Vasil Iljov and the Inscriptions in Macedonia

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • sf.
    Member
    • Jan 2010
    • 387

    #46
    I think the problem is that many Macedonians have gotten caught up in the Greeks' world of delusions about the past. The main problem with history is that it is interpreted by the victors. It is this interpretation/understanding that we have to shift. We don't necessarily have to reinvent the wheel to do this, just present a more credible perspective.
    Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful. - Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)

    Comment

    • Soldier of Macedon
      Senior Member
      • Sep 2008
      • 13675

      #47
      Originally posted by sf
      It is this interpretation/understanding that we have to shift.
      Wise words, I agree completely.
      In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

      Comment

      • indigen
        Senior Member
        • May 2009
        • 1558

        #48
        Originally posted by sf. View Post
        The burden of proof is on the person making the claims.
        I agree with Serdarot and, IMO, the INQUISITION of Macedonian patriots like Vasil Iljov by our own people should ease off. Constructive criticism is fine but do it in a less dismissive way, especially when most of us here do not have the qualifications to challenge either way.

        The views of Western historians and political ideologists are ALL biased against Macedonian indigenous continuity and a linguistic connection would be considered a fairytale regardless of the evidence.

        The following is an article by Michale Seraphinoff who, being a professor of Slavic at a USA University, previously espoused the "Slavic" theory of Macedonian identity but now sees things in a different light:

        More evidence of stability of populations in Europe from ancient times

        There is more reason all the time for Macedonians to resist attempts to deny their ethnicity. The scientists who have in recent years declared that most of the population of Europe is very ancient and settled in ancient homelands gain evidence all the time. Some argue that DNA studies indicate as much as 80 percent of the genetic inheritance of the various peoples is from very old settled populations, dating back to Mesolithic and even Paleolithic times. The most recent evidence I’ve come across comes from the British Isles, a place that has long been thought to have changed dramatically due to large-scale invasions, ancient and medieval. However, the most recent work The Origins of the British by University of Oxford DNA expert, Stephen Oppenheimer (2006) contradicts earlier studies that claimed massive replacement of the indigenous population by first Celtic, then Roman, Anglo-Saxon and finally Norman invasions. Oppenheimer claims that recent DNA studies indicate that “three quarters of British ancestors arrived long before the first farmers. This applies to 88% of Irish, 81% of Welsh, 79% of Cornish, 70% of the people of Scotland and its associated islands and 68% (over two thirds) of the English and their politically associated islands. These figures dwarf any perception of Celtic or Anglo-Saxon ethnicity based on concepts of more recent massive invasions. There were later invasions, and less violent immigrations; each left a genetic signal, but no individual event contributed even a tenth of our modern genetic mix.” (p. 406)

        I have no doubt that the situation in Macedonia is no different. The long accepted belief that the genetic and cultural continuity from ancient times in Macedonia was nearly completely erased by a massive Slavic migration/invasion in the sixth century will likely prove as untrue as the long-held belief that the English people were chiefly the genetic and cultural descendants of a massive Anglo-Saxon migration/invasion in the 5th century into England. Again, according to Oppenheimer: “The key historical source that has led to the conviction that the English originated as recently as the Dark Ages is Gildas’ tract ‘On the Ruin of Britain’. It “led to the entrenched view that Angles and Saxons came over from the Continent, slaughtered the Celts in England and became the ‘English’. Few of his core claims hold water.” (p. 412) Oppenheimer claims that DNA studies do “not give enough genetic evidence for even a 10% cull.... This means there was not just substantial continuity of population, but a survival of around 95% of the indigenous lines.” (p. 413) His genetic studies lead him to think that there may be more validity to linguistic studies that English forms a fourth Germanic branch dating to before AD 350 and probably after 3600 BC’ “. (p. 416) Now, if there is the possibility that English is not the newcomer we have thought it to be, with only late medieval roots, there is as much reason to question the belief that Slavic linguistic features only appeared in the Balkans after the sixth century. In other words, the present-day Macedonian language quite reasonably has ancient linguistic roots in the region.

        A further point I would make has to do with the conditioning erroneous past historical studies have given us. Typically, when ancient tombs of Paonian or Macedonian origin are described in some source, few of us immediately think that we are learning about our own ancestors. In our minds we tend to consider such people foreign to us. The ancients who once dwelt in Macedonia. But it is time to recognize consciously that in almost every case, ancient people found on Macedonian soil have strong direct genetic and cultural ties to the present day people. It is time to begin to “own” them as “nashi”.

        Michael Seraphinoff


        The Macedonian Digest - Edition 38 - February 2009

        --------

        Furthermore, there are many East European academics and other researchers who have different views on "Slavic" origins and linguistic history than the Westerners but these are dismissed by the latter.

        Would Borza (and you can throw just about any other name you like) count as an objective historian when it comes to modern Macedonians? Have a read of "In The Shadow of Olympus, The Rise of Macedon" and see that he went via Kofos for that section.

        Comment

        • indigen
          Senior Member
          • May 2009
          • 1558

          #49
          Ancient Macedonia


          This site pretends to be even handed but is very biased against Macedonians and has a pro-Greek leaning, though it is done with more subtlety than crudeness.

          We read in the appendix section, which he must also have obtained from Kofos or Greek government, the following gem:

          "....After the end of the Cold War, Yugoslavia disintegrated and in 1991, its southernmost republic became independent. This would not have caused great problems, but the new state demanded an outlet to the sea and already printed banknotes with the White Tower of Thessalonica. These territorial claims were not appreciated in Greece, and a major diplomatic crisis started, in which the Greeks claimed that Macedonia had been Greek for the past 3,000 years. As late as 2008, seventeen years later, Greece vetoed Macedonian membership of the NATO, but generally speaking, the conflict has lost much of its heat...."



          Jona Lendering © 2005
          Revised: 22 April 2006

          I am not sure what qualifications this guy has but he is probably is one of those "objective" Western historians that some here seem to respect. To me he is a joke but that is what the West is reading and it would not hurt one bit if we Macedonians read stuff that does not wash well with such "objective authorities".

          Comment

          • Soldier of Macedon
            Senior Member
            • Sep 2008
            • 13675

            #50
            Originally posted by Indigen
            I agree with Serdarot....
            Do you agree with Iljov?
            Constructive criticism is fine but do it in a less dismissive way, especially when most of us here do not have the qualifications to challenge either way.
            We don't need qualifications to dismiss something that isn't proven in the first place. How constructive does it need to get before Iljov decides to corroborate his assertions and explain the methodology he used to come to his conclusions? Indigen, if it can't be explained with logic, it is useless to us. It is time to 'cut the fat' from our diet of arguments and stop entertaining 'theories' that remain unproven till today.
            The views of Western historians and political ideologists are ALL biased against Macedonian indigenous continuity and a linguistic connection would be considered a fairytale regardless of the evidence.

            The following is an article by Michale Seraphinoff who, being a professor of Slavic at a USA University, previously espoused the "Slavic" theory of Macedonian identity but now sees things in a different light:

            More evidence of stability of populations in Europe from ancient times

            There is more reason all the time for Macedonians to resist attempts to deny their ethnicity. The scientists who have in recent years declared that most of the population of Europe is very ancient and settled in ancient homelands gain evidence all the time. Some argue that DNA studies indicate as much as 80 percent of the genetic inheritance of the various peoples is from very old settled populations, dating back to Mesolithic and even Paleolithic times. The most recent evidence I’ve come across comes from the British Isles, a place that has long been thought to have changed dramatically due to large-scale invasions, ancient and medieval. However, the most recent work The Origins of the British by University of Oxford DNA expert, Stephen Oppenheimer (2006) contradicts earlier studies that claimed massive replacement of the indigenous population by first Celtic, then Roman, Anglo-Saxon and finally Norman invasions. Oppenheimer claims that recent DNA studies indicate that “three quarters of British ancestors arrived long before the first farmers. This applies to 88% of Irish, 81% of Welsh, 79% of Cornish, 70% of the people of Scotland and its associated islands and 68% (over two thirds) of the English and their politically associated islands. These figures dwarf any perception of Celtic or Anglo-Saxon ethnicity based on concepts of more recent massive invasions. There were later invasions, and less violent immigrations; each left a genetic signal, but no individual event contributed even a tenth of our modern genetic mix.” (p. 406)

            I have no doubt that the situation in Macedonia is no different. The long accepted belief that the genetic and cultural continuity from ancient times in Macedonia was nearly completely erased by a massive Slavic migration/invasion in the sixth century will likely prove as untrue as the long-held belief that the English people were chiefly the genetic and cultural descendants of a massive Anglo-Saxon migration/invasion in the 5th century into England. Again, according to Oppenheimer: “The key historical source that has led to the conviction that the English originated as recently as the Dark Ages is Gildas’ tract ‘On the Ruin of Britain’. It “led to the entrenched view that Angles and Saxons came over from the Continent, slaughtered the Celts in England and became the ‘English’. Few of his core claims hold water.” (p. 412) Oppenheimer claims that DNA studies do “not give enough genetic evidence for even a 10% cull.... This means there was not just substantial continuity of population, but a survival of around 95% of the indigenous lines.” (p. 413) His genetic studies lead him to think that there may be more validity to linguistic studies that English forms a fourth Germanic branch dating to before AD 350 and probably after 3600 BC’ “. (p. 416) Now, if there is the possibility that English is not the newcomer we have thought it to be, with only late medieval roots, there is as much reason to question the belief that Slavic linguistic features only appeared in the Balkans after the sixth century. In other words, the present-day Macedonian language quite reasonably has ancient linguistic roots in the region.

            A further point I would make has to do with the conditioning erroneous past historical studies have given us. Typically, when ancient tombs of Paonian or Macedonian origin are described in some source, few of us immediately think that we are learning about our own ancestors. In our minds we tend to consider such people foreign to us. The ancients who once dwelt in Macedonia. But it is time to recognize consciously that in almost every case, ancient people found on Macedonian soil have strong direct genetic and cultural ties to the present day people. It is time to begin to “own” them as “nashi”.

            Michael Seraphinoff


            The Macedonian Digest - Edition 38 - February 2009
            I agree, we are the descendants of all the Macedonians that came before us in Macedonia, from the ancient through to the medieval and modern periods. Nobody here disputes this.

            Nothing in the article above corroborates some of Iljov's assertions. Like I said before, he may or may not be on the right track, he has nothing until he shows something credible in support.
            In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

            Comment

            • indigen
              Senior Member
              • May 2009
              • 1558

              #51
              Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post
              Do you agree with Iljov?
              I am in no position to say and I am not opposed to claims about literacy predating Old-Church Macedonian that would be designated as proto-Macedonian. Eminent Russian scholars have made similar claims, Genadij Stanistavlovich Grinevich, World History Department, Russian Physical Society, Moscow, 1994, being amongst the best known. His research discoveries claim that Pelasgians spoke a proto-"Slavic" (Macedonic) and there are many other East-European scholars who hold the same or similar views. How different is Vasil Iljov's claim to Grinevich's?

              We don't need qualifications to dismiss something that isn't proven in the first place.
              Well, ALL history is simply interpretations of the past from a perspective of the given ideological and political settings. As for me, I would dismiss nearly all that is presented in Western "scholarship" regarding Macedonia and Macedonians.


              How constructive does it need to get before Iljov decides to corroborate his assertions and explain the methodology he used to come to his conclusions?
              I have no idea who has or has not corroborated his discoveries/assertions. Has he stated that anyone has corroborated his findings? Are the objects hidden for others to evaluate? All we can say is that the work is interesting but uncorroborated, as far as we are aware.


              Indigen, if it can't be explained with logic, it is useless to us. It is time to 'cut the fat' from our diet of arguments and stop entertaining 'theories' that remain unproven till today.
              If it is uncorroborated, we can't make much use of it but it does not mean we should dismiss it. Next time some of you go to MK, go and see the man and get more in depth knowledge of the status quo.


              I agree, we are the descendants of all the Macedonians that came before us in Macedonia, from the ancient through to the medieval and modern periods. Nobody here disputes this.
              Some here are very dismissive of our continuity and minimize it to negligible level.

              Nothing in the article above corroborates some of Iljov's assertions. Like I said before, he may or may not be on the right track, he has nothing until he shows something credible in support.
              The Article is saying that there is a chance that the language was there all the time, which would lend some support to Vasil's claims.

              As I have not seen the video yet, I can't comment on his latest claims. I thought the 77k was a typo.
              Last edited by indigen; 04-02-2010, 02:52 AM.

              Comment

              • Soldier of Macedon
                Senior Member
                • Sep 2008
                • 13675

                #52
                Originally posted by Indigen
                I am in no position to say and I am not opposed to claims about literacy predating Old-Church Macedonian that would be designated as proto-Macedonian.
                You are in a position to give your own opinion, and it is the same as mine. However, you're not being specific with regard to Iljov's assertions, and, with good reason. What he asserts isn't yet corroborated.
                Eminent Russian scholars have made similar claims, Genadij Stanistavlovich Grinevich, World History Department, Russian Physical Society, Moscow, 1994, being amongst the best known. His research discoveries claim that Pelasgians spoke a proto-"Slavic" (Macedonic) and there many other East-European scholars who hold the same or similar views.
                Who is he? I checked his name, the first page of google has him listed in topics or websites related to Macedonians in some way. Can you point me to anything more specific about him and his works? What does he actually say that makes you confident in throwing your support behind him? Who are the other East European scholars that hold the same or a similar view?
                I have no idea who has or has not corroborated his discoveries/assertions.
                What exactly with his works do you agree with?
                Has he stated that anyone has corroborated his findings? Are the objects hidden for others to evaluate?
                He is the one that presented them in a particular way without the necessary corroboration, there is nothing to evaluate of his works. Others are not responsible for keeping track of Iljov's works, it is up to him to have it promoted and corroborated. Criticism is necessary, at least there will be clarity in that way.
                If it is uncorroborated, we can't make much use of it but it does not mean we should dismiss it. Next time some of you go to MK, go and see the man and get more in depth knowledge of the status quo.
                It must be dismissed from the list of arguments in favour of the Macedonian Cause until it is elaborated, corroborated and explained with logic. It serves no positive purpose until then or otherwise.
                Some here are very dismissive of our continuity and minimize it to negligible level.
                Maybe, and some do step beyond the realms of realistic and corroborated likelihoods, we need strength behind our arguments if we are going to promote them.
                The Article is saying that there is a chance that the language was there all the time, which would lend some support to Vasil's claims.
                Iljov's assertions go beyond that with reference to inscriptions, and no proper corroboration or supportive logic. Anybody that has read the information he has put up thus far (where it concerns his more 'extreme' theories) will find that it fails to deliver enough or anything of substance at all in corroboration. If you have found otherwise, please fill me in.
                In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

                Comment

                • Serdarot
                  Member
                  • Feb 2010
                  • 605

                  #53
                  Originally posted by sf. View Post
                  The burden of proof is on the person making the claims.
                  well, as much i am noticing, he is trying, i can´t say his way is the best, but he is trying.

                  Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post
                  Perhaps you have mistaken this place as one that does not have critical thought, Serdarot? ...
                  so also the oficial timeline of history is a subject needed to be criticaly discused?

                  i agree that lunatic and megalomanic claims are damaging our couse, but let not judge so fast.

                  and to repeat, i see these numbers with big reserve, but would rather support him to release more books and material and do more researches, even to be proved wrong, than to disrespect his work.

                  greetings
                  Bratot:
                  Никој не е вечен, а каузава не е нова само е адаптирана на новите услови и ќе се пренесува и понатаму.

                  Comment

                  • TrueMacedonian
                    Senior Member
                    • Jan 2009
                    • 3820

                    #54
                    Can this mans claims that "Herodotus says: Hellenes were invader and got their name by the MACEDONIAN city HELEA !!!" be proven right?

                    YouTube - Petar Popovski - Herodotus says: Hellenes were invader and got their name by the MACEDONIAN city HELEA !!!

                    This is the same guy that claims that the Olympic games were invented by Macedonians btw.
                    Slayer Of The Modern "greek" Myth!!!

                    Comment

                    • Serdarot
                      Member
                      • Feb 2010
                      • 605

                      #55
                      Originally posted by TrueMacedonian View Post
                      Can this mans claims that "Herodotus says: Hellenes were invader and got their name by the MACEDONIAN city HELEA !!!" be proven right?
                      ...
                      i will not write about my opinion for the term "hellenes"

                      but we agree that the "Ancient Greeks", who are between the other called Hellenes, are "newborn" nation and culture, product of mixing between the intruders / settlers afro-asiats, with (small) part of the natives?
                      Bratot:
                      Никој не е вечен, а каузава не е нова само е адаптирана на новите услови и ќе се пренесува и понатаму.

                      Comment

                      • Soldier of Macedon
                        Senior Member
                        • Sep 2008
                        • 13675

                        #56
                        Originally posted by Serdarot
                        so also the oficial timeline of history is a subject needed to be criticaly discused?
                        Sure, so long as it is realistic and logical.
                        i agree that lunatic and megalomanic claims are damaging our couse, but let not judge so fast.
                        I have seen the items he presents on his website, some of them are indeed worthy of attention. But Iljov has made certain claims and has had plenty of time to satisfactorily corroborate them till now. He hasn't followed through, and it doesn't look like he will either. I have no time for such works.
                        In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

                        Comment

                        • indigen
                          Senior Member
                          • May 2009
                          • 1558

                          #57
                          Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post
                          You are in a position to give your own opinion, and it is the same as mine. However, you're not being specific with regard to Iljov's assertions, and, with good reason. What he asserts isn't yet corroborated.
                          I saw the video and find it OK! It was a pep talk for Macedonians to resist name change pressures and is in the context of Macedonian continuity and indigenous cultural heritage and our right to our name and identity. I won't begrudge ANY Macedonian in these circumstances advancing ambit or uncorroborated claims when our enemies and their backers (including the most "respected" of historians) are making RIDICULOUS claims about us and our heritage and identity. Also, the 77k writing was not a typo.

                          Who is he? I checked his name, the first page of google has him listed in topics or websites related to Macedonians in some way. Can you point me to anything more specific about him and his works? What does he actually say that makes you confident in throwing your support behind him? Who are the other East European scholars that hold the same or a similar view?
                          I have no qualifications to say anything on the matter but I once read a paper by a high Russian diplomat espousing the same theories and concluded that this must be a more accepted view than many in the West realise.

                          As for finding anything on Google, it seems that there is even less info now than 10-12 years ago. You should also improve your Googling skills and try the mother tongue of the given author. I did this and found some online material from his publication in Russian. Using Google translate, I was for the first time in a position to read for myself what he is on about, but the same problem of accuracy of translated material applies as to Macedonian and many other languages - it is not reliable.


                          Gennady S. Grinevich

                          ПРАСЛАВЯНСКАЯ ПИСЬМЕННОСТЬ Slavonic WRITING
                          (результаты дешифровки) (Results of decoding)



                          Русский языковед-исследователь, лингвист, дешифровщик. Russian linguist, researcher, linguist, interpreter. Начинал геологом. Started geologist.

                          Ныне старший научный сотрудник Отдела всемирной истории Русского Физического Общества (г.Москва).
                          Now a senior fellow at the World history of the Russian Physical Society (Moscow).

                          Занимался систематизацией и дешифровкой рунических знаков и надписей западных славян, о. Крита, этрусков, Древней Индии.
                          Engaged in the systematization and decipherment runic signs and western Slavs, Fr. Crete, the Etruscans, the ancient India.
                          Составил сводную таблицу знаков праславянской письменности.
                          Compiled by a summary table of marks Proto-Slavic alphabet.

                          Основные работы: Major works:
                          "Праславянская письменность. Результаты дешифровки" 1993г, "Proto-Slavic written language. The results of decoding" 1993, "В начале было слово" 1997г. "In the beginning was the word" 1997.
                          en





                          Comment

                          • Soldier of Macedon
                            Senior Member
                            • Sep 2008
                            • 13675

                            #58
                            Originally posted by Indigen
                            I saw the video and find it OK!
                            He is talking about an apparent 77,000 year old inscription that he believes reads as "Macedonia". No corroboration, no explanation, just himself and a piece of paper. You are being naive and only selling yourself short if you find it OK.
                            I won't begrudge ANY Macedonian in these circumstances advancing ambit or uncorroborated claims when our enemies and their backers (including the most "respected" of historians) are making RIDICULOUS claims about us and our heritage and identity.
                            Our enemies have seen it fit to use outrageous statements and claims against us, but look at how they have been and are being ripped to shreds with the mass of evidence supported by logic. We don't need to follow the same path and make their mistakes. We are better than that.
                            I have no qualifications to say anything on the matter but I once read a paper by a high Russian diplomat espousing the same theories and concluded that this must be a more accepted view than many in the West realise.
                            That isn't the first time you have replied in such a matter, perhaps in future you should keep that in mind before you make certain statements.
                            You should also improve your Googling skills and try the mother tongue of the given author.
                            Thanks, you're just full of good advice and humour. When you do come up with something of substance in relation to Grinevich or Iljov, don't be a stranger.
                            In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

                            Comment

                            • Bratot
                              Senior Member
                              • Sep 2008
                              • 2855

                              #59
                              I don't think the statements of Iljov or Popovski are wrong in whole beside the exaggeration and the obvious usage of onesided arguments.

                              And we do need different views, one very moderate another very extreme view, in order to come to a common position.

                              But it is very important not to underestimate even such views, since both of them have given some useful direction and valuable researches like that of Popovski about Georgi Kastriot.
                              We should not use "devil effect" in our perception - allowing a single weak point to influence others arguments and to judge the whole work as a negative one because of that.

                              The healthy critics are always welcome but to the limit of not doing a favor to our dushmani.
                              The purpose of the media is not to make you to think that the name must be changed, but to get you into debate - what name would suit us! - Bratot

                              Comment

                              • Soldier of Macedon
                                Senior Member
                                • Sep 2008
                                • 13675

                                #60
                                There is nothing wrong with criticising uncorroborated 'evidence' presented by someone and expecting them to substantiate their claims, just because they are Macedonian. I think we need to be more critical about what is presented as 'evidence' as opposed to 'work in progress', in order to rid ourselves of some less desirable attributes which can portray us in a negative light. How long are you prepared for Iljov to substantiate his claims, Bratot?
                                Originally posted by Bratot
                                I don't think the statements of Iljov or Popovski are wrong in whole beside the exaggeration and the obvious usage of onesided arguments.
                                Do you think the 'evidence' he presented in the video clip as a 77,000 year old inscription that read "Makedonia" is wrong or just an exaggeration? Is that what you read from the rock,"Makedonia"?

                                77,000 years, back in the Neanderthal days. An extreme view is one thing, but making these statements obliges the author to show supportive evidence and logic. I think we need to always criticise what we produce as Macedonians, at least for these particular assertions that are so 'adventurous' and uncorroborated, yet presented on our TV channels as 'the' reason why we should be proud of our name. The dushman's favour is already granted, and, it does nothing to further the Macedonian Cause.
                                In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X