The Illyrians

[Amphipolis]

Generally correct Spitfire.

We are indigenous to the Balkans. No Macedonian on this forum denies this. The conflict in this thread has been about the language -- whether Slavic was adopted or whether it is indigenous to the Balkans.

In case of (a) (Slavic was adopted by indigenous people) why do you think this happened? Do you identify your ancestors with the literate/ Christian/ educators or with the Christianized?

In case of (b) (Slavic is indigenous to the Balkans) why does its literature appears so late? Where was this language e.g. in 2nd or 4th Century AD? And why was Slavic so extended geographically?

Some more questions. Are these first Slavonic translations of Bible saved? Are they used in your Church? Is any early ecclesiastical material preserved or used in your Church or any other Church today as liturgical texts (as we do in Greece)? Can we have an outline of Early Slavonic Literature that you consider yours or partly yours? Do you study this language in your Universities as we study ancient Greek? You’re rarely talking about it.

[Philosopher]

In case of (a) (Slavic was adopted by indigenous people) why do you think this happened?

That is the million dollar question.

Before I go into that, I would like to make a comment or two. The ancient Macedonians, according to Herodotus, were not Greek and did not speak Greek. So in the answer of fairness, I will flip the question. If Greek was adopted by the ancient Macedonians, why do you think this happened?

Anyway...

Eyewitness historical accounts are not reliable. Let me give you an example. It is not uncommon in a court of law for a suspect to be found guilty of rape based on eyewitness testimony. It is also not uncommon that after having been found guilty for the guilty to be exonerated based on DNA evidence. If the DNA found at the crime scene belongs to a different person, the judge throws out the conviction.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Louisiana_Man_is_Freed_from_Prison_after_DNA_Results_Prove_His_Innocence_in_Attempted_Rape_Conviction.php

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/DNA_Evidence_Clears_Missouri_Man_in_Rape_Conviction.php

The same basic idea applies to understanding human history.

Science trumps history.

From a genetic analysis, it has already been established that Macedonians, Serbians, Bulgarians, et al. are genetically distinct from their northern linguistic relatives. It has also been documented that Macedonians are less Slavic than northern Greeks, and only slightly more than central and southern Greeks. Montenegrins are less Slavic than all Greeks.

Hungarians, Romanians, and Austrians are more Slavic than Macedonians, Serbians, and Montenegrins, and yet none of these nations speak Slavic.

So based on this scientific data, some non-Slavic speaking peoples of Europe are more Slavic than Slavic speaking peoples.

This fact alone documents the problems with the Slavic Migration Theory.

Can you please provide your theory? Are you advocating the theory that we in fact came in the 6th century, and thus this explains why we speak Slavic? If so, what are your thoughts on the scientific evidence negating this theory?

Do you deny this evidence? If so, what valid reasons can you provide to support this position?

Please explain.

Do you identify your ancestors with the literate/ Christian/ educators or with the Christianized?

We do not identify with alleged migrating Slavs who may comprise a very very small percentage of our biological ancestry. We do not identify with some collectivist group called “Slavs”.

If we identified as Slavs, or with migrating Slavs, all the peoples of the Balkans would see themselves as Ukrainians.

The last time I checked, no one in the Balkans identifies as such.

We identify as Macedonian.

Ancient Macedonia was outside of Greece. And the ancient Macedonians were a distinct ethnic people from Greeks. The New Testament makes this abundantly clear.

We identify with the ancient Macedonians, as they are our biological ancestors.

Under your rationale, Amphipolis, because I speak English, and live in an English speaking country, I should not identify with my biological ancestors, but with the English ethnos.

This is absurd.

In case of (b) (Slavic is indigenous to the Balkans) why does its literature appears so late? Where was this language e.g. in 2nd or 4th Century AD?p

Have you not been reading the information in this thread and in other threads? If Slavic is indigenous to the Balkans, it was not called Slavic. This is an anachronistic term. The literature argument is weak. And so are the linguistic arguments made by your countrymen.

And why was Slavic so extended geographically?

Because the language migrated similar to Spanish and Arabic. That is not the issue. The question is whether the language migrated north to south or south to north. Regardless of the manner it migrated, the indigenous peoples did not vanish from history, and whatever little intermixing may have occurred, it is about the same in Greece as it is Macedonia.

Some more questions. Are these first Slavonic translations of Bible saved? Are they used in your Church? Is any early ecclesiastical material preserved or used in your Church or any other Church today as liturgical texts (as we do in Greece)? Can we have an outline of Early Slavonic Literature that you consider yours or partly yours? Do you study this language in your Universities as we study ancient Greek? You’re rarely talking about it.

I do not live in Macedonia. I have never attended a Macedonian university. Your questions in this subsection are best answered by someone else.

[spitfire]

Science trumps history.

From a genetic analysis, it has already been established that Macedonians, Serbians, Bulgarians, et al. are genetically distinct from their northern linguistic relatives. It has also been documented that Macedonians are less Slavic than northern Greeks, and only slightly more than central and southern Greeks. Montenegrins are less Slavic than all Greeks.

Hungarians, Romanians, and Austrians are more Slavic than Macedonians, Serbians, and Montenegrins, and yet none of these nations speak Slavic.

So based on this scientific data, some non-Slavic speaking peoples of Europe are more Slavic than Slavic speaking peoples.

This fact alone documents the problems with the Slavic Migration Theory.

Can you provide some links to that? Has there been a genetic analysis for everybody or is this based on statistical genetic analysis? Even so there would have to be a 10% of populations that underwent the process for it to have some application on a basis of explaining through DNA the origins of poulations.

[Nikolaj]

Can you provide some links to that? Has there been a genetic analysis for everybody or is this based on statistical genetic analysis? Even so there would have to be a 10% of populations that underwent the process for it to have some application on a basis of explaining through DNA the origins of poulations.

http://www.freewebs.com/rus_anthro/Rebala_2007.pdf

I advise you to begin from the start of the thread as your questions and likely future questions have been exhaustively analysed and explained by Sovius etc...

[spitfire]

http://www.freewebs.com/rus_anthro/Rebala_2007.pdf

I advise you to begin from the start of the thread as your questions and likely future questions have been exhaustively analysed and explained by Sovius etc...

The problem with all those scientific data is that it is either not stated how many samples were taken or when the number of samples is stated, it is statistically unimportant.

Furthermore, it is not directly stated that science has concluded in the origin of populations, but on the contrary it says that according to the insignificant samples, we found that... etc. So science says something different and some translate it as something else.

This for instance.

http://admixturemap.paintmychromosomes.com/

I might as well be 5% from Mexico, given that we take for granted that 20 samples out of 11 million can give us any real data about the populations.
There's a lot to be noticed when reading about a scientific analysis. More importantly, it is not that simple.
I remember the Nazis using science for such purposes.

[George S.]

Why bring up the slavic discussion here when there have been countless threads eg constellation's etc before??Don't assume that our eyhnicity is some soret of slavic adoption.Our influence seems to be albeit small linguistic one.Don't forget many writers say that even greece wasn't immune to slavic influence.

[Amphipolis]

That is the million dollar question.
Before I go into that, I would like to make a comment or two. The ancient Macedonians, according to Herodotus, were not Greek and did not speak Greek. So in the answer of fairness, I will flip the question. If Greek was adopted by the ancient Macedonians, why do you think this happened?

Where does Herodotus say that?

Eyewitness historical accounts are not reliable. Let me give you an example. It is not uncommon in a court of law for a suspect to be found guilty of rape based on eyewitness testimony. It is also not uncommon that after having been found guilty for the guilty to be exonerated based on DNA evidence. If the DNA found at the crime scene belongs to a different person, the judge throws out the conviction.

Can you please provide your theory? Are you advocating the theory that we in fact came in the 6th century, and thus this explains why we speak Slavic? If so, what are your thoughts on the scientific evidence negating this theory?

Do you deny this evidence? If so, what valid reasons can you provide to support this position?

Please explain.

First of all, I don’t mind your genetic approach; I’m not saying I accept it but at least I understand it. It is the other theories that I don’t understand and have never even seen in a synoptic form (e.g. what exactly Curta claims). Your narrative seems to emphasize on the area, to define a nation, while the Greek narrative emphasizes on the language, not the area.

From a Greek point-of-view Slavic Migration is not a theory but a fact and a part of our History and historical sources. Anything else would seem illogical as it would imply that Slavic-Slavonic language was always there in Macedonia (yet with a different name) but nobody ever noticed it.

In our historical texts, first there are no Slavs, then Slavs appear, Bulgarians appear and are also (linguistically) Slavicized, they have an Empire and a Church and a literature so this is the first Slavic Authority that may have spread the language through organized actions. Before that, I guess only the vast presence of Slavs and interaction with other people could spread the language to non-Slavophones.

That doesn’t mean that “you” came in 6th Century but it says something on who your cultural and national ancestors are. It also gives a clue on what your history books could write in the Chapter “9th Century AD” if there is any. I believe that given the present formation of nations the Bulgarian Empire and the very recent centuries (post-1000AD but mostly post-1800) are more decisive.

Lastly, a few words regarding your genetic evidence: This isn’t exactly so. The Slavs were/are a linguistic family or a relatively primitive family of tribes, not a R$$@5435 whatever genetic type. National identities are also not genetic identities or racial profiles. Your racial features is a better criterion than your genetic info since the first one is a random mix of all your million ancestors while the second only refers to two of your pre-historic ancestors (the full paternal line: father of father of father and the full maternal line: mother of mother of mother etc.).

We do not identify with alleged migrating Slavs who may comprise a very very small percentage of our biological ancestry. We do not identify with some collectivist group called “Slavs”.

Those poor bastards. So, nobody identifies with them, yet you’re somehow stuck with their language and their literature. But that is of course (as George S. always calls it) a very small linguistic influence (we didn’t even notice it)

The last time I checked, no one in the Balkans identifies as such.

This isn’t so. The rest Slavic countries do not have an allergy on the term (I think).

Under your rationale, Amphipolis, because I speak English, and live in an English speaking country, I should not identify with my biological ancestors, but with the English ethnos.

The fact that Australians speak English is a reminder that your (developing) nation was formed on British fountains (whether you like it or not) and your culture is primarily British.

I do not live in Macedonia. I have never attended a Macedonian university. Your questions in this subsection are best answered by someone else.

Well, are you at least interested? Why do you prefer Homer and Herodotus over medieval texts? I’ve seen you more comparing your modern language with Homer that with Cyril’s translation.

==

[Philosopher]

Where does Herodotus say that?

I never wrote that Herodotus said that. I wrote that, according to Herodotus, Macedonians were not Greek and did not speak Greek. This is the only logical inference one can make from reading Herodotus.

I have asked you this before, and I will ask you yet again, if you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

First of all, I don’t mind your genetic approach; I’m not saying I accept it but at least I understand it.

Judging from your other comments, you obviously do not understand the genetic approach. Hence, the present problems in our present discussion.

Your narrative seems to emphasize on the area, to define a nation, while the Greek narrative emphasizes on the language, not the area.

Not quite.

Genetic studies establish a number of things as pertaining to the identity of Macedonians.

First, we are indigenous to the Mediterranean.

Our results show that Macedonians are related to other Mediterraneans...

And

Macedonians belong to the ‘‘older’’ Mediterranean substratum, like Iberians (including Basques), North Africans, Italians, French, Cretans, Jews, Lebanese, Turks (Anatolians), Armenians and Iranians,

A fact which is impossible for a people who first arrived in the Balkans in the 6th century.

Genetic studies establish that Macedonians are genetically distinct from their northern linguistic relatives.

A similar difference has been previously reported between Bulgarians and a few other Slavic populations (Roewer et al.2005), and our results demonstrate that other Southern-Slavic populations, namely Macedonians, Serbs, Bosnians, and northern Croats are genetically distinct from their northern linguistic relatives as well.

Genetic studies establish that the genetic profile of the Pathan population of Pakistan is consistent with a specific gene in the Balkans, and it is found in highest frequency among Macedonians.

Clade E3b1 lineages, which were frequent in the Greeks but not in Pakistan, were nevertheless observed in two Pathan individuals, one of whom shared a 16 Y-STR haplotype with the Greeks. The worldwide distribution of a shortened (9 Y-STR) version of this haplotype, determined from database information, was concentrated in Macedonia and Greece, suggesting an origin there. Although based on only a few unrelated descendants, this provides strong evidence for a European origin for a small proportion of the Pathan Y chromosomes.

This confirms that portions (at the very least) of the modern Macedonian population descend from a union between ancient Macedonian soldiers and the Pathan population of Pakistan.

This evidence does not establish a Macedonian nation. And no one is claiming that it does. It establishes our presence in the Balkans as one of the first peoples of Europe, and that some Macedonians living today can claim a genetic link to the Pathan population, and hence to ancient Macedonian soldiers.

Now working with these facts, and they are facts, and other facts, such as the ancient Macedonians being a distinct people from Greeks, and that they spoke a non-Greek language, and that we have historical records of a Macedonian ethnos from as early as the 1500s, it is not hard to come to the conclusion that we have always self-identified as Macedonian.

This is in stark contrast to the traditional theory that claims we descend from Slavs and our presence in the Balkans dates back to the 6th century, and we lived in the Balkans as some confused Slavic people, became Bulgarian, and then “woke up” to be Macedonian in the 1800s or when Tito waved his magic wand and made us “Macedonians”.

Anything else would seem illogical as it would imply that Slavic-Slavonic language was always there in Macedonia (yet with a different name) but nobody ever noticed it.

This has been discussed many times on this forum. The language was not known as Slavic, it was Macedonian. Slavic is an anachronistic term, and did not enter the lexicon until Byzantine historians used it. What did you expect ancient historians to write regarding this language? Considering how shoddy the ancient history is on this subject, what do you expect?

In our historical texts, first there are no Slavs, then Slavs appear.

Three quick points. First, Slav is an anachronistic term. Second, no people identify as Slavs. And three, you are extracting a literal reading of Byzantine sources about Slavs. This reading has multiple problems.

That doesn’t mean that “you” came in 6th Century but it says something on who your cultural and national ancestors are. It also gives a clue on what your history books could write in the Chapter “9th Century AD” if there is any.

There is no Slavic culture. You are either extremely naïve or willfully dumb. Are you actually suggesting that the culture of Macedonians is the same as Russians, Poles, and Ukrainians? By this rationale, Romanians should have the same culture as Italians, as Romanian is an Italic language.

I believe that given the present formation of nations the Bulgarian Empire and the very recent centuries (post-1000AD but mostly post-1800) are more decisive.

What are your thoughts on the Macedonian Lexicon of the 16th century? We have a Macedonian lexicon written in Greek using the Macedonian language in Aegean Macedonia in the 1500s at a time when a Macedonian ethnic identity should not (according to Greeks) have existed. Why would a Macedonian lexicon exist if no Macedonian ethnicity existed?

Lastly, a few words regarding your genetic evidence: This isn’t exactly so. The Slavs were/are a linguistic family or a relatively primitive family of tribes, not a R$$@5435 whatever genetic type. National identities are also not genetic identities or racial profiles.

Here is the problem. You do not understand the science of DNA or genetic studies. Genetic studies measure lineage, human migrations, and genetic mutations.

Those poor bastards. So, nobody identifies with them, yet you’re somehow stuck with their language and their literature. But that is of course (as George S. always calls it) a very small linguistic influence (we didn’t even notice it).

George S believes “Slavic” originated in the Balkans, so under his reasoning, “they” are “stuck” with our language. So nice try, but no.

This isn’t so. The rest Slavic countries do not have an allergy on the term (I think).

I was referring to a Ukrainian identity, not Slavic. Second, Balkan people have been, by and large, brainwashed into believing that they are Slavs and descendants of ethnic Slavs. So it is no wonder that some people identify as Slav.

The fact that Australians speak English is a reminder that your (developing) nation was formed on British fountains (whether you like it or not) and your culture is primarily British.

I wrote I am from an English speaking country, not Australia. I am not Australian. In addition, you are entirely misunderstanding my comments.

I do not deny I identify with the English language, English literature, and English culture. However, if someone asks me for my ethnicity, I am not going to claim I am an Englishman or an Anglo. My ancestors are not English, and me speaking English does not make me an Englishman.

Let me give you a few examples.

Andrew Rossos is a Greek born Macedonian. His surname is Greek. He speaks Greek. Yet, he also speaks English and Macedonia. He is described in Wikipedia as a “Canadian Macedonian historian”. What are we to make of him? What is he?

Second, what are your thoughts on Jews? There are Jews scattered all over the world. There are Russian Jews, Polish Jews, Czech Jews – all kinds of Jews. If you ask how these people identify, they will say Jewish, even though their surnames may be Slavic, and even though they may not speak an iota of Hebrew. Their ethnic identity is Jewish.

Would we be wrong to tell them that they are not Jews? What is a Jew?

Well, are you at least interested?

Judging by the fact I have never explored this, and my academic background and interests lie elsewhere, I would have to state (for the present) “no”.

Why do you prefer Homer and Herodotus over medieval texts?

In what sense “prefer”? We study ancient texts in the context of the Macedonian Question.

I’ve seen you more comparing your modern language with Homer that with Cyril’s translation.

We are working under the assumption that Slavic may be indigenous to the Balkans, and therefore some words may be present in ancient Mediterranean literature.

[Risto the Great]

Reasoned summation Philosopher. I hope your friend replies with something more than patriotism.

[George S.]

The macedonian isentity is unique and one thing is clear it wasn't shared.Macedonians were kept in the name and as well as language and identity.

[spitfire]

Much as I would like to address the contradictions Philosopher came up with - eg. Herodotus never said that, but according to Herodotus he... said that - or the other thing about DNA analysis based on different version of haplotypes, and based on only a few unrelated descendants that also do not constitute a macedonian nation etc. and many other contradictions, I won't.

Instead I'll ask something different. Being indigenous to an area, why is it wrong not to accept the culture of that area through the centuries? Or millenia?
No matter how it is called, Slavic or not. What's the point in emphasizing on a certain part of history? Is it bad to share slavic influence? I don't understand that.
There is a traditional song in Thrace which is popular for both greeks and bulgarians in both languages. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Martha Mavroidi "Alexandris" - YouTube

[Nikolaj]

This is not contradiction from Philosopher but selective interpretation by yourself.

Herodotus never said that, but according to Herodotus he... said that..

It is what you take out of his works, he does not say Macedonians aren't Greeks, but through what he writes you could assume that indirectly.

or the other thing about DNA analysis based on different version of haplotypes, and based on only a few unrelated descendants that also do not constitute a macedonian nation etc.

You clearly understood

and many other contradictions, I won't.

You are falsely labelling things as contradictory, I would love to hear the rest of these contradictions.

I'll let philosopher take care of his 'contradictions' though.

[Philosopher]

Those poor bastards. So, nobody identifies with them, yet you’re somehow stuck with their language and their literature. But that is of course (as George S. always calls it) a very small linguistic influence (we didn’t even notice it).

And

Do you identify your ancestors with the literate/ Christian/ educators or with the Christianized?

I'm slipping.

The fact that Australians speak English is a reminder that your (developing) nation was formed on British fountains (whether you like it or not) and your culture is primarily British.

Note the distinction here. Previously he asked whether Macedonians identified with Slavs and Slavic (the Christened) or whether with Christian educators. But in the above example, he states English speaking nations should identify with British.

Note he did not write “Germanic”. As in, “your culture is primarily Germanic”, which is the equivalent of him using “Slavic”.

Why do you use British and and English in the one example, and Slavic in the other? The only fair comparison, and I'm sure you would agree, is if you compared Slavic to Germanic. Instead, you used British.

The presumption here is that Slavs are a collective identity, but Germanic tribes are not.

If you are going to use one language family in one example, then be consistent and use it in the another example.

So in the interest of fairness, I would state that Macedonians indeed identify with Macedonian language, literature, and culture, and not Slavic, much like English peoples identify with English (note not Germanic) language, literature, and culture.

Do you know why?

Because the Macedonian language is different than Russian, much like English is different than German, and because Macedonian culture is a Balkan culture, and Russian is not.

Much as I would like to address the contradictions Philosopher came up with - eg. Herodotus never said that, but according to Herodotus he... said that - or the other thing about DNA analysis based on different version of haplotypes, and based on only a few unrelated descendants that also do not constitute a macedonian nation etc. and many other contradictions, I won't.

Rather than probing these alleged contradictions, why not probe the writings of Herodotus and ascertain whether the Macedonians were Greek speakers, and Macedonia was part of Greece? And if they were not, what led them to adopt Greek?

And why not probe the genetics thread on this forum to learn about these “few unrelated descendants” you write of?

[spitfire]

Yes Nikolaj, I'll read what he will write in explaining for instance the Lexicon with the Institut d' etude slaves as it says in the front, among other things.

But I asked about the sharing part, slavic or whatever you want to call it culture. Is it bad?

[spitfire]

Rather than probing these alleged contradictions, why not probe the writings of Herodotus and ascertain whether the Macedonians were Greek speakers, and Macedonia was part of Greece? And if they were not, what led them to adopt Greek?

And why not probe the genetics thread on this forum to learn about these “few unrelated descendants” you write of?

I'll start with the last. This is your quote:

"Clade E3b1 lineages, which were frequent in the Greeks but not in Pakistan, were nevertheless observed in two Pathan individuals, one of whom shared a 16 Y-STR haplotype with the Greeks. The worldwide distribution of a shortened (9 Y-STR) version of this haplotype, determined from database information, was concentrated in Macedonia and Greece, suggesting an origin there. Although based on only a few unrelated descendants, this provides strong evidence for a European origin for a small proportion of the Pathan Y chromosomes."

Would you please explain it?

And about Herodotus too if you don't mind.