Slavic Migration

[TerraNova]

What is your opinion in this matter?

I guess everyone has his own thoughts.
Most here-as far as i know- deny that a Slavic migration ever happened.

Some believe there was no movement at all, some that there were only minor scale invasions and the ancient Macedonians were actually Slavic speaking!

The Academy of science of Skopje ,and the Macedonian national museum on the other hand do not deny the migration ,but they promote the idea of mix.
=Slavs migrated ,mixed with the ancient Macedonian (and Paeonian and Dardanian) people ,(gave their language) and the new Macedonian nation was formed so. (appeared in state's form during Samuel's era (10th cent AD)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I will put a couple of questions on the table ..

If the Slavic migration never happened...

1)Why Slavic place names are NOT found in Macedonia (as well as in Greece) before 7th-8th century AD?...but they do in significant numbers after this time? (at which time,movement of Sclavenes is recorded in the sources)


2)Why the Slavs are described as PAGANS ?
If the slavic-speaking population was actually the descendants of ancient Macedonians...they would be already Christians.

(Remember that Apostle Paul had already started baptizing the Macedonians in the 1st cent AD. (writing letters to Thessalonians in Greek.. )

[Delodephius]

A question on the 2#: How would you describe the Slavonic Christians today:
1) as Christians;
2a) as Pseudo-Christians;
2b) as Pseudo-Pagans;
3) as Pagans?

[makedonin]

Before starting to answer your questions or debate with you, you own some answears from the other threads:

You wrote:

I just read in "Περί Θεμάτων" ("De Thematibus"), that emperor Justininan the Rhinotmetos (nose-cut) [685-695 /705-711] allowed to settle "Scythians"(=Slavs) in Strymon's Thema (Struma/Serres region and above) ,and now they inhabit the mountains around instead of Macedonians.

You should look at which territory the Strymon Theme was:

Byzantine Theme Strymon klick here

And than the question:


If we say it is settlement of Slavs, than there was settlement of Slavs in your district of East Macedonia former Strymon Theme, as well in former Theme Tessaloniki etc. It is in your Territory in your present country borders, you know !

How does this goes with your alleged 4000 years of Greek continuity in Macedonia ???

Or do you accept your Slavic descent as well?

If so, what is your purpose here disputing and babbling about we being Slavs, when you your self is of Slavic descent ????

Or you don't agree that those Slavs were settled in Strymon and Thessaloniki Theme ???

Explain your self

[Philosopher]

What is your opinion in this matter?

I guess everyone has his own thoughts.
Most here-as far as i know- deny that a Slavic migration ever happened.

Some believe there was no movement at all, some that there were only minor scale invasions and the ancient Macedonians were actually Slavic speaking!

The Academy of science of Skopje ,and the Macedonian national museum on the other hand do not deny the migration ,but they promote the idea of mix.
=Slavs migrated ,mixed with the ancient Macedonian (and Paeonian and Dardanian) people ,(gave their language) and the new Macedonian nation was formed so. (appeared in state's form during Samuel's era (10th cent AD)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I will put a couple of questions on the table ..

If the Slavic migration never happened...

1)Why Slavic place names are NOT found in Macedonia (as well as in Greece) before 7th-8th century AD?...but they do in significant numbers after this time? (at which time,movement of Sclavenes is recorded in the sources)


2)Why the Slavs are described as PAGANS ?
If the slavic-speaking population was actually the descendants of ancient Macedonians...they would be already Christians.

(Remember that Apostle Paul had already started baptizing the Macedonians in the 1st cent AD. (writing letters to Thessalonians in Greek.. )

The Slavic Migration Theory is a myth. I can disprove it rather easily.

1. The ancient Macedonians, as the first Europeans to adopt Christianity, were called Christians. Only non-Christians could be slaves in the Roman Empire, since Church teaching dictated thus. However, since Rome did not become Christian until the fourth century AD, anyone could have been a slave.

Where the confusion lies is that Macedonians, in time, were called Slavs, because of their language being similar to the people of the north. Thus, those unbaptized people of the north, who spoke slavic, were called Slavs (Slaves), and then Macedonians were called slaves because their language was similar. If the Macedonians were slaves before the Christian era in Rome, then it is because they were slaves in building Rome, along with Greeks and others.

2. If the Migration theory is true, as you suggest, then surely there would be evidence of this in the DNA. If the Macedonians are the product of a migration with 15% R1a, then so is Crete with 14%-16%, southern Greeks with 12%, Greek Macedonians with 35%, Syrians and Lebanese with 10% R1a, and Albanians with 10%.

According to Oxford, "Contemporary Slavic paternal gene pool is characterized by the predominance of R1a and I1b (xM26) variants as well as the scarcity of E3b1 lineages as a result of the following prehistoric gene flows."

According to Stanford University,

"Haplogroup R1a is found today across a large swathe of Asia and Europe and may have originated in South or Central Asia. R1a is most common among Pakistanis, North Indians, Russians, Ukrainians, and the Kyrgyz and Altai peoples of Central Asia. Europe R1a is the most common in Slavic peoples and is also very common in Scandinavia. The presence of R1a in the British Isles is in the main due to Norse Viking ancestry…"

According to Oxford, R1a-M17 is found highest among:

1. Polish 56.4%
2. Ukraine 54.0%
3. Byelorussian 47.0%

In the Southern Balkans:

1. Slovenian 37.0%
2. Croatian (mainland) 34.3%
3. Bosnian 24.6%
4. Herzegovinian 12.1%
5. Serbian 15.9%
6. Macedonian 15.2%
7. Bulgarian 14.7%


What other countries have amount of R1a?
1. Romanian 20.0%
2. Hungarian 20.4%
3. Icelander 23.8%
4. Swedish 17.3%
5. Norwegian (Germanic)17.9%
6. Southern Greece 12%
7. Crete 14%-16%
8. Eastern Iran 35%
9 Syria 10%
10. Greek Macedonia 35%

Greeks apparently have something very in common with Eastern and Western Slavic people. In the measurement of I1b, Greece has 8.4%. Compare that to:

1. Czech and Slovak 11.1%
2. Hungarian (non Slavic) 7.1%
3. Polish 9.9%

However, Macedonia has 29.1% compared to Serbia’s 29.2%.

But the real data I would like to point out is: E3b1 and J2E. The National Geographic explains E3b1 thus:

Today, the E3b1 line of descent is most heavily represented in Mediterranean populations. Approximately 10 percent of the men in Spain belong to this haplogroup, as do 12 percent of the men in northern Italy, and 13 percent of the men in central and southern Italy. Roughly 20 percent of the men in Sicily belong to this group. In the Balkans and Greece, between 20 to 30 percent of the men belong to E3b1, as do nearly 75 percent of the men in North Africa. The haplogroup is rarely found in India or East Asia. Around 10 percent of all European men trace their descent to this line. For example, in Ireland, 3 to 4 percent of the men belong; in England, 4 to 5 percent; Hungary, 7 percent; and Poland, 8 to 9 percent. Nearly 25 percent of Jewish men belong to this haplogroup.

If E3B1 is characterized by Mediterranean, and it is, isn’t it odd how Balkans people, a supposedly Slavic people from Ukraine, has the highest amount of this frequency? More than Spain and Italy—not even close. And isn’t it odd that according to Oxford Slavic people are characterized by a scarcity of E3b1. And yet, who has the highest of this frequency?

According to Oxford, Macedonia has the highest amount (next to Albania) at 24.1% in all of Europe, (only Morocco has more, 27.9%) followed closely by Greece at 21.4%, and Serbia at 20.4%. Notice, however, that Croatian mainland has only 5.6%, Bosnian 10.1%, Herzegovinian at 8.5%--not even close. Not even Greek Macedonia has a lot—only 18.6%. Bulgaria only has 20.7%.

How can Macedonia and Serbia, two supposedly Slavic people from the Ukraine have the highest in all of Europe! Compare their numbers to:

1. Poland 3.6%
2. Ukraine 7.5%

Macedonians have more Mediterranean frequencies than Greek, Italians, and Spaniards! And yet, all of these countries are considered natives to the region! Strange, indeed!

The last frequency, J2E is also fascinating. J2E has its origin in the north fertile crescent—South West Asia. Who in Europe has the highest?

1. Albanian Kosovo 16.7%
2. Albanians 14.3%
3. Italian north central 9.6%
4. Macedonian 6.3% (2.8-14.0)
5. Greece 6.5% (3.1-13.5)
6. Serbian 5.3%

As for the other Slavic people or Balkans people, close to nothing!
Indeed, how can the modern day Macedonians, who exhibit the highest amounts in Mediterranean and Middle Eastern frequencies (in Europe) be a Slavic people that came in the 6th century from the Ukraine? It’s not possible in the least. If that was the case, Macedonians would resemble Ukraine, Poland, Russia, and others in the category but they don’t.

The Macedonian language is native to the Balkans. Any linguist will tell you that northern slavic is a branch of southern slavic.

According to Alinei:
I have to commence by clearing away one of the most absurd consequences of the traditional chronology, namely, that of the ‘arrival’ of the Slavs into the immense area in which they now live. The only logical conclusion can be that the southern branch of the Slavs is the oldest and that from it developed the Slavic western and eastern branches in a differing manner and perhaps at different times.

Alinei further states that:
Today only a minority of experts support the theory of a late migration for the Slavs… because none of the variant versions of such late settlement answers the question of what crucial factor could possibly have enabled the Slavs to have left their Bronze-Age firesides to become the dominant peoples of Europe. The southwestern portion of the Slavs had always bordered on the Italic people in Dalmatia, as well as in the areas of the eastern Alps and in the Po lowlands.

Alinei concludes:
The surmised ‘Slavic migration’ is full of inconsistencies. There is no ‘northern Slavic language’, it is rather only a variant of the southern Slavic… The first metallurgic cultures in the Balkans are Slavic… and connected with Anatolia… Slavic presence in the territory, nearly identical to the one occupied by them today, exists ever since the Stone Age… The Slavs have (together with the Greeks and other Balkan peoples developed agriculture… agriculturally mixed economy, typically European, which later enabled the birth of the Greek, Etruscan, and Latin urbanism. Germanic peoples adopted agriculture from the Slavs… The Balkans is one of the rare regions in which a real and true settlement of human groups coming from Anatolia is proven...

Since the Slavic language originated in the southern Balkans, and since Macedonians and Serbians can trace their descendants thousands of years ago to the southern Balkans, it is only logical to conclude that the language and people are native to the southern Balkans. Science buttresses this and any knowledgeable linguist will undergird it.
The ancient Macedonian language is mentioned as Slavic by Orbini in 1601 and the ancient Macedonian language is mentioned distinct of Greek by the ancient writers.
Even if we accept the claim that the ancient Macedonians didn’t speak Slavic, then the question is: how did almost the whole Balkans learn Slavic? If there was a Migration, as you suggest, we should surely see it in DNA studies. If the Slavs were the majority, this would be reflected in the DNA; if they were the minority, then how did they subdue the Balkans with such a diminutive number? Even if we accept this, how can we reconcile the fact that Slavic had its nascence in the south and not in the north? How could the migrants bring a language to the region, if that language has its origins in that region (the Southern Balkans)?

If the ancient Macedonians adopted Slavic, a fact which is impossible, why are modern Macedonians prohibited from claiming the ancients as their own? We already know based on science that Macedonians and Greeks are very similar in DNA; if the Macedonians are a product of a migration, then so are Greeks. If Egyptians, Lebanese, Syrians, Tunisians, and Algerians can claim the ancients as their own, even though today’s people speak a different language, have different customs, and serve different gods, why can’t the Macedonians claim the ancients as their own? And this assumes that today’s Macedonians have no connection in culture and language with the ancients on conjecture.

Were the ancient Greeks so immunable to the Slavic Migration that no Slavic presence has been left in Hellas?
How is that modern Slavic words and names, predate the Homeric poems, when the Slavic language apparently came in the 6th century AD in the Balkans? Take Vasil, for example, clearly a Slavic name that has been used before the times of Homer. And yet Vasil, unlike in Greek, does not merely mean “King.” It means a person “in power.” If you study the history of the name Vasil, and how it has been used historically, you would know that it has been used as an appellation for “king,” “potentate,” “prince,” “chieftain,” “ruler,” etc. In other words, any person in power or authority—not just a “king” as the Hellenic language has it.

[Daskalot]

Nice work Philosopher! Bravo!!

[Daskalot]

1)Why Slavic place names are NOT found in Macedonia (as well as in Greece) before 7th-8th century AD?...but they do in significant numbers after this time? (at which time,movement of Sclavenes is recorded in the sources)

Bylazora is a name predating the socalled invasions, there are more for sure, but that is the one that comes to mind.

Stobi, Scupi are others.

[TerraNova]

Bylazora is a name predating the socalled invasions, there are more for sure, but that is the one that comes to mind.

Stobi, Scupi are others.

Daskale,these are Paeonian towns ,not Macedonian .(all sources distinguish the two tribes).

Moreover nobody in the international scientific community of science,recognize them as Slavic.

[Daskalot]

Daskale,these are Paeonian towns ,not Macedonian .(all sources distinguish the two tribes).

Moreover nobody in the international scientific community of science,recognize them as Slavic.

They were Macedonian for sure, they were a part of Filip's Macedonia, and the surely were a par of Roman Macedonia, or are you disputing this as well?

[TerraNova]

The Slavic Migration Theory is a myth. I can disprove it rather easily.

1. The ancient Macedonians, as the first Europeans to adopt Christianity, were called Christians. Only non-Christians could be slaves in the Roman Empire, since Church teaching dictated thus. However, since Rome did not become Christian until the fourth century AD, anyone could have been a slave.

Where the confusion lies is that Macedonians, in time, were called Slavs, because of their language being similar to the people of the north. Thus, those unbaptized people of the north, who spoke slavic, were called Slavs (Slaves), and then Macedonians were called slaves because their language was similar. If the Macedonians were slaves before the Christian era in Rome, then it is because they were slaves in building Rome, along with Greeks and others.

Where on Earth have you read this ?

Also remember that you base your personal theory on the ENGLISH word "slave"..comparing to "Slav".

In the original Greek sources it's "Σκλαβήνοι."

For the rest of it ..i cannot comment ,until you base it somehow on sources ,evidence...anywhere except your personal -creative i must admit- fantasy.

2. If the Migration theory is true, as you suggest, then surely there would be evidence of this in the DNA. If the Macedonians are the product of a migration with 15% R1a, then so is Crete with 14%-16%, southern Greeks with 12%, Greek Macedonians with 35%, Syrians and Lebanese with 10% R1a, and Albanians with 10%.
(....)

I can't follow genetics manipulation arguments-They are used by Greek,Macedonian or any nationalist,as they wish-
It's sure though that (at least yet) it's rather stupid to come to conclusions.
(for example in your argument...Crete has a significant ratio of "Slavic" DNA ,and Norway too...)


-Alinei and Orbini...cannot be considered as the top of historians and linguists...for sure not!

Even if we accept the claim that the ancient Macedonians didn’t speak Slavic, then the question is: how did almost the whole Balkans learn Slavic? If there was a Migration, as you suggest, we should surely see it in DNA studies. If the Slavs were the majority, this would be reflected in the DNA; if they were the minority, then how did they subdue the Balkans with such a diminutive number?

How is that the Turks speak Turkish?
Did they named themselves "Anatolians" ?
Do they share the same DNA with Turkestan people?

If Egyptians, Lebanese, Tunisians, and Algerians can claim the ancients as their own, even though today’s people speak a different language, have different customs, and serve different gods, why can’t the Macedonians claim the ancients as their own?

ALL THE ABOVE DO NOT ADOPT THE NAMES OF THE ANCIENT PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT LANGUAGE INHABITED THEIR LANDS.

Were the ancient Greeks so immunable to the Slavic Migration that no Slavic presence has been left in Hellas?
How is that modern Slavic words and names, predate the Homeric poems, when the Slavic language apparently came in the 6th century AD in the Balkans? Take Vasil, for example, clearly a Slavic name that has been used before the times of Homer. And yet Vasil, unlike in Greek, does not merely mean “King.” It means a person “in power.” If you study the history of the name Vasil, and how it has been used historically, you would know that it has been used as an appellation for “king,” “potentate,” “prince,” “chieftain,” “ruler,” etc. In other words, any person in power or authority—not just a “king” as the Hellenic language has it.

Have you heard about indoeuropean group of languages???
I can find 200 words of sankrit similar to Greek ...
does this mean that Greeks lived in India ??
It's just similarity of the same group of languages.

[Daskalot]

Just to give you a reminder big boy, Albanian and Greek should not really be included in the indoeuropean language group..... the Greek words that are spread around in other European languages are imported for one reason or another thus there is not a natural link to the other european languages as there are within th Germanic, Latin and Slavic groups.... you are outsiders......

[TerraNova]

Before starting to answer your questions or debate with you, you own some answears from the other threads:

You wrote:



You should look at which territory the Strymon Theme was:

Byzantine Theme Strymon klick here

And than the question:


If we say it is settlement of Slavs, than there was settlement of Slavs in your district of East Macedonia former Strymon Theme, as well in former Theme Tessaloniki etc. It is in your Territory in your present country borders, you know !

In other maps Strymon stretches along Strymon/Struma valley ,not so East as in this,and Northern following the valley.

In any case in the northern districts of Serres and Drama (modern Greek Macedonia) until early 20th century are recorded slavic speakers, self-identifying either as Macedonians or as Bulgarians (some as slavophone Greeks too)
Obviously their descendants.

How does this goes with your alleged 4000 years of Greek continuity in Macedonia ???

Or do you accept your Slavic descent as well?

If so, what is your purpose here disputing and babbling about we being Slavs, when you your self is of Slavic descent ????

Or you don't agree that those Slavs were settled in Strymon and Thessaloniki Theme ???

Explain your self

First of all i ve never written 4000 years of Greek history..since Chalkidiki was colonized in the 7th centry BC ,and the kingdom of Macedon was established in 700-650BC too,by expelling the Thracians of the region...

Second..of course Slavs ,didn't stop at the borders!They penetrated until Peloponnese (leaving only the islands outside) ...
After the reconquest and excursions of Justinian II,Constantine V ,and the following emperors, Byzantine rule was forced in the SCLAVENIAI ,many Slavs expelled to Asia Minor, Greeks were transfered to Thrace and Macedonia from other places/....and the remaining were gradually ASSIMILATED.
I don't claim racial purity !!!

At the north of course ,and since the Slavic speakers remained inside the slavic-speaking Bulgarian kingdom...they followed the fate of this state...and assimilated the remaining pockets of Greek speakers.

(some Greek speakers survived though ,deep inside Slavic speaking population,as in Stenimachos,Philipoupolis(Plovdiv) and otherwhere.)


Now...you can answer my Questions

[TerraNova]

Just to give you a reminder big boy, Albanian and Greek should not really be included in the indoeuropean language group..... the Greek words that are spread around in other European languages are imported for one reason or another thus there is not a natural link to the other european languages as there are within th Germanic, Latin and Slavic groups.... you are outsiders......

What? Imported ....by whom ?
I thought Greek words are the first written* in Europe-do you think (modern) Macedonian was first.. ?

*Some far back to 1.600 BC.

[Daskalot]

What? Imported ....by whom ?
I thought Greek words are the first written* in Europe-do you think (modern) Macedonian was first.. ?

*Some far back to 1.600 BC.

So are you saying Greek is the mother tongue of all Europe?
Imported to fill a void not present in the language for a certain new "invention".... Greek and Latin word do have a wide spread in non Latin an non Greek languages, like the terminology used for Medicine etc.

[Delodephius]

TN, you cannot use words of scholars as adequate evidence that some theory is true or false. First of all, it is a logical fallacy on its own. Second of all, none of us here are experts ourselves to confirm that what those scholars are saying is valid or not. We can only use in our discus something we have enough skill to evaluate ourselves.

Personally, I think you lied about your education. You do not act as an educated person should, and I have a share of doctors and professors among my acquaintance, friends and relatives. Secondly, your orthography is terrible as well as your English, which me as a linguist in training find absolutely horrible and it only discredits your good name.

[Philosopher]

For a Master's Graduate you don't know history or religion very well. Open up the New Testament and you will see what I am speaking of. Macedonia was the first European nation to adopt Christianity.

Also remember that you base your personal theory on the ENGLISH word "slave"..comparing to "Slav".

No sir; that is your ignorance. I base mine on history.

In the original Greek sources it's "Σκλαβήνοι."

For the rest of it ..i cannot comment ,until you base it somehow on sources ,evidence...anywhere except your personal -creative i must admit- fantasy.

Actually, it is from Oxford Univeristy. The quote is from Oxford is well. Morons such as yourself, when unable to refute facts, engage in circular argument. You can't disprove what I wrote; so you choose to ignore it because you are too blinded by your ignorance.


I can't follow genetics manipulation arguments-They are used by Greek,Macedonian or any nationalist,as they wish-
It's sure though that (at least yet) it's rather stupid to come to conclusions.
(for example in your argument...Crete has a significant ratio of "Slavic" DNA ,and Norway too...)

No, I said Crete has significant R1a, which is usally sign of slavic speaking people. However, as I pointed out, non-slavic speaking people have more than Macedonians. How better to judge a Migration theory than with scientific fact? In case of rape, child custody, family, etc, the courts rely on DNA tests, don't they? Why not in Ethnic conflicts--free from the ignorance and supersition of historians?


-Alinei and Orbini...cannot be considered as the top of historians and linguists...for sure not!

Alinei is actually very qualified. Oribini is a monk; that is not the point. He is giving an eyewitness account that slavic Macedonians existed in 1601; and, moreover, o wise one, he is basing his conclusion that slavic was the language of the ancients on historic sources...read up!



How is that the Turks speak Turkish?
Did they named themselves "Anatolians" ?
Do they share the same DNA with Turkestan people?

Nice try; this discussion is not about Turkey; if you are interested in Turkish DNA, look it up!



ALL THE ABOVE DO NOT ADOPT THE NAMES OF THE ANCIENT PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT LANGUAGE INHABITED THEIR LANDS.

I don't follow...? What? Egypt has always remained Egypt, even though they speak Arabic. Are you going to tell me an Arabic speaking Egyptian cannot glory in his ancestors and the pyrmaids even though the ancients used a different language?




Have you heard about indoeuropean group of languages???
I can find 200 words of sankrit similar to Greek ...
does this mean that Greeks lived in India ??
It's just similarity of the same group of languages.


You really are stupid. I would wipe your bottom with your diploma.
Vasil has inherent meaning in Slavic; not in Greek!

You failed to disprove anything I wrote; rather, you choose to ignore the evidence at your own peril!