You may now better understood what i meant by a "bastardized" language...

Originally posted by Anton Originally posted by Flipper As for the Slavic migration it is about the 7th century not 19th.   Flipper, Procopius speak about Slavonic migration from 5th century. Some modern historians (f.e. Marinov supported by Jirecek) consider first slavonic migrations since 200-300 AD.

The woird MIGRATION is never even ONCE mentioned in the sources.Only INVASION. From within,ofc.

The name Sklavinaes was not the name given to the "settlments" but to the democratic  political formations of the Blago-Sloveni narodi Slavni Slavjanski - with each "sklavinia" having its own chieftan and councel of elders,wich included woman - and even the chieftans were soemtimes woman...What do you think - as a black white - frome where did this "dirty,swampy slavs" inherited the democratic form of ruling in 5 ad 15 centuries bfr europe adopted it?Huh?C'mon drink some "gray matter proteins" and maybe youll have an "eureka" moment!!

Akritas this is the same Akritas,former member of maknews,yes?The one the whole balkan laughs at??


And how now you say peacefull settlment?Neli they came from behind the Karpite and killed of all the Macedonians and Thracians bfr  them in a perfect genocide wich even hitler wasnt able to accomplish?Or...was that meteor again that killed of the Macedons??



You change your positions like your soks. That is bcs you HAVE NO position. Only deceit and lies and then more and more lies & deceit.

Magedon

 

source

Edited by akritas - 03-Jun-2007 at 04:57

I never gave mr alinei source as a evidence for the albanian question - only for the evidence of the continuos Slavic presence on balkans from ancient times.Together with greeks.What do you think - from where this animosity btw the two of our ppls stems from??We have been bitter arch enemies for 2000 yrs akritas!!Even in the middle ages when our NAME was BULGARS and your NAME was ROMANS. PPls change names in historic times like soks - its nothing strange. The goths,gauls,celts and all the others are still around UNDER DIFFERENT NAMES!!!

So we then agree - we have valid claim to  ancient Macedonia - you have valid claim for ancient Greece.

Thank u god - akritas came to his senses....

http://linguistlist.org/issues/14/14-2178.html


Indo-European

In Stratum and Shadow: A Genealogy of Stratigraphy Theories from the
Indo-European West (11 - 44), Bernard Mees treats the particular
burdens of European linguistic prehistory, in which nineteenth-century
(or earlier) preconceived notions of race and the knowledge of names
of earlier populations are found to have driven some theories of
substrata. Ironically, (invariably imperfect) historical documentation
is seen by non-Indo- Europeanists as a tacit advantage over doing
prehistorical reconstruction on non-literate traditions (cf. McConvell
and Smith on the prehistory of the indigenous languages of Australia,
p. 183). Mees identifies the break with nineteenth-century
historicism, which saw in the genealogical approach a past to a
present system, in the work of the W�rter-und- Sachen
theorists, who view the linguistic past as past systems. Prior to the
W�rter-und- Sachen theorists, however, stratigraphic approaches
were seen in ethnic and cultural, rather than linguistic, terms and,
according to Mees, much of the thinking about substratal issues in
Western Europe goes back to the work of the French Celticist Henri de
Jubainville (1827 - 1910), the originator of the notion of the Gaulish
substratum to French. Many of these theories, he asserts, have
''little claim to a proper empirical basis today as they were first
proposed in light of analyses of the now-outdated philological record
available in the late nineteenth century'' (13). For example, the
fronting of Latin /u/ to /y/ and lenition of voiceless
stops are traditionally attributed to the Gaulish substratum. Yet,
fronting of /u/ is unattested in Continental Celtic and Gaulish Latin;
moreover, lenition in Gaulish is known to have been partial and what
earlier scholars had adduced as evidence of lenition is ambiguous,
attributable in part to the imprecision of Latin writing
practice. Mees convincingly shows these and other changes to be
ascribable more complex processes, in some cases to Sprachbund
effects. Regarding shadows, Mees treats some of the more tenuous
attempts -- often confidently asserted, repeated and continued even in
some present-day work -- at identifying linkages between names of
ancient peoples (Ligurians, Venetes, Illyrians) and the extremely
parsimonious evidence available about ''their'' erstwhile
languages. Moreover, these ethnically motivated theories had some of
their darkest days on both sides of Nazi- era racial theory. (A good
review of corresponding Eastern-European linguistic- and
archaeology-based ethnogenetic theories may be found in Curta 2002.)

Henning Andersen's Slavic and the Indo- European Migrations (45 - 76)
first presents a disciplined though brief account of the multifarious
lexical accessions in Baltic and Slavic. The author proceeds from the
model of the relationship between Baltic and Slavic elaborated in
Andersen 1996, in which, though these Indo-European dialects may have
diverged at first, they later constituted a geographical continuum
subsequently obscured by the partial shift towards Slavic at the
expense of Baltic. The meat of the paper is in Andersen's attempt to
sort out five enduring and recalcitrant issues of Baltic and Slavic
historical phonology, each connected with an as yet inadequately
explained set of discrepancies in the reflexes: (i) Baltic st for
Proto-Indo- European (PIE) *k'; (ii) Slavic and Baltic velar stops for
PIE *k', *g'(h); (iii) Slavic and Baltic uR diphthongs for PIE
syllable *r; (iv) Slavic and Baltic e- for PIE *h2e- and *h3e-; (v)
Slavic k- for PIE *h2-, *h3-. Andersen wrings out of the fragmentary
evidence more than had been previously by relating the issues to one
another, as well as to other, better understood changes affecting
related phonological domains, a technique characteristic of several of
his earlier works. He concludes that the data suggest successive waves
of Indo-European settlers: (ii - v) may be attributable to centum
contact, (v) is possibly due to contact with pre-IE; (ii) and (iii)
may include centum and pre-satem dialect contact, a distinction that
may be irrelevant to (iv, v). The relative chronology of accessions
are from the most recent (i) to the earliest (v).

http://theses.lub.lu.se/postgrad//search.tkl?field_query1=pubid&query1=hum_140&recordformat=display


Scholarly texts on Slavic-Scandinavian relations have concentrated on two main areas of interest. During the Viking Age the economic and social contacts between the lake M�laren district and Rus� were extensive. However, at the beginning of the Middle Ages, political antagonism between the two expanding realms of the Svear and the Novgorodians is noticeable. In southern Scandinavia, the hostility between the Danes and the Wends in the 12th century has attracted more interest than the common political pattern in the previous centuries. This thesis claims that there is a need for a more comprehensive analysis of Slavic-Scandinavian contacts, to bridge the current artificial academic gap between Prehistoric and Historical Archaeology, and also to investigate the simplified approaches to Slavic identity in the past. By means of archaeological and historical sources it is possible to explore contrasts and analogies and to discern common or disparate cultural patterns and their changes in space and time. The main issue of the thesis concerns the presence of foreign individuals in Scandinavia during the period of study, more precisely Slavic visitors and their relations to their Scandinavian hosts.

Simple everyday pottery is studied as a way of finding evidence for the presence of Slavic foreigners in Scandinavia. The main topic of the thesis concerns the relationship between the so-called Baltic ware (Ostseeware, vendiskt svartgods) and the presence of Slavic people in the area corresponding to modern Sweden during the period 900-1300. The ceramic tradition in this area is clearly of Slavic origin, but why and in what ways was it transmitted to Scandinavian potters? What is the connection between Baltic ware and Slavic identity? Baltic ware has traditionally been regarded as a purely Slavic product, reaching Scandinavia through trade and free-moving artisans or as a result of co-operation between Slavic and Scandinavian potters. Several possibilities suggest themselves and the aim of the thesis is to capture the dynamics in the interaction, to distinguish regional differences between the two traditions and thereby minimise the number of possible interpretations.

The thesis is divided into six chapters. Chapter 1 (The Power of the Past) presents the reasons for choosing the topic, the questions raised and theoretical perspectives used. Issues of cultural and ethnic identity, transformed into material culture through pottery style, are assessed in Chapter 2 (The Meeting). In the third chapter (Preparing the Gift) a comprehensive survey of Slavic pottery from c. 400-1300 is presented and linked to political and socio-economic interpretations. The fourth chapter (The Scandinavian Reception) offers an extensive survey of Baltic ware found in present-day Sweden. Chapter 5 (Slavic Guests in the Scandinavian House) combines the theoretical ideas and empirical data and presents a hypothetical interpretation of the Slavic presence in Scandinavia. Aspects of contrasts and analogies in Baltic ware and late Slavic vessel morphologies, the distribution of different types of ware and historical contexts form the background to the discussion. The empirical framework of the thesis is presented in the last chapter (The Material Basis). This chapter offers quantitative as well as mineralogical information. An extensive catalogue of vessels from sites used for the interpretation as well as quantitative data is available at the end of the thesis.

Baltic ware can be said to be strongly connected to the Slavic presence on one level and unrelated to it on another level. As a primary inspiration, late Slavic pottery was a vital condition for Baltic ware to emerge. But the wide distribution of the new tradition was carried out by Scandinavian potters, working on a household basis. In this sense Slavs had a deep impact on Scandinavian culture for at least 250 years, but Slavic pottery cannot be used as evidence for a general Slavic presence.

http://www.dangel.net/SLOVENIA/NewLookSloveneHistory.html

A New Look at Slovene (SLAVIC) History

By Anton �kerbinc

The historical fact that Vinidi, Wenden, or Veneti--as Slovenes were called in the past--were an indigenous people of the Alpine region went unchallenged until around the middle of the 19th century. At that time, German and Austrian historians began researching possibilities to discredit and suppress it. Backed by a strong nationalistic environment, they created, without documentary or archeological evidence, theories that "proved" the Slovenes were not indigenous West Slavs but rather a branch of South Slavs who reached the eastern Alps in the 6th century A.D. These and similar inventions became established around that time as the official history of the Slovenes. They were further elaborated early in the 20th century. Research in Slovene studies at any university, including the Department of History in Slovenia, is done within this framework.

Only since the middle of the 1980's has there developed among concerned Slovenes (outside the historiographic establishment) an open rebellion against the invented history. Central to the undertaking are the findings of three Slovene researchers: Matej Bor, Jo�ko �avli, and Ivan Toma�ič. They published their studies in German, Slovene, Italian, and finally in English under the title Veneti: First Builders of European Community. A Russian translation is to appear soon.

Two reviews published recently corroborate the findings of the above three researchers.

The prestigious journal Revue des �tudes Slaves, Paris (LXX/l, 1998), published the essay "The Theory of the Veneti in Slovenia: A Problem of History, Historiography, or Ideology?" by Professor Antonia Bernard (translated into English in Canada). She is apologetic for not having studied the Venetic theory more thoroughly, but it is clear she has considerable knowledge in the field, and her paper is well researched. Part of the essay is presented here.

In regard to the name "Veneti," she says, "The Fredegarii Chronicon supports their thesis, since in 623 AD it equates the Veneti with the Slavs: 'Sclavi coinomento Vinedos,' and speaks of the 'marca Winedorum' and the 'Walucus dux Winedorum.' The same theme occurs in the 'Vitae S. Columbani,' where the author speaks of the 'country of the Veneti who consider themselves also Slavs' [Termini Venetiorum qui et Sclavi dic**tur]."

In support of the indigenous status of the Slovenes in their present homeland, the three authors submitted countless pieces of evidence concerning all areas under study. In essence, all their writings are but a clarification of this one historical fact, Professor Bernard elaborates'. "

... they energetically refute the idea that their Slavic ancestors came from the marshlands east of the Carpathians during the 6th century. On the contrary, they see themselves as the original inhabitants who lived in the area before the Roman Empire. This is how Ivan Toma�ič explains the theory: 'My intention is to present ... in a clear and accessible manner, important evidence showing that we Slovenes are a people rooted in central Europe since time immemorial. We created our own social system, and the first form of statehood before the Roman times (Noric Kingdom). We reestablished them in the Middle Ages, and we have maintained the same foundations of social and judicial organization in the traditions of our village community up to modem times . . . "'

There were in the past other Slovene intellectuals who had the same understanding. We should also acknowledge the Italian researcher Guiseppe Sergi, who considered Slovenes to have resided in their present homeland since prehistoric times and were descendants of the Proto-Slavic Veneti. Professor Bernard concurs: "However, we should be aware that these theories that unite the Slavs and the Veneti in former times, if even considered by other West Slavs, notably the Poles, do not represent anything new for the Slovenes. At the beginning of this century, J. Mal, H. Tuma, and D. Trstenjak undertook some research in this direction. For the first Slovenian historians such as J.V. Valvasor (1641-93) or A.T. Linhart (1756-95), there was no doubt about the identity between Veneti, Slavs, and the residents of Carniola [Slovenia]." She adds: " . . . one has to admit that these amateurs bring something like a breath of fresh air to the Slovene historiography which until now was idling in its cozy microcosm of unquestioned absolutes."

When Communist rule began to crumble in the mid 1980's and some degree of freedom of speech had been regained, Slovenes wanted to reexamine their history. This was of great importance because they had been denied this right for many centuries. Professor Bernard assesses it this way: "The myth of Napoleon, liberator of the Slovenes and founder of Yugoslavia, was never questioned by the professional historians, any more than 'Illyria Revived,' the famous poem by Vodnik (1811), in which the poet considers the Illyrians, that is to say, the Slovenes, as indigenous residents and their civilization to have preceded that of the Romans. Our amateur historians do not say anything different. Could there be a history for historians, and another one for the people?"

About the advantages to be gained from the work of the three authors, Professor Bernard states: "As far as the Venetic theory in Slovenia is concerned, one has to point out that the published works, as well as the ensuing polemics, have served to awaken in the public at large an interest in history which cannot hurt this discipline." And she adds: "As to the underlying problems raised by the Venetic theory, these go far beyond the Slovenian context and should be looked at from a regional as well as a European point of view."

Another significant item on the Venetic theory appeared recently in The Augustan, the intonational journal of the Augustan Society, California, where Veneti: First Builders of European Community was reviewed by Professor Charles Bryant-Abraham. A small portion of his review is presented here.

Among other introductory thoughts Professor Bryant-Abraham states: " . . . two ideologically driven trends of thought have shaped the course of Slovenian studies over the past 150 years: the German and the Pan-Slavic (Russian) Historical Schools. Each sought to establish its own cultural hegemony over strategically and economically important tracts of real estate, including the Slovenian homeland.

"Veneti, the book under review, comes to mount a serious, well-substantiated challenge both to the official occidental (German) and oriental (Russian) histories of not only Slovenian cultural and linguistic development but indeed of Europe itself."

He continues: "A Proto-Slavic speech community had divided into Proto-West Slavic and Proto-East Slavic dialects some time before the formation of the Lusatian Culture (ca. 1300-ca. 1100 B.C.E.) and had also extended throughout a great part of Western and Central Europe and as far as Paphlagonia, the northern coast of Asia Minor. There, according to Homer (11. ii, 85), they (hoi Henetoi) specialized in the breeding of 'wild mules.' �avli's valid findings from his analysis of European toponymy (Veneti, 13-47) adequately establish an infra-structural Slavic presence throughout these regions. This conclusion is equally supported by Bor's chapter, 'Similarity of the Slovene, Latvian, and Breton Words.' (Veneti, 324-33 1) The reviewer has also carried out the homework for this independently, inducing him to inevitable concurrence with Bor's results. The significance of Bor's discovery of a layer of Slavic loanwords in Breton cannot be overstated.... Bor has clearly established the existence of Slavic loans in Breton and this fact strongly suggests that prior to the arrival in Armorica of the Brythonic (Insular P-Celtic) speaking refugees fleeing the Saxon invasions of South Britain, the indigenous Venetic population had indeed been Slavic. That a knowledge of Slovenian dialectology enabled Bor to proceed in his analysis is itself of importance."

Professor Bryant-Abraham takes note of another important and interesting detail: "Furthermore, we can henceforth assert that St. Jerome, born ca. 347 at Stridon, near modem Ljubljana, very probably spoke the Slavic regional dialect (Venetic), for in his Commentary to Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians (see Veneti, p. 463), he explains the name Tychicus as 'Tychicus enim silens interpretatur,' 'Tychicus actually means silent.' The Slovenian adjective tih, �tix], means 'silent' and emerges as a highly probable Venetic loan into St. Jerome's Latin, which would have suffixed the adjectival desinence -icus.

"We discover that Etruscan inscriptions betray a gradual process of linguistic fusion (akin to that of Anglo-Saxon and Norman French) upon an earlier Slavic substrat, extant prior to the arrival of the Lydian or Hittite immigration. Again here, it is a knowledge of Slovenian dialectology that allowed Bor to decipher the earlier inscriptions. "We are brought to appreciate the fact that it is specifically Slovenian dialectology that provides the missing key to a meaningful reading of early Venetic, Phrygian, Rhaetian, and Yapodic inscriptions, even permitting a partial reconstruction of Venetic grammar. The task had facilely eluded every preceding Venetologist and, for his pioneering achievement in this field, the reviewer would advance the candidacy of Matej Bor for academic acclaim." (Veneti, 174-420).

Professor Bryant-Abraham further comments: "The problem had heretofore maintained its intransigence simply because no Venetologist had yet brought into the arena a thorough working knowledge of Slovenian dialectology. Specifically herein resides the genius of Bor's contribution."

Those who seriously wish to examine this problem point by point will find Veneti: First Builders of European Community very helpful. The most thorough work in the English language on the Venetic theory and its relation to the modem Slovenes, Veneti presents a wide selection of details on every aspect of the subject covered by Professors Bernard and Bryant-Abraham.

Originally posted by Magedon Sorry akritas - those are names of writers - not sources. Sources is what i am giving you all the time in the 4 above posts of mine. And i will never watch my language with a subhuman who still have the audacity to tell ME that MY name is firom!!! Its like ME trying to convince YOU what number of shoes you wear and what was your granma's name...

Edited by akritas - 03-Jun-2007 at 06:32

to the other members, please ignore this troll.