Does Macedonia belong to the Balkan or Aegean world

[Soldier of Macedon]

The simple existence of Vlachs is proof of the limited impact of Slavs. The Vlachs were never anywhere near a majority in the region yet somehow they managed to retain language and culture to this day and throughout these Slav "invasions".

That's because many of those Vlachs migrated from today's Romania southwards into Macedonia and other regions. But that's a whole other story which I am sure Carlin also has an opinion on.

[Liberator of Makedonija]

To demonstrate their origin. Does Misirkov refer to the ancestors of his people being largely descended from tribes that crossed the Danube in the 6th century? Do you know that Misirkov himself believed that the independent study of Macedonian history had only began during his era? What you're doing is cherry-picking some quotes from a guy that clearly went through turbulent times in his life and using that as some sort of ammunition. It's a pathetic and intellectually dishonest tactic that is more reminiscent of some Bulgar idiot than somebody that is supposed to be for Macedonia and the Macedonian Cause.

Actually he does. I don't have it on hand at the moment but I read the book fairly recently and do recall Misirkov claiming his ancestors arrived in the Balkans in the Middle Ages, he made no references to Ancient Macedonia. I may actually have brought this up in another thread from memory.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Actually he does. I don't have it on hand at the moment but I read the book fairly recently and do recall Misirkov claiming his ancestors arrived in the Balkans in the Middle Ages, he made no references to Ancient Macedonia. I may actually have brought this up in another thread from memory.

Perhaps it's been too long since I have read his works because I don't recall him writing that. Post it here.

[vicsinad]

Yes. Let's cherry pick Misirkov:

According to the theory of I. A. Boduen de Curtene Slavs are named by the Romans. Slavic names often end with –slav: Sveti-slav, Vence-slav, Bori-slav etc. Slavs served as slaves and gladiators in Rome, and since the suffix slav was commonly heard, they started to use that suffix as a designator for a person that works the heaviest jobs, i.e. slave, and since the slaves were mostly taken from the Slavs, they named all the Slavs as “slavi”. Then the Slavs took that name and modified it a bit into Slavjani, i.e. Slavs. So our great-grandfathers were named when they met the more developed roman nations. It was not very important for the Slavs themselves, and they used it only when they needed to make a distinction between themselves and some Roman or Germanic nation. It wasn’t very important for them, and it could have easily been replaced with some other name.

So, up to the arrival of the Turks, we were renamed three times: 1. Slavs 2. Bulgarians 3. Serbs

Greeks also did not make any distinctions between the Slavic ethnicities, and all Slavs, especially those who caused them the biggest troubles and were during the Turkish time under their protection, they despised and named with the, for them, despised name: “Bulgarians”.

[vicsinad]

Misirkov insists that we were renamed Slavs. So, the idea that he believes we are just descendants of Slavic-hordes is not compatible with his writings.

[Carlin]

Does Misirkov refer to the ancestors of his people being largely descended from tribes that crossed the Danube in the 6th century? Do you know that Misirkov himself believed that the independent study of Macedonian history had only began during his era? What you're doing is cherry-picking some quotes from a guy that clearly went through turbulent times in his life and using that as some sort of ammunition. It's a pathetic and intellectually dishonest tactic that is more reminiscent of some Bulgar idiot than somebody that is supposed to be for Macedonia and the Macedonian Cause.

This is both funny and insulting at the same time. I present the opinions of Misirkov -- a person who is generally accepted as being one of the biggest Macedonists of all time, and the response is that this is pathetic and intellectually dishonest, reminiscent of some Bulgar idiots (a sort of ad hominem). I won't go down this path.

I don't disagree with Misirkov being for independent study of Macedonian history, and expanding on that (and I also don't agree with him 100% having the luxury of analyzing him from 2019 - everything should be analyzed thoroughly). The thing is, he wrote and believed what he did, living in turbulent times as well as being influenced by Pan-Slavism - however, his words can't be changed or explained away. Many of the Macedonian intellectuals and activists at that time held similar views. One such activist would be D. Chupovski who was one of the founders of Macedonian Literary Society, established in Saint Petersburg in 1902.

Memorandum for Independence of Macedonia (March 1, 1913), which the members of the Macedonian Colony in St. Petersburg sent to the participants in the London Conference, and to all the principal newspapers in Russia. This Memorandum, prepared by Dr. Gavril Konstantinovich, Natse Dimov (the younger brother of D. Chupovski), Dimitrija Chupovski and Aleksandar Vezenkov on behalf of the Colony, stated:

“Carrying out its sacred duty to its fatherland and deliberately advocating the slogan “Macedonia to the Macedonians,” The Macedonian Colony in St. Petersburg protests and cannot remain indifferent to the fact that the allied Balkan states (Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece), our brothers in blood and faith, are preparing to partition our fatherland, which stands at the same cultural level as they, and which is larger than Serbia and Greece in terms of its population, at some three and a half million. We cannot be indifferent to this sad funeral procession which wans to bury our poor country of Macedonia, to suppress the political and spiritual life of our entire nation, and the funeral of the fatherland of the holy brothers, Saints Cyril and Methodius. After the partition of brotherly Poland, the division of Macedonia by our Slavic brothers is another inhuman act in the history of peoples, a cruel violation of human rights, a shameful act of the entire Slavic population. The Turkish yoke is now being replaced by a Christian one.”

URL:

http://www.unet.com.mk/mian/2.htm

As far as I can see Misirkov did write that Macedonians largely descended and branched off from the Slavs:

https://mk.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0_%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B8/_%D0%A1%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%83%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0,_%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%83%D0%B0%D1%82_%D0%B8_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B8%D1%82_%D0%BB%D0%B8_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%96%D0%B0_%D0%B4%D0%B0_%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%83%D0%B0%D1%82_%D0%BE%D1%82_%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%B5_%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%27%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%84%D1%86%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D1%96%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0%3F

Of course, Misirkov may not have been right because he did not have modern DNA studies at hand, however, the feeling of solidarity or kinship with other Slavic peoples was there, and he and other Macedonian activists did not have an aversion towards the term "Slav" and included Macedonians as one of the members of larger Slavic population. What Misirkov and others like him went by - was seemingly language. This is how people/intellectuals reasoned well into the 20th century. I have already said numerous times, in this very thread, that DNA studies have largely defeated certain beliefs and notions about the origin of Macedonians. I also said already in my introductory post that Slavs differ greatly culturally and genetically - yet I used the term "ethnolinguistic" simultaneously, which should give an indication as to how "I defined it" which may be wrong.

In the following article, it is explained as follows:

"One of the main authors of the article, Alena Kushniarevich from the Estonian Biocentre, summed up the findings of the study: “We do not see a strong genetic signal in genomes of modern Slavic speakers that would support massive movements of Slavs towards the Balkan peninsula during 700–800 AD. It seems that a major mechanism in the spread of Slavic languages was cultural transmission rather than physical replacement of indigenous people by the Slavs. On the other hand, fishing out genetic traces of historic migrations within Central and East Europe – a rather homogeneous and densely populated region – is not a trivial task”.

Additionally, we tend to assume that people who share the same or similar language also share a common culture; however, some archaeological evidence suggests that the material culture of different Slavic-speaking tribes varied substantially.

Considering the “Slavicization” of Europe, it is evident that we are talking about an extensive linguistic shift and not really a genetic transformation. How much of a deeper cultural shift accompanied the massive change in language and how uniform it was remains largely unclear due to scarce archaeological and historic evidence."

URL:

https://blog.ut.ee/what-is-the-origin-of-the-slavs/#sthash.Mu2wjkFB.dpbs

Having said all that there is of course a lot of value in what Misirkov and others said and believed. They did not have strong feelings of dislike towards the Slavic question we seem to have today.

[vicsinad]

however, his words can't be changed or explained away.

Of course not. However, he also shouldn't be quoted without context in the manner you did. It's an injustice to Misirkov's works and the Macedonian Struggle to utilize specific quotes and suggest that the intent of his words have a specific meaning or interpretation based on how those words are used today.

If you dig deeper at Misirkov's intentions with the 'Slav' terminology, it was to unite those Macedonians under Bulgarian and Serbian propaganda under a common banner in order so Macedonians could defend their national and cultural interests against outsider. This banner, he insisted, should be 'Macedonian' rather than Bulgarian or Serbian.

[maco2envy]

From Carlin's last post,

In the following article, it is explained as follows:

"One of the main authors of the article, Alena Kushniarevich from the Estonian Biocentre, summed up the findings of the study: “We do not see a strong genetic signal in genomes of modern Slavic speakers that would support massive movements of Slavs towards the Balkan peninsula during 700–800 AD. It seems that a major mechanism in the spread of Slavic languages was cultural transmission rather than physical replacement of indigenous people by the Slavs. On the other hand, fishing out genetic traces of historic migrations within Central and East Europe – a rather homogeneous and densely populated region – is not a trivial task”.

This is actually true, population genetics becomes more problematic as you look more than 500 years in the past, but large Slavic migrations would still create some signal in genetic data.

[Vangelovski]

This was an interesting article provided by Carlin. Notice the Greek "Macedonians" (read Turkish refugees) actually have K1 (African) and a more pronounced K4 (Probably from the Middle East) component then Macedonians.



The link below is to the actual study, not the article about the study.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135820#pone.0135820.s010

Having said this, genetics do not determine ethnicity. The genetic variation across humans is tiny (0.6% of all base pairs) because, quite frankly, we're all human beings. What geneticists look at to try and distinguish human populations and migrations is a microscopic proportion of the human genome. Further, there is usually more variation within a group than there is between groups, which doesn't help. Genetic mapping can help trace migrations when it is used in conjunction with other information - linguistic, archaeological etc., but even then, its a best guess.

Ethnicity is socially constructed, not genetic. What does this mean? It means that looking at genetics to determine whether Macedonians are "Slavic" or whether there was a "Slavic" migration is even less helpful than trying to determine whether they have "Asian" or "African" markers (they do - everyone does).

Ethnicity is a combination of culture, language, ancestry, the belief in the groups existence, religion and absolutely none of these all at the same time. Its pervasive and elusive. You can find examples of individuals that fit all the criteria (and agree they do not belong) and of individuals who fit none of the criteria (and agree that they do belong). Its as much objective as it is subjective and at the same time its neither. Asking whether Macedonians (or anyone else for that matter) are "Slavic" is about as meaningful and relevant as asking what blue tastes like.

This isn't to say that Macedonian ethnicity (or any other ethnicity) was "constructed" through a conscious effort of social engineering. Ethnicity is built unconsciously over time. But just because its substance changes does not mean that its not the same ethnicity. All ethnicities have direct ancestral lineage from somewhere. Non were invented or constructed over night or even within a generation or two.

Bottom line: forget the Slavic rubbish. It was a 19th century cultural fad that had no bearing on reality then, let alone now.

[Liberator of Makedonija]

Perhaps it's been too long since I have read his works because I don't recall him writing that. Post it here.

I don't have it on hand so I could be wrong but I do recall reading something along those lines. If anyone has the book and can find it that would be appreciated.

[VMRO]

Actually he does. I don't have it on hand at the moment but I read the book fairly recently and do recall Misirkov claiming his ancestors arrived in the Balkans in the Middle Ages, he made no references to Ancient Macedonia. I may actually have brought this up in another thread from memory.

I don't recall Misirkov wirting anything of the sort.

Is this from his book "On Macedonian Matters)?

[Liberator of Makedonija]

I don't recall Misirkov wirting anything of the sort.

Is this from his book "On Macedonian Matters)?

Yes, the copy I read was printed in the 1970s and it was an English translation so I had always wondered if the Yugoslav government had tampered with the content though.

[VMRO]

Yes, the copy I read was printed in the 1970s and it was an English translation so I had always wondered if the Yugoslav government had tampered with the content though.

I don't think it's in there. I've read through both and it cannot recall Misirkov ever declaring his ancestors arrived in the middle ages.

[Soldier of Macedon]

This is both funny and insulting at the same time. I present the opinions of Misirkov -- a person who is generally accepted as being one of the biggest Macedonists of all time, and the response is that this is pathetic and intellectually dishonest, reminiscent of some Bulgar idiots (a sort of ad hominem). I won't go down this path.

I wasn’t trying to be humorous. You presented some of his opinions to support your assertion without factoring in his other opinions or circumstances. That is typical of how some of our enemies try to use his quotes against us. You’re generally well versed in our history, so some, myself included, expected you to be a little more clinical. As for your reference to an “ethno-linguistic” group, you know it was wrong. Had you referred to a ‘linguistic group’, much of this discussion wouldn’t have occurred.

The thing is, he wrote and believed what he did, living in turbulent times as well as being influenced by Pan-Slavism - however, his words can't be changed or explained away.

Don’t go to the extent of creating a strawman. Nobody here is trying to change or explain away his words. What we’re doing is providing context, while you seem to have avoided it until we inserted it into this discussion.

As far as I can see Misirkov did write that Macedonians largely descended and branched off from the Slavs

As far as I can see, he references medieval and contemporary authors regarding ‘Slavic’ settlements in the Balkans in the context of outlining various theories of how certain nations were formed. He analyses possibilities based on what he has read. Some may disagree, but I don’t see this as a major issue given that at this stage in his life he was still in the process of learning about Macedonian history. Others were already ahead of him during the same period.

Having said all that there is of course a lot of value in what Misirkov and others said and believed. They did not have strong feelings of dislike towards the Slavic question we seem to have today.

That’s not a mystery. Neither is the reason why Macedonians today have an aversion to that term, especially given its use by certain others in the Balkans to denigrate our history and identity. You know this already. I am not an advocate for disregarding the use of the term completely, but I do believe it should be limited to necessity only. The Germanic component of the English language and ethnicity is almost never mentioned today unless it is necessary to do so. I am tired of this ‘one rule for Macedonians, another rule for the rest of Europe’ mentality that our enemies promote and even some of our own supposed people espouse, whether willingly or naively. The primary denominator in our history and identity is the Macedonian element and that is where our perspective as Macedonians should emanate from. And that is what we, as inheritors of that which has been left by our ancestors, should place the most emphasis on.

[Liberator of Makedonija]

I don't think it's in there. I've read through both and it cannot recall Misirkov ever declaring his ancestors arrived in the middle ages.

I swear I brought this up a couple years ago in a seperate thread.