Who are the Slavs? - Citations and Sources

[Voltron]

We dont know to what extent the Slav impact were on Greeks. Since we know we assimilated them, we can be sure that they are a part of modern ethnos. At least I happen to think so.

The Wends:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wends

Polans (Polanie): There is Eastern and Western
Lendians:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polans_(eastern)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polans_(western)

Here it is interesting to note that Polish nobility had linked the Sarmatians as their ancestors. Has the Sarmatian theory been exhausted as a link to the Slavs ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatism

[Soldier of Macedon]

They dont have to. Its embedded in them, it would make no sense for them to even mention it.

What is embedded in them? You will not find a single reference to Polish people calling themselves 'ethnic Slavs' in the manner that you're suggesting.

No, I havnt, but then again I dont know any Serbs.

Again, you will not find a single reference to Serbian people calling themselves 'ethnic Slavs' in the manner that you're suggesting. No sane person considers the Slavic-speaking peoples of Europe as a single ethnicity, just like nobody considers Italians and Spaniards the same ethnicity. The sooner you accept it as a linguistic classification, the sooner you can stop looking for something that isn't there.

Why have a holiday named Slava ? If you dont acknowledge it ?

That has nothing to do with ethnic or linguistic classification. It is simply a word that is common in all of our languages and can literally mean 'celebration'. And in that context that is all it means, a celebration of saint days.

SOM, My problem like most other Greeks is this. How does one reconcile two completely different events in history as one ? The very people that displaced the pre-slavic character of the region are now claiming it as their own.

First of all, your definition of 'Slavic character' is vague and ambiguous, and simply cannot be applied in a uniform manner during the period in question, unless it relates to the lingua franca of the people in question. Second, the Paleo-Balkan population wasn't displaced any more than the peoples in the Peloponnese, Attica or elsewhere. Thus, it is only natural that the people that have always been living there would claim what is theirs, irrespective of different influences that have come through the region.

Its a classic example of taking on the identity of the people you sack. Its like trying to connect two different parrallel lines in history.

Not really. At least in our case, the lingua franca had some affinity with Paleo-Balkan languages. It had none with Greek. So, essentially, that 'classic' example applies more to your people, most of whom spoke non-Greek languages from the medieval period till relatively recently. Even the case of the Mycenaeans is similar, where a foreign and intrusive people sacked an established civilisation and centuries later claimed it as their own.

Would the Europeans coming to the Americas make themselves Indian after a thousand years ?

Would American 'Indians' who adopted European languages like English and Spanish automatically cease being 'Indians'? Entiendes?

[Pelister]

SoM,

The last five posts provides a good example of what can happen when someone starts throwing the term 'Slav' around too much and using it too loosely.

I think that Macedonians spend more time trying to correct everyone elses use of the term 'Slav' as it is related to the Macedonians, because it carries certain distortions, and historical assumptions with it regardless as to how you define it. Part of the problem with its 'looseness' is that no one has studied up close what people meant when they used it. I don't think it is good enough to assume you know what people meant when they used it, or even what the term might mean, because it could mean many different things at any given time.

Consider this, for example SoM:

The term ‘Savage’ comes from the Latin, salvaticus. Basically, it means ‘wood’ or wild and untamed. In Latin, it happens to be the direct and exact opposite of the term, civicus which means ‘citizen’. The Romans were describing all people living outside their boundaries, as ‘Salvaticus’ (whatever the plural might be), meaning non-citizens. But note this also, the Romans applied the term to people inside its borders, people who lived outside the major towns and cities and lived in the woods. In the wilder regions. It is possible that the term is a remnant of the Roman legacy and rule in the region. By this definition alone, it could mean at least two different things, "non-citizen" and "someone who dwells in wild places", and it could be applied to anyone not living in a town. Now imagine foriegners centuries later, misapplying or misappropriating its meaning, or simply giving their own meaning.

I am drawing this to your attention in order to get you to understand the origin of the term, and what it 'might' mean, and who it 'might' be describing.

The trouble is that you are claiming that the term 'Slav' means more than can scientificially be proven.

I feel I need to challenge you on a number of points:

1. There is no proof we are the descendents of 6th century invaders, culturally, linguistically or in any other way.
2. There is no positive evidence of the identity of 6th century invaders, what they called themselves, or indeed, what language they spoke or wrote in; your assumption that you know who they were, when contemporaries didn't, is dishonest.
3. Your assumption that we do not speak the langauge of the ancient Macedonians, is amusing to say the least, because there is no evidence for or against it.

If I thought you could stick to a very strict, scientifically proven definition of the term 'Slav' (you havn't proven it, you have simply perpetuated a definition created by Westerners), I don't think there would be such a big problem here. Instead, you have made many historical assumptions about the nature of the term 'Slav', about what it represents, its all important contextual history in a foriegn tradition is entirely lacking, and about just 'who' it represents and how it is applied to us.

People have been unable to answer these questions, so they have filled in the 'gaps' with assumptions.

In your effort to find a common paleo-linguistic theory of continuity, you have inadvertantly carried the same historical assumptions our enemies use against us.

At some stage I think you going to have to look at the archeological evidence also of an ancient Danubian writing system, described as the 'Danubian script' what some call the 'Vinca culture'; it might provide some clues. Actually this has been found all over the balkans, and beyond.

[Dejan]

Voltron - The word 'slava' means 'celebration' you twit. We use the word in many ways

Slavi me - We celebrate.
Pravoslavni - Orthodox Christian. The direct translation of the word pravoslavni would be 'correct celebrators'.
Slava - Celebration.

Inform your friends as well you moron.

[Soldier of Macedon]

The last five posts provides a good example of what can happen when someone starts throwing the term 'Slav' around too much and using it too loosely.

And they're also a good example of how easily misconceptions can be refuted if people like yourself actually made an effort to confront the issue instead of sticking your head in the sand and pretending that it doesn't exist. By the way, I never use the term loosely, you should know by now that I always apply it in a specific context.

I am drawing this to your attention in order to get you to understand the origin of the term, and what it 'might' mean, and who it 'might' be describing.

Your little experiment with that word may have been credible if it made sense in the context of phonological development when compared to 'Sclave', but it doesn't. The fact is, you aren't able to demonstrate that the term 'Slav' or 'Slov' was an exonym adopted by Slavic-speaking peoples for their own languages. If it was an exonym, then Macedonians and others would be using the foreign adaptation of the word, which is 'Sclave'.

1. There is no proof we are the descendents of 6th century invaders, culturally, linguistically or in any other way.

There is proof that 6th century invaders had an impact on our culture and language in varying degrees. Open a book.

2. There is no positive evidence of the identity of 6th century invaders, what they called themselves, or indeed, what language they spoke or wrote in; your assumption that you know who they were, when contemporaries didn't, is dishonest.

There is a good deal of evidence, you're just deliberately ignoring it. I can't be responsible for your ignorance. I have tried to inform you countless times, you just don't have the capacity to grasp logic when it comes to this topic.

3. Your assumption that we do not speak the langauge of the ancient Macedonians, is amusing to say the least, because there is no evidence for or against it.

My assumption is based on research, and it has led me to believe that while we do speak a language related to ancient Macedonian and other Paleo-Balkan languages, it is not mutually intelligible with them today. The spoken form of Macedonian from the 9th century is not mutually intelligible to the average Macedonian of today. Your assumption that we speak the same language as the ancient Macedonians is based on some paranoid delusion that has no place in any serious discussion concerning linguistics.

If I thought you could stick to a very strict, scientifically proven definition of the term 'Slav' (you havn't proven it, you have simply perpetuated a definition created by Westerners)..........

As a matter of fact, it is you who is perpetuating the 'western' interpretation by accepting that as the only definition of the term and the one that we should hide from. I am the one who is providing alternate views and limiting its character to a linguistic classification based on solid research, and not some fluff that you continually try and use to counter logic and fact.

In your effort to find a common paleo-linguistic theory of continuity, you have inadvertantly carried the same historical assumptions our enemies use against us.

Hardly. Your ignorance and disregard for logic makes all Macedonians look like peasant hill-billies that don't know anything about their own language.

At some stage I think you going to have to look at the archeological evidence also of an ancient Danubian writing system, described as the 'Danubian script' what some call the 'Vinca culture'; it might provide some clues. Actually this has been found all over the balkans, and beyond.

Rather than making ingorant armchair criticims each time you post on this thread, why don't you research these scripts and explain it to all of us? Here's one for you that you've deliberately avoided SEVERAL TIMES:

Why don't you explain where all of the different placenames in the Balkans came from after the 6th century?


At the very least, answer the last question. Or, avoid it again and be a deceptive charlatan.

[Risto the Great]

The spoken form of Macedonian from the 9th century is not mutually intelligible to the average Macedonian of today.

I regard this as a statement of fact.
But I would be extremely interested to learn that Kiril & Metodi used a different language than their native Macedonian language for the purposes of translating gospels.

[Soldier of Macedon]

I would be extremely interested to learn that Kiril & Metodi used a different language than their native Macedonian language for the purposes of translating gospels.

I too have thought about that possibility, mainly because of the use of the definitive article. However, I have come across some decent evidence that it was a feature that developed over time after Macedonian became a church literary language in the 9th century. I am not aware of any vernacular literature in Macedonian until centuries later, so that is going by church literature only. Although this doesn't completely exclude the possibility of Cyril and Methodius using a 'broader' language based on their Macedonian dialect so it can be more intelligible to a larger audience, I have not really looked into how much evidence can be found in support of such a notion. What do you think, RtG? What would you base this perception on?

[Risto the Great]

What do you think, RtG? What would you base this perception on?

Well, given the language did not change any more than what we might describe as mild dialectal differences from 500 years ago here:

http://macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3066

Perhaps it might not be stretch to suggest the translations were made for broader appeal.

But I accept that languages evolve and see no way that anybody else can or should claim the Old Macedonian language (as we know it) as anyone's but ours.

[Soldier of Macedon]

One of the possible reasons why the Macedonian language remained as placid as it did from circa 1400 could be because there was a lesser amount of fluctuating influences and a more stable linguistic environment under the Ottomans.

[Soldier of Macedon]

I too have thought about that possibility, mainly because of the use of the definitive article. However, I have come across some decent evidence that it was a feature that developed over time after Macedonian became a church literary language in the 9th century. I am not aware of any vernacular literature in Macedonian until centuries later, so that is going by church literature only. Although this doesn't completely exclude the possibility of Cyril and Methodius using a 'broader' language based on their Macedonian dialect so it can be more intelligible to a larger audience, I have not really looked into how much evidence can be found in support of such a notion. What do you think, RtG? What would you base this perception on?

Further to the above, it is important to highlight that the linguistic changes that took place in Macedonia, Illyria and Thrace were not immediate and would have taken decades or even centuries, and may still have been incomplete during the time of Cyril and Methodius. However, after the spread of Old Macedonian literature the process would have been complete, and the dialect of Solun would have become prevalent in Macedonia. So, with that in consideration, it is possible that Cyril and Methodius used a Macedonian dialect that was more readily understood by other Slavic-speaking peoples.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Before being known by its current name, Scotland was once known as Caledonia and peopled by tribes such as the Caledonii. These people spoke Pictish languages, which are part of a larger group of Celtic languages. Gaelic (Ireland) and Brythonic (Britain) are also Celtic languages and were spoken in areas which neighboured Pictish. See map below:



After centuries of socio-political and other influences by Gaelic-speakers toward Pictish-speakers, Celtic peoples in Caledonia eventually adopted Gaelic in place of Pictish. The people in Scotland today, although representative of the ethno-cultural heritage of their Pictish forefathers and still using a Celtic language, actually speak a branch of Celtic that was developed in Ireland. Thus, it is not unknown for related languages belonging to the same broader family to displace, absorb or merge with one another when living in the same or neighbouring areas. Something similar to this happened in the Balkans, Danube regions and eastern Europe from the early medieval period.

[Pelister]

SoM, I know that languages have common characteristics, but we are not Slavs by any definition, even though you have been saying that we are. In the 19th century and early 20th century records, the Macedonians defined their language as simply - Macedonian. Not Macedonian Slav, and not Slav Macedonian. The immigration records are clear about it. I want to ask you again.

What evidence is there that we are the descendants of 6th century invaders (as you have suggested), and that you language is derived from 6th century invaders?

[Pelister]

I regard this as a statement of fact.
But I would be extremely interested to learn that Kiril & Metodi used a different language than their native Macedonian language for the purposes of translating gospels.

Ok RTG, why is this ridiculous ASSUMPTION now a fact?

What evidence is there that the spoken form of Macedonian during the 9th century could not be understood by a Macedonian today?

Produce the evidence, a book, an essay, a technical paper - something.

Who would have thought that MacedonianTruth would become the highest advocate and defender of the Slav hypothesis?

Isn't it funny how the history section of the forum has been stacked with 'Slav' rubbish - as though someone was trying to make a point.

[Risto the Great]

Pelister, should I assume you have no knowledge of Old Macedonian (also known as Old Church Slavonic)?

I also stated the following:

I would be extremely interested to learn that Kiril & Metodi used a different language than their native Macedonian language for the purposes of translating gospels.

Until you can show me " the evidence, a book, an essay, a technical paper - something." that the spoken language was different to the documented language, you are in a weaker position than me. The written language of 1000 years ago is going to have to be used as the starting point. Please tell me why it should not be.

I think it is also safe to assume that all languages have changed dramatically over the last 1000 years.

Please feel free to make this into a Slav rant. But alternatively and more thoughtfully, tell me what evidence you have that suggests the written language of Kiril & Metodi should be ignored when trying to determine the spoken language. Using your extremely suspect logic, perhaps the written language of Kiril & Metodi was some constructed language and the spoken language was in fact Koine ... prove otherwise with your "evidence". I think the written language of 1000+ years ago holds more than enough clues for me. Can you understand it?

[Soldier of Macedon]

SoM, I know that languages have common characteristics, but we are not Slavs by any definition, even though you have been saying that we are.

In the broader sense, the Macedonian language is classified as a Slavic language, just like Russian and Polish. Collectively, Slavic languages belong to an even larger linguistic family together with Lithuanian and Latvian, which is classified as Balto-Slavic. In terms of ethno-cultural heritage, we are by definition Macedonian. Our language, although forming part of a larger family of languages, is also defined as specifically Macedonian.

You know all of this already because I have repeated it to you several times. And in each response you have deliberately muddied the waters between a single language with a linguistic family, or an ethno-cultural identity with a linguistic classification. The only thing you have demonstrated by doing this is how weak and ignorant your arguments are.

In the 19th century and early 20th century records, the Macedonians defined their language as simply - Macedonian. Not Macedonian Slav, and not Slav Macedonian.

Can you name one of those Macedonians that doubted the relationship between their language and that of Russia or Poland, or taken issue with their collective classification as Slavic languages?

What evidence is there that we are the descendants of 6th century invaders (as you have suggested)............

I have never suggested that in the manner you've written it. Macedonians today descend from the indigenous people of Macedonia. But, as a result of invasion and settlement, there are also other peoples that have contributed to our DNA. Some of them were Celtic-speakers, Germanic-speakers, Latin-speakers, etc. It is unrealistic to rule out Slavic-speakers from the regions around the Danube.

Produce the evidence, a book, an essay, a technical paper - something.

How easy is it for you to understand the below?

"тако бо подобьно намъ eстъ съкончати всекa правъдa. тогда остави eго. крьшть се ис. і възидe отъ води. і сe отвръзоше се eму. і виде дхъ бжйи съходешть. еко голaбь. і гредaшть на нь. і сe гласъ съ нбсe гле. сь eстъ снъ мои".

Who would have thought that MacedonianTruth would become the highest advocate and defender of the Slav hypothesis?

Nobody aside from yourself and a small handful of other ignorant individuals.

Isn't it funny how the history section of the forum has been stacked with 'Slav' rubbish - as though someone was trying to make a point.

Are you also including in this conspiracy theory the below 'Slav' rubbish that you wrote yourself?

There is an ancient Greek Vase, with of course, Greek letters on it, which is non-sensical in ancient Greek, and makes perfect sense in of course, Slavic.

What did you mean by 'Slavic', Pelister?