Serbian Geography Textbook - 1871: "Macedonians are indigenous"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • George S.
    Senior Member
    • Aug 2009
    • 10116

    #16
    chak there is a sanscrit possibility.THere are a lot of words that are indoeuropean.Slov means word it would be interesting to see where it was all derived from.I also read that venets & there's enets all I know is they existed a long time ago.dont forget the brygians,eutruscans.etc
    "Ido not want an uprising of people that would leave me at the first failure, I want revolution with citizens able to bear all the temptations to a prolonged struggle, what, because of the fierce political conditions, will be our guide or cattle to the slaughterhouse"
    GOTSE DELCEV

    Comment

    • Sovius
      Member
      • Apr 2009
      • 241

      #17
      Originally posted by Chakalarov View Post
      I agree that it did exist before the 6th century, but I am not sure as to how far back. I'm trying to figure out how the Veneti fall into all this, since most of the sources I have read indicate they had a Slavic roots. I've also read that Veneti derives from "Sloveneti" or "Sloventi" (the Greeks and Romans could not start words with -Slo). However, these are proposed roots, and I don't know how much credibility to give them. There is a seemingly logical connection between the words the two words, but that would push back the use of "Sloveni" or some variant of it much further back in history and I haven't found much evidence to indicate Paleo-Balkans referred to each other by the closeness of their languages as "Sloveni". The only "evidence" I have is an inscription from a Slovenian website that promotes the Veneti theory. Here is the inscription in question:

      Store your photos and videos online with secure storage from Photobucket. Available on iOS, Android and desktop. Securely backup your memories and sign up today!


      I suppose even if Veneti does not derive Sloven(e)ti, where does it come from? Is it just an term to denote a Slavic-speaking group, while Sloveni developed independently from it to describe ALL Slavic-speaking groups?
      Venetia (Venice/Veneto) was a region populated by Slovenian speaking people north of Rome and was recorded as Venetia by Latin speaking populations. To the south of Rome there lived the Venetulani. The whole peninsula was more or less culturally homogenous during the Bronze Age. Over 10 years ago, geneticists demonstrated that Central and Southeastern European populations were and are largely indigenous to the regions they continue to inhabit and have been living more or less where they have collectively since before the Neolithic Period. The Latin language evolved out of the admixture of Illyrian (Slovenian/Slavic) language speaking populations with Afro-Asiatic and other non-indigenous language speakers in what is now called central Italy as a center of Mediterranean and Continental European trade, similar to the Achaean language and its speakers' exposure to dissimilar cultures. So, Veneti is simply an exonym and Venetologists have proposed a hypothetical evolution of the term in that manner. There's obviously no way to know for certain how the term Veneti (Wend, Enetoi) came into being, but what is certain is that the Veneti to the north of Venetia weren't called Sklavus until after the Vindelicians and the Getae began their campaigns to end Rome's oppressive rule over large tracts of Europe.

      The Primary Chronicle of the Rus is the earliest example of the use of slovenskii as a relational term that I have been able to identify. Anytime before that has to be based on plausible assumption. Did the people of Illyrian origin who reported their history to Nester begin using the term on the day he started writing his book? Two weeks before he got a publishing contract from New York? Two centuries? While an answer to the question has to exist, the means to answer it might never materialize.

      Comment

      • Chakalarov
        Junior Member
        • Feb 2014
        • 48

        #18
        Originally posted by Sovius View Post
        Venetia (Venice/Veneto) was a region populated by Slovenian speaking people north of Rome and was recorded as Venetia by Latin speaking populations. To the south of Rome there lived the Venetulani. The whole peninsula was more or less culturally homogenous during the Bronze Age. Over 10 years ago, geneticists demonstrated that Central and Southeastern European populations were and are largely indigenous to the regions they continue to inhabit and have been living more or less where they have collectively since before the Neolithic Period. The Latin language evolved out of the admixture of Illyrian (Slovenian/Slavic) language speaking populations with Afro-Asiatic and other non-indigenous language speakers in what is now called central Italy as a center of Mediterranean and Continental European trade, similar to the Achaean language and its speakers' exposure to dissimilar cultures. So, Veneti is simply an exonym and Venetologists have proposed a hypothetical evolution of the term in that manner. There's obviously no way to know for certain how the term Veneti (Wend, Enetoi) came into being, but what is certain is that the Veneti to the north of Venetia weren't called Sklavus until after the Vindelicians and the Getae began their campaigns to end Rome's oppressive rule over large tracts of Europe.

        The Primary Chronicle of the Rus is the earliest example of the use of slovenskii as a relational term that I have been able to identify. Anytime before that has to be based on plausible assumption. Did the people of Illyrian origin who reported their history to Nester begin using the term on the day he started writing his book? Two weeks before he got a publishing contract from New York? Two centuries? While an answer to the question has to exist, the means to answer it might never materialize.
        It is definitely hard to sort out and define terms like Slavs, Sklabenoi,Veneti, etc, since they are for the most part exonyms. For now, we do not know how the Slovenic people (I use this term intentionally to refer to their linguistic relationship) referred to themselves in antiquity and before the invasion of the Getae and other tribes. Out of curiosity, do you believe the Vindelcians were also of Venetic descent? Furthermore, are Vindelcians from the region NE present-day Italy? That's what most maps I dig up seem to show. If the Vindelcians ARE of Venetic, that could be a logical starting point as to where Slovenii possibly came from.

        The website below makes the claim that the Veneti (Eastern and Western Slovenic groups) had had their original name of "Sloveneti" pushed into oblivion because of constant foreign exonyms. They then say that a new name, Sloveni, emerged out of "desperation" for an identity. If the Vindelcians were part of this Venetic group, as their name suggests, and also part of the 6th century raids, then it's possible, in my opinion, that "Sloveni" emerged with them and later became deformed into "Sklabenoi" when Greeks first heard it. Of course this is all highly speculative, but it is seemingly logical. Here is the website: http://sloveneti.tripod.com/veg/e/Init/union_e.html
        Last edited by Chakalarov; 04-04-2014, 12:14 AM.

        Comment

        • Sovius
          Member
          • Apr 2009
          • 241

          #19
          The total extent of Venetia remains preserved in Western archeology textbooks as Europe's Urnfield Cultures of the Bronze Age. The whole region is still a living museum of Slovenian toponyms and substratum language influences among non-Slovenian speaking people, and the prehistoric genetic dispersal matches the language dispersal. So, Vindelician civilization evolved out of Venetian civilization, but also followed a different path of development over time. Sarmatia was populated by both Vindelicians and Dacians in addition to Galicians (Golitsa: a place characterized by barren land), among other peoples. The Polish language features a divergent pronunciation scheme not found in Southeastern or South Central Europe. The Oder river in Poland was once known as Suevus. The Suevians were Galicians and they founded the short lived kingdom of Galaecia in the northwest region of Hispania during the dismantling of the Roman Empire. They were regarded as Celtic, as were the Vindelicians. They gave spiritual reverence to Oak trees rather than the Orthodox Venetian Linden tree and must have been thought of as heretics. This cultural admixture is still preserved in rural Poland, with some villages favoring idolatry and some sticking with the one true tree. Suevi can be thought of as an inter-linguistic adoption of Swove-yawn-ee, 'sloveni' in Polish, given the indigenous existence of Sarmatian populations. Galicia still remains a part of Polish territory and, while they may now identify as Polish, their ancestors were referred to as Galicians (Galatians).

          Why is this important? Because Simocatta referred to the Getae as Sklavenes, not Sueves or swovenes. Its all about the 'L' in my opinion. It seems to me that Sklabenoi had to have meant "proto-Romanian" in the Eastern Roman language or "a people who know how to pronounce 'slovo' correctly". The use of the "L" would indicate transference through the Dacian language. The Dacians were also described as Sporoi, which meant refugees in the Eastern Roman language, or more specifically, a scattered people. This suggests displacement through conquest, which, again, favors the Getae.

          Winnica (venn-ee-tsa) means 'a land bearing grape vines' in Polish and is still the commonly used term for vineyards. The regions to the south of Vindelicia have been known to produce a high quality barrel or two. Why is this important? Because the Poljani lived in the fields and the Drevjani lived amongst the trees. The Golitsi lived along barren hills and the Veneti must have lived where, according to how groups of people came to be referred to as in the languages of our ancestors?

          I believe the inscription says 'slovonici', similar to 'slovinci' . The mechanical aspects of the 'sloveneti' explanation possesses exceptional merit, especially because they make complete sense in terms of Slovenian grammar, not simply lexicon. But what exactly did it mean to early Slovenians (Venetians)? Was it used as a formal ethnic or political designation or as a simple expression of intelligibility between neighboring peoples or between neighbors? Did it mean ' kindred' during that period in time, a term possessing a connotative meaning in addition to its original denotation? If it was an ethno-nationalistic term, why wasn't Venetia referred to as sklavenetia right off the bat in the records of the Romans? Slovonica, a place where words are kept? A library, perhaps? Us, rather than them? Slo-veni, one who speaks in the Venetian language, a colloquial agglutination, or to speak in Venetian?

          Some additional observations: The northern region of Hispania was a part of Venetia before it fell to Rome. Old school nationalist scholars like to go on about the "savage" directionless barbarians and "civilized" Romans ad nauseum, but there is another depth of understanding waiting for them, once they are able to lift the veil of centuries of ethnocentricism and brutal cultural negation. We are, after all, discussing things that were well known during the Renaissance Period. Its not like someone misplaced Galicia for a thousand years or something like that. The Finnish word for our peoples to the East is Venaja. Again, there are no adaptive forms like 'Solvenaja' for the proposed intranym, but there is the historically attested to form, preserved on two different sides of the continent, existing basically unchanged in two completely different languages. And then, there is the term, itself, still in use, alive and well.

          Comment

          • Chakalarov
            Junior Member
            • Feb 2014
            • 48

            #20
            Sovius, you theories are truly amazing and I commend you for your research into this area; I believe you have taken major steps in the right direction. However, I don't believe I am quite up to speed with you yet. For one, I still picture Vindelcia as a part of modern-day Switzerland and Italy, so I am struggling to see how Vindelcians also lived among the Getae, Dacians, Galicians in Sarmatia. Are we referring to the same region and people?

            Furthermore your theory of the use of Sklabenoi is particularly fascinating. Are you suggesting the Getae referred to themselves as something along the lines of "Sloveni", or that they were referring to another group of people? I remember reading your earlier posts about it being somewhat of a slur used by the Byzantines, so is this still in line with that?


            Once again, great work!
            Last edited by Chakalarov; 04-06-2014, 03:01 PM.

            Comment

            • Sovius
              Member
              • Apr 2009
              • 241

              #21
              Sorry. The region the Romans referred to as Germania was (in their eyes) bounded by Vindelicians to the south, Vindili to the north and Vandali to the east, all north of modern Slovenia. These terms were all based on an intranym for the whole region that came into greater use in the Latin language over time. Germania meant people from the same source in the Latin language and comes from 'Gmina' in the Vindelician (Polish/Venetic) languages, meaning community, a collection of people. It was a generic term for the region, not a region where people referred to themselves as Germani. That would, of course, have made them Latin speakers, would it have not? 'Winndolica' means 'valleys bearing grape vines'. ( 'dol' = valley) Vindelicians lived in what would become known as western Poland , but they were often referred to on maps as (Wandali/Vandals). Vindelicia was proper Latin. Vandali was vulgar, or common Latin for Vindelicians.


              Besides 'Geatland' (Gotland), the northwestern region of Poland also hosted Getians (Goths/Goti). Maybe they were refugees from the Roman conquest of Dacia, or, perhaps, they took the region through conquest at some point in time. That is a popular hobby in Poland. Other parts of what is now Sweden (Slovenska/Svenska) also appear to have been settled by Dacians at some point. They were still a recognized community in Poland, long after the Roman occupation of Europe. In fact, King Zygmunt III Waza of Poland was often referred to as king of the Goths. King Mieszko was known as Dux Wandalorum. The Dacian presence in Sarmatia could also have simply been regional overlap, as well, or in addition to these other proposed events. Tacitus did place the Dacians along the southern regions of Sarmatia. Dach (Dakh) means' a sweeping wind' in Polish, Dachija means 'a wind swept land'. The Macedonian language; however, might be able to provide more insight, as Dacian would have been more similar to Macedonian, had they evaded linguistic assimilation under Roman rule. That's just what Dacia means in Polish.

              Regarding the Dacians' proposed use of the 'sloveni' term, I think they must have just used it to differentiate themselves from those they couldn't understand, not as an ethnic identifier, given the fact that the earlier Achaean colonies never referred to them as Sklabenoi after many centuries of living near one another until after the Roman invasions, much later than that even. This is, of course, if they used the term at all. But why wouldn't they have? This is the way the term was basically used in all three language regions prior to the Pan-Slavic Movements. Therefore, it seems logical to conclude that the term and its meaning had to have been in use among southern speakers of our languages before they migrated north, creating the northwestern and northeastern branches (West and East, Old School).

              The Getae were a very prominent civilization according to Herodotus, not some backwoods turtle shell slinging riff raff that Roman Era propagandists made them out to be. The Sklabenoi term, itself, could have come from anywhere in the region, or even Venetia, really. Slavonia (Sclavonia) still remains an excellent candidate, as well, so there might be a Pannonian origin for the Romans' use of the term as a slang word. What's important to note is that Slavonia meant "Greatland" not "Slavland". Their language was known as Pannonian and was classified as Illyrian prior to being reclassified as Slavic in a familial sense. Yes, it was often referred to as Sclavonian by the descendants of those whose ancestors they had driven out of Illyria, but serious scholarship requires respect. No Pannonian population was ever formally referred to as Sclavonians or Slavonians during the Roman or Greek Periods, therefore, the term is not historically relevant. It was a term that was made seemingly relevant by nationalist revisionist scholars who cared little about the actual history of the region. I'm, of course, speaking in terms of ethnicity. Sklavene, obviously, carried very important weight as a political term during the fall of Rome, as it meant "them, not us". But let us make no mistake about it. It was the Pannonians who kicked the crap out of them, not some "Slavs".


              Thanks for the feedback!

              Comment

              • Chakalarov
                Junior Member
                • Feb 2014
                • 48

                #22
                Once again fascinating theories, and your ideas are starting to make more sense the more I look into them. For one, all of your geographic descriptions check out so it was definitely refreshing to see a visual confirmation of what has been floating around here. I've actually began to research (again) the whole Goth/Getae connection. Most of the sources I have found seem to differentiate between the two, despite Jordanes' claims that the Goths have Getic ancestry. Most modern historians tend to see this as Jordanes creating a mythical past for the Goths. However, I did find an interesting article on a website promoting the Slavic-Venetic theory, and they claimed that only the Ostrogoths (with origins apparently in the south of Poland) were of Slavic descent, while the Visigoths were actually of Germanic descent. Confusion lies in the fact that Romans saw anyone not Roman as "Gothic", (from Gotland) much like how Greeks saw anyone non-Greek as "barbaroi", and Slavs as "Nemci". Many Ostrogothic kings do have Slavic sounding names (Theodoric, Theodemir, Valamir, etc), so it possible that they do have actual Getic-Dacian origin, while they were simply grouped with Goths because of similarities between Getae and Goth.

                Despite all this, I am in fact starting to believe that the term "Sloveni", as heard by Byzantines, came from various groups of Vindelecians (Vandals, Vandalii), Dacians, and Sarmatians speaking a Proto-Slavic language. Just so we are on the right page, and based on maps I've seen, your theory would place the first so-called Sklabenoi around the NW regions of Poland? Correct me if I'm wrong. However, I fail to see how "Sloveni" coming from Pannonia (which I believe is a likely source) would have spread to the Dacians, Vindelecians, and Sarmatians around the area you discussed.

                I'd be happy to hear your thoughts/criticisms on this!
                Last edited by Chakalarov; 04-08-2014, 09:54 PM.

                Comment

                • George S.
                  Senior Member
                  • Aug 2009
                  • 10116

                  #23
                  chak I have studied up on the origin of the slavs & it says originally they migrated from sumeria Mesopotamia.they took their language & culture when they went towards where they settled.I have seen charts of different types levels of slavs.Some types of slavs are the ones from which came to the Balkans in the 6 century.then there must have been Slavic influence lingual in the past as we can see some similarity in the words.also I studied on the Slavic roots of the Thracians to the complete dispersal of their tribes over Europe over 21 tribes.some say there was a large part of thracians that went to Sweden.(from the study of different things).we owe more to the thracians more than we think.the Thracian influence I consider to be immense.
                  Last edited by George S.; 04-09-2014, 12:26 PM.
                  "Ido not want an uprising of people that would leave me at the first failure, I want revolution with citizens able to bear all the temptations to a prolonged struggle, what, because of the fierce political conditions, will be our guide or cattle to the slaughterhouse"
                  GOTSE DELCEV

                  Comment

                  • Sovius
                    Member
                    • Apr 2009
                    • 241

                    #24
                    It’s interesting, these aren't really theories per se, it’s simply my present understanding of the Renaissance Period Model, which was and continues to be an autochthonous model, in relation to contemporary anthropological evidence. E. G. What does all this new stuff mean in regard to all this old discarded stuff that no one reads any more? It looks like you've been studying a historical interpretation based on the Victorian Model. The statement, "Romans called everyone Goths", for instance, is classified as "deflective speculation presented in the form of an authoritative statement". It’s used to obscure the weakness of underlying evidence that drives an argument against a counter argument. "All the popular scholars in the universe believe it was this way", etc. I've read them too. They're very well crafted.

                    What's confusing for most people is that the Victorian Age Model of historical and anthropological interpretation is a revisionist construct, often representing a complete 180 in relation to the Renaissance Period Model. It’s based on the premise of assumed migration events for European populations that came to be regarded as factual and treated as dogma. Cultural generification is a concept that can be used to describe the treatment of many separate and unique peoples as one fairly featureless or malleable entity. The "Slav" and "German" reclassifications are examples of this trend in nationalist academia that was popular at the height of Europe's Imperialist Period, as well. The idea that Alexander of Macedonia was Greek is a product of that period of cultural negation, as was the idea that the Getae were Germanic, as in Nordic. Germanic, again, meant Celtic during the Roman Period and Celtic meant Vindelician, not Irish. The anachronistic reclassifications worked to reinforce historical contradictions in Western European Schools of thought for the purpose of political gain during the 19th Century and continues to this day.

                    The Getae were known locally (in the region of Sarmatia) by where they lived, Gdynia (Gedanum in Lat.). The root 'gъd' means marshland, like what you would find along a river delta. (important, if you're familiar with Gothic history) 'Ostrów' means island in Polish in addition to the Slovenian 'vyspy' word form, which was in use on Gotland Island (Visby), if you're familiar with Slovenian toponyms and town names in the region of Sweden, and is often used in reference to river islands. Visla (Visi/Vistula) is, well, it’s a river. ‘Wyzogrod’ (Visi) is an island in the Vistula river in Poland. Gdansk is another area of Gdynian/Getic settlement, as are Gothenburg and other places in Sweden. There were also Vindelician and venetian populations in the area. The entire region that would become known as Dalarna (Dolina) was inhabited by Slovenian language speakers (Svensk=Slovenska). The region simply experienced a linguistic transformation over the years, but there are still plenty of communities that retain their cultural legacy, Venjan and Vinas, for instance have been noted by Slovenian scholars. Norway still preserves the name Vendesund. 'Lek' remains preserved in the Swedish language. So, many Swedes have every right to claim Gothic and Vandalic ancestry, but it is a legacy shared with those they fought alongside of before becoming assimilated by Nordic language speaking populations. Beowulf has no plausible meaning in the Nordic languages, but means 'White Wolf' in the actual Vindelician languages (Belo Vuk). Beowulf was a "Slav", so to speak, given that Gothic populations spoke a kindred language to the inhabitants of Southeastern and Central Europe.

                    If there was a clan from a 'Greatland' that fought alongside the Vindelicians and the Gdynians, I have yet to locate them north of the Danube, but the Ukraine or Moldova may hold the key, that is, of course, if Iordanis was correct in his work to begin with. While there were no war clans named the "Word people" (Sloveni), there may have been other regions known as Slavonia to the northeast of the Illyrian lands in Dacia, itself. The Slavonians also may have simply been Pannonians who joined the insurrections as refugees from north of the Danube. Given the presence of more "linguistically" pure Venetic speakers in Slovenska, this region cannot be overlooked, either. "Swava" (Suevi/Suevus) means 'Great' in Polish. If there was a Getic re-settlement after the fall of Dacia, it could conceivably come from Sarmatia by way of Getic speakers who retained their Southeastern European pronunciation characteristics, referring to their new home as "Slava" or the Grand River. The converse scenario also remains valid. 'Suevia' would also be "mispronounced" by southeastern European populations as "Slavia", so there are other paths that the autochthonous model maintains as plausible. "Grand/Great" Army? A large confederation of clans?

                    'Sloveni', because it exists in the Victorian Era Model's West, East and Southern language groups in relatively the same form and meaning the same thing, had to have been in use among southern speakers before the language(s) migrated into the Western and Eastern regions. Structural linguistic evidence (empircial language evidence) has always shown, despite what revisionist historical linguists might like to believe and promote, that the western and eastern languages of what they classify as the Slavic language group had to have descended from the southern languages in two different ways. Both Starostin and Alinei are good sources for more information on that. So,'sloveni' by the time of the downfall of the Roman Empire had to have been in use already by Illyrians, Thracians and Macedonians since before written history. Sklabenoi, as the Eastern Romans used the term, were those who rebelled against the Empire and re-established their own political systems and those from outside of Rome's borders who fought alongside them. Avars were referred to as Sklabenoi, as well, so, trying to pinpoint a single group of people and a singular ethnicity might not be the best route to take. Were the warrior clans of Greatland or the “Grand Army” of the Goths the same people as the dishevelled, brutalized people that spilled back into the arable lands? So, in terms of Sklavinas, you have people demanding better lives for themselves who were willing to pursue a military solution for the opportunity to have even a fraction of what others in the aristocracy likely took for granted. The Sklabenoi term may have been based on either 'sloveni' or 'Slavonia' or it may have been based on something entirely different. It’s really impossible to know, but I think it’s of great importance that primary source historical documents demonstrate that it was a multi-ethnic term and that would have made it a political term that came to be erroneously used as an ethno-linguistic term among non-Slovenian language speaking populations for Venetian language speaking populations years after it was actually actively used, including the Illyrian language speaking populations of the South. There are those who stood with the Romans and those who stood with the Slaves. "Slavorum", territory held by the people we take our slaves from; territory held by the slave class.

                    Degreed western and eastern researchers who maintain that the Goths were a Nordic people in an ethno-linguistic sense are nothing more than well trained parrots and have never been of any consequence except to further Imperialist Age German and Russian expansionist ambitions no matter how honest their intentions may have been. Genetic evidence alone has invalidated the Victorian Model. Large portions of the R and I haplogroups present in Scandinavia came from Central Europe long before there was such a thing as a "proto-Germanic" language and the descendents of those source populations in Central Europe are still largely living in the same places they always have. One isolated population of "Gothic" language speakers came to speak a Nordic language long after the fall of Rome, not all the populations regarded as Gothic during the transition between the Ancient and Medieval Periods.


                    Reference Quote:

                    "There were many Gothic nations in earlier times, just as also at the present, but the greatest and most important of all are the Goths, Vandals, Visigoths, and Gepaedes. In ancient times, however, they were named Sauromatae and Melanchlaeni; and there were some too who called these nations Getic."

                    Procopius


                    I believe veneti.info still has a posted list of numerous historical quotes from the Ancient Period on up to the early Enlightenment Period (an oxymoron) regarding the Venetians, Vindelicians and Goths, if you're interested in researching the Renaissance Period interpretative model of the Getae further. If I recall correctly, there's a few of them there.

                    Also, the Victorian Model uses Nordic language adoptions of the names of actual Gothic historical figures, not their actual names. I guess someone forgot to tell them that ‘ic’ is a patronymic suffix in the Venetic languages and has no meaning in their own languages. Not the brightest stars in the sky.

                    Comment

                    • Sovius
                      Member
                      • Apr 2009
                      • 241

                      #25
                      There are 7 levels of Slavdom and Chuck Norris (Norevski) is the only one of us bastards to ever to make it to level 6, thus proving that there were only 6 to begin with.

                      Comment

                      • Risto the Great
                        Senior Member
                        • Sep 2008
                        • 15658

                        #26
                        Originally posted by Sovius View Post
                        There are 7 levels of Slavdom and Chuck Norris (Norevski) is the only one of us bastards to ever to make it to level 6, thus proving that there were only 6 to begin with.
                        Chuck Norris pre-dates the slavic migration theory.
                        Risto the Great
                        MACEDONIA:ANHEDONIA
                        "Holding my breath for the revolution."

                        Hey, I wrote a bestseller. Check it out: www.ren-shen.com

                        Comment

                        • Sovius
                          Member
                          • Apr 2009
                          • 241

                          #27
                          Originally posted by Risto the Great View Post
                          Chuck Norris pre-dates the slavic migration theory.

                          Chuck Norris even post-dated the Slavic Migration Theory and his woman was like totally cool with it.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X