Slav Macedonians

[indigen]

I see what you are saying Indigen, but I cannot agree with calling the language of the Slavs from the Danube that penetrated the Balkans as Macedonian. I agree that it was related to the local Macedonian language which must have assisted in the process of amalgamation, but it cannot be rightfully called anything but Slavic at that point in time. Even the terms 'Croatian' and 'Serbian' are relatively recent where it concerns the names of the languages, given the alleged time of their arrival in the Balkans (7th century).

I am sure it can be applied if one tries, as you can see in the above example. All these linguistic language group designations probably did not exist past a couple of hundred years ago and it has not stopped others projecting backwards various proto-language labels.

The following is one conceptual view of possible historical developments:

The RETURNEES (various refugees and/or settlers from the Macedonian/ Balkan Peninsula), together with related stock (and others) from the other side of Danube come back and settle amongst their kith and kin and establish a different form of government (one that is less taxing and more democratic) and expel the "Roman" establishment from areas under their control.

The Romans designate these local free-governing areas "Sκlavenon" (Σκλαβηνων) and all inhabitants and subjects get called various names that is generally applied to followers and/or citizens of the leadership of these political formations. The INDIGENOUS Macedonic population is the overwhelming base of these political formations and their language and culture is absorbed by the Returnees but some of the tribal designations and the "Sklav" appellation continue to be used by enemy ("Roman") establishment to describe them ALL.

If we consider that the INDIGENOUS base of the Macedonic population predominates (due to lack of evidence for mass invasion/migration and PTO), why should we not refer to them as Macedonians, Macedonic (and/or Thracian/Illyrian) where applicable? If the population is predominantly Macedonic, so their language can (should) be called Macedonian/Macedonic, IMO!

Cheers

Chashata za vino na Samuil! Najdeni se povekje vakvi primeroci pri restavracija na Samuilovata tvrdina! Izvor: Nepokor
Hmmm, a jas mislev deka Slovenite ne znaele za shesnaesetkrakoto sonce na Aleksandar?! Otkaj mu na Samuil vakva casha? Mozhebi chovekot bil svesen deka e potomok na Filip Makedonski?!

http://forum.kajgana.com/showpost.php?p=3478&postcount=7

[Pelister]

Macedonians have been referring to their language as "Macedonian" for 150 years (as long as the British have been there), and probably much longer. Why should we that change?

I think the term "Slav" as a colonial descriptor is false, and I don't think we should be using it in any way - especially and specifically we should not be using it to distinguish the Macedonians from others. The term Macedonian should be enough. I'm not sure how to get around it, but there has to be a way.

[Soldier of Macedon]

When there is record of groups of Slavs that went from the Danube south, we cannot logically call these people or their language Macedonian at that point in time. Later, when their 'dialect' blends with the local 'dialects' it can be more accurately used, but not before.

[indigen]

Macedonia: Land of Legends, Land of Glory, But Never Greek

On the Macedonian Matter:

This letter is dedicated to the Freedom Fighters of Macedonia EVERYWHERE

MACEDONIA: HISTORY AND REALITY

The St. Peter’s Day worldwide Macedonian rally demonstrated to the world that the Macedonians are still alive and want TO BE... “Alexander the Great is a Macedonian” was the cry of one Sydney Macedonian demonstrator: for Alexander lives not only as a symbol of Ancient Macedonia and her glorious campaigns but also of the tremendous ideas that are nowadays of the utmost importance. In this sense, Alexander will live on as the main spiritual force of every Macedonian. But there was more than that in the demonstrator’s mind. He strives to assert that todays Republic of Macedonia is not merely a Titoist forgery of the 1940’s but was and is the home of the great Alexander.

Tragically, some demonstrators in Melbourne uttered a somewhat different cry. They claimed that the Macedonians are a leftover Slavic tribe from the Carpathian Alps, which settled on the Balkans in the 6th Century A.D., although in not many words. The implication of this would be the forfeiture of the true Macedonian identity even with the name. In such a case, the name “Macedonia” would have been borrowed (stolen) from its rightful owner. In Edition No. 400 of “Macedonia Herald Weekly”, Laure Akai, a visitor from the U.S.A asked me some questions regarding the article “Macedonia: Land of Legends, Land of Glory, But Never Greek”. I felt the answers would be too ignorant to every Macedonian just proved how wrong I was! A lot of Macedonians still suffer from the “Slavic Syndrome!”.

SLAVICISM IS ONE OF THE THREE FUNDAMENTAL CAUSES OF ALL THE MISFORTUNES AND CATASTROPHES OF THE MACEDONIAN NATION, WITHOUT THE MERCILESS EXTIRPATION OF SLAVICISM, HELLENISM AND COMMUNISM – THESE VIRUSES ON THE BODY OF OUR NATION – THERE IS NO CHANCE OF BUILDING A NEW-BORN MACEDONIA!!!

[.....]

WHO IS THE DOCTRINE OF SLAVICISM?

Slavicism was fabricated by Czarist Russia, the goal being to claim the Macedonian Orthodox Church (the Patriarch of Constantinople was originally Macedonian, and the Archbishopric of Ohrid was to take over this responsibility if anything was to happen to Constantinople) and the Macedonian speaking nations on the Balkans as her Colonies. This doctrine was later adopted by Belgrade to promote her plans for a Greater Serbia (Yugoslavia).
Hellenism was a reaction to Slavicism, by which the Athens (England, Greece) claimed Macedonia as an inseparable part of Hellas Irredempta. Slavicism was eventually overshadowed, by communism. We know that Hellenism is our enemy, and we are ridding Macedonia of its last remnants of Communism.

However Slavicism is still the invisible enemy to most ...and it must be eliminated now!

NO MACEDONIA FOR SLAVS AND GREEKS
MACEDONIA FOR THE MACEDONIANS!!

Published in Australian Macedonian Herald, 19th August 1992.

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

A perspective from 1992 (found on Usenet) to demonstrate the decades long fight against Slavism (Slavjanizam).

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

Some views of Chris Stefou (aka Risto Stefov) that irritate and annoy and can be seen as promoting Slavism and as undermining Macedonian indigenity:

"...My intention in this article is to provide more evidence that will dispute Greek claims on Ancient Macedonia and that will prove that not only were the ancient Macedonians not Greek, but that they were an ethnically unique people with a prehistoric Slav identity.

Prehistoric "Slav" identity? Macedonians are a people of the Book - Biblical nation! "Slavs" are what? There is no such thing as a "Slav" people, nation, language or culture"! There is only a linguist group called "Slavic", which Macedonians are better of designating as Macedonic.

For the sake of the Modern Macedonian Nation, which for political reasons has been exploited by the Great Powers and its allies, my interest here is to show that the Macedonian people living in geographical Macedonia today, contrary to official history, are the descendants of the Ancient and prehistoric Macedonians. The Macedonian lineage has survived and remained intact from prehistoric times to today. My arguments do not imply racial purity but rather cultural and linguistic continuity. It is well known that many outsiders have invaded Macedonia and there is no doubt that many have left their mark as well. However, in spite of all attempts to subdue it, the Macedonian character, over the ages, has survived.

I have issues with the usage of "geographic Macedonia" instead of ethno historical Macedonia.

Risto seems to have an issue of claiming/proclaiming direct genetic continuity and it seems to be based on a mental block (or lack of understanding of what it means) rather than logic. Direct descent does not mean genetic purity but that one has a genetic connection to a given ancestor population.

Aided by the rough and impenetrable terrain the Macedonian village has become the bastion and saviour of the Macedonian language and culture. Invaders of cities and fertile lands rarely showed interest in villages that were poor, arid, secluded, and impossible to reach. Ironically, Macedonia's ethnic strength, in numbers, lies in its villages. Anyone wishing to conduct business in Macedonia has to learn "the ways of the village" including the village language and culture. This is as true today as it was in Homer's time.

In spite of great efforts by the Greek authorities in the last century to eradicate the Macedonian consciousness in the villages, the Macedonian language and culture have survived and in time, will flourish again.

Mental block strikes again, survival of language and culture but NOT blood (genes) is mentioned.

There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the majority of today's modern Macedonians speak a variation of the Slav language, enjoy a variation of the old Slav culture......

What can I say? There is NO "SLAV" language or culture for Macedonians to be having a variation of either.

http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/stefov/stefov17.html

[indigen]

When there is record of groups of Slavs that went from the Danube south, we cannot logically call these people or their language Macedonian at that point in time. Later, when their 'dialect' blends with the local 'dialects' it can be more accurately used, but not before.

Hi SOM,

Some questions:

1. What time frame are you prepared to give for the "fusion" to eventuate?

2. How will you differentiate who is indigenous and who is a settler when the "Romans" will lump under one label all those outside their control and under a given political entity?

Cheers

[Soldier of Macedon]

Patriarch of Constantinople was originally Macedonian, and the Archbishopric of Ohrid was to take over this responsibility if anything was to happen to Constantinople

That is a very generalised statement that requires elaboration if it is to be taken seriously.

Prehistoric "Slav" identity? Macedonians are a people of the Book - Biblical nation!

I agree, his words should have been better chosen, but I am not sure he means what you think he means with the word 'Slav'.

There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the majority of today's modern Macedonians speak a variation of the Slav language, enjoy a variation of the old Slav culture......

Culture? Some from the Slav tribes along the Danube has certainly made its presence in all Balkan cultures, but overall Macedonian culture is different to Russian or Polish culture for example. Nevertheless, the fact that Macedonian is a language belonging to the Slavic linguistic group, therefore making it a variant of that group, cannot be disputed. Again, he could have chosen his words a little better, but I don't think he is a Pan-Slavist.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Slavic is a recent name (6th century), the same peoples that this name was attributed to and came to be attributed to had different names prior to this, it doesn't mean that there was no commonality prior though. The PCT theory makes logical sense with the assertion that the languages that came to be known as 'Slavic' originated in the Balkans and spread north, but this took place much prior to the 'Slavic Period'. This era is represented by a loose linguistic 'union' that was identified and established originally in areas along and just north of the Danube. It had an impact on the language(s) spoken in that area, where it appears that they were standardised in common forms to some degree.

This can rightfully be determined as the 'Slavic Period', where the speakers of these similar tongues were lumped under the one umbrella term for the first time, Slovo (word), signifying that linguistic union. There can be no doubt that after this took place, some of these groups from the Danube penetrated south and made an influental impact in all directions and on all the languages and cultures in the Balkans. As the years went by, the common linguistic forms developed along and north of the Danube brought about a rough hegemony over the languages in Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria.

1. What time frame are you prepared to give for the "fusion" to eventuate?

It depends, much would have had to have taken place by the time of Cyril and Methodius, but other areas may have been slower to this process. Subsequent linguistic changes or features in the Macedonian language could be due to foreign influence or the final elements of the older local language making its mark of the popular tongue.

2. How will you differentiate who is indigenous and who is a settler when the "Romans" will lump under one label all those outside their control and under a given political entity?

When you can you will, they are not always lumped together, but otherwise, I think one of the more consistent indicators would be the leaders of the groups, as the Slavic tribes that crossed the Danube, despite being referred to as agricultural by some, were also known as fighters, barbaric as they were. It is not logical to assume that the Macedonian Sclavinae present during the 7th-9th centuries were completely peopled by the invaders, what most likely occured was a situation where the local inhabitants fell under the leadership and influence of the Slavic warriors.

Note that the 'Macedonia Theme' established in western Thrace by the Romans came about at the end of the 8th or beginning of the 9th century, most probably by emigrants from Macedonia proper. That is about 250 years after the first mention of Slavic invaders in the Balkans and Macedonia. By this time, the Macedonian population were speaking a fusion of the languages understood by others in the Slavic group, because the population in the Macedonia Theme also spoke the same, and produced figures such as the Basil the Macedonian and probably Tsar Samuel.

[indigen]

Patriarch of Constantinople was originally Macedonian, and the Archbishopric of Ohrid was to take over this responsibility if anything was to happen to Constantinople.

That is a very generalised statement that requires elaboration if it is to be taken seriously.

If you do a Google search for the original post, you can see where that line is coming from. As for taking something seriously, there is so much political bias due to political/strategic interests in current and past presentation of history that it is almost a meaningless (and very subjective) topic to discuss.

[Soldier of Macedon]

As for taking something seriously, there is so much political bias due to political/strategic interests in current and past presentation of history that it is almost a meaningless (and very subjective) topic to discuss.

I know what you saying man, I suppose we can only try to meet that criterion or at least get as close as possible to it.

[indigen]

Slavic is a recent name (6th century),

And Macedonian is a 5th B.C. self-designation, which becomes eternal via deeds of Alexander III of Macedon and his legend entering in the pages of holy books (as well as folk tales of many nations).

This can rightfully be determined as the 'Slavic Period', where the speakers of these similar tongues were lumped under the one umbrella term for the first time, Slovo (word), signifying that linguistic union.

IMO, the "Slovo" designation is latter day ideological terminology used to cleanse the negative connotation of "Sklav" (Sclavus, Slave, e.t.c) as African-American has emerged to replace Negro ("Nigger") in modern the era. "Sklav"/"Sclavus" was a pejorative term and common political slur, much like "Vulgar"/"Bulgar" and "GreeK"/"Grk" would be, too.

There can be no doubt that after this took place, some of these groups from the Danube penetrated south and made an influental impact in all directions and on all the languages and cultures in the Balkans. As the years went by, the common linguistic forms developed along and north of the Danube brought about a rough hegemony over the languages in Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria.

All this certainty in your statement is based on what?

It is not logical to assume that the Macedonian Sclavinae present during the 7th-9th centuries were completely peopled by the invaders, what most likely occured was a situation where the local inhabitants fell under the leadership and influence of the Slavic warriors.

I want to cut to chase and ask the following obvious question:
In your vision/conclusion/estimation, what is the ratio of the INDIGENOUS MACEDONIAN population in relation to the newcomers/returnees/invaders/settlers/barbarians ("Sklavs"/"Avars"/"Scythians", e.t.c) that established a new tribal political order in Macedonian lands?

Note that the 'Macedonia Theme' established in western Thrace by the Romans came about at the end of the 8th or beginning of the 9th century, most probably by emigrants from Macedonia proper.

From what I have deduced from my general reading on this subject, the theme system served a military purpose and emerged from political/strategic/military reorganisation of the Christian ("Roman") Empire. The Macedonian theme, amongst others, was created (and was quite large at first) in order to keep a claim on political jurisdiction over Macedonia as a whole. It is probable that a large number of the urban Macedonian population (loyal to the empire) retreated to adjacent areas under Christian rule.

Originally Posted by indigen
1. What time frame are you prepared to give for the "fusion" to eventuate?
That is about 250 years after the first mention of Slavic invaders in the Balkans and Macedonia. By this time, the Macedonian population were speaking a fusion of the languages understood by others in the Slavic group, because the population in the Macedonia Theme also spoke the same, and produced figures such as the Basil the Macedonian and probably Tsar Samuel.

So, you reckon it took 250 years for a small number of primitive "barbarians" (of similar ethnic and linguistic stock) to fuse with the vast majority of the indigenous Macedonic population? I would say fusion would have been very quick indeed, within 100-150 years, and any reference to "Slav" this and "Slav" that may be in fact misleading in many instances.

Cheers

[Pelister]

Hi SOM,

Some questions:

1. What time frame are you prepared to give for the "fusion" to eventuate?

2. How will you differentiate who is indigenous and who is a settler when the "Romans" will lump under one label all those outside their control and under a given political entity?

Cheers

You see this is the problem.

How do we distinguish between them ?

Do we know what language these invaders were speaking ? The answer is NO.

The ONLY evidence ever found of "Slavs" is a piece of 6th century "Prague-type pottery" (Vryonis) in central Greece. THAT IS IT. But its a very poor analogy.

The semantic resemblence between 5th century "Sklavoi" and the term Slavic today, is ONLY a resemblance. There is no evidence that the two terms are interrelated.

Connecting 5th century invaders to the term "Slavic" (as though they are interrelated), gives us the impression that this language ALSO appeared in the 5th century A.D. The trouble is that there is no evidence what the language of 5th century "Sklavoi" in fact was. It is an assumption only.

The use of the term "Slav" is poisonous for us. I know some here are using it alot to distinguish who the "Slavs" were Indigen is right. It will ultimately work against us.

The other thing is the way historians refer to 5th century invaders as "Slavs". This is a DISTORTION. Contemporaries called them "Sklavenoi" and "Sklavoi" and "Getae" and "Antae" - but never "Slavs".

There is alot of interpretive mischief in this classification, and it should not be used.

[Sovius]

There is alot of interpretive mischief in this classification, and it should not be used.

I like that.

The Slav term has served its purpose. Poland was gutted, its populations thinned out to make way for German expansion and the Neo-Grecians did the same thing to Aegean Macedonia. Macedonia has every European history book written since the 19th Century working against it. Why add fuel to the flames? Slavic is a revision that replaced Sarmatian and Illyrian among Western European scholars. Medieval English maps didn’t label Central and Eastern Europe Slavland. They were labeled Sarmatia, just as Roman maps were during the Ancient Period. My ancestors were referred to as Sarmatians and they spoke a Sarmatian language. There is a reason why Mithridates de Differentis Linguis isn’t on the bookshelf at your local library anymore.

[Sovius]

IMO, the "Slovo" designation is latter day ideological terminology used to cleanse the negative connotation of "Sklav" (Sclavus, Slave, e.t.c) as African-American has emerged to replace Negro ("Nigger") in modern the era. "Sklav"/"Sclavus" was a pejorative term and common political slur, much like "Vulgar"/"Bulgar" and "GreeK"/"Grk" would be, too.

An interesting view, so, if I understand you correctly, you regard the term Sklavus as being entirely unrelated to slovenskii?

[George S.]

The slav people were illiterate & adopted the macedonian alphabet & language & were assimilatedThe cyrillic alphabet is derived from the ancient macedonian alphabet.By putting the slav bit on the alphabet & calling it slav macedonian is really a diservice.Just because the slav people came down to macedonia doesn't mean that the macedonians just simply dissappeard.

[Soldier of Macedon]

IMO, the "Slovo" designation is latter day ideological terminology used to cleanse the negative connotation of "Sklav" (Sclavus, Slave, e.t.c) as African-American has emerged to replace Negro ("Nigger") in modern the era.

It is an interesting perspective, but the suggestion that St Clement used the term 'Sloven' in the 9th century in the same manner that an African-American would use 'Nigga' in the 20th century I find hard to accept and support. The term 'Negro' as a Latin term for a darker skinned person developed into 'Nigger' (derrogatory) and then 'Nigga' (rebel).

The status of the term 'Sloven' in Macedonia during the 9th century as written by the natives was one of linguistic commonality and not derrogatory by any means. Although subsequent Roman writers would continue to use 'Sclave/Sklave' as the equivalent of 'Sloven', it is important to note that none of these (Slavic) languages ever used 'Sklave/Sclave' as a self-identity for themselves. The term 'Sklave/Sclave' as recorded in Latin and Greek during the 6th century was the Roman adaptation, but as has been highlighted, the distinction becomes blurred and in some instances the term comes to represent slaves, invaders, rebel enclaves, etc, often of undetermined linguistic origins.

There can be no doubt that after this took place, some of these groups from the Danube penetrated south and made an influental impact in all directions and on all the languages and cultures in the Balkans. As the years went by, the common linguistic forms developed along and north of the Danube brought about a rough hegemony over the languages in Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria.

All this certainty in your statement is based on what?

Based on the following:
1) An invasion in all directions did take place, which began from areas along and north of the Danube.
2) The 6th century is the most recent period of significant movement between the populations on both sides of the Danube, on this occasion from north to south.
3) The language of the invaders was related to the local Balkan languages and some speeches possibly quite similar; some examples show either the prevalence of the native names or their slight mutation due to the invaders, such as Sardica to Sredec (now Sofia) and Strumon to Struma - Both have etymology in Macedonian and other related languages. However, the several ancient Balkan words that have cognates in the Slavic linguistic group are not always in the same form, as certain features were dropped or changed.
4) There is an obvious impact demonstrated through new toponyms and other placenames that indicates a dominant element in the region.
5) Given the commonality in 'Sloven' literature evidenced from the 9th century (compare speech forms/dialects of Freising Manuscript in Slovenian with the Life of Methodius in Macedonian), it is beyond doubt that a degree of hegemony had taken place, which was followed up by the works of Cyrillo-Methodian followers. After all the languages became literate in either Glagolic, Cyrillic or Latin, the vernaculars begin to diverge again.

In your vision/conclusion/estimation, what is the ratio of the INDIGENOUS MACEDONIAN population in relation to the newcomers/returnees/invaders/settlers/barbarians ("Sklavs"/"Avars"/"Scythians", e.t.c) that established a new tribal political order in Macedonian lands?

I don't want to speculate on exact percentage or to what degrees at various stages in history, but the indigenous Macedonian population remained the majority throughout, it is the socio-political system that changed from imperial to tribal, and it is through such means that the linguistic hegemony was able to take place.

The Macedonian theme, amongst others, was created (and was quite large at first) in order to keep a claim on political jurisdiction over Macedonia as a whole. It is probable that a large number of the urban Macedonian population (loyal to the empire) retreated to adjacent areas under Christian rule.

I agree, good way to put it.

So, you reckon it took 250 years for a small number of primitive "barbarians" (of similar ethnic and linguistic stock) to fuse with the vast majority of the indigenous Macedonic population?

That questionable number of 'primitive barbarians' were able to create strong enclaves in Macedonia and other parts of the Balkans that generally remained outside of Roman control. During this period of amalgamation the invaders were the warlords that controlled these rebellious and tribal territories, and the pre-existing linguistic relation contributed to the overall process.

I would say fusion would have been very quick indeed, within 100-150 years, and any reference to "Slav" this and "Slav" that may be in fact misleading in many instances.

Can you cite a source or two as examples that you would consider misleading?