Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedMagnificent article about ancient Macedonia

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>
Author
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 884
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Magnificent article about ancient Macedonia
    Posted: 15-Jun-2008 at 05:09
"Yugoslavian communism, Greek fascism! Here's two! Russian Stalinism! Three! Cool"
 
Throwing isms around now too. First off how did the Yugoslav communists benefit from the migration? It was Tito that invented your history to begin with. "Macedonia" was known as Vardraska before that. Greek fascism? Please spare me. Russian Stalinism? How? If slavs were always in the balkans that served for their purpose. I remember for many years they tried telling Romanians they spoke a slavic language and were slavs not latins.
 
"How would you know that! Blood thirsty! :) The book emphasizes that there were no Slavic settlements! The forts were there build in Byzantine style! Which meant that Byzantium was sponsoring the construction of buildings in continuity! There is not a break in development, so to say that after the Slavs "invaded" to have a change in architecture from the Byzantine type into Slavic! Unless you suggest that Byzantium was paying the Slavs to build their cities in Byzantine style!"

If they were blood thirsty like the huns and avars they wouldn't have been invited to settle the Balkans. And what byzantine style? Like BE says you are just throwing terms around. And even if this was true what makes you think that the Slavs would remodel the forts?
 
"It was rather a Solunian Slavic! The language spoken in Solun which was pure Slavic according to the earliest Slavic sources! Macedonian is what we call it today that is true! It was not invented decades ago! It just received a status as separate language at that time, after centuries of oppression!"
 
Oh please. Even your ex president said that you have nothing in common with the Ancient Macedonians and that you are slavs. Macedonian slavic language is more or less Bulgarian mixed with some Serb. Even the French who visted the area toward WW1 said there were Bulgarians, Serbs and Greeks living there. No independent Macedonian people.
 
"That reveals a lot about your biasness I guess! By the way who are the FYROMers! Aliens? "
 
You are. But I think Vardraski fits better.
 
"That indeed reveals your "pacifistic" agenda! Thanks for the idea it is already an old one and it failed! The Republic of Macedonia is the proof!!!"
 
Better then some fantasy history with goals of "greater macedonia" look at the youtube vid. Look what you are teaching your children. You tell me that is peaceful.
 
And actually it did work, it only failed because Tito took Vardraska from the Serbs and made it its own country.
Back to Top
Petro Invictus View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
permanently banned

Joined: 23-Nov-2007
Location: Macedonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 02:58
Wolf! You have a rather mixed up understanding of ethnic, political, linguistic and cultural identities!

Yugoslav communists prevented nationalism within its republics by creating a false "common" identity for all the "Yugoslavians", a political identity that failed, since it existed on a totally unnatural grounds, basing its coherence on the supposed Slavic migrations! It abused historiography, and neglected archeology in order to sustain the national identity it created as Yugoslavian (South Slavic)! Today if you take a look at the national histories of almost all the South Slavic peoples, you would be surprised how diverse the ethnic backgrounds of these people were!

Slavic is a linguistic identity! Not an ethnic one!

Greek fascism was something that culminated in Metaxa's rule, while it took it roots much earlier, with the Megali Idea, that has unfortunately survived in modern times, vested into modern Greek "democracy".

Russians loved the idea of being the motherland of the Slavic world, therefore preferred the migration theory, since it put Kiev region as the central homeland of proto-Slavic tribes. Today we know this simply isn't true!

Byzantine style forts Wolf! Quite distinguishable from Slavic strongholds!

Florin Curta suggest that:

There is simply no evidence for the idea that the inhabitants of the sixth and early seventh-century settlements in Romania, Moldova, and Ukraine were colonists from the North.

Nor does the idea of a “Slavic tide” covering the Balkans in the early 600s fit the existing archaeological data. South of the Danube river, no archaeological assemblage comparable to those found north of that river produced any clear evidence for a date earlier than c. 700.

Moreover:

- Evidence of an early phase of subdivision and encroachment also comes from several Macedonian cities. At Stobi, large palatial residences with elaborate courtyards with decorated fountains, floors with pavements of mosaic or opus sectile, and walls covered with frescoes and, occasionally, mosaics, were still in use in the early 500s.

In other words there is a continuation of cultural life in Macedonian cities and no indication of Slavic intrusion which would influence the life in the cities.

As suggested in Chapter 3, the Sclavene ethnicity is likely to have been an invention of Byzantine authors, despite the possibility, which is often stressed by linguistically minded historians, that the name itself was derived from the self-designation of an ethnic group. It is interesting to note that this ethnic name (slovene) appeared much later and only on the periphery of the Slavic linguistic area, at the interface with linguistically different groups. Was language, then, as Soviet ethnographers had it, the “precondition for the rise of ethnic communities”? In the case of the Slavic ethnie, the answer must be negative, for a variety of reasons.

Byzantine authors seem to have used “Sclavenes” and “Antes” to make sense of the process of group identification which was taking place under their own eyes just north of the Danube frontier. They were, of course, interested more in the military and political consequences of this process than in the analysis of Slavic ethnicity.

The making of the Slavs was less a matter of ethnogenesis and more one of invention, imagining and labeling by Byzantine authors. Some form of group identity, however, which we may arguably call ethnicity, was growing out of the historical circumstances following the fortification of the Danube limes. This was therefore an identity formed in the shadow of Justinian’s forts, not in the Pripet marshes. There are good reasons to believe that this identity was much more complex than the doublet “Sclavenes-Antes” imposed by the Byzantine historiography.

Book II of the Miracles of St Demetrius and Fredegar’s chronicle give us a
measure of this complexity. That no “Slavs” called themselves by this name not only indicates that no group took on the label imposed by outsiders, but also suggests that this label was more a pedantic construction than the result of systematic interaction across ethnic boundaries. The first clear statement that “we are Slavs” comes from the twelfth-century Russian Primary Chronicle.24 With this chronicle, however, the making of the Slavs ends and another story begins: that of their “national” use for claims to ancestry.

"It was rather a Solunian Slavic! The language spoken in Solun which was pure Slavic according to the earliest Slavic sources! Macedonian is what we call it today that is true! It was not invented decades ago! It just received a status as separate language at that time, after centuries of oppression!"
 
Oh please. Even your ex president said that you have nothing in common with the Ancient Macedonians and that you are slavs. Macedonian slavic language is more or less Bulgarian mixed with some Serb. Even the French who visted the area toward WW1 said there were Bulgarians, Serbs and Greeks living there. No independent Macedonian people.


What does our ex-president have to do with the earliest Slavic written record, given by Methodius himself! It was him who said that all the Solunians spoke pure Slavic! Many of them still do!

Our ex-president's political agenda, deriving from Yugoslavian communistic agenda, is the only asset you have against the identity of modern day Macedonians, and it is still a wrong assumption both him and you make! Slavic is a linguistic identity, something like saying that both English, Danish and German are Germanic people, simply because they speak Germanic languages. They are certainly ethnically diverse to a great extent.

The French who visited the area in the WW1 were laymen when it came to identity and their reports reflected the policy of the time, which was clearly a division of Macedonia!

The Americans knew better at the time, therefore all their media cover the issue with the Macedonians more realistically. They reveal the Macedonian ethnic identity in true light:

http://www.vest.com.mk/default.asp?id=150547&idg=8&idb=2356&rubrika=Makedonija



"That reveals a lot about your biasness I guess! By the way who are the FYROMers! Aliens? "
 
You are. But I think Vardraski fits better.


But that is what you think! And those like you only! I wonder what are you going to do with the FYROMers after the name dispute is settled down with? Are you going to make a Sci-Fi movie with them? How do you imagine them?

I am certainly a Macedonian. I don't know what you envision me like but I assure you I am a human!

Teaching our kids about the historical truth with the goal of understanding the democratic processes of the present, which is rather different from your medieval understanding of democracy and minority rights in your own country, is much more pacifistic than to tell other people what their identity should be, and to deny violations of human rights within a state that proclaims as "cradle of modern democracy", suggesting division of a free and democratic country such is the Republic of Macedonia. You promote conflict man! How can that be a pacifistic approach! Greater Macedonia! ha ha ha

We have a European agenda. Hello!!! Who can even dream of a Great Balkan state in modern days! Even the Albanians have got it! It is just a dream for some hot shots! The Greeks however, haven't abandoned the Megali Idea. and that is obvious in your case...

 

 






...BRINGER OF THE DAWN...
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 884
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 03:10
"Yugoslav communists prevented nationalism within its republics by creating a false "common" identity for all the "Yugoslavians", a political identity that failed, since it existed on a totally unnatural grounds, basing its coherence on the supposed Slavic migrations! It abused historiography, and neglected archeology in order to sustain the national identity it created as Yugoslavian (South Slavic)! Today if you take a look at the national histories of almost all the South Slavic peoples, you would be surprised how diverse the ethnic backgrounds of these people were! "
 
But even if Slavs had always been in the balkans the Yugoslav south slav unity does not change one way or another. I see more similarities between the south slavs then differences.
 
"Russians loved the idea of being the motherland of the Slavic world, therefore preferred the migration theory, since it put Kiev region as the central homeland of proto-Slavic tribes. Today we know this simply isn't true!"
 
How do you know they loved anything?
 
Today we know it isn't true? Who is we? You and the other FYROMers maybe. No one else thinks slavs have always been in the balkans. Why is there no mention of them then? Where was the great Roman/Slavic war when they took over? Where is your alphabet? Your books? Your stories? Your engravings?
 
Sorry but all your points are weak at best and repeating the non sense of some crack pot that managed to get a book deal doesn't make any of this true.
 
The American article mentions a Macedonia and that region was called Macedonia...by the Turks. But true Macedonia is in Greece. Nobody in the real Macedonia says "We're actually slavic and not greek and alexander was a slav." And your history book teaches that that is your land. Complete fantasy.
Back to Top
Byzantine Emperor View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios

Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1800
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 03:24
Originally posted by Petro Invictus

Byzantine style forts Wolf! Quite distinguishable from Slavic strongholds!
 
It looks like you are describing actual towns or cities and not strongholds.  What is the Byzantine Greek word that is used to describe these "forts?"
 
Originally posted by Petro Invictus

Florin Curta suggest that:

There is simply no evidence for the idea that the inhabitants of the sixth and early seventh-century settlements in Romania, Moldova, and Ukraine were colonists from the North.

Nor does the idea of a “Slavic tide” covering the Balkans in the early 600s fit the existing archaeological data. South of the Danube river, no archaeological assemblage comparable to those found north of that river produced any clear evidence for a date earlier than c. 700.
 
Which study by Florin Curta are you paraphrasing here?  It would be helpful for us to know in case we want to look up the source. 
 
Could it also be that the extant archaeological data from these regions are just sparse to begin with?  I am sure many of the sites were destroyed by classical archaeologists who did not care about any Byzantine or Slavic artifacts they found and wanted to get to the ancient objects below them.  Do we really have enough evidence to make these conclusions?
 
Originally posted by Petro Invictus

Byzantine authors seem to have used “Sclavenes” and “Antes” to make sense of the process of group identification which was taking place under their own eyes just north of the Danube frontier. They were, of course, interested more in the military and political consequences of this process than in the analysis of Slavic ethnicity.

The making of the Slavs was less a matter of ethnogenesis and more one of invention, imagining and labeling by Byzantine authors. Some form of group identity, however, which we may arguably call ethnicity, was growing out of the historical circumstances following the fortification of the Danube limes. This was therefore an identity formed in the shadow of Justinian’s forts, not in the Pripet marshes. There are good reasons to believe that this identity was much more complex than the doublet “Sclavenes-Antes” imposed by the Byzantine historiography.
 
You need to cite the exact source here Petro.  These are not your words and just citing "Chapter 3" is not enough.
 
Back to Top
Petro Invictus View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
permanently banned

Joined: 23-Nov-2007
Location: Macedonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 03:38
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

 But even if Slavs had always been in the balkans the Yugoslav south slav unity does not change one way or another. I see more similarities between the south slavs then differences.
 


Wrong! Go and tell that to the Croats and Serbs!!! Or to the Montenegrin! We may share common linguistic features, but rather different ethnic backgrounds.

"Russians loved the idea of being the motherland of the Slavic world, therefore preferred the migration theory, since it put Kiev region as the central homeland of proto-Slavic tribes. Today we know this simply isn't true!"
 
How do you know they loved anything?


Confused Well sure they must have loved their wives at least!?!?Wink

No one else thinks slavs have always been in the balkans. Why is there no mention of them then? Where was the great Roman/Slavic war when they took over? Where is your alphabet? Your books? Your stories? Your engravings?


No one else! I think it is only you who haven't heard the news. The Slovenian academy thinks so. They have promoted the study of Venetology which supports this view:

http://www.carantha.net/world_slovenian_congress_on_venetology_at_ptuj_castle.htm

"The discovery of Venets, who were not only the ancestors of Slovenians, but also of other nations, especially in Central Europe, brought a real shock to the currant explanation of European history. The interpretation, that was formed on the presumption of ancient nations: Romans, Germans and Slavs, are only ideological constructs based on languages. Ethnology, archeology and other sciences have not yet discovered such original nations. The subject on Venets, after the publication of the English version of the book, "Veneti, our Ancient Ancestors", written by authors Šavli, Tomazic and Bor, has spread around the world from America over Europe to Russia and Australia and it is not possible to ignore it any longer."

Americans also think that Slav speaking people have always inhabited the Balkans. Florin Curta is one for sure!

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=105502706

Russian Academy also supports the fact that the ancient Macedonians were Slav speaking!

http://www.mia.com.mk/portal/page?_pageid=113,166290&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&VestID=44953631&prikaz=24&cat=6

"St. Petersburg, May 13 (MIA) - The Russians and other Slavs didn't migrate from the north to the south, instead they originated from the south and moved to the north, claimed Russian academician Valery Chudinov, who takes part at the first intenational congress titled "Pre-Cyrillic Literacy and Pre-Christian Culture among Slavs", being held in Pushkin near St. Petersburg, Russia.

Two Macedonian authors, academician Tome Bosevski and Aristotel Tentov PhD, presented their work at the congress on deciphering the middle text inscribed on the Rosetta Stone, alongside the ancient Egyptian and Greek languages, the so called Demotic language, which the Macedonian scholars claim is an ancient Macedonian alphabet and it's most probably pre-Slavic."

Sorry but all your points are weak at best and repeating the non sense of some crack pot that managed to get a book deal doesn't make any of this true.


Sorry but you seem to have lost track with time and need a bit of updating! It hurts your feelings but it is science and accepted by the scientific world, not mere propaganda based on 19th century historiography, which is to a great extent falsely interpreted, and nowadays abandoned by most serious scholars.

The American article mentions a Macedonia and that region was called Macedonia...by the Turks. But true Macedonia is in Greece.


Read the article again. IT says: "Macedonian chief's death", and the in the link it says: "Greeks betray Macedonians"! I guess the true Macedonia is in Banjica where Goce Delchev was killed, which is currently in the Republic of Macedonia! Or better say, the true Macedonia is all three parts, Pirin, Aegean and the Republic of Macedonia... capisci?










...BRINGER OF THE DAWN...
Back to Top
Petro Invictus View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
permanently banned

Joined: 23-Nov-2007
Location: Macedonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 03:42
Why is there no mention of them then? Where was the great Roman/Slavic war when they took over? Where is your alphabet? Your books? Your stories? Your engravings?


But there is. Have you heard of Kokino?

I am going to that place next week! It is a megalithic observatory in Macedonia. I heard there were excavations going on at the site and there are many new artifacts that need to be recorded! They have found inscriptions similar to those of the VINCA and DANUBE cultures which date as far as 6000 BC.

Take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin%C4%8Da_culture

"The Vinča Culture derives its name from the village of Vinča, located on the banks of Danube, 14 km downstream from Belgrade (at the 1145th nautical kilometer), where one of the largest and most significant prehistoric Neolithic settlements in Eastern Europe was discovered in 1908 by a archaeological excavation team led by Miloje M. Vasić, the first schooled archeologist in Serbia."

"The Neolithic settlers of Vinča ascribed great importance to spiritual life as is reflected by the enormous number of cult objects (figurines, sacrificial dishes, anthropomorphic and zoomorphic dishes). Their artistic and stylistic development was conditioned by the teachings of old settlers, as well as by contacts with neighboring peoples and their beliefs. Anthropomorphic figurines have a characteristic dignified stance and their number (over 1000 examples at Vinča alone) exceeds the total number of figurines discovered in the Greek Aegean. Shrines were discovered in Par
a Transylvania with complex architectural designs. Some figurines and ceramic dishes discovered in the broad region spanning from Gornja Tuzla to Tǎrtǎria bear signs which some scholars suppose to be primitive forms of writing (see Old European Script). Indeed, if the inscriptions on the Tǎrtǎria tablets are pictograms, as Vlassa argued, they would be the earliest known writing in the world. This claim however remains controversial; most experts consider the Tǎrtǎria finds to be an example of PROTO-WRITING rather than a full writing system."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing_system#Proto-writing

Now, there are scientists who have managed to find a STRIKING similarity between these PROTO-WRITING signs and modern day CYRILLIC script. Take a look at the following study by Vasil Iljov:

http://www.unet.com.mk/ancient-macedonians-part2/spomenici-e.htm





These are very old findings some of which dating as far as 7000 BC.

Now, the issue with the Cyrillic is that it is falsely believed, like everything else, that it derives from the Greek! In fact we know that the Greek derives from the Phoenician script, which on the other hand is dated as far as the 1400's BC.

The Vinca culture shows a much older SCRIPT dated as far as 6000 BC. IT is more logical to say that the Phoenicians, and then consequently the Greeks have taken the alphabet (the phonetic one) from the people of the Vinca culture, rather than the other way round.

To this we can add the mysterious RUENICA SCRIPT, found on the wooden bar no.15 from the wooden book from 567 A.D. with the author's name and surname T'rp Ruen, which resembles the Cyrillic script to a great extent:





This shows that the Vinca script has been in continuous use on the Balkans prior to the introduction of the Cyrillic script by Ss.Clement and Naum of Ohrid, who called this script Cyrillic in honor of their teacher Ss.Cyril of Salonika!

Here are some other artifacts bearing the same Vinca script dated from various periods!!!

http://www.unet.com.mk/ancient-macedonians-part2/spomenici5-e.htm

http://www.unet.com.mk/ancient-macedonians-part2/spomenici6-e.htm

http://www.unet.com.mk/ancient-macedonians-part2/spomenici10-e.htm

The most striking of all artifacts, that I have used as a motif in my poetry book titled as Living Rock, is the following, found on a clay plate in Gradesnica a village in south-west Macedonia, which according to Marija Gimbutas, dates back to c.5000 BC. According to Bulgarian archaeologists, it dates back to c. 3500 BC.:





http://www.unet.com.mk/ancient-macedonians-part2/spomenici11-e.htm

http://www.prehistory.it/fase2/gradesnica.htm

They call it the Gradesnica script in some circles:

http://arheologie.ulbsibiu.ro/publicatii/ats/ats5/2merlini.htm

Well, if we compare this ANCIENT script with the modern day Cyrillic we get a message that goes like this:

"HIDE NOW
PEOPLE, BAD AS DOGS
WHO COME DISGUISED,
ARE COMING AGAIN"

In original:

Skrij se s'g
Loshi ljudi ps'ni
koi inji idu
shire id't p'g

Or in modern day Macedonian:

Skirij se sega
loshi lugje pseta
koi poinakvi idat
shirum idat pak

This message is at least 5000 years old!!!

To this we can add the fact that the Glagollic script introduced by the Solunian brothers did not take roots in the Slavic world. It was only installed in the Ohrid school, probably to pose as a mask for the true mission of the Slavic teachers, which was to revive an even more ancient script such as the Vinca script, or the Gradesnica script, or the Ruenica script, or in a single phrase "the ancient Macedonian script". However the reconstructed ancient script, which was probably in secret use by the mystics of the ancient times, was well accepted by the Slavic speaking world due to its magical implication!

Let me clarify!

And this is purely my standpoint: I believe that the brothers form Solun when they were given the mission to teach the Bible in Slavic to the people of Moravia, they had to develop a new script! This was due to the fact that the tri-linguals, or the priesthood that supported the use of the three holy scripts only, i.e. the Jewish, Greek and Latin, would strongly oppose the use of an ANCIENT, or as observed in those rigid Christian times, a PAGAN script such as the Cyrillic, or the Gradesnica script!

Now, the brothers were clever and they managed to convince the Pope in Rome that the Glagollic was not much different from the Greek script, and therefore of Divine nature, suitable for the Word of God to be preached to the pagans in Moravia in their language! The Pope agreed to let the brothers preach the Bible in Slavic written with the Glagollic, and the Ohrid school took up the task of being the center for the Glagollic literacy!

While the Solunian brothers were spreading the Glagollic, at the SAME TIME, their students were "simplifying" the Glagollic into what is today known as the Cyrillic script! However, the Cyrillic had to spread and take roots away from the eyes of the tri-linguals, because if they noticed that the Macedonian priests were teaching the Bible in a PAGAN script, they would condemn their work and force the Pope to do the same! This would have been tragic to the Christian mission of the brothers and the Macedonian priests, their students, Clement and Naum of Ohrid!

Therefore, Cyril's students were instructed to offer the "new" script, or the pagan script, later to be known as Cyrillic, to the Bulgarian Khan Boris, who was of Tatar or Mongolic origin, very alien to the Byzantine Christian society, and who was facing the risk to lose his kingdom on behalf of the Byzantine Christianity, on the grounds that he was a pagan, moreover, an Asiatic one, who would probably earn the hostility of all Christians as such.

Therefore, Clement managed to convince the Khan to convert into Christianity and take the Cyrillic script as an official script of his new Christian Kingdom, in this way avoiding direct influence from Byzantium, and securing independent existence of his kingdom, within the family of Christian societies of Europe, at that time.

While to the Bulgarian Mongolic King, the Christening was a political move, to the Macedonian priests it was a spiritual mission to preserve an ancient script, used in the region since ages forgotten, and in that way to give sounding to the most ancient of all the languages that have been preserved in its purest form, the Macedonian language!!!

Clever, isn't it? :)

In this way the mission of the Macedonian priests was to preserve both the SCRIPT and the LANGUAGE of the ancient Macedonians, in the secluded Bulgarian society until better times arrive for all the people to know the implication of this holy mission!!!

Now, the implication of this comes after asking the question: What did the brothers from Solun and their students from Ohrid KNOW about this script, the Cyrillic, that forced them to go through this admirable odyssey, in order for us to enjoy the privilege of speaking the most ancient of all languages and use the most ancient of all the scripts!!!

My personal opinion is that they knew its origins better then we do!

Isn't this enough of our alphabet, books, stories engravings over the millenia?









...BRINGER OF THE DAWN...
Back to Top
Petro Invictus View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
permanently banned

Joined: 23-Nov-2007
Location: Macedonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 03:51
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor

Originally posted by Petro Invictus

Byzantine style forts Wolf! Quite distinguishable from Slavic strongholds!
 
It looks like you are describing actual towns or cities and not strongholds.  What is the Byzantine Greek word that is used to describe these "forts?"


I am not describing anything, Florin Curta is. Maybe you should ask the question to him?

I gave you the link to his e-book!

Here it is again:

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=105502706

Do read it! It is very interesting. Wink

Could it also be that the extant archaeological data from these regions are just sparse to begin with?  I am sure many of the sites were destroyed by classical archaeologists who did not care about any Byzantine or Slavic artifacts they found and wanted to get to the ancient objects below them.  Do we really have enough evidence to make these conclusions?


I am sure this book will expand your understanding of the issue with the Slavic linguistic identity. All archaeological evidence is well documented in it.

Hmmmm! Many of the sites were destroyed!?! By whom? In order to get to the objects in lower layers one inevitably would first record those closer to the surface, and I don't think any serious archaeologist would destroy any finding at all. It all contributes to better understanding of the subject matter.

You've got the source! I suggest you study it really well!

Cheers


Edited by Petro Invictus - 16-Jun-2008 at 03:52


...BRINGER OF THE DAWN...
Back to Top
Byzantine Emperor View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios

Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1800
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 04:05
Originally posted by Petro Invictus

I am not describing anything, Florin Curta is. Maybe you should ask the question to him?

I gave you the link to his e-book!

Here it is again:

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=105502706

Do read it! It is very interesting.
 
The site will not let me read the past the first page.  Anyways, if you agree with the source so much and are subscribing to Curta's views, why can't you answer my question?  Is it because I am asking about the Byzantine portion of your argument and not going around and around about the "Slavic migration?"
 
Originally posted by Petro Invictus

I am sure this book will expand your understanding of the issue with the Slavic linguistic identity. All archaeological evidence is well documented in it.

Hmmmm! Many of the sites were destroyed!?! By whom? In order to get to the objects in lower layers one inevitably would first record those closer to the surface, and I don't think any serious archaeologist would destroy any finding at all. It all contributes to better understanding of the subject matter.

You've got the source! I suggest you study it really well!
 
Well, in an ideal world the archaeologists would preserve the top layers and write about it too.  But if you know anything about Byzantine archaeology, a good deal of the material from the middle and late periods has been destroyed by marauding classical archaeologists who only care about the ancient Greek artifacts.
 
Also, please do not patronize me about the Slavic linguistic identity.  My question concerned what you wrote about Byzantine "forts."  Again, refer to my reply above.
 
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 884
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 04:39
Fine, but everything is non sense because you can't link the Vinca culture to the Slavs. The Tartaria tablets were found in Transilvania btw, Thracian (specifically Dacian) land.
 
Some Slovenian academy and some academy in St Petersburg agreeing with this insane non sense doesn't make it true.
 
The Cyril brothers invented the alphabet, are you telling me they lied? Or perhaps they used a time machine?
 
You're claiming that the slavs are actually the Thracians and completely ignoring that group. Where is the slavic linguistic influence of the area? I mean you're theory has more holes in it the the plot of some crappy 80s tv series.
Back to Top
Petro Invictus View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
permanently banned

Joined: 23-Nov-2007
Location: Macedonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 12:50
The site will not let me read the past the first page.  Anyways, if you agree with the source so much and are subscribing to Curta's views, why can't you answer my question?  Is it because I am asking about the Byzantine portion of your argument and not going around and around about the "Slavic migration?"


Try the ">" arrows on the right side! You also have the contents to the left. Here is the site once again, you may start from there:

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=105502706

Well, in an ideal world the archaeologists would preserve the top layers and write about it too.  But if you know anything about Byzantine archaeology, a good deal of the material from the middle and late periods has been destroyed by marauding classical archaeologists who only care about the ancient Greek artifacts.


Hmmmm! It is a shame that the archeology in Greece was so selective! In Macedonia they DO record in detail about all layers. They DO preserve the top layers findings too. They are not politically motivated to dig only a certain period. They are professionals and they usually work in cooperation with the world archaeological institutions.

Take a look at the following excavations on the Skopje Kale (fort):

http://arheoblog.blogspot.com/2007/04/archaeologists-start-exploring-skopje.html

"There is detailed evidence from the Middle Ages, the Ottoman period, there are many written sources and photographs of the Kale. We should define the beginning of life in this area, because archaeological evidence so far is much comprehensive. The oldest records should date from the Bronze Age. Also, this site offered settling opportunities in all the metal periods. We have certain evidence dated from the Iron Ages and early antiquity, from the Early Byzantine period. There is no evidence on the Roman Age because Skupi was the centre at the time, and marble blocks were brought from there and embedded in the Kale walls. So far, the walls are the main element where different constructing techniques and different material originating from different periods are recorded. Our task is to verify the periods with cultural layers,” Mitrevski, the head of the excavations said.

http://www.skopskokale.com.mk/en/researh207.php

http://www.skopskokale.com.mk/en/aboutus.php

Also, please do not patronize me about the Slavic linguistic identity.  My question concerned what you wrote about Byzantine "forts."  Again, refer to my reply above.


I do not patronize you at all. I am merely suggesting you expand your understanding on the issue.

What was your question again?





...BRINGER OF THE DAWN...
Back to Top
Petro Invictus View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
permanently banned

Joined: 23-Nov-2007
Location: Macedonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 13:16
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

Fine, but everything is non sense because you can't link the Vinca culture to the Slavs. The Tartaria tablets were found in Transilvania btw, Thracian (specifically Dacian) land.


Non sense! Because it doesn't suit someone's political agenda? Come on!

Vinca culture is surely related to the Slavic speaking inhabitants of Macedonia!

Take a look again:



The Vinca culture corresponds to the ancient Macedonians, and the Hybrid Balkanic cultures to the Thracians!

Now, the Gradeshnica plate that was excavated in the Republic of Macedonia, according to Marija Gimbutas, dates back to c.5000 BC. According to Bulgarian archaeologists, it dates back to c. 3500 BC. Surely it belonged to the Vinca culture!



The symbols on it resemble those of the Cyrillic:



IF you read from right to left it has the symbol for:

С,К,Р,I,J,E,Г,Л... as they exist in Cyrillic.

Check it out:





Moreover, this script can be found on rocks all over Macedonia, meaning the Vinca script never disappeared, it was rather abandoned by the Christian world.





Another interesting find is this wooden bar no.15 from the wooden book from 567 A.D. with kept author's name and surname T'rp Ruen.



This script shows that the Cyrillic alphabet was in use by the people prior to its being made official by the students of Ss.Cyril and Methodius.

So you cannot say that: "The Cyril brothers invented the alphabet."

They invented the Glagollic which was ruled out soon after the Cyrillic was introduced. The Cyrillic being a reformed ancient alphabet used ever since the Vinca culture, some 5000 before.

You're claiming that the slavs are actually the Thracians and completely ignoring that group. Where is the slavic linguistic influence of the area? I mean you're theory has more holes in it the the plot of some crappy 80s tv series.


The Thracians were descendants of the Hybrid Balkan cultures. They must have used the same language and script as the Vinca did, however were ethnically diverse from the Vinca cultures.

That is the only explanation to the fact that the Bulgarians speak a Slavic language today, along with the intrusion of the Cyrillic in their society by the literary  mission of the Macedonian priests of the time, people like Clement of Ohrid.

The minority of the Bulgarian state, the Bulgars themselves were of Tatar origin, however, the majority were of Thracian! They all spoke the Slavic language.




...BRINGER OF THE DAWN...
Back to Top
Petro Invictus View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
permanently banned

Joined: 23-Nov-2007
Location: Macedonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 13:19
The terminology of "Slavs-Antes", was an invention by the Byzantine scholars, in attempt to deal with the group identity of the population that spoke a similar language. Again a linguistic identity NOT and ethnic one.

Florin Curta:

"Byzantine authors seem to have used “Sclavenes” and “Antes” to make sense of the process of group identification which was taking place under their own eyes just north of the Danube frontier."

This analogy can be drawn:

Vinca cultures=ancient Macedonians (in Classical and Hellenistic times)=Slavs (in the middle ages, by Byzantine authors)=modern day Macedonians

Hybrid Balkan cultures=Thracians (in Classical times)=Antes (in the middle ages)=modern day Bulgarians

Serbians were a Slav speaking tribe that populated the Danube region prior to the intrusion of the Avars and the Huns.

They split up in two, Lusatian Serbs to the north, and the Balkan Serbs to the south.






Edited by Petro Invictus - 16-Jun-2008 at 13:24


...BRINGER OF THE DAWN...
Back to Top
Petro Invictus View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
permanently banned

Joined: 23-Nov-2007
Location: Macedonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 13:31
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

The Tartaria tablets were found in Transilvania btw, Thracian (specifically Dacian) land.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartaria_tablets

"The tablets are generally believed to have belonged to the Vinča culture, which at the time was believed by Serbian and Romanian archaeologists to have originated around 2700 BC."

OR the following:

"The Danube Script appeared some 7,000 years ago in the Danube valley: in Serbia, Kosovo-Metohija, Southern Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia and northern Greece. It flourished for one and a half millennia. Around 5,500 years ago, a social upheaval eclipsed this and other elements of the advanced culture of the Danube Civilization. Some researchers argue that there were devastating invasions of new populations from the steppes while others have hypothesised the imposition of new dominant elites."

" These three small, inscribed tablets started a debate that is challenging the conventional wisdom of European prehistory, because they have been dated from around 6.500 years ago.¹ Some scholars argue they date even earlier at 7,300 years old.² More prudent researchers, date the stones to 6,000-5,800 years ago. In any case, the astonishing question is did the South-eastern Neolithic Europe develop its own script before Sumeria and Egypt?"

http://www.prehistory.it/ftp/arta_populara01.htm

WOW! I wasn't aware of this fact at all! It turns out that the Neolithic cultures in the Balkans, the ancient Macedonians being descendant of them, were the earliest literacy founders worldwide. That is truly a remarkable finding!

 


...BRINGER OF THE DAWN...
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1813
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 19:45
Originally posted by Petro Inviticus


"For example, there is evidence that Greeks were unable to understand people who were makedonizein, "speaking Macedonian".


Ok, so you know what Makedonizein is or do you read on Maknews and believe immediately without confirming it? Before giving you some examples that render your claim invalid let me remind you that even if your assumption was right, that doesn't automatically render Macedonian as slavic.

So here we go...

You have the papyrous fragment PSI XII 1284 which mentions the phrase "Makedonizein tin phone". In the conflict between Eumenes and Neoptolemos.

In the conflict between Eumenes and Neoptolemos, eumenes as reported in the fragment, send for a second time Xennias "Aner makedonizon ti phone" to address the Makedonians. Eumenes didn't seem to have a problem speaking to the group of the Makedones. The best example is this when Eumenes moved his speech to the other side "allo plithos" (The Macedonian Phalanx). As Plutarch reports, the Makedones greeted Eumenes in Macedonian voice.

There you can see the direct switch of two parts, where people speak in their fashion but do not seem to have any problem understanding. So where do you see the translator Petro?

The example of Makedonisti/Makedonizein can be compared to the word Attikisti in Demosthenes "Yper Megalopoliton". Does that make Attic non Greek, or Greek with Attic fashion Petro?

Plutarch again mentions "ti phone lakonizon" when speaking of Mandrokleidas". Does that mean that Lakonians did not speak Greek or with Southern Doric fashion?

Arrian has an example of a man from Boiotia who approaches Alexander and addresses him "Boiotiazonta ama ti phone" but what follows in standard Greek, since the dialect cannot be reproduced. That is a key point of where I wanted to get...

In Cyprus as you know they speak Koine Greek but have the Arcadocypriot accent still in their speech. Here is the Cypriot News Agency site: http://www.cna.org.cy/website/

I can translate and understand every single word of it without a problem at all. Even a webtranslator would flawlessly traslate the texts to english. Both Cypriots and Greeks of Hellas write exactly the same, in Koine or Greek demotic if you wish. We don't speak the same though and to attend a dialect of cyrpiots can be a hard task for lets say an Athenian. The same goes for people speaking Calabrian Greek (Italy), Pontic Greek (Anatolia), Marianoupolitan (Black Sea) and the list goes on. That means, that whatever might be written by Macedonians in Koine (and not just that) doesn't represent the dialect, even if a Doric language was in use.

Many Greeks for example may say chourio instead of chorio (village), psoumi instead of psomi (bread), koulieandros instead of koliandros (a spice). However, noone would write it down as pronounced in their dialect.

Now go to http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_txt again and enter these two words:

- φωνή
- γλώσσα

The first one will translate as voice and the second as language. "Makedonizein tin phone" would then translate "Macedonian voice", not language ofcourse. Here you don't have an example like the Phaeakes of Korkyra who are δίγλωσσοι (speaking 2 languages) according to Strabo.



Originally posted by Petro Inviticus


Sure you do not imply that Alexander and his Macedonians spoke a (Doric) Macedonian (?!?) which was unintelligible to the Greeks who were of Doric descent!


Who were those Greeks you say where of Doric descent? Confused Let me tell you that I might be able to understand written Tsakonian (Spartan Doric), but I don't think I can easily understand when they speak, especially if the discussion goes on between two Tsakonians.

To answer what you said above, I will refer to Plutarch (Pyrrhus, 377.3)

"There were some also whom Pyrrhus himself sent into the camp; they pretended to be Macedonians, and said that now was the favourable time to rid themselves of Demetrius and his severity, by going over to Pyrrhus, a man who was gracious to the common folk and fond of his soldiers"
Now, as you see there was no problem for northwestern Greeks to pretend to be Macedonians and make the Macedonians to believe it was the favourable time to get rid of Demetrius.



Originally posted by Petro Inviticus


Hmmmm! It is a shame that the archeology in Greece was so selective! In Macedonia they DO record in detail about all layers.

.
.
.

Our task is to verify the periods with cultural layers,” Mitrevski, the head of the excavations said.



First, tell us how you can be so certain about archeology in Greece. Then it would be good to see you post something for once  that does not discredit Greece. Wink

Now, I very glad you quoted Mitrevski, cause his reports on archeology in your country is too good to be true and to be honest not even I would dare to be so certain about his Mycenaean Vardar Valley.




Originally posted by Petro Inviticus


The most striking of all artifacts, that I have used as a motif in my poetry book titled as Living Rock, is the following, found on a clay plate in Gradesnica a village in south-west Macedonia, which according to Marija Gimbutas, dates back to c.5000 BC. According to Bulgarian archaeologists, it dates back to c. 3500 BC.:



And ofcourse the Vinca script is a script not an alphabet. Even if it was, there's no way that through 7000years a language would remain the same by just excluding some consonants. Also that would contradict all logic you have used so far. Moreover, it is officially undeciphered.

Simply, if a civilization knows how to use an alphabet, no matter language, it wouldn't wait thousands of years to decide it is time for an alphabet of their own (or even let others do the job for them) nor would they be unable to write in their language. Look how i can write english in Greek.

ΜΠΑΪ ΡΙΝΤΙΝΓΚ ΔΙΣ ΙΝ ΓΚΡΕΕΚ, ΑΪ ΚΑΝ ΙΜΙΝΤΙΑΤΛΙ ΑΝ-ΝΤΕΡΣΤΕΝ-ΝΤ ΓΟΥΑΤ ΙΤ ΣΕΖ ΙΝ ΙΝΓΚΛΙΣ.

By reading this in Greek, I can imediately understand what it says in english.

Now, your claim would simply degrade the intelligence of those people by miles...

Also, I'm glad you included Gimbutas in your thread... Enjoy her following review on "A History of Macedonia. Vol. 1: Historical Geography and Prehistory"




Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1813
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 21:15
Damn, Indeed...Were is Maju btw? He did some good posts about early european cultures.

Btw, the map includes Thessaly and Chalkidiki as well. Sesklo and the neolithic findings in Chalkidiki are belong to the anatolian material culture, while Dimini is indeed another culture.


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 884
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 21:37

Thank you flipper for replying to that because I wouldn't have had the patience to wade through that sillyness. But I do have some comments:

 
Those letters you are posting up don't look Cyrillic to me. I don't know, i'm not fluent i'll admit but the shapes don't look like cyrillic to me.
 
The Thracians were the largest group of people in the world 2nd only to the Indians. But the way you are talking about these supposed Slavs in the Balkans pre 600s makes them out to be that group.
 
"Non sense! Because it doesn't suit someone's political agenda? Come on!

Vinca culture is surely related to the Slavic speaking inhabitants of Macedonia!"

What non sense? They were found in Transilvania. What is the political agenda? Romania wants your land or what? Vinca culture isn't related to the slavs. This is a fabrication by some crack pots and politically motivated historians.
Back to Top
Petro Invictus View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
permanently banned

Joined: 23-Nov-2007
Location: Macedonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 22:06
Originally posted by Flipper

Originally posted by Petro Inviticus


"For example, there is evidence that Greeks were unable to understand people who were makedonizein, "speaking Macedonian".


Ok, so you know what Makedonizein is or do you read on Maknews and believe immediately without confirming it? Before giving you some examples that render your claim invalid let me remind you that even if your assumption was right, that doesn't automatically render Macedonian as slavic.

So here we go...
.
.
.
There you can see the direct switch of two parts, where people speak in their fashion but do not seem to have any problem understanding. So where do you see the translator Petro?


Flipper! I am glad I see you spirited up in a fashion that will fuel up this debate further. First of all, before trying to discredit any of my posts, which you still haven't been able to, despite the fact that you have been using a whole library of documents that are either interpretations of earlier texts, or historical accounts recorded by people who did not really know what the language of the ancient Macedonians was, I have to point at the fact that the quote with the translators was taken from the very article in question by this thread:

"The Macedonian king Alexander the Great was not understood by the Greeks when he shouted an order in his native tongue and the Greek commander Eumenes needed a translator to address the soldiers of the Macedonian phalanx."

So please, do not ask me where I see the translator in this text, Flipper. I suggest you ask the author of the article him/herself. ( Jona Lendering, © 2005)

Now, in the conflict between Eumenes and Neoptolemos:

Eumenes reformed his troopers and returned to confront the enemy phalanx who "intending to make their appearance have the most fearful impact upon the cavalry, they advanced in close order; and the troops behind them, those who were cavalry, began to fire javelins where the opportunity offered in order to throw back the cavalry charge by means of the continuity of their barrage. When Eumenes saw the close locked formation of the Macedonian phalanx at its minimum extension and the men themselves heartened to venture every hazard, he sent Xennias once more, a man whose speech was Macedonian bidding him declare that he would not fight them frontally but would follow them with his cavalry and units of light troops and bar them from provisions."

PSI XII 1284:This quote comes from a papyrus fragment discovered, at Oxyrhynchus, early this century. Identified as a fragment of Arrian, it has been put in proper historical context by Bosworth 1978.

Now, Lucius Flavius Arrianus 'Xenophon' (ca. 86 - after 146), known in English as Arrian, and Arrian of Nicomedia, was a Greek historian, a public servant, a military commander and a philosopher of the Roman period.

He lived way after Alexander! And by that time he might have assumed what the language was that the Macedonians spoke. However, in this fragment, the implication of "a man whose speech was Macedonian" , might mean only one thing, that the man spoke Macedonian, a language that was distinct from the one Eumenes was using.

But that is not my focus here.

The languages you call:

"ti phone lakonizon"
"Boiotiazonta ama ti phone"

...might be two different dialects of Greek, as is Katharevousa which was an artificial language that was introduced to "purify" the Greek of post-Turkish times.

Let me clarify to those who might not be familiar with the issue:

http://www.helleniccomserve.com/demotic.html

"The unified Greek of today retains all the CONTRIBUTIONS of Katharevousa to the language but keeps the form and the grammar close to the spoken form. "In my own personal view," professor Mackridge said at the end of his article in the Athens News, "a recognition that Modern Greek is a language in itself, free of dependence on Ancient Greek, would be a genuine sign of pride and confidence a modern Greek identity.""

And what were the CONTRIBUTIONS of this ARTIFICIAL language that has influenced the Dimotiki of modern times:

"However, many grammatical and syntactical rules that Katharevousa had adopted, and much VOCABULARY from the Katharevousa strand, have come into contact with Dimotiki during the two centuries of its existence, so that the project's emphasis has made an observable CONTRIBUTION to the language as it is used today.[2]

One may suggest that the Modern Greek of today is NO LONGER the Dimotiki of old, but rather set midway between it and the traditional Katharevousa as stressed in the 19th century, with the concurrent and age-old influence of Koine Greek. Amongst Katharevousa's later CONTRIBUTIONS is the promotion of classically based COMPOUNDS to describe items and concepts that did not exist in earlier times, such as "newspaper", "police", "automobile", "airplane", "television" and much else, rather than borrowing words directly from other languages."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharevousa

Now, in this perspective, you cannot say that:

"I can translate and understand every single word of it without a problem at all. Even a webtranslator would flawlessly traslate the texts to english. Both Cypriots and Greeks of Hellas write exactly the same, in Koine or Greek demotic if you wish. We don't speak the same though and to attend a dialect of cyrpiots can be a hard task for lets say an Athenian. The same goes for people speaking Calabrian Greek (Italy), Pontic Greek (Anatolia), Marianoupolitan (Black Sea) and the list goes on. "

..without taking into account the INTERVENTION Katharevousa did to approximate all these apparently diverse dialects of spoken Greek, with their ancestral sources. In other words, you may understand these dialects today, however, back in the 19th century your great-grandparents would probably be confused to the use of many words from Koine Greek, or earlier forms, that you use and apparently UNDERSTAND today.

That means, that whatever might be written by Macedonians in Koine (and not just that) doesn't represent the dialect, even if a Doric language was in use.


That is true. But what about that which was spoken by Macedonians in their "patrius sermo", or mother's tongue, or that which was recorded in the Rosetta and Canopus stones Demotic texts.

This discovery has turned the world upside down, or at least the Russian academy has announced so:

"St. Petersburg, May 13 (MIA) - The Russians and other Slavs didn't migrate from the north to the south, instead they originated from the south and moved to the north, claimed Russian academician Valery Chudinov, who takes part at the first intenational congress titled "Pre-Cyrillic Literacy and Pre-Christian Culture among Slavs", being held in Pushkin near St. Petersburg, Russia."

As for the "patrius sermo":

"In any event, to comprehend as best as possible Curtius' account of the Philotas affair, it becomes necessary to dissect its structure in a synoptic style. This will bring forth the steps involved in the construction of the details and dramatic techniques therein. One such dramatic technique is when Alexander, unexpectedly so-to-speak, asks Philotas whether he (Philotas) was to defend himself in the patrius sermo, because the Makedones were to pass judgement on him. Curtius does not specify in what language Alexander addressed Philotas, but it has been inferred that it was in the koine. This is, of course, arbitrary inference, as Philotas, too, does not indicate in what language Alexander addressed him, although from the context neither of them was speaking in the patrius sermo of therein. Alexander's question to Philotas whether the latter was to address the Makedones in the patrius sermo (6. 9. 34) and Philotas' reply (below) to Alexander's accusation that he (Philotas) hated the patrius sermo and did not learn it (ibid. 9. 36) are in themselves contradictory. When Alexander asked Philotas about the patrius sermo, Philotas responded that he was going to speak in the same language as Alexander, presumably the koine (above), because, besides the Makedones, there were also many others present and because Alexander's language was understood a pluribus (ibid. 9. 35).

This response by Philotas would imply that there was a patrius sermo
and that Philotas knew it, but he preferred to speak in the language Alexander had used for greater comprehension, unless this was a ploy on the part of Philotas to cover up his not knowing the patrius sermo, as accused by Alexander and later by Bolon (below). The contradiction in the patrius sermo motif shows up later, too, when Philotas in defending himself (6. 10. 23) says that the patrius sermo had become obsolete because of the intercourse with other nations (Iam pridem nativus ille sermo commercio aliarum gentium exolevit), with the comment:  tam victoribus, quam victis peregrina lingua discenda est.
"

http://www.history.ccsu.edu/elias/AlexandrosPatrius.htm

Whatever Curtius himself had implied with this episode, it is more than clear that he was comparing the native tongue of Alexander, as opposed to the Koine Greek, which according to Phillotas was foreign both for the "conquerors and the conquered"!

This implies also that the Koine Greek was new to the speakers of Doric and Ionic dialects as well. As Katharevousa was new to the speakers of Dimotiki in the 19th century.

The mother tongue of the Macedonians was unintelligible for Demosthenes too. He called it "barbaric"! And I know what you would say to this, that he called other Greeks barbaric too, however, that is merely your interpretation. Just as the case with "φωνή", which means voice, but it might as well have implied a language in the works of Arrian.

Maybe he used voice meaning "a spoken language"!

How else do you explain the voices that were Macedonian. Did they have a different melody from the Greek voices?

How come it means a dialect (διάλεκτος) of Greek to you?!?

What does he mean by VOICE!?! Tenor, Baritone?

And ofcourse the Vinca script is a script not an alphabet. Even if it was, there's no way that through 7000years a language would remain the same by just excluding some consonants. Also that would contradict all logic you have used so far. Moreover, it is officially undeciphered.


Archeology points at something else. The Vinca and Danube scripts were indeed scripts, and an alphabet can be extracted from the many findings of this script across the Balkans, that resembles the Cyrillic script.

Of course it is unofficially deciphered. I posted it above. Wink

Here are some other attempts:

http://ancientegyptweblog.blogspot.com/2005/02/hieroglyphs-derive-from-astronomical.html

http://arheologie.ulbsibiu.ro/publicatii/ats/ats5/2merlini.htm

First, tell us how you can be so certain about archeology in Greece. Then it would be good to see you post something for once  that does not discredit Greece.


It was Byzantine Emperor who enlightened me about archeology in Greece.

"Well, in an ideal world the archaeologists would preserve the top layers and write about it too.  But if you know anything about Byzantine archaeology, a good deal of the material from the middle and late periods has been destroyed by marauding classical archaeologists who only care about the ancient Greek artifacts."

I am not discrediting Greece. How can a debate do that?

Simply, if a civilization knows how to use an alphabet, no matter language, it wouldn't wait thousands of years to decide it is time for an alphabet of their own (or even let others do the job for them) nor would they be unable to write in their language. Look how i can write english in Greek.

ΜΠΑΪ ΡΙΝΤΙΝΓΚ ΔΙΣ ΙΝ ΓΚΡΕΕΚ, ΑΪ ΚΑΝ ΙΜΙΝΤΙΑΤΛΙ ΑΝ-ΝΤΕΡΣΤΕΝ-ΝΤ ΓΟΥΑΤ ΙΤ ΣΕΖ ΙΝ ΙΝΓΚΛΙΣ.


Interesting! That is exactly how the Ptolemies wrote with the Demotic text, but I remember you were discrediting that in the thread regarding the Rosetta stone and the Demotic text!



This is how the Ptolemy rulers called the speakers of Hellenic. Danaans!

Also, I'm glad you included Gimbutas in your thread... Enjoy her following review on "A History of Macedonia. Vol. 1: Historical Geography and Prehistory"


Indeed I enjoyed it.

In the text, she talks about Hammond's views on the migrations that took place in 3000 BC. Kurgan Graves signal the presence of invaders in Macedonia. It doesn't say settlers.

The settlers were those of the Vinca and Danube culture that have left enough evidence dated from as far as 7000 BC.

These INVADERS according to Hammond were of the Dorian stock. The reference to the genesis of Macedones as opposed to the genealogy of the Greek race, where the Macedonians are not included, shows clearly that  Hammond saw the Ionians, Aeolians, and Dorians as the tribes that constituted the Greek race, where the Macedones were excluded from this group.

IN the course of generations, these INTRUDERS, who were the founders of the first Greek speaking people, Aeolians and Ionians, had already settled the south most parts of Greece, namely the Peloponnese and Central Greece.

We know that the Macedonians appeared a bit north from Olympus. Again no relation between them and the Dorian INVADERS.

The Chapter about the Late Bronze Age, includes information on CONTACTS of Macedonia with the Mycenaean world, Troy and Central Europe.

This reaffirms the contents in the extract you posted by prof. Dragi Mitrevski, and his Mycenaean Vardar Valley.

Then Maria Gimbutas reveals that the Phrygians were the new wave that came from Central Europe in Macedonia. The Phrygians however moved to Turkey, the Dorians to southern Greece, where Macedonia is again excluded from all, and given a focal point of interest.

This merely reveals Flipper that the Macedonians, both ancient and modern, are a separate race, from all listed in this article.

Thanks for sharing it with us. Wink



...BRINGER OF THE DAWN...
Back to Top
Byzantine Emperor View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios

Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1800
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 23:49
Originally posted by Petro Invictus

It was Byzantine Emperor who enlightened me about archeology in Greece.

"Well, in an ideal world the archaeologists would preserve the top layers and write about it too.  But if you know anything about Byzantine archaeology, a good deal of the material from the middle and late periods has been destroyed by marauding classical archaeologists who only care about the ancient Greek artifacts."

I am not discrediting Greece. How can a debate do that?
 
I don't know what you are trying to imply here but do NOT take my words out of context.  No part of my statement made any allusions to the ethnicity of the archaeologists.  To clarify, what I did say is that it is very unfortunate that so many Byzantine artifacts have been lost or destroyed because if the carelessness of archaeologists who only care about the preservation of ancient Greek items.
 
That being said, I am still waiting to see your (not Florin Curta's) explanation of the difference between Byzantine and Slavic "forts."  You did not make a distinction between fortified towns and other types - what were the specific terms used in the sources?
 
Back to Top
Petro Invictus View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
permanently banned

Joined: 23-Nov-2007
Location: Macedonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jun-2008 at 00:10
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor

 
I don't know what you are trying to imply here but do NOT take my words out of context.  No part of my statement made any allusions to the ethnicity of the archaeologists.  To clarify, what I did say is that it is very unfortunate that so many Byzantine artifacts have been lost or destroyed because if the carelessness of archaeologists who only care about the preservation of ancient Greek items.
 
That being said, I am still waiting to see your (not Florin Curta's) explanation of the difference between Byzantine and Slavic "forts."  You did not make a distinction between fortified towns and other types - what were the specific terms used in the sources?
 


It was unwise of me to manipulate with the meaning of your words Your Majesty! I do apologize. Sleepy After all, the word of an Emperor is the final Law. I do not know, though, where else would archaeologists dig out ancient Greek items, but in Greece?

Slavic forts!

Now: Tell me can you find any of these in Byzantium:



"The Lake settlement of Behren-Lubchin, as it may have appeared in the eleventh century. Circular in plan, like Tornow and many other forts, it was given added security by being surrounded by water. Access was only by a long bridge; the building of these bridges, several of which have been excavated, was one of the most remarkable achievements of Slav technology"

http://www.rkp-montreal.org/en/02forts.html

Florin Curta:

"A closer examination of the tabulated forts shows that most of those built along the Danube frontier, in either Moesia Superior or Dacia Ripensis, were remarkably small. By contrast, forts built in Macedonia, in Scythia Minor, or Achaia tend to be large, over 1 ha. How could this situation be explained?"

This is what a Byzantine Fort looked like in Cyprus:



This is what it looked like in Macedonia:







  


Edited by Petro Invictus - 17-Jun-2008 at 00:14


...BRINGER OF THE DAWN...
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1813
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jun-2008 at 17:57
Petro you get too easily over excited...

Originally posted by Petro Inviticus


"The Macedonian king Alexander the Great was not understood by the Greeks when he shouted an order in his native tongue and the Greek commander Eumenes needed a translator to address the soldiers of the Macedonian phalanx."

So please, do not ask me where I see the translator in this text, Flipper. I suggest you ask the author of the article him/herself. ( Jona Lendering, © 2005)

Now, in the conflict between Eumenes and Neoptolemos:

Eumenes reformed his troopers and returned to confront the enemy phalanx who "intending to make their appearance have the most fearful impact upon the cavalry, they advanced in close order; and the troops behind them, those who were cavalry, began to fire javelins where the opportunity offered in order to throw back the cavalry charge by means of the continuity of their barrage. When Eumenes saw the close locked formation of the Macedonian phalanx at its minimum extension and the men themselves heartened to venture every hazard, he sent Xennias once more, a man whose speech was Macedonian bidding him declare that he would not fight them frontally but would follow them with his cavalry and units of light troops and bar them from provisions."

PSI XII 1284:This quote comes from a papyrus fragment discovered, at Oxyrhynchus, early this century. Identified as a fragment of Arrian, it has been put in proper historical context by Bosworth 1978.

Now, Lucius Flavius Arrianus 'Xenophon' (ca. 86 - after 146), known in English as Arrian, and Arrian of Nicomedia, was a Greek historian, a public servant, a military commander and a philosopher of the Roman period.

He lived way after Alexander! And by that time he might have assumed what the language was that the Macedonians spoke. However, in this fragment, the implication of "a man whose speech was Macedonian" , might mean only one thing, that the man spoke Macedonian, a language that was distinct from the one Eumenes was using.

"In any event, to comprehend as best as possible Curtius' account of the Philotas affair, it becomes necessary to dissect its structure in a synoptic style. This will bring forth the steps involved in the construction of the details and dramatic techniques therein. One such dramatic technique is when Alexander, unexpectedly so-to-speak, asks Philotas whether he (Philotas) was to defend himself in the patrius sermo, because the Makedones were to pass judgement on him. Curtius does not specify in what language Alexander addressed Philotas, but it has been inferred that it was in the koine. This is, of course, arbitrary inference, as Philotas, too, does not indicate in what language Alexander addressed him, although from the context neither of them was speaking in the patrius sermo of therein. Alexander's question to Philotas whether the latter was to address the Makedones in the patrius sermo (6. 9. 34) and Philotas' reply (below) to Alexander's accusation that he (Philotas) hated the patrius sermo and did not learn it (ibid. 9. 36) are in themselves contradictory. When Alexander asked Philotas about the patrius sermo, Philotas responded that he was going to speak in the same language as Alexander, presumably the koine (above), because, besides the Makedones, there were also many others present and because Alexander's language was understood a pluribus (ibid. 9. 35).

This response by Philotas would imply that there was a patrius sermo
and that Philotas knew it, but he preferred to speak in the language Alexander had used for greater comprehension, unless this was a ploy on the part of Philotas to cover up his not knowing the patrius sermo, as accused by Alexander and later by Bolon (below). The contradiction in the patrius sermo motif shows up later, too, when Philotas in defending himself (6. 10. 23) says that the patrius sermo had become obsolete because of the intercourse with other nations (Iam pridem nativus ille sermo commercio aliarum gentium exolevit), with the comment:  tam victoribus, quam victis peregrina lingua discenda est.
"

http://www.history.ccsu.edu/elias/AlexandrosPatrius.htm




The link you provided in the end is what answers everything you say...You managed to make a reference to a work that goes against your claims!!! Clap Apparently you didn't know this belongs to Prof. Elias Kapetanopoulos, administrator of the department of history of the Central Connecticut State University. LOL His work is referenced in many books about Macedonia, since it is his area of studies as well. Wink

I could have posted this link ealier but i prefer to say things in my own words and use my analyses. Besides, copy paste doesn't make me a better man.

So, enjoy a scholar talking about the issues:

1) Analysis of Xennias - Makedonizwn te phone http://www.history.ccsu.edu/elias/XenniasMakedonizwn.pdf
2) Analysis of patrious sermo http://www.history.ccsu.edu/elias/PhilotasPatriusSermo.pdf

Thank you for this...Next time be carefull who you're quoting...

Commoneo Petrus...Plerique adsunt, quos facilius quae dicam, percepturos arbitror, si eadem lingua fuero usus qua tu, egisti, non ob aliud, credo, quam ut oratio tua intellegi, posset a pluribus.

Also, remember Plutach which you confidently use wrote about the Parallell lifes of Greeks and Romans. Not Slavs and Romans.

Originally posted by Petrus Inviticus


This discovery has turned the world upside down, or at least the Russian academy has announced so

"St. Petersburg, May 13 (MIA) - The Russians and other Slavs didn't migrate from the north to the south, instead they originated from the south and moved to the north, claimed Russian academician Valery Chudinov, who takes part at the first intenational congress titled "Pre-Cyrillic Literacy and Pre-Christian Culture among Slavs", being held in Pushkin near St. Petersburg, Russia."


Yes, I see the CNN and the discovery channel is turned upside down talking about it and the historians are shocked over these epic news.

Now look how you handle Boiotiazonta, Lakonizon and Makedonizon...Here you call them dialects...And indeed the first is southern Doric and the second is Aeolic.

Originally posted by Petrus Inviticus


The languages you call:

"ti phone lakonizon"
"Boiotiazonta ama ti phone"

...might be two different dialects of Greek, as is Katharevousa which was an artificial language that was introduced to "purify" the Greek of post-Turkish times.



But afterwords when the same usage goes for Makedonian...


Maybe he used voice meaning "a spoken language"!

How else do you explain the voices that were Macedonian. Did they have a different melody from the Greek voices?

How come it means a dialect (διάλεκτος) of Greek to you?!?

What does he mean by VOICE!?! Tenor, Baritone?


Suddenly it is not a dialect...Very convincing...Especially your irony and your "maybes".

In words like:

- Makedonizon
- Makedoniki
- Makedonizousa
- Makedonika
- Makedonikos

the only you understand is that they're related to Macedonia...The endings that mean nothing to you don't make any sense to understand the context and their usage.

Originally posted by Petrus


Archeology points at something else. The Vinca and Danube scripts were indeed scripts, and an alphabet can be extracted from the many findings of this script across the Balkans, that resembles the Cyrillic script.

Of course it is unofficially deciphered. I posted it above. Wink


You said the word yourself...Unofficially, Troy and Jericho has been found in America, Jesus was crusified in Ohrid by the evil Albanians, Greeks were aliens that came from the Syrious starsystem, Napoleon was Russian and then lists extends to millions of claims.

Originally posted by Petrus


Interesting! That is exactly how the Ptolemies wrote with the Demotic text, but I remember you were discrediting that in the thread regarding the Rosetta stone and the Demotic text!


Yes, not as an egyptiologist but I share the view of them, which dissmisses that theory. Wink

Originally posted by Petrus


In the text, she talks about Hammond's views on the migrations that took place in 3000 BC. Kurgan Graves signal the presence of invaders in Macedonia. It doesn't say settlers.

The settlers were those of the Vinca and Danube culture that have left enough evidence dated from as far as 7000 BC.



Nobody talked about settlers...The Vinca does not signify Slavic, since the area includes Thracian, Dacian, Greek, Vucedol (prob. non IE) and Phrygian. Not to mention that Anatolian presence before Vinca, in Sesklo and Chalkidike.

Originally posted by Petrus


These INVADERS according to Hammond were of the Dorian stock. The reference to the genesis of Macedones as opposed to the genealogy of the Greek race, where the Macedonians are not included, shows clearly that  Hammond saw the Ionians, Aeolians, and Dorians as the tribes that constituted the Greek race, where the Macedones were excluded from this group.


What are you talking about here Petrus? This is a desperate attempt man and hillarious. Hammond has been saying it loud and clear...

Nicholas G. L. Hammond, ‘The Macedonian State: The Origins, Institutions and History’
Oxford University Press, Reprint Edition, July 1997; 4. The Language of the Macedonians, pgs 413, page 12-14


What language did these 'Macedones' speak? The name itself is Greek in root and in ethnic termination

I don't think i should add a single more word about Hammond. Smile You choosed to comment the wrong school of thought, which Hammond is for you.

Originally posted by Petrus


IN the course of generations, these INTRUDERS, who were the founders of the first Greek speaking people, Aeolians and Ionians, had already settled the south most parts of Greece, namely the Peloponnese and Central Greece.


The intruders settled south...From where? Did they land there? No, through Macedonia ofcourse...

Originally posted by Petrus


We know that the Macedonians appeared a bit north from Olympus. Again no relation between them and the Dorian INVADERS.


North from Olympus were the Pierians and the Cadmians. They were driven out from there and went to the Pindus mountains  as Makednoi and later became known as the Dorians Wink (Herodotus).

Originally posted by Petrus


The Chapter about the Late Bronze Age, includes information on CONTACTS of Macedonia with the Mycenaean world, Troy and Central Europe.

This reaffirms the contents in the extract you posted by prof. Dragi Mitrevski, and his Mycenaean Vardar Valley.



One of the most ancient Greek cities founded, Aiani (namely Eternal) was the capital of Upper Macedonia...Download the video...

"Ancient artifacts that have been discovered in Aiani prove that the ancient Hellenistic Macedonian society spoke and wrote in Greek"
http://www.britannica.com/


Originally posted by Petrus


Then Maria Gimbutas reveals that the Phrygians were the new wave that came from Central Europe in Macedonia. The Phrygians however moved to Turkey, the Dorians to southern Greece, where Macedonia is again excluded from all, and given a focal point of interest.


Phrygians (Brygoi according to the Macedonians), left around the 12th century... Gimbutas names Phrygians, the Dorians who move down (from were? The alps?) and the Illyrians who enter the Balkans and Italy. Then Macedonia becomes the local point of interest, which Hammond examines and you know his views now. Also, your countryman Dragi Mitrevski maybe is right. Not many Mycenean settlements in Vardar ofcourse but as you can see now, in Macedonia and Thessaly they're many.







Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.