Indigen's theory of indigenous culture

[julie]

and we are all pretty

[Bratot]

Now i get it. Their original culture was very primitive and undeveloped. It was only once their culture became apart of civilisation and their people adopted the Byzantine/Western traits did they gain influence and power.

Not really dude, you can't get it.

If their culture was primitive and undeveloped they would NOT be able to take over those HIGHEST positions in the Roman Empire at the very first contact with the "Byzants".

I seriously wonder how you imagine a primitive tribal savage migrate from the Carpathian steps and becomes an IMPERATOR, HIS PERSONAL GUARDS, GENERALS, ADMINISTRATIVE CHIEF, PATRIARCH etc in the totally different and significantly higher culturally developed Empire.

Of course pigmentation doesnt define race, but to suggest that the "true" ancient Macedonians formed their own race due to their eye/hair colour is ridiculous. We, the ancient Macedonians, ancient Slavs, etc. all were of the Caucasian/White race.

Of course the Macedonians did not formed their own race, you are not found of the Macedonian language I guess, since you no comprendo nada from the sources I quoted.

[makedonin]

Sad thing when people prefer to see the Theories as reality and way of contemporary definition of them selfs.

Most of the 20th Century Theories were desighned to serve Political purposes.

Those same Theories mostly can't stand the blow by new archeological, genetical and linguistical findings.

Sad for those who base their Identity upon such fragile constructs.

[TrueMacedonian]

it's good to underline that for it's contemporary sources it was NOT known as 'Bulgarian' kingdom, but starting a century later.

But what about the so-called Bitolski Nadpis? Here's something on it;







I know many people call it a forgery. But what if it's not?(how many objective scholars call it a forgery?) This would be a year or 2 after Samoil's death.

If we know that Basil after the victory against Samoil in 1019 have created the Theme Bulgaria on the region of Macedonia, Albania, parts of southern Serbia and eastern Bulgaria it is logical why the sources from 12 century refer to the whole population of that region as geographycal Bulgars.

This is logical and explains alot about the term "Bulgar" during this time.

[Bratot]

But what about the so-called Bitolski Nadpis? Here's something on it;




I know many people call it a forgery. But what if it's not?(how many objective scholars call it a forgery?) This would be a year or 2 after Samoil's death.

This is logical and explains alot about the term "Bulgar" during this time.

If we accept that assumption than those scholars should explain why the Bulgarian Chan Crume (802-814) have tittled himself 2 times as „De Cruma rege Macedonie“ and „Cruma rex Macedonie“.

On the other hand the other Bulgarian Tzar Ivan Alexandar have tittled himself as: Sanctus Johannes Alexander Macedo (Macedonian S.A.), meaning Ivan Alexander the Macedonian.

The both of them were not even close to being Macedonians, but should we make claims on them using the Bulgarian propaganda logic?

Prof. Lunt:

"In 1956 a marble block serving as part of the threshold of a sixteenth-century mosque in Bitola was discovered to contain a badly worn Slavonic inscription. The text clearly must have spilled over to a lost block on the left, and to one or more blocks at the top. Yet the twelve preserved lines refer to ”John, autocrat of the bulgars„ and, later, ”son of Aron.„

The historian and paleographer Vladimir Moshin published the text (in Makedonski jazik, 1966), with a bold series of conjectures and emendations arguing that the inscription included reference to Samuel's defeat in 1014 and had been set up by Ivan Vladislav, Samuel's nephew (ruled 1015-1018). The Zaimovs confidently ”restore„ most of the text, including dates, and proceed to take their wish thoughts as incontrovertible proof of a number of historical events otherwise unknown.

Unfortunately there is no even remotely reliable set of criteria for dating early South Slavic Cyrillic, and epigraphic material is sparse and extremely controversial. I must respectfully disagree with Moshin's estimate that this text fits in the early eleventh century. Zaimov's paleographic and linguistic arguments are inaccurate and naive.

One basic point: Moshin clearly records the fact that the date he confidently reconstructs as 6522 (1014) has been worn away (”datata e izlizhana„; p.39 in Slovenska pismenost, ed P.Ilievski, Ohrid, 1966).
Indeed it does not show up in any published photographs (note that Zaimov's plate 2 has been doctored in an unspecified manner, and plate 3 is frankly drawing), nor is it found in a latex mold made by Professor Ihor Sevchenko of Dumbarton Oaks.
Assuming that this spot does contain a date, one can grant the 6 and the final 2, and a vertical line with a partial crosspiece that could be F(500) but looks much more like ps (700), and is followed by a space wide enough even for M (40). If one then conjectures the numbers as 6742, the date would be 1234. This fits beautifully with the ortography and language, and identifies Ivan as Asen II, who gained power over Macedonia in 1230. Yet it also demolished the inctricate historical explanations elaborated by the Zaimovs and generally diminishes the light that this inscription allegedly throws on an obscure period of Macedonian and Bulgarian history. The crucial questions remains open.

Horace G Lunt
Harvard University
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Lunt )







According to Igor Schevchenko
( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/wo...5sevcenko.html ):

"The little of this numeral can be seen on unretouched photograph might indeed be part of the cyrillic letter f (=500); but, as Horace G Lunt has pointed out, it might be also part of the cyrilic letter ps(=700), in which case the Bitolja inscription would seem to be of the thirteen century." (Slavic and Eastern European Journal, 1977, 21, 1)

R. Mathiesen (emeritus, Brown University http://brown.edu/web/directory/academicsdepts.shtml):

"Lunt informs me that Sevchensko's photogrpaphs exclude the possibility of the numeral being an f (=500), but not being a ps (=700), amd may even exclude the possibility of the numeral being part of date. The date may then have stood at the beggining of line 12." (Slavic and Eastern European Journal, 1977, 21,1)

His conclusion:

"As long as its true age remains in doubt, the evidence of the Bitolja inscription will have to be used with great caution; but this does not lessen the special importance of cyrillic palaegraphy which it will have as the work of two stonecutters--whatever the outcome if and when doubts are ever finally laid to rest." (Slavic and Eastern European Journal, 1977, 21, 1)



So we have three significant figures pointing out on the inacurate date and they have no Macedonian background to have an personal interest in this situation which is not the same for the Bulgarian side.

[TrueMacedonian]

So we have three significant figures pointing out on the inacurate date and they have no Macedonian background to have an personal interest in this situation which is not the same for the Bulgarian side.

Thank you for the info Bratot. That's good stuff to read.

[Bratot]

You're welcome TM!

[Mastika]

Not really dude, you can't get it.

If their culture was primitive and undeveloped they would NOT be able to take over those HIGHEST positions in the Roman Empire at the very first contact with the "Byzants".

I seriously wonder how you imagine a primitive tribal savage migrate from the Carpathian steps and becomes an IMPERATOR, HIS PERSONAL GUARDS, GENERALS, ADMINISTRATIVE CHIEF, PATRIARCH etc in the totally different and significantly higher culturally developed Empire.

Who is saying that they became the ruling class 'straight away'? No body. Only after they had become so highly influenced and assimilated by the Byzantines did the descendants of the invaders become as you are saying generals, patriachs etc. IN fact, I never said that they took over highest positions at first contact, like you are suggesting above.

Of course the Macedonians did not formed their own race, you are not found of the Macedonian language I guess, since you no comprendo nada from the sources I quoted.

I have read all of the quotes that you posted and they dont reallly align with your position.

As for the Slavic Migration theory, It is the best recorded theory of how the Slavic peoples got to where they are today. And is substantiated by accounts of the time.

Seeing as you do not agree with this theory. Can you please explain to me what your idea is on the subject?

[Bratot]

Maybe you are not capable to understand... worth my time?

They DID became a rulling class straight away, if you accept the VI century for their migrattions than you should know that Justinian who was born in Taor, near Skopje, in the sources knowns as Slav became the Imperator of E.R.E.

His first bodyguard and most popular general was Belisarius (Beli-tzar) also a Slav.


It's your choice if you prefer to believe the accounts you wish to believe or to consultate the science such as anthropology, ethnology, genetics, archeaology.

I can write every kind of bullshit today.. I can write that you have had 3 eyes and 5 nipples, but if someone find your 'body' skeleton after a 100 years he will be able to conclude scientifically how tall you were, if you had injuries, if you suffered from some illness, the reason why you died, your physical characteristics, your dental hygiene and more details.

[Serdarot]

As for the Slavic Migration theory, It is the best recorded theory of how the Slavic peoples got to where they are today. And is substantiated by accounts of the time.

Seeing as you do not agree with this theory. Can you please explain to me what your idea is on the subject?

we must be living in 2 separate world / 2 separate dimensions

following some opinions, under-developed primitive slavs came from behind the karpati, runing away from some huns and avars, and defeated the East and the West Roman Empire, all the natives under the way, and settled half of europe.

sorry but that theory is a insult to my inteligence

[Sovius]

Mastika,
You have written a number of sentences, but have offered very little in the way of evidence to support your views. Could you do so now? I'd be particularly interested in learning more about these substantiated accounts of these Slavs and their migrations you keep going on about. You claim to be one, so, perhaps, you're in the best position to explain what a Slav is and how your ancestors truly got to be wherever they wound up and how they somehow came to be my ancestors, as well?Please go on, and, perhaps you could also provide evidence to discount Bratot's passages that he has used to defend his position? I'm sure you'll agree that evidence wins arguments, not opinionated statements. No?

[Bill77]

Mastika,
You have written a number of sentences, but have offered very little in the way of evidence to support your views. Could you do so now? I'd be particularly interested in learning more about these substantiated accounts of these Slavs and their migrations you keep going on about. You claim to be one, so, perhaps, you're in the best position to explain what a Slav is and how your ancestors truly got to be wherever they wound up and how they somehow came to be my ancestors, as well?Please go on, and, perhaps you could also provide evidence to discount Bratot's passages that he has used to defend his position? I'm sure you'll agree that evidence wins arguments, not opinionated statements. No?

Good points Sovius. On top of that, i would like to know his thoughts on, What language these invaders spoke. Did they spread this "Slav" Language or did they Inherit it.

[Mastika]

They DID became a rulling class straight away, if you accept the VI century for their migrattions than you should know that Justinian who was born in Taor, near Skopje, in the sources knowns as Slav became the Imperator of E.R.E.

His first bodyguard and most popular general was Belisarius (Beli-tzar) also a Slav.

In regards to Justinian:

BTW. Justin was born around 480, which is in the Vth century predating the Slavic invasion of the VIth century. Another piece of evidence which disagrees with your idea that the Slavs became Emperors right from the beggining.

The Cambridge companion to the Age of Justinian; Michael Maas, p. 74. "Justinian and his family were Latin speaking Illyrians"

The age of Justinian: the circumstances of imperial power; James Allan Stewart Evans, p. 1.
"Justinian was the offspring of a Thracian peasant family"

Justinian and the Later Roman Empire; John W. Barker, p. 64.
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

In regards to Belisarius:

BTW. Same idea with Belisarius, born at the turn of the VIth century, predating the arrival of the Slavs. Not Slavic.

The Cambridge companion to the Age of Justinian; Michael Maas, p. 74. "The preeminent general Belisarius was a Latin speaker from the Balkans"

Quotes for supporting the Slavic invasion of Byzantine lands:

The Cambridge companion to the Age of Justinian; Michael Maas, p. 12. By 600, emperor Maurice had cleared most of them [Slavic invaders] from Roman territory, but after his death Avars and Slavs again gained control of most of the lands from Greece to the Danube,...

Justinian and Theodora; Robert Browning, p. 131
In early summer [548] the Slavs invaded Illyricum from across the Danube

Justinian and Theodora; Robert Browning, p. 157
Worse was to come. In 550 a great force of Slavs, ..., swept through Thrace

Justinian and Theodora; Robert Browning, p. 168
Within a generation of his [Justinian's] death Avars and Slavs occupied most of the Northern Balkans

The New Cambridge Medieval History: c.500-c.700; Rosamond McKitterick, p.228.
the most numerous immigration - of the slavs - was also, by and large, the least systematically violent, leaving intact many visible symnols of the empire...

The Emperor Maurice and his historian: Theophylact Simocatta on Persian and ; Michael Whitby, p. 124.
both John of Ephesus and Theophylact (Sources from the 6th century) record panic in Constantinople cause by the approach of Slavs ... towards the long walls (Theophylact Simocatta and John of Ephesus were both historians from the VI/VII centuries)

The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire; Edward Gibbon, p. 562.
The storms of the 7th century, the invasions of Slavs and Saracens, had made considerable changes in the conditions of the provincial lands...

There are many more sources refering to the influx of Slavs into the Byzantine empire during that time.

BTW. Would somebody be able to tell me how I can copy images directly from the database rather then typing out all of the text, thanks. It saves a lot of time.

[osiris]

mastika you are using a nineteeen century based historical knowledge , dominated by germanic french aand english scholars. i dont think they are credible and certainly not objective players. the history of the slavs is still to be written.

[Bill77]

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.