Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 5

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  ETHNOGENESIS
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1

Mity etnogenetyczne w samoświadomości historycznej na przykładzie historiografii polsko-niemieckiego pogranicza w XVI w.

100%
Małecki A.
Sensus Historiae. Studia interdyscyplinarne
|
2011
|
issue 2(3)
35-53
EN
The paper is an attempt at showing the context of important changes, which took place in the course of the 16th century, in the process of shaping the identity of German-speaking elites of the Western Pomerania and Silesia. At the time, the fledgling humanist historiography looked for arguments supporting the primary political independence, or ethnic distinctiveness, of the tribes inhabiting these territories vis a vis their neighbours, firstly in ancient authors (Tacitus), or neighbours (Albert Krantz, Johannes Dlugossius, Jost Ludwig Dietz). It was initially a successful venture, when the works of Johann Bugenhagen, Thomas Kantzow and Joachim Cureus put forward the theses on the ethnogenetical distinctiveness of the Pomeranians (as Vandals-Veneti-Wends) and Silesians (as Elysians) from Poland and Poles. In the mid-16th century, among others under the infl uence of the triumph of the “German religion” (influenced by the historical ideas of Melanchthon), the historiography of these “former Piast” territories rejected both the newly acquired individual perspective of depicting its earliest past and the “sarmatian” version documented by Martin Cromer. The decisive factor here was the, then dominant in the Reich, identifi cation of theearliest historic inhabitants of Pomerania and Silesia with German tribes inhabiting these lands, which was based on the works of Tacitus. According to this identification, the local historians, disregarding the effects of the migration of peoples, demonstrated the “precedence” of their own, Germanancestors in these territories. Slavs, in turn, were depicted as immigrants (“late” Kantzow and Klempzen) or invaders (Cureus).
2
Content available remote

Some Controversies Connected with the Origin of the Albanians, Their Territorial Cradle and Ethnonym

100%
Szczepanski W.
Sprawy Narodowościowe
|
2005
|
issue 26
81-96
EN
This article examines controversies arising in 19th and 20th century scholarly (as well as popular) works related to the ethnogenesis of Albanians and their ethnohistoric territory. It also touches on some issues concerning the Albanian ethnonym and its origin. The author contends that, despite the existence of only limited traces of the language of the ancient Illyrians, scholars speak strongly in favor of the Illyrian theory of the origin of Albanians. Other theories, e.g. Thracian and Daco-Mysian (and combined Daco-Thracian) ones, are slighted, especially by Albanian scholars. On linguistic grounds numerous ties between the Albanian and Romanian languages have been proved, suggesting a common formation in the past remote centuries. Thus, the author maintains that due to this connection attempts to combine the Illyrian theory with some elements of the Daco-Mysian (or Daco-Thracian) theory may occur in the future. Another issue discussed in the article concerns the potential, overlooked by some authors, to ignore the threat of the political propagandist use of the theory of the ancient ethnogensis of Albanians. For example, Serb scholars raise doubts concerning the 'capacity' of the term 'Illyrians' and object to the idea that Dardans could be termed 'Illyrians'.The author also presents past and present views on Albanian territorial issues and maintains that the Albanians can legitimately be associated with the territory of Albanopolis and the tribe of Albanoi, though not before the time of Medieval sources - despite the fact that the two names were recorded by Ptolemy. Accordingly, to associate the Albanians with the entire ancient Illyria is to introduce another controversial issue.
3
Content available remote

LIMITS AND ALTERNATIVE VAYS OF STUDYING THE 'NATIONS': FROM REAL GROUPS TO THE CATEGORIES OF PRACTICE

88%
Findor A.
Sociológia (Sociology)
|
2006
|
vol. 38
|
issue 4
313-326
EN
The article briefly scrutinises dominant theories of the nationalism and contemporary theoretical discussions, which challenge the traditional view of 'nation' as the category of analysis. Such theoretical challenges transcend the key questions of nationalism studies 'What is the nation?', 'When did it come to existence?' by approaching the 'nations' not as the real groups but rather as the categories of a social practice, which are constructed and reproduced by the various discursive formations - the systems of representation. Historiographical concepts of the ethnogenesis and 'migrations of nations' are used as the examples of the intellectual reification of 'nation' as real, historical group. 'Nation' is thus considered as the powerful and pervasive category of practice yet rather weak and limited category of the analysis.
4

SLAV ETHNOGENESIS: FROM MYTHS TO FACTS (Etnogeneza Slowian: od mitów ku faktom)

88%
Piontek J.
Archeologia Polski
|
2009
|
vol. 54
|
issue 1
121-147
EN
The text addresses a critical analysis of J. Piontek's and R. Dabrowski's anthropological research on the ethnogenesis of the Slavs published by M. Dulinicz. The discussion would have been more interesting had Dulinicz confronted the determinations of physical anthropology with those of archaeology, Dulinicz's text is almost entirely devoted to a reinterpretation of results presented in the said anthropological studies, the author assuming that his 'own idea' of methods of investigating human biological variability will demonstrate the flaws of the presented approaches and support a 'proper' interpretation of the results of anthropological research. He failed to achieve this objective. Dulinicz acquainted himself with a number of works by J. Piontek and R. Dabrowski, developing in effect the conviction that he has understood in full the determinations of anthropologists in the field of interest to him. It is a wonder why certain archaeologists do not reach for studies referring to Slav ethnogenesis prepared within the framework of different natural science research programs. In Piontek and Dabrowski considerations, they concluded that no anthropological research to date has confirmed the theories of archaeologists about a discontinuity in the settlement of regions in the basins of the Oder and Vistula. This conclusion has not changed with the accretion of new source data. In fact, new analyses have increasingly supported the earlier findings. The anthropological research discussed by Dulinicz in his polemic concerned paleodemographic and morphological issues.In reference to these paleodemographic studies, Dulinicz rejected the arguments presented in J. Piontek's works as irrelevant, stating that they do not refute in any way whatsoever the theory about Slav origins popularized in Poland by a group of archaeologists. The backbone of the theory referred to nowadays as the 'allochthonous idea', has never been proved satisfactorily. Every hypothesis is grounded in a core statement, in this case a theory of demographic transformation. In the case of the allochthonous theory, the core statement admits the possibility of a sudden population growth among the Slavs. Unfortunately, no convincing data on the biological possibility of 'violent expansion' of the Slav population has appeared to date. With regard to morphological research, Dulinicz criticized solely the results of biological distance studies, subjecting the matrices of these distances to a new interpretation. Meanwhile, in the works in question, methods evaluating biological distance (Mahalanobis D2 distance and the Euclidean square distance) were applied in combination with multidimensional scaling of the matrices of biological distance and the principal component analysis (PCA), which seem to have escaped Dulinicz's attention entirely. Concluding, the author of the polemic used in his deliberations only a small part of the results presented by J. Piontek and R. Dabrowski.
5
Content available remote

Proper names of Lithuanian origin in Dysna region

88%
Adamkovicius A., Garsva K.
Acta Baltico-Slavica
|
2006
|
vol. 30
301-310
EN
From 1500 gathered oikonyms in Dysna region about 100 (6.6%) place names are of Lithuanian origin. In reality there are more of them: part of them became more Slavonic, they were translated so it is more difficult to recognize them. In the areas nearer to the Republic of Lithuania and Breslav there are more Lithuanianisms, e.g. in the parish of Ikazne (District of Teterkovka) and among the names of present villages the Lithuanianisms make a quarter (25%) more: Aukslys (Uklia), Bijeikiai (Bijeiki), Dervaniskiai (Dervanishki), Kamsa (Kumsha), Kliausai (Kliavsy), Pasiutiskes (Posiutishki), Pazardziai (Pozhardje), Petkunai (Petkuny), Sparunai (Sporuny), Sakalyne (Shokoleushchina), Siaulenai (Shauliany), Varai (Vary), etc. According to the data of the visitation of Breslav deanery there was written in Polish that there were in Druja these clearer oikonyms of Lithuanian origin: Arshele 'Arseliai', Druja, Jaja 'Jauja', Jodkovshchyna 'Juodkyne', Obolonie, Poviacie 'Paviete', Pupinovo, Pushkele 'Puskeliai', Raksniovo, Rovbie 'Raubiai', Stashule 'Staciuliai', Svilkovo, Shalcinovo, Sharkele 'Sarkeliai', Vaise 'Vaisiai', Viata 'Vieta', Zubry 'Zubrai'. Between Verchnedvinsk and Polock there could be such Lithuanian place names: Kaziulyne (Kozulino), Ziaunava (Zhevnovo), Rastava (Rashtovo), Ezyne (Azino), Daugnoriai (Dochnary). In the eastern part of Belarus among Polock, Vitebsk and the border of Russia and Belarus there are also some hydronyms and oikonyms of Lithuanian origin (namely Lithuanian, not Baltic) that are found in the territory of Russia as well: Serksniai (Shershni), Udviete (Udviaty), Usviecai (Usviaty), etc. In the district of Sharkovshchina there are more than 20 oikonyms that have a Lithuanian root or suffix: Abalojn (cf. obuolys), Biarnaty (cf. bernas), Gernuty (-Gernuciai), Girsy (cf. girdeti), Jody (-Juodziai), Kausheleva (cf. kausas), Kaukli (cf. kaukti), Labuti (-Labuciai), Svily (Svilai, 3 places), Sharkovshchina (cf. sarka, Slavonic soroka). Oikonyms Bialiany (-Bielenai), Galava (cf. Galas), Pramiany (cf. piemene) have suffixes -any (-enai), -ava, -eik- (-eikiai), -uk, -ut. There are more than 20 family names in the district: Kukut' (-Kukutis), Labut' (-Labutis), Protas, Vazgird (-Vosgirdas), Zhingel' (-Zingelis), etc. Some villages were named after the family names. It is an interesting fact that the family name Protas (oikonym Protasy) has retained the ending -as.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.