanian zglobiu ‘active, lively, sprightly’ v. Czech zlobivý ‘naughty
(child)’ < Slavic zlobiv ‘irrascible’; this analogical explanation belongs to
Hasdeu in the 2nd part of the 19th c. (see details in Paliga 2017).

95
 4. What about Venedi?
This is, in fact, the oldest ethnic name used to denote any group
located to the east of the Germanic groups. The first to use this form is Tacitus
in De origine et situ Germanorum, usually cited as Germania, ch. 46 (the
last). The book is dated to around the year 98. We also know that there was
at least one other ethnic group referred to as Venedi, also spelled Veneti or
Venethi in later sources. Their name has survived into modern times as
Venezia ‘Venice’. They probably were a Celtic group. Were the Venedi
located east of the Germanic people also of Celtic origin? If so, we should
identify some Celtic forms reconstructable for Proto-Slavic, but so far such
attempts have failed or have been not permitted us to reach a firm conclusion
regarding this claim1.
The Celtic or non-Celtic origin of the Venedi seen as the precursors of
the Slavs – or, at least, seen as a component of Slavic ethnogenesis – is not
the only problem. Disregarding this issue (which is not unimportant, of
course), should we also question whether this group really existed? We have
no serious reason to doubt that they did. Russia is called Venäjä in Finnish,
the Russian language is venäjä or venäjän kieli ‘the language of Russia’ and
the Russians venäläinen, venäläisiä. Estonian also preserves similar forms:
vene adj., venelane noun ‘Russian’. The Finnish and Estonian forms show
that the groups bordering the Finns to the east continued on as the present-
day Russians. This is not an absolute proof that they were Slavs, in the
meaning later given to this ethnic name, but it may be surmised that those
people, if not ‘pure Slavs’, were later assimilated by the Slavs during their
expansion. Venedi continued to be used later in the Middle Ages with
reference to some West Slavic groups, as in the description of Prague (Praha)
as Wenedorum magna urbs (Bláhová 1986, 76, with reference to the Annals
of Flodoard, 894-966). The persistent use of this ethnic name for some other

1 During a conference in Prague, Oct. 2017, a joint paper by Jadranka Gvozdanović and
Václav Blažek tried to suggest the possibility of some old Celtic elements in Proto-Slavic or,
at least, a certain similar set of words. In my opinion, the arguments invoked are too weak to
be considered sufficient as a minimally solid argument for a certain Celtic influence on Proto-
Slavic.

96
Slavic groups, different from the ones located in Pannonia or in the Balkans,
seems to be justified by the evidence considered above. (See Addendum I, 2).
Should we admit the possibility that two ethnic names can refer to the
same ethnic group? Definitely yes. The typical situation is represented by a
pair of forms, one used ‘internally’ (an endonym used by the people
themselves), the other one used ‘externally’ (an exonym used by one or more
groups of outsiders). This was not unusual in Antiquity either, e.g. Hellenoi,
the name given by the Greeks themselves, v. Graecus, pl. Graeci as used by
the Romans. The two Thracian forms Daci, Dacisci, Dakoi v. Getae, Getai
also reflect such a reality: an endonym v. the exonym. The same situation is
often encountered in our times as well: Deutsch ~ German, etymologically
related to Dutch; Euskara ~ Basque; Hay ~ Armenian and Hayastan ~
Armenia; Shqip(e) ~ Albania(n), Magyar ~ Hungarian (with specific forms
in the modern languages, e.g. French Hongrois, Romanian ungur etc.)
We might want to question the assumption that a certain ethnic group
must have only one ethnic name, and that therefore we should not conclude
that if there are two (or more) names names then, at any historical period,
there were there are two (or more) groups. With reference to the case at issue
here – the names applied to the precursors of the Slavs – we may surmise with
reasonable certainty that there is no inconsistency in the use of both the
ethnonyms Venedi and Sclaveni, Sklavenoi to refer to groups that we would
now call Slavs. This is how those groups were referred to by foreigners, and
how this naming convention was later transmitted. We cannot be of course
sure that this conclusion is correct, but there is no solid argument it should be
dismissed just on the basis of our presumptions. Venedi, later Wendi seems to
have been the preferred ethnic name used by the Germanic groups, later
adopted by the Finns too in the form Venäjä.
It is beyond any reasonable doubt that those groups we may label
Proto-Slavic had early contact with (Proto-)Germanic groups, as proved by
the successive series of either borrowings from one language to another or by
similar developments. One such very old development (borrowing?) is the
similar historical morphology of the Germanic and the Slavic numerals ‘one
thousand’: Germanic *þus-hundi v. Proto-Slavic *ty-sęšta, *ty-sǫšta, where
we may identify an augmentative prefix *ty- and the numeral ‘one hundred’.

97
(See a detailed analysis in Paliga 1988; the general situation of the borrowings
from Germanic into Slavic has been recently analysed by Pronk-Tiethoff
2012.)
And there is, in fact, a third ethnic name used with reference to the
Slavs: Anti, as mentioned in Iordanes’ Getica 119. Its etymology is uncertain.
To us, it seems that Anti is a distorted spelling of an approximate
pronunciation *wendi, *wenti, *wanti, *anti. See more comments and
variants of interpretation in Paliga and Teodor 2009, 6, and the accompanying
notes. If we admit that, in those times, there was considerable variation in
how foreign names and words were spelled, the differences between *wendi,
*wandi (with w noting IPA ʊ) and Anti are indeed not great, in a context in
which such orthographic variation is entirely to be expected.
As a final note to this part of our analysis: we should never forget that
the whole 1st millennium C.E. was marked by numerous successive changes
in the naming of ethnic groups, in which former ethnic names were reapplied
to new realities, even in cases in which the ethnic groups to which those
names had originally been applied no longer existed. As one example, Illyria
continued to be used long after the 2nd c. C.E., even though the Illyrians had
been completely Romanised by the end of that century. Older ethnic names
vanish or are used with altered meanings, often resulting in dramatic ‘ethnic
transfers’. Two examples are relevant: Bulgari, initially a Turkic (Altaic)
group, lent their name to the local Slavic groups; and Franci, a Germanic
group, lent theirs to the Romanised population of what is today France. In
other cases, new ethnic names do emerge in post-classical times, like the
name Vlachъ, whose Latin form is Blach, pl. Blachi, discussed above. We
must be careful when translating documents written in this period, as the
historical and ethnic realities were in constant flux, and what was true for one
period and/or location is not necessarily true for other historical periods
and/or locations. Figs. 1 to 3 are an attempt to loosely chart the chronological
evolution of the ethnic and linguistic changes in Central, East and Southeast
Europe.

98
Fig. 1

Fig. 2

99
 Fig. 3

A question arises: What happened to the Slavic groups between

approx. the mid-6th c. C.E., when they were mentioned as Sclaveni or
Sklavenoi in Byzantine documents, and the 11th c. C.E., when they were still
referred to as Sclavi or, sometimes, Anti and Wenedi, as in Praga, Wenedorum
magna urbs? Answer: nothing special or strange. They simply developed an
ethnic identity that was still vague in the 6th c. C.E. and for some time later.
This answer implies long-lasting, complex changes that very briefly may be
described as follows: the process of ‘ethnicisation’ is gradual and generally
slow, it never begins and never ends. In the case at issue, it continued through
the Middle Ages until it resulted in the contrast between slavenstvo and
romanstvo recognised in the modern literature. A millennium and a half, or
more, have elapsed from the first manifestation of the Slavs at the beginning
of the 6th c. C.E. to the final contour of slavenstvo as a compact, large group
of related nations in the 19th and 20th c. During this period, many changes
occurred, and they still continue, not only in the so-called ‘Slavic world’.
My claim is essentially this: the ethnonyms Venedi, Anti and
Sclaveni/Sklavenoi/Sclavi presumably refer to the same groups, but in

100
different historical contexts and from different perspectives. The Venedi in
Tacitus may be precursors of the Sclaveni/Sklavenoi or may be a group related
to them. From some point in time, both ethnic names were used, but in
different locations and in different contexts. Sclaveni/Sklavenoi is the
Byzantine form when referring to this ethnic group, whose colloquial form
was Sclavi, see fig. 4. Special mention might be made of the greeting ciao in
Italian, later borrowed into a number of other languages The usual analysis is
as a truncated form of ‘(I am your) slave.’, where the ethnonym ‘Slav’ had
come to mean ‘slave’ in the medieval period. The form Anti had a shorter life,
and this would suggest it was an atypical spelling of Venedi. We do not know
how these ethnonyms were pronounced, but we may reconstruct a
pronunciation *wendi, *wenti, •wandi, *wanti, hence a spelling Anti, which
approximated the parallel, and older, form Venedi.

a b
Fig. 4

5. Where are the Albanians?

In discussing the ethnicity of the early Slavs, we cannot avoid
addressing aspects of the wider context: first of all how they interacted with
the Byzantines and East Romance groups, and also with the precursors of the
Albanians (or ‘Proto-Albanians’, as they are called in many studies). As
suggested above when speaking about the Blachi in Anonymus’ Gesta

101
Hungarorum, no specific Romanised group in Central, East and Southeast
Europe may be labelled ‘Romanian’ or Proto-Romanian, unless we wish to
oversimplify the debate. It is true that, out of the vast Romanised area, only
the Romanians have remained up to the modern times as a contiguous group
surrounding the Carpathians. One must also note that there are also isolated
Romance-speaking linguistic islands throughout the Balkans.
Therefore we may identify the Slavs, we may identify the Romanised
groups, and we may identify the Greeks. The latter are an ethnic group with
an uninterrupted linguistic and cultural history from the Bronze Age until
now. In this complex landscape, where do the Albanians fit? Are they indeed
‘an enigmatic’ ethnic group emerging abruptly in the Middle Ages? Can
Albanian be explained as a subgroup of Indo-European as so many handbooks
assert?
There are no enigmas in history, there is just our ignorance and our
bias towards oddity. As I tried to show elsewhere (Paliga 2015 b, 2016 a,
2016 b), Southeast and Central Europe were populated in Antiquity, from
south to north, by the following ethnic groups:
– The Greeks, extending from the Aegean to the Adriatic. This is the
only ethnic group with a direct, uninterrupted cultural continuity from
prehistory until the present.
– The Illyrians, spread along the Adriatic. They were entirely
Romanised by the end of the 2nd c. C.E., in the context in which almost all
the ethnic groups of the Roman Empire were Romanised. The Greek speaking
area was the only exception, due to the prestige of the Greek culture and
language. The hypothesis that a small group, presumably the precursors of
the Albanians (the so-called ‘Proto-Albanians’), located in the very vicinity
of the Romans, could escape Romanisation is unlikely as it is not supported
by any reliable argument, at least at the level of a comparison with similar
situations elsewhere in the Roman Empire. Such claims have a political rather
than a scientific basis. To many scholars, such disputes make no sense. They
seem to reflect the strong ethnic sensibilities in the area, shared not only by
the Albanians, but also – at various degrees and with various intensities – by
the Romanians, Serbs, Bulgarians and Hungarians – all of whom feel the need
to assert primordial status as groups indigenous to the area. This is not a new

102
issue, and is not – in fact – an Albanian or Romanian or Serbian innovation.
Rather, it reflects the famous slogan in Austria-Hungary prior tempore, prior
lege, freely translated as ‘who came first has [legal] rights [to own land]’. See
further discussions in Addendum II. Any approach based on such views is
unacceptable. The history of mankind is an endless interplay between
continuity and discontinuity, in which indigenous cultures merge with the
cultures of newcomers, with varying degrees and with varying intensity.
– The Thracians or, allowing for some level of Thracian diversity, the
Thracian groups. They spread from the Carpathian basin to the Stara Planiná,
and extended towards the north, east and west. They were also Romanised,
with the exception of the region located east of the Carpathians and inhabited
by the Carpians (Carpi, Carpiani, Korpiloi). They represented a real threat to
the Roman army, and their specific presence may be dated until at least the
4th c. C.E. What happened later? We do not know exactly, but we do know
that some of them were resettled (i.e. moved) south of the Danube. Others, or
other groups related to them, e.g. the Costoboces, who were located
somewhere north the the Carpians in what is today northern Moldavia and
southern Bukovina, may have contributed to Slavic ethnogenesis in its
conventional meaning. In a non-conventional meaning and reconstructable
tableau, they contributed to the coalescence of the 3 satem components of the
Slavic groups, at least in the sense we understand and reconstruct their
prehistory and protohistory: Balto-Slavic, Iranic and, doubtless, north
Thracian, i.e. Carpian and/or Costobocian as well. There is a rich literature
dedicated to the Carpians and to the Free Dacians (Daci Liberi), e.g. the works
of Bichir (1973, 1981, 1983, 1984). Newer research is being published in the
archaeological journal Carpica. The complex and enduring relations between
these northern Thracian groups (i.e. Carpi and Costoboces) on the one hand,
and those we label ‘the Proto-Slavs’ have been analysed in Paliga and Teodor
2009, invoking linguistic, archaeological and historical arguments.
– The Celts or, better, the Celtic groups, located in Central and
Western Europe, but who made incursions into East and South-East Europe.
Many place names like Galicia, Galați (on the Danube) or Galatia in Asia
Minor loosely remind us of their presence in the Antiquity. One of these
Celtic groups, the Volcae, once Romanised, nonetheless persisted as a distinct

103
(Romanised) ethnic group even after ceasing to be culturally Celtic. Their
ethnonym was borrowed as *walχaz by Germanic groups, and hence as
*Vlachъ by the Slavs, which in turn was Latinised as Blachi in Medieval
documents. By the end of Antiquity, almost all the Celtic groups had been
Romanised. Only a small number of them survived into the Medieval period
and beyond in the remote British Isles and Ireland. Etymologically, the
various forms derived from *Vlachъ still used in the Slavic languages mainly
refer to the Romanians (in the Slavic languages spoken by Orthodox Slavs)
or to the Italians (as in Polish Włochy ‘Italy’). For various political reasons,
which cannot be elaborated on here, the form rendered in English as Vlach(s),
Vlakh(s) has come to refer (unofficially) to the Balkan Romanians, and
incidentally to the Romanians in general. It is an old, persistent ethnic name
used as an exonym to refer to Romanised groups, gradually becoming
restricted in reference to the Romanians and Italians.
Returning now to the distribution of ethnic groups in Antiquity, one
may identify complex ethnic realities in restricted areas like the Central
Balkans2, as once analysed by Fanula Papazoglu (1969, reprinted 2007). To
repeat: this was the situation BEFORE ROMANISATION. This detail should
be stressed, as the situation RADICALLY CHANGED AFTER
ROMANISATION, the consequence of which was practically the TOTAL
DISRUPTION OF THE PREVIOUS LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL
TRADITIONS. The retreat of the Roman Empire occurred after the 4th c.
C.E. in the wake of the great migrations, which led to a reduction of the
former Roman territory to approximately half of its initial extent. This
resulted in the loss of the former provinces in Britain and Germany, including
the loss of the Latin linguistic tradition in those areas. Despite these reversals,
the Romance languages have been preserved in a remarkably large area, from
the Atlantic to the Black Sea, and is still reflected in the linguistic map of
contemporary Europe, where each of the 3 major groups – Romance or Neo-
Latin, Germanic and Slavic – each share approximately one third of the

2 The syntagma Central Balkans is often used in the archaeological literature when referring
to the Thracian world in Antiquity. It is, of course, anachronistic, as the term Balkan is a
modern coinage (1808), and is used here in its conventional sense and reflecting the use in
Papazoglu’s original.

104
European territory. The rest of the territory is occupied by non-Indo-European
groups like the Basques, the Uralic groups and some Kartvelian and Altaic
groups at the other extremity of Europe, east of the Black Sea. Small Celtic
groups survive in some areas of Western Europe.
So: where do the Albanians come from? Or, perhaps better phrased,
do they really come from somewhere? Let us undertake an answer step by
step. The origin of the Albanians is not directly connected to Slavic ethnicity,
but considering this latter issue helps us to a high degree to understand the
nature of ethnic evolution and change during the tumultuous first millennium
C.E.
– One aspect is completely clear: the Romanised Illyrians. There are,
in fact, two Romance strata in Albanian: one reflecting, without much doubt,
an old Romance layer of Romanised Illyrian; and a newer one, which may be
labelled Romanian.
– But how can we explain the other, non-Romance component of
Albanian? The Illyrians were totally, completely Romanised, and the Illyrian
language was extinguished by the 2nd century C.E. at the latest. It survived
only in some possible substratum elements in the new Romance idiom that
developed in the area. That being the case, the origin of the non-Romanised
component of Albanian must be sought elsewhere, i.e. in areas where the
Roman conquest did not affect the indigenous languages. These areas are very
restricted and simple to identify: they are coextensive with the areas occupied
by the Carpic and/or Costobocian groups. This is, in fact, the hypothesis of
Hasdeu, dated at the end of the 19th c., and later resumed and detailed by
Giuliano Bonfante (Studi romeni, Romanian edition published in 2001) and
I. I. Russu (1995, posthumous). See recent discussions in Paliga 2017, in
Czech). The ‘Thracian hypothesis’ of the origin of Albanian has been
proposed by various other linguists or historians. We speak, in fact, of the
non-Romance component of Albanian, the one which represents the main
disagreement among researchers.
A variant of this theory has been advocated after WWII by the
Bulgarian school of thracology: In this version, the modern contours of
Albanian developed after the migration of some Thracian groups originating
in the isolated mountainous in what is today Stara Planiná and in the Rodope

105
Mts in Bulgaria. (For a more detailed analysis of this hypothesis see Paliga
1993, 2001 and 2008). Could Thracian groups have survived there?
Ultimately, this area also underwent a thorough process of Romanisation just
as in the Illyrian area. This possibility cannot be excluded, but these Thracian
groups may be those defeated and then resettled by the Romans after the 3rd-
4th c. C.E. The circumstance of these Carpian groups was once analysed in
detail by Gh. Bichir (Bichir 1973, 1981, 1983, 1984).
It is possible to see Albanian ethnogenesis hypothesis as a ‘political
compromise’ between the old Hasdeu-Bonfante-Russu hypothesis, on the one
hand, and the hypothesis favoured by our Bulgarian colleagues: When the
Slavs began to move south, the indigenous Carpian and Costobocian groups
were pushed ahead of them, across the Danube, where they met the Carpian
groups settled there by the Romans. These two main Thracian (Carpian)
groups merged or lived alongside one another, and continued their migration
towards the west, pushed by the Slavs moving towards the same direction.
The existence of two initial Thracian (Carpian) groups may explain the two
Albanian dialects, geg and tosk.
Disregarding this detail – i.e. whether the non-Romance component
of Albanian reflects a Carpian dislocation under the pressure of the Sclaveni
or a ‘Balkan Thracian element’ (non-Romanised Thracian groups inhabiting
the Stara Planiná) or possibly both – the Albanian language must be
considered to have a bipartite heritage as heir to the Romanised Illyrians, and
also as heir to later, post-classical Thracian groups, which settled along the
Adriatic coast during the period of migrations. This period may be surmised
to follow the year 600, when the last non-Romanised Thracian groups (mainly
the Carpians, perhaps other groups too) were pushed south over the Danube,
after which – under pressure from new waves of migratory groups – they
moved further west and ultimately settled in the most remote area: in the
mountainous regions along the Adriatic coast, where they continue to live
until now. The Albanians do not necessarily come from somewhere, they
simply reflect, as most ethnic groups of that period do, a succession of
linguistic layers as a result of the migrations of 1st millennium C.E.
It is no wonder that both the ethnic name of the Albanians, as they
name themselves – Shqipe, Shqiptar – and the Byzantine–East-Romance

106
name of the Slavs is just a local development from the older post-classical
form Sclaveni, Sklavenoi, later with the colloquial variant Sclavus, pl. Sclavi
The evolution from a social category (‘slave’) to an ethnonym (‘Slav’) was
explained by Ján Pauliny by analysing the Arabic documents referring to the
Slavs (Pauliny 1999; see also fig. 4).
One may ask, not without reason: If the origin of the Albanians was
already so clear in the 2nd half of the 19th c., why is it still a (much) debated
issue? Answer: BECAUSE OF ITS POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS as viewed
and understood in the modern age. From Austria-Hungarian period until now,
various political ideologies wished to view the Albanians as strictly
indigenous, and the Romanians as post 12th c. C.E. migrants. The discourse
therefore switched from scientific analysis to a political ideology.

Fig. 5

Linking these Thracian groups of Fig. 5 to the Slavs is in full

accordance with the linguistic data, most notably to the origin of the
ethnonym Shqipe, which is related to other forms derived from the
postclassical Latin form Sclavus.

107
 In the ongoing discussions regarding the Albanian language and the
Albanians as an ethnic group, there were – perhaps – too many radical
attitudes: the Albanians are either entirely indigenous (i.e. Illyrians) or, at the
other extreme, entirely an immigrant group (i.e. Thracians). As with ALL the
other southeast European groups, the reality is complex. The Albanians
cannot be explained as an Illyrian survival, as ALL the Illyrians were
Romanised by the end of the 2nd c. C.E. But, saying they cannot be Illyrians
does not mean that there is no Illyrian substratum. It is beyond any doubt that
there is an Illyrian component of Albanian, which can be identified with
ROMANISED ILLYRIAN COMPONENT, just as Romanian represents the
Romanised Thracian component and French the Romanised Celtic
component. It is crucial to understand what happened AFTER the 5th c. C.E.;
that is, to properly identify which ethnic group merged with the indigenous
Romanised Illyrians and resulted in a new ethnic group, the Albanians.
This is, in fact, the theory recently advocated by Matzinger too
(Matzinger 2009 and 2012) who, by and large, reprises the old hypothesis
here labelled Hasdeu-Bonfante-Russu. One criticism may addressed at
Matzinger, who does not support the hypothesis of the Illyrian origin of the
Albanians. He refers to discontinuity between the ancient Illyrian tradition
and the Medieval Albanian ethnicum, however, and therefore he seems to
analyse Albanian ethnogenesis in terms that are too contrastive, either black
or white. While any direct Illyrian origin for Albanian is impossible, we may
reconstruct a clear territorial and, at least partially, cultural continuity from
the Illyrians to the modern Albanians. This transition was indirect, via a long,
yet thorough and irreversible process of Romanisation. Illyrian may have left
traces in vocabulary and, once identified, these must be considered
‘substratum elements’, just as we speak of the same ‘substratum elements’ in
Romanian and/or Bulgarian. In this case, though, they reflect a Thracian
origin. The fact that, together with the migrating Slavs, a non-Romanised
group of late Thracian groups settled along the Adriatic coast, and ultimately
led to the emergence of a new ethnic group, the Albanians, does not mean that
there was a total discontinuity with the previous cultural tradition. The
situation is not typologically different from that in the neighbouring areas,
where the indigenous Romanised tradition of the Thracians was influenced

108
by the Slavic groups. Neither in this case was there a total discontinuity with
the past. Rather, there was a new and complex process of cultural change.
This is what happened, in various respects and levels of intensity, in the
neighbouring areas as well, now inhabited by Slavic speakers. All these
phenomena reflect the major ethnic changes that resulted from the long period
of migration from the end of the 4th c. through the 10th c., but mainly
between the 6th and 8th c. C.E.

Hypotheses regarding Albanian ethnogenesis

1. Hasdeu (2nd part of 19th c.), later accepted and developed by Giuliano Bonfante and I. I.
Russu. The Albanians represent the continuation of the Romanised Illyrians; later, around
550 C.E., a Thracian group, represented by the Carpians who were pushed southwards by the
first Slavic groups, settles on the territory of Romanised Illyrians and, together with the local
Romanised population, led to the development of a new ethnic group.
2. The Bulgarian School of Thracology. The Albanians represent a Thracian group migrating
from more eastern regions, from Stara Planiná. This is a variant of hypothesis #1, the
difference being that the Thracian group in question was not a Carpian group, but a Thracian
group proper (in Duridanov’s terminology, an ‘echtthrakisch’ group).
3. The Albanian language represent a direct continuation of a partially Romanised, partially
non-Romanised Illyrian group. This is (in fact: was) the ‘official’ view in Albania.
4. In the introduction to his etymological dictionary of Albanian, Orel (1998, pag. x in the
introduction) refers to a bizarre hypothesis: the homeland of the Albanians may be located in
the Beskydy Mts. as the northernmost possible area from which initial expansion took place.
See also his discussion on p. 28, s.v. bjeshkë ‘maountain pasture’.
Fig. 6

109
 Albanian ethnogenesis therefore presents no extraordinary features.
On the one hand, it reflects the exhaustive process of Romanisation, and later,
on the other hand, the influence of an ethnic group of Thracian origin who
migrated into what is now Albanian territory. Albanian shares some elements
with Romanian, in both its Latin and its Thracian heritage. Though many may
be disappointed that the Albanians are not ‘strictly indigenous’, they do
reflect the continuity of the Romanised Illyrians and, later, the influence of
some Thracian groups COMING FROM THE NORTH. This was the normal,
documented direction of migration in those times when we refer to Europe:
from north to south and from east to west. Migrations in the reverse order (i.e.
from south to north and west to east) are rarer and are restricted to some
periods, e.g. some Germanic groups like the Goths.
6. Back to the Slavic ethnicum
If we ignore, at this stage, the rarely attested form Anti, considered
here as a mere deformation of the spelling Venedi, Wenedi, Wendi, two ethnic
names have been used with reference to the Slavs.
The first, with a more modest career from Antiquity into the Middle
Ages, is the one first mentioned in Tacitus’ Germania: Venedi, at the end of
the 1st c. C.E. It was later used mainly by the Germanic groups (in the forms
Wenedi, Wendi, hence the feminine name Wanda) also in Finnish and
Estonian, with reference to the Russians. Put differently, the Germanic groups
used the form Wen(e)di with reference to their more eastern neighbours.
With a longer and quite impressive career is the form Sclaveni,
Sklavenoi, later the colloquial form Sclavi (fig. 5a). It was first used in the
Byzantine sources, and must reflect the adaptation/deformation of the original
form Slověninъ, pl. Slověne. This ethnic name is still preserved in
contemporary times by both the Slovaks (Slovák, slovenský jazyk) and the
Slovenes (Slovenci, slovenski jezik). Their precursors formed a territorial
continuum along the Middle Danube prior to the arrival of the Magyars. After
the 10th c., some of them were assimilated to the Magyars, others moved
north (the Slovaks), others (the Slovenes) towards the south-west. It is
probable that other Slavic groups also used this ethnic name, derived from
slovo ‘word’. The Slavs saw themselves as ‘the people of slovo’, i.e. ‘the ones

110
who speak an intelligible language’, as opposed to the speakers of German,
němьcь, pl. němci derived from něm- ‘dumb’, i.e. ‘the ones who speak like
dumb people’ = ‘the ones we do not understand’. The association ‘we, the
ethnic group speaking an intelligible language’ v. ‘they, the foreigners, whose
language is not understandable to us’ is attested elsewhere as well e.g.
barbaroi ‘those who mumble’ initially meant ‘non-Greeks’; and the
Hungarian verb magyarázni ‘to explain, to speak clearly’ is derived from the
ethnic name used by the Hungarians with reference to themselves: Magyar.
As shown in several instances above, it is not uncommon for there to
be two (or more) forms referring to the same ethnic group. Nor is such a
situation rare in contemporary times, when referring to various others ethnic
groups.
In light of this evidence, it is quite clear that neither the Slavs, nor the
Albanians or other ethnic groups represent the result of any ‘enigmatic
process’, if we remove the intrusion of nationalist politics from scientific
debate. Such forms of ethnic designation are entirely consonant with the other
‘ethnic phenomena’ of those times, the first millennium C.E., mainly the
second part of it. In fact, like human beings in general, every ethnic group is
unique: some features are shared with other ethnic groups, others are specific,
all are ‘in motion’. Ethnicity cannot be explained or understood as a static
phenomenon since it is always dynamic, even if some historical periods
witness more rapid and others, a slower rate of change. The idea that ethnicity
(in general, and not restricted to the Slavs) should be seen ‘in motion’ was
correctly pointed out by Godłowski (2000). Likewise the direct and obvious
connection between ethnicity and political ideology has been frequently noted
by various authors. In the case of Slavic ethnicity, see the recent work of Lysý
2014. In the introduction to that study, the author relates the concepts of
ethnicity and state as we may conceive it in the context of the Early Middle
Ages. The topic is addressed in other parts of Lysý’s book too. On p. 15, for
example, the author treats the problems involved in the use of gens and on p.
16 introduces the interesting hypothesis that peasants do not generally
migrate. Rather, those who migrate represent the élite, and it is these who may
be considered as ‘bearers of ethnicity’ (… elity, ktoré možno pokladať za

111
nositeľov etnicity). It is of course debatable whether this social phenomenon
may be applied to any ethnic group in any historical period, rather than a
social pattern restricted to some documented instances.
Such ‘dynamic changes’ may explain how forms like Sclaveni and
Sclavi got the meaning ‘blond slaves’ of the Iberian khalifs (Saq̇ lab <
Sclavus); and why Alb. Shqipe ultimately reflects the same Byzantine, post-
classical form Sclavi. This analysis, together with excerpts from Arabic
translated into Slovak in Pauliny (1999) shows that, in some contexts, an
ethnic name may acquire social connotations and lose its purely ethnic sense.
The Ibero-Arabic form thus referred to any blond slave, and not just to those
of Slavic origin. Their hair colour was important to the Arab rulers, not the
language they were speaking.
Some may argue that there is a considerable time gap between the last
references to the Carpians (4th–5th c. C.E.) and the emergence of the
Albanians. This is true, but the same is true for many other ethnic groups in
this area and in Europe in general. The 1st millennium C.E. witnesses
memorable ‘ethnonym transfers’: the Franks ‘transfer’ their name to a
Romanised group, later known as les Français, the French; and the Turkic
Bulgars also ‘transfer’ their name to the Slavic group they had initially
conquered and subdued. The Shqipe, the Albanians, simply emerge as a new
group in the wake of this tumultuous, confused age. They are, on the one
hand, a (very) old population and, at the same time, a new group, just like
their neighbours. This is true for many other ethnic groups in the area, each
in its own way: The Romanians and the Slavs, for example, share both
indigenous elements and ‘imported’ elements, despite their different cultural
histories: Romanisation was a process different from that undergone by the
migrating groups of the 1st millennium C.E. The task of any research is to
identify similarities and differences.
7. (Interim) Conclusions
Ethnicity and ethnicisation prove difficult to define and explain.
Ethnicity reflects a complex relation between a human group and individual.
It is also a relation between political and administrative structures and human
groups, on the one hand, and individuals, on the other. Ethnicity refers to

112
language, beliefs, habits, religion and popular beliefs (which may or may not
have a spiritual or religious aspect), politics and political clichés, educational
systems etc. And all these subject to continuous movement and change.
One may say, without fear of contradiction, that the emergence of
ethnicity cannot be avoided in the history of mankind: All groups
project/display their way of life within an ethnic framework, with varying
parameters and and in varying forms. As a result of this variation, each ethnic
group is unique. Once the members of a linguistically and culturally related
group come to see themselves, as a group different from other groups,
including neighbouring and closely related groups, they have become a
distinct ethnic group.
The Slavic ethnicum cannot be explained and/or understood in
isolation from the history of other groups in the 1st millennium C.E. It is a
chapter of a complex story whose contours became particularly clear from the
4th to the 10th c. C.E. but which has continued in into our own time. The 19th
c. may be accurately labelled ‘le siècle des nations’ in which many European
got their independence, Slavic groups amongst them. Certain processes of
ethnicisation continue in our days too; for example, the emergence of
Macedonia and Macedonian ethnic consciousness after WW II, and that of
Ukraine and Kosovo still in progress.
There is no absolute or general ‘ethnic pattern’. Ethnic groups may
expand or may those their distinctiveness by merging into other groups. The
Hittite groups did not literally disappear, but their distinctive tradition
vanished once their society could not resist the changes brought on by outside
influences when they were invaded and conquered by other ethnic groups.
The Ancient Greeks did not know anything about the Hittites. During the
period of migrations and afterwards, many groups – as powerful as they once
were – lost their distinctive traditions and vanished: The Huns, the Avars, the
Petchenegs and the Cumans vanished without trace, practically, while the so-
called Proto-Bulgars (Turkic Bulgars) were culturally replaced by Slavic
groups, and ‘transferred’ their ethnic name to a new, emerging Slavic group.
Such ‘ethnic transfers’ were not rare during that period, e.g. the ‘transfer’ of
the ethnic name Frank (Francus) to a Romanised group, which later become
the French. Various ethnic groups continue their story and will continue it

113
into a more or less (un)predictable future.
Addenda
I
Texts in Latin regarding the ethnic distinctiveness of early Slavs and
other ethnic groups they interacted with. The fragments, in the Latin original
and in English translation are excerpted from the sources quoted in the
references.
1.
Tacitus, Germania, ch. 46 (final)
Latin
Peucinorum Venedorumque et Fennorum nationes Germanis an
Sarmatis adscribam dubito, quamquam Peucini, quos quidam Bastarnas
vocant, sermone, cultu, sede ac domiciliis ut Germani agunt. Sordes omnium
ac torpor procerum; conubiis mixtis nonnihil in Sarmatarum habitum
foedantur. Venedi multum ex moribus traxerunt; nam quidquid inter Peucinos
Fennosque silvarum ac montium erigitur latrociniis pererrant.
English
Whether amongst the Sarmatians or the Germans I ought to account
the Peucinians, the Venedians, and the Fennians, is what I cannot determine;
though the Peucinians, whom some call Basstarnians, speak the same
language with the Germans, use the same attire, build like them, and live like
them, in that dirtiness and sloth so common to all. Somewhat they are
corrupted into the fashion of the Sarmatians by the inter-marriages of the
principal sort with that nation: from whence the Venedians have derived very
many of their customs and a great resemblance. For they are continually
traversing and infesting with robberies all the forests and mountains lying
between the Peucinians and Fennians.
(Translated by Thomas Gordon,
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/tacitus1.html )

114
 2. The Annals of Flodoard
Otto rex qui quandam Wenedorum magnam obsederat urbem, nomine
Proadem, regem ipsorum in subjectionem recipit, sed et Hungaros sibi
subditos facit.
King Otto conquered the big town of the Venedi, Prague, and subdued
the king of these [Venedi], and also subdued the Hungarians too.
Note. ...urbem, nomine Proadem. This is Prague, Czech Praha, see
Bláhová 1986, 78.

3. Anonymus, Gesta Hungarorum [Hungarum]

a.
[...] ita et genealogiam regum hungarie et nobilium suorum qualiter
septem principales persone que hetumoger uocantur de terra scithica
descenderunt, uel qualis sit terra scithica et qualiter sit generatus dux almus,
aut quare uocatur almus primus dux hungarie a quo reges hungarorum
originem duxerunt, uel quot regna et reges sibi subiuga-uerunt, aut quare
populus de terra scithica egressus per ydioma alienigenarum hungarij et in
sua lingua propria mogerij uocantur tibi scriberem.
[…] so to write for you of the genealogy [genealogia] of the kings of
Hungary and of their noblemen: how the seven leading persons, who are
called the Hetumoger*, came down from the Scythian land, what that
Scythian land was like and how Duke Álmos was born and why Álmos, from
whom the kings of Hungary trace their origin, is called the first duke of
Hungary, and how many realms and rulers they conquered and why the people
coming forth from the Scythian land are called Hungarians in the speech of
foreigners but Magyars [Mogerii] in their own.
* Latin form of Hu. hét ‘seven’ and Magyar, lit. ‘seven Magyars’, i.e.
‘seven Magyar tribes led by 7 leaders’.
English text by Martyn Rady; the same translation is used for the
followings fragments.

115
 b.
Nunc restat dicere quare populus de terra scithica egressus hungari
uocantur. Hungari dicti sunt a castro Hungu, eo quod subiugatis sibi sclauis,
VII. principales persone intrantes terram pannonie diutius ibi moratj sunt.
Vnde omnes nationes circumiacentes, uocabant almum filium vgek ducem de
hunguar, et suos milites uocabant hunguaros.
It now remains to say why the people who set forth from the Scythian
land are called Hungarians. The Hungarians are so called from the castle of
Ung [Hungu] where the seven leading persons, having subjugated the Slavs,
tarried for a time upon entering the land of Pannonia. On account of this, all
the nations round about called Álmos, son of Vgek, the duke of Hunguar
[Ungvár] and they called his warriors Hunguarians [Hunguari, acc.
Hunguaros].

c.
[...] Sed carnibus et piscibus uescebantur, donec in Rusciam, que
Susudal uocatur, uenerunt. [...] Postquam autem ad partes rutenorum
peruenerunt, sine aliqua contradicione usque ad ciuitatem Kieu transierunt et
dum per ciuitatem Kyeu transissent fluuium deneper transnauigando, uolerunt
regnum rutenorum sibi subiugare.
[…] but ate meat and fish until they reached Russia [Rusciam] which
is called Suzdal [Susudal]. […] Arriving in the lands of the Russians, they
reached the city of Kiev [Kyeu] without any opposition and, as they passed
through the city of Kiev, crossing the river Dnieper [Deneper], they sought to
conquer the realm of the Ruthenes [Rutenorum].

d. (the much quoted end of ch. IX)

Dicebant enim, quod ibi confluerent nobilissimi fontes aquarum,
danubius et tyscia, et alij nobilissimi fontes bonis piscibus habundantes.
Quem terram habitarent sclauij, Bulgarij et Blachij, ac pastores romanorum.
Quia post mortem athila regis terram pannonie romani dicebant pascua esse,
eo quod greges eorum in terra pannonie pascebantur. Et iure terra pannonie
pascua romanorum esse dicebatur, nam et modo romani pascuntur de bonis

116
Hungarie. [...]
For they said that there flowed the most noble spring waters, the
Danube and Tisza [Tyscia] and other most noble springs, abounding in good
fish, in which land there lived the Slavs [Sclavi], Bulgarians [Bulgarii] and
Vlachs [Blachii], and the shepherds of the Romans [pastores Romanorum].
For after the death of King Attila, the Romans said the land of Pannonia was
pastureland because their flocks grazed in the land of Pannonia. And rightly
is the land of Pannonia said to be the pastureland of the Romans, for now too
the Romans graze on the goods of Hungary.

4. Gesta principum Polonorum

Igitur ab aquilone Polonia septemtrionalis pars est Sclauonie, que

habet ab oriente Rusiam, ab austro Vngariam, a subsolano Morauiam et
Bohemiam, ab occidente Daciam et Saxoniam collaterales. Ad mare autem
septemtrionale vel amphitrionale tres habet affines barbarorum gentilium
ferocissimas naciones, Selenciam, Pomoraniam et Pruziam, contra quas
regiones Polonorum dux assidue pugnat, ut eas ad fidem convertat.
Starting from the north, then, Poland is the northernmost part of
Slavonia; it borders to the east on Russia, to the south on Hungary, towards
the east on Moravia and Bohemia, and to the west on Denmark and Saxony.
On the Northern Sea, or Sea of Amphitryon, it has as neighbors three most
savage nations of pagan barbarians, Selencia, Pomerania, and Prussia, and the
duke of the Poles is constantly at war with these countries, fighting to convert
them to the faith.
Note on Dacia (p. 12). Dacia was often used by medieval authors in
place of Dania for Denmark. The two are, for example, explicitly equated
(Dacia que et Danamarchia) by William of Jumiège.
Igitur terra Sclauonica ad aquilonem hiis regionibus suis partialiter
divisivis sive constitutivis existens, a Sarmaticis, qui et Gete vocantur, in
Daciam et Saxoniam terminatur, a Tracia autem per Ungariam ab Hunis, qui
et Ungari dicuntur […]

117
 So the Slavonian land is divided in the north into parts by or made up
of these regions, and it runs from the Sarmatians, who are also known as Gets,
to Denmark and Saxony, and from Thrace through Hungary, which in past
times was occupied by the Huns (who are also called Hungarians) […]
Editor’s note. These names, taken from ancient geographers
describing peoples of the southern steppe and the lower Danube respectively,
are presumed to have been applied by the author to certain Baltic peoples,
probably to the Jadzwings.

II
Florin Curta’s hypothesis
The author most cited at the Prague conference was Florin Curta, who
was not present, though. Most speakers evaluated his work negatively, mainly
with reference to his hypothesis that the Slavs were a Byzantine invention or
‘a Byzantine construct’, as the very title of his reference book The Making of
the Slavs clearly suggests. He has authored many other studies, either of
purely archaeological or, often, giving his own personal interpretations, e.g.
Curta 2011. At the very beginning of the latter study, he says: ‘As ethnicity
increasingly becomes the politicisation of culture…’ Curta obviously
considers that analyses of ethnicity often have (profound) political
connotations. I cannot avoid admitting that I fully agree with him: analysing
ethnicity always comes with substantial political implications3.
The most frequently invoked critical argument against Curta is the
assertion that we cannot speak of Slavs before the 6th c. C.E. This claim is
unacceptable to (most?) specialists in the Slavic countries, who seem to
regard Curta’s assertion as almost insulting. Florin Curta reflects the younger
generation of Romanian historians and archaeologists who, disgusted with the
‘communist heritage’ and its accompanying ideological approach to history,
make appeal to new interpretations, perhaps not always convincing.

3 I developed this topic at a conference in Tbilisi, September 12-14, 2019, dedicated to the
relation between linguistics, and humanist studies in general, on the one hand, and ideology
or politics, on the other. The final text is not yet published when this paper is prepared for
print. The political approach to Slavic linguistics is a quite known fact, e.g. Comrie 2001.

118
 Leaving aside this emotional aspect of the story, Curta’s views are
often correct, or at least acceptable as matters of debate. Let us try to move
the discussion from the Slavs proprie dictu to other ethnic groups. Can we
speak of ‘French’ in the 6th c. C.E.? Obviously not. At that time, those who
gave the name of the Romanised groups inhabiting France were still Franks,
i.e. a Germanic group. In general, the Neo-Latin languages may have attained
linguistic identity, and their speakers, ethnic identity, around the 10th c. C.E.,
which roughly corresponds to the end of migrations. The same is also true of
many other ethnic groups, if not all of them: the 6th c. C.E. is just a transition
period. In this light, Curta’s assertions, i.e. that we still cannot speak of Slavs
proprie dictu in the 6th c. C.E., is entirely correct. I might add that this is also
true for most ethnic groups of Europe of those times. This does not mean, of
course, that the Slavs and other ethnic groups did not have precursors. It
simply means that, in the context of the ethnic makeup of the early Middle
Ages, most European ethnic groups were still ‘in formation’, and that – I may
say – is the most justified part of Curta’s argument. It is also valid to note that
when many authors speak about ethnicity, they do so with political
connotations. Those connotations of course vary in content and tone, from
author to author in different historical contexts. Curta simply deprives the
historical discourse on ethnicity, specifically on Slavic ethnicity, of its
romantic interpretation, i.e that the Slavs are ‘a pure ethnic group descended
from another pure Indo-European branch’ and other similar discourses, and
switches to a rational, perhaps often harsh, discourse. If we ignore Curta’s
excesses, we may perhaps admit that his approach is better than many others.
I am not an uncritical admirer of Curta, but I recognise his positive
contribution to the study of Slavic ethnicity and its interpretation at the
beginning of the 21st c.
III. This analysis does not aim at clarifying all the complex issues
involved in the study and interpretation of ethnicity, in general, and of Slavic
ethnicity, in particular. The Ancient and Medieval texts chosen for analysis
here were chosen because they were considered relevant to the subject matter
of the main text. Because the report of this analysis had gradually expanded
to twice the size initially planned in its final form, the author has felt obliged
to remove some paragraphs from the final text, but also to add several words

119
of clarification regarding some issues pointed out or suggested by the
reviewers. By adding more references, more ancient and Medieval texts, more
data in general, this project may turn into a book, which the author might
eventually undertake. For the time being, and within the limits of a paper, I
think the text, the addenda and the analysis correspond to the author’s initial
plan.

Acknowledgements

The author expresses warm thanks to Shelly Harrison for the useful suggestions and
corrections of the text as both a native speaker of English and as a linguist.
And to Nicolas Jansens for creating the illustrations.

References

Medieval texts, Latin original and translations

1. Anonymus’s Gesta Hungarorum (editions with the Latin original and/or translations)
2. Múcska, Vincent, Kronika anonymného notára kráľa Bela, Bratislava: RAK, 2000.
3. Popa-Lisseanu 1934. Anonymi Bele regis notarii Gesta Hungarorum, București, series
4. Izvoarele istoriei românilor / Fontes historiae Daco-Romanorum, Electronic edition,
www.dacoromanica.ro
5. Rady, Martyn n.d. The GESTA HUNGARORUM of Anonymus, the Anonymous Notary of
King Béla, Electronic edition, download from author’s webpage on academia.edu.
6. Tonciulescu, Paul Lazăr, Cronica notarului Anonymus. Faptele ungurilor, București:
Miracol (Latin and Romanian text with photocopy of the original manuscript), 1996.
7. Flodoard, Les Annales de. Publiées d’après les manuscrits, avec une introduction et des
notes par Ph. Lauer. Paris: Alphonse Picard et fils, éditeurs, 1905.
8. Gesta principum Polonorum (The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles), Central European
Medieval Texts. Translated and annotated by Paul W. Knoll and Frank Schaer, with a preface
by Thomas N. Bisson and with editorial corrections. Budapest–New York: CEU Press, 2003.

Bibliography:

Books and studies

1. Andersen, Henning, On SLOVĚNE and the History of Slavic Patrials, „Scando-Slavica”

63, 1 (2017): 3-42.
2. Bichir, Gheorghe, Cultura carpică, Bucureşti: Editura Academiei, 1973.
3. Bichir, Gheorghe, Dacii liberi din Muntenia şi relaţiile lor cu romanii, „Thraco-dacica”
(1981) 2: 73-92.

120
4. Bichir, Gheorghe, Ramura nordică a dacilor – costobocii, „Thraco-dacica” (1983) 4, 1-2:
59-68.
5. Bichir, Gheorghe, Geto-dacii din Muntenia în epoca romană, Bucureşti: Editura
Academiei, 1984.
6. Bláhová, Marie, Evropská sidliště v latinských pramenech období raného feudalism,
Praha: Univerzita Karlova, 1986.
7. Bonfante, Giuliano, Studii române, București: Saeculum I.O., 2001 (Original: Giuliano
Bonfante, Studii romeni, Società Accademica Romena, Collana di studii e saggi, VI, Roma,
1973).
8. Comrie, Bernard, The Slavonic World, „Lingua e Stile” (ISSN 0024–385X), fascicolo 3,
dicembre 2001: 431-442.
9. Curta, Florin, The Making of the Slavs. History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube
Region, c. 500-700, Cambridge: C.U.P., 2001 (Romanian translation: Apariția slavilor.
Istorie și arheologie la Dunărea de Jos în veacurile VI-VII. Traducere de Eugen Silviu
Teodor. Târgoviște: Cetatea de Scaun).
10. Curta, Florin, The Slavic Lingua Franca. (Linguistic Notes of an Archaeologist Turned
Historian), East Central Europe/ECE, vol. 31, part 1, 2004, pp. 125-148.
11. Curta, Florin, Medieval Archaeology and Ethnicity: Where are We? „History Compass”
9/7 (2011): 537-548.
12. Godłowski, Kazimierz, Pierwotne siedziby Słowian, „Wybór pism pod redakciją Michała
Parczewskiego”, Kraków: Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 2000.
13. Jananieva, Svetlana, Language and Ethnicity in Herodotus’ Work, „Linguistique
Balkanique LIV”, 2-3 (2015): 173-181.
14. Kondratieva, Tamara, Vechea Rusie, Bucureşti: Corint, 2000 (French original: Tamara
Kondratieva, La Russie ancienne, PUF, 1996).
15. Lysý, Miroslav, Moravania, Mojmírovci a Franská ríša. Štúdie k etnogenéze, politickým
inštitúciám a ústavnému zriadeniu na území Slovenska vo včasnom stredoveku. Bratislava:
Atticum, 2014.
16. Matzinger, Joachim, Die Albaner als Nachkommen der Illyrer aus der Sicht der
historischen Sprachwissenschaft. In: Schmitt, Oliver Jens – Frantz, Eva Anne (eds.)
„Albanische Geschichte. Stand und Perspektiven der Forschung”, München: R. Oldenburg
Verlag, 2009: 13-36.
17. Matzinger, J., Die lateinisch-albanische Sprachkontakt und seine Impșlikationen für die
Vorgeschichte des Albanischen und der Albaner, In: Dahmen, Wolfang et al. (eds.)
„Südosteuropäische Romania. Siedlungs-/Migrationsgeschichte und Sprachtypologie”,
Romanistisches Kolloquium XXV. Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik, ed. by Gunter Narr.
Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto, 2012: 75-104.
18. Orel, Vladimir, Albanian Etymological Dictionary, Leiden - Boston - Köln: E. J. Brill,
1998.
19. Paliga, Sorin, Slovansko *sъto – izzivalen problem? (in Slovene with an English abstract:
Slavic *sъto – a challenging problem?), „Slavistična Revija” (Ljubljana) 36, 4, 1988: 349-

121
358.
20. Paliga, Sorin, Slovani, Romunci in Albanci v 1. Tisočletju, „Slavistična Revija”
(Ljubljana) 41, 2, 1993: 237-243.
21. Paliga, Sorin, Oris zgodovine Slovanov, „Slavistična Revija” (Ljubljana) 49, 4: 327-349,
2001 (in Slovene with an English abstract: Sketching a History of the Slavs).
22. Paliga, Sorin, Linguistic Marginalia on Slavic Ethnogenesis, Paper for the International
Congress of Slavists, Ohrid, Macedonia, September 10-17, 2008, „Romanoslavica” 43, 2008:
79-100.
23. Paliga, Sorin, Introducere în studiul comparativ al limbilor slave, București: Editura
Universității București, 2012a.
24. Paliga, Sorin, Influențe romane și preromane în limbile slave de sud, Ed. a 3-a, definitivă,
cu indice. București: Editura Universității din București, 2012b.
25. Paliga, Sorin, A New Synthesis on the Slavic Glotto- and Ethnogenesis and on the Earliest
Slavic-Romanian Relations in the 6th century C.E. „Romanoslavica” vol. (XLIX) 49, nr. 4,
2014: 137-144.
26. Paliga, Sorin, Sclavi, Bulgari, Blachi ac pastores Romanorum. „Omagiu profesorului
Ioan Rebușapcă la 80 de ani”, Volum coordonat de Constantin Geambașu. București: Editura
RCR Editorial, 2015a: 467-476.
27. Paliga, Sorin, Ethnic and Linguistic Distinctions in the Ancient Balkan Area. How Many
Languages Were There in the Antiquity? „Balkanskite ezici, literaturi i kulturi. Divergencija
i konvergenicja”, Meždunarodna konferencija, posvetena na 20-godišninata ot săzdavaneto
na specialnost Balkanistika, Sofia, 30-31 maj 2014 g. Săstaviteli: Petja Asenova, Rumjana L.
Stančeva, Vasilka Aleksova, Rucana Bejleri. Sofia: Universitetsko izdatelstvo „Sv. Kliment
Ohridski“, 2015b: 37-43.
28. Paliga, Sorin, Etnicitatea mileniului I: studii de caz în drumul spre o analiză globală,
„Arheologia mileniului I p. Chr.”, vol. V: „Identități și schimburi culturale în mileniul I p.
Chr.”, Edited by Bogdan Ciupercă. Brăila: Muzeul Brăilei „Carol I” – Editura Istros, 2016a:
309-319.
29. Paliga, Sorin, The Albanian Ethnogenesis, an ‘Enigma’? A brief answer to Genc Lafe,
„In honorem Dagmar Maria Anoca”, Ed. by Antoaneta Olteanu. București: Editura
Universității București, 2016b: 303-316.
30. Paliga, Sorin, Terram uero, que est a fluuio Morus usque ad castrum Vrscia (Anonymus,
Gesta Hungarorum, VI), „ArheoVest, in honorem Adrian Bejan”, Timișoara, 26 nov. 2016,
Coordonator volum: Dorel Micle. Universitatea de Vest, Timișoara. Szeged: JATEPress
Kiadó, 2016c: 861-87.
31. Paliga, Sorin, Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu: první lingvista a slavista v Rumunsku (Bogdan
Petriceicu Hasdeu: the first linguist and slavist in Romania), „Literature and Social Change:
a Voyage Through the History of Slavic Studies”, Proceedings of the Internation Symposium
Literature and Slavic Studies held by the Commission for the History of Slavic Studies at
Comenius University in Bratislava on the 12th and 13th of April 2016. Edited by Ľubor
Matejko. pp. 131-140. Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského, 2017.

122
32. Paliga, Sorin, Eugen Silviu Teodor, Lingvistica și arheologia slavilor timpurii. O altă
vedere de la Dunărea de Jos, Târgoviște: Editura Cetatea de Scaun, 2009.
33. Papazoglu, Fanula, Srednjobalkanska plemena u predrimsko doba, Sarajevo: Akademija
nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, 1969.
34. Papazoglu, F., Srednjobalkanska plemena u predrimsko doba, Reprint of Papazoglu
1969, Beograd: Equilibrium, 2007a. (Reprint of Papazoglu 1969).
35. Papazoglu, F., Iz istorije antičkog Balkana. Odabrane studije, Beograd: Equilibrium,
2007 b.
36. Pauliny, Ján, Arabské správy o Slovanoch, Bratislava: Veda, 1999.
37. Pronk-Tiethoff, Saskia Elisabeth, The Germanic loanwords in Proto-Slavic: origin and
accentuation, Leiden: Leiden University, 2012.
(https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/20185 on April 3rd 2018).
38. Raevskij, N.D., Contactele romanicilor răsăriteni cu slavii, Chişinău: Știința, 1988.
39. Russu, I. Ion, Obîrșia tracică a românilor și albanezilor. (Clarificări comparativ-istorice
și etnologice). Der thrakische Ursprung der Rumänen und Albanesen. (Komparativ-
historische und ethnologische Klärungen), Ed. bilingvă română-germană, traducere de
Konrad Gündisch. Cluj-Napoca: Dacia, 1995.
40. Skok, Petar, Slavenstvo i romanstvo na jadranskim otocima. Toponomastička ispitivanja,
Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, 1950.

123
 Lista participanților la Simpozionul internațional „100 de ani de
slavistică la Cluj” desfășurat în perioada 30-31 mai 2019, la
Facultatea de Litere din Cluj-Napoca19

Sanda Misirianțu, Universitatea Babeș–Bolyai din Cluj-Napoca,

România, misiriantusanda@yahoo.com
Katalin Balázs, Universitatea Babeș–Bolyai din Cluj-Napoca,
România, balazskaty@yahoo.com
Юдит Барталиш-Бан, Университет им. Бабеша–Бойаи, г. Клуж-
Напока, Румыния, bartalis.judit@gmail.com
Тамара Буданова, Университет г. Турку, Финляндия,
tambud@utu.fi
Єлизавета Барань, Закарпатський інститут ім. Ференца Ракоці ІІ,
Україна, barany.erzsebet75@gmail.com
Сергей Лучканин, Киевский национальный университет им.
Тараса Шевченко, Украина, luchkanyn@ukr.net
Adrian Chircu, Universitatea Babeș–Bolyai din Cluj-Napoca,
România, adichircu@hotmail.com
Sorin Paliga, University of Bucharest, Romania,
sorin.paliga@lls.unibuc.ro
Cristina Silaghi, Universitatea Babeș–Bolyai din Cluj-Napoca,
România, cristinasilaghi73@gmail.com
Виктория Лебович, Будапештский университет им. Лоранда
Этвеша, Венгрия, leboviki@gmail.com
Оксана Ташкович, Будапештский университет им. Этвеша
Лоранда, Венгрия, taskovics.okszana@gmail.com
Maria Barłowska, Uniwersytet Śląski w Katowicach, Polska,
maria.barlowska@us.edu.pl
Вiкторiя Штефуца, Нiредьгазький унiверситет, Угорщина,
stefucav@gmail.com
Адальберт Барань, Закарпатский институт им. Ференца Ракоци
ІІ, Украина, сaroline@kmf.uz.ua

19
Lista participanților urmează ordinea autorilor în volum și conține informațiile în limba
publicării articolelor.

373
 Галина Лєсная, Московський державний інститут міжнародних
відносин (університет) МЗС РФ, Росія, lesnaya@gmail.com
Тетяна Чонка, Закарпатський угорський інститут ім. Ференца
Ракоці ІІ, м. Берегово, Україна, tchonka14@gmail.com
Mihaela Herbil, Universitatea Babeș–Bolyai din Cluj-Napoca,
România, mihaelaherbil@yahoo.com
Marta Zambrzycka, Uniwersytet Warszawski, Polska,
m.e.zambrzycka@uw.edu.pl
Евеліна Балла, Ніредьгазький університет, Угорщина / ДВНЗ
«Ужгородський національний університет», Україна,
evelina.balla76@gmail.com
Айтолкын Жиенбай, Евразийский национальный университет
им. Л. Н. Гумилёва, Казахстан, aitolkyn04@mail.ru
Галия Арынгазинова, Евразийский национальный университет
им. Л. Н. Гумилева, Казахстан, galiya-muslim@mail.ru
Rafał Szczerbakiewicz, Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej w,
Lublinie, Polska, prosp68@gmail.com
Andrzej Niewiadomski, Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej w
Lublinie, Polska, and.niewiad@poczta.umcs.lublin.pl
Beata Garlej, Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego,
Warszawa, Polska, b.garlej@uksw.edu.pl
Monika Grącka, Uniwersytet Warszawski, Warszawa, Polska,
mjgracka@uw.edu.pl
Ludmila Bejenaru, Universitatea „Alexandru Ioan Cuza” din Iași,
România, ludbejenaru@gmail.com
Сагинтай Бердагулова, Библиотека Первого Президента
Республики Казахстан, berdagulova@mail.ru
Карлыгаш Абылхасова, Евразийский национальный университет
им. Л.Н. Гумилева, Казахстан, bokayeva_k@mail.ru

374