Magnificent article about ancient Macedonia

Hello Flipper! Good to talk to you again!

Maybe it was too irritative to call it "bad" Greek! Sorry! I meant  it was rather "harsh" Doric dialect! It reveals the lower status of the author of it!

This does not prove that it was a Northern dialect of Greek as you put it, but just that the author had a very low educational status! Meaning that it was her Doric that was "harsh" or bad as i put it! Figuratively speaking!

You must allow a diversity in reading this evidence! To me it shows that the author of the Pella curse tablet had a diverse mother tongue and used the Doric dialect to write this curse, not a Northern Dialect, nonetheless a Macedonian dialect of Greek as some of you might wish to call it!

The other  "maaaaaaany inscriptions" the following:

"Ἀθαναίας ∶ ἰαρὰ ∶ τᾶς Μℎεγαροῖ {²⁶Μεγαροῖ}²"

seems to be one of the many or the only one?

Again it is not enough as the article states to claim that the population of Macedonia was using Doric Greek as mother tongue! It might as well have been an import! Have you considered that option!?

Originally posted by Petro Invictus Hello Flipper! Good to talk to you again! Maybe it was too irritative to call it "bad" Greek! Sorry! I meant  it was rather "harsh" Doric dialect! It reveals the lower status of the author of it! This does not prove that it was a Northern dialect of Greek as you put it, but just that the author had a very low educational status! Meaning that it was her Doric that was "harsh" or bad as i put it! Figuratively speaking! You must allow a diversity in reading this evidence! To me it shows that the author of the Pella curse tablet had a diverse mother tongue and used the Doric dialect to write this curse, not a Northern Dialect, nonetheless a Macedonian dialect of Greek as some of you might wish to call it! The other  "maaaaaaany inscriptions" the following: "Ἀθαναίας ∶ ἰαρὰ ∶ τᾶς Μℎεγαροῖ {²⁶Μεγαροῖ}²" seems to be one of the many or the only one? Again it is not enough as the article states to claim that the population of Macedonia was using Doric Greek as mother tongue! It might as well have been an import! Have you considered that option!?

I don't see any bad Greek at all my friend. It is as good Greek as Cypriots talk. A dialect does not mean bad Greek. Bad Greek is misspellings, wrong grammar etc...You have nothing of that here. You have grammatically a very well written tablet but different soundings.

The import can be valid if it was a plain copy...These texts are Doric but not like the other Doric regional dialects. It is unique but still Doric or simply Macedonian.

Contrary the Koine, was written the same in Macedonia as in the rest of Greece. It wasn't different in Macedonia.

The import is just an assumption that has to be proven. All people who became Greek billinguals and could write in Greek, have left billingual inscriptions. How do you think we managed to translate Lydian, Lycian, Carian, Phrygian, Eteocypriot and other anatolian languages? Because, they wrote in their mother tongue as well as Greek using the same alphabet (+ some had their own which was similar to Greek or Phoenician). In Macedonia, which has produced more Greek inscriptions than these anatolian regions, you don't have an equivalent example...You have only a Carian trade letter by a merchant... http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/main?url=oi%3Fikey%3D312626%26bookid%3D172%26region%3D4%26subregion%3D11%26area%3DMygdonia%26site%3DTherme

Besides...Even the written Koine of Macedonia...Do you know if they spoke it like in Athens? Tell me something...Do you consider Cypriot as a Hellenic language?


Edited by Flipper - 14-Jun-2008 at 16:50

Another theory is that Macedonians were a mixture of the Thracian group and the Hellens.

There is more:

- All Macedonian forts have churches, either three-aisled or single-naved basilicas. Which means that they were built by the Byzantine Empire and NOT settled by Slavic tribes.

- Moreover, 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?

- Strategikon XI 4.5: the Sclavenes “possess an abundance of all sorts of . . . produce, which they store in heaps, especially common millet and Italian millet.” Until very recently, clay pans were still produced by women in various regions of the Balkans, such as Bosnia, Macedonia, and Bulgaria. In all those regions, pans remained in use as long as the baking of the bread on an open hearth survived.

- Common Slavic itself may have been used as a lingua franca within and outside the Avar qaganate. This may explain, in the eyes of some linguists, the spread of this language throughout most of Eastern Europe, obliterating old dialects and languages. It may also explain why this language remained fairly stable and remarkably uniform through the ninth century, with only a small number of isoglosses that began to form before Old Church Slavonic was written down.

This is also confirmed by the fact that Old Church Slavonic, a language created on the basis of a dialect spoken in Macedonia, was later understood in both Moravia and Kievan Rus.

- Slavic was also used as a lingua franca in Bulgaria, particularly after the conversion to Christianity in 865. It is only the association with this political development that brought Slavic into closer contact with other
languages. This explains why, despite the presumed presence of Slavicspeaking communities in the Balkans at a relatively early date, the influence of Common Slavic on the non-Slavic languages of the area – Romanian, Albanian, and Greek – is minimal and far less significant than that of Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, and Macedonian.

The absence of a significant influence of Common Slavic in the Balkans is also evident from the small number of Balkan place names of Slavic origin, which could be dated on phonetical grounds, with any degree of certainty, before c. 800.

As with material culture emblemic styles, the Slavic language may have been used to mark ethnic boundaries. The emblematic use of Slavic, however, was a much later phenomenon and cannot be associated with the Slavic ethnie of the sixth and seventh centuries.Slavs did not become Slavs because they spoke Slavic, but because they were called so by others.

- It has been argued that Justinian depended on local farmers, serving as a kind of peasant militia, to defend his walls and forts in the Balkan peninsula. 105 Both the absence of rural settlements and the great number of forts, especially in the northern Balkans, show this conclusion to be wrong. It would not have made much sense for the state to undertake such expensive building projects, only to leave defense of these fortifications in the hands of local militias. Whether or not the troops which manned the forts remained there for a longer term cannot be decided on the basis of the archaeological evidence alone. But the general picture obtained from this evidence is one of rather permanent garrisons, at least in medium to large forts, with houses, amenities, and churches.

- There are at least three important conclusions to be drawn from this sweeping survey of the archeology of the Carpathian basin and the steppe north of the Black Sea. First, in all cases discussed in this chapter, material culture may be and was indeed used for the construction of social identities. Despite interaction across the buffer zone between the Danube and the Tisza rivers, clear material culture distinctions were maintained in a wide range of artifacts.

Displays of emblemic styles were particularly important at the time of the Lombard–Gepid wars in the mid-500s. More often than not, such styles were associated with the status of aristocratic women, wives, daughters, or mothers of “kings.” This may be a result of the special emphasis laid on public representation of group identity, but may also be an indication of the intricate relationship between ethnic and gender identity.

The examination of hoards of silver and bronze also shows that women were symbolic vehicles for the construction of social identities. In this case, however, it is more difficult to decide precisely what kind of identity was constructed through displays of female dress accessories. Unlike the Carpathian basin, the specific way in which identity was expressed was not funerary assemblage but lavish offering of silver and bronze artifacts, which may have represented a particular form of potlatch.

Finally, the survey of the archaeological evidence from the Carpathian basin and the steppe north of the Black Sea strongly suggests that in order for material culture to participate in the construction of social identities, artifacts need to be given meaning in social context. Swords with Pshaped sheath attachments or stirrups with elongated attachment loops were not “Avar” because of being of Central Asian origin, but because of being used in a specific way in specific transactions (such as display of grave-goods) in the new social milieu in which Avar warriors found themselves after c. 570.

As I will argue in the last chapter, just as in the case of “Lombard” and “Gepid” identities, Slavic ethnicity may have been communicated through displays of objects whose use was restricted to local elites. In such cases, artifacts similar to those found in Ukrainian hoards are not mere analogies. They have become metaphors.

- One important conclusion resulting from this analysis is that during the second half of the sixth century and the first decades of the seventh,
a relatively large number of sites appeared east and south of the Carpathians, which displayed a similar set of artifact-categories. On
many, occupation must have begun much earlier, as suggested by finds in
Kodyn and Bucharest-Mihai Voda˘. Others continued to be occupied during the seventh century, as in Bucharest-Militari. On the evidence of the selected sites, it seems that the dramatic increase in number of sites took place during the second half of the sixth century, shortly after the implementation of Justinian’s building program in the Balkans. As shown in Chapter 4, this is also the period in which the number of coins from both hoards and stray finds suddenly began to increase. More important, Slavic raids resumed during this period on a very large scale, often under the leadership of Slavic “kings” (Chapter 3). Social and political change seems to have coincided with material culture change, a coincidence which will be discussed in detail in the following chapter. That this coincidence is no accident is shown by the analysis of another artifact category associated with settlement features of the second phase: “Slavic” bow fibulae.

http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521802024

"This book offers an alternative approach to the problem of Slavic ethnicity in south-eastern Europe between c. 500 and c. 700, from the perspective of current anthropological theories. The conceptual emphasis here is on the relation between material culture and ethnicity. The author demonstrates that the history of the Sclavenes and the Antes begins only at around 500 AD. He also points to the significance of the archaeological evidence, which suggests that specific artefacts may have been used as identity markers. This evidence also indicates the role of local leaders in building group boundaries and in leading successful raids across the Danube. Because of these military and political developments, Byzantine authors began employing names such as Sclavines and Antes in order to make sense of the process of group identification that was taking place north of the Danube frontier. Slavic ethnicity is therefore shown to be a Byzantine invention."

I think this should be enough!

Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf "There are no indications that the Slavs migrated to the Balkans in the middle ages! Archeology points at that fact! Have you read Florin Curta's The Making of the Slavs!"   Are you serious? This is like saying there is no evidence the Huns came from the east. This should be moved to the alternate history section.

The book reveals archaeological evidence to prove the points I listed! Come on Wolf! Why is it so difficult for you guys to get away from the dogmatic views you have been taught in schools and realize there might be some new discoveries in the era of free thinking! After all, the "Slav Migration" theory had been abused by so many political agendas in the past that it is more illogical and immature, as well as unscientific NOT to accept the facts presented by this book!

After all these forums are there to allow us new insights! OR is it? Are we here to repeat like parrots what the propagandists had taught us to do so!

The Hunic migrations took place! And if you take a look at the map of modern times, it is the Hunic, Avar and  other non Slavic groups that had intruded in the European continent causing the Slavic world to split up in two, North and West on one side, and South on the other. However, they have always been there, the intrusion being just a factor to push those Slavic tribes that occupied the Danube region further south or north. That is why we have Lusatian Serbs in Germany now, and the Balkan Serbs in the south. They had once been a single tribe, divided by the intruding Huns, and Avars.

The south-most Slavs such as the Macedonians had never been invaded by the intruding Serbs. They were merely pushed a bit souther! A small number of at most 1000-2000 men per group had invaded and raided Byzantium at occasions, but there is no archaeological evidence that they settled in Byzantium and assimilated the indigenous population!

The modern day Macedonians are in great deal descendants of the ancient Macedonians, and I think this theory deserves a proper approach, away from the daily political manipulations!

"All Macedonian forts have churches, either three-aisled or single-naved basilicas. Which means that they were built by the Byzantine Empire and NOT settled by Slavic tribes." So what?

What kind of question is this?!?! If the Slavs settled they would have changed the type of fortifications or settlements in general. There are no such indication! If you visit Macedonia today you would see that the Byzantine style predominates in almost every town in the country!

"This is also confirmed by the fact that Old Church Slavonic, a language created on the basis of a dialect spoken in Macedonia, was later understood in both Moravia and Kievan Rus." Actually it was based on the Moravian and it is spoken similar in Macedonia because "Macedonian" language of today is the same or close to Bulgarian. Some people from FYROM have also told me they can understand Serbs. Vardraska is made of Serbs and Bulgarians. There is no such thing as slav Macedonians. Macedonians weren't Slavs.

This is nonsense! I do not need to reply to this! I would just advise you to read the first Slavic text ever, The Life of Methodius, written by himself, where he clearly indicates that Emperor Michael decided to sent the Solunian brothers to Moravia, because "all the Solunians spoke pure Slavic"! The dialect in this text is from Solun! It is a subject matter of all Slavic studies worldwide!

You have problems getting away from politics and yet you call yourself unbiased! Weird!!!

Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf You met a politically and historically confused girl. The region they call Macedonia was actually a republic in Yugoslavia called Vardraska populated by Serbs and Bulgarians. Tito wanted to break the dominance of the Serbian people in Yugoslavia (since the were the most nemerous) and did this several ways.   He added Krajina (among other lands like Slavonia) to Croatia and formed his variant of Croatia. Krajina was populated by Serbs until Operations Flash and Storm where hundreds of thousands of the Serbs were massacred and driven out.   He made Bosnia its own Republic even though before WW2 the Serbs were a majority, and after the WW2 (with the help of the Nazis) the Serbs were a close 2nd to the Muslims.   Next he made Voivodina an autnomous region.   Kosovo like wise and the Serbs that had been kicked out by the Albanian Waffen SS Skanderbeg along with facist italy and nazi germany were not allowed to return. Tito did not allow those Serbs to go back and opened the boarders with Albania in that region in hopes of absorbing Albania wholely. Today we have an Albanian majority Kosovo because of it.   Lastly, Vardraska was named Macedonia. The people living there, Serbs and Bulgarians were given a new history. They were the ancient Macedonians. This was done in an attempt that the new Macedonians may eventually take Greek Macedonia and give Tito's Yugoslavia an Aegean coast line.   As for what the Ancient Macedonians really are, I would say Hellenized Thracians, or Thracian like Hellens or some marriage of the two people. In any case they were not Slavs.

Tito wanted to invade northern Greece!?!

The BS revisionist pseudo-history the Macedonians spew is hilarious. IIRC they are just Serb-influenced western Bulgarians, they speak what linguists without a nationalistic or ideological axe to grind call a dialect of Bulgarian. This seems to be an annoying pattern with many posters from the Balkans (and to a lesser extent from Turkey, the Caucasus, and occasionally India, Iran, and Central Asia), to spew nationalistic, ethnocentric, or ideologically motivated nonsense.

It's hard to tell exactly what the Ancient Macedonians spoke because they took up Athenian culture and dialect in order to look less "Barbarous." But the fact that they (or so I've read) participated in the Olympics since early times shows that they were at least thought of as Greeks and so probably spoke a dialect of Greek or a language closely related to it.

Edited by Odin - 14-Jun-2008 at 22:56

Originally posted by Petro Invictus Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf "There are no indications that the Slavs migrated to the Balkans in the middle ages! Archeology points at that fact! Have you read Florin Curta's The Making of the Slavs!"   Are you serious? This is like saying there is no evidence the Huns came from the east. This should be moved to the alternate history section.   The book reveals archaeological evidence to prove the points I listed! Come on Wolf! Why is it so difficult for you guys to get away from the dogmatic views you have been taught in schools and realize there might be some new discoveries in the era of free thinking! After all, the "Slav Migration" theory had been abused by so many political agendas in the past that it is more illogical and immature, as well as unscientific NOT to accept the facts presented by this book! After all these forums are there to allow us new insights! OR is it? Are we here to repeat like parrots what the propagandists had taught us to do so!

LOL, a person pushing nationalist propaganda and a political agenda is accusing other's of propaganda and agendas. ROFLMAO!!!

Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf "The book reveals archaeological evidence to prove the points I listed! Come on Wolf! Why is it so difficult for you guys to get away from the dogmatic views you have been taught in schools and realize there might be some new discoveries in the era of free thinking! After all, the "Slav Migration" theory had been abused by so many political agendas in the past that it is more illogical and immature, as well as unscientific NOT to accept the facts presented by this book! "   Which political agendas? Name one.

Yugoslavian communism, Greek fascism! Here's two! Russian Stalinism! Three!

Yea again Marovian slavic, not "macedonian" which was invented a few decades ago.

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!

But at this rate it seems more likely peace will come when Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece just split the land into 3 and be over with it. I hope that a peaceful resolution will come.

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!!!




Edited by Petro Invictus - 15-Jun-2008 at 04:03