De Origine Successibusque Slavorum 1532

[Pelister]

Now Andronicus is the apostle of the Slavic race. He traveled
among the Moravians, and the Apostle Paul taught there likewise. For in that region is Illyricum,
whither Paul first repaired and where the Slavs originally lived. Since Paul is the teacher of the
Slavic race, from which we Rus' too are sprung, even so the Apostle Paul is the teacher of us
Rus', for he preached to the Slavic nation, and appointed Andronicus as Bishop and successor to
himself among them. But the Slavs and the Rus' are one people, for it is because of the
Varangians that the latter became known as Rus', though originally they were Slavs. While some
Slavs were termed Polyanians, their speech was still Slavic, for they were known as Polyanians
because they lived in the fields. But they had the same Slavic language.

Illyria is located among the Slavic speakers, is what I think this passage suggests.

The Apostle Paul, we know went to Macedonia. The reference to Moravia confuses me. IF Paul only got as far as Macedonia - then Macedonia is the land of the Slavs spoken about in this passage, or Illyria is actually 'higher' on the map than some ancient cartographers put it.

The reference to the Slavs as "Polyanians" is interesting, because "Poly" usually means "more than one ..." - for a moment I thought it might be a reference to their language, because he says their speech was still slavic. The term polyanians reminded me of the term used by Orbini to describe a Slavic speaking ancient Macedonian tribe as Agrians.

[Bratot]

Polyanians (english version) or Poljanci as we call them on Macedonian the ppl who work on the field - POLE.

It's also worth mentioning, that today we have Poland as Slavic country with the Polish nation.

Poland or originally in the polish language Polska and their nation Polacy means the same what the author was describing.

The Poles - Polish ppl are reffered as Poljaci (Полјаци) in Macedonian language which means the same as explained before.

[Sovius]

Very interesting. It seems to be the same Chronicle as the below:

http://hudce7.harvard.edu/~ostrowski/pvl/

I am not sure how accurate this translation is as I haven't went through the links, it was posted on another forum during a past discussion.


Apostle Paul came to Macedonia, which was in Roman Illyricum. What do you guys think?

Thanks for the link and thank you for your contributions to this site and prior posts to the Maknews forum. I’ve learned a great deal from reading your research.


As I have come to view these passages through this artless English language translation, in summation and inclusive of the Biblical record and the history of the region in general, the Apostle Paul travelled to the motherland of the kindred peoples to spread the word of God among the oppressed. The oppressed rose up and brought those who burdened them to their knees, figuratively and literally, ending a tyranny that befell much of Europe.

Regarding the Illyrian Passage:

Sloven [skii] does not mean Slav; therefore, what is being presented in English as Slav does not truly mean Slav here, either. People can believe that this complex adjectival means Slav and translations can be made presenting it as a name of historical relevance, but people (Niemci) believe that one term is a true reflection of the other through the blur of anachronicity and social conditioning. They originate from two different languages and produce two entirely different understandings of Eastern history, especially in the translation of the language of origination into a language like English.

There is a reason why the names Casimiro and Kazimierz exist in Spain and Central Europe respectively, but no longer in Germany. A translation of the Gothic Bible written in the lingua franca of the Holy Roman Empire may still equate it to being a Gothic Bible in a manner of speaking, but it has never made the Goths Germanic in the way the term gmina came to be expressed among ancient Italic speakers and how it came to be used during the 19th Century. The numerous contradictions between that which was expressed in ancient and early European historical texts and how these expressions and events came to be translated and presented in academic texts are simply matters of semantic transformation and perceptual fragmentation. The central concepts of Social Realism being forged by contemporary thinkers such as John R. Searle out of Berkley, California, are gradually replacing Victorian Period Subjectivism in the classroom. It might take a few centuries, but it will happen eventually.

Another observation that I found significant, Polish and Illyrian Histiography during the Renaissance Period simply represented the continuation of what was regarded as common knowledge during the Medieval Period, as demonstrated by this chronicle and other works from this era. King Zygmunt III Waza of Poland was referred to as “King of the Goths” by early Roman Catholic dignitaries, not because they had forgotten who defeated the Romans, but because they had no reason to forget.

[makedonin]

Дали сум само јас не знам, ама овоа шо Совиум го пишува не ми е ниту логично ниту структуирано, а најмалку поткрепено со било какви референци или литература.

Не ми се бендисува.

[Bratot]

Another observation that I found significant, Polish and Illyrian Histiography during the Renaissance Period simply represented the continuation of what was regarded as common knowledge during the Medieval Period, as demonstrated by this chronicle and other works from this era. King Zygmunt III Waza of Poland was referred to as “King of the Goths” by early Roman Catholic dignitaries, not because they had forgotten who defeated the Romans, but because they had no reason to forget.

This title "King of the Goths" that he received in my opinion has nothing to do with Catholic dignitaries or the defeated Romans.

Sigismundus Tertius Dei gratia rex Poloniæ, magnus dux Lithuaniæ, Russiæ, Prussiæ, Masoviæ, Samogitiæ, Livoniæque, necnon Suecorum, Gothorum Vandalorumque hæreditarius rex

[Delodephius]

Дали сум само јас не знам, ама овоа шо Совиум го пишува не ми е ниту логично ниту структуирано, а најмалку поткрепено со било какви референци или литература.

Не ми се бендисува.

It's a bit challenging to understand even for me. But then again, I have hard time understanding anything.

[makedonin]

It's a bit challenging to understand even for me. But then again, I have hard time understanding anything.

Хвала Словак, мислио сам да сам једини који има проблема с овим што је писао

[Delodephius]

It is a bit problematic to follow since this whole topic doesn't have a neither static nor an evolving subject. What are we discussing here exactly? Kaj se dogaja?!

Let me add this however: during the time of Pribojević and Orbini both history and ethnicity were seen from a different perspective than today. Let me put it this way: what does Slavic mean today; what did it mean during national revivals in the 19th century; what did it mean during the Renaissance; what did it mean in the Medieval period, 8th-14th century; what did it mean in the first records in around the 6th century AD; and to that, how did those who were called Slavs saw this term and its variants and how did non-Slavs? Was this term political, ethnic, cultural, religious, linguistical or something else? At what time and due to which circumstances did the meaning of the term change and among which users? What was the original meaning and how did it evolve onwards? The whole topic of the term Slav, Slavs, Slavic, Slavonic, etc. is a complex matter that no wonder caused confusion throughout history.

[TrueMacedonian]

It is a bit problematic to follow since this whole topic doesn't have a neither static nor an evolving subject. What are we discussing here exactly? Kaj se dogaja?!

Let me add this however: during the time of Pribojević and Orbini both history and ethnicity were seen from a different perspective than today. Let me put it this way: what does Slavic mean today; what did it mean during national revivals in the 19th century; what did it mean during the Renaissance; what did it mean in the Medieval period, 8th-14th century; what did it mean in the first records in around the 6th century AD; and to that, how did those who were called Slavs saw this term and its variants and how did non-Slavs? Was this term political, ethnic, cultural, religious, linguistical or something else? At what time and due to which circumstances did the meaning of the term change and among which users? What was the original meaning and how did it evolve onwards? The whole topic of the term Slav, Slavs, Slavic, Slavonic, etc. is a complex matter that no wonder caused confusion throughout history.

That's a keen observation Tomas. What do you think about the rennaisance period as far as the term 'Slav' being used? Was it cultural, political, linguistical???? Or was it all of the above?

[Delodephius]

Well in all periods it was a combination of linguistic, historical, genetic, cultural, etc. In the Renaissance I think it was was more a linguistic term.

[Sovius]

This title "King of the Goths" that he received in my opinion has nothing to do with Catholic dignitaries or the defeated Romans.

Sigismundus Tertius Dei gratia rex Poloniæ, magnus dux Lithuaniæ, Russiæ, Prussiæ, Masoviæ, Samogitiæ, Livoniæque, necnon Suecorum, Gothorum Vandalorumque hæreditarius rex

I actually had this quote in mind when I wrote that:

“There were many Gothic nations in earlier times, just as also at the present, but the greatest and most important of all are the Goths, Vandals, Visigoths, and Gepaedes. In ancient times, however, they were named Sauromatae and Melanchlaeni; and there were some too who called these nations Getic.”

I merely mentioned this because Western Europeans understood history differently prior to the Revisionist Period of the 19th Century, but wound up excluding Vindelicians and other populations that made up the military democracies in and around what would later become the constitutional monarchy of Poland in the process.

Polyani seems to have been a fitting name for the people of this region, indeed, though they left out Estonian populations and Galatians. There are now sizeable minorities from many different nations that migrated there during the Middle Ages and later periods, a collection of people from many different ethnic backgrounds. Of course, people educated according to the Aryan Model can typically only see Polaks and Slavs or understand Polish to be representative of only a singular ethnicity simply because someone’s surname came to be Polanized over time.

I’ve heard that Macedonia was governed by something similar to the northern tradition of the sarmata, as well, prior to its monarchist period. Would you happen to know of any documents that would support this? Its intriguing to think that the oligarchic democracies of Achaea may have simply been military democracies that evolved in a different manner over time, something else to add to the glory of Greater Illyria, so to speak.

[Bratot]

Polyani seems to have been a fitting name for the people of this region, indeed, though they left out Estonian populations and Galatians. There are now sizeable minorities from many different nations that migrated there during the Middle Ages and later periods, a collection of people from many different ethnic backgrounds. Of course, people educated according to the Aryan Model can typically only see Polaks and Slavs or understand Polish to be representative of only a singular ethnicity simply because someone’s surname came to be Polanized over time.

You have a point of course and I agree since I'm currently living in Poland I could improve my perception over Polaks and their history. It's pretty unbelievable how sucessfully they managed to assimilate all those ethnic groups into one nation now dominately identifying as part of the Slavic ppl.

The Sauromatic "myth" of Polish origin has help them in their homogenization and to reach the military achievments later on.

I can't tell how much of their sarmatian origin is true, but we do have some written testemonials who are more less reliable in describing them as a ppl from the region of Poland and mentioning their migration from Volga-Caucasian region prior to that.

Thas of course give another dimension on how nowdays 'Slavs' are being misinterpreted in their origin, would you agree?

I’ve heard that Macedonia was governed by something similar to the northern tradition of the sarmata, as well, prior to its monarchist period. Would you happen to know of any documents that would support this? Its intriguing to think that the oligarchic democracies of Achaea may have simply been military democracies that evolved in a different manner over time, something else to add to the glory of Greater Illyria, so to speak.

I might have read something about this but it never really picked my interest to keep some record of the books.

I will try to find something.

[Sovius]

It's a bit challenging to understand even for me. But then again, I have hard time understanding anything.

Hey Tomas,
Your translation of some of the sections of Veltman’s, Attila and Russia in the 4th and 5th Century AD is a great read. Thanks for publishing it. It’s a shame that more translations of Eastern scholarship aren’t available to English language speakers. When Attila died his people held a strava for him. It’s a greater shame that many Western researchers to this day still cannot understand the significance of this recorded observation.

To summarize and clarify the main point of my argument, while there is the myth of a 6th Century AD migration of a people known as the Slavs into Southeastern Europe, there is also the myth of Slavic ethnicity that is held together by contemporary social convention, which works to reinforce the first myth. Old Church Slavonic doesn’t exist in the context of actual history, but the Macedonian ecclesiastical language does. I say this because the 19th Century interpretative model isn’t based on historical reality, but, rather, a re-definition of historical reality that failed to account for empirical evidence. For example, Hibernians and Caledonians were not considered Celtic during the Ancient Period. Vindelicians and Galatians were. Regardless of this fact, the American city of Boston still has a basketball team named the Boston Celtics. Why, because many Irish people moved there long ago to escape the tyranny of the British Empire and during the 19th Century, pseudo-science made it fashionable to regard Irish populations as Celts.

The Renaissance Period researcher Conrad Gesner knew that Slavic was an inappropriate general classification for languages like Macedonian. Adam of Breman clearly stated that populations who came to be assimilated into the Holy Roman Empire began referring to Vindelicians as Slavs, forever framing “Slav” as a derogatory colloquial term, not a tangible ethnic or linguistic term. It’s the Vindelicians who were and still are a historically relevant people, who suffered greatly under the burden of slavery and the Lusatian Ethnocide, or Wendish Crusade, if we wish to politically cloud these events. “The Slavs” only exist in an anachronistic capacity inside the minds of people programmed to see Slavs instead of Vindelicians.

If we follow European history out of prehistory from the beginning to the present moment using genuine ethnic, political and tribal classifications, we get a different interpretation than if, using formal 19th Century ethnic re-classifications, we follow history from the present moment into the past.

[Delodephius]

Your translation of some of the sections of Veltman’s, Attila and Russia in the 4th and 5th Century AD is a great read. Thanks for publishing it. It’s a shame that more translations of Eastern scholarship aren’t available to English language speakers. When Attila died his people held a strava for him. It’s a greater shame that many Western researchers to this day still cannot understand the significance of this recorded observation.

Sovius, if you can read Serbian the whole book can be downloaded here:

http://www.4shared.com/file/88824059/acaadd1c/AleksandarFomic-Veljtman_Atila_i_Rusija.html

[Sovius]

Thas of course give another dimension on how nowdays 'Slavs' are being misinterpreted in their origin, would you agree?

Absolutely! You mentioned the myth that regards the Sarmatians as a people of Persian descent. If we allow genetic and archeological evidence to guide us in our understanding of the past, we find that the reverse is true. There is a very simple explanation as to why varshava means fortification in Polish and vareshva meant fortification in the ancient Avestanic language spoken in Iran. Ancient Sarmatian populations expanded into the region of Northwest India thousands of years ago and came to be pretentiously referred to as the Aryans during the 19th Century.

I’m using Sarmatian as a general classification that can be validated using ancient Roman and Greek maps, not as a specific classification that seems to have been used primarily for Polish populations during the Middle Ages.

Who was plowing the soil in Lusatia during the Bronze Age and establishing some of Europe’s earliest trade routes, people carrying the R1a haplotype, a mutation which is now regarded as having originated on the Illyrian Peninsula. “R1a” people co-existed in the same area with “I” people. These ancient populations carried a specific set of cultural characteristics that originated in Southeastern Europe and wound up in Central Eurasia and beyond.


Scientists are now able to ascertain the specific haplotypes of ancient populations. The following two studies are redefining European prehistory and, therefore, our interpretation of early European history, itself, at least for those of us willing to see beyond the mirage of assumption.


DNA Genealogy, Mutation Rates, and Some Historical Evidences Written in Y-Chromosome

http://precedings.nature.com/documents/2733/version/1

Ancient DNA, Strontium isotopes, and osteological analyses shed light on social and kinship organization of the Later Stone Age

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/47/18226.short

Knowledge and belief are two different things that can be served up on the same plate.