Vinko Pribojevic and the Glory of the Slavs

[George S.]

constellation how dare you bring up in question or suggest that we don't connect with the ancients.Just because others like greeks don't doesn't automatically mean were not.Also how dare you bring up scholars ???who diminute our very existence.You don't know the Macedonian modern struggle of Macedonians.If you knew your history and were Macedonian you wouldn't persist of denationalising the Macedonian people.Don't you think enough is enough.After all this I think you are not a Macedonian but anti Macedonian because you are smearing all with the same brush.

[ramo]

My honest opinion is that most scholars do not believe today's Balkan population descend from or have linguistic or cultural connections to the indigenous Balkan peoples. I have yet to find one serious Western scholar who believes today's Macedonians have similarities with the ancients. If you know of any, please by all means forward me links or cite me books and articles.

Macedonians in 19 century considered ancient Macedonians as their ancestors. Many neighbor writers considered this to be the case also. Many western scholars also consider ancient macedonians and greeks as separate nations although they do not share the same opinion like the macedonians.

[Soldier of Macedon]

The one in this thread. You edited it after I added the quote about some Macedonians identifying as Slavic. You then edited your post to reflect this quote. A small point, and trivial, and I do not want to waste my time with this anymore.

It is a small point but what you're suggesting is incorrect so you should drop it, otherwise I will pull you up for misleading readers by falsely indicating that I have denied something which I never have. By the way, in future you will include my username when quoting me as you do with others, as I do with you, at least for the first quote, so it can be clear who you're addressing.

Yes. I agree with Borza et al., but these same authors also believe modern day Macedonians arrived in the 6th century or so.

They're considered authorities on ancient Macedonians, not modern Macedonians. Their opinion on modern Macedonians is irrelevant.

If a consensus of scholars agreed that the ancient Macedonians were a separate ethnicity and that today's Macedonians have always been in the Balkans, and are largely descendants of the ancient Macedonians, this would probably engender war in the Balkans over Aegean Macedonia.

How do you figure?

Can you imagine textbooks being rewritten with ideas that Alexander and Aristotle were so-called “Slavs”, and not Greeks.

No, I can't, because referring to Alexander as a 'Slav' is anachronistic given that the term itself was recorded over 800 years after he passed away. Further, it would be incorrect to apply a broad linguistic appellation to an individual's ethnic identity. The same applies for Macedonians both ancient and modern.

My honest opinion is that most scholars do not believe today's Balkan population descend from or have linguistic or cultural connections to the indigenous Balkan peoples. I have yet to find one serious Western scholar who believes today's Macedonians have similarities with the ancients. If you know of any, please by all means forward me links or cite me books and articles.

It is you who keeps making the statement about "serious western scholars", so I will ask you again: Who are the numerous scholars that deny any similarities between the ancient and modern Balkan populations? Name some of them and show us where they deny any connection whatsoever.

[Constellation]

Which post did I edit? Refer me to it.

The one in this thread. You edited it after I added the quote about some Macedonians identifying as Slavic. You then edited your post to reflect this quote. A small point, and trivial, and I do not want to waste my time with this anymore.

Have you read the ancient sources and the analyses done by the likes of Borza, Green and others? What is your opinion on them?

Yes. I agree with Borza et al., but these same authors also believe modern day Macedonians arrived in the 6th century or so.

You said that already. Why do you think these scholars say this? Are they justified?

Much of it is ignorance. Part of it is bias. And part of it is political. I have no doubt that most scholars are just innocently ignorant. However, I suspect a small percentage knows better and are biased. The other is just political. If a consensus of scholars agreed that the ancient Macedonians were a separate ethnicity and that today's Macedonians have always been in the Balkans, and are largely descendants of the ancient Macedonians, this would probably engender war in the Balkans over Aegean Macedonia.

It would also change our view of Balkan history, and indeed, Mediterranean history. Can you imagine textbooks being rewritten with ideas that Alexander and Aristotle were so-called “Slavs”, and not Greeks.

Don't you think it is inferred, or is Macedonia not in the Balkans? Who are the numerous scholars that deny any similarities between the ancient and modern Balkan populations? What do they have to say? What are your thoughts on their opinions?

My honest opinion is that most scholars do not believe today's Balkan population descend from or have linguistic or cultural connections to the indigenous Balkan peoples. I have yet to find one serious Western scholar who believes today's Macedonians have similarities with the ancients. If you know of any, please by all means forward me links or cite me books and articles.

I am of the opinion that most Western scholars are ignorant and biased to and against our interpretation of history, which is to say, that we have pretty much always been in Macedonia and that we have inherited genetically, culturally, and possibly linguistically the ancient Macedonians. Not perfectly, as the Balkans are mixed, foreign words and customs are imported, but we inherit the ancients nonetheless.

[Soldier of Macedon]

I cannot do that, since you edited the post to reflect the quote I gave.

Which post did I edit? Refer me to it.

First of all, scholars and textbooks are two different words.

No kidding. That's very insightful, thanks.

Second, textbooks generally represent the established consensus of scholars.

I said that already.

The general consensus of scholars is that the ancient Macedonians were either Greek, probably Greek, or the Macedonian elite became Hellenized in time.

Have you read the ancient sources and the analyses done by the likes of Borza, Green and others? What is your opinion on them?

In addition, it is the general consensus of scholars that today's Macedonians descend from ethnic Slavs who migrated to the Balkans. This was also the official Yugoslav propaganda.

You said that already. Why do you think these scholars say this? Are they justified?

As for a number of scholars that refer to certain similarity between the ancient and modern Balkan populations, this is a small number, and I do not know of a single serious Western scholar who believes that this applies to ancient Macedonia and Macedonia, though I agree there are guys like John Wilkes with the Illyrian/Bosnian theory.

Don't you think it is inferred, or is Macedonia not in the Balkans? Who are the numerous scholars that deny any similarities between the ancient and modern Balkan populations? What do they have to say? What are your thoughts on their opinions?

[DraganOfStip]

You are free to believe what you want about me, my identity, and my writings.

Well,you provide a lot of space for doubts regarding this.
And the more posts you make,the more you (make yourself) look like an imposter.
And your above comment kinda puts the cherry on the top.
I rest my case.

[Constellation]

I have never denied that some (insignificant number of) people identify as such. If what you've indicated above is not something you've just conjured, please refer us to my relevant post.

I cannot do that, since you edited the post to reflect the quote I gave.

Textbooks are based on the works of scholars or so-called scholars.

First of all, scholars and textbooks are two different words. I did not write scholars. If I meant to convey scholars, I would have written scholars. Second, textbooks generally represent the established consensus of scholars. Guys like Borza write books, not highs school or undergrad textbooks. The general consensus of scholars is that the ancient Macedonians were either Greek, probably Greek, or the Macedonian elite became Hellenized in time. In addition, it is the general consensus of scholars that today's Macedonians descend from ethnic Slavs who migrated to the Balkans. This was also the official Yugoslav propaganda.

I wouldn't classify ancient Macedonian as Proto-Slavic either, but I would suggest that being a Paleo-Balkan language it was somehow related to Proto-Slavic or more accurately Proto Balto-Slavic. Just because we're not at a stage where most scholars are prepared to join the dots doesn't mean that there is no basis for such a possibility.

Fine distinction. Yes, the consensus of scholars is against your argument, but it does not mean you are wrong and they are right.

That's because such material goes with the broad views of scholars and seldom goes into specifics, but that doesn't mean that all actual scholars themselves completely deny that today's Macedonians have inherited some elements from the ancient inhabitants of the Balkans. Textbooks in schools are subject to change just like prevailing opinions, but I acknowledge that there is further research to be done before that happens.

I agree. But again, the consensus of scholars, as reflected in textbooks, does not reflect your opinion.

That's incorrect (both the idea and your statement). There are a number of scholars that refer to certain similarities between the ancient and modern Balkan populations, and geneticists have also demonstrated that.

I have never seen the genetics argument used in textbooks or by Western scholars. But I agree, the genetic evidence is powerful, but unfortunately, generally muted. As for a number of scholars that refer to certain similarity between the ancient and modern Balkan populations, this is a small number, and I do not know of a single serious Western scholar who believes that this applies to ancient Macedonia and Macedonia, though I agree there are guys like John Wilkes with the Illyrian/Bosnian theory.

On the contrary, I am beginning to understand you and your argument even more. Your problem (aside from the silly generalisations and contradictions, which, if they weren't deliberate means that your ability to get your point across needs improvement) is that you keep making reference to everything that is wrong without making an effort to see what is right and what can be done to change current perceptions. So, do you have anything constructive to contribute? Any solutions to propose? Or is your sole intention here to repeatedly highlight all of the issues which we already know? If it is the latter, then your purpose on this forum will soon become irrelevant.

You are free to believe what you want about me, my identity, and my writings.

[Constellation]

This is not Vikno Pribojevich book. This is stydy of his book written by Domagoj Madunic as part of his research i think written in 2003. In Vinko Pribojevic book it is written that all slavic people on the Balkan peninsyla share common ancestry from the ancient people (Macedonians, Trakians, Ilirrians) by giving theories that those ancient people had same origin and language.

Yes, you are right about this. I realized this after I wrote the post.

My problem with this is that there is no common ancestry of Slavic speaking people. Genetically, it is impossible. Pribojevic and Orbini both believed in a common ethnic origin of all Slavic speaking people, which is inconsistent with objective scientific evidence. This is the propaganda aspect. It is not "propaganda" in the sense that they were spreading deliberate nonsense, but it is propaganda because they believed in a common Slavic brotherhood, which is erroneous.

If the ancient Macedonians spoke a language of what is now called "Slavic", then the language spread to unrelated peoples, though I would cede that in the southern Balkans there is much more genetic similarities. Central and northern Slavs are different ethnic peoples entirely.

Russians and Macedonians do not descend from a single Slavic source, even though all human beings descend from a single mother and father.

[ramo]

Wikipedia is right. Beyond the historical reference to a Macedonian people living in the 1500s, it is useless (even this is suspect, as I did a word search in his book and I did not find references to a Macedonian ethnicity). Similar to Orbini's book, it a tale about Pan-Slavicism that later became official communist and Yugoslav dogma.

Pribojević's tales can be understood as propaganda. He lived at a time when the Balkans were populated by Slavic speakers. Similar to today's YugoSlav propaganda, he made the assumption that all these peoples are one and the same and that there is an unbroken connection between them since ancient times.

This is highly doubtful.

This is not Vikno Pribojevich book. This is stydy of his book written by Domagoj Madunic as part of his research i think written in 2003. In Vinko Pribojevic book it is written that all slavic people on the Balkan peninsyla share common ancestry from the ancient people (Macedonians, Trakians, Ilirrians) by giving theories that those ancient people had same origin and language.

He mentions Macedonians as ethnicity and writes that "today" (16 century) they (the Macedonians) speak the same language as Alexander the Great did and he gives some examples quoting ancient authors. (Macedonians today and in the 16 century spoke approximately the same which can be concluded from the Macedonian lexicon of the 16 century. ). He considers ancient Macedonians as one of the greatest slavic people and considers Ilirrians and Tracians as Macedonian tribes. Also he considers Greeks and Epirotes as different from the others.

[George S.]

Constellation that's right despite whatever has gone in the past Macedonians are Macedonian.That is the reality that the identity has stayed with us.I told you earlier on that despite the bs propaganda we are still calle d Macedonian s and our language ius labelled as Macedonian.You can't create a people out of thin air.Or as a song says they can't disappear as vapour in the air.Some people like the greeks would have you believe that tito created the Macedonians.They also may propose the theory that tito had a time machine.AS through the ages people are referred to Macedonians and their language as Macedonian.Is that confusing enough for you.

[Soldier of Macedon]

I see it. Well at least you finally admit the obvious fact: there are people in Macedonia, whether naive or ignorant, whether old or young, who identify as Slavic ethnically, not just linguistically.

I have never denied that some (insignificant number of) people identify as such. If what you've indicated above is not something you've just conjured, please refer us to my relevant post.

No doubt. But I did not write scholars. I wrote textbooks.

Textbooks are based on the works of scholars or so-called scholars.

No Western textbook has ever stated that the ancient Macedonians spoke a proto Slavic tongue........

I wouldn't classify ancient Macedonian as Proto-Slavic either, but I would suggest that being a Paleo-Balkan language it was somehow related to Proto-Slavic or more accurately Proto Balto-Slavic. Just because we're not at a stage where most scholars are prepared to join the dots doesn't mean that there is no basis for such a possibility.

.......and that today's Macedonians have inheritance in the ancient Macedonians.

That's because such material goes with the broad views of scholars and seldom goes into specifics, but that doesn't mean that all actual scholars themselves completely deny that today's Macedonians have inherited some elements from the ancient inhabitants of the Balkans. Textbooks in schools are subject to change just like prevailing opinions, but I acknowledge that there is further research to be done before that happens.

The idea is that today's Balkan populations are new comers and have nothing to do with the ancient peoples in the Balkans. Moreover, the argument is that all these peoples are descendants of Slavic migrants, which makes them ethnic Slavs.

That's incorrect (both the idea and your statement). There are a number of scholars that refer to certain similarities between the ancient and modern Balkan populations, and geneticists have also demonstrated that.

So now based on these arguments (I am not stating they are accurate), why would the present Macedonians see a kinship with a people that lived in the part of the world hundreds of years before they arrived in the region and who speak a very different language?

You already know why. Why do you keep questioning your (so-called) own identity?

Based on these arguments, it is not logical to do so.

If the arguments it is based on are illogical, why bother to keep magnifying them?

I recognize that Slavic is a racial insult to Macedonians (I feel the same way), but the fact remains that is how the world generally views us, that is the historic Yugoslav and communist party line, and that is how some Macedonians till the present day--old and young--see themselves.

Yep. I've lost count. Is that the 10th time you've regurgitated that same point?

Not so. You misunderstood the whole argument. And you still do.

On the contrary, I am beginning to understand you and your argument even more. Your problem (aside from the silly generalisations and contradictions, which, if they weren't deliberate means that your ability to get your point across needs improvement) is that you keep making reference to everything that is wrong without making an effort to see what is right and what can be done to change current perceptions. So, do you have anything constructive to contribute? Any solutions to propose? Or is your sole intention here to repeatedly highlight all of the issues which we already know? If it is the latter, then your purpose on this forum will soon become irrelevant.

[Gocka]

If you use the same logic that is applied to Eastern Europe and the Balkans then you have only three ethnicites in the whole continent of Europe, German, Latin, and Slavic. Every single language in Europe, except Greek, is a dialect of those three base language.

That is why this entire argument is garbage. Because if you used the same logic anywhere else in Europe then that's what you would end up with, a German, a Latin, or a Slav.

Yet somehow only we are subjected to this type of bullshit.

In my opinion the usage of the word "slavic" to describe a language family has little to do with a tribe of ancient Ukrainians, and more to do with someone at some point in history not having a better way of describing it, and then like many other things it just stuck.

The relevance that Russians seem to speak a language int he same language family as Macedonian, is the same as Swedish and Austrian being in the same family, or Austrian and English.

The spread of a common language in the East has more to do with Christianity, the Byzantine empire, Cyrillic, and Geography, and almost nothing to do with "Slavs"

[Constellation]

I did, and edited it accordingly before your last post. Reread mine.

I see it. Well at least you finally admit the obvious fact: there are people in Macedonia, whether naive or ignorant, whether old or young, who identify as Slavic ethnically, not just linguistically. I know this personally, for I know people who do.

This is wrong.

Not all western scholars consider the land and people of ancient Macedonia as Greek. You should read the actual sources from antiquity. I am not trying to paint a pretty picture, there are certainly some texts that may appear inconsistent with others but overall the case for arguing that Macedonians were not Greek is overwhelming, and much stronger than the opposing argument.

No doubt. But I did not write scholars. I wrote textbooks. As in school textbooks. And in textbooks the majority of time, if not virtually in every instance, the established position prevails, which is that the Macedonians were Greek or very likely Greek. No Western textbook has ever stated that the ancient Macedonians spoke a proto Slavic tongue and that today's Macedonians have inheritance in the ancient Macedonians. This is not to say it cannot be untrue, however.

They can only be Macedonians. There are various examples that can be provided in which similar situations have occurred, yet the validity of such nations aren't contested because they aren't surrounded by such malicious and manipulative neighbouring 'historians'. Most Egyptians (except perhaps some religious fundamentalists) identify with their ancient past despite the fact that they don't speak the original language (although Arabic and Egyptian both belong to the same Afro-Asiatic linguistic family), there are African countries that use French as an official language and are part of the Latin Union (!) yet don't disregard their African heritage, there are millions of indigenous south Americans who only speak Spanish or Portuguese but still retain their original identities, there is a Germanic language that came from the same pool as English which is used in Scotland and known as Scots but Scottish people still identify with their Celtic heritage despite the fact that none of them speak the original form of British Celtic and few of them speak the Scottish Gaelic which overtook the former, and the Irish have many traditional Irish songs in the English language in which some of them actually speak about fighting the English! But again, these people don't live next to others who are obsessed with claiming everything in antiquity for themselves. Even the Bulgars (and Croats and Serbs, if one is to believe that they were originally some Iranic tribes) don't speak their original languages, yet, for some reason they are exempt from this stringent test of authenticity. Some of the theories on Albanian and Romanian origins are others which, if the same criteria was applied, would be hard pressed to justify.

I know this already. And I don't disagree with this. The problem I have is that no one contests that the ancient Egyptians did not speak Arabic. Moreover, no one is arguing that today's Egyptians came in the region in the 6th century AD or so. The problem with the Macedonian cause is that historically as well as the present, people are taught in the public schools and the universities that either the ancient Macedonians were Greek, were likely Greek, or its leadership became quite Hellenized in time. No textbook states or has ever stated that a proto Slavic was spoken in the Balkans hundreds of years or more before the time of Christ. The textbooks teach that Slavs came to the region sometime in the 6th and subsequent centuries into the Balkans.

The idea is that today's Balkan populations are new comers and have nothing to do with the ancient peoples in the Balkans. Moreover, the argument is that all these peoples are descendants of Slavic migrants, which makes them ethnic Slavs. So now based on these arguments (I am not stating they are accurate), why would the present Macedonians see a kinship with a people that lived in the part of the world hundreds of years before they arrived in the region and who speak a very different language? Based on these arguments, it is not logical to do so. Instead, they will relate to other Yugoslavians, for they are ethnic kin and linguistic kin. Thus, if Macedonia is Greek or likely Greek, or some other unknown dead ethnicity, and today's Macedonians are ethnically and linguistically kin with other Yugoslavs, and they came to the region hundreds of years after the time of Alexander the Great lived, they are going to relate with other Yugoslavs, not the ancient Macedonians. This means that they will either relate with either just being south Slavic, which is a collectivist title, or Bulgarian or Serbian.

Personally, the arguments buttressing these "facts" are incorrect, so I think it is a whole house of cards that hopefully one day will collapse.

I recognize that Slavic is a racial insult to Macedonians (I feel the same way), but the fact remains that is how the world generally views us, that is the historic Yugoslav and communist party line, and that is how some Macedonians till the present day--old and young--see themselves.

Now it is true that thanks to information presented in Macedonia and by Macedonian organizations, Macedonians are reaffirming what they affirmed since the time of Alexander, that they are Macedonians. We have evidence that even in the 1500s the Macedonians identified as Macedonian ethnically, and not as Slavs.

This is a good thing.

You're either contradicting yourself or saying that logic doesn't equate to truth. Whatever it is, the argument is not a logical conclusion, because it disregards several important factors, and is therefore short-sighted and simplistic.

Not so. You misunderstood the whole argument. And you still do.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Reread the post, as I edited it with the exact quote.

I did, and edited it accordingly before your last post. Reread mine.

If Western, Yugoslav, Serbian, and Bulgarian textbooks teach the ancient Macedonians are Greek, and Macedonia is Greek...

Not all western scholars consider the land and people of ancient Macedonia as Greek. You should read the actual sources from antiquity. I am not trying to paint a pretty picture, there are certainly some texts that may appear inconsistent with others but overall the case for arguing that Macedonians were not Greek is overwhelming, and much stronger than the opposing argument.

If they speak a language differently than the ancient Macedonians and instead speak a language similar to their neighbors, what can the Macedonians be?

They can only be Macedonians. There are various examples that can be provided in which similar situations have occurred, yet the validity of such nations aren't contested because they aren't surrounded by such malicious and manipulative neighbouring 'historians'. Most Egyptians (except perhaps some religious fundamentalists) identify with their ancient past despite the fact that they don't speak the original language (although Arabic and Egyptian both belong to the same Afro-Asiatic linguistic family), there are African countries that use French as an official language and are part of the Latin Union (!) yet don't disregard their African heritage, there are millions of indigenous south Americans who only speak Spanish or Portuguese but still retain their original identities, there is a Germanic language that came from the same pool as English which is used in Scotland and known as Scots but Scottish people still identify with their Celtic heritage despite the fact that none of them speak the original form of British Celtic and few of them speak the Scottish Gaelic which overtook the former, and the Irish have many traditional Irish songs in the English language in which some of them actually speak about fighting the English! But again, these people don't live next to others who are obsessed with claiming everything in antiquity for themselves. Even the Bulgars (and Croats and Serbs, if one is to believe that they were originally some Iranic tribes) don't speak their original languages, yet, for some reason they are exempt from this stringent test of authenticity. Some of the theories on Albanian and Romanian origins are others which, if the same criteria was applied, would be hard pressed to justify.

I am NOT arguing that this is true, I am arguing that if followed to its logical end, this is the rationale.

You're either contradicting yourself or saying that logic doesn't equate to truth. Whatever it is, the argument is not a logical conclusion, because it disregards several important factors, and is therefore short-sighted and simplistic.

[Constellation]

You haven't understood it correctly.

I was responding to some of your statements, the one above in particular.

You made a sweeping statement indicating that today's Macedonians consider themselves Serbs or Bulgars. If you meant something else then it didn't read that way, so you should construct your sentences with greater care.

See how the inclusion of a quantifier makes a difference?

Orbini died centuries before Yugoslav propaganda as we know it came into existence.

Who?

I agree, there is a difference. But if you're being misconstrued then you should take my previous advice and present your arguments in a more clinical manner.

Reread the post, as I edited it with the exact quote. In regard to this statement:

Today's Macedonians, understanding their own language is different than the ancient Macedonians, but similar to surrounding Slavic speaking countries, become convinced that they are southern Slavs, usually Serbian or Bulgarian.

Today's Macedonians, every one of them, understand that their language is similar to the surrounding south Slavic speaking countries. They all identify as southern Slavic, not necessarily does everyone identify ethnically as southern Slavic, though some do, but all do from a language perspective. If Western, Yugoslav, Serbian, and Bulgarian textbooks teach the ancient Macedonians are Greek, and Macedonia is Greek, and today's Macedonians speak Slavic, which according to history books was not present in the region of the southern Balkans at the time of Alexander, what do you think Macedonians will identify as such?

If they speak a language differently than the ancient Macedonians and instead speak a language similar to their neighbors, what can the Macedonians be? Similar to Palestinians, who are considered a collection of Arabs, the Macedonians must be a collection of southern Slavic people, whether Bulgarian, Serbian, etc.

I am NOT arguing that this is true, I am arguing that if followed to its logical end, this is the rationale.