Slav Macedonians

[Soldier of Macedon]

Bratot, are you implying that no settlements took place between the Danube and the Peloponnese (including Macedonia) during the 6th and 7th centuries?

[Bratot]

I interpret it with a bit of reserve.

It could be interpreted in two ways.

Its like THEIR Slavic settlements have replaced the Macedonian.

[Sovius]

The text in question was written during a time when a mass migration was simply assumed and presented as actually having occurred in textbooks, leaving researchers with genuine intentions of unbiased scholarship with little hope of succeeding. What historians who maintain such a view are now innocently and erroneously asking population geneticists to accept is that somehow “The Slavic speaking populations” of the Balkan Peninsula were there and yet not there prior to the 6th Century AD. The genetic profile of contemporary populations in the region speaks much more clearly as to what actually occurred. I believe that texts drafted according to this academic regression just need to be treated for what they’re worth. Omit (disregard) what could not have occurred and one is, hopefully, left with what actually occurred. The field of theoretical physics has always been plagued with similar circumstances, where researchers are kind of right, yet still wrong in the same instance, given new findings.

If Thracians already made up a significant portion of the kingdom of Macedonia’s original inhabitants, how different did the Macedonian language actually become with the entry of a couple of hundred or even a thousand Thracians into what could have been plausibly considered Southern Thrace in an anthropological sense prior to the rise of Macedonia? Native control of the peninsula was regained and this somehow ethnically transformed all the people living in the area into something that they were not?

Curta, while obviously towing an evolution of the Victorian argument under his wings, is an excellent scholar, but he continues to present his argument through this 19th Century filter, which allowed a bunch of dead Romans to seemingly determine who we all are on the surface. It’s my hope that his next book includes genetic evidence and fundamental linguistic observations (rather than outdated speculations) that continue to highlight the limitations of his previous work. Once you get into deeper waters, you find arguments like this tend to sink to the bottom. Histiography is accountable to anthropology, not the other way around.

[Sovius]

Sovius, thanks for sharing your thoughts.
What do you believe we can assume about the Eastern Illyrian language?

No need to assume anything in my opinion, though I apologize for not clarifying that I was using the Eastern Illyrian classification in a specific politically defined geographical sense (Illyricum), not in a universal sense, inclusive of all the other similar languages spoken throughout the region. In a universal sense, Thracian (now politically and pseudo-ethnically identified as Bulgarian) would be an Eastern Illyrian language and Slavonian would be further sub-categorized as a Western Illyrian language. Macedonian would be a Southern Illyrian language using this same classification system. Before most of the region of Illyricum came to be referred to as such, it was referred to as Illyria. In other words, Illyria never ceased to exist, nor was there a shift in the way in which Illyria was perceived by non-Illyrians. People simply ceased referring to Illyria as Illyria after the Ottoman Period due to political circumstances associated with the Austrian Occupation.

According to some schools of thought, I’m sure Illyrian would either be considered a Northwestern Macedonian language or a Western Thracian language.

The assumed cultural (linguistic) schism and massive population displacements that went along with the change in how Roman colonials used to refer to separatist populations is the assumption that needs to be tackled. The fact that post-Roman populations continued to use the Illyrian identifier demonstrates that the general application of Sklavene was thought of as an informal political term, not a name that could be accurately or universally applied to people in terms of ethnicity or language.


Some more background information regarding the formal use of the Illyrian linguistic classification:


Bartol Kašić, Jesuit, ecclesiastical writer, translator, grammarian and lexicographer, was born on the island of Pag on August 15th 1575. Owing to the fact that his father Petar died while Bartol was still a little boy, it was his uncle, the priest of the collegiate church in Pag, who took care of the boy. Bartol Kašić was educated in the town’s Latin school in Pag and Zadar, and at the age of 15 his uncle took him to Italy, to the Illyrian collegium in Loretto, where he spent three years. After that he was sent to Rome by the superiors of the college to continue his education there, owing to the fact that he was the best student in the collegium. When the Academy of the Illyrian language(Croatian) was founded in 1599, Kašić started teaching the Croatian language, and following his superiors’ suggestions he wrote a grammar, printed in 1604 under the title Institutiones linguae illyrice libri duo – ‘Bases of the Illyrian language in two books’. The third book should have probably been a dictionary that Kašić had in the manuscript form as early as 1599, but it was never printed.

As an organizer of Jesuit education, Bartol Kašić spent three years in Dubrovnik, and then went on his missionary journey in the Ottoman Empire, dressed up as a merchant. He went through Bosnia and arrived in Belgrade where he founded a grammar school for the Ragusan colony there. He reported on his journey and the hard living conditions of the Christians under the Turkish rule to the Pope and the cardinals. He returned to Dubrovnik in 1620 and stayed there until the year 1633. Despite the disapproval of the Ragusan authorities, Kašić founded the Jesuit residence there. From 1633 to his death in Rome, Kašić performed numerous duties. He died on December 28th, 1650 and was buried in St. Ignatius’s church.

Except for the grammar of the Croatian language, he also published numerous books in Croatian: Način od meditacioni – ‘Ways of meditation’, Istorija Loretana – ‘History of Loretto’, Život sv.Ignacija‘ - The Life of St.Ignatius’, Perivoj od djevstva – ‘The Park of Virgins’- a hagiographic collection about the lives of virgins and martyrs.
Kašić translated psalms and breviary hymns, wrote a spiritual tragedy in verse – St. Venefrida. He also wrote Život gospodina našeg Isukrsta – ‘The life of Our Lord Jesus Christ’ and Život prečiste Bogorodice – ‘Te Life of Virgin Mary’. His Ritual Rimski – ‘Roman Ritual’ printed in 1640 is of special importance – it is the first and only liturgical manual in the native language within the Catholic church. His translation of the Bible, begun in 1622 and finished after much effort and many breaks, was forbidden because of the opposition of his contemporaries, and was not printed in his lifetime, nor until much later. It was first printed in 1999. Kašić described his life in the Latin Autobiography, the first one in Croatian literature.

Kašić’s grammar of the Croatian language, Institutiones linguae illyrice, is the first Croatian grammar. It was written in Latin as the common language of science and literature, education and culture, in order to enable foreigners to learn the Croatian language that they would have to use as missionaries, merchants, business people when arriving in these regions where Croats used to live then, i.e. in Croatia, Dalmatia, Dubrovnik, Bosnia and Herzegovina, but also in the wider south-Slavonic area. He wrote his grammar following the distinguished model – the Latin language. The name Illyrian, according to Kašić’s as well as his superiors’ perception, was the same as Croatian, or Slovinski, meaning Slavonic. The grammar material used, described and treated by Kašić was in fact the Croatian language reality of the 17th century, both in speech and in written books, i.e. the Chakavian and Štokavian dialects. Like in the Grammar, Kašić’s language slowly moved from the Chakavian toward the Štokavian, the same way things were moving in the entire Croatian literature of the 17th century. Kašić was the first to suggest the graphic system – every sound should be always written in the same way, with one letter (or a double letter), and is in this way predecessor to both Vitezović and Gaj.

The 400th anniversary of Kašić’s grammar is the confirmation of the integrity of the Croatian language and its uninterrupted written tradition from Kašić on, even before him, up to the present days. How important this grammar was in its time becomes obvious in all the grammars that rely on it. The grammar has presently been reprinted numerous times, many disputes and studies have been published, and it was also translated into Croatian.



Source: http://www.istrianet.org/istria/phil...tamps/2004.htm

Additional information in the English language:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartol_Ka%C5%A1i%C4%87

[Soldier of Macedon]

Its like THEIR Slavic settlements have replaced the Macedonian.

I wouldn't agree with such a suggestion either. However, I would have to consider the great possibility of change that took place after their settlements. There was a new order in much of the Balkans, where tribal societies replaced the previously Roman society. Would you agree with that?

[Bratot]

Of course I agree, just the quotation before is little controversial and can be misleading.

[Sovius]

Thanks Sovius, it looks like a very interesting source. Does it consist of a lexicon or any citation of Illyrian words?

In your opinion, would today's terms of 'Sloveni' (People of common tongue) and 'Slavjani' (People of glory) stem from the same or different sources? Would one or both have any relation to 'Sclavinae' (Enclave territories?) in this respect? Appreciate your thoughts.

Gesner presented The Lord’s Prayer in a number of different languages for comparison, but he didn’t venture too deeply into structural analysis. He was more concerned with the proper classification of the languages spoken during his time. The compendium provides some excellent examples of how people viewed Central, Eastern and Southeastern European populations during Gesner’s day and age.

Sklavena is a Roman Period colonial term that signified an area under indigenous control within the perceived political boundaries of the Roman Empire (which were obviously changing). A Sklavene came to mean someone who militarily opposed Roman rule, a revolutionary. Sloveni is an abstract indigenous term that characterizes a collective state of being (mutual intelligibility between different peoples). The old Yugoslavian anthem is a good example of the use of this term. Slavjani is another abstract term that conveys a collectively assumed quality, not a tangible ethnicity or a word that is historically concrete.

I view Sklavene as being a localized corruption of Sloveni. Inter-linguistic corruptions are two different words with different meanings, which sound similar, but convey different ideas and are used in different ways. Slav is a word based on Slaven, which, itself, is typically regarded as being based on Sklavene. It has come to anachronistically and pseudo-rationalistically convey the same meaning as Sklavene and Sloveni for many people, but is done so out of context, paving the way for the false notion that Macedonians are Slavs, rather than sloveni. Many Macedonians may have been referred to as Sklavenes during the Roman occupation, but, as has been well documented within these threads, many Macedonians were regarded as Romans, as well, another political classification which continues to de-emphasize the Rassenian element (among others) within “Roman” culture, when an erroneously applied ethnic status is associated with the term during a later period in time.

[Bij]

Gesner presented The Lord’s Prayer in a number of different languages for comparison, but he didn’t venture too deeply into structural analysis. He was more concerned with the proper classification of the languages spoken during his time. The compendium provides some excellent examples of how people viewed Central, Eastern and Southeastern European populations during Gesner’s day and age.

Sklavena is a Roman Period colonial term that signified an area under indigenous control within the perceived political boundaries of the Roman Empire (which were obviously changing). A Sklavene came to mean someone who militarily opposed Roman rule, a revolutionary. Sloveni is an abstract indigenous term that characterizes a collective state of being (mutual intelligibility between different peoples). The old Yugoslavian anthem is a good example of the use of this term. Slavjani is another abstract term that conveys a collectively assumed quality, not a tangible ethnicity or a word that is historically concrete.

I view Sklavene as being a localized corruption of Sloveni. Inter-linguistic corruptions are two different words with different meanings, which sound similar, but convey different ideas and are used in different ways. Slav is a word based on Slaven, which, itself, is typically regarded as being based on Sklavene. It has come to anachronistically and pseudo-rationalistically convey the same meaning as Sklavene and Sloveni for many people, but is done so out of context, paving the way for the false notion that Macedonians are Slavs, rather than sloveni. Many Macedonians may have been referred to as Sklavenes during the Roman occupation, but, as has been well documented within these threads, many Macedonians were regarded as Romans, as well, another political classification which continues to de-emphasize the Rassenian element (among others) within “Roman” culture, when an erroneously applied ethnic status is associated with the term during a later period in time.

Wow, this is interesting! Do you have a source or know of a source that might elaborate a little bit further?

[Sovius]

As an interdisciplinary summation, it might be more beneficial to the discussion to find out what you were hoping to get greater clarification on. What’s your present take on the subject?

[Soldier of Macedon]

Good question.

[Bij]

As an interdisciplinary summation, it might be more beneficial to the discussion to find out what you were hoping to get greater clarification on. What’s your present take on the subject?

sorry, don't know how i missed this. i was referring mainly to your last paragraph. sklavene vs slav

[George S.]

Once again we are tinkering with our identity.If we identify as slav macedonians then we are less of a macedonian.Then we should just identify as macedonians.When macedonia became part of yugoslavia our enemies like greece refferd to us as slav.According to their theory the slavs came in the 6 century & killed off the local population.This is wrong
why because all the other countries greece,turkey,bulgaria etc experienced the same wave of slav infiltration they would also be slavic.It all points to the propagnda that greece & serbia used to teach macedonians to change their consciousness & turn away from their glorious past & accept their so called slavic roots.Do people know that the actual macedonian language is derived from the ancient macedonian & not some slavic language??.did you know the slavs ere illitirate & uncivilised so they adopted the macedonian language & customs.They were macedonized.So macedonians you should rejoice in your glorious past(you are not slavs as some people want you to beleive)

[Bill77]

Once again we are tinkering with our identity.If we identify as slav macedonians then we are less of a macedonian.Then we should just identify as macedonians.When macedonia became part of yugoslavia our enemies like greece refferd to us as slav.According to their theory the slavs came in the 6 century & killed off the local population.This is wrong
why because all the other countries greece,turkey,bulgaria etc experienced the same wave of slav infiltration they would also be slavic.It all points to the propagnda that greece & serbia used to teach macedonians to change their consciousness & turn away from their glorious past & accept their so called slavic roots.Do people know that the actual macedonian language is derived from the ancient macedonian & not some slavic language??.did you know the slavs ere illitirate & uncivilised so they adopted the macedonian language & customs.They were macedonized.So macedonians you should rejoice in your glorious past(you are not slavs as some people want you to beleive)

I totaly accept what you say George. we are nothing But Macedonians.All i was trying to do was bring up some Questions which may help our cause.


A) "Pribojevic claims Ancient Macedonians were slavs just like Alexander the Great was. Also acording to him slav means "Glory".

I love to know what evidence he had to back his claims that ancient macedonians and Alexander were slavs (obviously he was refering that the ancient spoke the same as his 15th century period Macedonians). as much as it is anoying, Ignore The word "slav" for the time being, its not the issue at the moment. That word could have later on been invented. But my main issue is The fact that Alexander spoke what we speek now (slav acording to the neighbours).

B) What evidence is there that these people that migrated in the 6th century are slavs? or is it possible that these illitirate & uncivilised people adopted our language? Which is why we now have Bulgarians serbians etc etc. (not for a moment am i sujesting we were slavs and not macedonian)

C) Going back to the word slavs, We know it was a invented word (meaning Glory). Pribojevic used it back in the 15th century but how did such word come up? Acording to the meaning of the word, it could not have been derogatory term back then as it is used now. Were we labeled slavs, just like we were known as Philhelenes which is not a language but some sort of a stereotype description of our people for what ever reason? If it was a stereotype description, Because we were Glorious people or nation, well Thank you But does not take away the fact we spoke macedonian and are Macedonians.

I think i am thinking and trying to hard and nead some rest

[ZAS]

Once again we are tinkering with our identity.If we identify as slav macedonians then we are less of a macedonian.Then we should just identify as macedonians.When macedonia became part of yugoslavia our enemies like greece refferd to us as slav.According to their theory the slavs came in the 6 century & killed off the local population.This is wrong
why because all the other countries greece,turkey,bulgaria etc experienced the same wave of slav infiltration they would also be slavic.It all points to the propagnda that greece & serbia used to teach macedonians to change their consciousness & turn away from their glorious past & accept their so called slavic roots.Do people know that the actual macedonian language is derived from the ancient macedonian & not some slavic language??.did you know the slavs ere illitirate & uncivilised so they adopted the macedonian language & customs.They were macedonized.So macedonians you should rejoice in your glorious past(you are not slavs as some people want you to beleive)

Right On George, Bravos, as this is a Macedonian Truth Forum, your theory is 100% correct and should be set in stone, and all doubters should never argue and accept these FACTS.

[George S.]

To Z Apostoloski if it was that easy.The official line seems to be that the slavs took over & wiped the macedonians out.
The problem is a lot of people have written our history for us.Why don't we call the other countriesthat the slavs went slavic.The turks know who they held captive for 500 yearsThey held Macedonian people..Todays politicians such as kiro gligorov have been caught out saying that we are slavs & we have no connection with the ancient macedonians.I think we do I feel & think macedonian & i'm not going to let people fool me with their propaganda.I think the word Slavic is a smear on the macedonians to say they are not Macedonians.It is done by her enemies.Didn't we have this situation of discrimination in the victorian schools labeling us as Slav Macedonians when we just identify as Macedonians.Self identity is the key.We also have to have acceptance of the community of who we are.There's been so muchheavy duty propaganda being spread that one wonders what to beleive.I don't really beleive that the people who write our history for us are correct.The more macedonians that write history the better.We should know allready that Greece has spent countless millions of$ rewriting history.