Indigen's theory of indigenous culture

[sf.]

Mastika, for arguements sake,,,, how can you hellenize somebody when Hellene's were seen as pagans and the East Romans (Byzantines) were christians? This isn't proper terminology for this era. If anything these people became Romanised or Christianised. I urge all Macedonians to reconsider using such terminology for this specific era.

True. The Ancient Greek world was long gone, and this tip of the Balkans was owned by the Latin (for want of a better phrase) world.

[Mastika]

Mastika, for arguements sake,,,, how can you hellenize somebody when Hellene's were seen as pagans and the East Romans (Byzantines) were christians? This isn't proper terminology for this era. If anything these people became Romanised or Christianised. I urge all Macedonians to reconsider using such terminology for this specific era.

TM, in this case I am talking about the way which the Slavic tribes which invaded the Peloponese gradually adopted the ways of their Greek speaking neighbours. I think that in this case the word is appropropriate as it describes their adoption of the Hellenic language.

[osiris]

mastika there were so few greek tribes left in the peloponese that most tribes did not have contact with greek neighbours.

just like the introduction of greek in the modern era so the romans reintroduced greek in the slavic dominated peloponese via the church.

[Bill77]

TM, in this case I am talking about the way which the Slavic tribes which invaded the Peloponese gradually adopted the ways of their Greek speaking neighbours. I think that in this case the word is appropropriate as it describes their adoption of the Hellenic language.

Mastika, you always ask for evidence and yet you come up with unsubstantiated fairy Tales. These refugees adopted Greek, but there brothers only a stone throw away thought there language was good enough for the rest. come on mate now who believes in UFO's.

Its posible i am not understanding who are the "slavs" corectly. The reason for my confusion is because "Slav" when used today is too vague - and could in the mind of any given reader mean very different things.

As Pelister once quoted "I am sick of the way so called "scholars" like Vryonis use it in an ethnic sense. Strictly speaking today "Slavic" referes to a language. The "Sklavoi" of the early middle-ages, could have been anyone or anything - so a distinction needs to be made in the classification from the begginning.

How do we get "Slav" from "Sklavoi" ?
As we are all aware, the word "Slav" is a Macedonian word we use today meaning "Glory" (SLAV / SLAVA / SLAVEN = Glorius man / GLORY / Gloryfied )

This would not be a word i would use to describe pustichani lujge.
It would be more suited for someone like King Philip and his decendants. Does anyone dought Phillip together with the Macedonians were Glorious?

So what i am getting at, is it's more likely the Macedonians were the true slavs, and these invaders were anything but Slavs. This Name could have been adopted as some sort of a nick name to describe the Macedonians, which was later lost in translation.

These invaders more than likely spread there Language. But as mentioned before, they could not have spread it inside the fortified city of Solun which was never invaded or conquered by these Refugees. And who came from this city? "Kyril Metodij" who spoke pure Slavonic. Attested by Emperor Michael III himself.

It is also Interesting to note is how the Cyrillo-Methodian era is referred to as the 'revival' of the Slavs. So if you put the puzzle together, the picture would show that the slavonic (Slav= Glorious= Macedonian) Language would have more than likely existed before these invaders, and the "Slav" was "Revived" in which a revival was needed due to the contaminated language caused by these settlers.



Well this is my take on it from what information i can gather so far. Its just some food for thought.

[Spartan]

mastika there were so few greek tribes left in the peloponese that most tribes did not have contact with greek neighbours.

Osiris my good man, tell me, at what point in history was greek not the main language in the Morea?
Forgive if im wrong, but it sounds to me as if you are implying that a few priests changed the language of a slavic majority in the Morea to Romeika?

Also, why would the Romans introduce Greek?
Wouldnt it be more logical that if they were indeed to introduce a language, that it would be Latin?

[TrueMacedonian]

TM, in this case I am talking about the way which the Slavic tribes which invaded the Peloponese gradually adopted the ways of their Greek speaking neighbours. I think that in this case the word is appropropriate as it describes their adoption of the Hellenic language.

How can it be appropriate when this word was never used during the East Roman era? http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...p?t=542&page=4

See Anthony Kaldellis' book and how he broke the myth of "hellnization" during the East Roman era.

[Mastika]

How can it be appropriate when this word was never used during the East Roman era? http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...p?t=542&page=4

See Anthony Kaldellis' book and how he broke the myth of "hellnization" during the East Roman era.

TM, you are overeacting. Hellenisation simply means to making of things Greek. In this case the Slavs in Pelloponese, Thessaly etc. were Hellenised as they took on Greek customs and language, etc. Its just a word to describe, maybe you feel Graecization is better?

Mastika, you always ask for evidence and yet you come up with unsubstantiated fairy Tales. These refugees adopted Greek, but there brothers only a stone throw away thought there language was good enough for the rest. come on mate now who believes in UFO's.

What do you mean a stones throw? It is hundreds of kilometres from the nearest centre of Slavic culture (Ohrid) to places such as Thessaly and Pelloponese where Hellenisation/adoption of Byzantine Greek language/customs was occuring. We are talking about a time where the majority of people had never been to a city before, ever. Besides this, the place which I am talking about were constantly or almost constantly ruled by the Byzantine Empire, for hundreds of years these people found themselves under constant Byzantine subjugation. It wasn't like in Macedonia where the territory was constantly changing hands. From the 600s the Byzantines only ruled over the coastal area, until they recaptured Macedonia after the Battle of Belasica in 1014. By 1200 the Byzantines had been once again expelled to only the coastal areas.

Its posible i am not understanding who are the "slavs" corectly. The reason for my confusion is because "Slav" when used today is too vague - and could in the mind of any given reader mean very different things.

As Pelister once quoted "I am sick of the way so called "scholars" like Vryonis use it in an ethnic sense. Strictly speaking today "Slavic" referes to a language. The "Sklavoi" of the early middle-ages, could have been anyone or anything - so a distinction needs to be made in the classification from the begginning.

How do we get "Slav" from "Sklavoi" ?
As we are all aware, the word "Slav" is a Macedonian word we use today meaning "Glory" (SLAV / SLAVA / SLAVEN = Glorius man / GLORY / Gloryfied )

This would not be a word i would use to describe pustichani lujge.
It would be more suited for someone like King Philip and his decendants. Does anyone dought Phillip together with the Macedonians were Glorious?

So what i am getting at, is it's more likely the Macedonians were the true slavs, and these invaders were anything but Slavs. This Name could have been adopted as some sort of a nick name to describe the Macedonians, which was later lost in translation.

I agree with you, the word slav is used much to broadly. Back in the year 600, the word Slav could have been used to describe an ethnic group, in the same way you could describe the Greek, Macedonian, Chinese ethnicities etc. However, now all of the nations which trace some ancestry to this group are far to different to be treated as one ethnic group.

As for your second point, that is a very ethnocentric way of looking at things. The Ancient Macedonians were not the ONLY 'great' people. The slavs had their own culture, language, traditions etc. which I am sure that their descendants who formed the major population in Macedonia were proud of. Once they settled they became civilised and founded great and glorius states like the one of Tsar Samuil.

Thirdly, it is ridiculous to use an ancient word, which has been interpreted, reinterpreted and reinterpreted again as the basis for an argument.

These invaders more than likely spread there Language. But as mentioned before, they could not have spread it inside the fortified city of Solun which was never invaded or conquered by these Refugees. And who came from this city? "Kyril Metodij" who spoke pure Slavonic. Attested by Emperor Michael III himself.

There is no doubt that they spoke Old Macedonian/Slavonic.

Also, can somebody please tell me why it keeps signing me out? Thanks.

[TrueMacedonian]

TM, you are overeacting. Hellenisation simply means to making of things Greek. In this case the Slavs in Pelloponese, Thessaly etc. were Hellenised as they took on Greek customs and language, etc. Its just a word to describe, maybe you feel Graecization is better?

Mastika how can yo make things "greek" when things were Roman?

[osiris]

spartan working from memory its from the 9th to the 12 th centuries was a time when greek was only spoken in a few places on the eastern coast. another time was after the albanian influx in the 14th century greek again became a minority language in the peloponese.

it was the roman empire that reintroduced greek as a language spartan, we may now refer to it as the byzantine but that term did not exist during the empires time.

the impact of non greek on the peloponnese was such that the very name peoloponese was lost and replaced by morea as were thousands of place names.

have a look at this from google

of Monemvasia reveals that the Slavs dominated the Peloponnese ... by the Slavs. The term 'sclavinia' (and this has only recently become clear to scholars) indicates .... the islands on the Adriatic Sea and the coastal towns-without the ...

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4205510

[Soldier of Macedon]

Also, why would the Romans introduce Greek?

There are social, administrative and politic reasons for this Spartan, of which I am sure you are aware. Why did Jews write the Bible in Greek after Hebrew? To serve a Greek ethnic group or to best serve their interests where it concerns spreading the message of God? There is no doubt that the identity of Greek-speaking people, regardless if they spoke it as a first or adopted tongue, was Roman for a solid 2,000 years, which renders terms like "Hellenization" in respect to the Middle Ages as completely innacurate and misleading, and not at all in line with what the people actually considered it to be during this extensive period.

[Bill77]

Mastika, now you are responding just for the sake of having the last say. There is no thought into what you say anymore. I will let you have the final say next. Mi se gleda se davish i da ne te macham pojke.

You think these refugees came from far north and spread there Language and culture south. I say the slav (Glorious Macedonians) spread there culture and language north as far as Russia as attested by the Russian "Illustrated Chronicle of the XVI century", Ither way, this slav language and custom traveled a long way, yet you say Thessaly is shit creek from Ohrid. You would be a lazy traveler. lol


But, what is this Greek Culture and Language you always harp on about? You are aware that at King Ottos arival to Athens, it was an Albanian village and everyone spoke Albanian. (keep in mind The first Albanian migrations to what is today Greek territory took place as early as the 10th-12th century (Trudgill, 1975:5; Banfi, 1994:19) and it was not just Athens that had a Albanian migration.

let me give you this quote,
"the Albanians appear to have done for Greece in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries something like that which that Sclavonians had done in the sixth and seventh" (A Monthly Review – Greece, Spoilt Child of Europe)
Why i bring this up, is because i find it amazing, (therefor unbelievable), That acording to you, the "Glorious" Sclavonians decided to take up Greek culture and Language, and later on, these pichlemina Albanians did not untill after the West backed Greek independance and told them they are sons of s Socrates .

Again, what Greek culture are you on about. where do you see evidance pryor to the Greek Independance these Slavonians or Albanians wore Togas lol. If they adopted Greek culture, surley modern Greece would have kept Greek culture ( understandably not costumes because it would be inpractical now) But lets look at some of Greek culture such as dress codes, food, music etc and ask your self, was Greek culture kept or was culture imported?

Selski alishta such as fustanella- Macedonian

Souvlaki lol another word for a Kebab- Arabic

Baklava, Greek coffee, many other foods- Turkish

Those beads they twirl around there fingers- Arabic

music instruments such as Trabzon- Turkish


I can go on but this is begining to sound like i'm bashing Greeks when the subject is regarding the sclavonians. But do you get my point and understand why i got to this place and how weak your theories are?

I will end with this, I asked you before and i will ask again, Show me evidence, what these refugees spoke. What culture did they spread. The fact that they migrated in an area, is not evidance to asume they are the slavs, or spread our language or customs. If the sclavonians adopted the Greek language in Pelloponese, Thessaly etc, then its resonable to say, they adopted the Slav Macedonian (Glorious Macedonian) in Macedonia. And what a beutiful Language Macedonian is for it to spread to a large part of Europe, where as Greek only remained whith in its Borders.

[Mastika]

Mastika how can yo make things "greek" when things were Roman?

What do you mean. I am sure that you know that Greek replaced Latin as the administrative language of the Byzantine empire in 620.

For all of you people dislike the word "Hellenisation", what word would you use to describe the adoption of the Greek language? Please, do find me a better one.

Listen Bill, I really don't have time to bicker with someone who believes that Macedonian is the be all and end all of languages. And that somehow a frontier land which was being constantly marauded, attacked and pillaged somehow managed to spread an imaginary language to the far reaches of Europe. Feel free to have the last say.

[Risto the Great]

Mastika, I have been pre-occupied of late and need to visit this thread in more detail. But what would you call the adoption of the English language that we have now?

[Bill77]

Listen Bill, I really don't have time to bicker with someone who believes that Macedonian is the be all and end all of languages. And that somehow a frontier land which was being constantly marauded, attacked and pillaged somehow managed to spread an imaginary language to the far reaches of Europe. Feel free to have the last say.

ok Mastika, lets forget what i think makes more sence to me.

Lets go back to evidance, what these refugees spoke. I am not asking if they inhabited the area. I read somewhere that these people were prosti divi lujge.

[Mastika]

Mastika, I have been pre-occupied of late and need to visit this thread in more detail. But what would you call the adoption of the English language that we have now?

Hmm, interesting question given the strong influences from both the US and USA, either Anglicisation or Americanisation.

All these '-isation' words means is the cultural assimiliation of one group. I really dont see why Hellenisation is SO disputable. In this case the Slavs were gradually adopting the Greek language and customs.

Sure you may want to call it "Byzantisation", to try and avoid any association with Greeks, but this is not an established word, it only has 50 hits on google for example. And when used this term seems to generally refer to religious acculturation.