Magnificent article about ancient Macedonia
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Ancient Mediterranean and Europe
Forum Discription: Greece, Macedon, Rome and other cultures such as Celtic and Germanic tribes
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24520
Printed Date: 23-Apr-2024 at 18:39
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Magnificent article about ancient Macedonia
Posted By: Vorian
Subject: Magnificent article about ancient Macedonia
Date Posted: 29-May-2008 at 23:10
|
This is the best article I have found about ancient Macedonia, completely neutral and though I disagree with a few parts very accurate. Enjoy! http://www.livius.org/maa-mam/macedonia/macedonia.html#Country - http://www.livius.org/maa-mam/macedonia/macedonia.html#Country |
Replies:
Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 30-May-2008 at 14:14
|
I have read all of it for more than a year before. There's a lot of legacy data however. Basically, 2002-2003 was the most significant period of new evidence after the discoveries of Andronikos in the 70s. Much of the bibliography is eather not yet available, untranslated or still being compiled. -------------  
Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va! |
Posted By: BigBlackBeast
Date Posted: 31-May-2008 at 15:07
|
I must say I find it somewhat ill-informed, clumsy and decidedly amateurish …
"The Macedonians of the plain became one state with the people of Upper Macedonia, even though the latter spoke other languages, related to Illyrian and Thracian" etc "Greece and Macedonia had been on opposing sides during the Persian war. " etc  
|
Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 31-May-2008 at 15:13
|
To be fair the Macedonians were part of Xerxes' army during the Persian wars....and there were many Thracian and Paeonian tribes in Upper Macedonia during the early era. As I said, I don't agree with all the points but it's good and most of all NEUTRAL. |
Posted By: BigBlackBeast
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 08:52
I do see your point Vorian ... but the article's apparent neutrality is hampered in my opinion by some rather puerile deductions/observations the author makes. To take the example above ... yes, the Macedonians were part of Xerxes' army but so were many traditional Greek states. This talk of 'Greece' as a single political entity that can be contrasted to the Macedonian state smacks of ... well, I'm not sure what exactly ... but it is certainly amateurish. |
Posted By: Brainstorm
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 18:15
|
Parts of the last paragraph also ,seem quiet amateurish and a result of ill-information. Like " They all claimed the area that was known as Macedonia, which was usually described as inhabited by Bulgarians, although there were local nationalists who stressed that the Macedonians were an independent nation." "The city itself, which had been an important center of Judaism, had suffered from mass deportations, and Tito may have thought that seizing an almost empty city would be easy" |
Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 19:37
| Even that is useful since we learn what are the common misconceptions of foreigners about this dispute. |
Posted By: Sukhbaatar
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2008 at 05:49
|
Sometimes I wonder how people managed to get the notion that Macedonians and Greeks were the same people :\ Macedonians like the Greeks used the phalanx sure, but the Macedonians were also horsemen, and Greek culture was not spread to Persia - Macedonian culture was. |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2008 at 07:41
explain what makes the Macedonians unique when compared to other Greek cultures back then? Im very sure the Spartans had more distinguishing features in their way of life versus lets say the Athenians or other Greeks. |
Posted By: Sukhbaatar
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2008 at 08:28
| I'm not so sure actually what makes them very different, but I've met many Macedonians - all hate being considered Greek at all. |
Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2008 at 11:05
You've probably met people from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, not the region of Ancient Macedonia. We're talking about Ancient Macedonia which is in Greece not any country outside it. If you ask people comming from there they will probably be pissed of relating them to anything else than Greek. -------------
Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va! |
Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2008 at 13:18
Thessalians were predominantly horsemen, were they not Greek?
Second point is a bit of ...funny.... ------------- The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin |
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2008 at 13:44
I know a few Macedonians (from FYROM, which I assume you mean), as well, and they would resent being considered Greek. The reason though, is that they consider themselves Macedonian Slavs, with no direct relation to the ancient Macedonians. |
Posted By: Sukhbaatar
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2008 at 13:54
|
Slavic Macedonians?
I'm not sure but do note that I do remember once talking about Alexander to a Macedonian girl, and when I mentioned he was Greek - she glared at me and proudly proclaimed "Alexander was NOT Greek, he was Macedonian" lol
So now I'm confused, argh
|
Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2008 at 14:31
Yes...  Currently you can have up to 4 different Macedonians and none of them are ancient since we're in year 2008. Just people that happen to live in the greater historical area. The ancient issue has been discussed in detail here: http://allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=15134 - http://allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=15134 PS @ Mods: My previous answer was posted with Null data...Please feel free to delete -------------
Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va! |
Posted By: Basilikos
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 20:10
|
That is because Macedonians and Greeks are the same people my friend. ------------- http://www.macedoniainsight.com - Macedonia Insight |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 00:29
You can be both macedonian and greek there is no contradition, same goes for being spartan, athenian or any other type of Greek.
|
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 06:25
|
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.
|
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 11:05
|
In interesting article indeed! However I have certain queries regarding some points: 1) "A fourth-century curse tablet from Pella, published in 1994, is written in Northwest Greek." http://www.livius.org/maa-mam/macedonia/macedonia.html#Country - http://www.livius.org/maa-mam/macedonia/macedonia.html#Country There are indications that this tablet was an import since it was written in a very "bad" Greek. Take a look:  http://74.125.39.104/search?q=cache:CQT7sPGNSngJ:isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic184517.files/Pella_curse_tablet.pdf+Pella+Curse+tablet&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&client=firefox-a - http://74.125.39.104/search?q=cache:CQT7sPGNSngJ:isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic184517.files/Pella_curse_tablet.pdf+Pella+Curse+tablet&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&client=firefox-a The language is harsh but a distinctly recognizable form of North-West or Doric Greek, and the low social status of its writer, shows in my opinion, that the people in Pella were not so well educated in the use of the Doric dialect, since they must have had another language, distinct from the Doric Greek they used in certain circles. This can be demonstrated with say the use of English among the Hindus, or Jamaicans, who have developed a unique form of the language, due to influences of their mother tongues, otherwise quite distinct from the one in question! Considering the fact that this is a tablet found in Pella in the 4th century BC, and there are no indication that it was a widespread practice to use Doric in Macedonia prior to this period, which coincides with the introduction of Hellenic culture and language by Alexander I Philhellene, we may not assume with certainty that the Macedonians spoke a Hellenic language, as a native tongue! 2) On the other hand, there are new archaeological discoveries that point at the possible use of proto-Slavic language, as a native tongue, with the ancient Macedonians! The study of the Demotic text from the Rosetta stone, written in the time of the Ptolemy dynasty (of Macedonian descent), which was a civilizational script used with as many languages as Egyptian, and Persian, or even Old Russian as some evidence show, points at the possibility that the ancient Macedonians spoke a very distinct form of a proto-Slavic language, that has survived today in modern Macedonian. To this we can add the numerous linguistic evidence in Homer's epics which indicate that the poems were orally transmitted in a language that had its roots in the proto-Slavic language spoken by the ancient Macedonians, before it was recorded in writing in Classical times, during which time it had suffered a lot of changes, and it has received a lot of Doric, Ionic, Attic and other influences. 3) "It would not be without parallel if a Macedonian, when he wanted to make an official statement, preferred decent Greek instead of his native tongue." This is a very indecent assumption that is based on modern political and cultural views on the issue. In my opinion, the ancient Macedonians loved their "patrius sermo" as indicated in Philotas case, by Q.C.Rufus, however, the Doric dialect was considered the language of the "educated", in the Mediterranean culture, and was spoken by a variety of ethnicities, that are mistakenly considered as belonging to a single ethnic group today! In fact the Greek national identity is very recent, say the 19th century, when the nation builders of modern Greece, some of which from foreign backgrounds, like Byron, have even gone as far as creating an artificial language, such as the Katharevousa, to "purify" the Dimotiki of post-Turkish times. 3) "None of this forces us to say that the Macedonians did not speak Greek, but it leaves the possibility that things were not what they seem." I would say that much of the evidence forces us to say that the Macedonians spoke a non-Greek, more precisely a proto-Slavic language as a mother tongue, and adopted Greek only since the 4th century BC as a language of correspondence with the rest of the Mediterranean cultures. 4) "For example, there is evidence that Greeks were unable to understand people who were makedonizein, "speaking Macedonian". The Macedonian king http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander00.html - 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 http://www.livius.org/pha-phd/phalanx/phalanx.html - phalanx . " This should be a clear indication NOT only that the ancient Macedonians didn't speak a dialect of Doric, which was "harsh and distinct" from the rest of the Greek dialects, but a totally different language, a language that would sound as "barbarous" to people like Demosthenes, in Athens! 5) "Much is still uncertain, but two conclusions appear to be irrefutable:
The article is reversibly biased, overlooking linguistic evidence, and neglecting core indications that the ancient Macedonians and Greeks were linguistically diverse to that extent that translators needed to be employed, in most cases. Yet it assumes that the Macedonian and Greek were related! ------------- 
...BRINGER OF THE DAWN... |
Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 16:05
Can you specify in what way that is bad Greek? Can you tell us where else in Greece you will find that specific type of Northern Greek? Cause for example the Doric of Epirus and Peloponesus is different... Strangely though you have another tablet discovered in 1997 http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/main?url=oi%3Fikey%3D153618 - http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/main?url=oi%3Fikey%3D153618
And ofcourse Elimnia has produced maaaaaaany inscriptions of a northern dialect as well, different from the other ones but still Greek...Those are from 500BC http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/main?url=oi%3Fikey%3D150039%26bookid%3D129%26region%3D4 - http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/main?url=oi%3Fikey%3D150039%26bookid%3D129%26region%3D4 Αθαναίας ιάρα instead of Αθήναίας ιερά... http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/main?url=oi%3Fikey%3D153103%26bookid%3D172%26region%3D4%26subregion%3D11 - http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/main?url=oi%3Fikey%3D153103%26bookid%3D172%26region%3D4%26subregion%3D11 [Πυ]θαγόρης̣ {²⁷[Ὀρ]θαγόρης̣ Ἀριστοκράτεος, Ἀριστοβόλη. Πυθαγόρης instead of Πυθαγόρας Ορθαγόρης instead of Ορθαγόρας Αριστοκράτεος (like in modern Greek you we say Σοφοκλέους) instead of Αριστοκράτους Now, a child could tell it isn't another language on those inscriptions but another dialect...Unless I'm billingual and i didn't know it  Next time maybe we should see the possibility that Cypriot is not Greek, since in Hellas they have trouble understanding Cypriot with heavy accent. -------------
Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va! |
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 16:17
|
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!? -------------
...BRINGER OF THE DAWN... |
Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 16:24
|
More Macedonian... http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/main?url=oi%3Fikey%3D153601%26bookid%3D172%26region%3D4%26subregion%3D11 - http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/main?url=oi%3Fikey%3D153601%26bookid%3D172%26region%3D4%26subregion%3D11 ἐνθάδε̣ [Κα]λ̣λιμ[˘ ¯ ˘ ˘ ¯ ˘ ˘ ¯ ˘ ˘ ¯ ×] ναῶν εὐστύλων [¯ ˘ ˘ ¯ ˘ ˘ ¯] εὐδοκίμο[υ] πατ[ρὸς — — —] τ̣έχ̣νη. Why do I happen to understand it again even though it is different than other Greek dialects? here Kallim- of well-pillared temples ... of esteemed father ... art ενθάδε instead of εδώ or ενθά ευδοκίμο πατρός instead of ευδόκιμου πατρός/πατήρ/πατέρα What i see is an accept change and the suffix -de after entha... As you see Petro, after 1986, there's more Macedonian inscriptions thanks to the Elimnian sub-Kindom and new excavations in Vergina. -------------
Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va! |
Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 16:30
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 - 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? -------------
Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va! |
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 18:24
"It is unique but still Doric or simply Macedonian" Sure you mean a Doric dialect spoken in Macedonia! The Macedonian was rather different as the article suggests! Since: "For example, there is evidence that Greeks were unable to understand people who were makedonizein, "speaking Macedonian". The Macedonian king http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander00.html - 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 http://www.livius.org/pha-phd/phalanx/phalanx.html - phalanx . The Greek orators Thrasymachus of Chalcedon and http://www.livius.org/de-dh/demosthenes/demosthenes.html - Demosthenes of Athens called Macedonian kings like Archelaus and http://www.livius.org/phi-php/philip/philip_ii.htm - Philip II barbarians, which prima facie means that they did not speak Greek." 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! -------------
...BRINGER OF THE DAWN... |
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 18:34
|
Another theory is that Macedonians were a mixture of the Thracian group and the Hellens.
In any case Slavs did not even exist in the balkans at the time so that debate is pointless.
|
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 19:05
I think you are mistaken there 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! Venetology in Slovenia points at similar findings! The Vinca and Danube literacy also suggest proto-Slavic cultures in the Balkans as far as 5000 BC!!! New stuff! We need to stay open-minded! Let me quote some stuff from Florin Curta's study: The book emphasizes the following: It is still a widely spread belief, however, that Phocas’ revolt caused the collapse of the Roman frontier. As a consequence, ever since Robert Roesler argued that the Slavic settlement of the Balkan peninsula south of the Danube and the Save rivers could not have taken place before the reign of Phocas, historians speak of a Slavic stream now pouring in an irresistible flood and submerging the entire peninsula. This view, however, is contradicted by all existing evidence. -As Franjo Barisic has demonstrated, there is no evidence for raiding activity, by either Avars or Slavs, during Phocas’ reign (602 AD). -Moreover, until the siege of Thessalonica during Heraclius’ early regnal years, there is no evidence at all for outward migration, in the sense of a permanent change of residence. Almost all raids reported by Procopius in the mid-sixth century were followed by a return to the regions north of the Danube frontier. At times, the Sclavene warriors may have spent the winter on Roman territory, as in 550/1. However, Menander the Guardsman makes it clear that the wealth acquired during Sclavene raids was usually carried back home, across the Danube. -No evidence exists, however, that the Sclavenes established either on the frontier of the Lombard kingdom or near Constantinople came from regions located north of the Danube. -The inhabitants of early Byzantine cities displayed their wealth and status by building churches and paying for their lavish decoration with mosaic floors. Except in Thessalonica, there is no evidence for any other public buildings erected at that time. Caricˇin Grad (Justiniana Prima) was dominated by the acropolis on which the episcopal church was located. This further suggests that the power granted to local bishops by Justinian’s legislation drastically altered the urban landscape. - Just as in Carichin Grad, there is no evidence to substantiate the idea of a Slavic settlement. On the other hand, there is clear evidence that the fort at Karasura was destroyed by fire at some point after Justinian’s reign. - ... Such population movements, however, cannot be defined as migration. 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. - Furthermore, there is no evidence, until the early regnal years of Heraclius, of an outright migration of the Slavs (Sclavenes) to the region south of the Danube river. -No evidence exists that Romans ever tried to prevent the crossing, despite the existence of a Danube military fleet. Moreover, all major confrontations with Sclavene armies or “throngs” took place south of the Stara Planina mountains. - Nevertheless, the efficiency of the fortified frontier, at least in its initial phase, cannot be doubted. During the last fifteen years of Justinian’s reign, no Slavic raid crossed the Danube. - According to Procopius, the Sclavenes were bent on capturing Thessalonica and the surrounding cities. The threat must have been truly serious, for Justinian ordered Germanus to defer his expedition to Italy and to defend Thessalonica and the other cities. This measure proved to be efficient, for the Sclavenes gave up their plans to capture Thessalonica. Instead, they crossed the mountain ranges to the west and entered Dalmatia, at that time still disputed between Ostrogoths and Romans. Germanus did not follow them, both because of his other commitments and because once in Dalmatia, the Sclavenes did not represent any major threat to southern MACEDONIA. - The emperor (whose name is not given) eventually decided to send an army to Thrace and to the “land on the opposite side,” against the Strymonian Slavs. Since the siege can be dated to 677, and we are specifically told that prior to the siege the emperor was preparing for war against the Arabs, this expedition against the Sklaviniai of southern Macedonia must have been ordered by Constantine IV. The successful campaign took place in 678, shortly after the failure of the Arab blockade of Constantinople. Ten years later, another expedition led by Justinian II against the Sklaviniai reached Thessalonica, where the presence of the emperor was commemorated in inscriptions. According to Theophanes, Justinian had directed his campaign against both Bulgaria and the Sklaviniai. This may indicate that the Sklaviniai of 688/9 were clients of the Bulgar qagan. - 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. - -------------
...BRINGER OF THE DAWN... |
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 19:09
|
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 - 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! -------------
...BRINGER OF THE DAWN... |
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 19:29
|
"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.
If this is true where are all the slavic inscriptions pre their arrival? Where are they mentioned? All of your points are purely speculations and indefinate arguements.
"It is still a widely spread belief, however, that Phocas’ revolt caused the collapse of the Roman frontier. As a consequence, ever since Robert Roesler argued that the Slavic settlement of the Balkan peninsula south of the Danube and the Save rivers could not have taken place before the reign of Phocas, historians speak of a Slavic stream now pouring in an irresistible flood and submerging the entire peninsula. This view, however, is contradicted by all existing evidence."
How does this prove anything? Seems like a logical fallacy to me.
"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? "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. "- 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. " No it really doesn't explain that. I'll give you an example. Migrations even when large do not out number the local populations in the Balkans because of the population density. That is why in large the slavs were assimilated in Dacia for example. "- 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." What points does this make? The Carpathian mines were the largest in the Roman Empire. The gold and silver found there is from there.
I didn't quote everything but in general from your statements i don't see you making a cohoerent point. The arguements start off by saying "some historians think that maybe this and that....so slavs have always been there!"
Perhaps someone can take the time to pull apart both your posts and explain more specifically how each one is wrong but in general that is the gist of it.
|
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 21:31
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!
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 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!!!  -------------
...BRINGER OF THE DAWN... |
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 22:00
|
Here is the book read it yourself: %3ca%20href= - %3ca%20href= - http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=105502706 "> http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=105502706 - http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=105502706 -------------
...BRINGER OF THE DAWN... |
Posted By: Odin
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 22:49
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. ------------- "Of the twenty-two civilizations that have appeared in history, nineteen of them collapsed when they reached the moral state the United States is in now." -Arnold J. Toynbee |
Posted By: Odin
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 23:08
This is a load of crap, Proto-Slavic existed in what is now northern Ukraine, southern Belarus, and SE Poland, NOT THE BALKANS!!! The non-Greek languages spoken in the Balkans during Homeric and Classical times were Illyrian (possibly related to the Celtic and Italic languages), Thracian (a relative of Armenian and the possible ancestor of Albanian), and Dacian (related to Thracian IIRC). Nationalistic pseudo-history is not funny, it's pathetic. ------------- "Of the twenty-two civilizations that have appeared in history, nineteen of them collapsed when they reached the moral state the United States is in now." -Arnold J. Toynbee |
Posted By: Odin
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 23:13
LOL, a person pushing nationalist propaganda and a political agenda is accusing other's of propaganda and agendas. ROFLMAO!!! ------------- "Of the twenty-two civilizations that have appeared in history, nineteen of them collapsed when they reached the moral state the United States is in now." -Arnold J. Toynbee |
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2008 at 00:12
|
"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.
"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. "
Well guess what, what you are telling me is that Slavs are indegenious to the Carpathain, danubian area. Which means you are claiming the slavs = Dacians...which is a large massive load of steaming re-invention of history.
"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!"
Not really. Because the slavs weren't as blood thirsty and crazy as the Avars and Huns. For example when the Slavs migrated into present day Bulgaria I don't even think that area was part of the Byzantine Empire. The Serbs for example were invited by the Byz Empire to settle the balkans as to defend against the Avars. So there wouldn't be a need for fortifications against 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!"
Yea again Marovian slavic, not "macedonian" which was invented a few decades ago.
"You have problems getting away from politics and yet you call yourself unbiased! Weird!!!
 "I was born in Romania. Romania has NO political ambitions toward FYROM. None what so ever. Next, I lived in America since I was 7. So pelase tell me where my "bias" comes from? Maybe an educated bias as opposed to a re-invented history bias.
"Tito wanted to invade northern Greece!?!
 "No he didn't awnt to invade Greece. He wanted to water the seeds of discontent. Today in FYROM's history books they see as true Macedonia being FYROM and Greek Macedonia and there is a movement to "reclaim" it. http://youtube.com/watch?v=aWIKDhhTvnU - http://youtube.com/watch?v=aWIKDhhTvnU
Take a look at their text books.
To be honest Petros, i'll believe the Albanians are true Macedonians before I belive FYROMers to be Macedonians. Both countries have warped senses of history bound by political agendas. And most of the world agrees. The sooner you all just stop doing the whole Macedonia thing, and stand up and be proud Slavs of Vardraska to sooner we'll have less strife in the Balkans. 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.
|
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2008 at 03:53
Yugoslavian communism, Greek fascism! Here's two! Russian Stalinism! Three!  -------------
...BRINGER OF THE DAWN... |
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2008 at 03:57
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! -------------
...BRINGER OF THE DAWN... |
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2008 at 03:59
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! -------------
...BRINGER OF THE DAWN... |
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2008 at 04:01
That reveals a lot about your biasness I guess! By the way who are the FYROMers! Aliens? -------------
...BRINGER OF THE DAWN... |
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2008 at 04:02
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!!! -------------
...BRINGER OF THE DAWN... |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2008 at 04:09
We are throwing around definitions and descriptions here. From which sources are you getting an image of what Byzantine forts look like and how they were constructed during this time period? Also, what are the sources for the Slavic forts in order to compare the two?
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2008 at 05:09
"Yugoslavian communism, Greek fascism! Here's two! Russian Stalinism! Three!  "
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.
|
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date 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.
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 - http://www.vest.com.mk/default.asp?id=150547&idg=8&idb=2356&rubrika=Makedonija 
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... |
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date 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.
|
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 03:24
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?"
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?
You need to cite the exact source here Petro. These are not your words and just citing "Chapter 3" is not enough.
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 03:38
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.
Well sure they must have loved their wives at least!?!?
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 - 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 - 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 - 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 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.
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... |
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 03:42
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 Take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin%C4%8Da_culture - 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 Parṭa 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 - 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 - 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/spomenici5-e.htm http://www.unet.com.mk/ancient-macedonians-part2/spomenici6-e.htm - http://www.unet.com.mk/ancient-macedonians-part2/spomenici6-e.htm http://www.unet.com.mk/ancient-macedonians-part2/spomenici10-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.unet.com.mk/ancient-macedonians-part2/spomenici11-e.htm http://www.prehistory.it/fase2/gradesnica.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 - 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 Now, the brothers were clever and they managed to convince the Pope in 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 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... |
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 03:51
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 - http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=105502706 Do read it! It is very interesting.
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!  -------------
...BRINGER OF THE DAWN... |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 04:05
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?"
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.
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date 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.
|
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 12:50
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 - http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=105502706
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 - 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/researh207.php http://www.skopskokale.com.mk/en/aboutus.php - http://www.skopskokale.com.mk/en/aboutus.php
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... |
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 13:16
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.
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... |
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date 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. -------------
...BRINGER OF THE DAWN... |
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 13:31
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartaria_tablets - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartaria_tablets "The tablets are generally believed to have belonged to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin%C4%8Da_culture - 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 - 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... |
Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 19:45
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/ - 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.
Who were those Greeks you say where of Doric descent? 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.
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. 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. 
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! |
Posted By: Flipper
Date 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! |
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date 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. |
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 22:06
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 http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander00.html - 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 http://www.livius.org/pha-phd/phalanx/phalanx.html - 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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/86 - 86 - after http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/146 - 146 ), known in English as Arrian, and Arrian of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicomedia - Nicomedia , was a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks - Greek http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian - historian , a public servant, a military commander and a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher - philosopher of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_and_Byzantine_Greece - 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 - http://www.helleniccomserv "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 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wi 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 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. 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 - 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?
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. Here are some other attempts: http://ancientegyptweblog.blogspot.com/2005/02/hieroglyphs-derive-from-astronomical.html - http://ancientegyptweblog.blogspot.com/2005/02/hieroglyphs-derive-from-astronomical.html http://arheologie.ulbsibiu.ro/publicatii/ats/ats5/2merlini.htm - http://arheologie.ulbsibiu.ro/publicatii/ats/ats5/2merlini.htm
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?
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!
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. -------------
...BRINGER OF THE DAWN... |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 23:49
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?
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2008 at 00:10
It was unwise of me to manipulate with the meaning of your words Your Majesty! I do apologize.  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 - 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:   -------------
...BRINGER OF THE DAWN... |
Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2008 at 17:57
Petro you get too easily over excited...
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!!!  Apparently you didn't know this belongs to Prof. Elias Kapetanopoulos, administrator of the department of history of the Central Connecticut State University. His work is referenced in many books about Macedonia, since it is his area of studies as well. 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 - http://www.history.ccsu.edu/elias/XenniasMakedonizwn.pdf 2) Analysis of patrious sermo http://www.history.ccsu.edu/elias/PhilotasPatriusSermo.pdf - 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.
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.
But afterwords when the same usage goes for Makedonian...
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.
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.
Yes, not as an egyptiologist but I share the view of them, which dissmisses that theory.
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.
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. You choosed to comment the wrong school of thought, which Hammond is for you.
The intruders settled south...From where? Did they land there? No, through Macedonia ofcourse...
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 (Herodotus).
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/eb/art-84137/Ancient-artifacts-that-have-been-discovered-in-Aiani-prove-that - http://www.britannica.com/ http://www.aegeobalkanprehistory.net/article.php?id_art=6 -
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! |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2008 at 19:03
|
The impressiveness of an argument is in inverse proportion to the number of exclamation marks it contains.
And, usually, it is in inverse proportion to the length. ------------- |
Posted By: Odin
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2008 at 23:02
No clue. Haven't seen him at to other message boards he and I post at... http://s6.zetaboards.com/man/index/ - Quetzalcoatl: anthropology forum http://www.biodiversityforum.com/index.php - Human Biodiversity Discussion Index ...for ages it seems.  ------------- "Of the twenty-two civilizations that have appeared in history, nineteen of them collapsed when they reached the moral state the United States is in now." -Arnold J. Toynbee |
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date Posted: 18-Jun-2008 at 18:18
Please, gcle2003! Your understated remark forces me provide you with the job description of my secretary, whose job is to proof-read all of my essays and provide correct orthography for the final printout! "Orthography describes or defines the set of symbols ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grapheme - graphemes and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diacritic - diacritics ) used, and the rules about how to write these symbols. Depending on the nature of the writing system, the rules may include http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuation - punctuation , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelling - spelling and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalization - capitalization ." You certainly do not count all the exclamation marks in a book to tell how impressed you were by it. Do you? As for the length, I agree with you. Although, it depends on the contents one is presenting. I have been trained to be as economical as possible in my discourse. However, that would not be the case with most of the participants in this forum. Take Flipper's posts for example! -------------
...BRINGER OF THE DAWN... |
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 01:49
I think it is you who gets overly excited, mate, since this is what I clearly said about Arrian: "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." What this implies is that Arrian, even though he recorded the history of Alexander much after his time, news of his "patrius sermo" might have reached his ear, and he wrote it in such a way to convey to the reader the plausible fact that Alexander used a language different from the one in use at that time by the many, which must have been the Alexandrian dialect, or what we know as Koine today. I used the quote on purpose, Flipper, knowing its final conclusion only to push you to the realization that Prof. Elias Kapetanopoulos was merely analyzing Arrian's style, in a manner that would confuse the reader of what was the truth in his discourse. The article is purely "trying to explain to the modern reader" that Arrian was not sure himself of what was spoken by whom. As I said, the mere fact that Arrian is talking about a "patrius sermo", regardless of how confusing his style might be, is a notion worth taking into consideration.
First of all it is Petro not Petrus! Thanks for the reminder, though I must reject the irony. The route I have taken is a comparative study, by taking an objective stand, and actually reading people's opinions extensively and thoroughly, unlike you dear, whose lavish exposure merely poses as an attempt to conceal the obvious inability to get away from the frame that has shaped your views in a most rigid and dogmatic manner, you might call orthodoxy. The "patrius sermo" case is a well known example of how linguistic conformity can attain to creating confusion rather than dealing with it.
Confidently! It takes a bit more of my mentioning his name to be able to draw such a conclusion. Verbosity seems to be quite a useful tool to your beguiling approach to debates in general. More over we are talking about Macedonians in relation to Greeks. I don't think Plutarch used the term "Greek" though, or did he? Enlighten me! He might as well have used the term Danaans, or Grecians for that sake , that would have sounded more plausible to me. -------------
...BRINGER OF THE DAWN... |
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 02:04
IT is you who uses Plutarch so confidently Flipper.
So Mestrius Plutarchus ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language - Greek : Πλούταρχος; c. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/46_AD - 46 AD - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/120_AD - 120 AD ), better known in English as Plutarch, was a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks - Greek http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian - historian , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biographer - biographer , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essayist - essayist , and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Platonism - Middle Platonist . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutarch#cite_note-0 - [1] Plutarch was born to a prominent family in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaeronea - Chaeronea , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeotia - Boeotia , a town about twenty miles east of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi - Delphi . His http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oeuvre - oeuvre consists of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_Lives - Parallel Lives and the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moralia - Moralia . Again someone living way after Alexander. Can you find any more plausible evidence to the theory you are posing, which is that the ancient Macedonians spoke a Greek "phone"? However we do not need to go through the same things summarized in the article in question: "For example, there is evidence that Greeks were unable to understand people who were makedonizein, "speaking Macedonian"." -------------
...BRINGER OF THE DAWN... |
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 02:14
Well, having in mind the ARYAN MODEL you are presenting here, in relation to the ANCIENT, as presented in BLACK ATHENA, there is a lot of unofficial stuff we (may) need to deal with in terms of moving evolution forward, and getting rid of the views that SOOOOO damaged the world in the last century. Those would be ethnocentrism, fascism, antisemitism, racism...Who knows, maybe (whoops!) Jesus was indeed crucified in Ohrid, and Greeks were indeed a Draconian race that ascended from Alfa Draconis... After all, the world is quite familiar with the cruelty of the Draconian laws that have reflected even in modern times, at least when it comes to certain "divine races". -------------
...BRINGER OF THE DAWN... |
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 02:41
I think Vinca does signify Slavic if we consider the evidence presented by Florin Curta. Greek is definitely out of question. The Mycenaean culture, which you might associate with Greek, which certainly belonged to the Vinca culture, was of non-Greek substratum, at least according to more recent analysis. Let me demonstrate it: "In the late 19th Century, it was known that there were some ancient ruins to the south of the city of Iraklion in Crete. It was assumed that they were Ancient Greek, since Greece is littered with such ruins. Arthur Evans, the director of the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, went out to Crete and started excavating in 1900. What he found took the world by storm: the ruins were much older than had been thought, dating from the period 2000 - 1350 BC, and belonged to a hitherto-unknown civilisation." "Evans tried for many years to decipher the two linear scripts, as well as the hieroglyphic script, but FAILED. He assumed that the tablets were written in the Minoan language, and that it was UNRELATED to Ancient Greek, since he thought that the Minoan civilisation had already DIEDd out when the GREEK-speaking people first arrived in what is now Greece." "Evans noticed a slight correspondence between some of the Linear symbols and the symbols of the Cypriot writing system (from the island of Cyprus), which was used a thousand years later and which had been deciphered, but he dismissed them as coincidence: the Cypriot alphabet was used for writing GREEK, and he believed that Linear A and Linear B could NOT possibly be RELATED to Greek, as they were far too old." "The next stage in the decipherment of the script was carried out by an American archaeologist by the name of Alice Kober. Over the period of 1943 to 1950 she studied the Linear B texts in detail and came up with some remarkable results. She assumed that Evans was RIGHT that the language used inflection." "Cypriot was a writing system which was used in the 1st Millennium BC in Cyprus. This was about a thousand years after the use of Linear B. Cyprus is a Greek-speaking island, and the Greek that is spoken there is very closely related to the Greek spoken to this day near Mycenae, so it is reasonable to ASSUME there might be a connection." To ASSUME!!! But some say that Cypriots have difficulty understanding the Athenians! Too many assumptions! OK! "Ventris did not want to rely too heavily on correspondence between Linear B and Cypriot, since there were MAJOR differences. About 90% of the Cypriot symbols DIDN'T MATCH the Linear B ones at all, and Linear B did NOT have any single character that was regularly used at the ends of words to correspond with the Cypriot 'se'. This did not seem all that surprising since the final 's' sound is a feature of the Greek language and there was NO REASON to believe that Minoan or Mycenaean HAD THE SAME FEATURE. However, he needed some starting point for assigning actual vowels and consonants to the grid. In the end, he used just TWO similarities with the Cypriot system in his decipherment." So only TWO similarities with the Cypriot Greek to call Linear B a Greek language!?!? "In this manner, Ventris progressed to decipher all the letters in his grid. As he worked, he noticed that the endings of the words corresponded very closely with what he knew of Ancient Greek. Gradually, he realised that the language he was studying actually was Ancient Greek. This was despite all the experts' opinions that it couldn't possibly be. Ventris decided that the time had come to let the world in on his discovery." Well, time has indeed shown that his discovery cannot fully be matched to the Greek language, Ancient or Modern! This is the factual state: "No progress has been made in the decipherment of Linear A, which has only ever been found in Crete. It is assumed that Linear A represents the ORIGINAL Minoan language. Many of the symbols are the same as those in Linear B, but using the Linear B sounds to read Linear A gives us a meaningless string of syllables. These may be in fact the Minoan language, but we have no way of knowing since we aren't familiar with that language." "The short example of Linear B given above can now be decoded: a-re-ka-sa-da-ra. This has been found as the name of a woman on one of the Linear B tablets. There are a few different ways this could be read, but taking ka-sa as ksa and taking da-ra as dra, we get a-re-ksa-dra which is quite clearly the name Alexandra. It is strange to think that there were people with this name living more than 3,000 years ago!" ALEXANDRA or ALEXANDER is a Hellenized form of the Macedonian name, A-LEKO SANDER. We still have the name in use as Leko, Sande, Aleko, Cande... The name Alexander did not appear with any of the Classical Greeks, it was purely a Macedonian name and it was never used in Greece prior to the Macedonian conquest!!! What Ventris and Chadwick uncovered is a script that consists mostly of syllabic signs, a fair number of logograms, a base-10 number system, and short vertical lines as word separators. It seems that ancient accounting records composed a majority of the clay tablets on which Linear B appears because a lot of them are lists of materials and goods. The LATEST studies show that this system was apparently designed for a non-Greek language, as it did not fit the sounds of Greek very well. In fact, it is likely that Linear A was used to write the pre-Greek language of Crete, and the incoming Greeks adopted this writing system for their own use. So despite Ventris and Chadwick's attempts to present Linear B a Greek language, there are too many factors that do not allow that comparison: ACCORDING TO modern SCHOLARS: 1. There are many Greek sounds that are missing in Linear B signs, such as (g), (kh), (gw), (b), (ph), (th), and (l). To solve this problem, signs for similar sounds are used instead: p-signs are used for (p), (b), and [ph]; k-signs are used for [k], [g], and [kh]; t-signs are used for [t] and [th]; q-signs are used for [kw] and [gw]; and r-signs are used for [r] and (l). However, while this convention was likely easily understood by ancient Mycenaean scribes, it took modern scholars a lot of theoretical analysis and work, plus comparison with later Greek dialects and reconstructed Mycenaean words to rediscover how this system works. 2. Another inadequacy stems from the fact that Linear B signs usually represent Consonant-Vowel (CV) syllables, but the syllabic structure of Greek allows initial consonant clusters, ending consonants, and dipthongs. In the case of a syllable with a initial consonant cluster, individual consonants in the cluster are written by a CV sign whose vowel matches the vowel of the syllable. Therefore, for example, the word tri is written as ti-ri, and khrusos as ku-ru-so. In this regard, I would mention the name found in Linear Bparagraph: a-re-ka-sa-da-ra that corresponds more to the Macedonian A-LE-KO SAN-DE-RA rather than with the Greek ALEKSANDROS! 3. Some syllabograms also double as logograms. Curiously, the phonetic values of these syllabograms do not match the word they represent. For example, the logogram for 'sheep' is the qi syllabogram, but 'sheep' in Mycenaean Greek should be owis (compare with Classical Greek ois, Latin ovis, etc). http://www.ancientscripts.com/linearb.html - -   - Moreover: 4. All the Linear B texts Evans found were on clay tablets, in two forms: leaf and page shaped. These tablets were unearthed at royal seats (palaces) and were baked when the palaces were destroyed by fire. The only clue he had for the language was a negative one: Since his finds indicated to him that culture had flowed from Crete to the mainland, Greek was out of the question. 5. In the process of trying various hypotheses (generally to show them false), Ventris eventually applied Greek to Linear B. To his amazement, it seemed to fit, though yielding a result odd by classical Greek standards. He asked John Chadwick of Cambridge University for help and by 1952, they were able to show clearly that Linear B did indeed record Greek, a Greek much older than Homer, though reflected in some of Homer's vocabulary. 6. Of the scripts Evans found, only Linear B is generally recognized as being deciphered. The Hieroglyphic is entirely unread, but Linear A shares a similar connection with Linear B that Etruscan does with Latin: In both cases, the pairs share many symbols 7. Over half the words written in the syllabary of Linear B are proper names, for example of the owners of the materials listed, of workers, or of slaves (and even of oxen). These names are frequently non-Greek. Thus A-LE-KO-SA-NA-DA-RA is ALEKSANDRA. In modern Macedonia we have ALEKO, LEKO, SANDA, DARA, SANDE, CANDE... 8. As an exercise in interpretation, reading Greek in Linear B is even more taxing than reading English phonetically in the Roman alphabet. 9. The antiquity of Linear B preserves one of the oldest recorded Indo-European languages. Others are Hittite, Old Persian, and Sanskrit. Linear A is almost certainly not Greek, leaving details of the origins of the script a bit of a puzzle, given that it is quite likely that Linear B descended from Linear A, which may itself had its origins in the Hieroglyphic. http://www.whoosh.org/issue65/ribaud1.html - - I would rather suggest it originates from the Vinca and Danube scripts, which are much older than the Hieroglyphs. Take a look: ">  http://www.allempires.net/RTE_textarea.asp?mode=edit&POID=462680&ID=856 -   This coincides with what I read in the text you presented by Maria Gimbutas:
And then you mention something else:
I think it was Maria Gimbutas we were discussing here. She mentioned Hummond in the text you provided as an image. Have you read it at all? This is what I read in it:
And then again you sound so confused, when in fact I did not make any claim at all, I was just retelling you what the extract by Maria Gimbutas said.
However, I do not agree with Maria completely. I prefer Martin Bernal's Black Athena theory. It sounds more plausible. North, or south, the Dorian stock were INVADERS. You must agree to this.
Herodotus is very much misinterpreted. Allow me to point out some misconceptions regarding his theory of the Dorian invasion.
Not quite! from Herodotus: The Histories "When he heard these verses, Croesus was pleased with them above all, for he thought that a mule would never be king of the Medes instead of a man, and therefore that he and his posterity would never lose his empire. Then he sought very carefully to discover who the mightiest of the Greeks were, whom he should make his friends. [2] He found by inquiry that the chief peoples were the Lacedaemonians among those of DORIC, and the Athenians among those of IONIC stock. These races, IONIAN and DORIAN, were the foremost in ancient time, the first a Pelasgian and the SECOND a HELLENIC people. The Pelasgian race has never yet left its home; the HELLENIC has WANDERED often and FAR. [3] For in the days of king Deucalion1 IT (the Dorian) INHABITED the land of Phthia, THEN the country called Histiaean, under Ossa and Olympus, in the time of Dorus son of Hellen; DRIVEN from this Histiaean country by the Cadmeans, IT SETTLED about Pindus IN THE TERRITORY CALLED MACEDONIAN; FROM THERE again IT MIGRATED to Dryopia, and AT LAST CAME from Dryopia into the Peloponnese, where IT TOOK the name of Dorian.2" http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126&layout=&loc=1.+56.+3 - - So the Dorian were a pack of invaders who wandered often and FAR: from Phthia, to Histiaean land, then driven away by the Cadmeans it settled in Macedonia FOR A SHORT WHILE, to be chased away to Dropya and at last settle down in the Peloponnese and become DORIAN!!! They merely settled in Macedonia for a while! Can you read well or do I have to spell it out!  Where does it say that the Dorian were Macedonian?-------------
...BRINGER OF THE DAWN... |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 03:12
Petro, what are you doing? It looks like since everyone has stopped arguing with you about this stuff for the moment you have resorted to arguing with yourself! 
Isn't there anything else under the sun that you are interested in and that you can discuss with some shred of objectivity without tying Macedonia into it somehow?
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 06:22
|
Petro has lost it...He does desperate attempts here. Moreover, whenever he cannot answer or prove his proud slavic prehistoric word, he changes subject and attacks Greeks in matters irrelevant to the issue. He is also repeating the same mistakes he was prooven wrong months ago...See the quote from Herodotus for example. I will take care of him later...It's party time -------------
Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va! |
Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 11:01
|
Listen, don't bother arguing with Petro anymore. He has an agenda and tries to see only the elements that go along with his view, he has a blind eye for anything else that points to the opposite direction. A historian (amateur or not) tries to examine an issue and find the truth by using all possible sources. Petro has chosen that he will barricade himself and will examine only what he considers to be correct. He's a fanatic, it's like trying to convince a born-again-christian that another religion may be also true...
It's not that he will be persuaded even if the truth comes and stares at him in the eye, he'll simply dismiss it and continue posting his own same copy/paste "arguments".
------------- The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin |
Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 11:10
|
Yianni, do i have the permission to correct his Herodotus comment (grammatically incorrect assignment of it to she) and post the passage from the book where Hammond describes 1) what Gimbutas agrees with, 2) What Hammond says about Patrius sermus and Xennias? The scientology will be left outside... -------------
Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va! |
Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 11:23
|
You don't need to ask my persmission. If you have enough time to spare please use it any way you like :-) ------------- The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin |
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 13:00
Isn't there anything else under the blue sky, regarding Macedonia, that you are interested in, which you can discuss with me rather than the "Greekness" of it? I believe the article we are discussing here is about Macedonia. -------------
...BRINGER OF THE DAWN... |
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 13:04
Ha ha ha Flipper I admire your enthusiasm. I am not here to prove a point. It is pointless I know. I am here to see how far you have got since my last episode with you months ago... Moreover, whenever YOU cannot answer or prove YOUR proud Greek prehistoric word, YOU change subject and attack Macedonians in matters irrelevant to the issue. That is called "pivoting" and it is a very poor debate technique. I am waiting for you to take care of me, I wonder what are you going to take out now, all ancient sources interpreted by Greek historians starting from the 19th century onwards, when the Aryan model was introduced, as opposed to the Ancient? Come on I am waiting for you!  -------------
...BRINGER OF THE DAWN... |
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 13:12
Why is that you always retort to insults and discrediting, every time you face an argument that you cannot actually argue back? Let me remind you of the ethics of this forum! Phrases like "he has a blind eye for anything", "A historian (amateur or not)", "He's a fanatic" are insulting in the understated message they convey. Did I ask you to write my CV Yiannis? Would you please leave comments on analyzing my personality aside and stick to the information I post here. After all we are debating not convincing each other to anything, or are we? After all, I am merely presenting my view that I share with others, say Martin Bernal, a very controversial name these days, but also very revolutionary to some historians (amateur or not). As for the rest of you who stick blindly to your own arguments only, derogating others on personal level, every time you find yourself in the padlock, this is what Martin Bernal would say to you: "While contributing to the elimination of racist thinking and rationalizing the historical approach, Bernal is confident that in the twenty-first century, the aim will be attained, quick in some cases, slow in some others: "The attack on the Extreme Aryan Model is likely to succeed relatively quickly. The battle to restore the Ancient Model and the position of Egyptians (and necessarily all others who were affected from such a mentality) on the other hand, will take rather longer."" I think this makes sense, considering your attitude towards me, mate... -------------
...BRINGER OF THE DAWN... |
Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 13:13
Can you exactly tell me where I did that in this discussion? Where did I attack the people of your country? I didn't even touch your people. I have been talking about what you have presented, nothing else. You do not constitute the whole population of your country. I have only mentioned Mitrevski except from you and that with a possitive tone. -------------
Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va! |
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 13:14
I was referring to the debates we had months ago. -------------
...BRINGER OF THE DAWN... |
Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 13:16
Yes, cause if you remember you went over to personal and ethnic level. I was not warned for that (unofficially), nor do i have the intention to be warned for anything inappropriate.-------------
Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va! |
Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 13:18
Who said Byzantine Emperor is Greek? Or am i badly mistaken? -------------
Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va! |
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 13:19
Is this going to prove that the major assumption provided by the article in question, which is the following:
..is not actually correct, since you have any extra arguments to provide to deny this assumption? I believe this "magnificent article about ancient Macedonia" has taken all of your historical, as well as linguistic evidence into consideration to assume the above! Or are you willing to demonstrate a bit of your "pivoting" techniques here Flipper? -------------
...BRINGER OF THE DAWN... |
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 13:25
Exactly? Who said that? Are trying to put words in my moth now Flipper! What I was doing is called "mirroring" in debates, whereby I tell one (int his case Byzantine Emperor) what I am hearing you say, so you can correct any misperceptions. Your "technique" of putting words in my mouth is even worse than "pivoting"! It is called "manipulative" summing up, and it is totally wrong in my case... -------------
...BRINGER OF THE DAWN... |
Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 13:25
|
Are you still going on a personal level Petro? Wait until tonight...Until then look at your post and see if there's anything you can correct before it can be used against you -------------
Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va! |
Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 13:35
|
Good God Flipper, it seems that actually you don't have anything better to do!
For example you could watch paint dry, far more interesting...
:-) ------------- The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin |
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 15:12
 I am so glad to be able to drive your libido insane to that extend that you take erotic pleasure in the scavenging you are so eager to indulge in. It is interesting to notice... take care! -------------
...BRINGER OF THE DAWN... |
Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 15:57
|
Someone is looking for trouble.. It is obvious you're provoking Petro and i'm not gonna respond to such provocations.
-------------
Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va! |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 16:03
What are you talking about? I never did argue with you about "Greekness" or anything to do with Macedonia, really. I asked you to clarify your terminology, which you never did by the way.
Also, my question as to whether or not you were interested in anything else besides Macedonia and Slavs was not in the context of this thread but in general. It is all we have seen you post and argue over here at AE. Oh well, I was trying politely to point out that you may have been considered one-sided or "centric" during yout tenure at All Empires.
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 18:21
By that quote you confirm that: Ancient Macedonians spoke a language which they abandoned before Arrian. Now, you posted the link to Elias K. website which analyzes briefly what i've been saying so far. No matter how you try to twist and turn it, readers of this thread will prefer to read an academic directly, rather than reading 238743287 posts that you and I did. So let them read it and let them decide. Am I saying something that you can't grasp here?
It was not intentional sorry. Besides, in latin it would be correct (jk to calm down the tention)... The reason why i posted that latin text is the following: (see it here as well: http://www.history.ccsu.edu/elias/AlexandrosPatrius.htm)
I don't need to comment anymore on that...
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/plutarch/lives/ - http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/plutarch/lives/ http://www.bostonleadershipbuilders.com/plutarch/index.htm - http://www.bostonleadershipbuilders.com/plutarch/index.htm
Ofcourse...Watch this: SEG 49:793 Άντίγραφον φὠνῆς σ̣όματος Νίκης· Τίτος Λύκου Σκυδραίου ἐπρίατο παρ’ Ἀμφοτερᾶς τοῦ ἀνδρὸς Σκυδραίας μετὰ κυρίου Ἱππίο Σκυδραίου πεδίον ὀνόματι Νίκην, ὡς μηνῶν δύο, φωνῇ μακεδονικήν, τιμῆς ἀργυρίου͵ε· καὶ ἄν τις κυριώτερος φανῇ, τοῦ προγεγραμένου κορασίου ἢ μέρους τινός, τότε τὴν τιμὴν διπλῆν ἐπηρώτησεν Τίτορ Λύκου Σκυδεραίου ἐγένετο ἐν Σκύδρας· τὸ πρόστιμον σὺν πεδίο ὀ̣νόματι Ἀρτέμι, ε ιλατλικω· μάρτυρες Αὐρήλιος Λύκος, Αὐρήλιος Κάλλης· ἐγένετο ἀντίγραφον φὠνῆς· εὐτύχε. It is a donation to some god/godness expressed as a legal act. It starts with "Άντίγραφον φὠνῆς" of a child called Nike. Antigraphon (αντίγραφο) means "copy" and "φωνής" means "of voice". Some lines below when the the parents and age of the girl are mentioned, we read "φωνῇ μακεδονικήν". This is exactly what i was talking about when i said that the standardized writting does not produce a dialect, likewise all modern european writting systems. You can't guess guess for example from a swedish text that goes like "Det var en trevlig båtresa", that the author might be a southern swede with heavy R-accent and different Å-accent, unless you know him. In this passage, the text starts with "copy of the voice of Nikes body". As you know they did not have recorders back then...So what we know is that the phone is Macedonian, but we don't know how the text is pronounced. The only word that troubles me inside this Koine text is "ιλατλικω". That is not standard Greek for sure. What I can tell is that is the Macedonian equivalent of the attic verb "λαλώ" in past perfect tense of "ιλαλισω". In this text "ιλάλισω" drops s and puts k and between a and l, t is placed, a phenomenon seen in wovels of common words between Greek and Phrygian (eg. Gk κεκτημένο (vested) opposed to Phr. Τετικμένο). As for the Linear B parts I won't dissagree except from the fact it is not slavic. Linear scripts were used in Greece and the eastern mediteranian. Anatolians used it (where it probably came from) as well as the Canaanites. There are decipherments of Linear A in Greek that have been characterized as good attempts but since they can't be prooved correct or false, they are not labeled as "official" decipherments. Therefore, I do not take possition to any favour and in my view i tend to lean to the anatolian origin of those syllabic systems. However, no matter how hard you try, the Linear B texts are so far Greek language, not matter if the writing system was used for proto-Luwian (for example, that is what i believe). Alexander which you incorrectly label as Macedonian, has another origin. Alexander of Corinth ruled around 816–791 BC. Alaksandu was also a ruler of the Hittites in Anatolia, a name that suggest that eather the name was common between greeks and anatolians or that he was Alexander of Ilion, a greek who managed to become a local ruler. Now, look how the name appears in Sanskrit (inscriptions of Asoka) as well and look how King Antiochos is called by the Indians [King of the Yavanas].  Now, the indians eather got to know from the Macedonians that they are Yavan OR that they recognised their speech as such.
Gimbutas suggest the book written by Hammond and makes a summary of it. This is what she says that you excluded...
So, they are not excluded, they are grouped amongst the earliest geneology of the Greeks which is divided into that three parts. Now, have a look on what Hammond says with his own words...The first is Hammonds and the second & third is Ian Worthington quoting Hammonds work. It covers everything we've been talking about.   
You can prefer whatever you want and I don't have to agree as you say. The question is simple Petro. Do you really believe Greeks are Africans? Yes of no? I don't want any elaboration, i just want an answer of 2 or 3 letters. Can you do that?
You don't remember this but that translation is wrong and i had pointed out that to you months ago. The original text in ancient greek is available here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh1050.htm - http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh1050.htm ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ Δευκαλίωνος βασιλέος οἴκεε γῆν τὴν Φθιῶτιν, ἐπὶ δὲ Δώρου τοῦ Ἕλληνος τὴν ὑπὸ τὴν Ὄσσαν τε καὶ τὸν Ὄλυμπον χώρην, καλεομένην δὲ Ἱστιαιῶτιν· ἐκ δὲ τῆς Ἱστιαιώτιδος ὡς ἐξανέστη ὑπὸ Καδμείων, οἴκεε ἐν Πίνδῳ Μακεδνὸν καλεόμενον· ἐνθεῦτεν δὲ αὖτις ἐς τὴν Δρυοπίδα μετέβη καὶ ἐκ τῆς Δρυοπίδος οὕτω ἐς Πελοπόννησον ἐλθὸν Δωρικὸν ἐκλήθη for in the reign of Deucalion this race dwelt in Pthiotis, and in the time of Doros the son of Hellen in the land lying below Ossa and Olympos, which is called Histiaiotis; and when it was driven from Histiaiotis by the sons of Cadmos, it dwelt in Pindos and was called Makednian; and thence it moved afterwards to Dryopis, and from Dryopis it came finally to Peloponnesus, and began to be called DorianIt is not the area but the race that called Makedonian. The area (feminine) cannot be "καλεόμενον" (it) but as above "καλεομένην" (she). For the area of Hestiotis as I have bold out the "καλεομένην" is used. The "καλεόμενον" is clearly attributed to the race. Note that Pindus is also a feminine name and therefore cannot have an "it"-epithet. The translation is the same all over, wherever you search on Herodotus. http://www.parstimes.com/history/herodotus/persian_wars/clio.html - http://www.parstimes.com/history/herodotus/persian_wars/clio.html http://www.greektexts.com/library/Herodotus/Clio/eng/323.html - http://www.greektexts.com/library/Herodotus/Clio/eng/323.html Some basic Ancient Greek grammar for you... O καλεόμενος = "he" who is "called" Η καλεομένην = "she" who is "called" To καλεόμενον = "it" which is "called" Moreover look the endings which are of the same gender: Μακεδνὸν καλεόμενον Now Petro... Can you find a world-wide respected academic publication* that says that Ancient Macedonians spoke slavic and that is generaly accepted? As far as most of us are aware of there are two schools of though the last 20 years: a) Hammond, Erlington, Masson, Hoffman etc who are clear about the Greek Macedonian language. b) Borza, who says they were not originally Greek speaking but became and were accepted in the end as Greeks. When we speak about names like Hammond, Borza, Erlington, Masson we're dealing with publications made by Cambridge, Oxford and Pensilvania S.U. We're talking about people that are being referenced in every single book about Greece and specifically the area of Ancient Macedonia. *I'm just mentioning some metrics here cause we need to distinct a name from a NAME and filter unortodox methodology. -------------
Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va! |
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 18:37
Thank you for pointing that out to me BE. You never did argue about "Greekness" or anything to do with Macedonia, that is true. However, there seems to be a consistency in dealing with this issue in a most uniformed manner, according to a model that has been promoted only recently, in terms of human history, and models that provide a variety of other perspectives are simply rendered as amateur, invalid, or inauspiciously untrue, along with the abominable rhetorics as demonstrated by certain members, whose purpose is only to discredit, not criticize viewpoints that contradict theirs, this due to lack of argumentation I suppose. This on the other hand, if not prevented, is not objected to by anyone, including you. Thence, my inclination to consider your engagement in the AE, if not centric as in my case, then as slightly biased, if you know what I mean. -------------
...BRINGER OF THE DAWN... |
Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 18:42
|
One more example equivalent to the "Μακεδονιστί" which you want to see as another language. Theocritus, Idylls, 15, 92 Κορίνθιαι εἰμὲς ἄνωθεν, ὡς καὶ ὁ Βελλεροφῶν· Πελοποννασιστὶ λαλεῦμες· δωρίσδεν δ᾽ ἐξεστι, δοκῶ, τοῖς Δωριέεσσι. We are Corinthian women by extraction. What we talk is Peloponnesian. I suppose Dorians may speak Doric, mayn't they? Are those non Greek languages Petro? Note, also that most peloponesians were Dorians in speech, but here they seem to have named the southern Dorian dialect Peloponnesian. http://www.mikrosapoplous.gr/theocritus/thcrts15.htm - http://www.mikrosapoplous.gr/theocritus/thcrts15.htm -------------
Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va! |
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 18:47
All of your posting Flipper can be summarized, as in the article in question, in a paragraph that I will repost to you since you obviously avoid taking any notice to it: "This is why linguists take several remarks by the authors of ancient dictionaries, which otherwise might have been interpreted as indications for a mere difference in dialect, very seriously. For example, there is evidence that Greeks were unable to understand people who were makedonizein, "speaking Macedonian". The Macedonian king http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander00.html - 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 http://www.livius.org/pha-phd/phalanx/phalanx.html - phalanx . The Greek orators Thrasymachus of Chalcedon and http://www.livius.org/de-dh/demosthenes/demosthenes.html - Demosthenes of Athens called Macedonian kings like Archelaus and http://www.livius.org/phi-php/philip/philip_ii.htm - Philip II barbarians, which prima facie means that they did not speak Greek. Now this happens in polemical contexts and is certainly exaggerated (not so sure myself!), but the statements need to refer to some kind of linguistic reality. (understated in my opinion!)" I think you should debate this with the author of the article, and that would be Jona Lendering I guess! I totally support this view, and in addition I would say that the language that the Macedonians spoke, was proto-Slavic. "Can you find a world-wide respected academic publication..." I think we need to distinguish between those who respect the Aryan model of reading history with those who respect the Ancient world. I am sure if we consult the Arabic sources they would certainly say that Basil I Macedonian was of pure Slavic origin, which was again discredited by thos who follow the Aryan model, which now, in the light of other discoveries, such as Florin Curta's, in makes sense completely. The Europocentric view based on the Greek "divinity", has gone even that far as to render Arabic sources as imbecile, when in fact we know that Arabic historiography is much more plausible and neutral than that of the 19th century. "World-wide" needs redefining! The world you are defending is Europocentric, while the world I am promoting is cosmopolitan. Now, BE, who is centric in this light? -------------
...BRINGER OF THE DAWN... |
Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 18:49
If you are refering to me, say it by my name, Flipper. I don't really like to be refered in 3rd person while i'm present. As for the characterizations, the forum will judge me as a whole. -------------
Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va! |
Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 18:53
Jona Linderings phrase has been flushed by deep analysis by Elias K., Hammond, Erlington, Ian Worthington and others. Your answer is ok by me though. It is your view and you have expressed it. I respect that more that the previous manners you've shown. I think we've both expressed our thoughts which are available for everyone to read and judge. Thank you. PS: I'm not Europocentric at all...I quoted Punjabis for example in Antiochus part. Btw, can you just answer the yes or no question, so that we're done with everything? Ignore my last comment. -------------
Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va! |
Posted By: Petro Invictus
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 20:21
|
I expected to learn a bit more from you guys! Last time you gave me a full training on how to deal with propagandists. I learned to be an honest researcher, and at all times I was lead by my intuition and my determination to prove a point. And I was amazed to the realization that the net is full of information that reveal the truth. However, it is still a matter of interpretations, and manipulations particularly by those who support the views of the oppressors. The history has two sides, just like everything else. It takes a lot of time to prove a point, and a lot of love for humanity to be able to see the truth. It is pointless to do it in front of people who would not even think of accepting anything else but what their policy makers have determined to boost their pride, vested in supposed objectivity, to a viewpoint that is dying out. A viewpoint that has damaged the world to a great extent, that we as humans living in this new era, should learn from and do better than those before us. It is still a shame for many not to be able to see the light of the new world descending from the highest of all human endeavors. It is the light that once the Macedonians gave to the world uniting it as one, under a single cosmopolitan umbrella. The Macedonians are again calling for the world to listen and see the truth behind the veil and undo the wrongs that were done in the past. Therefore, I depart from this assembly with only this more to say: http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?xid=cause_12331_board&app_id=2318966938&c_url=http%253A%252F%252Fapps.facebook.com%252Fcauses%252Fcauses%252F12331%252Fdiscussion_board&r_url=http%253A%252F%252Fapps.facebook.com%252Fcauses%252F12331%253Frecruiter_id%253D3778301&sig=ca0ad29fffe588afbd5559586d33951e&topic=313 - Ma'at
and Ishfet-Macedonia and Greece
In the ancient times -------------
...BRINGER OF THE DAWN... |
Posted By: Heliocles
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 21:25
|
http://www.baevents.com/rasnaheireann/japan%20flag.gif">
...the net is full of information that reveal the truth...
Yes of course. The truth about UFOs, backyard antigravity, hollow earth, reptilians, and slavic origin of homeric language!
It takes a lot of time to prove a point... In your particular case a bit longer, forever lets say.
...people who would not even think of accepting anything else but what their policy makers... Ok, almost all of the international archaelogists, historians and lingusts are our policy makers. The secret society conservating the Hellenic lie! They also have ties with the illuminaty and the skulls and bones! Be aware of them they are monitoring your thoughts!
By the way have you seen the Tibetan flag: Yes you are right! Now i see the holy slavo-ma light and i reckon the Japan flag is as well slavomacedonian!
http://www.baevents.com/rasnaheireann/japan%20flag.gif
|
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 21:36
Um, I thought the first Apostles were Jews living in Palestine who spread the Gospel using koine Greek. Although their native language was Aramaic, koine Greek was the "lingua Franca" of the eastern Roman provinces. And if you mean Jesus Christ was a Macedonian when you say "The man who appeared in St.Paul's dream was a Macedonian," well, that is just rediculous. ------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 21:57
If anyone took this nonsense seriously, Petro, I'd be worried. Come to think of it, do you actually believe this balderdash about the Apostles being Macedonian? And if so, do you believe everyone in Judaea province at that time was Macedonian? What about Jesus, Mary and Joseph? Thankfully there are actual scholars who know what actually happened.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 22:20
|
This is getting good. Wait, what am I saying? It already has reached a level of heightened entertainment. Petro, care to make another preposterous claim? ------------- |
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 23:31
|
Petro....Epic Fail So to wrap it all up, the Indegenious Slavs of the Balkans were ruled by the Slav Alexander the Great who took Slavic culture and spread it through the middle east, making everyone else a Slav including the entire biblical cast of the new testament and Jesus Christ, a slav macedonian died for our sins while his slavic macedonian apostles spread the word through slavic macedonian language.
http://www.looptvandfilm.com/blog/rickchapelle.jpg - http://www.looptvandfilm.com/blog/rickchapelle.jpg
"Cocaine's a hellava drug"
|
Posted By: Odin
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 23:59
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_%28person%29
------------- "Of the twenty-two civilizations that have appeared in history, nineteen of them collapsed when they reached the moral state the United States is in now." -Arnold J. Toynbee |
Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2008 at 12:24
Oh, I thought they were Jews....
God is Macedonian? So if he made us according to his image, we are all Macedonians?
Is this another name for Mu the lost continent?
After this I have to admit I am not sure if you are serious or just joking. |