Slavic Migration

[TerraNova]

TN, you cannot use words of scholars as adequate evidence that some theory is true or false. First of all, it is a logical fallacy on its own. Second of all, none of us here are experts ourselves to confirm that what those scholars are saying is valid or not. We can only use in our discus something we have enough skill to evaluate ourselves.

Personally, I think you lied about your education. You do not act as an educated person should, and I have a share of doctors and professors among my acquaintance, friends and relatives. Secondly, your orthography is terrible as well as your English, which me as a linguist in training find absolutely horrible and it only discredits your good name.

Slovak...my mother tongue is not English,and besides i cannot spend much time in order to write in a proper "academical" way-since i work on my laptop and trying quickly checking the forum at the same time ...to fit in your scientific ambitions in Linguistics

I would appreciate it though ,if you tried an answer in my 2 questions.

[TerraNova]

For a Master's Graduate you don't know history or religion very well. Open up the New Testament and you will see what I am speaking of. Macedonia was the first Europe nation to adopt Christianity.

That's exactly what i wrote enlighten..scientist...
They had to become christians again though ,as your wacko theory suggests. )

Oribini is a monk; that is not the point. He is giving an eyewitness account that slavic Macedonians existed in 1601; and, moreover, o wise one, he is basing his conclusion that slavic was the language of the ancients on historic sources...read up!

He was a monk who wrote a funny work. Period.

ALL THE ABOVE DO NOT ADOPT THE NAMES OF THE ANCIENT PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT LANGUAGE INHABITED THEIR LANDS.

I don't follow...? What? Egypt has always remained Egypt, even though they speak Arabic. Are you going to tell me an Arabic speaking Egyptian cannot glory in his ancestors and the pyrmaids even though the ancients used a different language?

Egypt ...my scientist...is called MISR by Egyptians ,and by the ancients it was called KEMET.
Ok.. ?
Also...what about Tunisians and Algerians...?

Have you heard about indoeuropean group of languages???
I can find 200 words of sankrit similar to Greek ...
does this mean that Greeks lived in India ??
It's just similarity of the same group of languages.


You really are stupid. I would wipe your bottom with your diploma.
Vasil has inherent meaning in Slavic; not in Greek!

You failed to disprove anything I wrote; rather, you choose to ignore the evidence at your own peril!

You can put your diploma ,wherever you want ,if you like it like that-
But what's your weird theory again....
that pre-hellenic populations were Slavic.. ?

Pathetic...

[Delodephius]

No, answering to your posts is not something I wish to engage into. If you could give me good reason for me to do it anyway and then waste my time on something I personally do not believe should be discussed in such impractical place as a forum, in fact I think it is even impossible given the circumstances. I am a rhetor, not a writer, and my patience and tolerance to misunderstandings and ignorance of some common knowledge between the two parties, is quite low. For those who to answer your questions they may do as they please, but I'll stick to the small details and facts I myself can confirm, as well as those I cannot.

PS: English is not my mother tongue either. I live in a small village in Serbia in a poor farming family. My knowledge of English based solely on what I caught up from TV, school and computer. I have never had a conversation in English beyond simple phrases.

[Napoleon]

Terranova Wrote:

Why Slavic place names are NOT found in Macedonia (as well as in Greece) before 7th-8th century AD?

Just to name a few from memory...

Berge
Bryanion
Bylazora
Doberus
Pluinna
Ossa
Stagira
Strymon
Velistarna

Why the Slavs are described as PAGANS ?

Because many were pagans. When examing this period of Macedonia's history (or the Balkans in general), it is important to make a distinction between the Christian Romanised population of the cities and the pagan rural population of the countryside who had held on to their pagan beliefs.

Romans - The christian Romanised population of the cities.
Slavs - The pagan population of the countryside.

Remember that Apostle Paul had already started baptizing the Macedonians in the 1st cent AD. writing letters to Thessalonians in Greek.

Again you seem to be unable to comprehend the simple concept that not everyone who speaks Greek is 'Greek'. By the 1st century, Salonika had a ethnically diverse population of Macedonians, Jews, Romans, Greeks and others. Like the rest of the eastern mediterranean, Greek was used an international language of trade and diplomacy just as English is used today.

Now, some questions for you TerraNova:

1) How did the Slavs increase their population from several thousand peope to over 100 million? (The population needed to sustain the so-called 'migration' to more then half of Europe).

2) How is it that this 'migration' took place without leaving not one single piece of archaeological evidence? (Not even a single pot sherd...nothing).

3) Where did all the 'indigenous' populations disappear to? (These so-called 'indigenous' populations would include the 'original' peoples of the Czech republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Austria, Bulgaria, Poland, Russia, Ukraine and all of the Balkans).

4) Why is there no break in cultural continuity in the Balkan region? (If the 'migration' did in fact take place one would expect there to be direct evidence of the cultural aspects of the indigenous population ended suddenly and the 'new' Slavic culture appearing).

5) Why is there no mention by the Roman and Eastern Roman (Byzantine) historians of what would have been a large, wholescale 'invasion' of their territory? (The ancient accounts are contradictory and only mention 'Slavs' attacking several cities which can easily be contrued as social conflict between the Christian population of the cities and the pagan population of the countryside. There is no mention of a mass 'migration').

...and most importantly!!!

6) Do nations such as England, France, Germany, Russia, Austria, Hungary, Italy and modern Greece have political motives for officially maintaining the Slavic 'migration' myth?

Conclusion:

Whether or not you believe that a 'Migration' did in fact take place, we are still decended from the ancient Macedonians. For instance,

a) If the migration did in fact take place, the ancient Macedonians simply did not disappear, the merged with the Slav newcomers to form the modern Macedonian people.

b) The 'migration' did not take place and we are still the descendants of the ancient Macedonians anyway.

[Demos]

Terranova Wrote:



Just to name a few from memory...

Berge
Bryanion
Bylazora
Doberus
Pluinna
Ossa
Stagira
Strymon
Velistarna



Because many were pagans. When examing this period of Macedonia's history (or the Balkans in general), it is important to make a distinction between the Christian Romanised population of the cities and the pagan rural population of the countryside who had held on to their pagan beliefs.

Romans - The christian Romanised population of the cities.
Slavs - The pagan population of the countryside.



Again you seem to be unable to comprehend the simple concept that not everyone who speaks Greek is 'Greek'. By the 1st century, Salonika had a ethnically diverse population of Macedonians, Jews, Romans, Greeks and others. Like the rest of the eastern mediterranean, Greek was used an international language of trade and diplomacy just as English is used today.

Now, some questions for you TerraNova:

1) How did the Slavs increase their population from several thousand peope to over 100 million? (The population needed to sustain the so-called 'migration' to more then half of Europe).

2) How is it that this 'migration' took place without leaving not one single piece of archaeological evidence? (Not even a single pot sherd...nothing).

3) Where did all the 'indigenous' populations disappear to? (These so-called 'indigenous' populations would include the 'original' peoples of the Czech republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Austria, Bulgaria, Poland, Russia, Ukraine and all of the Balkans).

4) Why is there no break in cultural continuity in the Balkan region? (If the 'migration' did in fact take place one would expect there to be direct evidence of the cultural aspects of the indigenous population ended suddenly and the 'new' Slavic culture appearing).

5) Why is there no mention by the Roman and Eastern Roman (Byzantine) historians of what would have been a large, wholescale 'invasion' of their territory? (The ancient accounts are contradictory and only mention 'Slavs' attacking several cities which can easily be contrued as social conflict between the Christian population of the cities and the pagan population of the countryside. There is no mention of a mass 'migration').

...and most importantly!!!

6) Do nations such as England, France, Germany, Russia, Austria, Hungary, Italy and modern Greece have political motives for officially maintaining the Slavic 'migration' myth?

Conclusion:

Whether or not you believe that a 'Migration' did in fact take place, we are still decended from the ancient Macedonians. For instance,

a) If the migration did in fact take place, the ancient Macedonians simply did not disappear, the merged with the Slav newcomers to form the modern Macedonian people.

b) The 'migration' did not take place and we are still the descendants of the ancient Macedonians anyway.

Yet you cannot show me 1 written inscription in your "native" Macedonian tongue prior to the Slavs coming to the Balkans in the 6th century.

[Risto the Great]

Yet you cannot show me 1 written inscription in your "native" Macedonian tongue prior to the Slavs coming to the Balkans in the 6th century.

Correct.
Almost.
We can't see it until the 9th century.
Do you think you have a reason why?
Or did the Slavs come in the 9th century ... maybe you can write to Lord Byron and Co. and correct him.

[Daskalot]

Correct.
Almost.
We can't see it until the 9th century.
Do you think you have a reason why?
Or did the Slavs come in the 9th century ... maybe you can write to Lord Byron and Co. and correct him.

A very valid point, there are many peoples that did not have a written language until the beginning of the 20th century. Did they not exist until they got a written language?

[Risto the Great]

Did they not exist until they got a written language?

Apparently not!

[osiris]

even the fabled greeks borrowed someone elses script demos the demented one, stop pretending you dont know anything about "your" ancient history and the phoenician origins of "your" alphabet, called by "your" people the kadmian script.

[makedonin]

And there you go again:

Yet you cannot show me 1 written inscription in your "native" Macedonian tongue prior to the Slavs coming to the Balkans in the 6th century.

Please explain me this:


As you above so self confident state, you estimate the Slavs to come on the Balkan around 5th or 6th Century AD.

In order to harden your argument, you ask for written records of Slavic prior to 6th Century.

What you fail to see, is the fact that there is no written documents in Slavic prior the 9th Century:

Although Old Church Slavonic (OCS) is the oldest documented Slavic language ..................

The earliest date for the OCS period is given by our estimation of the missions of Cyril and Methodius in the middle of the ninth century.............

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/ocsol-0-X.html

So do you think that the Slavs came in 6th or in the 9th Century, since the first written evidence of Slavic is from the middle of the 9th century, after your logic they must have not existed prior the 9th Century!


Your turn!

[makedonin]

I don't claim racial purity !!!

On which basis do you claim your so called Ancient Macedonian heritage?? On your Banana Language???? There is enough evidence to show that the large population of Macedonia, Chalkadik included spoke Slavic language. Your own king complained that "the Greek element in Macedonia is very small" For that see more in the Macedonian Knot of Hans Lothar Steppan.

As for that Greek Element in Macedonia, it is clear that this are mostly Vlachs associated with the Patriarchist, who most probably did not speak Greek as natives.

se (leaving only the islands outside) ...
After the reconquest and excursions of Justinian II,Constantine V ,and the following emperors, Byzantine rule was forced in the SCLAVENIAI ,many Slavs expelled to Asia Minor, Greeks were transfered to Thrace and Macedonia from other places/....

Show me a source that confirms your story of Greeks being settled in Thrace and Macedonia and from other places!!!!

Don't mix your Prosfygas with something that you don't know if it happened or not some 1200 years ago.

From the resetling of so called Slavs, it is clear, they were not only resettled from your occupied Macedonia, you know!!!

and the remaining were gradually ASSIMILATED.

The Assimilation you speak is still on going!!! The people you call Slavophones are not just Slavophones by Language you know!!! Or is this unclear to you?

But if you claim Ancient Greekness for them, what makes you think that we are not the Ancient Macededonians with Slavophone Language???

Even if you claim only modern Greekness for them, it is their right to be so, but than you have no right at all to dispute our Macedonianness!!!!

Now...you can answer my Questions

What is your question. In your post there is no question at all!

[Soldier of Macedon]

I think some of the Greeks on this forum are stoned, as they keep confusing the 6's and 9's, lol.

[Delodephius]

20% of today's living language don't have a written form, and some other have more than one.

The appearance of writing amongst a group of people does not mean that group didn't exist prior to that time, nor that it was illiterate. It only means that the people didn't write in their own language. But one would argue that Macedonians were influenced by Greek education, at least some literate noble could have written down at least something in his native language, right? But we could argue the same about the Illyrians then. The Illyrians were under Roman rule since the 3rd century BC and Illyria/Dalmatia was the last Western Roman province until 480 AD. Yet first written language of the locals and this time the Croats was written only in the 10th century AD. Even if we assume that the hypothesis of the Slavic Migration is correct, why didn't the Illyrians write anything down then? Instead even before they were conquered by the Romans they used Latin or Greek to communicate not just with their enemies but even amongst themselves.

[TerraNova]

On which basis do you claim your so called Ancient Macedonian heritage?? On your Banana Language???? There is enough evidence to show that the large population of Macedonia, Chalkadik included spoke Slavic language. Your own king complained that "the Greek element in Macedonia is very small" For that see more in the Macedonian Knot of Hans Lothar Steppan.

Even the most radical nationalist historians from Bulgaria,early in the 20th century, estimated the Greek speaking population of Macedonia ar.250.000
(This is leaving out some areas-almost entirely Greek,as Thassos and Pieria)
Of course Greek consiousness Vlachs and Slavophonesa are not included,and of course this is an estimation of Bulgarian nationalists.

As for that Greek Element in Macedonia, it is clear that this are mostly Vlachs associated with the Patriarchist, who most probably did not speak Greek as natives.

This is your view.
Greek speakers were multiple ,comparing to Vlach speakers.

Show me a source that confirms your story of Greeks being settled in Thrace and Macedonia and from other places!!!!

Try reading Thucydides and Herodotus for the establishment of the Kingdom of Macedon.
When Macedonians passed Vermion mt and expelled the Thracian tribes of the region.
Try reading THEOPHANES.
He mentions transfer of population ,from all Themata,to Sclaveniai.

From the resetling of so called Slavs, it is clear, they were not only resettled from your occupied Macedonia, you know!!!

Where were they resettled from ??
These Slavs were those who Justinian II defeated in his way from Constantinople to Thessalonica.

[B]
But if you claim Ancient Greekness for them, what makes you think that we are not the Ancient Macededonians with Slavophone Language???

I do not -their grandfathers had a slavic culture and language.


What about the excursions of the Emperors against the Sclaveniai.
These were the lands ,the Slavs inhabited,surrounded by Greek speakers.

Droguvites,Smoleanoi,Ryghinoi,Strymonites,Sagoutat oi,Velegezites...
All mentioned in the sources.

656-657 -Constas II : invades Sclaveniai and defeats the Slavs. "epestrateusen pollous kai ypetaxen"
(made a campaign and subdued many)

Constantinos IV: Excursion against Strymonites and Ryghinoi Slavs,in Macedonia.

Justinian II-Transfers cavalry and infantry from Asia Minor in order to "tous te Boulgarous kai tas Sclavenias aihmalotisai" (to capture the Bulgarians and the Sclaveniai)
After he defeated the Bulgarians,moved towards Thessalonica... "polla plithi ,ton sklavon paralavon" (taking many crowds of Slavs)
**Theophanes

759 -Constantinos V . Defeats the Slavs and subdues Sclaveniai of Macedonia ,forcing them to pay taxes.

782-783-Logothetes Stavrakios

809-Nikephoros I -Commands a transfer of population from all Themata ,towards Sclaveniai ,in order to weaken the Slavic element of the region.
(September 809-Easter 810)

Before 836 Thema Thessalonikis is being founded.

[Philosopher]

Yes, the ancients called Kem, from the root Ham, meaning dark, swarthy. It was one of the names of ancient Egypt. And yes the Arabic is Mesrain. The Latin is Aiguptos, from the Greek. What does all this mean?

Egypt was the product of Arab invasion; this is a fact. In the case of Macedonia, the name Macedonia has always survived. One wonders why those nasty Slavs did not change the name of the region when they took it over.

None of this changes the fact that today's Egyptian population still see themselves as the inheritors of the ancient Egyptian legacy. Regardless of the different name and language, Egyptians glory in their nation's history and not in Arabia's.

Albanians claim the ancient Illyrians as their own and yet they go by the name Albania and not Illyria. If they changed their name, would this give them a greater claim than the present?

In English, we use the Roman title Greece instead of Hellas. Most Greeks hate this but so what? Does this mean that the English speaking world believes today's Greeks cannot inherit the legacy of ancient Hellas because there is a difference in the name?