De Origine Successibusque Slavorum 1532

[osiris]

Thanks. I believe it would be an easier task, if they didn't merge Creative Writing with European History during the Victorian Age.

very funny but well put nashi

[TrueMacedonian]

Thanks, and thank you for providing a medium in the English language for these important topics, whether they be purely academic or directed towards the preservation of Macedonian culture.

The documented use of Sklavene as an ethnic slur:

“As for the Getae, that is to say the herds of Sclavenes, they were fiercely ravaging the regions of Thrace.”

Simocatta was equating the Getae, an indigenous Thracian population, to animals. He made it a point to remind the potentially uninformed reader that Sclavene was another name Roman loyalists were referring to Gothic insurgents as. By the time Simocatta wrote these words, this term, having been used by Procopius during the previous century, an apellation that replaced Sporoi, a Koine slang word for refugees, must have come into use for other populations, because he felt it important to remind his Roman readers which specific group of Sklavenes were ravaging Roman strongholds in Thrace. Herodotus, who also made mention of the Getae, but was polite enough not to equate the Getae to animals, never referred to them as Sklavenes or as Sklabenoi, neither did any subsequent Achaean historians. The fact that the Getae were around during Herodotus' time and were not referred to as Sklavenes, but rather, came to be referred to as Sklavenes during the 6th Century AD, provides a sequential proof that researchers back in the 19th Century either missed or made a point of avoiding. Getae has historical value as an ethnic term in the English language, while Sklavene has historical value as an ethnic slur for the Geats. Slavjani does not equal Slav, which is a Nordic term that appears to be based on the phonetic structure of slavjani, but does not convey the same meaning as slavjani.

Its important to remember that, during the 19th Century, the Sarmatian and Illyrian language groups came to be generically referred to as the Slavic languages and an assumed tribal designation was anachronistically and erroneously associated with this term. Logicians refer to these kinds of events as semantic shifts. This particular shift represents an inversion of interpreted historical events and ethnic classifications.

Take this scenario for example. Japanese soldiers were called "Nips" during World War II by their Allied opponents. "Nip" is based on Nippon, the name of Japan in the Japanese language, which means "land of the rising sun". Think back to the Chronicle of Nester: Is it "We are Nips" or is it "We are a people who come from the land of the rising sun"? One language has one set of meanings for a similar word and a different language has another set that reinforces certain ideas. Translations must be grammatically and semantically accurate or they are not really translations at all.

Doulos meant slave in the Koine language, while Sklabenoi came to be used as a slang word for doulos. The dictionaries of those populations who were conquered and assimilated by the Romans, including Italic populations, provide excellent source material for these observations. One has to simply look up Slav and slave. Was it the Downfall of the Roman Empire or was it the Gothic liberation of Roman occupied Europe? Who's still around?

Nice observation Sovius. And good first posts.

[osiris]

i have just finished reading black athena for the second time in a decade and found it to be a very informative book and one that makes a lot of sense. unfortunatly in victorian times all throughout europe not just england the important thing was to confirm the supramacy of the white in particular the northern european race above all others and consequently elevated ancient greece to quasi divine satus as a nation and pure nation of europeans who managed not to be influneced critically by the many more advanced cultures while living amongst them and studying at their educational institutions.
a theme that still runs througghout the myth that is modern hellsarse, the land of the pure and oh so creative people.

[Sovius]

I understand that, but I was asking about the names, sources in order to use it as supportive reference of what you are writing.

I see a lot of loggic in what you said upper, I would agree on 100% with "kindred tribes" meaning of Slavjani and it would be nice if we could rely on some authors and to provide their quotes.

Maybe it's only a formality but I believe has a stronger convincing effect when you put them with your explanations.

Ah! My apologies.


The Primary Chronicle of the Rus has been heavily Slavicized in the English language. Does anyone have a Russian or Ukrainian transliteration using the Roman alphabet on file for comparison? I’m afraid; I’ve never come across such a version online and don’t own my own hard copy. The following passage in Cyrillic would also do, but would take me a bit of time to decipher.

web.ku.edu/~russcult/culture/handouts/chronicle_all.html#opening

From the Opening:

“For many years the Slavs lived beside the Danube, where the Hungarian and Bulgarian lands now lie. From among these Slavs, parties scattered throughout the country and were known by appropriate names, according to the places where they settled. Thus some came and settled by the river Morava, and were named Moravians, while others were called Czechs. Among these same Slavs are included the White Croats, the Serbs, and the Khorutanians. For when the Vlakhs attacked the Danubian Slavs, settled among them, and did them violence, the latter came and made their homes by the Vistula, and were then called Liakhs. Of these same Liakhs, some were called Poles, some Lutichians, some Mazovians, and still others Pomorians. Certain Slavs settled also on the Dnieper, and were there called Polianians. Still others were named Derevlians, because they lived in the forests. Some also lived between the Pripet and the Dvina, and were known as Dregovichians. Other tribes resided along the Dvina and were called Polotians on account of a small stream called the Polota, which flows into the Dvina. It was from this same stream that they were named Polotians. The Slavs also dwelt about Lake Ilmen, and were known there by their own original name. They built a city which they called Novgorod. Still others had their homes along the Desna, the Sem, and the Sula, and were called Severians. Thus the Slavic race was divided, and its language was known as Slavic.”


The focus of this passage’s intent is of a relational nature, a cognitive process which requires the analysis of at least two separate entities, conditions or actions. Separate, but similar, is not the same as one in the same. “Slav” implies one in the same, doing what a proper noun being presented as a relevant ethnic identifier is supposed to do, while slovenskii/slavjani, etc. imply similar, but separate, a diverse collection of people who speak similar languages. The terms acknowledge two conditions, not simply one. The people who live in the fields are not the same as the people who live in the forest, but, as they speak a similar language, they must have descended from a common ancestor. Poljani is an ethnic designation. The Poljani, by virtue of speaking a similar language to the “Tree People” made them slavjani, kindred peoples.

Slava!

[Pelister]

What a good thread. I've been inspired. Thanks guys.

[Risto the Great]

A silly explanation about migration from a Polish client of mine that many Poles believe:

The Great Slavic Mass-Migrations in History and Culture:

The only Slavs that stayed put during the great mass-migrations are the Slovaks. This is the reason why they were, and indeed still are, situated almost in the centre of the Slavic Cradle. Evidence of this fact can be seen in folkloristic studies. The Slovaks have no stories in their culture of their people shifting out of the ancestral homeland, unlike the Poles, Czechs and Croats etc. that have stories of such epic events. One example is Lech, Czech & Rus, which signifies the Slavic peoples migration away from the ancestral homeland. I must say don't dismiss legends, as legends can always be put in historical context and a certain chronological order in time, and contain much factual information. Where not our Slavic forefathers trying to tell us something though the tales of migration they left behind for us? Also, it is said that one you who speaks 'Slovakian', has the easiest time understanding the rest of the Slavic languages, as they are in the middle of the Slavic sea; one of the biggest 'human ethnographic seas', on the face of this earth.

Evidence of the South Slavs, in particular the Croats migrating from the ancestral home in Poland to Dalmatia is also displayed in folk narratives, and also in historical fact. The folk narrative describes five Slavic brothers and two sisters that lead the Croats from the area around Krakow in Poland into the Balkans in the 7th century. Are these epic tales of heroic migrations a coincidence? Not according to historical fact. It is also interesting to note that it is historical fact the first kingdom of Croatia, White Croatia, was not situated in Dalmatia but in Poland, Bohemia and Slovakia. It's capital was Krakow. Indeed White Croatian figures played a pivotal role in early history of the Polish and Bohemian Kingdoms. Even the first canonised patron saint of Poland, St. Wojciech; 'Wojciech of the Slavs' was indeed a White Croatian.

The link is actually quite interesting reading:

http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/agbdesign/slavic/

Anyone here heard the Lech, Czech & Rus story?

[Daskalot]

Thanks. I believe it would be an easier task, if they didn't merge Creative Writing with European History during the Victorian Age.

You speak great words of wisdom, if only our southern neighbours could grasp the essence of these words.

[Delodephius]

Anyone here heard the Lech, Czech & Rus story?

It's one of the main stories in Slavic studies. I learned it in school though I forgot most of it. If you go to Czechia or Poland you'll probably find statues of these figures. It's quite a popular story in those countries.

[Sovius]

i have just finished reading black athena for the second time in a decade and found it to be a very informative book and one that makes a lot of sense. unfortunatly in victorian times all throughout europe not just england the important thing was to confirm the supramacy of the white in particular the northern european race above all others and consequently elevated ancient greece to quasi divine satus as a nation and pure nation of europeans who managed not to be influneced critically by the many more advanced cultures while living amongst them and studying at their educational institutions.
a theme that still runs througghout the myth that is modern hellsarse, the land of the pure and oh so creative people.

The people who learned to speak the Ancient Period Mediterranean Creole language to the south of Macedonia during the 19th Century are providing contemporary Sociologists and Psychologists with a tremendous amount of research material, as well, but I don’t think it’s the kind that Prince Otto had in mind.

You make a good point in alluding to the Aryan Model. I believe that Slavicists need to look no further than the 19th Century for their origins. As genetic evidence continues to invalidate the fundamental concepts that were simply treated as proven by this model, scholarship based on this model has come to take on a comedic nature. Academic Ethnocentrism is coming to be viewed as a mild form of mental retardation, though Macedonians may not see it as being such a mild thing in any sense of the word, living so close to one of its epicenters. I tend to view the ancient history of this region as an extension of Illyrian culture that took on a more cosmopolitan nature through the influx of various populations from around the Mediterranean. Koine, for me, was an Illyrian language that came to be heavily influenced by Egyptian and Phoenician.

Opole means ancestral territory in the Polish language. Polis is an Illyrian contribution to the old pigeon language that simply underwent some changes by newcomers from other regions. How could it not be? Look at what polja means in Croatian. What was a city before it was a village? Genetic evidence is incontrovertible. I’m not sure what that word means, but I know it’s important.

[Risto the Great]

Ancient Period Mediterranean Creole = APMC

Yes. Nice.

[Pelister]

The people who learned to speak the Ancient Period Mediterranean Creole language to the south of Macedonia during the 19th Century are providing contemporary Sociologists and Psychologists with a tremendous amount of research material, as well, but I don’t think it’s the kind that Prince Otto had in mind.

You make a good point in alluding to the Aryan Model. I believe that Slavicists need to look no further than the 19th Century for their origins. As genetic evidence continues to invalidate the fundamental concepts that were simply treated as proven by this model, scholarship based on this model has come to take on a comedic nature. Academic Ethnocentrism is coming to be viewed as a mild form of mental retardation, though Macedonians may not see it as being such a mild thing in any sense of the word, living so close to one of its epicenters. I tend to view the ancient history of this region as an extension of Illyrian culture that took on a more cosmopolitan nature through the influx of various populations from around the Mediterranean. Koine, for me, was an Illyrian language that came to be heavily influenced by Egyptian and Phoenician.

Opole means ancestral territory in the Polish language. Polis is an Illyrian contribution to the old pigeon language that simply underwent some changes by newcomers from other regions. How could it not be? Look at what polja means in Croatian. What was a city before it was a village? Genetic evidence is incontrovertible. I’m not sure what that word means, but I know it’s important.

There are two ideas (both European) presently at work in the region - Hellenism and Slavicism - the first has been wrongly associated with ancient Macedonia, and therefore Alexander the Great. In the European mind, in politics, literature and popular imagination it colored the Macedonians in a way that favoured the New Greeks. The second idea, was that the 5th century constituted a "clean break" in the regions history, with the supposed arrival of the "Slavs".

These two "assumptions" I think form the basis of all politics in the region.

In what context do you use the term Illyrian ? Do you associate it with Albanians ?

[Sovius]

You speak great words of wisdom, if only our southern neighbours could grasp the essence of these words.

It’s pretty sad, really, when an entire nation cannot see its own reflection.

[Sovius]

There are two ideas (both European) presently at work in the region - Hellenism and Slavicism - the first has been wrongly associated with ancient Macedonia, and therefore Alexander the Great. In the European mind, in politics, literature and popular imagination it colored the Macedonians in a way that favoured the New Greeks. The second idea, was that the 5th century constituted a "clean break" in the regions history, with the supposed arrival of the "Slavs".

These two "assumptions" I think form the basis of all politics in the region.

In what context do you use the term Illyrian ? Do you associate it with Albanians ?

Illyrian is the general classification of what came to be referred to as the South Slavic languages that Western European Researchers used prior to The Drive East (North, as well, in your case). The myth that the Albanians carry the cultural heritage of your ancestors is easily disprovable by the fact that they do not speak Croatian, Bosnian, etc. It might just be that Albanians originally came from Albania, but that might have been too difficult for 19th Century Austrians to wrap their brains around. Due to coexisting among Illyrian populations, the general population of Albanians now shares many genetic characteristics with their surrounding populations, but I’m confident this myth is simply an instrument of oppression, political pretension embedded in academia, really.

Two platforms and neither are correct? Are you sure you’re not talking about America?

[Daskalot]

Thanks, and thank you for providing a medium in the English language for these important topics, whether they be purely academic or directed towards the preservation of Macedonian culture.

You are welcome, we Macedonians do not have that many international outlets, thus a forum like this one were we are conducting our conversations in the English language is of high importance.
It makes it easier for the unwary third party to read and view our side of the story.

Our neighbours are doing all they can to hide away the Truth and obscure it, but in this day and age that task will be futile. We live in the information age.

We are here to serve the Macedonians with proper knowledge everywhere in the world.

[Soldier of Macedon]

The Primary Chronicle of the Rus has been heavily Slavicized in the English language. Does anyone have a Russian or Ukrainian transliteration using the Roman alphabet on file for comparison? I’m afraid; I’ve never come across such a version online and don’t own my own hard copy. The following passage in Cyrillic would also do, but would take me a bit of time to decipher.

web.ku.edu/~russcult/culture/handouts/chronicle_all.html#opening

From the Opening:

“For many years the Slavs lived beside the Danube, where the Hungarian and Bulgarian lands now lie. From among these Slavs, parties scattered throughout the country and were known by appropriate names, according to the places where they settled. Thus some came and settled by the river Morava, and were named Moravians, while others were called Czechs. Among these same Slavs are included the White Croats, the Serbs, and the Khorutanians. For when the Vlakhs attacked the Danubian Slavs, settled among them, and did them violence, the latter came and made their homes by the Vistula, and were then called Liakhs. Of these same Liakhs, some were called Poles, some Lutichians, some Mazovians, and still others Pomorians. Certain Slavs settled also on the Dnieper, and were there called Polianians. Still others were named Derevlians, because they lived in the forests. Some also lived between the Pripet and the Dvina, and were known as Dregovichians. Other tribes resided along the Dvina and were called Polotians on account of a small stream called the Polota, which flows into the Dvina. It was from this same stream that they were named Polotians. The Slavs also dwelt about Lake Ilmen, and were known there by their own original name. They built a city which they called Novgorod. Still others had their homes along the Desna, the Sem, and the Sula, and were called Severians. Thus the Slavic race was divided, and its language was known as Slavic.”


The focus of this passage’s intent is of a relational nature, a cognitive process which requires the analysis of at least two separate entities, conditions or actions. Separate, but similar, is not the same as one in the same. “Slav” implies one in the same, doing what a proper noun being presented as a relevant ethnic identifier is supposed to do, while slovenskii/slavjani, etc. imply similar, but separate, a diverse collection of people who speak similar languages. The terms acknowledge two conditions, not simply one. The people who live in the fields are not the same as the people who live in the forest, but, as they speak a similar language, they must have descended from a common ancestor. Poljani is an ethnic designation. The Poljani, by virtue of speaking a similar language to the “Tree People” made them slavjani, kindred peoples.

Slava!

Very interesting. It seems to be the same Chronicle as the below:

http://hudce7.harvard.edu/~ostrowski/pvl/

I am not sure how accurate this translation is as I haven't went through the links, it was posted on another forum during a past discussion.

...Over a long period the Slavs settled beside the Danube, where the Hungarian and Bulgarian
lands now lie. From among these Slavs, parties scattered throughout the country and were known
by appropriate names, according to the places where they settled. Thus some came and settled by
the river Morava, and were named Moravians, while others were called Czechs. Among these
same Slavs are included the White Croats, the Serbs, and the Carinthians. For when the Vlakhs
attacked the Danubian Slavs, settled among them, and did them violence, the latter came and
made their homes by the Vistula, and were then called Lyakhs. Of these same Lyakhs some were
called Polyanians, some Lutichians, some Mazovians, and still others Pomorians. Certain Slavs
settled also on the Dnipro, and were likewise called Polyanians. Still others were named
Derevlians, because they lived in the forests. Some also lived between the Pripet' and the Dvina,
and were known as Dregovichians. Other tribes resided along the Dvina and were called
Polotians on account of a small stream called the Polota, which flows into the Dvina. It was from
this same stream that they were named Polotians. The Slavs also dwelt about Lake Il'men', and
were known there by their characteristic name. They built a city which they called Novgorod.
Still others had their homes along the Desna, the Sem', and the Sula, and were called Severians.
Thus the Slavic race was divided, and its language was known as Slavic....

There was at the time but one Slavic race including the Slavs who settled along the Danube
and were subjugated by the Magyars, as well as the Moravians, the Czechs, the Lyakhs, and the
Polyanians, the last of whom are now called Rus'. It was for these Moravians that Slavic books
were first written, and this writing prevails also in Rus' and among the Danubian Bulgarians.
When the Moravian Slavs and their princes were living in baptism, the Princes Rostislav,
Svyatopolk, and Kotsel sent messengers to the Emperor Michael, saying, “Our nation is
baptized, and yet we have no teacher to direct and instruct us and interpret the sacred scriptures.
We understand neither Greek nor Latin. Some teach us one thing and some another.
Furthermore, we do not understand written characters nor their meaning. Therefore send us
teachers who can make known to us the words of the scriptures and their sense.” The Emperor
Michael, upon hearing their request, called together all the scholars, and reported to them the
message of the Slavic princes. The scholars suggested that there was a man in Salonika, by name
Leo, who had two sons familiar with the Slavic tongue, being learned men as well. When the
Emperor was thus informed, he immediately summoned the sons of Leo from Salonika, directing
him to send to court forthwith his sons Methodius and Constantine. Upon receipt of this
message, Leo quickly sent forth his sons. When they came before the Emperor, he made known
to them that the Slavs had communicated to him their desire for teachers who could interpret the
holy scriptures to them. The Emperor prevailed upon them to undertake the mission, and sent
them into the Slavic country to Rostislav, Svyatopolk, and Kotsel. When they arrived, they
undertook to compose a Slavic alphabet, and translated the Acts and the Gospel. The Slavs
rejoiced to hear the greatness of God extolled in their native tongue. The apostles afterward
translated the Psalter, the Oktoechos, and other books.

Now some zealots began to condemn the Slavic books, contending that it was not right for
any other nation to have its own alphabet apart from the Hebrews, the Greeks, and the Latins,
according to Pilate’s superscription, which he composed for the Lord’s Cross. When the Pope at
Rome heard of this situation, he rebuked those who murmured against the Slavic books, saying,
“Let the word of the Scripture be fulfilled that 'all nations shall praise God' (Ps. lxxi, 17), and
likewise that 'all nations shall declare the majesty of God according as the Holy Spirit shall grant
them to speak' (cf. Acts, ii, 4). Whosoever condemns the Slavic writing shall be excluded from
the Church until he mend his ways. For such men are not sheep but wolves; by their fruits ye
shall know them and guard against them. Children of God, hearken unto his teachings, and
depart not from the ecclesiastical rule which Methodius your teacher has appointed unto you.”
Constantine then returned again, and went to instruct the people of Bulgaria; but Methodius
remained in Moravia.

Prince Kotsel appointed Methodius Bishop of Pannonia in the see of St. Andronicus, one of
the Seventy, a disciple of the holy Apostle Paul. Methodius chose two priests who were very
rapid writers, and translated the whole Scriptures in full from Greek into Slavic in six months
between March and the twenty-sixth day of October. After completing the task, he appropriately
rendered praise and honor to God, who had bestowed such a blessing upon Bishop Methodius,
the successor of Andronicus. Now Andronicus is the apostle of the Slavic race. He traveled
among the Moravians, and the Apostle Paul taught there likewise. For in that region is Illyricum,
whither Paul first repaired and where the Slavs originally lived. Since Paul is the teacher of the
Slavic race, from which we Rus' too are sprung, even so the Apostle Paul is the teacher of us
Rus', for he preached to the Slavic nation, and appointed Andronicus as Bishop and successor to
himself among them. But the Slavs and the Rus' are one people, for it is because of the
Varangians that the latter became known as Rus', though originally they were Slavs. While some
Slavs were termed Polyanians, their speech was still Slavic, for they were known as Polyanians
because they lived in the fields. But they had the same Slavic language.

Apostle Paul came to Macedonia, which was in Roman Illyricum. What do you guys think?