Indigen's theory of indigenous culture

[Mastika]

Mastika, are you using "Slav" or "Slavic" as a race, or Linguistic definition?

I hope my question makes sence.


And i will ask you again, i would like to know your thoughts on, What language these invaders spoke. Did they spread this "Slav" Language or did they Inherit it.

I had a good response, but the forum signed me out. Can somebody please tell me why that is the case. So i will keep it short.

Im not refering to Slavic as a Race. I am refering to it as the collective members of the Kolochin, Prague-Korchak and Penkovka cultures, which the Slavs belonged to before they invaded the Balkans.

As for language, yes, I have used Slavic to refer to the language branch including Macedonian, Russian, Slovakian etc.

They originally spoke the "Proto-Slavic" language which developed seperately given the geographic position of the speakers. Did they spread it? Of course, they spoke it where they went. Did they spread it to other peoples? Yes and No. They didn't suceed when faced with the more civilised culture of the Byzantines, however they managed to assimilated other tribes such as the Bulgars into the speakers of this language.

[Bill77]

I had a good response, but the forum signed me out. Can somebody please tell me why that is the case. So i will keep it short.

Im not refering to Slavic as a Race. I am refering to it as the collective members of the Kolochin, Prague-Korchak and Penkovka cultures, which the Slavs belonged to before they invaded the Balkans.

As for language, yes, I have used Slavic to refer to the language branch including Macedonian, Russian, Slovakian etc.

They originally spoke the "Proto-Slavic" language which developed seperately given the geographic position of the speakers. Did they spread it? Of course, they spoke it where they went. Did they spread it to other peoples? Yes and No. They didn't suceed when faced with the more civilised culture of the Byzantines, however they managed to assimilated other tribes such as the Bulgars into the speakers of this language.

Then how would you explain that St. Kiril & Metodi used the solun dialect of macedonian. And acording to a post by SOM,

Quote: "Macedonians inside the fortified city of Solun which was never invaded or conquered by the so-called "Slavs" spoke "pure Slavonic". Attested by Emperor Michael III himself, no less!"

So how did these Macedonians that were not influenced by these "so called Slavs" pick up these refugees Language ? Did they not have there own.

Is it posible these refugees, who invaded the Balkans spoke a different language before coming to Macedonia. And they learned the "Slav" language from the indigenous Macedonians

[Mastika]

Then how would you explain that St. Kiril & Metodi used the solun dialect of macedonian. And acording to a post by SOM,

Quote: "Macedonians inside the fortified city of Solun which was never invaded or conquered by the so-called "Slavs" spoke "pure Slavonic". Attested by Emperor Michael III himself, no less!"

So how did these Macedonians that were not influenced by these "so called Slavs" pick up these refugees Language ? Did they not have there own.

Is it posible these refugees, who invaded the Balkans spoke a different language before coming to Macedonia. And they learned the "Slav" language from the indigenous Macedonians

I will be brief because I don't have enough time now.

In the several hundreds of years between the Slavic invasion and the emergence of St Kiril and Metodi, the region had been reincorporated into the Byzantine Empire. As many people of "Slavic descent" (having interbred with the locals they were no longer "pure" slavs like their ancestors 300 years before them) gained wealth and positions in the Byzantine Empire many naturally drifted towards the cities, where essentially "all of the action was going on".

It is true that the Slavic tribes never managed to capture the city of Solun in a military way, in later years their influence in the city grew due to trade etc.


"Is it posible these refugees, who invaded the Balkans spoke a different language before coming to Macedonia. And they learned the "Slav" language from the indigenous Macedonians" Simple answer/explanation: No, because this does not explain why Macedonian has similarities with languages such as Polish, Russian and Ukranian.

There are also other reasons.

[Bill77]

"Is it posible these refugees, who invaded the Balkans spoke a different language before coming to Macedonia. And they learned the "Slav" language from the indigenous Macedonians" Simple answer/explanation: No, because this does not explain why Macedonian has similarities with languages such as Polish, Russian and Ukranian.

There are also other reasons.

Yes it does, these refugees could have picked up the Macedonian language and spread out woods. Those who remained closer to Macedonia kept there Dialect closer or more original to the Pure Macedonian, where as the people further away might have had diferant reasons and influences for drifting from The Macedonian that was used like the solun dialect.

The same way these refugees in Greece adopted the Greek language. If they were so powerful, inteligent and had there own language, why did they adopt the Greek language and yet, there language was good enough to influence the rest of the balkans. We can thank the Solun Brothers that the rest of the Balkan and behond speak a form of Macedonian and not Greek.

[Mastika]

Yes it does, these refugees could have picked up the Macedonian language and spread out woods. Those who remained closer to Macedonia kept there Dialect closer or more original to the Pure Macedonian, where as the people further away might have had diferant reasons and influences for drifting from The Macedonian that was used like the solun dialect.

The same way these refugees in Greece adopted the Greek language. If they were so powerful, inteligent and had there own language, why did they adopt the Greek language and yet, there language was good enough to influence the rest of the balkans. We can thank the Solun Brothers that the rest of the Balkan and behond speak a form of Macedonian and not Greek.

You cannot be seriously suggesting this. Firstly, there is no evidence of this language being formed in Macedonia and then spreading out to places such as Russia, Poland, the Ukraine.

Secondly, without population movements any influence of language would be impossible. Thats how Slavic languages first got to the Balkans, because that is what the invading Slavs spoke.

Thirdly, did peasents of Macedonia had no cultural, military or political influence to spread the language to places such as Russia etc.

As for your second point. The Slavic invaders in Greece adopted the Greek language for same reason many Grkomani did last century. It was the language with most cultural and political influence. During the Heraclian and Isaurian dynastys the Byzantine empire lost control of most of Thessaly and the Peloponese, where a number of Slavic tribes settled. However from 867 onwards for about the next 400 years the Slavic tribes in Greece were slowly Hellenised. Given the length time and strength of the Greek language at the time it is no wonder they soon became "Greeks". The idea that modern Greeks are pure Ancient Greeks is bullshit mainly because of this reason.

In the rest of the Balkans, most of these Slavs found themselves under non Byzantine rule and the cultural dominance was significantly less then those Slavs in Greece.

[Prolet]

You cannot be seriously suggesting this. Firstly, there is no evidence of this language being formed in Macedonia and then spreading out to places such as Russia, Poland, the Ukraine.

Mastika, Kiril and Metodija wrote the Alphabet Pismo remember?

[Mastika]

Mastika, Kiril and Metodija wrote the Alphabet Pismo remember?

There is a HUGE difference between learning a new alphabet and a new language. They promoted their Glagolithic script in Great Moravia as well as Old Church Slavonic, the first Slavic literary language (which happened to be based on the language spoken in the Solun region). However, this language was NOT a vernacular, only an ecclesiastical language.

[makedonin]

Thirdly, did peasents of Macedonia had no cultural, military or political influence to spread the language to places such as Russia etc.

Interesting question. So how could they spread it in Byzanze? By sheer settling? There were major resettlements of those so called "Slavs" in hudge numbers to Asia Minor by the Byzantine Authoritie. Why are there no Slavs there?


Can you tell me what do you make out of this quote:

When the Eruli, being defeated by the Lombards in the above mentioned battle, migrated from their anscenstral homes, some of them, as has been told by me above, made their home in the country of Illyricum, but the rest were averse to crossing the Ister river, but settled at the very extremity of the word; at any rate, these men, led by many of the royal blood, transvered all the nations of the Slclaveni one after the other, and after next crossing a large tract of barren country, they came to the Varni, as they are called. After these they passed by the nations of the Dani, without suffering violence at the hands of the barbarians there. Coming thence to the ocean, they took to the sea, and putting in at Thule, remained there on the island.

The foot notes of the author:

Vani Or Varini, a tribe living on the coast near the mouth of the Rhine
Dani -A group of tribes inhabiting the Danisch Penesula
Thule - Probably Iceland or the northern position of the Scandinavian penesula

http://books.google.com/books?id=Omm...l=de#PPA196,M1

[Bill77]

You cannot be seriously suggesting this. Firstly, there is no evidence of this language being formed in Macedonia and then spreading out to places such as Russia, Poland, the Ukraine.

Secondly, without population movements any influence of language would be impossible. Thats how Slavic languages first got to the Balkans, because that is what the invading Slavs spoke.

Why not Mastika? why is it not possible for these migrants to enter Macedonia, take what they need and head back out prematurely to far places like Russia, poland etc which is why there newly adopted language is not as solid as the original Macedonian. I am talking about posibilities here. After all, as osiris said and he is corect that the history of the slavs is still to be written.

And speaking of evidence, there is absalutely none to sugest what these imigrants spoke. There are a few facts that they migrated around the area, but nothing to sugest these divi lujge zborvaja nashe ili slichno.

[osiris]

mastika that's exactly what the pct theory suggests that the first wave of slavic speakers came from the middle east through the balkans and slowly spread nth as the ice receded.

if you want to believe the 19th century germanic view of prehistory and ancient history thats your perogative but settle down a little because i dare say in your life time the idea of a mass slavic migration into the balkans will be totally discredited

[Sovius]

Mastika,

Historical citations and scholarly opinions are not evidence. Assumptions stated as facts are categorized as myths (unsupported beliefs) by scientifically principled researchers.

Let's mix things up a bit:


"Justinian was the offspring of a Thracian peasant family"

The age of Justinian: the circumstances of imperial power; James Allan Stewart Evans, p. 1.

"As for the Getae, that is to say the hoardes of Sclavenes, they were fiercely ravaging the region of Thrace"
Theophylact Simocatta III. 4.7

"The Romans drew near to the Getae, for this is the older name for the barbarians, but did not dare to come to grips, since they were afraid of the javelins ..."

Theophylact Simocatta VII. 2.5


Herodotus considered the Getae to be monotheistic Thracians, as did Procopius much later on in history.



"Justin I and his successors were of Balkan provincial stock. There was a time when historians favored theories that the family of Justnian was of Slavonic blood. These theories have been disproved, so that we may now be certain that the new dynasty came from a background of the old Thracian peoples who had settled in Illyria and had become fully latinized."
Justinian and the Later Roman Empire; John W. Barker, p. 64.

Depending on what values we assign to these slang words and ethonyms, Barker is either incorrect, correct, incorrect and correct in the same instance or simply neither correct nor incorrect.



Why would the 4th Century AD poet Claudian consistently refer to the Getae as Visigoths (or was it Visigoths as Getae)? Or, better yet, how come people over a thousand years later began disassociating the Visigoths from the Thracian peoples and re-associating them with Nordic populations, who themselves, began associating themselves with populations regarded as Germanic (Vandalic/Vindelician) by Roman Period historians? At what point does revisionism give way to reversionism?

[Mastika]

Why not Mastika? why is it not possible for these migrants to enter Macedonia, take what they need and head back out prematurely to far places like Russia, poland etc which is why there newly adopted language is not as solid as the original Macedonian. I am talking about posibilities here. After all, as osiris said and he is corect that the history of the slavs is still to be written.

And speaking of evidence, there is absalutely none to sugest what these imigrants spoke. There are a few facts that they migrated around the area, but nothing to sugest these divi lujge zborvaja nashe ili slichno.

Assuming this did happen, but it didn't because there is no evidence for this theory, how would primitive tribesmen have the capacity spread a language over such a large area with only word of mouth to do so?! This is near-impossible!, especially since the Slavs back in the Ukraine had absolutely no compulsion to suddenly speak the language of a few recently arrived immigrants.

I dont know why you are adamant about this suggestion?! Is it that you want to make Macedonians seem more important in the general scheme of things? This idea ranks even below the UFO theory, even that had some evidence. The fact of the matter is, Slavs came to Macedonia speaking their own langauge (proto-Slavic) which 1500 years later developed into the Macedonian we know of today. This is well recorded in history.

The way I see it is, people want revisionism so that SOMEHOW they can capitalise on the role of Philip II and Aleksander in our history. I also believe, that had Philip II and Aleksander we would have been just as happy as the rest of the Slavic people to accept the linguistic origins of our language. In an effort to jump on the Aleksander the Great bandwagon, people such as Aleksandar Donski and Co. come up with ultranationalist history, which surprisingly is generally at odds with existing literary tradition.

[Bill77]

Mastika Quote: "You cannot be seriously suggesting this. Firstly, there is no evidence of this language being formed in Macedonia and then spreading out to places such as Russia, Poland, the Ukraine."

I am serious, i am not here to whaist my time. Also its not only me suggesting it, But also the Russians them selves.

In the Russian "Illustrated Chronicle of the XVI century" confirms that the Slavs do not come from behind the Carpathian Mountains, but the territories of Macedonia towards the Carpathians remain in Russia.


The release of "Illustrated Chronicle of the XVI century" was published with financial assistance from the company Jukanin "flow" and in cooperation with the State Historical Museum of Russia, the Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Russian National Library.

The release of "Illustrated Chronicle of the XVI century" is hand made in limited editions of only 30 lines. Several are in the Russian Federation in Sinodalnata Library of the Russian Orthodox Church, Russian Academy of Sciences, the Russian National Library, and several in Britain and Germany.

http://mn.mk/aktuelno/898-Promoviran-ruski-Ilustriran-letopis-na-XVI-vek

[TrueMacedonian]

You cannot be seriously suggesting this. Firstly, there is no evidence of this language being formed in Macedonia and then spreading out to places such as Russia, Poland, the Ukraine.

Secondly, without population movements any influence of language would be impossible. Thats how Slavic languages first got to the Balkans, because that is what the invading Slavs spoke.

Thirdly, did peasents of Macedonia had no cultural, military or political influence to spread the language to places such as Russia etc.

As for your second point. The Slavic invaders in Greece adopted the Greek language for same reason many Grkomani did last century. It was the language with most cultural and political influence. During the Heraclian and Isaurian dynastys the Byzantine empire lost control of most of Thessaly and the Peloponese, where a number of Slavic tribes settled. However from 867 onwards for about the next 400 years the Slavic tribes in Greece were slowly Hellenised. Given the length time and strength of the Greek language at the time it is no wonder they soon became "Greeks". The idea that modern Greeks are pure Ancient Greeks is bullshit mainly because of this reason.

In the rest of the Balkans, most of these Slavs found themselves under non Byzantine rule and the cultural dominance was significantly less then those Slavs in Greece.

Mastika, for arguements sake,,,, how can you hellenize somebody when Hellene's were seen as pagans and the East Romans (Byzantines) were christians? This isn't proper terminology for this era. If anything these people became Romanised or Christianised. I urge all Macedonians to reconsider using such terminology for this specific era.

[sf.]

i dare say in your life time the idea of a mass slavic migration into the balkans will be totally discredited

I think Mastika and TM are closer to the mark here, and that the migration (this is an inapproprate word) theory will prevail - not without modifications however.

I generally tend to stay away from arguing this topic online, because too many people approach it from too many different angles, and present a huge ammount of data and viewpoints that the whole argument becomes overwhelmed.

All I will say is that the Greeks implanted the idea that slavic migration equates to Greeks having exclusive rights to 'Macedonia,' and many Macedonians fell for this argument. The irony is that in our attempts to assert our identity, we're still allowing it to be dictated by others.