Who are the Slavs? - Citations and Sources

[Soldier of Macedon]

There is great danger in using the term 'Slav' as a marker of identity in a historical sense.

Not if it is in a specific context relating to certain periods. This needs to be confronted and addressed so future generations have an adequate understanding of what it meant, and so that young Macedonians are able to challenge the assertions of others, with a good level of comprehension and intelligence. Your approach of deliberate ignorance is wrong, Pelister, and closing your eyes will not make the term disappear from Macedonian history.

It is dangerous using it as any kind of marker of identity, especially language.

I disagree, and so do our Macedonian Saints Cyril, Methodius, Clement, Naum, etc, who specifically used the term 'slovenski' or 'slovjanski' with respect to the Old Macedonian language, and the similar languages spoken by other peoples throughout Europe. But let us entertain your notion of 'danger' for a moment. What is the most appropriate name that is acceptable to the collective peoples who form a group of related languages which stretch from Macedonia to Slovenia to Poland to Russia?

Trying to prove that the ancients were 'Slavs' is admirable, but you are approaching the whole problem from the wrong angle.

Pelister, you don't understand my angle because you are largely ignorant of historical linguistics. I am not claiming to be an expert, but I have done a lot of research and can produce some solid arguments in support of my assertions where it concerns the evolution of our language, whereas you're unable to accept a logical and critical approach that isn't tainted by bias.

Your are working within Western discourse in an attempt to change it and naturally carry many of its assumptions without question.

These are empty observations without detail. How am I working within 'western discourse'? Which assumptions have I accepted 'without question'? I suspect you've confused what I have written again.

The 'Slavicisation' of the Macedonians and their language, has to stop SoM.

Pelister, give it a rest. You're smarter than this. If you can't accept some simple facts about our history and instead choose to believe in 70,000 year old rock theories like certain other people, then that is your choice. But don't direct these silly and unwarranted accusations towards me.

It also makes historical sense because the bible was written in the Cyrillic alphabet based on the Macedonian language. It makes perfect sense that Macedonians would use the term 'Slavno' as a marker of Christianity.

At some point the term 'slavjani' did come into use and could have denoted Christians, but not just any Christians, it would obviously be only those who spoke similar (Slavic) languages. During the early period of Old Macedonian literature, they used 'slovenski' for the language and 'sloveni' for all the peoples who spoke a similar language. If you have any references to literature from the time of Cyril to Clement which uses the term 'slavno' then please share it.

Here is a very rough schematic of the term 'Slav' and the different meanings attached to it, by different authors at different places in time.

6th century - Sklavenoi (invaders) - foriegn designation
11 century - Slavno (christian) - Macedonian designation
16 century - Slav (invaders) - Western designation
17 century - Slav (invaders and language) - Western designation
19 century - Slav (invaders and language, and ethnic and national identity) - Russia and Greece

Here is how I would put it:

6th century - Sklavenoi; a foreign (Roman) interpretation based on Sloveni, the generic self-designation of a group of linguistically related peoples who became increasingly more cohesive during Gothic, Hunnic and Avar rule, and were involved in invasions and rebellions against the Roman Empire. It was also applied to peoples with an Iranian or Turkic element that were in the presence of Sloveni. Their main living expanse was spread across the north of the Danube. Together with those from the Baltic area and the greater regions of Macedonia, Illyria and Thrace, their language(s) formed a large sub-group of Indo-European languages. Their advances against the Roman Empire which were likely to have been accompanied by local assistance (at least in some cases), had an impact on all of the Balkans.

7th-8th centuries - Sklavinia; the name given by the Romans to the autonomous enclaves in the Balkans. These enclaves were either established or dominated by the Sloveni element among the Sklavenoi, and, as warrior elites who brought about a different socio-political system across the region in terms of governance, they managed to influence the languages of the indigenous majority, a process that was facilitated by the fact that the latter were related to the language(s) of the Sloveni.

9th century - Sloveni, Slovenski; recorded for the first time in Old Macedonian literature, in reference to peoples and/or languages of Moravia and Macedonia. Although the Old Macedonian version of Slovenski had developed local characteristics as a result of fusion with ancient Macedonian, Illyrian and Thracian, Moravians had no major issues with comprehending the literary works of Macedonian saints and scholars, and these works quickly spread to the kingdoms and entities who spoke related languages across Europe.

10th-18th centuries - Sloveni, Slavjani; continued to be used as an identity based on linguistic commonality in varying degrees during the following centuries, alongside ethnic, geographic, religious, cultural, social and political identities, some of which were more fluid than others. The designation of Slavjani arose at some point and essentially meant the same as Sloveni, but with an additional connotation relating to Christian worship.

19th century - Nationalism; as it swept across Europe, various peoples began to assert their historical and ethnic identities over the common linguistic identity of Sloveni or Slavjani. At the same time, some peoples were working towards developing collective identities for different reasons, such as 'Illyrians' and 'Bulgarians'. In addition, 'Pan-Slavic' ideologies began to arise that were based on the presumption that all Slavic-speaking peoples originated from the same tribe. Meanwhile, the Germanic and other sections of the western world began to increasingly regard Slavic-speaking peoples as a foreign element, while promoting Albanians and Greeks as the only indigenous peoples in the Balkans.

Let me know what exactly you disagree with and I will provide the relevant evidence and/or research. I would like to point out that during this whole period there were references made to Macedonians. I have no doubt that a Macedonian culture and identity existed and that it ultimately proved to be most prevalent, but that doesn't mean everything else should be ignored when discussing our history, particularly the pan-linguistic identity which our own ancestors used in certain periods and contexts.

The first thing you need to come to terms with is the fact that our language has undergone changes as a result of the 6th century invasion of Slavic-speaking peoples from north of the Danube. The proof is more than obvious through a comparison of placenames before and after, and a comparison of Slavic languages to that which remains of the Paleo-Balkan languages. If you want to lend weight to whatever argument you're trying to make, I would suggest that you address this point first and foremost.

[Pelister]

I have been gone a week, and things move so fast here that I have lost the thread about what the term 'Slav' means.

I think that the title of this thread should be 'What is a Slav', rather than 'Who are the Slavs'.

There is great danger in using the term 'Slav' as a marker of identity in a historical sense. It is dangerous using it as any kind of marker of identity, especially language. I have used it in this sense before, but it is a distortion to be using it in any historical sense by that meaning, principally because it is not a Macedonian meaning of the term. There are alot of myths around the term, much conjecture and speculation, alot of vague associations based on circumstantial and anecdotal evidence. You really need to go back to the original sources and see what they say. There are a number of very powerful assumptions and associations built up around the term 'Slav' - all made in the West, beginning from about the 16th century. It is foriegners trying to make sense of certain events, of places and people in the past. We shouldn't blame them for that, but they got much of it wrong. In more recent times, it is being used by our enemies as a distinguishing characteristics of 'Other', as 'foriegner' and as 'squatters' on the land. Trying to prove that the ancients were 'Slavs' is admirable, but you are approaching the whole problem from the wrong angle. Your are working within Western discourse in an attempt to change it and naturally carry many of its assumptions without question. I suggest going back to the original sources, and looking very closely at when the term was used and what it meant, at the time. The 'Slavicisation' of the Macedonians and their language, has to stop SoM.

The only acceptable meaning of the term 'Slav' - the only historically acceptable meaning has to come from the Macedonians themselves [no one else], and based on the available evidence, I think, that in the Macedonian language, the term 'Slavno' = Christian.

It is possible the meaning of this term goes back to the 11th century, possibly even earlier.

Slav = Christian (in Macedonian history and language)

That is the only valid explanation.

It also makes historical sense because the bible was written in the Cyrillic alphabet based on the Macedonian language. It makes perfect sense that Macedonians would use the term 'Slavno' as a marker of Christianity.

Here is a very rough schematic of the term 'Slav' and the different meanings attached to it, by different authors at different places in time.

6th century - Sklavenoi (invaders) - foriegn designation
11 century - Slavno (christian) - Macedonian designation
16 century - Slav (invaders) - Western designation
17 century - Slav (invaders and language) - Western designation
19 century - Slav (invaders and language, and ethnic and national identity) - Russia and Greece

It is very rough, the only way of determing the precise term being employed, and what they meant by it, and who or what they were describing - you need to go back to every specific moment in history it has been used, particularly the key moments. It requires, as I have said, going back to the original sources.

[Soldier of Macedon]

You say that the local Balkan people being majority in population figures was important, i say that the Roman policies was important, and details like that.

I consider both factors to be of importance, except that the Romans had no political influence for extended periods. Onur, first you say:

From 5th century to 18th, so-called slavic people of Balkans was considered as the leftovers of Gothic/Hunnic expansion, no exception.

Now you say 6th to 10th century:

By everyone from east or west. Thats what all the Roman chronicles from 6th to 10th century says anyway, including Cyril&Methodious brothers.

Stick to one time frame. Can you name me one source that makes reference to the 'Slavs', 'Sclavenoi', Cyril or Methodius as being "leftovers of Gothic/Hunnic expansion"? Given that you think there are no exceptions, I trust this won't be too difficult.

Illyrian theories invented only after 19th century........

That is wrong. In literature and heraldry at least, the Illyrian heritage of Slavic-speaking peoples in the Balkans has been recorded from the early 16th century. Unfortunately, most of the literature prior to this point was largely of a religious nature.

I posted several articles in this forum b4 about the ethnic origin theories of Croats, Bulgarians, Serbs.........

Serbs and Croats may or may not have been Iranian-speaking peoples originally, but by the time they reached north of the Danube they were speaking Slavic languages. And that is how they arrived in the Balkans. The Bulgars, being a predominantly Turkic group and managing to establish their own kingdom earlier, retained their language for a longer period. In the end, whatever they were, as ruling elites they were able to pass on their names to the local peoples, but aside from that, each region continued to develop according to its own environment long after they melted away into their respective populations. In our case the situation is a little different, because the process of ethnogenesis for the Serbs, Bulgars and Croats didn't take place in Macedonia, and the influence of the first two only spread into the country during later periods through political and religious channels. That is why, despite being under the sway of (east) Roman, Bulgar or Serbian empires during different periods, a Macedonian identity managed to survive and ultimately prevail - whereas the Illyrian and Thracian identities gave way to that of the Serbs, Croats and Bulgars early on.

[Onur]

SOM, actually we are saying similar things and we agree to each other on most of the causes and consequences. It`s just we have differences in details and in some nuances. You say that the local Balkan people being majority in population figures was important, i say that the Roman policies was important, and details like that. You and me are just giving emphasis on different things. We both are assuming and probably we will never know the truth but in the end, it wouldn't be wrong to say that all the factors were important.

Considered by whom?

By everyone from east or west. Thats what all the Roman chronicles from 6th to 10th century says anyway, including Cyril&Methodious brothers.

Illyrian theories invented only after 19th century, thracian ones in 20th century. Pan-slavic theories also invented in 19th century. Literally, 1000s of new ethnic origin "theories" invented in that times for all the societies in the western world. This was the effect of changing political climate of Europe but mainly the 1789 French revolution.

I posted several articles in this forum b4 about the ethnic origin theories of Croats, Bulgarians, Serbs;

Here is the Croatian scholar`s perspective;

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showpost.php?p=97971&postcount=93

I posted more of those like Bulgarian point of view but cant find atm.

[Soldier of Macedon]

......if you are talking about the sclaveni.......

But I wasn't talking about them in that instance, and I have already made that clear.

They are surely not talking about the so-called Illyrians of Justinian when they wrote sclavenoi.

I never said they were. And in any case, Justinian was the first emperor to encounter the 'sclavenoi'; it would be several years before the Illyrians form part of the 'sclavinias' and adopt the Slavic language.

From 5th century to 18th, so-called slavic people of Balkans was considered as the leftovers of Gothic/Hunnic expansion, no exception.

Considered by whom?

Absent from culture? How you know that and to what degree? completely absent?

I said mostly absent. Aren't you reading my posts properly? You seem to be overreacting over fictions of your own creation.

Bulgarian, Serbian, Croatian, all of them contains Iranian, Turkic, Hungarian linguistic elements from their pre-christinity era, not to mention their unique spiritual beliefs, folklore, dances, traditions and habits.

Compared to the indigenous Balkan and Danubian cultures they are not as significant. Compared to the languages of Macedonians, Serbs, Croats, Bulgars, etc they are largely irrelevant. That is the overall picture. I am not denying that there is Iranian, Turkic and Hungarian influence, I just can't see how it had any major impact.

And don't forget Hungarians who ruled in northern Balkans (today`s Romania, Serbia) for centuries. They are still speaking the same language of their ancestors.

When the Hungarians came to rule that area it was already populated by Slavic-speaking peoples. I don't see your point.

I agree to that but that assimilation wasn't about the local Balkan people of pre-5th century being the majority or something like that. Eastern Romans politics and christianity played the major part in that assimilation of the newcomers.

Politics and religion most certainly had a role to play, but that still doesn't discount the local Balkan peoples from remaining the majority or having influence over the invaders.

To me, it wasn't the continuity, it was the deliberate policy of removing all elements from their "pagan" past. Same thing happened to Celts, Goths, Saxons, Vandals etc. Their heritage also erased by the Romans and their language has been completely changed afterwards.

Your suggestion would make sense but your missing one important detail. The Romans had no imposing influence in the 'sclavinias' for extended periods between the 6th-9th centuries, so they couldn't have enforced a deliberate policy against the 'pagan' religion(s) of the invaders. The adoption of Christianity by the invaders in Macedonia, aside from the cultural influence of the Roman Empire in the region, was also facilitated by their interaction with the more culturally influential locals.

[Onur]

I previously indicated I am referring to the people of the Balkans from the 6th century AD and prior, who were Roman citizens of largely Thracian and Illyian origin. Some of them even became emperors such as Justin and Justinian. Any remnant 'leftovers' of Gothic, Hunnic, etc elements paled in comparison.

Well, you are right if you are talking about the Roman citizens from Thracia and Illyria but if you are talking about the sclaveni, slavs, which was written in Roman chronicles, then you are wrong because the sclavenoi in the Roman documents are the leftovers of Gothic, Hunnic expansion who had "pagan" beliefs, "the seeds of demon" dwelling in the Balkans, challenging the Roman authority. They are surely not talking about the so-called Illyrians of Justinian when they wrote sclavenoi.

From 5th century to 18th, so-called slavic people of Balkans was considered as the leftovers of Gothic/Hunnic expansion, no exception. Only after 18th century, western European scholars started to put emphasis on shallow people like Illyrians, Thracians etc. and said "Albanians are Illyrians, Bulgarians are Thracians, Romaoi speakers of Anatolia are purebred ancient Greeks" etc. and Karl Marx was about to introduce a new theory, the so-called slavic unity would let Russian influence to reach European soil. Of that was all about politics.

Their existence on some archaeological sites while being mostly absent from culture and language speaks for their numerical irrelevance and inability to influence the commoner, be they a local from the Balkans or an invader from the Danube. Nobody in the Balkans speaks an Avar or Bulgar language, most of them speak a Slavic language.

Absent from culture? How you know that and to what degree? completely absent? I don't think so. Bulgarian, Serbian, Croatian, all of them contains Iranian, Turkic, Hungarian linguistic elements from their pre-christinity era, not to mention their unique spiritual beliefs, folklore, dances, traditions and habits.

And don't forget Hungarians who ruled in northern Balkans (today`s Romania, Serbia) for centuries. They are still speaking the same language of their ancestors.

The point is, there is continuity where the invaders were able to easily assimilate into the local culture while still being able to pass on their related language as the ruling elite.

I agree to that but that assimilation wasn't about the local Balkan people of pre-5th century being the majority or something like that. Eastern Romans politics and christianity played the major part in that assimilation of the newcomers. Since it`s foundation, Roman empire`s (incl. eastern side) policy was about either assimilation or expulsion towards the people. They were perceiving the people who refused assimilation as a threat to their authority.

That continuity is the reason why he says "archaeological evidence has so far been unable to fill the gap".

To me, it wasn't the continuity, it was the deliberate policy of removing all elements from their "pagan" past. Same thing happened to Celts, Goths, Saxons, Vandals etc. Their heritage also erased by the Romans and their language has been completely changed afterwards. The proof is our complete lack of knowledge about them `till late 20th century. Hopefully, many archeological sites has been discovered in the recent century. So, currently there is no "gap" for the objective people without any political prejudices.

[Soldier of Macedon]

They were never considered as "Roman citizens" unless they were already assimilated into the Roman culture. They were just pagans, barbarians, leftovers of Huns........

Your response is irrelevant, because like I previously indicated I am referring to the people of the Balkans from the 6th century AD and prior, who were Roman citizens of largely Thracian and Illyian origin. Some of them even became emperors such as Justin and Justinian. Any remnant 'leftovers' of Gothic, Hunnic, etc elements paled in comparison.

There are findings related with Avars, Bulgars from Salonika to pannonia.

Their existence on some archaeological sites while being mostly absent from culture and language speaks for their numerical irrelevance and inability to influence the commoner, be they a local from the Balkans or an invader from the Danube. Nobody in the Balkans speaks an Avar or Bulgar language, most of them speak a Slavic language. In many cases, "major settlements grew up on the sites of Roman cities", so it is "reasonable to assume that some of the local characteristics exhibited later by Slavs in the Illyrian lands were a consequence of assimilating existing local culture". - just like Wilkes highlighted. The point is, there is continuity where the invaders were able to easily assimilate into the local culture while still being able to pass on their related language as the ruling elite. That continuity is the reason why "archaeological evidence has so far been unable to fill the gap".

[Delodephius]

Just something I thought I'd ad to this interesting question is the declaration by Pope Gelasius I (late 490's AD) that slaves could be brought into the empire as long as they were not Christian. Therefore it is highly probable that the term 'Slav' in it's various forms could have simply become a generalized term for the non-Christian pagan populations both north and south of the Danube irrespective of their ethnic origin or linguistic affinity etc? What we do know is that during that period the Romans divided the population of the Balkans between 'Romans' (meaning Christians) and 'Slavs' (meaning pagans).

Besides Gaul, the Balkans had always been a primary source of Slaves in antiquity. I think this is an important issue to first examine in any attempt to discover who the Slavs were.

The Roman word for slaves was 'servus' pl. 'servi', not 'sclavus' which appears later (after 6th century or so). The origin of the word 'sclavus' itself is from the Slavic word 'Słoväni', not from Latin where such a word did not exist before the first appearance of the Slavs, and only later after they have firmly been established.

[Onur]

Not sure about the people of the Balkans being non-Christian pagans though, I would say many if not most were considered part of the 'flock' as Roman citizens by the 6th century AD.

What else would they be??? Ofc they were just pagans dwelling in Balkans according to Roman conception. Pagans, namely the tengrists, shamanists and animalists were surely the majority in Balkans and Pannonia `till 10th century. Christianization only became dominant after Bulgarian kingdom officially accepted it as a state religion and forced it to the people. You know, Bulgarian kingdom of that era was much bigger than the today`s Bulgarian state, covering Macedonia, Romania, Moldova, Serbia etc., pretty much whole Balkans.

They were never considered as "Roman citizens" unless they were already assimilated into the Roman culture. They were just pagans, barbarians, leftovers of Huns, sometimes mercenary soldiers but mostly the enemies of eastern Roman state. They were the cause of the humiliation of Roman state and/or a punishment sent by god because of their own sins (thats what they thought). You can get this by reading the chronicles of that era, from the tone of the writers.

Here is what John Wilkes wrote in his book about the Illyrians:

Archaeological evidence has so far been unable to fill the gap between the end of Roman Illyricum and the tenth century

I don't agree with this at all.

First of all, it`s just plain stupid to say that "archeology couldn't fill the gap" for a something from medieval age. It`s like asking for a photograph in the internet/youtube age. We are not talking about 2000 BC here. You don't absolutely need archeology to fill gaps for the events of medieval era because we have other sources from medieval age like the lots of written documents from east and west belongs to that era. The archeological findings can be a final supplementary element to prove the events from medieval era but for antiquity, it can be considered as a primary element which leads the new theories about the past. So, it doesn't hold same meaning and value.

2nd of all, there are many archeological findings between 4th to 10th century. There are findings related with Avars, Bulgars from Salonika to pannonia. Many treasures, remains has been found. Whole capital city of Pliska has been excavated in today`s Bulgaria with lots of objects, written tablets, city walls, clothing etc. What more John Wilkes wants??? If he expects Roman statues, buildings with giant pillars from the "barbarians" of 4-10th century while he says that "archeology couldn't fill the gap", then this will never happen.


Why some people like John Wilkes thinks like there is gap between 4-10th century despite numerous documents and findings??? It`s simply because of politics. They just don't wanna fill the gap with the findings, documents from that era. If they do that, then they don't like the whole picture. They don't wanna fill the gap with Avar reign in peloponnese. They don't wanna fill the gap with "pagan" bulgars, serbs, croats etc. because if they do it, then whole picture becomes "ugly", unsuitable, unprofitable to the current politics, an unconformity according to their terms. This is not something of today`s Bulgarians, Serbians desires either because they also find that picture "ugly" too.

Wilkes stops short of stating the obvious conclusion that can be drawn from his research, which is accepting the numerical superiority of the indigenous peoples over the invaders.

This is just an assumption. No one knows population figures of that era, not even the eastern Romans themselves. It`s simply impossible to know because the pathway between the north of Blacksea to Balkans was not under Roman control. There was constant forward and backward migration from this route at that time.

Besides that, you cannot underestimate the population of so-called invaders because they have many times beaten Roman armies, consisted of ~30.000-50.000 men. If you consider their own losses during wars, diseases, deaths and other causes, they surely needed 100.000s of people (with woman, children and men) to withstand, to maintain and have an upper hand vs Romans and face them with a competitive force.

100.000s of people is A LOT for early medieval era standards if you consider that only the Roman capitals had this number of people at that time. The cities with millions only existed in Asia and Africa at that time.

[Soldier of Macedon]

The followig pages are from P.M. Barford's "The Early Slavs". If you want more pages just let me know and I'll post some later.

TM, thanks for that, I agree with most of it, except his reference to an ethnographic and archaeological 'phenomena' with respect to the 'Early Slavs'. Here is what John Wilkes wrote in his book about the Illyrians:

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=963&highlight=Illyrians%2C+wilkes

The new setllers did not strive to eradicate the existing Illyrian and Roman cultures, and several of their major settlements grew up on the sites of Roman cities................Archaeological evidence has so far been unable to fill the gap between the end of Roman Illyricum and the tenth century. Few early Slav villages, with their hand-made pottery and cremation burials, have been identified in the Illyrian lands..............It seems reasonable to assume that some of the local characteristics exhibited later by Slavs in the Illyrian lands were a consequence of assimilating existing local culture.

Wilkes stops short of stating the obvious conclusion that can be drawn from his research, which is accepting the numerical superiority of the indigenous peoples over the invaders. That is the reason why there is a lack of archaeological change. The change was probably more evident in some social and cultural aspects, and most significantly in language. I consider the latter to be something that began as a language shift and ended as a hybridisation between two related tongues, where the local one became a substratum of the intrusive one. Some people choose to deny this without truly having an understanding of how the Slavic language of the invaders impacted the local languages, and where they all fit into the picture of Paleo-Balkan and Balto-Slavic languages.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Ipersonally believe that considering the above information, the accounts of a Slav 'migration' in the contemporary historical accounts have been misinterpreted today through either mistake or outright distortion for political reasons. What the ancient authors were actually reporting I believe was a revolt against the Romans north of the Danube which eventually spread south amoung the non-Christian pagan (then starting to be collectivelly being refered to as 'Slavs') populations of the Balkans.

Napoleon, do you think it is more than a coincidence that the words 'Sklaveni' and 'Sloveni' look so similar? I don't. I support the notion that local rebellions in the Balkans took place either in conjunction with or parallel to invasions from north of the Danube. Not sure about the people of the Balkans being non-Christian pagans though, I would say many if not most were considered part of the 'flock' as Roman citizens by the 6th century AD. In any case, I don't think invasions or rebellions can be ruled out. But a linguistic shift is clearly evident as a result of the invasions. Nobody can argue against that point.

[Napoleon]

Furthermore, I personally believe that considering the above information, the accounts of a Slav 'migration' in the contemporary historical accounts have been misinterpreted today through either mistake or outright distortion for political reasons. What the ancient authors were actually reporting I believe was a revolt against the Romans north of the Danube which eventually spread south amoung the non-Christian pagan (then starting to be collectivelly being refered to as 'Slavs') populations of the Balkans.

[Napoleon]

Just something I thought I'd ad to this interesting question is the declaration by Pope Gelasius I (late 490's AD) that slaves could be brought into the empire as long as they were not Christian. Therefore it is highly probable that the term 'Slav' in it's various forms could have simply become a generalized term for the non-Christian pagan populations both north and south of the Danube irrespective of their ethnic origin or linguistic affinity etc? What we do know is that during that period the Romans divided the population of the Balkans between 'Romans' (meaning Christians) and 'Slavs' (meaning pagans).

Besides Gaul, the Balkans had always been a primary source of Slaves in antiquity. I think this is an important issue to first examine in any attempt to discover who the Slavs were.

[TrueMacedonian]

The followig pages are from P.M. Barford's "The Early Slavs". If you want more pages just let me know and I'll post some later.

[Soldier of Macedon]

I wrote about this earlier somewhere, not sure. Anyhow, the reason why Romans wrote Sklavenoi or Sclavi, i.e. why include k or c, or even th as in Greek Sthlavenoi, is due to Slavic pronunciation of their name itself. The L in Sloväni is the velarized alveolar lateral approximant or "Dark L". In pronunciation it sounds like KL or THL, and that is how the Romans and Greeks heard it the first time. It changed to a regular L, alveolar lateral approximant, somewhere past the 9th century AD, since in OCS it is still velarized, which means it was so in the Macedonian dialect it was based upon. Only Slavic dialects that still have the Dark L are in eastern Poland and west Belarus, and they use the letter Łł to write it down. The Dark L is pronounced exclusively only in front of back vowels: o, u, a, just like in Sloväni.

As for A in Sclavi and not O as in Sloväni, this is due to Slavic back vowels actually being much deeper than Romance or Germanic ones, so Slavic O would sound like an A to a Roman, and the Slavic A would be deeper than a Romance A but they would still had to transcribe it as an A, since they have no letter for it (nor does one exist even today). Eastern Slavic languages still preserve the deeper pronunciation of the back vowels.

Slavic ä or more commonly ě, in Cyrillic ѣ, corresponds mostly to E in Romance or Germanic languages, hence why they wrote it down as such. It evolved into several different sounds in later Slavic languages: e, je, ije, i, a, ja.

The change from Sclaveni to Sclavi to Slavi is more of a trend, and follows the native evolution of the changing of the sounds in the name itself.

I was looking for that post, thanks Slovak.

When were they first labelled "Slav" {I don't think the term 'identified' is appropriate, given that there is no evidence as to what they called themselves}, and by who? What did the user of the term mean by it at the time?

The Zitie Metodii (Life of Methodius) was written at the end of the 9th century by his student, Saint Clement of Ohrid. This would be one of the earliest references to the term 'Slavs' (transliterated as 'slovjani' in the below text that was converted to the Latinica alphabet) by a Macedonian in relation to people and language.

Rostislav’ knez’ sylvan’s’ s’ Svjetop’lk’m’ pos’lasta iz Moravy k’ Cjasarju Mixailu glagoljushta tako: jako bozhijeju milostiju s’dravi jesm’ i sut’ v’ ny v’sh’li uchitele mnozi kr’stijani iz Vlah’ i iz Gr’k’ i iz Njam’c‘, uchashte ny razlich‘, a my Slovjani prosta chad’ i ne imam‘........vy bo jesta Selunjenina, da Selunjene v’si ch’sto slovjan’sky besjadujut‘.........

In the above excerpts Clement paraphrases Rostislav of Moravia by saying 'my Slovjani' (us Slavs). He also cites Michael III of East Rome in his statement to Cyril and Methodius by saying 'Selunjene v’si ch’sto slovjan’sky besjadujut‘' (all Salonikans speak pure slavonic). The term 'identified' is appropriate so long as it is understood in a linguistic sense.

If 6th century 'Sklavenoi' and 9th century 'Sloveni' are related, how are they related?

In most sources (except those where 'Sklavenes' may perhaps also refer to Turkic and/or Iranian tribes), they are related by language. In the 10th century, which is after the earliest records of Slavic-speaking people calling themselves 'Sloveni', Constantinople Porphyrogenitus used the term 'Sklavoi' to refer to people who are without doubt ancestors of Slavic-speaking peoples today.

I can understand how an entire corpus of knowledge, and history has come to be identified as 'Slavic' [hence, 'Slavonic literature'].

Why, in this instance, are you able to understand part of Macedonian history having a 'Slavic' identity?

There is no evidence of that SoM. Its based on conjecture and speculation, possibly some vague analogues but that is it.

No, your opinion is based on conjecture and speculation, and to be honest, I doubt you have done even a fraction of the research that I have where it concerns Paleo-Balkan and Balto-Slavic languages.

If we follow your logic, the Macedonians are Slavs, the descendants of 6th century invaders?

If we follow my logic, the Macedonians were/are Macedonians. They underwent a linguistic shift towards a related tongue over the course of some years, as a result of 6th century invaders. I suggest you apply a more sensible approach and not let your ignorance of historical linguistics get the better of you.

I can see where you have made assumptions, and I can see the gaps in your thinking.

I don't think so mate. You're making an unfortunate attempt to dispute both probability and logic with an argument that can't be taken seriously.

Trying to create some kind of historical continuity as to the meaning of the term 'Slav' and what its actually describing is fraught with perils, SoM.

I don't have to create something that is already there. Your problem is that you have a narrow view of historical linguistics and don't consider much of what has gone on outside of Macedonia.

Where is the Macedonian evidence that historically they called themselves 'Slavs'? I think you'll find foreigners called them that.

Aren't Krste Misirkov and Georgi Pulevski Macedonian enough? Or did you miss them in my previous post?